To me, it's obvious and simple, what else could President Obama do but what he did in Afghanistan and commit more troops? We are in two horrible wars. They were very poorly thought out wars and more abhorrently, we were lied to by the former administration. Bottom line we were put in a veritable no-win situation.
So now what to do? We know that people who wish us harm are in Afghanistan, in Pakistan and many other places. The military says we need to fight them. So President Obama is doing what anyone would do, he's giving the military enough rope to succeed or hang themselves. I don't think he even believes we'll succeed, but he knows there's a chance, albeit a small one.
And more importantly he gave OUR MILITARY a date he wants them to get out. I think that anyone in his position, learning what he must now know (that none of us know) such as the danger of nuclear attacks from terrorists, would have done the same. The difference with this President, is that he made the decision carefully, over time and came to a grim conclusion to proceed. That's not flag waving or hawkish behavior as was common with the last administration. That's intelligent behavior, no rallying cries. For him to be derided for being intelligent, for taking the time to make a careful decision is armchair quarterbacking, but unfortunately not about the triviality of sports, but regarding the importance of our very human existence on Earth which is threatened by terrorists.
We should "back off this man", he's doing his best. Being an armchair quarterback is embarrassing when one is talking about our nation and our world surviving this crisis. Save your armchair quarterbacking for football.
I sometimes believe that if President Obama wiped out all disease, brought peace to our planet, created unlimited energy sources and solved world hunger, I'd see an iReport question asking, "Does Obama Really Care or is he Just Showing Off?"
No matter how much good this man does, no matter how many accolades, he gets slammed by one half of the United States, the half that doesn't just want him to not be President but seems to despise his very existence.
Images accompanying articles about President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, such as the one of a black peace dove with an olive branch in his mouth (an actual graphic in a Spanish newspaper) are shocking, but also revealing. Loaded questions from "iReport" on CNN asked, "Does Obama Deserve it?" and articles like "Now Obama Needs to Earn It" (and that was written by a supporter) shows just how deeply divided our world is about this man, for reasons of envy and racism.
Doesn't the world understand, President Obama was awarded this prize for to setting the tone for world peace, for TRYING to bring the world together to ultimately then accomplish levels of peace heretofore not known. It is in the act of TRYING that we are measured, not accomplishing. What have you done, lately, ask yourself, to TRY to bring peace to this world?
If the Nobel Peace Prize was only awarded for when people actually brought peace to this planet (as was seriously suggested by one person who said Obama should give the prize back until he's accomplished world peace), no one would ever win such a prize.
We need to encourage every individual who has the tenacity and the vision to stand up and say we won't take it anymore, we won't accept the status quo of hatred and war. President Obama is just such a person and that's why he was awarded this prize. This award is not based on what he might do in the future, it's based on what he has done, set the stage for our world to respect one another, the first prelude to peace. He's tried to bring our world together. And the resistance to that only proves how noble the trying is.
Let's give him a chance now to make the dream of a more peaceful world a reality and let us for a moment, put aside our hate, because by doing so, it is our only chance at peace.
MY CONCLUDING RESPONSE TO THE CONTINUED STANCE OF OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT THEY DID NOT AIR PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SPEECH DUE TO CURRICULA CONCERNS (SEE THEIR LETTER BELOW MINE).
Dear Dr. Fleming,
The basic thrust of your follow up letter sent on September 11, 2009, explaining why you chose to not air President Obama's speech, was that it was a curricula and timing issue, that you looked at it, as you said, "from an educational perspective."
I respect your school, I respect you, so I say this with all due respect, that I feel that politics and pressure from your constituents was the major determining factor, not educational relevance.
Your previous letters regarding this matter indicated that you had received impassioned views on both sides of the political spectrum. This clearly influenced your and the board's decision. This is where I think the board erred. Politics should not dictate allowing children to listen to a speech from our President (any president Republican or Democrat). There is a respect that is granted to a sitting President when they decide to give a public speech. In 1991, when George H.W. Bush spoke to school children, some controversy existed, but it was minor, aimed at costs that the White House incurred, but it did not have any effect on the President's speech being carried by schools. And it did not devolve into the type of anger and even paranoia that we all observed this time around. Concerns that our children would be "brainwashed" by our President speaking are simply absurd and the school board has unwittingly supported those concerns by choosing to not air the speech. To do the norm, would have been the only way for the school district to remain neutral. And the norm is to carry such speeches. This is not a new concept, a President speaking to children at schools. It's been going on as long as their have been children and politicians.
I've reviewed the school board minutes of September and October, 1991 and I see no mention of the George H.W. Bush speech, so I can only assume that there was no controversy in the school system regarding carrying the speech. I would assume the same happened in the 80's when President Reagan spoke, that the school board supported the speech being aired. While I do not have direct evidence (though I would appreciate you sharing it with me if you do) that the board did or did not "turn on the TV's" in the schools and carry those speeches, I'm making the assumption they did, as school districts all over the U.S. did in those eras. There is nothing different about this President's speech, except that it was this President. And that's the last thing we should be teaching our children.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I'm still hoping (and desiring) that the school board reconsider their position, that they reverse there decision (especially now that the speech's eloquence is so well known) and that they create a day in the future to inspire our children through our President's words. I'd suggest President's Day 2010. To simply make the speech available ad hoc misses the point. The idea of the speech is to create an event where the entire school comes together in an auditorium to inspire our children that education is the most important aspect of one's life. As President Obama said in his speech, "And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it."
I hope our children will in the future hear that message from our President.
Steve Sulkin
CONCLUDING LETTER FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO PARENTS
Lincolnshire-Prairie View School District 103
Administration Offices
1370 Riverwoods Road • Lincolnshire, Il 60069
847/295-4030 • FAX 847/295-9196
http://www.district103.k12.il.us
September 11, 2009
Dear Parents and Guardians,
We want to acknowledge and thank the 100+ parents who contacted District administrators, teachers and Board of Education members regarding President Obama's speech on Tuesday to American schoolchildren. Many who contacted us felt strongly that the District should not air the speech at all, and many others felt equally strongly that the District should air the speech
live. Please know that the Board of Education and District 103 staff respect all opinions expressed to us by our constituency.
As you know from my prior letter, we looked at the situation from an educational perspective. Consistent with District 103’s instructional guidelines, our staff previews all instructional materials to determine appropriateness of content for our elementary school children and to determine which materials best support our curriculum. In this case, the U.S. Department
of Education's late notification to schools on the date, time, purpose and content of President Obama's speech did not allow adequate time for us to review the speech and discuss its curricular use in the classroom prior to the date of the speech itself. That lack of time for reflection was magnified by the controversy swirling around the speech in the last few days before its live
airing. Under the circumstances, we felt and continue to feel that the proper approach was neither to ignore the speech nor to force a live classroom viewing, but instead to record the speech so that our teachers could review it and thoughtfully determine how it best fits with our curriculum and, where appropriate, how it could best be incorporated in the classroom.
During the last couple of days, our teachers have, in fact, been reviewing the speech and discussing its potential classroom use with one another. Based on that review and those discussions, over the next few weeks, teachers may show the speech to their classes and discuss it in connection with broader curricular themes. Given the broad range of viewpoints expressed about the President's speech, any District 103 teacher planning to use it in part or in whole as an instructional tool will notify parents in writing in advance of its use. If you prefer that your child not view the President’s speech, you may contact the teacher and an alternative activity will be provided.
For those parents and guardians who would like to first view and discuss the speech with your children at home, the District has provided a link to a video of the President's speech on the District website. You may also access the President's prepared remarks at http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/.
Thank you again for your interest in this issue and in your children’s education. Your Board of Education and District 103 staff encourage continuing communication so that our District’s educational goals are consistent with the expectations and needs of the community.
Sincerely,
Larry K. Fleming, Ed.D., Superintendent
Speech Ban Draws Crowd at Board Meeting
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32750708/ns/local_news-delaware_valley_panj/
"Schools Differ Over Obama Speech" article in local press
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/buffalogrove/news/1760446,bg-obamaspeech-090909-s1.article
Now that I've heard President Obama's speech to schoolchildren,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iqsxCWjCvI
I'm even more disappointed in the furor that caused school districts (including my own) to not air it live. Why? Because it was more inspiring than I thought it would be. Interestingly enough, it was a speech any conservative, any Republican president, would have been proud to give. It was about personal responsibility. It gave compelling reasons why school is relevant. And it was clearly effective. How much more could one ask from a speech?
In my quest to continue to understand why my school district did not air this speech on September 8th, I've researched precedent and spoke to those in my school district who were willing to speak about this, a total of one person. All of the letters I wrote, the inquiries I made, only one person from the school called me and it wasn't even the individual who wrote the letter to the parents announcing the banning of the speech.
Because I don't want to publicly express who that person was who did call me, because I did not indicate to them that I would be publicizing their comments, I will use that shadowy press term I've always wanted to use: It was "a very highly placed source." Oooooohhhhhhh.
My source indicated that they could not yet give an official response to my letter I sent to the superintendent, because apparently, there is going to be some official more general reiteration of the district's stance down the road. This confused me a bit in that I thought they already had a stance iterated.
My source did want to assure me that "the District's decision to not air the President's speech live was not politically motivated", though their own letter explaining why they would not air the speech said, "the airing of this speech has already become a very politically charged topic in the press and a significant concern for many of our parents."
I explained that I never made a claim that the board itself was casting a political statement by not airing the speech, but instead, bowing to pressure from constituents who had a political or personal agenda against the President of the United States. Furthermore, I explained, as I explained in my letter, that there were a whole host of other reasons this was poor judgement to not air the speech. Not the least of which is that it would be good for children to hear and not airing it broke with precedent as many other presidents made similar speeches in the past to much less resistance.
While there was some typical partisan dissent in the past, it never elevated itself to the wackyness of the current fervor (child indoctrination claims, brainwashing) nor the wholesale deletion of the event from school agendas. Though to that point, I challenge my board: I cannot definitively find record of my school district airing the Reagan and the George H.W. speeches, but I find no record they didn't either. I would be interested in a public statement from the board indicating what did happen on October 1, 1991 when George H.W. Bush gave the speech and in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan gave his speech. It might prove enlightening, it could even make their case that this is precedent for this school district to not air such speeches (precedent I would still disagree with).
My source also interestingly said that the superintendent had final power re this decision and that the board supported it. Really? The superintendent has final say? Now, I'm no expert here, but I thought in most municipalities that the board is elected and the board had hiring and firing power over the superintendent. Doesn't that give the board final say? How could the person being hired have final say over the person hiring them?
So I looked up some past cases. Here's an excerpt from a legal case in Harrisburg, PA concerning a curricula decision regarding "intelligent design."
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The school board, not teachers, should decide what belongs in the public-school curriculum, said the assistant superintendent of a school district being sued over whether "intelligent design" belongs in science classes.
The Dover Area School Board decided in October 2004 to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. Teachers were opposed to the statement, which says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and which refers students to the textbook "Of Pandas and People" for more information.
The board has final say on such curriculum decisions, Michael Baksa, the assistant superintendent, testified Thursday during the landmark federal trial. "Once the board makes a decision, whether you agree with the decision or not, it's your responsibility to implement it," he said.
Well, that's interesting. If Illinois law re school boards is like Pennsylvania law, then the board should have made the decision about whether to air this speech, not the superintendent.
My source also indicated that the "grade level" of this speech (apparently graded by Microsoft according to my source, who I wasn't aware was in the grading of speeches business) was at "7th grade" and therefore inappropriate (or not understandable) for other grades (below I assume). I tried to wrap my head around this and carry it to it's logical conclusion. One would have to either have the sitting president create 12 different speeches to accommodate each of the grades and in addition, due to curricula concerns my source had, also coordinate with the board (or the superintendent) to correlate the speech to existing curricula mapping of our school district or not give the speech.
Clearly, when one tries to carry this to it's logical conclusion, it simply isn't logical. This speech cannot be measured as though it's part of standard curricula. It's not meant to be and it cannot be judged in that way. It's an historic event. It's an inspirational speech given by our President to help our children and our society. It's simply much ado about nothing to be against airing it live or otherwise. To somehow say that down the road the board (or the superintendent?) will review the speech and then they might air pieces of it "not live"is simply missing the point, besides smacking of censorship. Airing the speech preferentially later would be like airing the moon landing only after review. Yes, I hear the criticism already, "this is not the moon landing." But the speech was historic (first black president, remember?). It's also helpful for our educational system. The point, quite simply, is that it should not have been "banned" because t was meant to inspire kids and who could argue with that?
And there was another issue the source had with my argument. They said the speech wasn't "banned" but they didn't offer an alternative adjective. Then what was it? Temporarily banned? Forbidden but not really? Ban means to forbid something. If you later then allow it, you lift the ban. This is simply semantics to say it wasn't banned. It was clearly forbidden to be aired live. So the live broadcast was banned. Simple as that. This argument over minutia is one of the issues, as it's trying to create rationale through loophole. When things are wrong, we tend to use fine print to make them seem right and that is wrong.
So what did I do with my six-year old that evening of the speech? We watched the speech in bed as his bedtime story. Contrary to concerns about this being above my son's ability to comprehend, he understood quite a bit of the speech thank you. My son, to be fair, wandered at points, he asked questions, he did all of the things we all do when listening to speeches (or reading long blogs). But he got a lot out of it. Though not as much as he would have, had he been with the entire school sitting together in an auditorium. There's a reason we have movie theaters. There's simply something more important about an event when it's shared.
I would hope that the world sees that sharing, tolerance and togetherness, is what we need more of, and divisiveness, hatred and prejudice, is what we need less of.
Larry K. Fleming, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
1370 Riverwoods Road
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
Dear Superintendent Fleming,
Because I felt it was my parental obligation, I tried to explain to my son why he won’t be hearing President Obama speak to his class this Tuesday and I found myself at a loss for words. No matter how I tried to explain “why” to him, being as objective and sensitive as I could, it just felt wrong. That in itself should be a litmus test of not only this, but any action: Can you explain it to a child and feel good about yourself? I would think that a school district, more than anyone else would have realized that their actions are unexplainable to a child and therefore probably not the correct judgment to make.
I don’t envy you and other school administrators being put in the middle of a political debate. Not the debate about the speech President Obama will give to school children, but being put in the middle of the more fundamental debate, between those who “like” and “do not like” President Obama. Because that’s what this controversy of President Obama’s speech to school children is really about. Not about the speech itself. The contents of the speech are not even known, so how could it be about the speech? It’s about the mere fact that President Obama is going to give a speech to schoolchildren. Most everyone, especially well educated people as yourself, understand, from the synopsis given by the White House, that the speech is well intentioned at best and innocuous at worst. I do not believe any rational individual actually believes the speech is an attempt to “indoctrinate our children” as has been incredulously stated by some mainstream politicians and media, or that the speech is “something you’d expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq”, which Oklahoma Republican State Senator Steve Russell actually said. What this is really about, is an indication of the polarization of our society and probably more likely about racism, hatred, fear and paranoia.
But political ideology is not supposed to be your fight. Educational decisions should not be made because opponents or proponents of a particular ideology apply pressure to a school district. But unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening by school district 103 caving in to what can only be considered “mob politics”, thus taking marching orders from the squeakiest wheels. Never before have I heard of the President of the United States effectively being censored by a school district. I didn’t see any such censorship when Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush spoke to schoolchildren, or whenever any President, or for that matter any politician or community spokesperson came to speak at a school. And that’s all this really is, the President is coming to speak at your school, except in this case, he’s speaking virtually and not live.
If President Obama had chosen Sprague or Stevenson School in district 103 to speak at live, would your office have refused him as well? Denied his request to give a speech to encourage our children to stay in school? I doubt it. Then why is the “virtual presence” of our President being denied? Because we live in the Internet age when the President can visit schools all at once and “indoctrinate them?” That can’t be it either, because politicians broadcasting speeches from schools (from kindergarten to commencements) have been going on since the advent of radio and no such school district censorship that I’m aware of has ever existed before. So why are we asking this president to drink from another water fountain?
The mission statement of district 103 is “to provide innovative learning experiences which empower each student to excel and make a difference in a diverse and interconnected world.” Are we empowering each student to excel and to make a difference in a diverse and interconnected world by caving to political pressure and denying them access to an historical event such as this, when the first black president in the history of the United States is going to make his first speech to our country’s children?
The mission statement of Sprague says,“Sprague School is dedicated to the development of lifelong learners. We encourage creativity through experimentation, problem solving, and reflection, while acknowledging and welcoming individual differences. We foster collaboration among staff, parents, and children to create an environment that is best for our students.”
Are we “welcoming individual differences” or are we censoring them by this action of not allowing our children to see this speech? Is this any different then when school districts and libraries around our country tried (and succeeded) in banning books such as Catch-22 and even Gone With the Wind?
Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, this last Friday, defended Obama's plan to address students. He said "The bottom line is we need the president of the United States of America to use his bully pulpit to talk to kids about the importance of education and to help inspire kids,"
If President Obama was using his “bully pulpit” to preach doctrine, as Ronald Reagan did in 1988 when during that speech to school children he actually incredulously preached about the importance of cutting taxes, then I’d have a problem with President Obama’s speech. But that is not what this speech is proposed to be about. And that’s the other point of all of this. District 103, as I have indicated above, has made an opinion about not carrying this speech before they even know it’s content. Is that a lesson we want our children to learn, to judge books by their cover?
And we actually even have a very good idea of what will be said in President Obama’s speech so we don’t have to judge a book by it’s cover. When one reads the official notice that came from the White House, it’s simply impossible to reconcile those words with the paranoia about this speech. The White House’s official letter to educators said, “ During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. The U.S. Department of Education invites students of all ages, teachers, and administrators to participate in this historic moment by watching the president deliver the address, which will be broadcast live on the White House Web site (http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/) and on C-SPAN at 12:00 p.m., ET. We also encourage educators to use this moment to help students get focused and inspired to begin the new academic year. The Department of Education offers educators a menu of classroom activities—created by its teachers-in-residence, the Teaching Ambassador Fellows—to help engage students in the address and stimulate classroom discussions about the importance of education.
Some call all of this paranoia “Obamaphobia”, the irrational fear, which some say stems from a black man running our country. If that’s what is really at the root of all of this hatred, what are we teaching our children by intentionally or unintentionally supporting such behavior? There are those in our society that openly don’t believe that Barack Obama is legitimately the President of the United States, trying to delegitimize him by being disrespectful, by questioning the location of his birth against all logic and proof and by many other means. I’m not sure if the roots of that are racism, or other hatred, or actual belief, but anyone who believes in this country, knows that education is the only route up to success. President Obama, with all he has to do, I truly believe, is simply trying to make a difference in our country and in our world by attempting to inspire our children to stay in school and work hard. When one simply listens to that stated goal and then reflects on the controversy surrounding such a well intentioned and innocent news moment, it’s simply hard to believe this nonsensical debate even exists. But we live in the world of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle where minutia rises to the level of importance. The difference here is that school districts are reacting to the chatter rather than rising above it.
When one looks at this from other viewpoints, from simply the viewpoint of respect, the district’s censorship of this speech doesn’t pass muster. If a local firehouse wanted fireman to give a speech about virtually anything, the district would welcome the visit. Schools respect what fireman stand for, they save lives. Where is the respect for the President of the United Sates? What are we teaching our children about our country and about respect for authority or simply stature? Politicians do not deserve deference to the point of submission simply because of their title, for sure, but respect is a different matter altogether and the district’s actions are simply disrespectful to anyone, let alone the President of the United States.
To me, there is an irony and a contradiction in the way we treat other forms of respect for our nation, in our nation’s schools.
Illinois law mandates that “The Pledge of Allegiance shall be recited each school day by pupils in elementary and secondary educational institutions supported or maintained in whole or in part by public funds. 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/27-3 (2005). The statute says each student must recite the Pledge each day — with no exception for those who do not wish to do so. However, in a federal lawsuit that was filed, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the statute did not violate the students’ rights, so long as students were free not to participate in the recitation of the Pledge. Sherman v. Community Consol. School Dist. 21 of Wheeling Tp., 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992).”
The State of Illinois mandates the pledge of allegiance but also allows children to not say it if they choose. District 103, as an entity representing all children of our district, has made a unilateral decision that no school child should listen to the President’s speech. How does that reconcile with the mandate to take part in the pledge of allegiance, but also the freedom to dissent? Because he is the President of the United States, shouldn’t listening to the President’s speech on Tuesday be the default, just like general respect for our flag is? We teach that. But because this is a great nation, if one doesn’t want to listen to the President, they can do that. They can do what those against this speech are espousing, they can stay home from school or simply not attend the event and the school can honor and respect that as well. But why does the district get to restrict all children from hearing this speech and by doing so, take a political stand? Carrying the speech is taking much less of a political stand because that is the norm, that is precedent. District 103’s decision to censor the speech is unprecedented. On the night of 9/11, I was at Stevenson High School as they broadcast George W. Bush’s speech to the nation. Why did the school not censor that? Why did they carry it at Stevenson? Because it was the President speaking about an historic newsworthy event. While this speech is far less critical or dramatic, it’s still historic and newsworthy. It isn’t only news if it’s bad news. So why is the district not carrying good historic news?
The answer again must be pressure. That’s why this speech is not being carried. When mainstream media label this speech as “brainwashing, ala Hitler Youth”, when commentators such as Glen Beck say this is more evidence of the "indoctrination of your children” it’s clear that they are then influencing those who I’m sure wrote you angry letters. Fox commentator Malkin linked the President’s Tuesday speech, prior to hearing it, with "Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers' pedagogical philosophy.” She went on to say that “The left has always used kids as guinea pigs and as junior lobbyists for their social liberal agenda.” Given these incredibly broad, distorted remarks fueled by hatred, how could the district not give the impression of agreeing with these fringe attitudes by bowing to pressure from a particular segment of our society?
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.
All that is different in President Obama’s speech is that it’s President Obama.
There is a known tactic in the world of social opinion called FAD: fear, uncertainty and doubt. The idea is to plant the seeds of fear and it will propagate. District 103 is an unwitting partner in that mission and for that I’m very sad. Charles Saylors, president of the national Parent Teacher Association, felt that same emotion when he said the uproar over Obama's speech is "sad." He went on to say, "The president of the United States, regardless of political affiliation, should be able to have a presentation and have a pep talk, if you will, to America's students," he told CNN.
I’m an ardent supporter of school district 103 and have been for 20 years. My eldest child is a doctoral student and my youngest is two, all have been or are slated to be in school district 103, because I’ve always been proud of the quality of education provided. But today, I’m less proud.
At its broadest, the district’s decision smacks of an era in our history when “un-American activities” were defined as liking a particular ideology that other’s didn’t, in this case, oddly, the as of yet unspoken words of our President. It’s even odd to describe.
I leave to the end of this response, the specific reasons given in the district’s letter as to why they are not allowing our students to see the President’s speech as it is given:
The district’s letter says,
“The airing of this speech has already become a very politically charged topic in the press”
That should be irrelevant.
The district’s letter goes on to say,
“and a significant concern for many of our parents.”
Not to me and I would believe, not to many people. The letter offers no specifics as to how many people have contacted their offices one way or the other. It simply says “many.” If “many” parents believed that a fireman shouldn’t speak at school, would or should that affect the district having the fireman speak? I would think not.
“The U.S. Department of Education has sent out suggested classroom activities and promoted a student video contest with $1,000 prizes”
The district’s letter doesn’t at all quote the substance of the proposed speech; it simply gives this one random (rather parenthetical) comment, which does not even explain what the speech’s intentions are, to inspire children about their schooling.
The district’s letter then says,
“We have a responsibility as educators to determine what information will be included in our curriculum.”
Fair enough, the district creates curricula. But the district determined in this case “what information will be included” and they felt that it should not include a speech from the President of the United States, which clearly is simply about inspiring school children to excel. I take great exception with that. I think this sort of speech is exactly what should be included in my child’s curricula, inspiration about staying in school. And I think even more importantly the words are important if they are the words of the elected leader of our country. I would feel no different if it was George W. Bush speaking. I would defend, to death, as the oft- quoted phrase says, his right to say it even if I disapproved of it.
The district’s letter then concludes,
“Since we have not had an opportunity to review the text of President Obama’s speech to determine age appropriateness, ties to our curriculum, and usefulness as an instructional tool, we will not be showing President Obama’s speech in classrooms on September 8.”
The district has “not had an opportunity to review the text” and yet they are making a decision about it? Based on what? That it’s coming from Brack Obama? What sense does that make?
Additionally the district will have an opportunity to review the text on Monday, so why not wait till then? Because it’s a holiday? I don’t think any teacher at school would accept from a student that they didn’t do homework because it was given over the holidays.
The district then makes claims that they can’t determine if this will tie to curriculum or be useful “as an instructional tool.” Is it really practical to think that a sitting president can be involved with each school district’s curricula mapping which took place years ago and then create speeches that coordinate? This is a news event, simply meant to inspire children. It’s a well-intentioned Department of Education initiative no different then “Just Say No to Drugs” (which incidentally most all school districts endorsed even though it’s naïve statement was considered ineffectual).
The district letter then caps the above statement in bold, saying that the district will not be showing President Obama’s speech. In bold? To be clear or to be forceful?
The letter then says,
“We will record the speech for teachers so that they have an opportunity to review the content to determine potential usefulness of the speech, or portions of it, as an educational tool.”
That phrase feels like the familiar words of censors through the ages.
And the letter concludes,
“This approach will also give you, as a parent, the opportunity to make the decision on whether or not to have your child view the speech with you at home.”
The wording makes it seem as though the letter is talking about our decision for our child to view something controversial. Out of context, one would think the subject matter is sex or drugs. But instead, the subject matter is the President of the United States attempting to inspire our children to love school.
I’m completely perplexed about this entire matter and why district 103 would even give those that pressure them the time of day, let alone, allow them to dictate school policy.
I respectfully ask that you reverse your decision and simply state that “it is not the school district’s policy to be involved in or take political sides” and since this is an “approved event from the federal Department of Education” you will air it. One could even add, “if any parent has a personal objection, their child is not at all forced to watch the event and may leave or not attend school.”
Best Regards,
This was received from my local school district. See next post for my response.
September 4, 2009
As you may know, President Obama plans to present a White House address
directly to children on September 8, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. Central Standard Time, which
is during our regular school day. The airing of this speech has already become a very
politically charged topic in the press and a significant concern for many of our parents.
The U.S. Department of Education has sent out suggested classroom activities and
promoted a student video contest with $1,000 prizes.
We have a responsibility as educators to determine what information will be
included in our curriculum. Since we have not had an opportunity to review the text of
President Obama’s speech to determine age appropriateness, ties to our curriculum,
and usefulness as an instructional tool, we will not be showing President Obama’s
speech in classrooms on September 8. We will record the speech for teachers so
that they have an opportunity to review the content to determine potential usefulness of
the speech, or portions of it, as an educational tool.
This approach will also give you, as a parent, the opportunity to make the
decision on whether or not to have your child view the speech with you at home.
Larry Fleming, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Have you finally had it with all of the absolutely unbelievable political maneuverings by the fringe right, the lies, the distortions, the twisting of facts, the outright hatred towards our President simply because a minority (yes it's a minority, remember they lost) of our society are unhappy he is our President?
If so, it's time to do something about it.
Remember, when we were "all one" working hard for the would-be-President, to get him elected because we felt for once we had an intelligent person who was running? Well, we were right. He was the best person running. He is the best President we've had in a long time and we're lucky such an honest, caring individual with vision for our future is in office. Given our world situation, we need him now more than ever. Our future depends on him.
But we are no longer supporting him with the fervor as we did, nor are the same numbers of people supporting him.
Can you believe, his poll numbers are dropping? Yes I understand, post the honeymoon period numbers drop. But to this degree and while he's saving our country, maybe our world? The man that inherited the worst our country has ever seen in terms of war, finance, enviornment and more, who is helping us drag ourselves out of this recession and fight two wars he didn't even want - his poll numbers are dropping? The man who has accomplished more in months than others before him accomplished in lifetimes, his poll numbers are dropping? It's ludicrous. It's like Lincoln's or Roosevelt's poll numbers dropping as they were saving our country. But I must remember, we live in a world where Lincoln was assassinated.
I wear my Obama hat and my wife at times tells me to "take it off Steve, you might anger people" Wow, what a world. I might anger people that I support our President. That is the times of our current times, little by little, it's less acceptable to support our President because the fringe right has made it seem so.
As we fall off in numbers, the extreme fringe right takes advantage by spreading hatred and lies. And there seems to be no limit to how crazy of a story that can be spewed and believed by those who want to believe it and spew it. If I wrote such stories in a screenplay, I'd be told to modify my words because it would be unrealistic that the public would believe such nonsense. But apparently, the public's benchmark for naivety knows no bounds when fueled by hatred.
For instance (one tiny example) think about the outrage (yes outrage) regarding President Obama speaking to school children this Tuesday (as though that's a new idea).
President Obama is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He is the mentor of our country the image of our country to the world. He is doing what millions have done before him, speaking to school children. He was elected to lead our country. Get over it fringe right, he gets to lead. You lost.
The cynicism and hatred that drives those who dislike President Obama so much, so as to try to make speaking to school children seem as anything more than what it is, an attempt to inspire and lead our children, is beyond my understanding.
People say, is President Obama's speech to children "political?" Well, he is a politician, he is the President of the United States and yes he will weigh the pros and cons of his every action (as will the world), so I guess he'll weigh the politics of his actions, but that doesn't mean that everything he does, because it's weighed, is a sham or diabolical as some are actually seriously suggesting.
The fringe right who are the strategic architects of the nonsense we hear every day on so called "news" have lost all credibility to argue against anything. Even if they had a legitimate complaint, it's lost in the shuffle of their ludicrous positions and lies.
So, let's start writing, talking, doing - not taking this anymore.
And by the way, I hate to say, "I told you so", but my video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4srDYEPoqo
"Yes We Can (Change our Destiny), which I produced for the inaugural, was written because I feared that we'd lose the spirit of optimism, that phenomenon of involvement that occurred during the election. To some degree, we have. So be re-inspired. Pass the link on
and get others re-inspired.
Don't take this anymore, because as the famous phrase says,
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing”
To prove further my point made in my last blog that town hall rioters' actions are working, the public option for health care insurance is no longer in the Senate bill, but only in the House bill and it's likely that this option will never be in the final bill. Why? Its exceedingly simple to understand - insurance companies don't want more competition, especially less expensive competition. The public option one can think of as simply another form of medicare or medicaid, which most people consider a basic and important source of government help.
What is so amazing is that a good percentage of the very people who are rioting against healthcare reform more than likely have medicare or medicaid. Amazing, they don't even understand that this benefit they receive is a "social program" e.g. a form of socialism, because we are not simply a democracy, we are a hybrid socialized government and democracy. That is how the U.S. was designed. Of course we have social programs, that is all that "socialism" in it's "pop" use, means, that there are programs for the good of the people provided by the government.
One can nit pick all day about what socialism really means, what a "pure" socialistic society is, but that is a waste of one's time. The government is "of the people, for the people and by the people" and since WE are the people, we get government programs. Simple as that. To be against that is simply not understanding how our government works.
To be for insurance companies as the only option which leaves 48 million people uninsured is not understanding that uninsured individuals drain our society's resources. Imagine if there was no medicare or medicaid and what that would do to our society, not only financially, but how we would be viewed morally?
We must take care of our citizens. The public option must stay in the bill. Write the president, write your local representatives. Don't let uninformed rioters (who want nothing more than simply to hurt our president, that is their real agenda because they are so against him for a whole host of reasons including race) win against intelligence.
It is time for those that hate, not only healthcare reform, but also democracy and freedom, to stop inciting riots by spreading lies. The most despicable lie about the new health care bill regards a simple provision that a physician can be reimbursed if a patient wants to have a discussion about how they wish to be cared for if they become extremely ill.
That discussion could be that the patient wants to remain hooked to a machine that keeps them alive indefinitely, or the decision could be that the patient wishes to be unhooked from such a machine if they are brain dead, or the decision could be that the patients wants their spouse, parent or child to make such a decision. The common denominator is that this is a patient decision. The provision in the bill simply allows physicians to be reimbursed when they listen to patient’s decisions.
It’s a compassionate clause. It allows for us to have a conversation with our physician, as we do with our attorneys when we create our will. Lawyers get paid for making wills. This bill simply says that physicians will get paid for helping us during such difficult times. It’s about reimbursement, nothing more.
But horrific organizers against health care reform are causing people to wrongly believe that the bill somehow states that the government will kill you, that the government will mandate euthanasia. That is so preposterous that had I in advance seen that the strategies of these protestors would rely on such a nonsensical plan, I would have not even been concerned that such a far-fetched idea could have a chance of working, that anyone would ever believe such nonsense, such a distorted reversal of the actual facts. But incredibly, fear is a great lever. People actually believe that in the bill, there are provisions allowing the government to kill citizens through health care. And this lie is gaining traction, a lot of traction. The lie is working.
It’s time for intelligent people to say enough.
Enough fear mongering.
Enough distortion.
Enough bringing up Hitler and comparing that horrific individual to our President.
Enough.
President Obama, it’s time to make a significant speech about fear mongering, about the psychology of the lynch mob and why as a decent society we should abhor such insidious tactics. We cannot sit idly by and watch our society devolve into such horrors as we have seen in the past when lynch mobs, rather then the rule of law, governed our land.
President Obama, please bring your eloquence to the table of hatred and help stop this madness.
My goal is to try to do good for our world, and sometimes that means starting with one's community. Phase 1 of my goal to help the youngest members of my community (children from newborn to six years old). I built one is being dubbed as "America's Grandest Gymboree", a learning center for children. Art, Music, Play, School Skills, Baby Signs, we have hundreds of classes for little ones and their parents (drop off is for 3+). It's a great place, we are very proud of it. Please check us out. And in the future, look for our Montessory Academy we'll be building, "The Vernon Hills Montessori Academy."
Check out this video on YouTube. It's prety cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP_tfntb40E
Organizing for America - Have you seen This Video Yet? More then ever, you need it now to re-kindle the spirit that lived in us all prior to the election.
We need to get this video out in the public eye in a big way to re-kindle the spirit of optimism that existed prior to the election of President Obama.
Yes We Can (Change our Destiny) that is what we need to understand.
Post the inaugural, post the election, post the optimism fading, post the Republican's battle of the wills, it's sad to see our country slowly slipping back to the bad ol' days when the President is simply a news curiosity, just some guy in the White House. Barack Obama is more then that. He is the change we all voted for.
When I get pessimistic that such talk as the above is simply the talk of a dreamer, I hear President Obama speak. For instance, his speech at Notre Dame. It was historic, incredible, inspiring. it reminded me why I was so filled with hope on November 4th, 2008. When I hear him speak, I still get uplifted and remember who is in the White House.
But let us not forget the obvious, he's a human being, he can't correct everything at once, he has information now as President about our country we will never know and he is, I am confident, desperately trying to balance it all. I have not agreed with every move, espeically preventitive detention, but should we need or expect to agree with everything that anyone does? I agree with most and that's good enough for me to be a great supporter of his. I speak out when I don't agree with President Obama or anyone, but that doesn't mean I don't ardently support President Obama. In the past, I agreed with very little our Presidents have done, so this is an extremely refreshing change, especially at a time in our history which is unparalleled in it's complexity and danger to our society, our country and our world.
My only personal regret is that the video I directed and produced to keep the dreams alive, Yes We Can (Change our Destiny) has not been endorsed by Organizing for America and posted on its home page (or endorsed by Oprah or some such celebrity that can bring instant distribution to this cause, this quest to make optimsm and involvement the norm). This video should be endorsed by someone or some organization of such stature. It should be the rallying cry that we all remember to say to ourselves every day, that "YES WE CAN CHANGE OUR DESTINY." If we realize that simple truth, that we are in control of our destinies, we will work hard for change. We will become involved. Pessimism occurs when we believe we aren't in control, when we believe that hope is lost, when we believe that we can't make a difference. But the election proved how much we can change the world, how much we can accomplish when we act in unity with hope and optimism, when our world collectively believes that YES WE CAN CHANGE OUR DESTINY.
I have tried to move on, to concentrate on other causes, problems and issues in our world and my life, to not continue to push so actively to get this video "out there" more. But every time I lose hope and become pessimistic about our world, I listen to my own words in that video and I realize that Yes I can Change My Destiny and the world's destiny, that I can be part of that, that I'm not just a weak individual without a voice. I'm just as capable of changing our world as anyone. Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Mother Theresea, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Maria Montessori, Jonas Salk, Orville & Wilbur Wright, Barack Obama, yes, these are great people, but they are people, regular individuals that began with simply a dream, to change our world. When you look back through history, it's not countries or corporations that created transformative change, it was individuals. The power of the individual is stunning.
If anyone out there in the administration of Organizing for America listening please take a moment to watch this video. It's only 5 minutes. I'm a professional filmmaker, I promise you, it will be worth your time. This video was made as my service to America. But with "only" 130,000 + views (which is teeny tiny in the world of YouTube) which occurred mostly around January 20, 2008, this video is not inspiring anyone anymore. It could be inspiring millions right now to stand up and be part of the solution, not the problem, to realize one's own civic opportunity and responsibility, if Organizing for America would simply endorse this video and place it on their home page as a permanent fixture of inspiration.
Do not think I do this for any fame. I don't even want credit for this film. This project was entirely pro-bono and continues to be so. I simply want to help before my time on this Earth is over.
If you want to see more of what I do with film to try to help, please visit my "political activist" site (e.g. where i try to make a difference) My "MBMPRO" YouTube Channel
and the YouTube channel for My Production Company, MBM Productions International
Steve Sulkin - Director & Activist...simply trying to make a difference
CEO, MBM PRODUCTIONS INT'L
ALL FOOTAGE IN THIS VIDEO WAS EITHER CREATED BY MYSELF AND MY PRODUCTION COMPANY, MBM, OR, AS IN THE CASE OF THE BARACK OBAMA FOOTAGE, WAS LICENSED THROUGH A STOCK HOUSE AND I HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO USE IT IN PERPETUITY.
When I first created the "Yes We Can (Change our Destiny)" video, four days prior to the election, I knew I was creating it for a future time, when President Obama was president, and we needed to rekindle hope. That time is now here.
Even though this video became the #1 video on YouTube in the non-profit category on January 20th, 2009, it pales in comparison in terms of views of trivial videos that get millions of views on YouTube. That is a shame.
This video will re-kindle the hope that we all had (and still have) in our hearts, that drove us each day to work so hard. I am not saying the hope is gone, I'm just saying that we must all be honest with ourselves and ask, are we truly as excited as we were on November 3rd, are we truly working as hard? The answer (for many of us) is no, because its hard to sustain that kind of fervor.
But our world needs us now more then ever. The way you can help me help us rekindle the passion is simply by making sure this 5-minute inspiring video (click link below)
Yes We Can (Change Our Destiny)
gets out to the world, out to the right people, to the administration, to the leaders of "Organizing for America" to influential communication icons like Oprah Winfrey, because this video will re-inspire us all. I'm a professional filmmaker and made this video for no personal gain whatsoever. I made it simply to help our world. It inspired 10's of thousands of people already. Help me cause this video to inspire 10's of millions.
Steven Miles Sulkin
steve.sulkin@mbmproductions.com
It's has been a while since I gave you an update on the Yes We Can (Change our Destiny) project. But it is alive and well.
First, my observations on the beginning of President Obama's term in office thus far.
How anyone can say that President Obama is just another politician, or doing a poor job, or off to a bad start (all lines I've read in the press) is beyond me.
Look at all he has already done. And look at just one element of what he has done, Recovery.gov.http://www.recovery.gov/
Have you studied this yet? It's the website the administration created so that WE can track every dollar spent by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. When have you ever seen anything like this? This sort of transparency and accountability, in other words, this sort of honesty as opposed to lies.
So I ask you all to stand fervently behind our president. He needs you now more then ever. Can you feel the wind coming out of the sails of this presidency already, the lessening of passion and involvement? This is what I predicted, but I was not alone of course. Many of us feared this would happen. We need to fight back and spread the word so that we can once again recapture the phenomenon of the election, our own passion.How do we do that?
By inspiring ourselves again first and then others.
I personally on occasion watch my own video, "Yes We Can (Change our Destiny)" to re-inspires myself, to remind me how I felt on November 4th. And it feels good.
Do that yourself, then pass this video on to others, along with this blog post. My hope is still, that this video can be seen by the administration, or by an "Oprah" like person, someone who can get this out there in a big way. I created this for the world, for no gain and it has been surprising how hard it has been to simply give this away, to be a philanthropist. Now that I can separate myself more from those that sought to glom on to the presidency prior to the inaugural in hopes of self-aggrandizing or gain at the inaugural, my hope is that someone will pass this on to someone (six degrees of separation theory) and this will truly get out there in a big way so as to inspire millions.
Don't forget that WE made this happen and WE can change our destiny and our world, but we must stay involved and remain impassioned.
YES WE CAN (CHANGE OUR DESTINY). Pass it on!
Please help me forward this video to everyone you know. If you haven't watched it, it's truly inspiring.
Now that the inaugural is over, hopefully it will become more apparent that I wish nothing, but to help inspire our world. My motive is simply altruism. But I find it hard to give away my video's master tapes to the world as everyone thinks I'm trying to gain something. This is simply not the facts.
I do this because I know that if millions simply listen and watch this video, only 5 minutes of their time, it will energize them to stay involved.
Someone out there must know some in the administration, a famous star of "Oprah" size who can truly get this video out there.
Videos of elephants mating or other sillyness on YouTube must not be our legacy of involvement. Let's make this video and our involvement be the big story out there.
Thanks for your help.
Watch the video on YouTube:
Sent to Senator Feinstein.
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate 331
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 30510
January 22, 2009
Dear Senator Feinstein,
Re: Inaugural Event Mgt. Observations re Incidents at 56th Presidential Inaugural Ceremony
INTRODUCTION: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT LETTER REGARDING THE INAUGURAL CROWDS . I TRULY HOPE YOU PERSONALLY READ EVERY WORD OF IT AS I’M POSITIVE THAT INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE CAN SAVE LIVES IN THE FUTURE. IF OTHERS READ THIS FOR YOU, YOU WILL NOT GET THIS INFORMATION FIRST HAND. WHAT I SAW AT THE INAUGURAL WAS INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS. I FEEL A CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY TO PASS THIS ON TO YOU PERSONALLY AND ENSURE THAT THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.
If you do not see the entire report to Senator Feinstein you are on the "abbreviated" page of this blog. If so, please CLICK "READ MORE" below. Please pass on this post to everyone you know. We can all save lives. Thanks. Steve Sulkin
My pro-bono organization can help millions want to work tirelessly for Organizing America. Pre inaugural, when I would say that, it was hard to distinguish my altruism from people who wanted to glom on to the presidency for self-aggrandizing. Distancing myself from them took effort. Now that the inaugural is over I hope my mission to help America will be more noticed.
Here’s background and what my pro-bono organization can do to help:
When I was in Grant Park and saw all the “Yes We Did” signs, I was concerned that the passion of involvement that existed during the election would fade to something much less post inaugural, when our world needs us.
I was so committed to not allowing that to happen, that I stepped down as CEO of my small, but successful family owned video production company in Chicago and created a pro-bono organization called "Yes We Can (Change our Destiny).”
Its simple mission is to “keep the passion of civic involvement alive.” I knew the administration would create structure for our involvement. But the President will be extremely distracted and will need us to proactively and independently work for change.
But we as human beings need rallying cries and inspiration to move us emotionally to want to get off our couch and work for our world.
My entire life I’ve created effective video that made my clients rich. I figure it’s about time I use my talents to help America. When I released our first 5-minute video days prior to the inaugural it became the #1 non-profit video on YouTube, 125,000 views in a couple of days, inspiring so many to keep the movement going. It was played at inaugural balls, covered by ABC, NBC and the papers. But it can inspire millions of people if the video was simply out there in a bigger way (such as on Organizing America’s website, on USAService.org. etc.).
I give this video (broadcast quality HD master tapes), free, to your organization, to the world, just for the asking. As President Obama said, we can “put our hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.” In other words, “Yes We Can (Change our Destiny).”
I’m confident you’ll be inspired. Please watch.
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4srDYEPoqo
Contact me for the tapes if you desire them and /or my help
Steve.Sulkin@mbmproducdtions.com
224.588.0800 (cell)
Learn how you can help the BarackObama.comYes We Can (Change our Destiny) project
Either attend the PRESS EVENT, sign up for the event at:http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/communityservice/gptc2cOR
If you can’t make the event in Chicago, please read below and see how you can effect change with a single click:
CLICK BELOW. LISTEN. BE INSPIRED. PASS IT ON. SIMPLE.
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwspAagg8uwHow this movement began: 53 year old Steven Miles Sulkin, Chicago producer and founder of the "Yes We Can (Change our Destiny) Project," was so encouraged by the phenomenon of the 10’s of millions of people who were inspired by President Elect Obama to bring about change to our world, that he has put aside nearly all of his responsibilities and has vowed to devote himself to help keep that potent force alive. He believes our world needs us now more then ever, to, as the famous quote says, "ask not what our country can do for us…"The group's mission statement was inspired by what President Elect Obama said on November 4th at Grant Park: We have an opportunity to put our hands “on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope for a better day.”Project #1: Create a video that begins to bend the arc of our immediate future by inspiring millions to understand that if they act together as a group to help our world, that “Yes We Can (Change our Destiny).”Spurred on by supporters and friends, self-funded with money he doesn't have and shouldn't have spent, Steven brought in 40 of the nation's top video artists, musicians and "philosophical confidants" and on December 7th at The Chicago Recording Company, created in a marathon 17 hour session, the "Yes We Can (Change our Destiny)" video. YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwspAagg8uwThe film is so compelling that it is already becoming a visual and musical rallying cry for change post the election, much as Will.I.Am's video inspired a nation to bring about change before the election.Steven is confident that this video along with other events in Washington D.C. during the inaugural will re-ignite the 4 million people coming to D.C., and that in turn will re-engage the country and the world to bring about real change our world so desperately needs.Steven will be attending the inaugural in Washington D.C. He wants no fame or fortune. He just wants to make an impact on this world and feels that this project is his calling; that his entire life has been on a path for this moment.PRESS EVENT: Yes We Can (Change our Destiny)Thursday, January 8th, 2008Chicago Recording Company232 E. Ohio StreetChicago, IL 60611Studio 410:30am - 11:30amInvited: The Chicago news media, both print and television, all musicians, artists, engineers, and friends involved in this project, Obama supporters from BarackObama.com, and all those who want to effect change in our world, are invited. SPACE IS VERY LIMITED. Please R.S.V.P as soon as possible.The purpose of the event is to officially launch the "Yes We Can (Change our Destiny) Project" which is dedicated to the belief that there are numerous destinies in our collective future and we, through our actions or inactions, choose a path for our lives. Our goal is to re-ignite the passion inspired by President Elect Barack Obama to be actively involved in the shaping of our collective future.Please R.S.V.P. to Steve.Sulkin@MBMProductions.comOr on this website in the event section.Thank you once again everyone for your incredible talent and dedication to this project and please continue to help the video go viral by forwarding it to everyone you know and asking them to do the same.This is an official BarackObama.com event through the BarackObama.com website.Watch the video. Pass it on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwspAagg8uwPeace,Steven Miles Sulkin
