Blog 2: A Comment About Comments From The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/supreme-court-and-isis/402155/

Source: Can the Supreme Court Force Congress to Own War on ISIS?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/supreme-court-and-isis/402155/

One time, I opened a fortune cookie and the fortune said, "The human language exists only so that humans can complain." I could not help, but wonder if this fortune was slightly true. Perhaps complain is such a negative term for what human speech does. Maybe the better fit is comment.

Second class of English 109 Honors began with the idea of controversies. The class divided into groups once more and each group chose a single article from The Atlantic to analyze the comments. My group's article happened to be about the Supreme Court and ISIS.

The author of the article, Bruce Ackerman, proves to be a rather credible person upon his credentials since he is a Yale Law School professor. He describes how Obama is waging an unnecessary war on ISIS that could be stopped if the Supreme Court intervened since the Republican majority Congress is sitting on the sidelines hoping that this war will be a black spot on Obama's record. So far, my views are in the middle since I can see both sides of the argument.

As for the comment section, many of the commentators seemed like critical people based on their pessimistic comments which delve into U.S. history and politics. Because they are not face to face in real life, they have more freedom to act rude or sarcastic in their comments. Their audience is either the author of the publication or readers of the publication. Their main purpose would be to critique certain statements made in the article and accentuate the pitfalls of our government.

Fear is often times the spark for a controversy. The people who post the comments may appear unfazed, but do show some concern over the balance of power and the lack of action or even adept members from Congress. Others said that the court should not involve itself in this issue some even offering alternatives to how Congress can stop the war.

Although fear may be evident in some posts, each post is based off of certain values. The comments were split between supporting the government and those looking to change it. They seem to want a more active Congress that has more intelligent members.

Some comments seemed credible while others did not. The most reasonable comment would be impartial, but politics is not to be handled in such a matter. Mr. Fusion, brings up several compelling points and in one comment, dissects one of the article's paragraphs to analyze the credibility of the sentences. He also adds his two cents to other comments also which further adds to his credibility. As a result, he seems rather reasonable.

Some commenters also seemed not as credible as the others. One commenter refers to a Wikipedia website for justification which undermined his/her own argument. Another factor undermined some credibility is insults. Some of the commentators engaged in comment debates even resorting to name calling which further limited their credibility. Despite all this, most of the commenters seemed well versed in their historical and political knowledge.

All in all, some of the comments did make me think about the contents of the article, but due to the commentators often times extreme use of unnecessary insults, I am a bit hesitant. The comments are a bit of an "eye opener" and slightly decreased my confidence in the article's accuracy. Everything a person sees, reads, or hears usually if not always has a effect on his/her perspective.