Don't Ask, Don't Tell...Silence Is Not Always Golden

Fellow classmate Hannah wrote a blog article titled "Don't Ask, Don't Shhh!," in which she discussed the military's policy "don't ask, don't tell," which was found unconstitutional in lower courts. It has been making headlines because the Supreme Court has ruled that the policy shall stay enforced until a final decision is made in the court's appeal process. This decision has, as you can imagine, angered a lot of people, many who want to see immediate change and justice.

Hannah discusses several aspects of the issue, most disproving any theories that the policy has a strong purpose and is needed. Early in the article, she states that the policy of DADT is highly outdated, and I could not agree more. She goes on to compare it with segregation, although we as a country have ruled segregation to be unconstitutional. This brings up an interesting question to me...at which point are we going to incorporate sexuality with other personal identifiers such as race, religion, ethnicity, and gender, which are all protected under our legal system? They have already included sexuality into the legal definition of a hate crime, so why is the obvious  discrimination against gays and bisexuals still prevalent in our military? The DADT policy is stripping freedoms away from the very people that are fighting to protect them.

Another aspect of the controversial issue that Hannah discussed was the claim that the policy of DADT is beneficial to combat readiness in the armed forces. Hannah makes some good arguments to disprove this theory, my favorite being that soldiers hiding their identity are lying to their fellow soldiers everyday under the current policy. I agree with her on this and also think that people having to hide their true identities and people who are unwilling to be accepting of others' identities are not reflective of what the army is supposed to be about. You see the commercials for the Army stating "be all you can be," yet they won't allow some soldiers to even be themselves! All the excuses politicians and supporters of the DADT policy are giving are clearly attempts to mask their homophobia.

Overall I agree with everything that Hannah is saying in her article and liked how she broke down all aspects of the issues at hand. I expect that we will see many more debates and cases in the near future regarding the rights and protections of homosexuals and bisexuals. This issue is just another example that our world is evolving and as it does, many parts of our political system, laws, and military will have to change with it.

WIkiLeaks: Our New Best Friend

It’s hard to turn on a TV or read a newspaper without seeing the name WikiLeaks or the website’s director Julian Assange. So what’s the big deal about posting leaked documents on a website? Some say it puts us at risk with other nations and threatens our homeland security, I believe those people are just angry some of their not-so-proud statements are now exposed. Should we really be concerned with the ugly details that are coming out of these documents, or should we be concerned that investigative journalism has been somewhat weak until recently? Our nation runs off checks and balances, and WikiLeaks, is our newest balance.

Just as the American people felt entitled to the leaked tapes and documents in the Watergate scandal, they still want that type of government knowledge. People do not want to blindly hold the hand of our leaders. It is no secret that the government has made some pretty big mistakes, and that throughout history, many people in power have attempted (successful or not) to cover these things up. It is important that we put knowledge back into the people's hands to keep our democracy running properly. This is why WikiLeaks is a great journalistic tool, especially in today's society where distrust in the government is at an all time high.

Many people were also up in arms about a 2007 video that the website posted, showing U.S. Troops killing a group of Iraq citizens, including 2 Reuter’s journalists. The half hour video shows no indication of the attacked engaging in combat, and the US soldiers are heard joking about their kills, even laughing as a US armed vehicle runs over one of the deceased’s body. Does this look good for America? No, it does not; however, it does show how bad the situation in Iraq is getting. Just as the anti-war movement for Vietnam was largely due to the media coverage of the US deaths and atrocities, I believe the released documents and videos coming out of Iraq and US Government can help bring the troops home (or at least help people decide whether we should be over there).

Sure, there are many political heads strongly fighting against WikiLeaks and its face Julian Assange. But then again, who wouldn’t when their dirty laundry was aired out for the entire world to see. Perhaps this will press these political figures to be more honest with the American people. Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to always worry about our government leaders making false promises and statements (can anyone say weapons of mass destruction)? American citizens have always appreciated and yearned for the information obtained from investigative journalism, and I believe once the dust settles, they will feel the same about Wiki Leaks.

Department of Education Not Tolerating Blind Eyes To Bullying

Fellow classmate Chris had a blog article written a couple weeks ago entitled Department of Education Stands Up to Bullies. The article discussed the Department of Educations  new tactics to help prevent bullying in schools. One of these tactics is threatening schools with the loss of federal funding if a school does not enforce civil rights laws which prohibit harassment of students based on race, national origin, religion, and gender. Congress is also in debate right now on whether to also include sexual preference into those rights which are protected. Another tactic is the threat of a federal investigation for schools and/or school administration which fails to comply and enforce these civil right protections.

I liked reading Chris' article because this has been a hot topic across America due to the series of high profile student suicides as a  result of bullying. However, I had not heard about any legislation that was going on to stop it. I didn't however, find it surprising that many of these students were targeted because of their sexual preferences, which makes me happy to see there are people fighting to protect the rights of these students as well. I also agree with Chris that schools may also need to implement stronger bullying policies, rather than the typical trip to the principal's office or detention. Maybe if schools made it a lot worse for students who targeted fellow peers who were different, bullies would think twice before acting out. Perhaps one punishment could be having to write an essay about the dangers of bullying and to read it at a school assembly. By holding theses bullies accountable, they are not only embarrassed of their actions, but also forced to face the potential dangers in which they are causing.

Like Chris mentioned, in many of these cases, it was found that teachers were aware of the issue and failed to step in  to deter it. This is where I am glad to see the Department of Education step in and hold the schools accountable for their failure to prevent it from happening. Chris stated that these actions were the DoE stepping up to the plate...I however, think it is merely a step in the right direction. As sad as it is to say, there will more than likely have to be many more tragedies that occur, before stronger legislation is put into place. Bullying has been around forever, it is unfortunate that the severeness of its consequences are just now becoming a national issue.

Obama's Numerous TV Appearances Offer Another Kind Of "Change"

As this years mid-term elections near, party candidates are out in full force campaigning for votes. We see this everywhere from speeches at  local colleges to political ads every other commercial on television. The President is no exception, also vigorously campaigning to keep the Democrats in Congress this year. One of these appearances this past week was on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" on Comedy Central, where the President was interviewed by the satire comedian in front of a live audience.

While there was a lot of hype about his appearance, it was far from his first television show appearance. Arguments made by critics claim that going on popular shows for self promoting and interviews is a use of "irresponsible media.," and that it lowers the dignity and prestige of the Presidency. Karl Rove responded to Obama's five Sunday morning talk show appearances last year by saying that, "Mr. Obama doesn't need more TV time. He needs a new health-care plan...He needs his facts to align with reality." I however think the contrary; that President Obama is reaching different audiences that wouldn't tune into him or current politics otherwise. We see this when looking at the number of viewers tuning in to his TV guest spots.
.
The President's August 2010 appearance on The View gave the show its best ratings ever, drawing in 6.6 million viewers. Let's remember that The View is mainly aimed towards the female audience. The male viewers (18-34) tend to watch shows such as The Daily Show. His most recent interview on The Daily Show drew in just under 3 million viewers, which was less than his 2008 appearance where he drew in 3.58 million viewers.

When looking at a complete list of Obama's TV appearances, you see that he has been on almost every time slot in television. He has reached everyone from the early morning news crowd (Today Show), to the mid-day talk show crowd (think Oprah & Ellen), to the late night folks (Jay Leno/Letterman). So while everyone is talking about Obama's failed promises of "change," they themselves are failing to see a whole new kind of change, which is the way in which our President is accessible to us. It is important that we keep our society's political interest and involvement up, especially in rough and changing times such as these. When looking back a hundred years from now, I believe that we will see Obama helped "change" the role of the President as much outside of the White House as he intends to inside the White House.

Removing Minimum Wage...Just The Beginning

On the left-winged blog Daily Kos, I found an interesting blog written by Jed Lewison, aimed at the working class in America, particularly those on the lower end of the payroll. Lewison's blog was written this week about many Republican senate nominees expressing their interests in removing or lowering minimum wages in our country. He bases this off of recent remarks by GOP Senate nominee Joe Raese, from West Virginia, who promised to repeal the Fair Labor Standards Act,  which would remove the set minimum wage. When looking furthur into Mr. Raese's statements, he criticizes FDR's Labor Act, stating that it "didn't solve any problems then and it hasn't solved any problems in 50 years." Lewison claims that in their effort to abolish the minimum wage, they will literally remove any and all protection workers have, including key protections such as overtime. Lewison's evidential support is the quotes of these Republican nominees (including Linda McMahon and Chris Dudley) speaking out against minimum rate laws that are currently set.


I completely agree with Lewison's argument that the Republicans would be setting us back a century by changing these laws. While we are in a recession right now, we were also in one when FDR created the Fair Labor Act, and he is historically known for helping to pull our country out of that Depression. Therefore, Raese's claims that it didn't work or make an impact don't really have a leg to stand on. While Lewison has a valid argument that removing the Act all together would be a GIANT step back for our country, he also failed to expand further on some of the GOP nominee's plans of not completely eliminating it, but to simply modify it. So I think that his logic is sound, if based simply off of Mr. Raese's ideas and statements, but not sound for grouping all the GOP senate nominees together.

Pulling The Curtain on Political Advertising

 

I came across an editorial in The New York Times written earlier this week entitled, The Secret Election. Ironically, the editorial had no named author which is mainly the idea of the entire piece, leaving me with no credibility to base the author off of. While the editorial had no author named, it was clear that the anonymous author strongly favored the passing of the Disclosure Act. The Disclosure Act, is an act being held up in the Senate right now by a strong Republican blockade. It would make anonymous campaign donors, who contribute millions of dollars for advertisements in support of a political party, attach their names to those donations. With this being said, the author is obviously voicing his frustrations and rallying fellow Democrats in favor of the act, while stating his case to Republican readers as well. The author is making an argument that these anonymous contributors are creating "secret elections," which are not good for Democracy, because the money being donated is usually going to one party. This creates a lopsided election in which the voters are seeing an overwhelming number of smear campaigns in favor of the Republican party. It is no secret that people such as Karl Rove are embracing this loophole in the law, even going as far as creating tax exempt organizations which help funnel the money funding these campaigns. With people hiding behind the first amendment, they are basically "buying" an election. This is the complete opposite idea of democracy, where the vote is in the hands of the  people and not a few wealthy individuals. The author states at the end of his editorial, that it's crucial for this type of election to end and that it's necessary for the Disclosure Act to pass so that we can have fair elections from this point on.

I agree with this editorial and the argument that the author makes. If people were to see that a high percentage of the ads they were seeing on the television and in print were all funded by the same person, I think it would be less influential on them. I also believe that it's important for people to know the source of their information, especially when it comes down to an election where we are placing power into somebodies hands. An election is supposed to be a census of the people's honest ideas and beliefs, not ideas swayed by smear campaigns and bitter political rivalries.

Back To Basics With Obama

A recent CNN article entitled Obama pushes kids to work hard in back-to-school speech, talks about the Presidents speech encouraging American students to work for the life that they want. He spoke honestly about the need for education being more important than ever right now, and told students that only they can create the life they want. He said that it wouldn't be easy, and that at times they will feel like giving up, but hard work and dedication pays off in the end. I liked the part of his speech where he spoke about the time he was slacking in school and had to be reprimanded by his mother to get back into motion and try harder. It helped students see him as an actual human and not some perfect person just because he is the President. But don't think that a simple do-good message would always go without controversy. Before last years speech, conservatives complained the President would try to force his political agenda on students, and also criticized a lesson plan that included writing letters about how students could help the president. While this years speech went almost unnoticed, there was still some speculation about whether teachers should show it in class, which many did around the nation.
I think that this is a good article to read because it seems like we are all wrapped up in political controversy and drama right now. This article is the opposite of all that, simply taking it back to basics. The President is admitting to students that in hard times, such as these, we need to work a little harder and stay focused on the life that we want for ourselves. Also, I like that he told students, that most of the jobs they want require an education, and they can't just "drop out and drop into a good job." I think a lot of people today have forgotten about this simple message, finding it too easy to roll over and blame others for their problems (mainly the President).  

"The story of America," Obama said, "isn't about people who quit when things got tough. It's about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best."