'Mountain out of Mole Hill' Approach Slows Government

Usually, incidents of arrest and small matters unrelated to the presidency or politics don't seem like they should ever show up as topics in the upper echelons of our government, but all too often it seems that our leaders are forced by the press and looming approval polls to speak to topics and issues that are simply time wasters. Reports that president Obama's approval ratings had recently fallen were asserting that the main cause of this decline is the remarks he made during a press conference when asked a question about a recent event in the media.
On July 16th, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was charged with disorderly conduct following an incident in his home, however the charges were later dropped. Gates, a high profile African American in academia believed that he had been profiled by the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, who is white. During a press conference a week later, president Obama was asked questions regarding the incident and stated that he thought the police "acted stupidly" in their handling of this incident. I'm not making any claims as to the truth of the claims made by Gates because I don't believe that the media has enough information to know one way or another. Instead, I am taking issue with the fact that this is even something that the president has to waste his time and breath over.
While I do believe that racial profiling is a terrible and unethical practice, I don't believe that this incident is a clear cut case of it, as no charges were filed and no one can attest to it. If it were a blatant profiling of Sgt. Crowley, then I would expect him to be reprimanded by his superiors and dealt with in court between him and Gates. At no point do I deem it necessary for our president, who is up to his ears in issues from health care reform to the war in Iraq, to make it a personal issue that he needs to comment on and resolve.
NPR reported on the story and had quoted the president as saying that he should have more carefully "calibrated" his remarks and that he in no way was accusing Crowley of being stupid. "And this evening, Obama, Gates and Crowley are due to sit down and talk -- over beers -- at the White House." This last quote from the aforementioned article just reiterates my point. The president is inviting these men to the White House for beers and conversation in order (in my opinion) to look like he is handling the situation from both sides. On one side, he was standing up for minorities and defending Gates' claim that he was profiled, when he made his initial statement. And now, realizing his blunder and seeing his approval rating decline, he is attempting to make nice with the offended party.
Don't be confused, I am not taking issue with president Obama's comments or his attempt at diplomacy between the two men, what I am finding odd is the fact that the ball from this issue is even remotely near his court. I think that the media cause events like the one between professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley to be blown out of proportion and demand opinions from people like the president who are not remotely a part of the situation. This just causes the president to have to formulate comments that the people want to hear, and then save face if he, god forbid, offends some white guy. Hopefully, as his presidency forges ahead, our president will just block out the white noise of the media and spend time commenting on and fixing the real problems facing our nation.

Generation "Daily Show"

If you ask a college student where they get their news and political information, odds are the Daily Show would be on the list, if not at the top. This has caused some scholars concern due to the satirical nature of the show's content, but competing research has shown that consumers of the Daily Show are generally more informed and perform more civic engagement than those who simply "consume" the news from major television news programs.
In the commentary article, "The Daily Show Generation," by Mary Zeiss Stange, research and her own personal experience with students provides the basis of her claim that the Daily Show is a highly informative outlet for current events and provides incentive to become more knowledgeable.
Stange initially points to research conducted by two professors at East Carolina University who found that watching John Stewart's nightly show ends up causing young people to become more cynical about the government and news media. They explain that because of the impressionable nature of college aged youth, they are more easily swayed to believe what a popular show is telling them rather than think through it critically. By presenting this competing research at the onset of the article, Stange shows the opposing viewpoint she is going up against. She then points to far more compelling reasons why this is not necessarily (nor likely) the case.
As a professor, Stange requires her students to bring in and report on current events regularly, and to pay attention to the packaging that the information comes in. Over the years the internet has come to dominate the way that young people attain news and political information, which actually requires them to become more civically engaged and search it out themselves. This is compelling evidence that simply reading a newspaper or watching a national news broadcast won't give you the depth of information that is necessary to fully understand what is happening on a local and national level in politics.
It seems as though the intended audience for this commentary are adults over the age of thirty who do not view the Daily Show as a credible news source, and who are disheartened by the decline of newspaper readership and the lack of major news network consumption by today's youth. If you are already a Daily Show viewer, then I think that this article would just confirm your currently held beliefs regarding the newsworthiness of its content and contribution to civic engagement and knowledge. If not however, it may open your eyes to the benefits of this new type of satire-based political coverage.
I think that Stange is correct in her assertion that the news available online is highly valuable to youth today. This is important because it connects to the increased viewership of the Daily Show as well. The reason that viewers of the Daily Show are so knowledgeable regarding news and politics is because of the very nature of the show's content. In order to understand the humor of the show, a viewer needs to have previous understanding of the story or piece of news being discussed. Without first reading a news article or watching some new source, a person would not find the Daily Show funny and would likely turn the channel. This is definitely proof of an increased level of political and news knowledge amongst Daily Show viewers. Stange states that, "The Daily Show generation, in other words, is not only apt to be more concerned about politics but also more likely to be spurred to do something with that concern."
As a college aged person, I agree with Stange in all regards of her analysis of the political knowledge of youth today because I feel that it is accurate with what my friends, classmates, and I do in terms of news consumption. Whether or not this changes down the road, remains to be seen as more and more generations rely heavily (if not solely) on the internet and shows such as the Daily Show as their news sources.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Must Go

Many policies in our government's history were founded on principles of segregation, discrimination and moral judgement on the part of those in the upper echelon of the decision making process. One such policy, the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the military, is finally in the process of repeal. The issue of gay participation in the military is one of much dissent which is split mainly along generational lines. Obama has stated that it is a process of convincing those who are older and more traditional in their views that this policy is promoting discrimination in our military.

A recent piece by Mary McCarty of Dayton Daily News which was published in the Austin American Statesman spoke to this issue and how immoral and hurtful to our military the current policy is. In her article, Patience of a Patriot, McCarty introduces her audience to the human side of the issue by interviewing Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach of the United States Air Force about how being outed as a gay man has cost him, and more than 13,000 other like him, his career. It is clear that her intended audience are the people of the US that are not currently convinced that this policy is poison for our military's success. She is very much against the policy and uses examples of how it is hurting our military by pointing out how many good Americans are losing their jobs due to a personal issue. "The U.S. military is kicking out men and women like this at a time when it's so desperate for new recruits that it's lowering admissions standards." This statement is aimed at showing us that the job crisis that millions of Americans are facing for unavoidable reasons regarding the economy are affecting the military personnel except that their is no reason that is should be. These people are passionate about protecting and serving our country only to be fired due to their sexual persuasion.

I agree wholeheartedly with McCarty that this policy could not be ended quickly enough. It is depriving our military of thousands of quality people to fill jobs while allowing less qualified, yet straight, people to fill them. This article is not simply a forum for her complaints however, because she points out that things are beginning to change with more attention being placed on the removal of this policy. With president Obama's promise to remove it we have hope, but like all issues regarding civil rights and tradition, it will likely not be an overnight change. At no point does McCarty become hostile or angry towards the people stopping this change from taking place, but she sets a tone of urgency for us to examine the policy and what it is causing us to lose as a nation. Hopefully, this type of commentary will help people who may not view this policy as a problem to rethink their opinions and the implications of such a rule.

Personally, I sincerely hope that with changes regarding sexual preference at the military level will soon come changes within the laws surrounding same sex marriage. As McCarty points out in her piece, changes in our laws having to do with civil rights issues have been gradual processes, so I don't think we can expect these things to change overnight. I do however agree with her in her closing statements, "Fehrenbach is a patient man. For the good of the country, let's not require patriots like him to be patient for a single day more."

Congress Begins to Overhaul Consumer Protections

On July 16th, 2009 NPR reported a story about the first piece of Obama's plan to overhaul the current financial system through increasing consumer protections. Legislation drafts have already been sent to Congress that would change an important part of the plan. It would consolidate the financial protection agency for consumers and make the new rules regarding everything from credit cards and loans to mortgages.

Advocates of this change agree that it would put financial information in plain language that consumers could actually understand, which would prevent people from getting mortgages or loans that they actually do not need or are not right for them. The opposition however points to the fact that consumers have and always need to be saavy about the decisions they make. They think that it is their responsibility to research and find what they need to protect themselves.

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) views the plan as too far-reaching and almost invasive by the government. He sees it as the government telling consumers what to buy and limiting banks and financial institutions from having a wide range of options.

Discussions on the issue will continue and there are strong proponents on both sides. Whatever the outcome of this proposed legislation is will clearly affect all Americans' financial degree of financial protection. This is precisely why it is important for any consumer to know what they face when they enter a bank in search of a loan or apply for a mortgage. Most people will get some sort of loan in their lifetime which is why having a bit of knowledge about the rules and workings of our financial system and banks is extremely important.

Reading this article and those to come regarding this issue will be helpful for Americans to assess the changes being made in the financial system and how they directly and indirectly affect them.