PRES. OBAMA ADDRESSES STUDENTS
“No matter what you want to do with your life, I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it,” President Obama says in his address to American students.
There’s been a lot of backlash for the address that President Obama has prepared to give students today. Conservatives and political opponents challenged the Presidents intentions and felt that his address may be pushing the envelope in an unfair direction. The Obama administration hasn’t backed down from the address; however, they have fine tuned the purpose for it. It’s no longer about getting the students to help the President and has shifted more towards how they can help themselves and their communities.
At the end of the day, it’s not about political parties or free self-promotion; it’s about motivating the youth to do great things. It was big of Obama to switch up his strategy and it shows that even as President, he’s still a team player.
What do you think? Are the opponents simply hating on the President or did they present a better strategy? Tell us here.Image courtesy of google.com.
(*The views contained herein are solely the views of their respective authors, and do not express the views of TV One. TV One does not take responsibility for their content.)
Yes, President Obama does love the kids, and that’s why people love the President.
Those people who oppose this are so, so pitifully ignorant that I’d just like to shake a few of their heads and listen for a rattle. What a miserable existence it must be to live in that kind of fear all of the time.
If president Obama made a second address to students, those parents will probably pull their kids out of school permanently and home-school them.
The alternate strategy was to either keep the child home for the day or to work to have the entire school system agree to not present the speech. While there were some school districts who say that they didn’t have the technologic capability (bandwidth, etc.) to show the speech, many other districts did not allow it be shown because of parental protests. They cow-towed to the vocal minority and, in doing so, taught a valuable life lesson to the young minds. If you don’t want something, to hear something, to do something, simple scream from the rafters and YOUR will will be done.
Comically, there were many comments from parents who opposed the prospective content of the President’s speech. Many said that they didn’t want their children “subjected” to whatever ‘hidden political agenda’ they felt he was going to subliminally implant into young, impressionable minds. The term “indoctrination” was bandied about with ease. I suppose they forget that for six hours a day little Johnny and Jane are held at rapt attention to the messages of their educators. And if you think those messages are neutral, you are either delusional or have not been in a classroom for 30 years. Teachers can’t achieve neutrality because we humans can’t achieve neutrality. Do you think pro- or anti- (insert issue) sentiments do not seep out in teachers’ interactions with students, both during and in between classes?
My trouble, though, in not with the parents who said they would keep their child home. While I vehemently disagree with the decision, I as stringently believe in the sanctity of parental rights. Rights that, in my opinion, while not absolute, as certainly sacrosanct. However, those parents need to realize that their parental rights are limited to their children, not to all the children in the school district. My trouble, rather, is with the school districts who bowed-down to these parents.
Schools are public institutions. They receive public monies. They are responsible to the public. It is fine if one person or group doesn’t want to participate. It is NOT okay to prevent everyone from participating. It is unbelievable that no one would be permitted to hear a message because some of the people didn’t want to hear it. It is unconscionable that superintendents did not have the back-bone to advise parents that they children who weren’t being allowed to see the speech could stay in a library or cafeteria or some other place on campus, under the direction and leadership of teaching staff. Rather they succumbed to the paranoid nonsense and allowed irrationality to prevail. That’s the troubling and sickening piece of this “controversy.”
People claim to love American, yet exhibit intolerance for American virtues. Freedom of speech in the country is held in such regard as to practically be its own religion. Rightly so. Why can’t people realize that when they attempt to abridge a fellow citizen’s speech, they have abridged the right to freedom of speech for all of us? In this case, people prevented a presidential message from being heard by any of the students in their districts. What’s next?
This country was borne from dissent and protest. People having differing opinions and being willing to scream those opinions into the faces of those with whom they disagree is as American as “Mom and apple pie.” It was borne from a struggle to prevent one group from being able to dictate to another. What are we allowing ourselves to become when we allow one group of parents to deny access to all children simply because they oppose a message they don’t want their children exposed to?
Now that the President’s speech is complete, I’m wondering if the sun is still shining where the protesters are? The Earth seems to still be rotating on its axis. No reports of children spontaneously immolating.
Hmm… looks like Armageddon DIDN’T occur…
Well maybe those parents and school districts will find some other “event” to protest. I’m sure of it. If not, there are always books that can be destroyed, folks who can be burned in effigy, and Planned Parenthood centers that can be picketed.
Go forth and continue your “works” and may God bless and keep each and every one of them.
The President should be allowed to deliver a back to school address. The lesson plan that the Dept of Education was somewhat questionable. The White House was right to change that. This should be the responsibility of individual school district/teacher.
Those who oppose the President decision to address school children are fear-mongers and/or political extremists.
In 1991, when President George H W Bush delivered his back to school address, it lead to hearing by the
Democratic-control Congress to determine if any rules were violated.
Now, Republicans upset with Obama for speaking to school children.
Then, Democrats were upset with Bush for doing what Obama did. How absurd!!!
POLITICS, POLITICS –how can well thinking Americans trust politicians? No wonder both the Senate and HOR consistently have such low poll rating.
…it was found that George H W Bush had NOT violated any rules. So, having established that, what was the fuss against Obama about? No, I mean REALLY about?
Sad.
Heh,heh. Yeah. (wink)
No idea what the fuss was about. But, politics is politics. And politicians and the their “surrogartes” both Democrats and Republicans (and Independents depending on the issue) will make a fuss to score point and bring down the opposition.
American P Hmmmm we know what the fuss was about. It’s some sad folks in the world. This is 2009, you would think people would be over some of the issues they are having with President Obama.
To me by these parents pulling their children out of school may make them curious about what President Obama had to say, and maybe they will start asking friends question about the speech and when they find out all he did was encouraged them to stay in school. Then maybe just maybe they will question their own parent real motives on why they couldnt attend class for an encouraging speech.
hey guys
What was the fuss about when regan did it and how about the first Bush. Now i am not blind i know there are those out there that are racially motivated but do not be so quick to throw everyone that does not agree with him under that same bus. I voted for Obama and no i do not agree with everthing he has done or is doing right. but the shcool address i do agree with it was a good motivating speech to our kids.
Chris, to be clear, I was not alluding to racism or anything racially-based. Rather, I was referring to the Neo-Cons “h*rd-on” to paint anything the President does as ’subversive.’
Also, what about the fuss regarding something that happened in 1988 and 1991, respectively? Reagan’s “fuss” was that he used his speech to advance his agenda regarding tax spending.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909030020
The “fuss” about Bush 41 was a question of whether funds were misappropriated. It was found that they weren’t.
The “fuss” about Obama was of a completely different tenor. Words such as ’socialism’ and ‘indoctrination’ were bandied about, feeding the flames of paranoia and irrationality.
And it saddened me to see that small peek at what our country is becoming. The fringe is moving ever closer to the center. And “that ain’t RIGHT!” (pun intended)
I think the speech was needed and I’m glad it was done. It was a shame that there was some opposition about it. Maybe some feel as though ‘their’ kids didn’t need the pep talk (for some reason or another) but others did. The message was not of ‘conservative’ logic as some claim it to be. It was common sense that all people from generations past were told, regardless of political affiliation. The whole opposition was cleary about something else. These people have had it out for the President since day one. Need I say what? It’s quite obvious! It’s 2009, I thought we as a nation were in the process of moving on?