In a front page Beacon article today entitled, "Obama message optional in schools", staff writer John Higgins relates what Medina City Schools Superintendent, Randy Stepp, has decided to do about Tuesday's Obama speech to school kids. Censor it.
Superintendent Stepp says he has received "about 100 e-mails and calls" and they are "evenly split over the issue."
Imagine....the calls are evenly split for and against the President of the United States talking to school children about working hard and staying in school. Encouraging America's children to learn, to work hard at learning, and to stay in school until graduation.....is now a 50-50 call out in Medina.
Yesterday, in blogging on this topic, I asked what in the hell is wrong with American conservatives. Anti-health care reform conservatives actually shouted down a woman in a freaking wheelchair at a New Jersey townhall.
Today, I ask these questions: what in the hell is wrong with Medina parents?......and why in the hell does Superintendent Stepp think he's qualified, or correct, in doing this....
Stepp, "After he does his speech, I think our high school can review it to see if it is pushing one way or the other politically, and if it's not, the next day they can come in and talk about it and see the video. I think by not showing it live and waiting, it's probably the safest decision."
Jesus. The Medina Schools Superintendent, fearful of what could happen when Obama speaks live to America's students, thinks it's "the safest decision" to not show it live. I don't know Mr. Superintendent of Medina Schools, but I gotta' say.......(put your hands over your ears).....what the f*ck is wrong with an educational professional in the U.S. who speaks of censoring President Obama's talk to children as "the safest decision?"
Does Mr. Stepp get to decide, after reviewing Obama's talk, if the speech "is pushing one way or the other politically?" How neutral would Mr Stepp and his underlings at Medina Schools be in making that evaluation? Should Mr. Stepp's voting registration be checked to see which party he favors? What does it mean to say "our high school can review it?" That would be Mr. Stepp and his administration staff, would it not? And who in the hell qualified them to censor the president of the United States? What objective guidelines will be used by Mr. Stepp to determine whether Obama's encouragement to students to work hard and stay in school is "pushing one way or the other politically?"
Now here's the obligatory rant.....
What we're seeing now in Medina Schools over a "work hard and stay in school" message from the President to America's school children is a continuation of what Sarah Palin began during the presidential campaign. Divisive, hate-filled, xenophobic, and nonsensical displays of bitterness were part and parcel of every Palin campaign stop last fall. Palin spoke of "real America" and "real Americans." Candidate Obama, and those planning on voting for him, were not part of Palin's "real Americans."
That hatred, that bitterness, has continued and intensified since Obama's inauguration. Now, 8 months into it, and the same hateful, ignorant and bitter-losers who consider themselves the only "real Americans" are deciding whether it's "safe" for children to hear President Obama on the teevee.
The year is 2009. School districts throughout America are deciding whether it's safe for the children to hear and see the POTUS speak to them. School districts, like Medina's, fearful, I guess, that Obama has a secret plan to turn kids into "Village of the Damned" children by talking to them, will censor Obama's talk and then decide later whether Obama's talk is "safe" for kids to hear.
This craziness, this demonstration of insanity, this totally unhinged hatred from the right.....is not going to work out well for the nation.
About This Blog