Stray thought about the "indoctrination" speech ....
Could it maybe backfire? Think about it from an older kid's point of view ..... maybe anyone from age 8 up.
Your parents are foaming at the mouth, warning how this speech is filled with all sorts of horrible things that will undermine our country. Your school's in a tizzy and maybe your teacher (or more likely the Board of Education) refuses to let this vile indoctrination in your classroom. And so on. ---- At noon today most of the kids in the country are getting to see the President speak to them but you aren't allowed to hear him. What is the FIRST thing you're going to do?
Of course -- you're going to get online or go to a friend's house and get online and listen ... very carefully... to what the President has to say. The old "Don't put beans in your ears." phenomenon.
It then becomes two lessons in one: 1) whatever lesson the Preisdentis getting across and 2) the lesson that your folks are way over the edge and don't know what they are talking about -- you better not take their word for things but instead think for yourself.
A worthy lesson plan, I think.
Like minds
September 8, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry I missed that one!
September 8, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
no worries, worth repeating :)
September 8, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not much in politics anymore really ANGERS me, but I make an exception for this utterly incomprehensible episode. Have we come to the point in this cradle of democracy where the duly elected President of the United States cannot make a standard, civics-lesson speech to school children without driving the ignoramus fringe over the edge? And even worse, allowing them a VETO over the showing of said speech in SCHOOLS (ie, the very places where we claim to do battle with exactly that defect)?
I normally try very hard to see all sides and give them all the honest benefit of the doubt, but this is simply a bridge too far: This is superstitious idiocy, plain and simple. It can't possibly be reconciled with any coherent theory of representative democracy.
If this is the best that side can do, the REST of us have no alternative but to go forward without them. We have a future to make happen, and legitimatizing tribal savagery by discussing it as though it were a serious political response to a serious political issue, is not contributing to that effort.
September 8, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is superstitious idiocy, plain and simple.
Thank you for describing it so plainly and simply.
There is an unspoken belief that slips out from time to time. Examples, "I want my country back", it never left. "Real Americans", and who are the Fake Americans? It is a belief that unless the GOP is in poer, the USA completely disappears. An example I heard months ago was from a former Senator being asked about a rule. He replied that is originated in a Democrat Committee. His suggestion was that somehow this invalidated the rule. He completely ignores the fact that is was a Committee of the United States Congress and once enacted, it is the law of the land. It's a parallel universe in which they live, evidently.
September 8, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep telling people people who whine they want their country back it's too late. That country no longer exists. You can't bring back the dead. Of course, it just makes them madder than hell, but who cares. Let them stew in their own juices.
September 9, 2009 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have said elsewhere this weekend that on the day I was most disgusted by George Bush, it would not have occurred to me to keep him from speaking to my grandchildren.
The hatred and paranoia coming from some people in this country is getting to the "bizarre" point. Unfortunately this is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.
September 8, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the fringes getting fired up and ready to go. Remember that Democrats held hearings in the early 1990s after Bush I's speech. All this loud screaming is only new and noteworthy for those who weren't paying attention before, but it's always been there, on both sides, in one way or another.
September 8, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I don't remember that -- would be interested in seeing some accounts. Do you have some sources? All I recall - and it's very dim - is the usual, expected bad-mouthing from some politicians ... like if Mitch McConnell and John Boehner issued grave condemnation of this speech. You know, kneejerk political posturing that everyone expects.
September 8, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This one is pretty straightforward. We do seem to have a very short memory on these sorts of things, but I will confess to missing most of the 90s.
September 8, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had no idea there was actually a GAO investigation after Bush's speech.
"I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event"
http://www.tonysrants.com/national/perspective-redux-dems-ordered-gao-to-investigate-george-h-w-bush-school-speech/
September 8, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. Glass houses and all that. Personally, I think both parties are out of line on this one, respectively.
September 8, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with you on that.
September 8, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree also. -- But there IS a difference. The opposition to Bush's speech came from the opposing political leaders who seem to feel the need to make a big deal about *anything* the opposition party does. But I don't recall the public being involved much at all - just "oh, why don't they shut up!" reaction. And I had children in school at the time, would surely have taken note if there was much more. --- THIS fiasco hasn't been fueled by the leading Rep. politicos (did Boneher, etc. say anything?) but by right wing radio and the unthinking masses that swallow anything Rush and Co. say. It does make you wonder who is leading the party and conservative movement these days, doesn't it? (Kudos to Laura Bush and Newt Gingrich for saying what I wish more Republicans had said, at least after the level of hysteria became evident.)
September 8, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so. Excellent point.
Apples and Orabges.
September 8, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say that opposition to Bush's speech came from the leadership of the Democrats. Opposition to Obama's speech came from the people, however ignorant and unwashed, and from the commentators those opinion they listen to.
To follow your logic to its conclusion would mean that opposition to Bush's speech, GAO and all, was just dirty political games and a rather cynical calculation. Opposition to Obama was ideological objection from the people, (I assume from 46% who didn't vote for him, against the self-promotion via public money, by a socialist president), however quesitonable.
So, if there is a difference, then it's a rather curious one. Or your explanation needs to be refined.
September 9, 2009 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're spot on -- it's a difference and it's a rather curious one. And I'm not at all sure what it means, can only hypothesize and can do that in several different directions.
I *think* the hypothesis that makes the most sense (and just thinking aloud) is that there is another player in the current scenario: to put it simplistically Right Wing Radio. When the Dems started pawing the ground and snorting at the idea of Bush's speech, it was opposition ... but from the point of view of the people it was expected, usual and in a way reassuring opposition. Business as usual, politicians being silly, Dem Senators and Representatives fussing at Rep Senators and Democrats. And the basis of the objection was normal, cool temperature: misusing taxpayer money. (And how many times have you heard one party accuse the other of that!)
The participants in *this* dialog are different and the tone is very different. There really are only two voices: the Dems/liberals (speech is a fine idea) vs right wing radio and adherents. And te basis of the opposition is way different: speech is socialist indoctrination, an attempt to take over the minds of your children. There's a difference between accusing someone of misusing Federal funds to their advantage and accusing them of treason, conspiracy and almost Satanism. The responsible Republicans -- the equivalents to Dick Gephart, who led the fussing against Bush's speech, are largely missing from the conversation.
John and Jane Conservatives, people who are afraid of Obama because he's different or represents change are NOT going to be reassured by him, or by liberals, or by Democrats. And the only other people "talking" to them this time are the idiots like Beck, Limbaugh and the like. THEY have no interest in the good of the country or responsibility for keeping things things "working". They simply want to destroy Obama (and in the process get high ratings) and don't care about how it's done. They are more than happy to pour gasoline on fire .. they *want* chaos, something I don't think was in the minds or intentions of the Dems opposing GHWB.
In other words, what's missing now, that was present then, is a sensible, orderly, non-hysterical opposition from the opposing party. I'm not saying there aren't reasonable conservatives or Republicans who want things to work - I'm sure there are. But they have largely been silent and/or no one is listening to them. Who are the leaders on the right who could have and would have stepped up to the mike, gotten the attention of these frightened people and brought them back into reality?
Tom Friedman said Sunday on MTP that one of the worst things in the world, worse than a one-party autocracy, is a one-party democracy. And this, I think, is one of the aspects of it that is bad.
Anyway, that's one theory whipped up before the second cup of coffee. The only certainty, I think, is what you proposed: it is a difference and the difference is a curious one.
September 9, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still disagree.
A president is not God, Messiah, the One, no matter how much some people hope or say so. A president is an elected official and servant of the people. Not the other way around.
As far as I understand the current hysterics, they were triggered by an out-of-proportion reaction to the DoE request that students write down how they can help "this" president achieve "his" goals. In the middle of the debate about the public option being a path to socialism. In the overall context of the public debate of the last few months, it's an obvious over-reaction and I can understand where it comes from.
In contrast with that - a GAO investigation in the absence of any public outcry or controversy is worse. It's a political vendetta by the party leadership and elected officials. Not "the people".
As for "Right Wing Radio" - it wouldn't exist if there wasn't an audience for it. It's easy to dismiss it, it's hard to acknowledge that there are people who agree with Right Wing Radio. Glenn Beck destroyed Van Jones in just a week, and that says a thing or two about his influence. Again, contrast that with Keith Olbermann whose job is to separate commercial breaks, and whose show is watched by handful of people.
That said, I think the same logic applies to the Republicans.
Bush I was also an elected offical and a servant of the people. Reagan was rather openly political once or twice.
So in the end, the same standard should apply. It's inevitable that an elected official from any party will face questions about indoctrination, self-promotion, misuse of public funds in situatios like this.
Fundamentally, the two incidents are the same - an overreaction from those who disagree with the president. The only difference is the particulars.
September 9, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
jem,
I read that link (L35's also). Pardon me, but I don't get the equivalence. Do you? Or L35? Really?
What happened in 1991 was more than SHOULD have happened, to be as fair as I can be. But to compare the garden-variety political shadowboxing that apparently occurred after that event with the idiotic (yes, once more for emphasis) low-brow, know-nothing, street crusade that has accompanied THIS one (even BEFORE anything happened), is to take all leave of proportion.
E2 may not remember the 1991 event as well as others might claim to (I actually don't, and I was 'around' in 91, and I wasn't a GHWB fan, either), but I think she has nonetheless come a lot closer to capturing its essence.
September 8, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
My main point was not to make a false equivalency, but to point to the idea that both party can stretch the bounds of sense at times.
I was also hoping to add the notion that giving too much credence to fringe beliefs on either side simply proves to the moderates on both sides that the opposing party is crazy.
I fear that continued division over the vocal minority will keep the silent majority from finding their voices.
September 8, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I understand the article correctly, the Democrats were upset with the DoE producing paid political advertising for the president when there was a shortage of funds in that department for education. The speech wasn't the issue; they had no problem with it. Big difference with what just occurred with Obama.
September 9, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is the same thing in that the democratic reaction to a presidential speech on drug use is that it constitutes a political effort vice civic one. I'll grant the specifics of each speech, as well as the actual reaction, were quite different.
September 9, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If a child sees or hears something that confuses them, it's easy to sit and down discuss what they saw and what they think about the issue. If, as a parent, you feel they got the wrong message, you can take the time to explain the issue in other terms that are more in line with your personal beliefs that you want your child to follow. No one ever said parenting was easy and no one guarantees a child will never encounter ideas counter to the beliefs of the parents. But that doesn't mean either side is wrong. That's just how live works and everyone has to learn to cope.
September 9, 2009 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm one of those parents (actually grandparent, but I have guardianship of my granddaughter) who was foaming at the mouth all weekend. Our kids had last Fri. off for the long holiday weekend when this "controversy" first came up, so we heard nothing from our local elementary school. I tried all day yesterday to find info on our school district's website, but it kept telling me that the link was broken. So when I put my 10 year old granddaughter on the bus this morning, I still had no idea how her school was going to deal with this.
She and I,however, had talked about it at length yesterday. While we were waiting for the bus she informed me that the first thing she was going to ask her teacher this morning was whether or not she was going to get to hear the President of the United States talk to HER.
September 8, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Out of the mouths of babes...
The very idea that we would teach our children to disrespect the office of the Presidency, then claim to be Patriots. So has it come to only being an American, a Patriot in the years that your party has the Presidency?
I suspicion there are a lot of our founding fathers turning over in their graves right about now...
September 8, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what was the result? (Your kind of foaming at the mouth I can understand..)
September 8, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
One can only hope!
September 8, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meant to ask in the main post. Does ANYONE have the orignal planned speech or lesson plan that included the "offensive" and now-removed bit about writing letters saying how you can "help the President"?
Arne Duncan said on one of the Sunday shows that it was very specific: how can you help the President meet his goal of .... (more than half high school graduates attending college, or drop out rate less than some per cent, something like that.) I'd really love to see that statement in context. (And if it is that innocuous, I can understand the WH removing it but *we* (and damnit, the media!) should have been shouting that from the rooftops, to show in real time how truly ridiculous they were being.
September 8, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My children's school did not show Obama's speech today. When asked, my daughter's teacher said that the school would have to review the speech first, and they may show it "at a later date" after they screened it to "see if it was appropriate." Interestingly, the school didn't seem to mind letting students watch several hours of the live Inauguration in January without reviewing it first, so this doesn't appear to be a consistent school policy.
September 8, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Melissa, what part of the country do you live in? Just curious.
September 9, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like some serious PTA whoop-ass on the school board is a coming. Especially now you have them caught between the jaws of a a political vise they put themselves in.
September 9, 2009 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember back in the day, we always thought we were smarter than our teachers. It must be a pretty damn good feeling to be a teenager today and know for certain you really are smarter than your teachers.
September 9, 2009 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Best comment I've heard about this craziness!
September 9, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink