President Obama to indoctrinate (I mean speak) to students

Remove all ads!

First let me begin by saying that there was nothing indoctinating about Obama's speech.

However, I am befuddled by NOG's insistence that indoctrination when used in today's political discourse does not have an immediate negative connotation. While I will concede that words have multiple meanings, context is very important, and I think it is laughable to think that even some of the people who say that Obama's speech was an attempt to indoctrinate our youth were using any other than the negative connotation.

Perhaps this is better explained by example.

A couple of weeks ago, while I was cutting up vegetables for dinner, I cut myself pretty good with a knife. In describing this incident, I could correctly say that "After cutting myself, I ejaculated all over the kitchen." Afterall, when you look up the definition for ejaculate it states:

As it turned out, both definitions #1 and #2 would have been an appropriate description. Blood was spurting out of my hand (#1) and I blurted out, "MOTHERF---ER" in pain as I did it (#2).

However, based solely on the quote, "After cutting myself, I ejaculated all over the kitchen", you would probably coclude that I was into some weird S&M fetish, and not that I was prepping dinner.

Or, if my two-year old son eats something he doesn't like and vomits, I could say, "My two-year old ejaculated all over the floor." You probably would think, Damn, puberty came early for the Foppish Offspring and not that he had vomited.

And yes, this is a silly example, but it illustrates the concept that context matters. I would never actually describe either of the two events as ejaculating, because I know 99% of people would assume I was using definition #3, and not #1 and #2. And no matter what my intent was, that's how it would be interpreted.

 

Fair enough. Perhaps a better way to say what I mean is, in carving away to get to the kernel of truth, you are unwittingly justifying the larger BS by giving people a reason to hang on to it. You should just simply call the BS what it is and not give them a reason to continue muddying the waters. Since the kernel will never make the BS true, nothing is gained unearthing it. As I've said many times, there's a kernel of truth in just about anything, and the larger conversation is never benefitted by such distractions.

Many people will continue to believe horrible things that confirm their own biases, despite overwhelming contradictory evidence, if they feel justified in holding onto what they see as "an element of truth." For example: a close family member of mine is a major racist. She hates black people. And you know that I'm not using that word lightly. Despite how many times I've tried to convince her that not all black people are the rude, lazy, pushy, criminal, welfare-dolling wastes-of-space she thinks they are, that this group is actually quite small, and that she's largely gotten some very bad information, she'll come back with "well every time I get cut off on the freeway, or someone ruins a movie for me, or you see a robbery on the news, it's usually a black person. So you may not like what I'm saying, and it's probably not true of all of 'em, but there's an element of truth to it." She wants to be justified in her prejudice, and as long as she clings to that, I'll never make a dent.

As it applies to your arguments (and the current conservative movement): people all over the country want to feel justified in hating Obama. Many have made up their minds that Obama stole the election and isn't a natural-born citizen. No matter how many times it is pointed out that his citizenship has been verified by the Social Security department, and the Secretary of the State of Hawaii, and the US Census Bureau, or the fact that he was allowed to campaign at all, since such records of citizenship are required when formally applying to run for President, they will still continue to believe he's a fraud until he produces the birth certificate! And let's say one day he did, just to appease the loons. I think we all know they'd still keep it going by claiming it's a forgery and/or conspiracy. All they need is a "kernel of truth" - that he's of non-traditional parentage, or that he moved around a lot as a child, or that his father was a Muslim, or whatever - as all the element of truth they need to keep their hysteria going, so they feel justified in their visceral hatred of their political opposite, since they obviously haven't given enough thought or credence to his actual positions to form a legitimate reason to oppose him on policy grounds. The reasonable people around them should be telling them to just shut up and stop embarrassing themselves, but they never do. In a cynical ploy for ratings and votes, media types and politicians on their side will continue to stoke the fires of the hysteria, legitimizing their lunacy, and making the hope of a rational discussion fade quietly into the distance. Thus, the "Birther Movement" is born.

In short: when the "kernel of truth" gives legitimacy and staying power to the larger BS, then yes, I am absolutely determined to throw it all out. You should be, too.

 

I never said any such thing.

The key differences between those examples and my usage of the word are:
1.) I went out of my way to show I wasn't using the term in the vernacular (equivalent to if you had said you ejaculated from your hand).
2.) I actually use indoctrinate with definition #1. It's a regular part of my vocabulary.

 

He did (more than a year ago), and yes, so did they.

 

True enough, but by attempting to pass off your definition as equally legitimate, just because you can find it in a dictionary, even though I know of no one beyond yourself who uses it in that manner, makes it seem that way. Thowing around the term indoctrinate, while it does not make you complicit with people who use the negative (and by far more common) definition of the word, it enables these people into thinking their audience is larger than it is.

 

Sure, but is that what Glenn Beck meant when he levied his accusation? Of course not! Your bringing up the fact that another possible meaning for the word exists -- when it is clear and obvious that this isn't the meaning the conservatives protesting Obama's "indoctrination" of our children were using is little more than a pointless distraction and an utter waste of time. There was no ambiguity coming from the right regarding which definition of indoctrination they were using. None.

 

NOG,
you're giving people undue benefit of the doubt when it is pretty much obvious that there is about zero leeway for other interpretations when one looks at the issue seriously. Other posters here have laid out why well enough already.

The next thing would be why are you giving this undue benefit of a doubt? Gut feeling? Sympathy? Endorsement? Or are you just being ... distracted, or confused?

Whatever it is, that lukewarm attitude justifies base nonsense with 'a kernel of truth' and enables the surreal demagoguery the we hear of the likes of O'Reilly, Beck, Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity and their ilk. They're making a killing of that.

I read a very clear eyed comment today, from a guy working in Baghdad's Green Zone:

Distance occasionally helps to see some things clearer. The "controversy" is of course manufactured. By Obama's conservative enemies. They will keep doing that until his last day in office, and there is nothing defensible about it.

Chados put it well. The people passionately protesting and rioting for their rights against Obama have at best a vague idea of what that these rights are about, or how Obama might infringe on them, but that's not the problem, because the problem is the man, not the issue. Obama's conservative enemies have chosen to make Obama the issue, not his politics. They're, sadly, very good at that. And they crank up the big Wurlitzer to high volume and drown out any intelligent debate.

And coming to think of it, bickering over the semantics of "indoctrination" is just the sort of non dispute the big noise is aimed on generating. It leads nowhere, and distracts people from real issues. Their relentless attacks aim on paralysis. They want to bog down Obama.

 

I disagree, at least if the audience reads my posts critically. I think it ingenders a certain degree of critical thinking, ala "here's what it really means, now look at how it's used."

Drew:
Reread my whole debate with DR. I worked very hard, from the beginning, to show the difference between the way they used it and the way I used it.

Ragusa:
Same as Drew. I never gave them one inch of benefit of the doubt. I called their claims BS from the beginning.

 

NOG, we get that you aren't using it the same way, but we aren't debating what you meant by Obama indoctrinating school-kids. We get that the word has more than one meaning, but we don't get is what, if anything, that has to do with the rightness or wrongness of what Glenn Beck et al actually said. Further, since Beck never meant to imply that Obama would merely be teaching inarguable common sense values to our children, there is no "kernel of truth" to his words, either. If a statement is only valid when you misinterpret it, the statement is wholly invalid.

 

Thankfully, due to the diligence of the right wing blogs the speech and everything went off without any problems. Obama actually gave an inspiring speech IMHO. Although everyone knows that he is a master of the prepared speech so I shouldn't have been as surprised as I was.

I'm still disappointed in the department of education who I believe were trying to turn this into a political event as opposed to what it was and what it probably was always meant to be.

I know this is probably a topic for another thread, but since this one has gone so horribly offtopic I figure what the hell. It is no secret that I do not like Obama as President, but I really question the competency of his advisors and the people he has been putting in charge. They seem to make stupid mistakes and stupid decisions and then seem stunned when everyone doesn't think it was a brilliant idea.
This entire affair was just another example of it. Even I'm not willing to believe that Obama came up with this idea in an attempt to brainwash children. I believe he always just wanted to inspire the kids to achieve their maximum potential. I want to know who the idiot was that was writing the DOE materials and what political hack approved them. Unfortunatly for Obama, when you are President the "buck stops here" and you really can't blame the underlings.

 

Snook, I've got to call you on that one. The DOE material isn't that bad, and I guarantee you the DOE is capable of coming up with stuff that bad all on their own, all with the legitimate intent of 'teaching', not politics.

 

Isn't that bad is the same thing as only being a little pregnant. We don't allow religion in school and we shouldn't allow politics in school either.

 

Bull****. The right wing blogs manufactured a non-scandal and then took credit for stopping it when it didn't occur. This is every bit as ridiculous as the nonsense about Obama's birth certificate or the silly death panel allegations. If you actually believe your own arguments, I feel compelled to question the strength of your grip on reality.

 

1. You couldn't be more wrong. It is a fact that the DOE was generating for lack of a better term "study guides" that had political leanings. To many people this is as pariah as bringing a little bit of Christ into a school. I know I share an equal amount of passion for there exclusion from the public schools. The righties didn't invent it, it was there. When they called the DOE on it, the DOE did the correct thing and changed what they had done. All you have to do is go to the first post to get the facts.

2. Thank God a court in California has finally decided that they are willing to hear the case of the "birthers". While I personally believe that Obama is a U.S. citizen as I doubt 40+ years ago his parents hatched this plot for him to become President, I am hopefull that this will one way or another put the issue to bed.

3. Once again you couldn't be more wrong. In the original bill there were requirements for doctors to have mandatory consultations with their elderly patients about when life saving procedures shouldn't be performed. The Democratic leadership ended up removing those passages from the bill as they realized the "intention" could be misinterpreted. While you are correct the term "death panel" was never in the bill and you are also correct that it was "sensationalized" at the end of the day the passages were removed proving that the Congressional leadership acknowledged there was something there that shouldn't be.

4. My grip is as strong as ever, but thanks for your concern and watch the potty mouth.

 

I read the DOE lesson plans, Snook, and have yet to find any "political leanings".

Obama has already released his birth certificate. Several times. It has been authenticated repeatedly by the appropriate people. This is without doubt, the dumbest ****ing movement coming out of the conservative fringe of the republican party that we have seen in a long time.

Sigh. Snook, that was a provision from section 1232, page 425 of the house bill granting coverage for end of life counseling. Without this, seniors who want a living will are going to have to pay for it, themselves, because medicare won't cover it. This provision -- which was originally put forth by the republicans -- simply adds this to the list of covered procedures, meaning that medicare, not senior citizens, will pay for such counseling -- but only once every 5 years. Betsy McCaughey argued that since this was tied to the doctor's quality rating, that providing the procedure was, in essence, mandatory. She was wrong on multiple counts. For starters, providing the counceling was not tied to a Doctor's quality rating. Adhering to the wishes their patients set forth in their living wills, however, was. In addition, the counseling, quite simply is not mandatory. The language on page 425 is unambiguous on the matter. Put simply, McCaughey is an idiot, and anyone who takes her word is either too lazy or gullible to do their own research and actually read page 425, themselves, blinded by partisanship, or just stupid.

If you really believe this stuff, your grip on reality is tenuous indeed.

 

You funny guy.

Really? Am I included in your idea of "everyone?" Because I believe the opposition are the ones who make the "stupid mistakes" and "decisions."

I'm shocked! Completely.

Are you sober when you write this stuff, TGS?

ANOTHER court case? How many more times? Talk about the need for tort reform....

Can you explain WHAT was there?

I have to admit, I know what you are going through, Snook. I just went through 8 years of GWB, and I thought I was going to go over the edge too. I'm sure it must be the same for you with Obama. I'll never forget, one night my wife came in from work and saw all the empties stacked around my computer and blurted out:

"Are you an alcoholic?!"
"No, I just watched Bush on TV," I answered, from a gloomy haze.
"Uhh, did you save one for me?"

Don't worry, Snook. We are here for you.

 

On a related note, Glenn Beck refuses to deny that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990. While I personally believe Beck to be innocent in this, his refusal to come clean and release police records means that questions remain.

 

Argh, I lost my entire response. I really need to hire NOG or Chandos to handle multi quote responses

---------- Added 0 hours, 9 minutes and 31 seconds later... ----------

1. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you only saw the "scrubbed" version. In the original there were questions such as "How does President Obama inspire me" and "What can I do to assist President Obama". Now as an Obama supporter maybe you don't consider those types of questions political and/or inappropriate, well I and plenty of other people did.

2. Once again this is a failure of Obama as a leader. If I had irrefutable proof to back up my position I would have gone to the conservative controlled Supreme Court, pled my case and put this entire issue to rest months ago. Even the most fanatical "birther" wouldn't be able to claim that "liberal judges" were just protecting him. Instead all he has done is pour gasoline onto the "where there is smoke there is fire crowd". Obama has handled this very poorly, and now I'm sure we are in for more drama. If the court rules for the "birthers" then it will have to go to appeals, and then maybe to the SC. If it rules against the birthers they will claim that the judge is an idiot and the drama will continue.

3. You can bold all you want. The facts are very simple, it is a Democratic bill, the language was in it, the Democratic leadership realized it was inappropriate and they removed it.

4. I would appreciate it if your attempts to belittle me would cease and desist.

---------- Added 0 hours, 20 minutes and 36 seconds later... ----------

At best that is satire, at worst it is slander/libel.

 

It may not have occurred to you, but presidents are supposed to inspire us. As I commented, you are having a bad accepting Obama as the leader of the US, thusly, some of the normal things we look to from the president are of no interest to you. Were you never asked how FDR or JFK or RR inspire you? Much like your compatriots, your goal is to hinder Obama, and not assist him in anyway, and then complain about his "failure" of leadership. It's a fairly transparent strategy.

Once we have a Republican for a prez again, then you will be back on track once again about how we can help our president, our country and become good citizens and patriots, now that we have someone you and your compatriots approve of. This is typical for how shabby our politics have become. And we are all part of the problem, atm.

 

Actually, when I was in school I was never asked to write a paper on how the President inspired me. That may be one of the reasons I consider it so inappropiate.

When Obama does something that I approve of, I'm the first to admit it.

Just call me a member of the "loyal opposition".