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 ....

Comments

Hube said…
Maybe you'd think differently if you saw the original (since scrubbed) lesson plans courtesy of the Dept. of Education.
Hube
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…
Steve,

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…
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/74741197.html?dids=74741197:74741197&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Oct+3%2C+1991&author=Kenneth+J.+Cooper%3BEric+Pianin&pub=The+Washington+Post+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&edition=&startpage=a.14&desc=Funding+of+Bush+Speech+Draws+Fire%3B+Democrat+Calls+Education+Broadcast+Paid+Political+Advertising%27
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

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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...