Allahpundit responds:
If this turns out to be some hamfisted attempt by The One to pitch his agenda to kids — which would be politically insane given the outcry it would cause... — there’ll be ample time for outrageous outrage later. For all the media fainting spells over Obama’s oratory, you can count on one hand the number of truly memorable lines he’s uttered; I doubt he’s going to come up with such a corker next week that kids will be planning their lives around it.We haven't heard the speech yet, so we can only react to the idea of the President speaking to schoolchildren. I'd say: Let the kids hear it and the teachers teach it — here's the official teaching guide — and then respond. Nothing's going to be so damaging that parents need to preemptively hold their kids out of school. And that would itself be a matter of adults pushing a political message down kids throats.
Ideally, children should learn to understand political speeches and think for themselves about what they mean. I remember as a schoolchild being assigned various political speeches to read and understand. These were historical speeches — by Washington, Lincoln, etc. — but they were by Presidents, Presidents who had a political agenda. These assignments can be especially useful educational experiences, equipping children to live in the world — where politicians will try to influence them and lead them along. Teach them how to see what is being done and why.
I know many of you will say that the teachers are all such big liberals and Obama sycophants that no critical thinking will be taught. But let's see! I love reading things and applying my critical thinking to the text. I do it as a lawprof reading the stuff judges present as legal analysis, and I'd love to do it as a blogger reading about what the President said and how the teachers dealt with it.
Please, send your kids to school and get a full report on what happened. Encourage your kids to observe and report accurately, and then tell us all about it. The teachers could do anywhere from a brilliant to an abysmal job with the assignment. This is a great opportunity — whatever happens. If the teachers handle it well, the children learn valuable skills. If they handle it badly, that will be the basis of a lesson we can teach them.
Posts
244 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 244 of 244" there is every reason to believe that almost all those opposing this presidential speech would be supporting it if it were 2007 and President of the United States were George W. Bush"
It's nice you can be so confident of what lies in the hearts of other men.
Must be like a superpower, or a cool party trick at least.
I myself think it's a goddamned waste of time for any politician to go to grade schools and high schools.
It pisses me off, frankly.
Even more than your unfounded assumptions do.
The Reagan and Bush speeches to kids were on CSPAN. Like Obama's will be. Except, GASP, Obama's will ALSO be streaming on the internet.
Finally, Roger and Freeman, the speech is not mandatory viewing. There is no penalty for not watching and no bonus for watching. There is merely "encouragement" to watch. And before you say that is some kind of intimidation, there is no enforcement mechanism possible (it's stupid to have to say this).
This whole flap is #45,678 of fake, ridiculous scandals generated by bitter losers since Obama took office.
...in neither case did Bush or Reagan talk to all the school children in the entire nation simultaneously--
In both cases, I believe, the Republicans spoke to one class and CSPAN, CNN or PBS elected to cover the events as a public service.
Are the lefties claiming that is the case here? It is not!
"
What next? Make the kids line up and sing praises to Obama and march in formation holding the Zero over thier heads that is the symbol of Obama."
That's been on youtube already, hasnt it?
"Finally, Roger and Freeman, the speech is not mandatory viewing. "
Baloney. A kid sent to class to watch that in a Govt school is not going to be told or know the difference.
Has the Dept of Ed given 'hall passes' out? Why did the Dept of Ed *NOT* give the text of the speech prior to the Bd of Ed and Superintendents so *THEY* can approve? Why did they go around bod of Eds completely and straight to schools?
Sounds FISHY!
"How can you help the President ..."
hmmm. Tell him to fire his stupid advisors and tell him to STFU for a while and stop trying to get on TV so danged much.
It could be OK, or it could be a very bad thing for Obama - too many speeches and spreading himself too thin with too much on his plate, no substantive policy "beef" with the "sizzle".
And it could be a worse thing if he uses the time to tell and try to propagandize children that they should care about doing something about things Obama represents to them are "Settled matters, discussion over!" - when in fact the parents children and other voters have by no means conceded that various policy or issue matters are closed in liberal Democrats favor or "discussion is over."
There is already a lot of that crap out there with what the NEA and Algore are shovelling on the kids to advance their Democrat agendas..
And we know the teachers and progressive Jews of the ACLU would have gone absolutely bonkers if Dubya has demanded hours of classtime to "teach the children" how wonderful his ideas were.
I guess we wait and see if this "speech" tells children matters by no means settled in our system are in fact settled by The One's assertions they should believe...really ought to believe to please him and their teachers...Even that it would be BAD not to believe, or have BAD classmates whose parents dont believe...in things like everyone needs to use CFL bulbs to save baby polar bears.
I will read that speech, mainly to see if it tries converting and propagandizing children to Leftist ideologies with absolutely no time given to present info in rebuttal to Obama, the NEA website political platforms....
=================
Finally, in history, I note that Presidents tend to speak to all the People on major problems..not break it down by David Axlerod-style campaign marketing to demographic niches.
Roosevelt was not on radio talking to the children in how Depression-era children could help the economy recover. That would be stupid. He talked to Families by radio and mentioned as a minor side matter how kids might help. what they might look forward to.
There probably should not be a Federal Department of Education either. It's a conflict of interests issue. Simply having state funded mandatory schooling is unavoidable conflict of interest when it comes to teaching civics. The DOE is one step farther. A national address to school children (possible because of technological advances and the "wiring" of classrooms) is one step farther yet.
But even that isn't a big deal if the content is general and civics related and "stay in school, do your homework" limited.
The access is troubling to the extent that the audience can't "turn off the television set". This is a common trope in dystopic fiction... not being allowed to *not* listen. I believe the calls to keep your kids home is a reaction to exactly that... it's a statement that we can chose to not listen.
The lesson plans are creepy because they make the speech into something that is supposed to be learned and the directive and purpose for that learning comes from the top down (which makes it different from the study of speeches given for other purposes.)
All the previous layers of conflict of interest apply... with sugar on top.
And the precedence is set for future lessons from Presidents we might not trust as much as we trust this one. (In other words... the fact that you might like and agree with Obama does not change the nature of this progression of nationwide, compelled attendance to the words of our national leader.)
It may well be that the only difference now is the TECHNOLOGY... but it is a real difference and demands a different response and an adjustment of what we are willing to accept as reasonable.
Monty--I understand the speech is not mandatory and will most assuredly probably not be seen by a bunch of kids, nor can it be forced on them. Frankly I am happy the president came up with idea and its a good thing to attempt to motivate students whenever possible.
I have two issues about the speech: (1) bypassing the appropriate boards of education who are charged with overseeing curriculum; and (2) providing a US Dept Ed-suggested guidelines or whatever to go along with the speech--that gets close to violating the law.
From a political standpoint alone, I think the speech is dumb move and will be very controversial in the context of his address to the joint house--one is very likely to suck the air out of the other. My suspicion is that the President does not under stand the difference between governing and campaigning--your mileage, of course, my vary.
The point is, Obama is a propagandist and very little else. Why would we want school children propagandized?
Alpha, if Reagan or Bush did it, they should not have been allowed to do it.
Even if there was a broadcast on CSPAN in 1988, I’m not in any way convinced it would have reached all children. We didn’t have the internet to talk about these things back then anyway (or at least, not widespread like it is now) and I haven’t been able to check links so I don’t know how comparable those things are. Now everybody has that idiotic Channel One, so they all have tv’s. The only thing I clearly remember seeing on television in school was the challenger explosion and the OJ verdict.
I think it comes down to truly really. Obama has so many odd associations and has done a number of creepy things (flag@whitehouse.com) that people are kind of on red alert. It may be an over-reaction to some sort of “stay in school, don’t do drugs” speech, or it may be valid. We don’t know until we here the text.
"Finally, Roger and Freeman, the speech is not mandatory viewing. There is no penalty for not watching and no bonus for watching. There is merely "encouragement" to watch."
So... you think that keeping kids home is a wonderful expression of free choice and you're all for it?
And I'm sure that none of the kids would get in trouble for skipping school either... it's not as if they're required by law to be there. And if their teachers do the suggested tie-in material and issue assignments their students wouldn't get in any trouble at all for refusing to do them. Yes?
Tell the teacher/principal that you want to be there to watch the video and post-video discussion (bring a video-/tape-recorder as well), and attend. It's your right as a parent! We will be.
I think it comes down to truly really.
Um that was supposed to say TRUST. Sorry.
Montagne...Good shot about kitchens to cook the children in. If you seriously don't know about the methods of suggestion and mind control used on young pre-pubescent boys and girls by authority figures, then you are not the Progressive I thought you were. The psychologists have a developed science that you need to study before you reject the possibility that Sweet Old Barak uses that as his "Gift". Ask Hilary Clinton about how it feels to fight Obama's gifting.
Wow! Obama really drives the drooling, frothing mouthed, hissing snapping snarling, unhinged, lunatic super duper far far way out fringe Right into a tizzy! Guaranteed 200+ comments every time!
I think it's like, because they're so scared!
Garage is wearing his NO FEAR t-shirt right now.
"I think it's like, because they're so scared!"
Yeah, the lessons of the 20th century do have that effect, whenever gummint leaders start doing their standard Marx-Lenin-Alinsky tactics.
The point is to deny the guy EVERYTHING. Don't grant him a goddamn thing. I say hit him over the head no matter what he does: it works. It DOESN'T make the Republicans look shrill or hysterical. In this day and age, it works, period. You bash the guy long enough, his ratings will be just as bad a GWB's. I submit that Bush didn't do a thing wrong but win 2 wars and keep the country safe. He got zero credit for it, and he got bashed repeatedly. I also don't buy he did a goddamn thing wrong re: Katrina. That entire episode was a media and left wing construct. Well, we can do it too.
The other point is that The Won doesn't have much restraint when it comes to crossing lines. There was plenty of creepy worship of his Messiahship during the campaign where he had little kids worshipfully adoring him in song and dance (not to mention adults), and he rarely misses a chance to cheap-shot conservatives and make some far left wing point. Plus his association with Ayres and other lefty "educator/propagandist" makes him suspect in ANYTHING to do with kids or school.
Fuck Obama. Grant him NOTHING and bash him at every opportunity. It works. Anyone who DOESN'T attack him by every means available isn't really on the team.
Attack Obama 'til he's gone
Total War
The Hell with Comity
and lastly:
Fuck Obama
Freeman Hunt said...
Alpha, if Reagan or Bush did it, they should not have been allowed to do it. No politician should have direct access to address all children in the nation simultaneously. That is encroaching statism, and it's only a matter of time before someone abuses that access.
Agree with Freeman. Statists have long believed that the way to make their system or revolution more endurable is to go straight to the younger generation - captive because they are in schools and must attend "teachable moments" run by the State. The young are malleable...far easier to get to internalize and hold "new values" the rest of their lives.
The Jewish Bolsheviks, follow-on communist movements, and the National Socialists all emphasized pedology as an essential tool of State indoctrination. And those seeking to avoid it did so only by exposure to disparagement by their teachers, and peer students. Or their parents getting knocks on the door from commissars or guys in Brownshirts they really didn't want to come a knockin'.
As I said before, it may be that Obama speaks in general platitudes and avoids this temptation to get children to believe things he thinks are right - while no consenus exists among the voting age population.
We should be aware that we have very tough laws that block other "captive populations" in our society..people in the workplace, people in uniform following orders...from being forced to attend indoctrination sessions that advance a particular political or issue agenda (like mandatory anti-union meetings employers used to try).
If anything, we need even tougher laws, as many employees have complained that mandatory "diversity training" or obligatory sessions to "help" steer employees into more contributions for certain charities, political candidates...are still bottom line abusive and coercive.
We have to be very, very careful of the powerful demanding access to all children to "teach them things"..
We have to wait and see if Obama crosses the line from "work hard, take your responsibilities to be a good citizen and get the maximum education you can attain..into Obama agenda, encoyragement of children to be little activists, or to "correct their parents ignorance" on certain issues The One claims he has the Right & True opinions on..
"Thou Shall have no other Gods before Me".
The problem is that liberals teach their kids that Obama is god, and Christians are prevented in school from saying that only God is God.
care.exe not found. the file may be missing or corrupt
I gotta tell you--C4 continues to set the standard for fascinating posts--as someone noted earlier he's either bat shit crazy or perfectly brilliant--and probably both--If he or she were to ever leave this blog, we would be the poorer-
You are one strange engineer C4--but please keep posting
The civility went out of the discussion when that compassionate liberal Alpha showed up and told us that everybody who doesn't like this speech idea is a racist.
At least it's clear which commenter on this thread is obsessed with the color of the President's skin.
The kids may 'be fine', but I think the larger lesson is: We do not live in a totalitarian regime. We don't 'serve the president,' our elected officials are the ones that are the 'public servants' who ought to be listening to US. And, at a minimum, it's ridiculous to disrupt the school day and suggest all sorts of Obama-honoring side projects if your point is to 'stay in school and work hard.'
Exercise your freedom and keep your kids home while you still HAVE the freedom to do so. It's not like you can't see the president on television on an hourly basis the way it is.
Here in the largest school system in the country, New York City, the President's broadcast falls on the first day of school. Please don't try to grade us teachers on how we use this "teachable moment," we're going to be busy figuring out what our students' names are and how long it's going to be until the textbooks arrive.
If parents don’t want their kids to watch that
black man telling white kids to stay in school.
He should be telling that to little black kids. They are the ones that are dropping out and getting pregnant at 13.
Texas has a long proud history of keeping the blacks “in their place”. So now we got to listen to one of them blacks lecturing our white kids to stay n school??
If Obama wants to push a broom down the school halls, that’s ok. But to put that black man in a suit and tie and treat him like he’s the president of the United States or something like that….
Now that’s taking things too far.
I miss the good old days when those darkies had to address us as “massah”, don’t you
My kids' elementary school sent home an opt-out sheet today for parents who do not want their children to hear the speech. My oldest informed me that he won't be watching the speech -- he's in 7th grade, and his social studies teacher has better things to do. The school administration left it up to the teachers at the junior high level.
I'm letting my children hear it, but I am also planning on being there to hear it, too. My daughter wants me to opt her out so she can read (she's a major bookworm), but I told her I want her to hear it so we can discuss it as a family later in the day. This will be a good opportunity for them to experience the President directly and form opinions for themselves. They hear a lot about him on the news and from us, but they have very little direct experience of him (although they did love it when Rush played Obama's speech at a faster speed to make his speech patterns sound more normal and less halting. Of course he did sound as if he'd been sniffing helium, but at least we weren't waiting through those long pauses.)
I'm expecting it to be excruciating: dull, condescending, and full of platitudes. The man has never had an original idea in his life as far as I can tell, and I'm not expecting him to start now.
The Dear Leader says what? Is President BarelyCare getting tips from NK?
I hate commenting without reading other comments first. But, jeebus, Althouse. This is a lot of comments.
I don't see the harm. My son very clearly hears a LOT about Obama at school. All extremely positive. Seeing the actual dude might just be a reality check.
I will say that I can certainly understand the natural aversion to a politician addressing children. But, in terms of actual effects...I think we're looking at a neutral to net negative.
The Obama brand is in full effect here. I've seen the celebrity 'loyalty' oath video where these vacuous morons pledge to be 'servants' to our dear leader. Fairly meaningless, but when coupled with his visage being piped into state run schools, then it is unseemly, propagandist, statist, and frankly feeds the notion that he is truly a Marxist. It's one thing to have say a Saturday radio address piped out, but that's different because your audience isn't captive like that of impressionable children. Children are captive in government run schools, and when the POTUS injects himself into a state/locally run schools that would be considered over-arching or in his case, over-reaching. The other fact that some sort of curricula will stem from that piped-in speech is another cause for concern in my opinion. Sure, his message may actually end up being innocuous, but it's the fact that he thinks he can insert himself at anytime, anywhere, and for any reason especially with respect to our children is really the cause for concern.
And the Althouse Stooges nearly right on cue, come marching in ready to impale themselves on President Barely's dick throwing out accusations of moral equivalence. You fools are shameless tropes.
You just said "Republicans all over this page". .
Which is not the same as "every Republican on this page."
Do you see how you misinterpreted what I plainly wrote? Freeman is definitely more reasonable as wingers go, absolutely. But does she respect the election results? Not sure in her case.
But the assertion remains:
Republicans all over this page, the airwaves and the blogosphere are proving they do not respect election results that don't go their way.
Lionheart asked:
"WWLD or What would Lenin Do?"
LOL. Good one. That is surely what more and more liberal Dems ask themselves.
Joan said:
"Obama has never had an original idea in his entire life.
I agree and have heard more and more people saying the same thing.
wv = trial
I admire any free-thinking students with spine who stand up to this crap. Through calling it out or by mockingly playing along, wearing the red bandana, the O gesture, the cap, the adoring looks, and calling him Dear Leader. Act like a schoolkid in North Korea. Engage in the worship. Make it a caricature.
*barf*
I can't recall any such thing happening when I was in school. I don't think we had TV in the classrooms, either. We actually did things like reading and writing and science and math.
Teachers are generally liberal because they are parasites living off the confiscated tax dollars of productive people who work for a living and don't suck off the government tit.
I know plenty of conservative or middle of the road teachers, though. Not many flaming lefties around here.
I just finished re-reading George Orwell's 1984 recently, that would be a good book to prepare some quotations from to call out this political maneuver, Big Brother televising his speeches to all, children acting as spies and ratting out their parents to the government, a father in jail proud of his daughter for doing just that to him, the Two Minutes Hate, the demonization and exile of the opposition, the attempt to numb the mind to its resistance to the domination, the beatings into submission, the desire for the bullet in the brain and sweet release into freedom it represented. The submission into loving the Dear Leader. The unnaturalness of living for the party and not for oneself. It would be a great book to discuss after the speech. Weekend reading assignment.
But the assertion remains:
Republicans all over this page, the airwaves and the blogosphere are proving they do not respect election results that don't go their way.
AL, you just come in and assert that, but what exactly are you meaning when you say that?
Of course people who didn't vote for the guy are not going to be happy he won, that doesn't mean they don't respect the results of a free election. But there are other elections, midterms are up in 2010. If we don't like what he is doing, we have a right to talk to our representatives and tell then that they are going to be out of a job if they go against our wishes, which is what these town halls have been about.
As for this idiocy with the schoolchildren, it's not something that happens often (if you can even count the reagan/bush stuff). It's especially odd with the pushed lesson plans. So people are discussing it and some people aren't happy. This is hardly a coup, which is what you are trying to imply when you say we aren't "respecting elections".
I'm torn between just letting Norris go and responding, but I think that racism does need to be responded to.
No doubt that post was meant to be sarcastic, but that hardly excuses such hatefulness.
Yes, Norris, we already KNOW that there are those among us who see ONLY the color of Barack Obama's skin and do not even SEE his ideas. People who see ONLY Barack Obama's skin can not even imagine that anyone might disagree with his ideas, his behavior, or his agenda... because only his SKIN exists.
Yes, Norris. That makes you a racist in your bones.
Oh, and for those of you who think this is just because it's Obama... Bush the senior had my dad muttering about the anti-christ with his "New World Order" thing and I always did and still do disapprove of the concept of "Homeland Security." Not just the name, which is atrocious, but the idea that we need yet *another* law enforcement agency. What is the FBI for?
It was done, like much of what is the most disturbing about Obama, in order to be *seen* to be taking action in order to reassure the electorate that they are being taken care of. The actual efficacy of the actions, or even having a genuine problem to solve, is irrelevant. Worse, the chances of not solving *anything* but causing other problems is great, and I'm not even counting the *guaranteed* negative effect of government growth and intrusion... a process that goes only one way; Up.
AlphaLiberal said...
Republicans all over this page, the airwaves and the blogosphere are proving they do not respect election results that don't go their way.
This is why you are a perpetual moron. You confuse Republicans with Conservatives and Conservatism. They are not one and the same. The airwave and the blogosphere are two different forms of media, none of which have a lock on critical thought. Furthermore, no one here or anywhere that I've read question the results of the election as it stands. No one has asked for a recount. What you misinterpret, you insolent fool, is there are varying degrees of disrespect. I don't disrespect the man, I disrespect his message and his ideology. Both of which are nefarious and insidious regardless of your narrow-minded intolerant thought. We don't advocate his death, but we do advocate his departure in 3.5 more years. There a lot of things that don't go our way, but crying over spilled milk on how the McCain lost to Obama isn't one of them. It's what happens afterwards that matter and if you can't seem to understand why the sleeping giant has awoken nor why it's a little pissed off at what it's seeing only displays your ever-present lack of perception, perspective, and ignorance.
If you haven't looked at the suggested curriculum provided by the Department of Education:
Pre-kindergarten (!) to Grade 6
Grade 7 - Grade 12
Innocuous? Maybe. But inappropriate, yes. It's a boundary violation.
He is not the community organizer-in-chief.
He is not the educator-in-chief.
He is not the encourager-in-chief.
All of a sudden monty and alpha, our drooling and brainless libtards, have come up with the refrain: don't accept election results. I suspect that is a kos or du talking point--its just so remarkable to see it from two braindead idiots simultaneously.
Of course I accept the results of the election. Of course I respect the presidency. I do not, however, have any respect at all for the idiot in the white house and the idiots that voted for a totally unqualified junior senator.
So I will do my best to attack him, and his policies--I will just refrain from personal attacks, although I gotta tell you--that dude has the biggest ears I have seen since I saw the dumbo flick.
"Norris Hall" = Moby
He's probably the the first black man to get attacked by the right for telling kids to work hard and stay in school. Whatev.
From the other side, I suppose parents in the Elmbrook School District (the one I grew up in), could hold their own protest and keep their kids out of school for the day and watch the speech at home.
What, exactly, is useful about beaming into classrooms a speech by the Prez? Is this some earthshattering announcement? A new Supreme Court pick? We're leaving the U.N.? We're signing onto the I.C.C.?
No? It's just a speech to stay in school and study?
And this needs to be live and (ahem) in color?
By the way, thanks for reminding me again that Teh One™ is black. I would forget, but liberals keep reminding me to pay attention to his skin color.
WV: imaryema, a high colonic for catholics
Post a Comment