Keeping your kids home Tuesday?

[rainbabies]

I'm not a big news watcher...and just yesterday caught wind of the Obama speech to children on Tuesday. Seems many patents are outraged that Obama will address the children on the Importance of education and staying in school.(but some thinks his adgenda is different) Ds mentioned that he is watching it (1st grade) and said that dd (Kindergarten) will as well.
If the speech truly is about the importance of a quality education, I'm not seeing what the bIg deal is. (even my conservative dh, thinks there's better things to protest)

PS president Bush (sr) addressed kids back in 1991...

That is my dd's first day and I'm not sure if they will watch it or not. I think a "work hard, stay in school" talk from a president is fine -- republican or democrat. I'm assuming he isn't going to go over the Afghanistan policy or anything like that. I'm so ready for my kids to be in school that it would take a whole lot more than a president addressing schoolchildren to consider keeping them home for an entire day of school.

[migirl]

I don't see what the big deal is either.

Maybe it's because I generally agree with his politics, but I'm pretty sure I would feel the same way if it were GWB doing the speech.

I am Canadian - so am watching this all from afar.
What are people thinking is agenda would be?

I think there is nothing wrong with a little talk about staying in school and how important it is. Small children will listen to people of importance, especially the President so I think it is a good idea!

I agree with Jane - Obama, Bush, Clinton... whoever... I think it is a good idea

I am so fed up with this all ready. I live in an uber-conservative area and have had several neighbors call me to complain about our school showing it and to get my support in a boycott. Um...no, not happening.

Seriously, I don't get what the objection is about. Can someone enlighten me?

[GrayMatterWife]

I suspect Obama meant it to just be a run-of-the-mill Presidential address to school children. Who cares. No big deal. If that's all it was, then I would have no problem with the school broadcasting the speech. I mean, come'on. He's the President. If he wants to tell kids to stay in school and work hard, what's the big deal?

But the problem wasn't the idea of the speech--it was the suggested post-speech activities. One of the post-speech suggested activities was discussing how each child can "help" the President achieve his goals. And people FREAKED.

It will all blow over. No child will be brainwashed. People might be unimpressed with losing school time to all this, but the world will not change. However, I think the situation points to a much bigger problem. Underlying the uproar is the assumption is that Obama is attempting to indoctrinate children by suggesting that they have a moral obligation to "help him." Let's think about that for a second: parents don't trust the President not to be brainwashing their kids. That's serious. Lots of people hated Bush--but no serious person accused him of trying to manipulate their kindergartners. People did not give him the benefit of the doubt, about something like an apparently innocuous speech to little kids. Ouch.

(As an FYI: in the wake of the uproar, that particular question has been deleted from the suggested activities.)

But, I'm not sure this is all Obama's fault. On one hand, Obama has brought some of this upon himself. For example, his radical, WAY left-of-center "Czars" and advisors suggest he's not the centrist he held himself out to be. He's completely failed to work across the aisle and be "post-partisan" like he promised. The transparency and "no lobbyist" promise was thrown to the wind. Post-inauguration, a certain inconsistency about him has come to the surface: he's not a community organizer. He's a Martha's Vinyard-vacationing, Kennedy-dog-toting, Ivy League elitest, who does politics Chicago style--and doesn't even do it effectively in DC. He's not uniting anybody, and everybody knows it. And he keeps LECTURING all of us, on what we should believe and why we are morally deficient if we don't agree with him. So people are calling into question who he really is...and what is real agenda is.

But, on the other hand, his followers also are partly responsible for this distrust or mistrust. (See my comments on Laker's post re: the "creepy Obama singing kids" from earlier today.) Most Americans (whether they like Obama or not) do not think Obama is the next coming of Christ, would never make videos singing him love songs, and don't trust people who act like that. It makes you think: is Obama comfortable with or encouraging this weirdness? If so, why? And what does history tell us about people who are treated this way?

Because of the cult of personalty surrounding Obama, people who are not Obama-worshippers (whether Dem or Rep) can look askance at any "hero worshipping" potential--such as an address to impressionable school children about "how they can help their President." Personally, I think it is a completely ridiculous question. I would tell my son that he owes no duty to "help" the President achieve his goals...many goals that we do not agree with for moral reasons. I would, however, tell him that he must be respectful during the speech--he is the President of the United States and that is the appropriate and patriotic attitude to have.

However, this is a non-issue for my son specifically. I called his school (a Roman Catholic parish school) and asked if they were going to do this. The principal said no. They had learning to do on the first day of school. But, as liberal as the school is on many social justice issues, there would be no way they would do any activity that involves discussing how they can "help" the President achieve his goals, since he is a radical abortion rights supporter.

The "help" towards goals that the question was referencing, was helping to get kids to stay in school and lower drop out rates, not go out and increase abortions. He's not speaking about his agenda. He's speaking about the importance of education for children -- and GWB did the same shortly after he took office. The White House has acknowledged that the questions were poorly worded and has issued new companion materials.

I think the entire dust up was ridiculous. It's just conservative talk show hosts pouncing on some poorly written literature -- stuff that Obama OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have written or read himself. The staffers that put it together should know better.

[GrayMatterWife]

The "help" towards goals that the question was referencing, was helping to get kids to stay in school and lower drop out rates, not go out and increase abortions. He's not speaking about his agenda. . . . Obama OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have written or read himself. The staffers that put it together should know better.

I agree with you. I am sure that this is not what Obama meant. It was probably intended as a fluffy, feel-good, PR speech. But the White House should listen to the real message and its implications. If people don't trust the President not to be manipulating their children, they aren't trusting the President and his staff not to be attempting to manipulate them. And that mistrust (or distrust) isn't going to be solved by after-the-fact edits to the proposed post-speech activities. If anything, it's just a concession that the Administration allowed material with "creepy, statist, brainwashing" potential to be created...much less issued.

You have to be a real, hardbitten cynic to think that people are trying to brainwash little kids. Even I didn't think that this is what the Administration was up to--I assumed the silly activities were written by a bunch of low-level slobbering Administration grunts, who weren't properly supervised and who are blind in their man-crush.

[peggyfromwastate]

After all the class time devoted to the President during the election and then beyond inauguration, and all the assignments we've had of "Letters to the President" etc which we did not get when GWB was re-elected (same school, same teachers and principal for the most part), I'm just sick of it all...

I just want school to be school, and enough of the politics in the classroom. My kids will have to miss a *special* or have a shorter recess b/c of the speech, and for that reason I'm against it.

[L.Jane]

After all the class time devoted to the President during the election and then beyond inauguration, and all the assignments we've had of "Letters to the President" etc which we did not get when GWB was re-elected (same school, same teachers and principal for the most part), I'm just sick of it all...

I just want school to be school, and enough of the politics in the classroom. My kids will have to miss a *special* or have a shorter recess b/c of the speech, and for that reason I'm against it.

I may be reading you wrong, but are you saying that we did not have letters to the president when GWB was reelected? Because last year while I was student teaching my whole grade wrote letters to Bush right as the election process was going on. As they were learning the writing process (and let me tell you, indentation is VERY hard for them to grasp!) they wrote letters to Bush, to MLK and other real, alive, deceased and non real people. Bush (or whoever is in charge of letters from schools) sent back a letter with a signed picture of him throwing out the first pitch at a baseball game.

It was rather interesting watching the election process take place inside a school. As a teacher you have to be very careful to have your opinions and keep them to yourself. If we want the kids to think for themselves we have to give them the tools to think for themselves. It was very obvious what each second grade parent thought becuase the kids spouted their parents views. I do not know how it works in the middle or highschools. But I would hope we could teach each child to look at the issues and decide where they stand. Teach them to research, evaluate and make desicions for themselves so when they become voters they vote for what they believe in, not what their teacher, parent, or even president believes in.

You have to be a real, hardbitten cynic to think that people are trying to brainwash little kids.

Right - common sense means that's not what is going on (which is why, of course, you know that's not what is happening). But since when do those talk shows spout common sense? After all, where did the "death panel" spin come from? They're working to create a rabid mob who are just lemming-like enough to actually bite the line. And sadly, there are plenty of fish.

[Laker]

watch the obama kids video again if you don't think that people are trying to brainwash little kids.

[DCJenn]

Look-

the bottom line is this- kids who grow up in conservative households with conservative parents will likely end up conservative adults. my kid is likely to grow up liberal. So, whatever president speaks to whichever school, it really isn't going to change the fundamental reality that for most families, mom and/or dad really do have the biggest impact.

Even if they're completely apolitical- chances are that's the way the kids will end up as well.

The notable exceptions being my husband and Tara's husband who were switched at birth.

Texas is full of big fat weenies who would be slobbering all over themselves if it were GWB but it's not, it's that black man who is too big for his britches so I can assure you, that unless you are going out of your way to find the speech on Tuesday, no one in the SAISD will be seeing it.

It's the nefarious liberal agenda- educate everyone and stop the 50% drop out rate of the SAISD. (NO JOKE- 50%.)

Jenn

I think there was a mistake made as far as the wording that was used for the "assignment" that Obama was asking the children to partake in.

I think it is a healthy process to teach our kids about politics, the different dynamics, paths, ideas, policies etc. It is going to have to start somewhere. Eventually these are going to be the children that are voting for your future president.

I agree that you have to be awfully cynical to think that somehow the government is trying to brainwash the children... and as far as the assignment is concerned - I think it is solely based around education and not any of the other presidential viewpoints.

I think that it is a great way for the President to reach ALL of the children and to inspire the kids.

[Rapunzel]

I don't really have any strong emotions about this subject. I love homeschooling. It just completely removes me from the mud pit in so many ways.

My children will be doing their math, reading, writing, handwriting, grammar, spelling, science, history, geography, logic/critical thinking, and art projects all day Tuesday followed by scouts and youth group that evening (with playing and frivolity enjoyed by the younger set ). We'll watch the president if he has something to say that actually impacts us in some manner.

And, yeah, I think given the choice between America's overweight and under-playing children swinging or listening to a speech from a physically and psychologically (as well as economically in most cases) removed politician upon a subject which they will truly most be influenced by parents - I'd choose letting the kids get some much needed physical activity. And, I would totally say that no matter who was president.