The Song Fight Bulletin Board

https://illinois.edu/db/view/25/9052

So basically, right-wingers who are upset that President Obama has prepared an address to read to children across the country upon the occasion of the beginning of the school year, are now protesting the government's involvement in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.

"We don't want the state running our schools," one tearful demonstrator shouted, adding, "I don't want no government standing between me and my kids' constitutional right to a public school education."

In a related story, Canada is looking better and better.

Slow news week. Time start bombing again.

Generic wrote:https://illinois.edu/db/view/25/9052

So basically, right-wingers who are upset that President Obama has prepared an address to read to children across the country upon the occasion of the beginning of the school year, are now protesting the government's involvement in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.

"We don't want the state running our schools," one tearful demonstrator shouted, adding, "I don't want no government standing between me and my kids' constitutional right to a public school education."

In a related story, Canada is looking better and better.

You realize that guy was being satirical, right?

jb wrote:

Generic wrote:https://illinois.edu/db/view/25/9052

So basically, right-wingers who are upset that President Obama has prepared an address to read to children across the country upon the occasion of the beginning of the school year, are now protesting the government's involvement in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.

"We don't want the state running our schools," one tearful demonstrator shouted, adding, "I don't want no government standing between me and my kids' constitutional right to a public school education."

In a related story, Canada is looking better and better.

You realize that guy was being satirical, right?

Americans don't understand satire.

I blame your school system.

Caravan Ray wrote: Americans don't understand satire.

I blame your school system.

I thought it was irony that they don't understand?

jb wrote:

Generic wrote:https://illinois.edu/db/view/25/9052

So basically, right-wingers who are upset that President Obama has prepared an address to read to children across the country upon the occasion of the beginning of the school year, are now protesting the government's involvement in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.

"We don't want the state running our schools," one tearful demonstrator shouted, adding, "I don't want no government standing between me and my kids' constitutional right to a public school education."

In a related story, Canada is looking better and better.

You realize that guy was being satirical, right?

On closer inspection, you're right, the signs are photoshopped, but the protests and related furor over this issue are definitely not made up. Really.

I live in Texas, one of the states where some public schools have officially "opted out" of showing the speech, and one friend of mine who happens to be a teacher has reported to me that he's been required to issue permission slips for students to take home to their parents, who have the option of signing off on their children's absence today.

This is ridiculous.

We watched the speech in my class today. I defy anyone to tell me one thing that was wrong with the speech. It was about as innocuous a speech as can be made. Stay in school, work hard, don't be an asshole. That was the gist of it.

Between the absurdity of the Sotamayor roasting to this speech, America is finally showing its true racist colors. We suck.

I don't even know what was wrong with the part they took out. It was pretty much cribbed from H.W.'s speech, as far as I can tell.

Spud wrote:I don't even know what was wrong with the part they took out. It was pretty much cribbed from H.W.'s speech, as far as I can tell.

Well, yeah.. Plagiarism would be bad.

I finally found some facts about Reagan and Bush's school speeches. Reagan's was pretty bad. Bush's very good. Bush apparently went to the auditorium after his "speech" in a classroom but there's no record of what he said and likely he simply went on stage and waved and thanked them for having him. A president should be a leader, an inspiration and a role model (something Clinton forgot). He has every right to take time to visit schools...WTF?

But to call a "skip day" and keep your kids out of school...all in the name of something but certainly not education...? Pretty crazy stuff. Also, if Richard Gephardt pulled an idiotic stunt criticizing Bush's appearance at a school to tell kids it's a good idea to get smart, then so be it. He's not around and so...let's do the right thing. Everything is so damn black and white on both sides these days, it's getting totally out of control.

From http://volokh.com/posts/1252117357.shtml:

On November 14, 1988, President Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. The speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “to schools nationwide on three different days.”
The address is peppered with Reagans personal polical bias.
In his speech to students and the question and answer session following Reagan

1. stressed the importance of low taxes and free trade.
2. stressed the importance of religion in our nation.
3 touted the economic achievements of his administration ,
4.put in a plug for the line item veto,
5. told the students that lowering taxes increases revenue
6. boasted of his administrations aid to Negro colleges
7. and told students that if guns were banned, burglars would be “celebrating forevermore”

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/s ... 11488c.htm

Two years before that Reagan again spoke to the children of America on nationwide TV .
He spends the bulk of his address touting the wonderful accomplishments of his administration in fixing the economy, restoring America's military, bolstering foreign policy. (Gee, isn't it suppose to be about the kids??)

Then he goes on to exhort the students to help make America strong by

1. studying hard (good)
2. being good citizens (wonderful)
3. staying away from drugs. (excellent)
4. and lowering the tax rates (Huh???)

Why he just couldn't help himself slip his political agenda in there again.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/s ... 51386d.htm

in Oct. 1991 HW Bush senior looked into the TV camera from a classroom
"Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address."
It was the end to an excellent speech on the importance of getting a good education parents , both conservative and liberal would be proud to have their children present.

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/pu ... 1&month=10

roymond wrote: A president should be a leader, an inspiration and a role model

That is why I am really glad we don't have a president.

We don't expect politicians to fill those roles - because it is widely understood that politicians are generally pretty pathetic creatures. A Prime Minister is just a boring little man who happens to be the leader of a political party. His party makes him the "leader", not the people. He is not meant to inspire anyone. His job is to manage the party with the majority of seats in the Parliament, and to manage the Cabinet. That is all. And our Head of State is an in-bred old cow whose time generally occupied with making appologies for her appalling family.

I must admit, find the idea of a politician making a speech that is broadcast to all schools slightly disturbing.

And that's why a prime minister is better than a president.

prime rib > prime minister

Caravan Ray wrote:

roymond wrote: A president should be a leader, an inspiration and a role model

That is why I am really glad we don't have a president.

Not sure this is meant to be "role model" in the godly sense, but someone who the world can trust and rely on. Clinton failed in lying about something that he obviously did, even though what he did was trivial. Bush failed...well, he just seemed to constantly fail.

The US should be doing the right thing, which isn't always so clear, but there are times when it's clearly doing the wrong thing and the President is the face of the nation. Reagan was at least convincing that he was doing what he truly thought was the right thing...in certain areas. You don't have to agree with someone to respect how they go about their work. I would like to respect Obama more than I did Bush, so I'm looking for him to demonstrate some strong leadership and inspire the nation to pull together for a change. I do think this is a role for the President.

roymond wrote:

Caravan Ray wrote:

roymond wrote: A president should be a leader, an inspiration and a role model

That is why I am really glad we don't have a president.

Not sure this is meant to be "role model" in the godly sense, but someone who the world can trust and rely on. Clinton failed in lying about something that he obviously did, even though what he did was trivial. Bush failed...well, he just seemed to constantly fail.

The US should be doing the right thing, which isn't always so clear, but there are times when it's clearly doing the wrong thing and the President is the face of the nation. Reagan was at least convincing that he was doing what he truly thought was the right thing...in certain areas. You don't have to agree with someone to respect how they go about their work. I would like to respect Obama more than I did Bush, so I'm looking for him to demonstrate some strong leadership and inspire the nation to pull together for a change. I do think this is a role for the President.

Yes - this is a distinct difference in our styles of government. Some PM's like to think it is their job to "demonstrate some strong leadership and inspire the nation" (see Winston Churchill, Gough Whitlam....) - but it is not their job, and those that try to take on that role and pretend to be "presidential" - can end up out on their arse looking very stupid (see John Howard, Tony Blair...). Current Aus PM Kevin Rudd is a good example. He is a career public servant, and so far appears to be a reasonably effective administrator. But that boring little twat is not inspiring or leading anyone. And it is good to keep it that way

There is an ongoing debate in Australia as to whether we should become a Republic. While almost everyone agrees that having some mad family of Poms providing our Head of State in undesireable - it is still better that electing some dickhead (ie. another politician) who thinks it is his role to "demonstrate some strong leadership and inspire the nation"

Generic wrote:https://illinois.edu/db/view/25/9052

So basically, right-wingers who are upset that President Obama has prepared an address to read to children across the country upon the occasion of the beginning of the school year, are now protesting the government's involvement in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.

"We don't want the state running our schools," one tearful demonstrator shouted, adding, "I don't want no government standing between me and my kids' constitutional right to a public school education."

In a related story, Canada is looking better and better.

I can understand their concerns! -- Is this a bad time to bring this up?