You certainly wouldn't want your kids to be in my classroom then. Whether it be extraterrestrial life, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan or global warming, I don't tell my students what to believe one way or the other. I don't even tell them my beliefs. We examine controversial issues from multiple sides and use multiple information sources and I ask THEM to arrive at a logical conclusion. I have truly educated my students if they seek the truth, not regurgitate what was told to them, no matter what the information or who presented it to them.

 

With the utmost of due respect, I don't believe you. By even tackling the topic of global warming, you are likely going to use terminology that betrays your point of view. However, were you in my son's classroom, I would be OK with it (as previously posted), because if it got too far for my taste, I could confront you about it. Can't do that with the Prez.

What would your reaction be if President Obama wanted to have this speech to talk about the importance of avoiding drugs?

 

What is he going to say that they do not hear on a monthly basis from local police? Or that can't be seen in an ordinary news clip from him? Or at a monthly radio or TV address to everyone's living room? What is the purpose behind using the autonomy of the classroom for delivery? C'mon Clyde, I know you are not that obtuse.

What is he going to say that they do not hear on a monthly basis from local police? Or that can't be seen in an ordinary news clip from him? Or at a monthly radio or TV address to everyone's living room? What is the purpose behind using the autonomy of the classroom for delivery? C'mon Clyde, I know you are not that obtuse.

 

I guess I'm trying to get an idea of what you and others find acceptable vs unacceptable as far as content.

 

If the POTUS says "study hard/stay in school/listen to your teachers" I'd assume you'd be OK with that.

I guess I'm trying to get an idea of what you and others find acceptable vs unacceptable as far as content.

 

If the POTUS says "study hard/stay in school/listen to your teachers" I'd assume you'd be OK with that.

 

Absolutely. Print it on some bumper stickers and send it on to us. We'll put it in their backpacks after the school day is over.

Absolutely. Print it on some bumper stickers and send it on to us. We'll put it in their backpacks after the school day is over.

 

So you're not a "this is indoctrination" guy but, rather, a "we don't need to take up class time" guy.

In a nutshell, there are plenty of entirely appropriate things that President Obama can and should say to schoolchildren. However, in my experience, I tend to expect the worst out of every politician, Republican or Democrat, and I don't think that, without prior knowledge or control of what will be said, it's a good idea to do this.

 

For all we know, President Obama could merely say "stay in school/don't do drugs/etc." But I think it is a dangerous precedent.

Maybe he is just going to offer a heartfelt apology for the unbearable amount of debt his administration is responsible for adding to the shoulders of their generation.

 

Seriously.....There is no reasonable argument for any POTUS, regardless of party, to speak directly to our children via special message during school. I dont care if his message is as harmless as "please do your homework", there is absolutely NO reason for it to be delivered in this manner. If he has something so important to say to our children dont you think mom and dad should hear it too? Run some PSA's on Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel if you want to but stay out of the classroom.

You are ignoring what has been posted.

 

Several of us, RTS did it outright, have said we don't want ANY President addressing schoolchildren.

 

It is not a "protect the children" approach, it is the "protect MY children" approach. I have a say in what they see, hear, eat, drink, write, read, and whom they associate with. And I'll defend (with RTS's weapons) the right I have to do that.

 

 

Again, you are making the decision for ALL school children. The logical way for this address to be made is in school. The parents could still make the choice by signing a permission slip. I'd be really angry if I were a parent, and I found out that YOU made the decision to not allow MY children to see the Presidental address without my input.

 

You can protect YOUR children. Do not presume to tell ME that YOU must protect MY children, though.

 

I haven't ignored anything. But, you and others have ignored not only bugatti's posts, but the posts of others that does tell what the address is to be about. You PRESUME to ASSUME that the address will be about something different.

I can remember when my daughter had the police (at school) over to talk about safety (this was before the seat belt law went into effect) and they talked about wearing a seat belt. My daughter each and ever time I got into the car told me to buckle up. When the health department came to school I remember her telling her Grandmother not to smoke as it was bad for her health.

 

Did I have any problems with any of these groups coming to her school? No but getting to the parents through their children, is a fact.

 

You know I saw where he is going to speak to the schools but am just wondering if he is going to speak to all the schools or just the public ones?

This might be the message Tuesday:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw

 

This is a somewhat creepy overall but it gets really concerning at the 3:17 mark ("I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama" and the 3:53..."I pledge to be a servent to our president."

What is he going to say that they do not hear on a monthly basis from local police? Or that can't be seen in an ordinary news clip from him? Or at a monthly radio or TV address to everyone's living room? What is the purpose behind using the autonomy of the classroom for delivery? C'mon Clyde, I know you are not that obtuse.

 

"However, when the PRESIDENT says something addressed to a child, usually through an event for which there is going to be a special "day" or celebration at school, the President's words carry tremendous impact and weight of authority that is unchecked by anything in the household."

 

Seems like a disconnect here.

 

For what it is worth, I would have NO problem with any president addressing my children, or at this point in my life, grandchildren. I don't understand this attitude of treating our elected leaders as the enemy. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them. It doesn't mean we shouldn't make our views known, but treating them as enemies is distructive to a civilized society. The vast majority of our elected leaders are good, well meaning people. I may disagree with them on issues but I don't believe that they are evil people. In my lifetime, I have disagreed with our leaders far more often than I have agreed, but I don't question their love of our country or their desire to advance the general welfare. I just disagree on the best way to get there. Knowledge and information are not to be feared.

Again, you are making the decision for ALL school children. The logical way for this address to be made is in school. The parents could still make the choice by signing a permission slip. I'd be really angry if I were a parent, and I found out that YOU made the decision to not allow MY children to see the Presidental address without my input.

 

You can protect YOUR children. Do not presume to tell ME that YOU must protect MY children, though.

 

I haven't ignored anything. But, you and others have ignored not only bugatti's posts, but the posts of others that does tell what the address is to be about. You PRESUME to ASSUME that the address will be about something different.

1. Are schools getting the kids to get permission slips?

 

2. Did President Obama outline what he was going to speak about?

"However, when the PRESIDENT says something addressed to a child, usually through an event for which there is going to be a special "day" or celebration at school, the President's words carry tremendous impact and weight of authority that is unchecked by anything in the household."

 

Seems like a disconnect here.

 

For what it is worth, I would have NO problem with any president addressing my children, or at this point in my life, grandchildren. I don't understand this attitude of treating our elected leaders as the enemy. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them. It doesn't mean we shouldn't make our views known, but treating them as enemies is distructive to a civilized society. The vast majority of our elected leaders are good, well meaning people. I may disagree with them on issues but I don't believe that they are evil people. In my lifetime, I have disagreed with our leaders far more often than I have agreed, but I don't question their love of our country or their desire to advance the general welfare. I just disagree on the best way to get there. Knowledge and information are not to be feared.

 

I agree.

1. Are schools getting the kids to get permission slips?

I have no idea. My kids are either in college or working a full time job as an adult. :lol: I would assume that it would be up to the school to do so, if they feel it's warranted. I offered it as a simple solution to the "shouldn't the parents decide..." argument.

 

2. Did President Obama outline what he was going to speak about?

 

According to bugatti's post, the topic is the importance of staying in school getting an education. According to other's posts, the topics COULD be healthcare reform, abortion, Cap & Trade, and/or indoctrination.

I don't understand this attitude of treating our elected leaders as the enemy. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them. It doesn't mean we shouldn't make our views known, but treating them as enemies is distructive to a civilized society. The vast majority of our elected leaders are good, well meaning people.

 

I agree.

I'm not sure if I'd classify it as "the enemy"....I think it is a healthy dose of skepticism. With the history of politicians and tyrants throughout time, as well as the amazing hypocrisy of all politicians (for two simple examples, see Al Gore's home or Sandford's affair), I think skepticism is entirely warranted.