A poll of facebook … link is here … asks “Should President Obama be allowed to do a nationwide address to school children without parental consent?”
I find the wording of that statement to be astounding. But anyway, if you are on facebook, you may want to go and vote. CUrrently, 65% say NO, 29% say YES.
OH, and people are posting this on their facebook status today:
“_______ believes that no one should die because they cannot afford health care, and nobody should go broke because they get sick.”
(you put your name int he blank, or whatever)
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
“Should President Obama be allowed to do a nationwide address to school children without parental consent?”
No, he should ask his parents first.
Should President Obama be allowed to do a nationwide address to school children without parental consent?
Considering the adress is one part a call for children to pledge to serve Obama and another part crude propaganda for Obamacare …………. No.
Mike:
Did you know that Reagan and Bush Sr. both did televised speeches in front of children? Where does it say that Obama’s address will focus on health care, serving the president, etc? It’s about staying in school, focusing on education, etc. The standard “discussion subjects” ask the students FOR THEIR OPINION on the speech and what they could do for THEIR FRIENDS AND COMMUNITY. It does not mention Obama at all, moron.
Regarding the facebook status, it depends really on what one means by “should.” In my ideal world no one will die because they can’t afford healthcare. However, as a society it isn’t at all clear that we have the resources sufficient to support everyone fully at the end of their lives. The Europeans generally recognize this and are thus willing to put limits at which point one gets primarily palliative care. It isn’t clear that it is at all practical to spend millions of dollars adding a few days to the ends of lives.
In that context, if someone personally has the resources to extend their life a few more days, we should let them.
The bottom line is that no matter what health care system we use people will die due to a lack of resources. The real question is what circumstances this will occur and with how many people. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to address the real issue here.
As to the Obama thing. Of course the President can do so. Thinking otherwise is just stupid.
As one of the preparatory materials for teachers provided by the Department of Education, students had been asked to, â??Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. â??
Today, after Republicans accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate school children with liberal propaganda the White House and the Department of Education changed the section to now read, â??Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.â?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/obamas-back-to-school-message—-scribbled-with-some-controversy.html
According to ABC, this began as little more than a ham handed indoctrinations exercise.
Here is an Email I received today from my MD Delegate. This Email pissed me off as he is suggesting parents keep their kids home if they object. I send him a nasty reply. I will not be voting for him. He asks that his message get spread far and wide. Consider this doing him a favor.
“Pres. Obama’s Address to School Children on Sept. 8, 2009
With the news having broken yesterday about Pres. Obama’s address to school children, I am attempting to get several questions answered by the Baltimore and the Harford County Public Schools. Are they using the address? Will parents have the right to keep their children out of school for it, if they desire? Will their children have the right to a non-absence in this instance? Has this addition to the curriculum been approved by the School Board and the PTA? Has a curriculum outline been sent home to parents?
I am particularly concerned because of the short notice and the very little time for gathering information about the address, and for allowing for public reaction to this plan, especially since Monday is the Labor Day holiday, and the address is the following day.
According to the office of the Baltimore County Superintendent of Schools, if you do not want your child to participate, you need only notify the school principal, and your child will have an alternate activity available during the address. However, rather than stigmatize my child by having him pulled out of class, I would just keep him home that day (I do have two children in public school).
The Harford County Public Schools are meeting this afternoon at 4:15 pm (Sept. 3) to discuss this event, and no information is available yet.
If you, as a parent, choose not to send your child to school for Pres. Obama’s address, I want you to know I support you 100%.
If teachers have the right to strike, parents have the right to boycott what we fear as the start of the indoctrination of our children without the opportunity to review the material.
You can look at the White House’s concept of this address by going to http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/My-Education-My-Future/
It includes a link to the U. S. Dept. of Education lesson plans.
Nationwide, some parents don’t want their kids participating in the Obama presentation:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/parents-object-obamas-national-address-students/
Please feel free to forward this information to anyone you know is interested.
Rick Impallaria
Delegate, District 7
rick.impallaria@house.state.md.us”
Should George Bush have been allowed to impose No Child Left Behind on our children?
Schoolchildren should be thinking about how to help the President. He sure as shit isn’t getting any help from their troglodytic parents.
No, Mike. According to two ABC bloggers, “Republicans accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate school children with liberal propaganda,” for suggesting, “students should think of how they could help the President in terms of reducing the national dropout rate.”
Goddamned fair-weather “patriots.” I can’t imagine anyone asking this question about Bush, Clinton, etc.
He’s the President of the United States. He doesn’t need parental permission to address students. He’s the fucking President.
Anyone complaining about the Potemkin villages set up after Katrina and every other canned, choreographed “Mission Accomplished!”propaganda piece photo-op for Bush got tarred as a DFH. Yet if Obama wants to burn a few minutes of class time giving the kids of America a pep talk, it’s treated like CPUSA and NAMBLA are indoctrinating the youngins. How long must we put up with this bullshit?
When is the media going to call these Obama-hating cranks what they are: unamerican fifth-column seditionists.
I couldn’t care less whether they like the guy or not; they can say what they want. But waving guns around at a presidential speech, the near-riot violence, and the rest of the threatening Nazi & birther rhetoric – when do these people officially become enemies of the state? And when does the media get off its lazy equivocating ‘balanced’ ‘objective’ ass and call these motherfuckers out? This ceased being amusing a month ago.
And no, I’m not being sarcastic. The fear-addled bulletheads are really starting to creep me out. Do they have to kill someone (else) before something is done about them?
The poll currently has 28% of people saying he should be able to talk to them without parental consent but yes, the ignorant comments over there concern me more!
I never gave Bush permission to address my kids after 9-11. Or at any other time. They have been tragically scarred by his presidency. I think I’ll sue.
Another poll on facebook asks if he should have to have the “opposition” response allowed, too. More than half say yes. What’s the “opposition” to his speech – go do drugs, get laid, and cut class?
Well, I went and voted no and made a comment.
Christie, given that the Republicans are complaining most about is Obama talking about kids thinking about what they can do to not drop out, I presume that opposition is to go drop out. It all fits together because after the kids drop out and have minimum wage jobs (if any), the Republicans will make sure the kids don’t have any health care either.
I suspect that if a republican president were to request the same thing that these same parents would be complaining if anyone were to even suggest that their kids be kept away from the broadcast – unpatriotic, you know.
It is all getting rather tiresome.
Here’s a link to a poll on The Limits on Health Care.
Do you believe that no one should die because they cannot afford health care, and nobody should go broke because they get sick?
Yes, people DO die because they don’t have health insurance. I’m an RN and I have seen it firsthand, including a UC Berkeley student some years ago who died from a 5 lobe pneumonia that could have been cleared up with pneumonia had he gone in when he first became ill. He did not go in because he was afraid of the cost it would incur….and he died. That is the usual reason I see the deaths, people put off going to the doctor, hoping the problem will go away, and the problem either becomes MUCH more expensive by the time we see them, or they die and won’t be repaying it anyway….
Mike H. Why do you hate America?
As a child, I found history lessons boring and pointless, until some teachers and my reading made me realize that history is about people and why they do things. But for the most part, history lessons completely miss the point. In the year that we studied U.S. history, the assassin of President Lincoln was always described as “an unemployed actor,” as if that somehow motivated him or perhaps simply to add human interest. That was all.
Nowhere did my lessons mention that Booth was a member of a secret conspiracy of hard-core Southern secessionists. They didn’t say that the secessionist groups were bitterly irreconcilable over their side losing. They didn’t say that the plan of the secessionists was to treasonously undermine the U.S. victory. They didn’t say that the motivation of the secessionists was wildly exaggerated horror stories about what the U.S. government had in store for them. That knowledge would have made that bit of history understandable, instead of random, and even more despicable than one violent act by a single unstable individual.
I meant to continue, “It all sounds frighteningly familiar these days. What was that proverb? â??Those who forget the past are compelled to repeat itâ?? Itâ??s time to squash the incipient Southern & right-wing violence, treason, and terrorism in the bud, if we are not to have losers snatching the prize of enlightenment and reason once again.”
Sorry about that “secret conspiracy”. Make that a
secretconspiracy.And this is even a question…why?
@21 “incipient Southron & right-wing violence, treason, & terrorism”
Fixed that for you…