# Is there a double standard in this Obama school address controversy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 6, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104 "2009-09-06T22:33:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/121 "2009-09-08T13:11:12Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Man, I’ve never seen such a bunch of nit-picking lawyers in my life. Consider these three requests: > > 1. Forward me your neighbor’s email. > > 2. Forward me your neighbor’s email and remove his/her email address. > > 3. Forward me your neighbor’s email and remove the body of their email. > > Which of these are likely to contain the neighbor’s email address? Call me crazy, but I’d say #1 and #3. > > Again, I’m not saying that Obama had evil designs by asking #1. I’m just saying it was foolish not to ask #2. > > I also note that, despite requests from a variety of people, the WH has refused to say whether they’ve destroyed the email addresses they did get. Again, not evil, just dumb. Trash them and let it be known that they’ve done so. Don’t provide more ammunition for the naysayers. It’s interesting you call sticking to the facts nit picking. I agree they should be smart in their approach but once again, they won’t stop those looking through every word uttered to find something to twist around. You’re suggesting they be on the defensive. I’m suggesting they fight back in other ways and stop letting the opposition dictate the game. If they wanted to covertly collect email addresses and other personal information they could pretty easily. It’s the suggestion that they wanted average citizens to inform on their neighbors to some government agency for some malicious fascist reason that needs to be treated with disdain. They stated their reasons was to answer questions and concerns and keep the public informed. To dwell on and answer to ridiculous charges only gives those lies traction. You’re suggesting they take extra time and effort to trash email addresses and announce it. What do you suppose the opposition will say? All the time they spend defending themselves against BS accusations benefits the opposition. IMHO it’s much better to treat those lies with the disdain they deserve. “we’re not targeting or tracking average citizens who happen to disagree with us. That suggestion is a political ploy that takes time away from serious issues. We’re attempting to offer answers to questions and concerns and fight the fear mongers with facts. We celebrate our democracy and welcome the participation of those who disagree with us.” and then move on to serious matters. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/122 "2009-09-08T13:14:07Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Nobody helped them .Tell the righties “in honor of our troops, quit making stuff up”. There is no controversy. The speech is so innocuous that the righties will have to use a lot of imagination to try and justify their lame and wrong attacks. They’ll claim he changed it because of their protests. They’ve saved us from fascism again. Concerning helping them. I’m referring to the poster in this thread who claims to be an Obama supporter while repeating the rights misinformation as if it’s factual. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/123 "2009-09-08T14:21:29Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > No more or less information than the sender chooses, right? While we are all pretty good with our PC skills on this board, I can promise you that the average Joe out there, who is getting email forwards is not as technically astute. Ask him to wipe out the emails in a forwarded chain and odds are that he would end up sending a blank email. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/124 "2009-09-08T14:28:55Z")
> [@intention](#): > > You seem to be missing the point that the President of the US actually did say “forward us the email”. Check it out. Look it up. It’s exactly what he said, which is why I put it in quotes. You’ll notice, as I have, that **intention** makes unequivocable statements, but doesn’t provide cites to back up those statements. Instead, **intention** challenges you to prove his statement for him. How about a cite there, **intention**? While you’re at it, try to find one that includes your quote in context of the entire sentence and thought. There might even be a video out there with the entire context. Come on, **intention** , why should we do your work for you? Someone might actually think that its lazy debating to expect others to provide your own cites. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/125 "2009-09-08T15:31:32Z")
This is ridiculous, bording on the absurd. The address was intended for children, and was written to that level, I’m sure. After giving a speech centered entirely on staying in school and encouraging others to not drop out, “How can you help the President?” is on a par with hearing a speech about not doing drugs and being asked, “How can you help McGruff the Crime Dog?” Anybody hearing the presentation would know precisely the message intended, in spite of one of out of context request to “help the president.” Those who are making hay over that one phrase -insisiting on some sort of indoctrination going on - as well as poster \*\*intention \*\*(who either buys the theory or is advancing it through some torture devil’s advocate position) are doing nothing but feeding this ridiculous paranoia. I swear, I never thought I’d see so much petulant, idiotic bullshit over a president’s address to school children. Edit to add: I posted this after reading page one – got a little ahead of myself. I’m not sure if any of these points have already been made or refuted in this thread … sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/126 "2009-09-08T15:40:40Z")
> [@intention](#): > > You seem to be missing the point that the President of the US actually did say “forward us the email”. Check it out. Look it up. It’s exactly what he said, which is why I put it in quotes. But that was in a speech in **response** to the hysterical paranoid fuss that was **already** being made about the abovementioned suggestion in the website. It doesn’t at all justify the hysterical paranoid fuss happening in the first place. Here’s the timeline, just to clear it up for you: 1. White House blog site says they’re collecting instances of “fishy” “disinformation” on health insurance reform, so if you encounter such an instance in an email or website, you should “send it” to them. 2. Paranoid hysterical freak-out about how this means that Obama is nefariously compiling an enemies list of names and email addresses of people who oppose his health insurance reform plans. 3. Obama tries to calm the hysteria by [saying in a town hall meeting](http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Enemies-List), > [@](#): > > “Can I just say this is another example of how the media just ends up completely distorting what’s taking place. What we’ve said is that if somebody has – if you get an email from somebody that says for example ObamaCare is creating a death panel, forward us the email and we will answer the question that is being raised in the email. Suddenly, on some of these news outlets, this is being portrayed as Obama collecting an enemies list. Now, come on guys, here I am trying to be responsive to questions that are being raised out there – and I just want to be clear that all we’re trying to do is answer questions.” 1. The freaker-outers prolong the hysteria by saying “See, look, he explicitly says he wants you to forward him emails from people who disagree with them! Americans are being asked to inform on their neighbors! Oh noes!!!11!!!” Sheesh. I’ve already noted that I think the White House should do a more careful job of phrasing their statements very unambiguously, to avoid upsetting the hyper-delicate reactions of the freaker-outers. But that doesn’t mean that the freaker-outers aren’t misinterpreting and overreacting. ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/127 "2009-09-08T16:42:56Z")
Only in a paranoid, twisted, alternate-timeline world can people take a statement like “if you get an email from somebody that says something fishy, forward us the email and we’ll answer the question,” and hear “we’re going to hunt down our enemies, raid their houses in the middle of the night, and haul them and their families off to reeducation camps.” Only in the same world would a question phrased “How can you help the President?” poised after a speech about staying in school and working hard can be seen as the first step into Stepforddom. Truly, there is no talking to these people, for they do not inhabit the same reality. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/128 "2009-09-08T16:45:10Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I don’t think I have EVER heard one side backlash, belittle, ridicule, and dismiss out of hand everything a President did more than what was done to George W. Bush. But to be fair, he deserved it far more than any other President. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/129 "2009-09-08T17:11:21Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 1. Paranoid hysterical freak-out about how this means that Obama is nefariously compiling an enemies list of names and email addresses of people who oppose his health insurance reform plans. Not just _people_ but _neighbors_, you know, GOOD people who live right next to you in Pleasantville USA, who _through no fault of their own_, are spreading lies and disinformation which also _happen to be in America’s best interest!_ It is very important that these purveyors of lies _always_ be referred to as neighbors, or else _some_ might get the impression that _Republicans_ are using lies and disinformation to defend the profits of the party’s predatory corporate sponsors. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/130 "2009-09-08T17:12:50Z")
Here’s a link to Obama’s [Indoctrination speech](http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/obamas-remarks-for-school-address-as-prepared-for-delivery.php?ref=fpb). See for yourself the ebil, dastardly polluting of our children’s minds! ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/131 "2009-09-08T17:13:01Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Brown Eyed Girl, thanks for the response. You seem to hold a misapprehension about my position in all of this. I’m not saying that I thought that Obama was going to brainwash the kids. I’m saying that it was foolish to ask teachers to ask kids to “help the President” without specifying what they should help him to do. And I’m saying that an outline for a speech means nothing about what the president would actually say, and thus provides no context at all. See my comment about Ronald Reagans “education” speech below. Ugh. It’s like talking to a brick wall. Let’s try to be realistic about this. The lesson plan created to follow the speech. It wouldn’t make sense to engage in the lesson prior to the speech, would it? It’s clear from the lesson plan that it’s meant to inspire discussion about the topic of the speech. In other words, when the children were asked how they can “help the president” there would be context. Reasonable people realized that the context of the lesson plan was already what was presented by the White House, that the topic was going to be about educational excellence, personal responsibility, yada yada yada. Unreasonable people, who seem to think Obama is the bogeyman, said that he was attempting to indoctrinate the children without any regard to the stated subject of the speech. To be sure, there is nothing AT ALL in either of the lesson plans that in the same zip code as ideology and political bias. It was all based supposition and scare tactics. There was never any need to specify what “helping the president” means because it was intended to allow the child to come up with his/her own ideas of what helping means. What exactly would you expect a kindergartener or sixth grader even to say to that question? Are they not entitled to view varying points of view? Do we not want them to think critically and independently? Tell me what is the worst case scenario of asking elementary school children how they can help the president? Back in my school days, hearing the president speak was exciting and honorable (and my parents despised and vehemently disagreed with Reagan). Yet, he was given the respect the office did (and should) afford him. > [@](#): > > Look, many people don’t trust Obama any more than I trusted Bush. Because of that, Obama’s request, that kids be asked by the teachers to “help the president”, was foolish in the extreme. It depended on your lovely idealized vision of the Presidency, a vision which hasn’t been true for some time. If Bush had made the request, I would have been suspicious. For Obama to think it would be just fine was naive. And if you had been suspicious if Bush made the request in the same context that is being suggested by the teachers who wrote the lesson plan for Obama’s speech, I would have said that you’re being ridiculous. Sorry, but yeah, it makes you look a little bit paranoid. Even I (the bed-wetting liberal I apparently must be) wouldn’t expect Bush to tell kids that we should bomb those nasty terrorists to hell and back and, by the way, how do you think \*you \*can you help me stamp out terrorism, children? > [@](#): > > The big deal, as I wrote above, is that Federal involvement with local schools is a hot button subject for a large part of the populace. And it is forbidden for the DofEd to give “direction” to local schools, so they’re out at the edge of their envelope to have any involvement at all. So what. That’s not at issue here. The president is making a speech on education, the DOE rightly anticipates that this can be a teachable moment, and releases an optional lesson plan created by public school teachers as a extended resource on the speech. By provided additional resources to schools, they are keeping within their [stated mission](http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/mission/mission.html) to: > [@](#): > > Supplement and complement the efforts of states, the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the states, the private sector, public and private nonprofit educational research institutions, community-based organizations, parents, and students to improve the quality of education; They are not “directing” anything. They are providing an optional resource. It’s especially relevant that the resource they are providing was not produced by Obama or government officials, but by [actual working public school teachers](http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherfellowship/index.html) who were selected to assist the DOE to: > [@](#): > > Create a community of teacher leaders who share expertise and collaborate with policymakers and leaders in the federal government on national education issues. Scary, ain’t it? > [@](#): > > As such, if you’re going to do it, you’re a fool if you don’t think long and hard about every word in the lesson, and how it will be interpreted by those who don’t trust either the president or the DofEd. Well, I guess it stands to reason that simple public school teachers don’t see their lesson plans through the cynical, Socialist-fearing, Obama-is-Hitler crowd. That oughta teach 'em. Only a fool would give any credence whatsoever to this particular brand of idiocy. > [@](#): > > The point, to say it again, is that if a president is going to venture into shark infested waters, he should be very careful. Obama wasn’t, and reaped the whirlwind. Now I agree with you that the whirlwind was not deserved … but he should have expected that people would parse every inch of the lesson plan very carefully. And in that regard, the Teaching Ambassador Fellows did a very poor job. Their idea of what to focus the kids on (after the offending instruction was removed) was still: Well, as long as you aren’t going to ignore the fact that Obama didn’t actually write the plans…hey, incidentally, what are your teaching credentials? Is it your professional opinion that the lesson plans were poorly composed? How much experience do you have writing lesson plans? What does a good lesson plan focused on a presidential speech look like? > [@](#): > > Now, given that until the speech was released nobody knew what the President was going to ask the kids to do, Right, because they weren’t paying attention when it the speech was presented as being about educational excellence and personal responsibility. Tell me, what exactly did people expect him to say to the children in his speech? > [@](#): > > … this is a fertile field for people who don’t trust the President, it could have been written just to give Glen Beck ammunition. Yes, anything the president does is evidently fertile ground for people who don’t trust the president to pull ridiculous supposition out of their ass and make a big deal out of something presidents have been doing for at least the last 20 years. There’s always going to be crazy people making silly suggestions, but that simple fact of their existence doesn’t give credence to the silly suggestions. > [@](#): > > Where is the “education” part of the equation? There’s not a word about education in any of that, it’s a litany of what the President wants the kids to do … which is unspecified. What’s the litany? How about waiting to see the speech before freaking out about imagined attempts to indoctrinate? It’s okay to wonder what types of things the plan is referring to here: > [@](#): > > Asthepresidentspeaks,teacherscanaskstudentstowritedownkeyideasorphrasesthatareimportantorpersonallymeaningful.Studentscoulduseanote‐takinggraphicorganizersuchasa“clusterweb;”or,studentscouldrecordtheirthoughtsonstickynotes.Youngerchildrencoulddrawpicturesandwriteasappropriate.Asstudentslistentothespeech,theycouldthinkaboutthefollowing: > Whatisthepresidenttryingtotellme? > Whatisthepresidentaskingmetodo? > Whatnewideasandactionsisthepresidentchallengingmetothinkabout? I will grant that it would have made more sense to release the text of the speech concurrently with the lesson plans. That way, teachers could more easily create and/or adapt their plans to the speech and parents could discuss what parts of the speech didn’t align with their values and react accordingly to, you know, reality rather than imagined potential slights. Transparency is always better, IMHO, and I do think that Obama could do a considerably better job upholding this ideal. I probably shouldn’t add, though, that my cynicism prevents me from believing that it wouldn’t have changed much for the wingnuts; they \*still \*would have found something to be outraged about. > [@](#): > > The fact that the Teaching Ambassador Fellows didn’t think of the predictable pushback from that is understandable, they’re teachers, not politicians. But the fact that the White House didn’t think of the predictable pushback from those kind of instructions, which mention the President ad nauseum and education not in the slightest, is very depressing to me. I had expected much more political acumen from Obama and his administration. It’s depressing to me that it’s depressing to you that you teachers are even in this day encouraging a general respect the office of the presidency and inspiring the desire to be actively a part of the process as opposed to questioning every single instance of a president’s connection to the very people he serves. I guess the fact that I remember growing up in a time when even though I knew my parents didn’t like or agree with Reagan, he was still the president and that’s an important job. I also grew up being exposed to viewpoints that my parents didn’t agree with and it was up to me to think critically and sort out how I felt about those viewpoints. To this day, I don’t agree with everything my parents believe, but I do appreciate the fact that they were courageous and intelligent enough to allow me to develop my own values and ideals. I find it sad that so many people are afraid to let their children explore ideas that don’t conform to their own worldview, frankly. > [@](#): > > No, it wasn’t the speech. The speech, as you point out, was all about staying in school. The big deal was the vague and easily misinterpreted call for kids to “help the President”. We know that was the issue, because the White House changed it. If it was not the issue … then why did the White House change it? If you want my opinion, they changed it out of misplaced compromise. I don’t see anything wrong with it in its prior incarnation and I don’t see anything wrong with it now. If someone decides to inject something into the lesson plan that clearly isn’t there based on political bias or because they are afraid the other guys might be right, that’s their problem. I say, leave them behind to their bias and move on. I believe it is a mistake to kowtow to the Chicken Littles of the anti-Obama crowd. You don’t seem to think so, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. > [@](#): > > Paraphrasing doesn’t go in quotes. You did not “misrepresent [my] statement”. You claimed I said something I never said, and now you think I should congratulate you because you’re not “defensive” when I object to your cheap tactics. Anyone joining the discussion at your post would think I actually said that, because that’s what quotes mean. Oh boohoo, I misinterpreted you and placed quotes around it. If it makes you feel any better, I misquoted you. It wasn’t a “tactic” it was a mistake and poor debate. I apologized. Get over it. > [@](#): > > Upon review, I have no problem with Obama or Bush Jr. or Sr. or anyone asking my child to study hard. I do have a problem with them enlisting her teacher to convince her to “help the president”. My daughter is not likely to do what the President says. She is very likely to do what her teacher says. Neither Bush, junior or senior, tried to enlist the teachers in the crusade to “help the president”. They just asked the kids to stay in school and study hard, not to help the president. Why is that difference so hard to get through to you? Because you’re wrong, but just like you don’t cite your own statements, you don’t pay any attention to the anyone else’s cites. [Here’s another one, in case you don’t feel the need to scroll up.](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019804.php) [QUOTE=George H.W. Bush] Let me leave you with a simple message: Every time you walk through that classroom door, make it your mission to get a good education. Don’t do it just because your parents, or even the President, tells you. Do it for yourselves. Do it for your future. And while you’re at it, help a little brother or sister to learn, or maybe even Mom or Dad. Let me know how you’re doing. Write me a letter – and I’m serious about this one – write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address. [/QUOTE] Gee, he suggest kids write him a letter. To help him and other unspecified individuals achieve their goals. I wonder what he was talking about. One could suppose he was asking for help achieving his goal of working with community organizations (gasp!) to better America, or perhaps he was looking for help pushing NAFTA through. Or maybe, just maybe, he was asking for help [achieving](http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/3/776393/-Another-wingnut-meme-goes-down-the-drain) the [education goals](http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/stw/sw0goals.htm) he spelled out in his speech ([full text here](http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450&year=1991&month=10)). He didn’t say those specific goals were the ones he wanted to hear about and as any politician does, he had many goals, but when you look at the context of the statement, it’s much clearer. Isn’t context amazing like that? > [@](#): > > If you think the announcement that “it’s going to be a speech about education” provides context for “help the president” do something unspecified, I fear I can’t help you with this. I guess if you don’t, I can’t help you either. > [@](#): > > Again the advantage of age, I’ve seen some of this before. I meant “I don’t know” as in, until the President gives the speech, we don’t know what he’ll actually say. You may or may not have been following politics in 1988 when Reagan gave a speech to students that, like Obama’s, was billed as being about the importance of education. But in the middle he wandered off the reservation and said… > > “Education”, my ass. Would you agree that teachers asking kids to “help the President” achieve those goals might not have been a good thing? Would you agree that before Reagan’s speech, despite the fact that it was billed (like Obama’s) to be about education, we didn’t know what the president would say? When age addles your memory, isn’t necessarily an advantage. Have you recently watched the speech? If not, you may not remember that following his speech, there was a question and answer format during which a student asked: > [@](#): > > My name is Cam Fitzie and I’m from St. Agnes School in Alexandria, Virginia. I was wondering if you think that it is possible to decrease the national debt without raising the taxes of the public? Now, if you don’t see what obvious, I’ll spell it out for you. That is a policy question that has nothing to do with educational policy. The student is asking Reagan about tax policy. It is clearly an invitation to President Reagan to discuss something other than education. Was it a teaching moment? To be sure. Did the Reagan administration provide materials to critically discuss this Reagan’s economic theory and was it presented as theory by any lesson plan? Who knows. In fact, the question and answer portion of the speech covered many topics that had nothing to do with education such as Social Security, farm subsidies and nuclear (nukular?) disarmament, to name but a few. He hardly talked about educational excellence at all, actually. He simply encouraged kids to stay in school, get a diploma and “just say no” to drugs. ([Full text here.](http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/51386d.htm)) Here we come around to your claim that Reagan’s speech was “billed as being about the importance of education.” So, I guess I’m going to have to ask you for a cite, given the fact that the question and answer format clearly provided President Reagan with the opportunity to expound upon his many political policies (from which his educational policy was notably absent, I might add, other than appointing a commission to come up with salary scales for teachers) and his prepared statement included only a single blurb about staying in school and getting a diploma. In fact, if you compare of Obama’s speech to Reagan’s speech, it seems a little disingenuous to refer to Reagan’s speech as focusing on the importance of education, but not so much in regards to Obama’s speech. > [@](#): > > As to whether it is “much ado about nothing”, it doesn’t matter in the slightest. Again I say that if people have concerns we need to deal with those concerns, not just claim that they are unreasonable or that they are upset “about nothing”. Why not call it what it is? Why give credence to something that is not based in reality at all? People have concerns that the government is planting chips in people’s brains and that aliens are abducting them from their beds, but we don’t give credence to those “concerns” either. Why should we? It’s crazy talk. Just like the talk of Obama indoctrination. Neither has any basis in reality. > [@](#): > > I apologize for my lack of clarity. I did not mean that you said there was a time-honored tradition of DofEd involvement in presidential education speeches, quite the opposite. I meant that although there is a tradition of presidential education speeches, there is no such tradition of DofEd involvement. Because of that, Obama’s speech differed from the “time honored tradition” you spoke of, and as such it would be likely to raise eyebrows. Lack of clarity? You asked me for a cite for something I never said. I’m not sure why I should be expected to cite your flights of fancy? I spoke of nothing more than a “time-honored tradition” of presidential addresses to school children. I don’t know what you’re on about. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/132 "2009-09-08T17:14:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Let me sum up my position. I was not concerned in the slightest about the speech or the lesson plans, they were not an issue to me. I did not think it would be about anything but education. I did not think they were out to brainwash the kids. > > However, having heard Reagan go off the rails in his “education” speech in 1988 and talk about party politics, and knowing that Federal involvement in education is a huge red flag for many people in the US, it was entirely predictable and understandable that people would be very suspicious of Obama’s plan. Thus, it was naive of the WH not to vet the lesson plan down to its most minute detail. Ironically, I doubt the people you characterize as suspicious of Obama would claim that Reagan went “off the rails” in his speech. But since you clearly can’t differentiate a discussion on policy from a speech about education, nor can you differentiate a mandate from an optional resource, I’m not sure we can help you out of your devil’s advocate position. I guess you’re just gonna have to be content justifying the craziness on the right. With friends like you, I can’t see how Obama actually needs enemies. > [@](#): > > Now if they had only omitted saying that people were “silly” to be concerned … Well, from what I’ve seen the interview and that’s not what I heard Mr. Duncan say. I guess it’s just typical for you to misrepresent what people say. Mr. Duncan never stated that “people were ‘silly’ to be concerned.” Mr. Duncan stated that it was silly to keep children out of school given that they could go to school and not watch an 18-minute speech. The takeaway for me is: what is the wisdom of denying your child an entire day’s education due to an 18-minute speech about personal responsibility in education? Notice how I didn’t call people stupid, while questioning the wisdom of requiring kids to miss school over a speech? Nope, you probably missed that too. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/133 "2009-09-08T17:17:21Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Here’s a link to Obama’s [Indoctrination speech](http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/obamas-remarks-for-school-address-as-prepared-for-delivery.php?ref=fpb). See for yourself the ebil, dastardly polluting of our children’s minds! I’m not sure the actual speech as given is an evidence either way anymore. You know he had teams of people pouring over it to make sure there wasn’t anything that could be construed in a negative manner. In all likelyhood, there didn’t need to be any changes, but you know they still went over it with a fine tooth comb. Letting anything controversial slip in after all the fuss would have been politically dumb as you can get. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/134 "2009-09-08T17:29:08Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Now, that’s far too similar to the North Koreans making their kids write about how they can help their “Dear Leader”. Yes, I know the White House didn’t mean that, but that’s what it sounds like. The only reason it sounds like something out of North Korea is because some talking head compared it to something coming out of North Korea and some idiots latched on to it. > [@](#): > > I know that these complaints from the right have been way overblown … and I also see that the response from the White House and the left have been to insult the intelligence of those who misunderstood the confusing messages. That’s a very, very foolish tactic. Isn’t the only reason people were confused into believing in death panels because they were being lied to? Why is the American public so susceptible to lies from the right, especially given the right’s record of lying to the public? > [@](#): > > Both sides have played their part in this idiocy. I love how one side’s lies becomes both sides idiocy. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/135 "2009-09-08T17:34:12Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I wonder how they’ll react when other Christians such as the Sojourners strongly disagree. Yeah, the problem is that while they disagree, they mostly do so quietly. The face of Christianity in this country right now is frothing at the mouth and decidedly Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/136 "2009-09-08T17:44:48Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Oh, goody, now I’m accused of being paranoid …My advice would be to stop treating every controversy from day one as though it were bogus, and everyone who disagrees with you as though they were paranoid. People keep saying “But the Right will never agree with us” … well, if you call me paranoid and stupid and ridiculous enough times, I’ll never agree with you either. Connect the dots. > > PS - \* First Rule Of Holes: When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. Now I see the point you are trying to make and its a valid point but I would suggest to you that we are NEVER going to swing those people over into sanity. They are lost to us until they have an epiphany. If we are in fact fighting over the reasonable folks in the middle and not trying to convince the whackos, then why is it such a bad idea to point out how whacked out the whackos are? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/137 "2009-09-08T17:47:25Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > I’m not sure the actual speech as given is an evidence either way anymore. You know he had teams of people pouring over it to make sure there wasn’t anything that could be construed in a negative manner. In all likelyhood, there didn’t need to be any changes, but you know they still went over it with a fine tooth comb. > > Letting anything controversial slip in after all the fuss would have been politically dumb as you can get. Undoubtedly the speech was gone through with a fine tooth comb. Ruckus or no over the speech that is just what they do. It’s SOP for politicians (usually…when they ad lib is when they tend to get in trouble). But I seriously doubt the original speech was more like: \*"[Obama puts on hypnotic glassed with the spiral painted on them that starts spinning] Look into my eyes! You are all Obamabots now! Write me a letter that has all your lunch money in it and tell me if your parents say anything bad about me. If you don’t I’ll send people to come and get you! Your parents are mean! I love you way more than they ever will!"\* Seriously, no matter what he said I cannot imagine anyone becoming indoctrinated to anything. I am no expert but my layman’s understanding is indoctrination is a prolonged effort and not achieved in a five minute speech. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/138 "2009-09-08T17:54:48Z")
> [@intention](#): > > If Bush had promulgated the former, I would have been up in arms. Why? Because I didn’t trust Bush at all. None. Not a bit. I read the worst into what he said, and he was even worse than that. I don’t want my kid helping him in any way at all. > > Now, I’m an Obama man, myself, so I wasn’t concerned about him now making the former request. > > But I’m also enough of a realist to know that if I were to get upset if Bush did something, there’s lots of folks out there who will assuredly get upset if Obama does the same thing. And that, I’m concerned about. Well, I was agnostic on Bush until 2002/2003. Then he said and did stuff to make me not trust him. After that, if Bush told me the sun was coming out tomorrow I would have checked to see if there was an eclipse. I can’t identify a similar set of lies from Obama. I can’t identify anything he has done so fdar that he did not say he was going to do while he was campaigning. In fact I would suggest there is a BUNCH of stuff he said he was going to do that he DIDN’T do. I would suggest that the vast majority of the current disonctent has to do with the fact that Obama has had 6 months to turn around the biggest recession in 80 years (and that one took decades to crawl out of) and has only managed to slow our freefall into mad max world into a recession. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/139 "2009-09-08T18:24:52Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But that was in a speech in **response** to the hysterical paranoid fuss that was **already** being made about the abovementioned suggestion in the website. It doesn’t at all justify the hysterical paranoid fuss happening in the first place. > > Here’s the timeline, just to clear it up for you: > > 1. White House blog site says they’re collecting instances of “fishy” “disinformation” on health insurance reform, so if you encounter such an instance in an email or website, you should “send it” to them. > > 2. Paranoid hysterical freak-out about how this means that Obama is nefariously compiling an enemies list of names and email addresses of people who oppose his health insurance reform plans. > > 3. Obama tries to calm the hysteria by [saying in a town hall meeting](http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Enemies-List), > > 4. The freaker-outers prolong the hysteria by saying “See, look, he explicitly says he wants you to forward him emails from people who disagree with them! Americans are being asked to inform on their neighbors! Oh noes!!!11!!!” > > Sheesh. I’ve already noted that I think the White House should do a more careful job of phrasing their statements very unambiguously, to avoid upsetting the hyper-delicate reactions of the freaker-outers. But that doesn’t mean that the freaker-outers aren’t misinterpreting and overreacting. So you agree that the President said that people should forward the emails, but he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, because (as you keep claiming) the White House didn’t want us to forward the emails? Obama’s mistaken? Is that the claim? I’m confused here … and apparently, so is the President. If the President is confused about what’s being asked by his own White House, isn’t it quite reasonable that other people would be confused too? Doesn’t that mean the the President is “misinterpreting”, as you say above, what the Administration is asking? And since even the President is “misinterpreting” what the WH said, then is it not reasonable that the people are not “over-reacting”, but simply reacting? Be clear about my position. I don’t think that the Obama Administration is trying to collect my neighbor’s email addresses and ideas. I’m neither paranoid nor right-wing. I do think, however, that collecting people’s email addresses and ideas will be the inevitable result of the Administration’s ham-handed actions. I don’t care what the exact wording of the request was. The result will be people forwarding emails to the White House, just like the President requested … and that inevitably, in the absence of instructions to do otherwise, many or perhaps most of the forwarded emails will be forwarded in the usual, average, bozo way — click “Forward”, type in “[flag@whitehouse.gov](mailto:flag@whitehouse.gov)”, hit “Return”. Perhaps that’s fine and proper with you. Not with me. I invited people to defend how those same actions would have been OK if Bush did it. Not one of you has responded that they think that Bush asking people to forward emails critical of the Iraq War to the White House would have been fine and proper and OK with them. Not one. So unless somebody wants to stand up for Bush’s right to do what Obama did, I call bullshit on the lot of you. You think it’s fine and proper and perfectly understandable when Obama does it, but not if Bush had done it. I think it’s wrong in both cases. That’s my “hyper-delicate reaction”, and I’m stickin’ to it … w. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104/140 "2009-09-08T18:32:34Z")
Interesting… “The New Boston Tea Party” website had the following page up a few days ago: > [@](#): > > \*\*Dr. Barack Goebbels Obama, Chief Reichmaster Tuesday September 8, 2009 > \*\* > > The INDOCTRINATION of our Youth by the President of the United States is the first act in propagandizing our Children. Next Tuesday Obama plans on addressing our kids in an online speech. This cannot be good. PARENTS, Boycott the schools on Tuesday. Do not let your kid partake in a brainwashing session. > > SOURCE: [http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:f14i8C1\_hq0J:thenewbostonteaparty.com/2009/09/03/dr-barack-goebbels-obama-chief-reichmaster-tuesday-september-8-2009.aspx+http://thenewbostonteaparty.com/2009/09/03/dr-barack-goebbels-obama-chief-reichmaster-tuesday-september-8-2009.aspx&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us](http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:f14i8C1_hq0J:thenewbostonteaparty.com/2009/09/03/dr-barack-goebbels-obama-chief-reichmaster-tuesday-september-8-2009.aspx+http://thenewbostonteaparty.com/2009/09/03/dr-barack-goebbels-obama-chief-reichmaster-tuesday-september-8-2009.aspx&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) Note the above is from a cached page on Google. The [original link](http://thenewbostonteaparty.com/2009/09/03/dr-barack-goebbels-obama-chief-reichmaster-tuesday-september-8-2009.aspx) now returns an error for that page (they have taken it down). Now, on their [homepage](http://thenewbostonteaparty.com/), they write the following: > [@](#): > > \*\*PRESIDENT OBAMA MOTIVATES OUR YOUTH, EDUCATION IS YOUR TICKET TO SUCCESS \*\* > > When the President speaks you better listen. Today, for 18 minutes, the President will address our school children in a motivational speech. The main element of the speech is to instill in the students the need for them to work hard and accept responsibility for their education We have read the speech and concur with the President, the speech was direct and to the point. Coming from President Obama, who had major issues in his life, may be the lesson that those who have excuses needed to hear. He certainly did a good job pointing out to the students what needs to be done now, so that the future will be there for them. > > \ > > WE CONGRATULATE HIM ON A SPEECH WELL DONE. > > \ > > 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.” > > Bottom line, THE CONTROVERSY IS OVER. > > SOURCE: [http://thenewbostonteaparty.com/](http://thenewbostonteaparty.com/) So, nothing to see here! Move along! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-double-standard-in-this-obama-school-address-controversy/509104.md?page=8)