Thanks for the thoughtful response Paracelsus (have sorted my dyslexia and looked up the origin!).

The concepts you espouse: negative liberty, enumerated powers, etc. are all very much in keeping with Libertarian or even Anarchist ideals.  I think these are important ideals but which need to be balanced against the idea that a society is only as good as its treatment of the weak and powerless within it. 

The balance of these ideals is not easy and will never be resolved but is nonetheless a goal worth pursuing endlessly. 

The trouble is that over the last 30 years (dating from Reagan and Thatcher) the ideals of negative liberty have been twisted to something more akin to “survival of the fittest” where the contenders have included massively wealthy corporations endowed with nearly human legal status.  This is hardly what any Libertarian thinkers ever had in mind!  The big losers, however, have not been the “next fittest” but rather the “least fit” (those who are born less able or, more commonly, into lesser circumstances).

To rectify this situation will require substantial moves in the other direction ... care for the least wealthy and powerful.

Which leads me to my final comment.  I had not heard of Saul Alinsky and my research on him has amounted to simply a Wikipedia article!  However, his main achievement appears to be as “The Father of Community Organisation” and advocacy for the poor.  How this can be equated or even mentioned in the same breath as Leo Strauss escapes me!

shemp33 -

“This is much adeiu about nothing.”

Whether your choice of “adeiu” to replace “ado” in this quote from the Bard was deliberate or an homophonic accident, it doesn’t matter. It SO accurately and appropriately describes the verbosity penned in this forum that it made me laugh out loud!

Thank you.

Well….  Having now read the entire speech (Thank you Shenonymous),  it is obvious that I was right.  This is much adeiu about nothing.  The only controversial thing in it is the ending.  God Bless you,  and God Bles America.  Even that really isn’t surprising;  as every president since Kennedy has given almost the exact same type of speech to kids returning from summer vacation.

  Time to move on to a different topic.  Preferably one involving some aspect of substantive reality to it.

When I speak of fascism, Stalinism, national socialism, or even Maoism, I point to tactics or strategems, methods of social control. I don’t mean to say that our political system is wholly of anyone system of totalitarianism. I see a syncretic process at work. Just as the world religions are usually confabulations of earlier religions with many elements and dogma in common with many of the earliest creeds of Ur and India, I see politics in the same fashion. The problem is that the tactics used by one administration that are unpopular to an opposition, are given cover its adherents when the opposition gains power as the new government. There is left cover and there is right cover. I had never seen an authority figure tell children to write ideas that would be helpful to the President. That feature would seem to be a tactic of either the Chinese system of oligarchy or the Soviet. The Third Way of Politics seeks to fuse “right” and “left”. Clinton was a big supporter of the Third Way. Gingrich also has his Third Way features. If you remember Orwell, he spoke of a system of collectivist oligarchy. H.G. Welles spoke fondly of a system of liberal fascism. I do not see how I can criticize whatever despot in power without being naked of either left wing cover or right wing cover. We also have the troublesome feature of racial cover. My guidepost is the principle of negative liberty, which Obama seems to be rather opposed to. I am also guided by the ideas of enumerated government with a Bill of Rights. I wish I knew more about Saul Alinsky as he seems to be as corrosive to liberty as Leo Strauss. But if I were to criticize him negatively I would be seen as some right wing reactionary. In the end we have a sick system that endorses the ends justifying the means, and to stick up for principle means being necklaced by either the “left” or the “right” or perhaps more rarely both at the same time. In a word, it’s psychopathic.

Parcelsus,

I agree with most of what you say.  “Fascism” (or more accurately “corporatism” - the rule of corporations) has been in full swing for quite some time.  I expect that it far exceeds Mussolini’s Italy now.  What I find pernicious is the idea that Obama particularly is Fascist while also being Communist; just as he is Muslim while also being crazy black Christian.  These are just slanders intended to fuel the rage of the simple-minded.

As Obama is LESS Fascist than his predecessor, I wouldn’t trot the term out now that it has been co-opted by his political opponents.  He is beholden to corporations, yes; there is no other way to get elected in this rotten system.

That said, why jump at shadows?  I think the warrantless wiretaps, no-fly lists, infiltration of citizen’s groups, renditions and torture are all worth getting up in arms about.  Similarly, the giveaway of public money to the rich either through bail-outs or yet more regressive tax systems.  But when there is something as innocuous as a speech to children which is picked up by the Republican spinners, surely it is not a good time for progressives to jump on the bandwagon even if it is for good reasons ...

“Poissarde” would be the correct word for the feminine form. I recall the reckless defamations they, les poissarderie would repeat from a book I read that was a biography of Marie-Therese Carpet. The most notorious story was that of Marie Antoinette committing incest upon her son, Louis Charles, thus giving him venereal diseases. According to Marie Therese, the Revolutionary Committee dispatched disease ridden prostitutes to force intimacies upon the young boy. Then some interrogators would harangue and torment the young boy until he confessed to the story that the Committee wanted to publicize. So then the rabble, the fishwives, and the credulous ignorant would repeat these lies. As terribly governed by the Bourbons the masses were, one can see there were no good guys in this revolution. The partisan loyalty was very powerful, but the sense of justice was not. The French Revolution gave modern history its first mass genocide as a result of political correctness. The Vendee were killed in large numbers because they were still loyal to the Bourbons, and they still felt allegiance to the Old Church. The new order wanted to totally replace the old order. Much of the Revolution was motivated by Orleans aristocracy wanting supplant the cousin, King Louis the 16th who ruled over Ile de France as its possession, and held itself sovereign over all of France. The Duc d’Orleans was that era’s demagogue, who saw a crowd of the discontented and thought to jump in front this crowd as its leader. Yes, we know the peasants of Paris were starving. The King wanted the warehouses which were packed to capacity to release the grain to the angry mobs. Somehow his orders were never obeyed. The grain sat in the warehouse to rot. Much of it was packed onto carts and dumped into the River Seine. There has been much speculation that the Duc d’Orleans had control of the Parisian grain markets, and that he had engineered this disaster to put King Louis in a very bad light. Again no good guys here. If you want simplicity then read a fairy tale. I’ll probably get a lot of flack for this story, just I did for pointing out the Pearl Harbor LIHAP conspiracy. So be it.

@ Shenonymous

Why should I voice my outrage to government? They don’t listen. You mean write a letter? I have raised many factual points. And you just want to act as the schoolyard bully with your taunts and name calling. I referred to myself as acting like a gentleman, because I am male. I don’t know what obscure part of feminist catechism you are referring to.

My wariness is well founded. I have had many parcels and pieces of mail broken into and clumsily resealed. I have many long distance phone conversations interrupted by tapping sounds on the line, because no matter how well someone taps into your line there will always be an artifact of it through sags in amperage and voltage. Just because there was a change in administration, do not expect me to believe the leviathan has suddenly mended her ways.

Tell me, do you plan to obediently take your flu shot this fall to guard against swine flu?

I’m hardly uneducated.  I do believe Jean-Joseph Vade would be quite proud of
me though of course I do not perform in fish markets, I reserve my best vulgarity
for deserving mini-minded Truthdiggers.  I am no gentleman and those who
claim to be these days are prevaricators.

Paracelsus have you written to Obama voicing your outrage?  Or do you just
electronically exude your verbal assault and expression of delusions of
persecution for the benefit of the audience on Truthdig?

It must be so awful to be looking over your shoulder every second, wary of
bogeymen.  Notice I said bogeyMEN.  It is a gender thing.  Paranoia never has
survival value for in the state of paranoia paralysis is its partner and so is sweat.

I don’t know how many on this forum can defend a man, who won’t prosecute Cheney and his ilk for crimes against humanity. This Obama will not let torture photos of Iraqis be released. These are horrific pictures, and yet you find no problem letting him into our schoolhouses. The hypocrisy fills the nostrils like the work of a gong farmer. I bring up these points over and over again, and yet you worship this creature as if he is the Second Coming.

This is very old school: let children be children. View with suspicion politicians, military recruiters and religious ministers who would want to lecture to children in public schools. Paranoia has survival value. Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for freedom, which we must jealously guard. I used no scatology in saying this, and I think that shows that I am a gentleman for it. If you wish to show yourself as a poissard, that is your privilege. It’s a free country I hope.

Paranoia begets megaparanoia and megaparanoia begets insanity.  Self-
reflection is the only cure, but self-reflection is not possible by some on this
forum because it takes a mind to self-reflect.

Obama is not enlisting children for any political purpose.  He is encouraging
that they can begin to think about the good education can bring them, begin to
think about being in command of their own future.  Yes that is a radical idea,
that anyone ought to be taught to think about their own future, to be self-
reliant, and that to be a success one has to work hard but very importantly, get
a good education for that is the road to freedom.  How awful to tell a kid that! 
I’m appalled at the lunacy that emits from the minds of some of those on this
forum.  Leefeller is a nice guy.  I am not.  His language is refined and talks
about excrement.  I am not so refined, I talk about shit.  The only fascism
happening around here is the shit that has filled in between your own ears and
the shit that shows up in your comments. 

A copy of exactly what that articulate and intelligent black President Barack
Obama’s message is is at this site:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/07/obama-speech-to-school-
children-you-make-your-own-future/
Read it yourself.  Read it and weep, weep for yourself and your small
mindedness that is crowded with shit.  And wipe the snot hanging from your
nose as you have demonstrated that it needs blown to get all the creepy shitty
mental boogers out. 

Scatology is one of my specialties.

Paracelsus, September 7 at 10:38 pm

I didn’t like Reagan or the Bushes speaking to the children at school, because Conservative EXTREMIST Right-Winger Republicans do not sincerely care anything about what happens to the majority of children; but I didn’t have a fit; whereas, I am delighted that the Democrats see the need to speak to the schools through President Obama. 

Whether you know it or not, children will feel important that the President of the United States who could be doing many other things has chosen to speak to them, which will give the children a feeling of self worth, even if their parents are bigoted conservative Right-Wing EXTREMISTS Republicans trying to be disrespectful to the President of the United States, because the Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMISTS Republicans didn’t win the election.  Get used to it, Republican EXTREMISTS, because whatever you set up to hurt President Obama will turn back on you.

President Barack Obama’s interest in schools and the nation’s children learning more than likely will cut down on school violence, at least for all those who aren’t held at home because their parents don’t trust them to make any kind of decision for themselves.  These children may develop some violent tendencies, which will be totally the freaky parent’s fault.

@ Leefeller

Children should be exposed to the wonders of the world, which for most means the closed minded bigoted world of their parents.  Just think a society of individuals who can use reason to make decisions, this is unacceptable and must be nipped in the bud.

Perhaps Pres. Palin would be alright to speak to them about having a friend in Jesus. Or it could be McCain lecturing them on the rewards of a career in the Army. The “chillin” could write essays about such topics to themselves. You only come to principle when its your ox being gored.

Logic of morons requires a sense of nonsense. for instance if Obama were gay, we would be hearing from the same imbeciles, he is recruiting children for gayness, so in the grand association of small minds, Obama is recruiting children for blackness. 

Bigots stand united in their own excrement and want everyone else to accept what they stand for, hate provides nothing for society except more hate. Bigots, please, you smell really bad!

@ DBM

The part where I definitely disagree with Parcelsus is with the association with Nazi Germany or Soviet totalitariansim.  All this “just sayin’” comparison of Obama with Communism, Fascism, child abuse or whatever boogiemen can be concocted is Right Wing BS intended for the Hard of Thinking. Don’t buy in to it!

I find it strange that you don’t see the fascism around you. Homeland security is still active. The no-fly list is being expanded by thousands as each month passes. There are proposals to use the no-fly list to prohibit gun purchases by those on the no fly list. All this is done without a judge and jury. And yet I point out a tactic that smells of fascism/authoritarianism while we are being marinated in fascism/authoritarianism. Why do you think Obama is so good? He is surrounded by officials who were once employed at high levels in the finance industry. These are criminals, and yet you feel so confident in the goodness of this lackey, Obama. Having high leadership speak to your children is an awful idea. Remember how one poster spoke of Nancy Reagan encouraging children to put away their parents for smoking pot. Do you really like this homely tradition that much? It speaks of Stalinism/fascism when the Reagans do it, and it is the same Stalinism/fascism when Obama does it. It’s creepy!

Watching Miami-Florida State football game on ESPN.
Big Ben from the PITtsburgh Steelers just came on
during a commerical trying to influence the school
children to buy Nike shoes.  Are the shoes still
being made in some third world country by non-union
laborers working long hours for pennies an hour?
Wonder if the President will tell our chilldren
about that situation tomorrow in his speech? HAPPY
LABOR DAY!

@ Shenonymous

Obama is not enlisting children to help him govern.  That is a ridiculous idea.  The
preposterousness of that kind of thinking shows the paucity of minds that comes
from meagerly selfishness.

Another poster had the idea that Obama was enlisting children to help him govern. I merely mentioned that the lesson plan that accompanied Obama’s speech suggested that children write letters to themselves with ideas that would help out the President. This is exactly what was said and formulated by the Department of Education. You can source this to the NYT.

I wonder how upset you will be if a Republican President should do exactly the same thing as Obama? Of course I will be there saying this President is evil and should be tried for treason, which is not anything less than what I would say about Obama as he is condoning torture from the Bush administration. Meanwhile we still have our police state and our wars in Asia, and the Near Orient. Obama has already added to our military burden by adding Pakistan to our war budget. I don’t see how you can see any good in Obama. Generally I distrust my government, and I wonder how any new program from DC will not have some way of biting me in the a**. What sort of gotcha is there to it? With labels like New Freedom and Patriot attached to past laws, what sort of trust should we have for new initiatives? I remember reading about county clinics that offered free health care to the poor in the past. Many times the poor were subjected to nonconsensual experiments using plutonium, polonium, and radium. All this came out during the Clinton Administration. Then there were the forced sterilizations initiated by social workers who visited poor families on relief. But I am getting off into a tangent. I do not like to see Presidents, who rule as monarchs for a term, visiting children, even if it is to tell them to brush their teeth. Government is our servant. We should not have to swear loyalty oaths to its flag or allow the chief executive to do such things as read a goat story to a bunch of kids. I wish had brought this up earlier during Bush, but I had been so acclimated to such abuses over the years from Reagan on up that I had not thought to mention it. That is sad.

Let’s be fair ... I think I mostly agree with Parcelsus’ comments responding to mine.  I probably didn’t word it correctly so that it was twisted to “helping Obama govern”.  The distinction I meant to draw was between a speech lining up future voters as opposed to a speech enlisting support for the national cause (i.e. the President in “governing” mode rather than practicing politics). 

I do agree that children should be excused from political indoctrination, fighting in wars, working for a living and shielded from harm. (To the person who asked what made parents experts; I’d answer that we aren’t experts, we are just the people who have invested much and have our children’s best interests at heart.)

That said, I think there is something wrong with the assumption that there is some ulterior motive to a speech which I expect will be just an encouragement for them to achieve.  I’m not being naive here.  I do believe the previous administration fooled and abused followers of the Christian Right (with the support of some of their leaders) but I don’t see that sort of manipulation being necessary or in character for Obama. 

The part where I definitely disagree with Parcelsus is with the association with Nazi Germany or Soviet totalitariansim.  All this “just sayin’” comparison of Obama with Communism, Fascism, child abuse or whatever boogiemen can be concocted is Right Wing BS intended for the Hard of Thinking. Don’t buy in to it!

Ah well ... let’s hear the speech and see.

@

@ Shemp333

That would be the “Just Say No” campaign of the Reagans.  Although technically you could say that this was the First Lady doing the speechin’.  I just remembered hearing about a bunch of children who turned in their parents for being marijuana smokers…  and it was applauded at the time.  I think that’s about as low as you can get with this type of thing.  Now that really does remind me of “1984” the book!

That’s exactly the kind of thing that bothers me. I do not think politicians should have unfiltered access to our children for precisely that kind of mischief. As to the President telling children to study hard in school, why let the Camel’s nose into the tent?

Children should be exposed to the wonders of the world, which for most means the closed minded bigoted world of their parents.  Just think a society of individuals who can use reason to make decisions, this is unacceptable and must be nipped in the bud.

shemp333, September 7 at 4:18 pm #

E.K. Hornbeck
******************************************

That’s always been a favorite line! along with “Which is hungrier: my stomach or my soul? My stomach!”

and
“Gentlemen, I give the Atheist who believes in God!”

This is so sick!!

It is so illustrative of the ridiculous power the extreme right has in our Country.

(courtesy of our Media allowing their free-for-all!!)

Hey…  Inherit the Wind,

  I may be rancid butter…  but I’m on your side of the bread.

E.K. Hornbeck

If Obama merely recited the Pledge of Allegiance (complete with the inappropriate “Under God”) the rabid right wing would claim it was a dictatorial communist plot.

I spent about five minutes at Faux Noise reading the posters there on Obama’s speech to the kids (a mayonnaise on white bread speech if there ever was one) and they shredded it like the rabid animals they are. They said he was no better than a child molester.  They said they didn’t need HIM telling kids to stay in school.  They called him a communist and a dictatory.

If I were the US Secret Service, I’d be watching that fox blog and other right wing rage-fests like it VERY closely!

I am much much much more concerned about big business
and hollywood talking to our children than the
President.  Children usually pattern their thoughts
and behaviors after role models.  A little more than
100 years ago, because of limited transportation
and communication capacities, children basically
learned to pattern their thoughts and behaviors
after role models in the family and community.  Now,
with the flick of a switch on a TV, roles models
flow into their living room from all over the planet.
Children tend to develop their abstract thinking
abilities somewhere between the ages of 10 and 13.
For those younger children I believe teachers should
tape the president’s speech, take it home to study
and interpret for the children in their classrooms.
There will be words and concepts some children will
have difficulty understanding.  It is the responsibility of the teachers to explain those
words and concepts to the children as they relate
to their everyday lives. The same can also be said
for parents.

The charge that Obama will propagandize the children is what Socrates called
perpetrators of wind eggs (farts).

Since this country was founded explicitly and implicitly on the separation of
church and state, not even a religious whiff ought to be included in any
governmental activity or federally funded education program.  What might a
religious whiff be?  Why effluviums of any eau de cologne!

Thinking really hard on this whole thing did cause me to remember an incident like what Paracelus is worryied about. 
  That would be the “Just Say No” campaign of the Reagans.  Although technically you could say that this was the First Lady doing the speechin’.  I just remembered hearing about a bunch of children who turned in their parents for being marijuana smokers…  and it was applauded at the time.  I think that’s about as low as you can get with this type of thing.  Now that really does remind me of “1984” the book!
  Now that was an instance I would be in total agreement with you, Paracelus.  This little,  “Go study hard so you can grow up with a proper education” speech is not even in the same universe as the Reagan example though.  I’d say find a real battle to concern yourself over.  What this is really about is a non issue at most.  And this keeping your kids at home BS is plainly ridiculous.

Ronald “Bonzo”  Reagan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedtime_for_Bonzo, George H.W.“CIA” Bush and W.“Cheney” Bush, all Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS, talked to the liberal school children for years and look what happened, Conservative EXTREMISTS tried to turn our liberal school children into “Bonzo’s” —and because they know what they have done, since one can only think what is in their own mind..

That’s exactly why I think it is inappropriate for any President to speak to school children. It is propagandistic, and lends itself to authoritarian government. We have become habituated to an abusive practice. It is only a matter of time before future Presidents produce tendentious educational material in order to mobilize the children. I would be freaked out if I had a child return from school telling me the President say we should all be doing such and such. I am speaking of principle in the long term, not just one President.

Since I haven’t heard the president’s speech I can’t
make a reasonable comment about the content, goal,
and structure of the speech.  If I haven’t heard it
then that means the parents and school administrators haven’t heard it.  Then why are some
objecting to children hearing the President of the
United State speak to the next generation?  Someone
should try to track this back to it’s source.  Which media was the first to report it?  Who decided to
run the story?  Where did the source get the information about parents and administrators boycotting the speech?  Who were the first parents
and school administrators to make the decision?
Who influenced them?  There is a lot of work ahead
to seach for anwers to these questions and others.
Why don’t we hear more on the media from University
Journalism professors?  Not ones selected by the
media but a variety of professors with various
political orientations.  The American people deserve to know who is manipulating their minds and the
minds of their chldren.  By the way since my formative years were spent in a coal mining town in
West Virginia where the United Mine Workers union
was instrumental in helping to improve working conditions for miners and their families I wish you
all a HAPPY LABOR DAY!

Ronald “Bonzo” Reagan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedtime_for_Bonzo, George H.W.“CIA” Bush and W.“Cheney” Bush, all Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS, talked to the liberal school children for years and look what happened, Conservative EXTREMISTS tried to turn our liberal school children into “Bonzo’s” —and because they know what they have done, since one can only think what is in their own mind — the WHITE Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Republicans consider President Obama will somehow psychologically pull the exact same “Bonzo Scheme” that Conservatives pulled on the liberals school children to dumb them down, so Conservative EXTREMISTS think they have to protect their children; when the only reason they think that way is because of what Conservative EXTREMIST’S did and are now trying to reflect what the Conservative EXTREMIST’S did off on President Obama, but President Obama is NOT a Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Republican deconstructionist.  President Obama is working to reconstruct the United States, and school children are a vital part in the on going reconstruction of the United States.

I hope not; but, if ever a Conservative EXTREMIST Right-Winger  manipulates to get selected back into power, since a precedent is now being set by the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Republicans to hold school children out of school when the President of the United States speaks because of disagreement with politics and/or race;  does this mean that all Liberal children can be held out of school because of something a Conservative EXTREMIST Right-Winger president could say, should Conservative EXTREMISTS ever get back into government power?  How about if another WHITE president should get into power, should all children who aren’t WHITE be held out of school on the day the President of the United States speaks?  And religion, that’s a biggie, we don’t want to forget religion, should we be able to check the religion of whose speaking at school and hold students out of school because we dislike their religion?  This is a terrible precedent that is being set by the Right-Wing CONSERVATIVES EXTREMIST Republican Movement that is using their media to try and diss the President of the United States, which will come back to haunt them.

When did “parents” become some defacto standard against which all other human accomplishments are judged? Exactly what credentials other than having viable sperm and eggs are required to become a member of this exhalted group?

It’s my view that speaking generally of “parents” is about as useless a pasttime as speaking generally about wind or water or sunshine. Too little or too much of any of them alone or in combination spells disaster.

Same with parents. Some are so toxic even in small doses as to be condemned as a hazard more odious than a 9/11 terrorist! Some, are so incredibly intuitive and insightful about their role and children as to be scarey. Most just bumble along doing the best they can while doing as little harm as possible.

My point is that accepting that a parent is someone with special insight, wisdom or any other attribute is MEANINGLESS DRIVEL. We need to know a whole host of specifics about any individual parent in order to even speak of that one with any credibility… and who’s got time for that kind of investigation?

What any one parent - or even a small group - might say, do or want does not warrant a news release.

“Many school districts have decided not to show Obama’s speech, to be delivered at 12 noon EDT Tuesday, partly in response to concerns from parents.”

We need to have a head count and all the specifics of their “concerns” before any of this makes any sense. Even a larger group of (politically or religiously) like-minded parents may be evaluated as “one” since they tend to spend most of their time apeing, congratulating and supporting one another on any given issue.

I disagree with Paracelsus.  I think it is impeccably right for the American
children to be exposed to an American President who extols the virtues of education,
even at the resistance of apparently shrunken-minded parents, because those
parents are expressing the worst of prejudices and bigotries.  That is a worse lesson
to teach their children. 

Obama may be having his troubles right now, and in a way it is right that he does. 
He is an unusual president who is trying to fix an outrageous number of wretched
problems left from the previous Presidential administration.  Americans are learning
new lessons that there are other ways of doing things.  Real compassion surfaces
with this black President not the hypocritical compassion of the prior one.  How
ironic.  Some Americans may not like what he is doing, partly out of the innovations
that seem strange because they are conservative, not used to change or the
unfamiliar and simply are not used to them, or for self-serving structure.  Whether he
succeeds or not will be a function of his strong resolve. 

It should not be easy and there should be those kicking and fighting so that change
is crafted for them not just given to the people.  A country like America needs its
government forged, fought over, not served on a manufactured platter by just a few
voices.  It is the iniquitous route that has come to define politics is I believe leading
America into a miserable cul-de-sac, in a descent toward polarized hatreds and
irrational desperations unprecedented in American history.  A determined step away
from a savage state that is emerging and a new commitment to civil dialogue must
be made.

Obama is not enlisting children to help him govern.  That is a ridiculous idea.  The
preposterousness of that kind of thinking shows the paucity of minds that comes
from meagerly selfishness.  Obama will be discussing how important an education is. 
It is wholly appropriate that a good man be presented to the children of this country
than all the self-serving politicians that have the most powerful positions that have
traipsed through and controlled their lives for decades.  Those of you complaining
about this are small minded and obviously playing partisan politics.

Paracelsus,

  Well then I will use your words here.  There is absolutely no comparing anything about this to “using children for wars”.
  “children need to be left alone to learn and think for themselves”.  So I see you are against public education.  nice.

  Now throw in the standard scary words…  “German facsism,  Soviet socialism”

  We are talking about a simple message of encouragement to motivate the kids to do well in school.  Where are you getting this, “he wants the kids to help run the government”?  They are school kids for fuck’s sakes!  What could you possibly think Obama is going to say?  Preregister now to vote as a democrat?  And just to be clear,  I never had any problem with any president saying do good in school this coming year,  and that’s all this is about.  Not facism or socialism…  not war or anything else.

Me thinks you protest too much.  WAY too much.

@ DBM

If you think these kids are being asked to write about how to help Obama govern then I think you have no point.

Since when should a President enlist children to help him govern? To ignore this appeal to children is to have no sense of history. Both German Fascism and Soviet socialism made appeals to children without notice to parents. I consider what happened now as a beta test to slip in more oppression, but it did not work because most in this country have visceral disdain to the executive of this country enlisting children to help Obama govern. I am using your words here. I think that a government that needs the help of children to govern is rather pitiful. It is like using children to fight wars. Children need to be left alone to learn and think for themselves. If Obama would like to the support of the American people as adults to push through his policies, then he is free to talk directly to them. I think children should be free from the appeals of politicians, employers, armies, and horny perverts. It’s inappropriate.

Well Parcelsus,

If that point was made more generally there would be something to discuss.  What seems to be more prevalent is shouting, name-calling, BS about dictatorship, racism and so on.

My initial thought, in response to your point, is that after the election a president is supposed to be governing rather than politicking.  If you think these kids are being asked to write about how to help Obama govern then I think you have no point.  If you think this is somehow geared towards getting elected in 2012 then I guess there is an argument ... but I don’t buy it.

I think most people must be hoping that the next generation will be less radicalised in the same way that the racism of the generations of the 50’s and 60’s have given way to the extent that a black man could even be elected President.  If the president talking to school kids starts them identifying as Americans who can make a positive difference rather than victims who need to defeat “the other”, that would be great.

What part of this don’t you understand? Obama asked students to write a letter to themselves with ideas on how to help the President. It would bother you if Bush asked this. Why not Obama?

Face it there are vocal wing nuts that would be
appalled if Obama said it was a nice day when the
temperature is 77, the sun is shining and a pleasant
breeze is blowing. What is his problem with rain and
cooler temperatures? What is his agenda, to ruin the
coat factories and put millions out of work? Doesn’t
he know that millions of people aren’t where he is? Why
should the president force his opinions on Americans?
Don’t we have a right to have a bad day?

When a President of the United States has not been selected, but has been voted in by a majority of the people, then his/her truth and leadership must not be undermined for the sake of not dividing the nation, because a house/nation divided against itself can not stand.

Great. The wisdom of Lincoln who ruled as dictator during the Civil War. Face it. Our government is rotten no matter which party is in office.

When a President of the United States has not been selected, but has been voted in by a majority of the people, then his/her truth and leadership must not be undermined for the sake of not dividing the nation, because a house/nation divided against itself can not stand.

“...within my family there is a conservative faction and a liberal faction and while we argue we do not get violent about it.  We argue to understand not to “beat” each other to death.”

Thanks, Shenonymous… your wise words share a lesson worth much repetition.

I saw the same CNN report that christian96 he was more mindful enough
to mention the station, and for that I was errant in my earlier post but I found
it as incredulous as he did.  It struck me first that only white people, mainly
mothers, were given moments to voice their ‘horror’ at letting their little ones
ears burn with a [black] President (my bracketed edit) filling their ears with
detestable ideas.  It was unbelievable.  Was it coincidence there were no black
conservative parents interviewed?  Then no one who thought it was an
admirable thing Obama will do was interviewed.  christian96 was much
more attentive to other factors about that story, like “how many” of these so-
called outraged parents are involved?  He is completely right how the stunting
media influences the general public by giving only part of the truth.  I think he
has a sound gripe that in general the public tends to be minions and move and
think as if in a dazed herd.  His other point that I think is an important one is
that controlled media, controlled that is by the owners of the news companies
who are corporations as to what may be offered as newsworthy on an hourly
basis, keeps a certain channel of thought going that serves their own political
ends.  Deception of the public is big business.  Hence there is no news service
that is reliable.

So what strategy is feasible to neutralize this overt manipulation?  Shouting and
name-calling is not the way.  It is counterproductive.  Fighting fire with fire is
the way I was taught.  What could that mean here?  If the news is so
manipulated how can those who intuit this cancel it out?  Shock radio, shock tv
programs either Leftist or Rightist is corrosive to the mind and does not further
anything except the pernicious reputations of the program jockeys.  So what
are we going to do? 

I happened to catch the end of CBS news this evening right before 60 Minutes
(a program of vignettes about matters of life that I often find interesting). At
any rate, what was given as newsworthy were the partisan nationwide bus tours
currently going on.  The right-wing conservative Republican Tea Party Tour
busses, and the liberal Leftists who support the health care reform efforts.  I
was shocked first at the difference in demeanor of the participants in the
relative groups.  The right-wing conservatives were as venomous as humans
could possibly be without a weapon in their hand.  It was hate personified and
made me wince with disgust.  The Leftists were completely opposite, calm,
explaining their purpose and reasons for their tour.  After the news story was
over I felt like the right-wingers all had concussions and were blathering from
a diseased nervous system that affected their brains and everything they said. 
Thing was the septic Republican babbling delirium was given about 95% of the
entire story time, while the Democratic tour riders given 5%.  There needs to be
complaint sent to CBS about this.

I will do so but my small voice in the universe will not be heard.  There is
magic in numbers.

RAE, you are of course right.  That is the essence of the freedom of
speech.  There are those who would mutilate that freedom for their own self-
serving purposes.  I tend to want tighter logic and less ambiguity on issues that
are of utmost importance for human welfare.  Please accept my amends. 

I tend to shy from physical violence, never ever having spanked my kids (and
they turned out to be good people), but sometimes….sometimes I become very
frustrated with the utter rancid toxicity of the Republicans who seems to have a
sense of violence just under the surface all the time, and directed at those
liberals like me!  I used to have a high tolerance because within my family there
is a conservative faction and a liberal faction and while we argue we do not get
violent about it.  We argue to understand not to “beat” each other to death.

Shenonymous…

I meant by “whole truth” what I said… CHOICE.

Of course, all those you mentioned have their own “truths” - which, of course, makes even talking about “truth” almost laughable.

But by “truth” I mean as I said… children, and all people, should have the RIGHT to access ALL THE TRUTHS from which to either pick one for their own, or to create one entirely new. If none of the “truths” are “right” then what’s the harm in coming up with a new one for yourself? Not allowing/enabling a child access to ALL THE TRUTHS amounts to ABUSE, in my opinion.

It all comes down to having the right to KNOW of ALL the alternatives and the right to CHOOSE from among them. Without choice life, in my opinion, is just one long torture.

In the wake of the uproar, the Department of Education decided to alter its language about one of its activities.

Individual school districts in at least half a dozen states have indicated they will not show the speech.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-schoolkids4-2009sep04,0,1237265.story

Prior Presidents only spoke to students in on e school. It was not a system wide speech, and the message was “stay in school and work hard.” In general I don’t think any President should be giving speeches to school children. Such activity habituates the public to the President giving instructions to children, which is a sign of tyrannical government. In this case the curriculum involved asking children to write a letter to themselves with ideas on how they could help the President. I think this crosses the Rubicon toward indoctrination of children.

In October 1991, President George H.W. Bush delivered a speech from an eighth-grade classroom in Washington, D.C., that was broadcast nationwide. The move was criticized by Democrats at the time.

Ibid

I think as a general policy it is wrong having political leaders speak to children without the permission of their parents or their presence. Children respect authority figures by society, and it leaves them open to abusive practices. The school should act as a gatekeeper to political indoctrination.

This has to be looked at in the context of what has been going on for some 25
or so years now.  While a lot of intelligent and well educated people have been
disengaged from the process and not paying much attention, the radical right
wing, organized through the more aggressive evangelical networks, have been
focusing on school boards.

Connect the dots.  Look at what is going on with the Texas State Board of
Education.  7 out of 15 members elected from districts across the state are
creationists interested in establishing science curriculum standards that
include creationism and also, social studies and history standards that
essentially re-write American history.  Recently Gov. Perry appointed a lead
creationist to chair the BoE.  The reason that the creationists have so much
representation is only partly because this element of the population was eager to get in
there and have their way.  Many of the creationists found themselves running
unopposed.  No one even wanted to file. 

This latest donnybrook over Obama speaking to schoolkids is really a sign of
something much deeper going on. 

I recently spent several months scoring standardized test responses in essay
form.  I was really shocked to discover that a lot of students apparently are not
getting the material they learn from teachers and classrooms, but from right
wing talk radio, probably through their parents.  A lot of these kids will be
voters in only the next year or so. 

It seems that the right wing has been busy working on the next generation of
voters.  The Obama speech apparently threatens to rip the cover off of this
generally unobserved effort.

Are you kidding this guy is smart (or someone is that’s in control.)Every sophomore,junior and senior will be legal voters by the next election. Lets here it for the Obama youth!

In the president’s place I would be sure to schedule a
bunch of “uninvited” events in the state where these
critical spokespersons live.
If nothing else to watch them agonize over having to
‘make nice’ to the president or be revealed for the
seditious and racist louts they are.
To those with ruffled feathers I offer the old
conservative cry from the 60’s, “This is America, love
it or leave it.”

It is important to keep things as they should be, everyone knows black people should only be seen and not heard. Maybe Minnesota can succeed to Texas were ignorance roams and people love their bigotry.

“blue” and “pink” are a preconditioned way to think about male and female also. 
To expose children to the WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTING BUT .... sounds so
restorative but doesn’t it depend on Whose Truth one is talking about?  How about
the Islamists’ Truth?  How about the Prime Minister of Scotland’s Truth?  Or
Kadafi’s?  How about Jim Jones’s Truth?  How about Rush Limbaugh’s Truth, or
How about Barack Obama’s Truth?  Whose Truth shall be THE ONE?  If one
googled who is the wisest man in the world today, there is no coherent answer
given!  Neither if you google who is the wisest woman.  No one is even nominated.

Love is an ambiguous word, and a hypothetical construct if you want to know The
Truth.  So are the words kind, considerate, compassionate and above all, sensitive.

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is one of my favorite books!  I read it on my own after reading “1984”. 
Bush’s required reading was “My Pet Goat”.  LOL

What’s next? Eliminate the Presidential Physical Fitness Award? There is a percentage of the population that will disagree with everything a Democratic president does. Obama could single-handedly capture Bin Laden and they would find some dumb ass reason to hold it against him, or take away the credit.

Oh, and Huck Finn was in my high school library. In fact, if I remember correctly, we were encouraged to read Huck Finn as Tom Sawyer was required reading in seventh grade Language Arts. My sixth grade class performed Macbeth, and eighth grade Social Studies required reading was Animal Farm. I wonder how many of the schools that refuse to show the President’s speech can say that. Perhaps, those administrators should read Twain’s “Lowest Animal”.

Ruffles the feathers between their ears is what the headline on TruthDig ought to
say!  Perhaps those feathers ought to tickle their ________?  Do fill in the blank.

How a thing is said is wholly (holy) important on how it is perceived and thought
about.  Such is the force of propaganda and demagoguery.  Are you susceptible to
it?  Do you ever stop to ask yourself that before you react?

“So make your kids happy, than they will grow up, to be good and happy people.”

Oh, johannes, if it were only true.

I do not believe parents, or anybody, can “make kids happy.” Happiness is a by-product that materializes when the human is INVOLVED and CHALLENGED in an activity, that is OF HIS/HER CHOICE, and from which he/she derives a sense of accomplishment. It helps, but is not necessarily required, that others acknowledge the accomplishment as a positive thing.

The key, in my opinion, is CHOICE. And while the current American environment seems awash in “choices” a closer examination shows most of the “choice” is superficial and carefully controlled. It’s like having the freedom to choose anything in the candy store… but there’s only candy to choose from!

How many people get to CHOOSE what they do with their time? I submit only the very wealthy and even then I suspect much of their time is taken up just keeping tabs on their wealth.

We get born as a male or female (a “blue” or a “pink”) and from that moment we are “conditioned” by our society to play the role. Those who, by nature or nurture, cannot or do not “play the role” had better be damned good at something (child prodigy, outstanding athlete, etc.) to be accepted and successful in America.

There is little choice for the average Joe or Jane. We get to choose, to some degree, WHICH career/job we will be required to do for 40-50 years of our lives, but rarely do we have the choice to “opt out” once we begin to “consume” as taught. Once the routine of bills and mortgage and loan payments is established, CHOICE GOES OUT THE WINDOW.

So, johannes, “happy” goes out the window along with choice. I don’t know anyone “happy” that they’re trapped in circumstances they can’t escape from. The best most people can do is to retain the HOPE that one day, if they’re lucky, they can break free from society’s chains and “pursue” their happiness.

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” - ring a bell? Sounds great… until you discover that “life” is as much in the hands of some bureaucratic bean counter in an HMO as it is in yours; that “liberty” (considering 1 in 100 Americans is locked up) is not guaranteed; and that the path of your “pursuit of happiness” is most often blocked by circumstances beyond your control.

As far as I’m concerned ALL parents should be REQUIRED BY LAW to expose their children to “the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.” This, of course, opens the can of worms of what is one person’s “Truth” is another’s “Fiction.”

What I mean is to expose children to CHOICE - for example, if the parents are believers in Christ - fine… but there are many, many JUST AS VALID philosophies of life to choose from and I believe that all children have an inalienable RIGHT to know what ALL their choices are - not just the ones chosen for them by their parents, schools, churches, authorities, etc.  That’s not CHOICE - that’s “brainwashing/conditioning” or TRAINED SERVITUDE… in my opinion, of course.

A long time ago I heard someone say “I’m not on this planet to DO CHORES.” From that day forward I have viewed my life course through that lens and have, whenever and wherever reasonable and possible, to live FREE TO CHOOSE. I am happy today because of it.

“LOVE,” as John Lennon put it, may be “the answer” but I submit that the freedom to CHOOSE who you love, how you love, when and if you love, is even more of a fundamental prerequisite to a successful “pursuit of happiness.”

NO ONE, INSTITUTION, or AUTHORITY, HAS THE RIGHT TO DENY A PERSON HIS OR HER CHOICES in this life, just so long as those choices do not inhibit someone else’s ability to also CHOOSE. When we make our choices we must be kind, considerate, compassionate and cooperative and above all, sensitive to the rights of others around us to make their own CHOICES.

DBM—-Astute insight. The goal of the media to
discredit Pres. Obama and lessen his approval
rating may backfire against them. The increased
publicity, even though it is negative, will probably
increase the number of children and adults listening
to the speech. I wish the media would be more
definitive about characteristics of samples they
use when quoting percentages of approval ratings,
i.e, gender, income level, ages, political affiliation, race, etc.

My apologies.  I tried some of the direct email addresses and some do not
work.  If you want to send letters use the FAIR site for addresses.  I have
already sent several letters to news media so some of the addresses do work. 
Sending letters to editors is not the easiest thing to do.  One also has to be
careful if private information is desired to be kept private as some sites will ask
you for your mother’s social security number (just kidding). 

MarthaA you clearly have made a lot of sense, and I too agree with most
of your observations.  Removal of the opposition (enemies to some) is not as
easy as suggested.  Wholesale firing of principals and superintendents is not
going to happen.  But anger and dissatisfaction must be voiced.  But rational
action means to go to school board meetings and filing vocal dissent and also
say what you positively support and importantly stay on topic, write to or email
congressmen, write to or email the media.  It takes work, and time, to ‘remove’
opposition and perceived enemies.  Just posting on blogs doesn’t do it.  Are
you willing to do more work than just sitting at your computer writing
vituperations on TD?  Do you have any real principles?  Otherwise you are just
spouting.  I see a lot of sputtering going on this forum.  You are getting spit
on everyone else.

RAE, Americans have been forged into NARCISSISTIC-CONSUMERIST-GLUTTONS.

After listening this morning to some of the white parents from
whom news media took comments who will keep their children
out of school where the Obama speech about the value of
education to be televised on Tuesday, there is one, and only one,
judgment available to a mentally healthy mind to describe their
comments, Racist.  Their mindless racist comments provided no
intelligible reason they would keep their child home.  Also none
said what political party with which they were affiliated nor did the
news media dong the interviewing ask, but one could take an
“educated” guess based on the usual hysterical racist and partisan
racket.  What is fanning the ugliness of disrespect are from two
sources of action: the ulcerous news media and the malignant
Republican orifices that is laying on thick the negativity from just
a few vulgar and uncultured out of the many who do realize the
importance advice from a highly educated and articulate man who
happens to be the President who will acclaim the precious
prospect a better life an education promises.  No parents were
given the opportunity to speak who thought it was an admirable
thing that President Obama will do. 

The news media needs to be criticized and condemned soundly
and complaints sent to Republicans about their hideous antiblack
crudity.  This really is an outrage.

Here are a few email addresses for your convenience.  Voice your
disconent, or contentment if you are a racist.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=111
FAIR – Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

And here are a few you can just link to into your email service
right off the bat.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Newsweek

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Slate

http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/contactus.pl
Christian Science Monitor

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Wall Street Journal

editor@usatoday
USA Today

http://www.sacbee.com/letterstoeditor/
The Sacramento Bee

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
The Denver Post

Encourage every kid you see to watch the Obama speech on
Tuesday.

Only those who are ignorant and wish to remain ignorant devalues
education.

Why is President Obama not going to speek for all this unhappy people living in the USA prissons.

1 of 100 US citizen are in prisson, 1 of 15 blackcitizen are in prisson, so he is half white and half black, he can speek to them to gether.

Do you know that their is not an other country, where so much of the citizen are in prisson, to speek about onhappyness.

Well its not to criticize, but something to think about

god forbid that a half-white man (who also happens to represent the federal government) encourages our students to do well in school. silly, president.

To Jean Gerard,

In This whole discusion nobody speeks about HAPPYNESS, proud, the flag, education, good situations, thats the way the Americans think,
but people must be happy with their and in their lives.

But better bigger greater fatter, don’t work in the long turn.

So make your kids happy, than they will grow up, to be good and happy people.

salutations

Oh ... and in keeping with Christian96’s astute analysis of CNN’s motivation in reporting “some parents” keeping their children home the name of this article is completely incorrect:

Not “Obama’s Bank-to-School Speech Ruffles Feathers on the Right”.

How about “Right Wing Political Strategists Target Obama Speech to School Children:  CNN Reporters Go Along Like Brain Dead Fools”.

Interesting comments all ... and a very good analysis Christian96.  I like your thinking on this one.

But you know what?  By banning watching this speech in some areas the kids will want more than ever to see what they’ve been denied!  Bet on it ... what Obama was probably planning as a minor symbolic address which could motivate a few thousand kids and leave a positive impression with some parents.  Now it will be a much analysed address on a topic where you can’t really go wrong. 

I’ll be fascinated to see how the wing-nuts try to find fault with “you kids are the future, work hard, achieve and make us all proud.”  I think it will be hard to do without exposing alienating yet more people.

RAE,

I don’t think there are as many as it appears, it is just that they own the media and can make it appear massive, and also have an unlimited supply of corporate money to peddle their sophism and EXTREMIST propaganda, which should be criminal.

If corporations, that are cooperatives whose sole purpose is to make money, and are nothing like unions whose sole purpose to to help individuals, get freedom of speech as individuals it will make whatever smidgen of equality a lone individual had totally a moot point, there will be none, and democracy will be sunk, PBS Bill Moyers Journal this evening had the two attorneys on that will be trying a Corporate Free Speech Case before the Supreme Court, see following link, it was started by the squelching of the Hillary Clinton movie that was paid for by corporations account corporations are not people and do not have free speech which is against proper election procedure as it was suppose to come out as a means of stopping Hillary Clinton from being elected:

FLOYD ABRAMS AND TREVOR POTTER are attorneys that will try a case before a Supreme Court special hearing on the constitutionality of campaign finance limits for corporations.  Bill Moyers sits down with Trevor Potter, president and general counsel of The Campaign Legal Center and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment attorney for the corporations.

Here is the transcript from PBS Bill Moyers Journal that is very informative and significant as democracy is at stake.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/transcript2.html

Trevor Potter is the attorney standing up for the people and Floyd Abrams is trying to get freedom of speech for corporations, which takes freedom of speech to a whole new level, that should never be.

If you think the RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMISTS are bad now, if they can get the right for individual free speech for corporations, instead of just the CEO’s, which they already have, then CORPORATIONS will really be running the show.