American Politics

[Easy Bakes 253]

maybe a better term would be "Not Sympathetic" to use my example, there were probably thing some one could do besides turn to crime to support the family.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

maybe a better term would be "Not Sympathetic" to use my example, there were probably thing some one could do besides turn to crime to support the family.

quote>

I can go with that.  But there is a huge difference between "not sympathetic" and "prejudiced".

To use the example of the Jackson children, let's look at Michael's father, Joe.  I have no sympathy for the man whatsoever.

If I said "Joe Jackson is a black man therefore he is incompetent to raise children", that would be prejudice.

But, if I said "Joe Jackson was abusive to his own children; he might abuse the grandchildren", that is a statement based on his individual behavior, which is not prejudice.

If the idea is that I empathize with abused children, therefore I am prejudiced against child abusers, I still contend that, no, that is not prejudice.   That is judging them on their individual behavior, not a preconceived notion based on no prior knowledge of the individuals.

I still don't see how "Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another".    It makes no sense to me.

[Easy Bakes 253]

PPFB

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Empathy isn't an either/or thing.   and it has nothing to do with prejudice.quote>

quote>

If you look up "prejudice" in a thesaurus, you'll likely find "bias" listed as a synonym, and if you look up "bias" in a dictionary, you might also find the word "prejudice."  Both words convey a sense of an opinion that is slanted in one direction or another.  This is a problem with a judge as judges are supposed to be impartial.  However, once a judge starts empathizing with either the plaintiff or defendent, the judge is no longer impartial and the other party is no longer receiving a fair trial as is their Constitutional right.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Who knows, maybe they'll eventually mount speakers up there, too, and broadcast ads for Cadre Cola. It hits the spot!

quote>

Sounds like America. Over here, they tell you to clean up your litter or chavs to bugger off from the tram stop.

quote>

Cadre Cola is a reference to the book/movie The Running Man, some of the funniest stuff in it are the ads in between things like "Kids, earn double bonuses this month for turning in a family member" and the like. The combination of entertainment, merchandising, and police-state propaganda in the future portrayed by the movie was almost prophetic IMO.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

There is nothing wrong with empathy. In fact, empathy is a good thing. It shows a personal relationship within an issue. Taking the Sotomayor confirmation hearings and all of the Republican hubbub about it (and personal experience), as an example, I find a high level of hypocrisy in the opposition. While we may have a court system set up to evaluate cases, no one should doubt that bias will be involved. A Republican, just like a Democrat, will have preconceived notions that influences their decision. What I find tiring and disgusting is the attempt to dismiss bias... "Oh, I wouldn't do that" or "Oh, I would rely on precedent". We need to all realize that this is not a truthful answer. The true answer is "I would make my decision based on 1) the law, 2) on precedent, and 3) on my personal interpretation of both".

Not to sound like a broken record, but I am Liberal. I fully support placing Liberals in all modes of government. I fully believe that the Progressive movement is beneficial to American society and our future standing depends on it.

Barbarossaquote>

I wonder if any supreme court judge have ever vote the way they were supposed too, or how people thought they would.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

If you look up "prejudice" in a thesaurus, you'll likely find "bias" listed as a synonym, and if you look up "bias" in a dictionary, you might also find the word "prejudice."  Both words convey a sense of an opinion that is slanted in one direction or another. quote>

The key here is that prejudice is an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.  It is not prejudice to to have an unfavorable opinion after listening to the facts of the case.

This is a problem with a judge as judges are supposed to be impartial.  However, once a judge starts empathizing with either the plaintiff or defendent, the judge is no longer impartial and the other party is no longer receiving a fair trial as is their Constitutional right.quote>

Possibly but not always.  It is quite possible to empathize with those children in Florida while remaining impartial as to whether or not this particular group of guys are the ones who did it.  The evidence needs to be examined before deciding whether or not Person A or Person B is guilty. 

Where it becomes a problem is when the judge (or the prosecutor) decide that someone has to pay for this crime and, if they can't get Guy X, then let's go after Guy Y.  The whole "We have to get justice so we have to get someone" mentality is more dangerous than having empathy for someone.

If, as EB suggested, the quote was

Empathy for one party can lead to a lack of sympathy for anotherquote>

I could see some truth to it.

But

Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another quote>

makes no sense.  The word "prejudice" doesn't belong in the sentence.  Neither does the word "always".

I could laugh this off as taking after some people and being pedantic.   But there is something very troubling about the mindset that produced this quote.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

On Sotomayor and empathy, I believe that "empathy" in this context is being defined as understanding the parties in the case by, metaphorically, putting oneself in the parties' shoes, and in that way better understanding the consequences of a particular decision. I find little wrong with this, so long as emotions stay out of the final decision.

That said, I've seen her confirmation hearings to date, and what I have seen is a nominee that does not uphold the rule of law, believes in the rule of precedent (which ignores the actual laws), and whose interpretations are inconsistent (example: 1st, 4th, 5th amendments being covered under due process clause whereas 2nd is not, with no such provision in the actual clause). If I were a Senator, I would not vote for her.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

The key here is that prejudice is an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.  It is not prejudice to to have an unfavorable opinion after listening to the facts of the case.quote>

I don't know who made the quote, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of just a bad word choice.  I've done it before myself, with that word specifically.

Possibly but not always.  It is quite possible to empathize with those children in Florida while remaining impartial as to whether or not this particular group of guys are the ones who did it.  The evidence needs to be examined before deciding whether or not Person A or Person B is guilty.quote>

Impartiality requires the ability to maintain objectivity, and I'm not aware of any human that is capable of remaining objective when he is thinking subjectively.  This is the problem with empathetic responses from a judge and/or a jury.  Empathy is subjective, and like it or not, it will degrade, if not completely destroy, one's ability to think objectively.  Lawyers have long known this; it's the reason why the defense sought a change of venue for the Scott Peterson case.  Likewise, one of the main points of jury selection is to ascertain the ability of the potential jurors to think objectively about the situation before them.  It is also this reason why, during the court case, lawyers will attempt to elicit emotional responses from the jury; the attorney doesn't need a winning case, or all the facts in his favor, or anything else.  He just needs to brainwash the jury into believing him, and there is no better way to do this than to elicit an empathetic reaction which destroys all objective thinking that the jury has previously maintained.  It is because of this that empathy in a judge is a problem; the judge cannot be trusted to act impartially anymore.

Where it becomes a problem is when the judge (or the prosecutor) decide that someone has to pay for this crime and, if they can't get Guy X, then let's go after Guy Y.  The whole "We have to get justice so we have to get someone" mentality is more dangerous than having empathy for someone.quote>

Having empathy for someone can drive someone to adopt the "someone has to pay for this" mentality.  All it takes is the prosecutor, judge, or jury feeling sorry for the victim, and what should have been an impartial, fact-based trial can quickly degenerate into a vendetta-driven episode of revenge.  And it all started with empathy.

[Odainsaker 2,137]

While watching Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Senate hearing on her Supreme Court nomination, I began to wonder how many of us have actually read the now notorious "Wise Latina Woman" speech she has given several times in her long career of public speaking.  Outside of clipped blurbs by commentators and politicians, here is the text of the speech from start to finish given in 2001 to the UC Berkeley School of Law:  A Latina judge's voice.

Is she politically backpedaling following a tact laid out by her play-it-safe White House handlers?  Is she an angry liberal activist rabidly infiltrating insidious affirmative action into American jurisprudence?  Is she just being read exaggeratedly out-of-context?  Is she just the current playball between parties thumping their own agendas for their own audiences?  Reverse Racism?  Perhaps really this is just entertaining Theater of Spin from all sides?  At any rate, we can read and decide for ourselves.

[confused04 14]

Wise Latina Woman is not okay, but lipstick wearing bull dog/hockey mom... thats a valid.... hmmmm. I think people need to back off these things.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[belfastuniguy 18]

Don't even start me on American Conservatives and their champion FOX News. They make America look like a sad joke.

With headlines like,

'Rockerfeller Plaza and the hidden communist propaganda'

'Obama exploits 9/11 to support his health care plan'

'Obama new advisor is an anti-american, 9/11 truth communist.'

'Parents to pull their children out of school before obama propaganda speech'

'100 homeless people in Florida to benefit from your tax dollars with new houses'

became

'100 homeless people in Florida to benefit from your tax dollars with news houses, some of them convicted criminals.'

and this morning it was

'100 SEX OFFENDERS get new houses payed for by the tax payer'

In addition to the fashion for American conservatives blaming other countries for American problems and ignoring the problems that afflict their own nation.

Indeed O'Reilly saw fit to castigate the Netherlands recently in a report devoid of fact. SHOCKER!!!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I am sad to say that the attitude of American conservatives worries me greatly. I am beginning to think that there are too many differences between the opposing points-of-view to make this country maintain its global status and improve our functionality in an increasingly global world. For those outside the US looking in, I can say that this is the most threatening, divisive and unfounded threat to our society since the American Civil War (another war of ideals).quote>

The country does seem to be getting increasingly polarized between liberal and conservative. And yes, it's tearing us apart. We're headed for another civil war if it doesn't stop.

But  if it comes to that, it won't be fought on battlefields with opposing armies. It will be fought politically. governors will refuse to accept federal money that comes with strings attatched that they don't like. Citizens will refuse to pay their taxes.

It will be about exactly the same thing the first civil war was about, ultimately: states rights versus citizens rights. And at the end of it all, the outcome will be one of three things:

1) a far weaker federal government with states individually becoming far more powerful, each allowed to do their own thing as they see fit

2) a permanent schism into two separate countries, one consisting of the red states, the other of the blue states

3) one side gaining firm control over everything, silencing their opponents, and instituting a one-party government

I'd really like to see outcome number one, but it won't happen without a struggle leading up to it and the end result could just as easily be outcome two or three, both of which ultimately make us worse off.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Don't even start me on American Conservatives and their champion FOX News. They make America look like a sad joke. quote>

Meh. American Liberals with their own "champion" media outlets are no better.

The problem in general is that all American media outlets report opinions (be they right wing, left wing, top wing, or bottom wing) rather than facts. FOX will offer their conservative version. MSNBC will offer their liberal version. Free Talk Live will offer their libertarian version. I can't name one off the top of my head, but an authoritarian-oriented outlet will offer up their authoritiarian version.

You can watch/listen to different outlets, but ultimately none of them are completely trustworthy. If you want the truth, you're not going to find it. You just have to decide for yourself who you want to believe, and maybe they're right.

It's a sad fact of humanity that people don't want to listen to facts. They want to listen to people tell them what they want to hear. A news outlet which truly just reported facts and left it at that wouldn't be viable. No one would watch it.

In addition to the fashion for American conservatives blaming other countries for American problems and ignoring the problems that afflict their own nation.

Indeed O'Reilly saw fit to castigate the Netherlands recently in a report devoid of fact. SHOCKER!!!quote>

Yeah, um... O'Reilly isn't blaming the Netherlands for anything. He's using it as a comparison point. Which is flawed, yes, because it's an apples to oranges comparison, but it gets the desired point across (whether you agree with it or not).

As for the counter-facts to the report, one problem: those statistics are about all of the Netherlands, not about just Amsterdam (what he was talking about).

Beyond that, there are two other inherent flaws with the comeback. For the first, we can go to that adage that there's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics. More people in the US have used drugs than in the Netherlands. I can believe that. But so what? It doesn't account for the people who come from other countries to do drugs there because it's legal. As for the lower rate of overdoses, that actually is a valid indicator that legalizing drugs lets people use them more "responsibly". And, none of those things speak of the involvement of organized crime and corruption, which is what O'Reilly's report was looking at. If you want to show me some statistics demonstrating that organized crime is lower in Amsterdam than it is in New York or Las Vegas, than that would firmly contradict O'Reilly and prove him wrong. But a few quick numbers about drug use among the local population mean nothing.

The other flaw is my favorite one. You've proabably heard this before: correlation does not imply causation. Maybe there are fewer murders, but what does that have to do with anything? A lot of things motivate murder, drugs very often aren't involved. One can't take that as an indicator that their drug policy is better than ours, because so many other unaccounted for and even unidentified and undefined factors contribute to it. It's far more complex than "legal drugs, less murder". That's not to say that legalized drugs does not positively contribute to the matter, but the mere fact that the rate is lower there proves nothing.

I'll give you this much, Bill O'Reilly was being sensational there, and I don't agree with what he's saying about drug policy either. But everyone sensationalizes things. Quit singling out FOX as if they're so awful and everyone else is so great.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Barbarossa: I don't believe it is differing points of view that are the problem -- it is the similarity in ideology between the two parties in your two-party system. It is no wrong feeling that Obama abd the Democrats have similar policies to the Republicans -- it is true. It seems like in America they have only two choices: one version of fascism, and another version of fascism. Naturally this is quite unpopular, and is leading to disillusionment with the current political system, and that can lead to change (of the non-slogan variety).

I just heard that Van Jones resigned from his office. What a pity. He was a great man for the job, having the determination, will, and means to do it, but he can't be in there because of harassment by Fox, who does not want people to be appointed based on individual merit, but on ideology.

To use an example, who would you want overseeing the needs of the working class for jobs: a communist, or an AIG executive? I would choose the comminist, because, while I do not agree with its principles, a communist is greatly concerned about the working class and their ability to get good jobs. Contrast this with an executive who has little concern outside of his field, which in this case would be insurance.

This is a basic question of should people be appointed based on ideology. The answer, one which we should have learned from Boss Tweed and others like him in the 19th century, is to appoint based on ability, not on whether they agree with the president or some other conception of the political center.

Which leads us to another question -- is it good to have opposing points of view in an Executive's staff? Absolutely. As George Washington did, it is best to have working for you people with opposing points of view and different perspectives. That way you can find out what is really going on, and how to fix it.

I don't mind communists in government at all, and I believe that many governments, especially the US one, would benefit from having some communists (and yes, some people of other ideologies as well, including conservatives) in thier Executive's staff.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Barbarossa: I don't believe it is differing points of view that are the problem -- it is the similarity in ideology between the two parties in your two-party system. It is no wrong feeling that Obama abd the Democrats have similar policies to the Republicans -- it is true. It seems like in America they have only two choices: one version of fascism, and another version of fascism. Naturally this is quite unpopular, and is leading to disillusionment with the current political system, and that can lead to change (of the non-slogan variety).

I just heard that Van Jones resigned from his office. What a pity. He was a great man for the job, having the determination, will, and means to do it, but he can't be in there because of harassment by Fox, who does not want people to be appointed based on individual merit, but on ideology.

To use an example, who would you want overseeing the needs of the working class for jobs: a communist, or an AIG executive? I would choose the comminist, because, while I do not agree with its principles, a communist is greatly concerned about the working class and their ability to get good jobs. Contrast this with an executive who has little concern outside of his field, which in this case would be insurance.

This is a basic question of should people be appointed based on ideology. The answer, one which we should have learned from Boss Tweed and others like him in the 19th century, is to appoint based on ability, not on whether they agree with the president or some other conception of the political center.

Which leads us to another question -- is it good to have opposing points of view in an Executive's staff? Absolutely. As George Washington did, it is best to have working for you people with opposing points of view and different perspectives. That way you can find out what is really going on, and how to fix it.

I don't mind communists in government at all, and I believe that many governments, especially the US one, would benefit from having some communists (and yes, some people of other ideologies as well, including conservatives) in thier Executive's staff.quote>

But George Washingtons vice president was the runner up in the election, his oposition so to speak ,This man was John Adams, another of the founding fathers and probably not to opposed to george's policys. in fact his whole cabinet was founding fathers.

mabey we could go back to that system,  no running mates the 2nd place guy gets the vice presidency.

Washington was not a member of any political party and hoped that they would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnationquote>

How right he was.

[fukuda 351]

who would you want overseeing the needs of the working class for jobs: a communist, or an AIG executive?quote>

Ugh. None, they are the radical extreme opposites..

[threeswept 12]

Duke - Fox is almost always going to be singled out because it is one of two of the most popular conservative news networks. So, it's no surprise to see reference after reference about them. They are also referenced by other sites and networks...so...

Barbarosa - completely agree with your comments back on the 4th. One of the greatest issues in America is that politics are a game. It's my team against your team. And, I'll do whatever it takes to make my team look better, perform better and make my team appear above your team. It's disgusting and will NEVER change unless something severely massive and unexpected happens to change it.

Americans are, in general, super na

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: threeswept

Americans are, in general, super naïve and arrogant. Naïve enough to put blind faith in rumours and innuendo and arrogant enough to believe it's true. It's amazingly easy to sway and 'sheep' those uninformed idiots into believing whatever is being thrown their direction.quote>

This I'm not going to argue with you on.

Though I am going to point out that it's a failing of all of humanity, not just Americans. You see it all over the world in various different forms.

So, conservatives are hell-bent in dipicting Obama's speech to the youth of America as some sort of regaled event of propaganda. Parents are seriously going to keep their children home from school just so they aren't brainwashed??? What morons. No matter that numerous presidents made a speech to students in the past. It's just moronic.quote>

Well, here's the thing. Presidents often have, in the past, given such speeches to schoolchildren and it's never been a big deal because they've all been "stat in school, try hard, shoot for your dreams" sort of speeches. None of them have ever gotten politics involved.

Supposedly, Obama intends to ask the children to write him letters in favor of his healthcare reform plan. Now, I don't know if that's true, but it doesn't sound completely outrageous that he would do that and if he did it would be a horrible awful thing. So I completely understand the actions of the parents here. If I had a kid at the school he was coming to, I'd do the same thing. I'm not convinced he's planning to "brainwash" them, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to take that risk.

As for it being "brainwashing"... it may be a rather dramatic term to be using, but it's not entirely inapt. He'd be trying to teach them what to believe, essentially. And that is brainwashing. But there's more to it than that, and this is why I find this idea completely plausible - this isn't about the children there. They're pawns in the greater political scheme, which is this: he then gets to take those letters he recieves, point to them and say "see? Even our little children support this plan!", and use it as an emotional card to play to shove the plan through and silence the opposition. And it's an insidious tactic because his opponents can't win. If they let the kids do that, he gets the letters. If they don't, they get plastered by the media as a bunch of crazy fools who oppose the plan and that also helps it.

Now, granted, we can't say if it's been planned that way, and we can't say if he's even going to ask the kids to write letters or if he ever intended to. We do, however, already know from experience that Obama is a master of manipulating people's emotions to work in his favor. Why do you think so many people worship him like he's the next Jesus, come to absolve the sins of America? Well, a lot of it is because he's black, and in the world we've created, you thus can't say anything bad about him or else you're racist, and everyone really wanted to have a black president. A white person with exactly the same beliefs, credentials, personality, etc. would never have been elected. Never would have even made it onto the ballot. The rest of it, though, is because he and his campaign have manipulated all those people into that delusion by playing on their emotions, telling them what they want to hear and telling lies that they want to believe are true. His face is on T shirts, tote bags, coffee mugs, baseball caps, bumper stickers... who is this guy that makes him worthy of being the subject of such idolatry?

It all comes back to that naïve, sheep, and uninformed idiots thing.

Besides. When someone tips off the police to some heinous crime being planned, do they, if they think it sounds ridiculous, ignore it and assume the tipster is just an idiot or someone out to cause trouble? No, they look into it and act on it because they have to. It's their duty, and they can't take the risk that it's true.

Well, it's the parents' duty as parents to protect their children from people who may be a bad influence on them, and it's our duty as Americans to protect our nation from people doing shady business to force change which fits their blind ideology but is in reality going to make our country worse off in many ways. We can't assume it's BS and take the risk that it actually isn't.

[threeswept 12]

Quite possibly, I'm not watching the networks or reading blogs that have mentioned that Obama's going to encourage children to write to him in favour of the healthcare plan. And, quite possibly, it could be just another fabrication from those who would like nothing better than to see Obama fail just as they're saying that he plans to 'brainwash' the children.

As far as Obama being a master manipulator...well, seems that could be said of every president. And, as I mentioned previously, it will not change. It will be the status quo in the US...in my opinion...for decades to come. Even with easier and easier ways of fact-checking, etc, pundants will continue to fabricate and twist info to what they 'know' the sheep want to hear.

[Kryptowhite 9]

Perhaps other nations should become arrogant, naive, stupid, or [insert adjective here]. After all, America has been sitting in first place for a good 60 years now...

But I agree on that whole "politics" is too much of a game thing. We are always focusing far too much on republicans versus democrats, lbierals versus conservatives, this versus that, and not enough on the actual issues at hand. Much of what goes on in our government has more to do with trying to please potential voters and campaign donors and less to do with what is good for the nation. And the few people who could actually run the country without worry about what person A or person B will think don't have the means or the support to win an election. Politics can be so weird sometimes..we need government to have peace and order, but with government we can never have peace and order haha.

[Meg 368]

How about we read the text of the speech before we decide what it's going say?

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

How about we read the text of the speech before we decide what it's going say?

quote>

Ah. Thank you for that.

Okay, now I have a few other people I need to show that to.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Meg

How about we read the text of the speech before we decide what it's going say?

 

quote>

This is the American Politics thread. If the last twelve pages have indicated anything, it's that silly things like facts or the real world matter a lot less than pundit fantasies.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Meg

How about we read the text of the speech before we decide what it's going say?

 

quote>

This is the American Politics thread. If the last twelve pages have indicated anything, it's that silly things like facts or the real world matter a lot less than pundit fantasies.  quote>

Or, as they say in DC:  Perception is more important than reality.

In other words, what people think you are doing is more important than what you are actually doing.

Stupid but that is how the place works.  (I worked there for a couple of decades, some of it within a 3 minute walk of the White House.)

Nice cartoon, btw.   That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

Being a moderate myself, I think it's very sad and very scary how the country is polarizing at the various extremes.  At one end, there are the heretic burners in your cartoon.  At another end, there are the Obama worshipers that Duke was talking about.  In the middle, there are people like me who are wondering what is wrong with these people.

Here is a radical idea:  Implement the "Discuss the issues, not each other" rule in Washington, DC.   That way, we might actually get something done other than trying to score points off the other guy.

Of course, I have no idea how to do that since many people there are focused solely on finding fault with "the opposition" and don't really care if anything actually gets accomplished or not.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I'll take the liberty to give my opinion on various sections of the speech...

Hello everyone – how’s everybody doing today? I’m here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we’ve got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I’m glad you all could join us today.

I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. quote>

Yes, yes, the opening and pseudo-comforting nonsense. Fairly typical...

And no matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.quote>

Ah, yes. You probably wished it was still summer, but alas, your state (which you couldn't vote on, by the way) is forcing you to get back to our facilities.

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at 4:30 in the morning.  

Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster." quote>

I've heard that story many times before from him. Barack, your mother was a tyrant, and you are aware that coerced sleep depravation is a form of torture, right? Oh, guess you don't, since you aren't prosecuting people who did that to prisoners in secret prisons.

So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I’m here today because I have something important to discuss with you.quote>

Hmm, it doesn't sound very important.

I’m here because I want to talk with you about your education and what’s expected of all of you in this new school year. quote>

Expected by whom? The students, the ruling class, or the state? The answer is obvious.

Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.quote>

You sure have, and you've also frightened many North Americans with your talk of service. And a Democrat tried to sneak in a forced service section into the Serve America Act, so I'm suspicious of it.

I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring youquote>

If teachers were hired or fired based on that today, 70 percent of them would not be there tomorrow.

and pushing you to learn.quote>

Forcing people to learn doesn't increase knowledge. A person can only learn if they are interested in the topic.

I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox. quote>

I agree with that. It is good for parents to guide the students to increasing their knowledge by whatever means is best. Sometimes these means do not include obsessing over homework or going to a state school.

I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standardsquote>

Standards don't matter when there is a chronic problem of unwilling students and incompetent teachers. Although I do concur that they should not be set too low, and need to reflect the necessary amount of knowledge gained to master the concept.

supporting teachers and principalsquote>

A lot of teachers and principals deserve more to be dismissed than supported. Granted, there are some good teachers and principals that need supporting, but they should not be made as a class into worshipped saints.

and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve. quote>

Yes, I emphatically agree that the broken schools must be fixed. There are many that are structurally deificient, and these deficiencies must be corrected. By the way, where is that infrastructure stimulus you promised?

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities.quote>

Obama has it wrong. It is not fulfillment of a state-designated duty that matters. What matters is interest, which is lacking when most of the people in there are forced to be in there against their will, dragging the real learners down. I wonder if this responsibility is related to the forced service agenda?

Unless you show up to those schoolsquote>

School attendance does not equal learning. If you attend school for 60 more days, will you learn more? In itself, no. Also, wouldn't more people show up for school if they actually wanted to go there?

pay attention to those teachersquote>

It is always best to keep a watchful ear out, so you don't miss the 40 percent of the discussion when people actually learn new things.

listen to your parents, grandparents and other adultsquote>

In other words, submit to the ruling class. It is inadvisable to do everything everyone tells you...

and put in the hard work it takes to succeed. quote>

I agree with that.

And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.quote>

...laid down by your wonderful state .

Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer.quote>

Yes.

And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide. quote>

That is contradictory. Responsibility implies obligation. Opportunity implies choice. I believe in the latter -- the choice to discover what you're good at.

Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.quote>

That is the part I have trouble with -- the implication that the only path to succeed is through the government-run schools. If students believe this, they will stay in them as long as possible, leaving the Administration to work their service-youth-indoctrination magic.

And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it.quote>

That is not true. There are some jobs which do not require an education (at least not the kind he's talking about -- merely literacy). But in order to get a good job, an education is required.

You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers.quote>

True.

You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.quote>

Well, aside from training, which it is not a school's duty to provide, that is correct.

And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future. quote>

Yes, forget about yourself. That doesn't matter. You must serve your country [state] and nation [collectivist entity], regardless of whether it is detrimental to yourself. Reminds me of Mussolini (which exalted the nation above all else).

You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy. quote>

It might be overly optimistic to assume that all of that will happen with this bunch of students, but a nice pep paragraph just the same.

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems.quote>

Notice the inclusion of "our problems", as opposed to the student's own welfare.

If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.quote>

Obama makes no allowance for your own goals -- no. Even if it would be better for you to quit, continue to be miserable to serve the nebulous collective.

Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.quote>

For many people, that is the case. They must make the choice of focus -- schoolwork above all, or solving another problem and then focusing on schoolwork.

I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in. 

So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse. 

But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn’t have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.

Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don’t have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there’s not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don’t feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren’t right. quote>

The usual personal story. Moving on...

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework quote>

Don't speak for everyone. There are events which may come up which are more important.

or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher,quote>

There are rationale for doing that -- the ones he mentioned aren't among them.

or cutting class, or dropping out of school. quote>

That statement's validity is a little dubious...

That’s no excuse for not trying. quote>

I agree.

Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future. quote>

That's a good message. I wonder why the other points of your speech don't match that.

That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America. quote>

Hmm...

Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn’t speak English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez.

I’m thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who’s fought brain cancer since he was three. He’s endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer – hundreds of extra hours – to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he’s headed to college this fall. 

And then there’s Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods, she managed to get a job at a local health center; start a program to keep young people out of gangs; and she’s on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college.

Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren’t any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same. quote>

The usual success stories...

That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them.quote>

Good here...

Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learnquote>

...but why are you setting their goals for them here?

And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.quote>

Had to throw in the swine flu as well. Nice touch.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.quote>

Good. Good.

I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things. quote>

Probably true, but what would have happened if you had told that to 50 Cent....

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher.quote>

If there is no personal necessity or interest in the subject. there is no sense in studying it. Also, if you don't love it, the quality of learning decreases.

Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute.quote>

If it doesn't seem relevant, it probably isn't.

And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

That’s OK.  Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures. JK Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying. quote>

Another pep talk.

No one’s born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work.quote>

There is such a thing as genetic aptitute, which makes a person good at some things and bad at others. Hard work combined with ability makes a person successful, at least in my view.

You’re not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don’t hit every note the first time you sing a song. You’ve got to practice. It’s the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it’s good enough to hand in. quote>

Practice perfects a talent, in other words.

Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don’t know something, and to learn something new. quote>

I agree with that.

So find an adult you trust – a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor – and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals. quote>

Ask another person you trust -- often but not necessarily an adult.

And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.quote>

Reinforcement of the previous points.

The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best. quote>

I agree, although Hillary's speech at the Democratic Party convention is more inspiring on this point.

It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.quote>

The timeframe is off, but all those points are valid.

So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?  quote>

Motivation...

Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn.quote>

*laughing due to the rediculous lying nature of the statement*

But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.quote>

A summary of the prior points. Don't let your Fuhrer and Reich down. We expect great things of you, so serve your nation and work hard.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.quote>

Blessing from a deity is not necessary for success.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Meg

How about we read the text of the speech before we decide what it's going say?

 

quote>

This is the American Politics thread. If the last twelve pages have indicated anything, it's that silly things like facts or the real world matter a lot less than pundit fantasies.quote>

Okay, let's start from the beginning with this story and how these "pundit fantasies" came about.

Initially, the department of education released lesson plans to accompany the speech which involved students writing things about "how they can help the president." This obviously raised some controversy because it elevates the president to a level which does not exist in democratic government: the level of a figure who is to be only cooperated with, never questioned.

Well, the DoE backpedaled after this controversy and revised the lesson plans to a more tame version which was actually used. Here's a few news snippets:

FOX News

A suggested lesson plan that calls on school kids to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama is troubling some education experts, who say it establishes the president as a "superintendent in chief" and may indoctrinate children to support him politically.quote>

CNN

 Some of the controversy over Obama's speech involved a proposed lesson plan created by the Education Department to accompany the address. An initial version of the plan recommended that students draft letters to themselves discussing "what they can do to help the president."

The letters "would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals," the plan stated.

After pressure from conservatives, the White House distributed a revised version encouraging students to write letters about how they can "achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."quote>

ABC News Blog

In an acknowledgment that the Department of Education provided lesson plans written somewhat inartfully, surrounding the President Obama’s speech to students next Tuesday, the White House today announced that it had rewritten one of the sections in question.quote>

(notice how right wing Fox is far more overt in objection than left wing CNN or ABC on this one...)

Now, at this point in time, the text of the speech itself had not yet been posted online. It was only posted yesterday. Nobody knew what was actually in the speech yet. However, based on the content of the lesson plans, there was, understandably, some severe distrust on the whole matter and people started assuming the worst because that's what people do when they have no actual information to go off of.

Then, the actual speech was posted, and most of the people who were initially screaming about it read it, saw no objection with it, and steped back.

Of course, retrospecticely, liberal news outlets are downplaying the whole lesson plan issue to make it look as though all the conservatives who were going crazy about it completely made it up and pulled their accusations from nowehre, which isn't entirely true.

Some would suggest it was engineered that way from the very beginning (i.e., "make the conservatives look bad"). That's certainly possible, although it would be a pretty hasty conclusion to jump to. So, let's not dwell on it, seeing as we have no hard evidince suggesting anything there.

[Kryptowhite 9]

I just like to tell everyone that I haven't been brainwashed yet by Obama's speech, i'm sure you were all worried...