Obama's speech on education banned from schools

[WhoWee]

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?

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?

 

[kyleb]

You are quoting the adjective section, while I was using the term as a verb.

 

[sylas]

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]

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 that's 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 that's 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;

 

[turbo]

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]

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_(Washington,_D.C.)) ;

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]

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, couldn't 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 don't 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.

 

[Evo]

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

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[Al68]

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]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[tchitt]

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?

 

[kyleb]

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]

...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.

 

[tchitt]

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]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[Al68]

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 contrary

Again, 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.

 

[Al68]

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/148Segregation in schools in the 90s
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2001/08/08/43deseg.h20.htmlhttp://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

It 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.

 

[sylas]

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

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[sylas]

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, there are lots more.)

Cheers -- sykas

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

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.

 

[Evo]

Locked.