Here it is: The President's Speech to The School Children

Silly Greg, you forget, it's ok when republicans/conservatives/right wing jackoffs do it. Just like "it's not fascism when they do it", "it's not warcrimes when they do it" and "it's not unpatriotic when they do it".

Oh, JohnV, you have hit on a huge sore topic for me. Do I only think this is true because of my own personal bias? Do I have a persecution complex? Because there does seem to me to be a large contradiction here. The response to the "tea bag" and town hall protests is a fine example of a double standard.

Well of course it's OK for the president to address school children if he's a Real American. (Oh, hell, you can't even parody Republicans. They would just agree.)

In my personal case I'm sure its a bit of martyr complex and selection bias combined with reality :P

Altho not only did President Bush do this, but so did President Reagan. Except it was apparently before TV was invented so there's only a transcript of the radio broadcast.

Washington Post on October 3, 1991

House Democrats criticized President Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.

The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.

"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.' "
Two House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town. [...]

Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to "start using precious dollars for campaigns" when "we are struggling for every silly dime we can get" for education programs.

Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants "to make him look good," then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. "Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits," Frost said, referring to Bush's threat to veto legislation to extend benefits.

That's still not anyone accusing H.W. of trying to indoctrinate children, though. It's accusing him of hypocrisy and wasting education funding.

Best criticism:

Some said they thought Bush was thinking more about his own reelection than their education. âIâm sure weâll never see these pictures on a campaign ad,â Eleanor Davis, 13, volunteered sarcastically.

"The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues."

"Obama is trying to make his own personal Hitler Youth."

Yeah those are the same exact frigging thing man.

Our Prior Lake/Savage school district sent out the following newsletter this morning in regards to the speech.

Dear Parents and Guardians,

* President Obama Address
Many of you may be aware that President Obama plans to address America's children with a back-to-school message on Sept. 8th. This live broadcast will not be aired in our schools. The address will be recorded and the use of portions of the presentation will be evaluated by building administration and teaching staff to determine if the message is appropriate for curriculum and instruction. If taped portions are shown, students may opt out of hearing the broadcast.

I've requested a reason from my daughters principal, her teacher, the superintendent and I've cc'd the editor of a couple of local papers. Nice of them to announce something like this just before a 3 day weekend when the speech is the day after Labor Day.

That is pretty amazing. They are saying that they intend to second guess what Obama is going to say and filter it for the students. Amazing.

Our instructions for the speech also came out today. Pretty convenient. Just like people who release news stories on a Friday Afternoon, so they won't have to face any real reporting of the issue. I hope my school district suffers some flack for this craven bs - I'm sure they did it to cover their own posteriors from the bigots who live around here. And our district is overwhelmingly minority! WTF?

Shorter Presidential Message

Finish your homework, do the dishes, clean your room.

BTW, Mythusmage Opines moved.

Stephanie Z, #6

Twenty year olds invented snark, thirteen year olds perfected it. :)

I don't see a problem with presidents addressing school children. However, the Bush address and the current Obama planned address are both obvious vies to promote(endoctrinate) their agenda's to impressionable children. Their is a major difference between Obama and Bush though. Bush did not have a self proclaimed communist on his staff. People on both sides need to turn off NBC,CBS, ABC and FOX news and look around the world and listen to what other countries are reporting. More than a few news sources from our european friends have reported on our governments plans to enact legislation that has caused major problems in their own countries and several reports exist questioning Obama's credentials to lead. It's time to open our eyes and stop blindly following our gov't like lemmings. There comes a time when A country must unite and tell it's elected officials we expect accountability and we expect them to vote the wishes of the people they represent. That time is now. Quit bickering and get it done.

There comes a time when A country must unite and tell it's elected officials we expect accountability and we expect them to vote the wishes of the people they represent. That time is now. Quit bickering and get it done.

Damned straight. When even 61% of Republicans (along with 89% of Democrats and 80% of independents) want a public option, it's time to tell the rest of them to sit down and listen for a change instead of shouting.

Oh, and the guy who was briefly a communist before joining Obama's center-right administration has resigned, nobody abroad is seriously questioning Obama's credentials, and that one Canadian woman they found to bitch about her health care? She lied.

Nice statistics. Not sure where you got them from. And the guy didn't resign he is the green jobs czar. He has had several questionable characters. That doesn't make him any different from any other president except for the communist ties. My suggestion is for you to sit down like I did and read the healthcare bill. They are not telling the whole truth. I'm not saying they are lying, but, the bill clearly states that you can't keep your insurance. You can keep it for one year or until a change is made in the policy. Clear as crystal on page 16. As for the one Canadian woman, there are thousands of people coming to the US from all over the world to receive our sub-par healthcare. Look the reality is the gov't can't run the VA which is a nuch smaller program than what is being proposed. Obama and his supporters are almost all on record as supporters of a singlepayer system. It doesn't work. It doesn't work in Canada or Europe. Our system isn't perfect. It needs fixed not replaced. Personally, I think there is a tremendous oppurtunity in 2010. Let's get rid of the professional politicians. They are not the solution they are the problem. I don't care which side of the aisle they sit on. They all need to go. You can start with the two from my state of WV.

bradm2: I could not give a flying loon if Obama has a half dozen former communists, or current communists, in his cabinet or staff.

Do you have a clue what happened in this country during the "commie scare"? Are you suggesting we start hunting commies again? Are you simply unpatriotic, or are you just an ignorant moron?

Report back asap, please.

Van Jones has resigned. The modern commie scare has claimed its first victim, and Murrow is nowhere in sight.

The poll numbers you don't want to see are here. Note that this is not the only poll producing these results.

There are rich people from all over the world coming to a few prestigious institutions for their health care. That doesn't mean most of us get access to the same care. A very few more coming for complicated procedures from places with almost no medical infrastructure. In the meantime, there are just as many Americans going to places like Mexico for their basic care, because even with the travel, it won't bankrupt them the way it will here.

In general, the VA is run quite well as long as it's funded and overseen by a professional administrator (yes, a bureaucrat). That neither happened under the Bush administration is the fault of the administration, not the system. Your call for more amateurs in government will only get us more of the same.

No I'm not a moron or unpatriotic. I am opposed to the fundamentals of communism. I don't want people who subscribe to those fundamentals running my gov't. Where in anything that I have written have I said anything unpatriotic or moronic. If communism worked the Soviet Union would still be around. I have not personally attacked or degraded any poster on this site with name calling. I ahve simply stated the fact the proposed legislation has failed or is failing in other counties and that our elected officials have continually failed us. Career politicians are the root of what is wrong with this country. And the two Senators from my state are two of the longest sitting. I thought this was a rational calm forum for expressing beliefs. Apparently I was wrong. There is no modern commie scare. There are people who believe in the founding fathers and their vision for freedom. There is no room for freedom in a communist country. The mere fact that is doesn't bother you that these gov't officials are,were or will be communists scares me more than they do. Apathy is an open door to our downfall. Remember those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it. These proposed policies and philosophies did not work when FDR propsed them and they haven't worked anywhere since. If it makes you feel better, you may laugh and call me names if you must, but, I stand by my beliefs.

"Are you now, or have you ever been...."

Although, really, it's the "will be" that's the most terrifying part of that statement. Tell me, bradm2, how do you determine who will be a communist in the future and is thus barred from serving our country?

Poll #'s are relative where the poll was taken. There are just as many polls posted on "republican" websites with the exact oppisite results. All of which leads me to believe it is about 50/50. I have worked in the healthcare system for more than 15 years. The VA is run adequately, but, not well. What about medicare? Have we forgotten about that gov't run system? It's all but bankrupt. Not to mention that medicare is the reason for the rise in health costs. Medicare pays a set amount for a service. It doesn't matter what the servce ectually costs to perform. Hospitals regularly loose money on medicare patients. This loss has to be made up somewhere. So they raise prices. I have friends in up state NY that work at hospitals and they regularly see canadians cross the border to get the services they need without having to wait.

Amateurs are exactly what we need in congress. The professional career politicians have had their turn. If the healthcare proposal is so great why don't thay use it? Congress has their own nice tidy little plan that they don't have to pay for. Why dooesn't everybody get that plan?

Look I don't see right/left or republican/democrat I see right and wrong and I don't play favorites when it comes to pointing it out. Like I said read the legislation and show me where I am wrong.

I can't determine who will be a communist. No more than you can determine who will be skin head or a KKK member. The "will be" was not impuning statement. All i meant was that this is a country based on freedom and communism is the exact opposite that of belief. Obama isn't anymore communist that FDR. Their beliefs however are idealistic and unachievable just like communism.

Oh, and if we are going to go back in time and quote extremists from either side remember this one. Our president said numerous times during his campaign things like(not exact quotes)

We are going to take the money from those that have it and know how to make it and give it to those that don't and try to redistribute the wealth and level the playing field.

You don't have to look to hard to draw the similarities to this quote

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

If you don't know who said it, that is the problem I am trying to point out.

You don't see left/right etc., but you can only tell me what the Republican polls say (although you can't provide any links)? This doesn't pass the smell test.

You're also making claims about the provisions of the bill failing elsewhere without any specifics, and you want me to refute those? Pick a plan and a country, and we'll talk.

As for what Obama said:

We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family.

What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things--fair distribution and robust economic growth--are mutually exclusive.

It's all so terribly scary, isn't it?

And SurveyUSA, by the way, has the best track record among polling firms. They reflect the way the country votes.

As I said before I don't hold much faith in polls. They all seemed to be skewed to the views of the people conducting the poll. What I asked you to refute was the bill itself. I gave you the page # for the info I provided.

Productivity has increased. I agree with that statement. The reason for the downfall pf wages is the excessive taxation on business and people. The excessive taxation on business has forced companies to move jobs out of the country. You can't bite the hand that feeds you. The excessive tax on the people has caused them to change their buying. Although productivity has increased, gross nationl product has tumbled. we have to be on a level playing field with the rest of the world. The free trade agreement has put us at a disadvantage.

I'd love to see where you're reading this with page numbers. I assume you're talking about Section 102(a), although your description doesn't make that clear. Those are the grandfathering provisions--the provisions that describe which individual coverage plans don't have to meet the minimum requirements for qualifying coverage under the bill. The reference to a year in that section is to the first year of the grandfather period--the time during which these plans don't have to meet the minimum requirements.

As for one year, no. Y1 is used in this section to describe the time by which the plans and provisions need to be in place if they're going to be grandfathered. If you look at the Definitions section of the bill, this means 2013. It's referred to as Y1 so that, if they change the effective date of the bill, they don't have to change the year everywhere in the document. Just in Definitions.

Any other questions?

Here are a couple of interesting views on the Canadian health care system. While reading these you may also want to talk to some senior citizens and veterans and see how pleased they are with their gov't run plans.

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=555&pst=1387078

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/08/20/cma-
healthcare.html

As far as the polling accuracy goes. They reflect how New Yorkers, Californians and other big electoral college sates vote. As I recall there were only around 2 million votes seperating the presidential election. Both candidates had over 50 million votes. I believe the country is more devided the gov't would have us believe.

How many more things do you want to discover you're wrong about before you stop trusting your sources? How long are you happy to be lied to? GNP has done nothing like tumble.

Yes it is the grandfathering clause. Which is what anyone who already has coverage will have to be. They will have to be grandfathered in to keep their coverage. And if that coverage changes they will be moved to the public option. As for the page #. I have a PDF version of the bill. It is on page 16.

Yes it is the grandfathering clause. Which is what anyone who already has coverage will have to be. They will have to be grandfathered in to keep their coverage. And if that coverage changes they will be moved to the public option. As for the page #. I have a PDF version of the bill. It is on page 16.

here is the link

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

I suppose now I can't read graphs

Yes, that's pretty much true. Just as you don't understand polls, you can't read graphs. There are three quarters of minor declines in 2000 and 2001, each more than offset by the growth in the following quarter. If you look at the long-term graph I posted, you'll see that there have never been periods without any declines.

Then there's the current mess we're in, which has absolutely nothing to do with corporate tax rates. By the way, for the period of this graph, the rates didn't change. There's no correlation, much less causation.

Also, once the grandfathering period in the bill is over, people will not be switched to the public option. What will happen is that any new plans the insurance companies offer will have to meet the requirements of the plan, such as no denials for preexisting conditions, etc. Did you read past page 16 of your pdf?

As for Canadians, yes, they need more doctors. So do we, particularly in rural areas (and have you seen the size of Canada's rural areas?) and for primary care. They have long waits for specialists and expensive diagnostics. So do we, when we're not denied access altogether by health plans. They complain about after-hours access to health care, and we...well, a few of us have any at all without going to an emergency room.

The big difference is that in Canada, everybody gets to experience these frustrations because they're all insured and it costs them a hell of a lot less.

Yes I did read it. I've read the whole bill. It states in the bill that companies have 5 years to switch their health coverage to an approved plan. Grandfathered included. If the grandfathered plans are changed they have to be moved to an approved plan or the public option. Are you really naive enough to be believe the corporations or any business for that matter will keep their private plans when a free public option is available. It won't happen and congress knows it. When I first got married, I did not have insurance. My employer did not offer it and did not make enough to purchase it on my own. I was never denied medical service for lack of insurance or inablility to pay. That is still true today.No one can be denied medical care due to inablility to pay.

The current mess as you called it has a strange correlation in time to the election and the threat of higher taxes. Higher taxes which our Presient all but promised on numerous occasions. And I retract my earlier statement about Mr. Jones. I have been camping most of the weekend and hadn't realized he had resigned.This has been an interesting conversation StephanieZ.I enjoyed it. Good Night.

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Yes, Bradm2 - Marx said that - BUT he was only restating something that had been said in a far older philosophy (about 1800 years older at the time Marx plagarized it). Here is the original quote - in context for your perusal:

Acts 2:41-47 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; AND SOLD THEIR POSSESSIONS AND GOODS, AND PARTED THEM TO ALL MEN AS EVERY MAN HAD NEED. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

[22]communism is the exact opposite that of belief

Actually, it isn't. Communism isn't specifically about freedom (in the sense you mean it, i.e., freedom from the government). Communism is a socialistic philosophy but it is also the idea that you can't have incremental change because incremental positive change is always cooped by the powers that be (which are usually capitalistic). Therefore only revolutionary change works.

I like the link between Obama and FDR. Apt. Both have beliefs that are somewhat idealistic but I think much more pragmatic than you suggest. FDR's objectives were largely achieved, and Obama's will be as well should he be let to live long enough by the right wing.

Free public option? Where on Earth do you get that idea? Section 222 is all about the setting of premiums. Sections 312 and 313 lay out the required employer contributions toward health care, whether or not employers offer paid health insurance as a benefit.

As for turning people away due to inability to pay, that only applies in immediately life-threatening situations; i.e., the ER. Nowhere else.

And if you actually pay any attention to economics instead of Fox News talking heads, you'd discover that what the current downturn in the economy correlates with is the collapse of corporate lending reserves. Without the ability to borrow, businesses cut back on discretionary spending. When enough of them do it, production as a whole falls. It has everything to do with idiotic mortgage derivatives and nothing to do with the election.

Bradm2,

Civil discourse has a few rules. Here's one: ideas must stand or fall on their own merits regardless of who puts those ideas forward.

Obama hasn't released his speech yet. Clearly, opposition to the speech has little to do with its content. People are saying he's a bad man, basically, so we shouldn't listen to him. This is argumentum ad hominem.

Another rule: any right you claim for yourself you extend to everyone else. If it's okay for you to suppress a speech to school children by an elected official simply because you don't like that official, it's okay for others to do the same.

Imagine a future where children are sheltered from all political discussions in a public forum. No more talks in school auditoriums from mayors, governors, chiefs of police, senators. How will kids learn the ways that adults sort their political disagreements in a peaceful manner? How will they learn the rules of civil debate? All they'll know is that the US has two tribes which cannot meet in the same room, else people's heads will asplode.

Tribalism is the death of genuine democracy. Give a tribal society the right to vote, and they vote away their rights in favor of a strong-man.

Today I heard the term "Afro-Leninism" in relation to Obama's ideas.

That GHW Bush speech wasn't developmentally appropriate for that classroom. "Maybe you saw the headlines and read about the release of the National Goals Report." LOL.

He mentions that "we" have six goals. Is that "we" himself plus the kids right there? Or is it himself and a bunch of grown-ups not in the room? I'm not sure the kids would assume the latter.

As Bush lists the goals, he fails to preface each with something like, "our fifth goal is..." Because all the goals are basically some form of, "people should be moar smart," it's not clear when he's elaborating one goal verses naming the next goal. This induces confusion that makes it hard to remember what he said. It also induces insomnia.

Bush's affect seemed weird to me. The boringly obvious was stated with passion --e.g., "kids need to start school ready to learn." His manner suggested that he's exhorting the audience to *do* something. But he's talking about things he wants adults to do. His "we need to" speaks to an adult audience involved in executing policy. As a kid there, I'd get the "is he talking to me?" feeling.

Kids generally become eager to please when confronted with such WTF? moments. When lost in the social game, they revert to a warmer-colder strategy in hopes of figuring out what's going on.

If I were teaching this class, I'd be tempted to interrupt the president to ask a few questions, hoping that Bush would shift his style to something more interactive and age appropriate.

Using students as props is all fine and good, I suppose, provided they're in on the game. Nothing in that excerpt reassured me that the kids saw the event as "for TV, no like a real class activity."

A lot of conservatives may give a lot of reasons why they don't like or trust Obama but for many people it is out and out racism. Many of the things he has said and done would have taken on a very different tone if he were a white man...There is no doubt in my mind about that. I'm not saying that people wouldn't disagree with him on issues but the hatred and fear mongering is way beyond the situation's at hand.
I have spoken with people I know who have confided in me I just can't believe a black person is in the white house.

This man has barely gotten his foot in the door so to speak and people are criticizing his every breath.

Health care reform will never become a reality in this county until we stop looking at it as a for profit model. Of course the powers that be insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies have seen to that. I pray that health care reform comes to pass because the current system for many many hard working Americans does not work and indeed is allowing people to go uninsured for pre-existing conditions and to be denied treatments for other conditions. It's evil it's not right. And it is not going to get cheaper as more and more companies do all they can to not provide it. It is unaffordable for the majority of businesses and individuals.

I'd like to see all the people who complain about this to see what they would think about ending medicare and the VA programs...They should be all for it based on their fear of
"socialized government health care".

The fact that the at least the last 4 President's have given speeches to school children with little or no controversy speaks volumes. The President has 2 school age children himself. I think the lack of respect shown to President Obama is disgusting and a very sad commentary on a very vocal minority in this country.

Titmouse If you read my initial post, I also condemned Bush's address to school children. I believe them both be political posturing. I may be proved wrong after the speech is over. I don't think anyone wants any president to fail, including this one. I don't! If he fails it hurts everyone, not just him. My concern is that the solutions being proposed all seem to be resurrected failed policies from previous administrations.

Just remember I may not agree with what your saying, but, I will defend your right to say it with my life if necessary.