But What Will You Tell the Children?

I'm telling my son this is a good time to start drinking coffee.

No, DaGoat, you're telling your son to drink the rightwing koolade.

LOL @ DaGoat!!! Indeed. I clearly remember snoozing my way through all things like this... OTOH, my parents never accosted teh school about addresses like these, either. If they had, I probably would have wondered what all the excitement was about.

Adding: Now that I think about it, I bet kids will pay more attention to it than they might have otherwise. I wonder how many of them will come away thinking their parents were a tad overwrought?

Glad to see they cleaned the message up and got rid of the most controversial parts.

Leonidas, since you never saw the message, why do you think anything was changed? The White House said that this would be the message all along.

"got rid of the most controversial parts."

Which were the controversial parts?

Origionally in the teaching materials a suggestion to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." was included, I understand that got dropped. When you have "the President" instead of "the country" it changes the message.

I still thing the White House has no business sending any teaching materials with his speech. Teachers should determine their lesson plans, not the White House, no matter how well intended.

Yes. Originally there was such a suggestion. They revised to something like, "write a letter to yourself about how you can meet your goals". One line, out of one of the plans. Which were always a suggestion and never mandatory.

But what's that got to do with the speech?

I said the message not the speech, the lesson plans were part of the message.

Just because something inappropriate isn't mandatory does not make it acceptable. A suggestion of children writing on how they could serve the president instead of it being an assignment on serving the nation was unacceptable. It was good that the pressure to make this change was applied. Definately a positive result was achieved due to the pressure, something that is good for the children of America. Thats what really matters isn't it? whats best for them.

Leonidas, if the objections were only about the lesson plans, then why have people said they're keeping their kids home tomorrow, or opting them out of the speech? Why didn't they tell their districts / schools they didn't like the lesson plan suggestion, and didn't want their kid to participate in it?

Instead, we have districts all over the place not showing the speech, and "flu days" planned -- even though they revised the problematic line.

"A suggestion of children writing on how they could serve the president instead of it being an assignment on serving the nation was unacceptable."

To be perfectly honest with you, I think Obama would have been raked over the coals for that suggestion, too. It was not a well thought-out piece; I'm more than okay with it dropped. But the reactions went way, wayyyy beyond that.

Lets face it, different people will respond in different ways. If a parent decides to pull their kids out of school to solve the problem their way, thats their choice. If the parent decide to pressure their school district not to show the speech, thats their choice. If the parents decide to petition the WhiteHouse to change the lesson plan, thats their choice.

Given those choices, and maybe others as well, whats the easiest and least hassle and one that is guarenteed to get the desire result of their kids not being exposed? Taking their kids out of school that day of course, its the path of least resistence.

As far as Obama being raked over the coals, perhaps but there wouldn't be as valid a case for it if the assignment suggestion had been based on serving the nation instead of serving Obama personally. Especially given past criticism thats been directed at the administration on that very thing. They should have seen criticism coming about serving Obama personally and not fed fuel on the fire like they did. It was poorly thought out on the administration's part in that regard.

"If a parent decides to pull their kids out of school to solve the problem their way, thats their choice."

What's "the problem," seriously?

"As far as Obama being raked over the coals, perhaps but there wouldn't be as valid a case for it if the assignment suggestion had been based on serving the nation instead of serving Obama personally."
You yourself said the message was helping "the President." Be consistent bro.

"Especially given past criticism thats been directed at the administration on that very thing."
Like what?

*****
The truth is you and Michelle Malkin look like idiots for turning this speech into cause for the next Civil War. Just man up and apologize for being wrong.

Adding: Now that I think about it, I bet kids will pay more attention to it than they might have otherwise. I wonder how many of them will come away thinking their parents were a tad overwrought?

More than that, there will be a lot of kids who think if their parents are upset about it then it must be something REALLY GOOD. I will therefore let my son discover how boring the speech is with no preconceptions.

They will never man up and apologize for acting like drama queens. In fact, Glenn Beck or Michelle Malkin will find a phrase or a sentence they don't like, even if it is taken out of context or twisted in some outrageous way, and over the top we go. That's how it works.

If anyone thinks this is over, it ain't.
There will be something else for the radical right to complain about next week.

It looks like the new spin is that there wasn't any parental consent sought by the White House or the schools. Now, don't ask me to explain that. It's just that those are the noises I hear from my channels into the far right.

Just for fun, here's a little Google data:

1. obama back to school speech - 34,900,000 hits

2. obama back to school speech parental consent - 26,700 hits

3. obama back to school speech "parental consent" - 5,630 hits

Tomorrow after the speech is done and the talking heads have parsed every word and nuance of it, let's see if those numbers move any. My hypothesis is that if they can't find any subliminal, commie mind-washing in the speech, they'll move on to the parental consent meme, and we should see a big jump in the last two queries relative to the first one.

They should have seen criticism coming about serving Obama personally and not fed fuel on the fire like they did. It was poorly thought out on the administration's part in that regard.

Yeah, I'm hoping they will eventually wise up to the fact that the crazies on the right are just not going to go along with anything. Next, when Obama gets up to watch the sunrise, they will complain that he cast a long shadow across the flagpole and kept the warming rays off of the flag for a full three seconds.

This whole thing was stupid - from start to finish. Obama should just tell people, "Look. I'm the President. Get over it already."

I told my kids that if their school doesn't show the speech, I will show them a video of it.

The white house did say that the 1.0 release of the "lesson plan" was poorly thought out & written by a lower level aide. But I guess that the Riecht (Note: I choose not to say Right here, out of respect for those in that part of the spectrum who still think with their brains) is proud that their hissy fit caused the WH to drop the socialist portion of the original message.

I don't see what is even wrong with the suggestion that school kids write the president a letter with suggestions. As an example, some of those letters will urge Obama to pass healthcare because those kids don't have any and other letters will urge Obama to leave healthcare alone because they have healthcare and don't want it tampered with.

If I were a school kid when GWB was in office I would have loved the fact that he asked me to write a letter to help him. I probably would have told him not to invade Iraq.

Also the speech is aimed at school kids of all ages, not just first graders, but seniors in high school who can think for themselves.

I thought the letter writing would be the least controversial because it gives the kids an opportunity to think about helping the nation, focusing their minds on something other than themselves. But I suppose the Republicans don't want the Dem schoolchildren to send Obama praising letters. :)

What's "the problem," seriously?

The problem for these parents is that their children are being exposed to something they do not approve of. Whether they are correct or not, that is the problem as they see it.

"Especially given past criticism thats been directed at the administration on that very thing."
Like what?

You been living in a cave? Remember the presidential campaign and the issue of Obama's ego, use of celebrity images, the I wanna pretend to be Abe Lincon podium at the DNC, the Obama Presidential looking seal that he had to take down after a day or so because of the ridicule, The whole "He's the one" bit, the light shining behind his head in imagery used, that pledge of his, the video of the children singing the Obama song, the alpha omega obama chanters, the whole cult of personality thing?

Given all of that he should have been more careful. ChrisWWW.... YOU can man up and admit being wrong anytime now.or at least for apparently not having a clue since you weren't aware of all this assuming you didn't know, or you can stick your head back into the sand.

"that pledge of his"

eh?

"I would have loved the fact that he asked me to write a letter to help him" and that is why they have a problem and why they are flipping out, if people like Obama even more and begin to trust him for one second its all over. Sound paranoid? It is, but some on the right seem to believe it. They seem to miss the fact that you can love someone to death and still disagree.

My only comment is for a speech designed to be delivered across the full spectrum of school-aged kids, I don't see it keeping the attention of the majority, especially the youngest, for the whole speech.

"The problem for these parents is that their children are being exposed to something they do not approve of. Whether they are correct or not, that is the problem as they see it."
Whether they are correct is the issue, just like with global warming deniers, and evolution deniers before them.

"whole cult of personality thing?"
Which was a controversy ginned up by the McCain campaign and the likes of FOX News. And then there's this sort of thing. It's almost like there's *gasp* a double standard!

I just got through watching an NBC video on the controversy over the speech. One mother was interviewed, and she told the reporter that she does not believe in gay marriage, she does not believe in abortion, and Obama believes in these things, and she doesn't want subjects like that shoved down her kid's throat. All the time she was saying this, she was holding her daughter, who looked to be about 4 or 5 years old.

How is she going to explain abortion and gay marriage when her daughter asks her what those are, if she thinks it so dangerous and terrifying for her daughter to have it "shoved down her throat"? But even more than that, even if she had not been holding her daughter, I just cannot wrap my brain around the concept of there being normally rational, normally intelligent Americans actually believing that Pres. Obama planned to go in front of the cameras and talk to the nation's schoolchildren about abortion and gay marriage. I mean... WHY would he do that? Can someone help me with this?

My k-12 days were over before Reagan's speech to schoolkids in 1988 and Bush's in 1992 and I don't remember hearing a word about these speeches. Obama is making a speech to kids, just like two former Republican presidents did and some folks are pitching a fit. I don't suppose they pitched a fit over the Reagan or Bush speeches, nor did their parents. This is plain foolishness. Regardless of the party, I encourage my kids to listen to the president when he speaks. They usually listen for about 1 minute but might listen longer if the topic related to them, i.e., education--perhaps they'd listen for 2 minutes. One way to help them grow up to be citizens is to listen to their elected leaders when they talk.

Speaking of cult of personality... Let's not forget Sarah Palin. How else do you describe the rabid following of an unemployed former governor who could not even stick it out one term?

All political leaders have cult followings to some extent or another. If people didn't like them they would not be politicians. I remember in 2004 the Republicans successfully used fear of Kerry to be re-elected. Fear of the unknown that Kerry represented. I remember many people said, "I don't like either Bush or Kerry but at least Bush has the experience and I think he's the lesser of the two evils."

It's actually nice that people voted and follow Obama because they like him, not that they view him as the lesser of two evils.

As far as parents not wanting their children expose to certain things because they do not approve of them.... Puhleeze.... It's EDUCATION. Children are supposed to be exposed to facts and to new ideas.

In case people haven't noticed the US is slipping in education rankings. If we want good jobs and successful businesses that means giving our students a good education. Not the education that parents approve of because those same parents do not like to deal with life and want to lock their children behind closed doors.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/19/US-slipp...

These same people will probably complain when some highly skilled Indian or Chinese lands a well-paying job in the computer industry in the US. They claim that foreigners are taking jobs away from Americans. Well if parents want to cloister their children and keep them ignorant of the world, then I'd say that it's the parents who are keeping their children from having a good job. There are highly qualified candidates out there and companies will hire the best they can. I look for well-rounded individuals to work for me. I would not hire some ignorant hick who doesn't have a clue how the world works. Fortunately ignorant hicks aren't particularly interested in my line of business.

Yeah, my understanding is that the outrage is a moving target. First, it was Obama indoctrinating our young children with socialist propaganda. When it became more and more clear that the speech itself would be relatively apolitical (compared to Reagan's discussion of lower taxes at least), then the outrage was over the teaching materials. When the only really controversial line in that was taken out, the outrage was over parental consent. My guess is that if parental consent forms had been sent to every home two weeks ago, we would have heard about either the huge waste of money or the Pledge to Obama that he was forcing everyone to sign.

And if Obama decided to keep the Department of Education lesson plans in the mix, it would then be LEFT wing koolade.

Recite this to yourselves my liberal American brothers, so that it finally sinks in:

No one cares that the President is addressing our children.
Most parents applaud the President telling our children to work hard, stay in school, and be successful.

The issue is with the ORIGINAL plan to incorporate lesson plans that were skewed toward the President's ideals.

Period.

Is that perfectly clear now?

That kind of manipulation is wrong for ANY president.

If I may answer this one, Leonidas.......

No school district tells the Department of Education, "no".

Some, and I emphasize, SOME of the parents won't let their kids go to school because they just don't like/trust President Obama. It has nothing to do with the lesson plans.

However, most, and I emphasize, MOST parents questioning it did see/hear about the lesson plans.
That could have been a very dangerous precedent, had the administration not pulled the lesson plans.

I'm sending my kids to school tomorrow, by the way.
I've already taught my kids to question anything the government tells them. So they're covered.

It is NOT the speech, "bro".

It WAS the lesson plan from the Department of Education!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We NOW have no problem with tomorrow's speech, now that the Department of Ed. lesson plans have been scrapped. I guess that's why even Newt Gingrich said the same thing.

Get it now, bro?
The President, "manned up" and took away the inappropriate use of a government agency. I don't hear him apologizing.

You're right. All Americans should stop complaining.
We should all stop questioning our beloved government.

We should all just turn away from our guns and our Bibles and embrace our big brother.
Government will always do what's in our best interest. They love us.
The decisions they make have nothing to do with self-serving motives.
Everything the government tells us is truth and should not be verified.

That, my American brother, is the very definition of "drinking the kool ade".


Just please tell me that you don't believe everything the President, Congress, or even anyone in the media tells you; without first verifying it. If you do, then you're lost.

Here's the Obama "Pledge":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw


Kind of eerie, actually.
The one part I did like was the "I pledge to be an American, not an african-american".

1. You forgot to add a few words. Global warming THEORY deniers, and THEORY OF evolution deniers.

2. The Bush billboard in Orlando was privately funded by ClearChannel Communications, and not funded by George Bush.

3. Double standard? You mean like Mark Sanford vs John Edwards? That kind of double standard?

The outrage is gone for the most part, now that the Obama Administration removed the Department of Education nation-wide lesson plans to accompany the speach. That was indoctrination. "How can you help the President acheive his goals" was a part of those plans.

Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush all had speeches to school children. NONE of them (including a democrat, Bill Clinton) used the Department of Education to mandate lesson plans to overglorify themselves.


And here's the pledge to Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw

JD = DLS???

Ah! That pledge! Or rather.... this pledge.

So how did a video made by a group of starry-eyed, over-the-top-with-hope-change hollywood types become "that pledge of his"?

Utterly ridiculous.

So how did a video made by a group of starry-eyed, over-the-top-with-hope-change hollywood types become "that pledge of his"?

For every action there is a reaction, I suppose. IOW, the creepy Obama cultism that we did see during and after the campaign has provoked concern. I don't tie it as directly to the Hollywood crowd, but more specifically in this case to some of the inappropriate teachers' actions during the campaign. I do think that there's a problem with teachers promoting their political views to young schoolchildren, and there were several prominent instances of really poor judgment. In light of that kind of stuff going on in classrooms, I did feel the original DOE 'suggestions' were unacceptable and I'm glad that they've been altered.

That said, I definitely think this whole thing has been WAY overblown and involved some manufactured outrage. It's not quite at the level of one that almost made me throw the remote at the TV the other day- flipping through channels and seeing someone complaining about the on hold music chosen for House members by Nancy Pelosi not being patriotic enough- but it was just a small step above that kind of unseriousness.

The best thing a responsible parent could do would be to watch the speech him/herself and discuss it with the child(ren) tonight at the dinner table.

This whole uproar is just stupid. Since when is it wrong for the President of the USA to talk to children about staying in school and working hard? I am so sick of this partisan crap. It is obvious it isn't his speech that is the problem. It is the fact these people want to obstruct anything the President does. This school speech issue proves that. Laura Bush approves of Obama's speech to the school children and hits the nail on the head about respecting the president.

"Just because something inappropriate isn't mandatory does not make it acceptable. "

What I find bad (I'll kindly just leave it at that) is the lack of propriety among many, or defective perception or more, who don't understand what is wrong, or don't care, or actually like it, anyway.

"JD = DLS???"

No. Sorry to disappoint you. (I was away for the holiday weekend.)

"These same people will probably complain when some highly skilled Indian or Chinese lands a well-paying job in the computer industry in the US. "

Actually, Stockster, that's the cynical explanation I provided about the future involving those jobs that can't be sent to China or to India. What can't be "offshored" gets staffed by those from offshore.

"I do think that there's a problem with teachers promoting their political views to young schoolchildren"

C. Stanley, I spent part of my weekend "enjoying" my copy of the 1982 manual by Educators for Social Responsibility, providing guidance to teachers for "nuclear" "education" (i.e., "nuclear war" education or "peace education," the anti-Reagan-and-USA disarmament activism in the schools).

That example is *** so *** appropriate given Obama's flirtation with the extreme left currently.

Newt Gingrich on Obama's speech, "I recommend it to everybody."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/08/newt-g...