Obama's address to students...

Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html
Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26711.html
FoxNews: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/02/critics-decry-obamas-lesson-plan-stud...
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-09-04-school-protests_N.htm
Cato: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/09/02/obama-to-kids-tune-in-turn-on-dont-dro...

More pro-Obama opinions wanted. I didn't find anything substantive.

What do people think of this?

Sounds like a gimmick. Like the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why are Republicans so freaked out?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20090903/pl_ynews/ynews_pl888_1

From Fox

"Among the concerns, McCluskey said, is the notion that students who do not support Obama or his educational policies will begin the school year "behind the eight ball," or somehow academically trailing their peers."

"It essentially tries to force kids to say the president and the presidency is inspiring, and that's very problematic," McCluskey said. "It's very concerning that you would do that."

Is he serious?

From the NYTimes:

"President Obama’s plan to deliver a speech to public school students on Tuesday has set off a revolt among conservative parents, who have accused the president of trying to indoctrinate their children with socialist ideas and are asking school officials to excuse the children from listening."

...

later on

“The thing that concerned me most about it was it seemed like a direct channel from the president of the United States into the classroom, to my child,” said Brett Curtiss, an engineer from Pearland, Tex., who said he would keep his three children home.

“I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us/04school.html?_r=1&hp

sounds like cultish behavior to me, "I can't let my children hear differing view points! Liberals are an abomination, and will mess up the brainwashing regimen."

I think the nugget here is reversibility. If a few years ago, Bush had planned to give a nationwide speech to school children, you can be sure many on the left would have much the same reaction. I at least can be sure, as it's exactly how my wife responded--thinking it a great idea for Obama, but honest about how she'd have considered the thing if it were Bush. Instead of articles about conservative school districts in Florida and Texas making it optional, we'd have articles about Massachusetts and Vemont schools.

It has, of course, been noted that the last time something like this happened—the elder Bush gave a speech about drugs, Democrats opposed it. (Fortunately, those were somewhat calmer times. Nobody thought the grandfatherly and verbally tortured Bush, Sr. was going to turn their children into million-points-of-light zombies.)

We trust what our friends say, and when they say they're acting impartially and as part of their office, we believe them and accuse those who don't of being nuts. (Of course, some will be nuts, and highlighting them makes us all the more secure in our beliefs.) And our enemies' are just scheming and plotting, as they always do. So it goes--we live in a bubble of our own inability to see the world fairly.

And any sufficiently complex situation is going to give ammunition to either opinion. Only a real crazy thinks Obama thinks he's doing something sneaky; surely he thinks he's doing something innovative and important against a serious problem. Meanwhile, the White House lesson-plan changes (eg., removing "How can you help the president, etc.") give ammunition to the doubter and, after all, who can doubt that that the speech is, if not done for political points, is in part designed to demonstrate Obama's competence, personability and compassion?

Bizarre. I can honestly say that I wouldn't have thought it at all "sneaky" for President Bush to address students, and I think I detested him as much as anyone. I have to admit that I am surprised that anyone would think it somehow underhanded for the President of the United States to address any group of citizens.

Listening to what your President is saying is always educational, and for parents that decide that they disagree with any of his statements in this address, it is an excellent time to talk about democracy in America. Our schools actually do an atrocious job of teaching civics, so I think this could be a very good way to introduce the subject.

If a few years ago, Bush had planned to give a nationwide speech to school children, you can be sure many on the left would have much the same reaction.

Please. I heard enough of this b.s. yesterday. The fact is, Bush didn't do it, which I suppose translates into a strike against Obama for being innovative. Yeah, some folks may have had a problem with it, but if the President is giving a speech to schoolchildren on the importance of education, I don't see the problem. Part of the issue is that we now have a president who has the potential to be - dare I say it? - an inspiration to at-risk children. It's interesting to think about why this makes the archetypical angry white Republican upset.

It's funny how quickly the "My Country Right or Wrong" crowd jumps ship when the electorate goes against their wishes.

The education speech is just the crisis du jour for the reactionary anti-Obamaists. I predict the day after the speech, the sun will come up, the sky will be blue, and the extremist conservative Henny Pennys will have another cause to rise up and squak "Socialist! Socialist!" They are marginalising themselves more and more with each faux outrage, and that's fine with me.

>9 Makifat:

So, your argument is that, if president Bush had addressed school children across the nation in this way, the left would have been perfectly copacetic about it? Do you recall a few short months ago. Anti-Bush hatred was at least as strong as any anti-Obama hatred. One reason the anti-Obama people seem so extreme is that they are uncommon. Virulent anti-Bush sentiment was a mainstream thing. A quick Google search for Bush Bumper Sticker:

http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=bush+bumper+st...

Then compare it to Obama Bumper Sticker:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en-...

Notice a difference? The Bush ones are almost all anti-Bush, many of them accusing him of murder and terrorism. I'd say that, in modern times, no president was as disrespected, feared and hated as much as Bush. (And you know, what, maybe he deserved it. But that's not the point.)

Now, again, you really think all those people with "Impeach Bush," "Arrest Bush," "Buch Fush" and "Cheney/Satan 08" stickers would have had no negative feelings about their school sitting down for a speech from Bush?

What do people think of this?

I tend to think that people who believe that young kids are going to listen with bated breath to a politician's speech, is probably fooling themselves. ;)

Maybe I was an apolitical slacker and maybe today's young students are different, but when I was in elementary/junior high school (and even, to an extent, in high school), I wasn't usually thinking about politics, and I thought most adult speeches were boring.

Edit to add: Frankly, as an adult, I still find most political speeches boring.

10 > Well Obama's had 8 months, Bush had 8 years. Bush earned his hate, Obama had huge hate clubs before he even took the oath of office. Believe what you will, I didn't care one way or the other about Bush when he was elected the first time and I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Where I lost a lot of respect for him was when he F****d up the China midair collision fiasco.

So, let me get this straight, it's a BAD THING for the democratically elected President of the United States of America to give a speech to the nation's schoolchildren.

Huh? WTF?

10
So, your argument is that, if president Bush had addressed school children across the nation in this way, the left would have been perfectly copacetic about it?

I don't believe that's what I said: I said I wouldn't have seen a problem (unlike the Teddy Kennedy imagined by the right-wing, I don't presume to speak for all liberals) . Certainly there would be some hard-core leftist opposition. But then, if Bush had made such a speech within the first 8 months of his term, I don't think the reaction would have been quite as violent as what we are seeing now. But, as I said, he DIDN'T make such a speech, so we don't know, do we? But the whole "socialist indoctrination" thing is just goofy.

As for bumper stickers, from my anecdotal viewpoint in the greater Phoenix area, the tendency is to forgo pre-printed stickers and actually PAINT violently anti-Obama slogans on cars and trucks (or use the little metallic letters you can buy at the hardware store to give a personalized message). Most of the ones I've seen have been violent and humorless.

I think the nugget here is reversibility.

Ah right, so if W had done this there would be terrible liberal cries of “I don’t want our schools turned over to some capitalist movement.” ... perfectly reversible.

I think there's been a serious spike in anti-Presidential nastiness, with a few key upticks and no real downticks—I'd put them as Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. I don't think anti-Obama-ism has been particularly strong in the context of Bush, or Clinton. But it's remarkable for starting so soon, and, basically, not being based on much. Obama may turn out to be Satan, but he hasn't really done that much yet, has he?

On a more principled level, no, I'd rather the president was the president, and not some larger national daddy-figure—the sort of argument that Gene Healy made in his Cult of the Presidency. This argument, however, has nothing to do with Obama or Bush. And I recognize that, on balance, he's inspired a lot of kids.

Ah right, so if W had done this there would be terrible liberal cries of “I don’t want our schools turned over to some capitalist movement.” ... perfectly reversible.

No, the bugaboo there would probably be religion. Liberals and conservatives fear different things.

Wasn't the shrub actually in a classroom interacting with students when 9/11 happened ? Was there hysteria before the visit from the liberals ?

It's easy to imagine wackos of any political stripe protesting an apolitical address to children made by a president of whom they disapprove. That's what makes them wackos. What I have a hard time imagining is that there exists a critical mass of media consumers who believe that this shit constitutes news.

...the bugaboo there would probably be religion.

Speaking of which. I don't recall many men of the cloth calling for Bush to get brain cancer and die. I guess, living in Arizona, my perspective is skewed.

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/southeastvalley/tempe/story/Tempe-pastor-reite...

"We don't need another holiday..." I suppose I'm only imagining a racist message here...

#17 - I'm exaggerating of course. There is always something stupid to complain about. I don't have an issue on whether there should be concerns over the content of message; I agree any message should be non-political in nature. But, the complaints are really strange - these are wacko comments.

I think what is shows is the prominent Republican leadership and main Republican ideas are really strange right now. They hate Obama, but they don't really have a reason too - he hasn't done much yet. They hate the health plan - because they've project their worst imaginable, and generally baseless fears on it. They call Obama a socialist and communist - these kinds of comments are nutty.

When we complained about Bush's faith - it was real. He actually justified his secular choices by citing his faith. When we complained about Bush invading Iraq - it was because he actually invaded Iraq. The Bush complaints were based on things he actually did. The Torture was real, Brownies anemic Katrina response was real, the economic collapse was real. etc.

Speaking of which. I don't recall many men of the cloth calling for Bush to get brain cancer and die. I guess, living in Arizona, my perspective is skewed.

The first image in that bumper-sticker link is "Why does Al Quaeda kill civilized people when they could kill Bush?" As said before, when it was announced that Reagan was shot, people in my grade school class cheered. Clearly we live in different places. The problem is fanaticism and the demonization of your opponents. It's not conservatives.

#13: So, let me get this straight, it's a BAD THING for the democratically elected President of the United States of America to give a speech to the nation's schoolchildren.

They're a captive audience, so yeah. It's as despicable as Bush using soldiers in his speeches who likewise have no choice but to sit down and shut up.

...democratically elected President of the United States of America...

Let's take it for granted that you are a devotee of the theology behind said political ritual. Is it right to indoctrinate someone else's children into accepting the legitimacy of some guy sitting in a Washington office? It's funny to see the leftists turn statist on a dime. I don't care if it's Republicans or Democrats who arte making a stink about it. They're not your kids. Deal with it.

Without making excuses or special pleading for dumbassery anywhere, perhaps another variable to take into account is TIME. Obama has been president for not a lot more than five minutes.

So nutjob Republicans are at it again. Birthers, Deathers, Not-my-pet-goaters: what's next? This is really not a surprise: they are driven crazy by the idea that Democrats won the last election. Life will go on though; but the comic relief they supply is appreciated.

> they are driven crazy by the idea that Democrats won the last election

Right. And they are in good company. Democrats were driven crazy by the Bush wins. Maybe the problem is going crazy.

It's funny to see the leftists turn statist on a dime.

"Turn"?

#26 - I can't prove it, but that is not what I recall and i suspect that's not true. Maybe it was different in New England (I'm in Texas). I don''t recall Dems go crazy until Katrina. Maybe I'm wrong here. Certainly, my political depression set in in 2000. That depression ramped up on Sep 12, 2001 as I watched all the Dems acquiesce to whatever W wanted. But I didn't notice the complaints making the news. I thought even Kerry held too many punches. Then katrina came and all hell broke loose.

Maybe Americans just hate the president, regardless of who is in office.

Can we move on to Public Choice yet?

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html

From it:

" One key conclusion of public choice is that changing the identities of the people who hold public office will not produce major changes in policy outcomes. Electing better people will not, by itself, lead to much better government. Adopting the assumption that all individuals, be they voters, politicians, or bureaucrats, are motivated more by self-interest than by public interest evokes a Madisonian perspective on the problems of democratic governance.

Like that founding father of the American constitutional republic, public choice recognizes that men are not angels and focuses on the importance of the institutional rules under which people pursue their own objectives.

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself” (Federalist, no. 51)."

I think the real hatred started with Bush v. Gore. Lots of people became obsessed with the idea that Bush wasn't only a bad president, he wasn't even legally president. Parallels to the birthers, admittedly a weirder bunch, suggest themselves. Contesting the very legality of the president is a pretty new thing, at least in the last 100 years. I'd put the birthers closer—but still on the weird side—of the people who think Kerry "really" won in 2008. The paranoid style of American politics is a bi-partisan thing.

I found a nice chart of anti-Bush/pro-Kerry bumper sticker sales:
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2008/06/03/our-sales-stats-show-it-...

I think it captures the truth—Kerry voters were motivated by hatred of Bush more than love of Kerry.

The Obama/McCain stats are also revealing. McCain was a nice guy and not without evidence of intellect and integrity; it was hard to make him into a demon (not that some didn't try). Obama, however, was a dream come true for many. While I like hard-fought debate, I think Obama's rise was fundamentally healthier for all concerned.

To speak of hate and love of a political office holder, who is not a blood relative or illicit lover, is just plain creepy.

Isn't it?

#28/30
Tim: I think the real hatred started with Bush v. Gore. Lots of people became obsessed with the idea that Bush wasn't only a bad president, he wasn't even legally president.

As a resident of TX at the time, this is much closer to my recollection of the vibe among Democrats there than dchaikin's view. Post-9/11, otherwise rational people started telling me, constantly, how Bush was going to declare martial law tomorrow/next week/next month and become our permanent dictator. This did not end until Obama's first day in office (and even then I'm sure they worried that security was not strict enough to prevent Bush's marching back in there and resuming the throne).

#22 Tim: It doesn't even take grade schoolers. My in-laws, otherwise kind and ethical people, threw a party when Reagan died. Yes, people on both sides demonstrate amazing levels of hatred--or love--and yep, enevada, it is super-creepy.

#32: Seen from across the pond it is more weird than creepy. Why not just disagree with the politics of "the other side"? Why the need to hate them and dance on their grave when they ar e dead?

>31 enevada:

Agreed, mostly. Stalin was hate-able, though. ;)

Post-9/11, otherwise rational people started telling me, constantly

I think these things spread. And it's situational. Crazy anti-right sentiment is nothing new to me. A kid at my high school lay down in front of Dan Quayle's motorcade when he came through the area. I'm not sure why. Like the screamers thrown out of the David Souter hearings because Souter was going to force women into back-alley abortions, it all seems so quaint now.

I was in Brookline and Cambridge, MA when 9/11 happened. Even there, it took a while for anti-Bush sentiment percolate back after 9/11. I think it took a lot longer in the rest of the country, though. And it was a bipartisan thing. After the silly-season of the late 90s, 9/11 taught conservatives the difference between opponents and enemies. Even if you didn't like her policies, Hillary Clinton didn't want to want to fill American cities with dead bodies. Indeed, in all the issues that really mattered, Clinton was a patriot and an asset to the country.

I suppose 9/11 had to fade, but I think the insight was something we should have held onto—on both sides.

Why the need to hate them and dance on their grave when they ar e dead?

I'm not taking that criticism. Hatred of Thatcher was at least as strong as hatred of Reagan. Your phrase echoes perfectly Elvis Costello's song about Thatcher:

Well I hope I don't die too soon
I pray the lord my soul to save
Oh I'll be a good boy, I'm trying so hard to behave
Because there's one thing I know, I'd like to live
Long enough to savour
That's when they finally put you in the ground
I'll stand on your grave and tramp the dirt down

#27: "Turn"?

Ah, touché!

I'm old enough to recall a time when conservatives espoused two things:

1) the public schools didn't provide enough basic education in civics;

and

2) the president deserved respect, regardless of your opinion of his policies.

Of course, these were fundamental conservative tenets from a long time ago - say, eight or nine months ago. Today, when the president wants to address our schoolchildren, it's apparently the worst thing imaginable.

37
Hear, hear.

I have to say that it's amusing that the conservatives have such little faith in their kids powers of discrimination that they believe that one speech is going to turn them into little Obamists, holding aloft copies of The Audacity of Hope like so many Little Red Books.

#37, 38: Strawman arguments, all of it. To hell with the Republicans. Just leave the kids alone.

Well, I just had a long, brilliant, possibly my best post ever, eaten by LT (or more likely by a problem with my laptop), so I'll just give my concise view on this whole thing.

The people who are afraid Obama will indoctrinate their kids with one Presidential Address are generally, weak minded to begin with. After all, they believe this shit, don't they?

Second, the wing-nuts in this country have no interest in education as a teaching tool, for them it is an instrument of indoctrination, a tool for forming little minds. They use education this way. Read up on some of the home-school curricula, the Christianist K -12 schools (for our foreign auditors this is from about age 5 to age 18 on average and constitutes our pre-college education). They are propaganda mills with enough learning that their students can function in society, but not enough to teach them how to think for themselves. Any sign of independence of thought is grounds for expulsion. The wing-nuts in this country are afraid of education because it reveals the hypocrisy at the core of their ideas. No one, not even the wing-nuts like being played for a fool so they have allowed themselves to be convinced that "elites" (short for people who know what they are talking about) are evil because they make the wing-nut's core beliefs appear stupid. Thus the battle against elites. The elites behind this sort of stuff know that they can't sell their agenda to people who know how to find out things for themselves and don't need to be led around by the nose.

Because the wing-nuts understand education as indoctrination, rather than imparting information and skylz, it is not hard for them to see Obama as giving their children counter-vailing propaganda. They've become so dependent on their handlers for direction they don't know what education is supposed to accomplish, nor do they know what it means to be educated.

The desire to replace real education with propaganda comes from the difficulty of convincing people it is in their best interest that you arrange things so their lives can be stolen (along with everything else of value) from them. It's a tough sell. Trying to convince educated people that stealing from them is a good thing is like herding cats. Good luck with that. On the other hand an uneducated populace that has grown reliant on their leaders, even to the point that they will believe they should have their lives stolen from them because it's best for them, is much easier to herd. More like sheep.

To prove my point, I've heard over the interwebs that the speech is going to concentrate on the need to stay in school, work hard and get a good education. That's it. I think I've seen an article or two on just this thing from some of the staunchest conservatives around. This is what the conservative movement has preached for years. Stay in school, work hard, get that degree and an education along the way. Now, it seems that very same identical message in the hands of Obama is left-wing socialist propaganda.

Come on, wing-nuts, it was easy to talk about working hard for an education when you saw a world littered with minority failures and that fact stroked your ego. Now, when a minority wants to take over the very same message, (after all HE might mean it) the conservatives are running from it as if it were a bomb. The message is not important. It's who utters the message that means everything. Remember, Perception Trumps Reality. It's much more important to seem to be educated and be able to parrot the party line without thinking about it too hard, than it is to actually be educated. Actually, for reasons posted above, people who ARE educated can be very dangerous, especially when it comes to stealing peoples lives. After all, they're capable of figuring out what's really going on. Fortunately for US the percentage of people who become wing-nuts is rather small, although it pains me to see some of my educated acquaintances swallowing this stuff hook, line, and sinker. Of course for them the common thread is that they are frightened, old, white, men. Just the sort to be turned into sheep.

One of my reading projects is the Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell. I found this in the second volume, My Country Right or Left (I hope this doesn't run afoul of the law, but given the state of the law these days, walking down the street can be seen as running afoul of the law).

I know it is the fashion to say that much of recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that for the most part history is inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case they believed "the facts" existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was a considerable body of fact Which would have been agreed to by nearly everyone. If you look up the history of the last war in, for instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will find that a respectable amount of the material is drawn from German sources. A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would still be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as "science". There is only "German science", "Jewish Science" etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the leader, or some ruling clique controls not only the future but the past. If the leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened" -- well it never happened. If he says that two and two are five -- well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs -- and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement.

We have an entire philosophy dedicated to the proposition that there is nothing inherent in two and two that makes them four, just that convention makes it that way and it could just as easily be five. The
Republican party embraces this belief wholeheartedly and practices it. Remember, "Perception Trumps Reality".

Yes, George, it frightens the shit out of me, too.

Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as "science". There is only "German science", "Jewish Science" etc.

...white male science, etc. It's astounding that the modern exponents of this relativist stuff ("There's no such thing as science, only white male science," etc.) think these ideas are liberatory. Actually they have exactly the opposite history.

Science can be abused, and sometimes has been. But anyone who tells you "There's no such thing as reality" is always trying to hide something.

People with the truth on their side don't try to dodge the concept of truth.

#40 "the wing-nuts in this country have no interest in education as a teaching tool, for them it is an instrument of indoctrination. Read up on some of the home-school curricula... They are propaganda mills."

Home-schooled children do better on standardized tests than the products of public schools.

This says it so much better than ever I could. Beware, it's quite long. And of course being on HuffPo means the people who should read this (they will recognize much of what she says as coming straight out of their own rhetoric of the past, good, solid, core, rock-ribbed conservative beliefs) probably won't.

Remember, (I might make this a sig on LT) Perception Trumps Reality!

There really are reasons why I hate Republicans!

I like that she blames Republicans rather than conservatives. I fear that no Republican will read such a thing carefully and few non-Republicans will read it all the way through. The polarization of America or maybe the viciousness of opposition has been remarked on, but I find it new that she blames it on the Republicans and think that that might be true.

I clicked on her name at the head of the article. Her biography could open her to attack (I intend to look at it longer).

I go to Huffington Post daily, but I had not noticed this. Thank you for the link.

Robert

#42 >Home-schooled children do better on standardized tests than the products of public schools.

Well, yes-and-no.

There's more than a little selection bias involved here: pretty much by definition, the public schools have to accept every kid, so there's an astonishing percentage of Special Ed kids in the public schools. Which brings down their stats on the standardized tests.

>45 AsYouKnow_Bob:

NCLB separates out special education stats, so the effect can be evaluated. I have no idea what the stats show, but the data is not mushed up like you're saying.

Of course, home schooling is hardly a right-wing religious-conservative phenomenon. There are loads of left-wing parents—notably near me, in Maine and Vermont—who also homeschool.* People with the right opinions tend to praise left-wing homeschooling ("unschooling," etc.) and denigrate right-wing homeschooling.** Needless to say, home schooling is not primarily a political act. People are complex things.

*Abby, LibraryThing's librarian, who is certainly smarter than most of you, and may well be smarter than all of you, was home schooled, and although I won't speculate as to her parents' politics, I'm pretty sure religious indoctrination was not the motive.
**Having different attitudes about your own people's actions and the similar or identical actions of others is another sign of partisan blindness. I know lots of people who trot out the paramount importance of capital-S Science whenever some ignorant parent think evolution is "just a theory," but withhold judgment or eager embrace all sorts of anti-scientific junk--anti-vaccine hysteria, homeopathy or "field manipulation." Deep down "our" anti-scientific rubes are okay. "Theirs" aren't.

I don't know any Democrats who wanted Bush to die in office. They were too aware of the order of succession.

I'm in Florida, home of the butterfly ballots and hanging chads. The fury about the election was widespread and continuing. It didn't die down much until last year. My great-grandfather used to hand out the payments to his party's voters in his village in upstate NY, so I don't get too shocked about election shenanigans. I got tired of saying "Get over it. They've both been cheating all along."

As a child, I hated it when my favorite tv westerns got preempted for speeches by Ike. But I'd have been happy to have classes preempted for just about anything.

> 46 Except that they found they are not reporting all the scores, they don't report on minorities, who normally have lower scores, and on those with English as a second language. It was back in 2006, but who knows if the problem has been corrected.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192031,00.html

#40: "It's a tough sell. Trying to convince educated people that stealing from them is a good thing is like herding cats."

But I thought you were in favor of taxes. Oh, wait. I almost forgot that the kind of education you're espousing is the one that says, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, that if the government does it, then it is NOT illegal. It's all well and good to claim you want to stamp out hypocrisy. It's something else to want to replace one form of hypocrisy with another. It just goes to show that you should never let your schooling interfere with your education. Obama is advocating schooling, not education.

>40 geneg:
Gene, you're right to bring in Orwell. Although this discussion is talking about issues that get people excited, I can't help but feel that many of the examples cited by opponents to this speech (which I do feel is sort of a gimmick, but not something far-out, and certainly not pernicious) are, well, pretty trivial.

This is not to say that the principles are trivial. But for people to get so het up about this? What a sheltered existence.

At the risk of digression, but bear with me, consider this quote about the Second World War:

"Freedom came from the east ...Russia, once again, fulfilled its historic mission to save Europe from forced unification and its own madness."

Sounds like apparatchik talk from the Soviet era, doesn't it? But, in fact, it's a quote from last week by Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the war. Putin, who attended the ceremony, pursued the same meme, glossing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the division of Poland in this light. Unsurprisingly, the Poles weren't thrilled.

If only the polarization we Americans are unhappy about were about more things that really...ahem...mattered. Or is it for many just an unhealthy form of entertainment?

(Link to Guardian article with the Lavrov quote: http://u.tv/News/Poland-and-Russia-row-over-second-world-war-marks-Gdansk-day/da...

>46 timspalding: Still, virtually all home-schoolers have parents who care about their education and take the time to demonstrate it. They also come from parents with the money and education to provide home-schooling. Those factors aren't easily separated out.

Home schooling is a right-wing religious-conservative phenomenon. It is also a phenomenon of other groups, but the commercially available curriculum for home schoolers is heavily slanted towards anti-evolution, conservative Christian materials. I don't know what the numbers are, but anecdotal evidence doesn't help a lot with the big picture. As you said before, everyone you knew was voting for Mondale for President.

Home schooling is a right-wing religious-conservative phenomenon.

But so what? I don't think anyone really denies that the right-wing dissenters deserve to be excoriated for their hypocrisy. But I don't think anyone's hypocrisy can really be used to dismiss their dissent, as entangled as the two may be. I think it is sometimes possible to have reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. A lot of the anti-war crowd during the Bush years were full of people who didn't care a whit about Democratic warmongering before or after Bush. As hypocritical as they may be, it shouldn't make their dissent any less important.

If education is indoctrination, then don't you want your children indoctrinated in your own beliefs, not some stranger who may or may not share those beliefs? That's the thinking of most home-schoolers. The point is education as indoctrination, not education as learning that will help provide for a decent future.

Of course home-schoolers do better on standardized tests. What public school do you know of that wouldn't kill for a classroom ratio not in excess of 1 to 10 at the outside and more often than not one to one or two with the unquestioned parental authority available as need be?

Oh, by the way, the chicken-shit school district I live in is not allowing the broadcast to be shown at all. Be afraid, be very afraid! What a crock of shit!

God, please, cause Texas to secede then get me the hell out of here as soon as possible!

#53: "That's the thinking of most home-schoolers. The point is education as indoctrination, not education as learning that will help provide for a decent future."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that attitude owes itself primarily to the fact that we have a "common school" approach to education in the form of public schooling. They probably see it, and perhaps rightly so, as counter-indoctrination. Would that really be so prevalent among home-schoolers without our one-size-fits-all public eduation?

The other day at the county fair I had the chance to see 7 year old kid whose family was there at the bird exhibit and he was expertly handling falcons and able to answer questions competently from people in the audience. It made me think about how there used to be many more educational modalities in the form of apprenticeships and family businesses. How many educational alternatives that provide actual learning have been undercut and destroyed by the public-schoolers? And should we be surprised that only the ideological extreme are left dominating the field when you have sucked out secular mainstream demand from the environment? They are merely a symptom of your attempts to indoctrinate.

#55: A seven year old is pretty young to start blaming the public school system, given that kindergarten usually starts at six at the earliest.

Part of the reasoning behind modern education is that it is not only a social responsibility, but good for the society that the children of Wal-Mart cashiers are educated for jobs other than cashier, drug dealer and armed robber. How well that's being achieved is an open question, but I see no chance that removing public-schooling is going to improve that.

Tim at #46

but the data is not mushed up like you're saying.

No, I wasn't the one making the claim comparing {all home-schooled kids} to {kids in the public schools}. That's where the data was being "mushed up".

I raised no particular objections to home-schooling; I think your response would have been a more accurate reply to #42, who made what I thought was unsubstantiated claim for the superiority of home-schooling.

It's wouldn't especially surprise me if home-schooled kids did better on tests,
just like it wouldn't particularly surprise me if they were taller, or healthier. But that may or may not be of any significance: one set here is a selected sub-set of {the population of school-aged children}. Yes, it's probably not a representative sample. What can we actually derive from this?

I know people who home-school; I know people who send their kids to various parochial and private schools; and they all try to make the claim that "look how much better-performing this {selected population} is than {the kids left behind in the public school system}.

Well, sure. The public schools by law have to include the kids that no one else much wants to try to educate.

To conclude from this that "{My preferred system of education} is obviously a better system of education" is an unwarranted claim. That's all that I was pointing out.

The populations involved clearly aren't equivalent, and I've never seen any actual data in support of this claim.

That's all I was objecting to at #45.

(Edited to fix a mark-up typo)

>55 Lunar:
Yes, indoctrination is part of the picture. Can we posit a prelapsarian school where it would be otherwise? The debate is more realistically situated on what KIND of indoctrination we'll have. This can include, of course, libertarian-anarchists etc. But they are a part of the continuum, aren't they? Not outside it? Or, romantically, golly swish, above it?

>57 prosfilaes:
Maybe rethink the lumping of Wal-Mart cashiers with drug dealers and armed robbers? Class snobbery is a choice, if one desires. But moral and economic and legal distinctions create added complications.

>59 krolik: It wasn't meant as class snobbery; the point was that without an education, they have very limited choices, and some of the more lucrative (i.e. not hoping each month you can pay the rent) choices are ones that society spends a lot of time discouraging. Armed robbery sucks as a job, and it's not one anyone with a little education would pick. If I'm on the jury for a bank robber, I'd like to know that it's because of their own choices, not because society failed to offer them education.

I pray every night that one day all men and women will have liberal arts degrees.

#59: The debate is more realistically situated on what KIND of indoctrination we'll have.

I'd settle for a noncoercive kind, which is a surprisingly difficult concession for left-wingers to agree to.

#60: If I'm on the jury for a bank robber, I'd like to know that it's because of their own choices, not because society failed to offer them education.

See, this is where advocates of public school astoundingly become Creationists. They are incapable of seeing an orderly and adaptive complex system arising without some kind of intelligent designer behind the scenes magically orchestrating everything. In the real world, trying to impose order from above tends to screw things up. The age of the child in my last post was irrelavent to the point I was making. What public-schoolers fail to anticipate is that they could be destroying more educational opportunities than they are creating. Just something to think about during your next jury-duty.

Not to pull us back too much to the point. I've enjoyed reading the philosophical sidebars and digressions. However, they did post Obama's prepared text.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/07/obama.school.speech.pdf It's a PDF.

Here's the WH website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

I like it. He tells the kids to work hard, buck up, don't let your life circumstances be an excuse to quit or fail and follow your dreams. It's simple, encouraging, and honest. And seemingly empty of socialist ideals. Glenn Beck will be disappointed.

63>
As I recalled, Michelle Obama has been delivering the same message when she's visited schools in the USA and abroad. I am surprised the Republicans haven't mixed her into their simultaneously over-cooked and half-baked gallimaufry of political ideas: black helicopters, CDC death squads, and the sky-is-falling fanaticism of right-wing punditry.

>63 Madcow299:

I think that's great. What I don't want is for this to morph into a tradition. I don't want every school year to start with a "presidential address to school children." Quite simply, we aren't that kind of country and, whoever's in power, I don't want us to become that.

But if it's great, then why not? Why aren't we "that kind" of country?

Because regular, broadly pushed speeches by dear leaders are a characteristic of other countries. Hugo Chavez has a weekly TV program—required watching in many work places (subject of a fascinating Front Line program). The US doesn't.

In the US, "all hands on deck" messages from the president are a rare event, largely confined to inaugurations, state of the unions, and occasional speeches to the nation in a moment of crisis. In modern times, many of these occasions are accompanied by a response from the other party.

This reticence has a long history. For much of American history, the president communicated to the public in certain set ways, but he didn't campaign for himself, and didn't stump all over. He wasn't considered a national daddy figure, but an important public offical. Washington's Innaugural address begins "Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives." Obama's begins "My fellow citizens." (I'm not picking on Obama, the tendency is much older.) See Gene Healey's discussion of how "commander in chief" (a military position with no relevance for the president's role in "commanding" civilians has morphed).

Regular President-to-citizen interaction has remained fairly rare. The last president to get away with repeated addresses to regular people was Roosevelt, and he also got away with four terms and the nation went from one major crisis (the Depression) to another (World War II). Sure, Presidents have a weekly radio address, but almost nobody listens to it. Regular speeches to a captive civilian audience (ie., school children) are virtually nonexistent.

The United States is a nation of laws, not men. Innaugurating every school year with a speech from the Dear Leader would, I think, go against that noble, prophylactic principle.

Because the next president or the one after that may not be so "great." How would some of you feel if President Bush were giving pro-war messages to small children?

Unless of course, the Dear Leader is a Republican. Then it's great to hear from the Dear Leader's lips those wonderful words, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you give your money to those who know better what to do with it than you."

>69 geneg:

Whom are you saying this to? My point is exactly yours. I don't give a damn whether it's a Republican or a Democrat. If a tradition is established, it will be both. And it's not the sort of thing a free republic should get into the habit of.

#67 - There is a difference between regular broadly pushed speeches and campaign style speeches.

The presidential reticence, or lack of regular broadly pushed speeches, is, I think, largely a social construct in the sense the most US presidents couldn't pull it off. These speeches really open the president up for ridicule by a press out for blood. W spoke to the public as little as possible, because he was a terrible speaker. FDR was able to pull it off in the early radio era. I think Carter tried, but failed miserably (I can't site a source, just heard this somewhere.) Chavez is different, he's not open for ridicule because he pretty much controls the Venezuelan media.

Sure, Presidents have a weekly radio address, but almost nobody listens to it.

So, if anyone listened to it that would be a bad thing and it would have to be abolished?

Hail Fredonia!!

>72 Makifat:

No, it would be a bad thing if every station had it on and school children around the nation had it for homework.

I flipped from C-Span to Fox after the speech. The reaction seemed to be "Oh. Okay."

74
The media whine-fest beforehand is what the right was in it for. The reality of the speech was never a concern.

#62: What order from above? Each individual school system has large amounts of independence, and at worst they're coordinated at the state level. There's probably no public school system in the US that has as many students as the private Catholic school system that answers to the Vatican. "Trying to impose order from above tends to screw things up" strikes me as a little problematic for any type of school; shouldn't parents direct their children a little?

I would reverse the analogy; advocates of public schooling look upon the current flora and demand that it be studied and understood before making any major changes, like any serious biologist. You would wipe out most of the current educational flora with a completely blasé manner, assuming that whatever will come back will be better than what you destroyed.

"They could be destroying more educational opportunities than they are creating." Could be. Unlike that statement, we know we're stopping more advantageous mutations than we're creating by reducing nuclear fallout. Let's let the bombs drop!

If you want to float the idea that there should be no public school, more than platitudes are necessary; some discussable prediction of the results are necessary.

#65: One of the problems I see with this nation is that there's increasing feeling of distance and powerlessness with respect to our government. Couldn't this reduce this some, help people feel that the president is talking to more than just business men with large checks?

Tim, I was responding to your point, but not necessarily you. I'm tired of the right outlining some dumb something or another they want to do, blame it on the left and then do it themselves. The right in this country will do anything and everything it can, ruthlessly, to achieve their ends. They have no interest in compromise. The Democrats, because they have to compromise within their own caucus are only too willing to compromise. Republicans have the killer instinct, Democrats don't. If the Dems don't develop one, we'll all be in deep stuff.

If Ronald Reagan was predisent now, and he wanted to speak to school kids it would be required viewing and the Republicans would be the ones making it so.

This fuss has nothing to do with any high-falootin' foolishness about freedom and tradition. It has to do with the fact that Republicans will do anything and everything especially those things they revile when Dems do it. It's about childishness as political strategy.

>77 geneg:

Honestly, geneg, I think this fits the definition of being "blinded" by politics. It's one thing to hold deeply to a political view. It's another to believe that your opponents are completely unlike your friends in motivation and moral intent—that they're all evil, ruthless and unprincipled.

It's just not an adult view of the world. Fortunately, people involved in politics—left and right—don't think this way. If they did, they'd be unable to strategize for their views or against others. And they couldn't get anything done.

"Fortunately, people involved in politics—left and right—don't think this way. "

I am reminded of this everytime I visit DC - much nicer vehicles and no bumper stickers. Of course, in northern New England, the cars are held together with equal parts Bondo and Kerry/Gore stickers, but still...

Save the Bay. Remember those? It used to be eelgrass issues - ah, the halcyon days.

Of course, in northern New England

Depends what you mean. In Maine, the northern part is the most Republican. The very southern part, where I am, is the solid Democratic part. But then it's hardly news that proximity to actual wilderness seems to be inversely related to environmentalism... ;)

#80: I meant, as I always do, "the part that isn't Connecticut"

ETA: both districts in Maine went for Obama in the last presidential election giving him all four electoral votes. Northern Maine isn't as Republican as it once was.

>81 enevada:

Yeah. They were afraid, and in 2004, but it's definitely purple-going-blue. According to the NYT, Obama even won Aroostook County ("The County"), which is, I remind non-Mainers, 4 1/2 times larger than Rhode Island.

They only lost Piscataquis, which is okay because it has almost no people. The bears didn't vote.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/president/maine.html

82> You remind non-Maine East Coasters. It's about the size of Clark County, Nevada. It's a rather small county, as things go.

Bah!

#76: What order from above? Each individual school system has large amounts of independence, and at worst they're coordinated at the state level.

If you're taking the imposition of order as what is imposed from a geopolitical distance, you have not grasped the point. Local governments can be every bit as dysfunctional and wasteful as the federal government. I was speaking of the nature and function of the hierarchy, not of the size. But I also think you overestimate the "independence" of public schools which are in fact mired in bureacracy especially at the district level. The problem is simple. Political accountability and factual accountability are not the same thing. The direct grassroots feedback between buyers and sellers will always be more effective at maximising value for both parties than political authorities could be. It's political authorities who speak in platitudes as if good intentions carried out by force of law were ever effective. I'm just telling you the way the world works. If you think people would not choose a lesser quality choice for an artificially free price, and that this population-wide distortion in choice-making would not adversely affect the ubiquity of innovators and competitors, you need to reconsider your political biases.

Google News search: "Obama school speech"

From Google News

Google News search: "Iraqi civilian deaths"

From Google News

Broken image?

#78 And they couldn't get anything done.

But isn't that exactly what is happening?

I know this topic has come and gone, but I heard two teachers still talking about it last weekend--the fact that neither of them were not allowed to show Obama speaking at their particular schools.

I could only think that this was something of a trial balloon, a test of sorts. I can picture a handful of guys in a room snickering, "Hey... if they can believe that the words of their own president are threatening... Hell... they'll believe ANYthing!"

I think there is overwhelming evidence that these people not only will believe anything, but do.

Real Americans need to keep a close eye on these people while pretending to ignore them.

Well, it's been almost a month since the Great Indoctrination, and still no sign of Mao jackets at my kid's school. Could it be that our Republic has survived this horrible calamity?

I guess the kids are less infantile than some of the parents and schools, whose behavior encourages a lack of respect for the President as a symbol of the USA.

You almost wonder if there was a different enemy involved, how would the perception change? Like, imagine if Kim Jong Il of North Korea announced, "We will NOT allow our students or our citizens to listen to that dribble! The United States has nothing good to tell us!" how would it be seen? Would Republicans shift from attacking the Democrats to defending their nation (and in essence, SUPPORTING Obama?) Makes you wonder.

... the President as a symbol of the USA.

He's not a "symbol" of the USA. The office of the president is the head of the executive branch, which is supposed to be co-equal with the other branches. Of course, reality rarely matches what's on paper, in which case the office of the President is what the Left and the Right take turns worshipping like the mindless religio-political peons they are.

And stop capitalizing "president." Those who do just end up looking as foolish as the right-wingers who insist that "creator" is capitalized in the Declaration of Independence as a reference to the Judeo-Christian sky pixie. They capitalized just about every noun and more back then. It doesn't mean anything special or worshipful.

> 95 The POTUS is something more than just the co-equal of the legislative and judicial branches! In addition to heading the executive branch, "the President of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States and is the highest political official in the United States by influence and recognition. ... Among other powers and responsibilities, Article II of the U.S. Constitution ... makes the President commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces..." (Wikipedia).

BTW, Wikipedia capitalized "president" in the preceding paragraph--as does the Congressional Handbook, as I recall--but Hodges' Harbrace Handbook supports your position on caps: "Titles that precede the name of a person are capitalized, but not those that follow it or stand alone. ... President Lincoln...the president of the United States"

On the other hand, HH Handbook directs us to capitalize names of government agencies and "words referring to family relationships ...when the word substitute(s) for proper names", so I think a case can be made for capitalizing "the President"!

95> In reality, one person is almost always going to end up symbolizing a government; the person with the ability to choose justices and ambassadors and sign treaties (all with oversight by Congress, but only following him) and the person with the veto over the collective power of Congress (again, Congress as a whole can override the veto, but not as the simple majority needed to pass it) is going to get viewed as the symbol of the government.

Good. Let's get a figure-head queen, and not treat the president as the national daddy-figure. :)

#98: But it won't work; James Brown is the head of the British government, and Queen Elizabeth is a figurehead. And that's in a government where the Queen still has real powers and a long history.

99
James Brown? The guy that sang (Get Up, Feel Like Being a ) Sex Machine?

The Godfather of no. 10? I've heard of him, a victim of Tory crimes.

...a victim of Tory crimes.

Wasn't Tory Crimes the first drummer for The Clash?

> 98 Good. Let's get a figure-head queen...

I vote for Laura Bush! (I don't think I've ever heard an ungracious remark attributed to her.)

102>
yes, you got the reference :)

105
We have fun, don't we, t.?

106>
We do. Or will, until our President Socialist (or president socialist) rides by in a Prius.

(Or prius. Since the prius is not a "symbol" of the car, the Prius, but only an empty signifier that is invested with meaning by the foolish consumers of the automobile industry, forced into sharing their mindless labels, when in fact the prius is only a semantic assemblage that within the contextually appropriate desiring-machine gets territorialized as a tangible entity generally called a car, of the specific variety known as a Prius, thus becoming endowed with the power structures that make it the arbitrarily signified referent of the serial combination of letters "prius". I mean, it's been over a hundred years since Saussure's lectures, haven't you hopelessly brainwashed minions learnt anything?)

Switching the sarcasm off for a moment, I want to clarify that the point of #86/7 was not that people are obsessed with "trivia" rather than "substance", but that those who cry loudest about indoctrination seem easiest to manipulate, through the fickle trends of manufactured controversies. The Red hordes of brainwashed Commies had at least enough of a residual independent thought process to come up with an ironic observation about their two main media sources "Pravda" (Truth) and "Izvestiya" (News) - there is no Truth in the News, and there is no News in the Truth; but the consciousness of the many analysts, observers and augurs of the impending Socialist menace is apparently so precious that it does not permit irony.

those who cry loudest about indoctrination seem easiest to manipulate

Hear, hear.

Semioclasty is a blood sport.

Regarding 86/87, something in the October "Vanity Fair" lead me to have one of those Berraesque "Déjà vu, all over again" moments. This is from an article on the author (William Manchester) of a contested book about the assassination of JFK (Death of a President). While undertaking research in Dallas

"Manchester also discovered that Dallas “had become the Mecca for medicine-show evangelists … the Minutemen, the John Birch and Patrick Henry Societies, and the headquarters of (ultra-conservative oil billionaire) H. L. Hunt and his activities.”

“In that third year of the Kennedy presidency,” Manchester wrote, “a kind of fever lay over Dallas country. Mad things happened. Huge billboards screamed, ‘Impeach Earl Warren.’ Jewish stores were smeared with crude swastikas.…Radical Right polemics were distributed in public schools; Kennedy’s name was booed in classrooms; corporate junior executives were required to attend radical seminars.” A retired major general ran the American flag upside down, deriding it as “the Democrat flag.” A wanted poster with J.F.K.’s face on it was circulated, announcing “this man is Wanted” for—among other things—“turning the sovereignty of the US over to the Communist controlled United Nations” and appointing “anti-Christians … aliens and known Communists” to federal offices. And a full-page advertisement had appeared the day of the assassination in The Dallas Morning News accusing Kennedy of making a secret deal with the Communist Party; when it was shown to the president, he was appalled. He turned to Jacqueline, who was visibly upset, and said, “Oh, you know, we’re heading into nut country today.”

Manchester discovered that in a wealthy Dallas suburb, when told that President Kennedy had been murdered in their city, the students in a fourth-grade class burst into applause." http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/10/death-of-a-president200910?c...

Semioclasty

Show-off.

Barthes made me do it.

>104 margd:

If I'm not mistaken it's widely claimed that Laura Bush told Stephen Colbert to fuck himself after Colbert's satirical speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner. The relevance of this, of course, is open to debate.

> 114 Umm--could Laura have been saying "Good job"?
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5ynzxTo9Y

108: "Prius" is a proper noun. The words "car" and "president" are not.

Lunar, I like your high-spirited perseverance for pushing through your point of view, but sometimes it would probably help you to sit back, reflect a little, and choose your battles wisely. It is obvious to most here that "President", as Theoria used it, was short for the title "President of the United States", and hence capitalized, just as Queen is capitalized in the title "Queen of England"; posts 107/8 referencing your pointless, inaccurate sermon were jokes (also, obviously.) Your inclination for trying to lecture people on what is obvious does not - contrary to expectation - flatter your intelligence.

#117: Perhaps. But I just did a search on this page for "president" to highlight all its occurrences. If we exclude cases of "President of the United States," and other cases like "President's Addess" and Tim's rather low frequency of apparently random capitalization, the capitalized cases we are left with are posts which speak with a tone bordering on rapt veneration. Maybe it's all in my head, but that's the kind of thing I was criticizing when pointing out the capitalization issue. For what it's worth, the snips in this thread from the New York Times don't fall into the same trap when speaking of the president.

Uh oh! What's the caps rule for (N/n)obel (L/l)aureate? {:>

Using a lower case p when spelling pPPpPpPresidenTTTT has a huge effect on the world. I believe We da People become better People when we do ITttt, certainly more FREEE ("free" is such a wonderful word, it deserves an extra "E") and our LIbeRty is enhanced. Take tHAt eEvil Staat!

HENCEFORTH I SHALL USE ALL CAPS TO ELIMINATE ANY CONFUSION AND CONFOUND MY ENEMIES!

BTW, CONGRATULATIONS MR. PRESIDENT! ANOTHER BRICK SLIPS INTO PLACE IN YOUR PLAN FOR UNIVERSAL DOMINATION. TODAY STOCKHOLM, TOMORROW THE WORLD!

TO ELIMINATE ANY CONFUSION AND CONFOUND MY ENEMIES!

Hmm, but then that would be contradictory, wouldn't it? I need some coffee!

Obviously, his plan is working. Ummm, your plan is working. Your mother is right. You are your own worst enemy.

So, should school kids watch the Nobel speech?

Just stirring up trouble...

124> Yes, they should, and then they should review his record and discuss what is true about his record, such as:

He has not ended the war in Iraq.

He has accelerated the fighting in Afghanistan, which is going to wash over Pakistan, shortly.

He has gone to court to fight for the right to disregard a federal court ruling prohibiting the keeping of the White House visitor records in secret - even though Bush lost that case, although he never did release the records. Neither has BO.

He has gone to court to fight against gay rights and in defense of the 'Defense of Marriage Act.' This, after he swore to create an 'equal USA' for everyone.

He is in the process of extending the current wiretapping program throughout the USA, with no new restrictions regarding the collection of data.

He has not moved to have the Patriot Act fixed. It is still in effect, as Bush originally signed it. In fact, he has yet to reverse any orders or bills signed by Bush. Not one.

He has done nothing for the people in New Orleans who have been locked out of their homes - homes that are still standing, but locked by the authorities.

He managed to create a much larger racial fuss, when a calm hand would have helped everyone. And, that was only his first misstatement that caused problems.

He managed to place a burdensome future on American children and grandchildren, to reward executives that bet and lost - oh, no, they didn't lose, did they? (The top economists in the world warned that it would be better to let the top five banks fail, since they held 95% of the inflated loans. Instead, Americans will have to spend 1.48USD to spend 1.00Euro, over here, and it will get worse, when the next wave of foreclosures is added to the current tsunami.)

I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat, as I find both parties to be self-serving, and long ago stopped caring about everyday folk. Nor was I for McBush, whom I thought would have pushed the button on the second day, if he had won. I am not a racist, as some will claim, for I would have polished MLK's shoes, if it was he who had been running for this office.

It is just that I have learned to recognize an empty suit when I see one, and BO is the epitome of this genre. Why is it that the Bush family's compatriot, Zbigniew, was his top advisor, and no one said a word? Do you know where BO was the morning after he won the nomination? Many do, and that fact alone should concern everyone, although the news over here is very different than the news over there, for sure.

However, I would also suggest that the kids take no one's comments as sage, without doing their own homework - not even mine.

You know who would find this debate amusing? That famous poet: EE Cummings.

Shouldn't that be e.e. cummings?

125: K.J. Do you know where BO was the morning after he won the nomination?

??

128>
Didn't he have brunch with Joe the Plumber?

128> Instead of being on a plane, with the press crew that was traveling with him, BO, along with Ms. Clinton, were in Chantilly, Virginia, meeting with David Rockefeller, and the Bildebergers - who were holding their annual meeting. Although the meetings have very tight security, there are folks taking photos of all who enter and leave the annual Bildeberger meetings. There was also a vid shot on BO's campaign airplane, where his press corps was very p-o'd that they had been Shanghai'd, when they were supposed to have access to him throughout the campaign, and instead had been sandbagged and put on the plane thinking he was going to be on the plane with them. You can find the actual vid on YouTube, and by googling you can find the supporting information about his attendance in Chantilly, VA.

Uh-oh! Got dem one world blues.!

The Bilderberg Group wants the following:

Bilderberg founding member and, for 30 years, a steering committee member, Denis Healey has said: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."

According to the American Friends of Bilderberg, the 2008 agenda dealt "mainly with a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran".

Wow! Just, wow! Nailed him. I've heard Barack Obama talk favorably of a nuclear free world. I've also heard him talk about the dangers of cyber-terrorism. He's worked with nations in Africa. He has an unnatural interest in Finance, and an obvious interest in protectionism. He's negotiating with the Russians, he has addressed Afghanistan, he's working with Pakistan and caving in to Iran, all the while respecting the Islamic world. It's obvious his agenda has been set by the Bilderbergers.

Is he opposed to fighting one another for nothing? Wow, it sure looks like it. He wants to stop rendering millions homeless. What a putz. Got no cohones. If he doesn't start a good manly war with Iran we'll all be lost. What a wimp.

And his "dream" of one community of nations working to prevent these things. Oh, the horror! God, please save us from this peacemaker!

Impeach Barack Obama!

#70: Why? I'm more concerned about an apathetic and poorly educated populace leaving all the power in the hands of a few super-rich interest groups than I am about the President as charismatic dictator. When the nation was founded, the Constitution demanded that the President offer a yearly State of the Nation speech. Given how much more democratic the nation is, and how much faster the spread of information is, why not a weekly State of the Nation address? Why not give everyone some concrete, clear political statement to respond to, instead of the fragmented noise we get now? We're not Venezuela; the media isn't going to let the President get away scot free. But maybe it would encourage some sane political discussion.

133>
In part, because blessed founder Madison in Federalist #10 argued that eliminating the cause of "faction" would be worse than managing it via constitutional design, we have the super-rich interest group polity. Also, because the nineteenth-century SCOTUS bequeathed to us decisions such as the "Slaughterhouse Cases", Lochner, and Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad.

#133, "We're not Venezuela...". Not yet anyway, eight more years like the last eight should just about do it tho. Eight more years of Randian economics and we'll wind up as Venezuela del Norte.

133: The Constitution does not require the State of the Union be given annually, nor does it require that it be a speech. Though President Washington began with speeches, Jefferson discontinued them because he perceived them as monarchical, and letters were sent to Congress instead until 1913. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php

133> Perhaps BO could offer some concrete timetables, and real solutions for the problems the citizens face. In his speech to the LGBT group, this past weekend, he said he was going to repeal the DADT law, just like he did when he was running for office. And, just like he did before, he did not mention - even when asked after the speech - when he would do it. So much for change, and for commitment.

As for the reference to Venezuela, I might have to disagree. Your media has let your presidents get away with murder, from an international perspective, and there is little in the way of evidence to suggest that this will change with BO. Case in point: Tim Geithner.

132> Peacemaker? Obama? With all due respect, on what rotating orb do you reside? He has not ended any conflicts around the world. Not one, and he has escalated one of them, while rattling his saber at Iran. I also suggest that you do a bit more homework on the Bildebergers and who they are, without relying on one of them to define their role. He would seem to be a bit biased, wouldn't you think? For starters, try reading Daniel Estulin's book on the subject: 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,' and 'Shadow Masters.' If you truly would like to be informed about this topic, instead of quoting wikipedia, read 'Who's Who of the Elite...' by Robert Gaylon. As an adjunct to all of that, you will then find G. Edward Griffin's 'The Creature from Jekyl Island' very informative, and it will help you further understand the pickle that the USA is in, and why it will not get better anytime soon.

Then, when you think you have a handle on the subject, you should begin the process of reading everything you can find on David Rockefeller. Perhaps then you will understand what it means, when the people who control your money talk about 'a single community throughout the world.'

As far as Obama is concerned, yes, you have heard him talk about all of those things...talk. Just talk, and no more. Ask those folks down in New Orleans how they feel about his 'talk.' If you want to deride me for my points, I respectfully suggest that you do your homework. I have done mine.

Post Script: I forgot to address the 'American Friends of the Bilderberg', to which you attributed a portion of your findings about the Bilderberger agenda: If you take a look at this group's organizational chart, you will find Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller are two of the directors. After you finish the suggested reading material I outlined for you, I sense that you might have a different opinion regarding their 'humanitarian goals.'

And, just like he did before, he did not mention - even when asked after the speech - when he would do it

He's probably learning from the Guantanamo decision. You can say you're going to do something painful and potentially divisive in a certain time, but unless you're really going to go to the mat over it and make it a priority, it won't get done.

Peacemaker? Obama?

What's peculiar is, if the Nobel committee had wanted to base it on actual things they could have just said it was about ending the missile system in Eastern Europe. Personally, I'm against that—when push comes to shove Russia won't help us on Iran, so abandoning allies is a bad calculus—but it was an arms-control decision, the closest thing to "reducing standing armies" and satisfies the (pretty much ignored) "within the last year" phrasing of the prize. But they didn't stress that. Instead they stressed the idea that Obama represents potential and hope. And that, I think, seems like a new and weird way to decide a serious prize.

Obama is a master propagandist. He creates murmurs at ground level and then works to bubble them into something more substantial and finally makes it feel to the public like it's time to accomplish whatever it is he wants. Consider some of his brilliance in the health care debate. He didn't campaign on, nor did he propose a mandated health care system, but do you know who will not let a bill pass without it? The insurance companies. Consider the opt-out option. If that gets the public option passed, it won't be ten years before the most recalcitrant states opt in. It will just be too popular and will harm the states that don't have it when attracting business. He's doing the same thing with legalizing, or at least reducing the most egregious effects of marijuana legalization. The mainstream media is addressing this issue like it has not done before. Some states (California and Massachusettes) are on the verge of legalizing, or at least having a serious discussion of legalizing it. None of this occurred under Bush, only since Obama got in. I think Obama builds a public consensus for his plans making us feel he is following our wishes.

He's a political genius.

138> I agree with your sentiments, regarding the NPP. It is a weird way to decide such a meaningful prize.

I do tend to disagree with your thought concerning the gay issue, for I have watched him closely on that, and he has yet to do anything meaningful for gays - after one considers the pre-election rhetoric. Remember, he had no trouble going to court and arguing in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, after less than 60 days in office, and if you google the argument presented by the Justice Department, it rather paints gays in a very unflattering and negative light. He did not have to defend it, and he could have instructed the JD not to defend it. It was a matter of choice - his choice.

As for the missile shield that the USA wanted in Europe, ALL of Europe, except those who wanted to put a pin in the backside of Russia for the gas prices, were pushing for that decision to be made. They are on the front lines of something like that, and from their viewpoint its time the Americans had the front line closer to home. That decision was the only way he could go, unless he wanted to end up like GWB, in Europe.

139> I have yet to see any evidence that a man who has committed the number of blunders he has, in only a few months, is a 'political genius.' Propagandist? Definitely. He sold folks on the bank bailout under the premise that they were 'too big to fail,' and so far there is no revolt, even though Americans have been sucker-punched in such a way that it will take generations for them to recover. Nothing in the White House has changed, since he took office, including all of the issues I raised in my first post. You know, the same things George Bush was doing, like denying access to the visitor records, etc., extending wiretapping...

Although, perhaps I am wrong. Maybe he is a political genius. After all, he got the majority of Americans to believe in his Hope & Change platform, and they even believed that those lobbyists serving as advisers on his campaign were there for the public good. Hope & Change. So...what's changed?

>140 K.J.:

What's your disagreement with my assessment of Obama and the gay issue? I contend he's unwilling to risk capital on it. Do you think he's opposed on a deeper level? I would see the two actions together. Going against the DOM act would have been gutsy, prompted criticism. It's clear this isn't an area he's going to be gutsy.

Maybe the idea is that he thinks he'll be relected in a landslide, and be able to do it then.

Hope & Change. So...what's changed?

Obama has always been a funny combination of the practical and the dreamy. Some of the latter has been projection anyway.

I say DADT will be dead in a year while DOM will continue to be dealt with via the courts and the states. There is no upside for Obama to get in the DOM fight, especially as the states continue to legalize same sex marriage. By the end of his second term (if he gets a second term) it will be law in most states and the states where it is not yet law will be suffering for it. By the time most states have allowed same sex marriage Congress will, with little real opposition, will end DOM on there own. The politics of this entire issue will be completely different in five years than they are today.

I say DADT will be dead in a year...

Darn. And it was bad enough having openly straight soldiers going out into the world on bombing raids. Now we have to worry about the gays doing it to. This is one of those profoundly retarded "progressive" issues in which discrimination must be removed without regard for the human cost. I guess ideology must trump all.

142> As much as I wish it were true, I sense that your idea that DADT and DOM will soon grow in the soil of America is not realistic, even though many favor the ideal of 'it's none of my business and I have better things to worry about.' Religion is very entrenched in the USA, and they will be the obstruction to any real growth in that area - unlike this side of the pond, where folks don't care about who you love.

141> My disagreement, although I wish with every fibre of my being to be wrong on this, is that Obama will always go with what is politically expedient, and until the gay issue falls 'comfortably' within this garden, he will never deliver. It is not about timing, but what he can do to be reelected. His goal, now, is to be reelected. Nothing more, and nothing less, and this has nothing to do with achieving any goal but reelection. If he were truly to be a leader, he would do what is morally right, regardless of public opinion or the polls. That will never happen, with BO. He is a true politician and he will use whatever capital he can consume to attain his goal.

Hmmmm...perhaps we are on the same page, after all?

I think that probably the biggest thing that gay marriage has going for it is age demographics. There's a definite correlation with respect to age. Younger people support it. Older people oppose it. The opposition will dwindle.

145> In a general sense, I would tend to agree with your suggestion that time will solve the problem, inevitably, in spite of the fact that many older Americans with whom I have had contact are very supportive of equal rights, although a distant relative of 'more mature years' is adamantly opposed - without providing anything other than misstated religious examples for evidence that it should not be so.

Religion is the key obstruction, and as long as they follow a book that has no basis of fact, they will follow orders handed down from those 'authorities.' Rather like sheep, to provide an example. (Before folks start taking shots at me, yes, there is a God, although I doubt that he/she had time to sit down and write a book for us. I tend to think he/she ingrained the 'book' within us, and allows us to act upon our better/worse tendencies, as we see fit. So far, we seem to be firmly entrenched in kindergarten.)

146> Have you read this?

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/53859967.html

147> This is a good step, and the proof of its efficacy will only become apparent over time. Will congregations choose gay men to lead their churches? We will have to wait and see. I find it a bit telling that they were not allowed to express their exuberance upon the finding of the outcome.

It was an attempt to show kindness to those who were grieving because they felt the church was committing a grievous sin. It doesn't help unity to dance and cheer on someone else's pain. It was a good day though.

Of course this has caused a shit storm within the church and some individual congregations have threatened to leave, left, or are withdrawing funding to churchwide organization. Such is life.

149> This is what happens, when people follow a book without fully understanding its origins. Let us hope for the best. I do wonder, if events had taken a different turn, if the jubilation would have been contained by those who would have 'benefited' from such an occasion. I sense that 'unity' only exists within the confines of religion as long as those who embrace the ideal stay in step. History, it seems, would provide ample evidence that this premise has merit.

K.J. The problem is not that they do not understand the Bible, its that they do not agree on what that understanding should be. The change was written in such a way that we can agree to disagree (no one has to call an openly homosexual minister, but they can if they want to) but that reality is not following the hope.

151> Unless the 'members of the flock' have studied the ancient languages, in which the original texts were first written down (over 200 years after the events), they can have no real understanding of what was originally written. It is said, by at least one biblical scholar who did take the time to study and learn the languages of the original texts, that they do not resemble the current structure of 'the good book' at all. That is why I made the statement: 'when people follow a book without fully understanding its origins.' Society has become very obedient, without questioning that which deserves the greatest scrutiny.