4 ms·

And this great speech is not allowed to be shown to students in need due to fear of Obama's socialist ideology? This country saddens me.

by iag 17y ago

roundsquare 17y ago
Maybe I missed some piece of news... but... please explain...?
- rms 17y ago
  It was one of the dumbest media-driven controversies of all time. Of course there will be no more debate after people hear the exceptional speech, but I'll be surprised if we hear a single apology. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.h... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_speech_schools http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_...
  - roundsquare 17y ago
    And now I'm sad too. Although, I guess I'll do some advocating for the devil and say that I would prefer if instead of saying "I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books..." he could say "We're [referring to the government] working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn" This would make it marginally less partisan. However, I would imagine that students are especially inspired by an individual and given Obama's background he's probably in a superb position to inspire students. Sigh Why does everything he does have to be so partisan? What's next? "His dog is spreading socialist ideologies?"
- gjm11 17y ago
  Lots of schools planned to show this to their pupils. Some loonies objected on the grounds, roughly, that Obama was going to brainwash their children with socialist political propaganda. So far as I know, few schools were actually put off by this, but I bet some were.
ars 17y ago
I'll probably get downmodded for saying this, but it's Obama's own fault. He says he wants bipartisanship, but he insults the republicans constantly. I like him less every time I hear him speak. And the republicans respond of course, but he's one man and can choose what to say, the republicans are a group and each person says his own thing. No one trusts him anymore. Even the worst critics of Bush would not be worried about what he would say to kids. During a speech about the stimulus package Obama basically said: "If you don't agree with me that we need a stimulus package you are an idiot/you are wrong. I'm only willing to talk about what goes in it, but not about the need for it." He needs to remember he is the president of an entire country, not half of one. Even if you don't agree with people, at least let them know you respect them, and their ideas. It's his job to reach out to all people, even people he disagrees with. Remember you are disagreeing with an idea, not with a person. It's probably way too late though. The pattern has been set, and even if he changes, the republicans won't. PS. Wooho, got 3 downmods already, just two more left. And no replies of course. PS2: Maxed out the downmods, and no replies to the substance of course.
- gjm11 17y ago
  (Downmodded on general principle: Every time I see a comment playing to the gallery by saying "I'll probably get downmodded for this", I vote it down. For the record, I would worry more about what Bush would say to children than about what Obama would.)
  - ars 17y ago
    > For the record, I would worry more about what Bush would say to children than about what Obama would. Probably because you are not worried about either. As for the opening sentence, every time I talk about Obama I get downmodded. So it's a way of telling people: "you are going to hear ideas you don't agree with, so instead of reflexively downmodding [like you did], please actually read the message (and reply if you don't agree)".
    - gjm11 17y ago
      Probably because you are not worried about either: I'd think the probability of either of them saying anything really harmful would be quite small, but it would be a lot higher in the case of Bush. every time I talk about Obama I get downmodded: perhaps that indicates that you're saying dumb things about Obama, then. (But, actually: I suggest that you do what I just did, and put "ars obama" into searchyc.com and look to see whether it's actually true that you get jumped on every time you talk about Obama. Doesn't look like it to me.) reflexively downmodding [like you did]: no, I thought about it carefully, applied a general principle that I'd arrived at earlier on the basis of rational reflection, and then downmodded you. And I also read and considered what you'd written, disagreed with much of it, and commented on one bit that seemed worth commenting on. What exactly do you think is wrong with that? (The reasoning behind the general principle: I'm-going-to-get-downmodded comments, in most venues, consistently seem to do one or more of (1) divert discussion onto meta-noise, (2) procure the sympathy-upvotes they're fishing for, while (3) not actually deserving those sympathy-upvotes. As such, they lower the quality of discourse. I wish to avoid this, because I prefer reading higher-quality stuff. Downmodding such comments when I see them pokes the system in the right direction; saying what I'm doing encourages other people to think about whether my policy is a good or a bad one -- and I expect that people who seriously consider that, whether they end up liking or disliking my policy, will typically come to share my general opinion of the poor-poor-me comments. You are of course welcome to disagree with any of that -- you are welcome to consider it a stinking blend of industrial-grade stupidity with military-spec bullshit -- but what it certainly isn't is "reflexive".)
codeodor 17y ago
Based on the suggested assignments they sent out to schools, I can see how people might have been peeved about the original plans. The Washington Times reported ( see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/02/wh-withdraws-call-students-help-obama/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/02/wh-withdraws... ): "Among the activities the government initially suggested for prekindergarten to sixth-grade students: that they 'write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.' Another task recommended for students immediately after listening to the speech: to engage in a discussion about what 'the president wants us to do.'" The speech as they released it Monday is a great one that I'd want my kids to hear. But because of the information about the assignments we had before hand, I wouldn't have thought it would be a good speech last week.
- mgrouchy 17y ago
  I'm not American, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with either of these assignments you mention. It kind of falls along the lines of the JFK speech "Don’t ask what your country can do for you. Ask instead what you can do for your country" in the first example. Just because it specifically says the "president" shouldn't be a detractor in this regard considering the president is generally considered to be the leader of your country. Also considering these lesson plans are written with regard to prekindergarten to 6th graders. I would imagine keeping the language in this simple way keeps the message clear for the children.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Just because it specifically says the "president" shouldn't be a detractor in this regard considering the president is generally considered to be the leader of your country. Actually, it should be "a detractor" because "the leader of your country" in the US is both extremely transient and somewhat weak. This cultural difference is communicated in a standard American story. This story involves a non-American who is looking for the boss/owner. He comes across someone who is clearly a worker and asks "please tell me where to find your master". The worker says "that person hasn't been born yet". In short, "do for president" and "do for country" are very different things in the US. It's okay if non-Americans don't understand, but don't lecture us on how we're wrong. Eating at McDonald's and watching Bay Watch doesn't mean that you understand US culture. (Folks who actually know US culture are now screaming "there are multiple US cultures".)

And this great speech is not allowed to be shown to students in need due to fear of Obama's socialist ideology? This country saddens me.

by iag 17y ago

And this great speech is not allowed to be shown to students in need due to fear of Obama's socialist ideology? This country saddens me.

roundsquare 17y ago

Maybe I missed some piece of news... but... please explain...?

rms 17y ago
It was one of the dumbest media-driven controversies of all time. Of course there will be no more debate after people hear the exceptional speech, but I'll be surprised if we hear a single apology. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.h... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_speech_schools http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_...
- roundsquare 17y ago
  And now I'm sad too. Although, I guess I'll do some advocating for the devil and say that I would prefer if instead of saying "I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books..." he could say "We're [referring to the government] working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn" This would make it marginally less partisan. However, I would imagine that students are especially inspired by an individual and given Obama's background he's probably in a superb position to inspire students. Sigh Why does everything he does have to be so partisan? What's next? "His dog is spreading socialist ideologies?"
gjm11 17y ago
Lots of schools planned to show this to their pupils. Some loonies objected on the grounds, roughly, that Obama was going to brainwash their children with socialist political propaganda. So far as I know, few schools were actually put off by this, but I bet some were.

ars 17y ago

I'll probably get downmodded for saying this, but it's Obama's own fault. He says he wants bipartisanship, but he insults the republicans constantly. I like him less every time I hear him speak. And the republicans respond of course, but he's one man and can choose what to say, the republicans are a group and each person says his own thing. No one trusts him anymore. Even the worst critics of Bush would not be worried about what he would say to kids. During a speech about the stimulus package Obama basically said: "If you don't agree with me that we need a stimulus package you are an idiot/you are wrong. I'm only willing to talk about what goes in it, but not about the need for it." He needs to remember he is the president of an entire country, not half of one. Even if you don't agree with people, at least let them know you respect them, and their ideas. It's his job to reach out to all people, even people he disagrees with. Remember you are disagreeing with an idea, not with a person. It's probably way too late though. The pattern has been set, and even if he changes, the republicans won't. PS. Wooho, got 3 downmods already, just two more left. And no replies of course. PS2: Maxed out the downmods, and no replies to the substance of course.

gjm11 17y ago
(Downmodded on general principle: Every time I see a comment playing to the gallery by saying "I'll probably get downmodded for this", I vote it down. For the record, I would worry more about what Bush would say to children than about what Obama would.)
- ars 17y ago
  > For the record, I would worry more about what Bush would say to children than about what Obama would. Probably because you are not worried about either. As for the opening sentence, every time I talk about Obama I get downmodded. So it's a way of telling people: "you are going to hear ideas you don't agree with, so instead of reflexively downmodding [like you did], please actually read the message (and reply if you don't agree)".
  - gjm11 17y ago
    Probably because you are not worried about either: I'd think the probability of either of them saying anything really harmful would be quite small, but it would be a lot higher in the case of Bush. every time I talk about Obama I get downmodded: perhaps that indicates that you're saying dumb things about Obama, then. (But, actually: I suggest that you do what I just did, and put "ars obama" into searchyc.com and look to see whether it's actually true that you get jumped on every time you talk about Obama. Doesn't look like it to me.) reflexively downmodding [like you did]: no, I thought about it carefully, applied a general principle that I'd arrived at earlier on the basis of rational reflection, and then downmodded you. And I also read and considered what you'd written, disagreed with much of it, and commented on one bit that seemed worth commenting on. What exactly do you think is wrong with that? (The reasoning behind the general principle: I'm-going-to-get-downmodded comments, in most venues, consistently seem to do one or more of (1) divert discussion onto meta-noise, (2) procure the sympathy-upvotes they're fishing for, while (3) not actually deserving those sympathy-upvotes. As such, they lower the quality of discourse. I wish to avoid this, because I prefer reading higher-quality stuff. Downmodding such comments when I see them pokes the system in the right direction; saying what I'm doing encourages other people to think about whether my policy is a good or a bad one -- and I expect that people who seriously consider that, whether they end up liking or disliking my policy, will typically come to share my general opinion of the poor-poor-me comments. You are of course welcome to disagree with any of that -- you are welcome to consider it a stinking blend of industrial-grade stupidity with military-spec bullshit -- but what it certainly isn't is "reflexive".)

codeodor 17y ago

Based on the suggested assignments they sent out to schools, I can see how people might have been peeved about the original plans. The Washington Times reported ( see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/02/wh-withdraws-call-students-help-obama/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/02/wh-withdraws... ): "Among the activities the government initially suggested for prekindergarten to sixth-grade students: that they 'write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.' Another task recommended for students immediately after listening to the speech: to engage in a discussion about what 'the president wants us to do.'" The speech as they released it Monday is a great one that I'd want my kids to hear. But because of the information about the assignments we had before hand, I wouldn't have thought it would be a good speech last week.

mgrouchy 17y ago
I'm not American, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with either of these assignments you mention. It kind of falls along the lines of the JFK speech "Don’t ask what your country can do for you. Ask instead what you can do for your country" in the first example. Just because it specifically says the "president" shouldn't be a detractor in this regard considering the president is generally considered to be the leader of your country. Also considering these lesson plans are written with regard to prekindergarten to 6th graders. I would imagine keeping the language in this simple way keeps the message clear for the children.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Just because it specifically says the "president" shouldn't be a detractor in this regard considering the president is generally considered to be the leader of your country. Actually, it should be "a detractor" because "the leader of your country" in the US is both extremely transient and somewhat weak. This cultural difference is communicated in a standard American story. This story involves a non-American who is looking for the boss/owner. He comes across someone who is clearly a worker and asks "please tell me where to find your master". The worker says "that person hasn't been born yet". In short, "do for president" and "do for country" are very different things in the US. It's okay if non-Americans don't understand, but don't lecture us on how we're wrong. Eating at McDonald's and watching Bay Watch doesn't mean that you understand US culture. (Folks who actually know US culture are now screaming "there are multiple US cultures".)