Brainwashing Propaganda, or Morality Lesson?

[Taem]

Link.

Usually, FoxNews has a tendency to exaggerate the truth, so unless I see it posted on more than one news site, I am hesitant to post my finding here, but I found the implications of this too disturbing not to share:

Critics Decry Obama's 'Indoctrination' Plan for Students
A suggested lesson plan that calls on students to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama following his address to students nationwide is troubling and establishes the president as a "superintendent in chief," education experts told FOXNews.com.

By Joshua Rhett Miller

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

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.

But the White House says the speech is merely "designed to encourage kids to stay in school."

Obama will deliver a national address directly to students on Tuesday, which will be the first day of classes for many children across the country. The address, to be broadcast live on the White House's Web site, was announced in a letter to school principals last week by Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Obama intends to "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning," Duncan wrote. Obama will also call for a "shared responsibility" among students, parents and educators to maximize learning potential.

"The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard in school, to not drop out and to meet short-term goals like behaving in class, doing their homework and goals that parents and teachers alike can agree are noble," Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, told FOXNews.com. "This isn't a policy speech. This is a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school."

But in advance of the address, the Department of Education has offered educators "classroom activities" to coincide with Obama's message.

Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."

Teachers are also given guidance to tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama."

During the speech, "teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful."

For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare by excerpting quotes from Obama's speeches on education for their students to contemplate -- and ask as questions such as "Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?"

Activities suggested for after the speech include asking students "what resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?"

Obama announced his intention to deliver the address to students during an interview with Damon Weaver, a middle school student from Florida who gained a following of his own last year on the campaign trail for his interviews of high-profile figures.

The Department of Education is using the president's address to kick off a video contest titled, "I Am What I Learn," in which students are invited to submit videos of up to two minutes on the importance of education in achieving their dreams.

Obama's critics say the lesson plans and the president's calls for a "supportive community" are troubling on many levels.

"In general, I don't think there's a problem if the president uses the bully pulpit to tell kids to work hard, study hard and things like that. But there are some troubling hints in this, both educationally and politically," said Neal McCluskey, associate director of Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom.

Among the concerns, McCluskey said, is the notion that students who do not support Obama or his educational policies will begin the school year "behind the eight ball," or somehow academically trailing their peers.

"It essentially tries to force kids to say the president and the presidency is inspiring, and that's very problematic," McCluskey said. "It's very concerning that you would do that."

Parents of public school students would also have to pay for that "indoctrination," regardless of their political background, he said.

"That's the fundamental problem. They could easily be funding the indoctrination of their children."

Meanwhile, Patti Kinney, a former teacher and middle school principal with 33 years of teaching experience, said she found nothing wrong with the lesson plans.

"They're designed as a menu, so it doesn't mean you have to do everything," said Kinney, associate director for middle level services at the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "You have to pick and choose which will work best for your class."

Kinney said suggestions like asking students to recall "other historic moments" when the president spoke to the nation and to hone their listening skills by taking notes during the address are useful.

"You're asking them to listen to particular things and to take notes," she said. "That's a good teaching strategy to help students develop their listening skills."

Asked if she was troubled by the suggestion that students write letters "about what they can do to help the president," Kinney said she would have reworked that sentence.

"I would have probably reworded that to say goals the president is suggesting," Kinney said. "But again, you call upon teacher expertise to do what's appropriate with their students ... I did not see anything that I saw as problematic."

Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said the suggested lesson plans cross the line between instruction and advocacy.

"I don't think it's appropriate for teachers to ask students to help promote the president's preferred school reforms and policies," Hess said. "It very much starts to set up the president as a superintendent in chief."

Amid the debate on the federal government's level of involvement on issues like health care and others, Hess said, "There's a lot of people" on both sides of the political spectrum who will rightfully be concerned with the president's call to action.

"It shows exactly what the problem is," he said. "This is going to open the door to all kinds of concerns."

After reading the Department of Education lesson plans for the speech, McCluskey said he noticed several passages that should set off "alarm bells," including language that attempts to "glorify President Obama" in the minds of young students.

"It could be a blatantly political move," he said. "Nobody knows for sure, but it gives that impression."

McCluskey also noted that the lesson plans for young students contain suggestions to write letters to themselves on how they can help the president, but that suggestion is not in the lesson plan for middle and high schoolers -- perhaps due to the likelihood of increased political ties at that age.

"You don't want to see this coming from the president," McCluskey said. "You don't want to see this coming from the federal government."

FOXNews.com's David Paulsen contributed to this report.

I've always thought they should teach morals through history instead of relying on the parents to take their kids to their god of choice for moral lessons and teach dry history classes, but I'm not sure this is what I had in mind... Using Obamas own speeches as learning material for our children to base their opinions on is bull, and getting them to read books written about him and by him if close to brain-washing if you ask me. If you want to teach kids responsibility and morality, do it through history - stop all the dry boring history lessons they teach in school and give them moral lessons, but don't use propaganda to do it...

[Taem]

I figured this little tidbit didn't need it's own topic, so I thought I'd tack it on here.

Not related at all to the above topic, I found this article amusing also, considering Bush announced a formal War on Islam a few years back: Obama Praises Islam as 'Great Religion'. I'm sure Pete will come along screaming that I have a political motive by posting that, but honestly, I just find it ironic more than anything and thought I'd share it. I don't really care what religion our president endorses so long as he doesn't get all extremist or anything.

[Jester]

Usually, FoxNews has a tendency to exaggerate the truth, so unless I see it posted on more than one news site, I am hesitant to post my finding here, but I found the implications of this too disturbing not to share:

The reason they "exaggerate the truth" is precisely to get that reaction out of you. As Winston Churchill once said, a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.

I've always thought they should teach morals through history instead of relying on the parents to take their kids to their god of choice for moral lessons and teach dry history classes, but I'm not sure this is what I had in mind... Using Obamas own speeches as learning material for our children to base their opinions on is bull, and getting them to read books written about him and by him if close to brain-washing if you ask me. If you want to teach kids responsibility and morality, do it through history - stop all the dry boring history lessons they teach in school and give them moral lessons, but don't use propaganda to do it...

This is really that disturbing to you? Giving kids a speech written by their president, and asking them fluffy questions about it? One that teachers aren't even obligated to use?

-Jester

[Jester]

... Bush announced a formal War on Islam a few years back...

Um, what?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . considering Bush announced a formal War on Islam a few years back: . . .

Yeah, I'm sure he did, given that he's a moron who probably doesn't even know that there is a first amendment much less what it says. Oh, wait -- even he isn't that stupid. But I'm not sure about those who believe it.

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

MEAT, I'm saying this with due respect and care, and as someone who's grateful that you ran that chatbot on the D2lurker channel.

FOXNEWS, is a sh1t sandwich. It's filled to the brim with all kinds of fecal matter, with some bread on either ends so it can technically proclaim itself as a sandwich, and therefore a legitimate food product.

When someone says well FOXNEWS must be doing something right, if socio-leftist liberals or an Indo-Kenyan islamo-fascist death panelist usurper like Obama is bothered by it. They're right. They're right in the same way that a stopped clock is right at least twice a day.

When someone says only a partisan commiecrat kool-aid drinker would believe FOXNEWS is a mouthpiece of an intellectually and ethically bankrupt remnants of a once upon a 'long time ago in a far far galaxy' sane GOP, they're right.

Because FOXNEWS is under the umbrella of the FOX network, who airs such fiscally and socially conservative shows such as 'Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire?' and 'Temptation Island'.

This is the network that's owned by Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch, contrary to popular belief, is neither a right winger or a left winger. Rupert Murdoch, is a Rupert Murdoch winger. He is in fact, closest to the Senator\future Emperor Palpatine in the SW prequels. He actually has a hand in both the Republic's newly formed clone army AND the Confederate's droid army. It doesn't matter which sides defeats who, because almost any outcome of the conflict is in Senator Murdochtine I mean Palpatine's favor.

Palpatine, doesn't give a crap if the Confederate's Droid army wins, or the Republic's Clone army wins, as long as the Jedis are drawn in, get whittled down and (nearly) eliminated in the conflict.

Here's a wiki entry on him, though don't take that 100% either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

If anything, to paraphrase the late great George Carlin reading is not what's important, questioning is. But it's a good primer, and people are free and encouraged to compare and contrast that with other sources.

In closing. A pic of Palpatine, and what he thinks of your feeble skills with a 'hhlight sayhbuhr'.

[Taem]

@majority: Alright everybody, I get it; point taken. Fox News is not a reliable source of news.
@Jester: Well, according to the article, they are told:

"eachers are also given guidance to tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama."

[...]

Activities suggested for after the speech include asking students "what resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?"

As someone who does not see eye-to-eye on Obama's thoughts or ideologies, I find the thought of using his speeches as learning tools to be pure propaganda. If Obama was really that interested in teaching moral lessons, they already teach history in school, so why not use that as a model? What exactly is he trying to accomplish by doing this? Can you honestly sit there and tell me reviewing his speeches and what they mean is purely a move by his administration to get kids more 'involved' in school? But hell, what does it matter anyways if @majority is right and FoxNews is lying? Then this is all a shell game done for our entertainment.

[Taem]

Yeah, I'm sure he did, given that he's a moron who probably doesn't even know that there is a first amendment much less what it says. Oh, wait -- even he isn't that stupid. But I'm not sure about those who believe it.

Link.

Click any of them. The Bush administration made a formal declaration of a "War on Terror", then later acknowledged it was a war against radical Islam. You could argue Islam radicals are not the same as worshipers of Islam I suppose, but I find that nut hard to swallow. True that when generalizing any Islamic with a "radical" or "extremist" label, this person would is considered more than likely to ready to strap themselves with C4 and blow up innocent lives, but that seems more like a cult to me than a religion. If they [the government administrations] continue to acknowledge labels of radical and extremist with Islam, then by its very nature Islam is associated with these types of individuals.

I consider the likes of David Korseh and other extremists who were once of Christian off-shoots to be cultists. Just because David Korresh was an extremist, I don't go and declare war on the Southern Baptist Church, or on a broader scale Christianity. Yet IMO this is what the Bush administration did by declaring a war on Islamic extremists, hence the irony of what the Obama administration did.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I find the thought of using his speeches as learning tools to be pure propaganda.

I've read Das Kapital and Mein Kampf as part of a liberal Catholic education. Only an insecure fool avoids studying those he does not agree with.

If Obama was really that interested in teaching moral lessons, they already teach history in school, so why not use that as a model?

Right. The morality of the Holocaust. That of the crusades. Genghis Kahn's treatment of Afghanistan. Six thousand rebellious slaves crucified along the Via Appia. The slaughter of the American natives. The enslavement of Africans. The opium wars. The Sepoy wars. The relocation of the kulaks. The inquisition. Christian torches illumination Nero's feasts. The slaughter of Jericho.

The only morality in history is that might makes right and the victors write the history.

What exactly is he trying to accomplish by doing this? Can you honestly sit there and tell me reviewing his speeches and what they mean is purely a move by his administration to get kids more 'involved' in school?

Trying to get people to think. And trying to make the next generation less apathetic, less ignorant, and less parochial than what laughingly passes for adults in this once great country.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

The reason they "exaggerate the truth" is precisely to get that reaction out of you. As Winston Churchill once said, a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
This is really that disturbing to you? Giving kids a speech written by their president, and asking them fluffy questions about it? One that teachers aren't even obligated to use?

I seem to recall a time a few years ago when Bush gave a speech and not even the networks carried it.

Ah, here it is... Networks won't air Bush's primetime speech.

<blockquote>NBC, Fox and ABC will proceed with their scheduled programming for the 8-9 p.m. hour -- an episode of “Fear Factor,” the finale of “The Swan” and the broadcast premiere of Oscar-winning “A Beautiful Mind,” respectively.

CBS is not expected to make a final decision on whether to preempt its Monday 8-9 p.m. comedy block -- season finales of “Yes, Dear” and “Still Standing” -- until Monday but sources indicated the network was leaning toward sticking with its regular programming.</blockquote>It is good to know we value sweeps week, over something as inconsequential to the USA as an Iraq War strategy. Heaven forbid it conflict with Monday Night Football, or WWE Smack Down.

[kandrathe]

FOXNEWS, is a sh1t sandwich. It's filled to the brim with all kinds of fecal matter, with some bread on either ends so it can technically proclaim itself as a sandwich, and therefore a legitimate food product.

Now, add the other networks NEWS programs as well. Journalism is dead.

During the 60's, 70's, and 80's the icon's of American Media struggled to present and image of unbiased news reporting. After the advent and popularity of cable TV, and the internet the plummeting dominance of "The Networks" resulted in a rush to sensationalism and a great loss of professionalism. The 24 hour news only format of CNN resulted in a rush of unfinished, poorly researched detritus being pawned to us as news. Worse yet, erstwhile credible sources manufactured fake "events" as news. I believe that if you check the watchdog organizations that the bias did exist, and the American media has been complicit in intentionally shaping political thought. The 5th estate is now a 4th column that sold out, and yes, Rupert Murdoch is cashing in, as is Ted Turner, Disney, Viacom, General Electric and a handful of other media moguls.

Keith Olberman is as big a loud mouthed propagandist as O'Reilly, or Hannity, or Beck. Then there are the quiet ones, who are just propagandists. There is no longer the pretense of presenting an unbiased view, and perhaps it was a fantasy to believe that a person could ever collect the facts and report them without applying a slant to one direction or the other.

So, before it was subtly slanted biased reporting, but now it is blatant factional propaganda.

[kandrathe]

When it comes to Fox, or the others... It is better to post a report on the report... Jester can stomach it better when you post an MSNBC article critical of FOX's grand standing.

<blockquote>"A racially charged activist group called “Color of Change” founded by Van Jones, a special advisor to the Obama Administration, is trying to silence popular radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck by calling for a boycott of Beck’s TV advertisers. "--Western Center for Jounalism</blockquote>Far be it from me to express any outrage at the Obama administration for using political pressure to silence their media critics.

Like this one on Huffington, where Obama's now green jobs czar, Van Jones, was recorded last February calling republicans Aholes.

And, of course, Huffington being the left leaning site it is tries to point at FOX's LOLcatting as a diversion.

See. The video isn't a lie, its the raw fact. It's Van Jones, acting the way he acts and expressing his true views. Back during the campaign, when people questioned the associates of Barrack Obama, like Bill Ayres, these were the types of people I didn't want to represent me in my Federal government. And, it's not just their viewpoints (which are Statist, and against our founding principles), but also their "righteous anger" which is directed at what they perceive as injustice. For example with Mr. Jones in Oakland, well yes, Oakland is messed up, so how about you and your fellow Oakland citizens get together and clean things up. But, that is not how progressives (and I use the term loosely) think, rather their solution is to turn to the government to use force to extract money from your pocket to pay for his problem. Now, look at the Federal yearly deficit, sitting at some 4 trillion dollars, with Obama promising that only the rich (top 5%) will be socked for the bill. I don't think he can do math then. The top 5% who pay somewhere around 28% of all their income over $250K pay into the Federal coffers roughly 600 billion. So triple that, so that they pay 100% and you still only get up to $1.8 trillion, and Laffer be damned since no one in their right mind would stay in the US to earn over $250K and give it all to the government. Welcome to equality through poverty.

[Jester]

@Jester: Well, according to the article, they are told:
As someone who does not see eye-to-eye on Obama's thoughts or ideologies, I find the thought of using his speeches as learning tools to be pure propaganda. If Obama was really that interested in teaching moral lessons, they already teach history in school, so why not use that as a model? What exactly is he trying to accomplish by doing this? Can you honestly sit there and tell me reviewing his speeches and what they mean is purely a move by his administration to get kids more 'involved' in school? But hell, what does it matter anyways if @majority is right and FoxNews is lying? Then this is all a shell game done for our entertainment.

He's delivering a speech telling the kids to work hard, don't do drugs, and stay in school. What is he trying to accomplish? Well, golly gosh, maybe to get kids to work hard, not do drugs, and stay in school? It's not like presidents have been shy about saying this kind of thing before.

But, I guess, if you listen to an outlet that regularly implies that Obama is building a paramilitary force composed of ACORN and Americorps who will take the guns of patriots away so they can't resist his Nazi-Commie-Islamofascist coup d'etat, then I suppose this all makes sense and seems very ominous.

Me, I think it's trivial, innocuous, and of basically zero consequence.

Also, as someone with a foot in the door of the history world, let me tell you that if you're trying to use history to teach morality, you're in for a wild ride.

-Jester

[Jester]

Did you turn into a shrinking violet when I wasn't looking? If "asshole" gives you the vapours, I don't know how you'd even function. (It's even meant, in this context, to mean a stubborn political scrapper rather than a compromiser - he refers to himself in the next paragraph as an asshole.) Political operatives call each other far worse, every day, and always have.

As for boycotting Glenn Beck, it can't come a moment too soon. That man has been completely off the handle, calling his opponents Nazis, Communists, Racists, and even not-so-subtly advocating treasonous insurrection for *absolutely no fracking reason* except that the president is a black guy he disagrees with. Should his opponents not try to organize a boycott? It's perfectly within their rights.

And just a nit, you perennially misspell "Barack".

Regardless, not that this thread really has a lot of focus to begin with, but could we keep it from becoming the kitchen sink thread of random political stuff?

-Jester

[Jester]

Ah, here it is... Networks won't air Bush's primetime speech.

Do you even read the things you link? The Bush administration didn't even *ask* them to carry it. And Fox and MSNBC *did* run it. The networks aren't obligated to shuffle everything out of the way every last time the presnit gets up on a podium. Surely reporting the content and giving clips on the news is sufficient for those too lazy to track down a video or transcript?

But to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

-Jester

[Jester]

The Bush administration made a formal declaration of a "War on Terror", then later acknowledged it was a war against radical Islam. You could argue Islam radicals are not the same as worshipers of Islam I suppose, but I find that nut hard to swallow.

If you find it hard to swallow, maybe hearing it from a sympathetic voice might help.

“Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam,” Bush told those who live in the Middle East during a 20-minute address to the U.N. General Assembly. “This propaganda is false, and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam, but we will protect our people from those who pervert Islam to sow death and destruction. Our goal is to help you build a more tolerant and hopeful society that honors people of all faiths and promotes the peace.”

This is not an isolated quote. He reiterated this hundreds of times. This is a war on terrorism, *not* a war on Islam.

Not, of course, that I take Bush's word on anything at all.

-Jester

[Kevin]

Link.

Usually, FoxNews has a tendency to exaggerate the truth, so unless I see it posted on more than one news site, I am hesitant to post my finding here, but I found the implications of this too disturbing not to share:
I've always thought they should teach morals through history instead of relying on the parents to take their kids to their god of choice for moral lessons and teach dry history classes, but I'm not sure this is what I had in mind... Using Obamas own speeches as learning material for our children to base their opinions on is bull, and getting them to read books written about him and by him if close to brain-washing if you ask me. If you want to teach kids responsibility and morality, do it through history - stop all the dry boring history lessons they teach in school and give them moral lessons, but don't use propaganda to do it...

It's asks them to read books about past and current presidents. This was required of me in school. I was also asked to write letters to myself saying how I could help President Reagan make this a better country. This is not a new tactic. The reason why the younger kids are asked to help the President and not just offer ideas is that younger students generally can't grasp the abstract as well so having the specific person involved helps them focus in on the idea. Students are often asked to write letters to the teacher that are used just for the student. Or at least this used to be a common practice. Perhaps the fact that it isn't anymore is part of why our education system is failing? I don't know. I've realized that the public school system I went through in Southwest Wisconsin as a kid was significantly better than the ones that most of my peers went through in the rest of the country decades ago. Sadly the district I went too is now pretty much in the crap like all the rest.

Reading is good. Setting goals for yourself is good. Exploring what YOU can do in the specific is good. Of course there will be political overtones. There are political overtones every time any politician on the planet speaks pretty much by the definition of who is doing the speaking. Of course and agenda is being pushed. It's rare that any politician on the planet doesn't push an agenda when they open their mouth.

Of course in the end all this will mean very little. How much to you really remember from Grades 1-4? Hell most of my classmates turned out to be die hard democrats, those letters to Reagan warped our minds pretty hard. Trickle down forever!!! Really is humanity that much of a herd? Maybe 1-3% of kids will get a little extra motivation out of it that might actually impact them. It's not new and it's a non issue in my mind. I guess I didn't need to spew quite as much vitriol as I did.

[Zingydex]

The reason why the younger kids are asked to help the President and not just offer ideas is that younger students generally can't grasp the abstract as well so having the specific person involved helps them focus in on the idea.

The human brain does not develop the physiological capacity for abstract thought until age 12, give or take a few months. It's not that they're less able, it's that they're biologically incapable of grasping the abstract at that age - period.

[Kevin]

The human brain does not develop the physiological capacity for abstract thought until age 12, give or take a few months. It's not that they're less able, it's that they're biologically incapable of grasping the abstract at that age - period.

Generalizing about all children is a mistake as well. There are kids that can grasp the abstract younger than 12. Not everyone develops at the same rate. I stand by my statement. I've worked with young kids that get abstract sorta. Some grasp it better than others. Some don't get it at all. Your blanket statement is not a "period".

[DeeBye]

Oh no! The president wants to talk to the children. This cannot be allowed!

American politics is hilarious.