i'm just saying. . . . . Rocket River http://startelegram.typepad.com/ext...hools-issue-statement-on-bush-appearance.html Arlington schools issues statement on Bush appearance Some Arlington parents who would have liked their children to see President Barack Obama's address live today are upset with plans the district has to send about 500 students to a Sept. 21 event where former President George W. Bush will speak. Some have suggested a double-standard. The district just issued this statement in regard to the Sept. 21 event. The event, to be held at the Cowboys Stadium, is hosted by the North Texas Super Bowl XLV Committee. A regional service-learning program, of which George and Laura Bush are the honorary chairs, to coincide with the 2011 Super Bowl in Arlington is to be announced. NFL officials, Roger Staubach and Troy Aikman are also confirmed speakers, according to the committee’s communications with the district. Arlington chose not to show students Obama's live address, explaining that they didn't want to interrupt previous planned lessons. They said they'd make it available on their Website for teachers to incorporate where it was appropriate later on. District spokeswoman Veronica Sopher said there is a difference between the two events. "The distinction is it's a field trip that parents have to grant permission for students to attend," she said of the upcoming stadium visit. "With parental permission the selected classes will attend a filed trip at the Cowboys Stadium where they will hear from several different speakers." - Traci Shurley
Batman and interested others, speaking of fairness, if you get the chance read The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by prof richard wilkinson, great stuff around inequity and its effects, you will be blown away (or for other extremely critical and dismissive) by where the US appears on the graphs, if you don't want to read the whole book, there's plenty of press out there about it and a great range of slide about it on his website www.equalitytrust.org.uk Smeg
now thats where I draw the line. No kid of mine will attend that ****hole for any reason. OUTRAGE!!!!!!!
I thought the authors of the Constitution sees it the same way too "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Yes, but what is meant by words like "perfect" or "Union" or "justice" or "tranquility" or "welfare" or "secure" or "posterity?" Or, goodness, "freedom" or "fairness." I mean, what if it's some radical (let's say, oh, the PRESIDENT) that's using a word like "liberty" or "blessing" or "America." What might he possibly mean if he were to use such words? Why, he could mean anything! I think it's "perfectly reasonable" to be skeptical of the president if he uses such controversial language. Oh, wait. No, I don't. That would be stupid.
I am in awe of this. The president of the United States says the word "free" and otherwise reasonable people like durvasa think that it is "totally reasonable" to question whether his brand of "freedom" would be good for anyone but liberals. What exactly has Obama done to inspire the absurd level of distrust that's rained down on him these last few months? What controversial move did he make that led someone to say it makes sense to question his understanding of the word "fair?" I'm sorry durvasa, but this is nonsense.
Are you kidding? Like we're going to trust an Australian to tell us about "fairness!" You don't even pretend you're not a socialist! What's fair for you is probably the definition of unfair for us non-socialists over here. I think it's "perfectly reasonable" to question your use of that word. (I just can't get over this.)
^ That though is what I meant that the opponents are winning the PR battle. They are practicing what is essentially assymetric rhetorical war by attacking practically everything Obama does. The idea is to garner enough attention making supporters have to defend what could be considered the most innocuous things that people start wondering that there might be something wrong with Obama if pretty much everything he does generates some controversy. The idea is basically the same as guerilla warfare where you force your opponent to expend themselves defending what you think is secure, in this case non-controversial, so that it is harder to deal with more substantive issues. Now I don't want to make this sound like it is somesort of controlled conspiracy but more a general idea to wage all out rhetorical war whihc is fed by viral campaigns on talk radio, the internet, tea parties and other things.
Not to try to explain the irrational (because Obama had no ulterior motives here so any derision is irrational), but here goes... There is no way to confuse "freedom." It is what out country was founded upon. "Fair" on the other hand, can have multiple meanings. Using "fair" to mean a guarantee of an equal opportunity is very much in line with our core values. Using "fair" to mean a guarantee of an equal outcome makes many people very uncomfortable. It is this notion upon which the Communist Manifesto was based. Just a thought, and not helpful to this discussion because I believe that the President wants fairness to mean an equal opportunity rather than an equal outcome.
Good post. Now it begs the question of why Dems and liberals don't engage in this scorched earth policy. The answer is that they really want government to work. A fair amount of the GOP coalition, the government haters, the drown it in the bathtub type of Libertarians etc. see the chaos and the ungovernmability that this creates as a plus at least in the short run to them. This may hurt the working class pro-life types, but they are just pawns in the game.
That's not quite what I was saying, but yes I do consider it reasonable to question what his brand of freedom, and how he wishes for it to be attained, would mean for this country. Just because one is calling for more "freedom", that doesn't necessarily mean the manner in which he wishes to achieve it is wise or even moral. Just because I question someone's views on freedom or fairness, that doesn't mean they are a villian or a fool. Even the founding fathers of this country were not in agreement on these things. There is legitimate room for debate, which is all I'm saying. I'm surprised you and others find that notion so offensive.
BTW, from wikipedia article on political freedom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political) [rquoter] Various groups along the political spectrum naturally differ on what they believe constitutes "true" political freedom. Left wing political philosophy generally couples the notion of freedom with that of positive liberty, or the enabling of an individual to realize his or her own potential. Freedom, in this sense, may include freedom from poverty, starvation, treatable disease, and oppression, as well as freedom from force and coercion, from whomever they may issue. However Friedrich Hayek, a well-known classical liberal, criticized this as a misconception of freedom: the use of ‘liberty’ to describe the physical ‘ability to do what I want’, the power to satisfy our wishes, or the extent of the choice of alternatives open to us...has been deliberately fostered as part of the socialist argument... Once this identification of freedom with power is admitted, there is no limit to the sophisms by which the attractions of the word ‘liberty’ can be used to support measures which destroy individual liberty, no end to the tricks by which people can be exhorted in the name of liberty to give up their liberty. It has been with the help of this equivocation that the notion of collective power over circumstances has been substituted for that of individual liberty and that in totalitarian states liberty has been suppressed in the name of liberty.[2] Hayek also famously noted[3] that "liberty" and "freedom" have probably been the most abused words in recent history. Milton Friedman, another classical liberal, strongly incorporated the absence from coercion into his description of political freedom. The essence of political freedom is the absence of coercion of one man by his fellow men. The fundamental danger to political freedom is the concentration of power. The existence of a large measure of power in the hands of a relatively few individuals enables them to use it to coerce their fellow men. Preservation of freedom requires either the elimination of power where that is possible or its dispersal where it cannot be eliminated.[4] Many social anarchists see negative and positive liberty as complementary concepts of freedom. They describe the negative liberty-centric view endorsed by capitalists as "selfish freedom". According to Anarchism FAQ The right-libertarian does not address or even acknowledge that the (absolute) right of private property may lead to extensive control by property owners over those who use, but do not own, property (such as workers and tenants). Thus a free-market capitalist system leads to a very selective and class-based protection of "rights" and "freedoms." For example, under capitalism, the "freedom" of employers inevitably conflicts with the "freedom" of employees. When stockholders or their managers exercise their "freedom of enterprise" to decide how their company will operate, they violate their employee's right to decide how their labouring capacities will be utilised. In other words, under capitalism, the "property rights" of employers will conflict with and restrict the "human right" of employees to manage themselves. Capitalism allows the right of self-management only to the few, not to all. Or, alternatively, capitalism does not recognise certain human rights as universal which anarchism does. Some people treat freedom as if it were almost synonymous with democracy, while other people see conflicts or even opposition between the two concepts. For example, some people argue that Iraq was free under Paul Bremer on the grounds that it was a rational, humanist, non-subjugating government, long before elections were held[citation needed]. Others have argued that Iraq was free under Saddam Hussein because Iraq was not a colony[citation needed], while a third one's claim is that neither dictatorial nor colonial rule in Iraq are examples of political freedom. ... [/rquoter] Like I said, there is room for legitimate debate.
So it stands that he never said it. Kids don't know **** about Obama other than he's black, and he's the President. As a parent, they should separate the words, examine the sentences, and discuss what Obama said with the children. It will alleviate the fear of indocrination. Now let's be clear (haha, get it?): you gave a plausible reason why people are justified in being upset, I'm putting forth that such reactionism is irresponsible parenting. That they're not reacting to the words of the speech, they're reacting to the person giving the speech. So basically we disagree about whether some other people are idiot racists or not. Too bad he never said "crusade" ... I agree with you here. "What is freedom?" and "how should we achieve it?" are perfectly reasonable questions that hopefully were debated in classrooms after this speech. There is room for discussion. You can even ask "Do we want more freedom?" - because when we signed the patriot act, the answer was "no."
I don't say there's no room for exploration of concepts like freedom. I mean, duh. I went to college, after all. But that's a red herring in this situation. Obama is not the only speaker with a bias here and it is not only his speech that might be dissected nor only his motives that might be considered. There is also the context of the pastor and his history as an active opposer of all things Obama. I say that pastor was not reasonably exploring alternate concepts of freedom. He was grasping for any possible way to criticize a thing that was beyond reasonable criticism: encouraging (yea, even "expecting") children to try and succeed in school. He got caught up in his political bias and, when asked to explain in an email, having now seen the text of the speech, he grabbed at anything, just anything he could think of. You can explore any word. Obama could have said America was about "life, liberty and the pursuit of justice" and that pastor could have said the same thing. The word "freedom," unadorned as it was in Obama's speech, is as universally GOOD and AMERICAN (in the best sense) a concept as democracy, liberty or, yes, equality or fairness. Of course we can debate the relative meaning of any word according to its context and the context of the one who speaks it. That is hardly a revelation. But in this case, it was clearly not a matter of getting to the bottom of anything, it was not a matter of intellectual curiosity or any sincere matter for discussion. It was an attempt to take even the most innocuous concept and turn it into a cause for (fake) alarm. In fact, let's turn it around. Think of the context of the person doing the questioning here. He was trying to defend an overly political sermon the day before, having been confronted by a speech that clearly lacked any credible reason for criticism. That is why I found the characterization of the question to be "reasonable" naive and silly. The pastor was motivated in this situation. And his motivation, from all we know of it, was considerably more sinister (not to mention antagonistic) than any thing we are aware of Obama doing or saying since taking office. But questioning the president's take on "freedom" seems pretty reasonable (what???). Especially from a pastor that's been preaching against him for several months (what??????). I'm sorry. I just think that's dumb.
You're right, he didn't explicitly say it. I presume that's what he meant, knowing his politics and given the others words in the sentence. I wouldn't say the parents are justified in being upset. I understand why they may be upset -- whether they should be upset is different. I know I wouldn't be upset by it.
Alright. And if you chose to raise questions challenging statements by the pastor, I may say those are reasonable too. I don't see the problem. When I said the questions he raised were reasonable, I was considering the questions on their own terms. I considered them as questions a completely objective, non-biased person may ask. You apparently took offense not so much to the questions themselves, but the agenda for which the pastor raised those questions (basically to throw stones at Obama). But, if it wasn't clear before, I was defending the questions, not the biases and agenda of the man who asked them.
Okay. Then, if it wasn't clear before, I was defending the words "freedom" and "fair," not the biases or agenda of the man who said them. Your entire premise was that the speaker should be considered in questioning the meanings of words and the motives behind their use. How can you support the reasonableness of doing that while ignoring the motives behind the questioner? It was you (after the pastor) that defended the notion of panning back from message to messenger. If you apply that filter evenly to the two characters in question, you'll find that one was "reasonable" and the other wasn't. And you backed the wrong horse.
Small disclaimer to durvasa: I honestly don't care about any of this, so don't get me wrong about that. I'm just bored and suffering from insomnia. You're apparently still awake so I'm still typing. It's slightly more fun that playing sudoku on my laptop while listening to biased Rachel Maddow re-runs in the background.
Sorry, I don't follow your logic. I support the reasonableness of questioning Obama, just as much as I'd support the reasonableness of you questioning the Pastor. And I wouldn't hold your political biases against you when you do so, and I wouldn't argue that your biases invalidate what issues you bring up with regards to the Pastor's response to the speech. So, frankly, I see no double-standard on my part. Goodness, 2am! We can resume this tomorrow, Batman. Good night.
