(This post is not about healthcare but the first paragraph does mention it – if you want to get to the issue I’m focusing on scroll down to the red header.)
I respect your opinion, I respect your right to disagree with me. I do hope that your disagreement can be formulated in a cohesive manner that does not parrot slogans or blind obedience to a group. I have heard people speak of their hatred for our current president. I have heard stories of people saying “If Obama is for it, I’m against it,” without even knowing what “it” is. This I do not respect. Back up your beliefs/opinions with personal reasons – this leads to debate, which can, and I stress can, lead to compromise. This dialogue is what is missing from current debates. I have attended meetings and rally’s about the health care issue – I am unimpressed with the people who do not want change, or those who are against the proposed change due to their lack of ability to formulate why they are against it, their unwillingness to suggest changes of their own, and lack of respect for those who are working for/towards what they believe in.
There is a new debate – one that won’t be as long lasting I think because the event happens next Tuesday, 9/8/09.
The newest thing that has gotten my attention:
I saw a poll on Facebook: Should the United States President be allowed to do a nationwide address to our children at school, without prior parental consent? this is a ridiculous question designed to stir up or stoke anti-Obama sentiment. Since when has presidential speeches been banned from schools? Are you so insecure in your own beliefs that you don’t want your child to hear what the President of the United States has to say?! This is remarkable for two reasons.
One, people really want to censure the president? These same people who let kids watch and listen to whatever they want on TV and Ipods? How does this idea even make any sense to someone – if you are reading this and would vote yes on this poll I sincerely want to know the reasoning behind that decision and if I respond you can be assured that it will be respectful.
Two, this is why you should talk to your kids. This is the perfect opportunity to discuss what you believe, what the other side of the argument is and discuss the issue with your child. Unless the aim is to pump out a robot that believes exactly what you tell them to and is devoid of any means of thinking for themselves – you know, they may agree with your opinion, they are your child. This is a free country – the thought that the President addressing the children of America is wrong,
“Pat Waite, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for San Jose city council, summed it up nicely in his statement to the San Jose Mercury News:
I may not agree with a lot of what he’s doing, but come on, he’s the president of the United States and his words ought to carry some import. It’s kind of ironic that the president wants to talk to the schoolchildren about the importance [of] staying in school and people are going to protest by pulling their kids out of school.” (And yes that is a correct example of irony)
Pat Waite brings up another good point – the subject matter. He is going to be talking about the importance of education and staying in school – what a terrible message to be sending to upcoming generations right? (please note the heavy sarcasm there) Where is the danger in this message? Someone, please tell me!
I just don’t understand the concern, he is going to address students about the importance of getting an education and staying in school. What is so outrageous about that? I would certainly agree with you if the focus were going to be the war in Afghanistan or the health care debate – that would be a real cause for concern in my book, but to urge kids to stay in school and receive an education seems appropriate for back to school and as a positive role for a very large public figure (regardless if you agree with him on other issues).
I would certainly commend George W. or Cheney if they were going to make a similar speech to students, and I agree with very few (read as ‘none’) of their political positions.
More on this story here: CNN.com