I pledge video/Speech being shown in Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

School children should not be required to write essays titled "How can I help my president" unless they are in Stalinist Russia. An elected president is president of all, but comes with a partisan agenda. Children should not be required to hypothesize ways to support that. Seriously? I stated that I don't have any issue with the President (whatever president) addressing schoolchildren. I do have an issue with the educational materials that came with it. Try again next time. What, exactly, do you find illogical? The speech is currently being aired as a matter of choice for school systems and children to opt in and out. This is a problem for you?

[Anonymous]

And they should be required to write them in Stalinist Russia? I don't get that.

[Anonymous]

It's easy to understand why certain folks are up in arms over this video-leftist Hollywood celebrities (including rock stars of all things), messages about going Green, mentioning giving the finger (even if the suggestion is not to do it) and the word Obama itself-what could be more polarizing to the GOP contingent who have always been more focused on the image than the actual digestion of the messages behind the image when it comes to the left. The suggestion about limiting toilet flushing? Grandma would be rolling in her grave!

[Anonymous]

I have a problem with the written materials and would ask that my child be excused from the "Obama" activity if she was old enough to be in school. I would have a problem no matter who was in office--politics is for adults and even though the administration has changed the materials due to public concern, I am not happy that there was even an attempt to manipulate in the first place.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
School children should not be required to write essays titled "How can I help my president" unless they are in Stalinist Russia. An elected president is president of all, but comes with a partisan agenda. Children should not be required to hypothesize ways to support that. Seriously? I stated that I don't have any issue with the President (whatever president) addressing schoolchildren. I do have an issue with the educational materials that came with it. Try again next time. What, exactly, do you find illogical? The speech is currently being aired as a matter of choice for school systems and children to opt in and out. This is a problem for you?

"Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address." -- Comrade George H. W. Bush talking to Soviet Russian, I mean American, school children in 1991.

I assume you threw an appropriate hissy fit back then. If not, please help us weed out the fifth columnists that resulted from the indoctrination forced upon the innocent school children. All we need is for GHWB to start flashing Queen of Diamonds and triggering them to take over the government.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the children being asked to write letters to Obama. What they were being asked to support was not any old policy such as health care reform or cap and trade. They were asked to support his initiative to keep kids in school. But, since the wording was open to interpretation, that aspect was changed. It's no longer there. So, I don't know why conservatives can't get on board.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
School children should not be required to write essays titled "How can I help my president" unless they are in Stalinist Russia. An elected president is president of all, but comes with a partisan agenda. Children should not be required to hypothesize ways to support that. Seriously? I stated that I don't have any issue with the President (whatever president) addressing schoolchildren. I do have an issue with the educational materials that came with it. Try again next time. What, exactly, do you find illogical? The speech is currently being aired as a matter of choice for school systems and children to opt in and out. This is a problem for you?

"Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address." -- Comrade George H. W. Bush talking to Soviet Russian, I mean American, school children in 1991.

I assume you threw an appropriate hissy fit back then. If not, please help us weed out the fifth columnists that resulted from the indoctrination forced upon the innocent school children. All we need is for GHWB to start flashing Queen of Diamonds and triggering them to take over the government.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the children being asked to write letters to Obama. What they were being asked to support was not any old policy such as health care reform or cap and trade. They were asked to support his initiative to keep kids in school. But, since the wording was open to interpretation, that aspect was changed. It's no longer there. So, I don't know why conservatives can't get on board.

Why not provide the context? That was embedded in a paragraph about getting a good education. Are you seriously comparing that to the "educational materials" under discussion?

"If you take school seriously, you won't have to settle for a job, just any job. You'll have a career. If you make it your business to learn, one day you'll be a better parent. You may not think about it now, but one day your children will want to look up at you and say, ``I've got the smartest Mom and Dad in the world.'' Don't disappoint them.

Let me leave you with a simple message: Every time you walk through that classroom door, make it your mission to get a good education. Don't do it just because your parents, or even the President, tells you. Do it for yourselves. Do it for your future. And while you're at it, help a little brother or sister to learn, or maybe even Mom or Dad. Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address.

Now we're going to walk over to the school auditorium to say hello to the rest of the student body. To all the students across the country who watched us here in this great classroom today, may I simply say thank you and good luck to you this school year."

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450

[Anonymous]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009


President Obama's "Menu of Activities" for our nation's young scholars. It's not terribly offensive stuff, but I can see where some parents might call overload. And the sentence about writing about ways to "help the president" is incredibly ambiguous. That's just the way I see it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Why not provide the context? That was embedded in a paragraph about getting a good education. Are you seriously comparing that to the "educational materials" under discussion?

Are you kidding me? The entire Republican hissy fit about Obama is based on taking one -- no longer existent -- sentence out of context. Now you want context?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009


President Obama's "Menu of Activities" for our nation's young scholars. It's not terribly offensive stuff, but I can see where some parents might call overload. And the sentence about writing about ways to "help the president" is incredibly ambiguous. That's just the way I see it.

That sentence no longer exists. As you note, its offense was ambiguity. Ambiguity is nothing but fuel for rightwing fires. These are people who take a clause about living wills and turn it into "death panels". Now, there are people right here in this thread basing their position on Obama's talk on a sentence that has been removed and students will never hear.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009


President Obama's "Menu of Activities" for our nation's young scholars. It's not terribly offensive stuff, but I can see where some parents might call overload. And the sentence about writing about ways to "help the president" is incredibly ambiguous. That's just the way I see it.

That sentence no longer exists. As you note, its offense was ambiguity. Ambiguity is nothing but fuel for rightwing fires. These are people who take a clause about living wills and turn it into "death panels". Now, there are people right here in this thread basing their position on Obama's talk on a sentence that has been removed and students will never hear.

President Obama often seems to want a 'do-over'. I look forward to his administration getting it right more often the first time. I am so tired of "I am sorry that it was misinterpreted". Can you imagine Bush saying that about WMD's?

[Anonymous]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211495/No-10-turns-Obama-Clinton-criticising-decision-release-Lockerbie-bomber.html

Another Obama administration "do-over". Lives for oil anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009


President Obama's "Menu of Activities" for our nation's young scholars. It's not terribly offensive stuff, but I can see where some parents might call overload. And the sentence about writing about ways to "help the president" is incredibly ambiguous. That's just the way I see it.

That sentence no longer exists. As you note, its offense was ambiguity. Ambiguity is nothing but fuel for rightwing fires. These are people who take a clause about living wills and turn it into "death panels". Now, there are people right here in this thread basing their position on Obama's talk on a sentence that has been removed and students will never hear.

President Obama often seems to want a 'do-over'. I look forward to his administration getting it right more often the first time. I am so tired of "I am sorry that it was misinterpreted". Can you imagine Bush saying that about WMD's?

Of course not, that would mean admitting he was wrong about something.

[Anonymous]

Can we have a do-over of the Iraqui war? Oh wait, you can't bring the dead back to life.

[Anonymous]

In 1991 I wasn't following politics on any level so I didn't know about the then President's speech. Today as a parent I am concerned about indoctrination from ANY political party and don't want it in my child's school so yes if a Republican was in the White House and wanting to make a similiar speech I would not want my child present. Again I want politics out of the classroom.

For what it's worth I was also sickened by the school children who were singing the "I love Obama" song--it was weird. Kids should just be kids and they can make their own political decisions when they are older and hopefully without any adults subltly trying to get to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009


President Obama's "Menu of Activities" for our nation's young scholars. It's not terribly offensive stuff, but I can see where some parents might call overload. And the sentence about writing about ways to "help the president" is incredibly ambiguous. That's just the way I see it.

That sentence no longer exists. As you note, its offense was ambiguity. Ambiguity is nothing but fuel for rightwing fires. These are people who take a clause about living wills and turn it into "death panels". Now, there are people right here in this thread basing their position on Obama's talk on a sentence that has been removed and students will never hear.

President Obama often seems to want a 'do-over'. I look forward to his administration getting it right more often the first time. I am so tired of "I am sorry that it was misinterpreted". Can you imagine Bush saying that about WMD's?

Of course not, that would mean admitting he was wrong about something.

My point is, the retreat to 'misinterpretation' is not a true apology; almost laughable. It constantly puts the onus on those receiving the message, not those giving it. The President should man up when he (his administration) fumbles, lessons learned, do better next time. Was the fact that his Green Czar is a craaazy loon my misinterpretation? Or that he and Hillary were in cahoots on the Lockerbie bomber release until they realized, gasp, that might not play well with the American people and thus became outraged.... my misinterpretation?