Check this out:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/03/peggy-venable-obama-speech-school-children/
…or rather, let me save you some time…
Aside from sounding like a letter you might read on the local paper opinion page during that time of year when high school government students are required to write a letter to the editor, there are a number of salient flaws in an opinion piece Fox news ran from former Reagan education liaison, Peggy Venable.
First of all, her “professional” opinion assures her, with certainty, that what Obama proposes in his school visits is “indoctrination” and “an abuse of power.” This is based on a suggested lesson plan the president’s education staff has forwarded to schools wherein the following questions might be posed for discussion:
-why should we listen to elected officials?
-why is what they say important?
Ms. Venable, I hate to break this to you but:
1) Asking questions for discussion is NOT indoctrination or an abuse of power. In fact, most people would argue that discussions (especially rational ones, as opposed to fallacy or repeated BS) foster just the opposite of abuses of power or indoctrination and...
2) This lesson plan is merely offered to schools who CHOOSE to use it after CHOOSING to air the president’s speech to their students. (choice is generally considered antithetical to indoctrination)
Venable claims that schools never used to encourage kids to respect the president.
Let that sink in for a minute. Read it again.
Never used to encourage kids to respect the president?
Someone’s been drinking too much Kool-Aid! And as long as I’m dropping clichés, may I go so far as to say that the conservatives have officially jumped the shark?
Unless she grew up in some liberal enclave or a commune, I seriously doubt this is consistent with her experience. I’m not saying she’s lying, necessarily, but only that she apparently missed out on anything public education did since George Washington was our president. Kids have ALWAYS been encouraged to respect the president in school. I don't ever recall that being considered indoctrination even if it was. It's nothing new.
Furthermore, many presidents have spoken in public schools before and to say Obama is the first to do so with an ulterior motive is selective memory at its best. (or would that be worst?) Wasn’t that W reading to kids while the Twin Towers were felled on his watch? Are you suggesting, Ms. Venable, that they ran out of substitutes that day and called in the president since he's a public employee anyway?! (Hint: NO, dumbass, he was there for the photo opp, an ulterior motive! in support of his No Child Left Behind agenda)
Venable claims that rather than schools teaching kids to be obedient to elected officials, they should teach that “our system is based on the rule of law, and a robust tradition of loyal opposition, not blind support for the president in power.” Seems like just a few years ago, a retired General Clark was chastised, characterized as a disgruntled former employee of the W Administration for suggesting such blasphemy!
She’s sounding awfully liberal for a Fox opinon page contributor. In fact, if that’s not liberal enough for you, check out this entitlement-laden plea in her final paragraphs:
“All parents should be able to make the choice Obama made for his own children to send them to a private school if that best suits their needs. Until that day happens...” (cuz, you know, lots of parents are the first black family in the White House and share similar secret service security concerns, right?)
Whoa there! What’s with this “until that day” crap? Wouldn’t the conservative response to this quote normally be something like: that day HAS come… every parent HAS that option right now… it’s called get a job, pay the tuition and your kid CAN go to a private school. Ms. Venable seems to suggest that all kids are ENTITLED to have their private school tuition paid by someone else… which would make it kind of like public school, socialist even. But she’d never suggest that, would she?
I feel bad for these people whose memories are so short and who have been so indoctrinated by their party of hate propaganda that nothing this president ever does will be good enough for them… and that no amount of absurdism can ever be detected in their own illogical bile.
I hope I’ve firmly established that I too have some problems with the current administration’s proposals (cap & trade is a waste of $ and effort for what it MIGHT deliver decades from now and to go $1.8 trillion in debt by the end of the year for it and a severe compromise on healthcare reform is outrageous), but c’mon… if the best you can do is find new ways to use words like “socialism” or “indoctrination” in an article about a president’s attempt to make a visit to schools more than just a photo opp, then grow the F up.
He’s OUR president now. America… love it or leave it. Remember that? I heard it a lot during the 2000-2008 stretch. How about some constructive criticism rather than sound bite sniping. How about respectfully tolerating some new ideas until it’s time to vote again. How about remembering that in this civilized country, we rule by ballot box, peaceful assembly, debate, compromise, democracy… you know... all that crap these folks seemingly want to do away with all of a sudden.
Now that I think about it, maybe the fact that someone who writes a letter like this served on the Reagan administration as a White House Liaison to the Dept. of Education explains why she so favors private education now!
Luth
Out
7 comments:
I read about this yesterday and the complainers are making a huge stretch here.
News flash, my "horse poup" friend. Americans ARE paying for education now. Do you think it is free? What you libs don't comprehend is that every parent should have the right to determine the educational environment where their child has the best opportunity to learn -- and take the $10,000 or so a year we spend on public ed per pupil to the school they want their child to attend. It's called freedom.
OK, I've read the speech and it seems innocuous, like a Bill Cosby impersonation.
But, there are legitimate concerns. Yes, some have made wild claims that Obama is trying to indoctrinate our children into Socialism along with other claims. We can't let the message get lost in the noise.
Albert Mohler has a good post on the subject. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php He does condemn those who mock the president and the presidency but also questions Obama's motives, justifiably so.
Mohler says in part,
"Well, things are rarely so clear-cut as they seem. When President Obama wonders who he should blame for this controversy, he should look directly to his own administration. Put plainly, his own Department of Education released suggested lesson plans that appeared to be more about the cult of Obama than about the President's message. The lesson plans (changed after the controversy erupted) suggested: "Teachers can extend learning by having students write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.”
Needless to say, helping the President achieve his goals is a big departure from encouraging students to set and attain their own goals. Add to this that the President's speech to students, timed reasonably enough to be the first day virtually all of the nation's public school students are in classrooms, comes a day before the President also scheduled a speech to a joint session of Congress to defend his health care reform proposals. Though there is no reason to assume any sinister timing here, and there is every reason to see these scheduled events as separate, the public effect is hardly a surprise."
Combine this speech with The Pledge that is also being introduced and you have what appears to lend credence to the conspiracy theorists. Check out the other teaching tool some schools are using in conjunction with Obama's speech, it is referenced in Mohler's blog. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Froordawrite%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded#t=242
As Mohler says, there are many good things in The Pledge, but the kicker is they are ultimately pledging themselves to Obama. HUH?! That smacks of North Korea, China, Cuba.
Do we really want our children pledging allegiance to Obama?
So, on the surface, this seems like a noble idea, but sorry Luth, too many of us do not trust Obama based on his track record. He seems to have no concept of truth. He is the embodiment of a Post Modernist, the truth is whatever he wants it to be at any given moment. Ultimately, he is using this speech for his own political gain.
Interesting take, Ms. Venable. By your logic, I might add that we're ALL paying for the healthcare of the uninsured right now as well. So rather than paying for it at emergency rooms, why not let VHA or DoD's model programs bring those costs down so we're all FREE of the skyrocketing insurance premiums to cover the uninsured.
Public education was a requirement of statehood the founding fathers specified in order to avoid the feudal systems they'd experienced elsewhere. Due to lack of funding as contracted by most statehood agreements, public education has suffered. Using the money promised for it (though not delivered these days) to fund private education was not what the founders suggested.
Why is it that folks who so quickly label others or align themselves with one political group or another only follow those founding fathers when it suits their narrow argument?
The more immediate problem with publicly funding private schools is there there simply aren't enough of them to go around, probably because those that are successful are often so due to selective recruiting - they take the profitable students. Non-profitable students (special needs, at-risk, etc) would be relegated to long commutes and outrageous tuition in a for-profit system; exactly what the founding fathers were trying to head off.
Besides, isn't it a little selfish for the vast majority of Americans who are where they are because of public schools to suddenly decide they no longer want to pay for it like so many people did for them?
Mohler's post is still a stretch - it smacks of "nothing this guy ever does will ever be good enough... and he's an evil socialist."
But, yet you see no problem with pledging allegiance to Obama?
Saw the speech... much ado about nothing... no pledges there other than the ones school kids have made since before my time. If that's what you're worried about, why now?
You know, I said a pledge as a student and as a teacher. I also respected the few in my classes who wouldn't or couldn't say it. I always thought it was pretty courageous of them to sit it out. Later, I pledged a slightly more specific oath four times to span 22 years pledging my service under the specific command of the commander in chief. It was an honor and a privilege each time but, sadly, I never got the chance to make that pledge to Obama. It wouldn't have been so bad to make that pledge to someone who could actually pronounce "nuclear!"
Post a Comment