I don't get the objection to his speech. Seems harmless.

I'm not objecting to his speech. Just general mocking.

I think you're reallllly reaching here for something to mock. And I'm all for mocking when it's deserved, left or right. I just honestly don't get AT ALL what right-wingers are up in arms about when it comes to this altogether innocuous speech.

Seriously, what are conservative parents saying here by trying to keeping their kids away from this message? I thought y'all were all about bootstrap-pulling and such?

My mocking is more of his Father's Day public service announcement which was a total joke (click the link).

And I agree that keeping kids from school is ridiculous.

The speech is absurd for the simple reason that the president is not the educator-in-chief. Of course, this is the era where Obama fired the CEO of a private company (GM), so this usurpation of parents' responsibilities is peanuts. Even so, that still doesn't make this acceptable.

I didn't need Reagan, Bush or Clinton to tell me to stay in school -- my father's threat of grounding me until I was 18 (at which time I'd find myself on my own) was more than sufficient. But even playing Obama's game, that it takes the president to tell children to be good and finish their education, his speech is just too long to keep their attention. That's why it's mere camouflage: it isn't the speech, but the "preparation" and post-speech "activities" that are insidious.

One of the suggested questions for children in grades K-6 is, "Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?" This is a question to be asked of children as young as five and six years old? This isn't a question. This is raising them to be good, obedient servants of government. It's bullshit.

There is nothing "important" about what any of them say. Absolutely zilch. The only reason I pay attention is to remind myself that no matter what they claim, they are not and never have been "looking out" for me. It is a disservive to our youngest children to make them think politicians should be listened to, all because they managed to dupe enough people to attain a certain office.

For grades 7-12, "Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us?" Later on, "Is President Obama inspiring you to do anything? Is he challenging you to do anything?"

See that? It's not just "hope" anymore. Our children are being taught that Dear Leader is there to inspire us. DOE's words, not mine. Anyone who doubts me can read them himself.

Anyone who's awake should not be surprised by this. "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek, specifically the chapter "Why the Worst Get On Top," talked about this over six decades ago.

Older children are also being asked, "What do you believe are the challenges of your generation? How can you be a part of addressing these challenges?" This is actually a good question that any decent teacher should already be setting in front of students to develop critical thinking skills (ha). I doubt that any of the kids will understand enough to respond, "Saving for my own retirement, because heaven knows the damn feds have wasted my parents' FICA taxes and are sure to waste mine."

Here we go, one of the original post-speech activities, which would have remained except for parents' outrage at this indoctrination:

"Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."

The White House spokesman said, "We changed it to clarify the language so the intent is clear." Uh huh.

Perry, reading the original sentence all I hear is JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" written for third graders.

You are so convinced that Obama is a demon that you expect kids to write things like "I'll wash Bo" or "I will steal from my parents and mail the cash to the DNC."

Charles, there is a HUGE difference between what you can do for your *country* and what you can do for *Obama*.

I don't think Obama is a demon, just a dipshit who shouldn't be president.

Tell me, Charles, just how do you define "my country," and just what should I do for it? Pay taxes? Accept compulsory service for five years? Vote?

Your statement assumes that JFK's statement is correct, when in fact its erroneous basis means it isn't even a platitude. A country that is founded and maintained on real liberty does not need its people to "do" anything for it. Its fate rests on how they act and interact as individuals, not as a collective; it does not flow the other way around.

Jesus commanded people to serve each other, not Israel. This is a good example for people of all faiths.
You are so convinced that Obama is a demon that you expect kids to write things like "I'll wash Bo" or "I will steal from my parents and mail the cash to the DNC."Although it's a standard liberal trick, you can stop putting words into my mouth, dipshit. I never called Obama a "demon," but I need no convincing that he is a statist of the worst kind. His actions fully demonstrate what he is.

Now tell us: what do you think the president is inspiring you to do?

Karol, it depends on how personally you think "for the president" is supposed to be taken. Is it supposed to mean "this president, right now" or "the president, as the leader of the United States of America." Under the latter formulation, which is the one that I think was intended, it would be totally acceptable to send a note to Obama telling him to get his head out of his ass.

Perry, you aren't doing a very good job of convincing me that you don't think Obama is a demon. You don't even do a very good job of deconstructing JFK. Even enlightened self-interest takes account of the value of altruism. Also, if you are going to insult me at least take the time to think of something yourself instead of just copying off of Karol's paper.

One final note, regarding the Dems reaction to the education speeches by Bush I and Reagan: AFAIK, the Dems waited until after the speech to criticize it for being actual propaganda about their respective education initiatives and their "success". You can definitely find things in this speech to criticize for the same reason but the pre-speech histrionics were ridiculous.

Perry, you aren't doing a very good job of convincing me that you don't think Obama is a demon.I couldn't care what I'm "convincing" you of, since it's a waste of time with your ilk. But I will not let you misrepresent me and what I've said.

"I'll wash Bo"

"I will steal from my parents and mail the cash to the DNC."

Like I said, stop putting words in my mouth. Must you LIE to make a point?
You don't even do a very good job of deconstructing JFK. Even enlightened self-interest takes account of the value of altruism.Then you missed the point entirely. The philosophy of individualism is about altruism toward individuals, not to political constructs such as "nations."

Second, altruism is by choice: the giver wants to, and he feels that the recipient is worthy and/or pitiable enough to receive it. "What you can do for your country" is idiotic collectivism at best, not only because the recipient is absurdly large and non-specific, but because it's telling people to serve.

Putting it another way, I don't ask what "my country" can do for me, and in return I don't ask what I can do for it. If you don't understand the simple philosophy of the free individual, then I'm sorry your intellect is so limited to modern liberal's concept that you're only part of the whole.

So one more time: just how do you define "my country," and just what should I do for it? Pay taxes? Accept compulsory service for five years? Vote? To clarify, that last one could be military, or it could be the AmeriCorps nonsense.
Also, if you are going to insult me at least take the time to think of something yourself instead of just copying off of Karol's paper.Actually, I didn't read Karol's comment until after posting mine. Chalk it up to being a natural reaction to your...dipshitness.

So stick it, you lying cabron. How about that?

Wow, I'd missed that "just a few minutes each day" to be a good dad. Obviously I'm working too hard....

Perry, for every semi-coherent point you make about the dangers of a welfare state you make a half-dozen basic reading comprehension errors.

I wasn't "putting words in your mouth" or "lying" about you. I was mocking you. I was taking note of the exact tone of every one of your posts and extrapolating to present a picture of how I see you, yelling at the television for "lying" again.

As for JFK and Obama, you seem to be under the impression that asking people to look outwardly - to their fellow citizens, or for the welfare of the nation as a whole - is somehow tantamount to "forcing" them to do so. And this is where the wheels come off of a reasonable criticism of the welfare state. Requesting volunteerism - even when it is the President praising it or championing it - does not make it COMPULSORY. You have reasonable grounds to object to AmeriCorps, since you have to pay for it, but not to the idea of civic-mindedness itself.

For someone who doesn't care what he's convincing me of or like spending time with my ilk, you've sure dropped a lot of pixels. And there is no way that you didn't copy off of Karol.

Perry, for every semi-coherent point you make about the dangers of a welfare state you make a half-dozen basic reading comprehension errors.Oh, this coming from the person who misunderstands and then misrepresents what I'm saying? This coming from yet another liberal who sticks his head in the sand when he can't refute someone?
I wasn't "putting words in your mouth" or "lying" about you. I was mocking you.The first part is still, regardless of your backtracking, a LIE.

I never said such things, you attempted (poorly) to imply that I did, so hence you LIED. Got it?

If you want to have honest discussion with me, I welcome it, but you do yourself a disservice when exposing yourself as a wanton LIAR.
I was taking note of the exact tone of every one of your posts and extrapolating to present a picture of how I see you, yelling at the television for "lying" again.In other words, you're not replying to me, but to your warped conception of a person you do not know.

And since you know you're deliberately misrepresenting me, you have to resort to LYING. But you're a liberal, so this does not surprise me.
As for JFK and Obama, you seem to be under the impression that asking people to look outwardly - to their fellow citizens, or for the welfare of the nation as a whole - is somehow tantamount to "forcing" them to do so.Oh good lord, you didn't understand a thing. Now you're trying to muddle the issue by talking about "fellow citizens," when in fact that isn't the issue at all.

One more time: just how do YOU define "my country," and what do YOU say I should I do for it? Forget Obama: state YOUR opinion.

If it's individual people who are in need, I'll help them if I personally feel it's within my own moral conduct. But as far as this "country," you talk about, it's a meaningless statement to the truly charitable, and a statement of values to worshippers of the state.

By coincidence, a friend posted a quote of Milton Friedman: "The paternalistic 'what your country can do for you' implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, 'what you can do for your country' implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors, and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served."
And this is where the wheels come off of a reasonable criticism of the welfare state. Requesting volunteerism - even when it is the President praising it or championing it - does not make it COMPULSORY. You have reasonable grounds to object to AmeriCorps, since you have to pay for it, but not to the idea of civic-mindedness itself.I and any other person who considers himself "free" absolutely has EVERY RIGHT to object to the idea of "civic-mindedness." Why should I "serve" people I do not want to do anything beneficial for?

So here's where the compulsion enters, the compulsion that you deny exists. Obama talks about "service" and perhaps to specific individuals, but via expanded government programs. That means it's using my taxes -- that's compulsory right there. If I wanted to do these "great" and "wonderful" things of my own free will, I don't need government encouragement or funding to do them. The latter, you probably do not understand, means that if I personally use "government money" to do these charitable things, I'm assisting in forcing others. Got it?
For someone who doesn't care what he's convincing me of or like spending time with my ilk, you've sure dropped a lot of pixels.Because one of my favorite forms of entertainment is to demonstrate that liberals, you in particular, tend to be brain-dead twits. And often liars, but that should be assumed as a default. Second, other people will read my comments and hopefully learn something, as I have learned from people before me who nudged me in the right direction.

As I'm fond of saying, you can go to hell if you want, but don't drag me along for the ride.
And there is no way that you didn't copy off of Karol.Don't believe it if you don't want; the difference is that I won't force you into a belief. As I said, I didn't see her comment until after I made mine, and I'm original enough that I don't need to repeat others' insults.

You have been fisked again, dipshit. What's your religion? We'll have you christened with that new name, or rechristened as the case may be.

Perry - not surprisingly, we think along the same lines.

To your conversation with Charles: it gives an impression of a medieval sholast arguing with Copernicus. You operate out of totally estranged values, I'm afraid. For you, Individual is the priority, for him - it's the so called "altruism", i.e. Collective. He does not understand what's so bad in president requesting volunteerism from children. Your moral system does not permit theft, his moral system easily excuse it as long as it's requested "for the good of society".

Sigh. That is exactly what I was mocking. I didn't put words in your mouth, I caricatured you - pretty accurately, IMHO. It isn't a backtrack, it isn't a redefinition, it is an explanation. I don't think you simply know what "lie" means.

You can't even see past your own mouth-froth to see where the real argument is. I'm not arguing against libertarian principle - I don't believe in it, but I think it is besides the point of this particular debate. Scroll up. Reread. Understand this time.

Of course you can 'object' to a promotion of civic-mindedness but you can't accurately object to it as "statist" if all the government is doing is suggesting, without compulsion, that you pitch in. You give away the game when you object to "encouragement and funding" but implicitly concede that you only really have an argument against the latter.

To answer your (mostly besides the point) question, I define 'country' in this instance broadly, to refer to your fellow man, not to The State and not to Obama himself. The Friedman quote is an interesting one but it relies on a construction that uses "government" and "country" interchangeably. I find that definition too cramped and not congruent with the call to help your fellow citizen that was underneath JFK's call.

Tatyana, I'd expect you of all people to know the dangerous implication of "ask what you can do for your country." I instead rely on quotes like, "A patriot stands ready to defend his country from its government."

Now @ Charles, one of our occasional commenters but no less of a resident fuckwit:Sigh. That is exactly what I was mocking. I didn't put words in your mouth, I caricatured you - pretty accurately, IMHO.For someone who accuses another of not knowing the definition of a word, you use "caricature" without having the foggiest clue.
It isn't a backtrack, it isn't a redefinition, it is an explanation. I don't think you simply know what "lie" means.Oh, sure, sure, "redefining" just because you got caught and aren't man enough to admit it.

Good lord, you are such a lying hypocrite. A child could easily see through your continued mendacity, but you have to keep rationalizing it and digging yourself deeper. Aren't you ashamed that you can't even admit your blatant and willful misrepresentation? Which, in other words, was your LIE about me.

"Mock" me all you want, but you know it's not true, hence a LIE. That's all you liberals have at your disposal, since your very philosophy is anathema to truth and righteousness: hence you have to LIE.

As for me, I do nothing of the kind about you: I let you reveal yourself as the state-worshipper you are, because I don't need to say anything but the truth about you.
You can't even see past your own mouth-froth to see where the real argument is.Actually, any "mouth-froth" is from you liberals, every time I get paid. You're rabid for other people's money, no less.
I'm not arguing against libertarian principle - I don't believe in it, but I think it is besides the point of this particular debate. Scroll up. Reread. Understand this time.In other words, the philosophy I espouse is beyond your level of comprehension, so here you're trying to back out of it.

So now, you overqualified candidate for the School of Morons, how about you do those things, and come back to us when you understand what's going on? What I was talking about is very much to the heart of the JFK quote that you brought up. You opened the door, so don't start crying now.

I can just hear you now: WAAAAAAH, Perry's being mean to me again, WAAAAAAH!
Of course you can 'object' to a promotion of civic-mindednessYou mean that I can, unless you liberals call me "racist" and accuse me of "hate speech."
but you can't accurately object to it as "statist" if all the government is doing is suggesting, without compulsion, that you pitch in. You give away the game when you object to "encouragement and funding" but implicitly concede that you only really have an argument against the latter.Like in most things liberals have opinions on, what you claim and what is true are completely disparate things. There's no mere "suggestion" here. Since you still don't "get it," let me put it a different way: all that government does is by necessity, by definition, compulsory. (If it's defending rights to life, liberty and property, that's another story, but show me a government thus limited.)

People don't need government to "encourage" them, unless you're talking in the sense of William Jefferson being a role model. If they wanted to pitch in, are they not free to do that already? But Americans' tax dollars were spent on "encouraging" students with this message, from preparing and broadcasting the speech to the DOE materials that indoctrinate students. Americans' tax dollars are spent on these "charitable endeavors." Don't act like I have a choice and can opt out of paying money into things I disagree with.
To answer your (mostly besides the point) question,It's your own question, you goddamn fool. You brought it up. Must I remind you again?

And after all this time, you're obfuscating the central issue of Obama usurping this new role of Educa^H^H^H^H^HIndoctrinator-in-Chief.
I define 'country' in this instance broadly, to refer to your fellow man, not to The State and not to Obama himself.So at best, you, Obama and JFK are being idiots for not using the correct phrasing. If you really were referring to your fellow man, then say it. Don't use this political construct called "a country."

Remember what I said about Jesus commanding people to serve each other, not "Israel"?
The Friedman quote is an interesting oneThat is to say, you didn't understand it...
but it relies on a construction that uses "government" and "country" interchangeably. I find that definition too cramped and not congruent with the call to help your fellow citizen that was underneath JFK's call.That is to say, in your limited grasp, you're too scared to analyze it further and so will dismiss it outright.

It "relies" on the true sense of the speech's actual phrasing. Have you ever read it? There's no mention of individualism -- only individuals as citizens of this and that. So for you to type out that JFK didn't mean it in that sense is...beyond laughable. For you to type out that Obama is talking about anything but the state compelling people to "serve" (which includes my tax dollars being taken from me to "help" others) is just pathetic.

So have you said your daily "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama"?