Seriously

[StinkerBell]

Seriously......I see history repeat itself.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/elementary-school-students-reportedly-taught-songs-praising-president-obama/

I wonder if anyone else is thiking of the same historical figure and see's any similarities?

[ScottA]

What you expected the savior?

[southernsis]

My husband and I were discussing this and other propaganda things this morning. This scares the h--l out of us.

[Squirl]

I remember doing this for Reagan when I was in elementary school.  I knew it had to be NJ before I even opened the link.  Everyone was also forced to sing Christmas carols even if they were Jewish too.  Typical NJ schools.

[John Raabe]

Fox News reports should always be taken with salt... If there is a fear button that can be pushed they will be the first ones at the switch.

Here's a followup post with the actual words and then comments from a parenting bolg: http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2009/09/24/video-school-children-praise-obama-in-song-indoctrination-or-innocent-ditty/

This was no doubt an over the top song and probably done by an over-eager teacher. But grade school has always been about "indoctrination". Sociologists call it "socialization" - learning the rules of society, respect your elders, salute the flag, wash your hands after going to the bathroom....yada, yada, yada. As we get older we make our own choices about such things. In countries like North Korea the population itself is treated as if they were still children. Americans, thankfully, would not stand for that and will (usually) see things in a more adult and open way.

In a pluralistic country such as ours, not everyone agrees on all of this indoctrination stuff any more. It isn't the 1950s anymore. There are constant "values" battles going on in schools today. This is just one more element of that and no more worthy of a conspiracy theory than a disagreement about Christmas carols.

[MountainDon]

This is the result of a few overzealous people not thinking things through clearly. I think the big mistake was to choose a living political figure to praise in the songs. Praise the dead if they deserve it and scrutinize the living as they do deserve that.

[John Raabe]

Good point Don.

Our "Glorious Leaders" should only be so praised using the wisdom of hindsight. Nobody knows what is working or just mucking things up in the quick changing day-to-day reality. Of course, that doesn't stop us from having opinions!

[glenn kangiser]

I don't know that it is just a few though.  This has been going on for quite a while.

Ths took a lot of indoctrination and rehearsal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtGr1JFCnE

as did this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08BAfKCfu74&feature=related

a North Korean technique also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr3v7Vsg3uY&feature=related

[Pox Eclipse]

Nothing new.  Children have been "indoctrinated" to praise the president before, and no one got their panties in a bunch.  From the 2006 White House Easter egg roll:

At the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, children from the stricken Gulf Coast region serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency.

To the tune of Hey Look Me Over, about 100 young children from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:



Our country's stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!

After the song, Mrs. Bush posed for photos with the kids, many of whom were wearing Katrina Kids T-shirts, despite the chilly rain.

[glenn kangiser]

That was not too good an example, Pox. 

Everyone knows that Katrina was a Bush/FEMA/New Orleans Mafia plan to rid New Orleans of Blacks, disperse them so they could never get back and try out the FEMA Concentration Camps even disposing of the blacks who did not have family.

Katrina was steered by HAARP to make that sharp turn, but the Levee was blown the day after the storm by Federal Contractors and a government with politicians indebted to the Mafia.  The Feds and New Orleans police got into a gun battle on Danziger Bridge and the story was changed at least 3 times to cover it up.

Laura had to lead the song because she knew George was insensitive and no one else would do it.

Can you give us a better example?

[Pox Eclipse]

I would, but they have all been redacted by the Illuminati.   

[emcvay]

Fox News reports should always be taken with salt... If there is a fear button that can be pushed they will be the first ones at the switch.

Here's a followup post with the actual words and then comments from a parenting bolg: http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2009/09/24/video-school-children-praise-obama-in-song-indoctrination-or-innocent-ditty/

This was no doubt an over the top song and probably done by an over-eager teacher. But grade school has always been about "indoctrination". Sociologists call it "socialization" - learning the rules of society, respect your elders, salute the flag, wash your hands after going to the bathroom....yada, yada, yada. As we get older we make our own choices about such things. In countries like North Korea the population itself is treated as if they were still children. Americans, thankfully, would not stand for that and will (usually) see things in a more adult and open way.

In a pluralistic country such as ours, not everyone agrees on all of this indoctrination stuff any more. It isn't the 1950s anymore. There are constant "values" battles going on in schools today. This is just one more element of that and no more worthy of a conspiracy theory than a disagreement about Christmas carols.

Except that some of us think that it's the parents that ought to be doing that, not the government

I read the words, saw the video and have to say:  Fox was right on.  They got it correct.

In truth, I hear a lot of angst about Fox these days so I did an experiment where I began checking all news sources daily for various news articles...guess what the results were?

The other networks failed over and over again to report anything that might possibly shed any foul light on the current administration.  Sadly, it was the opposite during the previous 8 years -- the it's a double standard.

Fox by the way, had many that disagreed with Bush during the last 8 years so it can't be said it's the same with them -- it's easy to point a finger though.

Anyway, both sides are screaming at each other and neither is listening.  The problem isn't this stupid song, though it's stupid.  The problem is the socialization of America (yes it is happening) and the loss of your personal freedoms.

Doesn't matter what you beleive, keep pushing the nation towards socialism (free health care anyone) and you will all, left and right, lose your liberties.

[Pox Eclipse]

Do nothing to reform the current system, and you will lose your private health insurance.  Premiums are skyrocketing, over 10% per year, much more than wages.  Employers are going to stop increasing their contribution, they cannot continue to pay endless increases.  It is all going to fall on the employee.  Can you afford $500-$1000 per person, per month? 

Our current system is unsustainable.  In 2007, health care consumed 16% of our gross domestic product.  The Congressional Budget Office has projected that it will rise to 25% of GDP by 2025.  This is madness, and to suggest that we can contiue they way we are is just burying your head in the sand. 

[glenn kangiser]

I would, but they have all been redacted by the Illuminati.   

  At least you can see what is going on here. 

[emcvay]

Do nothing to reform the current system, and you will lose your private health insurance.  Premiums are skyrocketing, over 10% per year, much more than wages.  Employers are going to stop increasing their contribution, they cannot continue to pay endless increases.  It is all going to fall on the employee.  Can you afford $500-$1000 per person, per month? 

Our current system is unsustainable.  In 2007, health care consumed 16% of our gross domestic product.  The Congressional Budget Office has projected that it will rise to 25% of GDP by 2025.  This is madness, and to suggest that we can contiue they way we are is just burying your head in the sand. 

Huh?  Who says do nothing?  That's the line those in favor of socialism like to use.  Those of us who would like to actually see the free market get to work for once disagree with your premise:  that government care is doing something when anything else is not.

How about we start with the free market and try letting it work -- we haven't done so in such a long time.

For example, cut the BS and get rid of regulations which force the 'pre-paid' services we now call 'Health Insurance' for one example, and perhaps look at TORT reform while dumping all public subsidies -- and yes, there are so many tax dollars going there now it's crazy -- cut them off and make the industry have to earn a living for once.

Cut them off the drugs (taxes) and make them sober up...but no, that's not what's on the agenda is it?  Total Health Care that's what you want.

Let me tell you, this country has been successfully treating it's people without socialism for over 200 years and I'm thinking if the socialists got the hell out of the way, we might actually improve things.  Those that want Government Health Care fell in love with the failed Russian system I guess -- well, go drive a Yugo then.

[StinkerBell]

My two issues with health care (not the only two, just these two).

One the IRS will be incharge. About a 100 years ago our government came to us saying they will only tax the very wealthy 0.50%. Look were we are today. There are volumes of IRS code. You need a CPA and a Lawyer. They will not even reform their own code. can you imagine in 20 years what it will be like with the IRS running our medical treatment?

Secondly, something everyone completely ignores or maybe not aware of. Your states insurance commsioner allows for insuarnce to be raised. Yep, the insurance companies does not wake up one morning and raise your rate. YOUR elected officials allow the insurance companies to raise your rates. The government allows what will and will not be offered in an insurance policy in it's state.  The insurance comoanies have to gget our goverments approval to raise our rates.

So, lets cap that off....We want our government to run our health care  because the insurance companis are greedy individuals (well, that is true) , but do they not all ready have the final say in their state?

Medicla Insurance is a State issue and NOT a Federal issue. People need to make term limits on their officials and instead of having a position like "Insurance Commisioner" appointed, it should be a voted in position.  But regardless, what ever administration appointed that position they are responsibile. Lets not forget that.

[emcvay]

I know this sounds crazy in a world where everything is regulated but folks, if you want to lower the cost of health insurance you have to stop with the caps and rate approvals.

The key isn't to control them more it's to control them less.  Why?  Becuase profit driven machines always find a balance that is acceptable to the consumer or they lose money and go out of business.

It doesn't matter who's in charge, Uncle Sam or Mr. Businessman, the bottom line must be met and Uncle Sam is the worst at meeting it.  Uncle Sam can't operate under a budget -- he simple won't.    Mr. Business man loses his job if he doesn't.

The problem is you are being indoctrinated to assume that all capitalists are greedy bastards -- they aren't.

Try reading Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged.

[MountainDon]

The key isn't to control them more it's to control them less. 

I don't think that worked very well with the mortgage companies, banks and credit card companies, wall street.   

[Squirl]

The key isn't to control them more it's to control them less.  Why?  Becuase profit driven machines always find a balance that is acceptable to the consumer or they lose money and go out of business.

Just like standard oil, Bell Systems, Carnegie Steel, Microsoft, Enron etc.......

[emcvay]

The key isn't to control them more it's to control them less. 

I don't think that worked very well with the mortgage companies, banks and credit card companies, wall street.   

That's becuase you haven't learned what really occurred.  It's too easy to point to that issue -- but it would only serve to emphasize my point -- over regulation and playing politics is what caused that problem NOT any free market system.

In short, the CRA was enacted by Carter and was left in various renditions since.  It was enhanced and strengthened more then once and Bush II was one of the worst to enhance/empower it.

What most don't realize is that during Clinton's presidency the CRA was losing ground due to the Republican controlled congress but Clinton found a way to solve that problem by taking the deregulation bill so many point to for causing all this mess and agreeing to sign it ONLY if it gave more teeth to the CRA.  The desperate Republicans (dumb asses) agreed and we got a certain amount of deregulation tied to the CRA which guaranteed the deregulation would fail and banks would fail.  Brilliant.

Now, do I agree that banks and insurance companies should merge?  I'm not certain yet -- but it's a non-issue since they would have been perfectly fine and robust today under those rules had not the CRA been instituted in it's form then.

No, deregulation didn't cause the crash anymore then the blue sky caused it -- what caused it was 'sub prime mortgages' spurred on by the CRA and groups like ACORN.

I suggest anyone who cares read the book: Meltdown by Thomas Woods.  It does far more to explain why we have the issues we have today then the nonsense behind the 'deregulation caused it' movement.

[emcvay]

The key isn't to control them more it's to control them less.  Why?  Becuase profit driven machines always find a balance that is acceptable to the consumer or they lose money and go out of business.

Just like standard oil, Bell Systems, Carnegie Steel, Microsoft, Enron etc.......

I didn't say allow total control of the world by the evil empire -- only I'm allowed that privileged!

No wait...seriously, I don't disagree with Anti-Trust laws either but we have those and they do work.

But let's look at your examples shall we?  Enron?  Really?  Do you have any real idea of what happened here?  Government regulation created the problem -- do your research.  Microsoft?  Again, do your research, the failed legal system has allowed this to happen -- too easy.  Besides, anti-trust laws could be used but no one has the cajones to do so.

Standard Oil?  Explain that one please -- after all, there are many companies that make more profit (percentage wise) then oil companies do.

I'm sorry, but what I hear is a socialist trying to blame big evil companies for the woes of the world -- which only suggests you haven't done much reading or research since in truth big governments have caused far far more damage and reduced wealth far far more then any company every dreamed of.  Don't be a fool.

Doesn't mean I don't dislike big companies, I do dislike them, but they don't have guns and I can handle them -- the government on the otherhand has guns and jails and we're SOL there.

[Windpower]

You're close, Oljarhead

The real problem is the 'personhood' of corporations and their lobbyists that buy the influence of the Congress Critters and other bureaucrats

Us commoners haven't a chance to compete with them. They are bought and paid for -- that is why it a waste of time to contact your Representative in Congress


what was the rate of calls on the so called bail out -- I heard it was at least 300 to 1 against bailing out the criminal banksters -- so what did they do

they bailed out the ones that had lined their pockets -- the banksters and Wall street high rollers

We are well down the road to Fascism in this country (government controlled by corporations in my definition)
you seem to even realize this when you say 'no one has the cajones.."

more like, no one wants to lose their gravy train

[emcvay]

You're close, Oljarhead

The real problem is the 'personhood' of corporations and their lobbyists that buy the influence of the Congress Critters and other bureaucrats

Us commoners haven't a chance to compete with them. They are bought and paid for -- that is why it a waste of time to contact your Representative in Congress


what was the rate of calls on the so called bail out -- I heard it was at least 300 to 1 against bailing out the criminal banksters -- so what did they do

they bailed out the ones that had lined their pockets -- the banksters and Wall street high rollers

We are well down the road to Fascism in this country (government controlled by corporations in my definition)
you seem to even realize this when you say 'no one has the cajones.."

more like, no one wants to lose their gravy train

You're also close -- it seems we've both done a lot of reading.  I agree with you though and it only emphasizes much of what I espouse which is a return to the Constitution and the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  You can't have Liberty when you are not allowed to fail, and you can't have Liberty when you aren't innocent until proven guilty -- and regulations assume you will commit the crime hence the need to make a regulation to prevent you from doing so and provide a mechanism to fine you when you do.

As for lobbyists and politicians I beleive the solution is simple, but no one will do it -- the solution is to vote them all out.  Anyone with an 'I' after their name regardless of party ought to be tossed out.  Then if they don't listen you keep doing it until they start passing some of the laws we want like getting rid of any law not in the constitution or clearly provided for there, and getting rid of deficit spending (all of it) and so much more -- term limits is a good start too!

[Squirl]

What Enron did to California after deregulation was the problem. (rolling blackouts) Not the fact that they were deregulated. 

Standard Oil was the monopoly by John D. Rockefeller.  It was part of the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century.  There are natural monopolies in the world.  (Trains, utilities, manufacturing) Almost any industry with a high barrier to entry, left unchecked, will usually progress towards a monopoly.

The market is generally the most efficient form of allocating societal resources, but it is naive to think that it perfect.  To do so is to ignore the devastation that unchecked capitalism has done to society and the world.  Unchecked it has done things such as child labor, indentured servitude, below subsistence wages, collusion, and monopolies.  Also there are negative externalities, such as pollution, that not a single player in the market can be held accountable for without regulations.  Without laws to restrict certain behaviors an individual will do what is best for them.  This has lead to the extinction of many species of the planet such as the dodo, carrier pigeon, and western black rhinoceros.  Some of the more controversial regulations in this country where the ones banning of the sale of wild game for food in the early 1900's.  Without it many more of the species of this country, such as the white tail deer would be extinct.  This progresses to whaling, shark hunting, killing elephants for ivory, and killing tigers for pelts.  Some regulations on business is a very good thing to me.

I am not a socialist.  I am just closer to the Keynesian economic theory mindset.

[emcvay]

What Enron did to California after deregulation was the problem. (rolling blackouts) Not the fact that they were deregulated. 

Standard Oil was the monopoly by John D. Rockefeller.  It was part of the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century.  There are natural monopolies in the world.  (Trains, utilities, manufacturing) Almost any industry with a high barrier to entry, left unchecked, will usually progress towards a monopoly.

The market is generally the most efficient form of allocating societal resources, but it is naive to think that it perfect.  To do so is to ignore the devastation that unchecked capitalism has done to society and the world.  Unchecked it has done things such as child labor, indentured servitude, below subsistence wages, collusion, and monopolies.  Also there are negative externalities, such as pollution, that not a single player in the market can be held accountable for without regulations.  Without laws to restrict certain behaviors an individual will do what is best for them.  This has lead to the extinction of many species of the planet such as the dodo, carrier pigeon, and western black rhinoceros.  Some of the more controversial regulations in this country where the ones banning of the sale of wild game for food in the early 1900's.  Without it many more of the species of this country, such as the white tail deer would be extinct.  This progresses to whaling, shark hunting, killing elephants for ivory, and killing tigers for pelts.  Some regulations on business is a very good thing to me.

I am not a socialist.  I am just closer to the Keynesian economic theory mindset.

Keynesians fail to acknowledge that the Austrian Cycle has been proven.  In fact, they've been wrong every time and it's the fact that the Keynesians manage to control policy that we keep having these cycles.

Enron wasn't as much of the problem as it is credited -- though I won't defend them either -- the Californian's who insist on growth while not supplying themselves with power are the problem. 

As for Enron, what happened with them is what should happen in the end -- it's just sad that those who were caught up in it were financially hurt.  But we could go on for months on that one -- by the way, i used to work on the FTB route -- if you really know much about Enron you'd know what that is I also had many friends that worked for Enron and I myself worked for Williams (Communications though).

There is so much there that a simple statement cannot suffice but I'd suggest anyone who thinks the Keynesians were right try reading meltdown.  They're wrong, they're a large part of the problem and the entire Keynesian theory shoudl be banned.