Day 1 Post

note: my w key has been sticking, so sometimes I have to hit it really hard to get it to work.  I don't always notice when it doesn't work, so please ignore any missing w's

Yesterday in class, we had a paper to fill out about things like the Monroe Doctrine.  We decided whether each thing was an example of the US being a good neighbor, an imperial power, or possibly even both.

Today in class, e had a debate about the Bush Doctrine.  We were split into groups consisting of someone representing the pro side, someone representing the con side, and one or two judges.  After we finished the debate in our groups, the judges formed their own group and discussed hat they heard in the debates.  The judges then came to a conclusion based on hich side was more convincing.
I was a judge.  In the end, I chose the pro side as the more convincing side.  In the debate I was a part of, the con side really only had two arguments, and both were extremely weak.  One was that it damages international relations and upsets other countries.  This is a legitimate concern, but if there is a serious threat against the country we can't afford to worry too much about upsetting other countries, especially those which are not involved.  The other argument was that it gets us into wars.  This is not a good argument because if another country is making violent threats against us, we're headed for ar hether we like it or not.  The pro side had much better points.  The points made focused on the safety of our country and of others more so than the feelings of other countries.  What I liked about the things that the pro side said was that they weren't saying extreme things like "If a country threatens the US in any way we should bomb them immediately," or "All countries should be democracies like wonderful America!"  Instead, it was much more moderate and reasonable.  The said that with the Bush Doctrine we wouldn't respond that harshly to threats unless there was definite proof that the other country would annihilate us if we did not make a move.  Instead, milder approaches would be taken to discourage the other country from taking action against us.  As for the government thing, the pro in my group said that it would only happen if the safety, happiness, and general well-being of the people of that country was being extremely negatively impacted by the current government of that country.  I liked these arguments because not only were they reasonable, but they were what I like to think the Bush Doctrine was meant to be: not a way to justify going around and bombing people and overthrowing every government that isn't like ours, but to protect the safety of our country and to help people who want and need our help.
In the end, I chose the pro side.  I am surprised that more of the judges, especially the judge who was in my group for the original debate, did not choose the pro side as well.  There did not seem to be many good arguments for the con side. I suppose that is a matter of opinion though.

game

My game is done.  At first, scratch was frustrating.  Then I liked it.  Then it got frustrating again once i started running out of time.  I think I fixed all of the issues with the game (such as the deer), but it's possible that I missed one or two.  I'm going to go through it again tomorrow when I can hopefully think straight just in case.

Link to game: http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/jmacey72/3310948

pioneer diary entry

Dear Diary,
Ever since we left home we have been squeezed onto this boat with many other travelers.  The trip is long and hard and I almost regret it.  Only telling myself that a trip by wagon would be longer and that the trip will be worth it in the end gets me through the tougher days.  There are days where we stop at a town when we reach a lock in the canal.  We can get off and sometimes spend the night there.  Even just getting off of the canal helps me to feel better about this trip.  I always hope to see someone who I know from back home in one of the towns.  I know that it is unlikely though because nearly everyone I knew who made the trip stopped and bought land along the canal.  Land was being sold for low prices in the areas alongside the canal, so many people stopped their journey and settled down along the way.  Even in such a crowded ship, I'm still so very lonely.  Only the promise of a good future and a new life out west keeps me going these days.  I hope the journey ends soon, both because of my excitement for my new life, and because it will end this dull trip.

I died twice.

Expedition Diary

Ebooks are the devil

Here's the book.  Just take it, I don't want it.  Writing in character when my narrator is a racist jerk makes me feel like a terrible person.  The ebook website makes me hate everything.  It took forever to load and did obnoxious things.  It rearranged all of my text boxes on me a few times.  I found page on where 17 was supposed to be.  It it terrible and I hate it.  I could go on and on, but I won't because I have a hunch that Mr/ Boyle is actually its creator since it sounds like him:

No, but really, that site was nearly the death of me and I hate it.

now take the book and never let it see the light of day again once it has been graded.  the worst part about ebooks is that you cant burn them.  I'd like to burn this book. take it and leave me alone.

  

note:  Mr. Boyle, if you read this, just know that I'm not emailing it to you until the morning because i'm tired and angry and my computer is dying and I just want to go to sleep.

day 1 post

yesterday in class we talked about the civil rights acts of 1964

Today in class we talked about the Black Panther Party.  We read their demands and thought about whether or not they were reasonable.  Most of them were not.  Some even sounded rather communist.  One thing that they wanted was free healthcare for blacks and oppressed people.  I think that this is unreasonable because if even wealthy and middle class blacks get free healthcare (as opposed to just poor people who actually need it) then wealthy and middle class people of other races should get free healthcare as well.  Mr. Boyle tried to argue this by saying that the black panthers feel that they have been treated unfairly and whites haven't faced hardships so it is reasonable (Or at least I think he was trying to say it was reasonable.  He didn't get to finish because class ended, but from what he was saying that's what it seemed like).  Yes, that makes it understandable that the Black Panther Party would make these demands, but it doesn't make it reasonable to give all black people in the united states free healthcare regardless of wealth and lifestyle if other races don't get the same thing.  Yeah, yeah, I know that blacks have been oppressed in the past and weren't given everything whites were.  If they weren't treated fairly then, why should whites be treated fairly now, right? Wrong.  If we're going to move past discrimination we need to stop keeping score.  Saying "They treated us unfairly then, so now it's our turn to treat them unfairly" doesn't get us anywhere.

Day 5 Post

Yesterday we did not have class because it was a snow day.


Today in class, we listened to a speech by Malcolm X and a speech by Martin Luther King Jr. We then talked about which one was more realistic and/or ideal. We also talked briefly about whether or not our country has reached the point that Martin Luther King spoke about ("... a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.") and whether or not the country is better than it was when he made that speech. I think that we have not yet reached that point, but we have certainly come a long way from where we were back then. As much as we want to say that we treat everyone fairly regardless of race, we can't. We still have a ways to go. Are we where we should be? No. Have we made progress? Certainly.