On Obama Unprecedented Address to Public School Students on Sept. 8 ... State, National, International, posted by Jill, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 1, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I'll be listening VERY carefully to what you have to say in your unprecedented speech to public school students on Sept 8. I will be ok with it if you keep your message to platitudes such as "do your best," "stay in school," "develop a love for learning," etc.
However, if you try to brainwash the students with your socialist/marxist ideology, then we'll demand equal time in the classroom from someone who actually loves America who will communicate a strong conservative message.
Posted by William, a member of the Valley View Elementary School community, on Sep 1, 2009 at 7:01 pm
How unacceptable and chilling and inappropriate and scary. This man has no business speaking directly to my child without me present to filter everything he says. I don't trust a thing he says or does, and I do not trust his intentions. My kids won't be anywhere near school that day. If our wonderful local public schools go much further down the path to government indoctrination centers in the service of this self-styled emperor, they'll be out for good.
Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 1, 2009 at 7:14 pm PToWN94566 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
I think it's funny how people continually blame a President for the way education is in this country. While the President does have his opinions on what should or should not happen in education, people seem to have forgotten that education is ultimately left up to the states. Take a look at what our Constitution says and the 10th amendment. Our states have majority of control over what goes on in our classrooms- the feds have little to say (and no I'm not forgetting about NCLB either). States have had this control ever since the school system began in the US and I bet it'll stay that for years to come.
I for one wouldn't want to the feds running it- they have enough to handle.
Posted by SteveP, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 8:35 am SteveP is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Marxism is a political-economic theory that presents a materialist conception of history, a non-capitalist vision of capitalism and other types of society, and a non-religious view of human liberation. Closely related to the ideology of communism. At its core, Marxism holds a critical analysis of capitalism and a theory of social change. The original Marxian vision consisted of three complementary parts, each of which is hard to separate from the other two:
The dialectical and materialist conception of history. Marx interpreted the history of any society as being the result of conflicts within society, including those between social classes (e.g., bourgeoisie and proletariat) and between the development of the forces of production (technology, the labour force, etc.) and the relations of production (institutions). Accordingly, a society's possible futures are interpreted in terms of these conflicts.
The critique of capitalism. Capitalism is seen as a society in which a small minority of the population (the bourgeoisie or capitalists) dominates and exploits the vast majority (the working class or proletariat). In Marx's labor theory of value, workers typically have no choice but produce more value and more output than is necessary to pay the cost of their reproduction as people in society over time. They do this under conditions that they do not control, i.e., under the direction of the supervisors and threatened by unemployment or poverty rather than following democratic decision-making, and thus give the surplus-product to the owners, the bourgeoisie. The capitalists then use this surplus (also called surplus value) to accumulate more wealth and power for themselves. Often, this accumulation goes 'too far', causing an economic crisis.
The theory of revolution. In Marx's conception, workers under capitalism are alienated since they do not control a major portion of their day (the working-day) and must follow orders, producing goods or services that they do not own and cannot choose to avoid producing. They are alienated from their own true selves as members of society, from the products of their labour, and from nature. The solution -- which Marx saw as existing below the surface of actual bourgeois society -- was for workers to unite in labor union and political parties, to take political and economic power away from the bourgeoisie. In fact, he saw this kind of collective self-liberation as the only true liberation of the working class.
Posted by Educated, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Sep 2, 2009 at 8:56 am
The Dept. of Education wants schools to practically build a curriculum around Obama's speech. Take a look at the link to "classroom activities" that are in the article linked above. I can't even imagine that liberals would have been okay with President Bush doing the same thing!
It was bad enough that my kids had to watch the inauguration not once but twice (once live and once in their history classes).
The whole idea is to get school children on the Obama bandwagon and to get them used to the idea that the federal government infiltrates every aspect of our lives. I'm not okay with that!
Posted by Robert, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 9:15 am
Isn't it terrible that children would be allowed to watch an orderly transition of government after an election?
I have watched the ceremonies election after election, whether or not I had voted for the eventual winner. I believe this is the real lesson we need to teach our children (and even to some of the adult bloggers). This is the truly special aspect of our government that others still try to emulate and few have achieved.
Posted by Bob, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 9:31 am
The real issue with his address is not the addres itself but rather the questionnaire which is handed out to the kids that they are expected to fill out. One of the questions is "what can I do to support President Obama in his educational initiative?". WTF? Can you imagine the uproar by the libs if Bush or Cheney did the same thing? I wonder if the private school where Obama is sending his children will do the same thing?
Posted by Educated, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Sep 2, 2009 at 9:40 am
Robert, I would have been okay with my kids watching the "orderly transition of government" if they watched it every time. But the last inauguration is the only one they've ever watched, supposedly because it was "historic". I wonder if Palin is the first woman president, will that be historic enough for my children to watch it twice in one day at school? I'm guessing no.
Tuesday, September 8 is my 35th wedding anniversary. It is also the day that Barrack Hussein Obama has chosen to mandate that every student in the United States watch and listen to a live broadcast of a message he has for them. This is what EdNews says about the broadcast:
“The President will deliver a speech about the importance of persisting and succeeding in school on Sept. 8, the first day of school for many children across America. The Department of Education is encouraging educators, students and parents to use this opportunity to help students get focused and begin the school year strong. The speech will be broadcast live on whitehouse.gov at 1 p.m. EDT. The Department of Education has also asked a group of U.S. Department of Education Teaching Ambassador Fellows to develop some suggested classroom activities around the speech to help engage students and stimulate discussion on the importance of education in their lives. The suggested classroom activities will be available on Web Link. “
On its surface this seems fairly innocuous and well intentioned, especially considering the current drop out rate in American schools. But when one considers the source and the one who appointed those heading the Department of Education…no, this is something other than what it seems. A lesson from history is warranted yet again.
From 1922 to 1945 The Hitler Youth (HJ) was the second oldest paramilitary Nazi group in Germany, founded one year after its adult counterpart, the Sturmabteilung (the SA). Here’s a link to the full article. Hitler believed that the future of Germany and his vision for the direction of that country lay in its youth. He was proven horribly right. Many of the leaders of the Nazi Party during World War 2 began their careers in the HJ. Adolph Hitler knew that if he could create a cult of personality and establish it within Germany’s children the rest was all downhill.
Ask yourself this, why is it that children seem to be able to absorb certain kinds of knowledge so much easier than adults? One example is languages. A young boy or girl will learn a foreign language far faster than their adult parents, even if both are taught at the same level and at the same time. It is also the same with more esoteric concepts such as philosophy, and this is where the danger lies.
As a loyal American citizen I respect the office of my President. The person sitting in that office is another thing entirely. If that person uses that office to dismantle the building blocks of my country it is incumbent on me to at least speak my concern. That is the duty of every citizen. Unfortunately far too many American citizens expect the Presidential office to act as a babysitter more than an administrator.
From day one Obama worked on building his cult of personality and the Main Stream Media (MSM) was more than happy to help him in that endeavor. He had all the right credentials, communist sympathizer, and socialist activist, photogenic, good with a teleprompter and willing to follow orders regardless of the source, especially if those orders helped with his ambition. Unfortunately his numbers are fading, primarily due to the bloggers and Fox News. The question was, how do we offset the Fox News effect? Imagine Van Johnson slapping his forehead and disclaiming, “Of course! The children!”
Not too many K-12 school kids watch or listen to any news broadcast much less Fox News. If you ask the average middle-schooler who Glen Beck is, they will either look at you with a blank expression or ask if he’s a musician. This makes that demographic very fertile ground for planting the seeds of socialism. Neither the Department of Education nor Obama are saying much about what the content of his broadcast will be, but I wager that at least one part of it will be to urge the children to not listen to those who disagree with Obama’s policies. The scene from the Disney movie Hook comes to mind where Captain Hook is brainwashing Robin William’s son. “Your parents don’t care for you nearly as much as I and the government do…” Children do not have enough personal history to suspect a message from the President of the United States. In almost all cases their parents have taught them to respect persons of authority…at least they have tried.
This sort of broadcast has never been done by any past administration, not on this scale and not in this way. An internet search doesn’t pull up much. There is some information regarding past presidential debates, but that’s about it. This is the first and only mandated Presidential broadcast to America’s school children and it should make your blood run cold.
Posted by John, a member of the Walnut Grove Elementary School community, on Sep 2, 2009 at 10:51 am
President George W. Bush was reading a book to elementary school kids on September 11, 2001. Should we read this as a nefarious plot to distract kids from the biggest security lapse and terrorist attack in American history? Bush was also responsible for policies that went the farthest to undermine the Constitution in our history. Every President has his policies and his enemies. This shrill accusation of Obama as a Marxist is more of the same. The left called Bush a fascist, after all. And every president has had something to say about education. If Bush had been more involved in American education and had more to say about it, then it would have been perfectly appropriate to have him speak, live, to school kids across America. It is ludicrous to suggest that Obama is going to do anything more than provide a civics lesson to kids (a lesson that both adults and kids desperately need, based on the comments I read here) and we should be grateful that we have a President who cares about our education system, instead of creating unreasonable mandates (no child left behind) that never got the funding that they were ever promised.
Finally, there is this fear that I see expressed in the comments on many stories in the Pleasanton Weekly, the fear that the Federal Government is somehow like a kind of outside force invading our lives. Read the US Constitution. The Federal Government is you and me and all of us. It is the thing we give to ourselves, pay for out of our pockets, the thing that assures an orderly society, a safe society, and one that collectively works to make life in America better for all of its citizens. WTF is wrong with that?
Posted by a reasonable parent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 11:26 am
Yes, Obama is unprecedented in reaching out to all of our school children in this way. He is using 21st century technology and media - what is wrong with that? Given where education is going in this country and how disengaged many young people are, and considering the positive, non-political tone of his proposed address, this may only serve to: a)get some kids (not necessarily our own already-motivated Pleasanton youth) to see education as more "cool" than they do now, and b)get kids to feel more included in the democratic process. Neither of these are bad things and neither are political in any way. On the other hand, news analysis, as some writers have suggested kids listen to, tends to slant things in either a conservative or liberal direction -- it is not at all the same thing as what President Obama is proposing to do. And yes, we had our whole family watch the inauguration of President Bush 4 years ago and ALL of his State of the Union addresses DESPITE not being in agreement with 90% of his agenda! It is our democratic process and it is important for kids to see all of it.
Posted by concerned 2, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 11:28 am
A Suggested Absence Excuse...
There is an organized movement circulating around Twitter for a PASS Day--Parent-Approved Skip School Day--to take place on Sept. 8 in protest to Obama's planned address being televised in all the nation's public school classrooms. In fact, here's a suggested "absence excuse" making its way around Twitterdom today:
To Whom it May Concern:
When it comes to teaching my child about personal responsibility and life goals, I have determined that I am a far better teacher of those objectives than a President who has chosen to surround himself with known anarchists and terrorists.
Therefore, <child's name> will be at home on Sept 8th in order not to be corrupted by the propaganda that will be shown in his class room.
PS--In addition to the Pre-K-6th grade guidelines the Department of Ed sent out to teachers that I wrote about earlier this week, the administration hasn't forgotten about the nation's impressionable teenagers--there's also a 7-12th grade "menu" (below) as well.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 11:30 am
President George W. visited schools and spoke to school children during his terms but he did it on a school by school basis, not a "national hook-up"...
That's where he was when the events of 9/11 occurred...
If I'm not mistaken, most of the time his wife, a librarian, accompanied him during these visits...
I have no problem with any President of The United States talking with school children if they keep politics out of the conversation. These kids have enough to worry about just getting through school...
In my opinion, if President Obama, or any president, can touch one child, it will be worth while...
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 12:18 pm
As a progressive (liberal) who disagreed with many of former President Bush's policies, I would never have dreamed of pulling my kids out of school in the same situation, least of all with the thoughtless absence excuse letter suggested above. We are liberals, and we have taught our children about respecting the will of the people and the process of our national elections, as well as the office of the presidency - even when we didn't agree with the policies of the person in that office. The fact that an address like this has never been done before is irrelevant, and certainly not a reason for criticism - each president brings new ideas to the table. I think it is a good thing when our kids see that the President of the U. S. thinks they are important enough to spend some time with talking about education.
Posted by Homeowner, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 12:59 pm
With all due respect, there are a lot of loonies out here! A PASS day? Give me a break.
Obama is not a Marxist, he is not anti-American, and he is not building a Nazi Youth organization. I think there are real, substantive issues to be discussed around the actions we should be taking to move our country forward, but to throw around terms like these leave you with no credibility to particpate in the discussion. It's a shame you will be ignored, but you are doing it to yourself.
Posted by Pleasanton Schools Must Focus on Real Education!, a resident of the Canyon Oaks neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 2:19 pm
WHY IS THIS EVENT TAKING PRECEDENCE IN OUR PUBIC SCHOOL SYSTEM? California is broke!! The teachers union administrators have raped our tax dollars and then complain there is no money for programs at school... yet union teachers are getting paid to teach and promote Obama's slur of propaganda as an educational program?
This is where we MUST take a look at WHO is in bed with the unions on our school boards and where are they spending our tax dollars? What policies and programs are they are passing and what they are promoting to our children? We must take an active roll, protest these events that are taking away from the education of our children and take back our public school system from the liberal propagandists facists who have re-written our childrens history books full of lies paid for by our tax dollars. What a disgusting waste of our hard earned tax dollars.
MONEY WASTED ONCE AGAIN PAYING TEACHERS AND THE DISTRICT TO PROMOTE OBAMAS SLUR OF PROPAGANDA!
This is why we should have vouchers. Because even when you do send your kid to private school, your taxes still pay for the Unions to supply direct BRAINWASH propaganda to the school children.
This is why you got a no VOTE for Measure G = Citizens sick of Mo Money for Unions waste on an educational system in California that is BROKE!
Remove your child from school on September 8th, 2009. NO SUPPORT FOR WASTEFUL NON-EDUCATION. NO SUPPORT FOR POLITICAL PROPAGANDA!
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Wow! It seems like you are really angry. Again, I'm not sure why the President of the United States talking to our students about the importance of education is political propaganda. I'm really excited about my kids hearing directly from our president. I'm guessing you were in favor of vouchers before Obama announced his speech to school kids, anyway. Tell you what - I think we should just wait to hear what he says. Since I don't expect you or your children will listen to the event, I hope you at least read the transcript of his discussion after the fact, so that you actually know whether he just talked about the importance of education or actually did in fact begin a campaign to turn all our little darlings into Obamabots.
Posted by Mary, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 2:39 pm
the day to boycott is September 8th. which is the day after labor day so the kids are going to get a 4 day weekend rather than just 3 days. I wonder what the schools will think of the lost revenue by the kids not coming on Tuesday?
Posted by A Concerned Parent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I just contacted the District and was told that parents will have the opportunity to "opt-out" of the President's speech. Apparently, the principals are leaving the decision to include the speech in the cirriculm to the teachers, but there will be alternate activities available for those students whose parents choose to have them not view the speech. How sad that we are faced with the prospect of having to ostracize our own children in order to keep politics out of their elementary school day.
Back to school night is tomorrow and I will be addressing the subject with my son's teacher. I hope that other parents will do so as well. Perhaps with enough vocal opposition the individual teachers will elect to continue classroom instruction in the manner they had planned to prior to the President's announcement.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Anger is blinding. Look at the people willing to pull their kids out of school before someone finally researched that there is another option for students whose parents do not want them to see the speech. In fact, I've learned that some teachers will choose not to show it at all. Look at the assumptions being made on the content of the President's speech; that it's all part of some nefarious scheme to brainwash our kids. I can't wait to see what he actually says.
On the flip side, I am upset that my child's teacher might choose NOT to show the speech to avoid the angry backlash. This is the President of the United States and my kids won't be able to watch his speech at our public school because of the division being nurtured on the right. My child is being robbed of the right to hear an address, in class, by the highest elected official in the country regarding the importance of education.
Posted by Mary, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 4:30 pm
We are going to go to the Monterrey Bay Aquarium on Tuesday so at least the day will not be lost and they will be able to learn about nature. I would rather have them do this than listen to our socialist leader. It should be a very nice day. Some of the other mom's in the neighborhood are going to join me and we will make a day of it.
Posted by A Concerned Parent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 5:00 pm
To Stay Cool,
You should consider yourself lucky! At least you will have the option to record the speech and view it with your child at home, which IMHO is a much more appropriate venue.
Those of us who do not want our children exposed to the speech in school without parental oversight are left with a much less attractive option that would involve ostracizing our child from the rest of the class.
Posted by Fran, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Dear Stay Cool,
Your premise is wrong. Obama does not care about the quality of kids' education. If he
Dear Stay Cool,
Your premise is wrong. Obama does not care one iota about the quality of our kids' education. If he did care, he would not be such a supporter of the NEA. Equally important, he would not have yanked all those black kids from their quality charter school in D.C. to make them return to their miserable and dangerous innercity public school. It was only because of public outrage that he recinded his decision.
The main reason he is addressing public school kids is that their minds are more malleable, they are a captive audience, and that he wants to reinforce that their minds are more the property of the Federal Govt than they are the property of their parents.
Posted by A Former Pleasanton Student, a resident of another community, on Sep 2, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I have been out of the PUSD loop for almost two years now, having graduated in 2008, but I'm surprised that children will be allowed to opt out of the speech. In all of the years that I attended school in Pleasanton, was I once allowed to skip any of the rallies or guest speakers that showed up to the school? No! Truth be told, I really would have preferred to have missed the football team bawling out "Sweet Home Alabama" and have done something productive, like, say... my homework. But, no, we were all supposed to attend them, even if many people spent the entire time texting (I, unfortunately, don't have texting on my phone and was forced to sit through the entire painful experience). Was this really productive?
I glanced over the list of suggested classroom activities and I find nothing objectionable in its content. What is so terrible about children learning how their government works? Some of the most interesting US History assignments I had to complete consisted of watching President Bush's State of the Union address and other speeches and discussing my opinions about the policies and other statements he made. I did not agree with many of his policies ideologically, but I still had to watch these speeches just the same. And truthfully, I'm not sorry that I did.
Posted by joan, a resident of another community, on Sep 2, 2009 at 5:44 pm
So much class time is already wasted. No big deal, if you really want your kids to listen to the speech, record it and have them listen to it at home. (do you think they'll actually be interested?) I don't need Obama or any President telling me how to raise my kid or tell me that education is important, blah, blah, blah...I am the parent of my kid not you. MYOB government people. I have done a great job in raising my kids. The school districts are pushing politics on our kids. Thank goodness my kids have recognized this. What teachers should be doing is teaching the subject material. My kid had to watch Obama take office during 4 different periods in 7th grade. What a waste of time!!!
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 7:11 pm
This is not an Obama video. This is a video put together by a group of celebrities in some organization that one school showed. I would agree that it is inappropriate for public school viewing.
I think it is important to not confuse the issues, though. This video is NOT the President's address to students on September 8. They are two VERY different things. I am sure the President will not be talking about stem cell research and not giving people the bird while driving. He is slated to talk about education, and he knows his audience. The audience for the I Pledge video was not meant to be children in school.
I would challenge you also to stop tossing out the comparisons to Nazi Germany. They are very inflammatory and really detract from your argument.
Posted by reasonable parent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Those of you who don't want to ostracize your child -- do you think taking them out of school is somehow more inclusive?
I'm thinking those with strong hard-right opinions want their children to learn how to stand up to all of us socialist sheep.
This brings to mind the quote about being close to your friends but closer to your enemies. So, since you believe Obama to be evil incarnate, why don't you ask your kids to pay close attention to the speech because they need to "know their enemy".
So in case he tells them something subversive like to do their homework and respect their teacher they can make a point to disregard that and convince their classmates to do the same.
Posted by Juan, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I am far more worried about the talking points which are being given to the teachers by the department of education in support of Obama's initiatives. Keep Obama politics out of the classroom and away from impressionable children. He should continue his proproganda with adults who can reason.
Posted by A Former Pleasanton Student, a resident of another community, on Sep 2, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I agree with reasonable parent. Let your children interpret things their own way. President Obama is speaking about education, for goodness' sake, not abortion!
It seems that too many Americans are relying on sound bytes and pundits' interpretations of issues rather than making their own informed opinions. Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that anything Glenn Beck has to say about President Obama is fair and balanced-- any more than I would insult yours by suggesting the same regarding Keith Olbermann and the Republican leadership.
Posted by myra, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Dear Former Student:
I am amazed at how Obama can fool so many presumably educated people like yourself. Your premise is wrong. Obama is NOT speaking ABOUT education. Obama is speaking about OBAMA and following his movement! Any mention of "education" will be secondary to his main objective.
Posted by A Concerned Parent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 9:33 pm
To Stay Cool,
Since you asked, I am not able to take time off from my job to go to the classroom and watch the video because I had to cash out my remaining vacation earlier this year so that I could pay my bills. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of a printing press like Obama does to keep churning out the cash.
Posted by reasonable parent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 9:50 pm
I am dumbfounded by the Nazi references in regards to Obama.
The Nazi's were looking to take over all of Europe by force, while Obama ran on a diplomatic platform, reducing our force in Iraq and trying diplomacy over force whenever possible. He has already started down this path in his foreign visits.
The Nazi's domestic policy was about dividing people by race and punishing/exterminating those deemed "lesser". Obama ran on inclusiveness and even if you disregard the diversity of his own cultural and racial background, he has gone out of his way to build a diverse cabinet and appoint a supreme court justice representing a previously unrepresented demographic on the bench.
You can dislike his choices and disapprove of his politics but any comparisons to Nazi Germany are absolutely ludicrous.
Posted by !, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Sep 2, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I won't belabor the point about Obama and Germany parallels. But they are eerie, and I have never considered myself a fanatic...just a curious observer.
When you have time, google the terms "Obama, Germany, parallels" and form your own opinion after you've read many articles. Your earlier comments that any parallels are ludicrous may seem less so after your research.
Posted by A Former Pleasanton Student, a resident of another community, on Sep 2, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I took the suggestion to google "Obama, Germany, parallels". Here's another suggestion that you might want to google: "credible sources". An organization called "The Next Right?" Conservative blogs? Please.
Posted by Me, a member of the Hart Middle School community, on Sep 3, 2009 at 12:23 am
You said: "If Obama is a Socialist, why would he want a Communist in his cabinet? Either Obama isn't Socialist, or Jones isn't Communist, or neither is either, and you are just ill-informed regarding it all."
Before you call other people ill-informed, please google "Van Jones" and "Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement" (STORM). Van Jones IS A SELF-AVOWED COMMUNIST and is Obama's "Green jobs czar". While you're at it, you may want to google "John Holdren overpopulation" to get an idea of what Obama's science czar thinks about human life.
Obama's respect for these 2 men, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and other similarly radical people give me reason to fear.
Posted by Educated, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Sep 3, 2009 at 12:43 am
I'm not all that concerned about my kids. They know more about politics that most adults and they are not afraid to speak up about what they think in most situations. However, my daughter was severly ostracized by a teacher a couple years ago when she defended her illegal immigration views, and since then has been very careful about what she says in class, as most teachers are quite liberal. Too bad freedom of expression and open exchange of ideas get squashed like that in our schools.
I'm worried about the "moderate" children. They're the ones politicians need to sway to go to their side in order to stay in power.
I'm more concerned about the suggested classroom activities than about the speech itself. For example, asking the children "what they can do to support the president", and asking them to tell "how the president inspires them". Pretty presumptuous questions in my opinion. I understand that document has already been changed due to the uproar. But I wonder how many teachers had already printed it out and will use it as originally published?
Posted by Stay Cool...Not Much, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 1:57 am
Stay Cool, you appear to be a union troll. Go away and let us parents have our say and our opinions. These are OUR children and we have the RIGHT to keep them from your sick twisted influence any time we wish. You treat this board exactly how McNerney treats his constituents on the failed Obama health care program... ignore and belittle any opposition.
Obama is OUT OF CONTROL!! He's already talking about conducting many more of these National Addresses to public schools throughout the year. That means more lost days for Pleasanton School system because I for one WILL keep my kids away from participating or being involved in this at all.
PLEASANTON PARENTS SAY NO TO PRESIDENTIAL PROPAGANDA.
BOYCOT PLEASANTON SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2009 BY KEEPING OUR CHILDREN HOME.
Posted by Juan, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 6:37 am
are for you for everything Abama and unable to use your own mind to see what he is doing or are you so in love with him to the point where you will always look the other way when it comes to the one and only? I think yes because all you do is defend and support him and also pretend to be other people like "law student" and now "me"
Posted by Juan, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 8:48 am
Me and Stay Cool and you other kool aid drinkers,
The White House is going to withdraw their request and admitted to the Washington Times that the Presidents aides crafted the questions for the department of education to use so now even the white house views it as a conflict even though you kook aid drinkers do not.
Posted by A Former Pleasanton Student, a resident of another community, on Sep 3, 2009 at 9:25 am
By "law student" were you referring to me? How cute. I'm actually a biology major, but I try to stay informed and engaged in political conversation all the same. Due to the anonymity of this forum, I can't prove definitively that I'm not Stay Cool in disguise-- but is it really so hard to believe that perhaps more than one person does not share your ideals? Your ad hominem attacks do nothing to further your argument; please refrain.
Also, Not Much:
troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Posted by Juan, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 9:47 am
"The Washington Times was first to report Thursday that the plan was being reconsidered. Presidential aides also acknowledged to the newspaper that they helped the U.S. Education Department write the suggested assignments, which stirred criticism by many who say Obama is trying to indoctrinate the education system."
Posted by A Horace Mann Foe, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 11:03 am
As you consider whether to keep your child in school on Sept. 8 to hear Obama's speech to this captive audience, I thought you might find it interesting to learn about how we in America even have government mandated schooling and govt run schools in the first place.
Brief History of Compulsory Public Education in America:
From the time the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 until the 1850s, most parents taught their children to read at home or sent their children to small private or religious grammar schools. Education was voluntary and local governments did not force parents to send their children to school. Yet, literacy rates in colonial America were far higher than they are today.
So What Happened??? How did Government Take Control of Education???
If literacy and academic standards were so high before the 1850s, whey did we let state governments take control of education?
Here is what I found. In the 1840s, American education theorists such as Horace Mann adopted the German educational theory that children belong to the government, not their parents. Horace Mann and his cohorts admired how the German system gave their educational bureaucrats complete control over children's minds and education and molded children into obedient citizens. The German philosophy was that "schools must fashion the person, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will."
So it is no coincidence that the Nazis gained power in Germany. Mann and his colleagues studied the German schools and then pushed to impose the same system here. They vigorously lobbied state legislatures to create government-controlled public schools. The first state-run school system was in Massachusetts in 1852. Over the next 50 years all other states created similar public-school systems and then they imposed mandatory attendance.
Mann and other public-school promoters imported three main ideas from the authoritarian German schools...
1. That the purpose of state schooling was NOT intellectual training ...but the conditioning of children to obedience, subordination, and collective life. Thus memorization outranked thinking.
2. Whole ideas were broken into fragmented subjects and school days were divided into fixed periods, so that self-motivation to learn would be muted by ceaseless interruptions.
3. The State was positioned as the true parent of children.
Needless to say, Horace, et. al. won. Our schools mirror these three points above. And...I disagree with anyone who says that teachers unions ultimately result in benefitting kid's education. In fact, I strongly believe that these unions do just the opposite. They only exist to benefit themselves at the expense of kid's education. The teacher's unions in Calif. have a stranglehold on Calif. schools. All teachers must join the union and our tax dollars are required to go to the unions. It is wrong and a huge problem. As I read more about the history of compulsory state-run schooling in America, I thought some of you might find the above to be of some interest.
Sources: Web Link. com/Home- Schooling- Historical- Practical- Perspective/ dp/0805425853, pp.155-63
> Franz de Hovre, "German and English Education: a Comparative Study,"quoted in Murray N. Rothbard, Education, Free and Compulsory: TheIndividual's Education (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institure, 1999),p. 27
Web Link. com/Public- Schools-Menace- Parents-Children /dp/0964569329/ ref=pd_bbs_ sr_1?ie=UTF8& s=books&qid= 1205531321& sr=1-1 p. 9, 24
Posted by In Loco Parentis, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 12:13 pm
The grand doyen of public education is Obama’s cherished comrade, Bill Ayers.
In Loco Parentis
By Joy Tiz Thursday, September 3, 2009
“Liberals have long realized that, if they can win the battle over what is taught in schools, they will win elections.” -Phyllis Schlafly, Townhall
Barack Obama’s plans to reach out to millions of suggestible school children has met with parental consternation. Their collective alarm is a bit tardy. Radical Leftists already have control of the public school system.
Dumbing down of an entire nation:
Decades of entrusting the federal government with our children’s education has led, inevitably, to the dumbing down of an entire nation. Our public school system has failed to provide the most basic and elementary skills, while at the same time functioning as a ministry of propaganda for left wing causes.
Posted by Janna, a resident of Dublin, on Sep 3, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I don't always agree with the Rude One, but this time he's spot on!
That's why you don't like it. He captures your insanity perfectly and it's not flattering or remotely rational.
I notice not a word about Bush giving a political speech back in the day to push his war on drugs on our kids. You know if liberals would've complained like you all are doing and ripped our kids out of school over it, the repubs would've screamed Anti-American as loud as they could.
Such hypocrites! Well, better kick up your donations because your school should be losing some money from the state. I don't see how this could be viewed as an excused absence in any form. Adult tantrums don't count.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 4:12 pm
You are jumping the gun, he is giving the speech, they have just modified some of the suggested questions. I can't wait to hear the actual speech and then see the next much ado you are all going to make about nothing (nothing threatening, that is).
P. S. That doesn't read like one of Cholo's posts...
Posted by Emily, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 4:46 pm
it is just like Bush at the end of his term but unfortunately for us he is barely done with 8 months. A unpopular president who has lost credability with a large percent of the population and maybe what is worse is that people do not trust him with their children.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 5:20 pm
People who do not like President Obama and did not like him from the beginning are attacking *everything* he does. This speech is just the latest. People do not trust him with their children? That is a very odd way to put things.
There is a lot going on in this country right now, and we are going through some painful adjustments. That will certainly be reflected in the polls - and the honeymoon is over, as we all knew it would be at this point.
Posted by Me, a member of the Hart Middle School community, on Sep 3, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Perhaps you and "the rude one" should do a little fact checking.
In 1991 Bush 41 gave a very similar speech to what Obama is giving (despite Arne Duncan's claim that the speech is "unprecedented"). Democrats' reactions:
Rep. Ford, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the House Education and Labor Committee, has demanded that Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander appear before the panel to discuss the matter. "I am compelled to seek your justification of and rationale for spending scarce education dollars to produce a media event," Mr. Ford said.
Gephardt (D-Mo.), said "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students." (By the way, according to Education Week, Bush's speech cost a whopping $27k.)
Rep. Schroeder (D-Colo.) said it was outrageous for the White House to "start using precious dollars for campaigns" when "we are struggling for every silly dime we can get" for education programs.
Rep. Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants "to make him look good," then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Even though we are not in agreement regarding whether or not President Obama should address students next Tuesday, I want to thank you for providing excellent facts and links regarding President Bush's speech. Had I been a parent at the time, I would have disagreed with the Democratic leaders who opposed it and would have happily sent my kids to school to hear the President's address.
It strikes me that a big problem with the reaction to the upcoming speech is the "grassroots movement" among people who are saying the President is pushing a Socialist, Marxist, Communits, Facist (I know that doesn't make any sense, but that is what people on these boards ARE saying) agenda. Disagreeing with President Obama's policies has been elevated to an entirely new level of implying that his intentions are truly nefarious, and I wish that people could calm down and have rational discussions. Someone above asked about the difference between Fox and MSNBC. Yes, both are extreme "news" organizations, one far right and one far left. The difference is that I don't see people quoting MSNBC like they do Fox, and I mean literally - how many posts refer to the green czar as a "self-avowed communist?" People don't talk like that - they've all heard it from the same source (Glenn Beck?). And that is also a form of brainwashing.
Anyway, thanks again for the good links. Darn Arne Duncan, making it hard for us liberals! ;~)
Posted by Emily (The REAL One), a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 6:16 pm
It is unfortunate that there are some people who would choose to steal someone else's identity rather than establish their own.
The posting below was not made by me, Emily. I like to start my sentences with proper punctuation and know when to use "a" or "an."
it is just like Bush at the end of his term but unfortunately for us he is barely done with 8 months. A unpopular president who has lost credability with a large percent of the population and maybe what is worse is that people do not trust him with their children."
Posted by Me, a member of the Hart Middle School community, on Sep 3, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Regarding Van Jones, Obama's green jobs czar, this was published in 2005 in the "East Bay Express":
Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I WAS A COMMUNIST."
In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I've already read this, and in fact have already posted a Wikipedia link about Van Jones. There is a lot of information about him available - he has a very extensive education and a wealth of background experience.
I responded positively and thoughtfully to your post and see not much consideration in return, given your comments about MSNBC. I was guessing about Glenn Beck, and frankly can't stomach watching or researching him to engage in a debate with you about his accuracy. (Nor do I watch MSNBC). My point was what I said about brainwashing.
I know I shouldn'y be surprised at your final comments, but I am. That's the problem with us liberals - we're too nice.
Posted by Janna, a resident of Dublin, on Sep 3, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I do not agree with anything you wrote. Bush left many problems for the next president to clean up. I wouldn't want that job in a million years. Criticizing Obama every two seconds isn't going to get anyone very far. What would you change?
Posted by Janna, a resident of Dublin, on Sep 3, 2009 at 8:36 pm
While I appreciate you digging all that up, yes, I was referring specifically to the astroturfing going on in regards to the indoctrination, I mean speech.
My daughter will proudly watch our President speak words of encouragement and I hope she shares with her friends what they missed if their parents were ridiculous enough to keep them home from school over it.
Posted by Me, a member of the Hart Middle School community, on Sep 3, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Whoa! What is wrong with my final comment? I certainly didn't intend it to be mean. I actually intended it to be "cute" (although the part about nobody watching is true...have you seen their ratings?) but I obviously failed. If you don't even watch MSNBC, I don't know it would bother you.
On the other hand, I DO watch Glenn Beck as do millions of other people, and you seem to think that means that I'm brainwashed. Because someone watches a show that presents facts and shows video clips to back them up, and after doing their own research (as I think you can see from my posts that I do) believes what they have seen and heard, you think they're brainwashed? I'm very confused and also a little offended.
By the way, Beck has been monitoring the Wikipedia entry on Van Jones and is amused at how it has been cleaned up since he (Beck) started exposing his (Jones) radical ideology.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I do not think you are brainwashed. My original comment to you was to compliment you on your research. My reference was to the many posts using the same term (self-avowed terrorist) people have been using as an indication that the idea was coming from the same source. I was only guessing at Glenn Beck, as I have heard that he has had a lot to say about Jones. The irony I was trying to point out was that these posters are regurgitating the exact same phrase while accusing Obama supporters of being "brainwashed." The reason your post stood out is because you are one of the very, very few people opposed to Obama posting actual information, and one of the very, very, very few people posting information that was not a direct link to Fox. I have mostly seen, and been the recipient of, baseless name calling and insults. The least of my intentions was to offend you. My comments were based on my feeling that a Fox news fan making a negative comment about the liberal news equivalent was outside the spirit of the dialogue I was hoping to have.
Posted by A Former Pleasanton Student, a resident of another community, on Sep 3, 2009 at 11:27 pm
What's this? Actual common courtesy? How shocking!
I'd also like to thank you for providing actual evidence, Me, and not just regurgitating the same tired old argument like many in this thread. If I had to write a paper using many of the other "sources" that were provided, my professor would've flunked me.
Posted by Me, a member of the Hart Middle School community, on Sep 3, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Thanks for the explanation. I understand now where you're coming from and hopefully you understand where I'm coming from. It is possible to have civil discourse.
For the record, I couldn't think of another word for "self-avowed" so I went to thesaurus.com for a little help. It said "no results found". Perhaps that is why you are seeing that phrase repeated so often. There are limited ways to say it. I suppose you could say "Van Jones, who admits he is a communist" or "Van Jones, who calls himself a communist", but that takes so much more typing. And if you just say "communist" people tend to think you're engaging in hyperbole.
Posted by Me, a member of the Hart Middle School community, on Sep 3, 2009 at 11:44 pm
I just realized "self-admitted" would work. Maybe I'll start using that so I don't sound quite so brainwashed. (I'm sorry if that sounds snarky...it's not intended to be. I really do get your point. I get very annoyed when I hear "talking points" repeated over and over in the media using exactly the same phrasing. You know it's not a coincidence when they are all saying the same thing in exactly the same way.)
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Sep 5, 2009 at 3:27 pm
This "outrage" over President Obama talking to our children about staying in school and graduating is absolutely ridiculous! I really question what a parent is teaching their child when they remove them from school for an entire day just to avoid a specific hour of school. Will it be OK for the kids to skip class and hang out with like-minded kids when they have a class they don't like? A teacher they don't want to listen to? A test they don’t want to take? Homework that isn’t complete?
What it boils down to is that it wouldn’t matter to the Obama-haters what he planned to say . . . they’d disagree with anything. For example, if President Obama stepped out on the White House lawn, gazed at the setting sun and said, “That sunset sure has a lot of red in it today” the Obama-haters would say:
Only a Communist would see red in the sunset.
Obama hates America because he didn’t mention the blue sky and the white clouds.
Only a Marxist would define a specific color in the sunset.
By commenting on the sunset, Obama is reinforcing that sunsets are the property of the Federal government, and that the government has taken over control of the earth’s orbit around the sun.
Obama is spreading his Socialist agenda by attempting to make sure everyone has access to the sunset.
Anyone who enjoys a red sunset drinks red Kool-Aid.
It is "unacceptable and chilling and inappropriate and scary" that this man would comment on the sunset. I certainly will not allow my child to hear that kind of unfiltered information.
“Sunset” is a code word for “death panel”.
“It makes my blood run cold” that this President speaks about the sunset, let alone a specific color. He obviously wants to divide people by who identifies which color, and then will use the “death panels” to kill everyone who doesn’t see red – just like Hitler.
“Obama is OUT OF CONTROL!!” He obviously plans to frequently watch and comment on the sunset and wants you to do the same. Just say NO to this kind of mindless indoctrination.
Refuse to watch any sunset you think Obama may be watching. It’s been proven by experts that by watching a sunset on the same day as Obama, he can brainwash you with his <insert your favorite label here> ideology.
Only a liberal would mention the setting sun. Only liberal sheep will watch and comment on sunsets now.
Obama didn’t really see the setting sun - it’s all left-wing propaganda. Everybody knows the sun only sets in the west, not in the east.
Posted by tj-24, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Sep 8, 2009 at 4:57 pm
What on EARTH are all you selfish, self-centered, IGNORANT "conservatives" complaining about?? In fact, what PLANET are you on, anyway?? NONE of you had any problem with your fascist BUSH (or any other republican president) addressing school children, so what right do you have to complain NOW?? President Obama stands for everything good that ever WAS good about this country... and his message was nothing but TOP NOTCH and incredibly inspirational. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. You truly are the least, most bottom-dwelling among Americans.