an "ugly american"

There were parents ( and if their conduct is considered "parenting", I use the term loosely) who vehemently objected to The President of the United States. . . . It was not an objection to a President speaking to school children; it was an objection to who the President is. The obvious and incontovertible fact so clear as to avoid any misunderstanding is that their reaction to anything this President's does is to object to it, condemn it and do everything possible to obstruct it, prevent it and destroy it.

They are certainly angry. They are also ignorant and uneducated, driven by fear and paranoia generated by twenty four hour a day, seven day a week anti-american propaganda. They think of the corporately sponsored propagandists who disseminate fear and hate as their friends and neighbors despite the astronomical disparity in their incomes and life styles (and health insurance). They are easily whipped into a frenzy about the most inane issues while they are lulled into a placid disregard of immediate and significant crises.

A typical exchange with a know nothing named Ruth:

It all started when Jane commented "I swear, I JUST got a permission slip from M's school asking if it was okay to let her watch this. Are you kidding me? This whole country is starting to scare me."


Lynea followed that with: "People don't want their kids to think, question, hear other points of view. Have an intellectual debate. It's just sad."


Then Ruth had this to say: "Depends on what you mean by intellectual. What makes people think Obama is so intellectual? He may be smart but I see him as more manipulative. I think he does a whole lot of talking but never says very much and never directly answers a question. Stages everything to be one sided b/c he doesn't really want an "Intellectual debate." He wants his opinion heard. He seems a little arrogant to me. And why does he need to talk to the kids? What is the goal? I respect his office and him as the president but I don't ageree with some of his goals and he doesnt appear to listen to anyone b/c he thinks he "has all the answers." I hope he proves me wrong. Other presidents give the speech but don't find it necessary to send "curriculum" for kids to work on before the speech. I don't even have kids in school anymore but I think it's a little wierd.


What do you say to that? This from me. "What is weird is the question " why does he have to talk to the kids?" What is even more weird is the hysterical mob that a few multi-millionaire corporate talk radio DJs have been able to whip up.


Jane tried to explain to Ruth that other presidents give the "stay in school, work hard" speech to the kids. Jane explained, "The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard, stay in school and dramatically reduce the dropout rate. This isn't a policy speech. It's a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school.Obama's speech, is not unprecedented. President George H.W. Bush delivered a nationally televised speech to students from a Washington D.C., school in the fall of 1991, encouraging them to say no to drugs and work hard."


Ruth didn't buy Jane's explanation. Ruth wrote back: " Really? You think that a president who is far removed is going to give some magical speech to make a kid stay in school? Any president for that matter. Does anyone really think a kid is going to impacted by a speech to "stay in school and work hard and stay off drugs". That would have to be one powerful speech to "dramatically reduce the dropout rate!" I kind of think it will be those daily heros that speak into those lives that will be the real input. (you know...parents, teachers, coaches, pastors...) The weird part is the "curriculum" that students should review ahead of time not so much the speech."

Ruth is troubled by a far removed President giving "magical speeches"and who "does alot of talking but doesn't say very much", "doesn't really want an intellectual debate", and that "he seems a little arrogant to me" , or "he doesn't listen to anyone because he thinks he has all the answers".

Ruth's language is the language of innuendo and insult based on prejudice and presumtion. ( I love alliteration) But more importantly it is the language of the angry, uneducated, misinformed (lied to), and frightened. So I wrote back, " Drug abuse and drop outs are problems that have been ignored for eight years while the Bush Administration poured American blood into Iraq and squandered America's wealth, and earned the enmity and ridicule of the rest of the world. Clearly the input of the so-called "daily heros" hasn't done very well in solving the drug or drop out problem - too busy eavesdropping, torturing, and protecting corporate profits. Now that the everyone can read the President's speech it is clear that its critics have nothing to say about it. What exactly is weird about curriculum - what is the content that is objectiionable; and why is it "weird". And what is wierd, or even unusual, about students having a curriculum to follow?


Steve, the instigator of this thread wrote "I just think it's bizarre that we're debating this at all. Time was when the president telling kids to stay in school would be viewed as no big deal. Sure, most kids won't care one way or another, but it's just the kind of thing presidents do. The fact that it becomes a political football--along with everything else it seems--is depressing. I despised Bush Jr., but would never in a million years consider pulling my kids from school to avoid hearing him talk about the importance of education.
Sat at 10:44am

Jane wrote "The average child will watch 8000 murders on TV before finishing elementary school. I don't see parents getting hysterical about that. In its 10th annual back-to-school survey, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University found that 62 percent of high school students and 28 percent of middle school students ... Read Moreattend drug-infested schools....where are the picket signs now? The President of the United States wants to give a pep talk to the kids and NOW you want to get involved? Glad to see this isn't political."


But Ruth wouldn't buy it. She wasn't about to see anything positive in the President of the United States doing anything. She wrote back, "Still don't think the answer is in a speech by any president no matter who he is. Or what party he's from. I could care less if he gives a speech. Just think it's like "kissing the babies" at election time. All these problems that have been mentioned have been around way longer than George W Bush's adm. I hardly think all the nations problems can be blamed on just that adm. Seems like they have been in the making for many, many, years. I'm frankly sick of all of them in Washington and think most of them really don't care. - Simply self absorbed and not serving the country -- only themselves.....Both sides. I say fire them all and start over. They all sicken me. I don't feel like I need to defend either "side." Yeah, where are all those picket signs? I've always been involved in my kid's education. I don't need a political agenda for that. My kids are now all productive citizens and involved with the communities around them. I think I did that. Not anyone from Washington.

You don't get away so easily Ruth. "The fact that you "don't care" to hear what the President of your ( and I use the word "your" loosely) country has to say is a sad commentary on your patriotism. In fact, I find your attitude and commentary un-american. Where have you been for the last eight years? Did you carry picket signs protesting the War against Iraq. Did you protest the rendition and torture of prisoners? Did you complain that our soldiers were being sent into battle without the necessary equipment? Did you write to your congressperson to ask for an investigation of Cheney's involvement into the torure of prisoners. No and no and no and no. But now we hear from you about the President of the United States because he, like Bush, Bush, and Reagan, is going to give a speech to encourage kids to study hard, work hard, and be good citizens. Me thinks thou protesteth too much."

Ruth was offended and wrote: " Did you? Give it up. I'm not "protesting". I'm stating my opinion which I think we still can do in this country, if I'm correct and I'm also free to disagree with whoever and whatever I choose. What makes you think you are the poster boy for patriotism? I believe this is "my" country as much as "yours." Or am I using "your" loosely? I can ... Read Moredisagree with someone without having to attack them. Grow up. I've listened to every speech my president (Obama) has given. I just don't have to agree with everything he says. Just like I didn't agree with everything Bush did. Doesn't make me unpatriotic! Make me still able to think for myself. Guess what....I won't even picket when I disagree with this adm. I think that's ineffective. I didn't disagree with war in Iraq. Doesn't makes me less "patriotic" than you. I have written to my representatives on issues that I wanted to address. I even vote in all the elections. Really...I think you protesteth too much.

I didn't respond. It would be an exercise in futility. But, there is enough there to let us know who Ruth really is and what she, and others who parrot the same groundless acusations, are all about. Ruth didn't disagree with the invasion of Iraq. And in fact, it does make her less patriotic than those who believe in an America and protested the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us, and certainly less patriotic than anyone who spoke out against the rape of the Constitution or called for the investigation of the Bush administration for treason and war crimes.

Ruth, by the grace of god and the fact that she fell out of her mother's uterus on American soil, gets to call herself an American. - an ugly american.