In a front page Beacon article today entitled, "Obama message optional in schools", staff writer John Higgins relates what Medina City Schools Superintendent, Randy Stepp, has decided to do about Tuesday's Obama speech to school kids. Censor it.
Superintendent Stepp says he has received "about 100 e-mails and calls" and they are "evenly split over the issue."
Imagine….the calls are evenly split for and against the President of the United States talking to school children about working hard and staying in school. Encouraging America's children to learn, to work hard at learning, and to stay in school until graduation…..is now a 50-50 call out in Medina.
Yesterday, in blogging on this topic, I asked what in the hell is wrong with American conservatives. Anti-health care reform conservatives actually shouted down a woman in a freaking wheelchair at a New Jersey townhall.
Today, I ask these questions: what in the hell is wrong with Medina parents?……and why in the hell does Superintendent Stepp think he's qualified, or correct, in doing this….
Stepp, "After he does his speech, I think our high school can review it to see if it is pushing one way or the other politically, and if it's not, the next day they can come in and talk about it and see the video. I think by not showing it live and waiting, it's probably the safest decision."
Jesus. The Medina Schools Superintendent, fearful of what could happen when Obama speaks live to America's students, thinks it's "the safest decision" to not show it live. I don't know Mr. Superintendent of Medina Schools, but I gotta' say…….(put your hands over your ears)…..what the f*ck is wrong with an educational professional in the U.S. who speaks of censoring President Obama's talk to children as "the safest decision?"
Does Mr. Stepp get to decide, after reviewing Obama's talk, if the speech "is pushing one way or the other politically?" How neutral would Mr Stepp and his underlings at Medina Schools be in making that evaluation? Should Mr. Stepp's voting registration be checked to see which party he favors? What does it mean to say "our high school can review it?" That would be Mr. Stepp and his administration staff, would it not? And who in the hell qualified them to censor the president of the United States? What objective guidelines will be used by Mr. Stepp to determine whether Obama's encouragement to students to work hard and stay in school is "pushing one way or the other politically?"
Now here's the obligatory rant…..
What we're seeing now in Medina Schools over a "work hard and stay in school" message from the President to America's school children is a continuation of what Sarah Palin began during the presidential campaign. Divisive, hate-filled, xenophobic, and nonsensical displays of bitterness were part and parcel of every Palin campaign stop last fall. Palin spoke of "real America" and "real Americans." Candidate Obama, and those planning on voting for him, were not part of Palin's "real Americans."
That hatred, that bitterness, has continued and intensified since Obama's inauguration. Now, 8 months into it, and the same hateful, ignorant and bitter-losers who consider themselves the only "real Americans" are deciding whether it's "safe" for children to hear President Obama on the teevee.
The year is 2009. School districts throughout America are deciding whether it's safe for the children to hear and see the POTUS speak to them. School districts, like Medina's, fearful, I guess, that Obama has a secret plan to turn kids into "Village of the Damned" children by talking to them, will censor Obama's talk and then decide later whether Obama's talk is "safe" for kids to hear.
This craziness, this demonstration of insanity, this totally unhinged hatred from the right…..is not going to work out well for the nation.
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
You don't seem to know what "censor" means, Reverend.
Reverand,
The White House has no right to demand that any school district must broadcast the President's address to its pupils. The refusal to broadcast is not censorship.
No, larry….once again, one liners won't cut it …..
Censor…."A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."
The Superintendent of Medina Schools is "examining" the Obama video and will "suppress" whatever he considers "morally" or "politically" objectionable.
Not only did I apply the definition properly…..the Medina story is a case study on censorship. And Hate.
Quid, In conservative circles…..Obama doesn't have the right to do anything. He isn't an American and so he isn't really president. Isn't that how Obama is regarded by about half of conservatives?
Thank you for the article Rev…it's amazing to me to see the over-reaction to all of this…kind of scary at the same time, how these idiots are acting
Superintendent: Randy Stepp is going to censor the President of the United States speech. How insane is that! I will remember this outrage when the district is asking for more money!
Pay back is a bitch isn't it Rev? Remember when Bush was doing the same thing and the union was against it? Obama is being treated by the republicans as the libs and the Democrats treated Bush. WITH NO RESPECT.
Why does Obama deserve more respect than Bush? Because he and the rest of the Dems have caused almost 10% unemployment? Have raised taxes on the poor? Have caused price increases on the poor and middleclass? Or because he just took our hard earned money and gave new auto and home buyers a down payment? Something that most current auto and home owners had to skrimp to save for years. Obama just decides like a rich uncle to give them their down payments with our money. Do you see anything wrong with this picture? It's sort of like when Barney Chris and Bill and forced and snuck in legislation to let people that couldn't afford homes to be able to buy homes. You see where that got us. Or must we respect him is it a race thing? Or must we respect him because he is black, therefore we have to treat him with kid gloves and tenderness any other treatment would cause us to be "haters of black people".
Is there a difference between censoring a Democreat or a Republican?
Was it safe to let the kids watch Bush? Apparently not. So why should we force our kids to listen to Obama? I won't vote for a levy again if the kids are forced to listen to him. Keep politics and the advancement of special interests out of the schools.
Here is why it is wrong. The story of the gay penguins. You are telling me that I have to let my 2nd grader read this book about a lifestyle choice made to look natural, and I can't let him take a Bible to school? Keep Politics out. Let our kids form their own opinions.
Obama needs to just do the job he was hired to do.
Good rant average. 3 1/2 stars.
He's responding to complaints by parents, Reverend. To insist on calling it censorship is pretty silly. What's the big deal either way?
Hmmm another Steve, don't get us confused. I can remember back to my days at Otis C. Hatton grade school and a picture of Richard Nixon in every room, I guess that was OK since it wasn't a talking picture. I just got back from vacation, I did have one interesting thing happen to me that shows America today. We were at a small town "farm"parade, there was a woman in front of us getting everyone to clap for the WWII events, and complaining that there isn't enough patriotism anymore. Then a few minutes later a haywagon came by with the local republican party on it, county auditor, etc… she booed. Of course I couldn't help but comment on her patriotism at that point. I guess it just goes to show, Government, blogging and now parades are fine, as long as you keep the politics out of it.
What people seem to have a hard time getting is that this President's message seems particularly effective when heard by an immature mind.
I offer up "the Reverend' as people's exhibit #1.
bzzzp….that was kind of funny.
But how is pointing out the obvious about the censorship session there in the Red State of Medina County evidence of me having an immature mind?
Steve…glad to see you're back from vacation. There's plenty of room for two Steve's….or more.
Unfortunately, I think being partisan, like the booing lady, is part and parcel of having political opinions. Our national problem is in HOW those political opinions are communicated. For example: booing is different from biting off someone's little finger.
larry asks…"what's the big deal either way", concerning Obama's being censored out of public schools this Tuesday.
The big deal is that excitable people, who have no idea what they are talking about, are openly calling for the villification, marginalization and eventual downfall of an 8-month-in-office president. With this censorship action, Obama is being portrayed to school students as dangerous, deviously deceptive and untrustworthy…like I said, the wingnut portrayal is that Obama is not one of us.
After censorship will come more drastic and insane actions by these same nuts…..until, well….I've seen this movie before and it doesn't end well. Perhaps that's the ending you prefer.
Interesting take on all the paranoia and while I do not agree with everything there are some good points to think about including the following
"The first is to give up on attempts to reach them, an approach that I think is perfectly appropriate for many of the hard-line paranoid anti-government types. I am generally a therapeutic optimist, except in cases where there is significant paranoia. Since everything I do or say is seen through a paranoid filter, there is little chance for me to reach the person.
Politically, we shouldn't try. We should outvote them, outfight them and defeat them.
The other option, appropriate with other less-rigid and brittle members of this psychic class is take a longer view. In these cases, while defeating them politically, we have to also disprove or disconfirm their experience in practice, to provide over time experiences in which they can feel some control but also get helped.
It's almost as if you have to take care of them in spite of themselves, in ways that allow them the maximum amount of freedom and the maximum autonomy to say "No."
Only then will you stand a chance of them hearing your arguments."
Personally I think the second option takes too much effort!!
http://www.alternet.org/politics/142439/the_psychology_of_the_right-wing%27s_anti-government_%27death-panel%27_delusions/?page=entire
As I said, pay back is a bitch. It's so easy for you to explian things away with a bunch of psycho analytical babble written by a psycologist from the left, that pretty much makespeople on the right seem as though they are inept. But the question wasn't answered, when Bush attempted this same thing, the same thing happened except it was the teachers union, not the NEA that said it wasn't a good idea and they didn't think Bush should address the children.
You call the right anti-government? How can you trust them? This whole mess is their fault. Yet in a lemming like way you follow them to the edge of the cliff. They have to earn trust with the people.
Have him tell us what he is going to say and we will agree on it just as I would want anyone else to do, but I forgot this is the party of "go ahead and get an abortion, we won't tell your parents".
Instead of demonizing the tea parties, why don't you listen and try to understand what they are talking about.
Love him or hate him, it's hard to argue that Obama has inspired much confidence in the minds of those who wouldn't fall in line with him no matter what. He's made a series of missteps in this regard and if a large portion of the American people don't trust him even to have an informal chat with their kids he's only got himself to blame.
Good stuff alchemist. More and better Democrats is my motto. Even if you lead the horse to the water very reassuringly, even if you are kind and considerate and only move incrementally,….you still can't make that horse drink.
larry is quite the pretzler….all those twists and turns.
Obama was villified hatefully by Palin enthusiasts BEFORE he was elected by 53% of the popular vote. Was that villification Obama's fault too?
What "series of missteps" are you referring to? The stimulus? S-CHIP? Lily Ledbetter? Wanting to close Guantanomo? Climate/energy legislation? Tax cuts for working folks?
Or is it only that he had the audacity to push health care reform?
Knee -jerk haters don't need any "reason" to…ummm …..hate.
But it's interesting to see that you are searching for justifications for behavior that has no justification.
AND….I love ya'….but this…
"it's hard to argue that Obama has inspired much confidence in the minds of those who wouldn't fall in line with him no matter what."
…doesn't make any sense. How in the world could someone who "wouldn't fall in line no matter what" be inspired with confidence by the very person they would never fall in line with? Just sayin'.
One final comment…..the school boycott issue is not just some ordinary action by Obama opponents. Some ho-hum event. Rather, it's a new and even more extreme step furthering the open contempt and rejection of an 8-months-in-office president. Pay attention moving forward…..the school boycott will lead directly to state wide and region wide rejections of everything Obama. The extremists on the right are making a terrible mistake…..they don't care about the unity or peace of the country. They're willing to open deep and dangerous cracks in our civil discourse through their totalitarian tactics…further divide us as a people….precipitate violence…..all because conservatives don't control the federal government.
21st century barbarians…..U.S. style.
alchemist…..I read the entire Alternet piece. While the professional who wrote it shares some very good insights…..I think he overstates the case, makes it more complicated than it actually is.
Today's political "fans" are very much like America's sports fans. Fans pick their favorite teams and root for them, no matter what. True die-hard fans are called the "faithful." No matter how their favorite team performs…no matter who they trade or fire….no matter how many games they win or lose….the fans remain faithful.
Radical conservatives, the ones who are making the most noise, are not responding to some psycho-babble need to be secure and independent instead of "helpless", as the writer suggests. Those conservatives are simply doing all they can, including much bad behavior, to show whose team they support.
Fans…..by definition, are fanatics. I think what we're seeing is no more complicated than a large version of "us versus them."
Caught me again, Reverend–I meant "would," obviously.
Obama's made all sorts of mistakes–ramming through the stimulus, appointing radicals like Truther Van Jones, saying he doesn't want to hear any health care talk from those who disagree with his plan, siding with leftist despots, etc., etc. It's his first instinct and it's pretty constant. He billed himself as someone who could bridge the gap but he's widened it considerably.
This entire blog is about vilifying people on the political right, and then the Rev has the nerve to complain about people vilifying Obama. It seems to me that what the Rev is complaining about is people like THE REV.
Go figure.
Van Jones is out. Beck was 100% correct and Jones is a big liar. This seems to happen with many of Obama's choices. Does this reflect something in his character? Maybe Beck IS using his platform to bring out the truth.
Reverend I thought the author over complicated it as well. I do think that with some people who have not had things work out in their lives as they would have liked or wanted will look for someone or something to blame for their predicament and often times that is family, employer, significant other, or government. Like the author said – Government is a good target for these projections. For the right, it's the perfect target. It's big and powerful. It's anonymous. It interacts with our lives everywhere, all the time. What other institution does this? What other force is there in our lives that is so ubiquitous, so full of laws, rules, restrictions, restraints, obligations, demands, all backed by force? I also think some are fans like you say. What I took away from the article is do not waste your breath trying to change the minds of the really paranoid ones.
Replace 'government' with 'corporations' and you've got a pretty good description of your average liberal there, alchemist.
Speaking of censorship, Reverend, I'm sorry Glenn Beck defeated the administration and forced Van Jones to step down. That makes Obama 0-2 against blowhard rightwing crackpot radio talk show hosts; I can see why you're pro-censorship when it comes to voices of dissent.
Thuggish, hate-filled, nation-dividing, mob-rule-favoring and proven liars are "voices of dissent."
I guess that's one way of describing it.
Beck and Limbaugh, who egg that minority mob on,…..that same minority who gets the most main-media coverage…..are "defeating" Obama….because Van Jones resigned…or something.
"Thuggish, hate-filled, nation-dividing, mob-rule-favoring and proven liars"
That sounds like a perfect description of Van Jones.
Okay, maybe not a perfect description. You left out racist, anti-semitic, communist, 9/11 Truther, and violent.
And now "disgraced," King.
Yup.
The people have spoken. I wonder who our next president will be?
Van Jones' views are correct.
Glenn Beck has a mental problem, he is unstable, and he is an ignorant divider of the American people. Conservatives celebrating the resignation of Van Jones are following in Beck's footsteps. Why would anyone choose, by following the words of a total crackpot-nut, to have a mental problem, be unstable and ignorantly divide Americans? I mean, ….why choose to go down that perilous path?
Mental illness runs in Beck's family–his mother and brother suffered from depression and committed suicide, and he himself considered suicide in the mid-90s. I believe he is mentally unstable – I have siblings, cousins, and a aunt with diagnosed serious mental illness and he exhibits lots and lots of the symptoms I have seen over the years in dealing with my family. He is also very intelligent and uses what his mind sees as reality to make lots of money and influence people who have some of the same issues he has. I have a sibling just like him and another sibling just like one of his followers. The two of them "do their little dance" – I can not permanently influence either one of them. I just go pick up the pieces when one or the other ends up in the psych ward for a stay. Beck alarms me and I wish he were not in the position of influence that he is and I feel sorry for him. He as a tormented mind.
Insightful, alchemist.
It is very troubling that a major cable network would feature such an obviously disturbed person.
That's an awful lot of psycho-babble, alchemist.
Rev says, "Van Jones' views are correct."
Now, THAT is a sign of an obviously disturbed person. Which of Van Jones' views are correct ? The communist ones, the racist ones, the anti-semitic ones, the Truther ones, the "a-hole" ones, the violent ones, or what ?
Conservatives refuse to acknowledge information exists, if they can not explain it. Conservatives cannot explain why Israel is allowed to openly violate U.N agreements continually, yet Muslim nations should be punished for their alleged violations. Conservatives cannot give answers to numerous 9-11 questions still unanswered, yet if a liberal points that out, then, for some reason, the liberal is disturbed. I could give many more examples.
That's why conservatives don't like Van Jones. He points out stuff conservatives do not acknowledge exists. Van Jones is an intelligent, highly educated, articulate black man, like President Obama. And that's why the wingnut right is celebrating so boisterously about bringing down a lower tier level appointee. Like savage native tribes, the wingers are dancing around a big sacrificial bonfire where a surrogate Obama has just been gutted.
But it's not about race.