Obama or Stalin? I’m Confused
I cannot believe any mother or father who would allow their child to listen to the hidden subliminal messages in Obama’s speech to schools in America, or should I say U.S.S.R. President Obama is using his powers as a dictator, forcing innocent children to believe what he believes. It is not right. Next thing we know our kids will be shipped of to camps where they will be forced to watch giant screens with Obama’s face learning them in the ways of socialism, and anyone who disagrees will be violently abused. We can’t let this go undisturbed. We have to be patriots and fight. There are people who say that Obama can’t ruin this nation in four years, they obviously haven’t ever heard that Rome was built in just a day.
Now, I’m not a big fan of Obama, however, the act of extorting kids into his communist army is the most unexusable act of betrayal to this great America. The parents that boycotted school on Tuesday are the parents whose children’s education is most beneficial. Those who allowed their children to watch that presentation wasted their child’s precious time in the classroom. Their child’s time was spent listening to Obama’s speech on his political schedule. After seeing the speech many have found messages promoting communism. Obama had the nerve to tell students that if you give up on yourself you give up on your country; as if we wouldn’t catch the hidden propaganda, promoting government run institutions. Stalin could have hidden it better. Clearly Obama is trying to get students to start working for those institutions. He even said, “The story of America isn't about people who quit when things got tough. It's about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best," He doesn’t want us to quit working when his secret police make our lives a nightmare. Government run companies, now that is qualitative life right there. It was a sad state in American history when Obama turned down the road that leads to classrooms becoming breeding grounds for the perfect subservient government worker.
Fortunately for us our country still has leaders who are fighting for democracy. I would like to regurgitate the words of the head of the Republican Party in Florida, by saying how Obama’s address was an explicit attempt to “indoctrinate” the president’s “socialist” schedule. When it comes to Obama I am reminded more and more of the brutal communist dictator, Hitler, and the persuasive nationalist, Stalin. A history and government teacher at Brighton High School said in a news article, "It's a disgrace when a social studies teacher has to seek parental permission to show a speech in class by the president of the United States." I was shocked, I just couldn’t believe it. If I were that reporter I would have been like, “No, it is sad when a social studies teacher is no longer a social studies teacher but a socialist studies teacher!” I don’t know why Kim Jung Il and Obama don’t have a little tea party and bash ideas off from one another. It is also unfortunate that Saddam Hussein was never around to witness the Obama administration. He may have been on better terms with the United States.
Some people have told me that I am just overreacting, and that my opinion is bias because I did not want Obama to be president. They say that the democrats were adamantly against President H.W. Bush when he gave a speech promoting science and math education. The head democrat in the house said the Department of Education should not produce political advertisement but should focus on making good students. This is an absolutely ridicules disagreement, the democrats were just angry because President Bush was legitimately trying to inspire students to do well in school. Now they’re trying to point fingers at people like us when we’re trying to fight a legitimate socialist threat to this country. It is stupid that our nation is so torn over political parties that if one side doesn’t get what they want they have to tear down the rest of the country to try and prove a point.
It is scary to think we have entered a time when no one is willing to stand up and protect this nation. Every one who is willing to let such a dictator take power should feel ashamed of themselves. People shouldn’t be so subservient to the president. We need to fight for a free education now so we can have a free country later. If it isn’t obvious to one that education has been restricted by the presentation of these political ideas obviously that person doesn’t know what he believes politically and he needs to get a grip of his ideas before Obama does it for him. We need to fight this socialist upheaval before it grows too late. We cannot let our political insecurity rule our lives. We can do it America!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Can I have My Thoughts Back Please?
Those who composed the Bill of Rights handled it brilliantly. To narrowly define the rights of citizens would invite negative rather than positive debates. In the Bill of Rights very few exact definitions were made. For instance, the First Amendment’s right, that entitles each man, women, and child in this nation to free speech, is left open to interpretation. No man can read the lines in the amendment and give a definition of free speech. This openness is a component of this right that makes it truly free. If the authors of the Bill of Rights determined what is or is not free speech then doors to abuse by our own government would have been opened. Instead, the First Amendment has been left open for personal translation to a certain point. Still, in this great nation the right to free speech is abused time and time again. One of the largest areas where limitations on speech have crossed the line between acceptable and abuse, is in higher education. The freedom of speech is the essential key to education. It presents different ideas to all and allows debates to be presented to each individual. This provides for the individual acquisition of truth and knowledge. To abuse this power deteriorates a student’s ability to think for himself, creating a sense of dependency. It is not coincidence that most developing countries with poor education are the same countries where the voice of the people is silenced, as if they were ignorant children, by corrupt government officials.
As an intern in high school education, one of the questions I asked my supervising teacher was: what makes a good teacher? His answer was, a teacher that gets students to think for themselves. He further illustrated the point that provoking debate persuades students to gain knowledge themselves. If a teacher provides information that causes a student to become engaged, and leaves it open to debate, the student will then search for ways in which he can contradict the teacher. The student will be thinking, and then be entitled to voice an opinion. The student is enabled to figure out for himself what he views as truth. If one desires a higher education one cannot achieve it through a closed-minded system such as the Residential Orientation Program at the University of Delaware. The program advisors used humiliation and embarrassment as techniques in an attempt to force thought behavior along with conformity in regards to race, sexual orientation and other social problems, accepting no discussion of other views. If an institution of higher learning dictates teaching methods, and forces ideas upon students, then it will lack in its diversity of ideas and methods of learning which prevents students from seeking knowledge and finding the truth for themselves. On the other hand, an institution that provides a variety of courses and curriculum, open to debate, will be successful in provoking thought and forming independent minds. The advisors at the residential halls in Delaware forced students to accept their ideals as truth and trapped students in an environment that deterred thought. This is why a free voice is imperative to anyone who desires a higher education.
Every day the voices of truly intelligent teachers and students are drowned out by the sound of binding chains. The First Amendment is being abused on campuses like that of the University of Delaware. Students and teachers are being denied access to the debate floor by those trying to force conformity. It is no one’s job but our own to control how we think and learn. When the residential advisors at the University of Delaware stepped over their bounds by enforcing their ideals of conformity, they took it into their hands to dictate what is or is not acceptable speech. Our First Amendment was created to prevent any entity from dictating terms of speech. It is the right of the individual alone to determine what he or she will agree with. The students’ rights in that hall in Delaware were infringed by advisors who sought to force the students to accept what the advisors perceived to be the truth. Clearly, forcing someone to accept what is said, while denying anyone the right to disagree, is abusing the right to free speech. Forcing someone to believe something is true, without discussion, eliminates the thought-provoking procedure that allows us to develop our own thoughts and knowledge. Therefore, abusers of this right have stolen the right to think as well as speak. This oppresses education and does not allow free learning.
An additional harmful effect of the oppression or force of voice in education is the neglect of a student’s opportunity to challenge opinions. Hayden Barnes, a student at Valdosta StateUniversity, challenged the university’s president on an issue concerning the construction of a parking garage for the school. Hayden was irrationally punished by expulsion because he was said to be “a clear and present danger” to the university even though no materials presented contained any evidence of threats towards the school. This was a clear, forceful and cowardly attack on Barnes’ right to state an alternate opinion. What the president says is what goes, and nothing anyone else says is allowed to change that. It is acceptable for the university president to have an opinion; however, it is not acceptable for the president to compromise a student’s education because that student decided to share his challenging point of view with others. This action reduced the spread of information merely because it was diverse and controversial. Education is not supposed to limit the information that one can receive or distribute, even if it challenges what is perceived by others to be correct. If one forces what one believes and allows no room for challenging influences, that person or organization must be fearful that an opposing point of view may be discovered to be right. A “free speech” education must consist of many sides of ideas being freely argued so that one can choose for oneself what to accept as truth.
Despite instances where the right to speak freely has been violated, many colleges and universities have excelling students with bright, open minds. They are intelligent because they have heard varieties of opinions from different teachers who have also developed their thoughts in the same manner. These professors and teachers have determined what they see as truth, and encourage students to do the same. It is the duty and responsibility of an educational institution to insure and protect the right of a pure and uninfluenced voice for the educator and the pupil. Schools open to debate and varying ideas achieve greatness in academics. In contrast, schools that limit or determine what can be said damage the integrity of the educational environment by manipulating thought process.
As an intern in high school education, one of the questions I asked my supervising teacher was: what makes a good teacher? His answer was, a teacher that gets students to think for themselves. He further illustrated the point that provoking debate persuades students to gain knowledge themselves. If a teacher provides information that causes a student to become engaged, and leaves it open to debate, the student will then search for ways in which he can contradict the teacher. The student will be thinking, and then be entitled to voice an opinion. The student is enabled to figure out for himself what he views as truth. If one desires a higher education one cannot achieve it through a closed-minded system such as the Residential Orientation Program at the University of Delaware. The program advisors used humiliation and embarrassment as techniques in an attempt to force thought behavior along with conformity in regards to race, sexual orientation and other social problems, accepting no discussion of other views. If an institution of higher learning dictates teaching methods, and forces ideas upon students, then it will lack in its diversity of ideas and methods of learning which prevents students from seeking knowledge and finding the truth for themselves. On the other hand, an institution that provides a variety of courses and curriculum, open to debate, will be successful in provoking thought and forming independent minds. The advisors at the residential halls in Delaware forced students to accept their ideals as truth and trapped students in an environment that deterred thought. This is why a free voice is imperative to anyone who desires a higher education.
Every day the voices of truly intelligent teachers and students are drowned out by the sound of binding chains. The First Amendment is being abused on campuses like that of the University of Delaware. Students and teachers are being denied access to the debate floor by those trying to force conformity. It is no one’s job but our own to control how we think and learn. When the residential advisors at the University of Delaware stepped over their bounds by enforcing their ideals of conformity, they took it into their hands to dictate what is or is not acceptable speech. Our First Amendment was created to prevent any entity from dictating terms of speech. It is the right of the individual alone to determine what he or she will agree with. The students’ rights in that hall in Delaware were infringed by advisors who sought to force the students to accept what the advisors perceived to be the truth. Clearly, forcing someone to accept what is said, while denying anyone the right to disagree, is abusing the right to free speech. Forcing someone to believe something is true, without discussion, eliminates the thought-provoking procedure that allows us to develop our own thoughts and knowledge. Therefore, abusers of this right have stolen the right to think as well as speak. This oppresses education and does not allow free learning.
An additional harmful effect of the oppression or force of voice in education is the neglect of a student’s opportunity to challenge opinions. Hayden Barnes, a student at Valdosta StateUniversity, challenged the university’s president on an issue concerning the construction of a parking garage for the school. Hayden was irrationally punished by expulsion because he was said to be “a clear and present danger” to the university even though no materials presented contained any evidence of threats towards the school. This was a clear, forceful and cowardly attack on Barnes’ right to state an alternate opinion. What the president says is what goes, and nothing anyone else says is allowed to change that. It is acceptable for the university president to have an opinion; however, it is not acceptable for the president to compromise a student’s education because that student decided to share his challenging point of view with others. This action reduced the spread of information merely because it was diverse and controversial. Education is not supposed to limit the information that one can receive or distribute, even if it challenges what is perceived by others to be correct. If one forces what one believes and allows no room for challenging influences, that person or organization must be fearful that an opposing point of view may be discovered to be right. A “free speech” education must consist of many sides of ideas being freely argued so that one can choose for oneself what to accept as truth.
Despite instances where the right to speak freely has been violated, many colleges and universities have excelling students with bright, open minds. They are intelligent because they have heard varieties of opinions from different teachers who have also developed their thoughts in the same manner. These professors and teachers have determined what they see as truth, and encourage students to do the same. It is the duty and responsibility of an educational institution to insure and protect the right of a pure and uninfluenced voice for the educator and the pupil. Schools open to debate and varying ideas achieve greatness in academics. In contrast, schools that limit or determine what can be said damage the integrity of the educational environment by manipulating thought process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)