80 Comments

1. Rick Sheridan:

Maybe you have to be a dad to understand.

Sep 2, 2009 - 4:32 pm 2. Phineas:

I see your point and even agree with it a bit, but I find it hard to get worked up over this. Yes, it’s narcissistic (as usual) of Obama, but I suppose my reaction to the event will depend on the content. Also, Tapper points out that Bush the Elder did something similar. Should we have been aroused by that, too?

Sep 2, 2009 - 4:39 pm 3. JavelinaBomb:

I can’t find this in the constitution. Where does it say he can take over for teachers. Can Nancy Pelosi do this too?

Sep 2, 2009 - 4:40 pm 4. mpw280:

I am sure that the lefts response to Bush doing a talk to kids in school with the teachers enforcing/reinforcing the message being delivered would have been one of who cares. Yeah right. What I really object to are some of the things the kids are asked to believe, listen to the president, listen to your governor, listen to you principal. What if I tell my kid to say that I thought questioning the president or any authority figure was what we were told to do before the last election? What will the reaction in all these liberals be? mpw

Sep 2, 2009 - 4:51 pm 5. PatAz:

It’s bad enough that he took over the tv networks. This time he has a captive audience.

Sep 2, 2009 - 4:54 pm 6. M. Report:

Right. When your kid gets home,
ask him about the security briefing
the kids get before the POTUS shows up;
Don’t go sticking your head out a window,
looking for the Prez; You might get it
shot off. Truly educational.

Sep 2, 2009 - 5:32 pm 7. Eric J:

Perhaps he’ll offer the Republicans 2 minutes for rebuttal.

I’m sure that teachers can encourage appropriate activities during those two minutes.

Sep 2, 2009 - 5:34 pm 8. farnk martin:

I’m fine with the President talking to schools, so long as the Honor Guard for the event is the Local JROTC contingent.

Oh, you say that ROTC ‘bothers’ too many people in too many schools and as a result have to meet off campus and not be affiliated with the schools because its considered ‘too political’? Oh, then I guess thats why we cant have nice things, Mr. President.

Please, please, PLEASE let’s try to keep politics out of school. This will not lead to anywhere a democracy would want to go. Once this line is crossed it will be crossed regularly.

Sep 2, 2009 - 5:52 pm 9. smitty:

Why not cut a deal and have the President’s daughters take in some Trifecta or something?

Sep 2, 2009 - 7:19 pm 10. arhooley:

I’m trying to imagine how I would have felt as a kid if the prez had beamed in a speech as I sat at my little desk in my plaid skirt and saddle shoes. Hm. Okay. Same old stuff everyone always says to me, PLUS I have to do some activity thing that looks suspiciously like Confession-on-a-Poster. Crumb. I’d rather have that funny substitute with the flowery dress.

Sep 2, 2009 - 7:30 pm 11. Daily Pundit » Teach the Children Well…:

[...] Vodkapundit » Call & Response But you know what? The President of the United States — whether an Obama a Bush or a Lincoln — is not my son’s daddy. [...]

Sep 2, 2009 - 7:43 pm 12. McGehee:

Having already been an avid reader of the editorial pages by the time Nixon resigned, I think I probably still wouldn’t have been too happy about being forced to sit and listen to either Gerald Ford or Jimmy Crater (not a typo) spouting off about how the future depends on me and my classmates paying attention in class and turning in our homework on time.

If they’d gotten political I guarantee my parents would have heard about it — when my (Catholic) grammar school staged an assembly so some proglodytes could campaign for their pet ballot proposition, my parents sure as hell heard about it.

Sep 2, 2009 - 8:26 pm 13. Janus Daniels:

What if he read, “My Pet Goat”?

Sep 2, 2009 - 8:43 pm 14. happyfeet:

you are very clear-eyed and wise about Barack Obama’s propaganda schemes while the Allahpundit one seems very confuzzled and lacking in comprehensions…

People notice these sorts of things.

Sep 2, 2009 - 8:44 pm 15. agent bedhead:

In the grand scheme of things, not a big deal, sorry to say.

Daughter is in 3rd grade. Working at a 6th grade math level, thanks to what I do with her during summer vacations. School is mandatory. I can’t take my entire life off to homeschool, yet I cannot afford private education. Hence public school.

Still, I’m making sure that she’s getting the right stuff. It’s a parent’s responsibility to countereducate, if you know what I mean…

Sep 2, 2009 - 8:52 pm 16. jaymaster:

I’m kinda ambivalent about this one.

Yes, it’s a bit creepy. But I’m also willing to give the guy a chance and see what he actually says before I criticize it too much.

If he does it right, it could, MAYBE, be good for the kids to hear his success story.

And if he does it wrong (like most everything else he’s done while in office), it will piss even more people off.

I’m betting on the latter, but who knows?

Either way, I don’t think many young minds will be harmed in the process.

Sep 2, 2009 - 8:54 pm 17. arhooley:

Janus, I’d consider it a thoroughly silly use of all that technology. For an intimate drop-in, though, “My Pet Goat” would be entirely appropriate.

A public service announcement from Obama saying “Hey, kids, school is cool!” would have sufficed. Telling kids to take notes on his speech and ponder how they can help Obama is a bit cultish, don’t you think?

Sep 2, 2009 - 8:57 pm 18. arhooley:

jaymaster, I think that with all the advance resistance, Obama is going to do the former. The danger would be if he took questions from the audience, in which case he’d probably end up saying that George Washington acted stupidly.

Sep 2, 2009 - 9:00 pm 19. Papa Ray:

“Please, please, PLEASE let’s try to keep politics out of school. This will not lead to anywhere a democracy would want to go. Once this line is crossed it will be crossed regularly.”

I firmly believe the above statement. I also believe that the majority of teachers are liberals or at least of a liberal bent and will not let this oppurtunity get by without their input of how great Obama and the government is. They will give no equal time to limited government, the Founder’s quotes or beliefs.

Young kids (and I include not only high school age but college age) in this present day believe most of what their educators believe over what their parents do.

This observation comes from having to prove that the information, history and such are not only misleading, incomplete but in sometimes completly false to my five grand kids.

Beware of the government and beware of it’s agents, including those that teach our children.

Papa Ray
West Texas

Sep 2, 2009 - 9:16 pm 20. Papa Ray:

Correction to above sentence:

Sentence should read:

his observation comes from having to prove that the information, history and such [that is being taught now and for many previous years] are not only misleading, incomplete but in sometimes completely false to my five grand kids.

Sep 2, 2009 - 9:22 pm 21. Anwyn’s Notes in the Margin » Message Problem:

[...] I’ve read a lot of opinions, from (I think) childless AP and Ace to Mama Venom and Daddy Vodka–one “Keep your kids home,” one “Really?” one “Yeah, I can sorta see that,” one “Pick your battles,” and Keep-’em-home Vodka’s follow-up answer to AP. [...]

Sep 2, 2009 - 11:03 pm 22. wGraves:

Pay attention. The President is actually losing it, if he hasn’t already flaked out. I’ve not seen this since the Nixon administration. The days ahead will be something to tell the grandchildren about, as he loses control of the process.

Sep 2, 2009 - 11:10 pm 23. Alan K. Henderson:

A guy who implemented school programs drafted by a confessed terrorist has no business addressing ONE public school, much less all of them.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MTViMGRmMmYxZTgwZTFjYmFjODU5YzM4Y2MwM2ViMjY=

Sep 2, 2009 - 11:26 pm 24. bgates:

What if he read, “My Pet Goat”?

I know, right? And OMG, what if there was a terrorist attack while he was reading it, only Barack totally took charge and was Presidential? That would so be worth however many little people got killed to make our guy look good (I call them “Kopechnes”).

Like, what if he read “My Pet Goat”, and terrorists attacked, and Obama could defuse the situation without a lot of provocative violence because it turned out the terrorists were friends of his from Chicago? That would rock.

Sep 2, 2009 - 11:59 pm 25. esurio:

“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
Vladimir Lenin

Sep 3, 2009 - 6:55 am 26. Sue:

Mr. Greene,

I wonder what you mean about “daddyism”. Do you mean that, when children go to school, teachers dare not tread into any mention of character, morals, behavior? I am a teacher and a parent. I tell my children to behave and I tell my students to behave, and I lead them there by basic morality: “It’s not okay to take what belongs to someone else or hurt their feelings. You need to apologize.”

I would hope you don’t have a problem with this. I would also hope you would agree with me that teachers need to *reinforce* character traits like hard work, persistence, and best effort.

For what it’s worth, I’m a teacher–a conservative teacher. I’m not thrilled about the Presidential address and am less thrilled about the accompanying “educational materials”. But your comments about being children’s “daddy” are concerning. Certainly you would not want to send your children to a school where no character traits, morals, or principles are reinforced–where rules do not apply and children are at liberty to behave as they see fit, because teachers are only “allowed” to talk/teach academia.

(And then–do we tie the shoes of first graders? Can we hold their hands down the hall? What if they hug us–is that just for parents too? How about helping them open their milk? Putting a band-aid on a boo-boo? You can see what a slippery slope this presents…)

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:00 am 27. Sandy P.:

It makes him or the presidency “Daddy” & “Mommy” – your teacher– reviews your goals at the end of the year.

NOT HIS JOB, doesn’t he have enuf on his plate?

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:11 am 28. AllenS:

Phineas said:

“…Also, Tapper points out that Bush the Elder did something similar.”

He did?

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:14 am 29. Willys:

So the Prez has failed with the adults and now plans to pursue the minds of america’s youth as a captive audience. Reminds me of the Pyongyand Remix ‘Yes We Can’ and the new National Endowment for the Arts initiative.

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:15 am 30. plutosdad:

I am really tired of all this child indoctrination. Movies for children are no longer about “share” and “be nice”, they are about the environment, or civil rights, or some other platform that children shouldn’t have to worry about.

Besides that, all those other policies, about how we treat and respect others, or the environment, or anything, all spring from a sound bedrock of values. If we stop teaching kids core values and instead only the fringe or symptoms, what are we teaching? We’re not teaching them to be good people, we’re teaching them the environment has to be saved from other people. But without the core “be good” principles, we’re just creating sociopaths with extreme left or right beliefs.

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:15 am 31. MagicalPat:

When I was a kid, I had the freedom to choose my own role models. Obama and his minions seem intent on telling kids that HE is their role model.

Only a man who craves love and attention from everyone would do this. In fact, since his approval rating amongst adults is nosediving, kids may be the only ones left who love him unconditionally.

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:18 am 32. RE:

Keep politics out of the classroom. There’s far too much of that already.

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:24 am 33. The Greenroom » Forum Archive » VodkaPundit’s Sept. 8 Rebellion: Now Endorsed by Hoodlums and Homeschoolers:

[...] anymore (Parliament Lights are now my preferred brand), I still love to hang out with hoodlums, like VodkaPundit: The President of the United States — whether an Obama a Bush or a Lincoln — is not my [...]

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:26 am 34. JeffS:

The captive school kids are probably the only ones who will sit and listen to him these days. Definitely the only only ones he can get to believe him.

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:30 am 35. I don’t like this anti-debt ad « DaTechguy’s Blog:

[...] videos like this that really makes us wonder about the president’s address to the [...]

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:30 am 36. Wells:

Addressing our nation’s kids sets a bad precedent. What authority does he have to demand this kind of thing? Or institute lesson plans for teachers? I don’t deny he has the power to demand this– it’s government school system, after all. Just because he claims that the speech will be innocuous (and it probably will be) doesn’t change the precedent he’s setting.

With the NEA on his side, don’t doubt for a moment that the teachers will “informally” use this opportunity to push his agenda, whether that line remains in the lesson plan or not.

And speaking of the NEA, that other NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts, recently had a conference call where they pushed government-coordinated, government-financed propaganda to push Obama’s agenda. We’ve been so focused on the Left assaulting any institutions with power other than their own that we’re missing the concentration and centralization of power in liberal institutions.

Chicago writ large?

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:31 am 37. Fen:

“…and remember, if you hear Daddy or Mommy saying anything fishy about this, let us know at whitehouse.gov”

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:35 am 38. tommy:

And just wait and see what “worksheets” are put out by the NEA to “facilitate” the learning process. An opportunity for a whole day of unabashed liberal indoctrination. Just saying…

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:36 am 39. Mike:

“Should we have been aroused by that, too?”

Yes. Period, full stop, end of story. There’s enough political indoctrination going on in government schools already.

Chris Williams, Davis School District spokesman, said school principal Ofelia Wade and school PTA leaders decided to show the video as part of an assembly about the school’s theme for the year, service.

Aww, how nice; how harmless. “Service.” But tell me, whatever happened to education being the school’s theme for the year? Or am I just too unsophisticated, too Neanderthal, to grasp the nuance here?

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:39 am 40. Stephen Green:

Sue –

i’d be happy if they just taught spelling.

– Mr. Green, no e.

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:39 am 41. Boyd:

“Yes, the speech itself will almost certainly be harmless.”

I’d be more convinced of this if the intent were clearer. Is it just a coincidence that this lesson happens to be given at this time? Please. I think we all know what the intention is and why this is being done now and it’s not “for the children” and it is not harmless.

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:45 am 42. Sue:

Okay Mr. Green, a pithy response indeed, but you didn’t address my point. Say your first grader got hit on the playground. Am I not to comfort him? Not to talk to his offender? Not to insist that his offender apologize to him?

I say this as a conservative: let’s not get too rigid in our thought. I don’t think we need the President to instill importance of education, I think we can model that for our children first, as parents. Do you not hope that teachers also model and reinforce character and behavior?

And you know…I really like PJ media but feel a bit repelled by your sarcastic response. I’ve been a commenter and reader here for awhile. I would expect more charity and less sarcasm from PJ contributors…I would expect more from conservatives, to be sure. We’re not liberals. We don’t nitpick little things and then dismiss the person’s contributions and questions based upon such a small thing.

Well…not on PJ media. Not until today, anyway.

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:55 am 43. Denise:

I’m torn about this. It does seem creepy, but that’s probably because of the cult of personality that’s already in place.

Standing on it’s own it’s probably okay (now that they’ve scrubbed the speech).

I don’t think there’s a danger of Obama becoming your son’s daddy. But what about the kids who don’t have a daddy? I do think part of this president’s mission (as an African American who grew up without his father) is to inspire those kids who don’t have good male roll models.

Sep 3, 2009 - 7:58 am 44. Russ Goble:

On the Bush 41 doing the same thing, I suppose I’d feel better about “equalizing” them if we get a copy of the “recommended curriculum” from the DOE (if there was one) and it turns out to be remotely as creepy as the one promoted here.

“Or is this more of a protest in principle at the idea of the president giving a captive audience of schoolkids a pep talk on civics?”

Yes, that is part of it. But, its more the very idea of Obama and Co’s concept of civics. How many people in this country believe Obama or Bush control the economy? How many people have no clue about checks and balances and the philosophy behind decentralized government. How many people understand that “states rights” is not always a euphemism for black only water fountains? How many TEACHERS understand the concept of federalism? Hell, how many people get that we are called the “United STATES of America” for a reason? I know I’m basically griping about the weather but given that Obama’s party has spent decades finding new ways to erode our republican democracy, I can’t just view an otherwise harmless speech in a vacuum.

Sure the speech will likely be harmless, but when add in:
- the creepy curriculum (this was the deal killer for me)
- the idea of “what is the president asking ME to do” with the goal of tracking one’s progress toward doing just that (I guess this is what was pulled)
- trusting largely Democratic voting teachers to properly handle the proposed curriculum
- not directly related, but in the same vein, the Utah school showing the “I pledge” video (I bet they weren’t the first)
- The recent desire of the White House to use the NEA as a propaganda arm (and don’t think the DOE’s activities here weren’t vetted by the White House)
- The Dem’s idea of compulsory volunteerism for THEIR idea of community service

…I simply have a hard time giving the benefit of the doubt. As much as I was down on the administration going in, I actually assumed their would be Clintonian pragmatism. Sadly I was wrong. They seemed to have bought into their press and they seem to believe Obama really is FDR with a much better megaphone.

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:07 am 45. louise:

I do agree with those who said we should “wait and see what he says…” but that is also too late to fix any damage that could have been instilled. I have no problem with kids watching the news (when appropriate) at school. I have no problem with teachers and schools pushing kids to watch news events and then talk about them – critical thinking skills are learned from hearing more than one side of an argument. If this were optional – it would be much better. BUT I do have a problem with the POTUS seemingly dictating that “You vill vatch and learn!”

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:08 am 46. louise:

Denise:

Did they scrub the speech or just the instructions for the work afterward? The report I read didn’t indicate that the speech was scrubbed…maybe I read it wrong.

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:10 am 47. Gary:

If this was really about helping the kids learn to stay in school he could just record an inspiring speech and make it available for schools to use. That way it could be viewed in advance.

As it is, we have a big media event that is all about Obama.

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:23 am 48. Joel:

People are missing the point. This is so typical of Obama. It’s not him we have to worry about, it’s his overzealous surrogates (i.e. the mostly liberally slanted teachers) that are going to take the ball and run with it. Do you really think that they won’t come up with their own propaganda-cloaked-as-discussion without the help from the White House?

I’ve seen too many of these “assignments” that my kids have brought home to trust in their neutrality.

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:23 am 49. higgins:

1. If your kids are in public schools, take them out the day of the speech.

2. Take your kids out of public schools if at all possible.

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:26 am 50. Opinionator:

Stephen Green, baby daddy!

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:40 am 51. FMG Garry:

I say let PRESBO do it, but like the State of the Union provide equal time for the opposition. I hereby nominate Bill Whittle for the response.

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:41 am 52. TMLutas:

There’s a process for getting things into the school curriculum. So far as I can tell, the speech and the DOE supplied curriculum supplemental did not go through the normal process. That’s bad, bad, bad no matter what your politics. No doubt had it gone through the normal process somebody would have addressed the neutrality/balance issues before it got published on the Internet.

It’s a federalism/above the law issue whether or not the speech itself is objectionable or not.

And now I have to go talk to my kids’ principal.

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:50 am 53. Khaki Elephant:

But if we are to suck from the teet of government folly shouldn’t Barack be our daddy?

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:52 am 54. Alan K. Henderson:

Show this in schools:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/26/video-the-inevitable-i-pledge-parody/

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:25 am 55. Texpatriate:

“…Bush the Elder did something similar. Should we have been aroused by that, too?”

I was.

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:33 am 56. Lee Cockrell:

Sue,

“(And then–do we tie the shoes of first graders? Can we hold their hands down the hall? What if they hug us–is that just for parents too? How about helping them open their milk? Putting a band-aid on a boo-boo? You can see what a slippery slope this presents…)”

You are discouraged from holding hands, hugging children, opening their milk, and tying their shoes BECAUSE of the nanny state.

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:43 am 57. HChambers:

It’s pretty easy to make a speech, the harder part is to have an actual policy that makes it more likely to succeed in school… such as supporting the tuition vouchers in Washington DC. There he had studies to back him if he chose to voice his support, instead, he folded and actual kids will suffer from being forced from higher performing schools into inferior/dangerous schools.

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:02 am 58. M. Report:

42. Sue:

Say your first grader got hit on the playground. Am I not to comfort him? Not to talk to his offender? Not to insist that his offender apologize to him?

If you are in the D.C. School System, and you
see a big kid beating the crap out of a
little kid, you are to do _nothing_ except
call for a security guard.

I will apologize for the vulgar word above
the day after Congress does something about
the _obscene_ reality above.

In the Dallas Morning News recently, an
ex-teacher in the same system described
the usual haystack, and the final straw:
She had gotten her class interested, in
a boisterous way, in a group activity,
when an administrator stuck its head in
the door and said: “When I come back, I
want to see these students seated, and
silent.”

The State should keep its hands off
the schools; Even the Old-Time Big-City
bosses knew that.

56. Lee Cockrell: You are discouraged
by the Nanny State.

If you are female; If you are male,
you are a probable pederast.

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:30 am 59. Steven H:

Another example of the danger of the government running things.

Yes, it is not legally justified and/or there is no logical reason for state schools to allow it. But he is doing it anyway.

Same thing happens with other projects like handling the bailouts (re: how the shareholders were treated).

Big government = lawlessness

That’s a core conservative theme and it’s true. Government is force. Government is, often, a killer too. The conservative solution has always been to keep a small government.

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:39 am 60. Obama’s Schoolchildren Speech:

[...] retorts: Yes, the speech itself will almost certainly be harmless. I don’t expect anyone’s kids to be [...]

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:44 am 61. Barry D:

“as I sat at my little desk in my plaid skirt and saddle shoes”

Hmm… School wasn’t ever that kinky when I went there.

Oh wait… You were a GIRL.

Never mind.

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:46 am 62. Barnstable:

Sue,

I think I understand your concern, but I believe you are conflating morality and ethics.

Ethics is you saying to my daughter, “We do not hit each other in this class. If you do this, you will be corrected (isolated, written up, grade lowered, etc.).”

Morality is you saying to my daughter, “It’s never okay to use violence. Good people don’t hit other people.”

If you can’t see the difference between the two, then I may not want you to teach my kid.

Helping, hugging, hand-holding, other expressions of compassion–these are actions, and thus belong in the ethical sphere. The great majority of the time, they are welcome and positive. But they may be informed by a wide range of moralities.

I may choose to act compassionately because I feel a duty to do so, and may not feel much affection for the children I so act toward. The risk being that I may be stiff or cold and not connect as well with the child. Or, I may act compassionately because I empathize with and feel real affection for the child. The risk being that I might reside somewhere on the continuum of affection rather too close to, say, a Michael Jackson.

As a parent, morality is my job, and part of that job is to support those ethical rules and behaviors that a teacher promotes in his or her classroom, TO THE EXTENT that my morality agrees with those ethics.

For instance, I would support the rule of no hitting, UNTIL my daughter is hit–at which point I would allow her to use force appropriate to discourage further attention of that kind. Because my family’s morality is not that “violence is always wrong,” but that “violence is only to be used defensively, and then only if other options will not work.” When and if the classroom rule conflicts with my family’s moral code, I expect my daughter to act according to our moral code, and she can expect me to protect and support her by stepping in to explain, negotiate, and if necessary remove her from that conflicting environment if it is serious enough.

Bringing this back around to the President, I’ve read the agenda for this speech and believe that, while there is much to recommend it, there is also a curious “cult of personality” and reversal of authority implied in the speech which I believe conflicts with my moral code. The President works for us, not the other way around. Many of the particular things this particular President has done or plans to do while in office are also troubling to me. I see no reason to use any of my daughter’s valuable learning time in listening to an advertisement for the President.

I am not, nor I believe are many people, calling for this speech to be banned or disallowed. I am merely planning to keep my child from exposure to what I believe is an attempt at indoctrination of an authoritarian kind, in a context that engenders groupthink, to an audience that is exceptionally susceptible to suggestion.

Any slippery slope in this event is being greased by the President, not me.

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:48 am 63. Casey:

I have a shorter answer for Sue, which may reflect Stephen’s thinking: Cult of Personality.

‘Nuff said…

Sep 3, 2009 - 11:04 am 64. agent bedhead:

Honestly, I’m tired of all of the public school bashing these days. How many of us went to public schools in the Clinton age? And we turned out just fine regardless, maybe even Republican/Libertarian. One doesn’t need to be a wealthy snob who can afford $12,000 tuition to overcome groupthink. In fact, it almost makes us stronger if we can learn at an early age to think for ourselves, regardless of what our cohorts fall prey to. Isn’t the Right all about helping ourselves and not growing dependent on how the government tells us about what to think and how to do it? Methinks enduring public education can actually teach our kids a life skill in this way. After all, it’s a lot more difficult, as an adult, to learn to cope with the brainwashed masses in the workplace, and, yes, they’re everywhere.

Sep 3, 2009 - 11:09 am 65. JWD:

What is really sad is that Sasha and Malia won’t be viewing this tape since for some odd reason they are not enrolled in Washington D.C. public schools…

Then again, I’m sure the Sidwell Friends school will have it on new 42″ LCD TVs in each classroom.

Sep 3, 2009 - 11:25 am 66. kcom:

Sue, my answer to you would be that you’re in the classroom with the children and have direct responsibility for their welfare. What you do with them is a direct part of your job and you’re accountable for that, both as an employee of the school district and as a human being in charge (at least for that moment) of someone else’s minor children. Barack Obama, and the state in general, has no such responsibilities. I take “Daddyism” to mean that, in analogy to “nannystate-ism”, the state is trying to usurp the role traditionally and rightly reserved for families and others in direct contact with the individuals involved. Barack Obama is not going to put a bandage on any kid’s knee and no one expects him to. That’s the parent’s job if it happens at home. That’s your job if it happens during the school day, as an adjunct to the parents’ primary role (parents who you presumably have met and know). Moral instruction is also the parents’ ultimate responsibility, with support by you, as a direct supervisor of the child during a significant portion of the day, as an adjunct. But when a president uses his office to usurp those roles, declares he’s going to talk to all school children, and releases a lesson plan saying kids should write letters saying how they can help him (even if it’s just to “help him” by pledging to do well in school) he’s arrogating to himself the role of moral instruction that naturally belongs to the parents. And he’s doing it backhandedly by bypassing the parents through a venue over which they don’t have direct control. The parents have some say about what you do with their children. They have no say over what Obama’s going to do. That’s daddyism.

Sep 3, 2009 - 11:34 am 67. OCBill:

A government-sponsored study from a few years back found that most in-home daycare providers, like grandmothers for instance, weren’t really qualified because they lacked the extensive, state-authorized Child Development training found at licensed daycare facilities. This was the government’s way of saying that they are more qualified to raise your child than you are.

Sep 3, 2009 - 11:43 am 68. The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Sept. 8 Is National Skip School for Freedom Day:

[...] [...]

Sep 3, 2009 - 11:54 am 69. MWTexas:

I’m with you on this. I also think it establishes a dangerous precedent that Obama believes he can usurp the entire elementary education system in this country to spread whatever message he wants, whenever he wants. He has bypassed the school boards which are the local controlling authority on what constitutes the curriculum within State guidelines. We have to make sure the White House is aware that many people, myself included, simply do not trust them to be involved with any aspect of their child’s upbringing, health care, or education.

Sep 3, 2009 - 12:21 pm 70. Burt:

No-one should be instructing my children unless they can prove they are card-carrying, dues-paying members of the NEA!

Sep 3, 2009 - 12:45 pm 71. RJ:

Exactly, kcom. It’s just like the “It takes a village to raise a child” saying that Hillary popularized. I don’t know if she really heard it in Africa or not, but it hardly matters. It’s a nice saying that most non-recluses would approve of. Until you replace “village” with “government,” which is exactly what Hillary intended. That’s the kind of “Daddyism” that Stephen is talking about. Our government is not a village, it is not a relative, it is not a teacher, and it definitely is not a mommy or a daddy.

Sep 3, 2009 - 1:08 pm 72. amos:

Nonsense, Stephen.

Barack Obama is father to the country. Do you not understand? He is The Obama.

Pledge to him:

Agent Bedhead:
You’re forgetting the opportunity cost. If 10% get out of the public schools and manage to become Libertarians or Republicans. you must also consider the poisoned thinking of the rest. I’m all for the “what doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger” theory of personal growth, but ought that be the default shoved on to kids?

Sep 3, 2009 - 1:29 pm 73. John FWD:

I swear, I’ve never seen a more pathetic bunch whiners and hand-wringers, busy trying to read something sinister into every single action a president takes. Oh, wait, yes I have–the morons at Democratic Underground and Kos while Bush was in office.

You’re right Stephen, you are your son’s father, Obama is not, but if you’re afraid of the influence of those who don’t agree with you you’re in for a rocky road while he’s in school.

Try being a little more confident in your abilities as a parent. Oh, and take off the skirt, it clashes with the whole “suave” vibe.

Sep 3, 2009 - 4:28 pm 74. furious:

Creepy: “what you can do to help the President”.
Creepier: lesson plans and activity matrices to plan “helping the president”.
Creepier still: detailed guidelines tracking the progress the children are making in “helping the president”.

How very North Korea of this White House — The Dear Leader Leads the Happy Children in Song. shudder

Sep 3, 2009 - 8:01 pm 75. john pike:

Steve, first time/long time. I plagiarized your drunken ramblings and sent the following to my local schoolboard:

Gentlemen/Ladies:

I am the father of an 8th grader at Farquhar Middle School, and I wish to express my concern about the MCPS system participating in President Obama’s speech to schools on Tuesday, September 8.

The speech itself is certain to be harmless. I don’t expect my daughter to come home and berate me or her mother for being against this program or that agenda. I do expect that this speech will be just another Daddy Speech, meant to encourage my daughter to work hard in school.

But you know what? The President of the United States — whether an Obama a Bush or a Lincoln — is not my daughter’s daddy. That’s my job.

The other thing I object to is a big portion (an entire portion?) of a school day being devoted to the President and His Works and Admonishments, for no reason other than he seems to think it should be. There’s no national emergency, this isn’t an inauguration or a joint address to Congress. It’s the President deciding, for reasons entirely his own, to take over the public school system for twenty minutes or an hour or a day.

And I object to that.

I urge you to not participate in this exercise which is being orchestrated for political purposes and which serves no educational purpose. My daughter’s teachers and her parents are responsible for her education.

Thank you for your consideraton.
John Pike
Olney, Maryland

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:06 pm 76. Obama has no fucking business addressing our kids « docweaselblog:

[...] Vodkapundit: Call & Response [...]

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:40 pm 77. Straus:

You know, go ahead and get all huffy about you being the man to teach your kid, but how many students in your kids class either don’t have a father or have an uncaring father who doesn’t teach their kids the importance of education. At a young age having a somewhat personal message delivered to you from the president is an exciting thing for a kid, and in some cases will probably inspire some of those kids. Heaven forbid they get inspired and get excited about science or math. Maybe that might even get our our education world ranking out of the bottom of the basement. But your kids won’t get that experience because of your own personal messed up view of a simple, helpful, and innocent act from this administration. But on a lighter note, it was great to hear Ron Regan make you sound like an ass.

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:44 pm 78. Right Wing Nation » Ironclad:

[...] Vodkapundit: Yes, the speech itself will almost certainly be harmless. I don’t expect anyone’s kids to be coming home and berating their parents for being against this program or that agenda. I do expect Allah has it quite right, that this speech will be just another Daddy Speech, meant to encourage my son to work hard in school. [...]

Sep 5, 2009 - 5:15 am 79. syn:

Obviously President Obama lacks confidence in teachers if he needs to go before the children to teach them how to learn; I’m surprised teachers are unaware that the community organizer is taking over their jobs.

If I were a teacher I would treat Obama’s intrusion as demeaning my profession.

Sep 5, 2009 - 8:45 am 80. agent bedhead:

When I was a kid, my hero was Jimmy Carter. Merely because he was President. I had no idea what his ideology meant or even what it was. My point is that elementary school children have no ability for abstract thinking. They’re not gonna even grasp the planned political nuances through which he speaks. Let alone remember it when they are of voting age.

In other words, Obama is wasting his time here. I say, let him.

Sep 6, 2009 - 5:28 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.