Hacker News Reader

Comment by codeodor | Hacker News Reader

Based on the suggested assignments they sent out to schools, I can see how people might have been peeved about the original plans.

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.

View on HN

I'm not American, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with either of these assignments you mention. It kind of falls along the lines of the JFK speech "Don’t ask what your country can do for you. Ask instead what you can do for your country" in the first example.

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.

> 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.

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".)

I don't watch Baywatch, I do like McDonalds from time to time however. I am Canadian and while our countries are certainly different my father and his family are Americans and I feel I do have a decent grasp on American culture.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com