Here’s when you say to people, “SHUT UP!!” What a nation of crybabies. What is wrong with the President talking with young Americans? If you don’t want to watch it, don’t turn on the video.
YOU WILL LET YOUR CHILDREN WATCH VIOLENCE ON TV, BUT THEY CAN’T LISTEN TO THE PRESIDENT TALK ABOUT EDUCATION?
This backlash against the President is becoming ludicrous. Every little thing is a problem. No one got incensed when Ronald Reagan or George Bush gave speeches directed at school-aged children.
SHAME ON THE RIGHT FOR USING KIDS AS FODDER IN THE CULTURE WAR.
All of you who need to harp on every last thing as if it were a devastating blow to our nation, please, please, secede from the Union. But, before you do, remember all of the government sponsored benefits you will be giving up. And, remember, when you secede, you will have no one but you to blame for all of your problems. Enjoy.
********************************************************************************************
From YAHOO
On September 8, in what the Department of Education is touting as a “historic” speech, President Obama will be talking directly to students across the U.S., live on the White House website. But some parents and conservatives are blasting the president, calling the speech an excuse to brainwash American children.
[paragraph deleted]
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter to the nation’s principals, inviting schools to watch the speech and included suggested classroom activities. But Jim Greer, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, came out swinging against the planned speech. An excerpt from his statement:
“The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President’s agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President’s initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.”
[paragraph deleted]
The Cato Institute, a public-policy research foundation, issued a press release entitled “Hey Obama, Leave Those Kids Alone,” criticizing the “troubling buzzwords” in the lesson plans:
“It’s one thing for a president to encourage all kids to work hard and stay in school – that’s a reasonable use of the bully pulpit. It’s another thing entirely, however, to have the U.S. Department of Education send detailed instructions to public schools nationwide on how to glorify the president and the presidency, and push them to drive social change.”
Across the blogosphere, comments covered the spectrum, from critical to supportive, and from one student, a little anger:
“—
“The fact that people want to keep their kids from hearing the President of the United States encourage them to do well in school shows a true level of ignorance.” — Firefey
“As an [sic] 9th grade student, I’d like to say that 1. I’m not sure why everyone is so scared that we’ll all be brainwashed by the President … 2. My school is one that is not allowing us to watch the speech, and quite frankly, I’m pissed.” — Willbw
Both Presidents George Bush and Ronald Reagan both gave speeches aimed specifically at students that were nationally televised. In 1989, Bush delivered a televised anti-drug speech, and Reagan’s 1986 commencement speech and Q&A session was “beamed over public television into 171 school districts,” according to the L.A. Times.
It’s worth noting that schools are, encouraged, not required, to air the speech. The Houston Chronicle reports that one Dallas school district is leaving the decision to individual teachers. Susan Dacus, spokeswoman for the Wylie school district, says parents who don’t want their children to see it can opt out.
In an ironic twist, one Missouri school won’t be airing the speech because of a lack of funding. Michelle Baumstark, spokeswoman for Columbia public schools, told the Columbia Daily Tribune, “We don’t have the funding or the equipment to support that type of broadcasting.”
— Lili Ladaga
