...

All of your responses have read similarly. No substance other than Obama is the supreme leader and we should obey him.

To review, everyone looked at the shiny controversy, many conservatives... or rather anti-leftists, played their part in losing their shit, and everyone else responded by paying attention to them. The speech is actually incredibly tame, and the anti-leftists are now suggesting (despite having no evidence) that the speech was changed. Tomorrow the corporate powers will tell Fox News and Drudge to direct the anti-leftists to do something else either truly silly or incredibly intellectually dishonest and everyone's heads will turn.

Actually, I think I can already see the next thing. Apparently yet another fake Kenyan birth certificate (from the mentally disturbed Orly Taitz) is making the rounds. OMGZ! LOOK AT TEH FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE! YOU MEAN CERTIFICATIONZ?! SAME THING!! NUH UH, ITZ CERTIFICATIONZ OF LIVE BIRTH!!
There have been 320 coalition deaths in 2009 so far, which is already higher than any of the previous 6 years we've been in Afghanistan. No one knows why we're there. I've not heard from jorgelito since he posted that he wanted to join the Navy. If I were religious, I'd be praying that I didn't scan by his real name on the casualty list. It's labor day and unemployment rate is at a 26 year high—that is, this is the worst unemployment in my entire life—, at 9.7% officially. Corporate interests are somehow managing to endanger a public healthcare option even with Democratic control of the White House, House, and Senate; just another reminder that democracy isn't always democratic. The US has 5% of the world's population and 23.6% of its prisoners. We've just suffered several instances of domestic terrorism, and the hatred that fueled them is growing.

A little perspective.

I agree with the points made by Roachboy and WillRavel.

Here's a country that's lost millions of jobs in the last few years, yet cannot see that more and better education will bring this country forward and return it to its former position. The loss of education, cutbacks in almost every school district, the inability of parents to afford college educations for their children, all that stuff, needs to be addressed now. The US cannot afford to fall (further) behind other nations on the education front. In a few short years we will go from a nation that accepted JFK's challenge to put Americans on the moon to a nation that believes the moon is a leftist/socialist deathstar raining radiation upon its collective head.

Here's a country with a few parents protesting a speech by its President for feck's sake about education. It's the same man who said he wanted to make improving education one of the primary goals of his presidency. Don't want their kids to watch their President, but no problem with what they watch for their average 5 hours of dailyTV, video games, movies, etc.

This country had no problem listening to previous Presidents, and FDR's Fireside chats before and during WWII were welcomed by the whole nation (even those who opposed him) because people wanted to hear what their President said before leveling any criticism.

It's embarrassing to see that the US is inundated with people who can be so easily misdirected and mislead by the fat cats whose bottom lines are being rightfully questioned.

All those protesting need to ask themselves (and their children) a few questions:
1. Has your school district reduced its budget, laid off teachers & other employees? How is the condition of the physical plant of the school itself?
2, Does your child's school even offer art, music, physical education, foreign language, or other "non-essential" classes anymore?
3. Where does your child's school rank in national testing levels (reading, math, writing)?
4. What's the student-teacher ratio in your child's school?
5. Have you learned by now that not every black person is a gun-toting, drug-dealing, welfare-cheating, ebonics-talking, crotch-grabbing rap artist shiftless thug?

You need to educate yourself.


PS: Samcol: I don't get the meaning of your avatar. Could you explain it please? Thanks.

I use it because the image is being banned on social networks and in public. It is an expression of free speech.

Oddly enough, the image was created by history student (and Democratic Dennis Kucinich supporter) Firas Alkhateeb as simply an attempt to do something interesting with photoshop. The image was taken without permission, changed slightly (like adding "fascism"), and then became a popular among anti-leftists as a sort of shallow and unclear critique of Obama, or more obviously a guilt by association fallacy in picture form.
Obama Joker artist unmasked: A fellow Chicagoan | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Okay. So it's a form of protest, or an expression of free speech. I was just trying to connect the meaning of the Batman image, which I viewed as a symbol of anarchy tinged with insanity, with President Obama. I guess my question really was why you would connect Obama with Batman.

~Nevermind -- I read Will's post.

Why do we fall, sir? So that we can learn to pick ourselves back up again.

ha! :)

I'd like to see a link to this or a you tube..... I'm calling bullshit. I was in school the Reagan years and I do not recall him EVER addressing just the children.

As for Obama..... I have an issue with it. there is no reason to politicize the children. If the parents wanted or want the children to watch, have it after school, WITH the parents attending.

I have serious issues whether it had been Reagan, Clinton, either Bush or ANY president to come addressing children at school when the parents can not be there (as most have to work).

Kids grow up fast enough there is no reason whatsoever.

I was guilty of it with Bush and I'll be guilty of it now..... this is fucking Naziism. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and so on, ALL went after the kids.

Everything I held near and dear to me in the Democratic Party has been trashed and it has become worse than the GOP.

I wish to Hell there was a truly viable 3rd party.

Holy hyperbole, batman


In any case, ask and you shall receive:

November 14, 1988:






full transcript:

Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Area Junior High School Students

thanx dippin

The latest in my area:

Brevard County said will show the speech to students, but parents may have their children opt out of seeing it if they wish.
Lake County will tape the speech, and it will be up to the teachers and schools to show it if they want. Parents can have their children opt out.
Marion County will leave the decision to each individual school. Students can opt out of the speech by bringing a note from their parent Tuesday morning.
Flagler, Orange, Osceola, Seminole and Volusia counties will let teachers and principals decide if they want to air the address in their classrooms.

That all sounds a lot more political than the actual speech. I wonder if it's because we're in the bible belt.

They're not showing the speech down here in Collier County...they are linking it to their website. I'm not surprised at all, though, Naples is a really conservative community.
With all the communities opting out of showing the speech, I really just have to laugh at the theory that our schools are uber liberal places where our kids are being brainwashed with socialism.
This country ought to be fucking ashamed of itself. I am.

charlatan: I almost posted something similar last night, but I just couldn't get up the pithy amount of energy required to type it out. I think I made it as far as "These threads make my brain hurt," and then I went into "fuck it" mode. Hope everyone is doing well.

Thanks Dippin... don't remember those, don't think my school showed them and I definitely do not remember anything being said. These were broadcast in schools, elementary, junior high and senior highs right? Not just to some kids in an audience and select schools?

I still believe it is wrong. I don't believe in politicizing children, especially at school. It still smells of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and so on. Call it what you will, but the past has taught us the great tyrants in the modern age have used the children to get across their "message".

I find it funny how shows like the Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, and so on written by survivors of Naziism, stalinism and so on warned us of the very things we are going through today.

It's not just this president it's been going on for awhile, it's just hitting its stride now.

It's funny to watch the Dems swallow the piss now and believe it's lemonade. There is no difference in power mongering between the 2 parties.

The GOP said "we need to start controlling the net." The Dems yelled foul, what of our freedoms? Now, Obama says it and the Dems are ok with it and the GOP are screaming civil rights.

If you step back and stop playing partisanship, you'll see both parties wanting to take away the same rights, wanting to invade our freedoms and grab all the power they can over our lives, they just do it in slightly different ways, styles and wordings but what they want is the same POWER. Obama is nothing more or less than the figurehead puppet Reagan and W were. I truly believe in the past 25 years the only president that wasn't a puppet was Clinton and that's why even his own party turned on him.

No, I disagree. Here is one take on this aspect that I agree with:

Nothing to fear but politics itself | BlueRidgeNow.com | Times-News Online | Hendersonville, NC

And the closing remark of the article puts it into perspective, especially considering what we now know about the speech:
Just because a politician aims to get a "message" across to children, it doesn't automatically mean they're trying to build an army of fascist youth.

I think American schoolchildren need some serious inspiration today. Haven't they fallen far enough behind already?

you know what's really absurd about all this? we just passed through a period that it's hard not to see as a neo-fascist one. what characterizes fascism? a nationalist ideology predicated on an identification of the "real" people with the person of a Leader, which presupposes a tight co-ordination of opinion through a top-down media apparatus (there were no fascisms before there was radio. in the united states, it's television mostly) which enables a sense of immediate identification with the Leader who is the embodiment of the State---which is typically in a state of more or less "total mobilization" around a military project that involves an Enemy that is both within and without, everywhere and nowhere, the actions of which Threaten the Real People with annihilation---a threat that justifies the state of total mobilization, that enables the identifications to take shape.

*that* is not a bad outline of what fascism looks like. and *that* is a pretty fair outline of the "war on terror".

this is one of many reasons why i see conservative anxiety about obama as pathological. they've found themselves dragged from the Happy Place of anxiety about "terrorism" to the unhappy place of trying to muddle through the aftermath of the bush administration itself.

this is quite apart from bigger problems that may well have been triggered by the Epic Incompetence of the bush people, problems that may well result in the unravelling of the american empire as it's been constructed since world war 2, as it mutated under the figleaf of "globalizing capitalism"

what the right is doing is acting out. the underlying basis for this is a simple inversion of the structure built around the Leader during that Happy Valley Trip of the war on "terror"

again, the problem really is that there's little in the way of perspective that's being provided by the main opinion co-ordination mechanisms. so this acting out seems somehow a legitimate form of politics.

meanwhile, i expect that much of the planet thinks---again---that the united states has flipped its shit and is devolving at speed into some bizarre-o collective delusion-space.
and conservatives, who seem incapable of not conflating their own political gain with the Interests of the Real America that they like to pretend they and they alone embody, continue to drive us all further and further into the same downward spiral put into motion in spades by the endgame of the bush period.

it really is lunacy.

I've been routinely shocked at how people are reacting to anything the president does. Bush got a free ride compared to anything obama has gone through. but we have a liberal media, so what gives....

I routinely put up stuff for debate on my facebook page and people truly shock me with the vitriol towards the president. I've gotten to the point where i can't do it anymore bc it just gives me a headache and an eyetwitch. I spend 90% of my time debunking things people try to tell me. My brother seems to be in touch with the flyover states, it seems, bc he will email me the most retarded shit ever...then i'll see it on the news later bc some freaking station decided to give it credence..then it catches on.

And to think, just last year, it was liberals who wanted the country to fail...

What I particularly love is the cognitive dissonance that at the same time claims that if Obama talks about staying in school he will be completely ineffectual because the kids won't pay attention, but if he talks about politics he will brainwash every kid into volunteering for the contemporary version of Hitler's youth.

There's a bit of revisionist history in this thread that makes the reaction by some parents seem all the more looney. This occurred over about a 10 day period. Here is a bit more accurate summation of what got us here:

1) The Dept. of Education announced that Obama would do a speech to all school children. It did not include the subject matter of the speech.
2) A "homework assignment" was released to the districts which was written in cooperation with the White House which included the question (out of context) "What can I do to help President Obama?" and "What is President Obama asking of me?" No copy of the speech was provided, only the homework assignment.
3) An uproar occurs from parents to their local districts demanding to know what this is all about.
4) In response, the White House pulls the homework assignment.
5) The White House releases the text of the speech.

So, saying that everyone is upset by the fact that he is speaking to school children isn't exactly fair. It's pretty unfair to assess parents' reactions to step 2 as if they were reacting to step 5 (which they were not.) If anything, this is another shining example of the White House not being able to send a clear and concise message to the people on the first pass, which is most of their trouble in their lack of effectiveness. Had the White House released a statement such as "On Sept. 9, President Obama will make a speech to children on the importance of going to school, studying hard, and staying in school. Here is the speech and the homework assignment." - this would not have happened. Yes, there is distrust of this administration. The administration doesn't help that distrust by sending cryptic homework assignments through the "ministry of education" (just poking the bear, roachboy).

cognitive? doesn't that imply thought of some form...

You mean something like this, the letter by the sec. of education to principals explaining the speech?

That announcement was not distributed with the homework assignment. The point is that the message was not presented in a way to alay this type of reaction and that rests entirely with the White House.

so wait. are you arguing that some paranoid flight from the image of the president is normal and that the white house should have taken it into account when fashioning this event?

EXACTLY. sheesh.

I'll put my opinion this way: If GWB had done the same thing, I would have supported it. As long as he left god out of it and stuck to the importance of staying in school and such, I would have been fine. The fact that it is Obama saying these things is no different. This is the president of the country addressing the kids about a topic that we can all agree on: lurn gud

I'm arguing that the WH holds all the cards in the initial presentation of their message, if they'd spend a little more time thinking it through - this wouldn't have happened. The initial reaction from the parents was information gathering and when faced with a lack thereof (subject matter and text of speech), they opted out. This reaction by some eventually became the media firestorm, willingly fueled by 24 hr news to bruise the administration. If the information had been made available at the same time as the announcement, the parents would have gone, "Oh! Okay, that makes sense." and it would have been over.

If the WH press dept. is too obtuse to recognize that any lapse in message is going to be feasted upon, then they are just that - obtuse. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Sounds very similar to how they handled the health care bill. It's like they are trying to be vague about every issue until a huge shitstorm ensues, and then they try to back track and explain what the heck is really going on.

Also, why did it take them so long to release the transcript to clam everyone down? It was quite apparent that many people were not pleased about him speaking and could of been taken care of if they released the text earlier.

so you really are arguing that.
jesus.

beneath that, however, you are pointing to the problem---conservative memes getting way way way too much press attention without adequate indicators that they are fucked up. they get press and they're presented as if they represented a legitimate political position. THAT'S the problem.

if that wasn't happening, none of this idiocy would get traction amongst the paranoid set.

Then again, it is the dismissal of absurdities that can come back to haunt a campaign. Those absurdities can gain traction in today's world where every nutjob can have a voice on FOX News.

You are a smart guy so I think you can drop your punditry long enough to at least imagine, for a moment, that the speech Obama was going to give was on healthcare or the environment (I KNOW that it wasn't, but imagine that was the actual speech he intended to give). Can you at least understand that some parents would not have wanted to have their kids subjected to that speech? I believe that you can, just as you can understand how other parents would not have wanted their kids subjected to a Bush speech on the importance of interrogating prisoners (just an inverse political hot-button, thats all).

Now, in the absence of a subject matter (due to a failure on the WH's part), the parents opted out. In the presence of subject matter, parents would not opted out. Since the initial opt-out by some parents - the WH, media, and you guys are rewriting the event to make it look like those parents acted entirely irrational to a speech on staying in school which, in truth, was not what they were reacting to. Is it so hard to admit, "Yep, the WH should have been more on point" and move on?

FTR, I do not have my children pulled out of the Obama speech and never did.

---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

...or MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, the internet,...

Just sayin'

This. Exactly. I didn't agree with 99.99% of the Bush administration; I also wasn't in denial that he was, in fact, the president.

Hear, hear!:thumbsup: You are precisely on point.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

Wow, some reasoned comments. It was getting kinda funny reading liberals debating among themselves and creating straw-men arguments to make conservatives look stupid

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------

Again, it is the liberal media and liberal talking heads falling all over themselves to be the first in line to making the most of this non-story and to try to conclude any train of thought against Obama is a view held by every conservative.

...

A vacuum of information gets filled by the worst fears held by people. This and many of Obama's problems can be summed up by this tendency he has to be vague.

The 1000+ page resolution is anything but vague. And the transcript makes it perfectly clear that there's nothing vague at all. It's some nice platitudes about staying in school. The shit storm was manufactured by the corrupt and taken up by the foolish.
It seems you assume there was some sort of subterfuge in releasing the transcript when they did. "take them so long" relative to what? Relative to the fake controversy, you mean?

If the Obama White House responded to every bullshit controversy cooked up by the anti-progressives, they wouldn't be able to deal with the occupations, the economy, or anything else. It's not the West Wing's job to buy into the false perception that the anti-progressives deserve any attention.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this and follow your line of reasoning - that which would lead a sane person to the kind of lunacy that we have witnessed over the airing of this speech and, I'm sorry, it just ain't happening.

I imagine myself, 4 years ago, say right after GWB's re-election when I was feeling pretty ornery and still 'licking my wounds,' so to speak, from the disappointment of the election.

I imagine that I received word that a speech would be aired by the president on the first day of school. Do I suppose that speech is about the rightness of the war? About the benefits of prayer in schools? About the moral implications of pre-marital sex? No, that would be insane. Of course I would assume that he is talking about SCHOOL. What the hell else would he be talking about?

Now the issue of the 'homework.'
If in coordination with this mystery speech which I would assume was about...SCHOOL...there was a request for the children to write an essay saying what they can do to 'help the president' I would, naturally, since I am assuming that the president is talking about SCHOOL, believe that they are to write something about improving their grades or tutoring other kids or helping their teachers by being better behaved, whatever. Of course, in my head, I would be thinking what I would like to do to help the president, but you know, that's just me.

I don't buy the argument that the way the information was released is the reason for the insanity. The only way to buy it, is to assume that what we are dealing with is a totally delusional epidemic of mass paranoia. It can't be explained by: they released the information in the wrong order. The entire premise of the reaction was irrational.

I'm not referring to the text of the bill which is now available, but rather how it was presented from the beginning. Obama and the democrats almost gave no information about the bill and tried to get it passed without even reading it.

Likewise the school speech's proposed content was very vague at first, which created a window of opportunity for speculation in the school speech and likewise with the healthcare fiasco.

Still waiting for a direct answer to my question from two days ago.

I agree with your analysis. I hope that all this nonsense backfires on any polititian who subscribes to it. It is almost like the news shows are covering a continuous Palin rally.

the only real choice that conservatives (in general) have here, now that this is happening and the nuttiness of it is becoming evident (as if it wasn't in the context of the town hall things or in the context of the census business) is to try to create the impression that this is a rational response. think about the ground they're walking if they don't do it. it's a bit of a wag the dog thing.

It seems stupidity freely rides the political pendulum. Is history simply repeating itself, or do they know we'll fall for it every time? A little histoical perspetive if you please...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com

First of all, that's completely wrong. All Congressmen and women are allowed to see the text of a resolution before being asked to vote on it. All of them. The text was available from July 14. No one tried to force a vote before then or immediately after then. That's a complete fabrication. I read the entire resolution in one sitting in an evening, highlighted a few parts, and then reread it the next day. Am I special? Am I a better reader than the members of congress? Of course not.
Having never worked in White House communications, neither you nor I can speculate as to when the final draft of the speech was finally finished. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, there's no reason at all to suspect that a finished copy of the speech was purposefully kept from the public. Suggesting anything otherwise is entirely dishonest.

Obama ran a politically flawless campaign because he was perfect at "controlling the message." His opponents were just as vigorous, just as willing to extrapolate and take things out of context then as they are now. Yet, the message was too clear to distort. Why he can't continue to do that during his presidency is beyond me - and that's what is killing his presidency.

I stand by all my other analysis.

Some of us, including me, are not as trusting as you. I assumed he was going to "use" children for his political purposes and I was offended by that thought.

---------- Post added at 07:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

Perhaps, I read too fast and I may be prone to miss things from time to time - so do me a favor and restate your question and I will respond.

---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 PM ----------

I told you what I did. And I am not trying to turn what I did into some kind of rational response that would satisfy you. Again, in a vacuum of information... And, I am pretty much telling you and everyone else how I will respond to "vagueness" in the future. I don't give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Is that not clear?

well, ace, if you were the only person on the right, it would hardly matter to me how you responded. in fact, the more i think about it, the harder a time i am having thinking of anything that would interest, much less concern me less.

but you are again trying to do the same thing as you've been working the past few days: trying to erase the simple fact of a conservative media apparatus, to erase the fact of conservative opinion management and to erase the fact that this stuff has effects.
i think your position entirely absurd.
but hey, feel free to repeat it.
maybe in about 30 years, people will forget that the world is otherwise and just start going along with you.

Ace,
The "lack of trust" gets to a point where it's hard to believe we live in a same country. Also, let's talk about trust.. you give it to Palin, who starts this death panel BS. Then, (hopefully), you see it's not true, how can you keep trusting someone who makes allegations like this?

Do you really think Obama's gonna march us right into Third Reich mode? Do you really think he's gonna off your grandma?

There comes a point where maybe a human being gains the ability to think critically, and not believe outrageous, unfounded, crazy shit....no???

Perhaps, I read too fast and I may be prone to miss things from time to time - so do me a favor and restate your question and I will respond.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

Do you believe that a message directed to school children about the importance of staying in school, working hard, and taking personal responsibility is a bad message? If you do not, then how can you be even the slightest bit upset that the president of the united states is giving said message to the nations children?

So you agree that people should essentially assume that Obama is trying to brainwash their children?

The absurdity clearly is yours, on one hand you create arguments based on what you consider conservative thought while ignoring actual conservative thoughts.

Never said that, won't agree, won't fall into your trap. I know this disagreement won't affect my ability to admire you in other threads. Have a nice day.

For the 5th or 6th time I will say the use of the terms "death panel" was inappropriate, however the underlying issue is not. The underlying issue is how government will allocate limited health care resources. Given a private sector we have government (regulation and judicial) as recourse.

I do not agree with Palin 100% of the time, when we disagree I state that.

I don't know what you mean by "Third Reich" mode, but based on what I assume you mean I will say no.

My grandmothers are not alive. My mother-in-law, on Medicare, recently had a required medical procedure done - the doctor prescribed a medicine that cost about $1,500 - the doctor was questioned by Medicare and had to justify his decision to government bureaucrats. I think we face some tough choices in the future, I am not clear on how Obama's plan will address these issues in the future. In direct response to you question I say - no. However, I have concerns and questions - don't you?

I never had the intent of holding my son out of school, however I was offended by what Obama originally stated his plan was.

{added} That stuff with my mother-in-law occurred on a Friday afternoon, my wife and her sister had to raise holy hell to get the issue resolved before everyone shut down for the weekend. If they had not gotten involved my mother-in-law would have gone about 2 1/2 days without the medication.

---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------


No. It is a good message.

First, it is an issue of timing. He is giving the message at a time when his favorability ratings are falling. "Kissing babies" is a common political ploy, I don't like it, I think it is the one of the worst things a politician can do.

Second, he gave the children an assignment - write a letter explaining how you can help the President. I found that offensive and contributed to my thought that he was politicizing his message to children.

Third, being from Illinois, Obama as a State Representative and a Senator representing Illinois and one of the worst school districts in the nation (Chicago) I was offended by the thought that he did nothing to improve Chicago schools and now wants to address America's schools

Fourth, Obama is a public official who sends his children to private school.

Fifth, Obama is sending his children to a private school in DC and is not affording the same opportunity to other children in DC through the opportunity scholarship.

Sixth, Duncan his Sec of Education was a patronage appointment in my view.

All of the above offended me. Call me absurd, ignore my thoughts, create your false arguments, blame conservative talking heads, whatever...but Obama has a credibility problem and it is his problem not mine.

what the? I am not trying to trap you. Let me put it to you from another direction.

What was the essential nature of the reaction to the 'homework assignment'? How do you suppose the people interpreted it? What did they think it was?

With all due respect, it's the same direction. You are far more interested in being right than trying to understand the not-so-extreme rationale of parents who may not want their 6-year-olds listening to a speech mildly peppered with climate change references. Perhaps they just want their kids to be kids for a little while longer. I'm certain that, upon reading the speech, many parents looked forward to a pep talk from POTUS. I know it's easier to think of them all as bitter, boom stick, sky ghost morans (incorrectly spelled for effect) - you know, because they disagree with you.

Can you point out the references to climate change in the speech?

Would it be this passage:

You'll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment.

Perhaps the issue is not what is in the speech, but what some see in the speech that really isnt there.

Dude, please re-read all of my posts. You are so far off my point, I don't want to repeat. Just start at #121

Your references to "peppered with climate change..." came long after the issue of the lesson plan was resolved.

But even in the original lesson plan, there were no references to climate change, health care reform, or any policy issue.

I stand by what I posted....some see things that arent there

some of the fallout in the real world.
things to note: the florida republicans backed off the positions that folk here are still defending once the speech was available.
alot of schools didn't show the speech because of this paranoid nonsense from the right.
but of course, that's all a coincidence and there is no conservative media apparatus, there is no co-ordinated conservative political action.
just a bunch of free-thinkin americans coming up with exactly the same line at exactly the same moment.
amazing.

Schools boycott Obama speech as critics abruptly change tone | World news | guardian.co.uk

This is an absurd statement and illustrates you have not really read what has been written here. Isn't there a difference between explaining what happened, pointing out the root casue of the reaction compared to defending the speech? To reasoned people there is a difference.

I'm beginning to wonder if some people think it might be better for their political agenda to have a less educated population. Study hard and stay in school indeed. Really it probably just boils down to the fact that some just hate this President and his philosophy and simply want to silence him or at least not give him credit even when his message is something they agree with.

Do you have blind unquestioning faith in the President?

If you ever question the President is it going to be because you "just hate this President and his philosophy and simply want to silence him or at least not give him credit even when his message is something they (you) agree with."?

That message is actually found on the website where the homework assignments were posted and distributed, and that message was sent to all principals.

i read the article, ace, and i simply provided a teaser at the beginning to encourage folk to read it for themselves.
i don't do plot summaries.

i dont think i need to summarize this.

Of course. Anyone seeking public approval for something which is not in the interest of the public has only certain weapons in his or her arsenal: fear, anger, and ignorance. As soon as one or more of these is triggered, fostered, or inspired, the public losses its objectivity and cannot make an informed decision.

(face-palm) Referring back to post 121, I was referring to parents who originally saw the homework, but the subject and text were, at the time, unavailable. They could have opted out for the reason I stated in the post you referenced and that would not have been some batshit crazy reason to do so. Once the text came out, I'm certain all reasonable people opted back in to speech. The prevailing contention in this thread is that ANY parent that EVER thought twice about letting their child see Obama's speech is an absolute lunatic. I am simply trying to state that there was a set of circumstances which, for a brief period of time, may have justified exclusion.

Any individual parent who had the opportunity to read the speech and still opted their children out acted in an irrational way. I am certain there were many of them. Yes, I am certain the media interviewed ALL of them. Any school district that didn't show the speech after the text was released was yielding to the irrational parents. They were being politically expedient because they are elected officials. I am certain there were many of them. I am certain the media interviewed ALL of them.

Bottom line for me:

There are serious public policy issues worthy of expressions of opposition.

This speech and the "controversy" surrounding it from the outset was not one of those issues.

IMO, the controversy was pure political theater fueled by partisan extremism.

...and since you say that it was, it must be true - even though history shows that that information was not readily available to parents and they, therefore opted out of the speech. If the WH had controlled the message, none of this would have happened. (Fifth time repeated.)

It is a fact that there was nothing in the original lesson plan "peppered with climate change" or any policy issue (for the third time).

Perhaps the people that originally opted out were not in any way attempting to "express opposition" but merely keep their kids out of politics (see above posts)? Perhaps it was the media that turned this into "an expression of political opposition fueled by partisan extremism" and not the parents?

(I will repeat that I never pulled my kids from the speech.)

I would suggest it was parents like the chairman of the Florida Republican party (go back and read his initial press release), Republican members of Congress who played their own "I'm a parent" card, and the bloggers/infotainers (not media) on the right...who collectively attempted to make this "non-issue" a partisan issue.

I am certain that was the case and a copy of the text at the time the "lesson plan" was prepared would have confirmed that. Control the message (sixth time)

Man, this is FUN!:thumbsup:

I get it now....a speech by Obama, any speech, and...Republicans scream..."the sky is falling!" (hidden climate change message)

OMG, WHAT A SHOCKER! A Republican politician opposed Obama saving a cat stuck in a tree!

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 PM ----------

An isosceles triangle has three sides.

No. It is a good message.



First, it is an issue of timing. He is giving the message at a time when his favorability ratings are falling. "Kissing babies" is a common political ploy, I don't like it, I think it is the one of the worst things a politician can do.

Second, he gave the children an assignment - write a letter explaining how you can help the President. I found that offensive and contributed to my thought that he was politicizing his message to children.

Third, being from Illinois, Obama as a State Representative and a Senator representing Illinois and one of the worst school districts in the nation (Chicago) I was offended by the thought that he did nothing to improve Chicago schools and now wants to address America's schools

Fourth, Obama is a public official who sends his children to private school.

Fifth, Obama is sending his children to a private school in DC and is not affording the same opportunity to other children in DC through the opportunity scholarship.

Sixth, Duncan his Sec of Education was a patronage appointment in my view.

All of the above offended me. Call me absurd, ignore my thoughts, create your false arguments, blame conservative talking heads, whatever...but Obama has a credibility problem and it is his problem not mine.[/QUOTE]


First: So you feel it's a good message just not right now?
Second: Homework is indoctrination?
Third: Because in your mind he didn't do a good job as state senator for education, he can't do one now?
Fourth:His children go to private school?
Fifth:Idon't even know what this is supposed to mean
Sixth: Duncan was a patronage appointment?

None of these reasons is in anyway rational to the topic at hand. Your only justification for not wanting him to speak to kids is that if enough conservatives give him a hard time over trivial nonsense, he won't be able to do anything more important.

No and no.
I understand some of the concerns people have with government control of health care insurance or most anything else for that matter. But I don't understand getting all upset because the President wants to address our school children. No matter who the President is I would assume it would be a message of inspiration. I thought President Bush's speech to children was very good also.

In my opinion these objections to President Obama's speech are way over the top. Also I think he has a compelling personal story of academic and personal success that may just inspire some students to try harder.

Only marginally less childish than the money spent by the Republican Congress in the 90s investigating Clinton's cat, Socks. :)

Why did the President bow down to, in the view of many, a completely irrational response to a Present simply giving a pep talk to school children?

Recapping last week:

We had the announcement of the speech, we had the lesson plan. Obama gave the speech, but due to "irrational" pressure released the text of the speech in advance. Due to "irrational" pressure the President backed off of his original lesson plan for the students. Why did he even respond to "irrational" people?

We had the "irrational" Glenn Beck going off on Van Jones for what seemed to be months. The mainstream media ignored the issue until last week. Van Jones resigns due to a conservative "witch hunt", in the middle of the night on a Friday before a long weekend. The President makes no comment and does not support his appointee, he does not express disappointment in Jone's positions. "Irrational" right wingers at it again!

So, the only "win" Obama had was, he actually gave the speech. Otherwise, irrationality ruled the day.

What is worse is you think it is the "mobs" problem.:confused:

Is Obama a puppet to irrational people or does he have a backbone? His next opportunity to prove he does is Wednesday. I am betting more vagueness, more of the same, more confusion not less.

Sorry...I dont live in "ace" world.

So, why did you conclude others simply don't like the President and that is the basis of their problems with him?

Perhaps, the issue was not just the words in the speech. If you have been reading what has been written (see post #121), you might have a better understanding of the issue.

I agree. I also think Obama has had a positive influence on American politics by getting young people actively involved in politics who would ordinarily not care, I stated that several times over the past year or so. I also think he is a good basketball player for a politician. He has a nice smile. He pronounces his words correctly as opposed to Bush. He has a great family and seems to care for them deeply. He is well groomed (I am not going to add the racist part that came from Biden "for a black man"). And a few other things.

---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 PM ----------

No apology needed, I know the world you live in. Enjoy it.

His basketball game and grooming habits are not what I was referring to.

I re-read post #121 and I guess you are referring to:
"2) A "homework assignment" was released to the districts which was written in cooperation with the White House which included the question (out of context) "What can I do to help President Obama?" and "What is President Obama asking of me?" No copy of the speech was provided, only the homework assignment."

This should not upset anyone no matter which President asks it. Obvious answers would be "I can help President Obama by staying in school and encouraging my friends to as well and President Obama is asking me to stay in school, study hard and listen to my teachers".

I can't understand why anyone would not just assume the President (no matter who he or she might be) was going to give an inspirational speech to school chiildren.

What was so offensive about those questions that you couldn't answer them?

If you'd prefer not to answer, I'll just go along with Ace's description here:
...and assume that is the answer.

I just want to understand. Seems now it's a sensitive issue for some reason.

My view is not complicated and I am surprised with the response. I have a child and the thought of someone exploiting my child or children in general is never something I am going to take lightly. Call me over-protective, call it irrational, I don't care, but if I don't trust a person I am not going to be comfortable with my child being exposed to that person. With that said, I also know there are some people out there who are simply against Obama for whatever their reasons and will use every issue, any issue to try and make him look bad. Obama needs to understand the difference between those with legitimate concerns and those who are simply on the attack. Perhaps, the irony is lost, but in my view Obama was wise to release the speech and to change the lesson plan. But, I still believe he showed a lack of foresight and created his own problem here. When people with rational concerns are grouped with those with irrational concerns it simply angers those with rational concerns.

Most of the people here seem to want to "win" all sides of this issue. For example if the public response was truly irrational, a strong leader does not need to respond to irrationality. If the concerns were truly irrational a strong leader simply gives the speech and follows through with their plan. It is interesting to look at a past President like Nixon. Nixon not only did not respond to the irrational, he did not respond to the rational. Nixon seems to me to be on one extreme (Nixon didn't give a shit), Obama and his administration on the other (constantly complaining about the right and constantly bending to their will). And, you guys here seem to be o.k. with that??? I don't get it.

The idea that a parent can shield his child from everything he doesn't trust strikes me not as irrational, but more as naive. I only had a few years experience at the parenting thing, but I can tell you that no matter the effort, other influences will get through. The best way to deal with them is to instill values, morals, ethics into your son or daughter so that when he or she is faced with an opinion you may not agree with, he or she can make the determination independently as to whether the opinion is something they agree with or not.

Anyway, there's really nothing specifically in the speech which anyone can claim is in any way bad, so I can't imagine a reasonable justification for being offended by it.

As for it being political: everything the president does is going to be seen as political. Pundits tear into President Obama for eating hamburgers, for christ's sake. What we, as learned and objective people, should strive to do is to separate ourselves from the bullshit. Is this the good kind of political or the bad kind of political?

and you believe your kids need to be protected from a speech made by the President?

Sorry, I don't find that to be rational. And I don't care who the president is.

No. I was offended by what I thought his original intent was. I never planed on keeping my son out of school.

Will, my way of responding to my son being exposed to people I don't trust changes as he gets older. In the case of a political issue for a 12 year-old, we talk about it. I ask him questions, my questions help him see all sides of an issue. We do it regularly, he often comes home with one sided liberal ideas. I don't believe in forcing him to share my views or in trying to shelter him - but I do think it important that he enjoys his childhood. One problem from today, (he heard the speech, in real time), is that he understand that he cannot save the world single handedly, the world is not going to end (let you country down, etc.) if you forget to do your homework, although his mother disagrees.

I didn't read the part of the speech where the weight of the world was put on a child's shoulders, I read more a "you can do your part" kind of thing, and doing his part would be doing his homework, staying in school, etc.

Truly, there's nothing to be upset about concerning this speech. I'm much rather we were spending our time and energy tackling life and death issues than this.

So a president is supposed to anticipate fears of the right, which, in a lot of cases, are fabrications and purely irrational? Give me a break.
The President says he's giving a speech to students, what's the absolute worst that can happen to your kids?
Do you cross the street when you see a smoker because you don't think your kid should see cancer-inducing behavior?

just gotta ask...was anyone as happy as i was that there was no 9-11 reference or invocation of god in our schools

He didn't even mention ACORN, or talk about wise Latinas. I was almost disappointed.

He talked about "the future of this country depends on you", "the cure of diseases like cancer depend on you", etc. that is a big burden to put on children on their first day of school, and that is something my son picked up on - "we are going to have fix all the problems you (my generation) left for us. Then there were the stories, i.e. one child fought brain cancer since 3 spending 100's of extra hours doing home work to get into college- my son leaves for school at 7:30 am, gets home at 4:00, pays football and had practice at 6:15 to 8:00, has homework and other responsibilities and was in disbelief that a person could have "100's of extra" hours for homework. He needed that to be put in perspective. Those are a few examples of what we talked about.

One of my biggest fears is my son getting "burned out" with school. It is important that there is balance, I know people who "burned out", one person I knew attempted suicide in collage because of academic issues. Again, I am not complaining about the speech, but it required some discussion.

It is interesting, I think if you were one of my son's teachers, we would do a lot of discussing of what you talk about in class everyday without fail. If DC were one of his teachers, I think I would put him in a different school, even if I had to move, even if I had to move to a different state, or move to a state - you know a place were you could actually vote for representation, sorry for that shot, couldn't resist.:thumbsup:.

---------- Post added at 12:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 AM ----------

He should not engage irrational thought. For example Bush never engaged those who claimed he was responsible for 9/11. A President has a responsibility to address legitimate concerns, it is better if he/she anticipates them. When you say something is irrational and then respond to it, something doesn't add up in my book.

I am even amazed by the number of people who make claims about me, my arguments, train of thought, etc., and actually read what I write. If I thought about them what they think about me, I would not waste my time. I don't understand that. after all this is an anonymous forum and I have no power to influence them or them me. I engage people with different views to try and get a better understanding of those views, and I like posting to put my thoughts in writing. I enjoy it.

Just fyi, President Obama wasn't charging your son with finding the cure for cancer. He was presenting a real problem to the next generation of doctors and researchers, as a goal to be attempted. Like I said, platitudes. If I were to give a speech to American students, I'd probably include stuff like that, too. "If you work hard and apply yourself, you could become the doctor to cure cancer." It's a nice sentiment, if a bit pie in the sky.

If I were your son's teacher, I'd challenge his beliefs regardless of what they were. If he was a hard left wing progressive, I'd challenge him just as much as I'd challenge Limbaugh Jr. One of my best teachers was my freshman Bio teacher that challenged my position on evolution. She managed to change my position because I hadn't formed a strong position to begin with, and my understanding grew as a direct result of her teaching. That's what teachers are supposed to do in order to create free-thinking, creative, and intelligent adults. I'd be remiss if I didn't do everything I could to teach your son how to learn and how to think for himself. Unless I were a PE teacher. They mostly just make kids to jumping jacks and uncomfortable square dancing. Man was that uncomfortable.

i hate to say it, but your kids ARE going to have to fix the problems of the previous generation. Most kids get to build on what the previous did...yours will get to undo a lot of the f**ked up stuff that has been going on. that's not 'pie in the sky' or a 'sentiment' or a 'burden'..it's the honest truth.

Visual summary of the speech:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kRBjeapDKT...ion+speech.jpg

Quoted for truth.

I still stick by original assessment and question, If this was so important and not a political ploy and pandering and trying to get to the parents through the children..... then why not have it done later so that parents could attend with their children?????

The president "giving homework" to elementary students while we are at war, our economy is falling apart, our infrastructure is decrepit and needs serious work, the country is extremely divided in so many ways, crime is increasing, drug use is increasing, wages are decreasing, we are bailing out the ultra rich and costing our future generations to live with those costs, the citizens are being told to shut up and are flat assed ignored.... and Obama blames all of that on W.

What's Obama's solution.... address the kids about staying in school and letting them know he was once like them... of course his kids aren't, they go to private schools and well, he was educated where exactly???? What public schools did he go to??? But he was just like that kid in the inner cities and rural areas. :rolleyes:

But lying to kids and trying to tell them you were just like them without telling them the whole truth, is a good thing, it's not politicizing and trying to win kids over, not at all.

That Reagan never did this?

No, it's because you're a racist, of course.

I need someone to explain why Obama had to feed his colossal ego by barging in on school hours, rather than making his speech in the evening. If you believe his sycophants, it was impossible for kids to hear his speech unless it was presented during school hours, and it could never be pulled up on the web.

Is that kind of like discussing this bullshit while we are at war, etc, etc.?



Last I checked, no one said this was his "solution."

This faux outrage is getting ridiculous. It was one speech. One speech in thousands that every president will give.

Getting low on the list of talking points are we?

This is insane. People have absolutely gone insane, yet they continue to walk around free. It's totally fucking frightening.