The Present Bruhaha
This is a departure from anything I planned to write here, but I am compelled to say something on the topic of Free Speech. As a writer, words are the tool of my trade. I revere them.
What is more, I cherish our First Amendment right to free speech in America, even when it means that occasionally I am offended and appalled by the moronic and would-be-laughable-if-I-didn't-know-these-idiots-are-serious crap that oozes out from under the rocks where the right wing-nuts hide while trying to undermine the very freedoms we cherish. They have a right to their opinions, and I have the right to call them fools and idiots. They have the right to call the president of our country names, and I have the right to be offended and angered by their disrespect for the Office of the Presidency even if they don't like the politics of the man who holds it. (I thought the prior occupant of the Office a puppet for a cabal that was intent upon doign everything they could to run our country into the ground. I have a right to that opinion, too.)
That's what freedom of speech is about.
What alarms me more than the idiotic rantings of idiots like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, is that public school districts are bending to the pressure from the right and declining to show the president's speech during school. I have no problem with districts allowing students to opt out. For years schools have permitted students opt out of the Pledge of Allegiance. (I personally have a problem with that, but that's my problem.) They have also allowed parents to request that students be excused from reading such revolting and insidious works of trash [NOT!] as Huckleberry Finn or Black Like Me or Catcher in the Rye or Lord of the Flies.
What I object to is the superintendents, principals and teachers in America's public schools refusing to allow our president to address the students of America with the insidious and politically objectionable message that they should study hard and become good citizens. Someone objected to the speech because President Obama might try to get kids to vote. That is a bad thing how??? Young people vote in lower numbers than any other group. I love the idea that our president would speak to kids, encouraging them to take their studies and their citizenship seriously.
The first year I voted was 1972. During that campaign, I recall that President Nixon specifically encouraged young people to vote. As much as I despised the man, I never once thought that he had no right to do that. On the contrary, I love the idea that any president would take the time to speak directly to the youth of America, encouraging them to take their citizenship seriously.
President Obama is by all accounts a very good father. He is a wonderful role model for young people. At the beginning of a new school term he has offered to address the school children of the country he leads, to encourage them with his words and to inspire them with the witness of his own rise from humble roots to the presidency by virtue of hard work and education.
How in the world could anyone think that's a bad thing?
Some days I fear for my country. Today is one of them.
About Meredith
Originally from the Midwest, I now live in Florida. I work in business during the day, and write every spare moment the rest of the time.
My Website is here.
Connections
Meredith’s Favorite Books
The Once and Future King; Outlander; Hanta Yo; Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood;
well lets change the question
What if Bush had wanted to give the same speech. The fact is that the left wing howled and cried at everything he did except possibly how much toilet paper he used in the morning. So what comes around goes around. Personally I am a bit disturbed at shrill voices being used by all sides. Both sides need to go to their time out corners...
I agree
Despite my over-the-top language in my post, I agree with you. Everybody needs to chill.
In fact, I looked it up: President Bush (Pere) actually made such a speech and the Dems jumped all over him, too. Reagan made a speech too, and took some crap about it. The difference here is that it isn't just the inside-the-beltway politicos who are getting exercised about it; you'd expect that political posturing, and could ignore it.
It's a lot of grassroots folks doing this. Most of our local schools here are NOT going to show the speech. I have a problem with that.
I personally don't care if the Prez is Democrat, Republican or Martian, I like the idea of the leader of our country speaking to our children and encouraging them to work hard and be good (voting) citizens.
That is all I'm trying to say.
I see what you are saying but...
I think it isn't a fair comparison. Even with Junior Bush the blogging industry was still in its infancy and dominated by the left (sadly we were deprived of minute by minute twits made by sarah pailin in those days...) and town halls were used sparingly, if at all. So this grass roots revolution was kept private.
As an educator I feel that contemporary politicians have no place in our class rooms. Especially with very slanted questions (just from the examples I read for the internet...and we know the internet never lies...ever) that were more concerned about the student "connecting" with the president then with what the president was trying to say.
It is too one sided. I wouldn't show it to my students if I were in the same situation. fortunately I don't teach here.
I "hear you"
My head tells me you're right: "Contemporary politicians have no place in our class rooms."
Problem is, I still operate under the illusion (delusion?) that "elected officials" can occasionally rise to the level of "public servants" who do what they do for the benefit of the greater good. I want those people in the classrooms! I want the kids to hear from people who are their elected leaders, and I want the elected leaders to hear from the children (and the rest of us).
I agree with you about the circulation of the lesson plans being a bad idea. Seems to me good teachers could come up with their own questions to generate class discussion. I'm just not willing to give up on the idea that not every utterance that comes out of the mouth of an elected official has some overarching political motive.
As for not showing kids "one sided" material, I respectfully disagree. I think kids need to be exposed to one-sided material -- from both extremes. It becomes the teacher's job, then, to show the students how to critically examine the message and understand where it is coming from and what the agenda might be. I find that it is in bumping up against ideas that I disagree with (on both sides) that I learn where I really stand on a given issue. In school, I was blessed with a bunch of teachers who pushed us to do just that, as well as a few complete nut-jobs who used their forum as teachers as a club to beat us over the head with the Republican Agenda. I'm living proof that kids are not as easy to brain-wash as people think.
As a parent, I often sat down with my daughter when she watched TV programs I found odious. I never forbade her to watch them. I let her watch with me int he room, and we discussed them. Today she's much more conservative both socially and politically than I am. That's okay, as long as she arrives at her conclusions by weighing the options and making an informed decision.
I still like the idea of the school children of America being reminded by their president that studying is worthwhile.
I know. I know. That makes me a regular Pollyanna. I do not deny that.
Sorry. I didn't mean for this to turn into a debate.
Meredith
http://meredith-morgan.blogspot.com/
some good points
Actually you had some good points. See when there is a adult exchange of ideas and I don't accuse you of supporting a health package that would require me to put my parents on an iceberg so they don't slow down the rest of us and you don't accuse me of whatever then we both gain something.
I agree that part of the role of president is to be an inspiration to people.What is unique about him is that if he has the potential to reach all sorts of people in a way no other president has before. He certainly will be a inspiration for people who have been marginalized over the years.
But the people he is trying to reach he most likely won't see his speech. Their schools can't afford it. Or the students who need the message the most aren't in the classroom because the schools and the parents weren't able to convince them because they lacked resources (for the schools the scarce resource is money and for the parents to scarce resource is time).
I think what you did for your daughter was great. My parents did the same for me. They taught me to be able to identify the fact that there are no absolute truths in the world, And even though they regretted that when I realized their truths were also not absolute I think generally they are happy with how I turned out.
Ditto
I'm guessing that you and I would probably come down on the opposite side of most political positions. Most of my best friends have been very conservative. I love them. They love me. We agree about almost nothing, other than that we owe each other the courtesy to be respectful in our differences. It is important for reasonable people to disagree; that's how progress is made!
I guess that's why I get so worked up about such horrible political divisiveness. It is so unproductive. It is more appropriate for people who differ -- deeply and passionately -- to disagree, discuss, debate and come to a common ground that both can live with. That's the way it should be in America. (And anyplace in the world, where civilized people engage in political debate.)
What I want to know is: why do so many people find that so difficult to do?
I agree
I agree with your second point. It is one thing to disagree it is another thing to get to the shrill level of child like name calling that both sides seem to excel in (Pelosi comes to mind for the democrats, Limbaugh for the GOP).
Why do they do it. Well the media loves it because it puts eyeballs on the TV and the web sites so they encourage it. Politicians do it because they survive in a culture of fear, because without fear, well we don't really need them do we?
Is all lost? Not really. During my travels I saw political funerals and it was always people from the person's political party. But in America we had "sworn enemies" of Ted Kennedy like Orrin Hatch and John McCain who were able to make a separation between Ted Kennedy the ideological rival and Ted Kennedy the colleague and man.
wow I brought this way of topic didn't I....
Not off topic at all
Meredith
http://meredith-morgan.blogspot.com/
Not off topic at all!!
I think that's the whole point pf this dialogue!
In our country John McCain and John Kerry can be friends and colleagues, even while being political opponents. Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy could work together. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams could be friends despite being mortal political enemies.
It's about being able to reach across boundaries and embrace people of good will.
It is not about ideology, but about reason and respect, and even affection.
Thank you for participating in this dialogue ... which I think is a model for what both of us seem to agree is the ideal.