Monday, September 7, 2009

While We're On the Subject...

...of things going around the 'Net, it seems like the entire right side of the blogosphere is abuzz with 0bama's decision to talk directly to the nation's schoolchildren. Many point to George HW Bush's speech in 1991, and the Democratic response to it, as evidence that, yet again, the left talks out of both sides of its mouth - it was "paid political advertising" according to then-Speaker of the House Gephardt for GHWBush to speak to kids in 1991, but perfectly fine for 0bama now.

Two things have surprised me in light of this decision. First off, I received an e-mail from the school superintendent (as part of the regional mailing list) where they have decided the following:
In light of the PRSD [our school district] values of Respect, Integrity, Responsibility, and Opportunity, and to ensure that we provide the best possible instruction to our students by previewing materials that are used in school, we plan to tape the address and have it reviewed by administrative personnel to determine the instructional appropriateness of the material. It will be determined to either allow the showing of it with parental notice for certain grade levels, placed on our website so people may choose if they wish to review it, or determined not to be used within our instructional program.
Got that? They're not automatically assuming that everyone in the district is rapt 0-bots who hang on every word that falls from the Anointed One's lips. Now, they may very well decide to show the speech in all classrooms, but at the very least they're putting us on notice that we will be notified if our children will be watching. I was surprised - and pleased - to see that the default response was not to simply show the video. In MA!

The second surprising thing was Mrs. G.'s response to the original idea to show the video in class. I had not said a word about the speech, she asked me what I thought about it and I admitted that I hadn't read enough about it, but that I was naturally suspect any time a politician wants to speak to kids as a general rule. She turns to me and says,

"Well, I guess we're keeping TheBoy and BabyGirl G. out of school on Tuesday, then."
Stunned doesn't even begin to describe how I felt. Mrs. G. is pretty apolitical - she doesn't get into the back-and-forth of politics; doesn't follow the machinations of the political operatives like I, the self-avowed political junkie, do. She's far more indicative of the level of political awareness in this country than I am (although she can name her reps, senators, and the President and vice-president, so she's admittedly quite a bit higher than average there...). If 0bama has lost people like my wife, 2010 is going to be interesting indeed.

The only drawback to the Democrats losing big in 2010 is that it would mean that the fucking Republicans would take over...

That is all.

10 comments:

libertyman said...

A remarkable and appropriate response from your school administration. I wonder how many calls they received?

Anonymous said...

My wife's response was pretty close to Mrs. G's. She even drafted a letter to the principal saying Daboy was not allowed to view the speech. However, after discussing it with Daboy's biological father, he and I for once in the world agreed. Daboy is almost 13yrs old, he should be old enough to come to his own conclusions by now. He already understands the .gov is supposed to serve us; not the other way around. We're review Barry's speech, and discuss it with the boy after.

Jay G said...

libertyman,

I'd wager they received quite a few. Our town is pretty conservative (for MA) - our school even says the Pledge of Allegiance!

mopar,

Yeah, 13 is old enough to make the decision on his own; and if the school wanted to show the speech to middle-school students I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the younger kids, the ones that really don't know any better, than irk me - it serves NO purpose other than brainwashing, plain and simple...

Mikael said...

"yet again, the left talks out of both sides of its mouth"

That goes both ways, every political party is guilty of it.

One of my favorites showing this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-3-2008/sarah-palin-gender-card

Word verification: reacappe

Yeah guess that's a recap.

Mikael said...

Ps: not defending anyone, just pointing out that politicians and biased media are both scum, on either side of the spectrum.

Jay G said...

Don't think you'll find an argument here, Mikael...

Sabra said...

I asked the Vice Principal at my daughters' school on Friday, and he had no idea it was even happening. Sigh. So the ex and I have agree it's probably OK to let them go in. I'm gonna be pissed if they wind up having to watch it though. This is their third week of school. I have this crazy theory that time in school needs to be spent on actually learning.

Old NFO said...

Good for them! And good for the Mrs. too!

Reputo said...

Just remember, the last time the Republicans took over (94) it was a good 6 years before they started screwing things up.

Or was it 4? Or maybe 2? Hell, I'm just ready for something else to be screwed up. At least fighting wars is something in the Constitution that the government is allowed to do.

B Smith said...

"The only drawback to the Democrats losing big in 2010 is that it would mean that the fucking Republicans take over."

I'd like to see THE PEOPLE take over this time.