Here is a video that has been making the rounds. It shows some young Obama supporters offering inspirational songs of praise (tip to Instapundit and Roger Simon):
Roger Simon writes:
My first thought was that neither Obama nor his staff is responsible for this video, nor would Obama recommend such devotional singing. My second thought was that – as creepy and inappropriate as this singing is – it’s not as bad as what Obama is actually proposing: forcing all children, starting at the age of 11, to give 50 hours a year of child labor working in their communities at the direction of the federal government. When Obama himself crosses the line, it’s not surprising that some of his supporters do as well.Watching this video has disturbed me more than almost anything I have seen in recent years. It is the kind of exploitation of children that reminds me of Young Pioneer Camps I saw when visiting the Soviet Union in the Eighties. You could say, as some have, that this is much like what happens with children in churches and synagogues across America, but this is about a political figure — one of two current presidential candidates and the one leading in the polls.
And no, though it should go without saying, I don’t think that some over-the-top behavior by Obama supporters is a significant reason to vote for or against either presidential candidate in November.
UPDATE: The video has available on Obama's official campaign website since August 20th on one of the community blogs, which means that it is not endorsed by the campaign staff itself. I suspect it will be pulled soon.
One commenter there wrote: "It's frightening to think of using single-digit-aged children to sing their allegiance to a human being running for political office. It's unspeakable to see it actually happen."
Ed Morrissey imbeds some of the more obvious comparisons. Certainly, one of them would be obvious to anyone who ever saw the movie Cabaret. He also notes that it appears Jeff Zucker, the head of NBC, was one of the many people behind the filming of the performance (using HDTV cameras). [Appearances are misleading; it's a different Jeff Zucker!; link previously corrected.]
It's true. You got us. We're coming in our blackhelicopters to redistribute your wealth and force you into labor!!
Such overstatement cripples your credibility. Which is a shame, because I think the rest of your post made a solid point.
As for the video, as far as I'm concerned, any candidate that attracts nutjobs like this is not acceptable in any public office.
Next up, "Obama claims he doesn't want to roast and eat your children, but if you read what his proposals _don't_ say . . . "
So I think you should stop spreading the false meme that Obama is not proposing to mandate that every school receiving federal funds institute service learning programs. He is.
And stop pretending that Obama hasn't set his goal of 50 hours of service for every student and stop pretending that Obama promised that "We'll reach this goal."
What part of this don't you understand?
Once again, here is some of what I wrote before:
One question that has arisen in discussions is the extent to which his "Universal Voluntary Service Plan" is nonetheless mandatory.
Because Obama calls his plan voluntary, it’s important to understand exactly what he says and doesn’t say. In the first two of his main speeches on national service – on July 2, 2008 and on December 5, 2007 – Barack Obama set his goal of 50 hours of service a year, promised that “We'll reach this goal,” and explained how he would do so for middle and high school children:
So one hurdle that Obama’s plan must vault is the U.S. Constitution, which limits the federal government to enumerated powers. Lacking the power to mandate universal community service directly, Obama candidly discloses his strategy: making federal funds contingent on schools having service programs that meet federal standards.
If Obama hadn’t promised that “We’ll reach this goal” of 50 hours a year of service, one might read his proposal as indicating that he would require schools to have service programs, but that these programs might not require 50 hours of service.
Yet the only way that almost every 11-year old public school student in the country would serve 50 hours a year – i.e., the only way that Obama could reach his goal – is by doing what he seems to indicate he’s going to do: setting a federal goal of 50 hours a year for each middle school student and reaching that goal by making federal funds contingent on middle schools requiring their students to serve those 50 hours.
Thus, it would be the public schools that would impose federal standards of coerced service on each child as part of their requirements for graduation. For students, service would be involuntary. Even for the public schools, their participation would be only nominally voluntary – for how many public schools can survive without federal assistance?
Lest there be any remaining doubt that Barack Obama’s “voluntary” universal service plan contemplates mandatory service for children, his Service Plan praises mandatory service in the sentence that immediately precedes his call for 50 hours of service: “Schools that require service as part of the educational experience create improved learning environments and serve as resources for their communities.”
Moreover, in his Plan, he promises to “develop national guidelines for service-learning and community service programs,” thus not leaving the content of service programs to the states.
I suspect that Obama describes his mandatory plan as voluntary for good reasons: (1) part of his plan – i.e., participating in his many new “Corps” – is indeed voluntary, and (2) people bristle at the word “mandatory.” In the movement for national service, it is common to describe mandatory plans as voluntary. For example, Representative Charles Rangel’s National Service Act, which is languishing before Congress, provides for a universal draft with two years of service for virtually all persons ages 18-42, with no deferment for college. This explicitly mandatory service is described in the bill as “Voluntary Service” because “A person subject to induction . . . may volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted.”
Nonetheless, there still remain some ambiguities in Obama’s Service Plan. Does Obama intend to force states to include private and parochial school students within his scheme? Obama does not say whether private middle and high schools would also be required to impose 50 hours a year. I assume that would depend on whether they rely on federal grants.
It's true. You got us. We're coming in our blackhelicopters to redistribute your wealth and force you into labor!!
</blockquote>
wait, democrats don't want to redistribute wealth? in what world?
Of course, that is pretty much how the feds get compliance with everything they want, from 55 mph speed limits to no-child-left-behind.
The difference with coerced labor is (a) it's a quantitative leap from current federal coercive action and (b) it will allow the DC politicians running the program to decide how to deploy the labor--a very, very bad idea.
A "Sarah" bumper sticker.
Not "McCain-Palin," just "Sarah."
Has anyone EVER seen a sticker that was solely for a veep? Esp. where the veep hadn't been a putative candidate for president beforehand?
In addition, a few people were commenting on how their anti-Obama posts were being deleted, despite not containing objectionable language. Of course, all of this suspicion is less than scientific, but I am increasingly concerned with reports of YouTube censoring content based on viewpoint. For instance, there were complaints that the videos capturing Planned Parenthood's willingness to accept donations for aborting minorities kept getting removed by YouTube. Again, this is all very unscientific and rumor- and anecdote-oriented. But I just thought I'd mention it when I seemed to encounter another instance with respect to this video. Did anyone else notice that? Or did anyone else have a comment removed?
I was amused by the fact that I read their shirts to say "Nope". Lol. Wishful thinking perhaps.
I wish I could vote Nope '08...or None of the Above. I might just write in Sarah Palin for President.
Allow me to make some arguments:
-Obama wants slavery for our kids!
-Hitler Youth!
-When you say "that's not what Obama means" what you really mean is "Hur hur I love slavery."
-Communism!
-Why do the liberals love slavery so much?
-Mao!
-how can you liberals be for slavery?
How many states allow alcohol to be sold to individuals younger than 21 years of age?
Your answer describes the power of the federal government's "incentives."
Republicans are running their party's most credible centrist and they're still getting blown out. If even centrist are revolting against the GOP, can you imagine how happy the hippies in California are right now?
Indeed, the day after Clinton left office, the op-ed pages were full of doggerel from Republicans singing about how fresh the air smelled.
How many law schools prohibit the armed services from recruiting on their campuses?
Even accepting as true that such programs would be tied to federal funds, that still doesn't make it mandatory. The funds can be denied. In what world is that "mandatory?"
Why to Obama supporters feel the need to indoctrinate children this way?
No, he's not.
I read all of that stuff when you linked back to it.
It's weak sauce.
The last time I looked (earlier this month) the website plan I think you cite does include Obama's praise for programs that mandate service requirements for graduation, but do not say what his speeches make clear -- that the program is mandatory.
Also, remember Michelle Obama's speech to students telling them that service would be required.
1. Do you find this singing disturbing?
2. If you do, then why wouldn't people want to know about it?
3. If you don't find the video disturbing, why not?
It's true. You got us. We're coming in our blackhelicopters to redistribute your wealth and force you into labor!!
Took the words right out of my mouth. Shorter Jim Lindgren: Incentives for kids to do community service = fascism. Locking American citizens up with no process is necessary to keep our democracy.
Jim, did you read John's post, to which Josh was referring?
So you are criticising Josh for not realizing that Obama was going to tie "federal funds to schools adopting his service plan." when, in fact that is the very think that John's post states.
You need to take a breath. Your anti-Obama screeds are making you look silly.
They don't find it disturbing because the singing supports the leader of their tribe.
They only want people to know about it if it looks cute. If it looks creepy, they'll wash it down the memory hole.
Two legs good, four legs bad.
ZOMG. Obama is teh H1tl3r!!!!! This place is looking more and more like a freep thread every day.
So under your conception, it's mandatory if the school/community wants federal funds they 1) have paid into and 2) should be able to expect.
In what world is that not mandatory?
It's a bit like putting a straight-jacket on someone and saying: "What do you mean, restricted, other people have escaped from being straight-jacketed." And then, further, pretending to give a damn as well.
Ya, it's nutty. Almost as nutty as believing that God is going to start rapturing people up into heaven to be with their deceased granny and grandpa.
Perhaps because it is, at most, a sad little distraction that says so much more about the desperation of McCain supporters than anything else?
Did you read lawyer's comments? So they take my money away and only give it back if I do what they say? That's not mandatory?
I had to do mandatory community service to graduate from HS and it didn't hurt me or my peers. Nor did it turn my school district into a fascist state. I think these requirements are dumb, so I oppose Obama's plan (and McCain's similar but smaller plan). But Lindgren's hysteria is beyond all proportion. There are much more important things to worry about, like the Iraq war, the prospect of a politician who makes George W. Bush look like a Shakespeare/Einstein hybrid being one heartbeat away of the Presidency, and the financial crisis/bailout.
I do not understand how people can be so thick.
Give me a break. Even the guys at Volokh are wetting their pants at the Obama-messiah meme? Let's see...volunteer service is "forced labor", whereas the actual forced labor that makes some of the crap you buy up at Wal-Mart is what? Globalization at work? This acute lack of priorities is why Obama will win and Democrats will increase their majorities in the House and Senate.
Let me explain it to you: what you watched is a video of kids singing songs. Given that it's par for the course for asshole parents to drag their kids to demonstrations and make them hold signs for whatever cause their idiot parents subscribe to, I don't really see what there is to get upset about here.
Also, by the way, people make kids sing stupid songs to a fictional god every Sunday and nobody seems to be bothered by that. At least Obama is real.
Watching this video has disturbed me more than almost anything I have seen in recent years.
Line up Roger Simon for dumbass statement of the year. If this is the most disturbing thing this idiot has seen "in years" as our country is falling apart, then he must do nothing but watch reruns of Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.
Nick
That wasn't very Juche of you, Lindgren. Better watch it, or they'll be sending out the Independence, MO, Sheriff after you for criminable libel.
Turns out, We Are the Earthtoneshirts We've Been Waiting For!
"Josh, did you read my comment or my many posts on this issue? In both of Obama's major speeches on service (the last one was in July), he laid out how he was going to reach his goal of 50 hours for every student: tying federal funds to schools adopting his service plan.
The last time I looked (earlier this month) the website plan I think you cite does include Obama's praise for programs that mandate service requirements for graduation, but do not say what his speeches make clear -- that the program is mandatory."
For some reason, you fail to recognize how tying something to federal funding does not make it "mandatory." I did read your several posts on this issue and sadly saw the same jump in logic.
As to your later post about the videos, no, I don't find the video disturbing. There are people in this country who feel that an Obama presidency will bring about change that will raise the country from the diminshed position it has been left in during the past eight years. They don't feel Obama is coming to get them for forced labor.
You disagree with that, I assume, and thus find children singing his praise "disturbing."
Look, if you're going to go into something like with the ex ante conclusion that Obama is Stalin or Mao, then you're obviously going to internally compare the video to various youth propoganda from those communist regimes. If you support Obama, you don't enter with this preconceived idea.
Even if you disagree with Obama, but don't demonstrate such animus against him, you probably wouldn't leap to that conclusion either.
Bottom line: Obama has uttered one sentence about tying public service to federal funding (something as president he doesn't have the power to do, and, like most candidates probably won't follow through on) and you have concluded that he is going to enslave all children (for at least 50 hours a year, anyway).
I think it's reasonable to conclude from that that you are entering the entire analysis with a pre-determined opinion about the man and the policy proposal.
In short what would the kids do for that one hour a week or four hours one Saturday of the month. Hopefully more then just practicing with the Obama Choir.
I think they love it because they are basically Nazi Fascist Terrorist lovers and need to make sure the few children they don't abort are as evil as they are.
Can I say Hitler Youth again? 'Cause I think this thread needs more Nazi references.
Also: Obamessiah!
Silly liberals, here is how you do cult of personality.
Ron Paul said it I'll say it again. Whether or not its "mandatory" for states, it will be madatory for individuals. He will pay state schools to force childeren to do "volunteer" vork
pot. kettle. black.
1) The coercion would not be by the federal government, but by the states or their subsidiary school districts;
2) The way the federal government gets the states/school districts to coerce the children is by paying them to do so; and
3) A child can avoid the service by not going to public school.
So, it is only "voluntary" in the same sense that studying math is "voluntary." Here I've been telling my niece all these years that she *has to* do her math homework. That'll teach her to trust us lying Republicans. Obama for Freedom!!
I also wonder if some would believe Obama if he said "No, of course not! I never meant for this to be mandatory!"
And conversely, I wonder if Obama’s defenders might parse a statement like "In my judgment, this program must be made compulsory" into oblivion.]
A great many private schools have service requirements for graduation. Now, attending private school is voluntary, but it's voluntary for the parents, certainly not for the students. Much like public school, in fact.
It's worse than that. Obama is going to make children get Islamic, gay abortions.
I find this video pathetic, because there is no cause for anyone to praise this man like he's some great hero, and because it's generally offensive for parents to coax their children into doing things that would ordinarily rely on adult judgment that the children aren't yet capable of exercising, like deciding who to vote for in an election.
However, I find it equally pathetic that you would post this without also posting something like the video of that bizarre session where Muthee prays for Sarah Palin to be protected from witchcraft and receive campaign donations! What's weirder about this one than that one? Oh, yes: this one gives you an opportunity to bang your tired old drum again about Obama's "forced service" plan.
First, you fail to acknowledge that service learning actually involves learning, much less that the learning involved could be more valuable than doing other kinds of classroom activities or homework. In short, you might as well be screeching that Obama is requiring all our kids to spend 50 hours being forced--FORCED, you say--to do story problems in math class!
Second, you're trumping up these claims of "mandatory" service by interpreting a few remarks Obama has made in speeches in a way that's not compatible with his published statements about the service plan. His optimistic remarks about reaching a goal, you insist are a fait accompli. The important questions here are simply whether it's a good idea to tie federal funding to a school's development of a service learning program, and whether Obama's plans for developing service corps and incentives for college students are too far-reaching. I might even agree with you on the answers to those questions, were the premises not so absurd and hysterically presented. It's basically just shameless partisanship at this point, and no concern for an honest look at more serious issues.
Actually, I think your first thought was that this was an Obama video:
And then there's this:
So you are just offering this video up for giggles - not asserting it has anything to do with whether or not one should vote for or against Obama? Okay.
Why? Because it proves that Obama is some crazy Dear Leader that will mandate worship of him, fostering a cult of personality mandated as part of his governing philosophy?
Because seeing children sing praise of a candidate is a sign of something more sinister at work? Because a mediocre detective fiction writer says it creeps him out?
Frankly, if you wrote such analysis and connections on a law school exam, you would get an F.
Next was the Presidential like seal on his podium.
Next was the new Logo for his plane (no real problem with it)
Next they made up a special salute for Obama's followers. Arms raised over the head with the hands forming an O for Obama. When was the last time a canidate had his own salute???? When was the first time???
Next came the convention speach with that stage and 80K people in the stands and on the field. Never before had anyone even considered doing such a thing.
Next was the Obama GOLD COIN with 'President of the United States' on it and a picture of Obama from one of the Posters.
Next Obama has used threating letters to TV and Radio stations to try an get adds pulled because he doesn't like what they say. In what other election has this happened?? So much for Freedom of Speach
Next Prosecuters in St. Louis said they would crimmally prosecute for libel anybody spreading Lies about Obama (and JUST Obama). You know TV and Radio adds Obama's people say are lies (go look at the lettes they sent). So much for Freedom of Speach, again.
Last is this video. Notice the FLAG in the background. It has the logo from Obama's plane on it. As far as this being just a few parents getting together, have you looked at who was there to manage the the video, film the video, etc, etc. Notice how at one point the children raise their arms over their heads. Their hands are comming together but ALL of them are off screen. You think they MIGHT be making the Obama salute (arms above their head, fingers forming an O). Even the people filming this KNEW that was to far.
None of these as single events are bad. Somebody made posters up. Obama didn't. Someone made the gold coins. Obama didn't. Some people made the video. Obama didn't. But what if he DID????
Put these all together and they show a pattern, a very frightening pattern, that has been seen before.
With Ainsky(SP), Ayers and other marxists as a BIG part of Obama's background this pattern doesn't look like an accident. If in another country we saw an election with a canidate like Obama with the above things happening what would EVERYBODY with a brain think??? No matter what the canidate was saying.
Be afraid, very afraid.
It was extremely unpopular with the students, and since most of us put it off towards senior year, we all griped and moaned about it and found weasely low-effort ways to get our hours.
If this plan ever actually got enacted in the form that people here are positing, it wouldn't last long. I doubt it'd get enacted at all. There'd be way too many voters unhappy with having to constantly nag their kids into service, and they'd be quick to register their disapproval with their representatives.
Rearrange it?! I don't know what that means, but I am pretty sure I don't want to find out.
And Hitler.
As my Dad says, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
You seem to be obsessed with the utter triviality that only the hardest core of hard core partisans search out and push on others in the days and months leading up to elections. The move is simple: find the weirdest, strangest, most disturbing thing that can be associated with the other side, put it out there as if it is representative of who they are or what they believe, and then demand that they answer for it (see your comment at 5:56). This is exactly what Olberman, Maddow, O'Reilly and Hannity do every night.
It's obviously an absurd tactic from a substance perspective, but it serves the partisan purpose of distracting people from the real issues and whipping into a frenzy those with whom you already agree. It's beneath a university professor.
Great. Now Obama is going to force poets to do mandatory community service. Damn you Barack Obama!
as angry as the tone in with these types of comments tends to be, i am quite surprised that (to my knowledge) fisticuffs have never been threatened.
as angry as the tone in these types of comments tends to be
Well, before last week anyway.
My favorite part is where Jim says: "There are several indications in his remarks that Obama (or his staffers) had read my criticisms." Hubris much? No one read your comments. Trust and believe that.
Also, assuming the community service is mandatory. Who cares? There is no fundamental right to public education. The school can cut its funding if it wants to. Were you a huge critic of No Child Left Behind which has drastically devastated our educational system based on Bush's weak ideas of how pedagogy? Talk to K-12 educators and you will be hard-pressed to find one who thinks that funding-based "incentive" program is working.
Obama's program mandates volunteering, let's say, though I imagine he is using the stronger language to make it sound like it is strongly encouraged. I mean, who buys the "optional" books in law school?
Importantly, it doesn't say for what organization you have to volunteer (so, it's neutral). You can volunteer for your church, the NRA, or Young Republicans. That amount of volunteering is probably the minimum anyone needs to get into a good college anyway.
Stop trying to paint this out as some type of slavery. You just sound foolish.
I would venture to guess you don't know many university professors.
absolutely no conflict of interest there.
I propose if we're going to volunteer people for community service, everyone should be affected, i.e. if there was no requirement for you to do it when you were in high school, you should be required to do it before your license is renewed. I mean, we're all part of the community, right? And driving is optional, so it's still voluntary.
Some would argue that make-believe god who remains in the realm of make-believe is far less dangerous than a make-believe god who suddenly becomes embodied in the form of a viable presidential candidate.
Did you notice the ENDING???
I AM NOT THINKING OF HITLER!!!!
This has nothing to do with Godwin's Law.
Answer the question.
I cleaned it up because I don't want you or anyone else thinking that I am putting you down.
You don't see the pattern?? With Obama's background the pattern fits.
Before Obama if anyone said that a canidate like Obama was POSSIBLE people would have laughed. If you had told them about the things I wrote, they would have conisidered you out of your mind. Tell me that is FALSE.
The pattern exists. There is NO question about it. The pattern fits the teaching of Ainsky(sp) and other marxists. Obama's background taught him the pattern. HE may not have put the things together but he will sure use them.
You can call me paranoid but such a pattern and such a canidate in an AMERICAN election should make one paranoid!
AND I don't give a SH!T that he is BLACK.
That wasn't my first reaction, but I'll play along.
Yes.
I find all displays of singing children disturbing, so I wouldn't inflict them on anyone. Unless, of course, you think this makes some point that's indispensable enough to justify all the gagging. But you disclaimed that view, saying, "I don’t think that some over-the-top behavior by Obama supporters is a significant reason to vote for or against either presidential candidate in November."
So the question is, why did you post the video and Roger Simon's commentary, when the natural implication is that there's some meaningful association between Obama and this isolated, unauthorized video by one of his (anonymous?) supporters? You seem to disclaim that association, but that leaves only that that you posted it because, as you said, it's not as bad as Obama's plan to conscript America's children into forced labor. Well, that's certainly more probative than prejudicial.
I'm sorry, but this question is sillier than any response I can muster, snarky or not. Are you really asking anyone to explain why they don't find something disturbing? I'd just point out that the only commenter (as of this writing) who had anything complimentary to say about the video was not an Obama supporter. And I'd add that most of the criticism you're getting on this thread is not about the video, but about your position on the service program and, implicitly, your use of this video to flog that point yet again.
Nonetheless, though I did play along, I don't object to your posting the video. I've consistently defended every VC blogger's right to post whatever they want, for whatever purpose, explicit or covert. And in your case I've gone further. I defended you against the tirade of accusations of bias, at least while they were originating alternately from both sides. But now I'd have to say I think the ship has sailed on your ability to credibly claim you're still an objective, unbiased commentator on these matters.
I've been reading "Change We Can Believe In" -- quite good btw -- and Obama considers education through college to be a right, not a priviledge. You can't do higher education without finishing the lower. So by Obama's own standards, he wants students to be denied a right if they don't do service. When the government makes the right to vote, marry, own property, work, or express oneself conditional we all see it as a pretty heavy form of coersion and not just an incentive. We might not all call it "force", but would anybody quibble with those who did?
On the other hand, the statement "students are forced to learn multiplication tables" would be at least odd-sounding, even assuming those are still taught.
On the other other hand (my cube-mate's hand, don't tell him, I'm supposed to be working) I often hear pro-labor arguments based on the premise that employers force employees to, say, work through breaks or in unsafe conditions. There is not, usually, any threat of violence backing up this coersion, it's just a condition for keeping the job. Is this use of "force" OK?
(This assumes Obama wants the states to make service a condition of graduation, which not everybody accepts, but there seems to be a consensus)
I AM NOT THINKING OF HITLER!!!!
You meant the Anti-Christ?
Remember that YouTube is owned by Google, and Google's totally in the tank for Obama and other left-wing causes.
It is the parents that puzzle me and scare me the most.
That they put this much hope and trust in Obama is truly bizzare. Why exactly do they think their lives will be so much better under Obama. What exactly is so unbearable about their lives today that Obama will eliminate? I'm not sure what they think he is promising that is great enough to cause them to praise him and get ga-ga over him. What causes this kind of outright worship? Jesus promises eternal life in paradise. if you believe that, I can see why you'd worship..But what is Obama promising that is taht great?
The depression that is going to set in on this crowd when they realize a few years from now that nothing much really will change is going to be tremendous.
Suicide epidemic in 2010.
Or, when we will stop beating our wives?
Sheesh, when you ask a question like that, the assumption that you are making is that the video IS disturbing, and you must a nuts to think otherwise. As another person stated, it's pretty hard to explain why something isn't disturbing, because that's pretty much the norm.
But if you want to go into disturbing behavior, you should live in Washington for a few months. Hardly summer goes by when we don't see abortion protestors on capitol Hill with graphic images of aborted fetuses, and little children, just like the ones in your video, are holding them up. But I guess that's okay, because it's not about Obama.
So, Jim, if you don't find that disturbing, WHY NOT?
There is more than one kind of 'forcing'. Let's say I take your parents' money and promise to give it back to you, in the form of college tuition, if and only if you do what I say (in this case, give me 50 hours/year for 6 - 7 years. That's a form of coersion, is it not?
Presidential campaign coins date way back:
Coins
So do songs about the candidate:
Songs
Songs
Abraham Lincoln even put his face on the American Flag!!
Lincoln Flags
I dunno, my old man wanted me to go to a service academy so he wouldn't have to pay. Instead I went to a Catholic University where I had to pay lots of money AND do community service. TAKE THAT OLD MAN! TAKE THAT OBAMA TOO!
I showed them.
I guess you were probably an adult when you made the choice too?
That's assuming I've reached adulthood even now, some large number of years later. Which, judging by the maturity of my post, would be in doubt.
TAKE THAT LILY!
I wish the government would stop taxing stuff and paying for things!
Like the government takes my money and then gives it back to me if I do well at school. I like money, and I paid so many taxes I can't afford not to do well!
Coercion!
Mandatory volunteerism and songs extolling the virtues of the political leaders is very much like the Krasny Pioneer youth camps of the Brezhnev era when I was a high school exchange student in the Soviet Union. The adults are calling the shots and the children are just doing what they are told; not necessarily believing any of it.
From the self-admiring "open minded" set, doncha know. Telling.
One catchy ditty was:
I like Ike!
You like Ike!
Everybody likes Ike!
Of course, we weren't led by adults. We were just having fun trying to sing a song we'd heard on the radio.
Yeah, b/c there are no comments like "McSame," too old or has had cancer, 100 years of war, or anything else about McCain.
I agree that a lot of people are getting hysterical about Obama, but please don't try and act like it isn't happening on both sides.
You wrote, My first thought was that neither Obama nor his staff is responsible for this video, nor would Obama recommend such devotional singing.
Your first thought is correct, and that's what makes this whole post look desperate and pathetic. It's a big country, weird people support both candidates for weird reasons. These folks in no way represent Obama or even a noticeable portion of his supporters.
But look, you've goaded a bunch of black-helicopter fearing posters into arguing that because of this video, Obama himself is the anti-Christ / Hitler / Dear Leader. Oh, and Google and YouTube are all part of the fascist/communist conspiracy that is the Democratic Party.
I might as well ask if you, Jim, find some of the posts in this thread along those lines creepy? If not, why not? And etc.
As others have said, this is ridiculous trivia, especially given what's going on in the country. If you want to talk about mandatory service rules, fine, but it's no good for you, McCain, or anyone to stoke sick paranoia of the Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd.
If you don't find the thought disturbing, why not?
these children are too young to understand politics, relogion, philosophy, economics, or otherwise. Indoctrination at its worst with religion, and so on.
then again, Sarah Palin might be VP. perhaps children do understand this stuff afterall.
Obama has a theme song for his Civilian National Security Force.
And a nifty recruitment poster too!
Well if they're in the military and want to leave Iraq (or not get deployed there) or have relatives in that situation, I can think of one way in which they can expect their lives to get better in an Obama administration as compared to the current one.
Commentators: Hitler colored his hair, so Obama is just like Hitler!
Point is, you had a choice. You could go to a service academy. Or you could go to a Catholic Univ that required community service. Or you could go to a Public University that likely had no service requirement. You signed up. Your choice. With Obama's service plan - there does appear to be coersion given that a lot of people don't have the money to choose to opt out by attending a non-government school(depending on how his plan would be implemented, of course - I just gave a couple of possibilities)
A commenter up-thread said that he went to three different private schools during his high school years. All required a 50-100 hour service commitment. He said they almost all waited until senior year and then bitched about having to accomplish the requirement. That implies that the 50-100 hour commitment was over the four years of high school, not an annual requirement. That type might be more manageable, especially if the student doesn't procrastinate and have to do it all in the last year.
How do you see it now? American values? No leftist, anti-American propaganda?
Please.
My guess is you'd be tickled that you got it over on the rubes by lying about it. But that's just me.
Now we have the exact same groups, and the positions are exactly reversed. It’s the secular left who reject fact and embrace unsupportable faith: Now it is religious people, often labeled conservative or right wing, who claim that some level of evidence –some degree of factual record— is needed to make an informed decision.
The video doesn't disturb me as it does Lindgren. IMO it will have no lasting impression or effect —good or bad— on the kids.
Far more disturbing are the adult attitudes; that politics is a belief or a matter of feelings, that hope and faith are worth voting on.
Someone upthread mentioned the idea that some kid mowing an elderly neighbor's lawn would be ok with them. Whatever gives you the idea that that would even be an option? This is a plan involving the federal government and educational bureaucracies nationwide. Does anyone honestly believe there would not be standards and regulations, forms to fill out and certify that Washington's requirements were met, not to mention some type of proof of work completed? If there wasn't, it would be the first time in history THAT didn't happen. And then there will need to be definitions to ensure the system is not gamed.
What exactly is meant by "community service"? Is it really as simple as mowing lawns for the elderly? Will it still count if the elderly person slips the kid a few dollars? How about passing out information from Planned Parenthood about birth control? What about church groups? (What about separation of church and state?) The Mormons, for example, have a very effective and large social service organization. Will their children be allowed to count hours spent there, or will the church have to agree to a list of demands about its policies in order for them to count? Is political work by definition community service? If so, what if some student wants to promote some extremist group? And how about the Boy Scouts? They are notoriously anti-gay and much opposition to them using public accommodations has been ginned up over the years. Will community work under the auspices of the Boy Scouts be allowed to count or will it be unrecognized because they are not authorized to participate? Who will oversee this to ensure fairness in granting approval for all the groups that will have to participate or risk losing their volunteers?
Is it unreasonable to ask for some clarification from Obama? I don't think so. For example, it is unclear if he plans to ask Congress to vote on this concept or believes he can accomplish this by executive order. Some of you think this is minor. It is hard to believe something that will involve tens of millions of our nation's children is minor. I agree with Obama, community service is a worthy goal. I disagree that institutionalizing, codifying, regulating, mandating and ultimately coercing it is the proper function of the federal government.
Teaching kids to sing lots of songs about a dead Jewish guy: good.
Teaching kids to sing about a live black guy: bad.
The "make-believe god who remains in the realm of make-believe" doesn't bother anyone. The problem is that the "make-believe god" has non-make-believe followers, who do things like accept a blessing to be protected from "witchcraft" (video) and then go on to become "a viable [vice-]presidential candidate." Some would argue that this is far more dangerous than a few kids singing.
If you watch the long version, you can also catch the part about "the wealth of the wicked," and about "the Israelites, that's how they work. And that's how they are, even today." Maybe a President Palin could enlist the witchcraft guy to help out with the wicked Israelites on Wall St.
And then there's what she said to a named witness on the subject of dinosaurs.
And then there's her much-overlooked proclamation of "Christian Heritage Week," which "plucks Founding Father quotes out of context to give misleading impressions about their views on the role of religion in society."
Yup, those kids singing sure are scary.
I guess what Volokh_Guest said earlier is worth mentioning again:
I want to know if Lindgren, kimsch et al find it disturbing to see a bunch of kids who appear to be worshipping a cardboard figure of George W. Bush.
Do you know how to do a google site search? You might enjoy the following exercise. Search this site for "mcsame." Make sure to remove the references that are like yours. Then search for "odumbo." If you have a chance, report back.
Actually, no "Prosecuters in St. Louis said they would crimmally prosecute for libel anybody spreading Lies about Obama." (And you would know that if you pay close attention to the VC threads on that subject, here and here.) But you are indeed "spreading Lies about Obama." Nice job with the irony!
jerry:
When reading this thread, all readers should think of the fact that some people write comments that are divorced from reality and simply serve the purpose of "spreading Lies about Obama."
A video explaining that your claim is dishonest is here. It's been viewed over a million times. Another helpful video is here. If you're interested in lots of details, see the VC thread on this subject.
That's from here.
I wonder if presenting a 3-day old special-needs infant to press photographers, which very quickly led to headlines glorifying her anti-abortion decision, would be considered "using children to promote political positions."
maviva:
simon:
Do all these folks really not remember the George W. Bush "Our Leader" billboard? As far as I know, it was in a place where kids could see it, and I'm going to guess that the number of kids who saw it exceeds the number of kids who are singing in the video.
lindgren:
1. Did you find that billboard disturbing?
2. If you did, then why wouldn't people want to know about it? (As far as I can tell, it was never noted here.)
3. If you don't find that billboard disturbing, why not?
Good point! I find it especially "disturbing" that when examining Reagan's speeches, we find that he repeatedly makes reference to "hope" and "faith."
That's why "disturbing" is one of the first words I think of when I think of Reagan.
But I'm awfully glad the GOP doesn't treat politics as "a matter of feelings." If they did, they would put lots of energy into trying to exploit fear. Of course the GOP would never do a thing like that. And even if they did, inciting fear is morally superior to inciting hope, right?
By God you're RIGHT! Choice is such a neat thing in it's outcomes. I chose to go to fancy private Catholic university. And while the good Caths were at Mass being told what to sing and believe and worshiping the word of a book that condones selling children into slavery, I got to loot most of the campus, thereby doing my community service AND paying for school all at the same time. TAKE THAT CATHOLICS! Oh well, off to confession for me.
JUST LIKE OBAMA. He's going to take away all choice, and turn America all to fascism with teh g4ys running the Faith Based Initiatives while you're all watching funny videos of singing children. TAKE THAT WORLD!
I see what you mean about choice. One man's ceiling is another man's floor I guess. TAKE THAT FLOOR!
As an atheist attending one of those private Christian schools, I have yet to see anything approaching this level of creepiness. We're "forced" (not really) to sing stuff like "Holy Spirit, come into our lives/Holy Spirit, make us truly wise." Certainly more euphonious to the ear than that cacophony that the composer thought constituted harmony, and the content is no more provocative than saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I think there's a slightly deeper problem with your post, though. I find it strange to compare devotional songs about Obama to devotional songs about a deity who supposedly created the entire universe. The two subjects are obviously incompatible.
That pretty well sums it up.
A variation on this is to quote York quoting a lie told by the McCain campaign. And then to say nothing when the lie is highlighted. See here and here.
Of course, the singing is really the doing of the children's parents. If the parents were die-hard Republicans, maybe the kids would be chanting some slogans while running through a boot camp-type obstacle course - perhaps to the tune of a certain Beach Boys song..
Get over it Lindgren.
[that said, last night I peeked at the white power site Stormfront for the first time out of curiosity from a comment I read on Metafilter. I see a strange connection to the general logic and theme of many threads on this blog - although Volokh posters tend to spell a little better.]
I watched the video. I was struck by the polish and skill in choral singing that the kids displayed. They were pretty good for a local pickup group of kids that age. The conducting style of the woman who led them reminded me of Anoushka Shankhar. The blissed out parents looked like any others I've seen whose kids delivered a reasonably good musical performance.
I have no idea what the origin of the music was, but I would guess someone composed it to promote the Obama campaign. It was OK but not spectacular. The lyrics were sappy, not unusual for campaign jingles.
People, especially locally, do all kinds of oddball things in political campaigns. Apparently somebody organized a children's choral group to sing some Obama campaign songs. I don't see what the big deal is.
Wake me when there's video of some kids goose stepping and singing L'Internationale, Die Wacht am Rhein, or even the Garryowen.
The video is certainly gringe inducing but the people who have made a "big deal" about it are the ones who have almost literally swarmed in, like a militant colony of insecta, to protect Obama's image and his "enthusiastic" supporters against any alien, contrary, subversive thought.
The fact the video can stylistically and in a very modest sense in general be compared to something like this or this does not inherently suggest the social/political dynamics surrounding the two videos are equivalent. The only people forwarding that strawman hyperbole are those joining in with the swarm, advancing against any perceived subversive threat and knocking down the exaggerated strawman. The video is still cringe inducing however and it would be cringe inducing if the object had been RR or FDR or any other American politician.
And all this is taking place in an atmosphere where videos like this are being studiously ignored altogether by much the same people.
Priorities, and what they reveal.
In this thread alone, 'jukeboxgrad' posts ten times (certainly not the only one) serially, not once in defense or reasoning, but every time by attacking others. The first 'jukeboxgrad' comment viciously rips this nations' majority religion; if anything furthering the idea of religious adulation of a new Chicago politician. It is disturbing.
At this count only a single Obama supporter has engaged the subject. Some are engaged in counter-attacks, but the majority are trying to simply drown out an undesired statement. If half (against evidence) the comments are not Obama supporters, the ratio of irrational Obama worshippers to rational defenders is 70:1
So yes, Lindgren is correct; it's creepy. Creepier, its from supporters of a guy that wants involuntary servitude.
So I guess sports fans are also creepy.
We're not looking to the >insert favorite team / player here< for salvation.
I think people are watching too many horror movies if they find everything else creepy. To change the subject, how's McCain doing these days? Is he going to suspend his campaign again to save it?
I couldn't agree more completely. The latter, for example -- creepy as it is in this case -- could at least be rational, maybe, under some scenarios. The former -- not so much.
The Presidency is too important for there to be fans, but sports are not, I guess?
Why can't politics be fun for the whole family too?]
Just for the hell of it:
Appearances of the word "libtard" at stormfront: 24.
Appearances of the word "libtard" at VC: 10.
Appearances of the word "odumbo" at stormfront: 3.
Appearances of the word "odumbo" at VC: 25.
Appearances of the word "mcsame" at stormfront: 14.
Appearances of the word "mcsame" at VC: 8.
Appearances of the exact phrase "barack hussein obama" at stormfront: 2860.
Appearances of the exact phrase "barack hussein obama" at VC: 55.
Appearances of the word "rezko" at stormfront: 27.
Appearances of the word "rezko" at VC: 65.
Appearances of the exact phrase "jeremiah wright" at stormfront: 200.
Appearances of the exact phrase "jeremiah wright" at VC: 80.
Thanks for giving us such a nice example of paralipsis.
You are often unintentionally funny, but this takes the cake. You're suggesting that only an Obama supporter engaged in "knocking down the exaggerated strawman" would compare the Obama-kids-singing video to the two videos you cited in your paralipsis (Cabaret and Mao). But those two exact videos were indeed cited by Ed Morrisey, in exactly the way you claimed they are not being cited: to promote the idea that "the social/political dynamics surrounding the two videos are equivalent."
And Lindgren pointed this out explicitly, in his opening post:
Morissey compares the Obama video to the Cabaret video as follows:
And just to make sure we get the point, Lindgren points to Instapundit who points to this, where we again are presented with the exact Mao video you cited, and a couple of others a lot like it.
Very interesting. These are "obvious comparisons," which "immediately came to mind," because Hitler's "youth movement … promised to do the same" as Obama's. But that's not trying to "suggest the social/political dynamics surrounding the two videos are equivalent." Thanks for clearing that up.
As McCain's Intrade numbers get closer and closer to zero, Obama Derangement Syndrome is going to escalate proportionally.
LOL -- Touche'!
Nice job, guys.
The Obama supporters on this thread seem quite planted to me. My evidence of this is how they are wrong, but keep posting. No one would do this unless they were shills.
This is quite unlike the Obama detractors, whose words smack of truth and sincerity, and bear repeating. I thank them for their service to arguing on the internets.
Let me be clear: If Obama's service initiative were to truly become mandatory (defined as you MUST do it), then I would be opposed to it. But aside from an isolated comment in a speech, I see no evidence that under his proposal service will be mandatory. Rather, I think this is an opportunity for the rightwingers like Lindgren, Reynolds, Simon, etc. to do their best to compare Obama to Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc. It's a useful tactic (strategy?). It's proven effective.
But I find it dishonest and unfortunate. As a simple matter of grammer, the use of federal funds to incentivize conduct by the states is not "mandatory." I don't deny it's probably rare, and don't have the time or research accumen to find it, but I would wager that some states have declined some federal funds because they did not want to follow the requested course of action from the fed gov't. If someone has some proof that I'm wrong on that wager, please cite so. But if I AM right, then nothing was mandated of those states that declined the federal funds. As such, the tying of federal funds to conduct is not mandatory.
Someone above called me the pot calling the kettle black for pointing out Lindgren's pre-determined conclusion with all things Obama. Maybe so. I certainly think Obama would be the better president. However, as I said above, if Obama's service initiative truly turned out to be mandatory in the sense that no child could go to school at all without "volunteering," I would not only be against that, I would be against the man who proposed. But that's not what was proposed.
So when I say that Lindgren is entering these issues with his mind made up, I don't think my commentary shows similar dishonesty. I don't hate John McCain. I just disagree with him. And, as an example, I would never accuse him of wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 years because I know that when he said that he really meant he envisioned bases in a non-violent Iraq just like we have in Japan and Germany. Making such accusations would be a dishonest interepretation of what the man said -- just the kind of analysis Lindgren seems to bring to every concerned-troll post of his these days.
Finally, please allow me to provide another "disturbing" YouTube video of Obama supporters -- this time rapping for their candidate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgkbQOd-aic.
It's called Grandmama's for Obama. A bunch of Jewish grandmothers from the North Shore of Chicago doing a rap song. My mother is one of them. Can't wait for the Lindgren post ridiculing it and her.
Seniors for Stalin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been tired, for a long, long, time, of hearing this. Jesus (as described by Christians) claimed to be the son of God. Someone who claims to be Jewish but thinks Jesus is the son of God is called a "Christian". This makes Jesus himself a Christian for the same reason that Jews for Jesus are Christians.
It isn't "if you think Jesus is the son of God, you're a Christian, unless you yourself are Jesus".
Your irony impairment is severe. First you make a big fuss about the number of people who are expressing a certain belief, as if there must be something inherently disreputable about a certain perspective, if a 'swarm' of people are expressing it.
In the same breath, you say this:
Here you adopt the perspective that if a "majority" adopts a certain belief, then this in itself is an indication of the moral superiority of that belief. Right? If that's not what you're trying to say, then what's relevant about "majority?"
Logical consistency isn't exactly your greatest strength. And speaking of logic, it would be nice if you lifted a finger to explain your "self-appointed" basis for deciding which posts are "irrational" vs. "rational." Because all you've offered on that score is a bald declaration, with a complete absence of evidence or logic.
And you should explain what you mean by "viciously rips." I said Christians teach their kids to sing lots of songs about a dead Jewish guy. How is this "viciously rips?" It's a simple expression of fact. It's 100% true. If that's what you call "viciously rips," then I hope you don't get upset when Muslims get upset because, say, a Koran is defaced. If you think that non-religious people should walk on eggshells when near religious people, I hope you apply that idea universally.
I made a statement about Reagan and the GOP, and the way they have exploited both positive and negative emotion. Instead of making even a pretense of addressing this, you're simply repeating your talking points. This is further evidence that you're not interested in evidence.
I'm sincerely interested in what you're trying to say, but that's much too convoluted for me to follow. I think I have an easier time grasping the details of the bailout package.
A few years ago I watched a documentry on Jim Jones. This video reminded me a lot of his followers.
Thank goodness no one ever looked to Dubya "for salvation." That's why we've never seen a book called "The Messiah: The Chosen One; Republican; Hon. George W. Bush, President of the United States of America."
And thank goodness Bush never encouraged that sort of thing. After all, he never said anything like this:
I just read Mein Kampf, and the english version uses the word "the" a lot, just like your post!!!
Just for the hell of it:
Appearances of the word "libtard" at stormfront: 24.
Appearances of the word "libtard" at VC: 10.
Appearances of the word "odumbo" at stormfront: 3.
Appearances of the word "odumbo" at VC: 25. ***
That reminds me. What ever happened to McCain's effort to get people to spread his talking points on blogs?
It certainly doesn't seem like a suicide cult. No one is cutting themselves off from the outside world or giving up worldly possessions here.]
It's 100% correct to point out that McCain envisions staying in Iraq for 100 years. It's only a misrepresentation to claim that McCain envisions fighting a war in Iraq for 100 years. The latter is what Obama said, twice. And then he stopped saying it.
The video is here. Here are the words:
The word the commenter used ("staying") is exactly the word that appeared in the question McCain was answering.
I just saw a video of kids singing about Obama, and that's "just like" kids singing about Hitler and Mao, so Obama is "just like" Hitler and Mao!!!
Pot kettle black, much?
I hope you're proud of the fact that the word "odumbo" is easier to find at VC than at stormfront.
I presume in good faith that this is not the only association you've made between a real-life event and the book (or movie) 1984 over the last eight years.
You forgot about this:
What's really creepy is the number of people like you who have nothing to say about a video that clearly portrays "indoctrinating children to worship" George W. Bush.
You've obviously never been to Boston in October when the Sox are playing. You ever heard of Bill Buckner?
TAKE THAT BASEBALL!
As far as sports teams, I grew up near and attended the University of Michigan. The devotion to that team, and by others to the other good state school, does get crazy at times.
Happyshooter dude, people act similarly about sports teams, or celebrities. This doesn't seem terribly special or troubling.
It certainly doesn't seem like a suicide cult. No one is cutting themselves off from the outside world or giving up worldly possessions here.]
I use "obamessia", during my sarcastic streaks.
Ann Coulter uses B Hussien Obama which is funny, but I think misses the point that the worship of him is like a church leader or even Jesus, not a muslim sort of ruler.
I would mind very much. I do have a problem with the proposal for the federal government to get deeply involved in mandating (or strongly pushing) a certain curriculum. I expect I would have a lot of criticism of Obama's actual proposals, should they come to pass someday.
On the other hand, if schools around the nation wanted to institute service learning programs because they have found--based on study and evidence--that it enhances academics, I think it's a fabulous idea. The reason I keep spitting into the wind on these threads is that I really don't understand the violent opposition to service learning, given all the empirical evidence that it's useful for helping younger kids learn basic subjects, and older kids/adults with more specific career preparation. Of course, I've since realized that the hatred and misunderstanding of service learning is really just a purely partisan play. I am merely trying to fly the flag for something that seems to be a useful way of educating kids.
There is no swarm of people, there is a swarm of postings. For instance, the Obamabot called 'jukeboxgrad' accounts for 10% of total (173) postings. You believe shouting louder than anyone else is 'winning the debate'.
Your other point is wrong also, the Obamessiah posts aren't expressing 'a certain perspective', they are expressing any subject except what Lindgren posted about: Obama's proposed mandatory service for children.
Jukeboxgrad continues:"Here you adopt the perspective that if a "majority" adopts a certain belief, then this in itself is an indication of the moral superiority of that belief. Right?
Wrong. The point was A)you were babbling to fill space, trying to distract from Obama's statements about mandatory service, and B)willing to offend, shock, or be rude to a huge percentage of Americans in order to distract from discussing the subject: Obama's proposal to force children into government work.
It would be creepy, except I realize you believe shouting over another person is 'winning the debate'.
You said "... if schools around the nation wanted to institute service learning programs because they have found--based on study and evidence--that it enhances academics, I think it's a fabulous idea. ... given all the empirical evidence that it's useful ... a useful way of educating kids"
Can you point us to some of that 'study and evidence'? Not to data that shows working on a car engine or computer assists learning about car engines or computers; evidence that shows arranging shelves at the Food Bank makes for better academic performance. We are waiting.
Then, failing that (since there is no such evidence) you can take on Lindgren's central points that the concept is Constitutionally suspect.
I agree, the church video of Bush is just as creepy as the Obama video. Sorry, I didn't know the video was out there or I would have included it in my comment. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
However, I don't think it negates my comment. I worry about any kind of "cult of personality" worship for political leaders and candidates. It's why I'm glad we pledge an oath to the US Constitution, not to individuals, here in America.
The oppression of Boring-Americans marches on...
"The thing that scares me most"
As with those who claim to be "terrified" of Palin: pull yourself together, man (or woman)! If you need something to be scared of, try the financial markets, or, you know, a nukooler Iran.
This rising generation is likely to be engaged in civic life like none since the Greatest Generation. In this country, civics includes political engagement. So far, they're breaking left. If this doesn't make you happy, get busy convincing them otherwise. Fear isn't persuasive.
Which, per current polls is half the country or more. Why do you hate Americans?
Yes. Pew just reported that McCain leads in only one age bracket: 65+. And Obama has a huge lead with people under 30.
=======================
Yes. And the followup question: why do you especially hate young Americans?
And why do you hate apple pie? And the Gays. It's all liberal bias in the media anyway.
You seem to hate the world. If you don't find your own behavior disturbing, why not?
Granted, a few more JukeBoxSpams, and things could even out quickly...
The specific evidence I've seen suggests that service learning improves performance both in particular subject areas and in tests of basic competency. I've looked at several of the following, though to be fair I have not personally reviewed every one of these studies that show positive effects on academics; some were included on a source list I had when looking into this in the past: Weiler 1998, Anderson 1991, Shumer 1994, Shaffer 1993, Dean, O’Bannon 1999, Follman 1999, Supik 1996, Rolzinski 1990, Stephens 1995. You can also tell by the 90's dates that I could do a better job of getting current titles.
Other studies have shown that participation in service learning has a positive impact on behavioral issues--i.e. students less likely to be sent to the office for behavioral problems, to be involved in such incidents and risk behaviors: Stephens 1995, Yates and Youniss 1996, Follman 1997 &1998, Melchior 1999, Allen 1994, Shaffer 1993. I honestly am not enough of an expert to rate the quality of all the evidence on this subject, but as an amateur I at least find sufficient evidence that I take seriously the potential of service learning to help kids learn and to help them succeed in school overall.
If you disagree about that, it's fine, but at least give a fair hearing to the issue. As far as your demand that I "take on Lindgren's central points that the concept is Constitutionally suspect", I'm not sure I entirely disagree with him. The best method of encouraging a good educational practice is simply to get the evidence out there and encourage local districts to adopt it. I don't know that the federal govt. should have a big role, though I'm okay with a lesser degree of incentive programs or support for research. I do think programs like Americorps, Teach for America, etc. have been effective and positive.
Frankly, I don't see anyone arguing these issues, though. I just see that on this site we should reject service learning now because it's modern day enslavement of our children encouraged by the Wrong candidate for president. That seems like a pretty intellectually dishonest way to get your partisan jabs in, and it's so tiresome after all these several posts on the same topic, with no deeper look at the issue. Don't profs run this site, anyway?
Thank you for your gracious response. The person to thank is Volokh_Guest, who first mentioned that video in this thread. I think it's helpful to notice that even though it's been mentioned in this thread several times, almost no one has spoken up to condemn it. This tends to indicate that the faux outrage over the Obama video "is really just a purely partisan play" (to borrow Suzy's perfectly apt language).
I also notice that no one has said anything about the "Our Leader" Bush billboard that was mentioned. Or Bush's comment about how "I feel like God wants me to run for President." If Obama used those exact words, the firestorm over it would be overwhelming.
Agreed. But some degree of it should be considered normal and unsurprising, in almost any campaign. Also, Obama's candidacy is truly historic. Also, he's following someone who is arguably the least popular president ever. Also, he is unquestionably a charismatic and inspiring politician. This is clear when I run into commenters on righty blogs who begrudgingly compare him to Reagan. Given all these factors, it's unsurprising that he would generate intense enthusiasm. Big fucking deal. The comparisons to Mao and Hitler are so transparently bogus that they are self-destructive.
Keep hope alive.
If you actually have a substantive criticism of anything I've said, you should let us in on the secret and tell us what it is. Your peculiar relationship with reality became very obvious here.
I seem to recall that Lindgren also said something about a video. Maybe that was my imagination.
Yes, Lindgren also raised the subject of "proposed [allegedly] mandatory service for children." What a surprise. He and others here have been beating that dead horse incessantly (like here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). As far as I can tell, his latest post on this subject said nothing that has not already been said by him and others, ad nauseum. Maybe you find it fascinating to discuss that same baloney over and over again. I don't.
On the other hand, with regard to the video he mentioned, that's been discussed on this many prior threads at VC: zero. That's why I found that aspect more interesting. You don't like that? Too bad. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read this thread, or any particular comment in this thread. Maybe you need help learning how to operate your scroll bar.
You ignored the question the first time I asked it, which is enough to indicate that you lack the intellectual integrity to attempt a straight answer to a simple question. Nevertheless, I'll ask the question again: what about my statement was offensive, shocking, or rude?
It's very simple.
Someone who believes that Jesus is the son of God is a Christian, not a Jew.
Jesus believed that Jesus is the son of God. This makes Jesus a Christian.
Please stop calling him a Jew.
The only reason what I wrote sounded complicated is that I was trying to word it carefully so as to avoid getting nitpicked on technicalities (yes, Jesus is still ethnically Jewish; yes, I know that not everyone thinks Jesus claimed those things; etc.)