President's speech to schoolchildren
whitehouse.gov
whitehouse.gov
To most non Americans democrat and republican talking points about the latest political issue are just noise.
This is a US politicians speech with other US politicians approving or disapproving. Please, have some mercy on the rest of us.
Think about it for a second.
What would you think if random speeches from say Ukraine's President were posted as Hacker News because he mentioned technology in a speech to Ukrainian children? (and then the Ukrainians on this forum, who have the numbers to upvote anything onto the front page, started political bickering).
Politics produces bad discussion, pure and simple. People express poorly-supported opinions, use lousy arguments, and attack each other personally. And yet, since I'm interested in politics, I'll usually wind up reading them, and find myself annoyed every time someone whose opinions differ from mine uses a bad argument. It sets off my "Oh no, someone is wrong on the internet!" reflexes, and generally is a drag.
Like it or not, this is a political thread. Democrat sympathisers will invaribly think this speech is anywhere from "pretty good" to "brilliant" while Republican sympathisers will think it's anything from "so-so hokey platitudes" to "awful". And if it had been given by a Republican president the opinions would almost certainly be reversed, making the entire thing a waste of time for everybody.
Would I like to see random speeches from the Ukrainian President on here? If it's a good speech and I can take something from it then why not?
So does, say Chinese "decisions about finance, foreign policy, fuel, war etc".
Hardly a good reason to post propaganda/political speeches of the Chinese president to HN.
For that matter Al queda's policy decisions affect people all over the world. Not reason enough to post Osama Bin Laden's latest polemic on HN.
I can even make tenuous "similiarities/relevance to startups" arguments.
Taking on"established" foes check!, resource constrained, check! Tenacity and ingenuity key to victory? check! All this is not sufficient reason to discuss AQ (and its politics and speeches) here.
fwiw the HN guidelines do say "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." and "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic"
This is so a US local political issue and it is so on TV.
"Would I like to see random speeches from the Ukrainian President on here? If it's a good speech and I can take something from it then why not?"
Ukrainian (or Chinese) politics getting as much votes as the latest political kerfuffle on American TV ? That'll be the day! Please go through HN and show me one instance of a non American local political story that making the HN front page?
"speech of this quality". This speech is of a superior quality?
Compared to a speaking challenged Bush, sure. Compared to Clinton, not so much. Most politicians good enough to become US president are eloquent (or have good speechwriters).
But essentially this speech is just a bunch of heart warming empty phrases, a "motherhood and apple pie" speech which addresses a political need in the USA. It is hardly the declaration or detailing of a new policy that will affect the world.
Ahh, go ahead, turn HN into a forum to discuss American politics. The moderators don't seem to care. Why should I?
I get a little discouraged by the quantity of political articles on HN and I'm an American. So I can appreciate the frustration non-Americans might feel.
But this is perhaps the wrong speech to take arms against.
People at those levels of power don't do anything "non political".
I am not saying the content of the speech was political. The content is just a bunch of pious homilies and feel good (== "heartwarming") statements. "Insight"? Hardly. Any politician anywhere addressing anation's kids would say similiar things.
The act of making this speech is (and so are the acts of people reacting against it). Else why is there so much political activity around this speech?
" with points that apply to anyone starting something new, learning, or seeking inspiration."
Arguably, the writings of Machiavelli or the teachings of Lao Tzu fit this need better.
Insight shminsight. Just shows he has a panel of good speechwriters, (as would be expected of any US president) and the ability to deliver a speech well, (which , again would be expected of a US president).
"this is perhaps the wrong speech to take arms against."
I am not "taking arms" against the speech. I am perfectly fine with politicians in any country making any manner of speech to their constituents/ citizens.
I am just disgusted with random speeches by American politicans (and the deaths of American senators) landing on HN with very tenuous connections to start ups or "the US affects the world" type statements made as a justification.
But hey, I have only one flag or downvote. I guess the "people" have spoken on this one.
Your whole reply and my whole reply were about the speech in the context of its relevance to HN. So why you thought I was suggesting you opposed the speech itself is beyond me.
And, again, I'm agreeing with you that the quantity of US political material on HN is unfortunate and the 'US affects the world' argument is not justification.
As to your points: Should we reject every 'how to make your startup work' article for repeating common themes? Should we reject every author for having an ulterior motive of self-aggrandizement? (i.e. reject every attributed article) Should we reject every article that might have been improved by contributors, ghostwriters, editors, etc?
I still think you're trying too hard to find fault with this as a submission to HN.
And this is where we disagree. I am saying it is "almost entirely" political. Not the content, but the making of the speech. And as I said before there is nothing wrong in anything being entirely or semi political. There is a place for politics in the world. Not on HN!
"I'm agreeing with you that the quantity of US political material on HN is unfortunate and the 'US affects the world' argument is not justification."
I got that. I never said you were saying something else.
" Should we reject every 'how to make your startup work' article for repeating common themes?"
When it is a politican, (no matter how talented a politican he is), making a speech very tenuously connected to startups, certainly.
When an article is just re-warmed bits and pieces from various pre published articles, certainly.
"I still think you're trying too hard to find fault with this as a submission to HN."
I completely support your right to think so.
That's what the downvote/upvote/flag buttons are for. And with that I leave the field to you. I have a "thread depth" trigger which just tripped. Adios.
There's more to an article than the actual words on the page.
But the truth is, being successful is hard.
You won’t love every subject you study.
You won’t click with every teacher.
Not every homework assignment will seem
completely relevant to your life right
this minute. And you won’t necessarily
succeed at everything the first time you
try.
... you can’t let your failures define
you – you have to let them teach you.
I don't get it. First all everyone here talks about is Malcolm Gladwell for three months, to the point where people keep complaining they are sick of it. And then less than a year later people have completely forgotten the message of that entire book.
Newsflash: You can't believe the thesis of Gladwell's book and also buy into the worldview that Obama is promoting here.
Don't get me wrong, personal responsibility is essential for success. But your number one responsibility is choosing a good environment to enable your success. If think the way to succeed is by being blindly obedient to a system with 5% literacy rates, that's a surefire guarantee you're going to be a failure in life.
This speech is really inspirational, but if you actually examine the underlying assumptions it's pretty clear that Obama is setting these kids up for a life of low-level wage slavery.
One might think this is very gently setting kids up to want to work "for your country" in the literal sense: as government employees, or for government controlled organizations.
A conservative could give nearly the same speech but there would be more emphasis on individual achievement and entrepreneurial spirit in an environment of freedom that the country provides and defends; the main motivator being personal success and reaching one's potential, not contributing one's success to "the country".
It supports the status quo and its assumptions, and that's the worst agenda of all.
But that's not what he said. He said you have to work hard, and without hard work you're unlikely/not going to succeed. That's pretty much true, and it's certainly better than assuming you can succeed without hard work. The probability of that happening is non-zero, but small.
Who was it that said "The harder I work, the luckier I get."
So I'm interested in which part you disagree with. Let's see the bits I quoted:
But the truth is, being successful is hard.
You won’t love every subject you study.
You won’t click with every teacher.
Not every homework assignment will seem
completely relevant to your life right
this minute.
And you won’t necessarily succeed at
everything the first time you try.
... you can’t let your failures define
you – you have to let them teach you.
So, let me finish by asking this. Correlation suggests - but does not prove - that the down-modding of my comment was done by you. It happened at pretty much the same time as you comment, and your comment indicates that you disagree with its sentiment. So let me ask: Did you down-mod simply because you disagreed with the sentiment? If so, with which part do you disagree? Help me to understand you.
I thought down-modding was intended to be used when you thought a comment was of negative value. Do you really think that quotation is of negative value? I respect that you have your opinion, but I'd like to know what it is so I can choose to agree or disagree. At the moment you simply seem to be wrong.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/...
Would someone please queue the music?
"The wheels on the bus go round and round ... round and round ... round and round..."
Isn't this a bit high-falutin' for the general kindergarten and 1/2/3 grade crowd though?
Here are a couple of references
Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor - maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine - but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class.
...and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.
This country saddens me.
The Washington Times reported ( see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/02/wh-withdraws... ):
"Among the activities the government initially suggested for prekindergarten to sixth-grade students: that they 'write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.' Another task recommended for students immediately after listening to the speech: to engage in a discussion about what 'the president wants us to do.'"
The speech as they released it Monday is a great one that I'd want my kids to hear. But because of the information about the assignments we had before hand, I wouldn't have thought it would be a good speech last week.
Just because it specifically says the "president" shouldn't be a detractor in this regard considering the president is generally considered to be the leader of your country.
Also considering these lesson plans are written with regard to prekindergarten to 6th graders. I would imagine keeping the language in this simple way keeps the message clear for the children.
Actually, it should be "a detractor" because "the leader of your country" in the US is both extremely transient and somewhat weak.
This cultural difference is communicated in a standard American story. This story involves a non-American who is looking for the boss/owner. He comes across someone who is clearly a worker and asks "please tell me where to find your master". The worker says "that person hasn't been born yet".
In short, "do for president" and "do for country" are very different things in the US.
It's okay if non-Americans don't understand, but don't lecture us on how we're wrong. Eating at McDonald's and watching Bay Watch doesn't mean that you understand US culture. (Folks who actually know US culture are now screaming "there are multiple US cultures".)
Your President is the highest elected official in your country, the head of your government. While the government functions without the president, the president is certainly its leader(at least of the executive branch and the federal gov). Which makes him the leader of your country.
You may draw the distinction between your president and your country, a completely valid distinction( This is something I certainly understand as a Canadian , our Prime Minster has much less power and influence then your president), that doesn't mean that the President of the United states is not the leader of your country. While he is not your "Master", he is your leader and what you say does not make what he said or the lesson plans inappropriate.
Are you saying that children shouldn't help their president, or consider what he wants them to do based on the content of the speech? Are you saying that the language is inappropriate for young school children?
He says he wants bipartisanship, but he insults the republicans constantly. I like him less every time I hear him speak. And the republicans respond of course, but he's one man and can choose what to say, the republicans are a group and each person says his own thing.
No one trusts him anymore. Even the worst critics of Bush would not be worried about what he would say to kids.
During a speech about the stimulus package Obama basically said: "If you don't agree with me that we need a stimulus package you are an idiot/you are wrong. I'm only willing to talk about what goes in it, but not about the need for it."
He needs to remember he is the president of an entire country, not half of one. Even if you don't agree with people, at least let them know you respect them, and their ideas. It's his job to reach out to all people, even people he disagrees with. Remember you are disagreeing with an idea, not with a person.
It's probably way too late though. The pattern has been set, and even if he changes, the republicans won't.
PS. Wooho, got 3 downmods already, just two more left. And no replies of course. PS2: Maxed out the downmods, and no replies to the substance of course.
Probably because you are not worried about either.
As for the opening sentence, every time I talk about Obama I get downmodded.
So it's a way of telling people: "you are going to hear ideas you don't agree with, so instead of reflexively downmodding [like you did], please actually read the message (and reply if you don't agree)".
every time I talk about Obama I get downmodded: perhaps that indicates that you're saying dumb things about Obama, then.
(But, actually: I suggest that you do what I just did, and put "ars obama" into searchyc.com and look to see whether it's actually true that you get jumped on every time you talk about Obama. Doesn't look like it to me.)
reflexively downmodding [like you did]: no, I thought about it carefully, applied a general principle that I'd arrived at earlier on the basis of rational reflection, and then downmodded you. And I also read and considered what you'd written, disagreed with much of it, and commented on one bit that seemed worth commenting on. What exactly do you think is wrong with that?
(The reasoning behind the general principle: I'm-going-to-get-downmodded comments, in most venues, consistently seem to do one or more of (1) divert discussion onto meta-noise, (2) procure the sympathy-upvotes they're fishing for, while (3) not actually deserving those sympathy-upvotes. As such, they lower the quality of discourse. I wish to avoid this, because I prefer reading higher-quality stuff. Downmodding such comments when I see them pokes the system in the right direction; saying what I'm doing encourages other people to think about whether my policy is a good or a bad one -- and I expect that people who seriously consider that, whether they end up liking or disliking my policy, will typically come to share my general opinion of the poor-poor-me comments. You are of course welcome to disagree with any of that -- you are welcome to consider it a stinking blend of industrial-grade stupidity with military-spec bullshit -- but what it certainly isn't is "reflexive".)
But, truthfully, I can understand not wanting politics here, so I'll drop this thread.
" That doesn't negate the continuing efforts that I'm going to make to listen and engage with my Republican colleagues. And hopefully the tone that I've taken, which has been consistently civil and respectful, will pay some dividends over the long term. There are going to be areas where we disagree, and there are going to be areas where we agree.
As I said, the one concern I've got on the stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of what's been said in Congress, is that there seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing.
Now, if that's their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then we're probably not going to make much progress, because I don't think that's economically sound and I don't think what -- that's what the American people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.
There are others who recognize that we've got to do a significant recovery package, but they're concerned about the mix of what's in there. And if they're sincere about it, then I'm happy to have conversations about this tax cut versus that -- that tax cut or this infrastructure project versus that infrastructure project.
But what I've -- what I've been concerned about is some of the language that's been used suggesting that this is full of pork and this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth.
First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history. I inherited the deficit that we have right now and the economic crisis that we have right now.
Number two is that, although there are some programs in there that I think are good policy, some of them aren't job-creators. I think it's perfectly legitimate to say that those programs should be out of this particular recovery package and we can deal with them later.
But when they start characterizing this as pork, without acknowledging that there are no earmarks in this package -- something, again, that was pretty rare over the last eight years -- then you get a feeling that maybe we're playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people. "
--
The people who really believe the solution is do nothing? The president does not want to hear from you.
And I got a downmod for this too? Hacker News, you have fallen far.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.h...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_...
Although, I guess I'll do some advocating for the devil and say that I would prefer if instead of saying
"I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books..."
he could say
"We're [referring to the government] working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn"
This would make it marginally less partisan. However, I would imagine that students are especially inspired by an individual and given Obama's background he's probably in a superb position to inspire students.
Sigh Why does everything he does have to be so partisan? What's next? "His dog is spreading socialist ideologies?"