Principal Obama

[Bob]

It was definitely thrown around when HillaryCare was being debated. Her original reform was even more progressive than the House bill is today, it embodied a single payer system for the country.

IMHO, "socialist policy" is valid criticism of the progressive left. The progressive movement of the early 20th century had it's root in soviet style socialism and populism. Today's progressive movement is one of social democracy, which has in it socialist idealism. Conservatives and Libertarians are right in pointing this out, as there is a valid argument to be made based on the idea that the rejection of these ideals has made this country "great". While some may consider these views harsh there is no avoiding the the obvious fact that forcing people to rely on themselves has provided very positive incentives for growth throughout our history. Therefore fighting against the advance of the social democratic model is valid.

Obama is a social democrat. He has made his view very clear - the loss of the advantages of conservative idealism is worth the gains he perceives in implementing a more social democratic (e.g. more socialist) system. If you disagree with this view, criticizing Obama as being a socialist, or for having views that lean socialist or social democratic is valid critcism.

you equate populists with socialists? how about republicans calling themselves libertarians out of shame for their party?

 

[Miss Kitty]

Dear Mr. Obama,

Please hurry up and give your speech to the children of America. The adults are acting like a bunch of loons.

Your cynical but hopeful LIBERTARIAN (thanks, Bob)pal,


Miss Kitty

 

[Carol G]

I remember when we had a robust civics component to our education.

Today, many college students (and sadly too many adults who have somehow made it through college) have no idea how a bill is passed through Congress. In fact, many have no idea how Congress is constructed; how many representatives each state has; how the Electoral College works; what the duties of the Vice President are; how the Constitution affects us all, every day.

They are clueless about the role of lobbyists; have little idea about the Civil Rights movement, the suffrage movement, the Vietnam war...I could go on and on.

(I base my comments on my every day experience of teaching students to write: I find I need to give them a civics lesson before they can even understand how to write a paper for the American Government class--the high schools have almost completely ignored any civics or government except for those who are in an honors segment.)

I think it way past time that we taught our students more about government and politics. Perhaps if more people understood the process and how it works and the responsibility each of us as citizens has to keep our elected officials on their toes, then we would not be in such a politically polarized place as we are today. And the idea of contributing to the public service of our country would not a career looked down upon with such disdain by so many.

I agree with Skunky, we can send military recruiters into the schools for the sole reason for talking the students into military service--usually with the lure of a college education--only to have too many of them die in Iraq or Afghanistan before that dream of college can be realized--but the president isn't allowed to give them a pep talk about why it is important to stay in school.

Something is drastically wrong with that picture IMO

Illinois law requires that all students attending a public school must pass the following:
(105 ILCS 5/27‑3) (from Ch. 122, par. 27‑3)
American patriotism and the principles of representative government, as enunciated in the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the proper use and display of the American flag, shall be taught in all public schools and other educational institutions supported or maintained in whole or in part by public funds. No student shall receive a certificate of graduation without passing a satisfactory examination upon such subjects.

The exam was based on the exam prepared by the INS that immigrants must take in order to become a U.S. citizen. We had to pass it in eighth grade and again in high school - I remember I was annoyed at the prospect of taking it again, because we put such effort into it in the eighth grade; it was a very big deal and we spent several months in preparation. But revisiting it at an older age gave me new perspective, and a greater understanding of what it means to be a citizen of the United States.

I had no idea until recently that this is not a requirement in every state; in fact, from my research this morning, IL is the only state that requires this. How sad. I now understand why we have become society of ignorant citizens who do not have a firm understanding of how our government works. It makes sense that the uneducated are much more susceptible to fear and lies. We have become victims of our government instead of constituents.

Like it or not, we need this educational message now more than ever, from our president and every other government representative. Partisanship has no place here. Without education, we are nothing.

 

[idlewind]

1. I do not care if Obama gives a speech a day to school children telling them to study hard and stay in school. If it encourages one child to finish their education, it is worth the time.
2. If the speech(es) contain one word about political issues(healthcare, stimulus etc.), I would be the first to cry foul.
3. The lesson plans from the DOE were pure BS. I expect nothing better from those clowns. We should take the money we are paying for these dimwits and split it among the teachers in the classroom who are trying to make a difference every day.
4. If hearing one speech can "indoctrinate" your child, maybe that suggests you are not doing a very good job at home. By the time my children reached high school all had very firm political beliefs.
5. I am far more concerned about what Obama is doing to our kids by piling up huge deficits than I am by any speech he gives. He and Bush should be ashamed about their stealing from the future. If Obama wants to"help the kids" he should start with stopping the theft of their future paychecks.
6. Hopefully my conservative friends can move past this and concentrate on the speech that really can hurt us this week, the upcoming address to Congress on healthcare.

 

[Here4Good]

1. I do not care if Obama gives a speech a day to school children telling them to study hard and stay in school. If it encourages one child to finish their education, it is worth the time.
2. If the speech(es) contain one word about political issues(healthcare, stimulus etc.), I would be the first to cry foul.
3. The lesson plans from the DOE were pure BS. I expect nothing better from those clowns. We should take the money we are paying for these dimwits and split it among the teachers in the classroom who are trying to make a difference every day.
4. If hearing one speech can "indoctrinate" your child, maybe that suggests you are not doing a very good job at home. By the time my children reached high school all had very firm political beliefs.
5. I am far more concerned about what Obama is doing to our kids by piling up huge deficits than I am by any speech he gives. He and Bush should be ashamed about their stealing from the future. If Obama wants to"help the kids" he should start with stopping the theft of their future paychecks.
6. Hopefully my conservative friends can move past this and concentrate on the speech that really can hurt us this week, the upcoming address to Congress on healthcare.

Thanks - you and I disagree on the answers, but I think we agree on the questions, and one of them is not "Should the President of the United States be allowed to speak to schoolchildren?"

I especially like point 4. Children are not idiots, ask any parent. They will also change their beliefs about six times before adulthood. If this is the first time you have had the opportunity to speak to your child about the President and politics, you have a problem.

It's all a smokescreen, and I think it's what I hate most this political landscape. It's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[idlewind]

Thanks - you and I disagree on the answers, but I think we agree on the questions, and one of them is not "Should the President of the United States be allowed to speak to schoolchildren?"

I especially like point 4. Children are not idiots, ask any parent. They will also change their beliefs about six times before adulthood. If this is the first time you have had the opportunity to speak to your child about the President and politics, you have a problem.

It's all a smokescreen, and I think it's what I hate most this political landscape. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Too many people blindly follow the pundits they already agree with and fail to think for themselves. The MSLSD's and FOXes both are after one thing: dollars. So is every other news outlet.
Most of us agree on far more than we disagree on. There are a few nuts on both sides that constantly try and frame the discussion as us vs. them. We allow them to win if we stop talking and thinking.
I admit I was very unhappy about this speech when I first heard about it. The DOE lesson plans were the focus and they were plain wrong. But I also understand that Presidents have communiacted with schoolkids since such a thing was possible. I also remember when the President's photo hung in most classrooms. We were a far better nation is those days.

 

[30ashopper]

I remember when we had a robust civics component to our education.

Do we have basic civics course requirements for high schoolers these days?

 

[30ashopper]

I thought I was reasonably clear. I'll try once more-

I'm not complaining. I am advancing the theory that many Americans are acting nuts (keeping their kids home from school to protect them from hearing a speech from our president) because they are motivated by fear based language. In particular, I believe the term socialism/socialist has helped propogate this fear.

Well, who's fault is that? The people using socialism as a form of valid criticism or the idiots keeping their kids out of school?

 

[30ashopper]

you equate populists with socialists? how about republicans calling themselves libertarians out of shame for their party?

In some cases it can be very similar. Depends on how it manifests itself. John Edward's form of populism certainly skirted the border.

 

[Alicia Leonard]

Too many people blindly follow the pundits they already agree with and fail to think for themselves. The MSLSD's and FOXes both are after one thing: dollars. So is every other news outlet.
Most of us agree on far more than we disagree on. There are a few nuts on both sides that constantly try and frame the discussion as us vs. them. We allow them to win if we stop talking and thinking.
I admit I was very unhappy about this speech when I first heard about it. The DOE lesson plans were the focus and they were plain wrong. But I also understand that Presidents have communicated with schoolkids since such a thing was possible. I also remember when the President's photo hung in most classrooms. We were a far better nation is those days.

I have been waiting for someone to point this out. People need to stop watching pundits from both sides or at least stop calling it news. It's entertainment, not news, and they will take everyone to the bank by whipping them up and telling them what they want to hear.