Skip to main content

And, yes, you really are an idiot if....

... you plan to keep your children out of school or ask them to be removed from the class when President Obama speaks, like these idiots.

Three reasons you are an idiot:

1) If President Obama in thirty minutes or less can indoctrinate your children into whatever socialist values you think he's going to be selling, then as a parent attempting to build the character and values of your children you are not only an idiot but failure.

2) If you have so little respect for the Office of the President that you wish to convey to your children that they should not show respect to the President even when he belongs to a different political party, you are an idiot who is contributing to the disintegration of the American identity. [And if you use the they disrespected Bush argument you are not an idiot in this case but a less-on. A less-on is someone who, if they were twice as smart would be a moron.]

3) If you sincerely believe that President Obama's message is going to be anything other than work hard, get good grades, stay in school, and help other people, you probably gave up sounding out the words in this post two sentences ago.

Sorry: for as much as I disagree with many of President Obama's policies, he is the President of the United States. He is my President. I will argue against what I believe are his incorrect policy choices, but I will try damn hard not to disrespect the office. That's why, if you check back, you will find that I have been very careful to refer to him correctly in my posts.

There is a place for this kind of partisanship, but the school is not it. The man is trying to act like Presidents are supposed to act. He probably won't be perfect, but his speech is not going to harm your kids.

hawks up big wad of phlegm

... leaves room ....


Hube said…
Maybe you'd think differently if you saw the original (since scrubbed) lesson plans courtesy of the Dept. of Education.
I have seen them. The post stands.

If Barack Obama's lesson plans are that effective in brainwashing the children of America in thirty minutes plus a bunch of lessons that very few teachers are ever going to do ... then we are all idiots.

Sorry, but this is hyper-partisanship carried to a ludicrous extreme.
Hube said…
If the plans had included parts about dissenting from Obama as well as assisting him, then there really wouldn't be much of an issue. The White House and the Dept. of Ed. have no one to blame but themselves.

And the issue is IF the teachers would use those [since scrubbed] lesson plans, isn't it? I agree that if a school or teacher indicated they weren't using them and a parent still wished their kid to not be a part of them, then that's extreme. OTOH, if they were used, then parents should have a right to opt out. As a libertarian, I fail to see how you wouldn't object to a kid being FORCED to write a letter of support to the president. ANY president.
Townie 76 said…

I am with you and unfortunately those are behind keeping their President from hearing the President are probably the same ones who don't want sex education taught in school. I am tired of the hyper partisanship on both sides it is serving to do anything but divide our nation further.
Hube said…
A simple speech about doing well in school isn't an issue. It's tilted lesson plans that inhibit right of conscience that are.
Anonymous said…
xstryker said…
Just flat out awesome post. Dissent is good, bullshit hysteria is bad. Many a time during the Bush Administration I took on loony MIHOP conspiracy nuts and smacked down their bullshit hysteria. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks calling people out on their crazy nonsense should be a bipartisan activity.
Mike W. said…
Agreed Steve - This whole thing is really overblown.

Let's face it, children are indoctrinated in school with all manner of things their parents might not approve of.

Letting your kid listen to the President speak for a few minutes is not going to scar them for life, especially if you discuss it with your child afterwards.

Besides, I don't care who the President is, it's cool to say that he visited your school and spoke to your class. That's a moment I wouldn't want my kid to miss.

Now, if some parents do not want their kids to be present for this then I respect their decision. As parents that is their decision.
Bowly said…
If you have so little respect for the Office of the President that you wish to convey to your children that they should not show respect to the President even when he belongs to a different political party, you are an idiot who is contributing to the disintegration of the American identity.

I thought you respectfully disagreed with us An-Caps? We certainly have no respect for the office. Indeed, we generally find anyone who seeks it to be morally deficient. Not to mention the belief that people blindly submitting to authority is (part of) what's disintegrating American identity.

But I suspect you meant Republicans who believe it's OK to obey if the president is Republican.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — they are i