What in the world is the problem with having the President of the United States address students around the country?I've been reading about parents who are up in arms, claiming that this is somehow an attempt to brainwash our children, and to force them to learn and embrace his agenda.
In the President's own words:
"I'm going to be making a big speech to young people all across the country about the importance of education; about the importance of staying in school; how we want to improve our education system and why it’s so important for the country. So I hope everybody tunes in."
In response, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, said the following:
"The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates."
What's sinister or even controversial about a President talking to kids about the importance of education? And what is there to debate about a speech encouraging kids to stay in school???
Are people really that skeptical or suspicious? These have to be the same people who believe that the President is a Socialist.
20 comments:
I would have to agree. I personally am an "Obama Hater," but people should be ecstatic about their children getting to sit in the presence of the President of the United States. What an opportunity! And the first African American President! But let's be realistic of course he's going to push his agenda. It's his agenda! It's part of who he is. So as a parent I would definitely be having healthy discussion with my kids about my concerns with his agenda--which are MANY.
I have absolutely no problem with President Obama encouraging our kids to stay in school, be focused, and set goals. What I have a problem with is his socialistic views of everything. And yes, he is absolutely a socialist. How else would you describe his plans
If his agenda = encouraging young kids to stay in school and the importance of education then I say push away. The last time I checked education was a bipartisan universal issue. I mean please, its not like he's going to talk about health care reform, economic policies or Afghanistan...he's going to make his talk relevant to these children---'about school'. If the 'youngest' children disagree (with the topic of the talk--importance of education) then I think we should have faith in our educators that they will be compassionate enough to ensure that there's no bullying and that differing views can be discussed in an open & constructive manner. What a great lesson to learn for these youngsters that even if they might not agree with someone that they can still listen and value others opinions.
If by socialistic views you mean health care, then I would ask if you pay into Social Security? If so, you're a socialist too, because your wealth is being taken from you and redistributed to others.
Are your grandparents or loved ones on Medicare? Socialists! My money is taken from me to pay for their medications!
Do you have car insurance? That only works because you give your money to a company that then redistributes it to others who need it! That's socialism wrapped up in capitalism.
Did you attend, or do you send your kids to public schools? If so, you must be a socialist, because your taxes are taken from you and redistributed to benefit the community.
Socialism is not a political system, it's an economic system, and generally it involves a government (state or national) or workers taking full control of all the capital in an economy. In a socialist economy, you would generally see the nationalization of public companies, like phone companies, oil companies, utilities, etc... Like when Hugo Chavez seizes control of public companies in Venezuela.
The fact that Pres Obama wants to require health insurance for everyone is no different than requiring drivers to have auto insurance...except that he's saying that if you cannot afford to get your own insurance, the government will help cover you.
Taking your taxes to pay for things that benefit the whole society is not Socialism.
I think it's great for the children to hear the President of the United State's speak to them. They should watch things like the inauguration, etc...
My problem is that he sent out an outline of what teacher's should have the children do after the speech. He should have no part of that. This speech is not the problem. It's what is to come from government in our schools. It is wrong and dangerous.
What happens when a conservative right winger gets into office and has access to changing the curriculum? No government should have authority to say what our children should be learning. They should just encourage school attendance, learning, etc...
"What happens when a conservative right winger gets into office and has access to changing the curriculum? No government should have authority to say what our children should be learning."
I remember when Bush Jr was in office and he was encouraging creationism in schools as an option. Isn't that the same thing?
Unless I'm wrong...I believe it was the Department of Education that issued the proposed discussion questions, they didn't come directly from the desk of Obama. Any questions that they did suggest would obviously depend on the context of the speech wouldn't they? Since the speech won't be released till the day before, it a bit difficult to make accurate judgements whether the questions are out of line?
I've also been hearing that George Bush Sr and Reagan did similiar things during their presidencies for the nations schools.
I think this is only a problem because its Obama. If he saved a dying kitten...some would still even find fault with that.
Socialism....entirely different topic (agree w/sterling though). Lets leave that to another day eh?
Heather, I guess I don't see the difference between the Department of Education setting out a proposed curriculum and any other school board, principle or teacher establishing a curriculum, especially since they're already involved in the education of our children whether we like it or not...they set all the standards for education in this country.
What do most parents know about the views and agendas of their respective school boards or the teachers or counselors or principles who come into contact with their children? I'm guessing that there are a lot of school boards and teachers who have much stranger views on the world than President Obama and the Department of Education.
Also, I think the point of having a proposed lesson plan to go along with the President's speech is to encourage students to think about, discuss and debate what the President says.
Critical thinking is key to good education. I'm sure there are plenty of kids out there from conservative families who will be express their opinions loudly.
As long as teachers encourage and tolerate all thoughts, I welcome that kind of experience for my children.
From the feedback I've gotten from my children's teachers, my children will be there for the speech. I don't see anything wrong with what is happening.
Yes, Bush Sr. and Reagan both spoke about education to school children.
My neighbor called me up the other day horrified at the things she had seen on the internet and heard from her friends and family about what was going to happen.
We are in the deep south and people around here get fired up really quickly.
She told me (I have also heard this from people out west), that he was planning on having the children pledge their support to him, and a few other things that bugged me.
I think children should learn all perspectives including evolution and it's opposite. They should learn about all major religions and their differences from an objective perspective. What I don't want is for government to censor material for learning because it might not be sunshine and roses for them or our country. I don't want to move in that direction.
I just see Pres. Obama taking over so many things so fast and it isn't what America is about. People need to dig their way out of their own problems. Where's the accountability? The answer isn't government. We can't turn to them whenever we get into trouble. It's like a child who always gets bailed out. They never grow up, never learn, and can't break free from their parent's. They have no power.
I think it's great that the children get to hear the President speak. I just wanted to make sure there was no agenda other than pushing education.
Heather I agree with you on learning different perspectives....
I don't think Obama is taking over anything though. I just think he's trying to fix a lot of huge mistakes made in the previous administration.
The bailouts...expensive but I think they were necessary. The USA wasn't the only ones to do it...there were a lot that injected money into their economies and took over banks to avoid problems..England being one of them.
Health Care....I don't believe he's trying to take over anything with this either...just create more choice and help a health care system that isn't working currently.
Capitalism is great to a point, but being left unregulated/unchecked it gets out of control which is what happened under Bush who deregulated till the sun didn't shine. Too much power on either spectrum is bad. I think there needs to be a balance with economies/government. I believe this is what Obama is trying to do...but that's only my subjective opinion.
I do think its interesting France and Germany are coming out of their recessions quicker than others and they have been pushing regulation.
I think there's a reason why our founding fathers put a system of checks and balances in our gov. as well....again just my opinions.
WOW! I definitely disagree that because I pay social security that I am a socialist. That is quite a statement! I paid social security because I had to. I think social security is the perfect example of why the Government SHOULD NOT be where we place our dependence. It's insane. I actually think that the people who are calling for the Government to provide for them are probably the same people who were freaking out about how FEMA failed them. Are they insane???
I definitely think that the Government needs to step in and address the issues with healthcare, but the government running healthcare (which is what this "option" will lead to and almost everyone agrees on this)is DEFINITELY NOT the answer. I like the idea of more people having access without breaking their bank, but The quality will most definitely decline through a Government run system. Capitalism is what motivates the pharmeceutical companies to do their research and come up with state-of-the art medicine.
Ideally we would get the malpractice suits in check, and thus decrease malpractice insurance premiums. And then I think that insurance should be used for catastrophic coverage only but people would pay flat, affordable fees (perhaps sliding scale)for regular visits and generic drugs. I am very hopeful that the government will intervene and reform the broken system.
But let's be real the administration is definitely socialist-minded. And I know for a fact there are people in office who think the Government should also control oil...it is a slippery, SLIPPERY slope.
Oh...and Bring it! What's the next topic??
I know you're not a socialist...I was just making a point.
Whether you like it or not, your money is going to all sorts of stuff. You may not agree with Social Security (I don't either by the way...I'll never see a cent by the time I retire), but what about public schools? Roads? Bridges? Sidewalk improvements, street lights, stop lights, cross walks, parks, ambulances, police services, fire departments, judicial systems, militaries...all funded by your money that has been taken from you and put to use for the public good.
You may not receive the benefits personally every day, but if you need them, they are available.
I think it's funny that there are certain benefits and programs that we call "handouts" when we don't have to use them. But it doesn't mean those programs aren't helping some people who really need them.
The fact that your money is taken and used for any or all these programs does not equal socialism. It simply doesn't fit the definition.
The plans for this health care system do not match the definitions of socialism either...see the new post.
"But let's be real the administration is definitely socialist-minded. And I know for a fact there are people in office who think the Government should also control oil..."
PLEASE...give me names and these "facts" that you have.
The only people I can recall who were that interested in controlling oil were in the LAST administration, not the current one.
Also, how is the current administration socialist-minded?
I'll give it to you that Democrats tend to be more socially minded...but that's different that socialist. What are they doing to try and stamp out Capitalism?
Sterling, are you serious?
Social Security is ridiculous. Doesn't matter how much money you have at the end of your life, you could be a billionaire, and you still get your check. That's not redistribution to the needy.
And it's bankrupt!
Public schools? What's my other option? We could have other options, but no-one allows it.
Schools-also poorly managed with continual money problems.
None of those things you mentioned have other options, this is what government run really ends up being. Schools used to be run by churches and the local community. But not all communities had the resources, so government school came in to supplement. Oops - no more competition.
And who in the organization is a socialist or communist? Have you seen any Czars lately?
I let my kids watch the Presidential video.
I also believe the President to be a FLAMING socialist, marxist, whatever you want to call it.
Sterfry- The difference between me and you, is that I do not trust our current President. That is a personal opinion.
Also, from what I understand, being a Socialist means wanting the government to control everything, not just a few. And that is why I believe Obama is a socialist. I would like the government to control as little as possible. They don't seem to be able to handle what they currently have.
Well, I personally do not feel that Obama is a FLAMING anything - but I loved, yes loved, watching his speech with my kids. What did he talk about? What was the point behind this horrific, brain-washing attempt to turn our children into little Obama-robots? Personal responsibility.
I appreciate that he told our nation's children in no uncertain terms that THEY are the ones responsible for THEIR OWN education. How many times have we talked about how this generation doesn't take responsibility for anything? I think his speech hit the mark, and I'd like the Pres. (be it Obama, or whomever else) to give a stirring speech like this at the beginning of every school year.
And as far as changing the curriculum? He wasn't changing any curriculum! He (or the Dept. of Ed.) were simply providing follow-up LESSON PLANS to help what they heard sink in. I think the only real "problem" was in their wording: "how can you help the President?" obviously doesn't create a warm fuzzy for people who don't like his agenda (not that I think it was so SCANDALOUSLY awful - I mean, he IS a role model (and a positive one) for crying out loud!), so guess what? They changed it! And now the kids can write out their educational goals to one in particular instead of feeling excited and important about doing something for the Pres. of the United States.
Now let's be fair.
First, I already said I don't agree with social security.
Second, if I implied that billionaires shouldn't get social security, I am guessing I would be LAMBASTED for trying to take money from the rich...money that they earned fair and square.
That's socialism for heavens sake!
Third, the Czars were not socialists or communists...they were the Russian, Bulgarian or Serbian monarchs of pre-World War I Europe. In Russia, the communists overthrew the Czar.
Fourth, Czars in the US government go all the way back to WWII, so it's kind of hard to say that this administration created those positions or the title. George W. Bush had 35 "czars" working in his administration.
Socialism/Capitalism---whatever happened to the real issue here??...taking care of our own people. Its not happening now and it needs fixing. Bad health affects more than our waistlines...like the economy, national security, the list goes on. NO matter how you look at it it is a bipartisan issue but what's happened is Fear. People getting caught up in believing what certain newspundits are mouthing off to feed their own anxiety or not being able to get beyond 'politics' instead of using their own heads to really look at the fact that this needs to happen. Health care needs to change....in order for America to stay competitive in every possible way with every other nation in the free world (who actually have a national health care--look it up). Its all inter-related. Health/Economy/Education/Security/Everything
By the way...I thank god my grandmother has her social security check every month otherwise she'd literally have nothing. I think its disappointing to see some support chucking our sick and vulnerable out on the street just because they dislike our current president.
I agree with Christine, the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people out there who need help . . . who have nothing. And it DEFINITELY affects more than health. Think of how much money is used up for people's health problems that could easily have been prevented w/regular care. Someone mentioned earlier that everyone receives care, that no one is turned away - in the Emergency Rooms. But how much better would it be if people didn't have to end up there in the first place? And our gov. has its hands in so many things - as Ster mentioned - it is not going to "take over" healthcare - just provide people with a cheaper option. And yeah, it probably will be less than stellar - but it is better than NOTHING.
Post a Comment