I pledge video/Speech being shown in Schools

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
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?

Let's compare track records:

1) Obama appoints a guy who called Republicans "assholes" and championed investigations of 9/11. Glen Beck throws a hissy fit, creating unnecessary controversy and the guy resigns.

2) Bush appoints the head of a horse association to lead FEMA. The guy totally blows FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina. Bush goes on national TV to say "Heck of a job Brownie!".

Correcting errors, by whatever means, is better than doubling down on them.

As for al-Megrahi, I read BBC news and The Guardian newspaper each day on the internet. I remember several articles prior to al-Megrahi's release in which US officials opposed the release prior to the Scottish decision. Here is one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/18/lockerbie-bombing-us-senators

"Last week, the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, phoned MacAskill urging him not to release the Libyan."

"Seven US senators – including Edward Kennedy and John Kerry – have written to the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, urging him to keep the 57-year-old in prison in Scotland."

Here is another:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/aug/19/lockerbie-scotland

"US secretary of state says it would be 'inappropriate' to release the terminally-ill Libyan convicted of blowing up Pan Am flight 103"

(Contains video of Clinton opposing the release)

The article to which you link misrepresents reality. Your unthinking willingness to go along with anything that fits your anti-Obama stance is sad. Yes, it is your misinterpretation, along with a bit of willful ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Um great points all except the article from the daily mail citing sources at number 10
does not say they came out publicly for it- rather gave tacit
permission behind closed doors. When outrage boiled over
they backpedaled and now are leaving the Brits to take
the heat on their own. Believe it if you want; this is the first
of what I am sure will be many articles digging behind
the scenes. Personally I am hoping that the same admin
investigating enhanced interrogation is not in line
with American lives for oil. Let's see.

[Anonymous]

BTw- with regard to brownie - FEMA did blow
the public relations that's for sure. With
regard to FEMA response, no one is sure
what Nagin was looking for, but he did not request
FEMA response as required by law of the
land, invite in federal support, nor fully utilize his own emergency
plans. How is that Brownie's fault?

[Anonymous]

I am so sick of this Republican vs Democrat debate that you always talk about.

I am a Dem and I know lot's of other Dems who are not happy about Obama speech tomorrow. A lot of them feel politics don't have a place in schools.
You always speak like Republicans are the only ones who are against anything Obama does. It gets old.

you're blaming Glenn Bleck for causing Van Jones to quit?

[Anonymous]

Text of the speech.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/07/obama.school.speech.pdf


Completely harmless.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I am so sick of this Republican vs Democrat debate that you always talk about.

I am a Dem and I know lot's of other Dems who are not happy about Obama speech tomorrow. A lot of them feel politics don't have a place in schools.
You always speak like Republicans are the only ones who are against anything Obama does. It gets old.

you're blaming Glenn Bleck for causing Van Jones to quit?

Any Democrats who believe that Obama is interjecting politics into schools with this speech is misinformed. As for you being a Democrat, in an earlier post you compared Obama to Hitler. I doubt you are much of a Democrat, but if you are, you are very confused and probably should consider changing your registration.

And, yes, Glenn Beck was the leading critic of Jones and the one with the biggest megaphone to make sure his complaints were heard.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so sick of this Republican vs Democrat debate that you always talk about.

I am a Dem and I know lot's of other Dems who are not happy about Obama speech tomorrow. A lot of them feel politics don't have a place in schools.
You always speak like Republicans are the only ones who are against anything Obama does. It gets old.

you're blaming Glenn Bleck for causing Van Jones to quit?

Any Democrats who believe that Obama is interjecting politics into schools with this speech is misinformed. As for you being a Democrat, in an earlier post you compared Obama to Hitler. I doubt you are much of a Democrat, but if you are, you are very confused and probably should consider changing your registration.

And, yes, Glenn Beck was the leading critic of Jones and the one with the biggest megaphone to make sure his complaints were heard.

BUS-ted!

[Anonymous]

Im the one who made the Hitler comparison, not the 12:58 poster.

for what it's worth, I am not a dem or a rep. Have a nice day!

[Anonymous]

OMG, I just read that speech and it's major theme is really subversive. God forbid my child should be exposed to a speech all about......PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for
talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse
for not trying.
Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.
That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.

So if you keep your kid home from school so he/she doesn't hear that speech, how are they ever going to learn to take responsibility for themselves and not go to the government for handouts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG, I just read that speech and it's major theme is really subversive. God forbid my child should be exposed to a speech all about......PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for
talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse
for not trying.
Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.
That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.

So if you keep your kid home from school so he/she doesn't hear that speech, how are they ever going to learn to take responsibility for themselves and not go to the government for handouts?

The point was never the speech; the point was the over the top "educational" materials. Why not allow people choice over that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, I just read that speech and it's major theme is really subversive. God forbid my child should be exposed to a speech all about......PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for
talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse
for not trying.
Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.
That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.

So if you keep your kid home from school so he/she doesn't hear that speech, how are they ever going to learn to take responsibility for themselves and not go to the government for handouts?

The point was never the speech; the point was the over the top "educational" materials. Why not allow people choice over that?

I had no idea people didn't have a choice. I thought those educational materials were merely suggestions. Are they mandatory? Because maybe then I could understand the big deal. Or is this a case of everyone getting all upset at the very idea of something rather than what it actually is?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I had no idea people didn't have a choice. I thought those educational materials were merely suggestions. Are they mandatory? Because maybe then I could understand the big deal. Or is this a case of everyone getting all upset at the very idea of something rather than what it actually is?

Are you aware of any law that allows any individual -- the president or otherwise -- to make any study material mandatory in American schools? There is no such law. All of this is much ado about nothing. Even Newt Gingrich has defended the speech. The guy down in Florida that started the whole controversy was on TV tonight saying the speech is fine and even his kids will be watching it. The study material are only to assist teachers in making the most of the President's speech. There is no requirement, indeed no way to make such a requirement, that they be used.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I had no idea people didn't have a choice. I thought those educational materials were merely suggestions. Are they mandatory? Because maybe then I could understand the big deal. Or is this a case of everyone getting all upset at the very idea of something rather than what it actually is?

Are you aware of any law that allows any individual -- the president or otherwise -- to make any study material mandatory in American schools? There is no such law. All of this is much ado about nothing. Even Newt Gingrich has defended the speech. The guy down in Florida that started the whole controversy was on TV tonight saying the speech is fine and even his kids will be watching it. The study material are only to assist teachers in making the most of the President's speech. There is no requirement, indeed no way to make such a requirement, that they be used.

When a teacher suggests extension activities to elementary students they can be considered as good as mandatory depending on how they are presented and the affective state of the child. Perhaps legal eagle jsteele was all lawyered up in K-6, but most kids are not that sophisticated.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
When a teacher suggests extension activities to elementary students they can be considered as good as mandatory depending on how they are presented and the affective state of the child. Perhaps legal eagle jsteele was all lawyered up in K-6, but most kids are not that sophisticated.

You are really lost in the weeds. Yes, if a student is presented material, he may perceive it to be mandatory. But, there is no way for the President to force the teachers to present the material in the first place. But, just what is it in the President's message that kids should work hard to do well in school that you find so objectionable?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When a teacher suggests extension activities to elementary students they can be considered as good as mandatory depending on how they are presented and the affective state of the child. Perhaps legal eagle jsteele was all lawyered up in K-6, but most kids are not that sophisticated.

You are really lost in the weeds. Yes, if a student is presented material, he may perceive it to be mandatory. But, there is no way for the President to force the teachers to present the material in the first place. But, just what is it in the President's message that kids should work hard to do well in school that you find so objectionable?

Whaaat? As I've maintained since I entered this thread (I'll say it once more) my issue was never with his message, nor with Pres Bush I addressing the kids. I think that's cool. It was with the Department of Ed materials asking children to think up ways to 'help the President" as a stand-alone activity, among an overload of activities that come with the speech. It stirred up a lot of doubt in people who withdrew their trust about the speech in general. Hence, make the speech optional so no one feels they've been ridden rough shod, and the next time that the Pres and the DOE attempt something similar, the President should bear in mind that he is indeed the President, it is a high office. it arouses intense emotion, and he needs to be sensitive to those who would perceive an agenda (even if there is none). Yes, he must word things carefully--especially things intended to be transmitted to every school child in the country. Oh my. Shocking. Thank good ness he has a big staff. Does he not have people he pays to help dodge these silly messes?