September 8, 2009

Schoolhouse Crock

Hatched by Dafydd

Looking at DRJ's post over at Patterico's and Paul's and John's on Power Line, I see that once again, it falls to the lowly Lizard to play the fly in the punchbowl.

Three bottoms

DRJ:

[H]opefully we can agree it’s a good message to tell students they need to work hard and get a good education.

Thankfully, we can't.

Paul:

[T]here is no good reason for Obama not to give his speech.

Yes, Paul, there is.

John:

The Obama administration is off to a horrible start, but it isn't yet a lost cause. If Obama could put aside his dopey left-wing ideology and stick to this kind of positive message, he could yet salvage his Presidency. But I'm afraid he doesn't have it in him to do that.

No, he can simply make himself a laughingstock. (But I do agree with your last sentence.)

The ghost in the machine

What all three are missing is that this speech, or indeed any speech by the President of the United States given (by decree) to all schoolchildren on their first day back -- even if the attempted monopolization was unsuccessful -- causes very real and significant damage to the education of a free, self-reliant citizenry in what should be a nation of liberty.

Oh, come on, Dafydd, where's your sense of proportion? Aren't you taking this much too personally?

No, I'm the only one being honest and realistic on this bus. Hasn't any of you asked yourself why Obama insists upon delivering this speech in the first place? Do you imagine he thinks his little homily will actually turn around the decline in American education over the past few decades? Or is it more likely that he just wants to get his nose in the tent -- so that next time, the precedent having been set, he can say what he really wanted to say this time.

John mentioned "subtext" in his post, but he didn't take that analysis far enough. The systemic subtext of any such speech is that the president is acting within his jurisdiction in talking to other people's children about how they should approach school and life in general... and the only proper response by parents should be to say, "Mr. President, my child's education is none of your damn business."

It may be the business of their state's governor, or perhaps their city's mayor -- or better yet, their kid's principal. It may even be the federal government's business that the states are doing their jobs at least minimally well, so long as those states suckle at the federal teat.

But the subtext of this or any other presidential speech to the nation's schoolkids is that the federal government, and its avatar, the president, stand in loco parentis: "In the position or place of a parent;" and that is simply above the pay grade of the president. It's not Obama's business, especially when his platitudes may well conflict with lessons from the parents he is usurping.

In particular cases, as when a parent is abusing a child, I can see the state, county, or city having authority to become the child's new parent -- though we all know how horribly that power can be abused. But there is no justification possible for the Chief Executive of the United States to usurp parental and local authority of all students, irrespective of how good or bad a job is being done by those he has just elbowed aside.

What's done is done -- and done again, and again, and again

In addition, this speech sets a vile precedent: That anytime the president wants to propagandize the nation's youth (even for "good" propaganda about working hard and doing all their homework), he can henceforth give a speech and demand that teachers and school systems everywhere force students to listen to it.

What life lessons will Obama feel compelled to pass along in 2010, 2011, and 2012?

What if the next president gives a "back to school" speech about the importance of celebrating same-sex marriage, abortion, and socialism? What if the one after that wants to use his by now traditional privilege to force kids to sit still for a lecture on pure laissez-faire Capitalism, the evil of any and all taxes, and the unprovable, fairy tale nature of "Darwinism?"

As a general rule, it's a wretched infringement to teach children to take marching orders from the president. Any president, at any time other than dire national emergency... and even then, they should be skeptical as hell: The Tree of Liberty demands nothing less.

This year's back-to-school speech is seemingly innocuous; I'm utterly convinced that the next will be a little more pointed, however; the third will be outright partisan; and the fourth will exhort all the little Winston Smiths to tattle on their parents' thoughtcrime.

What once all knew

I can't believe conservatives still haven't gotten it through their heads that the worst tendencies of people in this fallen world are exaggerated and exacerbated by orders of magnitude when those bad people serve in the government.

But I'm not in the least surprised that the libertarians -- last seen voting for Ron Paul, Babar, or even the One They Were All Waiting For himself -- are nowhere at hand when the State reaches its grubby paws right into every classroom in the most direct and offensive method possible: A presidentially directed national sing-along that simultaneously infantalizes students, emasculates fathers, and marginalizes mothers. Repent, ye natural sons of liberty.

Speaking of tea parties, how would those Boston rapscallions have reacted to a royal decree that some recent "speech of virtues" given by King George III be read aloud to every child in America -- even "innocuous" virtues that in the abstract, they all supported?

In many ways, we were a more sophisticated, intuitive, savvy people 236 years ago.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 8, 2009, at the time of 7:41 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3868

Comments

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

You are correct, sir, save this: It is first and foremost "the business" of PARENTS to attend to their child's education. There is nothing whatsoever in the concept of "public education" which requires that it be performed in government buildings, by government employees, and to a one-size-fits-all government mandated curriculum. The only involvement of government should be in offering up a subsidy so that every parent has an equal opportunity to provide that important foundation for the child's successful entry into a self-governing society and competitive free economy. Call them "education stamps," like "food stamps." We don't tell you what to buy or where to buy it, just so it goes to "food," and everybody gets them.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 8, 2009 8:39 AM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

At last someone sees what the problem really is.

I don't give a flying flapjack what Obama says. What he says is entirely irrelevant to the question.

The president has no more right or privilege to address the nation's school children than the pope, the Dali Lama, the Michael Jordan, or I do, which is to say, no privilege at all.

Let me give another scenario - the president demands that each state legislature be called into session so that he can give a pep talk to them in these challenging economic times. What could be wrong with that? Well....everything. He has no right to do such a thing. They do not report to him, and are not appointed by him.

What this shows me is that Obama has an inflated ego (everyone wants to see more Obama!) and at best a vague understanding of the proper limits of presidential power.

The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 8, 2009 11:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: Phoenix Musings

It is a question that I have wondered myself. Why make the speech at all? The kids won't remember it 2 days later. I've often wondered if his whole stupid candidacy and election were "the camels nose under the tent". That's crazy though, right? Because then you're talking about conspiracy and that is nuts. I can't get past the question of how such a bumbling fool got elected? He was such an unqualified candidate it makes no sense. Kennedy endorsed him knowing that he was unqualified. I guess my mistake is trying to makes sense out of liberals. I can't accept that there ideology is their god and that they are that fanatical. I'm sorry about this rant but it makes me nuts!

The above hissed in response by: Phoenix Musings [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 8, 2009 12:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: Davod

Dafydd:

The speech was originally 30 minutes, the revision was down to 15-20 minutes.

The original questions were online long enough for teachers to download them and use them in their classrooms.

This was the first time I heard about Obama being schooled by his mother at 4:30 in the morning, while in Indonesia, so he could learn US subjects. Does anyone know if this is already part of his narrative?

PS: I have already read that in arlier speeches he has embellished his and Michelle's backgrounds.

What example does it set if some of what he said in his speech turns out to be untrue?

The above hissed in response by: Davod [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 8, 2009 1:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

I gotta hand it to the guy -- the whole school speech thing was a coup, maybe even an intentional one.

First they published the “study guide” with red meat sure to enrage the Right. “How can we help you, Mr. President?” Sheesh.

That, of course, was way too political for Uncle Barack’s firebrandside chat, so it was withdrawn almost immediately. But the die was spilt, so parents everywhere -- at least those with leanings to the right of Bill Ayers -- objected.

So all the objectionable bits were excised from the study guide, and the speech when delivered turned out to be pure Pablum. And all those right-wingers look like overreacting fools.

There’s no prior evidence that the administration is capable of such devious foresight. But let’s keep this sequence of events in mind next time Obama and friends make a misstep, then graciously correct themselves.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 8, 2009 5:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: Marcum

What I told my kids about the speech before they went to school this morning was:

The thing you need to understand the most is that the President works for us -- he is our employee and public servant and is only there to serve our interests.

I'm not going to keep you out of school, but what I want you to know is that whatever he says doesn't really matter to you. He is not your parent, he doesn't love you, he won't take care of you or make sure you grow up with all the things you need to make a good life of your own.

So it's fine to listen to him, but it's basically a waste of time. Your Mom and I are your parents and we do everything we can every day to make sure that you are setting yourself up to have a fulfilling self-sufficient life when you become an adult. There is nothing he can say to add to the efforts and advice and support and love we already give you.

As an employee of mine and my fellow citizens, I wish he wouldn't waste his time telling you to wash your hands or study -- he has other problems that are more important (didn't tell them about Iran, etc.).

I told them I think he is doing a poor job as our employee because instead of listening to what we want, he thinks he knows better and is trying to talk us into stuff that will not be good for us. Because of that, I am hoping that we will all fire him.

But never get confused, he is our employee and we are not his. As long as we obey the law, he has nothing to say to us and needs to focus on the jobs he is supposed to be doing like protecting us from foreigners who don't like our country and might try to do mean things. That is the main job we hired him to do and if he doesn't pay more attention to that and less attention to what we -- his employers -- are doing, he is going to get fired at the next election for sure.

Good message for everyone -- he is merely our employee.

We will respect and praise our employee for doing a great job at the tasks for which we hired him. He does not deserver our respect if doesn't do a good job -- and so far, he has been awful. Probably the worst thing yet is knowing Lockerbie bomber is going to be let go and not stopping it. Lots of other poor performances too:

Foreign Policy:
Failed to stop release of Lockerbie Bomber
European apology tour
Muslim apology tour
Dismal support Israel
Poor support Iranian elections – recognize Ahmedinijad – no progress on nuclear issue
Screw up Honduras
Buddy-buddy Chavez
Close Gitmo
Investigate CIA
Shut down enhanced interrogation – change status of terror pursuit
Closer ties with Cuba

Economic:
Porky ineffective stimulus
Buy GM
Wipe out Chrysler creditors and give to union
Banks can’t pay back TARP
Cap and Trade
Health Care rubbish
Cash for clunkers
Failure to focus on economic issue to spend time on the goofy stuff above

Domestic:
Re-implement government funding abortions
Criticize cops – Gates stupidity
Reinstate VA death book
Van Jones
Address to schools
Report healthcare opponents to the white house
The opposition is a mob


I don't think our employee is doing very well -- we may have to figure out how to fire him sooner. I think a return of Republican Majority in 2010 would effectively fire him. This is real doable
Marc

The above hissed in response by: Marcum [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 8, 2009 11:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: Marcum

What I told my kids about the speech before they went to school this morning was:

The thing you need to understand the most is that the President works for us -- he is our employee and public servant and is only there to serve our interests.

I'm not going to keep you out of school, but what I want you to know is that whatever he says doesn't really matter to you. He is not your parent, he doesn't love you, he won't take care of you or make sure you grow up with all the things you need to make a good life of your own.

So it's fine to listen to him, but it's basically a waste of time. Your Mom and I are your parents and we do everything we can every day to make sure that you are setting yourself up to have a fulfilling self-sufficient life when you become an adult. There is nothing he can say to add to the efforts and advice and support and love we already give you.

As an employee of mine and my fellow citizens, I wish he wouldn't waste his time telling you to wash your hands or study -- he has other problems that are more important (didn't tell them about Iran, etc.).

I told them I think he is doing a poor job as our employee because instead of listening to what we want, he thinks he knows better and is trying to talk us into stuff that will not be good for us. Because of that, I am hoping that we will all fire him.

But never get confused, he is our employee and we are not his. As long as we obey the law, he has nothing to say to us and needs to focus on the jobs he is supposed to be doing like protecting us from foreigners who don't like our country and might try to do mean things. That is the main job we hired him to do and if he doesn't pay more attention to that and less attention to what we -- his employers -- are doing, he is going to get fired at the next election for sure.

Good message for everyone -- he is merely our employee.

We will respect and praise our employee for doing a great job at the tasks for which we hired him. He does not deserver our respect if doesn't do a good job -- and so far, he has been awful. Probably the worst thing yet is knowing Lockerbie bomber is going to be let go and not stopping it. Lots of other poor performances too:

Foreign Policy:
Failed to stop release of Lockerbie Bomber
European apology tour
Muslim apology tour
Dismal support Israel
Poor support Iranian elections – recognize Ahmedinijad – no progress on nuclear issue
Screw up Honduras
Buddy-buddy Chavez
Close Gitmo
Investigate CIA
Shut down enhanced interrogation – change status of terror pursuit
Closer ties with Cuba

Economic:
Porky ineffective stimulus
Buy GM
Wipe out Chrysler creditors and give to union
Banks can’t pay back TARP
Cap and Trade
Health Care rubbish
Cash for clunkers
Failure to focus on economic issue to spend time on the goofy stuff above

Domestic:
Re-implement government funding abortions
Criticize cops – Gates stupidity
Reinstate VA death book
Van Jones
Address to schools
Report healthcare opponents to the white house
The opposition is a mob


I don't think our employee is doing very well -- we may have to figure out how to fire him sooner. I think a return of Republican Majority in 2010 would effectively fire him. This is real doable
Marc

The above hissed in response by: Marcum [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 8, 2009 11:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

Marcum,

I made the same case during the Lewinski affair. Basically, if I caught one of my employees banging some girl on the job, he'd be in big trouble. Tack on the missed work because of pending court cases and out the door he would go.

I asked my 9 year old daughter about the Obama speech. She uhmmmed, and uuuuhhhed then said he told them to stay in school. She seemed quite nonplussed by the whole thing.

The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 9, 2009 12:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: AD

"...we were a more sophisticated, intuitive, savvy people 236 years ago."

Well, we did have a more thorough understanding of the uses of tar, feathers, and fence-rails.

The above hissed in response by: AD [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 9, 2009 10:15 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved