My first reaction upon hearing this news was, “Wait…what?” It is hard to imagine that a program such as The Daily Show would hold enough respect in the wider world to actually warrant the in-person appearance of a sitting president, with the potential of him looking ridiculous and (God, I hate this word) “un-presidential.”

The fact that the president believes this is a good idea, especially after he entertained questions of how “presidential” he was after appearing on The View, lends credit to both Jon Stewart and his status in the news media today.

Somehow, in our 24-hour media, the man who has become the most trustworthy personality is not a modern-day Walter Cronkite but a former stand-up comedian, whose combination of intelligent discourse and penis jokes blends into the most coherent and reasonable news show on the air. Jon Stewart obviously commands a great deal of respect in the world, to the point where his show is regarded highly enough for a sitting president to attend.

For Stewart, this marks a turning point in his show’s history. He has stated on numerous occasions that he isn’t a leader of any sort; he is just a comedian trying to poke fun at the political system. However, when the president determines that your show is worthy of his time and effort, you might have to change your opinion of yourself. Stewart needs to accept the fact that he is now a leader. But the important question is, whom exactly does he lead?

The answer is simple. Jon Stewart is the political personality who speaks for our generation. He is our leader.

Look at how many of us are excited about this weekend’s Rally to Restore Sanity. Look at how much money our Treasury representatives are willing to spend so even a few of us can get there. When Jon Stewart says jump, we ask how high, because he probably represents us more than anyone else can. The fact that a president is willing to go on his show (especially after a nation-wide college tour) is more than a vote-getting technique; it is proof of our political power.

What is it that got President Obama elected? It wasn’t his message, though it was good, and it wasn’t his campaign staff, though they were excellent. It was us; it was the college students and 20-somethings across the country. It was the young adults and the kids, the relative babies of society who were inspired and came together to elect a man to the presidency.

How effective would his campaign have been without the grassroots organizers using modern information technology? How successful would his campaign have been without the millions of hours of volunteering done on his behalf? Make no mistake; in our first attempt at organized political strength, our generation elected a man president of the United States.

The president’s decision to go on “The Daily Show” reflects the respect and gratitude he holds for us more than it reflects his goal of getting us to vote Democrat again. He is hurting right now—everyone knows it—and he needs us. After the 2008 election, we proved that we have political power, and the president is asking us to use it again.

So when he goes on “The Daily Show” tonight, listen to the president, because he won’t be speaking to America, he won’t be speaking to the middle class, and he won’t be speaking to Democrats. He will be speaking to you.

The U.S. health care system is incredibly complex, and the political process causes real reform to be that much more complex. As students with our own more immediate crises at hand, why should we care? We should care because of the stories behind these numbers: Health care comprises 16.2 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product, yet our average life expectancy ranks only 42nd in the world, while 46 million people remain entirely uninsured in our country.

Together, these numbers imply tremendous health care expenses with insufficient health rewards. And yet the numbers only provide the stories’ background. Money and insurance are critical factors, but our lifestyle, education, culture and other systemic factors also play leading roles in our health.

Successful health system reform must account for all of this information. As the next beneficiaries of the country’s health care system, we must understand these variables and use the understanding to embolden reform. If you still need convincing, please refer to the Oct. 12 staff editorial (“As students, we should care about health care”) providing additional address to this issue.

As a forum not only for increasing health care understanding, but also for asking your questions and stating your opinions, the Roosevelt Institution presents the Wash. U. Health Care Town Hall on Oct. 27. Against the incessant rhetoric of how health care reform could fail, expert panelists will provide their perspectives on health policy and examples of successful practices from economic, medical and political angles.

Whether we like it or not, as we are college-age students, the outcome of this current health care policy debate is going to determine a great part of the rest of our lives and our future family’s lives more than any other age cohort. The issues that have been discussed in this article are not simply just part of another drawn-out, overly politicized and meaningless debacle in Washington. Instead, they are real challenges that affect millions of people everyday and whose solutions, whether meaningful or not, have the power to perpetuate or alleviate class divisions and exacerbate or provide answers to the disturbing deterioration of health in our nation.

The issue of health care in our society is urgent, but it is also deeply affects our and our society’s long-term future. It is not up to our parents or our grandparents to fix. We are the ones that will be here for that future, and thus action, from us, must be reactive, loud, critical and, most importantly, heard.

Be heard at 8 p.m. on Tuesday at the Roosevelt Institution’s Health Care Town Hall in McMillan Café.

President Obama, seen here in Arnold, MO on his 100th day in office, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. Reactions on campus has ranged from skeptisism to entusiasm. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

The selection of President Barack Obama as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize just nine months after he took office was a surprise that has elicited shock, applause and, in some cases, disapproval on campus.

“I think it was pretty surprising,” said Alex Broad, a first-year graduate student. “I liked his response, that he said he sees it as more of a call of action as opposed to an award he has won for something he has done.”

In the past, the prize has been awarded to candidates with a history of peace-making accomplishments. In contrast, Obama was awarded the prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people,” according to the Nobel Committee.

“That’s what’s strange about it,” senior Hannah Wroblewski said. “They’re trying to accomplish something by giving him the prize.”

The Nobel Committee, based in Oslo, Norway, said it came to its decision largely as a result of Obama’s effort to disarm the world’s nuclear arsenals, as well as his commitment to international diplomacy and dialogue.

According to Thorbjørn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee, who issued a public statement on Friday, Obama was chosen after a rigorous selection process.

“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” Jagland said. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”

Despite this reasoning, some students have expressed skepticism about the Nobel Committee’s decision.

“I think that he doesn’t necessarily deserve the prize,” sophomore Mariana Oliver said. “The prize was sort of given preemptively in the sense that it’s only the first year of his term and he still hasn’t really done anything to merit the prize.”

Junior Nathan Fine agreed and said he sees the prize as more of an endorsement than a recognition of Obama’s efforts.

“I don’t think he deserved it yet, but I think it was just a huge vote of confidence from the world,” Fine said.

Regardless of whether Obama deserves the award, junior Maggie Parker said he accepted it graciously.

“It’s not like he chose to be awarded the prize, but I think that the way he has handled it is the best way possible,” Parker said. “When he said he took it as a call of action, as a charge to his presidency, that was the best way he could have handled it.”

Professor expresses shock

Peter Kastor, associate professor of history and American culture studies, said he was shocked to hear that Obama won the prize.

“I was really stunned that he won it. I was really surprised,” Kastor said. “I don’t mean to say that he should or shouldn’t have won it. My point is it’s really surprising. He’s not the typical person to win this.”

Kastor, who teaches a course called Americans and Their Presidents, said Obama is unlike any previous sitting president who has received the prize.

“The circumstances under which Obama won it, and more importantly the context in which he won it, in my mind are just completely different from when Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson won it,” Kastor said.

Kastor said that while Roosevelt’s and Wilson’s peace prizes recognized their achievements in ending major wars, Obama has not ended either of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Moreover, Roosevelt’s and Wilson’s awards came at a time when the United States was just beginning to assert its role as a world power, while Obama’s prize comes amid efforts by the president to redefine America’s role as a global superpower.

By comparison, Kastor said Obama shares more in common with former President Jimmy Carter, who was awarded the prize for his role in diffusing international conflict after he had left office as president.

“Both of them have fashioned their public persona around being circumspect about the role of the United States in involving itself in international affairs,” he said.

Peter Kastor is a member of the Washington University Student Media, Inc. board of directors, which oversees the publishing of Student Life.

After President Obama took office, he began making revolutionary changes that altered U.S. policy: He called for the dismantling of Guantanamo Bay detention camp and released Justice Department documents from the Bush administration that were very explicit with regard to torture policies. Furthermore, President Obama promised to “ban torture,” which made Democrats jump with joy and left Republicans changing their pants. However, immediately after the release of the documents, the left wing called for the prosecution of the people involved in writing the memo—key Bush administration figures and the CIA.

However, Obama then proceeded to flip-flop by visiting the CIA and giving a speech saying he appreciated the agency—showing that they may not come under fire for the torture memos. So in this whole process, President Obama pissed off the Republicans for releasing classified documents and pissed off the Democrats by not prosecuting the people involved with those documents. This is what I feared—promises that were made during the campaign and during inauguration are not going to be held up. Granted, it is extremely difficult to reverse strong policies implemented by the previous administration, but by promising to ban torture and then not fulfilling it, Obama seems to have waterboarded himself.

Now, it is understandable that an incoming Democratic president would want to reverse policies set in place; however, it was ridiculous to say that torture would be banned completely. Recent Senate reports have shown that Condolleezza Rice and other high-ranking Bush administration officials approved the CIA’s use of waterboarding as early as 2002. As citizens of a free nation, we must understand that the actions of the CIA and other security agencies have kept us free for this long; however, using questionable procedures may give the enemy more leverage against us. Torture is a very touchy subject, and it would be a better world when no such techniques are needed.

In this day and age, a ban on torture seems elegant and high-minded, but there are several groups in the world that wish to bring America down regardless of the ban on torture. They hate the very existence of our nation and will not stop until we are wiped out. Against such hatred, what can we do? Like choosing between a rock and a hard place, I say we let our security agencies continue doing their job. The only thing we can do is hope that informed politicians and officials in this new administration make the right choices and protect our rights and our existence.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former head of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve, recently asserted in a speech that the Chinese government manipulates its currency.

This statement adds to the uneasiness the Chinese government already feels toward the new president and his administration.

According to experts on China, the government is concerned that the Obama administration will also take a hard stance on pollution generated by Chinese factories and on human rights violations.

The uneasiness was expressed in an editorial last week published in the China Daily, which praised former President Bush’s actions toward China and pondered what the Obama administration’s intents toward China might be.

China is in a less comfortable position than it was just two weeks ago during the Bush administration. Bush and Henry Paulson, secretary of the Treasury in the Bush administration, sought to improve relations with China by working with Chinese leaders and not taking stances on controversial Chinese issues.

Since Obama has little experience working with China, and because none of his advisers are experts on Chinese diplomacy, some fear that relations between the United States and China will fall apart.

“Just from my opinion, its hard to say whether Obama will hurt China because Obama just became the president,” Ph.D. student Baili Min said. “We haven’t seen his actions yet, but I don’t think that Chinese people will fear Obama, because the Chinese-American relationship is not decided by the personality of just one president; there are so many things to consider.”

Others, however, do not follow the Chinese-United States diplomatic dynamic while at the University.

“I’m really not positive about the Chinese-American political situation,” freshman Jennifer Ma said.

Despite the Chinese government’s fears about Obama, since November, Obama has become a popular figure among young Chinese people, with a Chinese translation of his book “The Audacity of Hope” soaring to bestseller lists there.

“Everyone now knows Obama is the president of the United States,” Ma said. “The Chinese people want the [Chinese] government to be friendly toward Obama.”

Many people in China, Min said, are hoping that Obama will reform some aspects of American society to China’s benefit.

“We think he will bring some reforms to some fields in United States society like education,” Min said. “College students pay attention to that because it may become easier for Chinese students to apply to American graduate schools. We also want to see whether there will be some sort of visa reform to make traveling between the United States and China easier.”

Despite the Chinese government’s concerns, some Chinese people have high hopes for Obama.

“Everyone wishes the new president will make Chinese relationships with America better,” Min said. “We haven’t seen Obama’s reaction. We don’t know if he will be good to China or bring hard times to China.”

Other students noted that the relationship between Obama and Beijing will depend on whether those in power in China acclimate themselves to his policies.

“Only time will tell how the Chinese government will respond to Obama,” freshman Chris Lo said.

It is notoriously difficult to define an American ethos in literature. When I visited Ireland last spring, pictures of Seamus Heaney were everywhere, and the role of poets in defining the social and political course of the nation was clear. Literature in America, though, is often cast aside, placed at the periphery of our consciousness. Ever since Ralph Waldo Emerson’s call in the 1800s for a definitively American national literature, authors have tried—and, by default, failed—to capture a consciousness that truly represents our nation. The challenge of a vast and pluralist society is that we often seem to have no definitive national culture, and our lack of a universal literature is a testament to this challenge.

What we often forget, though, is that literature takes many forms. While no novel necessarily captures the “great American” spirit—perhaps because there is no such spirit to be captured—I think we ought to remind ourselves that the story Obama told in his nomination speech was literary, not political, in nature. When Obama said that “only in America” can a white farm girl and an African exchange student father a boy who grows up to be president, he told the story of his own experience within the national ethos, a story of hope and change that provides a narrative foundation for a particular set of policies. He was writing a national poem, a song of himself that fit the moment in history that spawned it.

I think it is important to pay attention to what Elizabeth Alexander has to say this weekend, if for no other reason than to remind ourselves that perhaps we can, after all, capture America in literature. In the 20th century, poetry has become ever more abstract and personal, ever more difficult to identify with. But this need not be the case. Now, as our news is plagued by incomprehensible macroeconomic worries, and as we turn away by necessity from the materialism that pervades American culture, perhaps poetry is exactly what we need to get by.

//

While little is known about how or when stem cell policy will change, researchers at the University are ready and waiting for federal support that some say could be immediately helpful for curing diseases.

“If government policy changed, it’s extremely likely that new projects would be started at Wash. U.,” stem cell biologist and Professor of Anatomy and Neurobiology David Gottlieb said.

Obama has pledged to reverse President Bush’s restrictive policies on stem cell research, although few details have been publicly discussed.

“The President-elect is still fully committed to stem cell research. Whether it’s by executive order or legislation is still being decided, but the important thing is that he will fight to get it done,” Federico de Jesús, a transition press official, said.

Under the Bush administration, use of human embryonic stem (ES) cells is not illegal but receives limited federal funding. To work around these limitations, University scientists use alternative sources of stem cells, such as mouse embryonic stem cells, but their utility is limited when it comes to translating basic research into therapy.

Easier access to human ES cells would be advantageous because understanding human functions and diseases ultimately requires studying human cells, according to Gottlieb.

“To the medical scientists, it means that you’ll be able to have for the first time an array of human models of human disease, whereas prior to this most of the research had to be done in very inappropriate human cells, or rat or mouse cells,” Gottlieb said. “Another thing is that in biology, a lot of the mechanisms are conserved in evolution, like from mice to humans, but there’s a point where that’s no longer accurate.”

In other words, while human cells and mouse cells share enough in common that mouse cells are useful for gaining a basic understanding of cellular processes, the finer details may differ. And when it comes to designing treatments for human patients, fine details can make a crucial difference.

“If you really want to nail how the human heart works, you need to use human cells,” Gottlieb said.

Fifth-year biomedical engineering graduate student Cara Rieger said her work using mouse embryonic stem cells is an example of research in which a transition to human ES cells could be rewarding.

“Our lab specializes in taking ES cells and directing them down a neural differentiation pathway—making neurons in a dish,” she said. “One long-term goal is to engineer ES-derived neural cells so they can be used in transplantation, cellular replacement therapy for neural injury or neurodegenerative disease.”

“I think the same techniques we are developing using the mouse system will become more widely used in human ES cells,” Rieger said.

Because of the technical complexity of switching to a different model system, not every stem-cell lab would immediately start using human ES cells if government funding swelled. Gottlieb said that many people could benefit from the work of a few, however.

“Even if we decided to use mouse [stem cells] only [in my lab], we would be impacted because science grows together as a community,” he said. “The contribution of each lab is affected by all the other labs. It would have an immense impact.”

Washington University research as a whole could be pushed to greater prominence if more labs were able to use human ES cells, he said, because the University lags behind similar institutions in the amount of human stem cell research currently being conducted.

Undergraduate Julia Keighley, a junior who works alongside mouse stem cell researchers in the lab of Associate Professor of Developmental Biology Kristin Kroll, said her lab is waiting to see how government policy changes.

“I know it’s something they worry about. One of the guys I talk to a lot has been doing some work with a dismantled version of the HIV virus,” Keighley said. “Everything they’re doing needs to be done. So whatever the administration can do to help is welcome.”

//

On the one hand, it could be argued that Obama is merely keeping his campaign promise to eliminate the kind of divisive partisan politics that have dominated Washington in the past. Put your chief competitor by your side, a guy or two from across the aisle in your Cabinet (Chuck Hagel anyone?), and while you’re at it keep the old Secretary of Defense-you know, the one who DIDN’T lead us into a futile and meaningless war. There’s nothing wrong with this, especially if these are in fact the best candidates for the job. If Hillary Clinton’s credentials exceed those of, say, John Kerry or Bill Richardson, then by all means she should get the job. Perhaps this is just President-elect Obama surrounding himself with the best people, and if this is the case then I applaud him for his meritocratic approach to presidential appointments.

The political strategist in me, however, is not so quick to offer praise for this country-first attitude. One must at least consider the possibility that Obama, who’s shown himself to have quite a bit of street smarts in addition to that Harvard education, may have an ulterior motive in making these people his subordinates. “Hillary: The World Tour” could be good for the country, but it’s also sure to decrease the likelihood of a challenge in four years (and she certainly wouldn’t be the first junior Senator to run a presidential campaign while serving out his or her term, would she?). Plus, there’s loyalty. When’s the last time you remember a secretary of state criticizing the president who appointed them? It doesn’t happen often.

But honestly, if Obama did have some sinister reason for appointing the people around him (which is unlikely considering most of his early appointees have merely been beneficiaries of the spoils system), who would profit? Not Obama, because if the Bush administration has taught us anything it’s that beyond their own personal failures, incompetent people will inevitably cast their employer in a pretty bad light (see: Gonzalez, Alberto and Rumsfeld, Donald). And as for the rest of us, well, except for Annette Bening (or whoever’s going to star in “The Hillary Clinton Story”) we wouldn’t be particularly well-off.

So what’s the point of all this, other than to sound like Spin Doctor Junior? Well, beyond the obvious (we’re talking about Hillary Clinton as secretary of state here) there’s the fact that it’s one of our President-elect’s biggest decisions thus far, and one that will no doubt impact his tenure as President of the United States, which of course hasn’t even technically started yet. And while we’re on the topic of how there is more than two months between Election Day and Inauguration Day…but that can wait until next time.

The recent election could have afforded me an opportunity to no longer have to do without, or so I had hoped. I was in the library when CNN announced that Obama had won the presidency. After the announcement, unsurprisingly, I wasn’t really interested in doing work. I was stirred, and went out looking for the mob-style street celebration of my dreams. Unfortunately, I didn’t find much.

I was not, however, without some success. After driving the length and breadth of St. Louis looking for action, I came home to find a little bit of energy on the Loop. Among the most ardent individuals I came across was an elderly African-American woman incessantly shouting, “We did it!” And although she seemed pretty convinced that somebody had indeed done something, the lady never specified exactly who “we” were or what “it” was. In reality, either “we” or “it” could have been any number of things. “We,” for instance, could have referred to the lady’s particular ethnic group, and very understandably so. Alternately, it could have been alluding to the Democratic Party. On an even grander scale, she could have been applauding the country at large, and hopefully she was.

As the nation begins to move forward in the wake of a Nov. 4 packed with historical significance, it’s of critical importance that the country starts reintegrating its conception of “we.” The nation can no longer be perceived as two distinct camps whose sole aim is political posturing. The country once again must strive to become a coherent unit, particularly in light of the challenges it now faces. McCain may well have said it best in his concession speech when he urged all Americans to unify in “offering our next president our goodwill and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.”

To be sure, the responsibility of re-assimilating America is a bipartisan obligation. The burden falls neither solely on the winners nor on the losers. America must move forward as a single country. A realization of this obligation necessarily implicates all those by whom that unit is comprised. The “we” to which the lady I met on the Loop was referring has to be all-inclusive.

In movie scenes depicting mob-style street celebrations, there are always houses on both sides of the street. As a metaphor for the present situation, this aspect of those scenes is particularly relevant. If America is to move forward effectively, people with homes on both sides of the street need to rush out and work toward creating something to celebrate.