I was surprised to see how many elementary schools have been named after sitting presidents, including Obama and Bush.

It was also fun to read how Bush made a surprise visit to an elementary school and asked if anyone knew who he was:

The Bushes were scheduled to visit three classes, but they ended up popping in on any room with an audience.
Ducking in one room, Bush asked, "Hey kids, do you know who I am?"
Gasps all around, and then someone blurted, "George Washington!"
"That's right!" the visitor said. "George Washington Bush!"

I think the song was inappropriate, but at least there's some shot that the kids will know who the POTUS is . That's something.

David Brooks with a compelling column on Afghanistan.

I really have no idea what the right thing is there. The Taliban is an abomination, the fact that they aren't popularly supported suggests to me that doubling down could work, and the worst consequence of failure--their getting control of Pakistan's nukes--is horrific beyond imagination. But at some point we have to shrink our global military footprint, for budget reasons as well as diplomatic.

It would be nice if the rest of the civilized world could nut up for once.

traderdave wrote:Bottom line for me is that the teacher probably had the most innocent of intentions...

I don't buy that at all.

TenuredVulture wrote:We would do well as a country if we could get back to the idea that there is a nobility in public service, in dedicating one's life to politics even. The level of distrust in elected officials makes it more difficult for this country to confront its problems honestly.

The public servants in Washington need to earn our trust. Both parties have done a good job of ruining that.

gpicaro wrote:

traderdave wrote:Bottom line for me is that the teacher probably had the most innocent of intentions...

I don't buy that at all.

I guess I would like to believe that the teacher had innocent intentions. If not, the teacher should be out of a job. But that same teacher probably has tenure and it would take a Presidential Order (ironically) to remove the teacher from his/her job.

traderdave wrote:But that same teacher probably has tenure

Well then just revoke it

The teacher retired this summer apparently.

cshort wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:We would do well as a country if we could get back to the idea that there is a nobility in public service, in dedicating one's life to politics even. The level of distrust in elected officials makes it more difficult for this country to confront its problems honestly.

The public servants in Washington need to earn our trust. Both parties have done a good job of ruining that.

IMHO, most of the politicians in Washington go there and do exactly what they are supposed to do which is fight for the people who elected them. They are trustworthy and earnest and never have any trouble with blurred lines of ethics. The Dodds, Edwards, Sanfords, etc. of the world make it almost impossible for us NOT to distrust ALL politicians.

What would the teacher's guilty intentions be?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:What would the teacher's guilty intentions be?

Imposing her political beliefs on a group of impressionable seven year olds on purpose rather than by accident

jerseyhoya wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:What would the teacher's guilty intentions be?

Imposing her political beliefs on a group of impressionable seven year olds on purpose rather than by accident

It's hard to say. I've had some incredibly spaced-out teachers, not including megaliberal college professors. One of my grade school teachers got in some pretty hot water for telling a classroom of sixth-graders that she had a miscarriage.

Harpua wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:What would the teacher's guilty intentions be?

Imposing her political beliefs on a group of impressionable seven year olds on purpose rather than by accident

It's hard to say. I've had some incredibly spaced-out teachers, not including megaliberal college professors. One of my grade school teachers got in some pretty hot water for telling a classroom of sixth-graders that she had a miscarriage.

A teacher I had for social studies in seventh grade got in a shit load of trouble for calling a sixth grade English teacher in our school something to the effect of "a dirty jew from Brooklyn."

Oh man, the people charged with educating America's youth.

Hmmm...

Dubya Bush... it would be heartbreaking to see childrens sing the blues.

I refuse to even think about a Clinton song, lest I blush (porno scores usually don't have lyrics anyway).

traderdave wrote:

cshort wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:We would do well as a country if we could get back to the idea that there is a nobility in public service, in dedicating one's life to politics even. The level of distrust in elected officials makes it more difficult for this country to confront its problems honestly.

The public servants in Washington need to earn our trust. Both parties have done a good job of ruining that.

IMHO, most of the politicians in Washington go there and do exactly what they are supposed to do which is fight for the people who elected them. They are trustworthy and earnest and never have any trouble with blurred lines of ethics. The Dodds, Edwards, Sanfords, etc. of the world make it almost impossible for us NOT to distrust ALL politicians.

It the whole fight for the people that elected them bit that can be a problem. Look at John Murtha (using him because he's an easy target). A new airport and highway are great for west central PA, and provide jobs, but are they really needed? What happened to common sense?

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Hmmm...

Dubya Bush... it would be heartbreaking to see childrens sing the blues.

I refuse to even think about a Clinton song, lest I blush (porno scores usually don't have lyrics anyway).

How about suffragette city?
"wham bam thank you ma'am"

Dept. of Democrats Suck Almost as Hard:

The Washington Post today reports that the Democratic Party has seen its contributions from large-scale Wall Street contributors drying up rapidly:

in part because Democrats have heightened their attacks on the conduct of major financial firms and set their sights on rewriting the laws that regulate their behavior . . . . [R]hetoric toward big business has grown so antagonistic that it has become increasingly difficult to raise money on Wall Street, particularly after the controversy about bonuses and executive compensation.

That's particularly threatening for the party because "Democrats continue to collect more from big donors than Republicans do." As I wrote before about the "public option": it shouldn't be a mystery why the White House is so willing to forego that provision even though it's wildly popular among their supporters. They are petrified that unless the bill pleases the health and pharmaceutical industries, those industries will lavish the GOP with their largesse in order to fuel a GOP takeover of Congress in 2010.

That corporations drive the outcome of the political process is so normalized for Washington culture that they no longer even realize it looks bad to most people, which is what explains the amazing spectacle this week of Sen. Tom Carper angrily demanding right out in the open that the White House's once-secret, sleazy deal with Pharma -- whereby the administration agreed to forgo bulk negotiations for lower drug prices in exchange for that industry's commitment to spend tens of millions of dollars to advertise for the President's health care reform efforts -- be honored. That's the central fact that transcends conventional left/right dramas: the same narrow corporate interests dictate political outcomes for their own benefit regardless of which party wins.

Remember this when the Roberts Court totally destroys campaign finance law.

cshort wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Hmmm...

Dubya Bush... it would be heartbreaking to see childrens sing the blues.

I refuse to even think about a Clinton song, lest I blush (porno scores usually don't have lyrics anyway).

How about suffragette city?
"wham bam thank you ma'am"

I was going to go with "Bow Chicka Wow Wow: The Ballad of Bill Clinton"

jerseyhoya wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:What would the teacher's guilty intentions be?

Imposing her political beliefs on a group of impressionable seven year olds on purpose rather than by accident

Of course, anyone who's actually tried to teach kids anything knows that at best, they absorb less than 10% of what you say. And they forget most of that too.

I've been wracking my brain about what kinds of political stuff I learned in early elementary school--this would be the early 70s, a time of substantial political turmoil. I don't remember anything about the Nixon/McGovern election, other than one of my classmates told me that if McGovern won, we'd have to go to school on Saturdays and Sundays. Nixon/Watergate happened over the summer, so there wasn't much reason to talk about that during school.

However, I do remember being told in school that Agnew had to resign the Vice Presidency because he broke the law.

That's a pretty poor argument. If the act is wrong, the fact that some kids don't retain info is inconsequential.

Also, every kid I know has a brain like a sponge and mimics and repeats everything adults say. It's why we don't want to curse around them, or let them watch things we don't feel is appropriate around them.

I don't think celebrating public servants is bad though. I do think the lyrics of the particular song were pretty awful, but some of kind positive remarks or words or songs about our President are a good thing in my view. I suppose you might want to avoid looking at specific policies--"I love Bush because he's gonna change the regime in Iraq" might verge on inappropriate. But if you sang something like "Bush made us all feel better the day after we were attacked" I think would be fine.

Perhaps I'm coming across kind of flip, but teaching kids about current events is something I've thought about a great deal. I spoke to first and 2nd graders about the Presidential election last year (interesting anecdotal finding--most kids were familiar with Obama, McCain and Palin, but not one knew who Joe Biden was) and I'm speaking to my daughter's class about the constitution next Thursday. Her teacher seems quite interested in civics, and I appreciate how difficult some subjects are. Apparently, they talked a little about Sept 11 (remember, these children were either not born or infants at the time) and of course the children want to know why were we attacked--not an easy question to deal with. Or, if a child wants to know why there are troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, I believe it is acceptable to tell them something along the lines of "to make us safe" or "to help the people there have a better government".

Issues like race come up all the time as well. No teacher can possibly strike the perfectly appropriate balance on that every time. But avoiding those issues is worse than getting it wrong once in awhile.