The ballgame's been over for an hour or so (Red Sox win, 6-1, on Jon Lester's 7 strong and Victor Martinez's ongoing and much-appreciated campaign for a contract extension), and so my local brewhouse has the CBS Evening News on while they try to find the next sporting event to put up on the plasmas. Of course, as I said to my friendly bartender upon signing my bill, keeping the news on all night would be a hell of a way to boost sales.
It was, though, an enlightening reminder of why I don't bother with the network news anymore (beyond having a funky work/class schedule that doesn't really allow it). Giant headlines, of the "GROWING CONTROVERSY!!!" variety, all having to do with the president's highly questionable decision to videotape a speech for broadcast to schoolchildren. The lone non-pundit they speak to on the subject? A dude in a diner somewhere in Florida, wearing an "Operation Iraqi Freedom" t-shirt (odds that this fellow has actually been within 4,000 miles of Iraq: 1 in eleventy billion), declaiming that he's worried, because he doesn't want his kid "becoming a little community organizer."
Three things in response to this.
1.) Why the fuck not? In the wide realm of careers open to your child, "person who goes to low-income communities and urges them to take advantage of the democratic process" is hardly the worst. Off the top of my head, I can think of seven or eight hundred that are probably less appealing or morally defensible. I know, I know, Rudy 9/11 had that brilliant little quip at last year's RNC, and what wondrous political rhetoric it was, but all the same, can't we agree that actively fearing that your child will grow up to have an interest in the well-being of others is the slightest bit worrisome?
2.) The President of the United States has taped a speech about the importance of education, which can be shown to students in America's public schools. Let me clarify this a bit further. The President of the United States, who earned his high public office by working his ass off through high school, Columbia University, and Harvard Law, with no legacy or inheritance to fall back upon, is taking time out from jumpstarting the economy, managing two wars, and running the federal government to tell children that it's important to stay in school and commit to their education. And people are freaking out.
To listen to right-wing rhetoric on this, you'd think the man was encouraging these children to slaughter their parents, have sex on the broken corpses, abort the fetuses that result from said sex, and then sign up for the Marxist Homo-Muslim Ganja Brigades, all before using their ACORN contacts to vote sixty times apiece in the 2012 election. (Which I almost wish he were, because it'd be an actual fucking platform, but we'll get to that in the next point.)
3.) What has the White House response been to this? Since it's education-based, let's do this SAT-style:
Which of the following has been the overarching message from the White House regarding the "controversy" over President Obama's speech to schoolchildren?
A. "Dammit, you caught us. We totally were planning to brainwash your kids. We had the whole thing planned out, right down to the swirly background and the Pink Floyd soundtrack. And we would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling wingnuts."
B. "Are y'all out of your fucking minds? The President wants to tell kids to stay in school, and in your special little heads, that translates as Stalinist mind-control? Go sit in the corner. No, I'm serious, go sit in the corner until you're ready to act like grown-ups."
C. "Clearly we didn't imagine that there would be any controversy over this message, but we want to make sure that everyone knows that watching the speech is entirely voluntary, and that there will be no messages of a political nature in the speech."
If you didn't know it was C, you've been asleep since November.
No comments:
Post a Comment