Silly season: the over-reaction epidemic

Abraham Lincoln said it long ago. The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.

And you think that one twenty minute speech is going to have more influence than twelve years of daily classes? Lincoln was talking about teachers and textbooks, not brief addresses by presidents. Yours is the kind of bizarre, twisted logic that's fueling his nonsense.

It was a very entertaing blog and replies over yonder.
whats unbelievable is how many people really believe the the President is bound and determined to brainwash thier kids.

Typo alert.....should have read "fueling this nonsense."

Not only are people over reacting, but they are over reacting in such ridiculous ways. I remember back in the cold war days when adults actually came up with the following solution to the nuclear bomb attack problem. Have the kids practice getting under their desks. We actually had those drills. Adults actually came up with that drill. I see things still haven't changed. Adults coming up with ridiculous over reaction drills. The new drill............pull junior out of school when something might penetrate juniors ears that offends momma's morals.
Stop pushing junior under the desk......it's embarrassing to watch.

Had to, this is so funny. I just started a class in peace education at UWM, and the professor and I were talking about the bomb shelters and desk drills. I don't think the younger people in class believed us.

The key point was that shock and fear create cowed and vulnerable people who can be manipulated--by governments AND business interests, what Eisenhower called the military/industrial complex.

Lots of people are walking around with one eye closed. I have some SMALL hopes for (but maybe not trust in) government. But frankly I'm more worried about protecting my kids from the credit industry.

Tarzan just return home from holiday weekend in Brookfield.

Some of those people so afraid Tarzan think their own shadow might scare them.

Tarzan of the Apes spend many years living in Africa and has to wonder why some people so afraid of educated man of African descent.

Tarzan not think it as simple as silly. Think it goes deeper. Even Tarzan not willing to speak of it.

I disagree with most of Barack Obama's actions as President and I won't get into the list here. But, he IS the President, and I don't really think that having him talk to the kids is automatically a bad idea.

You have to admit, however, that there are very few people out there who are ambivalent about President Obama. Some people absolutely love everything about him (educators), while others are very skeptical about his intentions and actions (me). He's a very polarizing figure.

What I ABSOLUTELY object to, however, is the DoE's 'suggestion' that the school teachers use this as a teachable moment and spend the whole day talking about how great President Obama is and how the kids could help President Obama in his job. The DoE even went so far as to come up with suggested 'lesson plans' that teachers could use to help them 'discuss' the President's remarks. That's where the line between a potentially inspiring speech and indoctrination is crossed.

Go here if you want to see the 'original' and 'revised' versions of Obama's planned inspirational speech/indoctrination attempt:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmVkZTA1NTIzM2M5YWJjNDcxNTJiZmJiZTZjZDFjMjg=

RESPECT - Aretha said it and we should all be respecting each other. We don't have to agree, but accept the right for others to speak. What an example these parents must be to their children. Don't listen to anything controversial, you might form an opinion on your own. Isn't that the definition of brainwashing? I am out raged that the politics of some are to show blatant disrespect to the president of the USA. How are children suppose to respect adults and authority if it seems that the man in the highest office can be disregarded. Police, teachers, anyone in authority, you can pick and choose who to listen to my dad said he doesn’t want me to listen to the President of the USA. Shouldn't the message be listen to the President's address and let's discuss the pros and cons? The great thing about this is any child that is being told not to watch it will find it on You Tube and watch it purposely because the parent doesn't want them to listen to the address.

For those of you who want to read the speech, it's here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/ (thanks to whoever posted it at TTS).

BTW, I just heard the ultimate objection from a woman who identified herself as a grandmother: "Nothing Obama says means what it sounds like. It means something else." That kinda works you into a corner!

I disagree with most of Barack Obama's actions as President and I won't get into the list here. But, he IS the President, and I don't really think that having him talk to the kids is automatically a bad idea.

You have to admit, however, that there are very few people out there who are ambivalent about President Obama. Some people absolutely love everything about him (educators), while others are very skeptical about his intentions and actions (me). He's a very polarizing figure.

What I ABSOLUTELY object to, however, is the DoE's 'suggestion' that the school teachers use this as a teachable moment and spend the whole day talking about how great President Obama is and how the kids could help President Obama in his job. The DoE even went so far as to come up with suggested 'lesson plans' that teachers could use to help them 'discuss' the President's remarks. That's where the line between a potentially inspiring speech and indoctrination is crossed. Everybody knows that there will not be a DoE directive to present opposing viewpoints to President Obama's speech, so it doesn't really qualify as a 'teaching moment' in my mind.

Go here to see the 'before' and 'after' version of the talking points.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmVkZTA1NTIzM2M5YWJjNDcxNTJiZmJiZTZjZDFjMjg=

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/1/9/department_of_education_deletes_line_about_how_schoolkids_can_help_obama_by_jim_geraghty/

This WauwatosaNow web site apparently doesn't like certain text in posts. I'm not exactly sure which word was so bad in my previous post, but I have an idea. In any case if you want to see the 'before' and 'after' versions of the proposed remarks, simply click on the 'Read Full Blog Post', and it'll take you directly to the comparison.

Censorship lives on...

Stubborn, you seem to like getting excited. The problems with the website are not about censorship but about poor design, and at least Tom Gaertner and I are always complaining to "the management" about that. If you copy the link you presented, it pulls up the blog. I don't see how that one phrase "help the president" justifies the level of paranoia it does but clearly it means something more to you.

But I'm calling you on other gross mis-statement: nobody EVER suggested talking all day on this curriculum, and nobody EVER suggested that it be about how great the president is.

Finally, if you want to write the opposing viewpoint disagreeing with the president's words, go ahead. I'll even print them. I think you'd look sort of foolish disagreeing with what are pretty universal, education-and-family-values statements.

However, this is the rule: you need to disagree with what Obama has actually said and not some loopy extensions of someone's turbo-charged-what-iffed imagination.

What you DON'T know, is that the original URL I posted was from some other web site, and THAT post was never published despite multiple attempts of me submitting it earlier today. I searched the web a bit, and found another way to get to the content of the text I was trying to reference (not as direct, but still, the same content) and that's the link I posted above.

I agree with you to a certain extent about the design aspects of this 'new and improved' WauwatosaNow site. But, the web site I originally reference earlier today DID NOT CONTAIN ANY VULGAR WORDS. That's why I suspect it was a bit of censorship by someone who 'designed' this site. Censorship isn't exclusively about banning bad words. It can be anything that the person designing the 'censor filter' wants it to be. If the designer wants to prohibit anything from msnbc.com from being published, it's pretty easy to do. I suspect that's the case here.

Yes, the 'all-day' discussion was an exageration on my part, but you can't tell me that certain teachers/principals wouldn't take this DoE 'suggested lesson plan' and make a full day of it. If you want to present BOTH sides, fine.

I have to admit that I haven't read the content yet (it's a nice day and I have yardwork to do), but if President Obama's remarks are simply to urge every student to do the best they can, it's hard to find any fault with that.

My objections are not what Obama says, but really what the teachers and staff would 'interpret' those words to mean and then relay to the students, presumably as facts.

From our former First Lady: Former first lady Laura Bush on Monday expressed support for President Barack Obama's decision to speak to the nation's school children, saying it is "really important for everyone to respect the president of the parents and others also need to send that message. From GOP Florida Chairman: “It’s a good speech,” Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer said Monday. “It encourages kids to stay in school and the importance of education and I think that’s what a president should do when they’re gonna talk to students across the country.” He had formally accused the President of trying to “indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda”. Are we all good now?

"Yes, the 'all-day' discussion was an exageration on my part, but you can't tell me that certain teachers/principals wouldn't take this DoE 'suggested lesson plan' and make a full day of it."

"My objections are not what Obama says, but really what the teachers and staff would 'interpret' those words to mean and then relay to the students, presumably as facts."

After reading the speech, these statements are even more ridiculous. But I didn't read it backwards yet.... I suppose that's where Obama hides all the messages about socialism and where he was really born.

You guys are falling off the deep end. Don't expect a lifeline from anyone here in the middle. You make us look bad.

Teachers devoting an entire day to education doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world to me. . .

Stubborn, when you say "My objections are not what Obama says, but really what the teachers and staff would 'interpret' those words to mean and then relay to the students, presumably as facts," it seems that you fear teachers will use the same tactics of distortion and misrepresentation that you seem to favor.

Maybe that's the bottom line of this controversy: we expect that other people will do as we do. So we learn more about the people speaking than we do about their subject.

At least someone has a sense of humor about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofxVMlU97yA

beckkl:

You seem to like to quote me, but you mysteriously DIDN'T quote one of very first things I said about it. Why not? Let me remind you of exactly what I wrote:

"I disagree with most of Barack Obama's actions as President and I won't get into the list here. But, he IS the President, and I don't really think that having him talk to the kids is automatically a bad idea."

I assume you think that THIS remark of mine is also 'ridiculous". Why didn't you acknowledge that clearly stated viewpoint of mine, but instead, simply tried to misrepresent what I wrote as an attempt to marginalize me? Are you aware NOW that I'm not objecting to Obama's words to the school kids? I thought I was pretty clear about that in all of my past posts here on the topic.

SOM: Fair enough. I will acknowledge that you have no issue with the content. I will also acknowledge that my post could have been less...... snarky.

My question is this: If you can determine on your own what the value of the speech is, why do feel that teachers/principals cannot be trusted to do the same, and use it effectively? Why do you worry that teachers will "interpret" the speech and present it as something different?

I feel your concern about how the speech will be used, made before even reading the content of the speech, was a knee-jerk reaction. At the very least it is based on your preconceptions about teachers/principals. These reactions/assumptions/concerns reached a fervor last week that I feel was completely inappropriate. They were premature then, and I argue that they are unjustified now.

How do people like SOM even send their kids to these schools with these teachers they fear on a daily basis. These teachers could pollute their children's minds every day by putting liberal slants into math story problems, English paper assignments and history assignments. All this nonsense reminds me of tactics that a five year old uses when they don't want to go to bed at night. It's all excuses covering up the real truth. They don't like being out of power.

Thank you beckkl for acknowledging what I REALLY wrote. Now, we may be able to have a coherent discussion about it.

My numbers might be a little bit off, but I seem to remember that Obama got 52% of the vote, McCain got 46%, and the rest was divided among a bunch of other candidates in 2008. Would you agree that it's close to a 50/50 mix? Now, just about every poll that's been published has shown Obama's support to be falling.

Teachers and education staff members are stereotyped as whole-heartedly supporting Democrats since it benefits their own pocketbook. Look at how WEAC support (D) Jim Doyle's campaign, and look how (D) paid them back in the last State Budget (eliminating the QEO, etc). I seriously doubt that any (R) Governor would do that. So, in that regard, I think the teachers and staff have good reason to support anything Democratic (which includes anything and everything Obama does). I'm sure the dropoff in Obama support in the general public is not the same within the ranks of the educational community.

You still sort of misrepresented me when you wrote, "I feel your concern about how the speech will be used,
made before even reading the content of the speech, was a knee-jerk reaction.". In my mind, the CONTENT
doesn't matter. It's almost a secondary concern. Obama's speech could have been a one sentence speech in which he said, "Stay in school!". What bothers me is that the (D) leaning educational staff would look for ANY opportunity like this to promote THEIR political beliefs about how great President Obama and his policies are without really getting into the nitty-gritty details of those policies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM45kYAKyCU

Now, granted this MIGHT be an extreme example, but how do we really know? I told my kid that I wanted her to wear some sort of McCain/Palin pin to school last year just to show everybody at the school that not EvERYBODY was pro-Obama or pro-Democratic, but she was afraid of her classmate's reaction towards her by simply wearing that pin. EVERYBODY in the school seems to be pro-Obama or at least pro-Democratic. My kid even told me that when her teacher was discussing the upcoming election last year, she told them out loud that she shouldn't be endorsing any candidate, but then she silent 'mouthed' the word 'OBAMA' for everybody to see when asked who she was going to vote for. I'm a little bothered by that (not bent out of shape, mind you), since the teachers are often viewed by students as the authority figure in a classroom who is NEVER wrong about anything.

I know darned well that a balanced discussion of the issues will never take place in the classroom simply because of this (D) bias that most public school employees have. So, my objection was to the discussion of Obama's remarks before and after his speech in the classrooms, NOT to the speech itself.

Obama's the President. Let him speak to the kids. Give him his 15 minutes of face time in front of the kids and then IMMEDIATELY go to teaching the normal Math, Science and Reading curriculum. What's wrong with that? Nothing.

SOM, I understand your objection completely. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on its validity.

SOM...you actually pressured your kid to wear political stuff to school ? Again I ask....with your extreme distaste for teachers because they are tainting your child's viewpoints with their left leaning ways.......why would you send your kid off to that school for even one day to be "indoctrinated" ? Seems like you should be sending your child to a private school to be indoctrinated in the way you would like.

Isn't it odd that the more educated one is the more likely they are to have a liberal lean. What exactly does that say ?

"I know darned well that a balanced discussion of the issues will never take place in the classroom simply because of this (D) bias that most public school employees have."

1) Replace "classroom" with "church"
2) Replace "(D)" with "(R)"
3) Replace "public school employees" with "born-again Christians"

To make the original statement untrue, convince more conservatives to teach for a living (altruism over money). I would welcome that . . . and not just in private schools, where they seem to prefer to teach to those who think like them (understandable, but doesn't solve the "public school teachers are so liberal" issue.

had to comment:

I agree, it's very odd.

Isn't it just as odd that the more educated one is (teachers), the more likely they are to need to feel that they must be represented by a UNION (WEAC)? What exactly does that say? Aren't they smart enough to represent themselves in negotiating their own contracts?

I'm glad to see that all of you agree with me in that it's a good thing to let any President ((R) or (D)) talk to the kids so the kids get 15 minutes of snooze time during the day. Does anybody REALLY think that ANY 15-minute Presidential address directed at kids is going to have any significant effect? The teachers and parents have a much greater effect on how kids think and develop.

I'm also glad that you all agree that the kids should be presented both sides of hot-button issues so they can use their own developing minds to learn how to think and make up their own minds about issues in the future.

But then again, maybe I shouldn't really speak on your behalf as you often do on my behalf.

Word for word, Stubborn, I think you are more than holding your own!

With regard to the union issue ........ I think what it says is that there's a correlation between being smart and recognizing that there's strength in numbers.

I think private school teachers can see the intelligence of being represented by a union in most situations. Have you seen the pay discrepancy. This clearly is a group that could use a union. Then guess what tuition would be,ouch ! I guess it's nice to have that private school education subsidized by the teachers who teach those private school kiddies. Unless you think 30-40k is good for a teacher with a bunch of experience under the belt I think someone is being taken advantage of. Sounds like private school teachers need a union.

Is it just me, or does anybody else find it slightly ironic that President Obama delivered a speech to school kids presumably urging them to do well in their classrooms, while at the same time, his Administration has been bailing out firms who DON'T do well in their respective businesses. You all know I'm talking about the Insurance bailouts, the GM bailouts, among many more to come (if the President gets his way).

I haven't seen President Obama's speech yet, so I have no idea if it was inspiring or boring. Did the President say anything about the totally radical things we've recently learned about Van Jones today? Valarie Jarrett said that she absolutely loves his 'energy and enthusiasm' as Obama's Green Jobs Czar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAQDIQmSqF8

Hope & Change? OK...