The Glade 4.0

This one didn't really bother me so much, though I can see your point. I took it more as a 'walking uphill both ways" kind of statement about persevering.


Yup, that is where it went decidedly into politics for me as well.


Completely agree.

That's why I said it's a curious and poorly chosen example. There are plenty of ways to project hardship without actively extricating yourself from the broader society you seek to motivate.

_________________

Are you serious? Really? No, seriously, this is a real question. Are you just being obtuse and trying to squabble, or are you actually trying to claim that him telling his story of effort and hard work is somehow a politicization of the speech?

Seriously? Come, on.



He was an American there, too, Khross.




You may believe that's true, but our federal government has a Department of Education, and it *does* set such standards. Pointing that out is talking about reality, and not the ideology of a certain group of folks with a particular take on the constitution. Just because you don't like that there's a DOE doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't mean it doesn't have the responsibility to set educational standards.

Seriously, Khross, this is a pretty powerful stretch.







How so?

Is it so horrible a thing to encourage people to go into private business and create jobs? To stay in school so they can make a difference for themselves and for their fellow man? Why would any rational person *chafe* at such an encouragement?




Why not? We hold service in the military up as a greater service to the country. Why not these things as well? You yourself hold military service in high esteem, and there is no quantifiable difference between that form of public service and other forms of public service outside of risk to life and limb.

He is also encouraging people to go out and go into business for themselves, and to succeed. Or did you miss that bit?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I've added you to my foes list, so except for this topic in this thread, I will not be responding your posts, much less reading them. However, because I initiated this conversation, I don't believe it fair to not provide you the reasoning for my statement.

That said, you wrote:


You have just called everyone that disagrees with the DoE lesson plans and the political nature of the speech racists. I would say it was intentional, but I honestly question your mental capability to realize what you are writing when when parroting your "party" line.

That the speech is from a black man has nothing to do with my objection, nor does the fact he is a democrat. I do admittedly have a problem with the liberal messages contained in the speech, but to infer because I object to portions of the message/event that I am a racist, is a direct personal insult.

There is nothing rational, or sane, about your post.

Don't throw me under the bus for saying this, but based purely on the context of this speech and nothing else, I really can't see anything majorly wrong with it.
Even Khross' analysis seems trite to me...we may over analyize the speech, but from the words in the speech it sounds like all the children will hear is their president telling them to stay in school and that he empathizes with their struggles.
That sounds pretty positive to me.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

My issue isn't the content of the speech. It's that the speech is not necessary, much like Bush's speech. I am not old enough to remember anything from Clinton or H.W., but had they given any sort of address, that would also be inappropriate.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

It sounds like the President is trying to be different and reach out to our children...I can see how that is scary for a lot of parents. If his speech was that video that I heard the other day, I would not be happy about this, but given the context of this particuler address to our kids, it really sounds like something that a lot of kids/youth NEED to hear.
They need to hear the head of our nation stepping outside of his normal boundaries to encourage them. That sounds necessary to me.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

I don't disagree, and from the standpoint of my 5 yr old, the most he will take away from this is that he saw the President on TV (assuming his school shows the speech) and the President encouraged him to work hard in school (the same message his parents give him every morning).

And I think, given the education available in our upper levels of school, most of the high school students won't get more out of the message than that either, as sad as it is to say.

But if that is the case, what is the point of the speech? Could he have not given the exact same message without the political undertones?

Personally, I perceive that this speech is not written for, but delivered to children, and is more akin to Shrek. It's entertaining for the "target" audience, but there is a strong, secondary message intended for, and only understood by, the parents. My concern is that in this speech he is either directly, or providing support for others to do so, setting policy mandates about the educational system in this country.

As an adult who read the speech and understands the choice of words and examples, I disagree and object to the direction suggested.

Fair enough. I'll grant that was a step too far for most of the posters here, but it was *not* a step too far for the nutjobs on the radio that drove this paranoid, fantastical delusion about indoctrination.



There is nothing rational or sane about calling this speech "indoctrination", and there's really nothing sane about the "think of the children" crap that has followed it.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Yes, the statement is overtly political for several reasons. First, it invokes an issue of identity politics. By stating, "where all the American kids went to school," Obama is separating himself from that identity. The observation, as such, has nothing to do with any questions of citizenship or eligibility. Rather, the content of the statement creates a separation that need not be made. It could, in fact, be solved by the inclusion of a single word: "other". That Obama was not a part of that group of Americans is not what the statement conveys. Rather, it conveys that he was not an American kid. It's a poorly chosen example for precisely that reason.

Beyond that, the statement is problematic because Obama could have chosen other situations from his childhood that paint marginalization within the context of American society. Instead, however, he chose an example from his days as a foreign resident in a notoriously impoverished country. This compounds the political elemental of the statement. He could have mentioned Punahao School or Occidental College. He could have mentioned being a transfer student to Columbia University or anything else that has more pertinent social identifiers within the American psyche. He did not.
No one said anything about citizenship. I mentioned the example being poor because its language creates a separation of identity between Obama and America.
Kindly demonstrate where the Federal Government derives the power to create a Department of Education in the Constitution of the United States of America? Please, show it to me. There is no stretch. The existence of an entity or thing does not validate said thing within the Rule of Law.
That's not the encouragement he's making, Montegue. He's encouraging students to study to solve what he views as social and societal problems. There's a difference. There's plenty of language in his statements unnecessary to the end you think he's achieving. If it were so simple as you believe his speech to be, it would be nothing more than a public appearance for popular favor. Instead, there are policy points pertinent to current legal and social debates inundating the text of his speech.
I also hold voluntary and elective public service in high esteem. I likewise value social service. However, what I value more is the choice to do any of those things. Indeed, the value of all those things is dependent on the free and self-actualized choice of the participant. Military, public, and social service are neither a duty nor moral obligation.
I'm afraid I didn't miss anything in his speech. I take issue with all of his impact points relying on benefit for that nebulous "greater good".

_________________

When made by a government official, the political utterance (speech act) is a curious thing. The target audience is very rarely, if ever, the immediate addressee. Rather, the political utterance seeks to create legitimation for the politics and policies of the authority that delivers it. The speech Montegue thinks Obama gave and the speech Obama gave are two different things. Were this simply an address or open letter encouraging individual and familial responsibility for education and participation therein, it would be a totally non-issue. It would, in fact, be precisely the speech everyone could get behind. However, environment and social concerns which are not decided among experts, much less the general population, should not be used as justification for individual success and effort.

_________________

And if you were responding to posts from those "nutjobs" who expressed the views you attributed to the posters here, that would be another story. However, that is not the case, and you were responding to posters here, who I have yet to see express anything of the sort.

But that is modus operandi for you... attribute to the posters here some preconceived or dictated notion about intent or thought, and in the process, making personal attacks against them. Its the reason I finally put you on ignore on the board, and why you made it to my ignore list on this board in 1 day.


So you are countering the insanity of people not on this board by bringing insanity to this board? And that makes sense how?

I just don't see how you draw that conclusion.



I didn't get that impression at all when I read it.



Yes, but he was referring to his early elementary education abroad in order to relate directly to his audience, that largely involves kids.




Again, how did you come to that conclusion? I saw no separation between Obama and America because he was educated for a time in another country.




The question of weather or not the government has the power to establish a Department of Education has been asked and answered. You don't like that answer, but it has long been put to bed.




He's encouraging students to work hard, stay in school, and do well so that when they are done, they can go be successful, and through that success, they can not only improve their own lot, but the lot of their country and their fellow man. Again, why should any person chafe at such an encouragement?



You're reading far more into this than I think is there, Khross. It just sounds paranoid.




Great. Did you see anything in that speech that took away that choice? Because I sure didn't. Encouraging people to chose to go into public service, to help their fellow man, is a lot like encouraging people to eat healthy, to stay drug free, etc. It's not indoctrination, it's bloody good advice. I don't see how it's problematic to have the president encourage people to succeed in their endeavors, to work hard, and to obtain their dreams. It's a great message.



How does this speech not line up with exactly what you are talking about? I think you really have to work to find some sort of insidious message woven into what he was saying.




Is the greater good by necessity an evil? If he encourages someone to go out there and be the doctor that cures AIDS, is that an evil?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

See, maybe I'm just too naive or something, but thats exactly what I get when I read this speech. I read everyone's analysis (what is the plural of analysis? lol), and think to myself that maybe we are all just trying to read too much into it?
That's the problem I have with most political debate. I have a clear view of what I will stand up for and won't, but everying is so muddled with all of this "read between the lines" stuff that its extremely difficult for me to follow everything.
Kinda frustrating.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

I'm afraid that is the name of the game in diplomacy.

LadyKate:

analyses to answer your embedded question ...

That said, the problem with the speech is how such things work in the broader scope of things. It would take a dissertation, or two (beyond the plethora already written and published), to explain why the words Obama chooses and how they are delivered matter more than you think. As for reading between the lines, I haven't exactly done so. I've pointed out how specific language mentions current policy goals and agendas that polls and popular opinion suggest are still in conflict within the U.S. population. It's entirely problematic in fact, since more than enough sociological studies indicate that children do and will affect their parent's political support for various issues.

_________________

I'm mildly annoyed that nothing was sent home to me about this speech. Then again my daughter is 16, so maybe they didn't think it was geared to high school students. I need to ask when she gets home whether it was shown.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ladas and Khross: Thanks for reminding me why I read these threads more than I reply in them. I'm just not cut out for political debate.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

I've received another email this morning.

They will be recording the speech to DVD instead of showing live.



I trust my son's teacher.

_________________
“The person who tries to live alone will not succeed as a human being. His heart withers if it does not answer another heart. His mind shrinks away if he hears only the echoes of his own thoughts and finds no other inspiration.” - Pearl S. Buck

It's rather simple actually: the phrase "all the American kids" is closed and finite. Since Obama indicates he did not attend that school, he's not one of "the American kids". Hence, it's a poorly chosen example because it fails to convey what it is you think the statement says.
Of course you didn't. You refuse to read the words without interjecting whatever knowledge or opinions you have into the text.
Actually, it separates him from his audience, because the vast majority of Americans have no experience as foreign residents; nor, for that matter, do they have experience with international educational systems or "developing" countries. A more effective manner of delivering that portion of the speech would be to omit the specifics and make reference to generalities. After all, if the goal is to create identification and relation, then you want to omit or occlude (heavily), any references that make the story so specific as to not be identifiable by your target audience. Again, it's a bad example. It was poorly chosen and rhetorically ineffective.
I've already quoted the offending passage, Montegue. I'll quote it again, so that you can read it.

Then you should be able to easily provide legal and statutory validation for its existence. You should, also, be able to provide clear and cogent Constitutional arguments. I suggest, by your appeal to tradition, that you cannot.


No one is chafing at that encouragement, Montegue. We're chafing at the inclusion of immediate policy and social issues over which the president is politically embattled in his stated rationale. Why does poverty or healthcare or social reform need mentioning in the speech? What purpose do they serve other than to create a political issue where none should exist?
Really? I'm paranoid for quoting the President of the United States and taking issue with his comments? I'm paranoid for pointing out he's made clear reference to current policy and social issue debates? Apparently you missed them, so I will point them out:
I quote this passage earlier for a reason. Apparently, however, the references elude you.

1. Energy technology and renewable resources are an issue of environmental policy. Cap and Trade, the "reality" of Human Induced Global Climate Change, "Global Warming, Carbon Taxes, etc.--these are all immediate policy concerns for the Obama Administration. They are issues of debate. If you notice, I let the health care components slide.

2. Here's the social discussion portion of the paragraph.

3. Here's the overt reference to the current economic climate, which is rather troubling and probably leading to prolonged contraction and monetary issues for everyone.

What purpose do these statements serve in the speech?
Where did I use the word indoctrination, Montegue? Show me. Please.
Where did I say there was an "insidious message"? We're discussing whether or not the speech was an overt political act. It seems to me, you cannot legitimate your opposition to my comments. Rather, you're attributing to me positions and statements I've never made.

_________________

Nice sideways accusation that some of us are racists. Very classy. You know, it would actually be a welcome change for you to just come right out and directly accuse specific people of being racists instead of hiding behind mealy-mouthed weaselspeak like this. If you're going to stoop to calling someone a racist, you can at least have the decency to do so to their face.



You may believe that's true, but our federal government has a prison at Guantanamo Bay, and it *does* detain prisoners. Pointing that out is talking about reality, and not the ideology of a certain group of folks with a particular take on the constitution. Just because you don't like that there's a prison in Guantanamo Bay doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't mean it doesn't have the responsibility to detain unlawful combatants.

Feel free to s/Guantanamo Bay/warrantless wiretapping/ or whatever suits your fancy.

Your repeated argument from status quo ("the government has done it, therefore it must be legal!" is dangerous and ridiculous.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Stathol, I am absolutely convinced that there are racists that post to this board. Absolutely. Convinced. I am absolutely convinced that some percentage of people's knee jerk vitriol about Obama is that he's black. Just like I am convinced that a portion of the vitriol about Justice Sotomayor had to do with the fact that she wasn't white and male.

As for the DOE, it was proposed, established, and has survived the test of the Supreme Court. GITMO did not survive that test. If the government has the power to establish a department of Defense, it has the power to establish a department of education. Public education is constitutional.

Unless, Stathol, you think it isn't? if so, the burden is on you to show your work.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Monte, you are one of the most racist persons on this board; you make every conversation conerstoned around race rather than the germane material of the discussion of relevant aspecs of a persons personality.

It's always discussion about superficial traits with you. Why does Oama's race gets brought up so often?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

So are you going to man up and name names, or just continue to hide behind vagaries like "there are (non-specific) racists"?


Guantanamo Bay was only an example, an as usual, you've completely missed the point. There are plenty of other things I could name that previous administrations have done which have "survived the test of the Supreme Court", as you put it (much of the warrantless wiretapping, for instance).


I haven't made any claims about the DOE.

I will, however, claim that the federal government has no authority to regulate our education system. And as far as that goes, the work has already been shown in this thread. This is also accepted by the courts, but I don't think you actually understand how these things work. Answer me this, Monte: what makes the standards and policies of the "No Child Left Behind" act legally binding on the states?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

You've got to be **** kidding me. How about the part of her testimony during her confirmation where she said that The SCotUS has the de facto power to author statute by means of bending the interpretation of laws to fit whatever definition is seen as "fit"? Once again, you're playing of the race card makes it clear who's the overt racist.

As for the burden of proof, here you go. Here's why it's not Constitutional.



Find in there where it says the power to create a Federal department to oversee matters of Public Education, or anything even close to that effect.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones