While I don't think it's a bad thing for parents to have the option of pulling their kids out of the classroom during the speech, I think, after having read it, that it'd be a damn shame for anyone to actually do so. In fact I think every student in America deserves the chance and should listen to this speech. It's not at all that different from many keynote speeches at graduations; but this one happens to be delivered by the President, whose own story may very well resonate with a lot of people. If there's anything to criticize here, it's that they went public with his remarks only the day before the speech. Give parents a chance to read his remarks before Friday, and by the start of school Tuesday, it's largely a dead issue.
Yep, and as a republican it gets me upset at some who are supposed to share viewpoints with me. I have tried to find reasoning in the measures taken such as waivers or flat out not going to school that day, and thats what it adds up to. The only logical point I could come up with before reading it was that Obama would be unprofessional and start preaching about his policies and trying to get the kids behind him so to speak. I thought it highly unlikely he would do that before seeing the speech, and turns out I was right.
I'm not trying to be nasty, so forgive my bluntness. But, as a Republican, does it bother you that your party seems addicted to being dishonest with the American people? Suggesting that Obama would be "unprofessional and start preaching" is, as you pointed out, dishonest given his record. And there's been virtually nothing but dishonesty in the health care debate (death panels, mythological reduction of Medicare benefits, free abortions, etc.). Not to mention the flaps about Obama as a Muslim, non-citizen, friend to terrorists, etc. Or unofficial spokesmen saying he hates white people. Or calling him socialist, communist, fascist, Nazi. Why can't your party debate honestly? Why don't they trust the American people with the truth?
Why the **** should Obama have to get his speech vetted? He's the president. Moreover, as BucMan55 pointed out, there is NOTHING in his history that suggests he would be anything but responsible in his speech to school kids. Also, of COURSE there's something wrong with parents pulling their kids out of class for this reason. Are they vetting every lesson plan, every word that every teacher or guest speaker plans to say to their kids? Of course not. This is one more in a long line of attempts to demonize one of the most pragmatic, responsible (at least when it comes to choosing his words) presidents ever with cynical, dishonest r****dery. Nothing - NOTHING - suggests he would be anything but responsible when speaking to school children about education. Anybody that suggests there is ANY evidence to the contrary is a cynical liar.
it was the "lesson plans" and the "pledge to Obama" that got the Dept of Ed and the White House in trouble, in my opinion... i think they realize they could have backed off a little bit. but i agree with everything you said. as the president of the PTA puts it:
Under/over on those same "outraged" parents also demand that Creationism be inserted into science classes?
My dad told me one time that in the news media, sensationalism sells. I think that while certain aspects of some of the democratic proposals may share an aspect or two with socialism, its certainly no reason to label them socialist. I wish Fox News would let the story tell itself. Obama has declining numbers. I dont think anyone will debate that. But let that be the story, try to offer insight as to why in discussion panels, but keep it real. Sadly, they always try to make it more than it is. CNN used to be guilty of this back in the 90s, but backed off a bit, and one can only hope that Fox News will follow suit. I think Fox News is about at the same stage as CNN was back then, so lets all hope for a more mature Fox News. There are a few conservatives here that will talk intelligently but its a shame more arent in positions to make a difference on a more national scale. Edit: I didnt take any offense Batman, since I can only shake my head at some of the republican talking heads.
I can almost guarantee the part about pledge to Obama was actually a "pledge to Obama to do your best or something". They just took the pledge to Obama out of context. At least, with simply seeing these 3 words and knowing what the speech is about and who it is to, thats my first inclination.
Ever noticed how when cable started out, the niche channels like MTV, Food Network, or Discovery were all about their specific programming? Now you have reality competitions and shows driven more by personality than the niche the channel covers. Personality complimenting the subject is one thing. To get ratings, you reverse the order. You get the appearance of being informed while having the pornographic satisfaction of entertainment. Fox's popularity supports this rule. If I were to guess, I bet a decent third of their viewers aren't conservative minded at all. They love the hyperbole and emotion stirring they get from watching the train wreck. Just like people who despise Howard Stern still tune in. News is boring. This or the Daily Show is the best of both worlds! So Fox won't change. They figured the magic formula which MSNBC copies, though not as successful (different minded people). That clip Tmac1 posted with the 2 Fox anchorwomen and the token liberal eunich... no real outrage with them. Just two women having a good laugh while reading the teleprompter lines. While they don't take it seriously, there's plenty of others in Fox's roster who do. And people love it. There's drama and excitement. No one cares about the process or decorum in a typical townhall meeting. I want more crazies biting off other people's fingers.
The funniest thing is that you have some conservatives calling Obama a fascist Nazi, and then others calling him a socialist / communist. Do these people even realize that a socialist is the opposite end of the spectrum of a fascist????
Thanks for the response. But the trouble is that it's not just Fox News and it's not just Rush and Beck. It's the leadership of the party. From McConnell to Boehner to DeMint to Grassley to Pawlenty to Palin to Perry to Hutchison and on and on: they are liars. They don't trust the American people with the truth and they employ cynical, sensationalist lies over an honest debate. Another sincere question, again not intended to offend: How can you, as a clearly reasonable person, belong to a party like that?
They're not too concerned with making sense. They'll use any word that they think will reflect negatively. Really these are all just synonyms for doo doo head.
Preaching to the wrong person, I have actually thought it to be quite hysterically frustrating how some people are making an issue out of this. Personally, I would love for my son to listen to the President (regardless of party affiliation) to give an inspiring speech on the importance of education. Of course there is no valid argument to believe Obama had some hidden agenda here, and from the outset any rational person could see this speech had the best of intentions. In playing devil's advocate here though, considering how heavily the President has been critiqued in such a short time, the White House could have stopped any momentum before it started by releasing his comments before the speech (sooner). It would fit right along with his push for more transparency. Maybe it would be somewhat impossible to predict it would gain the attention it has. But the moment opponents started to vilify this speech, should have been the moment Obama stopped them dead in their tracks. Bush Sr. and Reagan may not have had to do that, but one huge difference between his speech and that of his predecessors is the abundance of media outlets available today. Bush and Reagan might not have had to defend their actions because more than likely they weren't receiving criticism from every nook and cranny. And personally, being able to read it beforehand would give parents a chance for an open, intelligent discussion with their children after school about the speech. I would love that opportunity to talk to my kids, and it would be a lot easier and make for more meaningful discussion if I knew the contents of the speech as well. And I wholeheartedly agree that it is quite stupid for parents to pull their kids out of class for this. To me it's less about the contents of the speech and more about using the children as pawns in their own hatred towards Obama. But, they should be given the option, just like they have the ability to do in other circumstances.
absolutely. the lesson plans were designed to get American kids to think civic-minded, but ended up only arming the opposition of the administration with terms like "indoctrination" and "brainwashing" especially for the school at which President Obama is appearing, I wouldn't want my students or my own children to miss out on a national speech addressed to the nation's schoolkids...
He shouldn't have to. That is because he is the President. Again, if Obama were to go completely nutty (which he won't), it is up to the parents of the children to combat that by (gasp) talking to their kids.
I promise you that Glenn Beck and the Devil ---excuse me---Bill O'Reilly will do everything to derail the language in the speech. I read through it as well and it's just a great speech for students to listen to. Even if it were given by another leader, it's worth listening to. However, many kids, in general, "like" Obama without knowing the politics. That's okay...I don't mind the prez being a source of admiration. It's what we need. I'm tired of my students looking up to fools like Soulja Boy and Steve-O.
And the people said "Amen!" If Obama can make it cool to be smart rather than kids idolizing the cast of "Jackass," I say more power to him.
Isn't that the pinnacle of brainwashing? I'm sorry, but if you're kids aren't buying your rightist views, and one speech sways them one way or another, doesn't that mean the foundation of your views are at risk? This is funny nonetheless...
The speech might not have been written until it was released but the general themes of it were released long before hand. From the article at the beginning of this thread. [rquoter]“The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning,” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan wrote in an Aug. 26 letter to school principals. [/rquoter] The first draft of Presidential speeches are rarely delivered and there was probably a few rewrites and tweaking of this one.
I don't recall there being a "pledge to Obama" in the lesson plans but there might've been a "pledge to the President". That's an important semantic distinction as the office is considered to be more than the man who occupies it. Anyway I think the pledges you are referring to are the letters that students were to write to themselves about how they could help the President.
