I thought his speech was great. It’s didn’t drive any political philosophies into anyone. I know a few troubled kids who could have really benefited from it.

Absolutely. The “I Pledge” celebrity video that was shown in a Utah school last week is another example of the direction this Administration is slyly attempting to go. The president is OUR public servant, and not the other way around.

Any man who underestimates the importance of the American teacher in world affairs is misleading himself. Under our system, high governmental policy expresses the considered will of the people, and the will of the people in the last analysis, is compounded out of the convictions, the idealisms, the purposes fostered in the classrooms of the nation’s schools. What you teach is what the country does.

This was in a speech he gave to Columbia University in 1950.

Education has been a political tool since it became compulsory.

I figured you would raise this objection,……

The Hitler Youth is only the most obvious example. Do more research.

It is a valid example. I do realize you are not deliberately trying to capitalize on negative emotional associations with NAZI’s and Hitler.

The problems are essentially the level of corporate influence over our discourse, the inability of people to discuss an issue on its own terms rather than just making up nonsense (because they’re politically motivated and nothing else) and the media’s tendency to think that all opinions have equal value and to report lies as news without context. That said, I tend to value intelligence and reason even if I disagree ideologically with the speaker, which is why I still respect Obama on the now-rare occasion he sticks to his principles, while I think Sarah Palin’s rise to the public view is a symptom of our shallow sickness.

In fact, I think we might actually be in agreement regarding the insincerity of most on this issue. I give more credence to a Paul or a Barr’s opinion on this issue since their analysis comes from true beliefs, though I trust the opinions of the new wave of faux-libertarians about as much as I trust their unbiased, calmheaded views of Mustardgate or Barry’s “Kenyan” origins.

The flippant implication is that Darwinism and religion are incompatible.

It’s not that they are incompatible, it’s just that they often stand as polar opposites. Some theories reconcile the two (and I fall somewhere in the middle, believing that God used natural processes to bring about the world’s creation), but largely you have religious people leaning towards one end, and Darwinists leaning towards the other. It was more a commentary on what I believe usually happens, then what I think is historically correct.

Josh,

In my opinion you should Remove the first paragraph of this post in order to avoid playing the NAZI card…….

I figured you would raise this objection, since it’s one you’ve raised before. While the Nazi card can indeed be used to make extreme comparisons between two people/groups, I think that it is likewise an extreme to argue that the comparison can never be made unless the person/group is the same in every way to Hitler (e.g. that innocent people are being slaughtered).

Hitler did not rise to the scene as an oppressive dictator. He achieved power through promises, subversion, and flattery. To refuse any comparisons to these tactics with modern day examples is to open the door for and excuse the same tyrannical actions in the future, even though a modern dictator’s path may turn out to be different in many ways.

In short, there is definitely a comparison here (the one I made) that is fully justified by historical precedent and modern example.

Clumpy,

I predict that Obama’s speech will have NO negative or propagandist effects upon our nation’s children, and has NO malicious or misleading intentions behind it.

Just as it would be hard for me to demonstrate what effect this speech had five years from now as these children mature into adults, so too would it be impossible for you to demonstrate that it did not have any effect. Thus, we are chiefly left with an opportunity to discuss the propriety of such an event taking place at all.

You state that the opposition might largely be to justify our own political preferences, and that it’s hypocritical to oppose Obama while not having done so with previous presidents. But this is different for each person. While others’ motivation may be partisan in nature, mine is not. So long as it’s a President speaking directly to the children of the nation, I oppose it. Why? See here.

LM,

I realize that it has been removed due to the controversy, but without the controversy it would still be there. It just goes along with that creepy Demi/Ashton video “I pledge”.

Agreed. So often with political actions we are prone to look at them free of any context or broader perspective. This isn’t about the (largely innocuous) speech Obama will be giving, but rather about the fact that he’s giving a speech to public school children at all. This is not a decision that was made just because Obama thinks it’ll be fun; he’s a man who is short on time and has plenty of people vying for his attention. If he’s doing this, he’s doing it for a very specific reason.

Our focus should not be on the President, but on the republic and its health, not on furthering any presidents agenda.

I can imagine a president with views similar to Ron Paul, speaking to the children and having them write letters committing themselves to helping further the principles of freedom and personal responsibility, or to commit to learning about and supporting the US Constitution. These are acceptable to me, supporting the president is not.

Nevertheless, in all seriousness and without sarcasm or negativity, I predict that Obama’s speech will have NO negative or propagandist effects upon our nation’s children, and has NO malicious or misleading intentions behind it. As somebody who watched Bill Clinton’s inauguration in first grade, was excited to receive certificates of fitness “signed” by him and still respects presidents I found extremely damaging as individuals I would have been enthralled as a youth to hear him speak on something he found important for me.

President Obama adds to the mix a moral authority that comes from being the first president in ages to rise into the power structure rather than from it, and an intelligence and sincerity that gives his message weight. The message itself should be uncontroversial, and the mere idea of children seeing it should not send us into hystrionics or turn into a wider issue.

Again, a broad constitutional argument can be made regarding the government’s scope of authority, though I suspect many if not most of the most fervent complainers on this issue are motivated by traditional partisan bickery, fear and, yes, even those old boogeymen left-wingers keep citing in this presidency – closed-mindedness and unconscious racism. Have we changed as a nation since Bush Sr. did two of these school “firesides” and Nancy Reagan told schoolchildren to “Just Say No” or are we just determined to turn every little frickin’ innocuous gaffe or event into another opportunity to feed our paralyzing need to feel indignant and justify our own fences?

Sorry, it’s just a huge pet peeve of mine.

Now, sans sarcasm, children are already indoctrinated with the message that all of the big, strong adults around them have a special moral and intellectual authority that they lack. And, as somebody who watched countless hours of Channel One News as a kid and attended assemblies financed by Wilson and Pepsi, commercial indoctrination is ubiquitous. The type of reading comprehension exercise these kids were given is innocuous – they have little political power or understanding of political in-games.

Connor makes a valid spheres-of-authority argument, though, as usual, most people are missing the point.

And you’re teaching them values, ideas, and facts that you believe to be true. Christian parents do the same. You may hold yourself up high on a pedestal because you urge your children to challenge what you teach them, but this by no means implies that I cannot and do not do the same. We all pass on to our children (yes, our children) information that we consider to be truthful; how well each parent does at inspiring that child to get his/her own confirmation of that truth is, of course, different for each parent.

White House officials say Obama’s telecast will be the first speech by a sitting president to stress academic achievement since 1991, when President George H. W. Bush spoke to students from Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C.

Democrats, of course, sang a far different tune when a Republican was preparing to address the nation’s school children.

Then-House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Missouri) said, “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the President.”

To be clear, the Department of Education is only a tool of indoctrination when the Secretary of Education answers to a Republican President. When students are instructed to “help the president” and no doubt support his anemic legislative agenda, it’s a teaching experience – namely the lesson of political double standards.