Now, of course, the comments about "protecting our environment" and washing your hands could be seen as being part of a larger political agenda. But, it's also basic good advice. Without any added context, there's no problem with such advice.
Good job, Mr. President.
For once, I am happy with our President, Van Jones notwithstanding, and that's a big fucking notwithstanding.
:)
17 comments:
But we'll never know if this is just a watered-down version of the initial speech.
In any case the guy is obsessed with self-image.
That is true.
However, I don't really believe "we'll never know."
And, if it is not then once again we will show that Obama is a liar.
And, it will fuck him up ... big time.
Get this, my kids Principal called tonight with a message that so many parents had already expressed concern that they were providing for children to be taken out of the classroom.
This movement against Obama's policy ideas is a very large movement. I, by the way, did not express my opinion, because I have a policy to NEVER express my opinions in public, so that I can avoid people recognizing me online.
:)
How about that, my friend?
I am almost absolutely stealth.
Because of my position in life, I am better equipped to help online than in real life.
Hopefully, one day, that will change.
Text aside, do you still oppose the idea as Totalitarianism? Or was it only such when we thought the speech would be worse (or when we thought schools and parents had no choice in letting little Lucy watch it, which is where I had drawn my line)?
I think it is a form of Totalitarianism. I do not think it is good for America to have our President's speaking to American schoolchildren.
However, in the same way as I supported Reagan's financial support of Chrysler, I support Obama's support of inner-city youth in this speech, because, let's face it, for the most part, that's who he is talking to.
They need a good role model, and he is that.
Study, find your talent, stay in school, and build something better.
There ain't nothin' wrong with that.
I've got a nephew who needs to hear this message from the President.
Our Democratic Republic has always depended upon occasional intrusions of power from the Executive Branch.
We benefited from Lincoln's temporary suspension of Habeus Corpus. We benefited from Roosevelt's distrust of Japanese and German Americans. And we benefited from George Bush's suspension of Habeus Corpus in the case of "Unlawful Combatants".
I'm guessing you would agree.
Am I right?
Mostly I agree.
Both Reagan and (I think) Bush 1 did the same thing (school kids speech) but I don't remember being outraged. Now that may be because at the time I was young and stupid.
Now I'm old and stupid.
This is different than the habeus corpus etc in that there is no National Security issue here.
That said, because schools are being permitted to not show it at all if they so choose the totalitarianism meter goes way down for me.
But we can't say it's just the message that changes the issue, but the concept itself. If he would have said "Islam is good and pure and whole and the way of our nation" or "capitalism is good and pure and whole and the way of our nation" and FORCED it to be viewed by all public school kids EITHER message would have been Totalitarian.
We can't forgive it just becasue we like the message (I don't think that's what you're doing).
This is useful especially for those like you & I who have a choice in letting their kids see it or not.
But, for a moment there, it seemed you had shifted position and you were sounding a bit like -- EGADS IT HORRIFIES ME TO SAY IT -- one Mr C. Johnson.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34582_Freak-Out_of_the_Day
Sniif
I'm sorry, brother, I love you, man :)
And grandma had big eyes
And grandma had big teeth
So, does that mean you think I'm wrong?
I see your point about the Totalitarianism of it (whatever the message). And, I do agree. I sent my kid to school with the message that this is unprecedented in the history of the USA.
The Reagan and Bush speeches were not to schoolchildren across the US no matter what the media might say.
My wife and I explained to our kid (because it is only the older kid that is going to hear the Obama speech according to the Principal) that we do not agree with Obama "politicizing the classroom". We told her that recently someone had "politicized our church service" and that one of our best friends had written a letter to the Pastor and the Board of Elders and the person who had done the politicization had be reprimanded for it.
We told her that it is wrong to politicize church and school. It is wrong to politicize church because church is for worship. It is wrong to politicize school because school is for learning how to read, write and do math and science.
We told her that learning about Global Warming is an example of how they are already politicizing school.
And, we told her that as she grows up, she is going to have to learn to stand up for herself and say what is wrong and what is right.
Hey, I think I'm doing the right thing.
What are you doing? YOu have a daughter the same age as mine, right?
No no, I think you are right.
But the way I read the post itself it sounded as if you had changed your stance on it because the message had changed. That you hadn't you just clarified.
No matter what the message this is still wrong.
In our case, our school hasn't decided if they will show any of it yet, and will notify us ahead of time if they do.
By giving us the choice, one way or another, it takes some of the sting out of Totalitarianism.
But it sounds as if, in your case, you have no choice. If the kid goes to school, she sees the speech. And that is wrong.
But, still, to be rid of the label completely, he'd have to NOT give the speech and put parents and schools in this position.
Pasto, so what is your take about the questionnaire supposedly to be filled by the kids at the end of the speech?
MR,
You said: ... it sounds as if, in your case, you have no choice. If the kid goes to school, she sees the speech. And that is wrong.
I say: No. The school Principal called last night (a message to every parent in the school) and said that we have the option to keep our kid out of the classroom during Obama's speech.
Because we were given that option, my wife and I decided that, instead of keeping our kid home, or dictating that she could not hear the speech, we would use it as a teaching moment.
We told her about the recent controversy at our Church, and we explained to her that no President in history has attempted to speak to all children across the US.
We asked her to listen, and if she has any questions, then please talk to us about it.
We believe that the final result of this speech will probably be fine, based upon the released text.
If Obama veers from that text, that will REALLY be a teaching moment, won't it?
Additionally, we are using this as an exercise in her ability to start making decisions for herself.
She is 11 years old, after all. She has to start.
The process of adolescence is a process of gradual learning of how to use one's will, under parental supervision.
By the way, the other thing in the Principal's message to all parents was that only upper grade elementary students would be watching the video.
So, my younger daughter will not be subjected to it.
Andre,
I think the "questionairre" is utterly wrong.
However, I think Obama has been cowed into not presenting it.
If he does present it, or if my kids teacher chooses to present it, I will help my kid understand that it is wrong.
As I said before, if there is any deviation from the 'prepared speech' quoted in this post, Obama will be exposed as a liar.
And, that is fine by me.
Because he is a liar.
Yes, I also think the questionnaire has been nixed for the same reason the speech is watered down.
The questionnaire may have been nixed.
But I think that some teachers, particularly those who think that BHO is so wonderful, will use similar questions in class, particularly with younger children.
"How can I serve my country?" is an appropriate question. "How can I serve the President?" is not. But I'm concerned that many teachers today don't see the difference between those two questions!
If he does present it, or if my kids teacher chooses to present it, I will help my kid understand that it is wrong.
Please keep in mind that some teachers are not showing the film today, but rather saving it for later use.
Perhaps they're waiting until things cool off?
Well, I'm guessing that video will be on YouTube shortly, don't you think?
I thought it was disgusting and uncommonly hypocritical, even for Obama. His whole point was that kids need to be responsible. Can anyone think of a single situation in which Obama took responsibility for his actions and didn't play the Islamic blame game with Bush and Fox? I have never in my life seen a leftist of any brand take responsibility for anything. A socialist talking to kids in socialist schools, telling them to be responsible, is absolutely Orwellian.
Furthermore, a man who got to where he did by hanging out with terrorists and being the ultimate Arab student visa racket case, who is a product of private schools (and was given every opportunity in life and still blew it and got bailed out by Mansour) and who sends his daughters to private schools, has absolutely no right to tell public school kids to keep doing what they're doing unless he's got a voucher for every single one of them, which he doesn't, because vouchers are cost-effective and produce kids who graduate from college instead of ending up on Uncle Sam's socialist plantation and he hates that.
A good role model, Pasto? How? Name one thing about Obama that's even defensible, let alone respectable. Ok, he has pretty teeth and he didn't get the Brad Pitt surgery on his ears. That's cool, I guess.
It's just wrong for a president to address children, captive children in a socialist, totalitarian system, no less. No matter who he is and no matter what he says doing so is inherently Maoist. It was wrong when Reagan did it and it's wrong when Obama does it. This is the free world. We don't pull that cult of personality crap, and pulling that cult of personality crap is the only possible reason for doing this. Even under the best of circumstances it turns out horribly and people end up making heroes out of politicians, often pretty bad ones. We have term limits in America because we're supposed to make politicians out of heroes, not the other way around, and only in the short-term. It creeps me out when conservatives do it with Reagan, who was not a great president but is remembered as such for many of the reasons that idiots were taken with Obama, and it creeps me out when liberals do it with Obama.
Please, nobody jump down my throat about the Reagan comment. His heart and his principles were always in the right place and for that I love the guy and hold him above most of our other presidents, but acquiescing to terrorists in Beirut, deficit spending to take down an empire that could not have hypothetically survived 5 more years under the best of circumstances (which would have been a better lesson for the world in the long-run), and his unbelievable ignorance, short-sightedness, and moral equivalence when it came to empowering the Muslim world (which is not the same thing as empowering Poland) will cost us dearly until we completely undo all of Reagan's (and Carter's, with Egypt) damage in that regard.
Post a Comment