After reading Obama speech it's safe to say the parents protesting it lack the reading comprehension

[wndycty]

. . .necessary to understand what he is saying.

[msans]

1. someone should

Call cps

[Peacetrain]

2. That might be the greatest understatement ever made.

:thumbsup:

[Catshrink]

3. I hope that the RW talking heads who protested this will take a hit in their ratings.

I hope it destroys a little credibility of Rush, Beckerhead, O'Really, Hannity, and the other nut jobs in the alleged minds of those who take the time to read this. Oh, silly me. Those that listen the ass clowns don't read -- they let the ass clowns digest the news for them. That's why they have the Stoopid.

[murray hill farm]

4. They will be all over it by the end of the day!

Hovering over every word of it....and finding secret code phrases hidden it it, etc. It will be their proof that they were right all along. How will they do this? Who knows, but they will twist and torture that speech until it is warped into whatever they want it to be.

[Catshrink]

5. Sigh. You're probably right.

Study hard = get indoctrinated

Respect your teachers = Obey the Librul masters

Growing up in Indonesia = Obama hates America

Yeah, I see where this will go.

[question everything]

14. Wouldn't it be nice if students will be able to find Indonesia

on the globe? And several other countries?

Yes, un American. Now they will even ask why, when only this country and Canada compete in baseball, why it is called "the world Series."


:banghead:

[LWolf]

6. Parents aren't protesting the content of the speech.

They are protesting the suggested use of the speech in the classroom, which encouraged children to support the President's work. That's political, and inappropriate for a public school classroom.

We sure as hell wouldn't have stayed quiet if teachers had been given "activities" encouraging their students to support GWB.

That "activity" was subsequently removed, of course, but the damage was done, and the fire lit.

It's not about the speech. It's about what parents believe will be done with the speech.

[Cass]

7. The classroom activities were removed and they still oppose it so what does that tell you?

I live in a deeply red area and, not surprisingly, my district is not showing the speech. They say they will tape it to look for "negative connotations" and "political bias" and determine if it meets state education standards, then perhaps make it available at some unspecified later date as an educational resource if it passes muster. The school board member who responded to my email about this says it is his firm belief the speech will never be made available in our district after their review.

This has nothing to do with any suggested lesson plans or classroom activities.

[LWolf]

15. It tells me a couple of things.

One, that removal of the activities didn't remove the taint, because the political association had already been made

and two, that we handed a weapon to the right-wing media, and they are still gleefully hammering it.

We know what the parents are saying when they call, because they are calling us.

I live and teach in a deeply red area, and our district has left it up to our discretion. Yes, we will view first and then decide, but we would have done that anyway. That's the professional way to handle it.

Even if we wanted to show it live, of course, we can't. It will be over by the time our kids walk through the doors. We have a late start, and are on the west coast.

[Cass]

35. Actually I'd like to see those lesson plans for myself.

I keep hearing from right wingers how politically offensive the activities were and yet I have heard or seen nothing anywhere to back up that assertion.

Out of curiosity, do you think the districts who have chosen to show the speech live are handling this in an unprofessional manner? I only ask because of this comment...

Yes, we will view first and then decide, but we would have done that anyway. That's the professional way to handle it.

[LWolf]

38. Not with a transcript.

Since the transcript was posted, we can read it ahead of time.

Then a live showing, when possible, is appropriate. It may not work for everyone on the east coast, since school lunch schedules wait for no president.

It won't work in elementary schools in my district on the west coast, since our late start means we'll just be getting into the classroom for the first time, with new students that we don't know, as the speech is ending.

All of the activities didn't come down; just those that encouraged students to "support the president."

Of course, just because those activities appear on the DOE's website doesn't mean that teachers will use them.

Their appearance simply made an opportunity for the right to turn the whole thing into a controversy.

To be clear: the speech is an opportunity, not a mandate. How it gets handled in each district depends on how that district manages itself. In very authoritarian, top-down districts, they may mandate or ban the showing of the speech, or they may preview and then approve who can see it and what can be done with it.

In less authoritarian districts, those kinds of decisions will be made at the site level; in some cases by principals, and in others by individual teachers. My district passes those decisions to school sites, and most of our school sites leave it up to teachers to decide if it fits and has an appropriate place in their room. Only when there is a big public fallout will they step in to mandate anything. In this case, at my school, we couldn't stream it live, anyway, because of the time it will be aired. It would have to be taped for later.

It's rare that a district could madate that every classroom tune into something live. Even if there were a computer and projector in the cafeteria for those at lunch, to be sure that it was aired to every student, it wouldn't work. Our servers just won't stand up to that kind of traffic.

When the political heat is flying, though, people tend to forget about all those practicalities.

[Cass]

47. Ok, thanks for the clarification on your comment.

As for the suggested lesson plans, when taken in context with the speech, they are pretty innocuous. I could see why someone who dislikes or disagrees with the president would question the bit about helping the president without having had an opportunity to have seen the speech. Once the content of the speech is known, though, it becomes clear the activity is pretty harmless...it was poorly phrased, to be sure, but I wouldn't characterize it as being political.

I agree with you that the right will seize on the slightest thing and make mountains out of molehills and that's what happened here.

This speech is definitely one that I want my child to hear. It is quite inspiring.

[ctaylors6]

41. Link to original version of "Menu of Classroom Activities"

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama

I think what other posters have referred to is the following activity:
"Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."

[Cass]

45. Thank you for that link! nt

[Hansel]

63. zzzzz.....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. They're protesting an uppity black guy being an authority figure.

It's not about the speech, it's about skin color.

[Critters2]

10. +1 nt

[LWolf]

17. I'm sure it is to some.

That broad brush you are using is not accurate, though.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Good luck finding any that isn't a racist.

[LWolf]

21. I already have.

It isn't hard, if you know the community you serve.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

26. Of course, you would know that,

having spent the 10-12 hours a day at school for the last two weeks right along side me.

:sarcasm:

Either that, or your are calling me a liar.

Which is it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Guess

[LWolf]

30. No, please. Be blunt.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goodgd_yall]

67. Amen n/t

[countingbluecars]

11. Don't kid yourself.

Even if no follow up activities had been suggested, they would still be protesting the speech. It IS about the speech and who is giving it.

[LWolf]

18. For some, it would be.

Frankly, I wouldn't have been comfortable to have my granson's teacher showing GWB's speeches, either, in his primary classrooms.

That's not what set them off, though, and that's not the reasoning they are using to protest.

They actually have valid grounds for protest, and the WH gave it to them.

[countingbluecars]

27. What are their valid grounds

for protest?

[LWolf]

31. Here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/02/wh-withdraws-call-students-help-obama/

[countingbluecars]

33. Please explain what is wrong with those

activities following a speech about the value of education. I don't buy the right wing spin being put on those activities.

[LWolf]

34. Quite clearly, it's

...a government recommendation that teachers nationwide assign students a paper on how to "help the president."

Teachers asking students to support a politician is unethical.

Suggesting to students that they should "help the president" is inappropriate. I sure as hell wouldn't have tolerated a teacher suggesting to my grandson that he ought to "help" George W. Bush.

Classrooms are politically neutral. We can encourage, and moderate, debate, but we don't campaign for politicians.

The speech is not political. It's a great speech, and a public service. Attaching a political spin to the activities is what sparked the protest, and removing them from the site doesn't make public suspicions go away.

That suggestion was a major fuck-up on the part of the WH. It gave the right wing a weapon to use against what should have been a great, and unifying, speech.

[countingbluecars]

36. I still don't buy it.

He is not campaigning. He is the democratically elected President of the United States. There is nothing political in his speech, so I see no problem with the follow up assignment.

[LWolf]

39. That's disingenuous, to say the least.

Politicians are always campaigning. Always. Whether it is election season or not, or whether they are campaigning for votes to elect them or for support for their political agenda.

To pretend that politicians aren't trying to garner support when they give speeches isn't just disingenuous. It's ludicrous.

That said, tomorrow's speech is great, and could have been a public service. It's the political connotation of those "activities" that gave the rw a weapon to taint the whole thing.

[countingbluecars]

42. So you really believe

that President Obama is trying to get votes with this speech? I don't. I think he is trying to inspire young people, and especially minority youth, to get an education and be successful in life. You know that the public school system has failed many minority students. Here we have the ultimate role model in President Obama. Imagine the pride in sitting and watching this man speak to you and your classmates. For me, this outweighs any petty complaints by misinformed parents. I have enjoyed your posts on education in the past. But I wonder about your motivation now in defending right wing parents.

[LWolf]

44. No. That's not what I said.

I said it was a great speech. I will probably use it this or next week, because it is appropriate to what we'll be doing, and because it is an important message. "Probably" because I'll test the waters first. If too many of my families will keep their kids home, that defeats the purpose and MAKES it political. It doesn't help further the education of my students to start the year with a political battle between teacher and home. I build relationships to reach students. I don't bury them before they even get started.

I also said that it was the suggested "support" that made it political, not the speech itself. I wouldn't have suggested that my students "support" GWB's policies any more than I'd suggest that they support Obama's. Because I teach older students, I WILL allow them to appropriately debate the content of the speech, and to connect it to the civics unit under study.

[treestar]

22. There is nothing that can be done with that speech

that does anything poltical.

It is inspirational, that's all.

[LWolf]

23. I agree that it is inspirational.

That "there is nothing that can be done with that speech that is political" is simply false. The classroom activities posted by the WH included some that were political. That's what STARTED the protests, and that's why those activities were removed from the site.

That doesn't mean we all don't remember them.

[treestar]

24. Looked at those too and didn't see anything

Nothing at all but trying to get them to think about the speech content.

[LWolf]

29. That's because they pulled the original activities.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/02/wh-withdraws-call-students-help-obama/

[incapsulated]

51. One line. One.

"How can you help your President".

Which was kind of stupid to begin with since he isn't asking for any help in the speech, he is asking them to help themselves.

[LWolf]

54. You're right.

It wasn't much; a little more than one line, since they were supposed to write a letter to themselves about how to help the president, setting goals, and then revisit the letter later to see if they met those goals.

It WAS stupid to begin with. Stupid because it doesn't support the speech, and stupid because it gave the right the weapon to diminish what looks to be a great speech, and a vitally important message.

[billh58]

43. The very vocal

rabid-religious-right, and the followers of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the Rovian neoconservative racists are indeed protesting the speaker, and not the speech -- or anything published by the Department of Education. They are not concerned with anything but denigrating the uppity "n----r" that has the audacity to advise their white kids to rise above racism and hatred by obtaining a liberal education.

There are those who believe that their "rights" are somehow being violated by a call to "support our president," and that may have been a little over the top. The shoe should have been on the other foot, with a call for the nation to support our children as they establish their educational goals -- which is REALLY the gist of President Obama's speech, and was the honest intent of the original language: tell ME what I can do, to help YOU.

Whether the speech is shown live in the nation's classrooms, or not, 99% of our school-children WILL get the message -- even those in the racist and bigoted households and families of Orange, Fresno, and Kern Counties.

[chocolate ink]

46. Kern County..

All to often I feel like a fish out of water living as I do in Kern County..one of the reddest parts of California.

[billh58]

48. I've heard it said

that the first word a rednecked baby learns, is "Bakersfield..."

[LWolf]

57. I lived just south of Kern County for 25 years.

While I'm 1000 miles away, I'm still in a predominantly red area.

It's part of what made me a "lone wolf," lol.

[LWolf]

56. I agree with you about the gist of the speech.

I think it's a great speech, and I'm sorry that this whole thing has degraded into a political battle. It is a public service announcement, and should have been, and be, treated like that.

I don't spend my time listening to talk shows, tv or radio, rw or not, if I can help it. I did have to listen to a few hours of Glen Beck this week; our school custodian is a big fan, and was playing it while he did some repairs in the hallway outside my room. I was basically tuning it out, but I did tune in when I heard the speech mentioned. Beck made a big point of, not the speech, but the suggestions from teachers to "support the president."

If those words hadn't appeared on a WH website about the speech, either the rw would have had to be honest about their opposition, or it wouldn't have packed nearly the same punch.

And, like Beck, when our parents were calling in, or stopping in, they were afraid that the speech would call for their kids to support the president. A logical conclusion, since that's what the activity asked them to do. The activity should have called for them to set goals for themselves for the year, which would be appropriate for every class at every grade level, and is the logical extension of the speech.

Of course, now that the transcript has been released, we know better. Too late to point that out to parents, though. It would have been good to have on hand last week. We might have defused a lot of the anger. We would have had time to separate the speech from the activity, point out that the WH pulled that suggestion, and that we weren't going to use it anyway.

Our school children will get the message whether they ever see or hear the speech, because it simply reinforces and backs up what every school in the nation will be saying to them the first week, anyway. The speech itself, though...is likely to go down in history with a taint.

And that's disappointing, to say the least.

[incapsulated]

53. Your naivety is touching

But no excuse for your obvious blindness to the right wing whipping up a fury over ANYTHING HE DOES.

[LWolf]

55. It's not naivety. It's first-hand, on the ground knowledge.

Since I live in, and TEACH in, a red area. My neighbors, colleagues, the community, my students and their parents, are all talking. I'm listening.

I know what they are saying, and what their concerns are.

I know that the right wing is enjoying whipping up a fury over ANYTHING HE DOES. For the most part, I don't really care. That's not "blindness." That's lack of concern. From the left, I'm furious enough myself. I DO come out in support of anything he does that I think is worthy of my support. I think the speech is good, for example. I support it. That doesn't mean I don't recognize the WH fuck-up that gave the right wing the weapon to degrade the whole thing.

In this case, my community is not in an uproar about "the speech." They are in an uproar about "promoting his agenda." And they got that from the media frenzy over the lessons about "how you can support the president."

[billh58]

58. And there was

a time in this country, when "supporting your president" was considered a good thing, and still allowed us to civilly disagree with the person. There was also a time when Republicans and Democrats agreed to disagree, and were friends and neighbors all the same. Of course, there was also rampant racism back then as well -- but we recognized it, and began to do something about it.

With the advent of neoconservative hate-mongers like Ronny Raygun, Grover Norquist, and Newt Gingrich, that America slowly dissolved and crumbled to the point where we just don't trust each other anymore -- especially our elected politicians. Now, in addition to lingering racism and religious bigotry, we have added divisive political bigotry and distrust to the mix, which tends to add more fuel to the other two very visible American anti-social evils.

On the other hand, I am extremely grateful that I have lived long enough to see my fellow Americans foster a moment in time, where hope for the future of our young experiment in Democracy remains positive and bright, as evidenced by the election of President Obama. It is now up to our children to continue to prove that liberal education is the main enemy of fear, hatred, and bigotry.

[LWolf]

62. I agree with that.

All of it, even though, as a leftist, I'm not a fan of Barack Obama.

Of course, I was there to see the Reagan revolution, and everything that has grown out of that. I was a kid in CA when he was governor, and just beginning to vote when he was elected.

My neighbors, and colleagues, and, for the most part, the families of the students I teach, still "agree to disagree." There is much more distrust now than when I was growing up, of course. Ronny, the president who wanted to abolish the Dept. of Education, helped move the anti-school and anti-teacher propaganda forward, and to create the distrust that cripples our school system, and cripples public discourse across the nation.

One of my first priorities is to build relationships with the families I serve. If I don't, if the distrust remains, the student and I are hobbled in our efforts to work together.

One way that I do that is by ensuring that there is never any question, EVER, that I will bring my own politics and religion to the mix.

That time you refer to, when people "agreed to disagree?" That was also the time when courtesy left politics and religion off the menu for polite discourse. Those were private. I think there is a connection.

Liberal education has been under fire since the Reagan era. The Obama administration is moving forward harder, and faster, against liberal education, against PUBLIC education, than even GWB did.

Still, his speech is not political. It's a vital, necessary message no matter your politics or religion.

I know that. It grieves me to begin the year with the political tension ready to explode in our classrooms and schools. I don't pretend that it isn't real, though, and I'm not going to go to war with my parents. In order to get their children to think critically, to think independently, I have to establish trust, first. That some don't trust that I won't be pushing them to "support Obama," well that is a sorry way to begin the year.

I hope that we'll be able to view and listen and discuss the speech at some point in the next couple of weeks.

I won't turn my classroom into a battle ground with parents to make a political point, though. That would be unprofessional.

[billh58]

65. I wasn't aware

that the Obama administration was moving against liberal education, but I am not involved with the educational arena, and therefore don't have an argument against that assertion. I can only assume that you are talking about NCLB and testing, which as I understand it was never a well thought-out program from its inception.

I know that we will never agree on everything, and I applaud your dedication to your profession. I do recall, however, a teacher once telling me that he considered the students his "customers," and not their parents. This was when I attended a private military boarding school, a very long time ago. This was the same teacher who opened my eyes to the merits of Liberalism, while my parents were stalwart Republicans. He allowed me to learn how to make a difference, whereas my parents might have stunted my moral growth. I didn't stick around long enough to give them the chance...

[LWolf]

69. Look no further than Arne Duncan to determine the direction

the Obama administration has taken. You can do a search right here on DU to learn more.

I do serve my families. They aren't my "customers" because I'm not a business. I'm a public service. I serve them. I serve families, because we are part of the process. What happens at home is just as critical to success at school as what happens at school. Parents, students, teachers...all legs on one stool. Take away one of the legs and the stool falls.

We achieve more working together as a team than we do working as opponents. So I include them. That kind of relationship building is why I will be able to show the speech in a rural, hard-right area without much controversy. It's also why I'll wait to show it until it directly connects to something we are already exploring.

[billh58]

70. And I agree

with any approach, including yours, which accomplishes a liberal education for our children. I was merely relating a personal life-shaping experience (in a private school) to illustrate that one size does not fit all, and that not ALL parents are "good" parents who would allow their children room to explore and grow. I also realize that today's public school class size does not allow the one-on-one personal interest that teachers once had the luxury of engaging in.

The term "customers" can also apply to those who receive tax-payer funded benefits from non-profit government agencies, and is freely used in public agency mission statements, action plans, and employee manuals around the nation. I have used many of them as models when preparing business plans, Six Sigma outlines, and Balanced Scorecard templates, for my clients. The point that the parents are the taxpayers, and therefore are the actual "customers" is well taken -- from a very Conservative point-of-view.

I do not disagree with your methods of working with local families, and as I said before, I admire your dedication to your profession. I just feel that it is a shame that a parental legacy of intolerance, hatred, and bigotry (where it exists) must be tolerated by public "servants," rather than being opposed by reason and logic. The Scopes trial comes to mind. This is a personal opinion, and please don't take offense, as it is not aimed at you (or your community) specifically, but at the social metamorphosis and division that our nation is undergoing.

As for Arne Duncan, and the Charter-, Magnet-, ???-school dustup, I really have no arguments for, or against those proposals. I have seen logical arguments for both sides of the issue(s), and my belief is that there has never been enough effort put into designing "tests" which truly measure student comprehension (as opposed to memorization and rote). It also appears that there is a certain amount of pedantic hair-splitting in play concerning the intent and the "language" of some of Duncan's and President Obama's proposals -- from both sides. The bottom line is that our current educational system is failing our society at an ever-increasing rate, and past attempts to "fix it," have not produced much.

[LWolf]

71. Those are all good thoughts.

One of the reasons I would like public schools to be universally small, and class sizes to be universally small is because it is easier to establish those relationships and work with parents.

It's easier to get parent buy-in, or just tolerance, for things that would have them up in arms when they've gotten to know you, to know that you care for their kids and are looking out for their best interests. Then, when there is a concern, parents come to teachers, the concerns are aired and addressed as a team, rather than as enemies. It's healthier all the way around.

It also leads to more openness on the part of parents, which allows for more openness in the classroom and in the minds of students.

That's the most effective way I know of overcoming intolerance, hatred, and bigotry of all kinds. More effective than confrontation and force, which just leads to increased resistance. More effective than canned "curriculums" and "lessons" about tolerance. It's "being the change" for those parents.

One of the best structures I've ever taught in is the International Baccalaureate's "Primary Years Program," which has a huge focus on thinking, on cooperation, on respect, on tolerance, on caring, on being a reflective and well-balanced person. It's not a "curriculum;" each school writes their own curriculum. But those things are embedded into everything a classroom does, and those terms are used explicitly every day.

And that's how people learn things. I'd like to see those things embedded in every school across the nation in a more thorough way.

:hi:

[billh58]

72. Thanks for your

thoughts, and I totally agree with the principals embedded in the Primary Years Program. Critical thinking skills and civility are so very important to a well-rounded, and Liberal education.

Just out of curiosity, in your estimation what percentage of parents actually care enough to become involved in their children's education on a continuing basis, as opposed to those who view public school as a taxpayer-funded "baby-sitting service?" Of the latter group, what percentage only become involved because of political or religious issues?

[LWolf]

74. I couldn't give you statistics,

since the numbers that reflect the schools I've worked at don't include ALL schools.

But I can give you a rough idea for just the schools I've worked at.

Generally, parents are more involved at the primary level, and become less and less involved as students get older.

When I taught primary grades, I would estimate that about 25% of my parents were actively involved and often present at school. Another 50% or so were involved and supportive, but didn't spend much time at school due to their work schedules. We emailed and talked on the phone so that they could keep up with what was going on.

That last 25%? I didn't hear from them much. Some of those were the "baby-sitting service" parents; some just didn't want to be involved; the "education is YOUR job" people.

Teaching middle school, I still have involved parents. Not as many spend much time at school; maybe 10-15%. Maybe 2/3 are actively involved in that they stay in communication and work with me as a team to help keep their students on track and successful. More are willing to talk if there is a problem. Maybe 10% don't want to hear anything from school, or don't want to work with their teachers.
That's a rough estimate, of course.

I'm currently teaching in a rural, red area. I have families that are Democrats, libertarians, and Republicans. Most of my families are christians, and many are fundamental christians. Politics and religion don't play a large part in family concerns. I usually have 1 or 2 parents each year that are eager to donate christian materials, and a few who will restrict what books their kids can read. I rarely get a political comment from a parent. We DO, though, have one family, 3 kids at our school, and 2 of them in my classes, that will make political statements. They made sure their kids all wore McCain/Palin buttons throughout the campaign last fall, and they bought their 3rd grade son his first gun for xmas; he was worried because "the Democrats are coming." They considered moving to Alaska after the inauguration, but it didn't happen.

We haven't had people marching on our school to make religious or political protests or demands. Our school got ONE call about the speech, for example.

The differences, though, in small schools that welcome parent involvement, where everybody knows everybody else, and large industrial-sized schools that are more impersonal, are marked.

[billh58]

75. Thanks again

for the response, and best wishes to you and your students for the coming school year.

[incapsulated]

66. So, I'm just imagining all the crying about socialist programming?

I didn't hear all that?

I didn't hear the words "indoctrinating" and "brainwashing" and "socialist doctrine" and he is worse than Hitler?

I actually watch news not related to NYC.

It's all about your personal experience?

[LWolf]

68. It's all about what is really happening

at school districts and schools, not about how your tv or radio might have spun it.

We have heard a little of that. It's not the majority, though, and when we are guaging public reaction, we are looking for what most of our public is saying, not what the extremists are saying. Unlike the media, who thrive on extreme sound bites.

I obviously am not at schools across the nation, so I can't speak for all.

I AM in contact with other teachers across the nation, who ARE at actual schools and districts in person, though.

[MadMaddie]

61. Umm those same parents had no problems with the following

speeches.

Reagan
<snip>
Ronald Reagan took questions from high school students at the White House in 1986, and the question-and-answer session was broadcast nationally.

Reagan urged the students to stay in school and say no to drugs, but he also discussed overtly political matters, such as national defense funding, nuclear disarmament and -- in suprising policy detail -- taxes. (Read Reagan's complete remarks.)http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/51386d.htm

"When we came into office, the top personal tax rate that the federal government could put on your income was 70 percent," Reagan said in his opening remarks. "Now, you can understand, I think, that if you were getting up in those brackets -- there were 14 different tax brackets, depending on the amount of money in each bracket you earned. And when you could look and say, 'If I earn another dollar, I only get to keep 30 cents out of it,' you can imagine the lack of incentive there. Well, we lowered it to 50 percent, and the economy really took off."


H. *
<snip>
President George H.W. Bush gave an address to schools nationwide in 1991, from a junior high school in Washington, D.C. News reports from the time said the White House hoped that the address would be shown at schools nationwide, and Bush began his remarks by saying he was talking to "millions" of students "in classrooms all across the country."

H* complete remarks via the Web site of his presidential library. Here's an excerpt:http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450&year=1991&month=10

<snip>

Junior

"My Pet Duck" nuff said....

[LWolf]

64. They weren't parents then.

So of course they weren't complaining about speeches in schools. :eyes:

Taking questions from high school students is not exactly the same thing as suggesting that primary students "support the president," which is the core of the protests.

I was teaching in a red area in 1991, and none of our local districts were making a big deal, either way, of George I's speech, either.

Of course, we didn't have the kind of technology to broadcast it to everyone at school then. A few school sites who had cable feeds showed it to a few classes who could fit in the rooms with the cable feeds. :shrug:

[fadedrose]

8. I still say that inbreeding is the greatest problem in the nation..

these people all intermarry because nobody is good enough for them....Check their hands and I bet they all have more than 5 fingers on each hand..

(just kidding, please no flaming)

[grantcart]

12. anybody have a link to the thread with the speech?

[wndycty]

13. Here you go

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

[Rosco T.]

37. Oh brother.. here comes the latest meme... this isn't the speech he was going to give..

It's been rewritten and all the original copies were destroyed!

[DesertRat]

16. It's a wonderfully inspiring speech!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

[TheCoxwain]

19. They should start working on their spellings first ....

[BlooInBloo]

40. Durr. Americans are mean, stupid, and bigoted.

[depakid]

49. And PROUDLY so....

[BlooInBloo]

50. So proud, so proud. Always so proud of being stupid.

Sigh.

[polichick]

52. The only ones complaining are the paranoid "stupid is cool" types. nt

[Lilyeye]

59. I think some of these people are just downright stupid

Case in point,

I used to read the Presiden't board on IMDB, until the trolls took over. I went back to see if any of the better people were still there and found this ridiculous post from a repuke lol

"To a 5 year old, the President is a stranger. Do you want your 5 year old to listen to a stranger or to you? Do you want your 5 year old to have greater allegiance to the President? or to you - the mom/dad?

That is what I have a problem with. I don't want ANYBODY to by-pass ME and have access to my child. I don't care if they're Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama!

Don't tell my kid he has a responsibility to make the country proud when he doesn't have the proper tools to learn. And who's responsibility is that? My 5 year old's????!!!!

Or the President's?"

http://www.imdb.com

[and-justice-for-all]

60. To many big words...

well, just to many words actually..

[lexifuzz]

73. Dear Mr President

I am writing a book called Dear Mr. President....
I need your storied on how he has either postively or negitively affected your life. This isn't to bash him or praise him, its just to gather other people stories and out them in writing and out into the world. No real names will be used and no information will be given out. It will be all in your own words. Please send me your sotries, ther is no limit on how short or how long it can be. Send them to [e-mail]
Thanks