Getting a Hall Pass on President Obama's September 8th Address

Dana, I didn't see you 'engage' many of the people here who DID have relevant points.

As far as your kids choosing to enter public school in 7th grade -- really? In SLPS? I wouldn't allow my public school kids to go there without some serious cleaning up. They would have no 'choice' in the matter. And if you're under the 'jurisdiction' of the St. Louis Public Schools superintendent, that doesn't say a whole lot about how much oversight is really over your homeschooling efforts.

That said, I'm confident the REAL reason you went way-ay-ay overboard on this issue was furtherance of your career. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's fine, but your right to do that ends where my nose begins -- my nose is in the public schools, and by raising this kind of stink, you prevented some kids who really needed to hear Obama's message from hearing it. Good for you!

Flight, Donna, Karen, Nofreelunch, Elizabeth, thanks.

@Erin - Karen's comments hit the nail on the head. Homeschoolers still fall under the jurisdiction of their local superintendent. My kids decide at 7th grade whether or not they want to enroll in school or continue their home education. My 8-year-old isn't too far away from that choice. 

As I've outlined, it boils down to parental rights, plain and simple, and in a sense, a quasi-10th Amendment issue. If it wasn't such a big deal why did the administration choose to not release the speech until LABOR DAY when families are still on vacation? They chose to make it exponentially more dramatic than it needed to be. 

That being said, this is NOTHING compared to what GWB was met with - an investigation and hearings and Democrats raked him over the coals. 

Bottom line - you make a move to talk to the kids you clear it with the locally elected and locally managed educational hierarchy first. We've already had to fight off grabs for power here in Missouri and I'm wary of anything which could be used as precedence. 

@Oak - Oh girl, it has nothing to do with your perception of what's under my skirt but everything to do with me not caring enough to engage those who can't bring any other response to the table other than name-calling and juvenile behavior. I will always engage thoughtful, honest inquiry, but not hate. ;)

What has happened to the value of critical thinking in our society? 

If nothing else, now would be an excellent time to exercise this skill -- and to engage in it WITH our children.

Sample questions: Why are people protesting this speech?  Why wouldn't you want to hear what the leader of our country has to say?  What about the content did you agree with?  Disagree with?

It would be interesting to hear what the children themselves come up with.

Susan

http://toddlerplanet.wordpress.com & http://motherswithcancer.com

Dana, I agree with you.  Conservatives already feel their children are being indoctrinated in the public schools, and that was before the current president decided to speak to them.  Why can't this be aired in the evening when the parents could watch also?  I would say that no matter who was the president.

What I don't understand is that so many Obama supporters get very verbally abusive when we do what we feel is right for our children.  It is the responsibilty of parents to protect and make educational choices for their children.  You are doing a good thing homeschooling your kids.  Keep up the good work.

"So parents of public school kids contemplating a walkout: wouldn't it just be easier and less economically punitive on your school and all the kids who attend ( http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2009/09/why... ) to simply have a talk with your kid(s) about it over dinner, when you find out how their day went like you usually do?"

In our neck of the woods, there are a whole lot of kids not having talks of any kind with their parents over the dinner table, and some because parnts are spending most of their time and emotional energy on survival needs.

I'd much rather the ed.gov questions got more openly analytical, at least offering kids the direct and supported choice to say, "You know, the speech just didn't work for me and here's why".  Right now, the way the questions are worded, there is very little room for a kid to question the form of the speech, motive or content as well as think about the use of the media in a critical way, unless a kid has balls of heavy brass and doesn't mind admitting that he wasn't particularly inspired (when alsmo every question assumes this will be the result.) And guess who we lose through the speech by not aksing for more feedback as to what worked and what didn't work? Kids who still aren't inspired to stay in school or set goals.

Obama's speech could stand the scrutiny. Kids would learn scrutiny skills. And oh, how would that work for those kids who a) don't learn those skills at home and/or b) are only otherwise put into contact with politicans who aren't quite so...forward-looking.

As far as world's screeching to a halt, well, that's a bit of hyperbole. Entire swaths of the Southern Hemisphere aren't even concerned, and honestly, most of my home town seems oblivious. This will all be over and forgotten by next week, maybe brought up tangentially until the next speech. Unfortunately, the good will go along with the bad. I'll match your hyperbole for cynicism any day.

Halushki.com

Just like with last year's election, opinions on this week's speech has split people into two different camps. And like with the election, I'm keeping a "to each his/her own" on this one.

As for what I'm doing with my elementary school-aged kids on Tuesday? I don't have to make any kind of decision. The government decided this one for me. My kids attend a charter school and charters weren't extended an invitation to watch the President's speech on Tuesday. I find THIS interesting. Families don't pay to have their kids attend a charter school so it's really a public school. Anyone have any idea why charters weren't invited to the speech?

You spelled "semicolon" incorrectly. You also blatantly misuse commas in the second paragraph, first sentence. Additionally it is Punctuation 101 to know that a period almost always goes inside a quotation mark.

How petty and pretentious can one be? This is not English class and you aren't the teacher. Why don't you stick to the topic at hand?

... one of the things this effort wants to have happen is to make sure that children do NOT have respect for this President.  I'm not sure they've thought this through, tho'.  What happens when you teach children not to respect the office of the leader of the country and then a Republican they like gets elected!  Once you've taught and indoctrinated the message that no respect should be given to the President, the next generations could be even more froth-mouthed than this one.

PunditMom ( http://www.punditmom.com )

BlogHer Contributing Editor, News & Politics ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/punditmom )

... will be watching it on YouTube as soon as they get home! 

... for posting this speech here, Nordette.  This is probably the only way that some will believe that President Obama is doing nothing different from the conservatives beloved Reagan.

 Many here have expressed my exact sentiments so I wont repeat or reiterate what has been said a million times over.  

Children learn at home to be respectful of others and their beliefs, you don't have to agree.  They learn empathy and sympathy, they learn critical thinking skills and self expression.  How can a child, young adult discuss any topic intelligently if he only hears one side of the story.  

I think a discussion over dinner about current events is in order.  Listen to what your kids are saying and let them debate, discuss, comment and have an opinion about what they hear or see.  After all, they will most likely follow the morals and values you teach at home.  If it were that easy to change a kid's mind about anything my life as a parent would be much simpler.

There is so much hate in the world already, so much more to be concerned with that it saddens me that so many are worried about a short message from the President of the United States.  This is just sad.

All the public outrage over this one simple Presidential address sounds like nothing more than sour grapes to me.  I've yet to hear/read what I believe to be a solid reason to disapprove of children in PUBLIC schools listening to the President Of The United States speak.

What sort of message does it send to our kids that some parents are SO distrustful of the governement they can't allow ONE speech? Would these same parents be so enraged if John McCain was the one delivering the speech?

And I don't mean to sound snarky--but if you homeschool, and your kids wouldn't be exposed to this truly awful, terrible speech(see sarcasm font); why do you care so much?

Point #1: The speech isn't until Tuesday. And you already know about it. So you were informed prior to the speech. When schoolchildren go on field trips is it typically the field trip destination that notifies you and asks you for permission? No, it's the school who sends you a permission slip. If there is a guest speaker at the school is it the guest speaker who notifies you? No, it's the school who notifies you. So if you're mad at somebody for not getting parental permission shouldn't this anger be directed toward the school for not sending home a permission slip? Why is it President Obama's responsibility to notify you that the school may be showing his speech?

In his letter to school principals Arne Duncan never onces forces schools to air the speech. He says, "We encourage you to use this historic moment to help your students get focused and begin the school year strong. I encourage you, your teachers, and students to join me in watching the President deliver this address on Tuesday, September 8, 2009." It is left up to the schools to determine whether or not they will air the speech. So it baffles me that teachers would feel "'taken aback,' 'surprised,' and 'put out'" by the speech or the materials sent by the Education Secretary. Like listening to the speech, the Menu of Children's Activities isn't a requirement. The items are suggestions to get kids talking. Teachers can use all, some, or none of the suggestions in their discussions about the speech.

Several protesters are stuck on the suggested critical thinking activity of "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." In President Bush's speech in 1991 broadcast to millions of classrooms nationwide Bush stated, "...write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals." Does this not sound exactly like "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the President?" Only Bush was asking them to write letters directly to him.

Point #2: I, like many parents, consistently encourage my kids to do their best in school. Teachers preach this message as well. But would it hurt to allow children to hear this message from another authoritative source? When I talk to my kids about doing well in school all they hear is "blah blah blah" as if Charlie Brown's teacher is speaking to them. Although they likely won't remember exactly what President Obama says to them, it is highly likely they will remember the President speaking to them about education. I personally think that's a great opportunity to further the lessons I'm trying to teach my children.

And since when is talking about current events and encouraging kids to stay in school taking valuable time away from schoolchildren? Teachers discuss these things regularly. President Obama isn't asking for a full 8 hour day to talk to schoolchildren. He wants to give a brief speech on what is the first day of school for many schoolchildren.

Parents are still the biggest influence in a child's life. If you are truly concerned about what President Obama might say then read the transcript when it's released on Monday, watch the speech live, and discuss it with your children. But encouraging children to not go to school or to ignore a lesson their teacher has chosen to teach verges on irresponsible. We trust our teachers to teach our students every other day of the school year. Why do some of you not trust that same teacher to do the right thing on Tuesday?

Christine
The Bean Blog ( http://www.thebeanblog.com )

the pdfs of ideas for teachers to help students interact with the message of Obamas speech are available from ed.gov.  They are just that. Ideas. Suggestions. Not a mandate. Not political. Unless the teacher makes it so.  Don't forget half the teachers in this country are republican.  It's the teacher that determines whether or not the classroom activity is political, Not the President.

CoffeeJitters.net/blog ( http://coffeejitters.net/blog )

Remarks and a
Question-and-Answer Session With Area Junior High School Students

November 14, 1988

The President. You know, this is a
real treat for me -- having you here and to have, in a little while, the chance
to answer some of your questions. Let me also offer a special hello to those of
you who are watching on C-SPAN and -- or the Instructional Television Network.
Thank you for inviting us into your home or your school today.

This
marks the beginning of American Education Week, and I'm particularly pleased to
be talking to American students in this, the first in a series of speeches that
I'll be giving before I leave office. But before we begin here, I have a
special message from my roommate. She says to please -- for your families, for
your friends, for your country, and most of all for yourselves -- just say no
to drugs.

Now,
last week the United States did something so
exceptional that people around the world marveled at it. Last week the American
people freely elected our government. Some ballots were cast by people who were rich and famous, and others were cast by
most ordinary people, but each person had the same, one vote. These ballots
were cast in secret, and they were counted in the open, not the other way
around. And when the votes were totaled, those holding or seeking the highest
positions in the land all surrendered to the will of the people. Soon, power
will be peacefully transferred from those leaving office to those taking
office. And, yes, we do this every election year, and that's what so much of
the world marvels at. What we in America take for granted is
something that's rare in history and all too remarkable on this globe, the
Earth.

The
United States is the world's oldest
democratic government. And at my age, when I tell you something is the oldest
in the world, you can take my word for it; I'm probably talking from personal
experience. And it's not just that our government is the oldest of its kind,
but that it's based on the world's most revolutionary political idea. You can
see that concept in the very first line of our Constitution, and it begins with
three simple words: ``We the People.'' In other
countries, in their constitutions -- they all have constitutions, and I've read
a great many of them, those other ones -- and the difference is so small, but
it's found in those three words. Because their constitutions are documents by
the Governments telling the people what they can do. And in our country, our
Constitution is by the people, and it tells the Government what it can do. And
only those things listed in the Constitution, and nothing else, can Government
do. So, in America, it is the people who
are in charge. And one day you'll be those people out there voting and creating
the Government.

That
vision of self-government was the basis for the American Revolution, the first
revolution of its kind and one of the most important historic events not just
for our own nation but for all humanity. Because most revolutions have always
just been a case of replacing one set of rulers for another set of rulers. Ours
was that kind of a constitution where, for the first time, it was announced --
what I've told you before already -- that the people were in charge of the
Government, not the other way around.

Now,
the Revolution may seem like something they say happened a long time ago -- to
me 200 years seems just like yesterday -- but I think it'll prove to be America's most important
guidepost for the future. I believe that the chief moral task for America in
your generation -- a period destined for great change -- will be not so much to
chart a new course or launch a new revolution, but to keep faith with the
original American Revolution and that remarkable vision of freedom that has
brought us two centuries of liberty and is still today transforming the world.

Over
these 200 years, country after country has followed our path, and I believe
that ultimately all nations will do so. It's no exaggeration to say that the
political vision of our Founding Fathers has become the model for the world.
This is true not just in the many countries that have turned from despotism to
democracy these last years, it's also true even where
it's least apparent. It's remarkable to realize that in this century even
brutal totalitarian dictatorships kneel at the feet of our Founding Fathers
when they try to counterfeit the practices and institutions of democracy in
order to claim legitimacy for their ruling their people. Dictators today from Afghanistan to Nicaragua do not want to be
called Czar or Commissar; they want to be called Mr. President and to pretend
that they rule in the people's name, even if they don't. Yes, even Communist
dictators holding power through force, against the will of the people,
acknowledge the triumph of the American idea when they go through the motions
of holding phony elections, forming rubberstamp legislatures to ratify
constitutions that will not be honored, and then using our words to call their
regimes democracies or republics.

As
a wise Frenchman one wrote: ``Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.''
But when dictators, even in this fraudulent way, acknowledge the basic truth
that the right to rule comes from the consent of the governed, the door to
freedom begins to crack open, and it can't very easily be closed again. John
Adams said that long before the opening shots of America's war for independence
-- he was one of our Founding Fathers, as you know -- our revolution had
already occurred ``in the hearts and minds of the people.'' And today from Asia to Africa to Latin America and behind the Iron
Curtain, the world is in the midst of a democratic revolution that was foretold
by the creation of the United States.

From
the beginning, the American vision was that our country would be the cradle of
freedom for all mankind. Two hundred and thirteen years ago, in Philadelphia, James Allen wrote in
this diary that: ``If we fail, liberty no longer
continues an inhabitant of this globe.'' But our Founding Fathers didn't fail.
And now it's our duty to bring the values of the American Revolution to all the
peoples of the world, and this is happening. Today, to a degree never before
seen in human history, one nation, the United States, has become the model
to be followed and imitated by the rest of the world.

But
America's world leadership goes
well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than
ever before are following America's revolutionary
economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade. These
days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for
reducing taxes and other economic reforms that they're using, copying what we
have done here in our country. I wonder if they realize that this vision of
economic freedom -- the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use
property without the interference of the state -- was central to the American
Revolution when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic
restrictions, taxes, and barriers to free trade. The message at the Boston Tea
Party -- have you studied yet in history about the Boston Tea Party, where,
because of a tax, they went down and dumped the tea in the harbor? Well, that
was America's original tax revolt.
And it was the fruits of our labor -- belonged to us, and not to the state. And
that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity.

But
beyond politics and economics, we find that American culture has also spread
around the world. Whether it's young people in Europe or Africa going to an
Eddie Murphy movie or Japanese children visiting Mickey Mouse at the new
Disneyland in Tokyo or the international jazz festivals or the American soft
drinks and rock music and blue jeans that are the choice of young people from
Berlin to Beijing, from Managua to Moscow, the fact is that an entire planet is
watching and following us.

The
same thing is true with science and technology. We lead the world in Nobel
Prizes for science, and virtually all of the most important developments in
computers, communications, and biotechnology have been made in the United States. And I can't be the
only one who's noticed that the Soviet space shuttle that's supposed to go up
at 10 p.m. tonight now -- if they can get it off -- it looks very familiar, an
awful lot like ours. Other countries may try to copy what we do, but as the
rate of progress accelerates, our leadership will
become even greater. And these are the technologies that in your lifetime will
change the way people all over the world live and change things for the better.

You
know, I've seen remarkable technological change in my lifetime. Maybe I'm just
going to date myself as belonging back with the dinosaurs or something when I
tell you this, but just think, I can still remember my first ride in an
automobile. Before cars, we went by horse and buggy. The horse was very
fuel-efficient but kind of slow. And if you wanted to supercharge one, you fed
him an extra bag of oats. But in pursuing your education, there is one thing I
would like to pass along to you. We should always remember that there are the
things that change and the things that don't change. The machines will change
-- the horse and buggy to the automobile and so forth -- but the people don't.
The permanent truths which give meaning to our lives don't change; they are, as
I say, permanent. The basic values of faith and family will be just as true
when people are living on distant planets as they are today. So, for America to gain greatest
benefit from all the exciting new technologies that lie ahead, we will also
need to reaffirm our traditional moral values, because these values are the
foundation on which everything we do is built. So, yes, I would encourage you
to study the math and science that are at the basis of the new technologies.
But in a world of change you also need to pay attention to the moral and
spiritual values that will stay with you, unchanged, throughout a long
lifetime.

And,
again, I would say that the most important thing you can do is to ground
yourself in the ideas and values of the American Revolution. And that is a
vision that goes beyond economics and politics. It's also a moral vision,
grounded in the reverence and faith of those who believed that with God's help
they could create a free and democratic nation. They designed a system of
limited government that, in John Adams' words, was suited only to a religious
people such as ours. Our Founding Fathers were the descendents of the Pilgrims
-- men and women who came to America seeking freedom of worship -- who
prospered here and offered a prayer of thanksgiving, something we've continued
to do each year, and so that we'll do it again on Thursday of next week.

By
renewing our commitment to the original values of the American Revolution and
to the principles of ``We the People,'' we can best
preserve our liberty and expand the progress of freedom in the world, which is
the purpose for which America was founded. Here, on a
continent nestled between two oceans, our country is unique in the world. We
have drawn our people from virtually every other nation on Earth, and what we've
created here as Americans has touched every corner of the globe.

Here
in the White House there's a famous painting of the signing of the Declaration
of Independence. And it shows many of the great men of that time assembled in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia. But when you look
closely at the painting, you see that some of the figures in the hall are just
outlines, waiting to be filled in, the faces have not yet been drawn. You see,
this great painting isn't finished. But what the people who gathered in Philadelphia two centuries ago set
out to do is not yet finished, either. And that, I suppose, is why the painting
is the way it is. America is not yet complete,
and it's up to each one of us to help complete it. And each one of you can
place yourself in that painting. You can become one of the
those immortal figures by helping to build and renew America.

And
we're entering one of the most exciting times in history, a time of unlimited
possibilities, bounded only by the size of your imagination, the depth of your
heart, and the character of your courage. More than two centuries of American
history -- the contributions of the millions of people who have come before us
have been given to us as our birthright. All we can do to earn what we've received
is to dream large dreams, to live lives of kindness, and to keep faith with the
unfinished vision of the greatness and wonder of America.

Now
it's time for me to ask you for your questions, but first I'd like to ask you
one: What are some of the things that you're proudest of and some of the things
that are best about America? And maybe I can just
take a couple of comments if someone has a comment to make.

Yes?

Q.
Okay. My name is Yolanda Coleman. And I'm from Jefferson Junior High School, and I'm a seventh
grade student. For one thing, I'm so happy that America is a free country and
that we have Presidents such as yourself to help us in any kind of way, such as
drug-related events and a whole lot of other things that I'm grateful for to be
in America.

The President. Young man, you had your
hand up. Didn't you have your hand up?

Q.
My name is Jason Mills. I'm from Poolesville Junior-Senior High School. And one thing that I'm
glad about in America --  --

The President. Can you speak a little
louder? I --  --

Q.
Okay. One thing that I'm glad about in America is that you can choose
what school you can go to, like if it was private or if it was public.

The President. Yes. Anyone
else with another comment? Well then, we'll get down to the questions.
And what you were talking about in your freedom is something that, for example,
in one country, as I have been told, the Soviet Union -- when it comes time to
graduate, government representatives come in and point out to the individuals
where they will report to work after they have graduated. The Government tells
you what you're going to do, not like ours, where we decide, each one of us,
what we want to do and then set out to do it.

Well,
tell me now, let's have some of your questions. Yes, again?

War
on Drugs

Q.
Again, my name is Yolanda. Mr. President, do you plan to work with your wife,
Nancy Reagan, in the say no to drug program?

The President. Well, yes, I am
already. And we have appropriated quite a sum of money for the drug battle. And
we have actually gotten more convictions of drug peddlers and longer sentences
for them than any other administration. And we have intercepted more drugs and
planes and boats and trucks and cars that carry them than has ever been done
before. But that isn't the answer to the drugs. They'll still -- with the
borders we have and the coastlines -- they can still get drugs into our
country. It has to begin with you, the young people. You have to decide no to
drugs. In other words, if we can't keep all the drugs from reaching the
customers, let's have the customers turn against the drugs. And that is really
the answer. And there is some success in that. A few years ago, 1 out of 9 high
school seniors had tried drugs. Today it's less than 1 out of 30. So, we're
gaining on it.

Administration
Accomplishments

Q.
My name is Yvette Ross, Jefferson Junior High School. I'm an eighth grade
student. Mr. President, do you feel that in your two terms as President your
administration has carried out the ideas of the Founding Fathers?

The President. No -- I'm having a
little trouble --  --

Q.
Do you feel that in your two terms as President that you and your
administration have carried out the ideas of the Founding Fathers?

The President. Have we carried out the
plan set by the Founding Fathers? I think we have subscribed to that. When we
came into office, there were some things that we thought were very wrong,
including the fact that there were more people unemployed, inflation was
robbing the people of their earnings and their money, interest rates were high
and all. And in these last several years, we have not only restored prosperity,
but we have created almost 18\1/2\ million new jobs, added to those jobs that
were already there so that unemployment is so far down that today of all the
Americans, 16 years of age and up, to whatever age, that pool of people -- 62.7
percent of those people have jobs, are employed today. But also, more important
than that, I think we have restored the belief in America's freedom and the
obligation that we have to our country. I think there's more patriotism today.
We've been in a time when people have gotten rather cynical about those things.

I
have to move to this side pretty quick.

Federal
Deficit and Line-Item Veto

Q.
My name is Casey Lee, and I'm from St. Stephen's School. And I was wondering what was the most important thing that you wanted to accomplish,
but that you weren't able to accomplish as President?

The President. I could sum that up
very briefly: the Federal deficit -- the fact that for over a half a century
our government has been spending more money than it takes in. And we have a
plan working now that is aimed at 1993, of bringing us down each year. Last
year we reduced the deficit by around $70 billion, and this year we're aiming
at about another 30 so forth. But that is the thing.

And
I think that what we're going to have to have -- and what I want to strive for
-- is an amendment to our Constitution that requires the Government every year
to balance the budget. And in doing that -- also a tool for the President, and it's called line-item veto.

Now,
you probably don't know what that means, but I'll explain very quickly if I
can. The line-item veto -- the Congress when they have ways
of putting in bills a number of things instead of just a bill to get one thing
accomplished. And then with all these hidden things -- and some of them
are appropriations, spending bills and so forth -- the President either has to
veto the whole bill or let it become law. And sometimes they attach them to a
bill that you just can't veto. Line-item veto is what I had as a Governor.
Forty-three Governors in the States have line-item veto. It means that you can
go into that bill and pick out that single item that has nothing to do with the
whole bill and veto that. And I think the President should have it, like the
Governors do.

Federal
Budget Deficit

Q.
Hi. My name is Ben Allnutt. I go to Poolesville Junior-Senior High School. I was wondering if the
younger generation today is going to have to pay for the world debt in years to
come?

The President. No, I don't believe
that it is that big a problem. You mean our Federal deficit? No, I think that
with this thing we have going along -- yes, there will be a time when in the
future, when government bonds come due and so forth -- whether it be the
taxpayers at that time that are paying them off. But if we can get this plan
we're working on into effect, that will come along
gradually as those bonds come due. And that, I don't think, will be a great
threat to our economy. Truth of the matter is, bad as our Federal debt is, it
is much milder than many other countries as a percentage of our gross national
product.

Q.
My name is Cameron Fitzhugh, and I'm from St. Agnes School in Alexandria, Virginia. I was wondering if you
think that it's possible to decrease the national debt without raising the
taxes of the public?

The President. I do. That's a big
argument that's going on in government. And I definitely believe it is because
one of the principal reasons that we were able to get the economy back on track
and create those new jobs and all was we cut the taxes. We reduced them
because, you see, the taxes can be such a penalty on people that there's no
incentive for them to prosper and earn more and so forth because they have to
give so much to the Government. And what we have found is that at the lower
rates the Government gets more revenue. There are more people paying taxes
because there are more people with jobs. And there are more people willing to
earn more money because they get to keep a bigger share of it.

So,
today, we're getting more revenue at the lower rates than we were at the
higher. And you know something, I studied economics in college when I was
young, and I learned there about a man named ibn-Khaldun,
who lived 1,200 years ago in Egypt. And 1,200 years ago,
he said, ``In the beginning of the empire, the rates
were low. The tax rates were low, but the revenue was great.'' He said, ``In the end of the empire, when the empire was collapsing,
the rates were great, and the revenue was low.'' So -- all
right.

Minority
Educational Opportunities

Q.
My name is Crystal Adair, and I'm an eighth grader attending Jefferson Junior High School. And my question is:
Mr. President, for past years, the educational opportunities for blacks and
other minorities has not been -- there hasn't been a great deal of them. And I
want to know, during your term in office, what have you done to increase those
educational opportunities for us?

The President. Well, we have vastly
increased the amount of Federal money that is going into education, although
remember that education has always been in the province of the State and the
local communities. So, the share of cost of education is not as great for the
Federal Government, but we have increased it. We've increased the money that is
available for scholarships and for workfare programs for students that have to
work their way through, as I did, and also for loan funds for students.

I
can assure you that, with regard to any hint of discrimination, we have done
more than any other generation -- or administration, I should say, to punish
those who attempt to discriminate and to make sure that the opportunities are
equal for all. And one of the great things that our administration did when we
came in here was immediately turn on to helping something that I think is
historically wonderful in our country, and that is the
Negro private colleges and universities. And in fact, we helped one of them out
that was facing bankruptcy, and bailed it out so that now they are proceeding
in a better situation than they've had in the past. But those opportunities are
there.

Back
there, the young man in the back row, and then I'll take you in the sweater.

U.S. Space Program

Q. Stuart Washington from Jefferson Junior
High School. Mr. President, do you
wish to accelerate the rebirth of our National Aeronautical and Space
Administration, also known as NASA?

The President. Yes, I think the new
frontier in the whole world is out there in space. And we've made such progress
in it, and it has proved so rewarding. This isn't talked about much, and many
of you probably don't realize that experiments conducted on the shuttle when
they're up there in space -- on all kinds of things that had nothing to do with
space -- have brought benefits to us back here. Firemen, for example -- a
fireproof fabric has changed and made their fireproof garments that they have
to wear in battling a fire much lighter -- and that they can do that. Medicines
-- certain medicines in which only up in the gravity-free space can they
achieve certain mixtures. And they've come up with things that have been
beneficial in that way. So, this is very important that we continue to do this.
We were set back by the Challenger tragedy, but we must continue.

Gun
Control

Q.
My name is Chris Allen. I'm from Poolesville Junior-Senior High School. I was just wondering
what you and Mrs. Reagan feel about the new gun ban law.

The President. What we feel about the
new --  --

Q.
Gun ban law.

The President. The gun --  --

Q.
Ban.

The President. Gun
ban? Well, I think there has to be some control. But I thought that in California we had a system that
probably was the best. I have never felt that we should, for the law-abiding
citizens, take the gun away from them and make it impossible to have one. I
think the wrong people will always find a way to get one. But what we had was
-- even if today when I go back to California, if I want a gun and go
in a store to buy a gun, I have to give them the money, but I have to wait a
week, no matter who I am. I have to wait a week and come back then to get the
gun, because in that week, my name is presented to investigative element there
in the State that checks to make sure that I have no criminal record, that I
have no record of mental problems or anything of the kind. Then, and only then,
can you pick up the gun and take it with you.

But
if I could, I know we're running out of time, but let me just tell you
something that -- I got the strangest letter when I was Governor. There was
talk about having a gun ban in California. It didn't go through.
But I got a letter from a man in San Quentin prison, and from the prison he
wrote me the letter to tell me he was in there for burglary. He was a burglar.
And he said, ``I just want you to know that if that law goes through, here in
San Quentin there will be celebrating throughout the day and night by all the
burglars who are in prison because'' he said, ``we can watch a house we plan to
rob for days. We can learn the habits of the people living in that house, to
know when is the best time to go in and be a burglar -- rob it.'' He said, ``The only question we can never answer is: Does the man in
that house have a gun in the drawer by his bed?'' He said, ``That's
a risk we have to run.'' He said, ``If you tell us in advance they won't have a
gun in that drawer by their bed,'' he said, ``the burglars in here will be
celebrating forevermore.''

I
thought he made kind of some common sense. And I don't know why to this day he
ever chose to send the letter to me.

All
right, this gentleman.

Q.
Anil Artis from Jefferson Junior High School. Do you think the
``Saturday night special'' should be banned?

The President. The what?

Q.
Do you think the ``Saturday night special'' should be banned?

The President. Well, I don't have very
much of a quarrel with the very cheap weapon and so forth that makes it so easy
for the wrong people to have a gun. I would like to see us concentrate on what
I described in California: of making sure that
anyone who buys a gun is a responsible citizen and not bent on crime.

Ms.
White. Mr. President, thank you very much on behalf of the students. Students,
we now have time for one more question.

Women
Political Leaders

Q.
Mr. President, my name is Nora Taylor, from St. Agnes School. I was wondering when
do you think the first woman President will be in office?

The President. I don't know, but
believe me, I'm certainly not against it. I have a
feeling, though, that probably the first thing that'll happen is there will be
a woman Vice President; and then that will kind of open a door to that. But I
have no quarrel with women being President at all.

As
a matter of fact, the statesman in the world that I have met that I respect the
most is the Prime Minister of England, Margaret Thatcher; and she's done a
remarkable job for England. But I guess it takes a
little getting used to on the part of some people. But I think it's inevitable
that in this country there will be a woman President because they've come up in
so many different fields. But it's just my feeling that probably, rather than
one of them just entering the fray to run for President to begin with, that
maybe it probably would start with one of them -- as we did in the election in
1984, have one running for Vice President. She didn't make it, but that might
be the start of it, and I'd welcome it.

I
have to quit. I'm sorry about so many hands that didn't reach me. Maybe you'd
have to write and leave them with me -- your questions.

I
just want to tell you one little added thing about our country, and then I
leave. This, again, is a letter I received not too long ago from a man, who
wrote and told me this: He said, ``You can go to France to live in France, but you cannot become
a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Japan; you cannot become a
German or a Japanese, or a Turk, or Greece a Greek. But the one
place in the world,'' he said, ``where anyone from any corner of the world can
come: America -- come to live and
become an American.'' And no other country has that but ours. This continent,
I've always believed, must have been put here for a purpose, between the two
great oceans, because it had to be found by people who were dissatisfied with
the lack of freedom or religious persecution or whatever in their own countries
and came and melded together in this great melting pot and created the United States of
America.

Thank
you all. It's been a treat.

Note: The President
spoke at 1:32 p.m. in the State Dining Room at the White House. Vera M. White
was the principal of Jefferson Junior High School.

Link to speech ( http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/198... ).

...aided and abetted by mainstream media that loves a spectacle.

Two surveys were done yesterday on the "appropriateness" of President Obama's speech to schoolchildren, one asking the opinions of parents of schoolkids in Fresno, CA ( http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=... ), the other of parents of schoolkids in different parts of Missouri ( http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=... ).

Liberals of course highly approved of President Obama's speech. In MO, the lowest approval by moderates was 74% for ANY president to address schoolchildren, and 78% approval for our current president to do so. (There's also data broken out by city/region, if anyone's interested.)

In the mid-section of California, far from the liberal cities of the north or south, moderates approved of Obama's speech to kids by 73%, same as they'd approve for any president.

Now I'm willing to bet at any given time, 25-30% of people polled will disapprove of anything, including breathing, sunshine, and kittens. These currently seem to be known as conservatives. *wink*

Is this a reason for the world to screech--and I mean SCREECH--to a halt?

No. I'd like to see school boards stop flailing about and get some equilibrium. I'd like to see broadcast media stop getting wee-wee'd up at every tiny little thing.

So parents of public school kids contemplating a walkout: wouldn't it just be easier and less economically punitive on your school and all the kids who attend ( http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2009/09/why... ) to simply have a talk with your kid(s) about it over dinner, when you find out how their day went like you usually do?

Extra bonus--no need to scramble to find childcare for a kid who's staying out of school all day just to miss 20-30 minutes of something you may disagree with.

Cynematic
( http://cynematic.wordpress.com )

P i l l o w b o o k ( http://cynematic.wordpress.com )
MOMocrats ( http://momocrats.typepad.com )

This is all getting beyond wearisome. I also had a difficult time getting through the post, for the serious misuse/overuse of the colons and semi colons, so I didn't give it my full attention. I got the drift though.

I've come to the realization that it's best to let each side go their own way, doing, and believing, what they want, virtually ignoring them. There is  too much agitation and agonizing going on out there. It's exhausting, if not completely futile. There is no reasonable discussion to be had with people caught up in a frenzy of pointedly manufactured fear. I say let them talk among themselves. It will save everyone a lot of time, and it will make them happier as well.

The Culture of Fear, given to me by my grandmother when I was in the 10th grade, is one of the best gift books I ever received. I remember when she gave it to me she said " it's so you know the Martian aren't coming". I suggest it to all people over the age of 13.

Cooper

My stance on this issue is fairly well known by now.

The only thing I will add is that I can not take seriously any blog that does not allow comments.  That's not a real blog; it's just a website. 

"Don't be content with being average. Average is as close to the bottom as it is to the top."

Better people than me have already revealed this for the self-promotional political grandstanding that this is, so I'll just address one point:
It also depends on your perspective of whether or not you think your parents' dissent is "domestic terrorism," "unAmerican," and "evil-mongering." Any president who allows his campaign organization and members of his party to smear the parents of these kids in such a fashion deserves every ounce of suspicion when speaking to school children, be he Democrat or Republican.
Wow. It's a great sentiment but I must have imagined all those FOX talking heads calling people like me "unAmerican." And Palin stating that I don't live in "real" America. And Bachman talking about how Dem representatives should be investigated. Did I miss your posts where you condemned all that?
.

Lawyer Mama

http://lawyermama.com

http://momocrats.typepad.com

http://dcmetromoms.com 

or other major politician has a much larger audience than the poeple they are speaking to. It's basic psychology and unfortunately politics.

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.com 

On one Ohio school district's home page, the advisary (which basically is giving deference to the teachers and how they decide to use the President's address) now includes a direct link to the White House website for streaming video - so it's linking to the White House's site, now, (which of course it never did before as well as through Tuesday.  Parents and kids and visitors to the school district website can watch it, and any and all other White House stuff they want. 

Does anyone actually believe that the kids will ask permission to visit both their school district's website and the White House website before visiting and subjecting themselves to...politics, unmonitored? If you think I'm nuts re: kids going to their school sites on their own, you may not know about Progress Book, and other programs like it, which usually are primarily accessible through the district websites - whether it's a private or public school).  Not to mention that kids go to the district sites to get email addresses for teachers, to check the school calendar, sports schedule and extracurricular announcements.  In other words, unless you're going to helicoptor your child forever, and keep them from getting any tech experience - esp. as it relates to their own education, folks - they is gonna see that there Obama address without you around one way or another, if they want to.  And if you forbid them from watching, well - like Jen said.

Ack - so much monitoring to control, I mean free, I mean, protect our kids.  Or something.  From...I don't know what.  That the President is going to say.

Sigh.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

...comes from Wonkette.com.

Their take on the situation:

"By BANNING this video from children, parents and
schools have in effect established the President’s short speech about
the importance of goal-making as the coolest sh!t ever, ever, ever, at least since the South Park movie. Kids will be watching this thing at sleepovers after the parents go to bed for the next decade.

David Axlerod is a genius."

I remember being told I was not allowed to listen to Madonna's "Papa Don't Preach," making it the pinnacle of hipness in my elementary-school eyes.  This speech, while completely innocuous, would've been received as Boring City by most kids.  However, the hoopla is only going to attract their attention to see if there is anything "adult" and therefore awesome in the video.  Nice job, Dana & Company!

Karoli,

I particularly enjoyed your comment.

It mirrors how I feel.

Were our President of a different shade he might, at least, garner some respect.

When truth finally descends on this country Columbus Day will be a day or mourning, for how do you discover something that was already there and then kill every native you see.

How about a new chapter people. This country was founded on the raping, maiming and pillaging of others. Stop screaming and hating for one month and see if we all still breathe.

I seriously doubt these precious minds will be brainwashed in a few minutes time, unfortunately.

Houseonahillorg

www.Houseonahillorg.blogspot.com ( http://www.houseonahillorg.blogspot.com/ )

www.HealthierHappierHouseonahill.org ( http://www.HealthierHappierHouseonahill.org )

Bottom line, if George W. Bush had pre-emptively addressed America's entire school population at the crux of a losing piece of key domestic legislation, the east coast intelligencia, the mainstream media and the San Francisco leftists would have been rioting in the streets. We would have seen an endless parade of "civil libertarians" threatening legal action. You would have needed police officers at every school. When President Reagan addressed the nation's children, it was after millions of them had witnessed the space shuttle explode on live tv. President Bush went on tv to urge children not to take drugs because it was a national crisis. This is partisan politics pure and simple.

... that the right would have called the left unpatriotic if Democrats were calling for parents to keep their children home if a Republican president was addressing school children. 

I'm not calling anyone names.  I ESPECIALLY take exception to ANYONE comparing any politician to Hitler or the Nazis.  I am married to someone who lost much of his family in the Holocaust, and all I can say is, there is no excuse for any one of any party doing that.

... that you posted, Nordette.  More people should see it and read YOUR post.

PunditMom
( http://www.punditmom.com )

aka Joanne Bamberger
( http://www.mediabistro.com/joannebamberger )

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/punditmom )

to further polite discourse by calling me insane or lecturing me on history. It really doesn't sound at all to me like you don't want to start a "pissing contest" as you call it. But first of all, in the wake of the tragedy on 9/11, Bush was not speaking to Americans who opposed his policies, but to other countries who harbored terrorists. The full text of the speech is here. ( http://yc2.net/speech.htm ) Bush said,

"We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

For you to imply that Bush said that to the American public regarding dissent is totally misleading and wrong. In fact, he always took people who called him fascist, Hitler, the Joker, whatever in silence and stride. I'm not a Bush apologist or even a fan of Bush, but let's have a bit of balance and honesty, shall we?

With regard to Cheney, again, your quote is taken out of context and presented unfairly. An article is here. ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch... ) He was calling to task Democratic Congress members who were totally in favor of the war in Iraq, only to turn around and call Bush a liar later when the public opinion changed. He was not referring to Joe Average American Protester. As for the other quotes, I invite other people to look up the full context, transcript and situation that he was responding to and make up their own minds. At least it's better than being called racist, a Nazi or an asshole, is it not?

Sorry if I dragged things off topic, that was not my goal.

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.com 

We're going to freak out about the President of the United States talking about the value of working hard and staying in school? Just like George H.W. Bush did in 1991? A speech that is optional to watch, by the way? 

*headdesk*

An earlier poster was right on the money. This isn't about a fear of "indoctrination" or exposing children to a "dangerous" message. It's not even about usurping power from/inconveniencing school districts. I have a very hard time believing that if things were reversed and a conservative president was scheduled to deliver this message that so many people would have their panties in a bunch.

Obama is our president. Deal with it. I've had to sit through speeches on much more important topics -- you know, things with life and death consequences -- from presidents with whom I didn't agree. But I listened because it's the President of the United States.

And if we're so worried about indoctrinating our kids, maybe we should do away with that whole pesky pledge of allegiance thing.

On a side note, as Jill referenced it earlier: it would be nice if Dana ever decided to engage on things she writes, particularly on her own website, where she never allows comments. If you're going to throw out provocative statements left and right (or right and right, as the case may be) on important/timely issues, you should at least have the cojones to engage with those who may disagree with you.

Freelunch - Okay I don't want to start a pissing contest but are you INSANE?

"You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" - George W Bush

Dick Cheney called Democrats “opportunists” who were peddling “cynical and
pernicious falsehoods” When George W was asked about the comments he was "I agree with the Vice Presidents comments"

Donald Rumsfeld - The administration’s
critics are suffering from “moral or intellectual confusion” about what
threatens the nation’s security and accused them of lacking the courage
to fight back. Rumsfeld also compared them to efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the
1930s.

That took about 5 minutes on the Google. And I won't spend the time looking up all of the Republicans in Congress.  So please, keep an eye on history.

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.com 

..but you weren't called anything negative by Bush or any member of his administration as a result of you acting on your Constitutional right to voice your dissent. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that includes ALL Republicans in Congress as well.

Let me see if I've got this straight. You homeschool your children and as such have opted them out of this issue and yet you are putting your nose into what my children are taught and exposed to in public school?  Seriously?

I wonder what the response would be if I decided that they people who homeschooled their children were required to have a certain level of education before homeschooling or I were to mandate their curriculum.

Whether you realize it or not what you are doing is weakening this country and its system of government. When children are taught that ignoring the president is an acceptable option don't be surprised to see what else they choose to ignore.

And in response to No Free Lunch above me, I march in anti war protests before the option war of choice in Iraq that Bush started.  Believe me I was called far worse than unpatriotic.

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.com 

to PunditMom, when you say,

"I can't even begin to imagine the outrage the right would have had if
Democrats had tried to do something like this about an address by Bush
II.  I have no doubt that the word 'unpatriotic' would have been
invoked.  We probably would have heard worse, but I won't list them
here."

Punditmom I, in turn, cannot imagine you could compare that to the reaction that Democrats would have had if a key member of Bush's administration had called them "assholes," one who also believed 9/11 was the work of dissenting American Democrats. As well as a Republican Speaker of the House calling them Nazis. As well as more citizens than they can count calling them racist--that is if Bush's racial background would have been a minority group, and Democrats disagreed with a President whose race wasn't an issue to them. Not to mention if Bush himself had called them "left wing domestic terrorists" for protesting his policies.

Unpatriotic? Wow. Harsh. 

It's standard marketing strategy for rising right-wing pundits to claim "lefties" are out to get them. It builds credibility with their base. See Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter.

I'm trying to love the playah while hating the game. Dana's a rising right-wing star. Let's let her go where she will.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com/ ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com/ ).

and I think that's going to be my only comment on the entire debacle over there. .. 

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Erin, I'll issue you the same invitation I issued at PunditMom's piece. Drop by and see the clip of Huey's dream from the Boondocks ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/09/heweys-dream-i... ). Read the rest of the post if you like, but I don't know that you'll learn anything that you don't already know except maybe who's behind the "I pledge to serve Obama"  January 9 video that's sparked more paranoia. It was intended as a gift, but it was not executed well.  However, some of these people who are terrified of whatever Obama says or does can be set off by anything, even speeches about homework.

Wait. you probably know that as well. :-)

Have you seen the Fox News talking heads on this? Don't watch without whiskey or a sedative. They are saying that the speech will sound harmless but somehow be dangerous. It's really a case of setting up people to reject the speech even if it doesn't have any of the sinister meaning they claim it does.

As some people have noted in comments on my piece, which links to both Dana's piece and PunditMom's piece here at BlogHer, we may be at the point where we have to do more than just blog this insanity, especially when we consider the health care Town Halls, the growth of the birther movement, the guns taken to public places where the president speaks, and the people ready to label Obama as Hitler. I find the latter most ironic since the rise of Nazism in Germany began with people who talk not like the POTUS but like the populists screaming misinformation about the end of life as they know it and rallying against "the other" as the right wing consistently does. Ugh.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com/ ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com/ ).

I, too, am perplexed as to the brouhaha concerning the President of the United States addressing kids in the United States regarding staying in school and utilizing their access to education as a tool for the future.  It saddens and disappoints me that the adults are acting like children.  Yes, we have a right to voice our dissenting views on every subject.  But, is everything this President does open for such extreme interpretations?

I am a parent who has home schooled.  I am a product of public and private education.  My parents and I have been and continue to be quite active in the educational systems within our respective communities because our tax dollars support those systems.  I have a voice on the subject for that reason.  So, the home school community should still be interested in the education system they support.  I just wish that interest would be centered on actively providing support such as paper, pencils, computers, assisting in the classroom, speaking at Career Fairs, etc. instead of organizing and protesting activities in which their kids will not participate regardless of the outcome. 

I support this President's speech to kids.  It may have an indirect political spin.  I don't know and I don't care because I am more concerned about the policies not speeches.  I am more concerned that the teachers in the classroom aren't spreading political agendas, that the books in the classroom accurately/evenly reflective history, that test results accurately reflect a level of learning that will lead to future success, that pedophiles aren't teaching/coaching/touching children and administrators are administrating. 

I wish people really did care about the future of our children instead of these superfluous attempts to promote adult agendas.  Our kids need us, they need to see all of us at the school board meetings, in the classroom, doing our own videos, assisting in material preparation and volunteering to read a book or teach a craft.  This President is doing one thing that most of us are not which is directly getting in the front of children that are not ours and telling them that they matter.  Have you done the same or just sat behind your computers only concerned about your child's well being?

chatterboxvillage.blogspot.com

On what KaraAnn just wrote. Also, YAY to Kimberly/Mom in the City's last paragraph. Now THAT is class.

All I can say is wow. I'm happy to see that there are people who are not afraid to say what they believe in, on both sides of the political fence.
I'd just like to say thank you to Dana for voicing her opinion and not being afraid to speak her mind. Whether she homeschools or not should not even be an issue. Her tax dollars still go to the education of public school children and as an American citizen she has the right to voice her discontent. No matter what the subject might be.
I appreciate those of you have no problem with the President's address to school children. You support him and his office and are not afraid of letting others know. That is to be commended and respected.
My wish is that we can all get to a place where we can agree or disagree without the need to demoralize or put labels on each other. I'd like to be able to disagree with our President without being called a racist or redneck. Let's just call each other Americans and debate away, without the name calling.

No, George Bush's 1/8/09 address, which was 100% a policy speech about No Child Left Behind and education in general, including a tip of the hat to Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan, wasn't broadcast, but has anyone checked to see if the school got permission from the parents for the event to occur during school hours, with school kids and classrooms and kids on the stage - specifically for a policy speech - and not really even to exhort to children the values of learning?

Read more here ( http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/01/08/... ), here ( http://bit.ly/f9t33 ) and here ( http://bit.ly/gTnhg ).

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Kyle and I are on different sides of the center much of the time, but we do debate well.  I enjoy it immensely.  And we've never met in person but we both live in and love Ohio and its politics.  It's a great basis for learning and influencing, to be honest.

So, from someone who is a bona fide Ohio conservative: ( http://kylesisk.typepad.com/sisker/2009/09/opinion... )

I could care less that Obama is speaking for 15-20 minutes to my daughter during school.

I am 100% positive that he will not successfully change any of the beliefs & values she has come to hold after being on this planet for nearly 14 years.

If you think Obama is going to have that kind of influence on your child then you might want to take a look in the mirror at the type of parent you have been to your child up to this point in their life that you believe the Snake Oil Salesman in Chief can change your child's beliefs & values in a speech that is less than 20 minutes long.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

I am not a parent myself, but I think two very important things that children should be taught are respect for others and the ability to think for themselves.  I feel that the latter in particular is crucial for ensuring that kids are able to make smart choices when their parents aren't around to monitor what they are exposed to.  I think we would all be a lot better off if we could learn to at least listen to people whose points of view differ from our own rather than covering our ears and running away because even hearing that other viewpoint is so offensive to us.  Even young kids can learn not to swallow everything they hear.

Certainly the people who have wished harm on your children for your viewpoints are not showing you respect, but by lumping all of your critics in with the people who made these completely out of line statements, you are not showing much respect for people who disagree with you either.

Would you feel the same way if the shoe were on the other foot, if it was President McCain rather than President Obama making a speech to schoolchlidren and their were families who didn't want their kids to have to listen to it?  Would you support their right to control what ideas their kids hear?  Or would you accuse them of not respecting the office and playing politics with their kids' education?  Out of respect for you, I will not presume that I know the answer.

Sara

www.inkandpixelclub.com ( http://www.inkandpixelclub.com )

But I honestly think this is a lot of excitement over nothing.  I don't remember the speech from Reagan.  I was a junion in high school and I honestly didn't remember that he even spoke to schools.  Maybe I missed it but more likely, I didn't care.

I watched Carter's innauguration at school (yes, I was 5 at the time) and I was bored more than anything.  Our state senator came when I was in 3rd grade.  I thought it was cool but couldn't tell you ANYTHING he said.

My point is that I doubt kids will pay that much attention but they will remember as an adult the our President cared enough to address the schools.  That's what I got out of it and some respect for our leaders. 

Like HeatherB said, I honestly believe there are much bigger fish to fry.

... but I think Erin, Karoli & Heather have hit all the points I would raise.

But I do need to add that I can't even begin to imagine the outrage the right would have had if Democrats had tried to do something like this about an address by Bush II.  I have no doubt that the word 'unpatriotic' would have been invoked.  We probably would have heard worse, but I won't list them here.

PunditMom
( http://www.punditmom.com )

aka Joanne Bamberger
( http://www.mediabistro.com/joannebamberger )

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/punditmom )

Personally, I think that this brouhaha regarding the President of the U.S. addressing the kids (of the nation that he was elected to lead) is disrespectful.

I could see if he were trying to push some sort of political agenda.  However, by all accounts that is not the case.  At a certain point, I just feel like the country needs to suck it up, acknowlege that President Obama won, and support his leadership.  If he doesn't do a good job, then he'll lose the next time.  I just hope that our next President doesn't have to deal with the blatant disrespect of the office that President Obama has had to!

What kind of lesson is this teaching our kids...sulk and don't support the winner if you lose?/have selective patriotism?/etc.  It's all so disappointing...

Having said that, "Boo!" to Dana's critics that make it personal.  We do live in a democracy where people have the right to speak their minds.  As President Obama has so often said, "We can disagree without being disagreeable."  I really hope that people on both sides of the political spectrum can at least follow his lead in that respect!

-Kimberly/Mom in the City

And I'm not being an ass when I say this or to 'get' you (you know me well enough to know that I would hope) I'm just perplexed as to why you are so outraged by the Presiden't address. Is it because it was sent from the administration and Secretary Duncan? As some sort of directive? They've been sending out directives all summer. Directives that will greatly impact education more than a 30 minute speech by the President on 'doing well in school' and yet this...THIS...is what people are up in arms about?

I'm so perplexed. I think parents need to spend more time on the Department's website reading up on regulatory changes and what states and school districts will have to do to get additional funding through DOE grants. Things that will be the foundation for future education reform. THAT seems more important than 'Do great things, kids'. Focus on the former which is important rather than the latter which is like getting mad at something just because you feel like it.

Heather B. 

No Pasa Nada: www.nopasanada.org ( http://www.nopasanada.org )

BlogHer: http://www.blogher.com/blog/heatherb

Yes it is annoying - as someone who lives in the same greater metropolitan area as Dana - it is annoying that I've got to call the school up to make sure they know that I WANT my child to see this video.  Considering Dana doesn't utilize the school system - that makes it an even greater annoyance.  Dana - please keep out of our schools.

edit to add - I like how on your own blog you post about blogher "the left likes to get me in comments over there."  I thought you liked people to voice dissent?  No one here is "the left" I certainly don't see myself that way.   Really Dana - some of what you post are starting to sound like paranoia.

If you did, you'd have no problem letting your kids watch the President on TV, or any other kids. Kids are far more influenced by what they see their parents doing and saying than they are by a 10-minute speech on TV.

I am a little surprised that you are homeschooling your kids and yet spearheading an effort that affects kids, and the funding for those kids, in a system you don't utilize. On the one hand, if you have such concern for the system, why aren't your kids in it? On the other, if you exercise your choice to homeschool your kids and keep them out of the system, I don't see where you have any moral or social authority to influence it.

Here's what it looks like to me: It looks like another effort on behalf of conservatives to take a double whack at something. First, you get the weird but tingly pleasure of knowing you encouraged parents to screw school districts out of federal funds for each child who doesn't attend. Second, it gives you and your group an opportunity to make the national news with yet another righteous stand against the man who was elected by an overwhelming majority of voters in this country.

My kid is in public school and looking forward to the President's speech. If John McCain had been elected and wanted to give a speech, you can bet I would tell her to pay attention to his words and be respectful of them. Because where I grew up, you respect the President of the United States. Period. No matter who you WANTED to be President.

Reading your post, and the posts of others who are so righteously standing, it's clear that this has nothing to do with curriculum, or speeches or anything. If it did, you'd be vigorously objecting to the idea of school history textbooks considered for national approval telling only one side of the story ( http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/... ). Why not be honest and admit that it's about race and anger that a black guy who is also somewhat but not particularly liberal is President of this country?

karoli

odd time signatures ( http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ ) (life)

( http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/ )

I don't get it. 

You homeschool. So this does not have a direct affect on your kids. But you're spearheading this? National spokesperson for a campaign that doesn't affect your kids, but affects MINE?

That aside, you think this was 'sprung' on parents yet you've had enough time to launch a website, rally parents, and create a movement?

Given the former presidents who have used messages to school children in the past, and given the lack of what you specifically find disturbing with this particular message, and given that your children don't even attend a public school that will hear this message, I can only conclude that this is ENTIRELY political. 

Let's get to the root of this, from your hallpass website "Parents are also concerned as the entire program was crafted with help from the president’s White House Teaching Fellows, some of whom are activists with documented hostility towards the very tenants of our republic."

Could you be more specific about that? Because from what other blogs and articles are taking from that paragraph is that the President is using this address to brainwash, etc. etc. etc. Is this what you really believe and the crux of what you are worried about?

Because let's just be real here, you'll be unhappy with this even if Duncan went the 'parental consent' channel. Had they done that, you'd still be protesting and calling it Obama's way of trying to sneak into your kids brains!  

Anything and everything done by this administration has been met with a grassroots anti campaign, with you at the forefront of tv and media and blogs and your radio show. 

Monday is Labor Day and I'm sure there will be some White House efforts there. Friday is 9-11 and I'm sure the President will honor those lost. I'll be waiting to see what new site and anti campaign you launch and blog about then. 

And btw, I covered the 1991 address by GWB for my high school news paper, student reaction, to be exact. If I recall correctly, not many paid attention. 

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

I fell in (non-creepy!) love with you at BlogHer in the homeschooling session, but I'm having problems getting past you not capitalizing "president", in "the president."

Is this simply a "I don't respect the office/man" thing?

Absorbing the rest of what you wrote, but I'm still perplexed by the issue inciting this much activism and outrage.

Edit: Ah, I see the "rules" aren't applied as uniformly as when I was a kid.