Censorship sparks outrage, call to replace school board members

[Liberty Belle]

Read our blow-by-blow description of a conservative school board's special meeting on labor day to ban Obama's speech--and the public outrage that ensued:

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/?q=node/1860




As a side note, our reporter and her husband have children in this district. Her husband was so appalled by the board's clear bias and censorship that I'm told he's considering a run for the board himself. They kept one of their children home to watch the speech (costing the district ADA money) but sent a second child who didn't want to spoil her perfect attendance record.

There are racial and class overtones here in addition to partisan political ones -- and it's not surprising that the most vocal advocate for airing the speech is a very articulate African-American board member who was out-voted by whites - including one board member who expressed disdain at the idea that her own little darlings, who aren't from broken homes, should have to listen to a speech aimed at inspiring the disadvantaged. This terse exchange between white and black board members exemplifies the total disconnect here:

“I’m thinking about my specific children listening to his speech,” Halgren shared, in a somewhat broken, emotional statement. “Children at seven or eight years old—they had no clue that was going on in the world. I consider myself very fortunate…to have an intact family, we had enough, we had parental support, we had everything we needed to raise our children, children from a very good family. But now you’re putting them in a room where there are words they don’t understand, stories they’re being told are about children that they don’t understand, that they can’t relate to.”

Turner countered, “I don’t think it would be detrimental to our children in this district to sit though a 15-18 minute speech by the President of the United States. A lot of times when they have a lesson in school they don’t always ‘get it.’ That’s why the President’s giving the speech! The fact that some of it might go over their heads is no reason not to show it in the classrooms.”

Full story: http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/?q=node/1860

Note: Our news website (www.eastcountymagazine.org ) is really trying to build up an online community, so we'd really appreciate your comments at the bottom of the article. Be sure to click "post" after previewing. Thanks!

[vadawg]

1. all the schools have to do is show the speech and allow opt outs for parents

real simple solution really.

[Liberty Belle]

4. Why must we pander by allowing opt outs from those ignorant

people whose children most need some educatin', not to mention a hefty dose of tolerance?

I personally don't think people should be able to home school kids solely for the purpose of indoctrinating them, as many extremist groups advocate. Kids belong in a public school, or at least a private school where curriculums are monitored, classes are conducted, and overtly racist propoganda can't be shoved down captive audiences' throats.

[vadawg]

7. scuse me, there are a myriad of reasons why parents might not want their kids to watch

yes some are just batshit crazy, but others are for religious and cultural reasons, my kids opted out of watching the speech and there were no problems from the school for us or the other families who withdrew there kids. It should be the parents decision whether you like it or not..

[defendandprotect]

11. What were the reasons your kids withdrew from watching?

[vadawg]

12. myself and my wife decided to withdraw them for the day, as did lots of others

and believe it or not most were not for political partisan reasons.

[parasim]

13. But that didn't answer the question.

So then, what was your reason?

[vadawg]

16. i think i explained it pretty well, myself and my wife made the decision to withdraw our kids

that should be a good enough reason without any further explanation, it should be the parents choice even if you dont agree with that choice...

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Why?

You don't want the president to tell them to work hard and do well in school?

[vadawg]

25. you and me kansas always disagree on everything, but as a teacher

im sure you have come across families who dont mix politics and education for a lot of reasons, anyway i told my kids to work hard,and to finish their brekkies

[tblue37]

36. But what was political in Obama's speech? He was just encouraging them

to study hard and get a good education. That's not political.

[vadawg]

39. okay, but hes still a politician and for some people it really is render unto caesar

i dont get why people are so against parents who have a minority viewpoint from being able to express that viewpoint. Do we have to give over all control of our kids to some state appointed guardian because we have beliefs that the majority dont go along with, because that seems to be what a lot of people are advocating here...

[girl gone mad]

63. Then you are making a decision based on politics.

You are choosing to shelter your child from a few words of encouragement given by the democratically elected leader of their country.

I wonder what other educational opportunities you think parents should be allowed to opt their children out of. How about Lincoln's Gettysburg address or JFK's inaugural address - should these also be optional? Because it seems a bit authoritarian to me. I trust that my child is smart enough to think for himself and make up his own mind regarding a speech from the President. I wouldn't have even choose to take him out of a pro-war speech given by Bush because I know that my child is quite capable of filtering information and coming to a logical conclusion. These values were instilled in him at a very early age.

[vadawg]

73. and i respect your choices as a parent, but we differ on the political thing

i would never dream of denying you the right to have your child listen to a politician speak, i just ask the same courtesy of you. As to the speech of lincoln or jfk, believe it or not thats history and looked apon differently same as when my eldest was exposed to adolf hitler and the greek classics..

[girl gone mad]

78. What do you think is the difference?

These historical speeches were very political and many of the themes are still relevant to today's politics. Obama gave a talk that was apolitical in its message. I think your position is poorly thought through. You are making a decision based on your emotional reaction to the President. You aren't doing your kids any favors in life. They'll have to grow up and face the real world some day.

[vadawg]

82. i think you are missing the point, its not an emotional thing

its very deeply cultural, theres a big difference between having a politician, the pope, a rock star etc talking to your class than having a historical figure giving a speech etc. as another poster pointed out he wouldnt want the holy father to give a message to their kids no matter what the message, for us politicians are a no no, whereas i would see the pope differently.

[girl gone mad]

89. There is a church/state separation..

so listening to the pope speak might violate that separation, but he could speak to a private school. We had a rock star speak at my high school and nobody complained.

We're atheists, but I've always tried to expose my child to various religions and I wouldn't mind if he heard from the pope. In a comparative religion class at public school, a speech from the pope would be highly appropriate.

You live in America, so I think having the leader of America give a pep talk is appropriate and I still think pulling your children out of the class is an act of extreme paranoia, not good parenting.

[vadawg]

91. we are never going to agree, but at least i thank you for not being abusive

[merwin]

96. And in America, we respect people's right to choose how their kids get educated.

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

"In a comparitive religion class at public school, a speech from the Pope would be highly appropriate."

I'm sure a lot of athiests believe that the Pope, even at a non-religious private school where the separation of church and state does not apply, should not address the student body directly for any reason, and would similarly not want their children to attend such a speech. I'm not speaking specifically about you, just about athiests in general. I know plenty of athiests (and even a few former Catholics) who want the Pope to stay as far away from their kids as possible, regardless of the message that he is giving... even if it were "Stay in school and work hard".

You're making the distinction between public and private here. This has nothing to do with public or private, or even comparitive religion class. This has to do with someone's personal beliefs, either religious or cultural. That being said, why is it not OK for someone to have the opinion that a "the leader of America giving a pep talk" isn't appropriate in school? It's not the pep talk that is the problem here, it's the "Leader of America" part. Some people don't want the "Leader of America" speaking directly to schools at all, regardless of the context. It's as solid of a line as the separation of church and state, and it's completely valid. It doesn't mean you don't agree with the words that are being spoken. Not attending it also did not lessen the school experience, as many children for several decades have grown up quite nicely with these pep talks given by their parents.

It's simply a cultural and/or religious difference, where certain boundaries are applied to things like education, like how some religions are against the Pledge of Allegiance. It's nothing against Obama himself, and is not due to anything that Obama said.

The "You live in America" part is just sad in my opinion. That is just begging for someone to point out that it's the same rational that the whackjobs on the right give as to why English should be the national language and everyone should either speak it or leave.

[defendandprotect]

150. Interesting post . . .

and it caused me to see other facets of this particular event --

We certainly wouldn't want to see any comment or opinion by politicians in our school
newspapers, would we? On the other hand, if it were strongly anti-military and anti-
war, then I might like even a Pope like Pope John XXIII of long ago to give that one!

Should there ever be a Pope again who spoke for democracy/equality, peace, human rights,
humanity, compassion -- though I am strongly anti-organized patriarchal religion --
I might say, "Bring it on!"

I do think you make an excellent point as well about who is presented as a "leader" to
children. Today's message is not necessarily the message they will hear tomorrow from
this same individual.

We all recognize that at some point in life we have given our trust to someone who later
disappointed us.

Overall, I do think that this was probably a very special day for children of color to
have someone other than a "white male" acknowledged as a leader.

[Hansel]

161. I would have no problem with the Pope giving an address

to my children if it was something that he knew a great deal about and it wasn't about religion. If the Pope has something to teach the children that will be of benefit to them and isn't religious in nature, what difference does it make? I'm an agnostic and I could care less as long as he doesn't cross the line.

Just because Obama is speaking to the kids doesn't mean he's being political. He has a unique experience to share with the students that could be beneficial to some.

Some teachers also are political or religious, but most are capable of teaching school without bringing either into the classroom. I'm sure that both the Pope and Obama are just as capable of doing that as teachers are.

There is just a little too much hyper-sensitivity over this whole issue.

[defendandprotect]

145. Your example . . .

of the Pope talking to a class is, of course, out of bounds given separation of church
& state -- but, happily, it would suggest to me that on the other side of this issue,
you'd be very willing to fight against intrusions by church into state issues . . .
especially re public schools.

And, perhaps, also strongly object to having the military speak to classes --
or even be present in public schools -- which I find highly objectionable.

Fortunately, at the time my son was in school this wasn't permitted, but we realized
later that frequently he had been contacted by military recruiters by telephone !!

When we did become aware of it, it was still difficult even with parent intervention
to put a stop to it. I think at some point we had to threaten to call the police!!??


PS: But re "it's not emotional" . . . in fact, don't parents when they make these kinds of
decisions also have to consider what might be an emotional impact on your child having been
separated from the class -- separated from a memorable shared experience?

[me b zola]

156. How does your children study current events, history, or social studies?

All people have a political framework from which they operate, even teachers, the writers of text books, and those who develop the curriculum. Do you limit your children's public education to only reading, writing, and arithmetic?

[SemperEadem]

166. So, you always routinely pulled your children out of school

for the last 8 years?

[merwin]

75. Um, wanting the lack of politics in school is the opposite of authoritarian.

I think I can safely assume that he would have done the same thing for either of those, and possibly watched them together as a family at a later time. Besides, you're comparing apples and oranges. Those speeches have historical significance. A speech by Obama saying "stay in school" carries zero historical significance.

Kudos to you for instilling those beliefs in your children. But this is solely a differing style of parenting than yours. You may not agree with it, but it doesn't make it any less valid. He's not doing this because he thinks Obama is evil. It's a parenting decision that applies to all political events of any kind during school hours. Nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with not wanting the Pope to give a "stay in school" speech to your kids.

People are allowed to make decisions like this for their children, and I have no issue as long as it is fairly applied and not based on something such as racism or ass-hattedness (ie: those that did it because Glenn Beck told them to).

[girl gone mad]

83. So you don't want children to be exposed to any political ideas..

in school?



I'm really stunned and amazed that there are parents who don't want their children to enter life armed with the knowledge and information to make reasonable decisions for themselves.

I think that keeping your child from being able to hear a benign message delivered exclusively to students by the democratically elected President of the United States is the ultimate in authoritarian behavior on the part of parents. It's an act of extreme authoritarianism to tell your child that you do not want him or her to listen to an apolitical message of inspiration from the President. This man has his finger on the button, has the power to take us to war and can veto any legislation, but you think his message to children is insignificant. Odd, to say the least. Almost like you want to pretend that he doesn't exist.

[merwin]

97. He has already said otherwise.

Historical politics and civics is one thing... a direct message from the President is another. You don't think that might go against some religious/cultural beliefs?

[Raineyb]

197. No I don't think it goes against any religious/cultural beliefs

It sure as hell goes against beliefs of racial superiority though. Some people fear that their children might see black people as someone to respect rather than merely tolerate.

They pulled their children out of school so they won't see the president speak.

[Hannah Bell]

207. i believe his reasoning is: he doesn't want the president to be "advising" his children

at all, no matter how good the advice.

there's no knowledge or information in the speech ("stay in school, study, etc.") the kids can't get from their teachers or parents. the only novelty is it's the president saying it.

some people don't want their kids to view the president or other politicians as sanctioned authority figures whose advice should be listened to.

the act (politicians addressing & guiding "the youth") has some bad precedents. it makes me uncomfortable on a national level.

[seabeyond]

111. i do not get the parent that teaches child to put hands over ears in an educational, academic

environment. it makes absolutely no sense to me. it tells me that parent has so little faith in their child to reason, think. and that is the saddest aprt of this whole thing.

i NEVER deny my children the opportunity to differing views. never.

keep politics out of school?

how absurd can one be.

dont teach history, .... along with science for those that are so very afraid

[noiretextatique]

188. as the first african american president, everything obama does

is historically significant. people who shelter their kids from the world need to take a look at their own fears. my family's fear about the world could have held me back, but i recognized it as fear and i was damned if their fear, not mine, would stop me from doing or thinking or seeing anything.

[merwin]

227. That would be racial overcompensation.

Sure, his election was historicaly significant... and occasionally there's a speech that he'll give that is tied to his race that might be historically significant due to his being African American... but EVERYTHING he does? He takes a dump and it's historically significant?

By this logic, everything George W Bush did was historically significant because he was the first President to be selected by the Supreme Court. Or maybe because he was the first son of a President to become President.

Being black does not make the speeches that Obama gives any more significant than any other Presidential speech. The significance of them comes from the content of his message, and the only historical significance this one is going to have is how insane it made the right wing.

I love the guy, and there's far more to him than his skin color.

[janx]

94. "...give over all control of our kids to some State appointed guardian"

He's the president of the United States. Presidents do things like this and always have! I don't know about you, but when I was growing up, we saw presidential speeches in school--and at home, whether or not our parents had voted for that president.

We lived in a democratic republic and respected the office of president, because we respected our Constitution and method of government. We respected our fellow citizens, our neighbors, and our colleagues, whether or not we agreed with them politically.

What sort of minority viewpoint do you have? And do you really think it's worth it to value your narrow political beliefs at the expense of your children's education? Should you shield them from civics lessons because of one election?

[vadawg]

95. i guess the point is being lost, civics is fine, so is historical politics etc

its just having politics of the day so to speak and the inevitable spin either way being given in school sits badly. It dosent matter who the pol is, as i explained in a way its render unto caesar, and all i am asking for is that people remember that there are many families that dont mix politics of the day and school for a myriad of reasons and we should have the option of opt outs. I am not looking to infringe apon your kids education, they dont need to learn my culture, but at least let us keep our culture..

[foo_bar]

122. "but at least let us keep our culture"

as i explained in a way its render unto caesar

The Biblical passage you cite seems to repudiate your stance on the secular and divine ("my culture"); "render unto Caesar" in the context of this legal/theological debate meant ceding taxation and secular authority to the "bad guys" (e.g., the gubmint) and letting God keep the rest, while leaving those precise boundaries intentionally vague (since teh Christ wasn't a policy wonk like God (per Lot, Abraham, Noah, Moses et al.) and specifics would have come back to haunt him later, so his cryptic response indicates he might have been the Obama of his day).

[goclark]

141. Do your children ever watch television if you are not in the room?

Most kids do and I'm sure they have seen politicians express extreme views.


Interesting.

[Jazzgirl]

142. Wow....your reason for pulling your children out of school

sounds pretty close to the reason pukes gave. His speech wasn't political. How many times did you pull your kids out of school when *shrub did a speech?

[defendandprotect]

144. We're just trying to understand your viewpoint . . .

Did something about this frighten you?

To tell you the truth, there are beautiful pics of kids watching Obama --
but that screen-thingy and people sitting in front of it has that Orwell 1984 overtone . . .
at least for me.

On the other hand, TV is like any other tool -- whether a typewriter or government --
it can be used for good or evil.

I think most of us get minority rights -- but like school prayer, or the "under god"
options in the pledge -- these things can sometimes make it more difficult when
minorities are forced to leave the scene or opt out in some public way . . . can't it?

[liberalhistorian]

149. Look, I agree in general with what you're saying. But the problem

I have with that is that many such parents then demand that MY kid and everyone else's kid go along with what they want simply because it's what THEY want. You wanna make such decisions for YOUR children, fine, go for it. But don't drag everyone else's into it as well. I'm not saying that's what you and your wife do, I'm just saying that that's what too many other parents do and THAT is what gets my back up. Not that they do it but that they demand everyone else do the same as well.

[defendandprotect]

152. I think we have a way to go before we understand all sides here . . .

and I completely AGREE with what you're saying here --
After all, some schools did actually close!!

But, I can assure you that if W Bush had ever wanted to speak to my children
in a class setting, I would have pulled them!!!
NO MATTER WHAT THE MESSAGE WAS!!

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[tblue37]

44. kthxbai.

[proud2BlibKansan]

104. How is this mixing politics?

Telling kids to work hard isn't political. You told your kids to work hard so you obviously have no problem with that.

If Obama was running for office (like Bush was in 2004 when he appeared at high schools across the country) then this would be political. But Obama is the president.

If you are so anti political, why do you post on a political discussion board?

[vadawg]

106. this is political, hes a politician whether you like it or not, president or not

[proud2BlibKansan]

107. No, he is the leader of the country and his speech wasn't the least bit political.

And if you are so averse to politics, why are you posting on a political discussion board?

We had parents object to their kids listening to Obama for religious reasons and they also objected to having their kids watch the inauguration. But they don't participate in the political process at all. So your refusal to let your kids watch the president while you are an active member of an online political community doesn't make any sense.

[vadawg]

108. i am averse to politicians, not to what is happening in the world

theres a big difference, to you the speech was non political, to me and my wife it was, opinions differ as im sure your aware due to the variety of beliefs that the kids you teach show..

[proud2BlibKansan]

109. Okay what did he say that was political?

Stay in school?

Work hard?

Wash your hands?

I am really trying to understand your motives here. I watched the speech and would call it motivational, not political. So I am interested in what you heard in that speech that was political.

[Solomon]

118. You know damn well what his/her motives are.

Can't be hidden behind ridiculous reasons. Stupid is as stupid does.

[me b zola]

158. Now I'm wondering

if that poster flies a confederate flag from their Virgina home.

[SemperEadem]

169. for real... you see it plainly, too, I see.

well put.

[noiretextatique]

189. it cerrtainly seems that way

there was nothing remotely political about his speech. things that make you go hmmmm....

[Raineyb]

205. His motives are as plain as the nose on one's face.

Although I see there are those who continue to allow themselves to be fooled.

[seabeyond]

112. no, it wasnt. you can keep saying it. but it wasnt. the political is people like you

and the right that made it political. otherwise

no

it was not political. you made it so

[dionysus]

134. guess he's with the teabaggers on this one.

[seabeyond]

138. that he gets to be. but to feed a lie.... no. it gets called. nt

[defendandprotect]

155. Unfortunately . . .

Obama already has an historical connection now to supporting wars --
as sad as that is, we have to face it.

But every parent has to decide for themselves on what the whole "leader" package
tells their child.

I do know this -- if I had kids in school and W was still President, I would have
removed my children from the class.

In fact, I would have probably strongly criticized the school for permitting a
warmongering/torturer to speak to children!

[seabeyond]

173. furstly... no, the speech was not political and no one can make it so.... secondly

i have never "shielded" children from differing views. regardless. i have never stopped my children from listening to republicans or listening to bush for that matter. they often listened to what bush had to say. the HAD to listen to what bush said so they could recognize the lies and wrongs that were told the nation. so when THEY addressed this issue at school, with teachers and other students THEY knew what they were talking about, not parroting what i said.

i dont get this refusing information from children for fear???? of what?

[defendandprotect]

178. The speech wasn't "political" . . .

but Obama is a politician with a history now --

I'm supporting both sides here if you read my posts --

and, of course, while the individual we're addressing wants to

bring his private/personal decisions out into this public arena . . .

at the same time they want to be very VAGUE.

So -- we're all kinda arguing with thin air -- and many are presuming what

his reasons are, but we don't really know.

I wouldn't listen to what Bush had to say -- it was disgusting.

And, it depends on the age of the child as to how much they can understand

about all of the issues from war to wiretapping to the human right to health care.

If Obama were speaking to my children today -- despite my many disagreements with him -

I would not have pulled my kids from school.

[seabeyond]

185. firstly.... hey. dontcha hate when you have type, especially in title for all to see

lol

as stupid as furstly

lol

and past edit time.

i know why people do this. and it is continually getting worse. i dont like it. i dont think it is healthy and i think it is creating the ability for fox and repugs to lie so and get away with it, .... because as a society we have set ourselves up for this

i get it

i dont like it

thanks for the post

[defendandprotect]

186. Fox has to become irrelevant -- all MSM has to -- and why are you watching it ??????

[seabeyond]

187. an assumption. i dont watch fox. doesnt mean i dont know what is going on with them

i really dont watch any tv at all, except stewart and colbert.... all tv is crap. news is the crappiest. still doesnt mean i dont know what is happening.

[defendandprotect]

193. I'm with you . . .

[defendandprotect]

154. As we go further along in discussing this . . .

it becomes more and more obvious that when it's a "leader" it's not just what

that leader is saying at the moment ---

To see this person as a "leader" is to take the whole thing . . . everything

that leader has stood for.

When it comes to subsidizing religious organizations -- wars which he hasn't

stopped -- failure to move strongly towards the human right to health care for all --

it does become kind of a package.

Children are not going to necessarily have this full awareness -- but I would think

many of them know he is also Commander in Chief and has a lot to do with war and

causing harm to people in other nations?

[Cha]

162. No, it isn't political and you

know that but you have nothing so you continue to say that.

Why are you here when you obviously hate everything Obama? To distract? Fuck that.

[defendandprotect]

153. I agree with you . . .

but, then I also quite well know that if I had children in school and

Pres. W Bush had wanted to speak to them about anything, I would have pulled them!

How about you?

[proud2BlibKansan]

184. Yes I wouldn't have wanted them to hear Bush but not for political reasons

Dubya is inarticulate. Their time would have been better spent reading a book in the library.

[Hannah Bell]

208. but he was the PRESIDENT!!! what's sauce for the goose, etc.

[GOTV]

113. Do you send your kids to a public school? Run by politicians?

[madokie]

114. But what was the reason you kept them out of school???

'fraidy cat

[proud2BlibKansan]

183. I figured it out!

[AnotherMother4Peace]

202. It should be considered an unexcused absence - no politics, educational, beneficial n/t

[la la]

29. but.....

why did you opt out?

i guess i missed the explanation.....

was there an explanation?

you post here with a comment like that---you need to explain----but maybe, that's just me.....

[Liberty Belle]

30. Sorry, you have NOT stated your reason.

That's a typical pattern of racists. If your reason wasn't due to racism, then you shouldn't be hesitant to state it here.

[newtothegame]

33. Haha wow, quiet desperation. Find some happiness in life. N/t

[vadawg]

34. so what your saying is the only reason that someone would stop there kids from going to see a pol

politician is racism, does that count if you also withdraw if the pol is white, or asian. Cause if not then you are talking through your ass...

[Jim Sagle]

140. You could end this Seinfeld controversy by telling us the reason.

Of course it's your right not to do do, but this IS a political board - a very appropriate place to do so.

Coming to a political website and declaring your right not to give reasons for the political desisions you make is kinda STOOOOOPID, ain't it?

[Raineyb]

130. There's not going to be an explanation because it was racism.

And it's so obvious Stevie Wonder can see it.

[Hannah Bell]

168. The charge of "racism" in response to every criticism of the president

is beginning to sound like political manipulation.

I wouldn't like it if Bush did it. I don't like it when Obama does it.

When you charge racism for everything, it's like the boy who cried wolf.

The word loses its meaning & offense.

Maybe that's your goal, I don't know.

[SemperEadem]

174. however, the charge sticks here

dude's problem is this: he don't want no n____r talking to his kid about anything. He just doesn't have the stones to stand in his truth and take his asswhippin' for it here.

Now if you want to be naive and keep your pollyanna-ish outlook on people's characters, then go right on ahead. It just makes you look delusional when the obvious is in front of you but you can't bend your mind to consider it.

[Hannah Bell]

182. i'm not sure how you've determined this. perhaps you'll give your evidence.

[Raineyb]

194. I'm calling it because that's what I see.

Presidents have addressed children in school before and there was no big outcry about needing to opt out. So why in this case? I can think of ONE thing that's different about this president than all the others before. Now maybe you are under the delusion that racism is a thing of the past because a black man has managed to get himself elected president of this still racist country but I can ill afford to delude myself in such a manner.

That people on this board may be uncomfortable with the charge is not my concern. That you refuse to see it matters to me not one whit. That someone on a so called Democratic board admits that he kept his kids out of school to have them avoid seeing the black president speak and have the nerve to claim it's not racism is an insult to my intelligence. I know that people don't want to see the racism involved in the opposition to Obama. Too bad, I will rub you nose in it until you recognize it. I have to live with it every day why the hell shouldn't you?

The boy who cried wolf? The deadly consequences of racism in this country are too fucking serious to relegate to a mere game or a stupid fable. But then you don't have to live in a black skin in a racist country do you? I will not hold back in order to make you comfortable. Don't like it? Too bad! I don't like being a second class citizen in the country in which I was born. I have to deal with it. You'll just have to suffer or put your head in the sand. Either way I will call racism every time I see it. I don't need your permission nor do I need your approval.

[Hannah Bell]

206. I don't remember any previous occasion on which a president made a national-level

speech addressed specifically to K-12 schoolchildren.

i recall numerous occasions when presidents visited local classrooms or schools, but no national-level speech. i believe it's a first; if you have evidence otherwise, show me.

it's because it's national-level that you're hearing a "big outcry" about parents pulling their kids.

but parents pull their kids out of all kinds of school events at the local level, including speeches & visits by politicians.

knowing that, i wouldn't invite the reaction, & the politization of classrooms, by making a national level speech targeted to schoolchildren, nor to do a lesson plan where they're asked how they might "help" the president, as was reportedly the original plan.

i don't need your permission or approval for my opinions or beliefs, either, call me "racist" as you please.

you might ask the poster to pm you his own background; his action might make more sense to you.

[Raineyb]

220. Of course you don't need my permission. Just like you didn't need my

permission to dismiss what I see because you refuse to see it. I am sick and tired of racism only being called racism on the few (or blatantly obvious examples of it) when white people manage to recognize it. Until you stop acting as though it's only racism when YOU see it we won't agree on much when it comes to racism. I am sick and tired of white people telling me what the hell it is I see. I just told you what the hell I saw who the fuck are you to tell me otherwise?

[Hannah Bell]

226. To disagree isn't to dismiss. I have a different opinion from you. I'm not you,

the world doesn't consist only of you, your experiences, your knowledge, or your POV. You have your opinion, I have mine, this is a political discussion board.

[Control-Z]

201. I've come to the conclusion

that if it isn't racism, it is that his children are daughters, and his culture/religion doesn't allow the education and advancement of 2nd class/women/chattel. Must be hard trying to maintain that minority culture in America.

If it isn't one of the two, I'm plumb out of ideas.

[mamaleah]

212. Does his reason matter? Really?

Even if he gave a reason, he'd still get piled on.

JWs certainly would have opted their kids out. They aren't racist. They don't even vote. I guess that makes them.....politico-phobes. Stone them!

I will bet money this guy opted his kids out for religious reasons. But that would just give more fuel to the fire, so why would he mention it?

I saw the speech. It was beautiful and I do not understand why anyone would opt their kids out, but it is their right as a parent to do so. And shockingly.....it's not always about racism. If it were, I guess anyone on these forums who ever disagrees with or dislikes a policy of the President is a racist.

[Raineyb]

221. If you're not interested in even pretending to have respect for some of our views

why the fuck do you bother answering?

I'm tired of white people telling me what the hell I see.

When was there an outcry like this about a white president addressing children? That's right there wasn't! It's obvious that there are plenty of people who don't mind black people being senators, or representatives, or the occasional mayor but to be president and run the whole country? No that upsets the natural order of things. Having their children look up to this man may actually make them think that black people are worthy of respect rather than being tolerated while continuing to believe themselves superior even to the point where when a black person tells them what they see they insist on telling the black person what it is they actually saw.

People are supposed to be able to friggin' read which is supposed to mean they can infer. Apparently my inferences makes you so uncomfortable that you insist on "correcting" me. I know what I'm seeing. I don't need you to tell me what I saw. So stop telling me what I'm seeing. I'm TELLING you what the hell it is I'm seeing.

Is that too much fucking respect to expect around here?

[panzerfaust]

120. actually, you did not

First you asserted: "my kids opted out of watching the speech"
Next you stated: "myself and my wife made the decision to withdraw our kids"

Two very different circumstances.

Further, your having volunteered the information that you prohibited your children from participating, it seems unduly defensive to simply snap back "that should be a good enough reason" in response to inquiry as to what those reasons were.

You raised the issue.

---------------
Oh, {warning, grammar police} it should, in American English, be "my wife and I..." Even in British English such use as you make of the first person singular reflexive pronoun is considered awkward at best.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[Maru Kitteh]

26. I have a question. Why are you, without fail, on the Freeper side of every single issue?

And your statement is positively absurd on it's face. Evidence and facts mock you.

[HughBeaumont]

116. Noticed that as well. And a few others as of late.

Lots of "let's play 'Devil's Advocate's", "aren't we being just like freepers by doing . . .", "It's no different than when Bush was in office . . " Funny how that works.

[Spazito]

135. Good question! n/t

[Jazzgirl]

143. I have noticed the same thing Kitteh.

n/t

[dionysus]

132. hmm, you withdrew your kids like these teabaggers did, but not for political reasons?

hookay.

[Horse with no Name]

18. He laid it out the other day

He doesn't trust the President.
It's archived here somewhere. Don't let him tell you otherwise.