Who here will be watching Obama's speech with your homeschooler(s) next week?

[lovetobehome]

We don't use television, and even if we did....no.

[Debbie in OR]

Whoa!

 

OK, I think that maybe terms need to be defined here. I think some of you have confused "general human value" with "role-modeling". I believe all people have value and worth just because they are and are made in the image of God. So, I place value and worth on all people. Period. Including President Obama. I would/do give people who believe differently than me common courtesy and kindness. I even enjoy some of them! But to hold someone up as a role model is a very different thing. Last time I checked, we as parents still had the prerogative of influence and guidance as to who will have role-model privileges in our children's lives. At least for now. When they are old enough to do that for themselves, they can choose whomever they want.

 

As for disrespecting the office of President: not choosing this particular man as a role model is very different than trashing him here or abroad. The Dixie Chicks telling their audiences on their European tour several years ago that they were ashamed to be from Texas because of Bush....THAT is disrespecting the office and the President (and not unlike what Obama does when he travels abroad and apologizes for America). Simply choosing to not have him as a role-model because his values are polar-opposite of ours...I just don't see the connection. Apples and oranges.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Debbie in OR

[angela in ohio]

I remember writing letter to the first President Bush when I was in elementary school. We were supposed to write him with our recommendations!

 

You make a very important point here.

 

There is a subtle but not insignificant difference in writing a letter to tell the President what you want him to do versus writing him a letter to tell him what you will do for him.

[Holly IN]

The school district in my area refused to show it. They sent a letter (email) out to the parents which a friend of mine forwarded it to me knowing that I wouldn't get it due to homeschooling.

 

They said they will view it first (they taped it) and then will decide if it is appropriate for their curriculam. If they approved then they will obtain parental permission then proceed if they chose to do so. Those with no parental permission will not be permitted to watch and will be directed to do something else, elsewhere.

 

:D I say great job to them!!

 

Holly

[MrsMe]

You make a very important point here.

 

There is a subtle but not insignificant difference in writing a letter to tell the President what you want him to do versus writing him a letter to tell him what you will do for him.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

You make a very important point here.

 

There is a subtle but not insignificant difference in writing a letter to tell the President what you want him to do versus writing him a letter to tell him what you will do for him.

 

Actually, in 1991 when President Bush (the first one) spoke at a Washington DC school HE said:

 

Write me a letter — I'm serious about this one — write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals.

Transcript here

 

House Democrats may have complained after the fact but there were no protests. There were no blogs or talking heads calling him a fascist. Nobody said he was trying to "indoctrinate our youth." It was a very similar speech-stay in school, don't do drugs. The only reason there were complaints from Congressional Democrats was because he announced he was running for re-election the next day, which implied he was using it as a political platform.

[mommaduck]

Actually, in 1991 when President Bush (the first one) spoke at a Washington DC school HE said:

 

Transcript here

 

House Democrats may have complained after the fact but there were no protests. There were no blogs or talking heads calling him a fascist. Nobody said he was trying to "indoctrinate our youth." It was a very similar speech-stay in school, don't do drugs. The only reason there were complaints from Congressional Democrats was because he announced he was running for re-election the next day, which implied he was using it as a political platform.

 

I don't think blogs were around then, were they? And personally, I disagree with the way he worded it in as much as I disagree with the way Obama worded it.

[Loupelou]

No, but we don't have TV. :D If he does address a joint session of Congress on health insurance reform, I will listen if it is carried on the radio.

 

ME TOO!:001_smile:

[Peek a Boo]

Actually, in 1991 when President Bush (the first one) spoke at a Washington DC school HE said:

 

Transcript here

 

House Democrats may have complained after the fact but there were no protests. There were no blogs or talking heads calling him a fascist. Nobody said he was trying to "indoctrinate our youth." It was a very similar speech-stay in school, don't do drugs. The only reason there were complaints from Congressional Democrats was because he announced he was running for re-election the next day, which implied he was using it as a political platform.

 

complaints? that's an understatement. and apparently there was more than just a re-election comment to complain about.

 

from another poster:

I am usually just a lurker, but I thought I would post this interesting article. It is an opinion piece from the Washington Examiner.

 

 

Sue

 

 

 

 

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings

 

By: Byron York

Chief Political Correspondent

09/08/09 7:11 AM EDT

 

The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."

Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. "The speech itself and the use of the department's funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal," the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. "The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda."

That didn't stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it "cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. -- while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters."

Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush's speech itself, like Obama's today, was entirely unremarkable. "Block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart," the president told students. "If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they're stuck in a dead end job. Don't let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams.

[angela in ohio]

Actually, in 1991 when President Bush (the first one) spoke at a Washington DC school HE said:

 

Here's the full context from the link:

Let me leave you with a simple message: Every time you walk through that classroom door, make it your mission to get a good education. Don't do it just because your parents, or even the President, tells you. Do it for yourselves. Do it for your future. And while you're at it, help a little brother or sister to learn, or maybe even Mom or Dad. Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address.

 

I still find this different than the original Obama notes (I can't find the text of them online anymore.) Of course, Obama didn't write the lesson plans. I just find it indicative of the way the view of government and the individual has changed. Instead of writing letters to the President, we write letters to ourselves. Instead of thinking about how we can help the country ("our,") we help the President.

 

Not arguing, just musing... (I don't know anyone who can talk politics IRL except dh, and he is ridiculously busy these days.)

 

Also, just because someone disagrees with Obama speaking to students, doesn't mean they agreed with Bush doing it either. I would love schools to be a spin-free zone, either from teachers or the morning videos or the President's speeches. :)

Edited September 9, 2009 by angela in ohio

[Meriwether]

Many people do not need any evidence to label the president as dishonest or unworthy. Rush Limbaugh tells them what their opinion is and there is no reason for independent thinking. Consider that polls show that for the past 8 years, the GOP has become less educated, older, more rural, more "born again," more Southern, and of course, more white.

 

For the first time this past election, the GOP did not have the vote of 4-year-college graduates. The Dems always had the grad school graduates, but this year they took all the college demographics. Extraordinarily educated people tend to be Democrats. You can take that any way you want, but them's the numbers.

 

Food for thought.

 

I find this kind of opinion interesting. When I taught high school, most of the students couldn't even tell me the name of the vice-president - many didn't even know the president. They had, however, gotten a thorough education in the value of abortion, the benefits of welfare, the direness of global warming, etc. The democrats take the "educated" because the schools - especially colleges - have liberal programs. Many, many "educated" people do not understand the historical importance behind the first amendment, much less the second.

 

I would hazard a guess that the "uneducated" -those without college educations- present themselves very differently in the liberal vs. conservative departments. Many people in my family do not have college degrees. They are all self-supporting, and many are very successful. My aunt and uncle didn't even finish high school. Through a lot of hard work, they are now worth several million dollars. "Uneducated" does not mean stupid.

 

Oh, and Rush Limbaugh does not pull his ideology out of thin air. He is not successful because he tells people what to think. He is success because he espouses the views of a large group of people whose opinions have been marginalized in traditional media and a liberal education system.

[PineFarmMom]

No. We really and honestly don't have time right now to bother with it. It'd be easier to read the thing and give them a short summary over breakfast.