I pledge video/Speech being shown in Schools

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
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?

Yes, I am familiar with your position that you oppose the speech because of a sentence that has been removed from the study material. You have no problem with Bush himself (not accompanying materials) saying "write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals." Yet, a similarly worded sentence that didn't even come from Obama is enough to cause you to oppose him telling students to work hard and learn.

By making the materials available early, the Obama administration provided anyone who was interested the opportunity to have input to the materials. As a result of that input, an ambiguous sentence was removed. Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer, who started this controversy, is taking credit for the modification and his kids will be watching Obama tomorrow. You on the other hand, will rather throw the baby out with the no longer existent bathwater.

There is no way you can claim to support the President's message while opposing his communication of that message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

They weren't partisan. They were an exercise in civics. Is that still taught, I wonder?

[Anonymous]

My kids school sent home a permission slip late last week in which we had to sign if we wanted our children to hear the speech. There was no pressure either way and the letter stated that they would accomodate those who wanted their children to hear and as well as those that did not. So at least in my school district I don't feel that this is being forced on me and I was pleased that the ultimate decision rested with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids school sent home a permission slip late last week in which we had to sign if we wanted our children to hear the speech. There was no pressure either way and the letter stated that they would accomodate those who wanted their children to hear and as well as those that did not. So at least in my school district I don't feel that this is being forced on me and I was pleased that the ultimate decision rested with me.

Right; the issue has been resolved but for some reason jsteele is annoyed with me for having an issue with the educational materials in the first place. If they were so great, why, perchance, were they amended? Does this admin have zero backbone it won't stand behind sound materials?? I have no issue with the materials/speech/responsibility message etc. etc.as they go forward. I never said I did. Just that, at this point, it should be a choice as it appears to be nation-wide. For attacking me as having a current "issue" with a resolved issue, you are the illogical one jsteele.

Vis Bush--I never said I did not have a problem with his comment. I said provide the full context rather than your little snippet and let people decide for themselves between the two situations.

Glad to hear it is working out for everyone's children; yes they still teach Civics. My child took it last year.

[Anonymous]

Don't take it personal, Jsteele has issue with anyone who remotely questions Obama and his Administration.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Right; the issue has been resolved but for some reason jsteele is annoyed with me for having an issue with the educational materials in the first place. If they were so great, why, perchance, were they amended? Does this admin have zero backbone it won't stand behind sound materials?? I have no issue with the materials/speech/responsibility message etc. etc.as they go forward. I never said I did. Just that, at this point, it should be a choice as it appears to be nation-wide. For attacking me as having a current "issue" with a resolved issue, you are the illogical one jsteele.

Nice try, but you can't airbrush your position quite so easily. You must have forgotten this exchange:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

Despite the fact that the ambiguous sentence in the study materials had been amended, you still opposed the President giving the speech because it was "tainted". You wanted him to "try again next time." You were very clear about that. Obviously, there was always various levels of "choice" involved as the President has no means to force educational materials upon schools.

Also, you indeed said that you did not have a problem with Bush's comment. Here is exactly what you wrote:

"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." Bush asked the students -- during his address -- to write letters to him stating how they could help achieve "our" goals". Yet, you thought that was cool. So, was it cool or was it something with which you had a problem?

It's okay to change your position on something. I have no problem with that. But, just say that you changed your position rather than suggesting that I misstating your position. But, you might not want to say that you changed your position at that same time you question Obama's backbone due to a change of a sentence with which he had nothing to do.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Don't take it personal, Jsteele has issue with anyone who remotely questions Obama and his Administration.

Not anyone. Just those from the Pacific Northwest who compare him with Hitler.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Right; the issue has been resolved but for some reason jsteele is annoyed with me for having an issue with the educational materials in the first place. If they were so great, why, perchance, were they amended? Does this admin have zero backbone it won't stand behind sound materials?? I have no issue with the materials/speech/responsibility message etc. etc.as they go forward. I never said I did. Just that, at this point, it should be a choice as it appears to be nation-wide. For attacking me as having a current "issue" with a resolved issue, you are the illogical one jsteele.

Nice try, but you can't airbrush your position quite so easily. You must have forgotten this exchange:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

Despite the fact that the ambiguous sentence in the study materials had been amended, you still opposed the President giving the speech because it was "tainted". You wanted him to "try again next time." You were very clear about that. Obviously, there was always various levels of "choice" involved as the President has no means to force educational materials upon schools.

Also, you indeed said that you did not have a problem with Bush's comment. Here is exactly what you wrote:

"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." Bush asked the students -- during his address -- to write letters to him stating how they could help achieve "our" goals". Yet, you thought that was cool. So, was it cool or was it something with which you had a problem?

It's okay to change your position on something. I have no problem with that. But, just say that you changed your position rather than suggesting that I misstating your position. But, you might not want to say that you changed your position at that same time you question Obama's backbone due to a change of a sentence with which he had nothing to do.

How did I oppose the speech going forward with choice when I said they can roll it out again without my buy-in? I would let my child listen, but with a grain of salt. That, my friend, is 'buy-in'. Listening unquestioningly.

[Anonymous]

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.

Then you should home school your kids because there are lots of things that teachers do that will be perceived as mandatory by kids. Part of being a parent is helping kids sort out which part of what their teachers tell them is b.s. and which part is useful. If you can't manage to do that around the educational materials provided with this speech, how can you do it with the other aspects of the curriculum with which you disagree? So pull your kids out of school and teach them yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous 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.

Then you should home school your kids because there are lots of things that teachers do that will be perceived as mandatory by kids. Part of being a parent is helping kids sort out which part of what their teachers tell them is b.s. and which part is useful. If you can't manage to do that around the educational materials provided with this speech, how can you do it with the other aspects of the curriculum with which you disagree? So pull your kids out of school and teach them yourself.[/quot

Wow, that's quite the leap.

[Anonymous]

I fully expect these people offended to be equally upset about prayer in school and a mandatory pledge of allegiance.

Yeah. Sure.