Obama's speech on education banned from schools

[kyleb]

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

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[sylas]

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]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[sylas]

I took the time to do a bit of research myself, and found that the issue with http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450". 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

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

I took the time to do a bit of research myself, and found that the issue with http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450". 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.

 

[turbo]

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".

 

[kyleb]

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"

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.

 

[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.