The President has no business addressing your child in his school because it is not his job. The president's job is to run the administration. There is nothing in the president's job description about dashing around the country fundraising, speaking in schools, or interfering with a police investigation in Massachusetts.
It is not his job.
The president's message is one of "personal responsibility." Ok, whose responsibility is it to raise the children? Why does President Obama want to usurp that responsibility? Aren't we giving the children conflicting messages about who is the child-rearing authority?
Speaking of personal responsibility, how about Van what's his name, who President Obama appointed as a close advisor position. Did he take personal responsibility for his actions? Or, did he blame his loss of a cushy job as the powerful Green Czar on lies invented by the radical right? Do the people President Obama selects to advise him exhibit personal responsibility to pay their taxes? Since as Biden says, it is patriotic to pay your taxes, what should we now conclude about personal responsibility, patriotism and President Obama? Just on that basis alone I would object to the president speaking about 'personal responsibility' to our children.
But more importantly, It Isn't The Presidents Job To Lecture Our Children.
The blogosphere and the so-called Main Stream Media are abuzz with talk of 'was the message right?' and 'who can object to such a positive lesson?' The question is not whether today's message is appropriate for today's children. The question is 'Why does President Obama think it is his job to lecture any child on anything?' Why invite controversy, President Obama, by doing something so clearly out of your job jar and expertise?
We shouldn't even be having this discussion because lecturing our children Is Not In His Job Jar.
I'll also harken to the Hippocratic oath: First do no harm. How many children will call bullshit when they hear the president's say "You can't drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You've got to work for it and train for it and learn for it." Many kids rebel against authority, who is to say the President isn't pushing these kids into dropping into the black market or drug dealing jobs? I say if there is one child that gets pushed into pushing, rebelling against authority, then that is one child too many. Why take the risk?
It isn't the presidents job to instruct our children on any issue.
Those that object on grounds of indoctrination have a point. Even if the whole world agrees that todays speech was the sermon on the mount, then why do we need the teachers to have lesson plans? How much was spent creating and distributing them? President Obama is asking for a dangerous precedent to be established allowing any and all presidents unrestricted access to children at the place of their learning. What if President Bush had asked for the same privilege? Do you think the MSM would have supported it?
It wasn't President Bush's job, either, to lecture our children.
If a middle aged man asked to come to speak with your child at his school, your answer would be an unqualified "Of Course Not! What kind of pervert Are you?" Yes, it would. That is because a 48 y.o. man has no business addressing your child in the classroom, unless he has teaching credentials, passed the background check, went through the substitute teacher wringer, etc. I'm pretty sure very few politicians have done any of those things. I know President Obama hasn't. Now, I am sure there are occasional guest speakers at school, although I can only remember a single instance from my own education. That person was invited to the school by the teacher to fulfill the lesson plan.
I don't remember anyone asking the President to give a speech at school. Does ANYONE remember the huddled masses asking "Please President Obama, Please counsel our children, they need your sage advice!?!?" ANYONE remember that? And why is that?
'Cuz it didn't happen, becuase it isn't his flipping job to indoctrinate our children.
Leave teaching to the those that can't do.
4 comments:
I suspect this isn't going to help Obama with the youth vote in 2012.
Obama has an agenda, or he would not be briefing our kids.
I dunno, bob, nominally, I don't have a problem with it as a concept. I think, without paying any attention to what was said, reported about what was said, etc., etc., (i.e., solely based on what I know about Obama) that it's likely it was used as a propaganda mechanism -- and THAT I do strongly object to -- but I don't see a problem with the president speaking to the youth of America in and of itself.
I would not have a problem with a president making a concerted argument, using statistics and rational positions, for kids to refrain from using drugs and to work at their education, for example -- done correctly, it uses the charisma of the power of the presidency to gain the attention of the kids in a way that many teachers cannot match. Done correctly, you could get at least some of the kids to realize what drugs and a lack of education can do to their own future chances.
So I don't have a problem, as long as it's not a president pushing kids to support his own personal policy decisions with their parents, with said president using his "bully pulpit", as TR said, to influence people -- part of the job of the PotUS IS to influence people.
> I suspect this isn't going to help Obama with the youth vote in 2012.
Yeah, but this is more a sop to the NEA and the Dems for 2020 and 2040, if their imperial Chavezenista plans go awry in the meantime.
Sure, no one has a problem with celebrities or powerful people encouraging youth to do great things. However, it isn't their job to do so, which was the point of my article. There are a number of reasons to object to Obama which I did not cover in my article.
1. It is a slippery slope down the path to indoctrination. This year, he talks about stay in school, be cool. Next year, or some year, that message gets old, and he has to freshen it up. He talks about the way the world turns, and pretty soon it is foreign policy (as Reagan did) and then it is domestic policy. Then you will say "well he is the president after all it is his job to push his agenga". I say The presidnet's job isn't to push his agenda, it is to run the administration. He should push OUR agenda. Not his.
2. The president HAS AN AGENDA he is pushing and he is seeking re-election to maintain power. How many of those kids will be voting in the next presidential election? And when they get to the polls, who's name will they remember and identify with, the guy who came to their school, or the old guy who the papers say is a warmonger or whatever? He just got a TON of votes.
No Nicholas, just like it is an easy choice between subsidised medical care and letting someone die in the street, it is an easy choice between letting the president give a message of peace, love and understanding to America's youts.
As I point out elsewhere, if a FORMER president wants to address the kids, no problem. He is just like any other celebrity.
A sitting president, while simultaneously pushing a controversial agena and looking for re-election? no way.
Post a Comment