And the poor spanish wasn't a slur. It was a comment on party indoctrination. I could just as easily said “arabic” or “hindi” but those characters aren't on my keyboard. And I'm not apologetic like you. If you don't like my statement……tough.

And I've agreed with Newt on this topic since the “lesson plans” were changed. I've read the speach, and found little objection. I've said that from the beginning. My children went to school today (all three of them); and as far as I can tell from conversations with them, it went well. I applaud the President on the speech and for changing what needed to be changed a week ago.

You failed in 1865. Wearing a dress, no less.

Eat it.

Oops! Well, I am sure the occasion will present itself again.

Dorian

Yes, and anticipating that some might object to students being asked to making suggestions as how they can help the President of their nation, this was changed almost a week ago to read “Write letters to themselves about what they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.”
A week ago! Yet, did the Conservative uproar diminish? Not it just got louder and angrier.

The lesson plans included ambiguous aspects, but also leading aspects such as:
* Write an essay to yourself about how you can help the President acheive (sic)his goals.”

Yes, and anticipating that some might object to students being asked to make suggestions as how they can help the President of their nation, this was changed almost a week ago to read “Write letters to themselves about what they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.”
A week ago! Yet, did the Conservative uproar diminish? Not it just got louder and angrier.

As far as “global warming” is concerned, as I have written before, the following could be reapplied…

http://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-Teaching-Guide-N…

Another superb contribution to the debate.

I am sure it was a vey informed, informative and positive comment. Shame that the slurs and the code words obscured the real brilliance of the message.

Illogical, but not surprising…As to the Obama personality cult, it's like talking about gravity. [shrug]

Thanks.
Dr.E
Editor, TMV

A little Democratic politics, a little health care, a little 'climate change' …”

I would suggest that if you think “stay in school” is Democratic politics, you should worry strongly about your own party, DLS.

You know what, DLS, I'm pretty sick of you righty-tighties talking about a “personality cult” after dealing with the last 8 years. Yeah, Obama ran a great campaign, inpired a lot of people, is a historic president because of the color of his skin, but honestly? After 8 years of having a president that people talked about like *God* had a hand in electing him? God himself talked to GWB! Whose DoJ interviewees had to answer questions like “Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public suervice who you admire” and “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?”. Or how about this lovely bit of propaganda? http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/04/1…
Cult of personality indeed…

A little Democratic politics, a little health care, a little “climate change” …

Also: JD, it's pretty impossible to take you seriously with that name.

They weren't mandated, Polimom, but they were encouraged and their use obviously(!) was sought.

Don't expect the, ahem, “challenged” to learn what's obvious, or to admit they were ignorant (or worse, approved of such plans for that “teachable moment”).

The timing of the speech was propitious, you could say — with the health care bumbling in trouble, as well as with Obama's siding with the crazier lib Dems in Congress and continuing the weird post-election campaign mode and personality cult exploitation. (No, Obama is not another Lincoln, FDR, or John F. Kennedy, despite how much the cultists would like this to be believed.)

The original, generalist (federal-government-and personality-cult-totalitarian-style) lesson plans struck me as something creepy that was derived from Educators for Social Responsibility's Soviet-auxiliary “nuclear” or “peace” “education” attack on the schools in the 1980s. (I have a copy of their 1982 “Dialogue” guide, in fact. It provided timely “entertaining” reading this weekend given the scandal about Obama's speech and how applicable that earlier work is. A “Day of Dialogue” to exploit a “teachable moment,” indeed — damage control and recovery of a “progressive” health care and other-goal agenda. [scowl])

As I've said before, with these increasingly-malevolent “progressives” with whom Obama is aligning himself, and the personality-cult “campaign” post-election (like “revolutions” that never end; Obama's intelligent critics have been called every insult but “counter-revolutionary” — so far, at least), I would not be surprised if the Department of Education became involved with Educators for Social Responsibility and the like. With health care and politicizing of it (as was done in the 1980s with the nuclear “freeze” movement infiltrating medical education and the public health activist community), I wouldn't be surprised not only to see more wrongful idiocy like gun control or global warming claimed to be “public health” prblems, and more politicizing of the CDC, for example, in this regard; but if the wackier lefties got their way and made “advances” now with health care, don't be surprised to see “lifestyle control” as a “public health” issue along with gun control and global warming, and to see the more crazy Demmies choose to make more health care “progress” in association with Physicians for Social Responsibility, “IPPNW” converted to “climate change,” and of course Physicians for a National Health Plan. Extreme, but completely possible and logical nowadays.

Just…no. Respected, by all means, but not beloved. Some presidents *have* been beloved (Washington and FDR in their time, and Lincoln after), but there should be no ex officio presumption of this. I have lived in a country with a beloved leader, and it's more than a bit creepy.