Newtwon Reflection

I thought that this documentary was really interesting. I really enjoyed that it was super balanced, and not clearly leaning to one side. I love the fact that they spoke about the fact that having guns in our society is, in fact, very bad. Allowing guns in our society can lead to really bad events that we have witnessed over the past 10 years. Another reason I liked this documentary was the fact that it did point out some of the pros to allowing guns in our society. It points out the fact that having things like guns can give people a sense of comfort and security in their everyday life. Personally, I don’t know where I stand on this topic. Living in the North Shore area, I don’t really have a sense of what people go through. I don’t know what it is like to not be able to walk out of my door everyday with confidence knowing that I will walk back into the same door at the end of the day. 

"Newtown: Guns in America" Reflection

I thought that this video was extremely informative and it was very well balanced. It showed both sides of the issue and the pros and cons of their arguments. What I thought was most interesting was the contrast between gun violence in rural and urban communities. In the video, it was clear that shootings of other human beings are much more popular in the urban communities, whereas in more rural areas, guns are lots of times for hunting and gaming purposes. I live in a suburb which isn't in a city and it also isn't in the middle of nowhere, so while I am pretty safe walking alone at night in Winnetka, I also am not in an area where people are allowed to hunt animals. Being in the middle of this issue is very difficult for me because I can't really decide which side I belong to. While I do think that tighter restrictions on guns will certainly decrease the amount of mass shootings, is it really right to take away the guns that have been in certain families for generations and generations?

Reaction to "After Newtown: Guns in America

I thought this was an interesting documentary because it stated many opinions on the situation in America to bare arms. After watching most of the film I agree with one of the ideas that was stated in the documentary which was to allow people to keep their weapons if they are hunters or if the weapon came with their job. I believe that this will cut down on the deaths in the U.S. Yet another interesting thing about this documentary was that it was able to persuade me into believing that it is legal to bare arms, since I do believe that people deserve the right to bare arms but to save lives we also need to take away weapons from the people that are killing people.

Reaction to "After Newton"

I thought this was a really interesting movie because I liked how it looked at the role that guns have played in American culture. It's not something that would have occurred to me before, but guns really have been in America since our colonial days, and they've been vital to both our independence and westward expansion. Guns are so ingrained in our culture that it's hard to even notice them, so it makes sense that there would be both the Second Amendment in our constitution, and that there would be such a large debate over gun rights today. I think an interesting question this brings up is whether or not guns are really necessary in our society today, especially compared to the early days of our nation. I personally believe that guns are not necessary in modern America, because by this point our nation's military relies on a lot more than guns to win wars. Guns won't protect us from the tyranny that the founding fathers intended them to (which is why we have the Second Amendment). These days all guns do is cause violence. Then again, it will be a hard battle to rid our society of guns because of how important and central to American identity they've been for so long.

My Reaction to the Obama Article

I agreed with everything Obama stated in this article, but what I just felt that he was just saying it to please his audience. I agree that the gun laws and restrictions should be stricter. What was not surprising was that the Senate yet again rejected the idea of making the laws stricter. In this article it seemed like Obama had just repeated himself over and over again, which is frustrating because instead of talking about lets go out and do something to finally prevent events like this from happening ever again. I think Obama should have been more like Mr. Gray because in his quote which was highlighted in the article seemed more radical and I believe that's the way Obama should have gone when presenting his speech. Overall the main idea which was to have gun restrictions and to prevent guns from getting in the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people is definitely the right thing to do no matter what the Senate says.

"Do We Care Enough?"

I Personally really liked President Obama’s speech. I thought that it was well written and had a really great message. The part of the speech that stuck out to me most was the fact that President Obama didn’t make promises that he might not be able to keep. At the memorial service in Sandy Hook, he said he along with others, would do everything in their power to stop gun violence and get a handle on gun control in the nation. Whether or not he gave his all, sadly, nothing changed. In this speech however, I really appreciated the fact that he didn’t make another vow to stop this. I loved that President Obama pointed out the fact that “Our tears are not enough,” he added. “Our words and our prayers are not enough.” If Americans want to honor the 12 men and women who died at the Navy Yard, he said, “we’re going to have to change. We’re going to have to change.” This points out the fact that we, as a nation, have to be more willing to really try and get things to change. We cant just sit back and hope that something will change and everything will work itself out. It is time for all of us, not just President Obama, to stand up and try to make change happen. 

The New Normal

I think that this article really gets to me. I remember after the Connecticut shootings, I was nearly in tears of how someone could possibly kill 20 innocent children, but after the shootings in D.C., I simply stopped and thought about it for a few seconds, and then I moved on. I think that it really discourages me that I, like many other Americans, had a similar reactions. My thinking was: the killing of 13 adults isn't as bad as killing 20 children, right? I couldn't believe I was thinking that. I think Obama certainly addressed the issue the right way. There is no possible way that this is should be acceptable and the new norm of America, but what really makes me angry is how even though these shootings keep happening, change to gun control laws have yet to come. Obama has been preaching change for a long time now, but with Congress being unable to change the current laws, it is extremely unsure of when that change is to come. This is not the first mass shooting America has suffered, and it won't be the last, unfortunately. The only question now is how many shootings is America willing to suffer before it becomes too much to bare?

Reaction to NYT Article

I agree with the sentiment that people don't care enough about these mass shootings, and that at this point mass shootings have become a new 'normal'. Personally, when I first heard of this Navy Yard shooting, aside from an initial thought of "Really?" I had no real reaction, emotional or otherwise. I kind of just got on with my day.

That's definitely not OK, but I don't think I'm the only one who felt this way. I think that we've become very numb to violence in our society because of how widespread it has become. Even when President Obama does the whole "These are people, not statistics" thing, no one has a real emotional reaction any more. It's infuriating and horrifying, almost as infuriating and horrifying as the shootings themselves.

Americans should care more about things like this. Although there are definite positives to our political system, there are also definite negatives, one of which being that when something as necessary and proper as stricter gun control is in a bill in congress, it gets voted down. I believe that if the ubiquity of mass shootings these days doesn't want to make Americans ban guns, there's pretty much no hope for us in the light of gun violence.

Obama's speech was frustrating because he wants to save the people of Syria but yet he is willing to bomb Syria. There must be another solution because with the bombing of Syria it could lead to many innocent victims becoming injured or worst case scenario dead. He states that this is the way to show other countries that nuclear weapons are not allowed, but as i stated before there are many different ways to go about this situation. And what about the safety of the American people, Barack Obama puts the American in danger once he attacks Syria. Overall i feel this was a terrible decision by Barack Obama because we must try to keep innocent people from being killed.

Obama's Plea to the Nation

I personally don't know which side of the argument I am on. On the one hand I disagree with President Obama in saying the United States should intervene, but then on the other hand I do agree. One of the main reasons I disagree is the fact that innocent people have died already and I fear that more could die if we get involved. President Obama spoke about the children who have died and my question is if we don’t want more to die why should we intervene and maybe make matters worse for the people living in Syria? On the other hand, I agree to an extent with what President Obama is saying. He compares what happened and the use of gas to things like the Holocaust during World War II. This struck a chord with me. This was one of the most horrific events that has ever happened in our world’s history so why wouldn’t we do everything in our power to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Also he brings up the fact that if we don’t intervene, groups like al Qaida might see that we didn’t react and take it upon themselves to also use them. Honestly I’m not really sure how I feel. I agree with Mr. Curren in saying that I keep going back and forth with this. I will say that I really did like that President Obama had congress postpone the vote to see how the situation play out now that they have joined the chemical weapon group that will not allow them to use it.  I sincerely hope whatever choice is made turns out to be the right choice….

Obama's Speech

Obama's speech was ultimately, in my opinion, rather disappointing. If he wants to send a message that America does not tolerate the use of chemical weapons he should have done it a long time ago. Now, this isn't necessarily completely his fault since Congress has been taking so long to make a decision on the matter, but taking three weeks to do anything is just ridiculous and makes the United States look bad. He, and congress, should have made a definitive decision weeks ago. Now, the United States just looks bad from all angles, and this whole deal with Russia is really just a way for us to avoid conflict and save face. This whole mess really goes back to whether or not people are going to follow the rules set for them. In Syria's case, they used chemical weapons, breaking an international law. In Obama's case, he decided to follow the Constitution and get Congress's approval on a military strike. His speech, as well as this whole matter in general, showed some definite weaknesses in our political system, and in our place in the international community as a whole.

Obama Pleads for Americans to Act

President Obama gave a speech last night about the attack on Syria and he answered a few questions but left some unanswered. He responded to those who believe that they don't want Americans involved in another Iraq or Afghanistan by stating firmly: "I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria". He answered another question about whether a "pinprick" strike would do anything to combat the use of chemical weapons. Obama responded by saying "The American military doesn't do 'pinpricks'. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver... A targeted strike can make Assad think twice before using chemical weapons." There were, however, pressing questions that were left unanswered. One of the questions unanswered was why, when over 100,000 people were dead before the use of chemical weapons, did the United States not act? Another was if the United States does this attack, won't innocent people, including women and children die? In this way, Obama's speech was a bit disappointing. At the end, Obama did leave the American citizens with a suggestion. He asked them to watch some of the videos online that show Syria using chemical weapons on their citizens. He then pleaded for Americans to preserve the ideals that we hold dear to our country, and join him in his quest for committing a strike on Syria.

Are we entering a new era of isolationism?

President Obama laid out his case for intervening in the Syrian conflict during his address to the nation on Tuesday night.  Throughout his speech, he addressed many of the counterarguments voiced in recent days from representatives in Congress, political commentators, and from letters sent to him by the American people.  He recognized that the country has grown tired of war after long and bloody conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He also attempted to assuage the fears of many that the United States has become the world's policeman.   Ultimately, he announced a delay in the Congressional vote authorizing the use of force so he could pursue a possible diplomatic agreement requiring that Syria dismantle its chemical weapons stockpile.

What struck me the most about President Obama's address was his reference to a speech made by Franklin Roosevelt on the eve of World War II.  In it, FDR tried to convince a nation with a long history of neutrality and isolationism to get involved in the fight against fascist tyranny.  That conflict brought a dramatic shift in US foreign policy that saw the United States taking a lead role in global affairs throughout the Cold War and beyond.  However, could the reticence of the American people towards an attack on Syria be signaling an end to this trend?  Bill Keller wrote about this in his recent column in The New York Times.  The rise of the Tea Party has even impacted the Republican party, which has promoted a hawkish view of American foreign policy since the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Time will tell if we are indeed witnessing a shift in US foreign policy...

The following editorial written by Ross Douthat and published on September 4.  Please read it and post your thoughts.

Syria and the Constitution

After President Obama’s surprise weekend announcement that he would seek congressional approval before ordering a strike on Syria, there was a flurry of commentary praising the president for taking a step back on the march toward ever-more-expansive executive power. “It may well be the most important presidential act on the Constitution and war-making powers,” wrote Walter Shapiro, “since Harry Truman decided to sidestep Congress and not seek its backing to launch the Korean war.” Dan McCarthy suggested that the president “has chosen the occasion of a war that over 50 percent of Americans oppose to teach a civics lesson,” that this partial self-limiting is “perhaps the best thing he’s done as president,” and that a Congress that voted down the Syria authorization would be serving notice to the public and to future administrations “that Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution is still in force.”

Somehow I doubt that it will work out this way. It would be a good thing for the country if the older constitutional norms regained some force – if we declared war in cases where we now issue so-called authorizations for the use of military force, and issued authorizations in situations where presidents of both parties claim the power to act with no congressional blessing whatsoever. But when a constitutional power atrophies, it’s extremely unlikely to be restored through the kind of last-minute, poorly-thought-out, and self-undermining approach that the White House has taken in this case.

If President Obama had, from the beginning of this debate, framed the possibility of a Syria intervention as something that would of course require congressional approval, and spent the days immediately following Assad’s deployment of chemical weapons reaching out to key congressmen to make sure the votes were there, and only when he was certain gone ahead and publicly called for a resolution authorizing strikes … well, then you would have had a precedent that future presidents might feel some pressure to actually follow, because it would provide both a public civics lesson and a blueprint for how to pursue the constitutional course to a politically successful conclusion.

But so far this White House is failing on both counts. The official “lesson” that the president’s words and choices are delivering is not one that actually elevates Congress back to its Article I level of authority. Rather, it’s one that treats Congress as a kind of ally of last resort, whose backing remains legallyunnecessary for warmaking (as the White House keeps strenuously emphasizing, and as its conduct regarding Libya necessarily implies), and whose support is only worth seeking for pragmatic and/or morale-boosting reasons once other, extra-constitutional sources of legitimacy (the U.N. Security Council, Britain, etc.) have turned you down. The precedent being set, then, is one of presidential weakness, not high-minded constitutionalism: Going to Congress is entirely optional, and it’s what presidents do when they’re pitching wars that they themselves don’t fully believe in, and need to rebuild credibility squandered by their own fumbling and failed alliance management. What future White House would look at that example and see a path worth following?

Ah, you might say, but if Congress actually votes the Syria authorization down, then future presidents will feel constrained by the threat of a similar congressional veto whether they want to emulate Obama or not. Except that it’s actually more likely that future presidents will look at a congressional rejection in the case of Syria and see a case for going to Congress even lessfrequently than recent chief executives have done. The lesson will be clear enough: Presidents who ignore Congress’s Article I powers (Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya) get away with it, while presidents who respect those powers set themselves up for a humiliation. It would be one thing if Congress were clearly the assertive party here — if President Obama had gone to war without asking for authorization, for instance, and had then seen funding for the operation immediately cut off and articles of impeachment issued. But since nobody imagines that would have happened, a defeat here will look much like an unforced executive branch error, rather than a case of Congress breaking decisively with its ongoing tendency to abdicate to the other branches. And future administrations will act accordingly.

It is just possible, I suppose, that if Congress votes “no” on this resolution andthen the president unwisely goes ahead with strikes anyway and then the House impeaches the president for violating his oath of office (which I agree with Ramesh Ponnuru that he would have pretty clearly done) and then the whole thing spirals out into a wild constitutional crisis that leaves this administration permanently crippled, the end result of that crisis could conceivably reshape the White House/Congress balance of power on foreign policy, and leave future administrations more constrained.

But in that unlikely scenario, nobody will look back and say that President Obama deserves credit for crafting a civics lesson.

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

This article was about President Obama's decision to postpone a strike on Syria and allow Congress to vote on the decision. This is one of the biggest decisions that President Obama has made during his presidency because he is giving a choice to Congress. Congress has the option to either show their support for Obama and approve the strike on Syria, or, Congress can veto the strike and allow the problems in Syria to get worse. I think that this relates a lot to what we were talking about in class because we were talking about whether or not America is based on a few strong leaders, or movements and the public opinion as a whole. Obama's decision to take this matter to Congress is a way of asking for the public's opinion, which I think is so interesting. Instead of saying that he believes we should strike Syria, Obama voices his opinion and is now letting the public share theirs. Though Obama rallied hard for an attack on Syria, he is ultimately putting the decision up for vote. Even though presidents such as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan have gone to war without permission from Congress, but because of the British vote, Obama thinks it wiser to let Congress have an opinion. I think what will be most interesting will be if Congress veto's the strike on Syria. Since, ultimately, the decision is up to Obama, it will be interesting to see if he will stand by the decision Congress makes or act of his own accord.