The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

For full disclosure, I did get this link off of the Drudge report. I guess politics gets played on both sides of the aisle, with Dems even holding hearings into GHW Bush's speech to students.

I have read Obama's speech and don't find anything in it really problematic. My concern now is the political spin that will be obvious (both directions, though I suspect that most teachers do lean left) in the lessons surrounding the speech.

[BarTopDancer]

Newt Gingrich was on the Today show this morning saying it was a good speech and all kids should listen/read it.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I have read Obama's speech and don't find anything in it really problematic. My concern now is the political spin that will be obvious (both directions, though I suspect that most teachers do lean left) in the lessons surrounding the speech.

It must be exhausting being so paranoid all the time.

I couldn't tell you what way ANY of my teachers leaned and we had political integration in school (I was in school during election years and we discussed it).

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Newt Gingrich was on the Today show this morning saying it was a good speech and all kids should listen/read it.

Wow....I didn't realize you were such a Newt fan.

And uh, I think I just posted that I saw nothing in the speech objectionable. Did you read that?

With this kind of stuff - and I suppose if I have to I'll post other links to blatant bias - I can't imagine why I'd be paranoid.

Anecdotal? Certainly. Could you perhaps find links with a conservative bent? I'm sure (I did say there could be bias either way).

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Wow....I didn't realize you were such a Newt fan.

I'm not a Newt fan, nor is he an Obama fan. Which is my point. Someone who is such a prominent figure in the Republican party is saying that the speech is good and should be heard.

And uh, I think I just posted that I saw nothing in the speech objectionable. Did you read that?

You may have said nothing in the speech was objectionable but now you're worried about teachers putting a bias on their lesson plans.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

. My concern now is the political spin that will be obvious (both directions, though I suspect that most teachers do lean left) in the lessons surrounding the speech.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

You may have said nothing in the speech was objectionable but now you're worried about teachers putting a bias on their lesson plans.

Not now. I believe the lesson plans that accompanied it were part of my original problems and was stated as such. Having read the speech, I am fine with it (though I think it is long winded and rather boring and students are going to tune out). This part of my objection stands.

I do realize that I said "now" in what you quoted, and I realize that was misleading in making it seem as if it has only just become a part of my concern. Sorry for the confusion.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

For full disclosure, I did get this link off of the Drudge report. I guess politics gets played on both sides of the aisle, with Dems even holding hearings into GHW Bush's speech to students.

I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread (can't remember if it was here or at another board) that there'd been protests from Democratic leadership in response to the 1991 speech. I believe the phrase I used was "they were douchebags too."

Absolutely politics gets played by all sides seeking advantage, and that tends to result in a douchebaggery. But I do think there is a substantive difference between "it is outrageous that the president would use Department of Education funds in a ploy to boost his political popularity, even if the content is innocuous, at the beginning of a presidential campaign" and "the president can't be trusted to speak to our nation's children because he'll probably try to brainwash them with his socialist agenda; we ascared of him!" I have yet to see any indication of protest against Bush's speech (or Reagan's) that they were harmful to children.

If the charge had simply been "Obama is giving this speech because he wants to make children like him and therefore subtly influence the political landscape" I'd probably agree that such is an added motivation. "Oh my god! He's using the same methods as Stalin and Hitler!" just, in my opinion, renders the speaker irrelevant to me.

Which reminds me:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Nor is focus on the outrageous claims (both by those that mke them and those who focus on them) reason to ignore the real problems.

No, that is true. When people say really stupid things or completely fabricate things and sprinkle it among reasonably valid concerns the untruths do not diminish the valid concerns.

However, they do eliminate much of the desire to engage in discussion with such people. They also instill a increased level of initial skepticism about any claims while simultaneously reducing the seriousness with which I view that person so that my desire to investigate is blunted. When the BS ratio reaches a certain level, when faced with uncertain additional statements I'm going to assume they're BS until I can determine otherwise whereas with a generally honest debater I will assume the information presented is generally correct and take it as such until given reason to believe otherwise.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

No, that is true. When people say really stupid things or completely fabricate things and sprinkle it among reasonably valid concerns the untruths do not diminish the valid concerns.

However, they do eliminate much of the desire to engage in discussion with such people.

Agreed. I would figure politics is full of spreading disinformation when you are a supportor of something in an effort to distract criticism from what are real problems, giving the opportunity to discredit those who offer valid criticism as simply being part of the kooks.