View Full Version : Obama's speech on education banned from schools
I think this is just crazy. I really don't know what to say about the people that are accusing Obama of "brainwashing" their children by encouraging them to stay in school.
On September 8, in what the Department of Education is touting as a "historic" speech, President Obama will be talking directly to students across the U.S., live on the White House website. But some parents and conservatives are blasting the president, calling the speech an excuse to brainwash American children.
Last month, in an interview with 11-year-old student reporter Damon Weaver, the president announced his big back-to-school plan:
"I'm going to be making a big speech to young people all across the country about the importance of education; about the importance of staying in school; how we want to improve our education system and why it’s so important for the country. So I hope everybody tunes in."
tunes in."
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter to the nation's principals, inviting schools to watch the speech and included suggested classroom activities. But Jim Greer, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, came out swinging against the planned speech. An excerpt from his statement:
"The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20090903/pl_ynews/ynews_pl888_1
People seem to think Obama is incapable of doing anything right because he is democratic.P
It's propaganda and most of it starts at FOX news.
People seem to think Obama is incapable of doing anything right because he is democratic.POr in some circles, being PWB.
What is wrong with people? What is wrong about the president addressing children, emphasizing how important education is to their futures? Bush got bipartisan support for "No Child Left Behind" though the plan was poorly designed, levied mandates on states who had a hard time paying for them, and resulted in widespread cheating so that schools could maximize their scores, regardless of whether the children were educated instead of being trained to take tests. The latter is a very useful tool for gauging the results of teaching - it should never have been made the penultimate goal of school administrators.
OK.... The Republicans are agin'it. The schools are fer'it. And nobody knows what's in it.
TheStatutoryApe
Sep3-09, 11:02 PM
I didn't see where it says it was "banned".
TheStatutoryApe
Sep4-09, 01:14 AM
striking response to deleted post
noblegas
Sep4-09, 04:51 AM
I am more concern if Obama is going to addressed the problems currently plaguing public schools in general rather than just mindlessly tell students to stay in school. I am more concerned with the quality of education high school graduates received rather whether or not high school students just meet the minimum requirements for graduation. I would hope obama addresses the plans on how the education czar he appointed would reform education in the US and I would want him to address specifically what education policies have been implemented in the past and which ones have failed at improving education and why his education reforms would be better the education reforms of past adminstrations ; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/24/AR2005122400701.html; Furthermore, why should one invest 12 years of there life in public schools "learning" pertinent facts that will drive them towards success in life in the future when only 31 percent of high school graduates are considered to be proficient in reading and a handful of 8th graders are performing at an advanced reading level (http://www.reading.org/downloads/meetings/ILD2007_literacy_facts.pdf)
and most students in public schools are not taught american history very well and history is usually presented in a way where you find yourself just memorizing facts rather than understanding why certain historical events took place; (http://www.historians.org/pubs/archives/AmericanHistory_1944/1_Do_Americans_Know_Their_Own_History.htm); I can definetely attest to the last fact . In my high school, we did not even study all of american history, only american history beginning after the US civil war;
I would hope obama addresses the plans on how the education czar he appointed would reform education in the US and I would want him to address specifically what education policies have been implemented in the past and which ones have failed at improving education and why his education reforms would be better the education reforms of past adminstrations...This is exactly what some parents are afraid of - That Obama will use the speech for propaganda, making claims about the success and failures of different policies, claims they disagree with to say the least, instead of just encouraging them to stay in school, etc.
Does anyone have any info on the speech's planned content? It seems premature to judge it either way otherwise.
Ivan Seeking
Sep4-09, 02:12 PM
It will be posted online before the speech takes place. This will allow parents who object to keep their kids home that day. The "controversial" aspects of the speech have been retracted - that would be the part where Obama was to try to get kids to think about how they can help the country.
This is beyond belief. With all of the lies and propoganda fed the US during the Bush admin [many people still think we were attacked by Saddam on 911], for these people to protest NOW over something like a motivational school speech just shows that they are all nuts. I guess this is right up there with the objections to teaching science in schools.
Ivan Seeking
Sep4-09, 02:23 PM
I am becoming convinced that the greatest threat to this nation is not the debt or the deficit, or the dwindling manufacturing base, or our dependence on foreign oil, or the cost of medical care and entitlements. The greatest threats are right-wing nuts who are dividing this nation with crazy talk and lies.
If the terrorists really want to do us in, just send money to Rush Limbaugh and his buddies. Therein lies our achilles heel - stupidity!
From my morning paper:
There is supposed to be classroom discussion after the speech. Arizona Superintendant of Public Schools Tom Horne issued a press release stating that this may encourage students to see Obama in a worshipful manner.
Flowing Wells Unified School District Superintendent Nicholas Clement opened his inbox Thursday to an e-mail from a parent saying Obama's address "is an inappropriate attempt to campaign to our nation's youth under the guise of an educational message."
In the Amphitheater Public Schools, Superintendent Vicki Balentine said she's heard similar concerns from about two dozen people.
Much of it, she said, stemmed from misinformation. Some callers thought the purpose of the speech was to sell kids on health care, or to address students about homosexuality.
http://www.azstarnet.com/
fourier jr
Sep4-09, 07:28 PM
This is exactly what some parents are afraid of - That Obama will use the speech for propaganda, making claims about the success and failures of different policies, claims they disagree with to say the least, instead of just encouraging them to stay in school, etc.
Does anyone have any info on the speech's planned content? It seems premature to judge it either way otherwise.
lol could be any more political than what the great ronald reagan said to junior high school students in 1988 :rofl:
We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade. These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes and other economic reforms that they're using, copying what we have done here in our country. I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom -- the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state -- was central to the American Revolution when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes, and barriers to free trade. The message at the Boston Tea Party -- have you studied yet in history about the Boston Tea Party, where, because of a tax, they went down and dumped the tea in the harbor? Well, that was America's original tax revolt. And it was the fruits of our labor -- belonged to us, and not to the state. And that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/111488c.htm
Get Schooled a conference/documantary initiated by Bill and melinda Gates premeirs that night. The Obama speech is at noon.
As announced last week, the 30-minute Get Schooled: You Have the Right documentary will air on Sept. 8 at 8 p.m. and will feature President Barack Obama, Kelly Clarkson, and LeBron James. The program will highlight the education challenges, life choices and breakthroughs experienced by President Obama's speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz, Clarkson's music director Jason Halbert, and James' sports marketing executive Latesha Williams--three professionals who provide critical support to these leading figures in politics, entertainment, and sports, respectively. The documentary special will be aired in the first programming "roadblock" of any kind across all Viacom networks, including BET, MTV, VH1, CMT, Comedy Central, Spike TV, TV Land, and Nickelodeon. Cable partners for the television premiere of Get Schooled: You Have the Right include Comcast, Cablevision, Cox Communications, and Bright House Networks.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/get-schooled-documentary-launches-in-hollywood-090827.aspx
The wing nuts here are going crazy. There are Lots of comments in the online version of the news paper. The names Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin come up a lot. The speech has been labeled as a socialist conspiracy to brainwash our children.
The whole blasted comments page looks like something out of the Twilight Zone. How supposedly sane people come up with such paranoid garbage is beyond me.
lol could be any more political than what the great ronald reagan said to junior high school students in 1988 :rofl:We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade. These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes and other economic reforms that they're using, copying what we have done here in our country. I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom -- the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state -- was central to the American Revolution when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes, and barriers to free trade. The message at the Boston Tea Party -- have you studied yet in history about the Boston Tea Party, where, because of a tax, they went down and dumped the tea in the harbor? Well, that was America's original tax revolt. And it was the fruits of our labor -- belonged to us, and not to the state. And that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity.Exactly. Socialists would consider Reagan's speech to be propaganda. (Just look at how he advocated such evil as economic freedom and knowledge of American history and patriotism).
I think this is just crazy. I really don't know what to say about the people that are accusing Obama of "brainwashing" their children by encouraging them to stay in school.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20090903/pl_ynews/ynews_pl888_1
I think any concerned parents should be asked to join their children and hear the speech for themselves. When their children ask questions, they will be able to discuss the content specifically.
I think any concerned parents should be asked to join their children and hear the speech for themselves. When their children ask questions, they will be able to discuss the content specifically.Finally!!! An adult.
fourier jr
Sep5-09, 09:06 PM
Exactly. Socialists would consider Reagan's speech to be propaganda. (Just look at how he advocated such evil as economic freedom and knowledge of American history and patriotism).
seriously, how is it not an explicit political message? how is it less political than a banal message about working hard & staying in school? it's a simple case of fox news implying that reagan's message wasn't political because they liked it (& reagan too) & anything obama says is, because they don't like him. & isn't it ironic that parents are telling their kids to skip school that day :tongue:
This is beyond belief. With all of the lies and propoganda fed the US during the Bush admin [many people still think we were attacked by Saddam on 911], for these people to protest NOW over something like a motivational school speech just shows that they are all nuts. I guess this is right up there with the objections to teaching science in schools.
Who's protesting over a motivational school speech? The news article talks about people protesting over the accompanying lesson plan being pushed onto the schools.
But, I suppose propaganda is okay as long as it comes from the Obama administration instead of the Bush one? :rolleyes:
But, I suppose propaganda is okay as long as it comes from the Obama administration instead of the Bush one?
What are you referring to as propaganda, specifically?
seriously, how is it not an explicit political message? how is it less political than a banal message about working hard & staying in school? it's a simple case of fox news implying that reagan's message wasn't political because they liked it (& reagan too) & anything obama says is, because they don't like him.Where did you hear this? Got a link?
As far as Reagan's speech, my point was that it was political. It was intended to be pro-American, pro-free enterprise, etc. Of course it was political.
Who is claiming otherwise????
What are you referring to ask propaganda, specifically?
I was jabbing at Ivan's comments. "Propaganda" isn't the right word for what the lesson plans described in the news article are being accused of.
So, what exactly are you suggesting Ivan believes "is okay as long as it comes from the Obama administration instead of the Bush one"?
fourier jr
Sep6-09, 12:34 AM
Where did you hear this? Got a link?
As far as Reagan's speech, my point was that it was political. It was intended to be pro-American, pro-free enterprise, etc. Of course it was political.
depends on how you spin it i guess. is that not anti-government propaganda? sounds pretty simple reagan propaganda = good, obama propaganda = bad
Where did you hear this? Got a link?
As far as Reagan's speech, my point was that it was political. It was intended to be pro-American, pro-free enterprise, etc. Of course it was political.is that not anti-government propaganda?No. Reagan's speech wasn't anti-government, it was anti-socialist government. There's a big difference.sounds pretty simple reagan propaganda = good, obama propaganda = badWell, I personally believe anti-socialist, pro-freedom propaganda is good, yes.
As far as Obama's speech, I don't know what it contains, so I couldn't say. Rumor has it he has decided to take any propaganda out of it.
Galteeth
Sep6-09, 04:10 AM
As someone who is sympathetic to a right wing, libertarian point of view, i agree this is nuts.
I can understand the underlying arguments one could make; from the constitutionsalist "federal government shouldn't be involved in the schools", all the way to the anarchist "the president who rules by means of violence shouldn't be respected."
But the reaction to this, given the state of current affairs, makes no sense. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. I have a hard time believing these people have taken such a sudden hard radical turn towards a constitutionalist or anarcist position. Even if they have, a "stay in school kids" speech is pretty low on the outrage list. If you were concerned about these issues, a more logical target would be things like the no child left behind act, or even the notion of government schools althogether.
This stinks of the worse kind of mindless reactionaryism. It is unfortunate that Glenn beck's cult is giving people who don't trust the government a bad name.
I have a hard time believing these people have taken such a sudden hard radical turn towards a constitutionalist or anarcist position.I don't know who you are referring to, but lumping constitutionalist and anarchist positions together seems odd. There's an obvious difference between being against an outlaw government and being against any government.
Of course neither position seems relevant to this topic. It's just a speech.
Galteeth
Sep6-09, 05:17 AM
I don't know who you are referring to, but lumping constitutionalist and anarchist positions together seems odd. There's an obvious difference between being against an outlaw government and being against any government.
Of course neither position seems relevant to this topic. It's just a speech.
Let me put it a different way: I'm not sure where these people are coming from. I was giving hypothetical political motivations for the protest. It seems to be associated with a "right wing" point of view. My point was, even in the context of concerns about socialism or government encroachment on schools, this target doesn't make sense.
Let me put it a different way: I'm not sure where these people are coming from. I was giving hypothetical political motivations for the protest. It seems to be associated with a "right wing" point of view. My point was, even in the context of concerns about socialism or government encroachment on schools, this target doesn't make sense.I understand, my remark was only about lumping constitutionalists with anarchists.
I haven't heard anyone suggest that Obama's speech should be "banned" or prohibited, and no one has provided a link to any such suggestion, so I can only assume that the claim was fabricated.
I've only heard suggestions that Obama shouldn't use the speech to tout his education agenda, that many parents disagree with. And my understanding is that he decided not to, anyway.
This thread seems to be much ado about nothing to me.
Ivan Seeking
Sep6-09, 05:32 PM
But David, you know, you said, it's a firestorm. And we live in the age of firestorms. You know, today, or this week, it's the president speaking in school. What it needs is for people to stand up and say that's flat out stupid, OK? That's flat out stupid what you're talking about. The president of the United States, addressing schoolchildren in this country to study hard, work hard because that's the way you advance in today's global economy. And instead of that, we kind of dance around it, you know. It's flat out stupid.
- Tom Friedman
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32703935/ns/meet_the_press/page/4/
- Tom Friedman
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32703935/ns/meet_the_press/page/4/
What are you trying to say, Ivan?
I am fairly sure he is suggesting there is no intellectual basis for hostility towards the plans for Obama's speech. I got the impression you were trying to say otherwise previously, but you haven't rightly been forthcoming with your position.
Jasongreat
Sep7-09, 01:01 PM
People seem to think Obama is incapable of doing anything right because he is democratic.P
IMHO I think Obama is incapable of doing anything right because of the empirical evidence.
I am fairly sure he is suggesting there is no intellectual basis for hostility towards the plans for Obama's speech.
Oh, so it's just a "They're wrong. Nyah nyah!" type post?
I got the impression you were trying to say otherwise previously, but you haven't rightly been forthcoming with your position.
My primary agenda was to make people aware that the controversy was not about Obama speaking, but about the accompanying lesson plans. This was successful. (whether or not I actually helped)
My secondary agenda is to get Ivan to stop using argument forms that boil down to "It's okay because it's Obama" and the diversionary "hey look, the Bush administration was bad".
My secondary agenda is to get Ivan to stop using argument forms that boil down to "It's okay because it's Obama" and the diversionary "hey look, the Bush administration was bad".Good luck with that. :bugeye:
Since it doesn't look like anyone has posted this, here's a transcript of the speech: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/07/obama.school.speech.pdf
My primary agenda was to make people aware that the controversy was not about Obama speaking, but about the accompanying lesson plans. This was successful. (whether or not I actually helped)
This CNN article suggests that some people are upset about the idea of Obama addressing the nation's children in general: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/07/obama.school.speech/index.html
Granted, the most severe criticism I've heard has been about the accompanying lesson plans.
This CNN article suggests that some people are upset about the idea of Obama addressing the nation's children in general: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/07/obama.school.speech/index.html
Interesting. I hadn't seen this; I was going by the article in the opening post.
If I interpret this article correctly, it seems that issues with the speech itself were mainly because it was a big question mark. Aside from the lesson plans, has anything persisted since the text of the speech was made public?
Oh, so it's just a "They're wrong. Nyah nyah!" type post?
Laking any evidence to support the contrary position, that is all one rightly can do here.
My primary agenda was to make people aware that the controversy was not about Obama speaking, but about the accompanying lesson plans. This was successful. (whether or not I actually helped)
Yet, as jgens pointed out, there are people taking issue with both. Regardless, it would be helpful if you could explain the "why" here, which you seem unwilling to do.
My secondary agenda is to get Ivan to stop using argument forms that boil down to "It's okay because it's Obama" and the diversionary "hey look, the Bush administration was bad".
That isn't Ivan's argument.
Since it doesn't look like anyone has posted this, here's a transcript of the speech: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/07/obama.school.speech.pdfSo, after all of these posts, I get to be the first one to comment on the (current) actual speech? OK.
While I could nitpick minor details, the fact is that those concerned parents don't have much to worry about. It's pretty harmless.
Ivan Seeking
Sep7-09, 05:09 PM
the fact is that those concerned parents don't have much to worry about. It's pretty harmless.
In other words, all of the uproar was stupid.
Was it Limbaugh who said, "He is brainwashing kids like Hitler did"?
Edit: That was Mark Shannon, not Limbaugh.
In fact the "concerned" (brainwashed) parents had nothing to worry about. As expected, it will be an inspirational speech about the value of education, urging students to take responibility for their educational outcomes. All the "no child left behind" "voucher" "charter school" gimmicks do nothing if the students are not motivated to take advantage of our educational system. That's a pretty important message.
The right-wing nuts that demonize Obama and criticize him without any clue about his intentions are troublemakers who want our president to fail, and want to convince weak-minded voters that in fact he has already failed. Will the "liberal" media cover the back-story and expose the liars for what they are? Don't hold your breath. The "liberal" media is a fiction made up to describe any organization that is to the left of Atilla the Hun, and they will not cover the lies and duplicity of the right for fear of being attacked. The "liberal" media are in fact owned by large corporations whose administrators often have more in common with the neo-cons than with any liberal or progressive group.
Ivan Seeking
Sep7-09, 05:30 PM
No doubt about it Turbo. Some of these people who HATE Obama, and scary numbers of them, have been brainwashed.
In other words, all of the uproar was stupid.
Was it Limbaugh who said, "He is brainwashing kids like Hitler did"?
Edit: That was Mark Shannon, not Limbaugh.
On the other hand, it demonstrates that people are finally starting to examine Obama closely.
OmCheeto
Sep7-09, 06:46 PM
This just in:
School District: Obama Speech Was Never Banned From Classroom (http://www.wftv.com/countybycounty/20767220/detail.html)
Posted: 11:15 pm EDT September 6, 2009
OSCEOLA COUNTY, Fla. -- Children in Osceola County will be able to watch President Barack Obama's address after all.
An earlier statement from the Osceola County school district indicated it did not have the bandwidth to show the online version to all students, a district official said.
Recent media reports stating the district had banned the speech were incorrect, a district spokeswoman told WFTV.
Oh my. Googling "Obama's speech on education banned from schools" brings up PF as the number 2 hit. I think we need to get a life. :redface:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V3FnpaWQJO0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V3FnpaWQJO0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
In other words, all of the uproar was stupid.
Erm... so the lesson is we should never be wary of government, just in case it turns out it's all okay?
OmCheeto
Sep7-09, 08:30 PM
Erm... so the lesson is we should never be wary of government, just in case it turns out it's all okay?
I don't know how Ivan would answer the question, but I'd say we should always be wary of the government, regardless of the president's cosmic origins.
http://www.2timothy42.org/Blog/Images/Obama-God.jpg
noblegas
Sep7-09, 09:46 PM
In fact the "concerned" (brainwashed) parents had nothing to worry about. As expected, it will be an inspirational speech about the value of education, urging students to take responibility for their educational outcomes. All the "no child left behind" "voucher" "charter school" gimmicks do nothing if the students are not motivated to take advantage of our educational system. That's a pretty important message.
The right-wing nuts that demonize Obama and criticize him without any clue about his intentions are troublemakers who want our president to fail, and want to convince weak-minded voters that in fact he has already failed. Will the "liberal" media cover the back-story and expose the liars for what they are? Don't hold your breath. The "liberal" media is a fiction made up to describe any organization that is to the left of Atilla the Hun, and they will not cover the lies and duplicity of the right for fear of being attacked. The "liberal" media are in fact owned by large corporations whose administrators often have more in common with the neo-cons than with any liberal or progressive group.
Yep same old same old. Obama will probably give a similar speech that other presidents have given to students in the past;Stay in school,be a good citizen, .... in other words, never acknowledge why public school is a complete disaster right now, why on average the government invest on average $9000 per year per student , which amounts to almost $100000 for attending public school for 13 years, yet there are students who are graduating with subpar reading skills and students who probably do not know what the bill of rights are and what our 3 branches of government are; This is$100,000 practically thrown out the window; Can you imagine what you it would be like if you investing $100000 in something and got nothing in return? It would be like a pomzi scheme! Students will continued to be screwed by the public education system if such a pattern continues;
There might be some "right wing nuts" that are being paranoid about obama address to a group of school children ; I really don't know , I did not read the original report that many have said has change; At the same time, I see a lot of left wingers labeling right wingers who questioned some of the policies that obama plans to implement as paronoid and not right wingers who have legitimate concerns about the some of the presidents initiaitves; And many left wingers seem to be blindly accepting some of obama's policy simply because
he is one of there own; Right wingers would do the same thing if bush were in office;
The "liberal" media are in fact owned by large corporations whose administrators often have more in common with the neo-cons than with any liberal or progressive group. The liberal media is a fiction? Are you serious? Are you aware that 90 percent of journalists considered themselves democratic?(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485) ...MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties .... Have you been watching MSNBC lately ?; They don't have any news reporters on their channel, just a bunch of leftist pundits who try to portray one political viewpoint in each of their showsl
Yep same old same old. Obama will probably give a similar speech that other presidents have given to students in the past;Stay in school,be a good citizen, .... in other words, never acknowledge why public school is a complete disaster right now ...
And why would he? Whether true or false, it's a completely inappropriate topic for this speech.
noblegas
Sep7-09, 10:18 PM
And why would he? It would be a completely inappropriate topic for this address.
why give a speech if you aren't even going to address the problems with the school system? Why tell students to stay in school if the public school system is generally doing such a crappy job of teaching its students? Telling students" To stay in school, and work hard" are just empty words to evoke a false sense of positive thinking;
If you want to argue that no education at all is better than being educated in the current system, then go start a thread on the topic, and stop derailing this one.
noblegas
Sep7-09, 10:54 PM
If you want to argue that no education at all is better than being educated in the current system, then go start a thread on the topic, and stop derailing this one.
I did not say no education at all is better than the current form of education, I just think there are either serious reforms that need to be made in our public education system if public schools are going produce better results for their students, or students should seek alternatives options to public school(homeschooling, voucher, charter, whatever...) ; But giving a speech in front of 300 or so students will not improve the quality of education the students are receiving; they haven't inspired students to do better for the last 50 years and the current
speech that obama will present to students will not likely inspired them to perform better in school now; Seriously , when have speeches been an effective force in motivating people to perform better in school or in their careers; Do you remember the speech on education the speaker at your high school and college graduation or whatever special ceremony/occassion was taking place?
Instead of lecturing the kids (lecture which they will probably forget,for students retain 2 percent of lectures), he should asked them what they think of the education they are receiving in the public school system, and then he should asked the students about their dissatisfaction with some areas of the public school system and asked the students some of there suggestions on how public school can be improved;
Erm... so the lesson is we should never be wary of government, just in case it turns out it's all okay?
Surely you can come up with a better plan than that? I contend should always be wary of government, but it would be nice if we could avoid getting riled up over completely unfounded concerns. That would save us a lot of hassle, our chasing imaginary WMD over in Iraq being one notable example.
The liberal media is a fiction? Are you serious? Are you aware that 90 percent of journalists considered themselves democratic?(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485) Have you been watching MSNBC lately ?; They don't have any news reporters on their channel, just a bunch of leftist pundits who try to portray one political viewpoint in each of their showsl
Yes, the liberal media is fiction. Most news channels will show both view points and not bash on the president because they don't believe in his policies. The only news station that does that is Fox News. They are clearly out to get Obama at any costs, even if he does something right. I have yet to see any other news station promote Obama's police as strong as Fox News bashes him. Labeling most of the media Liberal for showing both view points without promoting an agenda is propaganda. It's fear mongering created entirely by Fox News.
noblegas
Sep7-09, 11:18 PM
Yes, the liberal media is fiction. Most news channels will show both view points and not bash on the president because they don't believe in his policies. The only news station that does that is Fox News. They are clearly out to get Obama at any costs, even if he does something right. I have yet to see any other news station promote Obama's police as strong as Fox News bashes him. Labeling most of the media Liberal for showing both view points without promoting an agenda is propaganda. It's fear mongering created entirely by Fox News.
I did not admit that Fox news was not bias; The bias of MSNBC is just not acknowledge that much as Fox news; Janeane Garofalo was on Keith olbermann show and she labeled all the protesters at the tea rally that took place in April-May as "stupid rednecks who hate that a black man is president" and Keith Olbermann did not call her out for her remark ; One of the news anchors on msnbc did something sleazy and tried to portrayed that black guy who carried the gun at the healthcare rally as an angry white racist by not showing all of his body (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/19/unreal-msnbc-edits-clip-of-man-with-gun-at-obama-rally-to-support-racism-narrative/); Both msnbc and Fox news are politically slanted on opposites sides of the political spectrum; At least cnn makes an effort to try be present both political viewpoints; They made a bad move by firing paula zahn though ;
Choronzon
Sep7-09, 11:48 PM
I did not admit that Fox news was not bias; The bias of MSNBC is just not acknowledge that much as Fox news; Janeane Garofalo was on Keith olbermann show and she labeled all the protesters at the tea rally that took place in April-May as "stupid rednecks who hate that a black man is president" and Keith Olbermann did not call her out for her remark ; One of the news anchors on msnbc did something sleazy and tried to portrayed that black guy who carried the gun at the healthcare rally as an angry white racist by not showing all of his body (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/19/unreal-msnbc-edits-clip-of-man-with-gun-at-obama-rally-to-support-racism-narrative/); Both msnbc and Fox news are politically slanted on opposites sides of the political spectrum; At least cnn makes an effort to try be present both political viewpoints; They made a bad move by firing paula zahn though ;
Your link didn't work.
... Instead of lecturing the kids ...
Instead of derailing this thread, you should start a new thread.
if we could avoid getting riled up over completely unfounded concerns.
Are they really unfounded? We have direct empirical evidence of at least one person arguing tooth-and-nail that Obama should push a political agenda with this speech.
russ_watters
Sep8-09, 12:02 AM
I wonder if we'll be seeing parents keeping their kids home from school in protest?
Most news channels will show both view points...
Rather, they promote the myth that there is only two view points.
Are they really unfounded? We have direct empirical evidence of at least one person arguing tooth-and-nail that Obama should push a political agenda with this speech.
I can find you a bunch of people arguing tooth an nail that alien beings are plotting to enslave humanity. Are you going to get riled up over that?
russ_watters
Sep8-09, 12:17 AM
I can find you a bunch of people arguing tooth an nail that alien beings are plotting to enslave humanity. Are you going to get riled up over that? Neither should we allow such trash in this forum, though. Rather, they promote the myth that there is only two view points.
One way or another, every issue gets boiled down to a "yes" or a "no. There are two prominent parties in the US, therefore there are only two primary positions. However, don't take that to mean they don't discuss the various nuances of the positions.
Neither should we allow such trash in this forum, though.
So why is Hurkyl getting away with such an unstbstated argument here?
One way or another, every issue gets boiled down to a "yes" or a "no. There are two prominent parties in the US, therefore there are only two primary positions. However, don't take that to mean they don't discuss the various nuances of the positions.
Yeah, I mean they offer limited range of "yes" and "no" perspectives, often with neither being well reasoned, and generally presented with bias towards one answer or the other.
TheStatutoryApe
Sep8-09, 12:59 AM
why give a speech if you aren't even going to address the problems with the school system?
They are underage students. They have no control over the quality of the education system. The biggest contribution they can make to their education is to make sure to get one. Students who have little to no interest in getting an education and bettering themselves along with parents who lack interest are probably two of the biggest factors in the failure of our school system. A students own contribution to their education is the most appropriate topic for such a speech.
russ_watters
Sep8-09, 12:59 AM
So why is Hurkyl getting away with such an unstbstated argument here? Uh, you tried to flip over what I said. FAIL! Hurkyl's claim was clearly true and the example of trash (my label) that you gave parallels with the example of trash that he was arguing against.
His "We have direct empirical evidence of at least one person arguing tooth-and-nail that" was the same argument as my example, only addressing a different subject, but which is equality lacking in substantiation. So, why only take issue with one but not the other?
What's needed here is for Congressional members with backbone to immediately:
1. Denounce the President's school speech.
2. Order the General Accounting Office to investigate any monies spent in the production of the speech.
3. Summon top administrations officials, especially the education secretary, to hearings on the speech.
Then, depending on what party does all this we need the usual voices on this forum to condemn these actions as demented and insane, or to otherwise nod approvingly.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html
1. Denounce the President's school speech.
Why, specifically? I've yet to see anyone willing to address that necessary precondition.
Why, specifically? I've yet to see anyone willing to address that necessary precondition.Because that's what the Democrats did, oh so seriously, in 1991 when President GH Bush made a school speech.
For my part, Im kidding about calling for anything from Congress and could care less about the Pres. making a speech to every kiddy in the US. I'm serious though about pointing out the historical myopia.
I thought the speech was rather Conservative - didn't he even mention God at some point? What will the Liberals have to say about that?
Because that's what the Democrats did, oh so seriously, in 1991 when President GH Bush made a school speech.
The evasivness to demonstating any problem with the content of the speech or the accompany lesson plans had me figruing the whole fuss is nothing more than partizan knee-jerkery, but it is nice to finaly see someone come out and say it.
For my part, Im kidding about calling for anything from Congress and could care less about the Pres. making a speech to every kiddy in the US.
I disagree, and am thankful our laws do too. As the article you linked notes, we have "restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda". and I contend that it is the duty of our government to investigate whenever there is any likelihood such restrictions have been violated.
I'm serious though about pointing out the historical myopia.
Beyond the article you presented, I only vaguely recall the situation with Bush Sr., being in my early teens and living just inside the Beltway at the time. That said, it doesn't seem like you are making a serious argument. Best I can tell anyway, you are presenting a superficial account of history to suggest Republicans should emulate the stupidity of Democrats. Is that the gist of your postion here?
I thought the speech was rather Conservative - didn't he even mention God at some point? What will the Liberals have to say about that?
Er, only the belligerently atheist would have any reason to take issue with the mere mention of God, and they are but a small fraction of our population.
Er, only the belligerently atheist would have any reason to take issue with the mere mention of God, and they are but a small fraction of our population.
Are you kidding me? Have you read any of the posts on PF regarding this subject?:rofl:
On a side note. Is there ANY oversight as to what content a president can present to school students? Is the speech release early, etc. ? I'm not worried about Obama, nor would I have been worried about either Bush or any of our past presidents. But is there anything in place to keep a future president from having this kind of presentation, and then spouting a bunch of extreme ideas (either left or right) and intentionally trying to feed the students propaganda? (Other than the concern of their approval rating?)
I could see it happening, a president in his final months of a bitter two term presidency try to push some unfiltered extreme political/religious agenda onto children.
Best I can tell anyway, you are presenting a superficial account of history to suggest Republicans should emulate the stupidity of Democrats. Is that the gist of your postion here?No. I thought I was clear; I was kidding. As I said, I don't want the Republicans in Congress to do anything (other than what some bean counting laws require?). My point was that memories are very short, even with the aid of the internet, on the Democrats doing 3X the harassment 18 yrs ago on the same subject. Despite the history, we now hear that because some talking heads are harassing this President on the school speech that the very life of the republic is under grave threat.
russ_watters
Sep8-09, 06:17 PM
His "We have direct empirical evidence of at least one person arguing tooth-and-nail that" was the same argument as my example, only addressing a different subject, but which is equality lacking in substantiation. So, why only take issue with one but not the other? [emphasis added] Because the part in bold is clearly wrong (or at least intentionally misleading). We know your example lacks substantiation and we know Hurkyl's example is true.
This is a really silly game you are playing, kyleb.
physics girl phd
Sep8-09, 06:40 PM
According to the local news, our TN district gave both "teachers and principals" jurisdiction in the decision (though I wonder what would happen if a teacher and principal conflicted). Our sons didn't see it... and I hope there's no retaliation against our youngest for inquiring (we've already conflicted as parents with his teacher when he was sent home because of minor allergy symptoms and massive germaphobia on the part of some classmates). He'll watch it online this weekend with dad.
Are you kidding me? Have you read any of the posts on PF regarding this subject?
I am curious to see whatever polls you are referencing, but I am talking about the demographics of the nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States), which shows a strong majority of our population identifying as religious, leaving the belligerently atheist to only make up some some potion of the rest.
No. I thought I was clear; I was kidding. As I said, I don't want the Republicans in Congress to do anything (other than what some bean counting laws require?).My point was that memories are very short, even with the aid of the internet, on the Democrats doing 3X the harassment 18 yrs ago on the same subject.
Again, I such a superficial historical comparison doesn't seem like a serious argument. Even though the article you posted was seriously lacking in depth, it still pointed out the notable differences of the controversy not gaining prominence until after the content of the speech had been presented.
Despite the history, we now hear that because some talking heads are harassing this President on the school speech that the very life of the republic is under grave threat.
What talking heads have you heard go that far?
Because the part in bold is clearly wrong (or at least intentionally misleading).
I have yet to see anyone here even attempt to substantiate the concerns that Obama was planing to push a political agenda in is speech, and hence it would be a flagrant lie for me to for me to suggest otherwise.
This is a really silly game you are playing, kyleb.
I have never had any interest in playing games here, and would appreciate it if you could ever bring yourself to get over your delusions to the contrary.
...What talking heads have you heard go that far?? As discussed in this thread, both parts. Criticism: Post #1, talking heads criticizing the lesson plan, etc in the Yahoo News piece (which is fine, I don't care). Criticism poses greatest threat to the republic: Post #11
Are they really unfounded? We have direct empirical evidence of at least one person arguing tooth-and-nail that Obama should push a political agenda with this speech.Sorry I'm missing the allusion - you mean the author of the original lesson plan?
? As discussed in this thread, both parts. Criticism: Post #1, talking heads criticizing the lesson plan, etc in the Yahoo News piece (which is fine, I don't care). Criticism poses greatest threat to the republic: Post #11
Ah, it seems I had misparsed your statement read it as suggesting TV pundits have been claiming that harassing Obama over this speech is the greatest threat to the republic. My bad there.
However, it seems you have misconstrued Ivan's comment, as he was clearly speaking of "right-wing nuts who are dividing this nation with crazy talk and lies" in general, with this incident being only one example.
Ah, it seems I had misparsed your statement read it as suggesting TV pundits have been claiming that harassing Obama over this speech is the greatest threat to the republic. My bad there.
However, it seems you have misconstrued Ivan's comment, as he was clearly speaking of "right-wing nuts who are dividing this nation with crazy talk and lies" in general, with this incident being only one example.I'm only referring to this one example, for the moment. The 'in general' part is off topic.
Sorry I'm missing the allusion - you mean the author of the original lesson plan?
Noblegas was pushing the idea that Obama should use this speech to push some plan for education reform.
Because that's what the Democrats did, oh so seriously, in 1991 when President GH Bush made a school speech.
For my part, Im kidding about calling for anything from Congress and could care less about the Pres. making a speech to every kiddy in the US. I'm serious though about pointing out the historical myopia.
I suspect that many Americans, regardless of political affiliations, are not concerned about the president making a speech specifically for school kids, either now or in 1991. I think it is a good thing; and that the president (in 1991 or in 2009) would not be so foolish as to try and make it politically partisan.
I also don't think we can slam all democrats, or all republicans, because of what some individuals do. Some people often do silly things in politics, and there's certainly been a lot of incredible nonsense expressed about this speech in 2009. It would not surprise me to know it was just as bad in 1991.
But neither would I merely assume that 1991 and 2009 are comparable. That someone might make a fuss is unsurprising, but I confess to being a bit curious about any similarities and differences, and the magnitude of the fuss. And we might add that Reagan also made a nationally televised speech to school kids in 1988.
I gather that the issue in 1991 was about funding of the speech, and this came up afterwards rather than before. That strikes me as stupid also. Some democrats apparently set up a hearing of some kind, and it all came to nothing. As it should. I'd be interested to know what the wider public response was, however.
I don't think it makes any sense to say that "republicans" object now and "democrats" objected then. Better to say that some people object now and some people objected then, and that in neither case did the objections have much merit. The people who objected, in each case, tended to be people who are predisposed to look out for ways to attack the president at the time; and that means objectors then were Democrats and those now were Republicans, for the most part; but it doesn't mean that all democrats or all republicans were endorsing those attacks.
Although -- full disclosure -- I confess I would be amazed if the fuss made in 1991 was as great at the fuss in 2009, with parents wanting to pull kids out of schools for the event and so on. It seems to me that the right wing side of American politics has a significant problem at present with a historically anomalous oversupply of extreme nutcases. I don't mean that as a general comment on all republicans, of course; in fact I think the problem is recognized by some within the GOP who would like to improve things for the party.
Cheers -- sylas
humanino
Sep8-09, 11:45 PM
Is television allowed at all in public schools ? I mean, would it be acceptable to have children watch advertising/promotion messages on a regular basis, but worry about a once-in-a-year (or less) anyway boring (I guess for a significant amount of the kids) speech by a president ? Would it change anything if the president came in person in the schools ? Would anybody object to that as well ?
Are they really unfounded? We have direct empirical evidence of at least one person arguing tooth-and-nail that Obama should push a political agenda with this speech.
This may be a mild tangent, but I just came across this article (http://www.edreform.com/Get_Connected/Parents/?Making_Sense_of_President_Obamas_School_Speech) from the Center for Education Reform1. Much to my surprise2, there really are groups trying to push political agenda alongside Obama's speech.
1: Who are these guys? I've never heard of 'em before.
2: though I really shouldn't've been
I'm only referring to this one example, for the moment. The 'in general' part is off topic.
The "in general" is the context of the statement from Ivan you referenced.
Who are these guys? I've never heard of 'em before.
They are a group pushing charter schools. Obvious communist front, eh?
though I really shouldn't've been
It was your previous insinuations of Obama pushing a partisan agenda in his speech that didn't make any sense. On the other hand, it would be surprising if something the president did went by without some interest group clinging on to it to push their own agenda.
...Although -- full disclosure -- I confess I would be amazed if the fuss made in 1991 was as great at the fuss in 2009, with parents wanting to pull kids out of schools for the event and so on. It seems to me that the right wing side of American politics has a significant problem at present with a historically anomalous oversupply of extreme nutcases...I see nuttiness in different places. In 2009 we have the odd soccer mom that may or may not have kept her kid home (about the lesson plan, not the speech), but nobody in the opposition with any power doing anything to anybody. In sum, nothing is going to happen except tongue wagging. In 1991 we had elected representatives actually using power to attack the '91 administration over Bush's school speech. They called the Education secretary to testify. They started up the inspectors office to eat time and money going through files. Now frankly, I see all the '91 stuff as the same ol' politics, though restraint should have been shown. What I find truly odd given the above, are those opinions that somehow still imagine that Democratic ranks are staffed only by the truly enlightened and rational, and that the other side is nuts.
In 1991 we had elected representatives actually using power to attack the '91 administration over Bush's school speech.
Are you familiar with the details of those complaints? Were there perhaps specific lines from the speech they took issue, or anything of that sort? Not knowing one way or another, I can't rightly consider the comparison reasonable.
Per the link above:
The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event.which is simply stupid. The president spoke to some kids at a school, as has nearly every other President. But really, why do you care what he said? The President can't walk out his front door with out causing the expenditure of money on what can always, always, be considered to have some purpose of publicity.
I see nuttiness in different places. In 2009 we have the odd soccer mom that may or may not have kept her kid home (about the lesson plan, not the speech), but nobody in the opposition with any power doing anything to anybody. In sum, nothing is going to happen except tongue wagging. In 1991 we had elected representatives actually using power to attack the '91 administration over Bush's school speech. They called the Education secretary to testify. They started up the inspectors office to eat time and money going through files. Now frankly, I see all the '91 stuff as the same ol' politics, though restraint should have been shown. What I find truly odd given the above, are those opinions that somehow still imagine that Democratic ranks are staffed only by the truly enlightened and rational, and that the other side is nuts.
You claim to be seeing opinions somewhere that correspond to "imagine that Democratic ranks are staffed only by the truly enlightened and rational, and that the other side is nuts". That's unhelpful hyperbole. There are obviously some differences of opinion, but it doesn't help to just phrase views you disagree with in such over the top terms.
What you say about the '91 stuff being the "same old politics" sounds about right to me. I tried to find out a bit more about it, and the 1991 objections sound like self serving grandstanding, which wasted time and money with hearings and inspections that came to nothing, over what (in my opinion) should have been a cause for bipartisan support. I agree with your reaction to this.
In 2009, many people just don't like Mr Obama and don't want him to have any input to schools at all. The focus on the lesson plan is a bit more reasonable.... but not much. It's not really a lesson plan; just a list of possible activities teacher might consider for including in their lesson plans. Many criticisms of these classroom materials have been as over the top as everything else. It's not everyone who is objecting, and not all republicans either. I'm not trying to smear all of one side with an issue, but looking at the issue itself regardless of who and how many think there's a problem.
The specifics of objections to the provided classroom materials don't make any sense. The big issue has apparently been that it involved students writing letters to help the president. Here's a link to the Menu of Classroom Activities (http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf), from the Department of Education. For comparison, here's a previous version (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009) someone has made available.
There are a number of minor changes that I will ignore. These include things like replacing "can" with "could", or "President" with "president", breaking sentences, adding commas, and making minor word replacements or rearrangements.
There is a deletion of one possible activity, involving making a video (see related contest website ( http://www.ed.gov/iamwhatilearn/index.html)), which was originally as follows:
Teachers could encourage students to participate in the Department of Education video contest. On September 8th the Department will invite K-12 students to submit a video no longer than 2 min, explaining why education is important and how their education will help them achieve their dreams. Teachers are welcome to incorporate the same or a similar video project into an assignment. More details will be released via www.ed.gov.
The only other significant change was to replace
Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.
with
Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals. Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress.
Frankly, I think the original letter idea was much better, and that objections to "helping the president" have been ridiculous. And -- ironically perhaps -- this activity echoes a similar idea expressed explicitly by President Bush in 1991, in his national address to students (http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450&year=1991&month=10)!
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.
This was a good idea when Bush gave it in 1991, and it was a good idea when included in the classroom activities in 2009. It's positive, it encourages good civic activity, and it does not require or imply in any way that you have to agree with the president about everything. The objections to the classroom activities as they were originally proposed are absurd.
Cheers -- sylas
I tried to find out a bit more about it, and the 1991 objections sound like self serving grandstanding, which wasted time and money with hearings and inspections that came to nothing, over what (in my opinion) should have been a cause for bipartisan support.
I took the time to do a bit of research myself, and found that the issue with Bush Sr.'s speech (http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450) is that he was pimping his America 2000 (http://www.archives.nysed.gov/edpolicy/research/res_essay_bush_ghw_amer2000.shtml) agenda just before setting out on the campaign trail with it the next day (http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1991/09/11/02mrs.h11.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1991/09/11/02mrs.h11.html&levelId=2100). While the hearing did not judge the use of funds to be inappropriate, at least in that case the complaint had a rational basis, while all we've got here is hollow Nazi comparisons and the like.
Has anyone commented on the length of the speech? My experience tells me he probably had the kid's undivided attention for about 3 minutes?
Has anyone commented on the length of the speech? My experience tells me he probably had the kid's undivided attention for about 3 minutes?
Yes, there have been some quite hilarious comments on that matter. I wish I could find again a rather hilarious blog article someone had about his kids on the matter -- but the kids involved were quite young and I think it was more a chance for comedy and poking fun at lots of people who have been taking it way too seriously.
Of course, kid's reactions are going to vary a lot with age. I think many students will indeed have given it undivided attention all the way through; young teenagers are often genuinely very interested in political matters. There are a number of news reports from school classrooms indicating that it was something school kids found interesting.
I remember I once told a young friend of mine (aged 12) that I would cast my vote at an upcoming election in any way she chose for me. Other people might try this project also as a way to involve children in civic issues. That vote got more careful attention and research than any vote I have ever cast, I think. Having high expectations for the thoughtfulness and seriousness of children can sometimes pay off big.
Cheers -- sylas
Galteeth
Sep9-09, 09:26 AM
You know, it's funny how these things tend to bring out people's tribal instincts. It pretty much always comes down to "my team" versus "your team." It amazes me how many people get into this. It's like the R and the D have these cultural contextual meanings for people, despite the fact that their policies are always exactly the same. It's amazing.
It's like the R and the D have these cultural contextual meanings for people, despite the fact that their policies are always exactly the same. It's amazing.
Really?
I took the time to do a bit of research myself, and found that the issue with Bush Sr.'s speech (http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450) is that he was pimping his America 2000 (http://www.archives.nysed.gov/edpolicy/research/res_essay_bush_ghw_amer2000.shtml) agenda just before setting out on the campaign trail with it the next day (http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1991/09/11/02mrs.h11.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1991/09/11/02mrs.h11.html&levelId=2100). While the hearing did not judge the use of funds to be inappropriate, at least in that case the complaint had a rational basis, while all we've got here is hollow Nazi comparisons and the like.
I saw that as well, and ignored it as irrelevant. That was not a meaningful basis for a hearing, IMO. It is symptomatic of a problem with party politics (it's just as bad here in Australia) that when the leader of the nation makes a positive address to schools, people look for an excuse to belittle it. "Pimping his agenda" fiddlesticks.
It's entirely appropriate to have high expectations of our leaders and its good democracy in action to be critical of them. It's also good to be supportive of them as a leader, even if not the leader you would have chosen for yourself. The downside comes when some folks can see nothing at all that is good in their elected leader and start second guessing even the most trivial points.
It doesn't matter that Bush was about to start campaigning. That's a perfectly good time to get kids thinking about presidents. Bush's speech was innocuous, and something like that should have, in my opinion, strong bipartisan support; both then and now.
As Bush was elected into the role of president, he does legitimately have a special significance and it's good for the leader of the nation to speak to children in this kind of way. It's not something you want to see every week (annual would be okay by me) and its certainly not something where you want to make it some kind of party based dialog with everyone lining up to have a turn as if on a campaign. If the speech was partisan, that would be a problem. It wasn't; neither then, or now. It was the president, speaking as president. And that's a good thing.
Cheers -- sylas
Bush's speech was innocuous, and something like that should have, in my opinion, strong bipartisan support; both then and now.
Bush's America 2000 plan was a highly partisan initiative, and while he only mentioned it once directly, much of the speech was pushing the ideas of plan. It would be akin to Obama pimping his healthcare reform plans to our school children with his speech, which I would have taken issue with just the same.
I took the time to do a bit of research myself, and found that the issue with Bush Sr.'s speech (http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450) is that he was pimping his America 2000 (http://www.archives.nysed.gov/edpolicy/research/res_essay_bush_ghw_amer2000.shtml) agenda just before setting out on the campaign trail with it the next day (http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1991/09/11/02mrs.h11.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1991/09/11/02mrs.h11.html&levelId=2100). While the hearing did not judge the use of funds to be inappropriate, at least in that case the complaint had a rational basis, while all we've got here is hollow Nazi comparisons and the like.
You say that Bush Sr. "was pimping his agenda" and "while all we've got here is hollow Nazi comparisons and the like" - could you please explain/support?
If I recall Bush was focused on education at the time.
For those that were not paying attention in 1991, a key provision of Bush's program was to use taxpayer money to allow parents to send their kids to any school that they wanted - even parochial schools. Then, as now, a very high proportion of white students in the deep south attend "Christian" Academies that are racially segregated. No blacks are allowed in conservative white churches and only church members can send their kids to the "Christian" Academies associated with those churches. Bush wanted to not only perpetuate the segregation, but to use taxpayer money to pay for it. Great strategy if you want the Southern right-wing vote, but not so good for the taxpayers.
Occasionally, you will hear a GOP candidate claiming that school vouchers would help inner-city kids. They never seem to be able to explain how run-down full-to-capacity schools could accommodate influxes of additional students if they have better curricula than neighboring schools, much less explain how to transport the students. There is more than meets the eye to Bush I's claim to be the "education president".
You say that Bush Sr. "was pimping his agenda"...
Pimping his America 2000 agenda, which I linked, along with text of his speech discussing it, and article about him promoting it in his campaigning. Did you overlook all that?
and "while all we've got here is hollow Nazi comparisons and the like"
This article (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-obama-student-speech-story,0,6631126.story) basically sums up the complaints I've seen so far.
Pimping his America 2000 agenda, which I linked, along with text of his speech discussing it, and article about him promoting it in his campaigning. Did you overlook all that?
This article (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-obama-student-speech-story,0,6631126.story) basically sums up the complaints I've seen so far.
What is the definition of "pimping" in your post? Wasn't his speech delivered to school children?
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pimping
" * Main Entry: pimp·ing
* Pronunciation: \ˈpim-pən, -piŋ\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: probably akin to Middle English pymple papule — more at pimp
* Date: 1640
1 : petty, insignificant
2 chiefly dialect : puny, sickly"
Is this what you mean?
You are quoting the adjective section, while I was using the term as a verb.
Bush's America 2000 plan was a highly partisan initiative, and while he only mentioned it once directly, much of the speech was pushing the ideas of plan. It would be akin to Obama pimping his healthcare reform plans to our school children with his speech, which I would have taken issue with just the same.
I've looked at the speech again, and you're right: he does mention the America 2000 plan. In fact, this speech is substantially more "political" than the 2009 speech. So I shift my account a bit from the previous post; it's not completely "innocuous". The main thrust of the Bush 1991 speech, however, remains the same as the Obama 2009 speech... students taking resonsibility for themselves.
I have not liked the proposals on education I have seen from the republican party, and this "America 2000" seems to have been a case in point; I would likely have been a critic. But even given this, I can't see that the speech by Bush was out of line. Education was an issue he was interested in, it was topical, he was the leader of the nation, and he didn't put it into partisan terms implying that only one side of politics wanted to improve education.
In 2009, the amount of opposition now seems to be much greater. I don't believe it is even remotely true that the fuss made in 1991 by some democrats was as far reaching as what has occurred this year. The animosity this year is very much focused on the person delivering the message. Some people in the USA have such a strong antipathy to their own elected president that they have gone over the top in criticism, beyond all reason.
The same has been true in the past, from some elements of the political left directed at the previous administration. There's a difference between voting against someone and disagreeing with their policies; and withholding basic respect and courtesy and minimal fairness to that same person when they have become your legitimately elected national leader.
The biggest thing by far that turns me off your posts -- despite the fact that we might well be more or less aligned on politics and policy -- is that gutter word "pimping". It exposes the ugly face on the other side of politics.
It's a problem when citizens cannot give basic decency and respect to their own elected national leader. This doesn't mean unconditional approval, or never making any openly critical remarks. It's a democracy, after all. But you can do better than this, I hope.
I've seen a lot of that in recent months from a noisy minority (I hope) directed against Mr Obama. Your language is undermining your contribution by showing yourself to be the same thing from the other side.
noblegas
Sep9-09, 05:21 PM
For those that were not paying attention in 1991, a key provision of Bush's program was to use taxpayer money to allow parents to send their kids to any school that they wanted - even parochial schools. Then, as now, a very high proportion of white students in the deep south attend "Christian" Academies that are racially segregated. No blacks are allowed in conservative white churches and only church members can send their kids to the "Christian" Academies associated with those churches. Bush wanted to not only perpetuate the segregation, but to use taxpayer money to pay for it. Great strategy if you want the Southern right-wing vote, but not so good for the taxpayers.
Occasionally, you will hear a GOP candidate claiming that school vouchers would help inner-city kids. They never seem to be able to explain how run-down full-to-capacity schools could accommodate influxes of additional students if they have a better curricula than neighboring schools, much less explain how to transport the students. There is more than meets the eye to Bush I's claim to be the "education president".
yes a high proportion of students sent there kids to christian schools, but thats because most parents wanted their kids to be sent to christian schools a. The voucher did not give you the only option of sending your kids to christian schools, its just that most private schools happened to be christian schools, in the south, because thats the kinda school most parents want to send their kids to . I am sure that their are a variety of different schools students can attend outside the south that are not christian schools; Why do you make school vouchers out to be a republican issue, why can't you take off your partisan glasses and look at is as: Hey , the federal government is providing kids free money to give them the option to send their kids to schools where the students learning needs would be met immediately rather than attending the public schools that continually barely graduate 20 percent of their student body , let alone most of their student body ; Most european countries implement a voucher system for european kids;
I did not think that George W bush was a strong proponent of the voucher system as he was of just giving more students more standardized tests to take. kids should not be forced to attend a subpar school just because its in their neighborhood;
I did not think that George W bush was a strong proponent of the voucher system as he was of just giving more students more standardized tests to take. kids should not be forced to attend a subpar school just because its in their neighborhood;1991 was not about George W Bush, but about his father, who wanted to use education funds to implement the GOP's "Southern strategy". Years ago, I was doing consulting work for a mill in Alabama. I was working closely with the the mill's chief EE, who had no advanced in-house capability in automated process control, and had met his younger daughter who was headed to college that year. I asked him if his daughters had graduated from Thomasville HS, and he glared at me and said "I would never send my girls to school with that trash! My girls went to a good Christian school." Guess what? T-ville's public school was almost 100% black and that well-educated, mentally-sharp engineer (originally from the bayous of MS) refused to let his daughters associate with blacks. That was an eye-opener.
The "voucher" argument is not about providing choice, because most schools are at or over capacity already, and cannot accommodate bulk movements of students for the sake of "choice". Vouchers are all about trying to make all us taxpayers pay for on-going racial segregation so that the GOP can lock in Southern right-wing votes. No mystery.
noblegas
Sep9-09, 06:24 PM
1991 was not about George W Bush, but about his father, who wanted to use education funds to implement the GOP's "Southern strategy". Years ago, I was doing consulting work for a mill in Alabama. I was working closely with the the mill's chief EE, who had no advanced in-house capability in automated process control, and had met his younger daughter who was headed to college that year. I asked him if his daughters had graduated from Thomasville HS, and he glared at me and said "I would never send my girls to school with that trash! My girls went to a good Christian school." Guess what? T-ville's public school was almost 100% black and that well-educated, mentally-sharp engineer (originally from the bayous of MS) refused to let his daughters associate with blacks. That was an eye-opener.
The "voucher" argument is not about providing choice, because most schools are at or over capacity already, and cannot accommodate bulk movements of students for the sake of "choice". Vouchers are all about trying to make all us taxpayers pay for on-going racial segregation so that the GOP can lock in Southern right-wing votes. No mystery.
Racial segregated school does not equal poor school btw. Nor does integrated school equal a better quality school. It is all about the quality of teaching . Marva Collins created a special prep school for students who were performing poorly in public schools(mostly minority kids_ but under her teaching and guidance, she graduated students who graduated with honors(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marva_Collins). Jaime escalante taught at an inner city school filled with schools who were mostly hispanic kids and he taught those kids AP calculus and they managed to score high on the calculus AP exam(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Escalante). Dunbar high school, the only black public school in Washington DC and the least funded public school in the DC area during the early 1900's- , consistently outperformed its white counter parts on standardized tests and managed to graduate students who later attended college; And these kids did not come from rich families(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar_High_School_%28Washington,_D.C.%29) ;
I recommend you watch John Stossel special on schools titled "Stupid in America" and you will find out overall, both integrated and segregated schools, how students are performing in American schools compared to students across the pond and I recommend Education : assumptions versus history : collected papers by Thomas Sowell and it is about numerous schools who student body consisted of all black students that managed to produced academic excellence
Jasongreat
Sep9-09, 06:36 PM
said "I would never send my girls to school with that trash! My girls went to a good Christian school." Guess what? T-ville's public school was almost 100% black and that well-educated, mentally-sharp engineer (originally from the bayous of MS) refused to let his daughters associate with blacks. That was an eye-opener.
The "voucher" argument is not about providing choice, because most schools are at or over capacity already, and cannot accommodate bulk movements of students for the sake of "choice". Vouchers are all about trying to make all us taxpayers pay for on-going racial segregation so that the GOP can lock in Southern right-wing votes. No mystery.
What a jump, couldnt he have meant the curriculum when he said trash? Are all christians white? Do you know that the school he was talking about was all white, or are you assuming?
I think that that is the point of vouchers, to help move students away from the schools that are overcrowded, you seem to assume people will move their kids into instead of out of public schools. Isn't the lack of a voucher system just forcing us tax payers to support a failing school system, a little competition would probably help things out dont you think?
It is funny to me that the "racist" GOP never mentions race, and some of the "non-racist" left mention
race every chance they get.
Bush's America 2000 plan was a highly partisan initiative, and while he only mentioned it once directly, much of the speech was pushing the ideas of plan. It would be akin to Obama pimping his healthcare reform plans to our school children with his speech, which I would have taken issue with just the same."Pushing the ideas of his plan". Please point out to me where anything in this speech aside form one sentence, which i'm sure no kid caught or even had a clue about Reaching those goals is the aim of a strategy that we call America 2000, a crusade for excellence in American education, school by school, community by community. I dare you to find anything to back up yopur accusations.
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450
The "Christian" academies around Camden and Thomasville AL were ALL white, and ALL 100% white at the time, and the public schools were black. Coincidence? I have a number of bridges that I can sell you if you are that gullible.
When I was in Atlanta with the (black) guy that managed my projects in P&P, we went to a local chain restaurant one Monday morning for breakfast and looked up at each other at about the same time, at the same place in reading our morning papers. A local pastor had been fired for inviting a black family to the church picnic. A young black family showed up at his invitation and they were challenged. They protested that the minister had invited them, and the church council convened on the spot and fired the minister. Why? The racial integrity of their "Christian" academy would be compromised if black people could join the congregation and send their kids to the academy.
If you haven't spent time there and been immersed for a few months with locals, you will never know what the media glosses over. Segregation (enforced through the separation of church and state and freedom of association) is alive and well in the south, and the GOP knows how to play that fiddle.
I hate our 2-party system, in large part because the Democrats are too gutless to call the GOP on this crap, and in part because I would love to have a conservative party to support, and the GOP has thrown us out, opting for non-conservative (radical, often) goals.
They are a group pushing charter schools. Obvious communist front, eh?
Where did you get that information? I didn't find anything suggesting they were a communist front.
The main thrust of the Bush 1991 speech, however, remains the same as the Obama 2009 speech... students taking resonsibility for themselves.
The main difference is; "students taking resonsibility for themselves" was the main thrust of Bush's America 2000 plan.
I have not liked the proposals on education I have seen from the republican party, and this "America 2000" seems to have been a case in point; I would likely have been a critic.
Because they don't tend to show interest in actually reforming the education system, but rather are focused on encouraging personal responsibility, eh?
But even given this, I can't see that the speech by Bush was out of line.
I did not intend to suggest it was over the line, rather simply that people who vehemently favor reforming education at least had a rational basis to take issue with it.
Some people in the USA have such a strong antipathy to their own elected president that they have gone over the top in criticism, beyond all reason.
Exactly, unlike the issue with Bush's speech, the complaints here are nothing but handwaving.
The biggest thing by far that turns me off your posts -- despite the fact that we might well be more or less aligned on politics and policy -- is that gutter word "pimping". It exposes the ugly face on the other side of politics.
I don't mean to offend you, but I don't support the idea of "gutter words", or of leaving any side of politics unexposed.
"Pushing the ideas of his plan". Please point out to me where anything in this speech aside form one sentence, which i'm sure no kid caught or even had a clue about...
I dare you to find anything to back up yopur accusations.
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450
I'm sure no one of consequence ever figured that only kids would hear the speech, I noted that I had read the speech and posted the link previously, and I also noted "he only mentioned it once directly" right in the post you quoted. So, had you read the summery of the America 2000 proposal I linked to? Regardless, I hope my responses to sylas in this post have resolved your dispute with my comments.
Where did you get that information? I didn't find anything suggesting they were a communist front.
The "communist front" bit was sarcasm, in response to you asking who they are, since you had just linked to a site that provides the answer to your question which I had presented just prior to the sarcasm.
Then, as now, a very high proportion of white students in the deep south attend "Christian" Academies that are racially segregated. No blacks are allowed in conservative white churches and only church members can send their kids to the "Christian" Academies associated with those churches. Bush wanted to not only perpetuate the segregation, but to use taxpayer money to pay for it.Are you joking? If so, it's a bad one.
Any evidence that a "high proportion of white students in the deep south attend "Christian" Academies that are racially segregated? Any evidence of a single such school?
Any evidence that "No blacks are allowed in conservative white churches"?
And you accuse Bush of perpetuating segregation? A majority of congress voted to perpetuate segregation, too?
These claims aren't just wild, unsubstantiated and hateful, there's absolutely no way you could believe them yourself.
While I don't know of any exclusively white churches or white schools, I wouldn't be surprised to learn of some. Granted, I doubt any would spell it out in their charters, but while we have come a long way in the battle against bigotry, isn't rightly a thing of the past yet.
While I don't know of any exclusively white churches or white schools, I wouldn't be surprised to learn of some. Granted, I doubt any would spell it out in their charters, but while we have come a long way in the battle against bigotry, isn't rightly a thing of the past yet.Exactly. "Crying wolf" by making wild, unsubstantiated, or obviously false claims only makes the problem worse.
Of course I'm sure there are churches that only white people attend, and that only black people attend. But that wasn't what was being claimed. turbo-1 claimed that "No blacks are allowed in conservative white churches", and that Bush wanted to "perpetuate segregation" (in schools).
Racism will never be cured with hate speech and ignorance.
TheStatutoryApe
Sep10-09, 04:59 AM
These claims aren't just wild, unsubstantiated and hateful, there's absolutely no way you could believe them yourself.
I am not sure if I would be able to find information on segregation of schools in the south during the 90s I can show you evidence that segregation (or attempts at it) may exist even today.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/09/philly.pool/index.html
http://www.thenotebook.org/taxonomy/term/148
Segregation in schools in the 90s
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2001/08/08/43deseg.h20.html
As a result of forced busing, many parents enrolled their children in all-white private schools rather than patronizing the public system. In the nine months following the implementation of forced busing, more than three thousand white students left the Richmond County School System, to attend newly formed private schools. At Lucy C. Laney High School, one of Augusta’s public schools, the registered number of white students dropped from 381 to 85 in the years directly following the implementation of forced busing. The black student population, on the other hand, jumped from 668 to 888.
http://www.civilrights.uga.edu/bibliographies/augusta/busing.htm
I keep finding references to all white schools but can't find anything actually saying there were in fact all white schools. I'm sure that some could have slipped by the law. This article in particular about AL (where Turbo says this happened) seems rather telling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/30/usa.schoolsworldwide
Yesterday it looked as if he might get his wish, after a referendum in the state looked likely to keep segregation-era wording, requiring separate schools for "white and coloured children" in its constitution as well as references to the poll taxes once imposed to disenfranchise blacks.
A narrow margin of 1,850 votes out of 1.38 million, or 0.13%, in a referendum on November 2, meant the state was obliged to hold a recount, which took place yesterday. But with no accusations of electoral fraud or any other irregularities, nobody last night expected the result to change.
turbo-1 claimed that "No blacks are allowed in conservative white churches"...
While I still can't substantiate his claim, if there still are decidedly white churches, they obviously don't allow blacks. Of course there are many conservative churches which welcome blacks too.
and that Bush wanted to "perpetuate segregation" (in schools).
Again, assuming there still are decidedly white schools, the voucher program Bush supported would serve to perpetuate them.
I hate our 2-party system, in large part because the Democrats are too gutless to call the GOP on this crap, and in part because I would love to have a conservative party to support, and the GOP has thrown us out, opting for non-conservative (radical, often) goals.
Every day I speak with small business owners who tell me they feel as though nobody represents them in Washington. I've also felt this way for a long time as well.
A good example occurred last evening. During Obama's address to Congress, every health insurance agent (mostly independent small businesses) were demonized by the President along with their carriers. The agents worked hard to obtain and maintain licenses, meet appointment criteria of their insurance companies, follow the rules imposed by their individual states, undergo constant changes and re-training, and spend money to promote their brands. Many well established agents employ office workers and are active in their communities. The agents can only sell they policies and options that are approved in their respective states.
Another example is new car franchise owners. When the Government bailed out GM and Chrysler and (protected the union pensions and benefits), gave control of GM to the Unions to the detriment of bond holders, they also decided to close thousands of franchise dealerships. Some of these dealerships were established for decades and risked millions of their personal assets and employed an average 50 (?) employees each.
These two examples are off-topic, however they are relevant to the thread. Average people, especially small business owners, are starting to listen very carefully EVERY TIME the President speaks.
While I still can't substantiate his claim, if there still are decidedly white churches, they obviously don't allow blacks. Of course there are many conservative churches which welcome blacks too.
Again, assuming there still are decidedly white schools, the voucher program Bush supported would serve to perpetuate them.
Which obviously don't allow blacks? Perhaps "blacks" choose not to join said churches because they feel as though they'd be discriminated against? Perhaps their feelings are unwarranted. Perhaps they're the ones being overly sensitive to the race issue.
Why do you assume that white people hate black people? Really. It was government intervention in the first place (via forced segregation) that perpetuated the social stigma.
Do you really believe that George Bush was trying to perpetuate racism? Or are you saying that it's just a possible unintended consequence to his policy?
Why, exactly?
If I had said "decidedly cyclist groups obviously don't allow joggers", would you argue that perhaps joggers choose not to join said groups because they feel as though they'd be discriminated against? Would you accuse me of assuming that cyclists hate joggers? Or would you be able to take what I said for what it means? As for your question in regard to Bush; no, I really don't believe what I never claimed to, I meant what I said.
That said, I am curious to know how you derived this:
It was government intervention in the first place (via forced segregation) that perpetuated the social stigma.
mheslep
Sep10-09, 11:45 AM
...the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning.Note there was no 'in white churches', or 'in Alabama', or 'where I visited once but not where I live' modifying that statement.
If I had said "decidedly cyclist groups obviously don't allow joggers", would you argue that perhaps joggers choose not to join said groups because they feel as though they'd be discriminated against? Would you accuse me of assuming that cyclists hate joggers? Or would you be able to take what I said for what it means? As for your question in regard to Bush; no, I really don't believe what I never claimed to, I meant what I said.
That said, I am curious to know how you derived this:
So you're comparing cyclists and joggers to caucasians and african-americans? A jogger wouldn't join a cyclist group because he's not a cyclist... this doesn't translate to race in any way whatsoever. A black man is a white man with darker skin, and vice versa. So what exactly DO you mean?
And as for how I came up with the idea that legislating segregation perpetuated a stigma? Several generations growing up and seeing "WHITES ONLY" signs everywhere is going to send a message. A message that says we're different and not fit to coexist for whatever reason.
turbo-1
Sep10-09, 04:52 PM
Are you joking? If so, it's a bad one.
Any evidence that a "high proportion of white students in the deep south attend "Christian" Academies that are racially segregated? Any evidence of a single such school?
Any evidence that "No blacks are allowed in conservative white churches"?
And you accuse Bush of perpetuating segregation? A majority of congress voted to perpetuate segregation, too?
These claims aren't just wild, unsubstantiated and hateful, there's absolutely no way you could believe them yourself.Apparently you never heard of segregation academies. Never heard of how regions of the south decimated their public school systems and moved to voucher systems so parents could send their kids to private all-white schools that were supposed to be immune to the dictates of Brown. When the legality of this process was challenged, they changed tack.
Apparently, decades of these private academies morphing into "church schools" to provide protection for segregation under "right of free association" for religious groups is not on your radar, either. As for "hateful", I assure you that I was shocked and embarrassed to find this crap going on in modern times. If you want to insult me for telling the truth, go for it. Segregation is alive and well in lots of the country, and it's counter-productive to ignore it or gloss it over.
Google on "segregation academy" and start following links. This is not fiction. Next time some neo-con starts braying about how "school vouchers" will help inner-city black children, remember the GOP's Southern strategy. Take off the blinders.
As I have said over and over again, I was a Republican until the party left me to suck up to the neo-cons and the Christian right-wing. I have to hold my nose every time I vote because this two-party system is corrupt and real conservatism has been abandoned. Hopefully, death is final, else Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.
Note there was no 'in white churches', or 'in Alabama', or 'where I visited once but not where I live' modifying that statement.
Well your first proposed qualifier isn't even logical, as white couches aren't rightly considered segregated, but rather exclusivist, on Sunday or otherwise. As for he other two qualifiers you propose, both limit the scope of the comment, which isn't rightly necessary unless wanting to excuse segregation elsewhere.
So you're comparing cyclists and joggers to caucasians and african-americans?
No, I simply replased the subjects of my comment to provide some I'd hoped would leave you less ideologicly opposed to comprhending my statement.
A jogger wouldn't join a cyclist group because he's not a cyclist...
There are many possible reasons a jogger might want to join a cyclist group, them owning a track which the jogger wants access to being one simple example.
And as for how I came up with the idea that legislating segregation perpetuated a stigma? Several generations growing up and seeing "WHITES ONLY" signs everywhere is going to send a message. A message that says we're different and not fit to coexist for whatever reason.
I wasn't taking issue with a claim that legislating segregation send the message that we're not fit to coexist. Rather, I was taking issue with your "in the first place" claim suggesting that government intervention was an initial cause.
Jasongreat
Sep10-09, 05:19 PM
Again, assuming there still are decidedly white schools, the voucher program Bush supported would serve to perpetuate them.
Wouldnt black students be able to get the vouchers also to help them afford to go to the private school of their choice? I think that would be a wonderful thing, since if the schools did allow them(like I think they would/should) everyone wins. If the schools chose not to allow them to attend, you would have a solid claim of racism, which would surely capture the publics eye(since you would have solid proof instead of speculation) and it would be stamped out quickly(because no matter what we've been told a super majority of americans are not racists).
noblegas
Sep10-09, 05:59 PM
Apparently you never heard of segregation academies. Never heard of how regions of the south decimated their public school systems and moved to voucher systems so parents could send their kids to private all-white schools that were supposed to be immune to the dictates of Brown. When the legality of this process was challenged, they changed tack.
Apparently, decades of these private academies morphing into "church schools" to provide protection for segregation under "right of free association" for religious groups is not on your radar, either. As for "hateful", I assure you that I was shocked and embarrassed to find this crap going on in modern times. If you want to insult me for telling the truth, go for it. Segregation is alive and well in lots of the country, and it's counter-productive to ignore it or gloss it over.
Google on "segregation academy" and start following links. This is not fiction. Next time some neo-con starts braying about how "school vouchers" will help inner-city black children, remember the GOP's Southern strategy. Take off the blinders.
As I have said over and over again, I was a Republican until the party left me to suck up to the neo-cons and the Christian right-wing. I have to hold my nose every time I vote because this two-party system is corrupt and real conservatism has been abandoned. Hopefully, death is final, else Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.
Yes, enforced racial segregation decimated the public schools system because funds to the two racially segregated schools were unequal. Voluntary segregation(intentional or not) will not necessarily destroyed the quality of the public school. As I stated in my previous post, there are plenty of schools where the student body is mostly non-white that perform exceptionally well. You keep touting that the republicans want racism but nobody has mentioned race, except you ; Its not just the children of 'christian right wing " parents who want vouchers for their kids, many parents of minority children favored vouchers , as seen here at this rally(http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/school_voucher_advocates_rally.html); I would not understand why you opposed vouchers; The government gives you money to choose any school you want your child too attend whether the school you want your child to go to is private or public. Public schools in most states are monopolies , and therefore the quality of education you receive, especially if you reside in a low-income area is abysmal, because since there is virtually no other competitions, public schools don't have to worry about improving its quality since all customers or most customers are going to one school; Why maintain a failing school?
mheslep
Sep10-09, 06:18 PM
Well your first proposed qualifier isn't even logical, as white couches aren't rightly considered segregated, but rather exclusivist, on Sunday or otherwise. As for he other two qualifiers you propose, both limit the scope of the comment, which isn't rightly necessary unless wanting to excuse segregation elsewhere.
Kyleb - don't put words in my mouth. I do not propose any of those qualifiers, I note specifically that they are not there in the President's statement. The President was right. The implication by others above going on and on about the South and whites was that one or more of those qualifiers should be there, and they're wrong.
Wouldnt black students be able to get the vouchers also to help them afford to go to the private school of their choice?
Not decidedly white ones. Please respect the context of my statements. I am not even claiming there still are any decidedly white schools, but rather simply answering a question based on the hypothetical that there could be.
...(because no matter what we've been told a super majority of americans are not racists).
Do you some statistics to back that claim up? I consider all bigotry intellectually dishonest, and I know plenty of others agree. However, I also now many who argue "everyone is at least a little racist", and don't rightly have enough information to determine where the majority is. Regardless, I am not one to believe what I've been told, and I'd appreciate it if you could avoid assuming otherwise.
Kyleb - don't put words in my mouth. I do not propose any of those qualifiers, I note specifically that they are not there in the President's statement. The President was right. The implication by others above going on and on about the South and whites was that one or more of those qualifiers should be there, and they're wrong.
You presented the qualifies within your comment, and without anything to identify whether you were doing so in support or critique of the statement you quoted. My response did not put words in your mouth, but only responded to your statement as you presented it. That said, I am glad to see we agree.
My 9th grader sat through the speech today (they started school on Wednesday). She said he was boring, but it got them out of math class.
I was waiting for a good opportunity to mention it, but I hadn't written anything else lately so I'll point it out now.
People have been deriding the criticism for all sorts of reasons -- but do note that all this controversy had positive effects:
. The transcript was made available beforehand
. Things that some people really did find objectionable were removed
Apparently you never heard of segregation academies. Never heard of how regions of the south decimated their public school systems and moved to voucher systems so parents could send their kids to private all-white schools that were supposed to be immune to the dictates of Brown. When the legality of this process was challenged, they changed tack.Wild, hateful speculation about the motives of others isn't evidence.Apparently, decades of these private academies morphing into "church schools" to provide protection for segregation under "right of free association" for religious groups is not on your radar, either. As for "hateful", I assure you that I was shocked and embarrassed to find this crap going on in modern times. If you want to insult me for telling the truth, go for it. Segregation is alive and well in lots of the country, and it's counter-productive to ignore it or gloss it over. It's counter-productive to accuse people of racism based on either wild speculation, or faulty mind-reading skills.Google on "segregation academy" and start following links. This is not fiction. Next time some neo-con starts braying about how "school vouchers" will help inner-city black children, remember the GOP's Southern strategy. Take off the blinders.I am fully aware of Democrats' strategy to publicly speculate on the motives of anyone who dares disagree with their agenda. These speculations (lies) are not evidence.As I have said over and over again, I was a Republican until the party left me to suck up to the neo-cons and the Christian right-wing. I have to hold my nose every time I vote because this two-party system is corrupt and real conservatism has been abandoned. Hopefully, death is final, else Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.Yes, you keep saying, yet your political beliefs shown on this forum are very, very unlike Goldwater's to say the least. Pretty much the opposite on most issues. Goldwater was more libertarian than any politician in Washington today. No modern Republican is as different from you on economic issues as he was.
I'll take this whole post as a no, that you have no evidence that blacks aren't allowed in white churches. "Conservative white churches" have at least one thing in common with black churches: They don't turn anyone away for any reason. Period. No one is told they're not welcome in any church I ever heard of, ever. All that is ever expected is that they are not disruptive.
And you offered no evidence of even a single church in which blacks are not allowed, much less that it's true in general. And yes, it is wrong, absurd, and hateful to make such a claim.
While I still can't substantiate his claim, if there still are decidedly white churches, they obviously don't allow blacks.Obviously? They allow anyone and everyone, period.
Just like "decidedly black churches" allow anyone and everyone, period.
No one is ever turned away from any church I ever heard of, and I'm still waiting for any evidence to the contraryAgain, assuming there still are decidedly white schools, the voucher program Bush supported would serve to perpetuate them.The voucher system simply allowed individuals to choose a school instead of government. None of the schools were "segregated". Sure, in many areas, black people choose common neighborhoods, schools, and churches. That's not what the word "segregation" means.
I am not sure if I would be able to find information on segregation of schools in the south during the 90s I can show you evidence that segregation (or attempts at it) may exist even today.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/09/philly.pool/index.html
http://www.thenotebook.org/taxonomy/term/148
Segregation in schools in the 90s
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2001/08/08/43deseg.h20.html
http://www.civilrights.uga.edu/bibliographies/augusta/busing.htm
I keep finding references to all white schools but can't find anything actually saying there were in fact all white schools. I'm sure that some could have slipped by the law. This article in particular about AL (where Turbo says this happened) seems rather telling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/30/usa.schoolsworldwideIt seems you misinterpreted my post. Turbo didn't just claim that there were all white schools, the claim was that blacks weren't allowed in "conservative white churches", which is preposterous.
They simply do not ever turn anyone away. Everyone is welcome.
Also, the word "segregation" simply doesn't mean that a church (or school) is all white or all black due to the individual choices of people. It means that people are are disallowed because of skin color. The difference is obvious.
People have been deriding the criticism for all sorts of reasons -- but do note that all this controversy had positive effects:
. The transcript was made available beforehand
. Things that some people really did find objectionable were removed
With respect, I disagree. I am not aware of any change to the speech; and the only change to the lesson plans was clearly detrimental.
There was never any good reason to object to the idea of students writing to the president, or helping the president. Bush made this suggestion in his speech in 1991, and it is a good suggestion. The objections made to this activity were ludicrous, and the change was very much for the worse.
Cheers -- sylas
With respect, I disagree. I am not aware of any change to the speech;
I was sure someone claimed it earlier.
and the only change to the lesson plans was clearly detrimental.
Okay fine -- mixed results. Some people found it objectionable and got it changed. I suppose it was silly of me to think that people wouldn't object to the new version.
My 9th grader sat through the speech today (they started school on Wednesday). She said he was boring, but it got them out of math class.Your 9th grader's comment is the smartest one I've heard yet.:smile:
turbo-1
Sep11-09, 08:39 PM
Get it together, people! Obama's speech did NOT change. It was the same speech that he had planned to deliver. The spin being put on this by the right-wing "entertainers" like Limbaugh is sickening, and no reasonably intelligent American ought to spend more time than is necessary to debunk it. Unfortunately, there are lots of mentally deficient people who will swallow the neo-con line with no consideration for the effects of neo-con policies on their own families. Sad.
I was sure someone claimed it earlier.
Yes; people have made all kinds of claims. It gets hard to sort it out, but in brief I sympathize with turbo-1's outburst above. Sadly, one has to check claims that are made; many are entirely without merit.
Okay fine -- mixed results. Some people found it objectionable and got it changed. I suppose it was silly of me to think that people wouldn't object to the new version.
It's quite true that in a highly polarized environment you can be sure there'll be someone to object to anything.
But I'm not really objecting to the new version, so much as regretting the absurd reactions that lead to modifications of what should have been unexceptional. The original was a positive idea and there's no rational reason it couldn't have wide bipartisan support.
I do think the original materials were more likely to inspire students and have a useful impact. But that's just my view and not really that important. I'm not so much concerned about which was better so much as expressing my contempt at the nonsense that was used to denigrate the original lesson plan.
I think there is nothing wrong with suggesting students can help the president. Bush said the same thing explicitly in his speech, and it's a good thing for students to aspire to. To remove it from the lesson plan is not at all in line with the best traditions of American democracy and civic pride. There's no implication you have to agree with everything or vote for the guy next time round, but given that he is the elected national leader, helping him in his task is a worthy aim for all citizens. I have been impressed, in fact, with how the various presidents themselves know this; with how Bush handed over the Obama, for example; or Gore in conceding to Bush. Newt Gingrich has also said some very sensible things on this whole brouhaha. (See LA Time story (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/laura-bush-newt-gingrich-endorse-obamas-school-talk-to-kids-gee-indoctrination-must-be-working.html), there are lots more.)
Cheers -- sykas
I'm not so much concerned about which was better so much as expressing my contempt at the nonsense that was used to denigrate the original lesson plan.
Was it blown out of proportion? Maybe -- I haven't followed things enough to know for sure either way.
But I'm not concerned about the claims that criticisms were blown out of proportion -- the bit I'm concerned about are the claims (implicit or otherwise) that criticism shouldn't have existed at all.
russ_watters
Sep11-09, 10:20 PM
Then, as now, a very high proportion of white students in the deep south attend "Christian" Academies that are racially segregated. No blacks are allowed in conservative white churches and only church members can send their kids to the "Christian" Academies associated with those churches. Bush wanted to not only perpetuate the segregation, but to use taxpayer money to pay for it. Great strategy if you want the Southern right-wing vote, but not so good for the taxpayers. Turbo-1, this is a serious charge that requires explicit substantiation. If you have none, then it is just a conspiracy theory. Substantiate it with clear evidence or retract it.
Locked pending moderation of posts made earlier in the thread by multiple posters that furnished no supporting evidence.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.