Why are some people so upset with Obama's speech to the children?

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Malaria experts at the WHO fought against allowing DDT to be used because there are equally effective methods of fighting malaria that do not involve use of carcinogenic/disease-causing DDT.

Now they have allowed DDT under tightly controlled conditions as an alternative method to fight malaria.

"Equally effective methods" that poor African countries could not afford. They have allowed DDT under tightly controlled conditions in part because the countries that need to use it can't afford the vastly more expensive alternatives.

[pfife]

I had absolutely no clue DDT was such a political issue!

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by pfife

I had absolutely no clue DDT was such a political issue!

[Who is the Drizzle?]

Originally Posted by shabba4detroit

Are you asking me?

I was actually, yes. I see now that more information has been provided. Until shown otherwise, I'll generally assume that people had reasons other than the environment and bald eagles to recommend the use of things other than DDT to fight malaria. I was just wondering if you or someone else could shed more light.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by Who is the Drizzle?

I was actually, yes. I see now that more information has been provided. Until shown otherwise, I'll generally assume that people had reasons other than the environment and bald eagles to recommend the use of things other than DDT to fight malaria. I was just wondering if you or someone else could shed more light.

The environmental impact of DDT use was the only reason why it was discontinued.

There are now 17 African countries using at least some indoor spraying of insecticides to combat malaria. Only 10 of them use DDT — Eritrea, Madagascar, Ethiopia, Swaziland, South Africa, Mauritius, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Zambia — the W.H.O. said. Too many countries in Africa have shied away from DDT, Dr. Kochi said, because of the nasty environmental reputation it earned in an earlier era when it was widely sprayed on crops — dangers that do not apply when spraying small amounts indoors.

DDT has carried a special stigma since the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” which helped set off the environmental movement in America by documenting how mass spraying of DDT entered the food chain, causing cancer and genetic damage and threatening to wipe out some bird species, including bald eagles.

The nonprofit group, Beyond Pesticides, distributed news releases on Friday opposing the W.H.O.’s new policy, saying a dependence on pesticides like DDT “causes greater long-tem problems than those that are being addressed in the short-term.”

Dr. Kochi said some African countries had also been reluctant to use DDT because of fears that European countries would block food exports if crops were tainted by even minuscule amounts of DDT. In an interview, he called on leaders of the European Union to publicly encourage African countries to use DDT against malaria. Uganda, for one, has not used it because of what Dr. Kochi called “a bureaucratic standoff between the ministry of health and the ministry that oversees trade.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/wo...gewanted=print

Environmentalists were right to try and curtail the large scale, agricultural use of DDT. But they went way, way overboard and tried to get it banned globally, which caused a lot of needless deaths.

Of course, going "way, way overboard" is kinda the hallmark of the environmental movement.

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

"Equally effective methods" that poor African countries could not afford. They have allowed DDT under tightly controlled conditions in part because the countries that need to use it can't afford the vastly more expensive alternatives.

Let's be clear. The WHO argued against DDT, but neither they nor any other international agency banned its use in African countries.
The assertion that DDT being banned in America resulted in tens of millions of deaths in Africa is clearly erroneous.

DDT has been banned in some countries but not from an outside source.
Control of Malaria Vectors in Africa and Asia

However, unfortunately in low income countries it is almost impossible to prevent illicit diversion of insecticides intended for anti-malaria use to farmers. The consequent insecticidal residues in crops at levels unacceptable for the export trade have been an important factor in recent bans of DDT for malaria control in several tropical countries (Curtis, 1994). Some of the claims in the 1960s and 70s about supposed effects of DDT on human health were almost certainly ill-founded. DDT residues in human breast milk have been repeatedly observed, but usually attributed to earlier intake with contaminated food. However, there is recent evidence from South Africa (cited by Curtis, 1994) that, in areas of anti-malaria use of DDT, breast milk contains much higher residues than other areas and in the former areas the intake by a breast-fed baby would greatly exceed the Allowable Daily Intake (which is defined by the WHO and FAO on a lifetime intake basis and so is not readily related to a baby's intake of milk). There is also some evidence (cited by Curtis, 1994) for neurological abnormalities in babies taking in relatively high DDT residues with their milk.

Malaria has remained a problem in Africa because of government instability, poor leadership (not making education and eradication enough of a priority) and a lack of funds. Nets are the best way to stop malaria, DDT is part of a multi-tiered approach to the problem but only if a government can really effectively educate people on its use or otherwise maintain proper use to minimize side effects.

I'm not sure if you know this BTW but South Asian countries have gone away from DDT because mosquitoes have developed resistance to it. DDT isn't a magic bullet, it's a very cheap and persistent insecticide which also makes crops unsellable on the world market, kills animals, and creates 'neurological abnormalities' in humans. Why the WHO advocated against widespread adoption in the third world where it would be unregulated and the citizens couldn't be trusted to use it judiciously should be rather obvious..

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Republican Party of Florida - News - Greer Condemns Obama's Attempt to Indoctrinate Students

Flashback 15 years ago:

House Democrats criticized President Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.

The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.

[David T. Kearns] defended the $26,750 expenditure, calling the messages that Bush conveyed to schoolchildren "an important part of the mission entrusted by statute" to the department. An administration official said the costs covered lighting, taping and transmitting the speech via satellite. A videotape will be provided to the White House for deposit in the National Archives, the official said.

Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants "to make him look good," then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. "Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits," Frost said, referring to Bush's threat to veto legislation to extend benefits.

From the Washington Post, October 3, 1991.

Nothing new under the sun.

[billms]

Originally Posted by thewave84

This post is a great example of what smr-nj was talking about earlier in this thread.

How so? Please elaborate.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by shabba4detroit

Why is he addressing minors directly? He can address me, and I, the parent, will decide whether he has said anything my children need to hear. It's classic indoctrination. He's not going to change my mind, so he goes after the children. It's inappropriate. It's wrong.

Frankly, I would hope my children would write that they would help Obama find his way back to Chicago for trying to pull a stunt like this.

I'm not sure it is a bad thing if Obama talks about the bolded parts in the original article. I didn't like the written things, but if they get rid of those, and just stick to the other parts, I don't see why it is such a bad thing for a sitting president to address kids.

I mean seriously, if Obama makes this political it will hurt him FAR more than it will help him. If he simply talks to the kids about working hard, exercising, and getting a good education, I don't see why this would be considered inappropriate or wrong.

Is there any situation that would make it "not wrong" in your mind? In my neck of the woods, I'm not sure there is has ever been a president more well known among the kids than Barack Obama (at least not in my lifetime). Growing up, I couldn't tell you much about the sitting president, but kids seems to know a lot more about Obama than they do about the last few presidents IMO. I think he has great influence among them. So if he comes out and encourages them to live healthy, and do well in school, I don't see the harm in that.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Only 13 countries used DDT for vector control to mitigate malaria as of 2006 when the WHO reversed course and recommended its use indoors.

The WHO's recommendation for limited use of DDT in 2006 was a reversal of a 30-year old policy against its use


In other words, everything shabba said about DDT was right and its status as being essentially banned for 30 years helped cause a portion of 30 million African deaths.

Also from wikipedia:

So, clearly, Shabba is wrong. DDT has not been banned for malaria control and is widely used. Your quote mark does nothing to disprove that. Some countries may not use it without banning it.

The WHO is - in this instance - irrelveant. They have no authority to ban anything. The article you cite makes that very clear and unambiguous:

In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use of DDT was banned in most developed countries. DDT was first banned in Hungary in 1968[26] then in Norway and Sweden in 1970 and the US in 1972, but was not banned in the United Kingdom until 1984. The use of DDT in vector control has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent alternative insecticides.

The quote regarding the stockholm convention also clearly states that it had an excemption for Malaria control. Again - thanks for providing evidence to bolster my position that Shabba's assumption was wrong.

Now, even though wikipedia, the WHO, you and I all agree that Shabba was wrong and DDT has not been banned and is used to mitigate malaria I think that we can all further agree that even if it were to actually be banned in India - for example - that has nothing to do with protecting the Bald Eagle.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

"Equally effective methods" that poor African countries could not afford. They have allowed DDT under tightly controlled conditions in part because the countries that need to use it can't afford the vastly more expensive alternatives.

Who is this zogian "they" you refer to? There is no one world government. There is no "they" that "have allowed DDT under tightly controlled conditions ..." There are independent countries.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

Who is this zogian "they" you refer to? There is no one world government. There is no "they" that "have allowed DDT under tightly controlled conditions ..." There are independent countries.

They same "they" in the message I was responding to.

[billms]

If your friend said that Cheney was a racist who tortured puppies would you repeat it?

[Lousluggage]

OK, since the thread somehow came to include pesticide use, I feel it's ok to comment on this.

I spent several years researching/writing a thesis based on Carson's impact on pest control in the US, and one thing I can tell you for certain is that it is WAY more complicated than Glenn Beck or the average Washington Post writer can imagine.

First, let me clear up one thing: In Silent Spring, Carson did NOT advocate banning DDT or any other pesticide. What she did do is outline the characteristics of DDT and some other pesticides in use at the time, describe how many of those chemicals were used, describe research about effects of some of these uses on wildlife and human health, and suggested that these chemicals should be used less, only as necessary, and specifically, only when other methods of pest control had been tried. Granted, I only focused on pest control in the US, but I can tell you that Beck's claim that Carson is responsible for millions of deaths in Africa is off base, at best.

Second, I can tell you that there were (and are) representatives of the pesticide industry that are at least as extreme as the most extreme environmentalists. During hearings in the sixties on the subject, reps from the industry claimed that banning pesticides such as DDT would lead to massive starvation, and disease in the US-something which has not happened. White-Stevens is an example of a scientist who spoke on the subject.

Finally, as has been noted already in this thread, there are other methods of pest control which can be used instead of or with pesticides-sanitation, crop rotation, natural enemies are a few examples of this. One thing that I noticed in my research is that the recommendation of these practices were greatly reduced in gardening manuals as pesticides such as DDT became more readily available, and often contained no safety information on handling these chemicals. As Integrated Pest Management came into being, and especially after Silent Spring was published, non-chemical methods of pest control, and safety measures became more common again. This kind of approach can also be applied to vector control, by eliminating as much standing water as possible, thus reducing the need for chemicals to be used. Truth be told, this has been found to be at least as effective in controlling insects, and reduces the chance of the insects becoming resistant to a chemical.

And yes, I consider reducing the use of insecticides a good thing.

[smr-nj]

Thanks for the information, Lousluggage.



We really are fortunate to have very knowledgeable members here.

[Melody]

We've gone pesticide free in our home, yard and garden. Inside the house, it is primarily for the safety of our birds. (We do treat the dogs monthly with frontline.) Outside it is to protect the little anoles, geckos and toads who have done a fabulous job of keeping the yard and house free of various critters, and who provide amusement at night when they park on the screens to catch bugs attracted by the light in the window. We use a nontoxic biological product in our rain barrels and the bird bath to keep the mosquitoes out. Released a whole container of ladybugs again this week to bite the heads off and suck the guts out of those vile aphids that won't leave my mandevilla alone.

We DO have a can of wasp spray, though. Two members of my family are allergic to stings. But that doesn't come up very often and only requires a small spot spray on the nest after dark.

But darn it, I DO wish we could still get the good stuff for termite trenching. The new chemicals have to be put down again every couple of years at the cost of about $1000, not including the expense of repairing the damage done by the termites. The old stuff lasted for decades and worked better.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

Originally Posted by smr-nj

Thanks for the information, Lousluggage.



We really are fortunate to have very knowledgeable members here.

+1

[keystone]

I remember DDT being used quite often in Bugs Bunny cartoons provided by the famous ACME corporation. The initials stood for Drop Dead Twice.

I guess it was an early form of childhood indoctrination.

[Lousluggage]

It is a bit interesting to me that DDT became the poster child for the dangerous pesticides, as it is far less toxic than the others that were banned at the time. Of course, that is most likely why it's still being debated, but IMO leaving out the fact that a lot of the pesticides banned were in fact dangerous is making environmentalist groups look a lot more extreme than they are.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by billms

If your friend said that Cheney was a racist who tortured puppies would you repeat it?

I thought that this discussion tactic was supposed to use an outlandish example???

[Lousluggage]

Originally Posted by Melody

We've gone pesticide free in our home, yard and garden. Inside the house, it is primarily for the safety of our birds. (We do treat the dogs monthly with frontline.) Outside it is to protect the little anoles, geckos and toads who have done a fabulous job of keeping the yard and house free of various critters, and who provide amusement at night when they park on the screens to catch bugs attracted by the light in the window. We use a nontoxic biological product in our rain barrels and the bird bath to keep the mosquitoes out. Released a whole container of ladybugs again this week to bite the heads off and suck the guts out of those vile aphids that won't leave my mandevilla alone.

We DO have a can of wasp spray, though. Two members of my family are allergic to stings. But that doesn't come up very often and only requires a small spot spray on the nest after dark.

But darn it, I DO wish we could still get the good stuff for termite trenching. The new chemicals have to be put down again every couple of years at the cost of about $1000, not including the expense of repairing the damage done by the termites. The old stuff lasted for decades and worked better.

That's actually a great example of IPM. I'm not sure what to do about the termite treatments...I have to agree that's a frustrating expense.

Do you have epipens in case somebody gets stung? Just curious.

[eastside billee]

Termites are more important than humans. Let them have the freakin house.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by Lousluggage

Do you have epipens in case somebody gets stung? Just curious.

We don't. So far, we haven't had an event that severe. For example, when I've been stung it's painful and swollen at the site for a day or two. When my daughter got stung on the foot a couple of years ago (her only experience with a wasp), her entire foot swelled up to the point where it looked a bit like when you inflate a surgical glove. Scary! But no swelling of the tongue, throat, etc. The doctor recommended benadryl and caution for the time being, so we keep a stock around the house and she has some in her purse. My husband has shown a similar reaction as well, but he has only been stung once in his life.

After my daughter was stung, we discovered that there was a humongous nest in the ivy that used to cover the brick on the front of our house. On the recommendation of the nice ladies at Green Mama's (our favorite organic nursery) we hired a woman to come deal with it. I found it so interesting! She wore a beekeeper's suit. The first thing she did was to throw water with dish detergent on the nest. Evidently they can't fly if they have detergent on their wings. Then she removed and bagged the nest and used a shop vac to clean up the stragglers. It was effective, but really expensive. So we removed the ivy and whenever we see a little nest starting in the eaves of the house, I go out and spray it with some wasp spray from a safe distance. (Since my husband is allergic, it's safer if I do it.) And I don't feel a bit of guilt about the pesticide. I wouldn't anyway, but it's kind of a hobby with us and we enjoy our little insect eating critters in the yard.

Now if we could just convince that hardheaded bulldog that it's a BAD idea to lick the toads ...

[pfife]

your yard sounds like a ton of work. Then you mentioned you had a dog... YIKES!

[Melody]

Originally Posted by pfife

your yard sounds like a ton of work. Then you mentioned you had a dog... YIKES!

Actually, we have three dogs: an english bulldog, a brussels griffon and a yorkie. To tell the truth, going organic in the yard hasn't been that much extra work or expense. It smells like the zoo when my husband is fertilizing. But otherwise, the little toads, lizards, etc. take care of the bad insects. The first year or so that you switch over is a little discouraging, but we have a little ecosystem established now and it's not that difficult and not expensive. And using natural products on the St. Augustine keeps it healthy and green, but it doesn't grow as quickly so doesn't need mowing quite as often.

For example, a container of 1500 ladybugs is around $10. That's no more than a package of pesticide, and provides a couple of days of entertainment. My back patio is one of my favorite places on earth. In the mornings, I sit out there with my laptop and a cup of coffee and watch the hummingbirds visit our turks caps (a native plant to Texas with bright red flowers that need literally NO care). In the evenings, we enjoy seeing the lightning bugs that hang out in the honeysuckle along the fence, or watch from the breakfast table in the kitchen while the little geckos parked on the window gobble up bugs attracted by the light through the window.

And those geckos and anoles have eradicated the huge bugs that look like cockroaches that used to invade the house when it rained. I haven't seen one inside the house in several years. Nothing we sprayed got rid of them in the past. We're talking cockroaches the size of a chihuahua!

[FloridaTigers]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Because with all of the other stuff he has pulled, he needs to take a break from the Hugo Chavez playbook.

Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to "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."

Teachers are also given guidance to tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama."

For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare by excerpting quotes from Obama's speeches on education for their students to contemplate -- and ask as questions such as "Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?"

Activities suggested for after the speech include asking students "what resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?"

I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't like my taxes going to support building an Obama fan club. Why is this stuff all so Obama centric, rather then country? Let's say I don't want Obama setting goals for children to fight for healthcare and global warming promotion? What if a student doesn't like Obama and is forced to do this stuff?

If it was a message to work hard, stay in school and that sort of thing, it would be great, but it's all the extra political stuff that people are upset with.

Such a sad post for someone named after a real good show.

[Dirk Diggler]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to "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."

Teachers are also given guidance to tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama."

.

Wow, your facts are way off. My wife is a 4th grade teacher and has received the classroom activities list for k-6....there is NOTHING about what students can do to "help the president". Here is the exact lesson, before your spin...

"Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short term and long term education goals. Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress."

Also, how is reading books about the presidents a bad thing?

[FloridaTigers]

Originally Posted by Dirk Diggler

Wow, your facts are way off. My wife is a 4th grade teacher and has received the classroom activities list for k-6....there is NOTHING about what students can do to "help the president". Here is the exact lesson, before your spin...

"Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short term and long term education goals. Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress."

Also, how is reading books about the presidents a bad thing?

We need the next generation to remain as ignorant and dumb as possible, in order to become mindless sheep. Duh!

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by Dirk Diggler

Also, how is reading books about the presidents a bad thing?

Promotes an intellectual approach?

[Deleterious]

Originally Posted by Dirk Diggler

Wow, your facts are way off. My wife is a 4th grade teacher and has received the classroom activities list for k-6....there is NOTHING about what students can do to "help the president". Here is the exact lesson, before your spin...

"Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short term and long term education goals. Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress."

Also, how is reading books about the presidents a bad thing?

WH withdraws call for students to 'help' Obama - Washington Times

President Obama's plan to inspire the nation's schoolchildren with a video address next week erupted into controversy Wednesday, forcing the White House to pull out its eraser and rewrite a government recommendation that teachers nationwide assign students a paper on how to "help the president."

He wasn't spinning. He just posted before they removed that part of the package.

[CapitalTigers]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Because with all of the other stuff he has pulled, he needs to take a break from the Hugo Chavez playbook.

Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to "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."

Teachers are also given guidance to tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama."

For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare by excerpting quotes from Obama's speeches on education for their students to contemplate -- and ask as questions such as "Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?"

Activities suggested for after the speech include asking students "what resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?"

I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't like my taxes going to support building an Obama fan club. Why is this stuff all so Obama centric, rather then country? Let's say I don't want Obama setting goals for children to fight for healthcare and global warming promotion? What if a student doesn't like Obama and is forced to do this stuff?

If it was a message to work hard, stay in school and that sort of thing, it would be great, but it's all the extra political stuff that people are upset with.

Posts like this honestly scare me. It means people are actually taking the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's of the world seriously. No matter what your political party or affiliation, people need to realize these guys are ENTERTAINERS just like a musician or comedian. They are not experts, despite their self proclaimed ideals.

[sloan]

Originally Posted by CapitalTigers

Posts like this honestly scare me. It means people are actually taking the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's of the world seriously. No matter what your political party or affiliation, people need to realize these guys are ENTERTAINERS just like a musician or comedian. They are not experts, despite their self proclaimed ideals.

umm. except all of that stuff is true. it's what they had planned.. the whole 'write letters to yourself about how you can help obama' and 'how did obama inspire you'. they are talking about dropping that part of this whole thing. but it is true, not something rush and hannity made up. in fact, it's all over the news sources, even leftist ones.

and as far as the obama-love, you have to admit, it's pretty creepy how it's alll about him. even down to that celebrity video about 'pledging to serve obama'.. i mean, they come right out and say it. if they are trying to get a different message across than just 'serving obama', they are going about it all wrong. or phrasing it wrong.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by sloan

umm. except all of that stuff is true. it's what they had planned.. the whole 'write letters to yourself about how you can help obama' and 'how did obama inspire you'. they are talking about dropping that part of this whole thing. but it is true, not something rush and hannity made up. in fact, it's all over the news sources, even leftist ones.

and as far as the obama-love, you have to admit, it's pretty creepy how it's alll about him. even down to that celebrity video about 'pledging to serve obama'.. i mean, they come right out and say it. if they are trying to get a message across, they are going about it all wrong. or phrasing it wrong.

None of that stuff is true. It's all paranoid partisan politics and it's ****ing ridiculous.

Read the entire lesson plan, don't just pick and choose phrases and then extrapolate about the whole thing is designed to be a PR message for the President. He's talking to grade school kids for ****'s sake.

The entire hullabaloo over this is really stupid.

[sloan]

well here's just one article i've read.. is it lying?

NBC spoke with Katie Gordon, a spokeswoman for the Florida Republican Party, who said the party's "beef" is with the accompanying lesson plans. The guide for pre-K through grade 6 suggests questions students think about during the speech, such as "What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do?"

The plan for grades 7-12 includes a "guided discussion," with suggested topics: "What resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What is President Obama inspiring you to do?"

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by sloan

well here's just one article i've read.. is it lying?

NBC spoke with Katie Gordon, a spokeswoman for the Florida Republican Party, who said the party's "beef" is with the accompanying lesson plans. The guide for pre-K through grade 6 suggests questions students think about during the speech, such as "What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do?"

The plan for grades 7-12 includes a "guided discussion," with suggested topics: "What resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What is President Obama inspiring you to do?"

That's paranoid partisan politics. Exhibit A.

[sloan]

they are not lying about the guided discussion and lesson plan to go along with the speech though, so you're wrong. sorry.

[CMRivdog]

So if the "beef" is with the lesson plans. The teachers and schools can throw out the lesson plans, or maybe MAKE THEIR OWN LESSON PLANS!!!!!!!!


What is so hard about that??????

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by sloan

umm. except all of that stuff is true. it's what they had planned.. the whole 'write letters to yourself about how you can help obama' and 'how did obama inspire you'. they are talking about dropping that part of this whole thing. but it is true, not something rush and hannity made up. in fact, it's all over the news sources, even leftist ones.

and as far as the obama-love, you have to admit, it's pretty creepy how it's alll about him. even down to that celebrity video about 'pledging to serve obama'.. i mean, they come right out and say it. if they are trying to get a different message across than just 'serving obama', they are going about it all wrong. or phrasing it wrong.

Honest question: I thought you guys were supposed to respect and, presumably, serve el presidente as the head of state representing the united states? You get all fussy over whether or not flags are lit at night don't you? Isn't that suggesting the much more overt level of patriotism is part of what you do? And the presidente is supposed to be the head of that, yes? So you "serve" him/her by being good citizens don't you as part of that respect for the country, it's laws and it's traditions - as laid down by whatever piece of paper embodies all that.

I honestly don't get what the fuss is all about here.

Explain please. In simple language, trying not to get party political about it if you can.

[sloan]

Many critics focused their concerns on suggested classroom activities, which appeared to solicit support for Obama. In response, the Education Department changed one proposal from having children write letters to themselves about "what they could do to help the president" to writing about "how they can achieve their short-term and long-term educational goals."

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

So if the "beef" is with the lesson plans. The teachers and schools can throw out the lesson plans, or maybe MAKE THEIR OWN LESSON PLANS!!!!!!!!

Plan lessons?

Sorry, run that by me again...