(1) Parents of concerned children--afraid of indoctrination from a President who unapologetically appoints a radical Communist to his leadership--are mocked for their worry. This is unfair because what the parents were most afraid of was the content of the followup/discussion questions such as, "What can I do to help the President?" It was only AFTER concerned parents spoke up that the controversial discussion materials were removed. themostsearched feels these parents are paying attention to their child's education and praises them.
(2) In a story highlighted by Greta Van Susteren, Greta points out the unfair standards of the previous speech by Bush 41 to children: the Washington Post front page after Bush's speech front page story suggested the speech was staged for the president's political benefit. This turned into a Democratic witch hunt and an investigation was conducted to examine why $26K (read here $26K not $26M not $26B not $26T) was spent by the Bush administration "in an era of scarce resources" (Gephardt). In contrast, today's front page Washington Post (see image, left) no such accusations of political malfeasance are made. themostsearched condemns such outrageous media hypocrisy.
(3) Final point: it is not the role of federal government to intervene in state affairs. The President could have addressed both parents and children using the internet, radio, or television; the point is he had other options. themostsearched feels that pending an immediate catastrophic national emergency (IE nukes from North Korea or Iran are on their way) really, an address to the schoolchildren of the state should be done by the state's chief executive, the governor. Obama's speech to the children is a mis-education in the proper separation of powers between our state and federal government.
0 komentar:
Post a Comment