If parents or school officials are upset about the very fact that the President will address school kids then I think they have their Obama-sensitivity meters set a little to high. Recent presidents have all taken time to address school kids. It's a piece of harmless, fluffy American tradition.

I definitely understand parents who were concerned about the related materials sent to schools telling teachers to instruct their children to write essays on "how they can help the president". Sending something out like that was idiotic and thoughtless. (If you think that's bad, check out the politicization of the NEA that's already begun.) If GWB had done something you'd have heard howls from protest from people on the left. The materials were probably devised by some lower-down over-eager staffer at the Dept. of Ed. Now that the Administration has retracted them I don't see what all the fuss is now about.

Bottom line is that a lot of parents do not trust President Obama, his values or his message, and want their kids left alone.

So then this speech is an excellent time to talk to their kids about how their beliefs differ from the President's. Instead of standing around with their fingers in there ears going "lalalalalalala" maybe these parents might want to use it as a teachable moment?

I'm sorry, but I think the real reason people don't want to send their kids is that if the kids actually listen to what President Obama has to say, they'll find out he's not the bogeyman their parents have made him out to be.

"So then this speech is an excellent time to talk to their kids about how their beliefs differ from the President's."

This is reasonable. So why wouldn't the White House sell it as such?

"I'm sorry, but I think the real reason people don't want to send their kids is that if the kids actually listen to what President Obama has to say, they'll find out he's not the bogeyman their parents have made him out to be."

No, it was the stupid curriculum thing.

Depends on who you talk to. Some people quoted in the media have referred to the content of the speech as things like "Marxist propaganda". I'm sorry, but Obama is *far* from a Marxist. Only in America where your political spectrum is so far right would people even think of calling Obama a Marxist.

As far as the lesson plans that were sent out as a option for teachers to use go, I've only skimmed them briefly, but I don't quite see what the fuss is about. Asking kids to think about things like "What does the President want me to do?" as he's talking just gets them to focus on the content. No where is it saying that the students have to agree with the speech, it's just asking them to pay attention to the content.

Being a Canadian, I've only be able to watch the current debate down in the States from a distance, but I think that a some of you folks could benefit from focusing questions to make you actually listen to each other.

I've read a good many of the comments and am saddened.

First, the real point is that parents should be allowed to edit the content of their children's school experience without the deepseated animosity demonstrated on this site. This is why many schools have text book committees and such. This event is actually a parental activity overtaken by the governement.

Perhaps as much of the problem is who will provide the "commentary" after the speech is over. Many parents are quite aware that their political viewpoints are contradicted in the school setting. It is unfortunate that a curriculum was developed to go along with the speech. This further supports the concerns about the commentary. It is also evidence that this event has been planned for some time, long enough to develop curriculum; hence long enough to offer it in a "user friendly manner" rather than taking such an apparently subversive approach.

Secondly, it does make me nervous for children to be asking themselves "What does the president want me to do?" -- rather than asking themselves "What does Jesus want me to do?"

Thirdly, I am hoping that the parents who are objecting to this speech are also the ones who watch the speeches with their children at home and then discuss them, providing the commentary and guidance that they find reasonable and acceptable.

A side note that I think must be mentioned is that I do not believe it is appropriate for any President to go directly to the children. -- No matter the party... if the conservatives have done something like this in the past, to their shame as well. Thousands of the "children" who will view this at school will be voters in the next Presidential election. And even given that the content is not slanted politically, the impression will be made. What other candidate will have the same opportunity for the same forum? It seems to be guerilla campaigning.

And finally, I find some of the content in these comments to be just plain mean, rather than answering the question.

No offense intended, but I think you are entirely misinterpreting the "What does the President want me to do?" question.

This type of question is very common in Media Literacy Studies, something kids should be asking themselves whenever they view lots of different types of media, not just presidential speeches.

A very small point - are there not millions of people in America who don't believe in Jesus? Why would a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist etc child ask "what does Jesus want me to do"? If you want all children regardless of cultural and parental influence to ask this question, then are you fine with children from Christian backgrounds asking, "what does Mohammed want me to do"? It's an extreme point I know, but the context of this discussion (it seems to me) is the freedom for parents to control and opt out even of government issued messages. A parent can surely then opt out of the Christian issued message too.

My apologies. Obviously, I was writing that statement from my perspective, inserting the question I find I (underline) would rather teach my (underline) children to explore.

Obviously, in a situation of parental rights such as is being addressed here, the parent should have control over whose name goes into that place.

It was a poorly written statement, not intended as seizing an opportunity to push Jesus on someone else.

mr. canada what is this to you anyway. Your telling everyone to listen to this muslim "president" when all he's done when he's got in office is do the opposite of what he said he was going to do. He sure wants to pass a lot of stuff in the months his been in office and he wants it done fast. so why don't you keep your commits to yourself AH!!!

"not the bogeyman their parents have made him out to be."

You really must learn more about what Obama has done so far.

You're exactly right to say the kids will see he's not a bogey man, because the kids are too naive to understand what Obama has done so far. Unfortunately, when it comes to understanding politics, economics and liberty, the most adults, including conservatives and liberals, are only slightly more educated than the kids.

Do an internet search for the video "Money as Debt." It explains in a very basic way ONE of the many issues most "educated" adults are completely unaware of. Once you understand this piece to the puzzle, more of politics starts to make sense, and you can begin seeing through some of the lies. But there are so many lies. This only scratches the surface.

"Money as Debt" is excellent.

Given that the vast majority of US debt is the responsibility of the Regan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. adminstrations, I'm not sure what your point is here.

Your post is full of insinuations, but not much else. KInd of hard to have a conversation around that. In your opinion What has "Obama done so far"?

Ivriniel- this statement that the vast majority of US debt is the responibility of Regan, Bush, and Bush is only partially true. The bottom line is that debt is exponetial, and must remain exponetial for our monetary system to work. The most recent presidents will always be responsible for the most debt, regardless of the R or the D behind their name. Obama will preside over more debt creation than Bush, and whoever follows Obama will preside over more debt creation than Obama... regardless of who it is.

The video 'Money as Debt' really is a worthwhile video, though not perfect.

The reason for financial crisis is centuries old, not the mistakes of recent administrations (though they have not done anything to help). Violations against the biblical commands against usury is the cause of it all.

Yes, Debt is exponetial, but Reagan and the Bushes engaged in a lot of deficit spending, and really racked up your national debt.

If you like "Money as Debt" I would suggest reading Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth, the 2008 Massey College Lecture by Margaret Atwood. It's an excellent read (Though the last chapter's a bit shakey.) Don't be put off Margaret Atwood's reputation as a "liberal", it's a good historical survey of attitudes towards debt. Interestingly it was the Protestant Reformation that allowed Christians to become involved in openly charging interest in the first place. Christians weren't allowed to do it in Medieval and Renaissance, Europe. ( Admittedly some groups like the Knights Templar got around this by charging "rent" for the money they lent.)

In regards to the current monetary system being based on debt, seems to me, once we got away from bartering with actual goods, the whole system became an illusion anyways. In times of crisis, gold is a pretty useless material. Can't eat it, can't wear it, can't fashion a plough from it. The only reason it has value at is through social construct.

Ivnriniel- I agree about the Reagan and Bushes but certainly do not see it as a politically conservative or liberal issue, it continues on today with Obama. The Clinton administration was interesting in that the executive branch and legislative branch of our gov't seemed so set against each other that nothing was able to be accomplished... and lo, gov't accomplished nothing and the nation seemed to prosper. Politically I tend to be a third party guy and struggle to agree with the platforms of either major party.

I would love to read that book, and I did like Money as Debt, unfortunately, and I am sure you are in the same position, I cannot even begin to read most of the books suggested to me. I will lay off of the econ books for now (took some econ in college 10 years ago, but nothing since.) Right now I am trying to self educate NT Greek with the help of some text books and software... takes up most of my reading time at this point!

I appreciated your response very much... if you can, post a link to your info about the protestant reformation allowing the charging of interest, I have not come across that and would be interested to read it.

Blessings,
Jay

I'd never heard about the Protestant Reformation allowing interest before I read it in Payback either. Unfortunately I don't have the book handy at the moment. I did find this reference online though:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dG2bN0WSIUUC&p...

I hope discus doesn't choke on that link, it's full of funky characters.

Link worked fine, I will check it out. Thank you.

Amen! It is certainly much harder to turn around the record budget deficits that Obama inherited from Bush Jr than it was for Bush Jr to turn around the record budget surpluses he inherited from Clinton.

quote: "the vast majority of US debt is the responsibility of the Regan,
Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. adminstrations"

But there's more to the story. It's not about Dems vs. Repubs, or my
favorite president vs. yours. When I look at them, I don't see Repubs
and Dems; I just see politicians...a few are doing a good job, but the
vast majority are blood sucking parasites. When the Republicans were
the majority, they could never have commanded enough votes to do the
things they did without the help of the Dems. And when the Dems were
the majority...same story. The bipartisanship is a distraction to keep
us from noticing more important issues. They squabble over smaller
issues (and the media focuses on that drama) but on the issues we should
be most concerned about, as citizens, subjects in this growing
dictatorship, there has been little to no debate in congress, and the
media is silent...and so the naive public has no clue. It's been this
way for a long time, regardless of who had the majority.

A basic principle: For the most part, government doesn't solve problems,
but just delays the consequences...until the laws of the universe
prevent further delays.

We all know national debt is bad, saddling future generations with their
parents' debt. In this area, Obama has certainly done more damage to
this nation than any other president in such a short period of time, but
that's not to say the Repubs haven't done substantial damage as well.
To say one is worse than the other is immaterial.

But this is only part of the story. We've gotta reeducate ourselves as
to the nature of money and banking. This is something the
constitutional framers were intimately familiar with, and it played a
large part in why they set things up the way they did. Once you
understand this, things start to come into focus.

Why does congress occasionally talk about the national debt (during
election season) but end up doing nothing about it? Why have banks been
so willing to lend to those who are most likely to default? And here's
the big one...why all the war? If you read enough quotes from American
presidents back through history, you may start to see it, since many of
them gave dire warnings, all pointing to the same thing...which is very
different from the spin doctors' stories.

So what's my point? Obama is playing his role in this still growing
leviathan to a T. People SHOULD be getting in his face, making him
sweat a little, even if their comments are little uneducated. But
again, I don't really think this will make a difference in his actions.

I have read speeches where President Obama addresses the core principles behind getting a good education, namely, work hard and pay attention. I think he will try to encourage our students to take their studies more seriously. That is all. Personally I would like my second grade class to watch it.