President Obama’s Address to Students
Cidu Bill on Sep 4th 2009
I got a message from my son’s high school this afternoon assuring me that he would not be forced to watch Obama’s speech next week, and that the school would provide an alternative educational program for all students whose parents opted them out of watching the speech. I understand this sort of thing is going on in schools all across the country.
Is there any explanation for this other than mass insanity? I could understand it if Obama were intending to ask children to tell their parents to support his health care reform, or suggest they go through their mothers’ pocketbooks and send him all those little pieces of green paper with presidents’ pictures on them… but apparently he’s only going to offer a pep talk about working hard in school.
Just the sort of underhanded thing you’d expect from a native-born Kenyan!
Does anybody sincerely think this is controversial? And if so, why not just follow with an opposing viewpoint such as a clip from Ferris Bueller?
Filed in Barack Obama, Bill Bickel, Ferris Bueller, education, media, politics | 92 responses so far
Lola Sep 4th 2009 at 06:39 pm 1
Maybe it’s going to be about working “hard” in porn school. Then it makes sense. They used to do this for sex education. Some parents would have their kids pulled from the classes, but what the H is controversial about working hard in school? Isn’t that the point of going to school … working hard and learning?
Gaaahhhhh! I feel like Kafka living in Alice’s wonderland.
Cornbread Sep 4th 2009 at 07:18 pm 2
I dunno, if this were a year ago, I don’t think forcing high schoolers to sit through an address by Bush would be very popular either. But then, he was a bad president…
Cidu Bill Sep 4th 2009 at 07:24 pm 3
See, the thing is, I could understand people thinking this was unnecessary. That’s a valid argument, but of course you could say the same thing about pep rallies and DARE programs. One more waste of time, the world doesn’t come to an end.
It’s the controversy aspect that puzzles me, as if Obama were using this as a bully pulpit for supporting gay marriage or somesuch. The fact that school administrators assure us that we can opt our kids out of it and nobody’s asking the administrators whether they’re on crack.
AMC Sep 4th 2009 at 07:26 pm 4
The whack jobs see UN helicopter above every grassy knoll.
Richard Sep 4th 2009 at 07:58 pm 5
I think the problem is that Obama is a charismatic speaker, and the parents are worried that the exposure will lead the kids to like him - which is anathma to the Obama haters. If their kids liked Obama, they would have no choice but to go all Medea on them.
Winter Wallaby Sep 4th 2009 at 08:20 pm 6
No
furrykef Sep 4th 2009 at 08:37 pm 7
Sure there’s a reason. Obama is the antichrist, remember?
David N Sep 4th 2009 at 08:49 pm 8
Why take the risk that Junior will learn to think for himself, rather than be spoonfed bogus info from talk radio bumpkins and talking heads on TV?
But Richard is right … and moreso, there is a group of wacky people who refuse to believe that last year happened. Their hate knows no bounds.
sally Sep 4th 2009 at 08:52 pm 9
@Richard: That’s exactly it. Even my typically moderate conservative friends have gone batshit over this, and that’s exactly what they say - Obama is a good speaker, charismatic, and they don’t trust him. They don’t want their babies exposed to “his agenda.”
The DOE put out some fliers suggesting activities that teachers could do with their students in relation to this talk. The fliers have questions like, “what is the president asking you to do?” “How can you accomplish these things?” Very trite stuff. And somehow this has become, in the conservative mind, “Obama wants my children to help him with his goals! Socialist hive mind! I CAN’T HAVE THEM EXPOSED TO THIS!”
Have we really gotten to the point where parents feel the need to protect their children from THE PRESIDENT? I feel like I’m living in some bizarre movie. And I say this as someone who voted for George W. Bush once, I’m no knee-jerk conservative hater.
These are also the same people, on the whole, who voted for John McCain. You know, Mr. “Country First.” That’s some rich irony.
FlyingFish Sep 4th 2009 at 08:54 pm 10
I think Cornbread has the idea. What would have been objectionable about Bush giving the same speech a year ago? For about half of America, the answer was as follows: Do I really want this guy introducing himself to my kids as kindly Uncle George? Do I really want my kids coming home and talking about how nice and supportive Uncle George was, he must be a wonderful president? Do I really want to have to explain to my kids why I’m opposed to kind Uncle George?
No matter what the up-front message, when he sits at his desk in his sharp suit with the Oval Office background, it’s going to smell of indoctrination on the side. I’m George Bush, kids; I’m likeable, I’m trustable, I’m your Mr. Rogers. Won’t you be my neighbor?
Now it’s a year later, but there are roughly as many Republicans as Democrats in America. And some people, honestly and respectfully, are opposed to Obama’s politics. Not just the whackos. Not because they think he’s from Kenya, not because they think he’s creating death panels, not because he ain’t white. Because they reject his principles; because they have a general opposition to government intrusion without first considering carefully whether it’s necessary, or think the stimulus and the health care bill are not accomplishing anything but wasting taxes, etc. Those are the people who, for honest and fair reasons, do not want their kids to come home talking about Uncle Barack.
sally Sep 4th 2009 at 09:02 pm 11
So people don’t want their children to believe that the president is generally a good guy, simply because they disagree with his policies? What happened to respect for the office? We’re talking basic civics here!
Charlene Sep 4th 2009 at 09:14 pm 12
If a school had dared to do this to Bush, the school would have been shut down and the teachers all fired.
Henry Sep 4th 2009 at 09:37 pm 13
sally : I understood your obvious sarcasm, this isn’t actually a serious attack at you or anything.
As an Australian, I’ve stood and watched all that ‘respect for the office’ guff and have, more than once, wondered how that mentality comes about. Over here, even supporters of the Prime Minister’s party don’t generally have a lot of respect for the man or the office; it’s just not a viewpoint that you encounter. The Prime Minister essentially spends all his time in office trying to fend off attacks from the opposition AND trying to fend off people who voted for him and aren’t satisfied.
Keeps ‘em honest
bd Sep 4th 2009 at 10:10 pm 14
What would have been wrong with Bush doing it? He would have undone any progress made by every English teacher.
Drdan Sep 4th 2009 at 10:27 pm 15
If this had been Bush giving the speech and parents opted to pull their kids out, the right would have gone bonkers, and compared it to school prayer, or the pledge of allegence, or the hatred the left has for the country.
The main problem is that the left doesn’t go for the jugular like the right does with irrational arguements, so the redneck racists to stupid to think straight shout out phrases like kindergardeners watching Barney get their point across to anyone with an IQ above 40 and tie in the overreaching arm of the government.
or it could just be me
in my day I would have bailed for a smoke
LostInTarnation Sep 4th 2009 at 10:29 pm 16
I don’t recall Dubya (the education president, as he called himself sometimes) ever doing this. Although maybe he did and it wasn’t a big deal.
Nor do I follow the idea that he’ll be doing some sort of indoctrination, as the paranoid folks are going on about. But lots of people believe everything Glenn Beck says, and don’t bother to check it out or get any other perspective. And he and others like him see shadowy, terrifying conspiracies everywhere.
I’d like to think that a year from now a vast majority of the birthers and truthers and tenthers and death-panel conspiracists will wake up as from a bad dream, realize the country has pretty much stayed on an even keel and quietly revert back to normality. But then I didn’t think they’d get this nuts to begin with.
Nicole Sep 4th 2009 at 10:30 pm 17
FlyingFish — I am sorry, the sane people who respectfully disagree with Obama’s policies are NOT the ones this school policy is being created for.
If it was not for the birthers, the deathers the tenthers and whatever other wackaloon ‘ER’ there is out there (and lets not forget out official wackaloons — Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Billy boy O’reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage etc) there would be no alternative program being offered. I challenge anyone to find a similar way of handling a Bush address to any organization or school.
The reason this is being done is because the far insane right have been showing up at Obama events with assault weapons … the less insane but equally far right have exhibited uncivil ,verging on violent, behavior. In a word they are terrorizing people.
The right was out there attacking Obama from day one as a socialist whose agenda was to destroy America. Sean Hannity virtually encourages violent revolution, Beck calls Obama a racist that hates white people. All calculated to stir up fear and in some cases violence.
It is no wonder that the school is sending letters home assuring parents that their children are not going to be ‘forced’ to listen to the president. They are simply trying to avoid the crazies.
Richard Sep 4th 2009 at 10:43 pm 18
I have always hated George Bush as much as anyone, and more than most. But it never would have occurred to me to oppose his talking to shcool children because I was afraid that they might think he was nice. Indeed, when George Bush read “My Pet Goat” to school children on September 11, 2001, I don’t recall anyone objecting on the grounds that he was attempting to brainwash children. The object becasue he did nothing immediately upon being told of the attack.
az Sep 5th 2009 at 02:02 am 19
“Is there any explanation for this other than mass insanity?’ –CIDU Bill
Listen, stick to the comics and buy me a ticket to New Zealand. The last thing I need is this President—-or any other President—- lecturing to kids.
If he’s that concerned about education then perhaps he can explain to your kid why next year his/her freshman Chemistry textbook will be $317 instead of $31.70.
I want to see what you think of him after the next stimulus package and the one after that. We actually had the cretin Palin running on the other side and now we have a corporate hack parading as Everyman.
Plain and simple: If he wants to talk to high school kids write an essay. Then let them debate it in class for a week. Then let them pose written questions to him. Then let him respond back in writing. Unfortunately none of this will ever happen. You have a Master of Generalities in office now. In another year or so you’ll understand my position.
You’re locked in your opinions and the banking rot, greed and ineptness that Obama has chosen to ignore doesn’t give you any cause for concern. What bothers you instead is the icing on the cake, rather than the cake itself.
Lest you think I’m a Republican, or a redkneck,or a rich corporate creature, I’m not. I voted for him and hopefully this too shall pass.
CIDU Bill Sep 5th 2009 at 02:16 am 20
AZ, I’m not sure any president has much control over the price of college textbooks. I wish they did, because I have a kid majoring in engineering and I probably don’t have to tell you what his books cost every semester.
Winter Wallaby Sep 5th 2009 at 02:34 am 21
Untrue. I disliked Bush intensely, but I wouldn’t have had any problem with him addressing our schoolchildren and telling them to work hard. Complaining about it would have struck me as insane, and it would have struck any liberal I knew as insane. I got mad about Bush’s actual policies, not about the fact that he read to children and insisted on acting likeable and non-evil while doing it.
I believe your explanation is honest, but honestly, it still strikes me as insane. What is it that you don’t want your kids to know, or to come home talking about? That there’s a president whose policies you disagree with? Or that this president on occasion will act likeable, and say innocuous things like “work hard in school.” Are your kids currently under the impression that Obama nonstop acts like a horrible slobbering monster, and continually things like “I plan to raise taxes for no discernable reason,” while simultaneously stabbing someone’s grandmother?
Keera Sep 5th 2009 at 05:38 am 22
For heavens sake, it’s _the president_. For the _whole_ nation. Go listen! Enough already with this nonsense.
yellojkt Sep 5th 2009 at 06:32 am 23
The rationale, not that I agree with it, is that only in communist dictatorships like North Korea are kids forced to watch the national leader give Big Brother-like two-minute hate rallies. I just think they are just afraid of having their children exposed to an eloquent articulate president. It sours the field for the other mouth-breathing stumblebums out there.
Nebulous Sep 5th 2009 at 06:44 am 24
We definitely don’t want jackbooted Obama Youth running around,
turning their parents in for …umm…
not having health insurance, maybe.
Patrick Sep 5th 2009 at 07:18 am 25
I like the Soupy Sales reference, CIDU Bill.
Suzii Sep 5th 2009 at 07:21 am 26
Most of the liberals I know took every opportunity possible for their children to watch G.W. Bush talk. Seems they were convinced it was the perfect way to ensure the young’uns would decide he was a doofus.
Suzii Sep 5th 2009 at 07:29 am 27
However, it’s true that any number of liberals were displeased when both Reagan and G.H.W. Bush made similar televised speeches to the kiddies. Don’t know that anybody went so far as to make schools offer alternative activities, but the argument then was also along the lines of not letting a politician talk in a publicly funded venue without giving equal time for the opposition. Enhanced by what was, in those long-ago days, the liberal distrust over having television of any sort in the classroom.
Nicole Sep 5th 2009 at 07:46 am 28
Perhaps the explanation is the wackaloons don’t want the kids to see that Obama is not the anti-christ, Hitler, Stalin, Pol-pot, Hannibal Lechter and Voldemort all rolled into one super evil being. The right has spent a lot of time and effort painting Obama with broad brushes of evil. Actually seeing him and listening to him might serve to remove some of that paint
Carl Sep 5th 2009 at 08:05 am 29
Bill, you can ask whether the administrators are on crack. At the PTA meeting.
Nicole Sep 5th 2009 at 09:00 am 30
Says it all
http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=c2205e24035d5a02a96a717ad5701617
Mark M Sep 5th 2009 at 10:01 am 31
Drdan, really not everyone on the right is a “redneck racist” just because they don’t believe in Obama’s policies. And in case you don’t think the left would have gone bonkers had Bush did the same thing, maybe you don’t recall the controversy over Bush Sr.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/03/2051165.aspx
For the record, I think threatening to pull your kids out is way overboard myself.
Carl Sep 5th 2009 at 10:16 am 32
Bill, you are not alone:
http://www.theawl.com/2009/09/parents-horrified-by-presidents-controversial-message-in-favor-of-hard-work-education
http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/264/the-president-cant-talk-to-school-children-because.html
Nicole Sep 5th 2009 at 10:24 am 33
Mark
As I understand it, the issue surrounding Obama’s speech is that he is speaking.
According to the article you posted, the issue with Bush Sr. was that he was using monies paid by the Education Department to a private media firm to produce television coverage of the speech to students. It doesn’t mention anyone complaining that he was giving the speech.
I think there is a difference between complain about what may (or may not) have been inappropriate use of funds and complaining about the president simply giving a speech.
The Bad Seed Sep 5th 2009 at 10:27 am 34
Richard got it at #5. The right is trying to portray everything Obama does as partisan to keep their kids from seeing him, because they see their kids thinking he’s a nice guy as a gateway drug to full democratism. A person’s public perception (charisma, likeability, communication skills, etc.) have ALWAYS been a big factor in elections, all the way back to George Washington, but in this age of total media saturation (via TV, internet, etc), it’s more important than ever. The Republicans tried to counter McCain’s age and perceived prickliness with Palin this time but didn’t quite get the mix right, but at least they seemed to understand the principle, and to be trying. It does make me uneasy that charisma is such a big factor in elections, but it’s human nature to want to associate yourself with people you like, so to ignore that dooms you to fail.
Powers Sep 5th 2009 at 10:28 am 35
But Mark, don’t you see the difference? Then, it was a debate — was this justified, or was it a surreptitious campaign ad? Today, it’s hysterics — oh my god, he’s going to INDOCTRINATE our kids!
Powers &8^]
The Bad Seed Sep 5th 2009 at 10:31 am 36
p.s. Would the Republicans object to Obama’s speach to the kiddies if they were permitted to tack on a rebuttal at the end, like after the President’s State of the Nation address? It’s fun to think about what that might sound like!
The Bad Seed Sep 5th 2009 at 10:32 am 37
Ooops, State of the UNION. Need more coffee,
The Bad Seed Sep 5th 2009 at 10:55 am 38
One last thought about parents, kids, and politics: I grew up hearing screaming tirades about “damn dirty Democrats” at dinner every night, and having to suffer through a constant barrage of political indoctrination. My dad would scream and throw things at the TV every time Teddy Kennedy came on the screen, derisively mock him and call him all kinds of nasty names, and basically treat him as the Antichrist. When ever I voted Democrat or even support something that they did/said, Dad would totally ause me about it. I was registered Republican for a long time even though I was more in the exact middle politically, but I recently (in my mid-40’s) acknowledged that I’m a Democrat at heart and regitered as such.
But last week I felt true anger at my dear departed father for totally ingraining such a distaste/disgust (for lack of a stronger word at the moment) in me for Teddy Kennedy that I can’t step back far enough to objectively analyze or appreciate his accomplishments (I’m going to read his book, do more research, and work hard at changing that, though). Parents are doing their kids an injustice by not allowing them to decide for themselves, and by pressuring and abusing their kids into following their parents’ political beliefs (or religious beliefs, for that matter). My own total conversion may be late, but it was strong and total because it was so hard-won.
Nicole Sep 5th 2009 at 11:05 am 39
OK — there is no doubt that Media Matters is a left website with an agenda that being the case, I suggest you ignore the site’s commentary and just read the excerpt Regan’s speech — clearly he was preaching the gospel of tax cuts to the kids.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909030020
Indoctrination ?
arvy Sep 5th 2009 at 11:18 am 40
Conservatives take joy in pointing out that Democrats objected when George HW Bush did something similar. But even pointing aside the vast differences in the response (objecting to use of taxpayer funds vs. promoting illegal absences etc.), what is the point they are trying to make?
Is it that the democrats were right in objecting to the presidential address to students (in which case, why aren’t they pointing out that GHWB was wrong?)?
Or is that Democrats were wrong to object then and the Republican response now is not about what’s right, it’s just payback?
Keera Sep 5th 2009 at 11:41 am 41
Honestly, the president is going to say whatever he’s going to say, and your parents may or may not agree with it. However, to tell children - or anyone - not to listen to the leader of their own country is taking disagreement too far.
turquoise cow Sep 5th 2009 at 12:30 pm 42
i think probably your school is taking this approach in case there are any crazy parents out there who seriously object, either to the President himself or to whatever message might be involved. yeah, they might be being overly cautious, but it’s better to be overly cautious than to have Parents calling the principal demanding to know why their son/daughter was “forced” to watch the speech. with the crazy people out there, schools can’t be too careful.
i’m reminded of when i was in elementary school and the governor came to my school. he was an incredibly unpopular governor if i remember correctly, and when we heard he was coming, a lot of kids repeated what their parents were saying about him. we were in elementary school and we didn’t really have the slightest clue about the realities of the situation, but the kids had heard that he was awful and they repeated this without really understanding what they were saying. i don’t remember if the school sent out letters to the parents in advance, but i do remember some of our teachers saying things like “we don’t care what your parents think of him or what you think of him, but you will treat the man with respect while he’s in our school.”
politics have gotten so personal, though. you can’t simply disagree with the man’s ideas, you have to vehemently despise his entire way of life. kinda crazy if you ask me.
CIDU Bill Sep 5th 2009 at 12:38 pm 43
turquoise cow, what you say is exactly the defense my son offered — but I don’t think a school should be micro-managed by the fear that some nutjob of a parent might object to something.
Also, this sort of thing hasn’t really been an issue around here: The school’s winter concerts always include quite a number of Christmas songs, some of them fairly religious, and nobody’s ever complained.
CIDU Bill Sep 5th 2009 at 12:40 pm 44
Carl, why waste my time asking rhetorical questions?
Nicole Sep 5th 2009 at 01:49 pm 45
Here is a question: If in fact that the school is changing its behavior to to avoid some possible disruption, whether violence or uncivil behavior, does that mean that the people who might cause the disruption are terrorists ?
MoWatt Sep 5th 2009 at 01:56 pm 46
I think they’re more worried about having to deal with a bunch of angry phone calls and letters than a car-bomb. I know you think republicans are hate-filled racist rednecks but I doubt many of them would protest a politician they don’t like by killing their own children.
GoodStuff Sep 5th 2009 at 02:17 pm 47
DrDan wrote: “The main problem is that the left doesn’t go for the jugular like the right does with irrational arguments.” In his very next phrase he refers to “the redneck racists to (sic) stupid to think straight.”
Charlene puts forth the opinion: “If a school had dared to do this to Bush, the school would have been shut down and the teachers all fired,” stated as if it’s a fact.
Nicole claims that “Sean Hannity virtually encourages violent revolution.” The only thing that keeps that from being an outright lie is weasel word “virtually.” She also brings up how “Beck calls Obama a racist that hates white people.” That’s true, he did. But that’s jsut a stupid, unfounded opinion. I don’t remember calls for boycotting the ignorant egoist Kanye West when he said “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” and that was equally stupid and unfounded.
She later says “The right has spent a lot of time and effort painting Obama with broad brushes of evil.”
Hmmmm, and nobody on the left has spent a lot of time and effort painting Bush, Cheney et al with broad brushes of evil?”
And then all of you want to talk about the sad state of political discourse in this country as if it is only the right that is full of nutty, hypocritical, angry, liars.
From here in the middle, we say: A pox on both your houses.
turquoise cow Sep 5th 2009 at 02:52 pm 48
CIDU Bill- i completely agree with you on that. schools, government, television studios, etc, are so fearful of “offending” someone that they end up not doing anything at all. if parents are so incredibly opposed to Obama speaking to their children, then they probably know about the telecast in advance and thus can keep their kids home anyway, or talk to the individual teachers or do whatever.
GoodStuff- a smart, rational opinion on either side is hard to come by these days. i read an article recently that said that on average, town hall meetings about the health care issue have been calm, rational get-togethers. the media, of course, only reports on the ones where something happens, though. the politicians and pundits that get airtime aren’t the ones who have rational, well-thought out arguments and discussions, but the ones who scream crazy, far right or far left ideals, and mock the other side. it’s no longer simply okay to disagree with a politician, be it George W. Bush or Barack Obama, we have to hate his guts and think he’s the son of the devil here to bring our souls to hell.
Xenocles Sep 5th 2009 at 02:56 pm 49
“Is there any explanation for this other than mass insanity?”
Yeah, there are plenty. But since you’ve already poisoned the well, what’s the point in explaining?
CIDU Bill Sep 5th 2009 at 03:03 pm 50
No, Xenocles, I am sincerely open to a logical explanation. I’ve been known to change my mind on topics such as these.
Jenn Sep 5th 2009 at 03:53 pm 51
It’s not mass insanity–it’s fear of selective insanity. Schools are reacting to a few vocal, frightful folks. One of the jobs schools in the United States (well, public schools, anyway) are supposed to accomplish is to teach children about the government and impart civic values. In that regard, why would anyone object to students watching a message from the elected president of the United States?
Keera Sep 5th 2009 at 04:43 pm 52
Thank you, Jenn. That’s what I can’t understand: Why shouldn’t kids hear the POTUS speak?
Mark M Sep 5th 2009 at 04:58 pm 53
Nicole and Powers,
Yes, I certainly do see the difference between this and Bush Sr’s address to students. I also see the similarity, which is taking something that seems like a positive and complaining about a petty aspect of it. Worrying about Obama indoctrinating children is ridiculous. And worrying about $26,750 paid by the Dept. of Education back then is ridiculous. Actually it’s kind of funny and sad at the same time that they made a big deal about $26,750 given the fact that our current president throws a billion here and there, but I digress. As someone who leans toward the conservative side, it seems like every discussion I have seen about anything Obama involves a liberal throwing out their buzzwords. Rednecks, racists, teabaggers, birthers. We have a few crazies and all of a sudden all conservatives are labeled as such.
CIDU Bill Sep 5th 2009 at 05:29 pm 54
Mark M, I think the problem is that the crazies are the ones making all the news, and therefore they’re the ones getting the attention — which is true about both right-wing crazies and left-wing crazies. Nobody, after all, is going to write about the 99% of all Republicans who believe that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Tim Sep 5th 2009 at 07:53 pm 55
I heard that the original press release said that BO was going to try to encourage students to help his bill pass; ie, urge them to tell their parents to stop opposing him. I doubt that the actual message would have been more than “work hard in school,” and I doubt that the kids would have retained that much. However, the press corps put out the wrong message, and people didn’t want their kids being used as pawns. Somebody in public relations should be fired, and the Prez should try again after the health care thing cools off. Probably there would be no opposition.
CIDU Bill Sep 5th 2009 at 08:11 pm 56
Tim, I very much doubt that there was ever such a press release — but if such a rumor was started, it certainly could explain how the whole “We can’t let our children listen to the President’s speech” controversy began.
Suzii Sep 5th 2009 at 09:00 pm 57
CIDU Bill, I just went through all the White House press releases since mid-July and you’re right. Tim, whoever you heard that from, you might want to tighten your filters on believing them.
Rob Sep 5th 2009 at 09:01 pm 58
Tim, the Obama Administration, working with the Department of Education, posted a suggested lesson plan for schools. One of the bullet points was an assignment for the student to write a letter to themselves outlining what they can do to help President Obama; not help the country, help the president. This caused a great deal of uproar and was quickly scrubbed from the site.
Cidu Bill Sep 5th 2009 at 10:58 pm 59
I don’t remember calls for boycotting the ignorant egoist Kanye West when he said “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” and that was equally stupid and unfounded.
I happened to be discussing Kanye West with my teenage son the other day (in a different context), and he told me that the consensus among his fellow teens was that West came off as a jerk for making that comment — whether or not it was an accurate comment, it was inappropriate — and it did have the effect of marginalizing him. So without an official call for a boycott, the net result was the same.
Kaitlyn Sep 5th 2009 at 11:09 pm 60
I hope I get a chance to see the speech - and I’m in college.
I forgot where I read this, but someone said, “This is the President. It’s historical.”
I still feel a bit better about the fact that my middle school decided to *ignore* Sept. 11th entirely - no news, nothing except one kid getting checked out early. (We later found out it was because of the attacks, but at the time didn’t care.) I still remember coming home and discovering the gravity of the situation. And the fact that my sister’s elementary school knew the whole time.
Anyway, back to the present. If you strongly disagree with Obama, talk to your kids after the speech about why and what they thought. If they’re apathetic (normal) kids, they thought the speech was boring - work hard in school? Wake me when this is over.
Kaitlyn Sep 5th 2009 at 11:10 pm 61
A bit *BITTER*, not better.
Around 8 CST my English teacher told us planes had hit the WTC. None of us cared. Around 10, my gym teacher told us “this doesn’t change anything. Nothing will happen. Do your exercises.”
Cidu Bill Sep 5th 2009 at 11:27 pm 62
I guess 9/11 was a tough call for schools. My kids were in elementary school and middle school, in northern NJ not ALL that far from Manhattan, and they didn’t know what happened until they got home. I was in 3rd grade when JFK was killed and I remember leaving school and a friend ran up to me and told me the news. I told him he had to be wrong, because if the President had been killed, the teacher would have told us.
Cidu Bill Sep 5th 2009 at 11:31 pm 63
One thing I don’t understand is, even if you disagree with every word of Obama’s politics, what legitimate objection could you have to his telling your kid to study hard and stay in school? And a more interesting question: How does a parent explain to his kid why he forbids him to listen to the President’s speech?
zbicyclist Sep 5th 2009 at 11:54 pm 64
To avoid controversy, American History shouldn’t cover any period of time in which either a Republican or Democrat was president, or ran for president and lost.
Just studying Washington and Adams will speed things up, and a lot more kids will get AP credit.
Cidu Bill Sep 6th 2009 at 12:04 am 65
Or better yet, avoid controversy completely by teaching children and allowing them to be exposed to only those facts and opinions their parents explicitly give the school permission to teach them and expose them to.
MoWatt Sep 6th 2009 at 12:16 am 66
I think that’s what home-schoolers do, Bill.
Cidu Bill Sep 6th 2009 at 12:21 am 67
That’s my point, MoWatt: If you want to control every thought that goes into your child’s head, homeschool. If you send your child to a public school, you don’t have the right to micromanage his education.
furrykef Sep 6th 2009 at 01:57 am 68
Hmmmm, and nobody on the left has spent a lot of time and effort painting Bush, Cheney et al with broad brushes of evil?”
I don’t see any hypocrisy at all. I think the things that people hate Bush and Cheney for — like, oh, starting a war on shaky grounds — are much
more serious than the things that people hate Obama for. Just because we hate each other’s presidents doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re both equally justified, or unjustified, in our hatred.
Also, even though we hate Bush, as others have said, we still didn’t have any problem with him talking to kids.
And a more interesting question: How does a parent explain to his kid why he forbids him to listen to the President’s speech?
That’s easy enough, Bill: he doesn’t. “Because I said so” is the universally applicable reason for everything, remember?
- Kef
Willondon Sep 6th 2009 at 08:35 am 69
From Canada, I follow U.S. politics more than I do Canadian politics. For the last decade, I’ve felt like the friend that knows America is basically a good guy, but yeah, a bit unbalanced right now.
Bat-shit insane? Of course not, but it’s increasingly hard to argue against those who say so.
From outside (there is a fair bit of land mass outside the U.S.), it looks like the whole union is about to split up. Hate to paint everybody with a broad brush, but there seems to exist a huge contingent of ignorant people, fuelled by equally ignorant presentations in your mainstream media.
Good luck with that.
Powers Sep 6th 2009 at 08:36 am 70
I, for one, am sick of people who try to equate the problems Republicans have with Clinton and Obama to the problems Democrats had with Bush II. Seriously?
Clinton was, at worst, a philandering slimeball with some very shady business dealings, but at least he balanced the budget. Obama is, at worst, an inexperienced, profligate tax-and-spender who wants to privatize healthcare; he’s only been in office for seven months, so it’s hard to judge his accomplishments, but it’s notable that his opponents have to *make stuff up* in order to criticize him.
Bush, on the other hand, was, at worst, a dynastic president, an incredibly poor public speaker, and hell-bent on war with Iraq no matter the cost and no matter the justification — *and* he never balanced a budget.
Anyone who sees equivalency there must be a Republican, or a Republican at heart.
(Maybe I could start a Jeff Foxworthy-like routine… “If you think cheating on your wife is an unpardonable sin, but warmongering is just dandy, you *might just be* a Republican!”)
Drdan Sep 6th 2009 at 09:02 am 71
Goodstuff and MarK M
I’m sad to see that sarcasm isn’t tolerated, even if the spelling is correct
Ian Osmond Sep 6th 2009 at 09:45 am 72
Henry #13:
As an Australian, I’ve stood and watched all that ‘respect for the office’ guff and have, more than once, wondered how that mentality comes about. Over here, even supporters of the Prime Minister’s party don’t generally have a lot of respect for the man or the office; it’s just not a viewpoint that you encounter. The Prime Minister essentially spends all his time in office trying to fend off attacks from the opposition AND trying to fend off people who voted for him and aren’t satisfied.
Keeps ‘em honest
That’s because your head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, and your head of government is Kevin Rudd.
Our head of government is Barak Obama, and our head of state is Barak Obama.
Since the early 19th century or so, many countries have moved to separate the symbolic, moral head of their country from the practical, everyday head of their government. The United States hasn’t.
Shah Sep 6th 2009 at 10:35 am 73
As an educator I have no problem with the address - however I won’t be showing it live in my classroom. Since we are on an A/B block, I only see my students every other day as it is, and I can’t afford to take away half of their classtime with this, nor can most of my fellow teachers. However our social studies teachers will be downloading the file and showing it in class two days later.
Most of the objection in the education world comes from the fact that we would have to interrupt our lessons to show the video. However, I work in a low income area of mostly first and second generation immigrants. The parents would look at you like you were crazy if you suggested anyone telling their kids to work hard in school was a bad thing.
However, having spoken to my mother, one of her friends apparently had heard some of the rumors that are fueling this fire. True or not I don’t know, but what is being said is that the original lesson plan that the white house was providing included having students write an essay over the topic “How can I help the president” or somesuch. That is what most of my mother’s friends are ranting about anyways.
Haley Sep 6th 2009 at 11:04 am 74
Shah: I haven’t heard any of my fellow coworkers complain about lesson time, especially since we’ve known about this for a week now. I don’t know about you, but I make weekly plans and I’m ready to change at a moment’s notice.
I teach high school speech and cleared it with my principal at 8 am Friday to show the airing. It was cleared. By 3rd, a decision from the super’s office said we couldn’t watch it live, and it would be previewed to make sure there is no political slant. We were told this was a joint decision between the three county supers.
But an article in the paper discovered that’s not entirely true. One county high school is showing it live, but recording it for middle and elementary schools. The Catholic school is letting individual teachers make the call and no student will be forced to watch it.
I think I’m more upset that I’ve been fibbed to than told I can’t show it live.
Cidu Bill Sep 6th 2009 at 11:36 am 75
I certainly have no problem with a school (or a teacher) choosing not to show the speech because it would disrupt the teaching day — only that once the decision is made to show it, and the teaching day has already been disrupted, there’s no rational reason for a parent to refuse to let his child see it (or even to be given that option).
Of course the irony is, this speech should have been just a forgettable part of the school day. I mean really, President tells kids to stay in school, ho-hum, all that would register in most kids’ minds is that they got out of math class. Now that people with apparent political agendas have tried to get it Banned in Boston, every word of it will be big news.
Winter Wallaby Sep 6th 2009 at 01:17 pm 76
What Powers and furrykef said. These attempts to equate left-wing hatred of Bush and right-wing hatred of Obama don’t really work. The left-wing hatred of Bush was primarily based on things like the war on Iraq, torture, illegal wiretapping, etc. . . Even if you think the left was totally wrong on all those issues, it’s hard to argue that those weren’t real, significant issues. On the other hand, much of the right-wing hatred of Obama is based on the fact that he’s secretly a Kenyan, that he’s secretly a Muslim, that he’s secretly a communist, and that he plans to have death panels that will euthanize your mother. Even if you’re on the right, those claims have to strike you as insane. And I do understand that not everyone who is strongly opposed to Obama believes in death panels. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think that Obama is a terrible president because you think the bailout and health care plan are terrible ideas. But the right-wing hatred based on multiple nonsensical claims is much more widespread and mainstream than any left-wing nonsensical claims during the Bush years. Can anyone point to me to a crazy liberal in the media during the Bush years comparable to Glenn Beck—i.e. similarly outrageous claims and similar audience size?
Nicole Sep 6th 2009 at 05:46 pm 77
Goodstuff
“Nicole claims that “Sean Hannity virtually encourages violent revolution.” The only thing that keeps that from being an outright lie is weasel word “virtually.””
I am many things .. but .. I .. am NOT a liar. I would not have posted what I said about Hannity if I did not see something that I felt was virtually encouraging violence — I am looking for the clip. And about that word virtually — I used it because that was the accurate word, NOT because I was being weasley . If he had outright called for violence, I would have said that .. but he didn’t, he virtually called for it.
“She also brings up how “Beck calls Obama a racist that hates white people.” That’s true, he did. But that’s jsut a stupid, unfounded opinion. I don’t remember calls for boycotting the ignorant egoist Kanye West when he said “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” and that was equally stupid and unfounded. ”
Kanye West’s comment was in direct response to the slow, inept, inadequate handleling of the Katrina crisis. We can argue about whether that was justified or not, but there was an obvious reason for his comment. What exactly was Glenn Beck’s reasoning behind his comment ? What has Obama done or has done done that could be interpeted as ‘hating white people’
“Hmmmm, and nobody on the left has spent a lot of time and effort painting Bush, Cheney et al with broad brushes of evil?””
No doubt … but ….
Show me where, within the first six moths of his presidency, attacks were aimed at Bush and Cheney with the same vehemency , non-stop by a major television network, national radio talk show personalities, or the leaders of the Democratic party as are being leveled at Obama. Show me an example of someone with national prominence saying Bush wants to destroy America and take away all our freedoms. Remember, this is all withing the first six months of his presidency. The important point here is that these are people with a national presence ..not bloggers, or fringe groups on the left.
The Bad Seed Sep 7th 2009 at 09:04 am 78
I just realized something… I started first grade in 1969 and every year in school we had to complete the program designed by the President’s Council on Physical Fitness. Did anyone ever object to that on the basis of the undue influence it was giving the President on the youth of America?
James Sep 7th 2009 at 11:22 am 79
It’s because he is black. The people causing the panic may be okay with Obama being President (though unlikely)…but they are NO okay with him instructing their kids.
People seem to be dodging the obvious in search of another explanation.
James (Canadian)
James Sep 7th 2009 at 11:23 am 80
NO = NOT.
FlyingFish Sep 7th 2009 at 01:35 pm 81
Winter Wallaby:
Michael “Yay for Cuba’s health!” Moore. Cindy “Occupied New Orleans!” Sheehan. I could argue for Stephen “Dur, dis is how Republicans talk!” Colbert too, but it’s hard to tell where the satire ends and the honest belief begins.
And yes, Hannity and Beck are morons too. Both sides have their rabid dogs; I don’t listen to any of them, or I’ll lose my faith in humanity.
FlyingFish Sep 7th 2009 at 01:49 pm 82
Also, I clearly remember as early as pre-2000-election — before anyone had “he stole the election!” or “he’s a warmonger!” to excuse their views — well over half of the people on my various forums (none of which were politically oriented!) were against Bush. Not for Gore, against Bush. A couple of them to the “I want him to drop dead” level. I don’t know where or how they got this attitude, but that kind of resistance beats anything I’ve encountered against Obama in any community, online or off, since.
Nicole Sep 7th 2009 at 08:08 pm 83
So … this is waht the fuss is all about — you can read the text of the entire speech right here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/
As the bard himself once said — much ado about nothing
Mitch4 Sep 7th 2009 at 09:13 pm 84
I think he’s often a very good speaker, and I try to keep up with his official weekly podcasts or vidcasts. But I have to say, one thing he’s not is concise.
Winter Wallaby Sep 7th 2009 at 10:52 pm 85
Flying Fish, I ask for a liberal media commentator who criticized Bush with the level of made-up craziness and huge audience of Glenn Beck, and your answer is Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan? This fails badly on both counts. Glenn Beck has regular radio and television shows that tens of millions of conservatives listen to and repeat daily. On the other hand, Michael Moore came out with a book or movie about once every two years, and Cindy Sheehan got some intermittent media coverage. And if your example to show that liberals made crazy things up out of thin air, too, is that Michael Moore praised Cuba’s health care system, I have to say that while I disagree with Moore about that, I can’t see how anyone can say that’s comparable to claims that Obama is a a secret Kenyan who plans set up death panels. Praising Cuba’s health care system isn’t even a false claim, it’s just a bad judgment. Your examples just show how weak these attempts to equate left-wing hatred of Bush and right-wing hatred of Obama are.
And yes, well before the 2000 election, many liberals really hated Bush. No one’s arguing about that. The question is, what are the fantastical, completely made-up stories that they hated him for, comparable to the Kenyan/Muslim/communist/death panel stories? The only thing that I can think of are the 9-11 conspiracy theories, which had nowhere near the broad base that these Glenn Beck theories did (e.g. I can’t think of any commentator on any major news network that espoused 9-11 conspiracy theories).
Keera Sep 8th 2009 at 12:58 am 86
Nicole, thanks for that link. I cannot understand any parent who doesn’t want their child to hear this speech. I wish someone had talked to me like that when I was in high school.
Lola Sep 8th 2009 at 01:33 am 87
Having now seen the text of the speech, the religious right will definitely have a problem with this. It espouses that if the students get a good education they might find a cure for, among other things, AIDS, which is a plague sent by their deity specifically to cleanse the world of homosexuals and other ungodly folks so therefore would be an attempt to thwart god’s will. Better the children remain ignorant than to risk such scarilege.
Nicole Sep 8th 2009 at 07:44 am 88
Finally … the truth about Obama’s address to school children
http://zaiusnation.blogspot.com/2009/09/hypnobama.html
Thank goodness for the internet
Nicole Sep 8th 2009 at 07:47 am 89
Did you hear about this in the liberal press ?
http://horsesass.org/?p=20016
cause I didn’t
Fried Sep 8th 2009 at 10:03 am 90
I understand that the controversy arose when the initial WH descriptions described the speech as the Prez asking the students to get behind him and help him. That lead to questioning of “help him do what?” with the answer being imprecise. like “meet his goals”. Now that the speech is posted concerns have been largely addresses as to the motivation of the speech, and the only ones opposing it now are far righties and the media which loves it when radical right expose themselves.
My take is that it all could have been managed better by the WH when they announced it to begin with.
firedmyass Sep 8th 2009 at 02:00 pm 91
Fried wrote: “…it all could have been managed better by the WH when they announced it to begin with.”
It is impossible to anticipate the behavior of lunatics — wouldn’t have made one bit of difference.
Nicole Sep 8th 2009 at 02:11 pm 92
I agree, it really doesn’t matter what he does or says, there will be a contingency of whackaloons that will twist it into something horrible
Obama: We should all love our mothers
Wackaloon : Obama is promoting incest
you get the idea