Parents Protecting Kids From President Obama?
 

So I get this automated phone call from the girls' high school that on September 9th, the school will be broadcasting President Obama's speech. It goes on to casually state something to the tune of "we frequently listen to politician's speeches and what Obama has to say is not of a political nature, only to urge our kids to stay in school." Then it says, "If you have a problem with this, please contact school administration." :mad:

I'm furious. First of all, has anyone ever had to listen to a disclaimer before they heard ANY President or even politician speak to a school? Has this country been offered the opportunity to bow out because you're Pres is scary? :rolleyes: I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that kids would need a freakin' permission slip to watch the country's President speak to them.

Is this throughout the country? What are they afraid of? Tell me I'm lost in my idealism and naivete, please. This is so infuriating and sad.

Some Parents Oppose Kids Watching Obama Speech - Education News Story - WFTV Orlando

Several local schools here (Columbus, OH) have already capitulated to the crazies and have canceled the speech entirely. I wrote a letter to the newspaper about it....I hope they publish it. The irony of the Real Americans [tm] deciding to raise another stink and basically shit on people's freedom of choice is appalling.

Luckily for us, our daughter's school is showing the speech (with the OPTION to have your kid not see it) rather than canceling it outright.

It's funny....I thought no president would ever be as hated as GWB, but the Obama hate (or fear?) is on it's own level. I hated GWB, but I would never raise a stink if he was giving my kid a speech about staying in school....

Is that what it is? The schools here require the kids attend Rachel's Challenge assemblies and even push the parents to come to an assembly to understand what it's about. I have no objection to this and it seems neither do the other parents. But why would there even be a choice here when it's about encouraging words for all students?

9 months into his presidency and in every fuckin bookstore in every airport in the country I walk into, Obama is staring me down on over half the magazines on the shelf......sometimes with his shirt off. I don't hate him - liberal fascination with him has turned him freakin creepy. That and the fact that he has proven himself incapable of giving a speech without complaining about what he inherited from the big bad administration before him, yeah he doesn't need to address the nations kids.

I think I recall hearing Reagan address the schools when something important happened, like a space shuttle blowing up, but nevertjust randomly and out of the blue. Obama's already too much in my face, for god sake's spare our kids. I'm not crazy and I dont' hate presidents.

Liberals, painting every person who opposes whatever you think is right does not make one crazy Don't let your ideology get the best of you.

Were you upset when Bush talked to school children about no child left behind?

In fact, Reagan had a nationwide address to school kids during national education week....beamed into schools around on the country on c-span and a special learning network set up for schools...no different than what Obama is doing, other than the timing.

And which, during the Q&A , he promoted his conservative agenda.

Another example of the hypocrisy of the right.

I'm not upset now, and though I don't remember the event, if I had to guess I'd say I was probably high when Bush talked to school children about no child left behind. So I'd say no, I wasn't upset then either.

You can substitute Reagan in every context here...

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Some of you won't like this and will think it is off point or whatever, so save yourself some stress and don't read what follows.

The problem with Obama's speech to the schools is a problem for two reasons, one - over exposure with far too many contradictory statements. Two, people like Van Jones in his administration. Obama seems to lack moral clarity and conviction in my view. His administration immediately changed the "lesson plan" they outlined further illustrating the point and adding fuel to the fire started by those against him. Once, just once he needs to show he has a backbone and stand firm against his critics. He needs to lead. He needs to act like a President. In some other threads there are discussion about Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity, etc., these people live for attention, the spot light and for a President to single extreme radio/TV talk show people out is beneath the dignity of his office further contributing to school systems and protesters to act against allowing the speech, they can change his behavior. The sad part is that he and others will walk away from this blaming others rather than placing the blame at the feet of the President.

Its not off point...its just bullshit since you have admitted, in so many words, on numerous occasions that are biased to the core when it comes to Obama.

We know you prefer Bush/Cheney leadership style of misleading the American people into a war, ignoring the other two branches of government and illegally spying on american citizens, approving torture in violation of all US treaty obligations......

Reagan nationwide TV address to school kids = OK
Obama nationwide TV address to school kids = not acceptable because of people like Van Jones

Are you capable of speaking without accusing someone of being a hypocrit? I'm all ears, please elaborate how exactly that thought makes me a "hypocrit".

It is not hypocrisy. Conservatives liked and supported Reagan. Conservatives do not like and do not support Obama. Conservatives are being pretty consistent with their views and how they act on those views. And, most conservatives are not going to have their children boycott school that day. Most schools even in conservative districts will play the speech and cooperate with what the administration wants.

Read what I wrote...the conservatives who are making this an issue are hypocrites.

If it was Ok for a president to hold such a TV event in 1988, why is it so unacceptable now?

A bias that is acknowledged is not "bullshit", it is being open and honest. I am not sure you understand the difference between my "bias" against Obama and my disagreements regarding his policies, and perhaps you don't care - either way I will state where I come from on these issues.

The American people were not mislead into war. Bush clearly explained his case, and explained it a second time when he was re-elected. If you were mislead speak for your self and ask how it happened. Don't take a superiority position saying 'every body else was mislead but I knew the the truth'...attitude. I explained many times why I supported military action in Iraq and it had nothing to do with Bush.

I had a longer response in mind, but I'll paraphrase--

"For fuck's sake."

That's not what you wrote, or implied. You quoted me and called it hypocrisy. Read what you wrote......too.

What a riveting conversation.

right on , ace! :thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 11:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

I corrected you on your false statement that Reagan never held such an event and that you can substitute Reagan for Obama throughout your post.

The hypocrisy was directed towards those making a stink about this upcoming Obama event.

Because they don't support Obama. They do not like Obama. They think Obama is dishonest. Etc. Etc. Gee whiz, why don't you get that? Not everyone has all of those views, and some hold those views to varying degress, but these people are out there and Obama knows it. It should not be a surprise that Obama will face opposition. He will face it in every thing, everything he does. The problem is not having opposition. The problem with Obama is how he handles it.

what's hilarious in this is that obama is simply using the same techniques for getting political messages out that the reagan administration developed. what differs is that obama actually fields unscripted questions from audiences and the press--conservatives haven't done that. so their use of the message channels was from its inception far more staged in order to appear more "strong" or "decisive" (you can insert any of a host of terms here that indicate the conservative preference for a fantasy father figure). because conservatives in general seem to have trouble investing in obama as a fantasy father figure, but seem in general to remain committed to the structure that enables them to like fantasy fathers, they turn obama into some Persecuting Other. and from there, it makes some sense that conservative activists would find traction for an action that basically does nothing except pander to this underlying desire for a Strong Decider Image who make them feel Safe because he's o so manly by pandering to its paranoid inversion.

that this is a pathological game is i suppose only a problem if you dont see it as a game at all, but rather as an expression of your political views.

i don't see much latitude for interpreting this nonsense without reference to paranoia.
it's irrational.
it's conservatism these days.

This the the stupidest thing ever. If you have a problem with Obama speaking to America's school children, there is a 95% chance that you are an asshole.

Perhaps the crassness of this comment places it beneath the standards of discussion on this board. However, I'm not entirely convinced that discussion of this matter is warranted.

WTF...are you really that disengaged from reality?

Presidents speak to the American people....of all ages. One may not always agree with the speaker, but to question that the event comes with the job title, President of the United States, is nonsense. In 1988, when Reagan held such an event, I dont recall there being such a national uproar from the left to such an innocuous event.

The screaming and ranting on the right is pure political theater and hypocrisy at its finest.

Beyond the hypocisy, IMO, its another example of the intolerance of some on the right....not wanting to expose their children to an address by the leader of the country -- to focus on staying in school and studying hard to succeed - if they dont agree with his broader policies and actions.

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 PM ----------

For the record, a transcript of the Reagan event:

Hmm.

So where does that leave those of us who think Reagan and Bush The Elder were -also- engaging in bullshit unconstitutional collectivist propagandizing?

if it weren't such a horror show of moronic maladjustment, it'd be downright funny.

What a profound statement of how effective the political machine has become. I try to stay out of any political discussions at any time. This string however, has raised my hackles. I'm hoping someone can shed some light on my confusion.

When did this nation change to 'parties of opposition' from 'united we stand'?
When was the last time a president was elected as opposed to buying the office?
Why do people abandon all reason and simply vote and promote the party line at the first sign of opposition?

Okay, I don't want to be rude and exceed the accepted 3 question limit so I'll simply state my view.

When we set aside individual thought and indulge in 'group think' it is a disservice to ourselves and everyone around us. As citizens it is our duty to question what our government does and says. It is our duty to demonstrate opposition to those ideas we do not agree with. It is our duty to be heard and seen. WE ARE NOT subjects of the government, WE ARE citizens of the greatest nation on Earth and our government is in service to us. The governments sole duty is to represent us to the rest of the world. To the rest of the world we are all currently Douche bags. I don't really care for how the government has represented me in my life time. I don't really care for the division created in our nation. I do believe the only way we will ever have good representation in this nation is to remove money from government and return it to the people along with the power it embodies.

Oh, and NO politician, regardless of party or intent needs to be talking to any one under 18 years old without direct parental supervision.




..

:rolleyes:

Sorry for my lapse of reasonable response on this, but this is what comes to mind:

"I don't want my kid(s) to hear Obama's speech because....

he's an illegitimate president [birthers]
he's not my president [political obstructionists]
he's a socialist/he's driving America to communism [political ignoramuses]
he's a black man [racists]
he's ruining our country [Chicken Littles]
he's the Antichrist [religious zealots]
he's a Muslim (i.e. a terrorist) [paranoid zealots]"

...

Sorry....

Now, when I say this, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I'm a really white guy, but this is the first thing that came to mind. Oh, and I'm fairly conservative, at least Willravel thinks so :D

I feel like, if it had been Bill Clinton speaking to America's children, people would have had very little to say about it. Yep, I just pulled the race card.

He's the fucking President of the United States. When the PRESIDENT cannot address the nation's children, there is something fundamentally wrong. Not to say we didn't know something was wrong, but this, to me, is just retarded. I don't care who won. Once he wins, he's got the mic. When people filter the president, it's kinda strange to me. Sure a parent can do this, but an institution such as a school doing this seems out of place. Maybe it's not race, but it's something, and it's something that stands out to me.

Everything BUT "he is the democratically elected head of the executive branch". Way to teach the kids civics and government, conservatives!

Deep down, I hope this was a tactical move by the Obama admin to try and shed light on how ridiculously petty and shallow the little dog and pony show that passes for mainstream American Conservatism is. I recognize that it probably isn't.

What really gets me is that I think that most of the complainers are some of the same misguided fucks who complain that Obama isn't being bipartisan enough. They can't even get over their own partisanship enough to let their kids listen to the president of the united states. Like somehow Obama is going to get on the mic and implore their children to become socialists. What a bunch of assholes (95% of them, at least).

and the funniest part is that Obama is doing this address to talk about the importance of staying in school. No staged Q&A to advance an agenda like Reagan did. How can anyone disagree with the message of "stay in school?"

When this first popped up in my news, I was amused to see that Conservatives were now using the same rhetoric as many who, during the Bush administration, became upset with Bush making speeches to kids/youth/in their home town. They talked of protesting or boycotting etc. I thought, "Wow, Conservatives know how to be traitors, too!"

Had a pleasant little chuckle at the turn around and the rich, rich irony.

Then I read a few more articles and realized this time it was different. This time the coverage of "a few crazies" is much bigger. It leads me to believe that this time there are either more than just a few nut jobs looking to keep their kids from listening to a speech by the President, or the media is given the few nut jobs a bigger platform in which to announce their inherent idiocy.

Either way you slice it... it isn't good for America.

The World is watching and the world is, once more, aghast.

I get it now. Obama is your boogeyman

There seems to be a movement in the US to use every possible opportunity to discredit Obama, and the bullshit fuss over him addressing schoolchildren is part of it. Let the man speak, and let the children hear his speech.

The problem is, why should he have to? Can't the opposing parties comment and commiserate with one another instead of spreading their disrespect and hatred? Why should the rules be different for him?

When in history has a sitting President's speech been banned, as though it might cause harm to someone's child? Our last President was far from loved, but I'm quite sure liberal parents would have had no problem allowing their kids to hear him speak.

What the hell happened to respect for the office? At his Inauguration, even our President was courteous to his predecessor, despite some mighty loud boos from the people that reverberated in the crowds. He's got a lot more class than these politically-driven parents, who should be ashamed. Are they the role models and mentors for the future generations? That's damned scary.

I don't really have a problem with this. If a enough parents are upset about something and don't want it in schools then there should be opt out papers available. No matter what the issue is.

Only if the issue is in some way detrimental to the kids. A message to students to stay in school and work hard is a completely absurd reason for people to be upset the president is addressing them. This is just mored bogus outrage from conservatives towards the president. Conservatives have become little kids throwing a tantrum at this point and it is a very sad and pathetic thing to see at this point.

Detrimental is in the eye of the beholder, and I'd rather the parents have the final say than then state no matter how ludicrous it may seem to some people.

ok, what in your mind is wrong with a message of the importance of school and education? What possible motive do you have for not wanting children to hear it from our commander and chief? If you answer either of these questions with anything other than you hate obama and want to give him as hard of a time as possible for no reason other than your pouting he is in power then you are a bold faced liar.

wow...

Nothing is wrong with it. I think the idea of not letting kids hear the presidents speech is silly, but I feel the parents should be allowed to choose what their children are exposed to no mater how crazy it seems to you or anyone else. That's why I don't have a problem with this.

I have no problem with the schools who are giving parents the option to opt out. That's fine.

I DO have a problem with the schools who have simply buckled to the loudest parents and canceled the speech for everyone

It is damn scary. The national voices who had no problem calling Clinton everything but presidential claimed anyone saying such regarding Bush were un-American due to lack of respect of the office. These same idiots and their followers now have no problem spewing hate at the siting president.

It's no wonder the US government rarely does anything sensible.

As usual you miss a very important point. When strong leaders face fringe opposition (which they face on every single issue, everything they do - you will always have some people expressing outage, or protest what a Presidnet does or wants to do), they act Presidential, they stay out of the gutter, they do what they believe is right with no compromise, no hesitation. They do it with confidence, right or wrong. that is leadership. To the degree that this is an issue is to the degree that Obama is weak. Do you get that?

---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------

Or, how about his favorability ratings are dropping, he loosing the healthcare debate and some of feel he is using children for political purposes and are offended by that. I bet some of you think only a Republican would be so manipulative, right?

I am baffled as to what this has to do with the topic at hand

ace...is the Republican Party of Florida on the "fringe"
Republican Party of Florida - News - Greer Condemns Obama's Attempt to Indoctrinate Students

As to the rest of your post.....more babble when you dont want to address the issue head on.

The weakness of the President is at the root of the strength of this protest. The President has a credibility problem, he needs to look in the mirror rather than blame those who oppose him. He needed to do a better job up front, rather than rolling out the plan and the curriculum then changing it - his opposition saw blood, they saw weakness, they attacked with a frenzy. It amazes me how naive some people are. Don't they know this is "war", some are taking this pretty seriously and calling them hypocrites is not going to help Obama's cause. Winners don't give a shit about being called names! Obama needs to stop being a f'ing victim. That is the point.

Childish partisan bullshit is at the the root of the protest...that is the point.

You don't understand base behavior. You want to pretend humans are above it, etc, etc., so you will never get it. Simply try to understand that when a beta detects weakness in an alpha, the beta intensifies its behavior.

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------

Yea, childish. Thats it. Send 'em to bed without supper, I bet that will do the trick.

Sorry for the sarcasm, I am sure I broke some kind of rule.

It doesn't matter Ace; Obama is the President, and head of the government of not only those of voting age, but those under voting age as well. Your assessment of his leadership skills means nothing.

This has nothing to do with weakness.

It is similar to every other baseless attack using fear (in this case, socialist indoctrination), that started from day-one.

Maybe, being the beta, you just dont get it.

At least a few Republicans, Gingrich and Sen. Lamar Alexander, manned up today on the talk shows and said it was perfectly acceptable and reasonable for a president, any president, to speak to school kids about staying in school, studying hard and taking personal responsibility.

I really don't know if you are intentionally evasive in your answers or if you just have no idea what your talking about. The issue at hand is that the president wishes to address the children of the nation encouraging them to stay in school and work hard. Republicans are turning this into a political ploy by the whitehouse just like they employed lies and bs in the healthcare debate. Most of this information is being passed along by people like beck.

Now for a direct question...do you believe that encouraging kids to stay in school is a bad message? If you do not then why is there all this fake outrage that he is addressing the children of the nation?

Still waiting for an answer from ace on my direct question.

Is the Republican Party of Florida on the fringe?

Years ago I did a research paper on Andrew Johnson, the President after Lincoln, he was impeached. The political battles that occurred after the Civil War may have caused this country almost 100 years of racial division. Johnson was weak, political divisions hardened during his term due to his lack of leadership. Obama is displaying weakness, and political divisions are hardening as we participate in this exchange. At the end of the day it will be Obama's legacy, not the people in the media like Beck and Rush and some members in Congress. My assessment means nothing, true - but a repeat of history should have some meaning (and please spare me the...this aint the civil war and how dare you make such a comparison...).

Utterly irrelevant.

Still waiting for a direct answer.

No.

See, you don't get it.

I will go slower.

Presidents get attacked by fringe elements all the time.
Strong Presidents are not affected, and do what they do.
If a weak President shows a weakness to a fringe attack the fringe attack grows stronger.
If a weak Presidnet does not squash the fringe attack. The primary opposition takes note.
In some cases the primary opposition will join the fringe attack, using it as an opportunity to figuratively destroy the President.

This is happening as we speak. I hope Obama has a few "fighters" on his team. He really needs a guy like Chaney or a guy like Rove. Say what you will about those men, they played for keeps.

---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 PM ----------

O.k., I give. I promise never to try to explain base behavior again. Let's all just be surprised and amazed by it!

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/66/107/man...74/2863387.jpg

Obama is in no way acting weak. And he is squashing his opposition by disproving all bs that the right can throw at him. Republicans have become the laughing stock to all the world, they just can't see it themselves.

Still waiting for an answer.

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 PM ----------

---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

O.k., I give. I promise never to try to explain base behavior again. Let's all just be surprised and amazed by it!

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/66/107/man...74/2863387.jpg[/QUOTE]


Base behavior is irrelevant to this issue. The right are slinging everything they can conjure up and hoping something will stick. I said this in another thread, conservatives are acting like pouting little children throwing a temper tantrum.

Still waiting for an answer.

I get it now.

You agree the Republican Party of Florida is not on the fringe.

The Republican Party of Florida (and other such institutions and Republican members of Congress) are a large part of the backlash.

But presidents get attacked by fringe elements.

Stepping all over yourself again, ace....with Andrew Johnson tossed in for good measure.

Another comical episode of the ace files.

Ace, dammit, are you capable of a legitimate response? The issue at hand is the democratically elected president addressing the youth of the country, every bit citizens under his watch as those of voting age. Your opinion, and fucking Andrew Jackson, have FUCK ALL to do with him making a speech to school children about the importance of education.

You can join Samcol on my ignore list.

No.

When you think about it, how many thousands - nee, millions - of once perfectly normal happy and healthy kids has school fuct up? Socially, spiritually, psychologically, sexually etc. Thinking along the lines of 'Carrie' here.

So encouraging kids to stay in school is bad because of Carrie? Because of a movie about how emotional abuse can activate latent telekinetic powers? Brilliant.

I think her telekinetic powers were there before the abuse.

Thats what I thought.

Latent means present but not obvious.

I get it now. Ace has fully bought into the culture of "us vs. them" (a culture that really fortified under Bush, though Ace seems to think this is a phenomenon unique to the current administration), and thus sees nothing wrong with the amount of bullshit Obama is having to face from the opposition. He sees nothing wrong with roughly half of the country's politicians doing everything in their power to NOT cooperate, thus doing absolutely nothing positive during their current terms as leaders. He also blames Obama for the right's behavior.

It's like a kid being bullied at school every day and blaming the kid instead of the bully.

What if the whole thing is a distraction to conservatives to not pay attention to the fact that Eric Holder is beefing up the Justice Dept (hiring 50 new attorneys) to deal with race baiting litigation?

ok, so now we're getting around to a 'school is bad for kids' argument? :lol:
man.
Exactly how many people on this thread, sitting at their home, typing on a computer they paid for with work, using words they learned to use, did not benefit from the advantages of getting an education?

I wonder how many of those kids, whose parents are preventing them from watching the event at school, will rush home after school and watch a YouTube video of the speech...simply because their parents said they cant watch it.

I agree, children will not be able to read or write if they do not see his speech.

Mixed, your kids have already gone through the school system, right? You aren't currently dealing with uber liberal teachers who have an obvious agenda, and school administrators who support them. Since last fall, things have really ramped up in my area. As a family who doesn't support the President's agenda, it is hard for me to sit back and let the biased information flow. I want my kids educated, not indoctrinated. I want them challenged to look at the opposing side of an issue.

I'm not worried about my kids. We talk about the days events at the dinner table. I'm fairly confident my seventh grader is the only one in his class who knows who Van Jones is or what eco-apartheid is.

Homeschooling is looking more and more appealing.

So hearing from our president that staying in school and hard work are the keys to success is in your mind brainwashing or indoctrinating?

And how does this address what I said?

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

No, I still have a 10 year old in the school system. I haven't noticed a trend of teachers being 'uber liberal.' I have noticed a passionate dislike of the 'no child left behind' policy. I have noticed that conservative think is often opposed to the funding of public education. Therefore, I think it's only natural for teachers to be opposed to conservative views on it which is, essentially, tear it down and make education a product of the 'free market.' But not once have I seen or heard a political argument being made in my child's classroom, and believe me, my daughter would come home and tell me if she did. Like you, I talk openly about my own views to my children.

No wait, I take that back, when my oldest daughters were in high school in Louisiana, Christianity and the politics of George Bush were praised and endorsed by their teachers quite regularly, quite openly.

So it's not your smart kids you're worried about, it's everyone else's?
If you're not worried about your kids, why censor information from them by not letting them hear what the President has to say?
I was in school, not so long ago. Never did a teacher try to "indoctrinate" me.
My guess is, any teacher worth his/her salt doesn't give a flying shit for what party their students may join, or what their parents' political affiliations are. They are there to help the kids get through the year, learn the curriculum, and that's it.

The divisiveness in this country is insane. So much so that Ace now views it as a "war." And of course, nobody else "gets" it. Obama's being "weak", so naturally the right is being "strong," and will kick him when he's down.
"We can't have a weak President!!! This is AMERICA!" Jesus Christ, if this is how you see the world, ace, that's downright scary.


So, for everyone against this, would you be against Bush talking to schools when he was in power?

birthers
deathers
silencers
What's next?

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the function of government but it is getting lost in the partisan bull.

The text of the speech is available online now. As expected, a lot of incredibly ignorant people are up in arms about literally nothing at all. Again.

The whole speech could of been changed from what was originally planned though due to the backlash.

So you believe that obama had in his original speech sabliminol messages akin to adolf hitler in an attempt to brainwash america's youth?

Yes, I'm sure before this whole outcry, it was engineered to have children of republicans kill their parents.
:orly:

You assume I'm pulling my kids from class for the address. I am not. I want them to hear their President challenge them to be the best they can be. We can listen without supporting, right?

It's not this 18 minute speech (or whatever it is) that concerns me. It is the day to day subtle political agenda that our kids are exposed to. The global warming posters that literally litter every hallway. The poster that reads "I pledge allegiance to the Earth" in the science classroom.

The fact that my middle schooler can get birth control without my knowledge.

The teacher who still has an Obama '08 bumper sticker on her podium.

The lower grades my son receives because he reads "conservative" books to do reports on. ( Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell. )

I see the books that are purchased for the teacher's lounge library.

My "smart kids" know more about politics than their peers. My husband is a coach, I am a Girl Scout Leader/classroom volunteer. We interact with a lot of kids. Kids will parrot what their parents believe, and not know why they support a specific ideology. So yes, I do worry about the youth.

Are you assuming that it was changed, or just saying that it's within the realm of possibility that it was changed? I can agree with the latter, but the former is entirely unsupported and highly partisan.

I think it's in the realm of possibility that it was made less political.

Right, but it's also possible that this is the original, and has remained unchanged regardless of partisan attacks. In fact, I'd call that the null theory on this one.

I've read the speech now, and if my kids don't see it at school, we will sit down and watch the video. It's an inspiring speech, one every student can get something from.

Thanks for posting the direct link Will.

Yes, but I see the same thing happening with conservative's children. My mother in law believes Obama wasn't born in America, and her 9-year old kid repeats all of the stuff passed around the anti-Obama blogs.
She is home-schooled, but not appropriately. I'm not against homeschooling, but she is learning stuff that is 100x times more politically biased than she would be in school, and lagging behind in terms of other important aspects of education.

I'm not attacking your own beliefs, and I'm not saying you wouldn't be a good teacher for your kids. I'm just saying there shouldn't be an irrational fear about what the President will tell children in school. He's not gonna try and convince them why his ideas on healthcare are the right ones, because kids will listen to their parents anyway, 90% of the time, at least until their mid-teens, and often much later.

By the way, I do think it's great you're concerned about what your kids learn in school. Many parents are not, and you seem to care a great deal, in addition to being very involved with children (girl scouts). I really respect that.:)

I don't have any serious problems with his speech, but I do with the agenda around it. I read several news articles which claimed part of the associated lesson plan was for students to write letters explaining how they could help Obama. That is a bit out of line.

It seems like Obama's education department now realizes that since they have rewritten the lesson plan so the students are just supposed to write a letter about their own goals.

Obama urges kids to pay attention in school - White House- msnbc.com

Duncan's department has also taken heat for proposed lesson plans distributed to accompany the speech.

On Sunday, the secretary acknowledged that a section about writing to the president on how students can help him meet education goals was poorly worded. It has been changed.

"We just clarified that to say write a letter about your own goals and what you're going to do to achieve those goals," Duncan said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

I'd really like to see those articles to see if they have merit.

Hopefully they won't have to do that as a lesson plan.

That's just silly. Of course that won't be a part of any lesson plan. In fact, that was carried out by private people of their own free will. The fact that this video is still making the rounds speaks in volumes about unsupported paranoia.

I really don't think this is such a bad thing, trying to get students involved. Besides President Obama wouldn't be the first President to ask children to write them letters.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/im...991.speech.pdf

the stupidity of this is kinda awesome in it's own special way.

what i'm curious about, though, is the effects that the amount of press coverage this sort of thing is getting has not in discrediting it, but rather in legitimating it.
it seems that the illusion of "objectivity" has come to serve some really strange causes.
remember the "objectivity" of the press during the protests against the way in iraq? the 10 conservative counterdemonstrators would get their positions outlined with almost the same amount of column-space as the positions of the 200,000 people who were out against the war. so "objectivity" now consists of presenting more than one position as if they were all operating on the same level in terms of coherence. by doing that, the press is basically creating an impression of coherence rather than reflecting one.

these actions are about gaining and holding periods of time within news cycles. built into them, then, is an assumption that the coverage is part of the action.
maybe after years and years of well-financed far right populist talking heads repeating the "liberal press" mantra, the press itself, heroes that they are, have come to see their hands as being collectively tied. or maybe because the press is private and so an advertising medium, business logic dictates that "news" coverage not be critical of actions which originate from the right. or maybe, as is the case with fox for example, the corporation is itself explicitly a conservative political machine.

no matter the explanation, we are really not being well served by the press here.
no matter the explanation, the press bears considerable responsibility for legitimating lunacy like "protect your child from the evil obama speech, full of pinko sentiments like education is important, stay in school."

Conservatism is just the skin, just like so called liberalism of the left. It's all just corporatism. All hail the mighty monopoly, for it's convinced me that my life should be in debt, that I should tune in and I should spend. The news coverage is actually a tiny symptom when you look at the big picture. It's just one of the many medias that has been enveloped into the "keep the stupid poor people fighting about meaningless nonsense so that the rich can get richer" scheme. And look how well it's worked. We were barely even discussing the public option when the "Now you must argue about Obama's school speech" order came down from our well financed corporate media and we fell in line. And the American Gordon Gekkos pulling the strings get all the more richer.

It's not right vs. left. I wonder if it's EVER been right vs. left. It's arguing as a sport between nearly distinguishable teams. It's not even stupid vs. smart. It's stupid vs. stupid with a little crazy mixed in.

thank you for putting into the form of legitimate theory, that which will be one of the major touchpoints of the manifesto I will write when I am old.

Thank you will. This is much ado about nothing. Another distraction, another diversion. If you are so afraid to allow your child to view an address by the president, then you probably lack serious parenting skills. This an excellent learning opportunity whether you support the president or not. It's how you handle your interpretation of the message and what example you make for child when you reinforce or counter that message... with informed civility or not.

:thumbsup:

If I had a nickel every time some of the smartest people I know, myself included, bought into a fake controversy that's clearly intended only as a distraction, I could be one of those evil corporatists that controls the media. The speech is nice, it has some pleasant platitudes, but it's certainly not worth our limited attentions during a time when our economy is on the brink, the environment is collapsing around us, and we're engaged in two military conflicts that are entirely unnecessary. Has 24-hour news stripped us of our ability to prioritize catastrophes?

I keep reading these threads and all I get is a headache... that and a strong feeling that the US needs to sort out its shit. The US is facing some serious challenges and they are getting side-tracked by the most idiotic distractions.

The anger and (self) destructiveness is appalling.

The conservatives won't be happy unless the country fails.

It seems like just yesterday that they were saying the same thing about us.

Sounds like a conservative estimate. To Will and Charlatan's point, the distraction here is habitual. We are poised and ready to engage in political battle over a few trees when an ominous forest surrounds us. The constant partisanship distracts us from drilling down into what we should be paying attention to. If we believe these distractions are intentional, then by whom... and to what end? ...perhaps questions for another thread.

To your point... there are probably a very small number of conservatives that truly want the country to fail. Probably proportional to the number of liberals that want to impose a communist dictatorship. Who has the most to gain in promoting such views? The timing of such controvercy always seems suspicious when so much focus is placed on so little substance. They come and go, one after another... like songs on a fiddle whlie Rome burns.

Adding people to ignore makes for great political debate. At least you win by default when the opposition is gone.

How childish is it to ignore people you disagree with?