And this great speech is not allowed to be shown to students in need due to fear of Obama's socialist ideology?
This country saddens me.
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".)
" 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.
But, truthfully, I can understand not wanting politics here, so I'll drop this thread.
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?"