(09-10-2009 07:06 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  1. Did you know before he gave his speech that you were going to be comfortable with your 9 year old listening to what he said? 2. Would you have allowed GWB the same latitude? 3. What if Nancy Pelosi or Newt Gingrich had been elected President? 4. How about Buchanan or Gore? 5. Wouldn't it have made sense to have the Secretary of Defense give a speech to our children about serving the country?? 6. Would we have been okay with that?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. No.
6. No.
Re: 5 & 6, I was not (when I was in high school) and I am not now comfortable with the idea of army recruiters going to high schools and recruiting. But it happens. I think it should stop.
I don't see how that relates to the President talking to school children about the importance of school.

A) You didn't know with any certainty prior to the release of the speech (which wouldn't have happened without the complaints) that the topic would be STRICTLY about education. B) Writing letters to the President about how they could help him has nothing to do with staying in school, but we let it slide. It has to do with another noble cause... service to the country. There is perhaps no greater service than our military. Is it REALLY that big a stretch to envision a direct "Uncle Sam Wants You" appeal to children in the even of a more hostile global environment as there was in WWII?? As a parent, do you want that appeal being made to your 9 yr old without you present?? I didn't think so. The Complaint is now, and always has been (at least from me) that I don't want ANY person of such great influence speaking to my children without my specific permission... and certainly wouldn't want "the school system" sanctioning it. I don't care if he IS the President... I'm the father.

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  "The President", regardless of who they are, wields an immense amount of influence. So much so that we established an opportunity for the minority party to deliver a rebuttal to the state of the Union. Does that say NOTHING to us??

It says to me that if the President had said anything that needed rebutting, then it would have happened. The opposition would have rallied, shouted, and screamed and either achieved a similar venue or would have reached out through their own channels.
Wasn't necessary, so didn't happen.

It DID happen... They DID rally and many schools didn't show it, or required permission... and Obama released a transcript before the speech. Some parents even kept their children home. That is EXACTLY what should have happened... and it did... but it wasn't what Obama planned.

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The entire purpose of Presidential speeches was to have families sit around the radio... then around the TV... to listen and discuss... and now, the FAMILY is being taken out of the equation, and for some reason, The President wants to speak directly to my children, without me there...

I don't know if there is a general, catch-all "purpose" to Presidential speeches, but I know what the purpose of this one was: to speak to schoolchildren about staying in school. He picked the best possible venue to reach that audience.
As to him talking to your kids without you there, well you were more than welcome to be there in spirit-- there's absolutely no reason you couldn't watch or read his speech and discuss it with your family. (Heck, you probably could've been there in person; I bet the teachers wouldn't have objected to a parent sitting with his kids during the speech, space permitting.)

Purpose was the wrong word... the initial concept was a more direct and "personal" conversation with the people.

As to your suggestion... You just don't get the complaint. I have a job... I shouldn't have to skip work to keep my 9yr old child from listening to a speech DESCRIBED as being about education. There was no guarantee that it would stick to that topic... and while it wasn't eggregious, it didn't. Public Service isn't about staying in school... and not one single person on this or any other board can say with any certainty that the speech we heard was the speech originally intended before the complaints.

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT MY CHILD'S PARENT. HE SHOULD NOT BE ADDRESSING MY CHILD WITHOUT MY PERMISSION ON ANY TOPIC AT ANY TIME WITHOUT MY CONSENT.

I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and while he TOLD me it was going to be about education... "he" also told me that Iraq and Vietnam was about making us safe... that the stimulus was about jobs... and that despite having fillibuster-proof control of both houses and the Oval office, that the minority party is the only thing standing in the way of affordable healthcare.

I don't get this fear. Is he really that persuasive that in one short speech he could completely ruin your kids with his lies? It's just not much of a risk -- if he really did go off spouting propaganda, then:
a. Neither he nor other Presidents would've ever again had the opportunity, and
b. The backlash would've been swift and loud, and lasted considerably longer than his speech.

I hate to paraphrase the nutjobs... but its not as if Hitler came to power by saying we should kill all the Jews. He came to power saying "serve your country".... and he made a big push with the children. NO, I don't believe that Obama or anyone else has designs like that... it is an extreme example to make a point.

Your faith in people to envision the consequences of things that initially seemed benign isn't supported by history. MANY believe that Kennedy won the election over Nixon because his blue shirt and clean-cut face looked better on TV than Nixon's white shirt and stubble. Many other believe that we "lost" Vietnam because people LOVED the stories of war in WWII, but didn't like SEEING the reality of it on TV. Many believe that Obama won this election (in part) because of his effective use of the internet. How many people envisioned that "welfare" to help families stay together would actually have the opposite effect in many cases?

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not pointing at Obama, but a socialist would describe a conversion to socialism as "creating jobs for everyone"... NOT as taking away your freedoms. Just because they SAY it is going to be about "x", doesn't mean it is. A 9 year old doesn't know the difference... because socialism sounds just like when mom and dad taught them about "sharing" and being kind to others.

So do you vet everything that's said to your kids in advance? Have all their teachers provided you with verbatim copies of their lessons for your preapproval? If one speech is so concerning, I don't see how you're comfortable in letting your kids be influenced by anyone, much less the same person for roughly 145 days.
There are many, many opportunities at school for your children to be influenced by ideas you don't agree with. Given the transparency (the speech was both broadly televised and available in transcript) involved, this is actually one of the few times you'll have an opportunity to review exactly what they've been presented in school and to correct anything you disagree with.

My kid's teacher isn't the President of the United States...

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The fact that he DIDN'T say anything controversial doesn't mean he couldn't have... and I believe 100% that had no one said anything, that he would have been more inclined to do so. Even if you disagree with that last comment... you cannot deny that he COULD have, and that he is setting a precedent for others to do so.

You're right on half of your last comment: I can't / won't / wouldn't deny he could have been more controversial. However, I completely deny that he is setting a precedent for others to use such a speech for political purposes. In fact, if you compare to Reagan's speech and Q&A in '88, Obama is in fact setting a precedent of being absolutely apolitical.

Yet you are falling into the exact same trap. Reagan's speech in 1988 wasn't broadcast to millions of schoolchildren at the same time. This isn't in ANY WAY the same forum with the same impact. By comparing it to that, you completely miss the significance of context... which only serves to prove my point that just because THIS speech didn't go too far... that there is some guarantee that 20 years from now someone wont... and they'll be saying... C'mon... Obama did exactly the same thing in 2009 when he talked to kids about getting involved in the political process by writing letters to the President.

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Are you willing to give that sort of control to someone you didn't vote for, whose policies you don't support and who might want to use that opportunity to speak to the children as an opportunity to influence the country for the next 20 years in a direction you don't agree with?

Yes.
If I have such a fear of the president that I think he can ruin my kids in one speech, then I'm leaving the country. (Which I already did once, but then I came back.)

So you think that this was a one-time event that will never happen again in the history of our country? Heck, I think there will be an iphone app to link you to an interactive web-cam in the press briefing room in a few years.

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  C'mon people... this is a smart group of people... SURELY we're not this naive.

I see you're extremely concerned with what COULD have been said.
Please tell me, what in your mind would be the long term repercussions of the worst-case-scenario most politically influential speech?

Nazi Germany is perhaps the worst case scenario of an influential politician who appealed directly to children. I don't have that personal fear... but there are an AWFUL lot of bad things between here and there. A continued move towards reliance upon the government is a real concern I have. Had he said something as simple as "I'm trying to provide afordable healthcare for EVERYONE"... so go home and tell your parents to support me... I'd have to either ignore my child... which makes him think I don't value him... or engage in a conversation with him perhaps WAY beyond his ability to comprehend.

Quote:And given that he didn't do any politcal inluencing, I just don't get the continued unhappiness.

**PS: All of "my kids" in my response are purely hypothetical. I have no children as of yet.

The unhappiness isn't with Obama... it is with his defenders. You don't get my concern. Perhaps the sinmple fact that you don't have children yet explains it (at least for you). I've spent most of the last 16 years "watching" those in a position to influence my children. I've monitored their movies, their music, their tv, their friends...and yes, even their teachers. It is a parent's job to filter the world for them... It is a parent's job to mold and shape them. It is NOT the President's job.

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 07:59 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 07:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Again, I don't think he said anything wrong, nor at any point have I thought he intended to do anything other than what he did, address the youth and encourage education.

Having said that, it is still the principle of the thing that nags at me.

The fact that as a popular, charismatic leader he is more likely to be listened to cuts both ways. I'm glad if the speech has a positive impact on some kids. I'm annoyed that someone can give a speech without doing anything else, and will be remembered more positively in the long run than other people who've said the same thing, for no other reason than they are more charismatic and popular.

Maybe the good done outweighs the risks that others see. I don't know. It would be nice if we weren't having to worry about things like this, but history should teach us that the risks from charismatic figures are real (as are the benefits - MLK as an example).

Personally, I see this as unequivocally the "good" edge of the charisma blade. I'll limit my worrying to things that cut in the other direction.

My annoyance would be directed at charismatic individuals who have the ability to do good with something as simple as a speech but choose to remain silent.

"The President", regardless of who they are, wields an immense amount of influence.

Not pointing at Obama, but a socialist would describe a conversion to socialism as "creating jobs for everyone"... NOT as taking away your freedoms. Just because they SAY it is going to be about "x", doesn't mean it is. A 9 year old doesn't know the difference... because socialism sounds just like when mom and dad taught them about "sharing" and being kind to others.

Not that Obama did this, but this is the crux of why the whole thing nags at me, and why in principle, I think it's a bad idea (whether done by Reagon, Bush or Obama.

Kids are impressionable, and are more prone to peer pressure, and hero worship.

And the fact that Obama was on target in this speech, doesn't excuse the breach of principle.

Kids who see a handsome, charismatic figure give a speech that is spot on target, aimed at their welfare and supported by their teachers/educators are, IMHO, going to THEN more likely to agree with other ideas that the hero figure puts out in front of them in the future.

After all, he's the trusted man who educators let address the nation.

If ADULTS let appearance, speaking ability and charisma influence them (see poll results comparing viewers/listeners responses to the Nixon/Kennedy debates when heard on radio versus television) more than the ideas and concepts being presented, then is there even one person in the Parliament that thinks that elementary and middle school age children aren't more susceptible to those things.

Again, for me, it's not about what he said or what he intended to say. The topic was fine and he's a great speaker/example. Heck, I enjoy hearing him speak, even when I don't agree with him.

It's the principle. Kids are impressionable. Nazis understood this, Mao understood this, we all understand this, both the good and bad.

Speaking to the nations children in as close to their entirety as a demographic as you can get, just strikes me as wrong.

Let him go to inner City schools and speak, like thousands of politicians have. Let him talk to kids visiting the White House (like Kennedy did to Clinton, not that that influenced anyone).

I applaud the effort. I don't like the venue.

(09-10-2009 07:06 PM)JOwl Wrote:  And given that he didn't do any politcal inluencing, I just don't get the continued unhappiness.

That statement is out and out wrong.

Regardless of the topic, the beneficial nature of the material, etc.

the fact that a politician (especially a handsome, charismatic, articulate politican) can address a large body of impressionable CHILDREN is political influencing.

From this point on, to a large portion of those kids, whenever Obama speaks he will be "the President who cared enough about us to address us personally (ed. - not that he told them anything they had NOT heard before from less influential people - - including their teachers), encouraged us, and who had the blessing of my teachers and the entire educational system to an extent no one else commands" whether they put it in exactly those terms or not).

Heck, his own publicity agents (wrongly) stressed he was the first president to make such an address. What's their motive there,or in asking the children "how Obama inspired them"?

In the future, no matter the subject, whether he details it or not, or whether the OMB disagrees with him or not, he has a history of credibility with a segment of the population prone to hero worship and who have been impressed.

That 'impression' will last with the kids long after they've forgotten what the president actually said to them, and will extend to future topics.

Therefore, how can any speech that is seen by such a wide body of that age demographic NOT be politically influencing?

Again, applaud the final intent, disagree with the venue on principle.

(09-10-2009 11:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 07:06 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  1. Did you know before he gave his speech that you were going to be comfortable with your 9 year old listening to what he said? 2. Would you have allowed GWB the same latitude? 3. What if Nancy Pelosi or Newt Gingrich had been elected President? 4. How about Buchanan or Gore? 5. Wouldn't it have made sense to have the Secretary of Defense give a speech to our children about serving the country?? 6. Would we have been okay with that?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. No.
6. No.
Re: 5 & 6, I was not (when I was in high school) and I am not now comfortable with the idea of army recruiters going to high schools and recruiting. But it happens. I think it should stop.
I don't see how that relates to the President talking to school children about the importance of school.

A) You didn't know with any certainty prior to the release of the speech (which wouldn't have happened without the complaints) that the topic would be STRICTLY about education. B) Writing letters to the President about how they could help him has nothing to do with staying in school, but we let it slide. It has to do with another noble cause... service to the country. There is perhaps no greater service than our military. Is it REALLY that big a stretch to envision a direct "Uncle Sam Wants You" appeal to children in the even of a more hostile global environment as there was in WWII?? As a parent, do you want that appeal being made to your 9 yr old without you present?? I didn't think so. The Complaint is now, and always has been (at least from me) that I don't want ANY person of such great influence speaking to my children without my specific permission... and certainly wouldn't want "the school system" sanctioning it. I don't care if he IS the President... I'm the father.

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  "The President", regardless of who they are, wields an immense amount of influence. So much so that we established an opportunity for the minority party to deliver a rebuttal to the state of the Union. Does that say NOTHING to us??

It says to me that if the President had said anything that needed rebutting, then it would have happened. The opposition would have rallied, shouted, and screamed and either achieved a similar venue or would have reached out through their own channels.
Wasn't necessary, so didn't happen.

It DID happen... They DID rally and many schools didn't show it, or required permission... and Obama released a transcript before the speech. Some parents even kept their children home. That is EXACTLY what should have happened... and it did... but it wasn't what Obama planned.

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The entire purpose of Presidential speeches was to have families sit around the radio... then around the TV... to listen and discuss... and now, the FAMILY is being taken out of the equation, and for some reason, The President wants to speak directly to my children, without me there...

I don't know if there is a general, catch-all "purpose" to Presidential speeches, but I know what the purpose of this one was: to speak to schoolchildren about staying in school. He picked the best possible venue to reach that audience.
As to him talking to your kids without you there, well you were more than welcome to be there in spirit-- there's absolutely no reason you couldn't watch or read his speech and discuss it with your family. (Heck, you probably could've been there in person; I bet the teachers wouldn't have objected to a parent sitting with his kids during the speech, space permitting.)

Purpose was the wrong word... the initial concept was a more direct and "personal" conversation with the people.

As to your suggestion... You just don't get the complaint. I have a job... I shouldn't have to skip work to keep my 9yr old child from listening to a speech DESCRIBED as being about education. There was no guarantee that it would stick to that topic... and while it wasn't eggregious, it didn't. Public Service isn't about staying in school... and not one single person on this or any other board can say with any certainty that the speech we heard was the speech originally intended before the complaints.

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT MY CHILD'S PARENT. HE SHOULD NOT BE ADDRESSING MY CHILD WITHOUT MY PERMISSION ON ANY TOPIC AT ANY TIME WITHOUT MY CONSENT.

I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and while he TOLD me it was going to be about education... "he" also told me that Iraq and Vietnam was about making us safe... that the stimulus was about jobs... and that despite having fillibuster-proof control of both houses and the Oval office, that the minority party is the only thing standing in the way of affordable healthcare.

I don't get this fear. Is he really that persuasive that in one short speech he could completely ruin your kids with his lies? It's just not much of a risk -- if he really did go off spouting propaganda, then:
a. Neither he nor other Presidents would've ever again had the opportunity, and
b. The backlash would've been swift and loud, and lasted considerably longer than his speech.

I hate to paraphrase the nutjobs... but its not as if Hitler came to power by saying we should kill all the Jews. He came to power saying "serve your country".... and he made a big push with the children. NO, I don't believe that Obama or anyone else has designs like that... it is an extreme example to make a point.

Your faith in people to envision the consequences of things that initially seemed benign isn't supported by history. MANY believe that Kennedy won the election over Nixon because his blue shirt and clean-cut face looked better on TV than Nixon's white shirt and stubble. Many other believe that we "lost" Vietnam because people LOVED the stories of war in WWII, but didn't like SEEING the reality of it on TV. Many believe that Obama won this election (in part) because of his effective use of the internet. How many people envisioned that "welfare" to help families stay together would actually have the opposite effect in many cases?

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not pointing at Obama, but a socialist would describe a conversion to socialism as "creating jobs for everyone"... NOT as taking away your freedoms. Just because they SAY it is going to be about "x", doesn't mean it is. A 9 year old doesn't know the difference... because socialism sounds just like when mom and dad taught them about "sharing" and being kind to others.

So do you vet everything that's said to your kids in advance? Have all their teachers provided you with verbatim copies of their lessons for your preapproval? If one speech is so concerning, I don't see how you're comfortable in letting your kids be influenced by anyone, much less the same person for roughly 145 days.
There are many, many opportunities at school for your children to be influenced by ideas you don't agree with. Given the transparency (the speech was both broadly televised and available in transcript) involved, this is actually one of the few times you'll have an opportunity to review exactly what they've been presented in school and to correct anything you disagree with.

My kid's teacher isn't the President of the United States...

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The fact that he DIDN'T say anything controversial doesn't mean he couldn't have... and I believe 100% that had no one said anything, that he would have been more inclined to do so. Even if you disagree with that last comment... you cannot deny that he COULD have, and that he is setting a precedent for others to do so.

You're right on half of your last comment: I can't / won't / wouldn't deny he could have been more controversial. However, I completely deny that he is setting a precedent for others to use such a speech for political purposes. In fact, if you compare to Reagan's speech and Q&A in '88, Obama is in fact setting a precedent of being absolutely apolitical.

Yet you are falling into the exact same trap. Reagan's speech in 1988 wasn't broadcast to millions of schoolchildren at the same time. This isn't in ANY WAY the same forum with the same impact. By comparing it to that, you completely miss the significance of context... which only serves to prove my point that just because THIS speech didn't go too far... that there is some guarantee that 20 years from now someone wont... and they'll be saying... C'mon... Obama did exactly the same thing in 2009 when he talked to kids about getting involved in the political process by writing letters to the President.

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Are you willing to give that sort of control to someone you didn't vote for, whose policies you don't support and who might want to use that opportunity to speak to the children as an opportunity to influence the country for the next 20 years in a direction you don't agree with?

Yes.
If I have such a fear of the president that I think he can ruin my kids in one speech, then I'm leaving the country. (Which I already did once, but then I came back.)

So you think that this was a one-time event that will never happen again in the history of our country? Heck, I think there will be an iphone app to link you to an interactive web-cam in the press briefing room in a few years.

Quote:

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  C'mon people... this is a smart group of people... SURELY we're not this naive.

I see you're extremely concerned with what COULD have been said.
Please tell me, what in your mind would be the long term repercussions of the worst-case-scenario most politically influential speech?

Nazi Germany is perhaps the worst case scenario of an influential politician who appealed directly to children. I don't have that personal fear... but there are an AWFUL lot of bad things between here and there. A continued move towards reliance upon the government is a real concern I have. Had he said something as simple as "I'm trying to provide afordable healthcare for EVERYONE"... so go home and tell your parents to support me... I'd have to either ignore my child... which makes him think I don't value him... or engage in a conversation with him perhaps WAY beyond his ability to comprehend.

Quote:And given that he didn't do any politcal inluencing, I just don't get the continued unhappiness.

**PS: All of "my kids" in my response are purely hypothetical. I have no children as of yet.

The unhappiness isn't with Obama... it is with his defenders. You don't get my concern. Perhaps the sinmple fact that you don't have children yet explains it (at least for you). I've spent most of the last 16 years "watching" those in a position to influence my children. I've monitored their movies, their music, their tv, their friends...and yes, even their teachers. It is a parent's job to filter the world for them... It is a parent's job to mold and shape them. It is NOT the President's job.

Didn't see this post before I posted the one immediately below it, but the similarities in examples, etc. is remarkable.

We must've been brainwashed by the same person when we were kids.

Hambone,

I usually at least appreciate where you're coming from, even when we disagree pretty strenuously. But the idea that the president (or any other person, really) must have your express consent to address your child is totally ludicrous! How do you expect children to grow up and learn in this world?? As JOwl put it, do you inspect every lesson plan, every sermon your child might ever hear? Indoctrination (from all sides) is avoided *not* by sheltering, but by teaching critical thinking and having conversations with them so that they can gain from your experience and wisdom (without simply indocrinating yourselves). I don't care if the president is mickey mouse, kids admire and believe in their parents FAR more strongly than any president or political figure, provided they are "there" for them.

The idea that "words are dangerous" is itself, a dangerous tack... if you disagree with what the president will say, it is far better to let them hear it and use it as a teaching opportunity, than to say "you will not hear this! Plug your ears and say 'lalalalala'!"... kids are not stupid - they will stop listening to you.

I do not have kids, but I helped raise some, and taught many. The worst parenting mistake, in my experience, is expecting too little of them. I am not trying to say you are a bad parent (at all). I am curious whether you think sheltering or preventing exposure to ideas and words affects your child on more than just the level of that particular idea - i.e., their respect for you, or their curiosity on the "forbidden" topic? Would you say that a liberal parent who does not allow their child any exposure to conservative viewpoints (i.e., blocks fox news or something) is doing an equally good job? What do you do if a teacher in your child's school teaches something you think borders on political (for the sake of argument, a liberal idea), but the school disagrees?

(09-10-2009 11:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The unhappiness isn't with Obama... it is with his defenders. You don't get my concern. Perhaps the sinmple fact that you don't have children yet explains it (at least for you). I've spent most of the last 16 years "watching" those in a position to influence my children. I've monitored their movies, their music, their tv, their friends...and yes, even their teachers. It is a parent's job to filter the world for them... It is a parent's job to mold and shape them. It is NOT the President's job.

I've been doing the same things for 18 years (yes, _definitely_ the teachers). The President's speech (had my children seen it) would have been yet another case - among the thousands over the years - in which I could have observed what was said/shown/played to my kids and, as a parent, discussed it with them. My role as a parent (e.g., molder and shaper) would not have been threatened by the President.

(09-11-2009 10:33 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  kids admire and believe in their parents FAR more strongly than any president or political figure, provided they are "there" for them.

if you disagree with what the president will say, it is far better to let them hear it and use it as a teaching opportunity,

The caveat is if they are 'there' for them.

Hambone and I are not the problem (as active parents).

I work with our church's apartment ministry and have other involvement with kids . . . . the percentage of children whose parents are 'there' for them is not nearly high enough in this country.

And beyond that the number of parents who might be 'there', but who either don't have time, don't have the inclination, or don't have the capacity to use this as "a teaching opportunity" is also much larger than any of us on this board would like.

In a school system, kids are taught my mulitple teachers all trying to do their best, but clearly it would be impossible for them all to be pushing an exactly identical agenda.

However, when someone gives an address to ALL the kids at once, then the potential for ideological uniformity exists.

Again, it's the principle of the thing, not what was said or the intent in this case.

Again, let the president visit individual schools, visit with students who come to Washington, etc.

His (and Bush's) message was not a new concept for the kids. The need to get ALL kids to see it is just maximizing his personal influence.

In this case it was good. In general, it is a very bad precedent to have allowed.

(09-11-2009 12:40 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I work with our church's apartment ministry and have other involvement with kids . . . .

What's an apartment ministry? Just curious.

(09-11-2009 02:56 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-11-2009 12:40 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I work with our church's apartment ministry and have other involvement with kids . . . .

What's an apartment ministry? Just curious.

A number of churches maintain apartments which they make available to people with particular short- to medium-term housing needs, such as medical visitors or refugees. (NOT cheap housing for grad students, in case anyone was wondering...) Randomly choosing the church next to Rice that was designed by the same architect as our fair institute, here is one example:
http://www.palmerchurch.org/default.asp?...earch=True

Quote:"Our guests come from all over the United States and foreign nations. They are in a strange town, about to undergo unknown medical treatment, concerned about their health, the costs associated with their stay, and their family. I have seen them smile and say, "Oh this is such a nice apartment, thank you to Palmer for helping me".
— Volunteer

Palmer Place is an apartment ministry that provides affordable housing to out-of-town patients being treated in the Texas Medical Center. Currently, Palmer Place maintains five one-bedroom fully furnished apartments.

Volunteer Opportunities
Palmer Place Coordinator
Telephone Volunteers
Application Coordinator
Check-in Volunteer
Check-out Volunteer
Rent Collector
Mantenance Volunteer
New Apartment Committee

Palmer Place Ministry is part of a larger organization in Houston called the Church Apartment Ministry, which consists of 13 churches in the greater Houston area that, among them, have more than 90 apartments which are made available to medical center patients and their families who have to be in Houston for treatment.

Typically the minimum stay required is 2-3 weeks. These are intended to provide a "home away from home" for folks who have to be away from home for extended periods, not for 2-3 day visits for patients being evaluated or returning for check-ups.

More information is available at the CAM website, http://www.churchapartmentministry.org, or by calling 713-524-2640. Patients or a family member or friend, on their behalf, can submit an application online or by calling the CAM volunteer office M-F, 9:30-12 or 1-3:30.

If you call after those hours and leave a voicemail, a volunteer will return the call as soon as possible during those hours. Those wishing to be placed in a Palmer apartment must apply there as Palmer Place makes its placements from this list. Typically there is a wait for an apartment.

For more information on Palmer Place and to volunteer call Palmer Outreach at 713-529-6196

(09-10-2009 09:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 07:38 PM)Padrino15 Wrote:  http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/w...02034.html

>>Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."

That was not the only recommended lesson plan, as that article implies. What I said holds. There were even guidelines for making posters, both content and form, and separate recommendations for grades K-5.

Everyone please pardon me for this, but I have been traveling by car and have not had much of an opportunity to get on this site(I'm sure some of you think that is a GOOD thing). I have, however, been thinking on this topic a lot.

Basically, it now comes down to a he said, she said situation. The Administration is spinning it as in the quoted article, that it was one little awkwardly stated assignment, that the right, who hates Obama to begin with, is just seizing any opportunity to make trouble, just for the fun of making trouble, even going to the point of making up lies and then disseminating them on national TV and radio. That is such an outlandlish story. It does not stand up to logical or reasonable thought. First is the putative motivations - just to be mean, or just because of racial hatred, or just because of an intrinsic nature to do evil. Come on, now, let's use the critical faculties that God/the Intelligent Designer/Evolution gave us, and that that as Rice alumni we have previously evidenced. Second, apparently we are supoosed to believe that right wing evilness/hatred/anger is so irrational that at the drop of a hat, lies are created about anything and everything. I am getting tired of this characterization, and I am really getting tired of the way so many people just accept it as fact. Oh, a right-winger said that? Must be a lie.

Does anyone really believe the U. S. Department of Education put out suggested study guidelines ONE item long?

Like I said, before, I have no problem with the speech. I see where some do, and I see their points, I just don't share the same degree of alarm. The study points do alarm me, as i wonder where they came from. Where they suggested by Obama himself? His staff? Party leaders? Overzealous hero-worshipping Department of Education officials? I think, and hope, it is the latter, because the higher the source for these, the greater the problem.

As we go forward through the next 4-8 years, we shall see either more of this or no more at all. I hope (again, that word "hope"), we see no more, that it was just an aberration caused by overzealous underlings. If not, then I guess we will have to deal with it then. But it should not be ignored, and it should not be passed off as unimportant. It certainly should not passed of as the fevered imaginings of haters seizing on an opportunity to make trouble. The importance (or lack of) will come in the context of how it fits with future events.

(09-11-2009 10:33 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  Hambone,

I usually at least appreciate where you're coming from, even when we disagree pretty strenuously. But the idea that the president (or any other person, really) must have your express consent to address your child is totally ludicrous!

Since you said ANYBODY...

We spend our lives telling children "don't talk to strangers". Why is this? Is it SIMPLY because one of them might abduct our children? You can't listen to certain songs, or at least certain words on the radio these days... Children can't watch certain movies... or buy certain video games without parental permission...

I mean, all those directors want to do is "speak" to my children. How about Michael Moore? Is it okay to let HIM speak to my children without my permission? Sicko was PG-13, and all IT was about was the healthcare debate. Bowling for Columbine was R, and it was primarily about ways to keep kids from killing each other. Even if you agree 100% with what he is saying... you may not find his method for delivering that message appropriate for your children. Apparently the MPAA felt this way... an organization that is pretty "middle-of-the-road if you ask me.

Quote:How do you expect children to grow up and learn in this world?? As JOwl put it, do you inspect every lesson plan, every sermon your child might ever hear? Indoctrination (from all sides) is avoided *not* by sheltering, but by teaching critical thinking and having conversations with them so that they can gain from your experience and wisdom (without simply indocrinating yourselves). I don't care if the president is mickey mouse, kids admire and believe in their parents FAR more strongly than any president or political figure, provided they are "there" for them.

The sad fact is that people like (showing my age here) Miley Cyrus or whomever todays version of Marylin Manson is has more influence on many of our children than most parents... Teachers and parents spend so much time with our children that they learn that we are actual humans... that we make mistakes... that we are fallable... HEROES (or better said, celebrities) have handlers, editors and speech writers who ensure that any mistake by them is glossed over... They ARE infallible... even though as adults, we know better.

Quote:The idea that "words are dangerous" is itself, a dangerous tack... if you disagree with what the president will say, it is far better to let them hear it and use it as a teaching opportunity, than to say "you will not hear this! Plug your ears and say 'lalalalala'!"... kids are not stupid - they will stop listening to you.

I never said that and you know it... As many good conversations as we've had, I'm dissapointed that you see me in this light. My kids have ALWAYS been given more latitude than their peers... because I've been involved in their lives and I have taken great steps to teach them critical thought... In this instance, I wasn't there (by design) when it was said. I don't know the context of the presentation. I would have to rely on the interpretation of a child to have that discussion. As a parent... I think this is an incredibly BAD idea....

He could have delivered that speech at 7pm. He could have made it available on you-tube and I could have chosen the time to listen WITH my kids... knowing that a 15yr old with a reasonable amount of ability to discern between being "sold" something and being given facts.... would be given FAR greater latitude than a 10yr old on the computer... even facebook requires you to be 13 or so to have an account. Sure, kids can lie... but if they do, and their parents don't know,... then their parents are to blame.

Quote:I do not have kids, but I helped raise some, and taught many. The worst parenting mistake, in my experience, is expecting too little of them. I am not trying to say you are a bad parent (at all). I am curious whether you think sheltering or preventing exposure to ideas and words affects your child on more than just the level of that particular idea - i.e., their respect for you, or their curiosity on the "forbidden" topic? Would you say that a liberal parent who does not allow their child any exposure to conservative viewpoints (i.e., blocks fox news or something) is doing an equally good job? What do you do if a teacher in your child's school teaches something you think borders on political (for the sake of argument, a liberal idea), but the school disagrees?

I have taken GREAT care as a parent to teach my children to think critically from an early age... They have been exposed to people and situations FAR beyond their peers (I remember MANY shocked faces from parents when I told them I let my kids do.... whatever it was they did) I am FAR more liberal with my children than most parents... and as a result... my children have thrived... HOWEVER, that tactic doesn't work for all children or all parents. The President has usurped the parent's right to shelter their children AS THEY SEE FIT.... and it is not up to you, me or the President to usurp that right... even if "empirical evidence" suggests what he is doing will do no harm.

I believe that parents have a right to keep their children from watching PG-13 movies when they're 15 if they choose... I believe they have the right to block Fox news if they choose... Do I think it is a good idea?? Of course not... but I believe that the first time my child watches something that concerns me (for ANY reason) I want to be there to help put it into context. As they get older... I can let them go. This speech was delivered to 1st graders.

There are few things in this world where two people BOTH with good intentions can believe that the other person's idea is completely wrong... but politics is one of them.... and the solution for things like welfare, healthcare and energy top the list.

This was NOT a speech for high school students only... most of whom have SOME ability to think critically... This was a speech directed at elementary age children.... MOST of whom don't even know that "staying in school" is an option. If he wanted to reach those most likely to drop out... he would have, could have and SHOULD put his speech on facebook and you-tube... NOT broadcast it in the elementary schools.

(09-11-2009 10:50 AM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 11:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The unhappiness isn't with Obama... it is with his defenders. You don't get my concern. Perhaps the sinmple fact that you don't have children yet explains it (at least for you). I've spent most of the last 16 years "watching" those in a position to influence my children. I've monitored their movies, their music, their tv, their friends...and yes, even their teachers. It is a parent's job to filter the world for them... It is a parent's job to mold and shape them. It is NOT the President's job.

I've been doing the same things for 18 years (yes, _definitely_ the teachers). The President's speech (had my children seen it) would have been yet another case - among the thousands over the years - in which I could have observed what was said/shown/played to my kids and, as a parent, discussed it with them. My role as a parent (e.g., molder and shaper) would not have been threatened by the President.

Fortunately, S.A., we've had plenty of help (like the MPAA and radio and tv decency laws...not to mention the lack of "on demand" access to our children through the internet in doing so. As a parent I have intentionally SOUGHT OUT controvertial subjects and situations for my children to educate them... but I CHOSE the time and place for those things... just as you did.

So when the Republicans demand "equal time" to offer a rebuttal, will you be okay with that? Is this really what our schools are supposed to be doing? Becoming a political forum?? This is NOT a one-off event... it is a shift in the way our children are "marketed" to. If this were some canned public service "stay in school" message, that would have been one thing... This was different... and if you don't see it, then you should re-read George Orwell. Even if you think Obama did it right... you have no asurance that the next guy or girl will.

The better question for all of you supporters would be this....

There are TVs, radios and Computers at the disposal of every single American. There are private entities (churches, community centers, movie theaters) who would have been more than happy to broadcast this "event" if it were so vital to our children to hear. Why is it that a school assembly is required to get this message out? If the President isn't a big influence... then why bother with this forum?

It is a complete mystery to me why people who argue that "The President" needs to address our elementary school children to help keep them in school because what their parents are telling them obviously doesn't work... THEN argue that parents can "counter-act" any negative impact or impression that they might leave. In MY mind, we're saying... you (parents) obviously can't do it, despite laws requiring it... so "the state" will take over the parenting of your children.

If they merely wanted to HELP parents do it, they would work WITH parents... not around them.

Disagree with me all you want. I'm really not interested in trying to convince you that my parenting style is correct. I'm merely trying to convince you that I have the right to parent my children as I see fit.

If you agree with that, then this message delivered through a manditory school assembly without parental notification/consent or knowledge of the specifics beforehand (as originally envisioned) was wrong.

It became optional, consent driven and the text was delivered beforehand. I was okay with that.

The speech would have been better early in the evening when parents could see it with the children and comment on it. Also, the school day should be spent studying academic subjects.

40 years ago, before the war between the right and left overtook every season without rest, this would have been an event -- but an entirely different one. children were taught in class to respect country, flag and president. it was part of basic patriotism as an american. we teach something entirely different now.

(09-12-2009 11:26 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  40 years ago, before the war between the right and left overtook every season without rest, this would have been an event -- but an entirely different one. children were taught in class to respect country, flag and president. it was part of basic patriotism as an american. we teach something entirely different now.

What do we teach now, and who is responsible for the change?

when i read this forum, or when i watch/read the news, i would say: cynicism, conflict, obfuscation, intentional misunderstanding of each other, hostility, mistrust, uncivility, etc.

all of us.

FYI:

I hope Fox News wins on their FOIA Request to see the "real" (a/k/a "draft") copy of the speech that these giudelines were written for.

Menu of Classroom Activities President Obama’s Address to Students Across America  (PreK-6)

Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education  September 8, 2009  

Before the Speech

Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidens and Barack Obama. 

Teachers could motivate students by asking the following questions:

Who is the President of the United States? 
What do you think it takes to be president? To whom do you think the president is going to be speaking? Why do you think he wants to speak to you? What do you think he will say to you? 

Teachers can ask students to imagine that they are delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States.

If you were the president, what would you tell students?   What can students do to help in our schools?   

Teachers can chart ideas about what students would say. 

Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?




During the Speech

As the president speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key 
ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful.  Students 
could use a notetaking graphic organizer such as a “cluster web;” or, students could record their thoughts on sticky notes.  

Younger children could draw pictures and write as appropriate.  As 
students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:  
What is the president trying to tell me? What is the president asking me to do? What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about? 

Students could record important parts of the speech where the 
president is asking them to do something. Students might think about 
the following:  

What specific job is he asking me to do?   

Is he asking anything of anyone else?  Teachers? Principals? Parents? 

The American people? 

Students could record questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech. 

Younger children may need to dictate their questions. 
Menu of Classroom Activities (PreK‐6)
 
After the Speech

Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes, or place notes on a butcher paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, such as citizenship, personal responsibility, and civic duty. 

Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:

 What do you think the president wants us to do?

Does the speech make you want to do anything? 

Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us? 

What would you like to tell the president?  

Extension of the Speech   Teachers could extend learning by having students: 

Create posters of their goals.  

Posters could be formatted in quadrants, puzzle pieces, or trails marked with the following labels: personal, academic, community, and country. 

 Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in that area. It might make sense to focus first on personal and academic goals so that community and country goals can be more readily creaed. 

Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short term and long term educational goals.

Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate 
later date to enable students to monitor their progres. 

Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom. 

Interview one another and share goals with the class to create a supportive community. 

Participate in school wide incentive programs or contests for those students who achieve their goals. 

Write about their goals in a variety of genres, such as poems, songs, and personal essays. 

Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals. 

Graph individual progress toward goals.   

http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf

(09-12-2009 11:26 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  40 years ago, before the war between the right and left overtook every season without rest, this would have been an event -- but an entirely different one. children were taught in class to respect country, flag and president. it was part of basic patriotism as an american. we teach something entirely different now.

KinderOwl,

In general, that's the way I feel about it to. But this person makes some interesting points about why maybe we should be more critical of it. The key point is this:

Quote:Children shouldn't be taught that the president—any president—is a beloved paternal figure with a grand plan for everyone. (From the original lesson plan: "Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?") Children should be taught the truth: that presidents are polarizing figures who are constantly dogged by controversy. That Americans don't always agree about proper public policy, and sometimes they disagree enough to do something as drastic as keeping their kids home from school. That politics is about conflict, not listening in unison while a friendly face on a TV screen dispenses instructions.

The first half of it makes me think a little more critically about what we should expect from our President more than the latter part, but it's something that should be considered.

i don't disagree with critical thought. i disagree with disrespect and a number of other things that start with dis, or mis, or un, etc.

(09-13-2009 03:19 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  when i read this forum, or when i watch/read the news, i would say: cynicism, conflict, obfuscation, intentional misunderstanding of each other, hostility, mistrust, uncivility, etc.

all of us.

Your original post was that "Children were taught in class to respect the country, flag, and President".

Your response is about bad examples. Are you saying our children are now taught those things in class? By the teachers?

I do remember being taught in school about the proper ways to salute the flag, pledge allegiance, fold the flag, etc. Since then we have been taught through the agencies of protesters and the news that burning it, desecrating it, and disrepecting it is OK, and the Supreme court has said they are right.

I remember when your duty was to your country. My country right or wrong. But now we have even national leaders saying publicly that the US is wrong, sorry about that, we'lll try to do better. If we disrespect our country at the top, how can we blame the students for following suit?

As for disrespecting the President, yes, we have been on a negative binge for a while now. The last eight months, and before that, the last eight years, are much different than the attitudes I saw in the 50's and early sixties. Maybe the Vietnam protests started it. I cannot speak to any time before Eisenhower.

I remember starting each day with a prayer over the intercom. Unthinkable now. I remember children getting paddled, and their parents supporting the school instead of suing them. I remember when the Boy Scouts were welcomed in our schools, just as military recruiters were.

Yep, things have changed.

Well, as for the times of Thomas Jefferson, I recently read a book called "The Pirate Coast." In it, the main character (Samuel Eaton, who led the Marines "...to the shores of Tripoli" to try to overthrow its leader) gets rather personal with his letters to TJ, including once essentially challeging him to a duel to resolve their dispute. TJ never responds to the letter. He also accused TJ of being an accomplice to treason, due to a secret compact that he found out about in the treaty made by another Consul with the Barbary Pirates as he was leading his force from the east.

So, no, it hasn't always been complete respect for the Presidency and its occupant. And dare I say, Fox News on Obama has nothing on the newspapers of those days, nor MSNBC on W on those same newspapers at least through the late 19th century.