However, maybe some of those conservatives have a reason to be a little worried. Last week, the Principal and the PTA of an elementary school in Farmington, UT decided to show a brief clip showing various Hollywood liberal celebrities "pledging" to do certain things to help the President and the world. Here it is:
I agree with most of the video. But to be honest, I found other parts to be creepy ("I pledge to serve Barack Obama"), gross ("I pledge to flush only after a deuce, and not a single"), blatantly political (advancing stem cell research, for example), weird (what is "the United funk of funkadelica?"), vague ("I pledge to be the change."), and flat-out liberal propaganda. During the movie, the principal actually turned to her assistant and said "Oops, I wish I would have seen this before. I don't think I would have shown it" and now has to apologize to parents whose first graders may put them on little guilt trips for using plastic instead of paper at the grocery store, flushing the toilet after urinating, buying bottled water, driving a non-hybrid car, and asking them what "21st century slavery" means, and what they can do to help stop it (I'm still scratching my head over that one).
By the way Demi Moore, "We the People" are not presidential servants. Our elected officials are called "public servants" for a reason - they serve us (or are supposed to, at least), not the other way around. Could you imagine the liberal uproar if Bush made a video like this? Keith Olberman's huge head would explode! Ha ha. Seriously though, if parents want to teach their young, impressionable kids these things at home, great! But keep this partisan stuff out of the public school system, or let parents know before you show it. What do you guys think?
10 comments:
I actually wrote a brief post about this a couple of days ago:
http://www.nichooton.com/politics/oh-grow-up/
This comment on Nick's blog practically had me lol and I wanted to make sure everyone on this blog saw it too. :)
bryan says:
September 4, 2009 at 8:29 am
"I pledge to continue to not like Ashton Kutcher because I think he is a moron.
I pledge to flip off others in traffic if I feel like it.
I pledge to use the plastic bags at the grocery store because I can.
I pledge to flush the toilet after I take a pee.
I pledge to call myself an American, not just a White American.
I pledge to turn my lights on when it’s dark because I don’t have night vision.
I pledge to not buy a hybrid car because I have no money.
I pledge to help children understand that just because they come from a small womb doesn’t mean they can’t dream big.
I pledge to end slavery.
I pledge to not kiss my biceps. Ever.
I pledge to change change to a better change.
I pledge to not be a servant to this stupid video."
I think that the most important thing to keep in mind with this speech is the overall context of it. We're in the middle of a HUGE grassroots (I don't care what Princess Pelosi says, it's definitely not "astroturf") democratic uproar against the President and basically the entire government, part of which is due to many previous "Orwellian" policies where the government is acting more and more like the Thought Police from 1984. Not to mention the President is ridiculously overexposed at this point.
I really think people wouldn't be nearly as skeptical or mad about this is Obama backed off for a little while on EVERYTHING, giving the country a chance to breathe a little. Seriously, when he went on vacation recently I found myself wishing that it would last for another month or two, or TWELVE for that matter. If the man (and this also applies to Congress) had any political sense whatsoever, he would just drop this whole health-care thing for now and take it easy for a while. Doing so would also help his approval rating TREMENDOUSLY, because it would at least appear that the well-being of the country is his top priority...NOT some crazy left-wing government take-over. Americans, with the exception of radical lefty nut-jobs like Van Jones, are totally overwhelmed with over-ambitious government intrusions right now, so ANYTHNG the President and Congress do at this point is going to have negative reception NO MATTER WHAT.
In that sense I see this mainly as a case of really, REALLY bad timing, if nothing else. Though, to be fair, that ridiculous video and all the prep material the White House has distributed (essay questions asking children how they intend to be servants for Obama) hasn't exactly helped, either.
At risk of being exhaustive, I'd also like to reply to some things said on Nic's post (the one he linked on the first comment).
From the posting: "He’s the freaking President of the United States. When he addresses the nation, we listen. When he addresses our children, we encourage them to listen. We discuss with them what was said. Why? Because we want them to be civically literate. We want them to be educated. We want them to be aware."
I would respond that to another question: couldn't you say the same thing about dictators like Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Jung-Il? Wasn't it precisely this attitude that ENABLED them to seize power in the first place? I'm not saying Obama is trying to be a dictator (...yet...); I'm merely pointing out that one must be careful about being exposed to propaganda, ESPECIALLY when helpless, impressionable school-children are involved. I'm sure the people of Cuba and Venezuela felt the same way about "dissenters" and "nay-sayers" when Castro and Chavez first took power, yet look where they are now. Moral of the story: you can never be too careful.
Also from the posting: "I will be outraged if my daughter’s school refuses to air the President’s address and allow the students to participate in the democratic process." Question: why call it "the democratic process," while remaining convinced that this isn't going to be political at all? Isn't "the democratic process" INHERENTLY political? If he's just going to talk about working hard in school and doing service, then I don't see what's "democratic" about that. Am I missing something?
This one was from Justin's comment: "None of those kids are going to remember a single freaking word that he says anyway." If the impact is so minimal, then why even GIVE the speech in the first place? If the Pres. believed nobody would even remember this in the end, then why would he yet waste his valuable time when he could use it to work on his left-wing government takeover (health-care at the moment)? The argument cuts both ways.
Hey, Devin:
The uproar over Pres. Obama's speech is due to a lack of trust. More people don't trust Pres. Obama than did earlier this year. He has reached a point on the trust-o-meter where everything will be harder for him. Think about the cumulative downward effect on the trust-o-meter of each of the successive events that happened over the summer. "Oops" and "It's Bush's fault" have worn out as excuses.
I thought Pres. Obama would moderate his radical leanings once he was in office because he is a smart man and should see the need to moderate in order to retain power. But events indicate to me that his inflated self image and false sense of invulnerability, fed by media mass hysteria and personality-cult followers, have clouded his perspective.
Pres. Obama is not unique in crossing the trust threshhold. Pres. Clinton's goose was cooked when he said "I did not have sexual relations . . ." Pres. George H.W. Bush hit the trust wall when he broke his pledge "Read my lips, no new taxes." Pres. George W. Bush, of course, lost out when he oversold the Iraq war only to have the WMD premise never materialize - though the fact that every other major player was convinced brought them down to his level too.
Ironically, many of Pres. Obama's hard-core supporters are having qualms about his trustworthiness too. Can he be trusted to stick with the public option? Will he close Gitmo? stop renditions? stick with cap and trade?
I don't trust Pres. Obama. When I see an Obama worship commercial, that reinforces my suspicions. When I hear he wants to address elementary students, the red flag goes up. I suspect that the WAY he will encourage children to stay in school will be to hold himself up as an example. The effect, if not the goal, would tend to promote a feeling of worshipful awe in the person of Barack Obama, not in the office of the President of the United States of America, let alone the Country of the United States. Anyone inclined to encourage students to reflect on ways they can serve HIM, no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt that should be given to someone who is supposed to be a servant of the people.
Call me suspicious, because I am where Pres. Obama is concerned. I have faith in our system of government, the Constitution, and I believe it is working. I don't think we will wind up like the Venezuelans.
@jeff - I hear ya, dude. But I don't want to teach my children that if we don't agree with someone, we don't listen to them. I'd rather have my children listen to propaganda and be able to sit down and teach them how to interpret it objectively, than to have them close their eyes and cover their ears every time an opposing viewpoint is presented.
I didn't say anything about this not being political. Of course its political. I want my children exposed to that, too.
As for your comparison with the dictatorships you listed, I would argue that attempting to censor the President and shield our children from a variety of viewpoints is more characteristic of those regimes.
That all being said, let me say that I completely understand the degree of distrust this President has earned. I agree that pretty much every communication that spews forth from his administration is propaganda driven by an agenda and that we should be diligent in ensuring that our children understand this. I also agree that it is absolutely essential that parents be kept in the loop on stuff like this and given the opportunity to opt out if they feel that's what's best for their children. I can only say what I think is best for *my* children.
As always - great insights people! All hit on excellent points.
Jeff: I'm glad you mentioned the current context of the speech. I think that is a huge reason why this is such as hot topic. With unemployment at 26 yr. highs (despite the spendulus pkg), the health care fiasco, Van Jones's resignation, and Obama's plummeting poll, this speech is coming at a rough time.
Dad: I loved your perspective about the WAY in which this address will likely be made. I think you're right that it will have an overtone of "look at what I did - no one would have thought I could have done this with my background, etc." The emphasis will be on his personal greatness, not that of his position. And as you correctly pointed out, he already has plenty of personality-cult followers.
Nic: I agree with you that our kids shouldn't be taught to simply block out opposing viewpoints, but should learn to look at things objectively. But on the other hand, how many 1st graders know how to do that at that age? I know many law school students who can't even do that yet, haha! Anyway, grade schoolers are very believing and trusting in what authority figures tell them - so I think that the public schools have responded to the speech the right way: let the young children and their parents choose whether to watch the speech. Don't force them one way or the other to listen or not listen. But kudos to you for wanting to teach them to sift through propaganda while they are young!
Here's my observation about trust and the presidency. It is simple, really. The best way to earn the people's trust, I think, is not by what you say, but rather by what you do. Thomas Sowell wrote an EXCELLENT column today about this topic and I encourage everyone to check it out. Here's the link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/08/what_obama_says_vs_what_he_does.html
I also wonder how the dominoes will fall as a result of the Van Jones czar resignation. I'm hoping that Congress take a long, hard look at the constitutionality of such positions in general and figure out a way to oversee these appointments in such a way as to preclude Presidents from choosing close advisors with such radical, out-of-touch views. Maybe someone else can do a post about that?
Hey, That's my comment up there! I feel special now!
But seriously, everyone made very good arguments. I really liked reading what everyone had to say on here.
I totally agree that President Obama should address the nation's youth. He is our President and he is at least partly responsible for much of what is going on at the current time. After all, who better to apologize to future America for the unending debt they will be in? Who better to explain to them that because we didn't want to suffer the consequences of a financial crisis that we created we decided not to so we mortgaged their future? Who better to explain to them that their freedom will be greatly curtailed by the massive government we are creating at this time? President Obama seems to be the best candidate to break the news to the youth of America. After all, he does have a way of convincing America that all these things we used to think are so bad aren't so bad when they are given the title of "change." Hopefully, with his speaking abilities today's youth won't catch on that their future possibilities are being torn apart by the current generation's greed and unwillingness to make tough decisions now.
I like the wishful thinking Publius!! Too bad that would never happen. And welcome Bryan! We hope to see your much-needed humor on this blog more often!
Post a Comment