I pledge video/Speech being shown in Schools

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Because working hard in school = socialism. Didn't you know?

Not only that. Well-educated young people are Obama's strongest demographic. The last thing the Republicans want is more of them. They actually want the kids to drop out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah, to be fair, I should state that I don't actually know whether Rush Limbaugh rides in a limo or not.

If he does ride in one, he's not telling others not to. Although, he had his prescription drug problem so I have no respect for him. My problem with the celebrities is this "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality. These people own multiple estates, fly on private jets, consume enormous amounts of energy & have zero morals but they are going to tell the rest of us how to live? On the bright side, most of the "celebrities" in the video are mildly talented has beens so I doubt many young adults even know who they are.

[Anonymous]

http://www.surgeusa.org/actions/sept8.htm

[Anonymous]

My son has a fascination with U.S. presidents and looks up to Obama. I hope he gets to watch it in school, because I am always telling him how important it is to do good in school and what an education means. It would be nice for him to hear the same message coming from our president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone understand that the "I Pledge" video is not what is going to be shown in school next week. This "I Pledge" video looks very similar to the "will i am" videos during the campaign which were not done by Obama or his campaign. Those were "Yes We Can" videoes and the exact same Hollywood celebs appeared in them. The live stream next week is the supposed to be the President telling children to work hard in school. I really wish someone would explain what the problem is in that message.

16:51 here for pp and jsteele...that's what I was getting at. Yes, the "I Pledge" video is a little creepy at some points but I don't think it's the same as the video being shown in schools. I'm a teacher, but I teach Pre-K at a small private school so I don't think we're seeing that video..at least this is the first I've heard of it.

I don't have a problem with the President of the United States taking time out of his busy schedule to encourage students to study hard and to get involved, in politics. Or having students brainstorm ways they can be involved with their country (help people, recycle, etc). It's all about helping students develop a sense of community and ethics so that they can grow up to be responsible citizens.

I think everyone on this thread needs to take a deep breath, relax, and research the situation before getting all hyped up and start accusing Obama of being the next Hitler.

It's scary when the adults in this world don't think to get the facts. Did you know that most democracies last only about 200 years before they fall? (i.e. the fall of Rome). We need to be able to think for ourselves and evaluate things, not just jump on the bandwagon with everyone else. Otherwise democracy won't stick around for long.....anyway getting off the point.....

[Anonymous]

Can you imagine the outrage of Mr. and Mrs. Obama had their children been attending public school and President Bush tried this. With or without the lesson plans they too would be calling FOUL. Which brings me to my second point, if the public option is so great why then have they always sent their kids to private schools??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you imagine the outrage of Mr. and Mrs. Obama had their children been attending public school and President Bush tried this. With or without the lesson plans they too would be calling FOUL. Which brings me to my second point, if the public option is so great why then have they always sent their kids to private schools??

Bush refrained, but how about Newt? This is from TalkingPointsMemo, admittedly a liberal site: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/could_texas_gingrich_based_curriculum_go_national.php

On the second point, he has been consistent in supporting the right of people to stick with the private option if they wish; what's so odd about doing so himself?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Can you imagine the outrage of Mr. and Mrs. Obama had their children been attending public school and President Bush tried this. With or without the lesson plans they too would be calling FOUL. Which brings me to my second point, if the public option is so great why then have they always sent their kids to private schools??

This video was produced by private individuals and given to Obama on his inauguration. Obama has nothing to do with it. Please pay attention. Obama is talking to students next week. Maybe you should at least wait until you hear what he has to say before you attack him -- not that what he has to say will matter to you, but at least do him the favor.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you imagine the outrage of Mr. and Mrs. Obama had their children been attending public school and President Bush tried this. With or without the lesson plans they too would be calling FOUL. Which brings me to my second point, if the public option is so great why then have they always sent their kids to private schools??

This video was produced by private individuals and given to Obama on his inauguration. Obama has nothing to do with it. Please pay attention. Obama is talking to students next week. Maybe you should at least wait until you hear what he has to say before you attack him -- not that what he has to say will matter to you, but at least due him the favor.

This is a rare moment where I am in agreement with Mr. Steele. I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one. If his message is to tell kids to study hard and stay away from drugs and alcohol, I think this is a very good thing, particularly for at-risk students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you imagine the outrage of Mr. and Mrs. Obama had their children been attending public school and President Bush tried this. With or without the lesson plans they too would be calling FOUL. Which brings me to my second point, if the public option is so great why then have they always sent their kids to private schools??

This video was produced by private individuals and given to Obama on his inauguration. Obama has nothing to do with it. Please pay attention. Obama is talking to students next week. Maybe you should at least wait until you hear what he has to say before you attack him -- not that what he has to say will matter to you, but at least due him the favor.

This is a rare moment where I am in agreement with Mr. Steele. I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one. If his message is to tell kids to study hard and stay away from drugs and alcohol, I think this is a very good thing, particularly for at-risk students.

The issue is not the video relating the value of education; the issue is the accompanying educational materials including essay prompts on "What I can do to help the President" (now retracted). That is fuzzy and open to the misinterpretation of partisanship. Even that slight taint is not OK when it comes to public education; it simply does not reflect our American values of an un-coerced public system. The President should be able to address young people, but they should not then be asked to write him letters on how they can 'help him.' I don't know who his advisors are, but time and time again they have an admirable goal and then promptly step in it. Let them show this video according to school-district choice with the opt-out option, regroup, and perhaps he can address the children again in the future with lessons learned from this experience and make it fully about the children, not the President, party etc. I cannot support the DOE materials that were planned with this message's release, and they tainted this round for me.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
The issue is not the video relating the value of education; the issue is the accompanying educational materials including essay prompts on "What I can do to help the President" (now retracted). That is fuzzy and open to the misinterpretation of partisanship. Even that slight taint is not OK when it comes to public education; it simply does not reflect our American values of an un-coerced public system. The President should be able to address young people, but they should not then be asked to write him letters on how they can 'help him.' I don't know who his advisors are, but time and time again they have an admirable goal and then promptly step in it. Let them show this video according to school-district choice with the opt-out option, regroup, and perhaps he can address the children again in the future with lessons learned from this experience and make it fully about the children, not the President, party etc. I cannot support the DOE materials that were planned with this message's release, and they tainted this round for me.

Let's see if I understand your logic:

1) the original idea was good;
2) a mistake was made in the planned implementation;
3) the mistake was corrected and the planned implementation now matches nicely with the original goal;
4) you still oppose the idea because at one time the planned implementation contained a mistake.

Note, I use the term "logic" loosely.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The issue is not the video relating the value of education; the issue is the accompanying educational materials including essay prompts on "What I can do to help the President" (now retracted). That is fuzzy and open to the misinterpretation of partisanship. Even that slight taint is not OK when it comes to public education; it simply does not reflect our American values of an un-coerced public system. The President should be able to address young people, but they should not then be asked to write him letters on how they can 'help him.' I don't know who his advisors are, but time and time again they have an admirable goal and then promptly step in it. Let them show this video according to school-district choice with the opt-out option, regroup, and perhaps he can address the children again in the future with lessons learned from this experience and make it fully about the children, not the President, party etc. I cannot support the DOE materials that were planned with this message's release, and they tainted this round for me.

Let's see if I understand your logic:

1) the original idea was good;
2) a mistake was made in the planned implementation;
3) the mistake was corrected and the planned implementation now matches nicely with the original goal;
4) you still oppose the idea because at one time the planned implementation contained a mistake.

Note, I use the term "logic" loosely.

Yes; you summed up correctly. The process was tainted. They can still roll it out-without my buy-in. Try again next time, without a tainted process. Between you and me, and DCUM, the Pres has horrible advisors.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The issue is not the video relating the value of education; the issue is the accompanying educational materials including essay prompts on "What I can do to help the President" (now retracted). That is fuzzy and open to the misinterpretation of partisanship. Even that slight taint is not OK when it comes to public education; it simply does not reflect our American values of an un-coerced public system. The President should be able to address young people, but they should not then be asked to write him letters on how they can 'help him.' I don't know who his advisors are, but time and time again they have an admirable goal and then promptly step in it. Let them show this video according to school-district choice with the opt-out option, regroup, and perhaps he can address the children again in the future with lessons learned from this experience and make it fully about the children, not the President, party etc. I cannot support the DOE materials that were planned with this message's release, and they tainted this round for me.

Let's see if I understand your logic:

1) the original idea was good;
2) a mistake was made in the planned implementation;
3) the mistake was corrected and the planned implementation now matches nicely with the original goal;
4) you still oppose the idea because at one time the planned implementation contained a mistake.

Note, I use the term "logic" loosely.

Yep, Jeff you're right. That "logic" sounds a bit ridiculous. I don't understand why this address that hasn't even happened yet is such a huge deal. The President is not just the president to Democrats. Why shouldn't people pledge to help our country in any way they can? Why is that not ok with non-democrats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep, Jeff you're right. That "logic" sounds a bit ridiculous. I don't understand why this address that hasn't even happened yet is such a huge deal. The President is not just the president to Democrats. Why shouldn't people pledge to help our country in any way they can? Why is that not ok with non-democrats?

Because they don't want to help their country...they want to help themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah, to be fair, I should state that I don't actually know whether Rush Limbaugh rides in a limo or not.

If he does ride in one, he's not telling others not to. Although, he had his prescription drug problem so I have no respect for him. My problem with the celebrities is this "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality. These people own multiple estates, fly on private jets, consume enormous amounts of energy & have zero morals but they are going to tell the rest of us how to live? On the bright side, most of the "celebrities" in the video are mildly talented has beens so I doubt many young adults even know who they are.

I know it ruins the joke if I spell it out but the point is that we know that he didn't graduate from college, he is addicted to drugs, and he has been divorced. I just have no evidence about the limo part.