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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For clarification, I said it “smacks of fascism.” I suppose a little too close for comfort. I'm not against all forms of governance, either.

That is exactly what I have been thinking. The right wing spent 9 years trying to destroy the Clinton presidency. (They started before he was actually elected, as I recall.) They did it mostly through the courts. This time they are using the internet and their own media to whip up their base into a screaming frenzy at every little thing. Apparently the right wing will never tolerate losing a presidential election.

Jane