A forum for comments about Naperville news and issues.

President's broadcast stirs up school controversy

| 229 Comments | No TrackBacks

President Barack Obama will be addressing school children across the nation on Tuesday. According to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, "The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible, so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens."

A recent email from District 203 indicated that parents could contact the school if they wish their students to be exempted from the broadcast. Reportedly, Jefferson Junior High will not be showing the broadcast. Do you find it unusual that parents are being offered the chance to opt out from a broadcast by the president? Is this something every student should see, or is there a reason you wouldn't want your child to view the speech?

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/6618

229 Comments

The Mallow was a typo --- do it once, and it sticks! No hidden joke.

I'm pretty familiar with Cornell and the BB (blond bimb) is correct ---- graduates from the CALS are NOT considered Ivy League (as an example, I am to understand a CALS attendee cannot be on the Cornell football team, etc.)

Per yur link, you will note the "special" wording "The undergraduate business program at CALS is one of only two such Ivy League programs accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).[3]"

Though this seems like parsing, I am to understand this is significant in that you will read references like this, and "Cornell. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences ... of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) offers the resources of a world-class Ivy League institution" often, but NEVER read it as outright called an IVY League School.

Not a biggie, though. It is an excellent school with a great reputation all by itself.

Anon:

Sorry I took so long to respond, I've been on the new thread and forgot to check back. I did not catch the head of ACORN on Chris Wallace. If you have a link I'd love to see it.

I support the government terminating federal funds to ACORN. Didn't the IRS also pull its tax exempt status or something? They've been plagued with problems for years, from embezzlement to voter registration fraud to this. And these are just the ones I've heard of through the media. And since the recent sting shows the same behavior in 4 out of 5 offices in different states, then this behavior is not isolated, it's institutionalized. You can fire all the folks you want, but the prevailing mind set will still be there. Generally the culture of an organization is set at the top and seeps down. Enough already.

Here is a link to the 'Obama is a racist' comments Beck made on Fox and Friends:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI_0Kt_e3Go

I'm surprised you didn't at least hear about this, it made quite a stink and many advertisers pulled out of his time slot.

And, please, it's Maddow. Rachel Maddow. Unless you're using Mallow intentionally in which case I'm missing the joke. She is not rabid, but she is very partisan, so fair enough. And if you can give me an instance of Olbermann in a lie (I can give you some of Hannity in return) I'd be interested in that also, as I've yet to see it. But then I haven't watched Olbermann in awhile because I got burned out on the hate speech coming from both sides and went to CNN.

I'm aware of the debate between Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann. Ann has belittled Keith's alma mater, Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, as not being Ivy League. But if you google the school, this description claims otherwise:

The New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University (abbreviated to CALS or Ag School) is a statutory college of New York.[2] With about 3,100 undergraduate and 1,000 graduate students enrolled, it is the third-largest college of its kind in the United States and the second-largest undergraduate college or school at Cornell. IT IS THE ONLY SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE IN THE IVY LEAGUE (all caps mine for emphasis).

Plus, if you go straight to the Cornell University website, you'll find the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences listed among Cornell's undergraduate colleges and schools:

http://www.cornell.edu/academics/colleges.cfm

Undergraduate Colleges and Schools

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences*

The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) is the second-largest undergraduate college at Cornell University and the third-largest college of its kind in the United States. It has been ranked in national surveys as the best college of agriculture and related sciences in the country.

So it would appear Olbermann is not lying about his credentials. If Cornell is an Ivy League, and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is one of its undergraduate colleges, then yes, Olbermann has an Ivy League education. To me, it sounds like Coulter's dismissal of his credentials is the typical rivalry you get between different schools within the same college, where the "Aggies" are considered a lower student life form that those in other majors. Ann's simply being a snob.

If you still think Olbermann is lying, then just call Cornell University directly, I'm sure they have a toll free number, most colleges and universities do. They'll clear it up for you.

Yep What The...he was doc...I was thinking that but...anyway I agree dry dull & really stating he was a doc I felt he lost credibility. A doc turned congressman...oh ya!

Should have been "'your' (Naperville) lovely citizens." What did that mean? I'm not making a generalization to all Naperville...never dream of it...just that you have "lovely citizens" (sarcasm) just like all towns do. Heck you are all complaining about your own, so I did not make a generalization. As the officer said, he would obviously be giving this person a lecture on "safe distance" as they clearly had no clue & it could have been much more damage or injury had I not noticed he was going to hit me in my rear view mirror & moved ahead a bit to give him more time/room to stop. Trust me, we have plenty of lovely citizens in my home town who have similar driving skills. So just I happen to meet one of yours and sometimes you meet one of another city.

I agree I have to really wonder about anyone listening to any person/channel exclusively. You don't hear an opposing view to even contemplate that way.

Trusting politicans...hmmm well maybe I'm getting old, but you know when did anyone ever trust politicians? I mean I think about my parents & grandparent's generations. They had trustworthy politicians then??? I don't think so. The difference was most people did not know what was going on then. What was reported on the radio, tv or papers back then? Would the common citizen back then even know a congressman was having an (heck multiple) affairs? And God forbid you put that in the paper? They would be unAmerican. There may be "trouble" if you did. The secrets that have died with people. I always wonder what we come out when I am 80 or 90 yrs old. Yes, I better live that long!

To: By What the? on September 18, 2009 8:55 PM

I don't watch Beck enough, or close enough, to have directly heard the comment you refer to.

I will say that proving or disproving racism is pretty d*mn hard as it is clearly a judgement call and I don't know why anyone would go out on that limb (on either side of the argument) without videotapes!

As I said earlier, Beck often has a rabid tone, and I suspect his comments are couched in the controversies over the Prez's associations (Wright, Jones, etc) and how quickly he pounced on the cop in the Gates thing.

But, again, I think everyone who touches that "racist" thing is grasping for straws and trying to create controversy or hide something else, and that is exactly what I think of uber-liberals who seem to throw that accusation out so liberally (pun intended!) such as Carter did last week.

By the way, don't think I said everything Beck says is a golden fact! My only point is that I have often googled items he points out (along with the things I hear on many shows which I have mentioned), and I am impressed by the facts I can find. Best examples, of course, are Van Jones and ACORN, but I also did the research on many of the economy things he throws out. I will add that he jumped on Bush regularly (still does), and I did the same fact searches, then, too.

I understand your comments on Mallow, but saying it nicely does not mean you are not nuts or so d*mn partisan your toxic! Rabid can be the style you use, or the words you use. Olberman is nuts! He screams, spits (I mean this literally in the way he speaks) and he regularly outright lies. We all have heard him talk of attending an Ivy League school, yet he did not.

I have not seen Hanity since Colmes left ---- I can't see it working without him!

[Side issue: Did you catch the head of ACORN on the Chris Wallace show this Sunday with Issa? Man, she did the group no favors with the mainstream with her horrible and completely disrespectful body language! If she didn't want to be on the show with Issa, she should either have had them change the guest OR told the audience she was boycotting Issa. ]

WT?

I know he did. I was joking because this thread has turned into anything but Obama's speech. And they do have a thread for healthcare under another previous blog.

I don't think 204 did. I think it was a choice school by school. Regardless, it is over and done and was supposed to be a good speech. I go back to my original post though. This country is about as far apart as it has been since the 60's. You are either in the camp that trusts him or in the camp that doesn't which is how this whole thing started with the writing to the president thing.

OWVY,

Who is one of "you" lovely citizens?

I didn't watch the speech or rebuttal so I am not familiar with who you are talking about. I'm speeched out and they just keep coming. That being said, I think we can all name a bunch of ambulance chasers (sorry medical malpractice attornies) who have way too much clout in Washington. First one who comes to my mind - John Edwards.

Anon 5678:

I thought someone else would've answered this, but since no one else has, yes, Obama gave his speech to the school children the Tues. after Labor Day. Once the transcript was released, 204 made it required viewing. My child said it was inspirational, but get this: she also said she doubted that it would have much impact in the long run because most kids would probably forget and go back to their usual behaviors. It seems a 13-year-old has more sense than many adults involved in this. Much ado about nothing.

OWVY:

I think the Rep who did the "rebuttal" speech or whatever it's called after O's address last week was not a lawyer, but a medical doctor. A heart surgeon for 12 years before becoming a politician is what I remember. But I can't remember what his position for the GOP is now. They're still searching around for a viable 2012 candidate. Don't think it will be him. He didn't come across much better than Bobby Jindahl did; in fact, I think he was worse. His affect was flat and dull, no charisma on camera even with a teleprompter. The search goes on.

I have no problem with the President telling students to be responsible, do their homework, etc. The whole problem appears to be distrust of the President (more politicians in general) that this too is a deception of the people - and through our kids yet.

The people would not be so inclined to think such thoughts if they were told the truth about new taxes coming on existing healthcare benefits, new taxes on all energy usage (the carbon tax - part of which is going to fund the healthcare takeover by the Federal government), etc. all as our taxes continue going up to cover mostly undeterred government spending, high union pay and benefits, lost pension fund value of unions who hired crooks/inept managers to handle their money (that taxpayers somehow have to keep whole - even though their own retirement funds have lost 30-50% of value), and state reimbursements that are not coming to cover education and other operating costs of local districts.

Any opinion offered by anyone who watches Fox News exclusively can be completely disregarded as misinformed. What is so sad is how many people in this country are so fearful of what they don't understand, that they can be convinced so readily of slanted views and outright lies. People having differing political views and beliefs is a good thing ..... having strong feelings with regard to those beliefs is also a good thing - but the fear mongering and arrogance of the current Conservative extremists is downright dangerous. I hope that there are enough political conservatives out there that one day they will overtake the lunatic fringe that seems bent on destroying anything they see that they don't understand or that at the very least doesn't conform to their VERY narrow view of this world.

I find it laughable that this blog debates Obama speaking to children through the government school system but he will not speak to viewers of the number one cable news channel today. Bertha Lewis of Acorn was appalling and I cannot wait to hear who the independent auditor she will name tomorrow will be. I wonder if it will be a firm controlled by Jesse Jackson? Further, for the first time in history a major network broadcast its national evening news program from the White House after this adminsitration approved of it and the broadcast yet people wonder why ABC news and its premier anchor knew nothing of the Acorn scandal? Good old Charlie has announced he is retiring at the end of the year. Many of us wonder why wait?

How do you even know there is such a thing as someone who is not able to change? You have ever known someone who you thought would never change and they have? Heck, if there are people you would never think would do something bad and they have then the reverse can also happen. You never know if the next smile will even make a difference.

I suppose then you do not have any religious affiliation either since you feel some should be given up on. I mean that is the point of religion right, so you must not believe in any religion since you don't believe people can change. Hmmm that would mean you would not be able to change either on something potentially at some point?

I can tell you I have worked with young teens who lived in areas where Hope was not in the community vocabulary. I've seen them change despite the messages they got from family & friends. I've seen them & many of my students make tremendous changes in their lives.

You don't know anyone from your childhood who you would have never guess they would have accomplished so much in life?

Anonymous 5678...

Car insurance separate charters? You know I don't know if that is true full blown but I know just last weekend I got rearended by one of you lovely citizens. The insurance company of the the guy who hit me stated that the rental car allowance is dictated by what the state allows so??? There wasn't really that much damage to my bumper of my small SUV and no one got hurt which is good but it makes me wondering what is all dictated by the state. Some states have equivalent to your vehicle for rental. We apparently have only a compact car! UGH!!! They gave me a free upgrade to a G6 which I'm sorry I must be getting old, and I miss my Z24 but getting in and out of low bucket seats just is not my thing anymore. I guess I can't have a midlife crisis and get some sports car! HA!

Sounds like a WalMart Philosophy, you bring in this for this amount or we don't go with your product.

I agree with the group idea & yes on ambulance chasers & having people in my family/friends in the medical field it is ridiculous that the malpractice insurance just settles because it is cheaper than going to court. Maybe if people knew you could get NOTHING if you are an ambulance chaser they would not go after everyone just to get some easy free money. This then drives up malpractice insurance & thus now you have doctors & dentists quitting they practice or leaving states where it is so high. Or how about the insurance company that approves the crown but not the bridge to hold the crown in...ya that makes sense! What are they suppose to do hold their tooth in their hand? The insurance companies need some major overhaul!

Not the right kind of lawyers in DC! Like the lawyer who talked after the president did his speech last week. I was yelling at the tv when he was on!

Epi:

Greta and Geraldo are liberals? I didn't get this from the few times I have seen them but I'll check it out again. It was unfortunate that Colmes left Hannity. The back and forth bantering when they disagreed was fun. You're not missing anything now. Once left on his own, Hannity descended into madness.

Rabid is a good way to describe Beck. Olbermann is in the same ball park with intensity, he's just not as nutty. But Rachel Maddow is not rabid! Her style is more jokesy, if that's a word. Everything with her is lighter, tongue-in-cheek, if-you-know-what-I-mean (wink wink) kind of stuff. I think she's a cutie.

I'll take your suggestion about Brett Baier. I've never seen this but it sounds like something I would like. I have caught Miller on O'Reilly many times and you're right, Miller will lampoon anything and anyone. But that's what we like about him.

One last thing--I was surprised when you said that Beck used a lot of verifiable data on his show. This is actually reassuring, because as I have seen many times, Hannity blatantly makes his up. But I do have a question. When Beck made the comment that he believed "Obama had a deep-seated hatred of white people" and called him a racist, what data did he use in forming that statement? Did you find a source for that? Just wondering.

A5678:

I don't know enough about how the health care industry operates either to answer this, whether they all have separate state charters like BCBS and how they operate differently from the auto insurance industry. A carrot has always been more effective than a stick in changing behavior, but I don't know enough to guess what the carrot could be this time or even if offering one is possible. Maybe federal research grants to hospitals, federal money to clinics, I don't know. But I tend to think if this could be done with the health insurance industry like it was with the car insurance industry, it probably already would have been done. The car insurance industry didn't fight the government on mandatory coverage as this was a gold mine for them. The opposite would be true with the health insurers, so I would expect a lot of opposition. And it is true that in some states, a single insurer has a NEAR monopoly. 87% isn't 100%, so maybe that's why antitrust laws don't apply?

The legal profession is a big part of the resistance to lawsuit reform, but it isn't the only part. Tort reform also raises questions as to whether it is even constitutional for the federal government to cap the amount an individual can get as redress for a wrong. And if it is constitutional, what price do we put on a human life? A one sum fits all, or do we use a sliding scale based on age where a younger person is worth more than an older? You can see the problems. Tort reform isn't just a can of worms, it is several cans of worms.

Another thing I'm wondering: where did the legislation come from that doesn't allow individuals and small businesses to group together for purposes of getting a better rate on medical insurance? Is this something the medical insurers lobbied for and got from the government? Does anyone know?

WT?

"If people are left to making these decisions, it will be impossible to keep personal biases and discrimination out of it, so how do we make it fair and equitable?"

Won't it be people - lawmakers, government employees, etc. - making the decisions on our health based on a multitude of factors?

"I irks me too that there are people who are dead weight on society, probably will be their whole lives, and will always be helped with the taxes of those who aren't. Separating the helpless from the clueless sounds great and I wish it were that easy, but in practical application it is impossible to do. Some of the truly clueless will get a free ride if we decide to help the truly helpless in our society, there's just no way around that. But we shouldn't ignore our citizens who really need help because of them."

I have thought about it. You are right. If you make everyone one instead of individuals that is impossible to do - separating the helpless from clueless. But I look at it as enabling. It is kind putting a bunch of cocaine in front of someone who is trying to kick the habit. I point to the different forms of welfare. We all know there are a number of examples of people who go out and have 5 to 10 kids who have zero interest and ability to parent those kids. But they are enabled and incented by the free handouts of the government. And all too many times that money doesn't make it to where it needs to go. That is to the kids.

Nothing will ever be perfect. I get that. I'm just more comfortable with the government not in the picture.

A5678:

"I care a lot about the helpless. I lose that care tremendously for the utterly clueless. There is a huge difference. When someone weighs 400 lbs and can't push themselves away from the table, when they have every capability to push themselves, I have a problem with that."

And HOW do we make the decision who is helpless and who is clueless? What criteria do we set? How do you know that 400 lb. person who can't push themselves away from the table wasn't sexually abused or otherwise traumatized as a child so as a adult they use food to cover the pain? The same with alcohol, drugs and many other addictions? Or whether they have other underlying health problems that contribute to obesity that you are not aware of? And WHO is going to be given the authority to determine who is helpless and worthy of our help and who is clueless and going to be tossed aside? Do we set up panels (like in death panels) to determine this for everyone? If people are left to making these decisions, it will be impossible to keep personal biases and discrimination out of it, so how do we make it fair and equitable? And this is but a speck on the tip of the iceberg.

I irks me too that there are people who are dead weight on society, probably will be their whole lives, and will always be helped with the taxes of those who aren't. Separating the helpless from the clueless sounds great and I wish it were that easy, but in practical application it is impossible to do. Some of the truly clueless will get a free ride if we decide to help the truly helpless in our society, there's just no way around that. But we shouldn't ignore our citizens who really need help because of them.

Just something to think about.

To: What the?

That last post to you on FOX was from me.

To: By What the? on September 17, 2009 2:08 AM

Fair enough.

Concerning liberals ---Geraldo and Greta are well known liberals going way back, as was Colmes (Hannity's old partner.

I don't watch Hannity (I did some when Colmes was on), but I do catch Beck at times. I agree that his style as messsenger is often rabid, very much like Olberman and Mallow.

The DIFFERENCE is that with Beck I can get a lot of good data [I am a data guy] which I can then go google myself. After all, it is Beck that blew up the ACORN, Van Jones, NEA, and SEIU stories that no one else would cover. In fact, the coverage of ACORN is still dismal on the big three and CNN.

My suggestions?

1) I would suggest that you catch the show that comes on around 5:35 or so each day with Brett Baier (who took over for the best newsman left in America: Britt Hume). At that time, he has a roundtable panel which he moderates and it has 3 (only topnotch) media-types (Powers, Williams, Liason, Kondracke, Barnes, Krauthammer, etc) on it, usually one left, one right, and one right of center. Occasionally, the right of center is replaced by a left of center. They hit the day's hot topics and actually hit them pretty hard. If they stray, Baeir gets them back on track.

2)Each week O'Reilly does a segment with Dennis Miller on it. It is fun because O'Reilly clearly likes Miller, and Miller is an odd duck inthat he is a really left liberal who was changed dramatically by 9-11 and now is more than willing to take on and tear down various liberal issues,ideals he once backed, but at the same time he will do the same to the conservatives. In short, regardless of party, he is willing to call a nut a nut!

All in all, I catch several news shows [CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX] a day (I work from home) and without a doubt the only true NEWS on television today is on FOX.

I say this because FOX actually cover ALL the news (ie ACORN, Van Jones, CBS/Rather lies, etc --- many conveniently forget it was FOX that broke the Bush/Coke story on the eve of his first election) and not just the partisan stuff.

That is interesting on the 10th amendment. I know that is how they got mandatory car insurance through. I guess I don't see what the difference would be with health insurance. I know you can't withhold federal highway funds to force competition of healthcare across state lines. Here is the confusing part. When you buy car insurance, you buy it from All State or State Farm or Country or wherever. Do all those companies have separate state charters like BCBS does?

You bring an excellent point though. If you think about it, the federal government could withhold anything they really wanted to force the issue. Doesn't necessarily have to be tied directly to health care to get it across state lines. In your exampley, the probably could withhold highway money or any infastructure money if the states did no cooperate. Kind of goes against my gangster mentality arguement earlier but I could look the other way here and there.

I would think on the counter side of that there would be someone arguing that the insurance companies are monopolies. Robert Gibbs was on every station pumping up the president's speech last week. And he said the same story on every channel. My friend in Alabama or Arkansas - wherever he is from - had to buy insurance. In that same story he said that BCBS has about 87% of the business in that particular state. I would think that one simple solution, grant it temporary in nature because 30 years later we are in the same spot, would be to break up the monopolies like they did ATT or whatever it was called back then. That did provide for years of lower costs and more choices. We might have to do it again in the next few years but it did work for some time.

Allowing individuals and small businesses to group together has got to be about the easiest thing I can think of. Let's say we are all part of a chamber of commerce. There's your group. Part of your fee goes to some sort of administration. Just like a union, just like an employer. The only difference is individual SS numbers and or employer ID numbers. I'm sure there is a simple answer to get around that. I don't know how much more simple that could be. OWVY - you talk about being compasionate. There you go right there. How are our representatives not making this possible? Right there, no one would be denied. Would not take of all the cost stuff, but it would be a heck of a start.

Tort reform - you are right. Too many ambulance chasers have a say in what goes on in DC. And too many lawyers in DC. But nonetheless, that would reduce cost substanially from a number of different angles.

Been? You are stating in the past or now? We are talking about now & many are discussing these issues. Many town hall meetings the congressmen are agreeing etc with some of those issues. Obama did mention across state lines! He also did talk about grouping smaller businesses. They are being talked about but it may be the exact wording of what they have on it. If both are saying no it may be because of how it is written up. Find out! Ask them.

Anonymous 5678....

Oh I never said the Govt is great at programs but the insurance companies are doing a great job now? This is a time period though that is of all times when others are "watching" and "want to know" etc & that at least is a better potential than in the past. And there is no reason they can't be if we hold them accountable. With insurance companies do you have any influence?

And you do not care about a 400lb person if you do not realize they can't push themselves away. There are many reason's why they may be 400lbs. The Hypothalamas has a role in hunger/eating behavior, Thyroid in metabolism, medications, inability to excerise. People just assume. I have an aunt who has gained tremendous weight. The woman has had one health injury after another. Fused dics and they want to do more, knee replacement that is instable and severe osteoporosis with about 5 risk factors and the pills do not help. Her knee gives out & she breaks her foot/ankle severely, it now has screws and rods and falls again because of the knee. If you can't exercise & are bed ridden or left to a wheel chair you are going to gain weight. I myself have gain some weight due to torn rotator cuff, herniated discs, bad knee & foot...and despite that sounding similar there is no genetic factor here since my aunt is married into the family. And maybe I'm the only one but it seems as you get older you don't burn off as much as you did when you were younger. You don't recoup from injuries & illnesses as you did when you were young either. Somehow when you are older you also don't seem to make the time to exercise as much as when you were younger. Maybe I'm the only one though. Seems to take 2 hours on the treadmill of what use to take 1 hour when I was younger. Then of course you totally seem to not consider all the psychological reasons, or someone people think that is no big deal. This is usually by people who have never struggled with their weight. It is like those who have a learning disability, others just don't understand why you just don't buckle down & study better. Ignorance. Prednisone is one medication which usually makes people gain weight. As with many other things in life we assume it is easy when we don't understand.

OWVY:

Regarding O'Reilly: OK, he's not your cup of tea. Fair enough.

Regarding some questions asked above:

"Finally, why are logical, common sense solutions such as open up buying insurance across state lines, make a requirement for individuals and small buiness owners to be allowed to group together like empolyers, tort reform, stricter regulation on the insurance companies, etc - why are those off the table?"

These have been on and off the table for YEARS. These are not new ideas that have never been looked at or tried before. Take tort reform. There was a big movement for this when I was in college in '85. It was still being fought over when I had my first administrative job in medicine in '91. And here we are in 2009 and it's still being discussed! The legal profession has a very powerful lobby as well. They have fought tooth and nail against any kind of lawsuit reform just like the medical insurance industry is fighting now against health care reform. That's why it's gone nowhere and will most likely continue to go nowhere.

Allowing insurance companies to expand across state lines, thus creating more competition and lowering costs? Sounds simple enough, until you come up against the 10th Amendment--the one dealing with state's rights. Then down that idea goes.

The federal government found a way around the 10th Amendment when it wanted to make having car insurance mandatory. The Fed could not force states to require it's residents to buy car insurance, but it could withhold federal highway funds from any state that refused to participate. Needless to say, they all signed on. I don't know if such a maneuver is possible in breaking the near monopoly insurers have in some states.

Stricter regulation on the insurance companies--again, much easier said than done. Prepare for another long, drawn-out fight.

Allowing individuals and small business owners to group together like employers? I'm not certain what this would be, but it sounds kinda like the insurance co-op idea that was in the Baucus plan that just got shot down by both Reps and Dems.

I really don't hold out much hope for any of these ideas ever coming to fruition.

OWVY,

I think you are leading right into another major problem with government run programs. I don't really no how you are going to dispute this next thing I mention, but I know you will try.

The government has a history of not running any social program correctly. Not one. I think we can all look up any social program and find out what the originally budgeted was x and it ends up costing x plus trillions more. And I think it is pretty indisputable that once the government has their hands in something, they aren't ever going to get out of it. Look at SS or Medicare or Medicaid. What originally started out as a 2% tax back in the 30's is now 12.4%. If my math is not deceiving me, that is over a 600% increase. And it is going broke. Between the government never budgeting correctly, constantly borrowing from the fund and getting no return on the money to speak of, and increasing our taxes by 600+% over 50 years, I can't undertand why you would possibly want them in control of anything else. Especially your health. You and I are different for sure. I want to know where they are going to get the money and I am sick of hearing China, I don't want to be taxed at a higher rate as the total tax rate is already ridiculous here. If you are the normal person around here who pays anywhere between 30 and 70k per year in taxes, shouldn't you get something in return for that other than roads, good schools and various other infastructure? Does it not just p you off that your money in government hands is doing squat? You could put your own SS money under your bed if you were 25 right now and you would be ahead if the government were to have it.

And as far as me caring about people, absolutely I do. I care a lot about the helpless. I lose that care tremendously for the utterly clueless. There is a huge difference. When someone weighs 400 lbs and can't push themselves away from the table, when they have every capability to push themselves, I have a problem with that.

No one answered my question. Did Obama give that speech yet?

One Who Values You on September 17, 2009 5:30 PM

Fanatic/Bully...not much different in the end to me!

______________

Now that's something we can agree on.

What The...

Fanatic/Bully...not much different in the end to me!

Anonymous ONE...

Oh yes I agree I can write them & probably will but the point is you are using them, their info, without asking those questions. You should be asking them as well. You should not accept it without the answers. Many people do not ask. Ha, heck even the Daily Kos in 2004 yet questioned the validity & reliability of phone interviews. They even looked at whether it was statistically significant.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/17/223128/213

Here is another...

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/zogbys-misleading-poll-of-obama-voters-459/

Sorry that number is not acceptable. In fact, even surveys in Psych need to be close to 30% of the defined population and even with that many researchers discount it with so few since 70% could feel the exact opposite! It is almost as bad as the Chicago Reporter going into a Bar & asking one male & one female, of course not all racial backgrounds, ages etc about the OJ verdict & then based on these 2 makes the statement "Chicagoans believe..." UGH!!! The problem is people believe this. People do believe these lower numbers is enough to be statistically significant, valid, reliable & thus believeable.

The topics of the questions are legitimate. How they are asked are not. Any basic course in research methods you are trained how to make better questions than this. My students find the errors & it is not even a research course.

Yes, I said what I found refuted yours & that was 2006, 2005 so we know it is even different now in 2009, almost 2010. That was my point.

Yes, that is my point, they aren't giving that info and it is needed! I agree! Yes...that is my point. Who is doing the survey..YA! You are getting it! It is like the Tobbaco industry doing their own research on Tobbaco at first!

Whoooo wait big difference...they are using other sources for data! Look again!

Source: National Center for Health Statistics
Source: US Census Bureau
Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007
Source: Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences
Sources: CDC and National Center for Health Statistics

They are not doing the surveys to find this info. They are using reputable sources! Oh course if you want to provide evidence of how these sources do shabby research I would certainly listen. A site that is against universal care can also use this data as well.

Anonymous 5678...

That is a lot to decipher there. Do you support or not support a government run program? And how would you have the govt pay for it?

YES! That is the point. People are not looking at all they should. They believe things at face value without asking questions. It is not as simple as that. You don't support any govt programs? You want to get rid of them all? And pay...you don't think of that first. That is what puts up barriers before you even brainstorm of ideas. You find good ideas (we will get there) and if you believe in them & want them you FIND the money. So many small schools even have found money to do things other bigger schools don't even dream of doing. They learn not to dream because they think of money first.

Who said those ideas were off the tables? Haven't you been listening to the town hall meetings & the president even said he is willing to listen to good ideas & even gave one of from the republic side he thought was worth discussing.

Wow! That tells me a lot. When you no longer care of others that says something more about you. Maybe they are in that situation because others have given up on them. When Doctors don't care, when Police Officers no longer care, when teachers don't care, when parents don't care, when spouses don't care...that is the problem!

Hey OWVY:

Nasty? Perhaps. But this blogger had already misquoted me several times on a previous post and I let that go and was relatively civil. The second time was enough.

And I'm serious about O'Reilly. He does have a conservative world view, but he is down to earth about it, he's not a fanatic like other Fox commentators. I realize he tends to be a bit of a bully sometimes and will get in an opponent's face, but he will also call out people for their BS, liberals and conservatives alike. Like he did with Dick Morris on the ACORN segment. Morris is trashing Obama, as usual, saying 'Obama did x-y-z and I would NEVER have done that." And O'Reilly is saying, in effect, 'baloney, you would have done the exact same thing. You KNOW you would have!' Try finding that anywhere else on Fox.

One Who Values You on September 17, 2009 1:35 PM
Did you ask how many were surveyed? What age? What race? What Gender? What area of the country? What SES? ETC!!!! If you click on the link for the study you find that 1,201 adults were surveyed! That enough for you to say the whole country feels this way? They provide NOTHING on who those 1, 201 are!

_________________

OWVY, you asked where I came up with my 80% number and I provided 4 links to the data. If you disagree with their methodology feel free to contact:

Fox News
Mcclatchy - Tribune Services
Calkins Media
Zogby International

You can make your case to them and tell them that in your opinion their surveys and articles stink. I suspect you will come up empty on this one as companies such as Fox and Zogby subject their studies to peer review before publishing.

If you are part of, or know professors in the Business Department where you teach why don't you ask the "Marketing Research" people how many people it takes to provide an accurate sampling. I believe you will be surprised when the number 1,200 comes up. When politicians conduct surveys (something that Clinton was famous for) the numbers surveyed are typically in the 1,200 range and we all know that he made many decisions based on this. I do not disagree that polls and surveys can be out of whack and subject to biases. The types of questions asked and the telephone issue you referenced are all legitimate questions. I found 4 articles that backed up my claim, you obviously disagree with their conclusions. That's why we have such a stalemate regarding the health care topic.


In your first posting to me you cited: http://www.healthpaconline.net/health-care-statistics-in-the-united-states.htm

On this link a variety of quotations come up which is where you cut and pasted clips that you used to refute my statements. You also pointed out that one of my articles was from a 2006 survey and took issue with the year. However, three of your citations are from 2005, 2006 and 2005, so please tell me again why my citation from 2006 is not any good? BTW, none of your citations give polling data, gender, age, or questions asked. Something you criticized my sources for.

And if you read about HealthPAC (Your quoted source) you will find the following about them: HealthPAC online is a non-commercial, non-profit, website dedicated to the advancement of universal health care and health care reform in the United States.http://www.healthpaconline.net/about.htm

Gee, I wonder why they come up with the numbers and conclusion that they do? I wonder why they want massive overhaul of health care? Oh yeah, their sole purpose is to advance Universal Health Care!

So when you cite an organization like HealthPAC, and then lecture me that: "Even my intro students know not to make assumptions based on low numbers and not knowing who exactly is your population. They additionally know how wording of questions makes a difference & you have to look at the actually survey". It rings a little hollow. Especially because (IMO) you are more guilty of it than I am.

Anonymous ONE,

You forgot about racist. That seems to be the flavor of the day. But white, dumb, southerner pretty much points to that. Subliminal, right?

One who,

That is a lot to decipher there. Do you support or not support a government run program? And how would you have the govt pay for it?
Finally, why are logical, common sense solutions such as open up buying insurance across state lines, make a requirement for individuals and small buiness owners to be allowed to group together like empolyers, tort reform, stricter regulation on the insurance companies, etc - why are those off the table?

If one somkes three packs a day, has 7 kids before age 25, eats enough Krispy Kremes to make diabetes appear to be a cold, clock in at 300 lbs and essentially doesn't care enough about themselves to take care of themselves, why should the rest of us care? Just curious.

Back to this thread.

Did Obama speak to the kids yet?

What the...

"since I'm the only liberal (translation: "Fox-hater") here."

Oh just because others have not chirped in on this do not assume! I never watch Fox! And O'Reily fair & balanced? Ya Right!

Anonymous 5678...

Only Liberals name call & do not use logic? Do you want me to go through all the posts & provide examples of those conservatives/Republicans who do the same? Go through which politicans have or others in the news. Give me a break. Talk about credibility.

What the...

"No one's shy on this blog and stuff freely flies both ways. Your impressions are one-sided and biased, but I'm used to this also."

True...and what did you just do then suggesting reading comprehension. Just say check your past post without being nasty.

Anonymous One...

From your 1st link:

"Those same studies, however, show that a surprisingly large 70 percent of the estimated 46 million Americans who don't have insurance say they do, in fact, receive health care, and that a vast majority of them are satisfied with it."

Ommmm anyone else find this interesting? Ah ya, they go to the ER & get it but that is not the same as quality of health care like those of use who have insurance & go to a family physician & get PT etc. This can also be many young people out of college with no work & guess what...how much health care do you think you need? When I was out of graduate school I had no health care for 4 years. Did I need it? NO! I wasn't injured or sick so I had no need, luckily, for insurance. I would have said I was happy but also concerned.

Also...

"October 2006, found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care, but only 44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system."

Ah...2006 is 3 yrs ago. A LOT has happened since then with insurance coverage. Am I the only one that my cost have gone up & they are covering less with each year? And I have BCBS! My Optical/Dental is a pot of money directly through my employer $550 a year & you can accumulate a 2nd year. Ok so that is $1100 you could use...how much does a crown cost? Ya! And guess what this is for you AND your family! Do you this this is enough for you & your spouse & kids to get yearly eye exams, contacts or glasses for hte year if need be, a cleaning the minimum for your teeth. Right!

Next you apparently didn't do what many people don't do & thus are vulnerable to believing what you read is or must be correct. I go through this with my students. Did you ask how many were surveyed? What age? What race? What Gender? What area of the country? What SES? ETC!!!! If you click on the link for the study you find that 1,201 adults were surveyed! That enough for you to say the whole country feels this way? They provide NOTHING on who those 1, 201 are! You can still randomly poll only Males Caucasian high SES Southern 25-35 year old men. Using the world random just means how you selected your defined population. They have not told us how they defined it. This poll was also done by telephone. There is criticism in research on using telephone polls because not all people list their telephone numbers anymore so it may not be random. In addition, using a telephone how anonymous is it. This is different than sending survey's out & they fill out & turn in.

Their first question

What will be the single most important issue in your vote for Congress this year? 3rd highest after Iraq Economy & Terrorism...thus first for at home issues. Must not be too happy then if they can't come up with other things in American we need to solve first.

48% said they trust the Democrats to do a better job handling health care. Did you see that?

Thinking about health care in the country as a whole, are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality of health care in this country? 54% reported Dissatisfied to this so I'm not sure how they are coming up with a number close to 80%.

And are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the total cost of health care in this country? 80% said dissatisfied

Thinking now about the number of Americans who have no health insurance - do you think that’s (a critical problem for the country, a serious problem but not a critical one, a problem but not serious, or not much of a problem at all)? 52

Do you have some form of health insurance or health care coverage, or not? 87 so they are polling almost everyone that has some form of coverage. Ya think about! Do you think those who do have coverage of any kind have a phone even? Many may not so how are you asking the uninsured?

Only 19 had medicare/medicaid so you certainly are not fairly asking those covered in this way!

18-30 had HMOs so you are not fairly asking enough of those who have this form.

Those who did not have insurance 54 said too expensive!

Those uninsured 66 uninured for more than 2 YEARS!

Look at ratings of those who have insurance! Highest Excellent Rating is 40% & that is those who have Traditional Insurance. Those with PPO, HMO, Medicare only 25-33% rate Excellent. I'm sorry isn't America suppose to have Excellent Health Care?

Your health care costs, including both expenses not covered by insurance, and the cost of your insurance, if any 64...HUGE problem with this research question. You NEVER have a double question. People could answer you are ok with the cost of your insurance but not the expenses of not covered by insurance or vice versa! One of my research pet peeves thanks to my excellent research & stats profs!

Now look at this...the highest is Traditional at 45 have every had a serious illness or injury. It is really those times that you really see if your insurance is good. When more than half had not had this experience how do you know once they do they will not be complaining!

Then 31 is highest for Mediare, all others 20s have had a chronic condition. So 70 have not experience this with their insurance company to know. Roughly 1/2 (bit more for medicare) where happy with coverage for those who do have condition.

Your 2nd link...they do not site where they got 85% and I think true no matter what # it is immoral and true of those having attitude of "I got mine" and that is all that matters.

3rd link does not state where it is getting its numbers. 20M earn enough to purchase health care but choose not to? Where did they get that? Why would anyone not? Maybe they are young & feel they do not need to? Who is determining they earn enough. Just because you may earn enough, $ coming home, does not mean they have assessed what else they are paying off & looking at how they feel the investment is worth it. Lets say you have someone who is just out of college…do you think they may say, I’m healthy I don’t need it (nothing ever happens to them!) and I need to use my money to pay off my student loans (lets hope!) So do they see it as “affordable”? Maybe they are using their money in other ways? Maybe their money goes to buy health insurance for their aging parent? Hell, many are getting it for their pets instead of themselves. If it was cheaper & they found it more valuable maybe they would get it. There are so many unanswered questions here before you make assumptions. How many kids do they have that they are trying to put food in their mouths, pay for schools…some are using the money to put them in private schools or pay for kids college etc. Just on & on.

10M ignore already existing govt programs…so we don’t care about them? Why are they ignoring it? Maybe there is a darn good reason & we do need to include them to change things! Ugh! They ignore it so they must be happy? What kind of thinking is that!

Your last link..study of ONLY 4K! And this is the largest they say this year! So 4K speak for all of us? Who were these 4K? Doesn’t say! If a drug was only tried on 4K would you take it?
“Also, four out of every five people surveyed agreed that rising healthcare costs are hurting American businesses.”

Even my intro students know not to make assumptions based on low numbers and not knowing who exactly is your population. They additionally know how wording of questions makes a difference & you have to look at the actually survey.

Anonymous 5678 on September 17, 2009 9:05 AM
Anonymous ONE,

When was the last time you had a reasonable and logical debate with a liberal? Or better put, what % of debates that you have ever had with a liberal are reasonable and logical? In my experiences they are far and few between. It always ends up on name calling on their end, the use of the liberal double standard and in this case Blame Bush and racism. There is so very little logical that comes out that actually looks forward to solve the problems

___________

Amen to that A5678. I'd hoped for more.

If being conservative means being called "White, Southern and Dumb" I guess we should all start looking for swampland in the South?


By One Who Values You on September 17, 2009 6:33 AM
Anonymous One...

"...but like 80% of americans I am very happy with my current health care situation"

OMG where did you get that percentage? Do you have a citation?

____________________

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/obama-pushes-national-health-care-americans-happy-coverage/

http://www.newsobserver.com/2178/story/1679832.html

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/29/2009/september/04/crisis-what-crisis-most-americans-happy-with-health-care.html

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.cfm?ID=18967


Being happy with your current health care doesn't mean you don't see areas for improvement. Like these articles reference, over 80% of Americans are happy with their health care.

Again, I don't think that Obama's full on massive overhaul is required. If you take the time to read the articles I cited you will see that no one is saying everything is fine and dandy, they indicate that changes do need to be made.

See, I don't see where controversy has to arise with this subject. Obama is trying to give motivation to children around the country to succeed and live the lives they were intended to live. I believe no matter how old our kids are, they should have some sort of familiarity with our government and politics. Why would do you want your kids to grow up clueless about life and how our country is ran. I wish I had better motivation while when I was younger and in school, kids these days need to have more of a push in the right direction before they fall into a lot of what we have fallen in to. Parents are oblivious and unaware of what children and teenagers are thinking. From this 24 year old's opinion, experiences, and knowledge, what the president is doing is definitely not wrong and he has the best intentions for our future leaders of America. For the parents that believe that its wrong, just shows everyone that you're closed-minded and your lack of recognition for your kid's well-being. I think you all are irresponsible and in a way selfish that you are just going to shelter your kids and not let them experience what they SHOULD be experiencing. Especially, when its just a speech from our president. Come on!!! What is wrong with you people?? Continue your over-protectiveness and shelter your kids and see where they are in 5 years! You should teach them independence, free-will, and free-thinking and let them believe what they want to believe and watch what they want to watch and so on...

No, ANON ONE, you don't understand what's going on here at all. I did NOT take offense at your opinion about Obama. I said it didn't surprise me, and it didn't. I've read a lot of this kind of crap here and I'm used to it. And it may be your truth, but it isn't THE truth, so that didn't phase me either.

Your post did not offend me. It disappointed me. You were not direct, you were combative. My response to this attack was still reasonably calm and measured, considering. This must have been disappointing for you. It's clear you think you're being some kind of champion for your fellow conservative bloggers here who have been sorely mistreated by What the? Wrong again. Since you like going back and reading previous posts, you may want to take a look at some of the comments I was replying to. No one's shy on this blog and stuff freely flies both ways. Your impressions are one-sided and biased, but I'm used to this also.

I don't know if you intentionally misrepresent my comments or you just don't bother to read them, but I'm clearly not following the script you had in mind. I got out of school before No Child Left Behind, so my reading comprehension is excellent, which is a lot more than I can say for yours. So let me be direct: go play your squirrelly little games with someone else. I'm not interested.

Anonymous ONE,

When was the last time you had a reasonable and logical debate with a liberal? Or better put, what % of debates that you have ever had with a liberal are reasonable and logical? In my experiences they are far and few between. It always ends up on name calling on their end, the use of the liberal double standard and in this case Blame Bush and racism. There is so very little logical that comes out that actually looks forward to solve the problems.

Anonymous One...

"...but like 80% of americans I am very happy with my current health care situation"

OMG where did you get that percentage? Do you have a citation?

http://www.healthpaconline.net/health-care-statistics-in-the-united-states.htm

You got to be kidding me? I think you need to get out of Naperville before you make a claim like that. First, you have about 16% uninsured so to think only 4% more who have insurance of any type are unhappy come on! Next, how many have an HMO and have complaints about them. Next, you have problems with what is covered even in PPO status. Ask people what kind of Dental & Eye coverage they have? Ask them how much Physical Therapy benefits they have & see if they realize how far that will go. Ask someone on medicare how their coverage is. Heck my folks order their drugs through Canada!

"More than 40 million adults stated that they needed but did not receive one or more of these health services (medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses) in 2005 because they could not afford it. Source: National Center for Health Statistics."

"The average family health insurance premium, provided through an employer health benefit program, was $11,480 in 2006. Employees paid an average of $2,973 towards the premium amount. Source: Kaiser Family Foundation"

"About half of the bankruptcy filings in the United States are due to medical expenses. Source: Health Affairs Journal 2005"

"Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families who cannot afford health insurance. — Kaiser Foundation"

Epi:

I think your post was directed at me, since I'm the only liberal (translation: "Fox-hater") here.

I have seen the news, know about Shep Smith, think he's great. I watch the actual news on Fox sometimes on the weekend and have no problem with it. I have never see the morning entertainment shows. It is the commentators I'm referring to, and unfortunately they do represent the station and set it's political tone.

I must admit my head nearly exploded when you said their commentators, or opinionists, are divided between liberals and conservatives, with an edge toward the conservatives. An edge? AN EDGE? I'm sorry, Epi, but this is a gross understatement. Two of their commentators, Hannity and Beck, are way, way OVER the edge. So far over the edge, that watching them gives me the unsettling feeling that I'm viewing a mental ward. And try as I might, it's really hard to get past a messenger who plays scary music from "The Omen" while showing a montage of the President, who will fabricate a story and then go on a serious rant about it, who need to draw their viewers pictures and flow charts, who CRY on the air, and on and on. And the messages are not much better; they're generally just as crazy as the messengers. So let's leave those two completely out of this, unless you want to lose all credibility.

I have not seen any sparks of liberalism in any of their other commentators. I have not had much exposure to Greta, Geraldo, Cavuto, but what I have seen of them does not say "liberal" to me. And O'Reilly, definitely not, but I think his show is, as he says, fair and balanced. So who are these liberal Fox commentators you speak of? Is there anyone I'm missing?

And speaking of O'Reilly, he had a great segment tonight on the ACORN scandal. I really liked the way he handled the spin from that little toad Dick Morris. You know, the guy who objected to Clinton going to N. Korea to retrieve those two female journalists because, hey, that's the risk journalists take and the image of the U.S. was more important? Definitely one of those "ideology before people" Republicans. Here's the link if you missed it:

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=9664655&referralPlaylistId=7d2d5bd63680dc4edd78454469b3e9ed957322bb

Anyway, I already watch O'Reilly. What would you suggest?

What the? on September 16, 2009 3:01 PM
Oh, THERE you are! I know YOU. Now you sound like many other mean-spirited, acerbic Republicans

______________
WT?,
In my previous response I forgot to apologize for coming across as "acerbic". That wasn't my intention, I was trying to just be direct. I apologize.

What the? on September 16, 2009 3:01 PM
Now it appears you've chosen to join the rest of us down in the trenches

__________

the rest of us? Please don't misunderstand WT?, but I was simply responding to your previous post and took the route that I feel you have been taking with others - direct and straight talk. I think that the rhetoric on both sides has at times gone over the top. I did go back to a number of posts on this site and found the following:

In response to someone who said they would keep their kids home instead of hear Obama's speech you wrote:
"My kids will need one of your kids to serve them their McDonald's Cafe Latte on the way to their six figure job!!
I think it was silly of someone to keep their kid home that day, but your response was, imo, overboard and mean.

In response to conservatives you said,
"Like I've said before, the Republican party is becoming increasingly white, increasingly southern, and dumber by the day."

I couldn't find a posting where you didn't reference Beck, Limbaugh or some other commentator that you find offensive, so excuse me if I point out that your referencing the Huffington post is pretty weak as well.

You also claim about the health care bill that,
"arguing and hold outs is a good sign that it is being given the study it deserves.".
Funny that when the Dems are waffling it is called "giving it a study", but when the Republicans hold out it is obstructionist. Do you see the irony in that statement?

I am puzzled by this one that you wrote:
And no, I have never read Limbaugh. Make that a HELL NO. But I doubt that any of the conservatives on this blog have read Obama either. Isn't that about the same thing?
I've read Obama and his story is both inspiring and liberating, I just happen to disagree with him on politics. I think you lower the big O by equating him with Limbaugh (is that what you were doing?). I have read and listened to Limbaugh and think he's just ok - I think he tries too hard to try to lay blame for everything. So there is a revelation, a conservative who thinks Rush Limbaugh is just OK!

I've gotten into a war of words with another on this site and I'm not interested in doing the same with you. I truly think that I am just responding back to you in what I feel are the same "emotions" or "passion" that I sense you are doling out to me and others. You do spend a lot of time telling us how dumb you think W is. I point out that O can't get his initiative passed because Dems are not respecting him, and you take offense.

Please don't take it too personally! (I realize this may ring hollow, but I like a debate).

I ti s clear that FOX-haters on this thread never actually ever watched FOX news.

If you did, you would know that it is broken into several type "shows":

>First, there are editorialists/opinionists (O'Reilly, Beck, Van Sustern, Geraldo, Hannity) which are divided between liberals and conservatives, with an edge toward the conservatives. However, I would like to see any other data on channels that even offer such an array of shows representing both ends of the political spectrum.

>Second, there are entertainment-like shows (FOX in teh Morning) which are intended to compete with the likes of GMA, etc.

>Third, there is actual news (examples include Shep Smith). Their news is BY FAR the fairest, most data-laden, most NON-PARTISAN well-watched news in America.

All in all, Fox, though right-leaning, clearly obliterate the competition on all channels when it comes to being "fair and balanced". It is rare that they have an issue of importance where they do not allow partisans from BOTH sides to show up on the show and speak their mind.

The proof of this shows in the viewership ---- FOX destroys all of it's competition at basically every level of show, and their viewership is made up of almost 50% Dems and independents.

Finally, rather than thropw hate at me for posting this, I wold suggest you all take a time period from your life, say 1 or 2 weeks, and try to view FOX at the same time each day. You will find that if you can see past your partisan shades AND, in some cases, past the "messenger" on the screen, there will ba an AMAZING amount of real, true data available to you that you can than google and factcheck yourselves.

Anon ONE:

Oh, THERE you are! I know YOU. Now you sound like many other mean-spirited, acerbic Republicans. And I thought there was an actual rational dialogue here. Maybe some day, hope springs eternal.

You asked for my opinion, that was it. There isn't anymore. If you feel hold up on the health care bill simply indicates a lack of respect for Obama by his own party, I'm not surprised. Many Republicans have no respect for him, so I'm sure you're projecting this characteristic onto everyone else who is not in lockstep.

Legislators would not be agonizing and bickering over this bill like they have been if that were all it was. Defeat would be a slam dunk. This is very difficult, complicated legislation, Anon. It is not to be treated lightly, and arguing and hold outs is a good sign that it is being given the study it deserves. I don't know how the Reps do this, but I would be concerned if no one on the Dem side questioned anything. It would be like an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. "We are Borg. We are one. Resistance is futile". Is that what you prefer to see in our government?

Of course my description of Reps/Dems is overly simplistic. It was an opener. I'm not interested in writing a novel on the subject here. I did not "sneak in" the part about Reps being more ME oriented, Dems more WE. I deliberately stated it. Now YOU are just sounding paranoid.

And no, I have never read Limbaugh. Make that a HELL NO. But I doubt that any of the conservatives on this blog have read Obama either. Isn't that about the same thing? But I do catch Limbaugh's show from time to time, and like Hannity, I'll listen until the BS and false statements start, then it's off. Which is probably why I don't spend much time with either.

Also regarding Limbaugh, I did not say I have ever cited him. I stated I BRING UP Limbaugh all the time, which only means I talk about him. I have never CITED anything he has ever said. Go back and reread my post. This is why rational discussion on this blog is so rare. You don't take the time to comprehend what is written. You're more interested in fighting than understanding.

For what it's worth now, the first line of my response indicated admiration for your post. You made some very good points. I would have enjoyed hearing your take on things. Of all the venom flying at the time, that post was a welcome blast of fresh air. Now it appears you've chosen to join the rest of us down in the trenches. Let the bickering resume.

Obama did not issue a statement. He may have said something that was repeated by his chimps but there was no statement directly from him on news networks. And I would not pay attention to dribble from Olbermann or Garofolo. No one else is. Could it be that is why few people care or comment about what they say than perhaps a right wing radio host who has between 20 and 25 million listeners? Finally, the Acorn tape in San Bernadino is most significant to me. An Acorn worker is actually bragging she shot and killed her husband AFTER setting up the ground work for it in the weeks beforehand. Now that is something that should pique the curiosity of the San Bernadino Sheriff Department. Thanks for supporting Acorn Durbin and Burris. You once again have led the way and made Illinois Democrats a proud lot.

What the? on September 16, 2009 12:31 AM
Anonymous ONE: Wow, thanks for an amazingly rational post....

Reps are more ME oriented; Dems more WE. Reps tend to put political ideology before people, Dems people before ideology....

Funny thing about using the Huff Post as a reference. I really expected to get scorched by the conservatives here the first time I did that. But NOBODY NOTICED, so I kept doing it. Which tells me they probably knew nothing about the Huff Post. And nobody here has ever cited Olbermann, Jean Garofalo, or the like, even though I bring up Limbaugh and Fox all the time. Which tells me that they probably stick to the same conservative sources day in day out and aren't interested in anything else. (Don't you all try to save face now by insisting that you DID notice. You've been busted by Anon ONE.)

________________________

I'm not sure how to interprit your first line: You are either surprised that I finally wrote something rational, or you truly found portions agreeable? (lol)

As for no one commenting on the Huffington Post? you cited both factcheck.org and the Huffington Post as source references in the same posting. Are we to believe you intended for factcheck to be legitimate, but Huffington to be nothing more than fighting fire with fire? I personally didn't comment right away because I asssumed this was your "legitimate source" for argument, which means I believed I was debating someone who felt Huffington credible. No comment was needed.

I bring up Garoffalo and Olbermann because you continuously cite Limbaugh. You no more read or listen to Limbaugh than I read or watch a lot of MSNBC. I must have missed your post where you actually "cite (with link)" anything said by Limbaugh or Fox News.

Your description of the differences between Dems and Repubs is much too simplistic. I like how you try to sneak in the part that "Repubs are about ME and Dems are about WE?" How about if I say that actually the Repubs are about taking personal responsibility, while the dems are about handouts and government run programs? Or how about this: The Dems believe that anyone who has money needs to be taxed higher in order to give back to those who do not have money! Too Simplistic?

BTW, I know darn well why O can't get the health care bill passed. The Dems (including but not limited to blue dogs) are beholden to health care dollars and can't afford to alienate their constituency. I continuously point out the fact that Dems have a majority because you seem to think the main reason for non passage of this bill is the obstructionist Republicans. If you want a direct answer here it is: The reason the health care bill is not going to pass in the form O wants is because he is not respected enough by his own party to pass it! There you go - truth stinks doesn't it? I guess the Dems are more about ME than WE when it comes to health care?

Glock:

"And what is the response from the White House to the Acorn expose? Nothing."

Not true. Obama issued a statement today saying he is done with ACORN and has broken all ties to them. And Kanye West is a jack*ss.

Anonymous ONE: Wow, thanks for an amazingly rational post. You're right, no one's learning anything or getting any horizons broadened here. It's just a lot of entrenched bickering.

I wouldn't say my ire against some Republicans is solely a result of Fox News commentary, even tho when their commentators behave like nut jobs, this does reflect on all conservatives. It's more a basic philosophical difference. Reps are more ME oriented; Dems more WE. Reps tend to put political ideology before people, Dems people before ideology. I thought it pathetic when the Bush admin had to coin the phrase "compassionate conservatism" to soften their image. Like they were acknowledging that they generally didn't give a fig about anyone else, but they could show compassion if they had to. Ick.

But I am far from a bleeding heart liberal. I'm in that gray area that drives a lot of people nuts. Depending on the issue and what's at stake, I can lean either way.

Funny thing about using the Huff Post as a reference. I really expected to get scorched by the conservatives here the first time I did that. But NOBODY NOTICED, so I kept doing it. Which tells me they probably knew nothing about the Huff Post. And nobody here has ever cited Olbermann, Jean Garofalo, or the like, even though I bring up Limbaugh and Fox all the time. Which tells me that they probably stick to the same conservative sources day in day out and aren't interested in anything else. (Don't you all try to save face now by insisting that you DID notice. You've been busted by Anon ONE.)

So why doesn't anyone know why the Democrats aren't all on board yet with health care reform? How would I know? The Dems aren't leaking any special info to me that they're keeping from everyone else. I get the same news you do. All I have is a hunch, for what it's worth: The Blue Dogs are 'hos of the health care industry so that explains them. There are a few other Dems here and there who are exhibiting cold feet for a variety of reasons, cost, the political uncertainty of making such a bold move, etc. But I think these Dems have had the luxury of being indecisive because the process has been held up while the Dems courted the Reps. But now I hear that if a bipartisan agreement is not secured by the end of the week, the Dems will go it alone. My guess is as soon as this is announced, the peer pressure will prove too much for the few hold out Dems and they'll fall into line like dominoes. Just a guess.

And to Anon 5678: Don't make the mistake of thinking that the people screaming against health care reform and marching on Washington are Democratic constituents. They are Republican constituents. The Democratic constituents made their preference clear last November. I'm sure Obama knows this as well.

By 203 Parent and Teacher on September 15, 2009 9:27 PM

If we are so concerned about missed instructional opportunities, why don't all of you start asking questions about the middle school magazine drive.


I agree with you 100% on this. I'm guessing that these assemblies are not part of the SD curriculum and have 0 educational value to them. So next year I am going to request that my kids spend time in the library with a reading or math instructor. As we all know, we can't have enough of reading and math. Since my packet goes right in the recycle bin I don't see a need for my kids to miss out on education time. Why isn't that an option for us just like Obama's speech and room parties? Simple answer....$$$$$$$

Actually Obama had more support in November. The worm has turned on Obama. Now his support is waning and he does not have the support he once had among older voters and most importantly, independents. His tenatious presidency to date has raised concerns among more and more people as he moves forward. You know, Anon One said if Obama fails, the country fails. Many of us believe if Obama succeeds, the country fails. Charlie the Chimp Gibson is on Don and Roma this morning and knows nothing about the Acorn expose on BigGovernment.com. This same Charlie Gibson who was in Palins grille because should did not know the Bush Doctrine components. Let me tell you What the ? that this is a perfect example of ABC News, becoming less relevant all the time. And what is the response from the White House to the Acorn expose? Nothing. Now that is corruption you can believe in. You can rail about Fox all you want. Some of us expect some level of integrity in government even if we live in Illinois.

I thought this discussion would focus on the speech and how it affected the school day. But it has evolved into something bigger. I've read some of the posts that seemed concerned about missed instructional opportunities. If we are so concerned about missed instructional opportunities, why don't all of you start asking questions about the middle school magazine drive. It wastes instructional time preparing our kids to sell magazines and other assorted materials to friends, family, and neighbors so a large corporation can profit off the backs of our students. I believe in some circles you might consider this an opportunity for schools to "pimp out" their students to corporations. Sure, the schools receive a cut of the profits, but the corporations are making money hand over fist. Why don't we push the conversation in another direction. Go to your middle schools and begin asking questions. What's being done with that money? What percentage of the money goes to the school? How much does the corporation make? And, while you are at it, have a sit down with your principal and ask how often he or she visits each classroom. You might see some cheeks turn red. I think you'll find that more effort is being directed toward counting money from the magazine drive than is devoted to working to better the instructional opportunities for students. It's really sad.

New gems by What the?:

"I can make a lot of your same arguments against W. Bush, and the Dems tolerated him for eight years without all the insanity we're now seeing from the Reps."

Really? You make a statement like this and expect anyone to take you seriously? If you really believe that the Democrats "tolerated" President Bush, you must live in a vacuum. That's why it is actually amusing to hear liberals say we must all come together now...since they are in control. The Democrats fought the Bush Administration tooth and nail, and should expect nothing less from the Republicans.

"54% of this country voted for change, and that's what we're getting. You can either be a voice of reason in the process or resist it kicking and screaming all the way."

Actually, only 54% of those who voted can be accused of voting for a change, not 54% of the country. Any voice of reason without a (D) behind their name has been bluntly told by the president "We won". Which again goes to the point, why can't the 'winners' get their agenda passed?

Glock! You're back!

Today was a slow day, so I've been around more than usual. Why should it matter? I'm glad you approved of my 12:40 post; it's one of my favorites.

But come on, we've been through all this stuff before. I have never argued, impotently or otherwise, that Obama is the best president in history. This still remains to be seen. But his presidency is historical just the same.

Obama has not divided this country; we have done that ourselves. A majority of our citizenry elected him President, and those who didn't have been in freak out mode ever since. That's what's dividing the country. Obama's just doing the job he was elected to do.

Everything you mentioned above is opinion and debatable, and we have already debated it. I'm not going to rehash it. I can make a lot of your same arguments against W. Bush, and the Dems tolerated him for eight years without all the insanity we're now seeing from the Reps.

54% of this country voted for change, and that's what we're getting. You can either be a voice of reason in the process or resist it kicking and screaming all the way. So far your party has chosen the latter. So if this is what we have to do for another 3 years, then fine. For the good of the nation, we cannot allow mob by the minority to destroy our democracy. It won't.

Anonymous ONE,

Good points.

You wrote this.

"I've yet to hear exactly why he can't get his own loyal Democrats to side with him?"

I'll refer back to my original post a few days back at September 8, 2009 4:23 PM (before I was Anonymous 5678 and just some other random Anonymous). There is a high level of mistrust in him and it keeps growing by the day. This was all readily available to voters prior to November 4th. There are a lot of democrats who are up for re-election whose political lives depend on it. They need to listen to their constituents or risk going out and getting a real job (I say that in all seriousness as I am a big proponent of term limits as that is the single biggest problem with congress).

Wow What the ?. I was wrong. Early morning or middle afternoon. It makes no difference to you does it? Your 12:40 rant today was incredible. The Obama presidency is on track to be one of the most divisive in history. Like it or not, this will be the historical perspective of Obama. He divided the country to a level perhaps not seen since the Civil War era. (He is not done dividing us yet) There is only one reason for this intense division. Him. He is really the improbable president. Inexperienced. Unqualified. Disrespectful. The creation of a president by a campaign and a press who have completely forgotten that they have a responsibility to shine a light on government and not pro offer it. And since a case can be made that he was allowed into Harvard under a set aside program, (affirmative action or something similar to the scam U of I trustees were conducting) I and many consider him without proper intelligence and legitimate credentials to be a successful leader. He surrounds himself with divisive personality types (Van Jones, Ayers, Wright etc. that result in his ideas not being his-rather they are theirs) This in summary is why we are divided. A man who is incapable and with little leadership qualities of his own unless for example he is at a SEIU rally or NEA rally where the audience has already been organized and has leaders. And after 7 months, he shows the lowest approval ratings of any 1st term president in history, being shouted at in a joint session of Congress (the first president to call one by the way to promote his political legislation that really does not exist), who cannot pass legislation even though he has his party holding the majority of seats in Congress and who is the subject of the largest consevative demonstration on Pennsylvania Avenue in history. But you argue impotently he is the best president in history. It does not add up girlfriend. But for many of us, Obama is a fraud and his coming to speak is a yawn. And a protest opportunity. For the good of the nation, his presidency must fail and he must not be elected in 2012.

This argument is becoming an argument that has no winner, a lot of whining, and some strong personalities. I would venture to say that nothing WT? writes will make me change my opinion. (I'll go on a limb and say the same is probably true for Ken and A5678 in regard to WT?). It's not meant as an insult because probably nothing I write will, or has, changed WT?'s opinion either. I'm either a poor writer, or WT? is strong enough in belief not to change based on what I write.(I'd like to think the latter is true).

The Democrat/Republican argument becomes a Cubs/Sox, Bears/Packers, Tomato/tom-ah-toe, etc. question. No winners, lots of argument, and very strong opinion, but very few changed minds.

In WT?'s response at 1:40 you cite many of the Fox News "Commentators". I'm sure they are the reason for your ire toward Republicans. Many of us respond by citing Huffington, Olbermann, Garofalo, etc. that get our ire up as well. Hence the stalemate.

I hope Obama succeeds because if he does the country does, and I do too. I do think changes need to be made in health care, but like 80% of americans I am very happy with my current health care situation. I wish the premiums were lower, but the quality of care I and my family receive is top of the line. I do not think a massive overhaul as proposed by Obama is the solution. And again, (to be a broken record), if Obama feels so strongly he needs to get his own people to simply pass it and leave the Republicans in the dust. I've yet to hear exactly why he can't get his own loyal Democrats to side with him?

What the?,

"Yep, Obama is definitely like MLK. Republicans like you, however, are more like Jesse Jackson, endlessly complaining, causing divisiveness and contributing nothing but more problems."

Good luck to you What the?. If you honestly believe that, you really need to come out and smell the fresh air. Keep in mind, it is not just republicans, it is indepenedents as well who are severely questioning this man. There are people who voted for him that are wondering what they have gotten themselves into. I don't consider that endlessly complaining. I consider it uncovering the fraud that he is as if it weren't uncovered quite enough before the election. I'm sorry. That was probably a racist comment, wasn't it?

"I'm bored of the cookie cutter tirades from you guys about one Democratic politician or organization after another while you exempt your own transgressions. It's a constant bitch and fear fest with you folks, nothing positive in your message whatsoever. You're such a miserable lot you can no longer have a civil conversation about anything. That's why the town hall meetings work so well for you. No thinking or rational discourse, just mindless yelling and screaming from a bunch of dummies who don't know their *sses from their elbows."

You sound irritable. Who is the one who can't have a civil conversation? We haven't seen the end result yet, but it sounds like the town hall meetings did provide some good. We'll see if the democrats decide to go the reconciliation or not. If they listened the their constituents, the will vote to stop spending and keeping the government away from their lives.

You're trying too hard, Ken, and being a complete bore in the process. Give it up and move on.

Quoting the Huffington Post is certainly no worse than quoting Rush and Fox. It's simply fighting fire with fire. I expected someone to notice long before now and say something, but you're the first. Congrats!

I never said I didn't watch Faux News. I said I didn't watch Glen Beck. This self-professed clown is entertaining, I'll give him that. But his commentary is inflammatory, divisive and largely serves no useful purpose, so to me is a waste of time. Like his recent rant about Rockefeller Center. Really, who cares?

But I do still tune in to Fox enough to know what their latest spin on reality is. I don't have much tolerance for mindless bitching and complaining, and even less for deliberately false and misleading commentary. So I limit my exposure to Fox for that reason. I watched Lou Dobbs until he joined the fringe by jumping on the birther's bandwagon. And for some reason I can't really explain, I like Bill O'Reilly. I really liked Hannity when he had Coombs, but after Coombs left and Obama was elected, Hannity too went totally off the deep end. The number of times I have heard him making deliberately false statements are to many to list here, so he has absolutely no credibility.

I don't watch Olbermann much because he is strictly commentary, mostly on the latest evil doing of the Republicans, and I get tired of hearing him complain as well. But at least I have never caught him deliberately falsifying information, and I never for a moment considered his show news.

So, yeah, I definitely know the difference between commentary and news, and I know the difference between BS and news too.

I could not believe this week's Uncle Jay when I saw it. Definitely too funny (and ironic), and made even funnier by the fact that Jay definitely leans right. He's a hoot, I don't care. But one can no longer say that my impression of SOME conservatives is just my personal bias. Other sources are definitely noticing the same thing.

Rant and rave all you want, the "economy is going to collapse" stuff started with Bush, and so did the bailouts for both the banks and the car companies. This inconvenient fact is not going away anytime soon. And Fox Spews's recent fascist move of vowing to punish advertisers who leave the Beck show isn't gangster behavior?

I'm bored of the cookie cutter tirades from you guys about one Democratic politician or organization after another while you exempt your own transgressions. It's a constant bitch and fear fest with you folks, nothing positive in your message whatsoever. You're such a miserable lot you can no longer have a civil conversation about anything. That's why the town hall meetings work so well for you. No thinking or rational discourse, just mindless yelling and screaming from a bunch of dummies who don't know their *sses from their elbows.

Yep, Obama is definitely like MLK. Republicans like you, however, are more like Jesse Jackson, endlessly complaining, causing divisiveness and contributing nothing but more problems.

Did any of you catch the Obama interview on 60 Minutes Sunday? Intelligent, articulate, disciplined, cool. He is the antithesis of the crazy behavior of the Republican party right now and all Americans can see this. It's gonna be a loooong 8 years for you guys.

So why don't you find something useful to do while the rest of us are rebuilding the country? ACORN needs to go. Work on shutting them down instead of hapless soft targets like Van Jones. It beats sitting around on your elbows all day.

What the?, if anyone is using circular arguments, it is you. I'm sorry you don't understand that using language acrobatics does not make a lie any less a lie. Just because an article by a liberal media source does not use a word, it does not mean that a program does not fall under that word's definition.

Once again, saying a health care program that does not fix the illegal alien care problem does not benefit illegal aliens, while technologically true, is actually a lie. This is especially true when such provisions have been written by Republicans and then denied by the Democrats.

Allowing illegal immigrants to stay here with just a fine is amnesty, much as cities and the tollways allow ticket amnesty with a lesser fine. Deny it all you want, but that is fact.

You claim your sources are above reproach, and use the usual liberal talking points that Fox and Limbaugh claim to be news programs. Like most liberals, and the president, you are lying. Limbaugh freely admits he is an entertainer, and Fox clearly delineates their news programs from their political shows. You don't even try word games there to cover your lie, you just out and out lie. This point makes me agree with you that calling you "You lie" is much more accurate than any other name you might choose to be called.

One last thing. If I am unraveling as you say with your false claims of my name calling, where does that put you? You constantly put down the intelligence of people who disagree with you, accuse them of riding the short bus, and call them racist because you don't understand their point. In fact, your mother was right, and it is obvious the target of her remarks was you. Too bad you didn't learn from her...

What the? on September 15, 2009 1:24 AM
You're wrong about the Huff Post and MSNBC being the lowest common denominators. The LCD is Rush Limbaugh and Faux News. And if other posters here are ok quoting from those sources, I'm okay with Huff Post. At least Huff Post and MSNBC report news with commentary. Rush and Fox try to pass off commentary as news.

_____________

WT?,
I know your response wasn't to me, but keep in mind when you originally referenced Huffington you made no disclaimers, and used it to refute statements made by others, i.e. this was your source, something you stood behind. In your latest posting you seem to indicate that quoting Huffington is at least as good (if not better) as others who quote Rush, or Fox News! Just to clarify, are you saying Huffington is a legitimate news source and is beyond reproach, and that Fox News and Limbaugh are illegitimate? If so, let me say I disagree.

Since you said you don't actually watch Fox news I suggest you do before you get "high and mighty" about the definition of commentary vs. news. You said that you watch other news outlets that comment about what Fox is saying - do these "other" outlets (MSNBC, Olbermann) tell you that they report only news without opinion? I challenge you to watch Olbermann and then tell me he is reporting the News!

And about Uncle Jay, that is too funny (and ironic). But I hope you weren't claiming that you and Uncle Jay think alike when you commented that, "I'm not the only one who has made this connection."

Doesn't surprise me that you see it that way. Seeing as how there is absolutely no criticism whatsoever of this administration by either. The Huff Post is a joke. Jeff Immelt is an "advisor" to Obama or at least he was. Not sure if he has made "czar" status yet. I'll let you figure out the correlation of Immelt and NBC. I think the term is having the press in your pocket. Let me know when Olbermann doesn't have a far left loon on and try to pass off what he says is news.

Do you think we would have heard about Van Jones - and I think we saw exactly how Van Jones feels and what his views are - on MSNBC or the Bluffington Post? And then there is this 25 year old kid who is walking into Acorn offices with a camera pretty much busting them for exactly what they are......a complete and total fraud at the tax payers expense. Let's see. Who exactly had strong ties to ACORN prior to Nov 4, 2008?

That is the problem....your interpretion. I meant is Jesse is akin to BO as they both are akin to Richar Daley and Rham Emanuel. When Jesse Jackson is telling Budweiser and Microsoft that black people are going to boycott unless, I get my way, I consider that gangster mentaility. When you support a worthless organization like Acorn and Acorn stronarms companies to get what they want......loans to buy houses that their people can't afford......I consider that gangster mentality. You can do your own research to see how close this man's ties are to organziations like this. It was pretty much spelled out for us prior to the election. And that is just ACORN. I can give you many more examples but that is not what this thread is about.

I don't know my whole MLK history. But I think MLK actually did something good for his cause without using gangster style techniques but more spreading the message. To compare MLK to Obama is really slighting the legacy and the good that MLK did.

Tell me you have not drank that much kookaid. That stuff can kill you, ya know? You are gonig to accuse Bush and McCain of fear tactics. Do you remember this in about February? I'll paraphrase. The ecomomy is going to collapse if we don't pass a trillion dollar "rescue" plan. You don't think that was a fear based statement? We all knew then that it was going to be a big waste and provide no affects. Now it is 8 months later and we still know it now. You don't think this man is fearing the country into Carbon credits, health care, etc.? Seriously, buddy. That stuff can kill you.

Hey there, Anon 5678!

You're wrong about the Huff Post and MSNBC being the lowest common denominators. The LCD is Rush Limbaugh and Faux News. And if other posters here are ok quoting from those sources, I'm okay with Huff Post. At least Huff Post and MSNBC report news with commentary. Rush and Fox try to pass off commentary as news.

I plucked this from your original post: "I personally think he (Obama) is a very polished version of Jesse Jackson. And I think Jesse Jackson uses nothing but gangster techniques to get what he wants."

Maybe you didn't intend this to sound racist, but when you say two black men who are not gangsters use gangster techniques to get what they want, that's the way it comes across. And I interpreted your use of gangster to mean "gangsta". Obama and Jackson gang bangin in the hood, that type of image. If I went there, others could too. It's probably something you should be aware of.

My grandmother said "colored". I came of age in the late 60s and said "black", as in Black Power, Black Panthers, etc. My children were taught by the schools to say "African Americans." The first time they heard me use the term black, they told me I was a racist! Seriously. I had to explain how these terms have changed over time and generations to get them off my case.

I agree with OWVY. Obama is more MLK than Jesse Jackson in personal presence and behavior. Jackson is angry, militant, and will jump on any black cause to get exposure. Up until recently, all he did was cause divisiveness within communites. Obama and MLK are very different from this. Which is why Obama, like MLK, will leave an honorable legacy. Jackson is mostly regarded as a pain in the butt.

OWVY is also right about how Obama uses hope & change in his messages like the Kennedys. McCain, Bush and the rest of the Republican party only use fear tactics, no positive messages of any kind. That's the way it is.

I agree that Chicago politicians are more closely scrutinized than others, but given the history of politics here, they probably should be. But being from Chicago didn't automatically invalidate Obama for me. And given that he is now president, it obviously didn't for a lot of other people as well.

Nope, your argument still makes no sense in this dimension. Talking in vague circles may give you a quick out when you get cornered, but it makes you sound dim intellectually.

But at least we agree that Obama is right and Wilson is a douche bag. On Planet Ken you may have no rules, but in the physical world we wait for something to actually happen before calling it fact.

If the article you linked is all about amnesty, then why isn't anyone in your article, including the author, simply calling it that? Saying that Obama and his party are hiding behind word games sounds simply bizarre coming from a party who calls end of life counseling a "death panel". And you should also know that since Reagan's amnesty ONLY applied to Mexican illegals, it is common sense to anyone who knows the history (as you claim to) and has never needed further clarification. I don't think I was the one who looked like an idiot there.

One last thing: It is obvious you are unraveling when you start name calling, and since I can no longer assume you understand anything, I'll spell it out for you: stupid, idiot, liar. My mother always said that name calling is used by a weak mind to express itself forcibly. She was right.

PS: I rather like YOU LIE! I think I'll keep in around awhile.

What the?, or what ever you are calling yourself, you sure seem stupid for one who claims to be so smart.

First, in your first posted diatribe, you made the same point I did, and what Wilson was referring to. Current law will stand concerning health care for illegal immigrants, so while President Obama technically told the truth, it is, in reality, a lie to claim that the illegals won't benefit from this law. Seeing that you are from the party of "it all depends what the meaning of 'is' is", it does not surprise me that President Obama and the rest of his party will hide behind word games.

Secondly, amnesty does not have to be mentioned in the article for it to be so. This is very similar to the "technical truth" that President Obama told about illegals and health care. The only thing that would not be a form of amnesty would be to deport all illegal aliens, and make them apply legally to come back in the country. Letting them pay a fine and stay here is an amnesty program, plain and simple. If you want to fool yourself with word games, go ahead, but you will be lying to yourself.

P.S. If you only mean to specify one group, just say that group's name or identifying factor instead of saying "all" and looking like an idiot. Since there are illegal immigrants from many countries, one cannot assume you are only talking about Mexicans unless you clearly state it.

Actually, I see a lot of Kennedy ideas in Obama. I mean geez they are still using "the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die." Obama uses hope & change like the Kennedys. McCain & Bush use all the fear tactics. Just my opinion but, I see Jesse Jackson as more complaining & not so much hope as MLK. I guess that is why I'm not a big fan of Jesse. He has done a bit more lately getting involved but he does more separating than bringing together everyone in my opinion.

The horses are smart enough to leave this blog before they are beaten, unlike some of us! HA!

Oh well, that is just typical politics and everyone knows that, create laws & worry about enforcement later, after it is already a problem. Why bother planning for it. Do this but don't pay for it to be done! All you have to do is look at the No Child Left Behind example to see that.

And God forbid we should give more money to police now with the economy bad. Nah, crime won't go up?

And speaking of education, do you know how many community colleges are seeing huge increases in new students. Boston now has classes starting at midnight to accommodate, but where does the money come from? Funding is based on the few years prior so that is a problem!!!

Oops, Ken, forgot the immigration issue. It's hard to keep up with your demands.

No where in the article you linked is the word AMNESTY used. "Some mechanism over time" is not the same as amnesty, which is what Reagan did in 1986. This turned out to be a disaster. It not only overburdened our social and medical services but also encouraged more illegal immigration. I remember the Dems saying the only reason Reagan did this was to legalize millions of potential Republican voters. I don't know if that was one of his motives or not, but I do know that now that Hispanic voters are shifting over to the left, the Reps would vigorously oppose any kind of amnesty like that done by Reagan 23 years ago even if anyone was crazy enough to propose it. In fact, they are sure to oppose any kind of immigration reform at all, simply because they're Republicans and that's what they do. "Some mechanism over time" is an eventual path to citizenship, which is fine. There's nothing wrong with more tax paying citizens. But it is not blanket amnesty. You can call it that on Planet Ken, tho, if you want.


What the?,

I have to jump in. Haven't checked this for a few days. You might not want to reference the Huffington Post in your point/counterpoint debates. There are awful places to get information and then there are the Huff Post and Daily Kos and MSNBC. Those are pretty much the lowest common denominator.

You wrote this the other day.

"No comparison. But if you view Democratic African-American politicians as coming from the same "black thug" mold, then that sounds like you're more than a little biased in your assessment. Would you say the same of Micheal Steele if he were a Democrat instead of a Republican? Would you have instantly mistrusted McCain and considered him corrupt if he had been the Illinois senator instead of Obama? Really? Are you sure?"

The answer is yes. Quit trying to throw race in there. Do you work for NBC? All I said is Obama is a polished Jesse Jackson. I'm guessing there are a lot of people who feel the same as me. No different in my eyes. It has to do with policy and his belief, not skin color. Good try though. I said nothing about Democratic African-American (I'm just going to call them black if that is cool with you or I am going to refer to myself as a white American. Which way do you want it? I think if you are from here, you are American, right?) Michael Steele, eventhough I think he is the wrong person for that job, much more aligns with my beliefs than BO. And McCain........absolutely. If you are from Illinois and you are in politics, especially from Chicago, I think that automatically builds in a higher level of mistrust.

There you go. I'm assuming what I said will be twisted into a race conversation by you???????

Ken: it appears you're floating your own little interpretation of what Wilson was referring to in his shout out to the President. You're complaining about the EMTALA, signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1986, and claiming that as long as Obama allows this law to stand, he is a liar? Is that it? I have a hard time following twisted logic.

Of course I'm not expecting you to change your opinion. You don't even make clear what your opinion is half the time.

If you really don't lack the knowledge, Ken, then why don't you exhibit some? This is You Lie Guy's explanation for his bad behavior:

"In a long, complex explanation Thursday, Wilson acknowledged that Obama's assertion about illegal immigrants was technically correct."

(Does that say technically correct? Don't hyperventilate, Ken. Slow, deep breaths.)

"Wilson, though, said the House Democratic health care bill has no provisions to enforce the ban on benefits to undocumented workers, so he claimed they would end up getting government health insurance under the measure.

"When he said illegal aliens would not be covered, the wording says that, but there's no enforcement," Wilson said. "When the Republicans offered amendments [to toughen enforcement], they were defeated. So, when he said that, I was just really appalled."

http://www.thesunnews.com/142/story/1062063.html?storylink=omni_popular

Now this IS a legitimate problem in the legislation that needs to be worked out, and it will be. No one except for the far left loons thinks giving illegals more free medical care is a good idea. The Republicans have offered amendments to toughen enforcement, but none so far have been workable solutions. One idea was to have U.S. citizens carry health care ID cards showing eligibility for enrollment in the government option. This was rejected for the obvious reason that such a program would be plagued by counterfeit IDs, among other problems. It's not enough that Republicans simply offer ideas; they have to offer GOOD ideas.

So it appears you're beating a dead horse here. If you want past laws repealed, then that's an entirely different issue that has nothing to do with the present health care bill. Except on Planet Ken.

PS--In regards to my LIE that all illegal aliens were covered by the 1986 amnesty, I did not think it necessary to specify all MEXICAN illegal aliens because everyone already knows this. I assumed you understood this, too. I assumed too much.

To Anonymous ONE on September 8, 2009 2:14 PM: This is too good to be true!! You chastised me several days ago for referring to many southern Republicans as "Jerry Springer watching hacks". Well, guess what? I'm not the only one who has made this connection. Jerry Springer guest hosts with Uncle Jay on this weeks topic of "distortion". Enjoy it here:

http://unclejayexplains.com/

To Anonymous... because I loathe racist rants on September 10, 2009 7:37 PM: To say one is beating a dead horse is an expression denoting a lost cause. I am not literally accusing Ken of beating horses. No animals were harmed in the writing of this blog.

Mr. Ken...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/politics/09immig.html

Amnesty? This was for the idea of legalizing long time immigrants. The idea is not the same as just giving illegal immigrants health care without being legal & not paying in any way. It is to make them legal so they can have all the benefits of being an AMERICAN...BUT that means also they would have to pay taxes!!! Those taxes then go into the govt to use for health care & other things so they are just not going to the hospital & getting care for free on my taxes!

"...including a plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants,..."

"In broad outlines, officials said, the Obama administration favors legislation that would bring illegal immigrants into the legal system by recognizing that they violated the law, and imposing fines and other penalties to fit the offense. The legislation would seek to prevent future illegal immigration by strengthening border enforcement and cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, while creating a national system for verifying the legal immigration status of new workers."

The controversey is some feel that if we do legalize them then they still have a job that a "former American" could have. Thank God we didn't think that way when our grand or great-grand parents were coming to America from Poland, Ireland, Italy, Germany ETC. The majority of us would not be here if that was the case. Oh I'm sure some elite did think this, but thank God we did not listen as a country.

And give me a break, these same jobs that supposedly they are taking away, what positions are those? Many that even our teenagers or newly graduated college students do not want to do! And of course people out of work who do not want to "go down" in a position & pay. Sad! And how well are they doing these jobs? Many times they work harder than some of our whining teens who don't even want to work on the job. Not all, on both regards, but many!

Well, What the?, nice little history lesson for those who lacked that knowledge. I don't fall into that group. I would again suggest reading what I said, and point out to me where I showed support for President Regan's actions? By the way, just so you don't waste your time again, I didn't support President Bush's Medicare law either...

Do you think that I am going to change my opinion just because President Reagan made it legal for illegal aliens to exploit our health care system? As I stated when before, that law led to a lot of the mess we are in now. Unless President Obama insists on specific language to stop that abuse in the health care reform, he is lying when he says illegal aliens will not benefit, as they are currently benefiting from a bad health care law and he is doing nothing to reform that part of the health care system.

Moving on to illegal immigration, you are mistaken when you say that President Reagan gave blanket amnesty to "ALL" illegal immigrants. If you are going to keep questioning my intelligence, maybe you should make sure you are not showing your ignorance at the same time. Your own linked article does not even make that claim. I also know that unless you were Mexican, that amnesty was very hard to get, as I was dating a daughter of an illegal European alien at that time. He even hired a lawyer, but was told that the program was only for Mexicans.

Next there is this following lie of yours:

"Conservatives are freaking out that Obama will give amnesty again, even though this subject has not even been broached by President Obama"

Since you like links, here is one for you, plus an expert that dazzlingly displays your deceit, or lack of knowledge :

Just last month, Mr. Obama openly recognized that immigration is a potential minefield.
"I know this is an emotional issue; I know it’s a controversial issue,” he told an audience at a town meeting on March 18 in Costa Mesa, Calif. “I know that the people get real riled up politically about this."
But, he said, immigrants who are long-time residents but lack legal status “have to have some mechanism over time to get out of the shadows.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/politics/09immig.html

I know it is much more expedient for you to keep lying instead of getting your facts right, but I'm sure you will stick to your game plan of insisting everyone else is stupid and you are intelligent when your replies show that is not quite the case.

I mentioned prior the hate that seems to be coming out of some people. So Sad. How can a preecher promote hating anyone? I'm not sure what God he thinks he is supporting?! It is a true test of who a person really is. He stated he didn't think killing the president would be murder! This man has lost reality & is a danger to all.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/cspanjunkie/why-i-hate-barack-obama-pastor-steven

Glock:

OF COURSE it was Rush Limbaugh who played that tape. He must have kept several employees up all night finding something, anything. I doubt the fat man himself lost any sleep over it!

But anyone with half a brain knows that has nothing to do with the health care bill that is before us today. Which says a lot about what Rush Limbaugh knows about his target audience.

And my souces say Obama has seen a 9% JUMP in support since his speech on Wednesday. I guess it just depends on where you go for the info.

Have fun with the dog (I hope you're not implying you're in the dog house)!

Ok, Ken, I reread what you wrote. What you wrote about health care was this, "He claimed that illegals would not benefit from this legislation when they already do benefit from existing health care laws, and are a big part of why some reform is needed."

Since you don't explain how illegals already benefit from existing health care laws, I am left to assume you are talking about the fact that they get treated at emergency rooms regardless of citizenship or ability to pay? If that is what you are referring to, then yes, let's talk about the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA).

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions."

You can find this description of the act many places just by googling EMTALA. I found this one in an article called "American Already Has Universal Health Care."

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/5891

The really cool thing about this is the date--1986. Who was President of the U.S. then? Why, Ronald Reagan, of course! The EMTALA was part of his health care reform act of 1986.

"When President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985, it incorporated legislation known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)." I think you'll like this article. It describes how unintended consequences of this "Landmark Legislation", as Ronald Reagan described it at the time, is strangling our emergency health care system today:

http://rofasix.blogspot.com/2005/06/healthcare-getting-screwed-by-emtala.html

But Reagan really gave us a double whammy in 1986. That same year, Reagan also signed a blanket amnesty for ALL illegal immigrants in the U.S. In case you need a refresher course:

"President Ronald Reagan signed that bill into law with great fanfare amid promises that it would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, crack down on employers who hired illegal workers and secure the border once and for all. Instead, fraudulent applications tainted the process, many employers continued their illicit hiring practices, and illegal immigration surged."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/washington/23amnesty.html

So the EMTALA, signed into law by Ronald Reagan, has been the law of the land since 1986. It will continue to be the law of the land even if this health care reform bill fails.

So what exactly are you saying, Ken? Obama is a liar because he is adhering to laws passed in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan? Conservatives are freaking out that Obama will give amnesty again, even though this subject has not even been broached by President Obama, when it was their very own precious "Dutch" who is the only U.S. President who has actually committed this heinous act.

So sorry, health care bill or no health care bill, illegals will continue to get free medical care compliments of the late Ronald Reagan. It is already law, so there is nothing Obama can do about it. But the current health care legislation DOES go into some depth to make sure that illegals will not be able to exploit the medical insurance system the same way they have been allowed to exploit emergency care services.

Is there a 100% guarantee that illegals will not be able to game the system and get government subsidized health care anyway? Of course not. But like Factcheck.org said, this hardly makes Obama a liar. Nothing is 100% certain, but this didn't stop Reagan in 1986. Like I have always suspected, if Obama were a Republican, you guys would be erecting a temple in his honor.

So there's the whole forest for you, Ken. A little historical knowledge on your part would have saved me a lot of time. But I know most of this will go in one ear and out the other. It's much more expedient to call someone else a liar than educate yourself.

And you're probably right about not havng lost anything lately. You can't lose what you never had.

Glock says a bunch of you got on the short bus today and went to Washington. How fun--a road trip! Maybe I can still catch some of this on Comedy Central.

The discussion about obstructionists will have to wait, I have a movie to watch.

What The?, I have lost nothing, and wonder if you even can see how President Obama's statement that you so kindly provided points right back at him, his party, and even you.

You and your liberal press friends can state that Wilson was wrong all you want, but maybe you should re-read what I said. While President Obama's statement appears to be true, in reality it is already and will continue to be a lie. For the record, I have no problem treating illegal aliens, as long as they are deported as soon as they receive their treatment. Since that will not happen, any new health care plan will treat illegal aliens even if it is not specifically written in the bill.

Instead of just looking at the trees, WT?, why don't you step back and see the whole forest? Instead of crowing over a wasted opportunity to present real facts and numbers by President Obama, why not do a little research on the actual bill? Of course if you did that, as the GAO did, you might find that President Obama's claims of the actual cost are completely off.

All that aside, why not answer this simple question that you and your liberal ilk keep avoiding. The Democrats have complete control of the federal government. Why can't they get health care reform passed?

Two nights in a row up blogging at 1:30 in the morning. Really! Consider yourself scolded. Yes, I heard a number of audio tapes on the Rush Limbaugh show of Obama lying. Real Clear Politics shows almost a 3% drop in job approval for the exhalted one. Also wanted to advise you that several family members left yesterday AM for the 9-12 District of Corruption march and rally tomorrow. Hey Hey Ho Ho, Uncle Barack must go! Wish I could go too but have to stay with the dog.

The statistics that "Mr. Anonymous" has thrown out are simply not accurate, and any sixth grader should be able to dispose of them. In terms of the race angle, it is utterly disgraceful to bring this up so late in the game. A majority of Americans voted for Barack Obama fully informed that he was (and remains) of a bronze hue. To pretend that his critics are now motivated by malice or racism is pure malarkey. That said, the educational authorities have a lot of answering to do to the public about the so-called "speech." Wake up, America. Before its too late!

-1 on September 11, 2009 3:36 PM
I am pretty sure 2010 Parent was heckling the abhorrent far-left 9/11 conspiracy theorists AND the far-right loony "Obama-is-brainwashing-us-with Socialism" conservatives at the same time.

Nicely played.

??????????????????????

"Nicely Played"? How about Poorly Written?

funny, ridiculous, bashing-both-sides, sarcastic analogies...gotta love 'em...unless you don't get it.

I am pretty sure 2010 Parent was heckling the abhorrent far-left 9/11 conspiracy theorists AND the far-right loony "Obama-is-brainwashing-us-with Socialism" conservatives at the same time. Nicely played.

There is something called the Miller Analogy Test and something called the CogAT which has a few analogies in it. Perhaps BHC should look into those.

-1

Was it the cartoonist from the NYT or the Post that started drawing Bush as a Monkey?

From what I recall, the liberal talking heads loved it and the cartoons never stopped.

PS Race is irrelevant, its all about ideology with this President.


==========================
By Anonymous... because I loathe racist rants on September 10, 2009 7:37 PM

So, now it is acceptable for "What The?" to call the President of the United States of America an "animal?" Funny how a proud African American MAN gets elected president, and now we start referring to him as an animal. Nobody ever did that to George Bush, did they?

By 2010 Parent on September 11, 2009 8:38 AM

If conservative parents can force schools to censor the President’s speech in which he urged kids to take school seriously, set goals, work hard and succeed, thus protecting their children from Obama’s socialist brainwashing; can ultra-liberal parents have their children excused from 9/11 observances, shielding them from the Bush-Cheney engineered terror attack, propaganda and subsequent power grab? I’m just curious…

It’s an embarrassing time to be an adult.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

"...the Bush-Cheney engineered terror attack..." ???

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for making such an idiotic comment. If you were looking for attention by making such a statement, you succeeded. If you truly believe what you said, I feel sorry for you. I feel more sorry for your children.

2010 Parent on September 11, 2009 8:38 AM
can ultra-liberal parents have their children excused from 9/11 observances, shielding them from the Bush-Cheney engineered terror attack, propaganda and subsequent power grab? I’m just curious…

It’s an embarrassing time to be an adult.

?????????????????

2010 Parent, Did you just call 9/11 a "Bush-Cheney engineered terror attack"? If you are actually a parent, then yes it is certainly an embarassing time to be an adult. Of all the moronic items posted throughout this blog I'm going to save this one - it is definately in the top 5 of the most repulsive comments I have read.

Shame on you 2010 Parent - a new low for the Naperville Potluck.


I have to admit that I do not understand the objections to hearing the President's speech. It is embarrassing that parents are teaching their children not to listen to anyone with whom they may disagree on some issues, regardless of how major the issue is. This is one of the biggest problems at all levels of government today.

This is akin to parents vehemently objecting to Superintendent Kathy Birkett speaking to the students about education. While we as 204 parents may not agree with everything that our superintendent does, why on earth would parents object to having their children listen to Dr. Birkett speak about education?

It's the same concept for our school board members, who are elected by the population (just like the President). Again, we may not agree with everything that our school board does, but why would we be enraged about any school board member addressing our children about education and hard work?

This makes no sense to me.

THE TIME FOR DEBATE HAS ENDED?

As was to be expected, the propaganda offensive timed to support the President's bitter partisan diatribe has begun.

Sun Editor Carlman chipped in this AM to do her part:

1.
Debate as part of the Democratic process is referred to as "cheap banter about the plans to heal what's wrong with out health care system".

How un-American Sue!

If we can't debate the cause, I guess we just have to accept bigger more intrusive government as the logical conclusion. IMHO, defensive medicine, doctor's insurance premiums and the lawsuits that drive them are the primary reasons health insurance has become un-affordable.

Given the choice, I will stay with those “expensive tests” that actually tell the doctor what is wrong.
Last year's expensive test or medication is frequently this years affordable cure. Just like all new technology, the products and costs come down quickly giving greater benefits to the consumers at a lower cost. In 1940 microwaves were a super secret government technology that won the Battle of Britain and the war in the Pacific, today you can buy the technology for $30 at Wall Mart.

Since the trial lawyers are the biggest contributors to the Democrats, I guess this is one infection that can't be discussed.

2.
Sue wrote: "No American should go broke because they get sick."

The numbers quoted by Obama at the beginning of the debate are proven lies, so now it's just slogans.

Every American is broke Sue, including my kids who are up to their nostrils in $80K per kid in Federal Debt that will be repaid with a much lower standard of living in the not too distant future. All of us have a $100T unfunded liability that the FEDs created and can't pay for, unless there are massive cuts in government benefits, aka rationing.

The President's plan does nothing to contain costs that were created over the last 40 years, it just increases spending. Unless of course we can get the old to accept death and be quick about it. Rahm Emanuel's brother Zeke has published his ideas on this approach, he is the President's adviser on the health plan.

The Veterans Administration has already put out the first workbook promoting the idea that the elderly and the sick are a burden on their families and the government. Sick Veterans are asked to fill out the questionnaire leading them to realize what a burden they are.

Anyone that missed Logan's Run or Soylent Green in the 70s should rent them this weekend to see what's driving the lefties thought process on most issues environmental and health care. Animal Farm would be a good read.

I would say the country is sick, the FEDs are the disease, and smaller government and ending casino lawsuits are the answers.

3
Sue wrote: "Ludicrous cost estimates...getting in the way of civilized discourse"

The Congressional Budget Office set the price tag at $1 Trillion above current costs. Previous programs like Soc Sec, Medicare and Medicaid were only off by factors of 5 to 20; so the real cost the morning after the vote will be $5T to $20T to create a medical system that looks like the DMV when you go for care.

Of course trail lawyers can still sue and contribute a percentage to the Democrats just like before the "reform".

4.
Sue wrote: "Illegals being cared for on the taxpayer's dime: also false."

Sue, they show up at the Emergency Room where they can't be turned away, and they get free medical care, at least for them. The other people that use the hospital pay for the "free care" one way or the other. Sue you need to stop reading the left wing blogs and talking points e-mails, shut off your PC and go to any medical facility and talk to the providers (Capitalist Pigs) to find out what is really happening.

Obama has no announced plans to deport the illegals, so they still get their free care. After the amnesty, they will all become more voters on the dole, dependent on the political survival of Obama and Democrats. This same play put Chavez over the top in the elections helping to make him President for life, and nullifying the votes of Venezuela's shrinking middle class.

12-17 million new voters after amnesty with 30-40 million additional extend family members should do the trick: 50 million new high school dropouts dependent on government income redistribution programs for their survival.

Taxpayers are paying for the illegals today, and will continue to pay for them under Obama's Nationalized Health System.

5.
The last round of Town Halls failed to produce the desired outcome in support of Nationalized Health Care as documented in the intentionally cryptic and Byzantine bill written by the Unions and sent to Congress.

Sue wrote: "None of us need to make ourselves look ignorant any more"

So, it's time for local government to pick up the task and educate the little people?

Hopefully, any pseudo town hall like meeting would emulate the City Council's Meetings where truly free speech is allowed in 3 min segments; And not emulate the staged pseudo debates and faux town hall meetings we have in Naperville where the "sponsors" choose which questions to ask, re-write them, then ask the candidate; effectively subtracting the voter and their question out of the process. Frequently, a tough question is either re-written to alter it's meaning or not asked at all.

We don't need another managed Potemkin Town Hall meeting with staged questions and answers.

6.
Yes Sue there are moral imperatives at stake here:

*Defending free speech and open debate

*Defending the value of our collapsing currency

*Defending the future for our children

*Defending the value of our Citizenship

*Defending our Citizen's, State and Local Government's rights

*Defending the viability of our Republican form of Government

*Defending our collapsing economy

If conservative parents can force schools to censor the President’s speech in which he urged kids to take school seriously, set goals, work hard and succeed, thus protecting their children from Obama’s socialist brainwashing; can ultra-liberal parents have their children excused from 9/11 observances, shielding them from the Bush-Cheney engineered terror attack, propaganda and subsequent power grab? I’m just curious…

It’s an embarrassing time to be an adult.

To Anonymous... because I loathe racist rants on September 10, 2009 7:37 PM:

From: What the . . . because I loathe inane arguments.

You must have gotten your debating skills and reading comprehension from Sarah Palin.

Ok, ok, Glock, I'm going . . .

There you go again, Ken, making incorrect assessments.

Factcheck.org states:

Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.

Or see this article in the Huffington Post:

ADAIR: Obama is right. When you look at the bill, it does go to some lengths to make sure that illegal immigrants do not get the credits for the health care exchange that would allow them to get free care. They'd have to pay for it, like everybody else. False for Wilson.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/10/dylan-ratigan-provides-ra_n_282318.html

Both you and Wilson are wrong about Obama's statement. But you're right about him being an embarrassment to the Republicans. Your guys behave like teenagers at a high school pep rally and you're complaining that they were CRITIZED?! Oh, boo hoo, Obama used a "tone"! You are a treasure, Ken.

If you deny the Reps have been using fear mongering as their main campaign strategy against health care reform, then I would be better off talking to that dining room table. I'd certainly get a more honest response that way.

And you found 2.5 lines of fearspeak in Obama's speech? Wow, that's A LOT. 2.5 lines out of 8 whole pages? That's certainly fear mongering at an unprecedented level! If you want to call it that, and of course YOU do. I call it the way things are, plain and simple. Since we're sharing, here was MY favorite part:

"And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves."

Lose anything lately, Ken?

I better sign off before Glock scolds me for staying up past my bedtime.

Hey there, Glock! Thank you for a reasonably civil and calm post. It's nice for a change.

And it's sweet the way you're so concerned about what time I choose to go online. Whether it's 6:30 in the evening when I should be having dinner, or 1:30 in the morning when I should be sleeping. You DO care, ya big lug!!

So you heard an audio tape today of Obama in March of 2007--over two years ago--saying he DOES support health care for illegals and he DOES support amnesty for illegals and he DID vote for bills allowing health care for illegals? One can only imagine which conservative AM commentator would play such a tape.

Nothing you mentioned contradicts Obama's statements last night. The truth remains that Wilson not only acted like a low-life on national television, but that he was also wrong. Obama is correct--there is no provision in the current health care bill that allows benefits for illegals. In fact, the wording in the bill strictly prohibits it.

Obama was stating what was in the health care bill. He was not talking about his own personal opinions. So what if two years ago SENATOR Obama believed in giving illegals medical care? It's not happening in THIS health care reform bill. So what if two years ago SENATOR Obama said he supported amnesty for illegals? The health care bill has absolutely nothing to do with amnesty. PRESIDENT Obama has not so much as even mentioned amnesty. I wouldn't care if two years ago YOU said you believed in giving the tooth fairy medical care. The tooth fairy will not be eligible for health care under this bill.

You need to CRITICALLY THINK about this kind of stuff, Glock. Until you do, your ears and whatever AM radio station you listen to will still be lying to you. Or playing you for a gullible drone. You decide which.

It's all right here: Wilson's Attack on Obama False

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

I do agree with your last comment, however. This country is at a new level of divide I have not seen since the 60's anti war protests. And it is not being brought to us by the youth movement, we're getting it from the GOP. And the GOP brought Congress to a new low last night by Wilson and other cat calls from the Republican side, in addition to the Reps holding up town hall meeting style signs and vigorously waving little pamphlets that supposedly contained their suggestions for health care reform. That is, when they were paying attention and not busily texting on their Blackberries. Way to go, boys!

XOXOXO

So, now it is acceptable for "What The?" to call the President of the United States of America an "animal?" Funny how a proud African American MAN gets elected president, and now we start referring to him as an animal. Nobody ever did that to George Bush, did they? Let's get this straight folks, just because he doesn't look like Mr. and Mrs. Naperville (whoever they are) and just because he doesn't hang out at Jilly's with the other kool kats and dorky dancers, does not make MISTER OBAMA a zebra, or a rhino or a horse or a goat. He is a MAN.

Anon 5678: Great handle. Thanks for distinguishing yourself from the multitudes of anons.

I said there is really no way to know if someone is trustworthy or not without looking at their track record. I'm perfectly fine with Obama's track record as a senator, his work in his community and his work as an instructor in constitutional law at the U of Chicago. This and his background and his accomplishments at Harvard Law are impressive. What I felt made him more sincere about his ideals are the fact that he turned down a prestigious judicial clerkship to practice civil-rights law in Chicago, representing victims of housing and employment discrimination and working on voting-rights legislation. He could have been raking in the big bucks but instead choose to work for the betterment of his community. He doesn't just say what he stands for, he lives it.

Look, it's obvious you disagree with the guy's politics so there's no way you're ever going to view him through an undistorted lens. And you admit you decided Obama was untrustworthy the instant you heard his name back in 2004, which indicates you didn't put much thought into it. I didn't "adore" Obama the instant he hit the national stage. I learned, I read, I watched. Same thing for McCain. And the difference between me and Mom is that I admire and have respect for McCain as well. He also walked the walked during his time as a prisoner of war. Both Obama and McCain made personal sacrifices for others, and people who are only focused on their own self-gain generally don't do this. I "trusted" both guys about the same, as much as you can trust someone you don't personally know. Mom trusted neither.

And my impression of Obama is not dictated wholly by the "fruit from the poisonous tree" argument either. We all come from someplace, and I'm not cynical enough to believe that nothing worthwhile can ever come from bad surroundings. I've seen too many exceptions to this in life.

If you want to believe that Obama is just Jesse Jackson in a better suit, that's fine. I'm not going to try to change your mind. I've followed Jackson over the years, and to me, the only thing Jackson and Obama have in common is party affiliation and skin color. Jackson would never have made it as far as Obama. His angry militancy, not to mention all that reparations crap, scared off voters and other Dems long ago. Obama is a totally different animal. No comparison. But if you view Democratic African-American politicians as coming from the same "black thug" mold, then that sounds like you're more than a little biased in your assessment. Would you say the same of Micheal Steele if he were a Democrat instead of a Republican? Would you have instantly mistrusted McCain and considered him corrupt if he had been the Illinois senator instead of Obama? Really? Are you sure?

And lastly, Bush isn't president anymore, but this country is still mopping up from his presidency. I think most Republicans would LOVE for the American people to completely forget W. Bush existed so they can focus the blame for these problems solely on Obama. Ain't gonna happen.

Will B. Jobless...YES!

If any of you are not familiar with Double Pulitzer Price Winner Tom Friedma and his book "The World is Flat" you can watch his presentation to the National Governor's Assoc. a number of years ago. I watch it while my foot was propped up from foot surgery & and it blew my mind. 5th one down, audio or video.

http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.6c9a8a9ebc6ae07eee28aca9501010a0/?vgnextoid=4eb932ec7d1f4010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=530f749a71302010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD

Joe, I was doing my best to be a good parent and attended curriculum night last night so we couldn't watch the speech. Tonight, however, after homework is completed, we will.

"He cheapened our entire democratic process just like many Republicans have been doing since O took office." .


That happened a couple of presidents ago with a cigar a blue dress in the Oval Office.

I have to laugh at all who say that President Obama gave a great speech last night. He called for bipartisanship, yet attacked the Republicans at every chance.

He claimed that illegals would not benefit from this legislation when they already do benefit from existing health care laws, and are a big part of why some reform is needed. Some may want to believe that he is willing to offend one of his biggest voting blocks, but it just isn't true. While Wilson was definitely out of order, and an embarrassment to the Republicans, he was correct in his assessment.

What The?, you are either incredibly obtuse, or incredibly partisan for the Democrats. You claim the Republicans are fear mongers, but seem to ignore this fear mongering from President Obama's speech:

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

I guess fear mongering is okay if President Obama does it. Just as claiming he won, and doesn't have to engage in bipartisanship was okay with your ilk too.

As stated before, the only reason he gave this campaign style speech (cheapening the whole process of calling a joint session by the president) is because he doesn't have the full support of the Democrats and wants to be able to point to the Republicans when the total cost of his plan comes due.

What the ? Please, at 0130 please be in bed sleeping and not blogging. Scheduled and sufficient sleep will allow you to think more clearly. Your post was crackers! But I can go off the deep end too and lets face it, last night was a big night for you. I'm sure you were keyed up and fighting made for Obama. However I heard audio tape today of Obama in 3/07 addressing an SEIU rally telling the cheering crowd he DOES support health care for illegals and he DOES support amnesty for illegals and he DID vote for bills allowing for the FED to reimbuse local state health programs for medical care provided to illegals. So I would have to agree with Wilson in that Obama does lie. I heard it with my own lying ears. I don't excuse the outburst by Wilson. This country is at a new level of divide I have not seen since the 60's anti war protests.

What the?, I am the Anonymous from the 8th at 4:23. I'll start calling myself Anonymous 5678


"Somehow I missed your post earlier. It's ok if you and mom don't trust Obama. That makes two of you, and there are probably more. But I'm not going to speak for every American who did or didn't vote for Obama and say EVERYBODY doesn't trust him. There's no way to know if someone is or isn't trustworthy until he has a track record, and Obama still has over three years to form his. I'll hold judgement until later."

I don't think I said Everybody doesn't trust him. You have about 1/3 of the people who voted for him and think he can do no wrong. You have about 1/3 of the people who didn't vote for him and think he can do no right and don't trust him. Then you have the independents. Those are the people who are quickly falling out of favor with him. Those are the people who are starting not to trust him.

And I will disagree with you on there is no way to know if you trust someone or don't. I believe that is why we vote. I didn't trust him from the day his name was mentioned back in 2004. I personally think he is a very polished version of Jesse Jackson. And I think Jesse Jackson uses nothing but gangster techniques to get what he wants. This version is just a much smoother salesman. I'm assuming you live in Illinois. I will be confused about this until I go to my grave, but how can you trust almost any politician from Illinois, especially from Chicago? This one included. The amount of jail space these people have taken up over the years is frightening. And I have not even gotten into his background as it is not worth belaboring again.

The point being, I do think there are a lot of parents who are in the middle who are seeing the side that I saw from the beginning and the side you won't ever see. It is what it is.

Last thing. Bush isn't president anymore. Or should I play the game and start in on Clinton too? Then maybe you could do Reagan and Bush Sr, then I could do Kennedey and LBJ. I think the point is to focus on Obama. He is the president.

What the? on September 9, 2009 10:40 PM

And I mentioned earlier on this thread that the only Dems who are holding things up are the Blue Dogs

_________________
WT?,

I haven't missed a thing. I have consistently pointed out that the real obstructionists are the reluctant democrats that Obama can't seem to control. It sounds like the glorious Liberals are beholden to the health care industry - so much for change.

So there we finally have our answer. The Blue Dogs (Democrats) are the real obstructionists! Perhaps we can look forward to this fact in your future postings rather than blaming the repubs, fox news, rush limbaugh and a whole littany of talking heads?

And your comment that, "He cheapened our entire democratic process just like many Republicans have been doing since O took office." . Classic: Selective memory is a liberals best defense. I wonder if William Jefferson (Democrat) was watching?

Can't wait for your full review of the speech. Make sure you listen to Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann or George Stephanopoulos who said (unbiased I'm sure) that O's speech was "pretty remarkable". They can recite the high points, talk about what Fox news is saying, and then provide the liberal talking points that no doubt will be regurgitated on these threads.

To Anonymous on September 9, 2009 10:24 PM:

It seems that Obama's speech tonight has completely pushed you over the edge. It was freakin' great, wasn't it?

You're in unchartered territory the minute you start raving about mob rule, socialism and Mussolini in the same sentence which is factually inaccurate, amnesty for illegals which has never been mentioned much less endorsed by Obama, nationalization, mushrooming debt, and the crashing dollar which first occurred under W. BUSH and that he passed on to Obama, welfare state, unions, pandering to suburban women (that's the first time I heard that one), race baiting, redistribution programs, have I missed any? You've about covered all the fear speak in one post. I fear, I fear, I fear. You guys have perfected this.

The better Obama becomes, the more unhinged YOU become. You got your butts whooped tonight; it should have happened months ago. And that douche Wilson who yelled "you lie!" from the floor, breaking congressional protocol for the first time in history? Dems and Reps alike pounced on him the minute O left, he had to issue a formal apology. He cheapened our entire democratic process just like many Republicans have been doing since O took office.

And now you are LYING just like your brethren. Obama did not say the time for debate is over. He said the time for BICKERING is over. The time for GAMES is over. He welcomes honest debate, but he is not going to waste his time with anymore Republican BS.

So stuff your fearspeak, Anonymous. You've lost all reason and credibility here. Go with Glock and find a town hall meeting to terrorize.

Anonymous One...

Oh give me a break lesson plans are changed all the time. And what is wrong with that. Things get changed all the time.

What The...

I think I understood...I was trying to show how ridiculous it is to think he would be able to do any "Mind Control" ideas they have.

You know a lot of you are assuming again that all parents are such wonderful examples. There are some that may hear this message for the first time from anyone. Do you know how many children are abused and called names & told they are idiots & will never amount to anything. If it reaches just these students I would be happy. And what about those parents who do say these things to their kids? They are your parents and are supposed to say this to you. They are suppose to tell you they love you & you are beautiful & special etc. When you are a kid you know this & I'm not saying it doesn't mean anything, but at the same time it is so very different when someone other than your parents, grandparents (etc), teachers, principal (etc) tell you. And if you do not think that kids are not worried about the economy & the world, and what their future will be like, you need to talk with them or overhear some of them talking. If your mom & dad are losing their jobs, how secure do you feel for your future? You are told it is the land of opportunity and you can be anything, yet right now it certainly seems like this isn't quite true. It can certainly be for some, but not everyone. Of all times kids, and adults, do need to be hopeful and believe more than ever, especially when there are so many adults in the world spouting so much doom and gloom and taking their stress out on so many others.

And what is wrong with making a pledge to help your country? Only our Military can? Doctors to do no harm to others? Officers to help others? They only get to huh? We all supposedly make a "pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands..." What does that mean now? Oh & that word "Indivisible" is in that pledge also! Interesting. Children make pledges to boy/girl scouts etc. I'd rather them make a pledge to helping our nation than to participate in some hazing in a frat/soriority. No I'm not bashing all, some do wonderful things, but you get my point. Some make "a pledge" of marriage and what do they do? And I'm not slamming all divorced people here...some are the victims certainly of another who did not keep that pledge. Maybe everyone should make a pledge to help our nation in some way. Imagine if every family or person made some type of committment to improve our country. Clean our neighborhoods, volunteer your time, etc. Yes, many people already do this, but how many do not? How many have NEVER done something wonderful like this even once in their life?

I have a sign hanging at home that says "Faith is bird that feels the light and sings the song when the dawn is still dark." It is easy to love someone when they are wonderful, to have faith & hope when things are going well. The test of Faith, Hope & Love is during the tough times. What is wrong with reminding EVERYONE of this message while we are in tough times and when people are so stressed. I have a student who works in a mental facility. This week we were discussing the history of mental health and our current times. He said a year ago his hours were being cut, he was being sent home because they did not need him. This year he has tons of overtime. Why? Because there are so many seeking professional help because of what is going on today in our society. And many seeking help are the young ones.

Why does anyone need a choice on whether to hear a message of hope & encouragement?

To: Are You Serious
Re: Obama's speech tonight and his "debatable" oratorical skills

Any questions?


Anonymous ONE: If the Dems feel so strongly in this bill why don't they just pass it already? I've already answered this: because Obama is insisting on some kind of bipartisan plan. I would have bypassed the Republicans the minute they starting spouting the bat guano crazy stuff about death panels, pulling the plug on grandma, etc. But I'm not the President.

And I mentioned earlier on this thread that the only Dems who are holding things up are the Blue Dogs who have gotten millions in campaign $$ from the health care industry and thus are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. This has been big news all summer, how have you missed it? Those guys gotta go in the next election.

What,

1.
...."It's ok if you and mom don't trust Obama. .... I'll hold judgment until later."

I don't trust any of them (R or D), why should we? Put out the policies and lets examine and debate them.

2
.... "Your description of events is spot on, and yes, Obama is changing the landscape. This is what he ran his campaign on, change.... some of those folks who voted for this change are freaking out now that Obama is actually changing things?"....

What it looks like Change means is: statism, higher taxes, mushrooming debt, crashing dollar, $100T in unfunded obligations and less freedom. With the nationalization of the auto and finance industries and another 20% of the economy in his sights, socialism or the corporate state as Mussolini called it. Somehow I missed the speech where Obama spelled out his agenda, he has no mandate for any of this.

3.
...."what surprises me about that is how namby-pamby O has been in pushing it through"

Obama and the Democrats need cover from at least a few Republicans so that when things go south, they can say everyone was on board.

4.
.... "But three years still lie ahead, so I'm willing to wait and see where it goes".

I can answer this one:

*nationalization of huge sectors of the economy favoring his client unions and companies like GE.

*Laying the rails for the welfare state and mob rule.

*Once the programs are in place, amnesty for 12-15MM illegals who will be put on the dole day 1 and given the vote in short order. This effectively nullifies the suburban middle class. The Democrats may even stop pandering to suburban women.

*The Democrats will have created a democratic one party state where elections are meaningless.

*Under existing laws, the extended families (30-50MM) of the former illegals will be allowed in making the middle class irrelevant other than picking up the check for the income redistribution programs.

*Amnesty and the vote will move to the top of Obama's agenda after the beating he is taking on the Health bill. If opposing nationalization of 20% of the economy is racist, I can't wait to hear the race baiting for anyone opposed to amnesty.

The time for debate is over. Who does this guy think he is, Chavez?

To Anonymous on September 9, 2009 4:01 PM,

I provided an exact link to the content that she said her child missed. I'm sorry you seem to have a paranoia feeling about factual information and have to somehow spin 'mistrust' into your response. Any other parent who wishes to can use the same link to share the speech with their child if they are so inclined.

To: What The ?,

And congressional Reps are labeled "obstructionists" because they are indeed obstructing. But O is allowing them to do so by insisting on a bipartisan health care bill. Enough already. It's time to throw the bums out and go it alone. That's the only way anything will ever get changed.

____________________________

So Obama wants to play nice with the Republicans and allow them to save face by making this a bipartisan bill? That is why the bill hasn't passed yet?

If the Dems feel so strongly in this bill why don't they just pass it already? (Probably because he can't even get enough of his own party to vote for it). He's blaming republicans for the fact the Democrats can't get their stuff together.

Only 1 out of 4 of my kids watched the speech in class. My 3rd grader did and had absolutely nothing to say about it accept they had some trouble getting it on the computer.

Quite honestly, I wish they wouldn't have seen it at all. We live in an age where we can watch just about everything and anything we want 24/7. In a SD that cuts out 20 or 10 minutes out of student instruction time every week shouldn't be taking more time out to watch a President tell us/them the importance of school. Every adult knows that already and if the kids aren't getting the message at home it doesn't make a difference who tells them.


"You might have forgotten a former president named Ronald Reagan. Maybe not as book smart as others, but he knew what he didn't know and went out and surrounded himself with experts in those areas. Arguably one of the three greatest presidents ever."


I will accept that challenge and take up the argument!

List of the greatest American Presidents

1) Washington - Demonstrated what service to one's country is all about.
2) Lincoln - Saved the union, arguable could switch places with Washington on the list.
3) FDR - We all agree to disagree with his social policies, but the dude won WWII.
4) Jefferson - True visionary who had the foresight to buy the Louisiana Purchase.
5) Adams, J - Followed Washington. Extremely large shoes to fill. Read the book John Adams by David McCullough. This will be a very difficult read for Reagan supporters as the book has a lot of pages, uses multi-syllable words, and contains few pictures.
6) Teddy Roosevelt - Panama Canal, global power projection, Nobel Peace Prize winner.
7) Ike - The ultimate Cold Warrior and first president to understand the affect technology would have on national defense
8) Truman - Closed out WWII, grasped the threat posed by Communism, and established the strategy for the Cold War.
9) Reagan - I don't personally believe he's ranked here, and neither do nearly all historians, but in the interest of being fair and balanced, I'll drop him in at #9. He did put the pieces in place to end the cold war by literally outspending the USSR. I'll leave discussing his Voodoo Economics for another topic.

In summary, Ronald Wilson Reagan in the Top 3 presidents of all time? Hardly, especially if you actually read a history book.

"Intellectuals beware! Education is for people who love books, but hate America!" -- Stephen Colbert

It is always good to see Mr. Mitrovich weigh in with his personal opinion; an opinion no doubt supported by what he learned while attending an unaccredited university. Perhaps if Mr. Mitrovich had been up to the rigors of doing doctoral work at an accredited university he would better comprehend the contradiction of his own argument.

According to the Naperville Sun "... Mark Mitrovich "challenged anyone to disagree with the points the president made". He then went on to proclaim: "There was nothing in that speech you could argue with". (I'll forgive him the lapse in proper grammar.) Later in the same article Mr. Mitrovich is quoted to say: "In this country, we believe in something called freedom of speech, whether we agree with it or we disagree with it.... The bottom line is, he is the president of the United States and deserves to be listened to, especially when he's addressing the students in this country". (Another grammatical gaff, but let's not keep score.)

Ok. So if I understand Mr. Mitrovich correctly... and let me publicly say thanks ahead of time to everyone who will write in to defend Mr. Mitrovich and attempt to spin or twist what he "meant" to say, meanwhile I'll focus on what he was actually quoted to have said... "The president of the United States deserves to be listened to, ...." No, Mr. Mitrovich. Not exactly. The president of the United States has the right to free speech just like every American. Americans are also free to make a conscious choice if they do or do not want to listen. Forcing a captive audience, especially a captive audience of minors, to listen to something that they or their parents may not wish them to hear tramples both the children and the parents. The right to free speech does not guarantee that anyone will choose to listen to what you have to say.

It is also heartwarming to read that Mr. Mitrovich believes the president of the United States has the right to free speech while at the same time he neglects to demonstrate any kind of intellectual curiosity or academic openness to opposing views by proclaiming: "There was nothing in that speech you could argue with". Maybe we should forgive Mr. Mitrovich for foolishly opening his mouth and then stuffing both feet in at the same time? Maybe not. This is Naperville and since Mr. Mitrovich is still green behind the ears he obviously has not yet learned that our diverse community includes many, many people who possess more advanced degrees than himself. Yes, and many, many people who also received their advanced degrees from accredited institutions and who may actually have quite a bit to say about what could be argued in terms of the content of the president's speech.

Hopefully the school board will take Mr. Mitrovich out behind the district administration building and "talk" some sense into him before he opens his mouth and embarrasses himself and the school district again. "Mitrovich said: "It's a downright shame the speech was politicized". Maybe yes, maybe no. The important point though is that at this point in his life and in the position of superintendent one would expect the superintendent himself to be a little bit more politically savvy in terms of the community he is serving.

I'm on pins and needles wondering what he will say next. God help us.

Some thoughts from my house in D203:

1) I would have been happy for my child(ren) to hear the speech live.

2) The people who complained about the speech before hand had the option of not allowing their child to see it.

3) Some schools (with the technology) decided, for whatever reason, not to show the speech live. Not sure why. Maybe each principal had to make a choice.

4) Dr. Mitrovich comes across as very weak. D203 sent out a notice that the speech was going to be shown and each Principal would end out a notice allowing for a parental opt out if they were going to show it. I am sure Dr. Mitrovich read the speech Monday afternoon and could easily have encouraged the principals to have the speech shown live (subject to technology which is supposedly his forte). Instead he goes on record that:

"In this country, we believe in something called freedom of speech, whether we agree with it or we disagree with it. The fact that we allow that and do it in a guided manner is the strength of what we're all about," Mitrovich said. "The bottom line is, he is the president of the United States and deserves to be listened to, especially when he's addressing the students in this country."

Excuse me sir. Freedom of speech does not mean that the government has the right to give a speech to the people when it wishes. Freedom of speech allows people who object to (or love) about anything to peaceably say so -- just like all those who opposed the speech did. How great of a country do we live in when people can speak their mind about the leader? Awesome! Back to school for you.

The president doesn't automatically deserve to be listened to. However, when the president gives a speech perfectly aligned with the mission of the district and core values of the schools, it makes good sense to facilitate the live viewing in each school. Isn't that your job?

By making a stand after the fact and incorrectly invoking freedom of speech, Dr. Mitrovich comes across as weaker than I imagined he could.

e^(i*pi)

Laura P on September 9, 2009 2:55 PM
Frankly, I am shocked and extremely disappointed about this decision that was made not to allow our children to hear the President speak. This city and the people in it claim to be number one in the country and have the top schools in the country and yet these few whining people are allowed to prevent the rest of our children to experience hearing these very important words from their own President. This is a once in a lifetime event for them at this important stage of their life,

xxxxxxxxxxx

you can see it in its entirety at: http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/News.aspx?id=24711

now they don't have to miss this "once in a lifetime event".

To Anonymous on September 8, 2009 4:23 PM--

Somehow I missed your post earlier. It's ok if you and mom don't trust Obama. That makes two of you, and there are probably more. But I'm not going to speak for every American who did or didn't vote for Obama and say EVERYBODY doesn't trust him. There's no way to know if someone is or isn't trustworthy until he has a track record, and Obama still has over three years to form his. I'll hold judgement until later.

And I'm aware of how the election was won, I was there. But I gave Obama 54% of the vote, not 53% or 90%. Your description of events is spot on, and yes, Obama is changing the landscape. This is what he ran his campaign on, change, not the McSame the Reps. were offering. So some of those folks who voted for this change are freaking out now that Obama is actually changing things? That could be true, people are irrational in many ways. But I voted for O, and there haven't been any surprises for me up until the health care bill. And what surprises me about that is how namby-pamby O has been in pushing it through. But three years still lie ahead, so I'm willing to wait and see where it goes.

I don't think Obama's over-exposed, so our opinions differ. Keep in mind that after winning the election, W. Bush all but disappeared for the first 9 months of his first term. Don't you remember it, the where is Bush thing? On vacation in Crawford--again! It was like a Where's Waldo? W. didn't make his first televised appearance addressing the American people until after 9/11, a crisis. Which is why O has made so many appearances, because the nation has been in crisis since before he took office. If Obama hadn't done so, I'm sure the Reps would have criticized him for keeping a low profile at a time when the American people needed leadership. So given the options, I prefer a lot of exposure to not enough.

Anonymous ONE on September 9, 2009 10:21 AM--

I don't watch Glen Beck, didn't say I did. His antics and those of Fox News show up on other news stations. Most of Beck's show is total fiction and therefore a waste of time. If I want fiction, I'll read a good book.

And congressional Reps are labeled "obstructionists" because they are indeed obstructing. But O is allowing them to do so by insisting on a bipartisan health care bill. Enough already. It's time to throw the bums out and go it alone. That's the only way anything will ever get changed.

Original Joe--

I am not only concerned about my own child. I am thinking of all the children, many whose parents don't spend a lot of meaningful time with them to start with. I recorded the speech. I don't need the web for that.

denny wrote:

Socialism is socialism.

Socialism is socialism, but National. Socialism is not socialism. You are allowing yourself to get hung up on a word rather than considering whether the word accurately describes the party program. The U.S. Democratic Party could change it's name to the Conservative Democratic Party, but that would not make it conservative (at least, not as we use the term in the U.S.).

-JQP

Original Joe, this is why people mistrust you. You come here and tell us why you dislike everything the SB does. Your entitled. Then, Laura P posts that she saw the Obama speech as a learning opportunity. And you respond to her in a sarcastic, insulting manner. See you at the next meeting.

Laura P,

There is this thing called the web where you can see the speech and share it with your child.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/A-Message-of-Hope-and-Responsibility-for-Americas-Students/

Frankly, I am shocked and extremely disappointed about this decision that was made not to allow our children to hear the President speak. This city and the people in it claim to be number one in the country and have the top schools in the country and yet these few whining people are allowed to prevent the rest of our children to experience hearing these very important words from their own President. This is a once in a lifetime event for them at this important stage of their life, when there are many children who see no point to school and have no incentive to do well and just want to drop out or just get through with minimum work. Every child is not in the top 2 percent and needs someone other than their parents to encourage and inspire them. I am lucky to have three children who have all done well in school, but there are many out there just struggling every day who should have had the opportunity to hear this, along with those who are doing well. I was looking forward to being able to discuss this with my child when she got home from school yesterday and hear what she got out of it, because I DID watch it. It is definitely a sad day for this city and country when a small percentage of parents are allowed to control what happens to the rest of us and our children. It is not just this Presidential speech either. It happens over and over again, including something as small as who is allowed to attend school while dressed in costume for Halloween. These are the same parents who let their kids sit in front of garbage on the tv all day, etc, etc. Pathetic.

Diane,

Tonight, sit with your kid at the computer and type in "Obama Speech" on YouTube, you can make some popcorn and watch it with them.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


By Diane G on September 9, 2009 9:48 AM

My Hill Middle School (D204) 6th grader did not see the broadcast. I think it was an opportunity missed. ,

Neither political party has the monopoly on Jacka$$es.

2010 Parent on September 9, 2009 9:10 AM
Ah, the good old days…when respecting your President was patriotic. Now days I guess the quaint notion of supporting the President only applies when your party is in power and disrespect and media fire-bombing are perfectly acceptable when your party isn’t. Such a lovely example for our children…it’s an embarrassing time to be an adult.

.
.


As perfectly displayed by the liberals in their neverending support of Clinton, their incessant hate for Bush, and now again with their love of Obama.

To Glock 22 on September 8, 2009 10:32 PM--

Geez, sounds like YOUR blood sugar is a tad low. If you have nothing to add to the conversation, then please add nothing. That would be preferable to your mean-spirited personal attacks. If you want to vent, go find a town hall meeting somewhere.

OWVY: You misunderstood. I said Obama's critics, the Reps and conservatives, fear O is soooo charismatic that their children will be swayed by his likability. Seriously, I've heard more than one conservative make this argument on CNN. That if conservative children get to know Obama and like him, they may be ultimately swayed by his political views and thus the President would become a wedge between parent and child. No kidding; this is what was coming from the right prior to the speech. That shows you how much they are threatened by Obama.

One Who Values You on September 8, 2009 11:59 PM
Anonymous ONE...

Today you have to have lesson plans...heck they are "trying" to do it in college. I'm not surprised, they wanted to show how it connects to learning outcomes for the school. I don't see anything on the lesson plan that is a problem.


What the? on September 8, 2009 6:22 PM


_________________________

OWVY,
Then why did Obama and Arne Duncan withdraw the original lesson plan and have it rewritten? Then they removed it all together. Certainly they aren't caving in to the lunatic fringe? Or could it be that because it was prepared by the Department of Education it potentially becomes illegal to pass down to the schools to use?


article
In an acknowledgment that the Department of Education provided lesson plans written somewhat inartfully, surrounding the President Obama’s speech to students next Tuesday, the White House today announced that it had rewritten one of the sections in question.


I haven't noticed any of the liberals responding to the fact that Bush 41 was subject to congressional hearings when he gave a speech to schoolchildren - I guess when liberals are called out the best response is silence?

Again - I don't have a problem with the fact that Obama gave the speech, I think it was a good speech and if it helps encourage students to excel I'm all for it. My issue with a number of folks here is that just because a small minority of conservatives disagree with the speech you come on here and brand EVERY republican / conservative as being some sort of militant.

and What The ?, if you dislike Glen Beck so much why do you watch? I'm a conservative and I don't watch him at all. Your obsession with the conservative talkers is bordering on "ranting". I'm not the least bit "freaked out" by Obama - it's been a great story. I still find it interesting that Republicans are branded as "obstructionists" while Obama has a majority in Congress. He needs to get his own house (Congress) in order before he passes sweeping legislation that affects mine.

Politicians have allowed the export of jobs out of our country. So many manufacturing industries that in the not too distant past had provided a good living for those with a lessor education. Americans without degrees that labored hard could provide a home, food, healthcare, essentials like automobiles, insurance, clothes, etc. and still save for their childrens education and their retirement. Those days of opportunities are quickly dissappearing and offer a bleak outlook for future generations. We are in a world economy and other countries are quickly catching up with our standard of living. These countries are producing way more doctors, engineers and proffessionals in so many fields. Our children not only have to compete with eachother but with the rest of the world in securing jobs that will last a lifetime career.Look at unemployment today and look too at how many people are over qualified for their line of work. We graduate countless students every year and they all want to find a great job, while at the same time people in the work force are working longer to make ends meet. The service industry has provided a lot of part time jobs that are held by teenagers many of which will graduate high school and remain in those jobs hoping to go full time. The President should have been giving a speech to those industries that have taken manufacturing jobs out of the country encouraging them to bring them back.Lets turn back the clock somehow and re-gain good paying jobs for those not able to go to college. Not every student is college material.

My Hill Middle School (D204) 6th grader did not see the broadcast. I think it was an opportunity missed. The kids were very interested in the election last November and I think it would have been somewhat inspirational for them to hear our President speak to them. There was nothing wrong with the message. It is the same one that other Presidents have spoken. IMHO the bickering about this is silly.

To amusing and others who trash those who disagree with you:

The true beauty of America is that we are allowed to disagree with out leaders (elected as they are) amd we have the freedom of speech to disagree with our fellow citizens.

Please don't try to take either from us ---- your name-calling is uncalled for and it not in the spirit of our constitution.

In case your math is weak, about 48% of the voters did not elect our current President. However, they still stand behiond him as the leader. This does not imply a requirement of blind obedience (we know where that got us with Nixon's boys, yes?)

In case your history is weak, remember that the ranking Dems (Gephardt, etc)had the same complaints, almost verbatim, when Reagan & Bush 1 originally talked directly to the kids. Of course, back then our elected officials were a little more sane and far less rabid.

Your insistence that those who post that they don't trust the President to talk directly to their kids are ignorant or uneducated indicates YOUR intolerance.

It is a parent's perogative, as they and NOT the government are responsible for the upbringing of their child, to qualify the content of that which is meant to influence their child. For the uninformed (you, perhaps?) the original packets sent by the Dept of Education clearly had the appearance of an agenda that could easily, possibly only, be taken as suspicious.

By complaining and rising up, the parents were able to get this content altered. The result was a very informative, maybe even inspirational, speech that lacked any Obama-worship tones.

Finally, I would suggest that you, and others, owe many on this board an apology baced on your dismissive and personal attacks on those who exercised their American perogative!

Gosh, I had no idea—scarred for life and I didn’t even know it. All those exhortations from Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford to work hard and stay in school were perverting my mind and ruining my life and my parents didn’t know enough to protect me from such brainwashing.

Stay in school, don’t smoke, learn to read, get in shape, all those horrific politically motivated atrocities committed by those supposedly great Presidents! Who knew? Why I remember seeing films of President Nixon introducing the President’s Fitness Council to us fidgeting, too-cool-for-school teenagers…guess our disrespect for the President was right-on after all!

Are you serious? Leave it to right-wing-nuts even here in even-keeled wholesome Naperville to manufacture evil in the most innocent of places. Off-the-deep-end conservative extremists accusing the President of exploitation are wrong; it is their mock outrage that is ‘politics at its worst.’

Ah, the good old days…when respecting your President was patriotic. Now days I guess the quaint notion of supporting the President only applies when your party is in power and disrespect and media fire-bombing are perfectly acceptable when your party isn’t. Such a lovely example for our children…it’s an embarrassing time to be an adult.

JQP

Since the NAZI party originated in Bavaria, I'm certain that there is some desert or drink that was the official desert, so the topic could be worked into a favorite pastry blog.

Since the Dept of Education sent out lesson plans asking the kids to write a pledge to help the Leader achieve his goals, that kinda politicized the whole "give the kids a pep talk thing", didn't it?

In modern politics, the three competing systems are Capitalism, Marxism, and National Socialist - "Third Way", with Socialism as the candy coated version of Marxism.

While the pastry blog may be a stretch for discussing the merits of NAZI apple strudel, testing the fit of Pres. Obama's statements, policies and actions to the various systems seems entirely appropriate especially when it is applied to impressionable kids.

Do you remember Obama's: "share the wealth", "Capitalism has failed" tag line and "in five days we will begin fundamentally changing the USA", the question is changing the USA into what?

The centerpiece of the President's new economy is the “Green Economy”, Obama hired a well-documented self-described Marxist Van Jones to run it. For lack of a better description, Van Jones on tape described the green economy as the long thin end of a wedge “to changed the entire system”; Again, what does Obama want for our new system?


Websters: Socialism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By John Q. Public on September 8, 2009 3:07 PM

BTW, I was about to declare you the winner of the Godwin's Law ribbon for this topic, but then I noticed that Anonymous on September 4, 2009 7:13 AM beat you to it. Better luck next time.

John Q Public,

Socialism is socialism. The basic difference between left and right totalitarian governments is the stated goals. These are often lofty sounding but end up as a dictatorship either way. It's a little like a ship that circumnavigates the earth. If you go East (right on the map) far enough you will arrive in the West. I assume the inverse is also true.


Dieing,

Lets see, the schools represent themselves as “give us huge sums of money and we will educate your kids for you”.

The schools now have a 30% failure rate, if measured by the number who drop out before graduation.

In almost 60 years, the worst thing a doctor ever did to me was prescribe the wrong anti-biotic, so I had to try a second type to kill the little bugs. Yes there are some hacks out there who plain get it wrong who should be weeded out, not allowed to continue as long as they can come up with the insurance.

How do you rationalize going after doctors when they don't succeed or botch the operation, when the number of failures and botched kids at the schools is far worse and probably more damaging for society in the long run? Isn't the misrepresentation by the schools far worse?

Each one of the drop-outs that falls into the gang lifestyle reproduces, probably at public expense, and produces kids that are born into the gang who are probably raised at public expense, kind of like the growth model for bacteria with unlimited free petri dishes. This is in addition to the cost of feeding and housing the criminals when they are not out on the street corners peddling, another cost to the country. Last time I checked we had 1MM gang members, half illegals.

At the very least, don't you think we should start forcing the schools to have the parents sign full disclosure notices and disclaimers listing all the things that can wrong at the school and with their education? Perhaps the disclaimer can illustrate that the more money that society pumps into public schools, the higher the failure rate even measured with dumbed down tests.

I think its time for attorneys to step up and fix the school system the same way they have fixed the medical system.

A Concerned Parent...

The President serves us & we inturn serve him by helping him achieve those goals. ALL OF US! He is not doing this all by himself. Were you not alive when JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." That is all he is doing! (Yes, Ken!)

Anonymous ONE...

Today you have to have lesson plans...heck they are "trying" to do it in college. I'm not surprised, they wanted to show how it connects to learning outcomes for the school. I don't see anything on the lesson plan that is a problem.

What the...I like what you said but still give me a break Obama is soooo charismatic he will control the minds of all kids. Maybe he is going to try to get them all to ask for higher priced toys for Christmas to stimulate the economy. Ya, they will all listen to him & totally make them hate their parents and they will come home & tell their parents I'm not eating my spinach & the president told me I don't have to and there is nothing you can do about it. Hey, maybe he can get them to finish their veggies? Hmmm...if he can control their little minds on political views, just think what he might be able to accomplish! Denny give me a break!

Serious...as others have mentioned, what president does not use a teleprompter or something in the past to read off their speech? Wow if you don't know that. The quality of the speech is what is important.

JQP...YES! :-)

Glock22...Bush had a great foreign policy? He had experience? Wow! And what is this all about cooking a meal? How do you know they did not eat earlier & are done already? Avoid the side insults & just stick to the point of the blog.

To Amusing,

Where did you live prior in Russia and exactly when and how did you escape?

It is amusing to read comments that display pure ignorance or simply poor education. I agree with What the? Those posting here need to go and read up on some history. I grew up in the Union of Soviet Social Republics or USSR as it was known then. We escaped by seeking political asylum here. USSR had a Communist Party but it was a socialist country. During World War II Germany with the Nazi Party at the top fought Soviet Union because it wanted to destroy all Jews, Communists, etc (all those apparently not fit to be a part of human race). About 20 million people perished during the war in what was then a Soviet Union territory, mostly murdered by Nazis, but a good portion of them by Stalin, who killed his own.

In any case, we have a President who was elected by the majority in this free country. I feel fortunate that my children who attend 204 schools had the opportunity to hear him speak, regardless of my own political affiliation. The President seeks to inspire our children to become educated (and have some idea of world history as opposed to some who display pure ignorance on this blog!)

Wow JQP: It was not arms to Iran. It was supposedly arms to the Contras in Central America. And how that turn out? Zero. Carter could not find his way out of a paper bag. I have to be right because he could not get elected to a second term. He did nothing for the hostages that were held in Iran, except count the number of days they were there. That my friend is the ugly truth. Arms for Iran..I guess if you like Jimmy Carter as a dynamic leader, your mentality is going to think Obama even more dynamic. Actually both are foreign policy idiots because they have no experience. Actually foreign policy in the middle east under bumbling Jimmy Carter created a good deal of problems there that we are dealing with today. Back on blog topic. I find it interesting that in 1991, Bush gave a speech to school students that triggered a congressional hearing on the matter. The NEA (teachers union) launched an ad campaign claiming the event cost the taxpayers $26,000 that could have been better spent on school lunches they claim the Bush administration was cutting. Now: we are supposed to all praise Obama and the NEA cheers the speech by this goof. And anyone wonder how much this latest Obama event cost? I guess the concern about the cheezy politics invading the class room has some merit. It just depends who your speaker is and what party you carry the flag for. And What the ?- your 9/8 6:22 pm post has me laughing like crazy. Obama thinks before he speaks. No, he sends you a message before he speaks that you decode with your Obama ring. Here is a suggestion for you, since you are up to speed, get off the blog at dinner time and make a decent meal for your family. After you clean up the kitchen, then you should blog. But the empty stomach blogging when you should be in the kitchen trying to cook seems to make you unusually mean and more startling than, than, normal.

To Anonymous on September 8, 2009 7:43 PM:

Yes, Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist. See the moderators response above. Fascism had a couple elements of socialism in it, but was in practice very different. For example, today the Nazi Party and the Communist Party are outlawed in Germany, but the Socialist Party is not. All three parties are allowed in America.

So there.

Apparently, Fascism had no Marx to write the manual, its all over the place.

All in it together, private ownership of many industries as long as they served the greater good, preached the failure of Capitalism and liberal Democracy and yes were anti communist.

What both have in common is one party states with central control and planning. The NAZIs let you own it, but you have to use it the way the tell you to.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

What,

National Socialist German Workers Party = NAZI Party..

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei


The best recruits were communists once they realized that the NAZI version of socialism was better.

Read all about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By What the? on September 8, 2009 5:08 PM

Denny:


.......Hitler was not a socialist. Hitler was a FASCIST,

When someone's kid is exposed in school to ideas that devalue human life, make them unable to read and understand plain English (like the Constitution) or are proven to kill millions of people (like abortion, euthanasia, Marxism etc..) do the Parents (or Society) have a basis for suing the school if the kid exhibits defective or criminal behavior? Do the victims?

Last week I had a potential client call from a mental hospital and even he made more sense than this. Sadly, that's not a joke.

Are you serious???!!!,

What do you have against teleprompters? I think every President has made extensive use of the teleprompter ever since it was invented. Ronald Reagan, for example.

Speaking of President Reagan, which hostages are you talking about that he freed? The ones being held by Hezbollah that were freed in exchange for trading American arms to Iran? Or were you referring to the ones from the American Embassy in Tehran that were freed literally minutes after he took the oath of office, and whose release was negotiated by the Carter administration? As for being one of the top three Presidents of all time, well, he's often ranked pretty highly in public opinion polls, but then so is Bill Clinton. In most polls of historians that I've seen he usually doesn't crack the top 10.

As for Obama, you could be right about him, but it's way, way too early to tell. He's taken office during an economic crisis that is arguably worse than the one that Reagan had to deal with, and he's got two wars to deal with on top of that. Things don't look too rosy for him right now, but Reagan's first two years were pretty difficult, too.

-JQP

To Anonymous ONE on September 8, 2009 2:14 PM--

I say this again and again because posters on this site keep proving it again and again. See Denny's post above for the latest installment. I admit I am having a lot of fun with this. But in consideration for you and other thinking Republicans I know frequent this site, I will tone it down.

To Mom: Ok, for YOU it is all about not trusting Obama. But then you didn't trust McCain, either.

To Are You Serious???!!!: Definitely!!! Obama has no practical experience running anything to speak of? Then you're choosing not to speak of his years running community organizations, which involved leading a lot of people within these organizations and keeping these organizations afloat financially. Your comment "He was a "community organizer" for heaven's sake. What is that anyway?" says it all. How can you have an informed opinion about something you know nothing about?

Never had to make a payroll? Neither did your precious Reagan and many other presidents, yet you don't hold this against them. Never created anything? What are you talking about? HE AUTHORED TWO BEST SELLING BOOKS! That definitely satisfies the creation category.

Yes, Obama is a gifted orator. Where have you been? Even his critics give him this one. And they admit his charisma as well. Where do think phrases like "the anointed one" came from? And that floudering, as you call it, is calling THINKING. We didn't see much of this during the Bush years, so you may have forgotten what it looks like. President "Mission Accomplished" and the creator of many other glorious gaffes spoke before thinking. Obama has stated he does the opposite, he thinks before he speaks. You may have to wait a few seconds for it.

And Obama, like Reagan, knows what are not his strong suits and has surrounded himself with experts in those areas. In addition to, not instead of, having book smarts.

I think you've been drinking the Limbaugh/Beck tea blend too long. You really don't seem to know much about Obama and the reasons the Republicans are so freaked out about him. And yes, they have no one on the horizon who even comes close. This is the "leadership" crisis the Republicans face right now. Geez!! Tell ya what, why don't you spend some time coming up to speed and THEN we'll talk.

Denny:

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, these comments are so weird. But in the off-chance you are even a smidgen serious, you need to know that Hitler was not a socialist. Hitler was a FASCIST, and there is a big difference. I know the Limbaughs and Becks and even some high profile Republican politicians who probably know better tend to lump these all in together for convenience and expediency, but they do so because their purpose is not to be accurate or inform, but to create fear in what is foreign. And in your case, they have succeeded. I know this because you say so yourself: "The real goal of such indoctrination, I fear . . ." That's the goal, Denny. I fear, I fear, I fear. You got it.

Here is a modern day example of FASCISM: When Glen Beck made his infamous comment that Obama had a "deep-seated hatred of white people", many advertisers showed their displeasure in this opinion by pulling their advertisements from his show. Beck has the freedom to air his views, of course, but advertisers also have the freedom to not support speech they find objectionable with their advertising dollars. At one point I heard it was 36 sponsors had pulled out, another time close to 50. I don't know what the final number was, but it was so many that Fox News decided to show their support for Beck by making the statement that they planned to "punish" any advertisers who pulled out of the Beck show. Really?! A large corporation using their clout to try to restrict free movement within the marketplace in an effort to punish people not supporting their party line?! That, dear Denny, IS FASCISM. Hitler did it all the time; he routinely "punished" those who did not support his worldview and direction for Germany. Real fascism is right under your nose and you can't see it because these fascists keep you fearful and busy running around drawing little mustaches on Obama posters. Wake up and get a mind of your own.

And I'm happy to report that 204 DID indeed televise O's speech to the school children today, despite their insistence last week that they could not take time from the instructional day. My child said the school announced that it was required viewing. Yes, REQUIRED. She said she did not zone out during it and that it was inspirational. Chew on that, Fox fascists!

Jim Currie on September 8, 2009 10:40 AM
All you watch dogs must have played dead for 8 years of BUSH.Take a look back and see what a bad president really was,to stupid to give a speech to children only could think of war and revenge
xxxxxxxx
Tell me you didn't just misspell the word t-o-o stupid!

to (sic) stupid?

Your point gets diluted when you misspell such a simple word that you are using to try to portray Bush as stupid. I'll give you a C- for trying - this is Naperville and I wouldn't want to bruise your ego.

Mom and What the?,

I agree with Mom here. And this is why. We had two choices in the election. Obama and McCain. McCain got labeled the next Bush and people were tired of the Bush thing. Then McCain did himself no favors nominating Palin as VP. Obama came across to many as the person of change. So after eight years of Bush, McCain being McSame and choosing Palin, the economy in the tank, the media love affair with Obama, etc., we ended up with 53% voting for Obama. You talk to a liberal and you would think that Obama won 90 - 10 with this HUGE majority. Not so fast. Many of those people were independents who were willing to give the other party a chance. They were sick of Bush, scared that McCain was the same and had to choose one or the other.

Well after eight months, a lot of those independents are becoming quickly unfavorable to Obama for the exact same reason as those of us who saw right through him in the first place. They don't trust him. And rightfully so. I think no matter what side of the aisle you are on, it is hard to deny that this man far more than any other in say the past 60 years is trying to change the landscpae of America to something it has never been. It is pretty hard to deny that he and the people he has surrounded himself with are some of the most liberal, progressive, radical (you pick the word) people we have ever seen in an administration. And unfortunately for those of us who adamently disagree with him, he has the numbers in congress to do what he wants. Many of those independents now fall into that category as they see what they are getting for that vote.


What the? I'll give you he is a great speaker and inteligent. Sounds much better than Bush ever did or ever will. In fact sounds better than most anyone in the world does or will. But that doesn't mean he is trustworthy. If he were that trustworthy given the state of the US in November of last year, he would have won at least 60/40 if not greater. If he were that trustworthy, we wouldn't see him on TV every night campaigning. Doesn't he realize he won and is in office? In politics, especially if you are president, there is this thing called overexposure. He is doing it (and I hope he keeps on doing it). He needs to realize he is not Elvis Presley. Us conservatives and the independents could care less about the Elvis factor. Just govern and do it correctly.

Although liberals sat there and cried at his innaguation, think he is the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel, etc., he has to realize those people make up about 1/3 at best of the country. The rest of us saw right through him for exactly what he is or are independents who want results - not Elvis Presley or the Beatles on TV every night.

denny,

Despite the fact that it's full name was National Socialist German Worker's Party, the Nazi party was a right-wing party, and was not socialist.

-JQP

P.s. BTW, I was about to declare you the winner of the Godwin's Law ribbon for this topic, but then I noticed that Anonymous on September 4, 2009 7:13 AM beat you to it. Better luck next time.

"But Obama is most likely the most intelligent, articulate and popular president this country has had in decades, and the Republicans have no one who can even come close to it. That is what is threatening to them."

"This has everything to do with the fact that he is an intelligent, gifted orator and very charismatic."

Wow. Where do I start with a post like this one???

Let's look at your first comment. Intelligent? Book smart, maybe. I would suggest that you provide an example of why you say he is intelligent. However, Obama has absolutely NO practical experience running anything to speak of. He's never led people, never had to make payroll, never created anything. He was a "community organizer" for heavens sake. What is that anyway?

Gifted orator? That is debatable. Take away his Teleprompter and he's floundering. No extemporaneous speaking skills whatsoever. Time after time he's shown that he doesn't know his own message and clearly can't communicate it without prompts. You have to wonder if he truly believes what he is saying, or is he just an empty suit.

Republicans have noone who can even come close to him?

You might have forgotten a former president named Ronald Reagan. Maybe not as book smart as others, but he knew what he didn't know and went out and surrounded himself with experts in those areas. Arguably one of the three greatest presidents ever. Implemented programs to pull us out of one of the worst recessions many could remember. Freed the hostages. Restored hope to a country ("...shining city on a hill..."). Remember?

I haven't heard many people using Reagan and Obama in the same sentence.

People need to stop drinking Mr. Obama's Kool-Aid and being so mesmerized by his oratorical skills off a teleprompter, and listen to the content of what he is saying. With his plunging approval ratings, I believe people are doing just that, and they clearly don't like what it is they are hearing.

What the? It has everything to do with not trusting Obama. By the way, I didn't vote for Obama or McCain. I didn't feel that either of them had a plan to solve the very real problems we are facing. I want some of the problems solved and I really don't care which party does it. Congress (both parties) can't seem to fix anything. They should all be voted out of office. I think if the kids in our junior high were randomly selected and placed into congress, they would do a better job than the adults are doing right now.

Keyboard Rambo - I don't know what school your kids go to, but I can tell you my experience has been quite the opposite. Out of my son's 21 student class in 1st grade, 16 of the parents showed up to read with the children on a regular basis. They don't have a problem finding volunteers. On several occasions I have not been able to go on a field trip with my kids, due to the large number of volunteers. My friend teaches in 203 and told me that it is more difficult to teach in this district due to the demanding parents. She said it is much easier to teach in the districts where the parents don't care and don't demand as much. I have heard that teachers have left our district due to the pressure put on them by the parents. I'm sure that parent involvement is one of the reasons this district is so highly rated. I volunteer at school on a regular basis. Three are so many different parents helping out, I don't even know them all. So I find your comment interesting. It doesn't sound like you have kids that go to school here.

What the? on September 8, 2009 11:37 AM
That's because a lot of conservatives don't know the difference between communism and socialism.......
So these folks were in North Carolina? No surprise there. Like I've said before, the Republican party is becoming increasingly white, increasingly southern, and dumber by the day.
Now I'm off to record the President's speech for my kids to view later. I'm sure all the conservatives in North Carolina will be watching Jerry Springer reruns instead!


Keyboard Rambo on September 8, 2009 12:44 PM
Most Naperville parents take no responsibility for the children's or any interest in their education, and often have no involvement in school aside from just making sure their kids are on the bus. Yet, making sure their darling children don't hear Obama's filthy propaganda has lead to full voicemail boxes, countless angry emails, and more interaction in the past few days than they usually get over the entire year from Naperville parents. Oh Naperville, don't ever change. Reading this blog is better than reading The Onion most of the time.


______________________________________

Can you two paint with any broader of a brush? If Republicans and Naperville parents are so patently stupid why are you wasting your time on this site? After all, us morons couldn't figure it out anyway right? What's it like to be so enlightened?

what the ?: we get it - you think Republicans are stupid, white, and Jerry Springer watching hacks. You post it again and again and again as if it will somehow become true because you keep repeating it. Didn't you once say you have good friends who are conservative who you often disagree with? What do they say when you call them dumb? Or is it just "everyone else" except for your conservative friends who don't make the grade?

K Rambo: Maybe your friends don't care about their school, but many of my friends and I do. Everyone that I spoke with didn't see the problem here, and didn't once call anyone in school district 204 to complain about it. If Obama wants to give a speech that encourages students I am all for it. You and I tend to agree on many topics, but I disagree with your comment that "Naperville parents take no responsibility for their children's education".

I don't believe presidential speeches are part of the learning curriculum that our tax dollars have paid for. Obama, just like another famous socialist, has targeted youth for conquest. The real goal of such indoctrination, I fear, is to drive a wedge between parents and children. Reguardless of the benign sounding title of the speech it is (at best) a foot in the door for more and more future intrusions whose purpose one can only guess. I guess Hitler would have loved to use the television but had to resort to less effective and slower methods such as Hitler youth.

Mom:

This has nothing to do with not trusting Obama. This has everything to do with the fact that he is an intelligent, gifted orator and very charismatic. People who disagree with his politics are afraid their children will be swayed by his likability. Obama was elected with over 54% of votes. The majority of Americans do trust him. It's the other 40-odd percent that are having a problem. If Obama came across like W. Bush did, which is what conservatives are comfortable with, I don't think there would be as much of a problem. But Obama is most likely the most intelligent, articulate and popular president this country has had in decades, and the Republicans have no one who can even come close to it. That is what is threatening to them.

Ahahahahah... Oh dear. I have quite a few friends who are school teachers who all have been having a great laugh over this fiasco. Most Naperville parents take no responsibility for the children's or any interest in their education, and often have no involvement in school aside from just making sure their kids are on the bus. Yet, making sure their darling children don't hear Obama's filthy propaganda has lead to full voicemail boxes, countless angry emails, and more interaction in the past few days than they usually get over the entire year from Naperville parents.

Oh Naperville, don't ever change. Reading this blog is better than reading The Onion most of the time.

No, the President is not there to serve us alone.

200+ million people make up the United States of America. All of us serve a role in the present and future of our country. For our children, it may be studying hard and doing their homework so they can become a future leader. Or volunteering in their community. Or being aware of our use of the environmental resources. Or ...

Southside,

Marxist: Van Jones, Google this guy or better try you tube. All of the interview and speech videos are probably fakes, the graphics are really good these days. This was the guy advising on our new green economy, Obama's economic center piece. Michelle and Biden are big fans and wanted him in.

Abortionists: Pres Obama's first exec order turned it back on. Sec Of HHS former KS governor big abortion champion.

Rationing & Euthanasia: Try Rahm Emanuel's brother, Zeek. Adviser for our new health care. WSJ articles and link provided last week. Again Google this guy. You don't get unplugged, you never get plugged in.

There are plenty of others. You should take some time to better inform yourself.


By Southeast Side on September 8, 2009 10:01 AM

self-described Marxists, abortionists, medical care rationing and euthanasia embracing Czars and Advisers Obama has surrounded himself with

Name the names and provide evidence that is not from some right wing rag. You are either a liar or a dupe. Prove which one.

I read the transcript of the speech, and don't have a problem with any of it.

I think what this issue demonstrates is the distrust out there for Obama. If he were trusted, I don't think this issue would have come up at all. Part of the problem is the amount of name calling and labeling of anyone that disagrees with the present administration. Nobody likes to be labeled. Even Arne Duncan called the concerned parents "silly". How professional of him. That should help.

Instead of a pep speech, I wish more would be done to improve the Public School System. I believe that no child left behind is a complete failure. Not only does it punish the kids that are exceeding the expectations, many states have lowered the standard for passing. That makes them look like progress is being made.

The reading rates for those under the age of 30 have dropped like a rock. They are rapidly becoming the least informed generation in 200 years. We need more than a pep talk.

OWVY: "They interviewed two older people at the fair and one said we are becoming a Communist country."

That's because a lot of conservatives don't know the difference between communism and socialism. They are not one in the same, but the Republican party lumps them all together to create confusion, fear and xenophobic nationalism. I've seen it here on this blog many times when folks rant about socialism/communism/facism/Marxism, all the "isms". This is when Europeans, who have histories of living under these despots, laugh at Americans for our collective stupidity.

And I bet these two older people, if asked, would also be against any kind of government health care option because that would make us "communist", but you would have to pry their Medicare cards out of their cold, dead fingers before they would give up their government run health care for seniors 65 and over.

So these folks were in North Carolina? No surprise there. Like I've said before, the Republican party is becoming increasingly white, increasingly southern, and dumber by the day.

Now I'm off to record the President's speech for my kids to view later. I'm sure all the conservatives in North Carolina will be watching Jerry Springer reruns instead!

All you watch dogs must have played dead for 8 years of BUSH.Take a look back and see what a bad president really was,to stupid to give a speech to children only could think of war and revenge

Mission Accomplished

JIM CURRIE

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html

This is the ultimate in conservative republican censorship. Call it what it is: CENSORSHIP and an attempt to terrorize poorly educated white America.
Regardless of your political opinion, Mr. Obama is our president and should be respected. Former presidents addressed students in similar forums without issue. Remember Reagan? Bush 1? Other politicians visit our schools to share their politics, too. I have heard complaints that our president should not be in the classroom. Where was George W. Bush when the first plane hit on 9/11?
I am disgusted that my tax dollars will be spent burning cd's for teachers to use at their discretion, at a later date during social studies classes! That is simply wasteful of our hard earned tax dollars.
District 203: Your narrow-mindedness is showing. Teach respect for our leaders and stay out of politics. Your message screams hypocracy and censorship.


self-described Marxists, abortionists, medical care rationing and euthanasia embracing Czars and Advisers Obama has surrounded himself with

Name the names and provide evidence that is not from some right wing rag. You are either a liar or a dupe. Prove which one.

"If there's no link - it is a LIE".

One Who Values You on September 7, 2009 8:02 PM
Then we wonder why the kids are the way they are when the parents think like this?

Blast the speech before they even know what he is going to say.

________________________

OWVY, There wasn't an official transcript, but many did know what Pres Obama was going to say which is why some objected. Much to do about nothing? probably.

You do know that instead of just a rally to take personal responsibility and stay in school (which is what this speech will now be about), There was a complete "lesson plan" delivered by the White House to schools: http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in previous speeches by Presidents to schools it did not come with its own lesson plan?

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan acknowledged on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday that some of the materials provided to local school officials were poorly worded and may have lead to some confusion about the speech's goals. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125234166475590463.html

I personally don't see the big deal, and in the grand scheme of things there is just a small group of protestors. I do wonder, however, that if everything was just about personal responsibility why did they (President Obama and Arne Duncan) make changes and remove the lesson plan?

Interesting to note how the Dems acted when the shoe was on the other foot, Congressional hearings and attempts to criminalize Bush's speech.

I don't recall the Dept of (re) Education sending out teacher guides asking students to write essays on what the can do to help President Bush.

If Mr. Mego wrote an editorial then in support of the President and his agenda, I he can post it here.

==================================


When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html

Hi, Glock.

Yeah, turnabout hurts, don't it? Let's see how the Flying Monkey Right likes being called America-haters now that a Democrat is in the office.

Please don't mention veal. I love veal, but it's the one food I gave up on moral grounds. Can't stand how they raise it.

The original intent of the speech was to let the students know how they could serve the president. How wrong is that. THE PRESIDENT SERVES US> NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
It has since ben wwatered down by public opinion so now it is just a waste of our childrens time.

Go figure

I love this...oh boy!

Claremont School in North Carolina was used on CNN as a school who will not be showing the president's speech. Not surprising John McCain had a 67% win in that district. Now the principal says that President Obama would be welcomed to come there. What is the difference? Now lets see the conservatives who are mostly making the complaints, don't want you to burn a flag as a freedom of speech expression but our Nation's leader does not have the freedom to make a speech in their district. How can you say you are an American but not listen (just listen) to your president?

They interviewed two older people at the fair & one said we are becoming a Communist Country. What? Isn't saying only some can make speeches and not others a Communist view? It certainly is not freedom and democracy to me? I suppose someone could say having the choice to listen to him would be democratic but then where were they complaining when President Bush & Reagan talked to students? That wasn't communism then? The segment ended by showing a quote by Winston Churchill on Responsibility on the schools sign in front of the school. I guess that is ok but not our Nation's Leader to say it.

Too bad they put up the lesson plan that set off the debate, justifiably.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By Original Joe on September 7, 2009 4:51 PM

Putting this up when it was first announced would have saved a lot of hoopla, time and trouble.

Then we wonder why the kids are the way they are when the parents think like this?

Blast the speech before they even know what he is going to say. Make assumptions. Hate the person when you disagree with some aspects of them. Don't value them as a Human Being that God made. Blows my mind that the same conservative Christian claiming people have so much hate coming out of their mouths. Some days I wish God would send another child...hey how about this time a woman...and see what "she" would say to them.

Pledge allegiance to Obama...OMG! No, try the country and the human race...to stay in school and give back to the human race in some way and not just collect dead presidents or spend them on the newest Gucci bag/shoes or some fancy car or huge house which lacks a home. This is why we are in the mess we are in. I am hopeful it is the kids who have more sense and will actually change this country as they grow up. Many of them seem to have more sense than the adults/their own parents today.

BTW...who decided to pick that pix of OBAMA for the article????

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/1756974,2_1_AU07_OBAMA_S1-090907.article

It is obvious that the only reason the schools pulled the speech is that he says "God bless America." That is not allowed in the public schools.

Luckily most local schools are not showing the speech. It seems to have reference to Socialist principles like encouraging students to be collaborative workers, community contributors, and even
quality producers. Egads!

And on this day -- union-backed lazy bones day. The kids should be in school, not observing some worker-based paid day off for the teachers.

t.f.i.c.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/?source=email

Oh, that looks like a RACY speech. How dare he fill kids' minds with talk of staying in school (gasp!), or working hard! I will not stand for it! We must protect the children from these crazy ideas, lest they follow them!!!!

Putting this up when it was first announced would have saved a lot of hoopla, time and trouble.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/?source=email

Mark: I have no problem with your exhalted one tomorrow giving his speech NOW that the federal lesson plan has been disposed of AND focuses on children remaining in school, working hard, remaining disciplined. They should not be made to pledge alliegance to Obama or the Green Movement or the other nonsense that follows his crowd. Just a Guy: I cannot allow you to establish moral guidelines for me. Actually I dislike politicians; Republicans, Independents and especially Democrats. I'm always amazed that this counrty seems to survive somehow given our substandard leadership. The attacks on this president are unacceptable? Where have you been for the last 8 years? Sitting quitely by while your buddies attacked Bush? Remember the Daily Koz and Huffington Post? Or Kool Aid Keith on the NBC cable channel? What is that guys glitch? I mean to complain about how Obama is being treated given recent history is indefensible isn't it? What is most interesting and what I find particularly hypocritical is the fact that YOU people who are Obama supporters seem to forget HIS children have never seen the inside of a public school and never will! He like many politicians on both sides of the isle have contributed towards moving the focus on the three R's to things And Tango Makes Three, Hannah has Two Moms, funded and un-funded mandates just to name some issues originating from Washington DC and so on that have put many public school systems into chaos. Obama and the mob can safely debate and proclaim their beliefs are school reform while their kids are not impacted in any way, shape or form to the consequences. Perfect.

Thank you Mark@9/7/2009, 11:55AM for answering my original question in this blog...

"How long until the Left starts using the tactic they cried foul on from the Right of calling people who disagree with anything coming out of the Oval Office as "Un-American" ?"

with... "Yeesh. Sounds like you'd be right at home in the lap of Al Queda, where students learn only the Koran and to hate America."

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Tip your server and try the veal.

Hi, Anonymous.

I'm neither a lawyer or a teacher, but I've got some thoughts around your questions:

"1. When someone's kid is exposed in school to ideas that devalue human life, make them unable to read and understand plain English (like the Constitution) or are proven to kill millions of people (like abortion, euthanasia, Marxism etc..) do the Parents (or Society) have a basis for suing the school if the kid exhibits defective or criminal behavior? Do the victims?'

I'd say "no." Simply hearing ideas that may be contrary to what children hear at home is part of becoming an adult, and one cannot blame the school system for that. And not for nothin', but are you saying that you oppose kids being "exposed in schools" to subjects such as euthenasia and Marxism? You're saying that those subjects should not even be discussed, so as to allow students to form an independent opinion? Yeesh. Sounds like you'd be right at home in the lap of Al Queda, where students learn only the Koran and to hate America.

"2. Is it malpractice if someone sends their child to school, and the child doesn't learn and eventually drops out? Was there some test or academic procedure that might have saved the child's mind?"

Again, no. Because students have a requirement to learn just as teachers have a requirement to teach. If the student doesn't listen, doesn't do homework, or doesn't try in the least -- and if the parents aren't doing their part -- then that sure isn't teh fault of the school, is it?

School has only been in session for 2 1/2 weeks and my kids have already had an assembly on bullying and one for the annual fund raiser. So we roughly have already taken out 1 - 1 1/2 hours out of curriculum time plus we've lost 20 minutes because thus because of late start. Now we need to lose another 18 minutes for the speech plus time for assignment they are given. That's roughly a 1/2 day of school. Who knows how many more assemblies are lined for the school year.

All this in a SD that has decided to have the kids come late once a week, does not see the value in correcting homework or even having parents help with their ES students' homework and still can't get kids to school on time.

Simple solution, stop all the ridiculous assemblies, quit teaching to an annual test, get rid of late start and teach to the curriculum. It's not rocket science and has been done centuries.

Dieing,

As a consummate professional and practitioner of the law:

1.
When someone's kid is exposed in school to ideas that devalue human life, make them unable to read and understand plain English (like the Constitution) or are proven to kill millions of people (like abortion, euthanasia, Marxism etc..) do the Parents (or Society) have a basis for suing the school if the kid exhibits defective or criminal behavior? Do the victims?

2.
Is it malpractice if someone sends their child to school, and the child doesn't learn and eventually drops out? Was there some test or academic procedure that might have saved the child's mind?

We are always hearing that Teachers are as important as our doctors and lawyers and should be compensated equally, shouldn't they be held to the same professional and legal standards?

========================================


By Dieing? on September 4, 2009 2:56 PM

Actually, I didn't intended to imply that I'm a teacher. (I'm actually a tort lawyer- please bash my profession in the health care thread instead!)

Anyone who has a problem with this needs to examine themselves for stupidity.

The attacks thrust at this President are beyond anything that could be remotely considered acceptable.

Does anyone remember the shame that the right wing thrust at dissenters to the Bush policies? I guess not.

Quit acting like sheep and get a life, a brain, and a real opinion. People can respect that. This kind of nonsense is just unbelievable and it smacks of racism, and hate of the Democrats / Liberals.

Considering how many have been tuning into Rush & Hannity during the last decade, it's no wonder that a number of people can do no more than repeat lies, spread hate, and project their evil motives on the opposition.

As a "Liberal", I think we should give these people exactly what they want & see how long it takes for them to re-re-re-hypocrize themselves.

Honestly, if you aren't willing to hold the politician YOU voted into office accountable, don't do it to someone who was voted by others.

Even worse, don't lie. The health care bill isn't going to pull the plug on Grandma - the "Founding Father's" weren't Christians, and I could go on all day. Get a life and find some truth - then come and talk about it.

Obama is the President of the United States of America. If you don't like it - tough. Move to another country and preach your "Christian" value hate there.

You people make me sick.

That said.....

I wish Obama would quit valuing Republicans opinions. If I were him I would bend the Repugs over and stick it to them the way they have stuck it to the Dem's for x years. Then I would do it again. And again. And again. And so on.

You people don't deserve air anymore.

Original Joe...

"One of my kids got one to college, yet he's never heard such a speech. I'm perplexed how this happened. Please explain further."

Ummm ya that is some very good thinking. "I don't see it" so it doesn't happen anywhere else/to anyone else...thus no need. Hello!First, many may have graduated in the past but what values did they get at home then. My dad went to college PLUS, mom stayed at home and made sure we did our homework, bought us those grade school books for the summer so we would not forget and the next grade to learn the info early! It was a different world then. Today this is not always the case! First, my students talk about how they never have time for homework because they are in so many after school activities, working etc. My sister teaches grammar school and has students come to school who have not even been bathed in days, and parents who complain there is too much homework when their kids are not turning in any!

The President is not making this speech just for Naperville you know. You need to travel a bit in the US! I have MANY 1st generation students who have no clue what college is like. They can not rely upon their parents helping them from their own college experience because they don't know. In fact, some of their parents just want them to drop out & get a job! Do you know what drop out rates are in some HS? Some States?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/05/dropout.rate.study/index.html

Nevada...47% graduate HS!!!

http://www.progressivestates.org/node/23178

Next link go down to the PDF of state by state. IL actually went down 4% in the 10 yrs they have posted. And I don't know about you but I'm not happy with that state avg. It should be higher!

http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2009/06/11/index.html

Next is how well they are doing in HS & college. Again, maybe Naperville students do well, but this is not all students. I can tell you after a year of being on a committee for College Readiness & Transition we do have problems. You see it even more so in open door admission community colleges where you don't have any required ACT/SAT score needed. We invited our local HS teachers to come talk with our college faculty and the HS teachers were quite shocked on the difference. They are now having the juniors take their tests which place them in Math and English Writing college course so they can see what they need to work on in their Sr year. It is working, the students are choosing to take 4 yrs of math and writing now.

Try to think of the WHOLE country & not just your small world.

What a value to teach your children. If you don't like someone on some particular belief they have, just don't listen to them. Ya, that is the way to solve issues. I suppose that is what you would want others to do to you on your opinion. Isn't it interesting that the same people who want you to certainly to listen to them & believe what they believe, model the poor behavior of doing the exact opposite. Then you don't even know what he is going to say yet. So we should not listen to anyone to find out what they are going to say?

Heck, I listen to president's speeches even those who I did not vote for. I listen quite intently on what they are saying. I certainly talk back to the tv when need be, but I want to know what he has to say from his own lips (wait...wasn't there a president who once said that? "Read my lips! Sorry!) and I KNOW what he said & don't hear morphed pieces the next day. I also do not always agree with what my own priest says but I listen. You listen to people & then if you disagree you have a discussion, as a class, with friends, family, whomever! This is what critical thinking is all about. You just don't turn off people. Great method to suggest to kids...then we wonder why they turn off their parents, police officers, teachers etc when they want to speak to them about doing the right thing. Maybe that is why so many people also have relationship problems because they turn off their mates and do not work on their relationships with the full attention and goal. Then kids in schools not getting along. It is this type of attitude which is causing the problems we have. Even the town hall meetings on the health care reform (yes I know separate post, just overall not specifics here). I'm listening to these town hall meetings while I'm driving and they will literally say something and the next question is a blast statement from someone obviously not listening and claiming the opposite of what was just said. Nobody listens to anyone anymore! They just all want to say what they have to say and expect everyone to listen to them and do not want them to say anything in return to "discuss" the matter. What is worse, as we have also witnessed on these postings on various topics, if you do disagree you are called names, questioned about your loyalty or at the town hall meetings your patriotism. These neighbors who we were having picnics with in the past are now the enemies. If we don't watch this trend in thought and behavior we may find ourselves in a situation we were once in in the past and as some current countries have now. Unfortunately, I don't believe it will be long before we hear neighbors are killing each other over a disagreement on political views. It feels a bit like after Sept 11th when some were attacking those who looked middle eastern except now it is larger numbers based simply on political views.

Reading all of this makes me fearful of sending my kids to school on September 8. Take a deep breath everyone. Let's have some faith in our teachers and administrators and know that whatever Obama says will be handled appropriately in school (whether it is private or public). Enough said!

Dieing,

As a consummate professional and practitioner of the law:

1.
When someone's kid is exposed in school to ideas that devalue human life, make them unable to read and understand plain English (like the Constitution) or are proven to kill millions of people (like abortion, euthanasia, Marxism etc..) do the Parents (or Society) have a basis for suing the school if the kid exhibits defective or criminal behavior? Do the victims?

2.
Is it malpractice if someone sends their child to school, and the child doesn't learn and eventually drops out? Was there some test or academic procedure that might have saved the child's mind?

We are always hearing that Teachers are as important as our doctors and lawyers and should be compensated equally, shouldn't they be held to the same professional and legal standards?

========================================


By Dieing? on September 4, 2009 2:56 PM

Actually, I didn't intended to imply that I'm a teacher. (I'm actually a tort lawyer- please bash my profession in the health care thread instead!)

Obama isn't the first president to address schoolchildren directly. Bush did it as well. So did Clinton. Where was your outrage then?

The above may very well be true but the question is did 204 air it or any other SD in the burbs?

Hey, Glock 22!

Three quick things:

1) Obama isn't the first president to address schoolchildren directly. Bush did it as well. So did Clinton. Where was your outrage then?


2) It's called a space bar. use it.

Hey there, OJ: If you look back at my first post, you'll see that my comments were directed at all the people who have threatened to keep their kids home from school on Tues if their child's school was planning on airing Obama's speech. The message they are giving their children is very clear: Ideology is more important than education. If you don't agree with something the school is doing, it's ok to blow it off and not go. Education is optional and, if need be, expendable. It stands to reason that kids who get that message at home will be less likely to value education.

To Anon: I'm in 204 but not Tallgrass. 204 encompasses many subdivisions other than Tallgrass. I meant to look at the health care thread but haven't taken the time. The Dems no longer have a filibuster proof majority since Ted Kennedy's passing, but I hear they're working to appoint a replacement to his seat quickly. All the same, there is much Democratic disappointment in how the health care initiative is being yanked around so much. The Blue Dogs owe a lot of their campaign money to the health care industry (I have read that for a couple of BD's it's over a million each), so of course they are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. The Blue Dogs are the problem (and more widely, the way big corporations are able to "buy" members of congress) not congressional Dems in general. I agree that a bipartisan bill would have been best, even if it meant compromises on the Dems behalf. But now that it looks like this isn't going to happen, it is time for Obama and the Dems to get the bill through, even it's stricly partisan. Once a government option is in place and people are loving it, just like they do Medicare now, no one will care if its bipartisan or not. If O really believes that a government option is in the best interests of the American people, then he needs to grow a spine and get it done. We'll see if this happens. Should be interesting!

Mark: learned to disrespt politicans when Clinton decided to have sexual encounters in the White House and leave his happy ending on the blue dress. Or after watching you crazies disrespect Bush for 8 years. Now pay back is going to be a bitch for you. To What the ?: Actually my kids are grown. I can now wear my pants 1/2 way up my chest and complain about the government full time. And instead of working at McDonalds, one kid carrys a badge and interestingly now that I think about it, DOES serve McDonalds. You see, McDonalds is just down the street from the PD and he periodically goes there to bring meals back for those residing at the graybar motel when the CSO's are unavailable. The other one works in HR trying to figure out why pub ed grads cannot properly construct a resume cover letter when applying for a job. But this whole school thing started you will remember when the U.S. Education Dept. was promoting this nonsense speech with a lesson plan. That is where I objected. You should be concerned when the central government in Washington DC is providing lesson plans to schools across the country. That should set off that dim bulb between your ears that something is wrong when big brother is providing educational lesson plans for YOUR school. You would not sit for it if the GOP was doing it and you should not sit still for it just because your beloved Obama is behind it. As mentioned, that plan included students writing essays about how they could support President Obama and also write about how President Obama inspires them. That was what the public learned and found offensive. (and the fact that the U.S. Dept. of Ed. is dispatching lessons plans to government schools) Maybe like Chris Matthews, you get a tingle when you hear Obama speak running up your leg? Be still your troubled heart, he will be addressing a joint session of Congress the next night. You can get your jollies then. For me, I'm off to the Auroa Sportsman's Club. I'm taking the wife, the XD-45 Tactical Pistol and I think the Glock 22C for some fun in the sun.

What the? on September 5, 2009 11:18 PM
My kids will need one of your kids to serve them their McDonald's Cafe Latte on the way to their six figure job!!

_________________

What the ?, And you wonder why people have such disdain for Tallgrass? I realize you are responding to people you feel have crossed the line, but you more than cross it yourself with comments like that!

On the health care topic thread I asked why it is that the Democrats have a majority (fillibuster proof) in Congress yet can't seem to pass the health care reform initiative. Perhaps Obama's speech on Tuesday will include some insight as to why he can't get the Democrats to unite, instead of blaming Republicans. Perhaps you can opine on this question as well instead of lambasting those who differ from you in their politics?

Hi, Anonymous.

In answer to your point about guns and the President: The African-American gentleman carrying the assault rifle to the President's appearance out west was real. In fact, he is a member of a church outside of Tempe who's pastor recently gave the famous "Why I hate Barack Obama" sermon, wherein he wished death upon the President.

Nice. Really nice.


In answer to your question: No, I don't think of myself as a "racist, sexist or regional" bigot. You'll note that I didn't call ALL people who disapprove of the President any of those things. But I DO believe that certain people -- the people who call the President a Marxist; who go to tea parties carrying signs quoting Presidential assassins and who carry signs hinting at assassination; who carry guns to public events; and who believe that the President is, in general, anti-American -- I think those people are really, really moronic. And, sadly, I think that those people make up an increasingly large base of the Republican party. Too bad. It used to be a GOP.

To What the?,

Any insight on how kids still succeed today via academic scholarships without hearing a Presidential Pep talk? Please help explain how this has happened historically since you make the claim that not hearing it will wind them up working at McDonald's, or at best, destined to do yard work. One of my kids got one to college, yet he's never heard such a speech. I'm perplexed how this happened. Please explain further.

Mark,

My favorite hype story aired by NBC was the close up of the M16 rifle while the talking head inferred that white supremests were carrying "assault rifles to Obama events".

Later in the day, I saw the un-croped video of a thirty something black male with the M16 look alike riffle (could have been a squirt gun) on his shoulder. If he was interviewed to find out if he was actually a white supremest or southern white red neck, it never aired. I guess we will never know. They really do some great propaganda at NBC, don't they?

BTW, do you and What think of yourselves as grossly over generalizing racist, sexist and regional bigots who are unable to express themselves without calling other people names and insulting them?

Did you learn this in public school or is it off of the talking points that appear in your e-mail box?


=============================

By mark on September 5, 2009 10:48 PM

"You are spot on. The Republican Party is becoming increasingly marginalized, focused on middle-aged white Southern men.....

.....That's what accounts for these people who need to take guns to Presidential events"

This is great! I knew that post would bring the loons out of the woodwork! In response I get talk about Marxists, abortionists, medical care rationing and euthanasia--all the nutty, extremists stuff you all memorize from the Glen Beck show and the head of the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh! Don't leave out the FEMA re-education camps and the black, militant army O is forming. And don't forget, Glock, that O is planning on taking away all your guns! LMAO!! Like I've said, that's fine. PLEASE keep your kids out of school and away from such radical ideas. My kids will need one of your kids to serve them their McDonald's Cafe Latte on the way to their six figure job!!

And to Anon: as usual, I've said nothing about racism and enlightment. That's YOU. I'm only talking about education. And off you go about Ayers--WTF?!--did Glen Beck say that Ayers would be addressing the school children on Tues. or was it the voices coming from the walls? And the Teacher's Union is in this too? Like I said, it's not the message, it's what the messenger stands for that is making you all crazier than usual. Go ahead and stay out of things. That clears the landscape for the rest of us!

What The?

You are spot on. The Republican Party is becoming increasingly marginalized, focused on middle-aged white Southern men (and, I guess, a lot of Naperville Sun readers in DuPage County). And when people start losing their grip on power, they get increasingly loud, increasingly irrational and increasingly angry. That's what accounts for these pathetic people who need to smear Obama as a Marxist. That's what accounts for these people who need to take guns to Presidential events. That's what accounts for these people, who attend "tea party" rallies here in Naperville with signs quoting John Wilkes Boothe (talk about showing their true intent!). That's what accounts for these people who are afraid to let their children hear the President speak.

Sad, really, when you think about it.

What the ? You've heard that conservatives are becoming increasingly white, southern and uneducated? (LMAO-sounds like you may have heard my mother say something stupid like that at a DuPage Democrat meeting) Did you really hear that or is it just brain drool? And not listening to an idiot like Obama who hired Education Secretary Arne Duncan, the Stephen Daeschner of the CPS system promoting incompetence to the federal level will result in our kids becoming as you put it low educated working in yards and the counters of McDonalds. Another LMAO. You make me laugh all over girlfriend. Are you serving your child the kool aid too? Actually What the ?, smart intelligent people DO NOT send their children to public schools. Rather one would think those who DO NOT as you put it take personal responsiblity for the education of their children allow government to do it. Given the perposterous sad state of affairs of the majority of public school systems in the country, (especially the one Duncan was promoting) I do not see this public education failure as any kind of as you write....an atribute.

Mr. 77 says He (Obama) is filled with nothing but BS and fancy words.
Yeah, 77, those fancy words - Them er dangerous. Real durned dangerous. Might get people all riled up about that edyoocattion. GolDurn commies.
git r done!


Come, on... Really 77? Fancy words are dangerous now? I can see why you'd object to someone talking to school kids about the value of education.

Mark,

What future are most sane people terrified of?

If your referring to the self-described Marxists, abortionists, medical care rationing and euthanasia embracing Czars and Advisers Obama has surrounded himself with, I would say the answer is yes.

Maybe Rev. Wright can kick off their politburo meetings with a prayer asking the almighty for support of their radical agenda. The veneer of divine approval is usually important for cult leaders.

Since the President's charms on adults are wearing off rapidly, and people are realizing that all of the above constitute the "fundamental restructuring of America" that Obama promised just before taking office; Why wouldn't most sane people be wary of Obama or his buddy Ayers having their kids captive for a potential "agenda" indoctrination session managed by Obama's supporters and financiers, the Teachers Union.

I'm sorry, but only an idiot would blindly goose step in Obama's parade to a new America.

===============================
By mark on September 5, 2009 8:18 AM

I'm sorry, but only an idiot, a spiteful zealot or a someone terrified of the future would object to the President talking directly to students during the day, stressing to them the importance of hard work and commitment.

To "What the?"

That's an interesting xenophobic take on things. Although, I am left wondering how so many kids could have gotten academic scholarships in the past without ever hearing a Presidential Pep Talk.

We will just have to chalk it up as an unexplained wonder of the universe.

What,

Your quote sums up your positions nicely:

To support Obama is enlightened, to oppose him is racism.


"I've heard that conservatives are becoming increasingly white, southern and uneducated. We can see why."

Since many presidents in the past have done exactly what O is planning on doing, we all know that it is the messenger some are objecting to, not the message. I got three emails from 204 stating they did not have time during the day so were not broadcasting it. I think 204 just wants to stay out of the fray, and I can't say I blame them. But it doesn't matter, I'll make sure my child sees it anyway.

And if some folks are actually going so far as to keep their children home from school to avoid exposing them to the democratically elected leader of the free world then fine, let them keep their kids home. My child will get the message that education is valuable and that taking personal responsibility for one's own education is an attribute. Those who keep their kids from hearing this are teaching them that ideology is more important than education, that if you don't agree with what's going on in school, it's ok to just blow it off and not go. And that's ok, too. This country needs a good base of low educated workers. If we have more Americans working our yards and counters at McDonalds, then that may keep some of the illegals home!

I've heard that conservatives are becoming increasingly white, southern and uneducated. We can see why.

Well said Ken. NEXT!

To concerned on Sept. 4th.

"obama has screwed up enough things" -------- Let me state that he really has done nothing for Main Stream America other than the sham of the cash for clunkers if you want to call that help. Have our income taxes gone down, who is paying for the bailouts but us, we the people. Are more jobs being created and if so at what cost. Has he done anything with the trade imbalance ?? Let the banks fail ------- they made their beds like we do, but we have to lay in it and the banks don't. Wake up.. What is he doing to help small business ???

As for me, I turn the tv off whenever he comes on. He is filled with nothing but BS and fancy words. Plus, I don't like listening to a Socialist.

I will say it again. Whether it be Obama or not, the government has no place in our schools. They have thier nose in too many things as it is.

In closing, these stops that Obama make at restaurants and so on are only politics at its best. He's not fooling me. By the way, did I end in a preposition ???

I'm sorry, but only an idiot, a spiteful zealot or a someone terrified of the future would object to the President talking directly to students during the day, stressing to them the importance of hard work and commitment.

How pathetic are the people who will actually keep their kids away. And what are the parents saying to these students? "Look, my darling, I disagree with this President, so of course you cannot hear what he has to say. You must listen only to MY ideas. You must conform only to MY beliefs. Anyone who disagrees must be shut out."

Pathetic.

To John Q. Public on September 4, 2009 11:27 PM,

"If, on the other hand, this is being encouraged because some parents feel they need to talk to their children to give them some reverse-spin, then I think that is giving in to the paranoia."

On this point I agree. The problem with this topic is that unfortunately the ones getting the most attention on the subject tend to be the 'out there' whack jobs who are taking a bit of a (in my opinion) psycho-stance on it... and that is drowning out and taking away the focus from the legitimate issues some parents actually have.

As an example, if you want an in-school activity done around this speech (for example, writing a letter of reflection, etc) then some parents want to know just what is going to be said that their child is supposed to be self reflecting on. Depending on the age or mental development of a child, this may be a task that is beyond a child's current capabilities or (worst case) they could easily be spoon fed how to feel about something. It would be nice to have the opportunity to review what is going to happen before it happens or at the very least be present as it happens. This prior review is the same thing that is available to any parent who wishes to review the curriculum at a school, with a teacher or in a district.

Saying "Do good, stay in school" takes seconds to say. People just want to know what else is filling the time slot. While my kids are vocal Obama supporters and I certainly did not vote for McCain/Palin, I, as a parent, still want to review what they're going to be seeing/hearing before they see it or at the very least sit down and watch/listen to it together. I know it's a bit old fashioned in this day and age but it's the right of a parent to be that way, whether one agrees with it or not.

Much ado about nothing, as my old friend Bill Shakespeare used to say...

Original Joe wrote :

It does sound like you just politicized it too.

No. I'm just stating the obvious. It is not Barack Obama's supporters that are raising a stink about this.

Perhaps you missed the simple point about having parent and child sitting down together to hear it and discuss it.

No, I didn't. This may be a good idea if the subject of discussion is the role that parents play in their children's education, since, as I understand it, that is also a subject the President will touch upon. If, on the other hand, this is being encouraged because some parents feel they need to talk to their children to give them some reverse-spin, then I think that is giving in to the paranoia. Remember: the subject is education, not abortion. There is not---or should not be---anything controversial about the President of the United States delivering a pro-education message to America's school-children, regardless of who the President is.

-JQP

JQP: Yes. We are now so politicized a speech by the President to children is met with a political litmus test. It started out as a speech and pledge to Obama. Remember? Students were to write essays after the speech citing ways to help Obama. WTF? Under pressure, they had to moderate the presentation. By the way, if he would keep it focused on the students setting personal educational goals, fine. But if he wanders into all the left wing nonsense he is wreaking on this country, then how can a normal person support such rubbish? (Nice job with the unemployment numbers today. And Biden says today the stimulis is working) We do not need any lectures about respecting the office of the president. I saw that first hand with the way Bush was treated. I am still seething about that and consider this presidency nothing but a black mark on the excutive office of this nation in kind with Jimmy Carter presidency. The days of respecting politicans beacuse of their office may be comming to a justified end.

By Anonymous on September 4, 2009 4:14 PM
JQP

Other than Reagan, everyone goes gray on the job, quickly.

Every time I listen to the President, I think what a likable guy. A lot of charisma.
____________________

Not directed at you Anon, but at your comment. OB is a BS artist. His charisma is BS in my book. And no one is "entitled" to automatic respect and trust from the People and their children whether their title be President of the USA, Governor of the State, or President of a Board. There is nothing wrong IMO with being careful and cautious. For some of us, Respect, Trust and Credence have to be earned. It is not freely given just because an individual has a big, important title, appointed or elected. IMHO that is a wise course to take particularly in the political arena.

School Distrcts 203 and 204 could take a lesson from their neighboring school district. Oswego District 308 (this district covers the south end of aurora, west plainfield, oswego and west end of joliet) announced today that they are going to record the speech. They will than let the teachers, staff and parents review the speech. If the speech contains anything other than the "stay in school..... etc," they will give parents the option to not let their kids view. Below is a copy of the note sent to parents....

Information to Parents: President Obama's speech to school children
As you may be aware, President Barack Obama is scheduled to address school children in a speech during the school day on Tuesday, September 8. District 308 students will not be viewing the live-stream broadcast.

However, following a review and approval of the speech by District 308 administration, classroom teachers may have the option to show a downloaded copy of the broadcast to students at another time. If approved by district administration and a classroom teacher believes the video is both age-approporiate and would be of educational benefit to their students, a message will be sent home to parents to notify them that the video will be shown to their children. Parents may then contact the school if they wish to exempt their children from viewing the 20 minute speech.

For further information and resources, parents are encouraged to visit the U.S. Department of Education Web site at www.ed.gov/index.jhtml.


JQP,

" Are we now so politicized that we are going to protest the President broadcasting a speech to school children that is, at worst, innocuous? What message are we sending to our children when we tell them we don't want them hearing this? I think it is this one: Do not listen to anything this person has to say, because he's not the guy I voted for. I'm sorry, but that is showing disrespect for the office."

Now that I have your attention...

It does sound like you just politicized it too.

Perhaps you missed the simple point about having parent and child sitting down together to hear it and discuss it.

Other than a lot of hollow, feel-good, black church style rhetoric the Pres doesn't have much of anything of substance to actually say on any subject. Go back and actually read the transcripts of his most important speeches and anyone can see for themselves that he really doesn't say anything significant and he is very vague about saying anything tangible.

Parents have every right to make their own decisions about what their children hear and/or learn as well as when and how. There are lots of other personal beliefs on many issues where a parent's view might differ on more than simple party politics.

Reality is that teachers today are highly organized and have established goals and lesson plans for every school day. Every time the president or someone else wants to have a media moment doesn't mean the teachers or administration need to defer the primary reason why our children are gathered in classrooms.

I'm perfectly fine with airing the Pres after school or at night when children and their parents are free to make their own choices if they care to view the message or not. Trying to take advantage of captive audience comes across as sneaky anyway.

Original Joe wrote:

How long until the Left starts using the tactic they cried foul on from the Right of calling people who disagree with anything coming out of the Oval Office as "Un-American" ?

One can still respect the Office of the President without watching a speech and writing a letter.

You are missing my point, OJ. What exactly is the Right disagreeing with here? What great issue of the Left/Right divide is involved? This is not about health care or any of the other items on Barack Obama's political agenda. This is about the President of the United States talking to kids about the importance of education. Are we now so politicized that we are going to protest the President broadcasting a speech to school children that is, at worst, innocuous? What message are we sending to our children when we tell them we don't want them hearing this? I think it is this one: Do not listen to anything this person has to say, because he's not the guy I voted for. I'm sorry, but that is showing disrespect for the office.

-JQP

You guys do know that the President always gives the students a rah rah speech every year right after Labor Day. Sadly, this year, it became politicized. Both Republicans and Democrats should be embarrassed.

JQP

Other than Reagan, everyone goes gray on the job, quickly.

Every time I listen to the President, I think what a likable guy. A lot of charisma.

I don't believe that any President has done more televised speeches than this one has. The State of the Union like pep rally he is calling uses our Democratic Institutions as a prop to push his socialist agenda; This shows a real lack of respect for the: Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Supreme Court, the citizens, and the Office of President. The networks should drop it and let it run on CSPAN and the cable news channels.

Typically Joint Sessions of Congress are called for the State of the Union and to declare war, not to push snake oil.

The concerns with this school event come from two sources: given the President's agenda, will he take an opportunity to push it? Secondly, the study guides that the Dept of Education sent out had questions that could be easily interpreted as personality cult building. This comes on the heals of the White House using the Nat. Endowment for the Arts to gin up propaganda posters from the arts community to support the Presidents agenda. Rock the Vote already cranked out the first two posters.

The NEA funds a lot of art, so pleasing them may get you a nice grant for some other project. hint hint.

News Flash..............

Just received a call from 203, some sanity has arrived! The district will record the broadcast and show it to the kids a couple of days after it airs.

This is great, if the teleprompter breaks, my kids wont have to listen to the President reading from the little red book while the technicians try to fix the teleprompter.

How long until the Left starts using the tactic they cried foul on from the Right of calling people who disagree with anything coming out of the Oval Office as "Un-American" ?

One can still respect the Office of the President without watching a speech and writing a letter.

I'm not sure which schools are the focus of some of the comments in this forum,(UFD 12:59 PM), but at curriculum night at my kids school (D204 elementary) there was a strong desire and openness to have parental involvement in all aspects - including homework. There is an open door policy, and incorrect answers on homework and tests are marked in bright RED along with the proverbial -1, -2 etc. IMO nothing is sugarcoated.

As a conservative I plan on reading President Obama's speech to the kids(It will be released on Monday). That way, if/when my kids have questions I can talk to them about it. If I think the intent is to indoctrinate, then it will be up to me to point out what I disagree with and bring up the counter point. I would be surprised if the speech is anything but a call to work hard, set goals and take responsibility.

Mr. 77, can you please elaborate on the following:

"He has enough things screwed up as it is"

Personally it might be beneficial for you and your children to listen to his speech on Tuesday seeing as to how you ended you sentence with a preposition.

Actually, I didn't intended to imply that I'm a teacher. (I'm actually a tort lawyer- please bash my profession in the health care thread instead!) But, by and large, I deeply respect our educators and the work that they do, just as I respect the Office of the President of the United States and the burdens that come with it.

One of the responsibilities of our public schools is to inculcate in the students an understanding of and respect for our democratic institutions. While, ultimately, parents have the right to protect their children from exposure to material that they consider objectionable, we are talking here about a message from the President of the United States! Whatever one may think about Barack Obama, he is the lawfully-elected President of our country. We should all respect the office, even if some among us don't respect the man. I could understand taking offense if the President were planning to use this as an opportunity to push his health care plan, or to promote some other partisan goal, but it certainly sounds like this event will not amount to much more than a stay-in-school-and-work-hard pep rally.

O'bama should not speak to the kids. He has enough things screwed up as it is. Let the parents raise the kids and not the government.

Since you are inferring that you are a teacher, why not give everyone a voucher for their kid and see where they send them. Just a guess, but I feel safe in saying that all the new construction programs at 203 and 204 would be halted.

Since we are coerced by high taxes into sending our kids to public schools, we don't have a choice or free will. The more the government taxes us, they more of the economy they socialize, the less free will we have.

It's a safe bet that most of the teachers voted for Obama. And, since our last 203 Super was going to allow Ayers to speak to students, why shouldn't parents be suspicious of not only the President's intentions but also those of his most ardent supporters, the unions?


By Dieing? on September 4, 2009 12:57 PM

"My kid already sounds like Al Gore junior from the non-stop "the earth is dieing"

Anon, I hope you don't teach your child spelling at home along with the global-warming lessons. Leave education to the professionals.

Yeah, saw that one after I hit the send button. Too bad I am so busy producing tax revenue that I made a typo in my haste.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By Dieing? on September 4, 2009 12:57 PM

"My kid already sounds like Al Gore junior from the non-stop "the earth is dieing"

Anon, I hope you don't teach your child spelling at home along with the global-warming lessons. Leave education to the professionals.

This is truly concerning that a speech by the President has received much criticism. So to understand these parents and their fear of "indoctrination", were you not (as a student yourself) part of the Presidential Physical Fitness program established by Eisenhower? Did you complain when Bush, Sr. gave the same speech in 1991, or Bush Jr. was reading books to our children on 9/11? When did Naperville become a bubble of such elitists? This is the President of THE UNITED STATES, and you choose to continue to divide? How will your child every learn respect, compromise, listening, accountability if you continue to shelter them to your own views? Yet, this is only a talk about education, so answer me this, how is this harmful? It is harmful because when you look deep inside who you, as a parent really are, your true colors come out. What are you really afraid of? Or should I say who?

Our ES kids are going to watch this (4th & 5th grades only) and listen to the President and I really don't have any problems with that (even thought I am not a supporter of his).

What I do have a problem with is a SD filled with Administrators who all the sudden do not see the need for grading homework. Who DO NOT want us to help our children with their homework. I hope Obama comes out and tells these high paying babysitters the complete opposite. They are making their jobs easier and easier for themselves, it's like they are running a daycare.

It's amazing that a SD that once pounded it in our heads how important it was for us to take an active role in our kids education is now telling us to step away. I guess they only want us to shelve books in the LMC, cut out projects for the teachers and scoop ice cream for the back to school ice cream social. It sounds like they are tired of parents holding the SD responsible for providing our children the education that this SD has been known for. Over the past couple of years it has gone downhill. Dr. D. was part of that.

I would like the SB parents of ES children to tell us what they really think of this. With half of them having ES children I find it hard to believe they agree with it. If they do, they have not experienced MS or HS yet.

"My kid already sounds like Al Gore junior from the non-stop "the earth is dieing"

Anon, I hope you don't teach your child spelling at home along with the global-warming lessons. Leave education to the professionals.

Text of Reagan's speech to Jr. High Students in 1988

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/111488c.htm

It's a sad commentary on modern America that any parent would want to exclude their child from hearing the President's "work hard and stay in school" message. Regardless of the political affiliation of the current occupant of the Oval Office at any given moment, I cannot imagine feeling the need to exclude my child from that.

Funny....the talk at yesterday's Curriculum Night suggested that parents play less of a role in educating their children.

Here is the web-site from the Department of Ed talking about Obama's speech;

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html


From the page

During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

Sounds OK to me.

"Stay in school" = Orwellian "indoctrination"? Calling for "viewing warnings" and "maturity ratings"? Oh, right-wing nutjobs, thanks for providing me with a laugh today. Here's a tip, if you don't want to listen to the President's speech, don't. If you think your kids are going to be listening to the President's speech, don't worry, they're tuning it out along with their other fellow students, just like I did back when Bush addressed me and my fellow students with the same damn "stay in school" message back in 1991. It's not that big a deal, but, congratulations to blowing such a simple harmless message way out of proportion.

Wow. People, grow up! What do they think the president is really going to do? And, how many of these kids are going to remember what he says anyhow? Do any of you adults even remember what president you saw on the TV or listened to on the radio when you were 5-17 years old? Let alone what he said??

Remember Ronald Reagan's response to Diane Sawyer: It's not what you say, it's how you look. (or something like that...)

This is a non-event that is being trumped up into something absurd. Obviously, someone or some party is trying to divert attention to themselves or away from something else of real importance.

The address is supposed to take place during the day. If the president wants to address our children about staying in school and caring about getting a good education, why doesn't he do the address in the evening when they can watch it in the comfort of their own homes with their parent(s)? Why interrupt instructional time? Parents and administrators are not out of line in wanting it to be an option.

My kid already sounds like Al Gore junior from the non-stop "the earth is dieing" mantra at their elementary school.

While looking at video games the other day, my kid told me that the WII would use twice as much electricity as our refrigerator so we couldn't buy it because of global warming. Like I always do, I explained to them that their school was feeding them propaganda and global warming is a lie.

The next generation of radical environmentalists is being indoctrinated at public expense.

If (when) the President veers off into his "Brothers and Sisters we are responsible for our neighbors economic well being" (each according to his abilities each according to his needs) soft Marxist talk track, it will be no surprise.

Last year the school district had a "safe homes program" where you could fill out a questionnaire and then allow the comrades to inspect your home, one of the hazards was gun ownership. Daddy do we own a (unsafe) gun?

Is the President's plan still on to have our children participate in the census? Just like Nazi Germany? Did the kids in the Soviet Union have to inform on their families or was this too creepy even for them?

Whether 203 or 204 parent, politics is politics. Parents have the ultimate responsibility to raise their minor children with the moral, political and religious standards they see fit. I have a hard time today naming any government leaders I would see fit as a standards role model for my children. Parents are given proper warnings on audio and video media if its contents may not be suitable for children. Why should any media produced by our government officials be treated differently? Depending on the message, it may or may not be suitable for children and IMO parents have every right to weigh in and make their own determination as to what their children should or should not hear and/or watch. Maybe the government should apply its own rules to itself by rating and warning its viewing audience on its media productions.

And Neuqua Valley H.S. in District 204 does not feel it is important for their students to view the President's address at all (except for a few classes). Outrageous !!!!! Unacceptable !!!!!

Parent of student Class of 2011

Leave a comment

Naperville Potluck

The Sun invites you to share opinions about news and issues. Have a question? E-mail us.  

Pages

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Chris Magee, moderator published on September 3, 2009 10:38 PM.

What are your thoughts on health care reform? was the previous entry in this blog.

Sept. 11 - eight years later is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.