Obama’s speech to students: show it live

schoolbadge2I spoke with Northfield Supt. Chris Richardson this morning. He’ll have a statement on the District’s web site around noon, basically stating that the District is leaving it up to the classrooms teachers on whether or not to show President Obama’s speech to students live, recorded, or not at all. I think that’s the best approach, unlike the recommendation from Northfielder Charlie Kyte, executive director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators, to show the speech later. I’m hoping teachers show it live, as events are always more compelling when they’re live. I still remember watching President Kennedy’s inaugural address live as an 8th grader. I suppose others remember President George H.W. Bush’s speech to students in 1991.

Strib: Parents, schools wary of Obama back-to-school speech

MPR’s Today’s Question: Should the president have direct access to the nation’s students?

MPR: Minn. schools move to address protests over Obama’s speech

Some districts, like Fergus Falls, are not showing the speech live – but will instead tape it and have administrators review it to see if it’s appropriate to show later. That’s the tactic that the Minnesota Association of School Administrators suggested. The group’s executive director, Charlie Kyte, says most – if not all – districts in Minnesota were probably dealing with this issue Thursday. In an email to schools, Kyte suggested administrators "not change their first day schedules to accommodate this broadcast. Rather make sure it is recorded and available (it will probably remain on the white house website). "It is always appropriate to preview curriculum, movies, videos, etc before using them for instruction," the email continued.

201 Comments

  1. Curt Benson said:

    Griff, the President’s speech is scheduled for 11 am Tuesday. The school day doesn’t start Tuesday until 12:30 for 10-12th graders. Ninth graders start at 7:51 and they will be participating in activities and being familiarized with the high school by LINK leaders from the junior and senior class all morning. This nixes the “live” approach, at least at the high school.

    September 4, 2009
  2. Jane Moline said:

    I appreciate that the President of the United States sees the importance of addressing young citizens on the importance of education.

    September 4, 2009
  3. Patrick Enders said:

    Aren’t a lot of the people who are howling about Obama’s address pretty much the same people who, just a few short years ago, claimed it was tantamount to treason to dare question the President’s actions?

    September 4, 2009
  4. Griff Wigley said:

    From Supt. Chris Richardson:

    Here is a copy of the letter we are sharing with staff and community through our website, e-mail and a press release to the media.

    September 4, 2009

    Dear Parents and Community Members,

    In a recent letter to school principals across the country, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced that at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 8, President Barack Obama would deliver a live national address directly to students on the importance of education. The letter indicated that the President’s speech “will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.” Further, the letter stated that he would “call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.”

    The U.S. Department of Education is providing classroom resource materials for K-6 and 7-12 classrooms as part of the address. These can be found at their website http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml

    President Obama’s actions are not without precedent. President George H.W. Bush did something similar in 1991 in a live telecast/radio broadcast to the nation’s students.

    The Northfield Public Schools will provide the opportunity for teachers to access this live presentation on televisions located in individual classrooms on Tuesday. Because this is the busy first day of school in our district, we will not direct schools or staff to view the presentation. The decision to show the address will be an individual classroom decision based on their lesson plans and daily class and lunch schedule. We are confident that our teachers will determine the appropriateness of the presentation and accompanying materials for their students based on Minnesota Educational Standards and the objectives of the curriculum.

    As with any other curriculum, topic or activity, if a parent does not want his or her child participating in this address, a supervised alternative activity will be made available. Parents wishing to opt out of the classroom presentation and discussion should call their school or send a signed note or e-mail to their school on Tuesday morning.

    Respectfully,

    L. Chris Richardson, Ph.D.

    Superintendent

    September 4, 2009
  5. john george said:

    Interesting comment above

    have administrators review it to see
    if it’s appropriate to show later.

    What does that mean? Is this politically motivated? If so, then I think this whole political division has gone too far, and I am a Republican. This is the President of the US, for goodness sake. What could he say that would be inappropriate? Taping it to fit around class schedules seems only necessary.

    September 4, 2009
  6. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I’m with you. Even if it was George Bush Jr., I’d still feel that if the President wants to give a message to students, then the President should get to give that message to students.

    It’s not like he’s declaring war or anything. If he’s out of line, we can complain about the content after the fact, and vote him out of office if we so choose.

    It seems inappropriately politicized for the “administrators [to] review it to see if it’s appropriate to show later.”

    There’s a time and place for political disagreement. This is not it.

    September 4, 2009
  7. Patrick Enders said:

    A nice quote on the subject:

    Another Obama First:

    Barack Obama definitely the first
    black man to get attacked by the right
    for telling kids to study hard and
    stay in school.

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

    September 4, 2009
  8. Griff Wigley said:

    It’s not often that I agree with the MEA and disagree with Gov. Pawlenty on an education-related issue but this is one of those times. He’s sounding like an extremist on this issue:

    Strib: Pawlenty sides with critics

    “At a minimum it’s disruptive, number two, it’s uninvited and number three, if people would like to hear his message they can, on a voluntary basis, go to YouTube or some other source and get it. I don’t think he needs to force it upon the nation’s school children,” Pawlenty said at the State Fair during a brief interview with members of the media.

    On the radio, Pawlenty said he understood the address would encourage school children to write to the president.

    “There are going to be questions about — well, what are they are going to do with those names and is that for the purpose of a mailing list?” the governor said.

    September 4, 2009
  9. kiffi summa said:

    Now that Pawlenty has decided to not run again for the governorship of MN, is he exhibiting his more true nature?

    September 4, 2009
  10. Jane McWilliams said:

    I think the Northfield School District is handling this very well. My only regret is that such an important opportunity for students to listen to and talk about something the president is saying right to them will be lost in the hustle and bustle of first day activities. The timing is unfortunate. On the other hand, I suspect many of our teachers will see this as a ” teachable moment,” and will run the speech later and encourage students to discuss it.

    September 4, 2009
  11. Griff Wigley said:

    Charlie Kyte was on TPT’s Almanac last night:

    What should teachers do about a
    Presidential Address on Education next
    week?  We hear two perspectives from
    Tom Dooher with Education Minnesota
    and Charlie Kyte with the Minnesota
    Association of School Administrators.

    September 5, 2009
  12. Paul Zorn said:

    I’m with John here, too. With David Brooks, too, who observed on last night’s Lehrer Newshour that (i) you’d think Obama was proposing to read the Communist Manifesto, and (ii) that Republicans hurt their own cause by (I don’t remember Brooks’s exact words) wandering so far off into the weeds.

    September 5, 2009
  13. Griff Wigley said:

    Charlie Kyte is also quoted in today’s Strib editorial: What is Obama flap teaching our kids?

    Meanwhile, the Minnesota Association of School Administrators sent out a less-than-enthusiastic recommendation that schools not disrupt normal activities for the speech but record it and consider using it in classrooms at a later time or date if it passes muster as apolitical and parents don’t object.

    “The [Obama] message is supposed to be about studying hard, to have high aspirations and to be good students,” the association’s executive director, Charlie Kyte, wrote in an e-mail to members. “In a simpler, and less contentious, time this would be a very welcome message. But we live in both a time of instant communications and a deeply divided nation in terms of political values.”

    Reached Friday, Kyte said he was pleased to learn that the White House planned to release the text of the speech on Monday, which will give administrators a chance to review the content.

    September 5, 2009
  14. john george said:

    Just a thought on appropriatness of the President’s speech, I suppose it might be a little boring for the first and second graders. I think the teachers should be able to determine that.

    September 5, 2009
  15. Scott Oney said:

    It’ll probably be pretty funny. I think they should go ahead and show it! That is, unless the left suddenly gets all sanctimonious and tries to change the rules for how to criticize the opposition. Will kids be asked to send e-mails to tattletale@whitehouse.gov if they notice their classmates not paying attention, or giggling, or making fun of how the president mis-talks, or his creepy hand jestures, or something?

    I have to admit it takes courage for Obama to stick his neck out like this. Nixon didn’t quite make it to the first day of school in 1974, but if he had, I can just imagine how it would have gone for him if he had pulled a stunt like this. Kids would have been laughing for a week!

    On a more serious note, concerned parents may want to learn something about the role-model-in-chief’s views on child rearing before making plans for September 8.

    September 5, 2009
  16. Anthony Pierre said:

    my pet goat

    September 5, 2009
  17. Jim Scott said:

    I watched the YouTube clip. Pretty controversial stuff. Obama suggests: turning off the XBox, sending kids to bed at a decent hour, reading to kids, and attending parent-teacher conferences.

    Then he makes a joke about “whooping” neighborhood kids who are misbehaving. Here’s a hint about how to spot a joke — the President smiled as he said it, and the entire audience laughed.

    Hope this helps.

    September 5, 2009
  18. Scott Oney said:

    Jim: Yeah, I know it was supposed to be a joke. And I guess a joke about child abuse is right up there with the one he made about the Special Olympics. You’re right, though, the audience thought it was a hoot. It’s sad, really. Thanks for highlighting the context.

    September 5, 2009
  19. Anthony Pierre said:

    My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

    September 5, 2009
  20. Jim Scott said:

    Or Bush’s comedy sketch about not finding WMDs, or McCain singing “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”?

    I have no idea what your point is. I’ve got a hunch that most of the tea-bag-monauts who are unhinged about the audacity of Obama speaking to school students would stomp their feet and call Obama anti-Christian if he criticized physical discipline (see, e.g., Proverbs 23:13-14.)

    And, this just in, physical discipline of children was the norm in American households while Obama was a child. And when loonie lefties thought there might be a better way to parent, conservatives threw yet another hissy fit.

    September 5, 2009
  21. john george said:

    Yeah, it’s interesting that so many generations of kids who were “whooped” when they disobeyed grew up to be successful businessmen, legislators, educators, astronauts, etc. None of them had to be calmed down with prozac or constantly entertained with passive electronic devices. Pretty much all of them knew how to respect authority and lead others. They didn’t go around terrorizing other people and destroying property out of bordom. Not every idea for raising children that has been implimented in the last 40 years has been a good one.

    September 5, 2009
  22. Jim Scott said:

    Yes, there were a lot fewer kids on Prozac before Prozac existed.

    September 5, 2009
  23. Paul Zorn said:

    Kiffi raises (#8) the good question of what Governor Pawlenty’s true nature might be. He used to present himself as a bridge over troubled Republican waters; now he seems to have jumped into the pond with the likes of Palin and Bachmann.

    Which of these personae is the real Tim is hard to say. If he ends up slitting his wrists (as Bachmann recommends) in protest against socialism I guess we’d know the answer. Meanwhile, Tim’s chameleonic character is already clear, and troubling.

    September 6, 2009
  24. David Henson said:

    Jim, does Obama think we should comb our kids hair before or after breakfast? Maybe he should dicuss the role of government in peoples lives turning his television event about not watching television.

    September 6, 2009
  25. Anthony Pierre said:

    its pretty creepy isnt it. oh wait. from the official first lady of mn web site:

    http://www.firstlady.state.mn.us/initiatives_civicseducation.html

    The first lady frequently visits
    elementary schools to teach students
    about our system of democracy. The
    first lady focuses on expanding school
    children’s knowledge and understanding
    of the three branches of government,
    providing a special emphasis on the
    judiciary. The first lady was a
    district court judge for 12 years,
    handling all levels of criminal,
    civil, family and juvenile matters.

    Although her schedule does not permit
    her to visit all interested schools in
    our state, there are many judges,
    including district court, court of
    appeals and supreme justices who work
    to reach out to our community through
    education.

    If your school would like to learn
    more about the third branch of
    government or request a judge to speak
    to your students, please contact the
    Court Information Office at the
    Minnesota Judicial Center.

    September 6, 2009
  26. john george said:

    David- I suppose you could communicate some political leanings as to whether you part their hair on the right or the left. Or you could epresent the current state of American politics by just leaving it all messed up.

    September 6, 2009
  27. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Every time I hear one of these diatribes from one of our politicians, no mastter which side of the aisle, I’m reminded of that scene in the movie “Fried Green Tomatoes”. The main character (a girl) is walking down the road in her bib overalls carrying a willow-branch fishing pole and a stringer of bullheads. A guy leaning agaisnt his car says, as she walks by, “Well, look at this pretty thing!” She turns to him and asks, “What are you? Some kind of politician? Or, does lyin’ just come natural in your family?” One of the best movie lines I have ever heard, and so true to life.

    September 6, 2009
  28. Patrick Enders said:

    John, you wrote,

    Yeah, it’s interesting that so many
    generations of kids who were “whooped”
    when they disobeyed grew up to be
    successful businessmen, legislators,
    educators, astronauts, etc. None of
    them had to be calmed down with prozac
    or constantly entertained with passive
    electronic devices. Pretty much all of
    them knew how to respect authority and
    lead others. They didn’t go around
    terrorizing other people and
    destroying property out of bordom. Not
    every idea for raising children that
    has been implimented in the last 40
    years has been a good one.

    John, are you suggesting that you think that it’d be better if we “whooped” our children on an occasional basis – like they did back in the good old days?

    I’m glad to report that I’ve never been “whooped” by a parent. Remarkably – in spite of my “whoop”-deficient upbringing – I don’t “go around terrorizing other people and destroying property out of bordom.”

    Somehow, I suspect that – even if we fail to “whoop” her properly – our little Josephine is unlikely to “go around terrorizing other people and destroying property out of bordom,” either.

    September 6, 2009
  29. Jane Moline said:

    go anthony

    September 6, 2009
  30. Jane Moline said:

    I believe the opposition to Obama’s speach is based in racism. I wish it were only political divisiveness. It is obvious that there would not be such political polarization if the president were white.

    I was shocked during the time of the election that many people told me that Obama was the anti-Christ–which also comes from racism (and ignorant religious fervor.) No other president has been asked to present his birth certificate to prove he is a citizen.

    Obama is the president of the United States. He wants to address school children on studying hard, staying in school, and setting goals. He is releasing the entire text of the speech in advance. It may be logistically difficult to show it live in all schools, but we should at least show it sometime in all schools. This is not a political speech.

    The opposition party is the party that purposefully designed the measurements in No Child Left Behind to falsely label schools as “failing.”

    September 6, 2009
  31. kiffi summa said:

    Go Jane!

    September 6, 2009
  32. john george said:

    Patrick- As you well know, no two children are alike, and what works with one will not always work with another. Two of the scriptures we followed in raising our children are in Proverbs (I can’t find my exact references right now) that says that foolishness is born up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it from him; and bring up a child in the way that he should go and he will continue in it until old age. In Ps. 23, David refers to God’s rod and His staff. A rod was a flexible instrument. A staff was quite substantial and something a person could lean on. Discipline that is inflexible is not discipline, it is punishment. Discipline brings correction and hope. Punishment brings rejection and hopelessness. The “way in which a child should go” refers to the way he/she is wired and how they interract with their environment. When we as parents understand our children, we can tailor the discipline they need to their particular temperament. I do believe there is a difference between spanking and child abuse, and I really don’t care what the current permissive philosophy says about it. You raise your children the way you see best. You don’t have to answer to me. I have already raised mine, and the results speak for themselves.

    September 6, 2009
  33. john george said:

    Jane- How is the conservative reactions to Obama any different than the liberal reactions to Bush? Both seem narrow, intolerant and even spiteful. I don’t think either philosophy has a monopoly on bad behavior. In fact, in Friday’s paper, both the Press & Strib, there was a little filler article about some environmentalist group in Seattle, I believe, that had destroyed two communications towers. Their reasoning? They they thought the towers were a blight on the surroundings and prople had enough electronic intrusions in their lives as it is. Narrow mindedness does not have any religious, political or ethnic boundaries.

    September 6, 2009
  34. Anthony Pierre said:

    john, it took 5 years for the liberal left to get fed up with bush.. after 9/11 katrina iraq politicising of the judicial system. Any one of those is grounds for impeachment.

    it took 1 day for the right to think obama is the antichrist

    September 6, 2009
  35. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    The difference is this: left wing fringers who said crazy thingsabout Bush were usually not elected officials – they were outsiders.
    With the Republican crazies, they’re in the House and Senate and State government. The crazy is coming from the (rump) core of the Republican party.

    September 6, 2009
  36. john george said:

    Anthony & Patrick- The whole rift that appears to be occuring in this country is driven by extremists on both sides. I think they are a minority, not a majority. As far as the Dems. being fed up with Bush, this started at the election with Gore’s defeat. 911 had nothing to do with it. And there were a lot of elected officials crying out about the election. I don’t think either pot is blacker than the other.

    September 6, 2009
  37. David Henson said:

    I think if Obama’s speech were about the branches of government that would be appropriate (but still ineffective PR). I think preaching to people about how much XBox time is “correct” or “how important education is (like they couldn’t predict that opinion)” is empty pandering – in writing, it is the difference between showing and telling. The greater issue being our kids are most likely to die in a car accident – what’s the government going to do about the roads they “manage.” I think there are important issues the president can work on and leave the 3 Rs to the teachers. I know liberals probably do not agree but the thoughts are not “crazy,” I just object to the Oprahization of government.

    September 6, 2009
  38. Anthony Pierre said:

    1 would be restoring our civil liberties taken during the last 8 years.

    I think there are important issues the
    president can work on and leave the 3
    Rs to the teachers.

    September 6, 2009
  39. David Henson said:

    Agreed Anthony (except it has been a steady decline beyond 8 years). Which branches of government are the Dems going to cut back on to increase of civil liberties would be a great discussion of riviting interest to school kids – that would get them reading.

    September 6, 2009
  40. Jane Moline said:

    Back to my racism comment. How come the black president’s agenda is called the “Oprahization” (David Henson, comment 18.6)–a reference to a black talk show host?

    John George–I think you are absolutely wrong–the Republicans have a patent on the carzy talk and carzy people–they are in congress (like Michelle Bachmann), on TV and radio–Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, the big fat idiot Rush, and running around with guns. They are shooting and killing a black guard at the Holocaust Museum or celebrating the murder of a doctor who performed abortions. The left-wing wing-nuts are pulling down radio towers? How can you call this equal?

    Bush will be reknown as the worst president ever. The Republican glorify another ex-Pres, Reagan,who gave guns to death squads in South America and began the economic failure of our country with his loosy-goosy “Reaganomics.” The Republicans have put incompetants like Clarence Thomas in life time appointments and weakened the government. Bush started an illegal war and lied to congress and the American people. His administration leaked national security information for political purposes, spied on the American people, suspended habeus corpus when they felt like it, and generally played “cowboy” while in office, destroying America’s reputation internationally and leading to some of the worst foreign policy mishaps in our country’s history, especially with North Korea and Iran.

    The difference between “liberals” and “conservatives” comes down to basic life issues–liberals will protest over killing people in war while conservatives will protest helping and saving people (like with single-payer health.)

    David, there is no reason the President of the United States should not address school children about EDUCATION–showing them that he is believes education is important. Just because you think it is just “rhetoric”–well you didn’t get elected, and you should probably take a good look at your own entries to this blog before dissing a talented speaker-the president.

    September 6, 2009
  41. Jane Moline said:

    And John George: How can you compare the reaction to Obama trying to help 48 million uninsured people or addressing school children on the importance of education to the reaction to continual abuse-of-power by Bush and his administration? Illegal war, lying about information on WMD, torture, wire-tapping American citizens, constantly suggesting incompetent people for appointment, sending our service men and women to war without proper armour or training or whatever to even secure the country we illegally invaded? The failure to warn about potential terrorist attacks using commercial airliners even though he was briefed on this in August of 2001? His administration’s failure to do anything constructive regarding Hurricane Katrina–to either save people or relieve suffering?

    Granted–Bush showed us for 8 years what a terrible president he was and how incompetent he was–he showed that it is a big mistake to let a millionaire buy the presidency for his son–and we only have 9 months to gather information on Obama–but that only shows you how lopsided the entire approch is–

    I repeat. The opposition to Obama appears to be based in racism. There is no other precedent to such polarized opinions-mostly fueled by false rumours or “crazy talk” of his birth certificate, false links to terrorists or being a Muslim.

    The liberal wackos want peace and love. The conservative wackos want to hoard guns, run around in cammo and shoot people who don’t agree with them.

    I will let you know when we are even. It will take a lot of crazy and stupid actions on the part of the democrats to get even close to Bush.

    September 6, 2009
  42. David Henson said:

    Jane, your comments are way beyond good taste. I spent most of my life living in the city, I purposely sent my kids when young to a mutliracial school, I socialized with a man yestereday whom you would call “black.” And you live in the whitest town in MN. You might be surprised that many blacks are more conservative than you and that few would have your deep emotional support for more government. And yes, Oprah is a “talk show” personality who helped launch Obama’s campaign so calling his “education is important talk” Oprahization is not racist. You needn’t direct comments at me as I find your emotional name calling offensive and if I want your creative opinion then I can look at a talking points memo.

    September 7, 2009
  43. kiffi summa said:

    Another Pawlenty warning: Pawlenty’s comments on CNN about the president’s speech should cause apprehension among even those who consider him a possible candidate for higher office in 2012.

    And I wonder about what I consider to be the really disturbing comments by the MN Assn. of School Administrators that are quoted at the beginning of this thread, and additionally the CYA comments by our school district.
    Go back and read them both again…

    I don’t think it’s a good educational principle to tell kids to just ‘opt out’ of society if they disagree with the leadership to the point that they’re going to be damaged just by hearing the words of the President.

    I frankly don’t care whether it is Bush or President Obama speaking to schoolchildren on the first day of school, I think the speech should be shown, and I think kids should watch, and I think it’s one of those “teachable moments”everyone is so fond of speaking of, no matter who is giving the speech.

    September 7, 2009
  44. David Henson said:

    Jane, why don’t you whine to your own party, as the US is still in Iraq and now has more troops in Afganistan than the Soviets ever had or did the war become ok because Democrats are in charge.

    September 7, 2009
  45. john george said:

    Wow, Jane. Your comments come across as pretty extreme. What have I written in any of my posts that pricipitated your association of me with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck? IMO, it is this type of closed mindedness on both sides that keeps people from coming to agreement and being able to work together. I still beleive there is a majority of realistic people in this country who recognize that they will not always agree on certain principles, but who also recognize that toning down the rhetoric and looking for common ground is the only way to assist the country in moving forward. I would hope that you are one of those people.

    One point of perspective on the terrorist attacks, this same information was available to President Clinton during his term. He even made public speaches about Iraq having WMDs. Why didn’t he do anything to raise public awareness? This is just my opinion, but I think the whole country had slipped into a lethargy about our vunerability to attack. None of us thought any of these extremists groups would actually carry out their plans, even though they had been making these threats for years. And which ones of us would have welcomed the stringent security measures now necessary just to fly to Chicago? Without the events of 911, these measures would not have been allowed. Talk about infringement on personal freedoms and rights! I think it is irrational to blame either the Clinton or the Bush administration for these events. And, I think the sooner this type of finger pointing attitude changes, the better off we will all be.

    September 7, 2009
  46. john george said:

    Kiffi- Did you notice that the sun came up in the west this morning? I actually agree with everything you said in #22.

    September 7, 2009
  47. Jane Moline said:

    Agreed Kiffi.

    John, I did not mean to suggest that your views are the same as Rush Limbaugh’s. I was responding to your comment that the mudslinging is the same from both sides. I used the radical hate radio, hate TV (I didn’t even mention that woman with the oversized adams apple, Ann Coulter) who continually promote false information about libersls while the liberals have….I guess we have Jon Stewart, who skewers equally on both sides but is definitely a liberal.

    I continue to be angry that any patriotic American could have supported a snake like Bush. I cannot find middle ground in an illegal war, torture, the suspension of habeaus corpus, outing CIA agents, spying on Americans, etc. etc.

    Clinton may have had the same false information that Bush had about Saddam’s false WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, but the big difference is that he did not act imprudently–like invade a country that had not attacked us (and, in fact, did not have the ability to attack us–which intelligence was available from the British or the Israelis or any number of sources.)

    But Bush did get the security briefing memo in August of 2001 that talked of terrorists using US commercial planes for suicide missions to terrorize the United States–and he did: NOTHING.

    And I, too agree with Kiffi. Even if that idiot Bush had wanted to address school children when he was president, I would not have opposed it. Even though he was appointed by the Supreme Court rather than elected. Even though he could barely speak his native language. Even though he barely made it through school himself but had a rich dad to help him out. Even though he was a terrible student who had the opportunity of the best schools and instead screwed around for 16 years, and then got to be president anyway. Wow. Thats a morality tale for todays students.

    September 7, 2009
  48. john george said:

    Jane- I think both our comments stand for themselves.

    September 7, 2009
  49. David Ludescher said:

    Jane: I agree with John. Good legislation and policy is not based upon party affiliation. Deciding whether to broadcast the speech is best left to school boards who know their students.

    I don’t understand your claims of racism or partisanship. There are legitimate, educational reasons not to force kids to listen on school time. Obama’s speech could be inspirational to some students and school districts. But, in a town like Northfield, it is probably a waste of time.

    September 7, 2009
  50. kiffi summa said:

    John: You have spoken about “toning down the rhetoric”… Maybe it would tone down the rhetoric a bit if you would not liken you and I agreeing about something to an astronomically impossible event !

    September 7, 2009
  51. kiffi summa said:

    I simply can not conceive of how it could be a waste of time for school children to listen to the President … any president… at the beginning of their school year.
    The seriousness of their educational process should not take second billing to a lot of nit picky organizational school rules; those could be the second , third, and ongoing days of school.
    Let’s get the inspirational, motivational ideas firmly in their heads first; then they can learn about hall passes.
    (That shows how old I am; there’s probably no such thing as hall passes anymore! Cherish your freedoms, kids!)

    September 7, 2009
  52. Barry Cipra said:

    Kiffi, I find it easy to conceive of a presidential address to children being a waste of kids’ time. There’s a precedent for it two decades ago, when the Great Communicator gave a little lecture on tax policy. There’s a nice review of this at Media Matters (I’m leery of including the link, so copy and paste mediamatters.org/blog/200909030020 to get there). Here’s the opening snippet:

    “Putting aside possible ulterior motives, the conservative freak-out over President Obama’s planned speech to students urging them to stay in school and work hard is due to fears that Obama will use his platform as an opportunity to push his agenda on unsuspecting students. Ironically, that’s exactly what President Reagan did two decades ago.

    “On November 14, 1988, Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marlin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “to schools nationwide on three different days.” Much of Reagan’s speech that day covered the American “vision of self-government” and the need “to keep faith with the unfinished vision of the greatness and wonder of America” but in the middle of the speech, the president went off on a tangent about the importance of low taxes:….”

    September 7, 2009
  53. john george said:

    Barry- I think your example is good. Afterall, this is a Democratic president elected in one of our free elections. What do people think he is going to do? Come out and present a conservative plan to cut taxes? The whole idea that a president, legislator or whomever doesn’t have the freedom to represent his party is absurd. I feel the same way about Reagan. Did anyone think he would not present a conservative message? It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the party or not. It seems we have forgotten how to extend common decency and respect to whomever is in a public office. We are not talking about moral issues here, IMO. Disrespect for authority is just that- disrespect for authority, and I think that is a moral issue. I still think this whole upheavel in public opinion is unfounded. This day and age of instant communication and dispersal of opinions is working against us. I think we are driving a wedge between ourselves that any terrorist extreemist in any country would covet the opportunity to do to bring down our country. I remember the famous line from Pogo years ago- we have seen the enemy and he is us. (Perhaps that was a quote from someone else. I didn’t take time to Google it.)

    September 7, 2009
  54. kiffi summa said:

    Barry: I would agree that I would likely find much of the content of a Bush or Reagan speech to be of little worth to ME, but as I said, if we’re so ‘into’ teachable moments, then use it to teach… use it to analyze…

    It’s the attitude that there are more important things on that ‘hectic’ first day of school that annoys me… I don’t think there’s much that’s more important than full engagement in the world we live in, and we live in this country, whether the president is one we would personally have chosen or not.
    It’s never too early to teach about engagement vs. alienation, engagement vs. apathy, and even engagement as a productive form of civil disobedience at times.

    September 7, 2009
  55. Barb Kuhlman said:

    Great comments, Kiffi.

    September 8, 2009
  56. Scott Oney said:

    If Northfield schoolkids really think their best shot at success is through rapping or playing pro basketball, I guess somebody needs to tell ’em . . .

    September 8, 2009
  57. Patrick Enders said:

    FYI: President Obama’s dangerous address to the nation’s schoolchildren, in all its socialistic glory, is being broadcast on MPR 91.1 this hour.

    September 8, 2009
  58. Patrick Enders said:

    FYI: President Obama’s dangerous address to the nation’s schoolchildren, in all its [REDACTED BY GRIFF’S FILTER] glory, is being broadcast on MPR 91.1 this hour.

    September 8, 2009
  59. Patrick Enders said:

    Who’da thunk that the word [s]ocialistic would be moderated on LGN?

    September 8, 2009
  60. Patrick Enders said:

    Who’da thunk that the word formed by combining “social” and “istic” would be moderated on LGN?

    Griff, you’ve gotta get a better system for moderation/filtering.

    September 8, 2009
  61. Peter Millin said:

    I think Obama would be better off adressing the teachers.
    Lecture and ask them how they can improve educating our children, so they are on par with the rest of the world.
    Staying in school is important, but most children would stay in school if their parents would made them stay.
    Chidren aren’t the problem. Parents and Educators are.

    I would also like to ask Obama that why his children are not in a public school, aren’t public schools good enough for them?

    This speech is nothing more than a diversion from his own problems and failures. Designed to do nothing more to hold off his falling poll numbers.
    This is nothing more then politics. Just like so many other things we do in the name of education.

    Where is the beef?

    September 8, 2009
  62. Peter Millin said:

    Nice to see that Jane is back to her regular offensive rhetoric.
    Any commentator from the right (insert me) would have been censored already here.

    NO Jane diagreeing with a President of the United States of America doesn’t make me a racist…quiet the opposite.
    Questioning your leaders is as American as Apple Pie… I suggest you read up on your own history. This time do not read the revisionist version of it…read the real one.

    September 8, 2009
  63. Peter Millin said:

    UH–OH Obama used the “G” word twice in his speech. Aren’t we supposed to keep religion out of schools?

    “G” = GOD

    September 8, 2009
  64. kiffi summa said:

    You all know that I’m not a BIG fan of the NFNews, but boy, am I on their side in this one!
    The newspaper was told they couldn’t show faces or use quotes of kids in school?
    (story on Pres. Obama’s speech) …
    WHAT?

    Have we never seen a classroom picture or had a quote from a kid in school?
    What is with that?

    It is SO sick how the whole subject of a President’s speech to school children gets to be a big controversial subject , even to the point of the school district going into some overprotective mode… Weird, weird weird… Has everyone just lost their senses?

    September 8, 2009
  65. Anthony Pierre said:

    unless you wanted to speak out from 2002-2008. then you were accused of treason

    September 8, 2009
  66. Patrick Enders said:

    Anthony,
    I believe that started approximately 9/12/2001.

    September 8, 2009
  67. Ray Cox said:

    I didn’t actually read the text of the speech, but what I saw in the paper this morning indicated it was a pretty ‘tame’ talk. No many should argue with any person that will talk with students about staying in school and getting a good education….in an effort to lead a productive, rewarding life (my sidebar comment: and one that will allow you to address your own needs without overly relying on the government to take care of you)

    However, I do think this was another example of something not handled well by the Obama administration. The whole flop could have been avoided if at the time they decided to talk to the nations school children they also released at least a rough draft of the speech. Waiting until Monday—Labor Day—to release the text was way too late. Schools were closed on Labor Day and no decisions could be made. So it was essentially dumped on the school districts to deal with a bunch of riled up folks wondering if the President was going to ask children to ‘line up behind me’ and help me advance my agenda. Not fair to dump that on the schools.

    September 8, 2009
  68. Anthony Pierre said:

    they would have still thrown a fit.

    September 8, 2009
  69. David Henson said:

    I think even stating, “you need a good education to compete in the world economy” is a ‘values’ statement which is why this is a bad tradition to start. A better statement would be, “you need a good education to through the democratic process define how you will relate to the world at large.” (Maybe they will decide to be protectionist – I’m not advocated it but all options will be open). I would suggest Obama and future presidents stick to the job description in the constitution.

    Educators were major Obama backers so their cool reception should tell us something.

    September 8, 2009
  70. Barb Kuhlman said:

    In support of Patrick’s comment 18.4, check out this article, “The GOP has become a party of nihilists.”

    link text

    September 8, 2009
  71. David Ludescher said:

    I think Ray and David are accurate. This issue (whether school districts should show the speech) was non-partisan. The primary opposition to the speech came from educators, who while overwhelmingly Democratic, were still concerned with the possible disruptive nature of the speech.

    All in all, it seems like a good balance was struck.

    September 9, 2009
  72. Ray Cox said:

    The main issue I have with the speech is simply the time. Our children are in school to learn and I believe our teachers and administrators plan full days of learning for them. When there is something that ‘disrupts’ the daily lesson plan, I can only imagine that some learning is postponed or never takes place. I sincerely hope the teachers were allowed flexibility in showing the program. I have the same concern when the legislature mandates some new task for schools…but doesn’t say what educational program should be discontinued or taught for less time.

    September 9, 2009
  73. Yesterday at the high school, classes were only 15 minutes long to make room for a morning of “getting to know you” activities for freshmen. Ray, how does do you rate the priority of listening to a speech by the President which took 20 minutes vs. 4 hours of non-instructional time?

    September 9, 2009
  74. Britt Ackerman said:

    When I was in school, we watched the movie “Glory” as a lesson on African-American history in a civil war context, the movie “Romeo and Juliet” (the old version, with boobies!) for a lesson on Shakespeare, the miniseries “Roots” for another diversity lesson and “The Diary of Anne Frank” to learn about the holocaust.

    I also remembering listening to Pres. Reagan’s speech, but that was somewhat overshadowed by watching the Challenger explode live on TV and, let’s not forget, the O.J. Simpson verdict.

    Funny to think that Obama’s speech could be so disruptive to the regularly scheduled TV broadcast…

    September 9, 2009
  75. David Ludescher said:

    Britt: When I was in school, Ma and Pa told me that I could study hard or shovel manure the rest of my life. Of course, I have a couple of years on you.

    September 9, 2009
  76. Britt Ackerman said:

    David L.

    I don’t understand your point. Hard work was the point of Obama’s speech.

    September 9, 2009
  77. Anthony Pierre said:

    I don’t get it david, were you in a trade school for shoveling shit or something? You do it pretty well on logro.

    September 9, 2009
  78. David Ludescher said:

    Britt and Anthony: Do we really need the President to tell kids to study hard? Isn’t that what parents and teachers are for? Maybe Obama is inspirational in some places. But, in Northfield, it is a waste of my kid’s time, and frankly, a little too much like hero worship. He’s the President, not the Superintendent.

    P.S. I learned to study hard because I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life shoveling shit on the farm.

    September 9, 2009
  79. Paul Zorn said:

    David L:

    You write:

    Do we really need the President to tell kids to study hard? Isn’t that what parents and teachers are for?

    Sure, parents should do this. Any harm in a President doing so, too?

    And then:

    Maybe Obama is inspirational in some places. But, in Northfield, it is a waste of my kid’s time …

    What benighted “some places” did you have in mind that compare so poorly to Northfield? Might our enlightened local kids’ time be better spent instructing their peers in those other places?

    and, frankly, a little too much like hero worship …

    Just above you dissed the Prez for un-inspiringness to Northfield kids. Now you worry about hero worship. Can both dangers really apply?

    September 9, 2009
  80. David Henson said:

    So you guys are ok with Michelle Bachmann addressing all the school kids in her district? Should every politican get to do this or just the president?

    September 9, 2009
  81. David Ludescher said:

    Paul: This president is clearly at his best when he is acting as the philosopher/king with whom Plato was so enamored. His messages are so powerful that I sent my young adult kids both his acceptance speech and his inaugural speeches.

    But, I still think that is best for each school to decide whether and how to present the message. For some schools the speech may be valuable; for others, like Northfield, we have to be careful that we aren’t just doing it because we adore our king.

    September 10, 2009
  82. Anthony Pierre said:

    david, it doesnt hurt to have the president reinforce the message.

    September 10, 2009
  83. Anthony Pierre said:

    she can if she wants. but she has some more blood pacts to make so I dont think she will have time for that.

    So you guys are ok with Michelle
    Bachmann addressing all the school
    kids in her district? Should every
    politican get to do this or just the
    president?

    September 10, 2009
  84. Paul Zorn said:

    David:

    You say:

    This president is clearly at his best when he is acting as the philosopher/king with whom Plato was so enamored. …

    A lawyerly turn of phrase, but I’d overrule it.

    The undoubted fact that Obama speaks well and inspires many listeners by no means implies that he seeks the coronation or “adoration” that you seem to fear.

    And then:

    … I still think that is best for each school to decide whether and how to present the message.

    Agreed. Was there any indication from the palace to the contrary?

    … we have to be careful that we aren’t just doing it because we adore our king.

    OK, I’ll be on guard, but won’t worry unduly.

    September 10, 2009
  85. kiffi summa said:

    While ‘you guys’ are arguing in #35, Betsey asks a fact based question in # 36.

    So … what about that?

    Sounds to me like the school district is just into their own ‘lecture time’, rather than being concerned on the basis of lost REAL instructional time.
    Their objections were bogus to begin with, and more so as we hear what actually occurred on the first morning of school.

    September 10, 2009
  86. Patrick Enders said:

    Kiffi,
    I suspect that there is no good answer to Betsey’s question, because – as you say, the “objections were bogus to begin with.”

    September 10, 2009
  87. Patrick Enders said:

    And then there’s this: the sight of the President of the United States being heckled by an elected Representative during a joint session of Congress:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/09/AR2009090902298.html?hpid=artslot

    Really? A Congressperson heckling the President during a formal governmental event? Do these people really only respect the institutions and traditions of our country when they are in charge?

    As has been asked before, “Have you no sense of decency?”

    September 10, 2009
  88. john george said:

    Patrick- That is the question I have been asking for a long time, also. It seems decency and respect for an office flew out the window with Nixon. Too bad we associate one person’s reprehensible behavior with an office rather than recognizing that it is a person who has the moral deficiency. If the country had this type of microscopic inspection attitude when JFK was in office, he would not have had a chance. His dalliances were no better than Clinton’s. Also, the Bay of Pigs debacle was really no better than the failed Carter attmpt at rescuing the Iraq hostages, or the WMD mis-intelligence for Bush. I don’t care what political persuasion we are, I just don’t think it is proper to be disrespectful of a person when he/she occupies or has occupied an office. It is one thing to disagree with an ideology. It is quite another to stoop to elementary school level name calling. I think there has been just as much disrespect for Bush expressed here as there has been for Obama, and neither justifies the derogatory comments. I’m unashamedly a Republican, but I don’t condone the “Liar” outburst during Obama’s speech last night, nor the accusation of political opportunism associated with the school speech. As Charlie Brown says, “Good grief!”

    September 10, 2009
  89. Jane Moline said:

    John: Agreed. And although nobody in Northfield is a rascist, I believe alot of our country still harbors many and some of them are in congress.

    What other president caused this much hoopla when wanting to address schoolchildren? What other president is heckled by a congress person? I think racism is rampant in the polarized reactions to this administration–and just ’cause you’all aren’t racist, does not make the rest of the country just like you.

    September 10, 2009
  90. David Ludescher said:

    Paul: I think everyone involved handled it quite well. The President offered the opportunity to schools. Each district decided how to handle the opportunity.

    I don’t think Obama is seeking kingship or saviourship. I suspect that he knows that he is one of the least qualified executives we have had in the presidency. I congratulate him for sticking to his strong suit – preaching, and for staying above partisan politics in spite of his very liberal tendencies.

    September 10, 2009
  91. Jane Moline said:

    Talk about damning with faint praise. Remember not eulogize me.

    September 10, 2009
  92. john george said:

    Jane- I’m not sure where I said anything about racism in the responses to President Obama. Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t remember making a comment one way or another on race. I will state my stand on that now. I personally do not believe that all the opposition to Obama’s proposals is tied to racism. I think that accusation is unfounded and suppresses discussion of the real reasons there is disagreement about the president’s agenda.

    Here is a link to an intersting analysis in Newsweek, provided it gets through Griff’s spam filter.
    http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/10/a-defense-of-joe-wilson-the-democractic-right-to-dissent.aspx?GT1=43002
    I’m not sure I agree with the whole article, but I think it is an interesting perspective.

    September 10, 2009
  93. Jane Moline said:

    John: I specifically stated that your opposition was NOT RACIST. I believe the rest of the country is not quite as progressive as Minnesota, and I bet you get going south you will find plenty of racism.

    This is not being used by the democrats to suppress discussion–nobody is willing to talk about the facts of racism in our country–or the overwhelming, and often idiotic, opposition statements that come from–what? I think Racism–but maybe Republicans are idiots?

    September 10, 2009
  94. Patrick Enders said:

    Jane,
    I don’t think that even crazy right wingers dislike Obama because of his race. I think that crazy right wingers simply fear anyone that is not a crazy right winger.

    (Sensible right wingers merely disagree with Barack Obama on the basis of facts and reasoned arguments. It’s a shame that there are so few of them left on the national level.)

    September 10, 2009
  95. john george said:

    Jane- Accepted. I guess I misunderstood your comment. I know there is racism alive and rampant in this country, and you don’t have to go south to find it. In fact, some of the most racist comments I have heard have come out of the mouths of people of color, re. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I have close relatives that fall within this type of behavior, but I feel your statement about it came across as a blanket condemnation. I still feel that the accusation of racism is a distraction to discussing the underlying ideaological differences. I know there is a lot of hatred toward former President Bush, but I try not to respond to the emotional outbursts. I feel it is divisive and counterproductive to rational discussion and understanding.

    September 10, 2009
  96. john george said:

    Patrick- Perhaps we can change that in the next election. (Ha! Ha!)

    September 10, 2009
  97. Jane Moline said:

    Agreed Patick–it is not the crazy right wingers but the racists that oppose Obama because of his race. The crazy right wingers are just crazy.

    September 10, 2009
  98. Scott Oney said:

    Jane and Patrick: I’m curious. What criteria do you use to determine whether those of us who disagree with you are “racists,” “crazy,” or just “idiots”?

    September 10, 2009
  99. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott,
    I’d need pretty incontrovertible and consistent, repeated evidence before I’d throw around the word ‘racist’ about a person. I’d sooner use it about a phrase or an idea than about the person who said it. People are complex, often hold contradictory ideas, and are often not entirely one thing or another.

    I also don’t recall ever using the word idiot to refer to many persons, and again, people are not entirely any one thing or another.

    Crazy is easier to define: I’d use it for anyone who persists in a mistaken, delusional thought even after they’ve been presented with ample evidence showing that their delusional thought is simply not connected with reality. For example, I’d apply it to anyone who has given more than a passing thought to the following conspiracy theories, and still persists in belief: Truthers, Birthers, and Death Panel conspiracy theorists.

    Of course, some of the crazies aren’t really crazy; they’re just cynical opportunists using the crazy to advance their own agenda. Problem is, it’s hard to sort out the real crazies from the fakes. So, as a great American philosopher once nearly said, “crazy is as crazy does.”

    September 10, 2009
  100. Scott Oney said:

    Patrick: So do you think Obama’s crazy, or just a cynical opportunist, when he gets up in front of Congress and tries to convince ’em that illegal aliens won’t be able to cash in on his health care plan?

    September 10, 2009
  101. David Henson said:

    Nutty folks who don’t want to turn the health care system over to the professionals that gave us Freddie and Fannie. Crazy because they know what Hitler, Stalin and Castro’s government utopias produced. Ubsurd in believing in limited government.

    September 10, 2009
  102. Patrick Enders said:

    I think he’s telling the truth. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Note the discussion on the other thread.

    September 10, 2009
  103. Scott Oney said:

    Patrick: Of course there’s evidence to the contrary, at least for the House bill that passed. It contains no mechanism for determining citizenship. The Heller amendment would have accomplished that, but it was rejected by the Democrats.

    September 10, 2009
  104. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott,
    Citation? My reading of HR 3200 (cited on the other thread) specifically disqualifies subsidies to people in the country without legal status.

    September 10, 2009
  105. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I agree that the relationship between health insurance reform and the works of mass murderers like Hitler and Stalin is an extraordinarily tenuous one.

    September 10, 2009
  106. David Henson said:

    Patrick, go back and look at these leaders promises if citizens gave up their liberty. They never offered mass murder of opposition but rather security including government health care.

    September 10, 2009
  107. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Perhaps you could offer a reference supporting your historical analysis?

    September 10, 2009
  108. David Henson said:

    Google -Hitler promises- ” ‘Hitler’ kept his promises. The social welfare state build in many west European nations was nothing but continuing and improving on what Hitler created He gave people work. Better employment laws. Health care (Hitler himself was vegetarian and the first active non smoker.) A pension, upon was vegetarian and the first active non smoker.) A pension, upon retirement. Social laws in case they got ill. A social organization for the workers (Kraft durch Freude), with holiday resorts, a cruiseship and plans to give the people an affordable car: the KdF wagen, which later became the Volkswagen Beetle. Volkswagen Beetle I’m not in favor of Hitler singing his praise; this is what he did. People did pay a very heavy price for it, but that was at that time in the future

    Blockquote

    September 10, 2009
  109. john george said:

    Jane- Your concerns about rampant racism in the US may have some roots that are surprising to you. Take a look at this article in Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/page/1
    if Griff’s spam filter alloows it to go through. This study confirms some observations I have had about the whole idea of how and why we differentiate race.

    September 10, 2009
  110. David Henson said:

    Goole ‘Stalin Promises’ –

    (Russia) Living standards: these generally rose in the 1930’s despite the obvious problems with food production and shortages elsewhere. Some people did very well out of the system especially party officials and skilled factory workers. Health care was greatly expanded. In the past, the poorer people of Russia could not have expected qualified medical help in times of illness. Now that facility was available though demand for it was extremely high. The number of doctors rose greatly but there is evidence that they were so scared of doing wrong, that they had to go by the rule book and make appointments for operations which people did not require! Housing remained a great problem

    September 10, 2009
  111. Jane Moline said:

    wow. That was really interesting, John. It is quite a long article,–for those that don’t have time to read, it recounts several studies and stories of children’s attitudes about race. Some of the conclusions were that by not talking about and noticing skin color, we reinforce racist attitudes-rather than help our kids develop a “diverse” attitude, we enforce that skin color makes us very different. (One story was similar to the blue-eye, brown-eye seminars and studies–kids were given either blue or red shirts–and revealed specific prejudices based on “them” and “us” after a few weeks wearing “their” color.)

    Anyway, I am not saying that everyone opposed to Obama’s speach to school children are racist–only that there is a very unhealthy, unAmerican, unfriendly response to anything Obama that seems to have a basis in racism. Especially the continual false accusations–in the school speach, that he would brainwash the students or indoctrinate them with his politics. In the case of health care–that he is for death panels and–horrors–would let some one who is not a citizen receive health care in the United States.

    I understand the opposition to big government–but that is not the majority of the opposition. It seems to be sprouting from another source. And after reading that article, I still think it is about race.

    September 10, 2009
  112. kiffi summa said:

    The article in # 41 is no news: people today are NOT so far from their origins that they have lost the protective tactics of sorting themselves into like ‘tribes’.

    And that only bolsters the argument of racism that Jane has been pursuing.

    By the way, I’m not respectful of any hierarchal system if it does not warrant respect because of its actions. So even the Presidency, in the end, must earn its respect by its actions and demeanor.

    And now we’re to the point I think should be pursued: President Obama has conducted himself with decency, seriousness, intent of purpose, and even an aura of calm. I consider that to be nearly impossible in this era of political madness. He has been a model of dignity, and I’m not talking about his suits and ties.
    He has not blustered, crowed, or acted like a cowboy leaning over the bar with his cronies. He has restored a measure of dignity to the highest office of this country, to a place where I personally had found it lacking in recent years.

    Again, he has been a model of dignity. Now, some would criticize him for even that, calling him a “preacher”, and the “least qualified executive” we have had.
    I am appalled at that characterization.

    It is almost impossible to see how this country will extricate itself from the divisiveness of its politics, the viciousness of its political rhetoric, and the crippling negative outfall of its narrow vision of the world of which it is a part .

    September 11, 2009
  113. Anthony Pierre said:

    Patrick, go back and look at these
    leaders promises if citizens gave up
    their liberty. They never offered mass
    murder of opposition but rather
    security including government health
    care

    losing liberty under obama?

    give me a break

    http://www.blogd.com/archives/001738.html

    September 11, 2009
  114. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: Obama, like Jesse Ventura, won the election on the strength of his preaching, not on the weight of his resume.

    I think everyone wants to reduce political divisiveness. Calling conservatives racists, nuts, and crazies doesn’t help. Remember, liberalism has its own narrow vision of the world. Obama pointed that out in his book, Audacity of Hope and in his address to Congress.

    September 11, 2009
  115. kiffi summa said:

    David L. : once again, your logic escapes me as it does not follow a consistent thread of argument … i.e., in the past, you have exhorted us to pay attention to the words of a penultimate ‘preacher’, the Pope.

    Now you eschew the words of someone as being too ‘preacher’like?
    SOME bit of consistency is required…

    I believe President Obama won the election based not on preaching, but on principle…

    September 11, 2009
  116. john george said:

    Jane- I thought it was interesting, also. Thanks for taking time to read it. My response to the article is that there is a lot of insight into how to really teach our children about race relationships. I used this same approach many years ago with my own children, just going on a gut feeling I had about how they reacted to a lot of other things in life. I even ended up with a Hispanic son-in-law who is just the best husband for my daughter.

    September 11, 2009
  117. john george said:

    David L.- I agree with your assesment, and I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing. This country is so complex that any one person cannot keep up with everything that goes on. The greatest importance to a president, IMO, is whom he surrounds himself with as counselors. I believe Obama has an understanding of this, and I think he has tried to surround himself with people who will give him a realistic assesment of what needs to be done. Given that, his left leaning experiences will certainly color his decisions, but that is only to be expected. I don’t think we can fault the man for being who he is.

    September 11, 2009
  118. Scott Oney said:

    Patrick: No, there’s definitely no enforcement provision in H.R. 3200. There is nothing in the bill that would require verification of citizenship. The wording you quoted on the other thread doesn’t specify any verification requirements. Illegal aliens can’t get Medicaid, though. The government checks their status first. The Heller amendment (the link to which keeps causing the reply to be rejected) would have done the trick in H.R. 3200, but Democrats explicitly rejected it. Do you think such language should be added?

    September 11, 2009
  119. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: I love Obama’s preaching. I bought his book, Audacity of Hope, and liked that also. However, he lacks any significant executive experience to make those ideas become a political reality.

    It is my hope that Obama will break through the political power lock that the Democrats and Republicans have on the political process so that we can get back to talking about ideas, and not just jockeying for power.

    On his talk to the students, I think that he handled it masterfully.

    September 11, 2009
  120. David Henson said:

    Anthony, I never voted for Bush. I am much more interested in what is referred to as the liberty movement. Believe it or not many folks think both Bush and Obama favor to many forced government programs. I liked John’s 10% is enough program. Money and assistance is far more effective and dynamic when voluntary.

    September 11, 2009
  121. Peter Millin said:

    ..would that be van Jones ??

    September 11, 2009
  122. Peter Millin said:

    Scott,

    Here you go with your pesty details again.

    Of course Obama was lying about illegal immigrants and health care. After all they do represent and important voter block for him.
    He laso lied about the cost of healthcare. Further he lied about that people who had won’t have change it.
    prelimanry numbers show that current healthcare costs for those that are on private insurance will go up by $ 1000 per year on average.

    He also lied about not raising taxes on the middle class..he already did by raising cigarette taxes…and I am taking bets that more tax increases are to come.

    Wilson was maybe inapropiate in calling him a liar before congress..but he did speak the truth.

    September 11, 2009
  123. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott and Peter,
    Speaking of pesky facts… perhaps we could walk through the following lines of HR 3200.

    The passage numbered 152, alluded to by John George and quoted by John Zorn on the other thread, is purportedly the source of the “illegal aliens will get government-subsidized health insurance” myth:

    SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
    (a) In General- Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

    (b) Implementation- To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

    I assume that this is the source of concern:
    “SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
    (a) Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

    However, people who claim that this means illegal aliens will receive subsidized health care are missing the preceding passage:

    Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.”

    And look – elsewhere in the act, it is explicitly stated:
    SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
    Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

    So, should HR3200 as presently written be enacted, when the executive branch (in the person of “the Secretary of Health and Human Services”) drafts the rules that implement the new bill, they will be required to draft those rules in accordance with 152(a). Again, 152(a) has that very big “Except” in it, which includes Sec. 246, above.

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

    September 11, 2009
  124. Patrick Enders said:

    ….Sorry Paul – that’s Paul Zorn, not John Zorn.

    September 11, 2009
  125. john george said:

    Patrick- I had an uncle named Paul George.

    September 11, 2009
  126. kiffi summa said:

    ALERT! Another Pawlenty warning:

    This morning it was reported on MNPR that good ole’ T-Paw had a conference call with other ultra conservative governors on the possibility of stopping health care reform with a states’ rights movement.

    I don’t think there’s much of a need to do more than report that fact …

    September 11, 2009
  127. Patrick Enders said:

    You’ve gotta love that our once-“moderate” governor has now espoused the Constitutional heresy of Nullification, which has been discredited ever since South Carolina tried it in 1832 (except for a brief attempted revival in the South in the 1960’s, when people wanted to use it to preempt antidiscrimination Civil Rights laws.

    It’s not easy to get the Republican nomination for President, is it?

    September 11, 2009
  128. kiffi summa said:

    What SHOULD be feared is how easy it MIGHT be to get the Republican nomination with that kind of tactic!

    Let’s see if any list of like thinking governors comes out.

    P.S. WHO ever thought T-Paw was “moderate”?

    September 11, 2009
  129. Patrick Enders said:

    Kiffi,
    Tim Pawlenty thinks that Tim Pawlenty is moderate, of course.

    On the bright side, if the Republicans nominate a candidate spouting 19th century nullification nonsense, it’ll be that much easier to defeat them again.

    On the down side, consider the horrors if such a candidate won.

    September 11, 2009
  130. john george said:

    Patrick- Compared to some of the other conservative talking faces out there right now, I think Pawlenty is moderate, also. Tell me, are there any conservatives out there that you would call moderate?

    Kiffi- I think you know the balance between state governments and the central government that the framers of the constitution tried to achieve. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who was asked, after the Continental Congress, what type of government they had decided on. He said something like, “We have given you a republic. Now, lets see if you can keep it.” Trying to maintain this balance will always result in a struggle between the opposing sides. I think it would be dangerous if either side chose to give up.

    September 11, 2009
  131. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: Weren’t you just lamenting the name-calling and political divisiveness?

    September 11, 2009
  132. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    You say:

    Compared to some of the other conservative talking faces out there right now, I think Pawlenty is moderate …

    If your point is that there is room to the right of Pawlenty, then I agree. (But anyone hoping to occupy that position had better establish a foothold soon, as our Governor is racing fast in that direction.)

    In any event, Governor Pawlenty’s not being among the very right-est of the right could be read more as a damning indictment of those even to his right than as any endorsement of the Governor.

    Then you asked (of Patrick):

    … are there any conservatives out there that you would call moderate?

    I can’t speak for Patrick, but I’d include Arne Carlson and Al Quie — and that’s just among fairly recent Minnesota governors.

    September 11, 2009
  133. john george said:

    Paul Z.- Good points on all you said. You understood my point exactly, and I agree that the Governer is not moving toward the center with some of his statements over the last couple weeks.

    As far as Arne Carlson and Al Quie, these are definitely moderate conservatives and honorable men with past political careers. What I was asking Patrick about is whether he sees any conservatives currently holding national leadership positions that he would consider moderate. Sorry I did not make that distinction clear in my question.

    September 11, 2009
  134. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: It strikes me as counter-productive to demonize the person of Pawlenty rather than discussing the constitutional principle of the 10th Amendment.

    September 12, 2009
  135. kiffi summa said:

    David L: with respect to #s 47, 47.2, & 47.5… it is with great regret that I apologize for the “political divisiveness” of reporting the fact of our governor’s actions, and “(name)calling” him by what has become an often used nickname, T-Paw…

    Must have been a little seizure of “intellectual dishonesty” ; I will have to stop reading the reportage of News, and listening to that wildly rebellious MNPublic Radio.

    September 12, 2009
  136. David Henson said:

    I am not a big T-Paw fan but I like it ! The liberals are correct this is the kind of bold creative thinking that will win independents. Has a David slays Golaith feel to it … TPaw would be jumping out of his foxhole and racing right at the enemy.

    September 12, 2009
  137. Parick Enders said:

    David,
    I’m not demonizing Tim Pawlenty. I’m just saying that he’s not a moderate. Many people will no doubt be happy to learn that Mr. Pawlenty has embraced nullification as a response to the very important issue of health care reform.

    I will admit that “consider the horrors” is an entirely subjective concept. Some people would love changes that I would consider to be horrors. If you don’t find any horrors in nullification, then by all means go right ahead and support Tim Pawlenty’s candidacy for President.

    September 12, 2009
  138. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I’m not demonizing Tim Pawlenty. I’m simply reporting that he’s not a moderate. Many people will no doubt be happy to learn that Mr. Pawlenty has embraced nullification as a response to the very important issue of health care reform.

    I will admit that “consider the horrors” is an entirely subjective concept. Some people would love changes that I would consider to be horrors. If you don’t find any horrors in nullification, then by all means go right ahead and support Tim Pawlenty’s candidacy for President.

    September 12, 2009
  139. john george said:

    Patrick- I think your comment here has a lot of truth in it

    Some people would love changes that I
    would consider to be horrors.

    I think what you consider positive progressive changes, many others might consider “horrors.” As long as we all recognize our own subjectivity in our comments, then at least we have some common ground to work from. As far as the health care bill, I think there is a fear among many that the changes being proposed will ultimately not really change the probelms we have right now with our system as far as equitible distribution of care. My thought on the term “single payer” is that it doesn’t communicate to me that this inequity of care provision will really be addressed. I had hope from Obama’s speach the other night that at least he is aware of this. I think the whole concept of how care is actually paid for is secondary to the equitability of availability, if that makes sense.

    September 12, 2009
  140. David Henson said:

    John, how is the equitable distribution of health care any different than the equitable distribtuion of food, clothing, housing, toys, travel, etc? I think health care is a very vague concept as to where it starts and where it ends which makes it particularly subject to graft and corruption. My own parents went into Abbott NW and Mayo for elective surgeries (which I was against before and obviously after) and my Mom died in the hospital and my Dad was left crippled in a wheelchair. They had private insurance so it was their own choice but should society be obligated to cover this care? I don’t know that their experience is typical but it was an a huge waste all the way around and not worthy of forcing through violence (which is what taxes do) everyones participation.

    September 12, 2009
  141. john george said:

    David H.- I do not see any difference, and herein lies the basic difference between current liberal and conservative philosophies. Liberals believe the most equitable way to distribute services is through a large, central government. Conservatives believe that the best way to do it is through private enterprise. I think the whole locally grown food/ locally produced energy distribution ideas being advanced mainly by liberal camps is a bellweather of change in their thinking. For these ideas to work on a small local basis, then there must be an abandonment of a large central distribution network. There are many who post here who decry “big-box retailers” as being a threat to local enterprise, even though they embody a large central distribution network. It seems a dichotomy to me that these same people advocate a “big-box (read: government)” system for health care distribution. Who knows where we will be in 50 years? It could be that for a lot of these programs to work, we will have to return to strong state/local governments and the national government will only be involved in national defense and establishment of safety and monetary standards. Patrick- Is this what you mean by “nullification?”

    September 12, 2009
  142. kiffi summa said:

    John : re 48.3 … for you to equate the philosophy of a govt supported single payer system of health care to the functioning of a for-profit big box merchandiser is ALMOST the most ridiculous thing you have ever said, IMO, excuse me for being incredulous!

    Regardless of what you think of a central gov’t which you fear cannot function in an equable manner, at least it has a motive to do so, and a check and balance system to ATTEMPT to force it to do so.
    There is neither the motive nor the check and balance in a for profit corporation to do either; In fact it would be against their bottom line to do so.
    A for profit corporation would be nuts to do anything but try to GAIN as much market share as possible: a central gov’t for-the-common-good philanthropic program would be nuts to do anything but try to PROVIDE as much SUPPORT as possible.

    DON’T WORRY! as of 2009, the central gov’t of the USofA does not have an agenda of controlling population by stuffing either abortion OR homosexuality down your private personal throat!

    Can you not see the basic difference in the structure of these two systems? this is not a matter of individuals’ POV , they simply are not equatable functionary structures!

    September 12, 2009
  143. David Henson said:

    John, IMLB opinion you are right on target about WalMart. Kiffi, I think John’s concern is like yours and Victors dislike of government support for big box building – ultimately that government intervention distorts normal human behavior in ways that makes it ends to unpredictable to justify the means.

    (Lucid and brillant – I’m kidding but I am never so sure about this humble crowd)

    September 12, 2009
  144. john george said:

    Kiffi- I really hesitate to try to discuss this issue with you. Your statements like

    ALMOST the most ridiculous thing you
    have ever said

    DON’T WORRY! as of 2009, the central
    gov’t of the USofA does not have an
    agenda of controlling population by
    stuffing either abortion OR
    homosexuality down your private
    personal throat!

    seem more adversarial than objective. As far as your comment

    Can you not see the basic difference
    in the structure of these two systems?

    my question is- Can you tell me the difference?

    It seems to me that your post is addressing the motivations behind the systems, not the structure of the systems, which I am comparing. You are correct on motivations, between profit/non-profit organizations in general, but I don’t think your evaluation is correct on the comparable structure. What I pick up in your post, through this statement

    at least it has a motive to do so

    is that somehow, just because a large central supply system is run by the government, it will be free of greed, graft, and corruption. I simply do not believe this, no matter what party is in the majority. If this were true, then we would not see the history of it in our government over the last couple decades.

    September 12, 2009
  145. john george said:

    David H.- Lucid and brilliant?! I love that accrostic!

    September 12, 2009
  146. john george said:

    Kiffi- Ok, here it is. This is your quote from post 48.4

    for you to equate the philosophy of a
    govt supported single payer system of
    health care to the functioning of a
    for-profit big box merchandiser is
    ALMOST the most ridiculous thing you
    have ever said, IMO, excuse me for
    being incredulous!

    Now, this is a quote from President Obama’s speech on health care

    Insurance companies will have an
    incentive to participate in this
    exchange because it lets them compete
    for millions of new customers. As one
    big group, these customers will have
    greater leverage to bargain with the
    insurance companies for better prices
    and quality coverage

    This is called volume purchasing power. It is the same economic principle that allows Wal Mart to price its products as it does. If a supplier wants to market its products through Wal Mart, it must cut its prices to do so. It is the same principle that presently allows employers to purchase coverage for their employees at discounted rates. It is the same principle that President Obama is proposing to reduce health care costs to individuals who presently cannot afford it.

    Is this economic principle immoral? If so, then if the government uses it instead of a business, does that somehow make it moral? I’m talking about the system, here, not the motivation behind it.

    September 12, 2009
  147. john george said:

    Kiffi- I forgot to add one thing to my post above-

    Can you not see the basic difference
    in the structure of these two systems?

    And, I will repeat my question- Can you tell me the difference?

    September 12, 2009
  148. kiffi summa said:

    John: 4 comments (48.6,48.7, 49, and 49.1) to answer my one, and you know what John? I keep getting drawn in by your twisted arguments, and I know better… and Griff has told us not to respond to each other… but I keep thinking there must be a way to make you see the non-logic of these circular arguments of yours which always come back to your feeling of being threatened by the government with regards to your loss of your particular mindset of freedoms.

    If you think a universal healthcare system provided by the gov’t is going to be ‘cheap’ based on ‘volume purchasing power’ rather than on controlling profit motives of insurance and drug companies … it’s just pointless to further discuss.
    Watch Robert Reich’s two minute, thirty eight second,video explanation on You Tube.

    Additionally, you pervert the main subject matter of every thread.

    I’m sorry I got involved again…

    and P.S. re:48.7. what you refer to as an “accrostic” is not one, and if it were it would be an ACROSTIC.

    September 13, 2009
  149. Parick Enders said:

    David,
    I’m not demonizing Tim Pawlenty. I’m just saying that he’s not a moderate. Many people will no doubt be happy to learn that Mr. Pawlenty has embraced nullification as a response to the very important issue of health care reform.

    I will admit that “consider the horrors” is an entirely subjective concept. Some people would love changes that I would consider to be horrors. If you don’t find any horrors in nullification, then by all means go right ahead and support Tim Pawlenty’s candidacy for President.

    September 13, 2009
  150. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: You’re not reporting when you say that Pawlenty is not a moderate, you are opining.

    Pawlenty raises an excellent point about health care reform when he suggests that states should be permitted latitude in developing health care options for its citizens. When states spend its citizens dollars, the state is usually more prudent than the federal government.

    September 13, 2009
  151. Peter Millin said:

    The liberal wackos want peace and
    love. The conservative wackos want to
    hoard guns, run around in cammo and
    shoot people who don’t agree with
    them.

    This should be named to most childish and absurd post of the month on LG.
    Liberal wackos want peace and love?

    Liberals are the ones that have created the current division in this country by creating labels for all kinds of people. To make things worse they then elevate minorities in to a special status and make them depended on the government dollar.
    By telling them “Oh you can’t succeed on your own, we need to help you and give y0u special privileges”

    Only we know what’s best for you.

    Despite all the ” so called compassion” our poverty rate has increased, MediCare is about to go bankrupt. Social security is a joke.
    To make matters worse those three items represent the largest items within our budgets, especially in Minnesota.
    When the new deal was implemented we all were promised that all the poverty would go away..40+ years later it has gotten worse (based on some liberals comments).

    Instead of taking an honest look what do liberals do ? They go in debt create more programs and promise that this time it will work. LOL

    All under the disguise of compassion and

    “The liberal wackos want peace and

    love.”

    Please Jane spare me the drama.

    I am a conservative (not republican) I have three kids for them I want nothing more hen love and peace.
    Unfortunately the world we live in is not all good. There is and always will be a segment of people who are envious of or prosperity and use our prosperity to manipulate their own population for their own gains.

    We don’t need radicals within our population to support the enemy on the outside, by spewing the same imperialistic nonsense that they use to bring us down.

    And America makes an easy target, because we are the most free and prosperous country in the world…despite what the left wants to tell us.

    September 13, 2009
  152. Scott Oney said:

    Patrick: What you’ve quoted implies that it would be permitted for the rules to be drafted to exclude illegal aliens, but I don’t see anything there that would require the rules to be drafted in that way. I’m pretty sure a couple of “shall’s” are in the wrong place for that.

    September 13, 2009
  153. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Nullification is not a moderate position.

    September 13, 2009
  154. john george said:

    Well, Kiffi, I think Prov. 29:9 is appropriate here. You have offered nothing to refute my comparison between big-box retailers and the government system being proposed. You call my comparison non-logic and circular reasoning, but you haven’t given me any evidence to support your accusation. Both function on the same principle, volume purchasing power. I think it is a good principle, and I am glad it is being considered.

    Also, I don’t remember saying anything about “cheap” medical care. The question I have raised is whether anyone really knows what it is going to cost to cover the millions of people without coverage right now. So far, I have not been able to find any good statistics. They may be there, but I haven’t been able to ferret them out. I have a friend who teaches college level political acience. He was telling me about a discussion he had with a government finance official after Congress approved the Part D prescription plan for Medicare. His atatement was that the proposal had about an hour of discussion, and when it passed, it doubled the medicare debt, if I understood him correctly. My concern is that we will start into a program and become overwhelmed with the cost and not be able to carry it through.

    Regarding the tenor of the rest of your comments, every time I try to discuss an issue with you, I have hopes that it will not disentigrate into a belittling name calling session. So far, my hopes have been dashed. I haven’t had that experience with anyone else I have engaged on this thread.

    September 13, 2009
  155. john george said:

    Kiffi- I’m sorry I got involved, also. Try as I might, it is hard for me to be objective all the time. Please forgive me for anything I have said or inferred that offends you.

    September 13, 2009
  156. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott,
    Again, you selectively ignore sec 246.

    September 13, 2009
  157. Patrick Enders said:

    Pawlenty update:
    Just caught the morning shows, and on ABC this morning, Tim Pawlenty gently walked back his “nullification” assertion from earlier this week.

    Maybe he does want to stay a little bit to the left of Rush, after all.

    September 13, 2009
  158. Scott Oney said:

    Patrick: No, I didn’t ignore that wording, selectively or otherwise. Here it is again, just so you know I’m paying attention: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” And that’s all there is; nothing about how to verify citizenship, or what to do if you find an illegal alien trying to sneak into the system. So nothing in this subtitle does anything to disallow such payments either. Do you really not get it, or are you just pretending?

    But assuming you’re not just kidding, and we really are on the same page with this one, and you and Obama both want to keep the benefits out of the hands of illegals, would you be OK with adding language similar to what was in the Heller amendment, which would have used the system that already exists for verifying status for Medicaid? House Democrats rejected it.

    September 13, 2009
  159. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott, you wrote,

    No, I didn’t ignore that wording, selectively or otherwise. Here it is again, just so you know I’m paying attention: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” And that’s all there is; nothing about how to verify citizenship, or what to do if you find an illegal alien trying to sneak into the system. So nothing in this subtitle does anything to disallow such payments either. Do you really not get it, or are you just pretending?

    Scott, you wrote:

    nothing about… what to do if you find an illegal alien trying to sneak into the system.

    Umm, how about “report them to the INS?” There are already laws – immigration laws – detailing what the government is supposed to do when it finds a non-resident alien. Those laws apply to aliens whether they are shopping for health care, or shopping for a job. There’s no need to create additional laws when there are already perfectly good ones on the books.

    If, by chance you do not feel that current immigration law is inadequate, wouldn’t an immigration reform bill be a better place to refine those laws, rather than burying it deep inside a health care reform bill?

    As far as the health care reform bill goes, the answer is simple: a nonresident alien is not eligible to receive health insurance subsidies.

    So nothing in this subtitle does anything to disallow such payments either.

    …except the part that says “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

    Round and round it goes. I read it – and quote it – and it seems quite obvious what the bill says. You read between its lines, and you see something quite different. There’s no compromise to be had between us on this, since neither of us have the capability to rewrite the bill if we wanted to.

    Clearly, there’s nothing to be gained by continuing this discussion. We’ll both find out what it really means once the final bill is passed.

    September 13, 2009
  160. Scott Oney said:

    But Patrick, wouldn’t it be safer to throw in the language that was in the Heller amendment, then, just to be on the safe side? Just to humor folks who are worried? By your reckoning, it wouldn’t add anything, and the verification system is already in place for Medicaid, and it works. Is that the trouble?

    September 13, 2009
  161. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott,
    According to Secretary Sebelius on one of the talk shows this morning, the administration will make sure that the final bill will have more explicit language on illegal immigrants – to put to rest the fears that persons like you have on this subject.

    So you’ll be able to support the legislation, right?

    September 13, 2009
  162. john george said:

    Back to the original subject, President Obama’s speech, it doesn’t appear that there has been any negative effect on our school children so far, unless the incubation period is not up yet. I still say it is unfortunate that this caused the flap that it did. It reminds me a little of an Executive Exercise program I once read about. One of the exercises was “jumping to conclusions.”

    September 13, 2009
  163. kiffi summa said:

    Actually, John, I think Proverbs 29:11 might be more appropriate…

    September 13, 2009
  164. William Siemers said:

    Peter…

    You outdid yourself with #52.

    September 14, 2009
  165. David Ludescher said:

    John: An observation – Neither the President nor the educators treated it as a “flap”. It’s hard for me to tell how this issue got made into such a big deal.

    September 14, 2009
  166. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: Why does that statement call for a response?

    September 14, 2009
  167. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Because it was the state leader of the Republican Party, in his official capacity. Because the news (for example, CNN) ran with it. Standard operating procedure would be that CNN would solicit a response.

    September 14, 2009
  168. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Apologies for being distracted by your question.

    The problem wasn’t the “response” – unless by “response” you mean all the other Republican politicians (ex: Pawlenty) who picked up the theme, and the news media who ran with it.

    September 14, 2009
  169. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Apologies again. It just occured to me that you may have been asking “why did the school respond?” No idea. It seemed just as baffling when it came out as it does now in hindsight.

    September 14, 2009
  170. kiffi summa said:

    I see both the MN Assn of School Administrators/Superintendents (whatever the correct title is) and the local School District Superintendent as having created the “flap” by their questioning the validity/ importance, and even more significantly the “appropriateness” (yes, they used that term) of an address from the President of the United States to the schoolchildren of this Country.

    September 14, 2009
  171. john george said:

    David L.- You are correct in your evaluation. The term “flap” is my own perspective, because I think it was an ant hill that got turned into a mountain. The whole thing reminded me of a science film I saw years ago (so many, in fact that it was in black and white). It was a demonstration of a nuclear reaction. The scientists had put about 500 set mouse traps into a pexiglass enclosure. Each mouse trap had a ping-pong ball on it. The scientist dropped a ping-pong ball onto one of the traps, setting it off. The ball on this trap flew over and tripped another trap. In a matter of a few seconds, the whole enclosure was a mass of flying ping-pong balls and mouse traps. I think that is a pretty good illustration what happened with this affair. Someone, somewhere, has to choose not to react to stop the balls from flying about. I think it would be good if both sides would retreat to their corners and make a realistic assessment of what the whole exercise actually accomplished. My assessment is that it just proved how short fused and intolerant of each other both of our political parties are right now.

    September 14, 2009
  172. Scott Oney said:

    Patrick: Well, it looks like we’ve proved that sarcasm is now allowed on Locally Grown, so at least something good has come out of all this. (I base this conclusion on your comment: “So you’ll be able to support the legislation, right?”) Umm, or do you really think so?

    September 14, 2009
  173. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott,
    Not sarcastic, just hopeful.

    September 14, 2009
  174. john george said:

    Actually, Kiffi, I was wrong. Romans 12:17&18 are probably best.

    September 14, 2009
  175. kiffi summa said:

    John: Should have known you would move to the NT; I’ll stick with Proverbs,
    29:11, and hold my piece/peace…

    September 14, 2009
  176. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: The real issue was/is who gets to decide whether to play the President’s message. The “battle” was between a liberal President and an education constituency that is also quite liberal.

    So, to claim that the Republican are responsible or involved strikes me as disingenuous. It was the liberals who didn’t want to play the message, which it turns out, was quite conservative in tone. It was much ado about nothing.

    September 14, 2009
  177. john george said:

    Kiffi- Either way, I confess that I didn’t do a very good job. Forgot to add that to my last comment. Peace to you.

    September 14, 2009
  178. Scott Kelly said:

    Ray,

    Sorry this is so much after the fact, but I just stumbled across this thread today. Am I correct in understanding that you feel OUR president, duly elected with a CLEAR MAJORITY sufficient to both negate a need for a Supreme Court decision AND make a moot point of questionable tallies from faulty polling machine software [2000 and 2004 respectively], should be required to have his address to America’s schoolchildren vetted in advance for ulterior motives?

    IF that is correct, do you feel this should apply to ALL elected officials at ALL levels ANY time they speak to children during school hours? Say, members of a local school board or State Representatives addressing a school assembly or maybe a high school government class? Just curious.

    October 9, 2009
  179. Scott Kelly said:

    Ray,

    Sorry, but I almost forgot my 2nd question.

    You said “I didn’t actually read the text of the speech” and yet you mentioned “folks wondering if the President was going to ask children to ‘line up behind me’ and help me advance my agenda”. Was that based on what you gleaned from the paper AFTER the speech, or from the hue and cry raised based on the preliminary news release when plans for the speech were 1st announced?

    Here is why I ask. THAT phrase (in substance if not word for word) was the rallying cry for the faction of the political spectrum (both elected and in the media) who opposed this speech from day 1. My problem is, when quoting that news release, focusing SPECIFICALLY on that part of the lesson plan suggestions, thsy ALWAYS ended like this “ask the children to email the president about how they can help him.”

    Help him WHAT? Is that where it truly ended? Improve education? Make America better? Quit smoking? DID IT ACTUALLY SAY “‘line up behind me’ and help me advance my agenda”? OBVIOUSLY, based on your very statement, that WAS your impression.

    I am assuming of course that since you chose to not read the transcript of the actual speech the same is true of the initial press release. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies. If not, WHERE exactly did the phrase you quoted come from? If from folks you spoke to, where do you think they got it from?

    If you choose to attribute blame to someone (“I do think this was another example of something not handled well by the Obama administration” and “Not fair to dump that on the schools.”), why not start with those who chose to muddy the waters in order to advance their OWN agenda?

    October 9, 2009
  180. Scott Kelly said:

    As a “victim” of what is described here as “Child Abuse”, (perpetrated by both my parents rarely and the Public School system [corporal punishment] frequently) while growing up in the 60s, I’d like to offer an insight or 2.

    Let me begin by saying that I can count the number of spankings all 3 of my kids received on the fingers of 1 hand with fingers to spare. My youngest (the only 1 still at home) is 16.

    My oldest (23, gainfully employed, self supporting and by any measure a fully productive and taxpaying member of society) to this day argues that I should have spanked him more. Despite what he sees as my failure as a parent, he graduated on the Honor Roll, as did my daughter (currently attending St Thomas on a full academic scholarship). My youngest is also on the honor roll.

    That said, my choice not to spank my kids was NOT based on my inherent liberalism, PC, and MOST OF ALL, not from any trauma still haunting me from such “abuse”.

    Simply put, for me (and my ex wife felt the same) IT DIDN’T WORK!!!

    My Junior High Boy’s vice principal was a highly decorated Marine veteran of WWII who joyfully wielded a 1″ thick, 12″ wide and 30″ long solid oak paddle with holes drilled through it so you could hear it coming.

    Being the student chosen to produce these in 8th Grade wood shop was considered an honor, automatically resulting in an A+ for the class (he went through 4-6 per semester).

    In order to “count coup”, whenever a student received 50 swats from 1 paddle, he required them to sign it. Would anyone like to guess what was considered a “badge of honor” among those of us sent down?

    As a transfer student from the “non white” part of town with no elementary school clique to provide a peer group, as well as being younger, smaller, possessing a speech impediment, and (in many cases) smarter than my classmates, I was an easy target to blame for things like spit-wads hitting the blackboard next to the 8th Grade Spanish teacher’s face while she was writing on it. Did I EVER do that? NO!!!

    Unfortunately, I was marked as a “problem student” on the 1st day of class when I rolled a penny down the aisle while she was talking. Hell, it had worked to distract the 7th Grade Spanish teacher, so I figured I’d give it a try. BAD DECISION!!!!

    The rest of the year, I got sent down for EVERY disruption of the class (INCLUDING when someone filled an eraser with pins and put it on my seat. 5 swats for disrupting class there, even while blood was oozing from my cheek). That year, I signed 8 paddles.

    Did the method of punishment scar me more than the acceptance of false accusations by the school despite my protestations of actual innocence? NO and HELL NO!!!!. The swats were a joke!!! Detention, Suspension, Expulsion would have resulted in an outlook no different than the 1 I was left with.

    In closing, although I READILY acknowledge that I DO NOT earn my living providing counseling services, I DO feel justified in offering a perspective based on MY OWN PERSONAL experience

    October 9, 2009
  181. Ray Cox said:

    Scott,
    I could see your comments to me in the LoGro thread, but I couldn’t access them for some technical reason. Griff sent them to me so I could read them.

    In 32.5 you commented to me:
    “You said “I didn’t actually read the text of the speech” and yet you mentioned “folks wondering if the President was going to ask children to ‘line up behind me’ and help me advance my agenda”. Was that based on what you gleaned from the paper AFTER the speech, or from the hue and cry raised based on the preliminary news release when plans for the speech were 1st announced?”

    I mention the folks that were concerned about the President sending a message into virtually every one of our schools, without having any real advance notice of the speech. As a former school board member, I don’t really care who sends the request to talk to all our students in….but I’d like to know what is going to be said before I simply turn the pulpit over to someone.

    The phrase you asked me about (‘advance my agenda’) popped out of my head, but it is something that has been said about many politicians….not very original at all. I’ve used it when speaking to groups when I held elected office. When I was working hard on getting an e-waste bill passed in St. Paul I was on a speaking circuit where I worked to rally support for the bill, asking people to “help me advance my agenda” that I was talking to them about.

    In 32.4 you raise several questions about past elections, indicating that you feel President Obama is somehow superior to past Presidents because he received a larger majority of votes. I don’t really follow that at all. President Reagan received a huge majority vote in this nation, winning 49 states, but I don’t think that elevated him to some special level.

    You go on to comment about people speaking to studnets:

    “IF that is correct, do you feel this should apply to ALL elected officials at ALL levels ANY time they speak to children during school hours? Say, members of a local school board or State Representatives addressing a school assembly or maybe a high school government class? Just curious.”

    Yes….I do think every speaker should be reviewed before speaking to students. That is the job of our school administration and teachers. You cannot take a speech back once it is unleashed on students. And a speech in school carries a lot of weight since it is essentially sanctioned by the school. As I noted above, as a State Representative, when I was invited to speak to students in classes I always reviewed with the teacher what specific topic they wanted me to address. I offered to give a copy of my notes to the teachers ahead of time. At the high school level I usually had a handout for the students that I also gave to the teacher ahead of time.

    October 13, 2009
  182. Scott Kelly said:

    Ray,

    1st, please accept my sincere appreciation for your response to my questions. Please allow me to clarify my position, respond to points you raise, and acknowledge the 1 direct answer I feel you gave to the questions I posed.

    Regarding thread 32.4, specifically addressing your contention that I somehow “feel President Obama is somehow superior to past Presidents because he received a larger majority of votes”, you go on to point out that “President Reagan received a huge majority vote in this nation, winning 49 states, but I don’t think that elevated him to some special level.”

    Fair enough. Did you feel it was proper for President Reagan to address the nation’s schoolchildren and insert a message advocating his economic agenda into the middle of THAT speech? Did you feel, at THAT time, that he should have provided an advance copy of said speech? When the 1st President Bush addressed our schoolchildren, did you AT THAT TIME worry that HIS speech had not been provided for advanced vetting? At either time, did you register your objection ANYWHERE?

    Regarding the rest of your answer to 32.4, I commend you for your diligence in providing advance copy of your talks, although I doubt that our kids had anything to fear from what you said regardless of the grade level you addressed. To me, this applies to both sides of the political spectrum.

    Regarding 32.5, you say “As a former school board member, I don’t really care who sends the request to talk to all our students in….but I’d like to know what is going to be said before I simply turn the pulpit over to someone.” This goes back to the last 2 questions posted above regarding 32.4.

    My question regarding the phrase “advance my agenda” was QUITE specific. NOWHERE in the question I asked was there any reference to any speeches which YOU had made in the past which incorporated that phrase. My SPECIFIC question was directly focused on YOUR statement “So it was essentially dumped on the school districts to deal with a bunch of riled up folks wondering if the President was going to ask children to ‘line up behind me’ and help me advance my agenda”

    THIS was what I asked…”Here is why I ask. THAT phrase (in substance if not word for word) was the rallying cry for the faction of the political spectrum (both elected and in the media) who opposed this speech from day 1. My problem is, when quoting that news release, focusing SPECIFICALLY on that part of the lesson plan suggestions, thsy ALWAYS ended like this “ask the children to email the president about how they can help him.”

    Help him WHAT? Is that where it truly ended? Improve education? Make America better? Quit smoking? DID IT ACTUALLY SAY “‘line up behind me’ and help me advance my agenda”? IF it did, did it specify an agenda as Reagan did in his ACTUAL speech?

    THIS is what I was TRYING to get at. As I said earlier, I don’t feel a need to shield children from statements from public officials. It will pass over the heads of those who don’t “get it” and for the rest, unless things have changed greatly since I was young, their “BS” detectors are somewhat in place. Then again, when I look back on the 80’s (S&L and Junk Bond meltdowns) and compare them to today, I can only HOPE.

    October 13, 2009
  183. David Henson said:

    Scott, I think the answer is no president should address school children in a nationwide live feed. The main reason being this is not part of the job description of the office for which presidents are elected to serve. This is easy to know since the technology did not exist at the time the job description was written. The majority elects the president for a specific purpose and that purpose does not include subjecting the children of those who voted for other candidates to a nationwide mass live event.

    October 13, 2009
  184. Ray Cox said:

    I tend to agree with David on this issue. I was not aware of President Reagan giving a speech to all the school children in America. But if he did so, I raise my same concerns. I seem to be vaguely aware that President George H W Bush gave a speech for students, but I don’t think it went out live to all, but rather to a select group. Not sure what that was all about.

    As far as Scott’s question about where I got the words I used in an earlier post…..as I said they came from my head when I wrote it. Did I hear something on the radio during my work day that was similar? Probably. …it is pretty hard not to hear talk on this from MPR to standard commercial stations. There was no intention on my part to use words from someone else.

    October 13, 2009
  185. Anthony Pierre said:

    you guys know that our governor’s wife does this all the time. Ray, call up your buddy timmy p and tell him to stop this right now.

    http://www.firstlady.state.mn.us/biography.html

    As first lady of Minnesota, Judge Pawlenty frequently visits elementary schools to teach students about democracy and the three branches of government, with a special emphasis on the judiciary. She has also created the First Lady’s Heart Health Initiative, an awareness campaign for women about reducing the risk of heart disease and the First Lady’s Military Family Care Initiative, a program that allows community-based organizations to volunteer their time and services to help families of deployed soldiers.

    October 14, 2009
  186. Patrick Enders said:

    Anthony: We must stop her from brainwashing our vulnerable children with her socialist agenda!

    October 14, 2009
  187. Anthony Pierre said:

    if ray really believes what he says he will put a stop to this right now.

    October 14, 2009
  188. David Henson said:

    “… one of these things is not like the other” (I did not coin that)

    October 14, 2009
  189. john george said:

    Patrick & Anthony- You wouldn’t want the Governor’s wife to lose heart, would you?

    October 14, 2009
  190. Patrick Enders said:

    A “special emphasis on the judiciary” is clearly anti-democratic.

    October 14, 2009
  191. Anthony Pierre said:

    you know who else sent their wife to see school kids? hitler and stalin

    October 14, 2009
  192. john george said:

    You gotta be careful with those closet socialists.

    October 14, 2009
  193. Ray Cox said:

    I would hope Judge Pawlenty does find some time to speak to school students about the judiciary, just like several members of the Mn Supreme Court do from time to time. As I said earlier, I have no problem with people speaking to our students….I just believe we need to be clear about what they are speaking about and in what manner. A sitting Judge talking about the judiciary is pretty basic stuff. I would also suspect many of the judges that do this have a fairly standard talk. Judges are not elected to political offices.

    I do think when you invite people elected to political offices into the schools you need to know what they plan to talk about. And schools need more than a weekend to decide about the presentation.

    October 14, 2009
  194. Patrick Enders said:

    Elected politicians have been approved by a majority of our voters. Unelected judges have not.

    October 14, 2009
  195. Anthony Pierre said:

    ill remember that the next time someone cries indoctrination.

    October 14, 2009
  196. Ray Cox said:

    The vast majority of our judges are elected, including Judge Pawlenty.
    We do not elect our Supreme Court or Appelate Court judges.

    October 16, 2009
  197. David Henson said:

    The teachers are not even elected. I think it is perfectly fine for the president (Obama) to visit as many schools as he wants or even record a presentation for all schools to use at their option. But a nationwide live feed has the potential as a propaganda media and really no big up side.

    October 16, 2009
  198. Patrick Enders said:

    I guess that makes Judge Pawlenty an elected official, just like any other elected official. Why do you think it is okay for Judge Pawlenty to speak to our children without prior vetting of the contents of her speech by the school board on each occasion, while it is not also okay for other elected officials, such as the President of the United States, to do the same?

    October 16, 2009
  199. Ray Cox said:

    I need to note a correction in #63….we do elect all our judges, but with the Supreme and Appelate it is generally after an apointment. But I believe we did elect one judge to the Supreme court recently without an apointment—Judge Alan Page. I seem to remember he challenged a sitting judge up for election.

    I believe it is fine for Judge Pawlenty or any other Judge that has been invited to a school to speak about the judiciary to go and talk…..and I would hope they would offer to provide a summary of their remarks to the teacher before they speak. However, if they don’t make the offer I suspect there also has not been any problem with their talks. I’m sure most any judge can give a good factual talk about how our judiciary works and not get into any ‘trouble’.

    October 19, 2009

Leave a Reply to Scott KellyCancel reply