Obama daughters to attend Sidwell Friends, just like Chelsea Clinton did

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think Meeker's example of the military is a great example -- should a president who believes strongly in self-sacrifice for Americans be logically required to pressure his own daughters to join the army?

I don't know about pressuring them, but it would certainly be a little hypocritical to prevent them from doing so. And I'm not sure what that has to do with education.

I wouldn't mind this story, not more than in theory anyway, if he were to express a sense of embarrassment at doing it, btw.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The demented Benthamite idea of the demented Benthamite (is there another kind?) who drew up the demented, criminal and generally evil Poor Law Amendment Act back in the 1830's. Basically, conditions in workhouses were to be worse than that of the poorest independent labourer. Which in practice meant an official policy of near-starvation.

[ucscgaldamez]

I'm starting to lose respect for Obama. I can understand his decision, yet not agree with it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Special case. I'll give him a pass on this.

[Lunar]

Special case. I'll give him a pass on this.

Pass on what?

It's a president's job to fix public schools, not to embrace them in their current state and symbolically pretend like there is nothing wrong!

[Platypus]

Special case. I'll give him a pass on this.

Pass on what?

It's a president's job to fix public schools, not to embrace them in their current state and symbolically pretend like there is nothing wrong!

Isn't education meant to be a state thing? Not that a President shouldn't work towards improving schools of course.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Special case. I'll give him a pass on this.

Pass on what?

It's a president's job to fix public schools, not to embrace them in their current state and symbolically pretend like there is nothing wrong!

My position on private schools is basically that they should be outlawed, but the points about Secret Service detail and whatnot are valid.

[Lunar]

Ok, I understand opposing private schools (barely).  But even ignoring security concerns, why should one individual politician be compelled to send his kids to public schools if his daughters live in a crappy school district?  Isn't it his moral obligation to make sure his daughters receive the best education as possible?   It is vaguely arguable that D.C. public schools would be better if private schools weren't pillaging the good students -- but that doesn't change the fact that the public schools are wholly inadequate.

Meeker makes a great point about the military.  Should Obama be faulted if he doesn't ask his girls to serve in the Army?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ok, I understand opposing private schools (barely).  But even ignoring security concerns, why should one individual politician be compelled to send his kids to public schools if his daughters live in a crappy school district?  Isn't it his moral obligation to make sure his daughters receive the best education as possible?   It is vaguely arguable that D.C. public schools would be better if private schools weren't pillaging the good students -- but that doesn't change the fact that the public schools are wholly inadequate.

Meeker makes a great point about the military.  Should Obama be faulted if he doesn't ask his girls to serve in the Army?

Like I said I'm giving him a pass. I don't see this as a valid reason to turn on him.

[Lunar]

It shouldn't be a reason to do anything!

Obama has been the most pro-voucher national Democratic politician in history, has always expressed conflict about the issue, his children CURRENTLY GO TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN ILLINOIS, has safety concerns, and the man himself went to Punohou, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard.  Has Obama ever went to a public school in his entire life besides a short period in Indonesia?  Obama might be THE most private-school-raised Democratic president in recent history.

These arguments of hypocrisy or any arguments about the subject make me sick and I'll totally wage a one-man war against all contenders.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It shouldn't be a reason to do anything!

Obama has been the most pro-voucher national Democratic politician in history, has always expressed conflict about the issue, his children CURRENTLY GO TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN ILLINOIS, has safety concerns, and the man himself went to Punohou, Columbia, and Harvard.  Has Obama ever went to a public school in his entire life besides a short period in Indonesia?  Obama might be THE most private-school-raised Democratic president in recent history.

These arguments of hypocrisy or any arguments about the subject make me sick and I'll totally wage a one-man war against all contenders.

That's the problem.

I understand the conflict, I wanted to go to a private school in the last years of high school, but my mother refused as she doesn't believe in pvt education.

I find the idea of essentially officiating a government sanctioned two-tier education system to be abhorrent. Just give up on public education.

[Lunar]

It shouldn't be a reason to do anything!

Obama has been the most pro-voucher national Democratic politician in history, has always expressed conflict about the issue, his children CURRENTLY GO TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN ILLINOIS, has safety concerns, and the man himself went to Punohou, Columbia, and Harvard.  Has Obama ever went to a public school in his entire life besides a short period in Indonesia?  Obama might be THE most private-school-raised Democratic president in recent history.

These arguments of hypocrisy or any arguments about the subject make me sick and I'll totally wage a one-man war against all contenders.

That's the problem.

I understand the conflict, I wanted to go to a private school in the last years of high school, but my mother refused as she doesn't believe in pvt education.

I find the idea of essentially officiating a government sanctioned two-tier education system to be abhorrent. Just give up on public education.

Well there's no infrastructure in place to take over for that.

I've been publicly educated all my life and, in fact, currently have gone to the best public school in the world for the past three years (UCB).  But I still think all this crap is ridiculous.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well in the end, I don't regret it.

I went to a very good public school - got a very good University entrance mark - and went to public Universities (including now the #16 ranked Uni in the world) (mind you, private Universities are pretty rare here, and will usually cause sns behind your back.... "what, he couldn't get into a public one, so he had to his way in?")

It's more about ideological issues "private is always better" rather than atually thinking about issue through.

[Lunar]

Oh do elaborate on Obama's permanent and never-flinching commitment to public schools that he and his daughters have always been committed to (since he went to exclusively American private schools and so have his daughters as far as I know, even in Chicago).

Obama's never made any pretense that his daughters should go to public schools so I don't see any wobbling here.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Honestly, I don't see the HUGE deal about this.

OK, It's hypocritical - but seriously. Why does there have to be a policy point in his every breathing moment.

[Lunar]

At best the hypocrisy is moderate, self-created, and negligible.

[opebo]

Wait, clarification please...people want the government to pay for poorer people tp send their kids to private schools? I;ve neer really undersood this vouchers thing.

Working class families should have the same educational opportunities that wealthy Americans, like Obama, have.  Why should the rich be able to send their kids to better schools than the poor?

What the hell are you, htmldon?  A communist?

[Lunar]

He's a communist when it gives him a knee-jerk ability to insult Obama.

Rest-assured, if Obama had decided to send his children to a public school (even though he had been sending them to a private school in Chicago previously), Htmldon would have accused him of putting his children's safety and education behind his own political aims.

Honestly, I have no respect for anyone that goes for this.  Keep doing it though.  It's what your hackish instinct says to do, don't disobey it!  Can't disobey the hack!  Can't stop won't stop!

[Bono]

Lunar, the article you cite doesn't show Obama as in favour of vouchers. It's like a 90% opposition of vouchers instead of 100%.

What he says is "if this is great, I'm for it, I doubt it is, but if it is I will agree that it is"

...which is like, nothing.

I don't blame him, of course. He would be a horrible person to sacrifice his own children for political principles. On the other hand, that shows exactly why the principles he has are so abominable.

To me, this is not bad in itself but it serves to highlight why his position is so horrible.

I will also note that the other examples cited aren't really equivalents. If Obama said that everyone should be forced to live in poor houses it would be hypocritical for him to live in the White House and if he said all 18-year olds should have to join the military excluding his own children would be bad.

Saying choice of other schools than public ones is bad and should not be allowed and then doing it yourself IS hypocritical in my book. In a pretty nasty way, too.

Exactly. Saying he's waiting evidence just means he's waiting for some liberal hack study saying they don't "work" at raising some arbitrary standardized test rank, which of course means nothing. Even if poor kids in voucher programs didn't improve one bit, it'd still be worth it because they wouldn't have to go to school every day terrified for their lives. Of course, no study will measure that.

But that is beside the point. He has said specifically that we shouldn't throw our hands up and walk away from public schools, and then he walks away from them--well more like he was never there in the first place, but the point is still valid.
I do wonder if his daughters will have to join his National Slavery program.

[Lunar]

Wow. 

Great self-affirming post Bono.  You completely ignore all of my points and find the one post you agree with and then use it to pat your own back some more.  This information about Obama's new Slavery program sounds really intriguing, maybe you should post a thread about it!  Maybe cite the Washington Times or WorldNetDaily?  Sounds like a great thread, hurry!

[Flying Dog]

lol national slavery program lol

[Bono]

Wow.

Great self-affirming post Bono.  You completely ignore all of my points and find the one post you agree with and then use it to pat your own back some more.

Yea, kinda like you did with ignoring my quote of Obama and replied with a yea-but quote where he wobbled on the issues but saying the same thing in disguise.

  This information about Obama's new Slavery program sounds really intriguing, maybe you should post a thread about it!  Maybe cite the Washington Times or WorldNetDaily?  Sounds like a great thread, hurry!

I'm obviously talking his "national service" proposals..

[Lunar]

Wow.

Great self-affirming post Bono.  You completely ignore all of my points and find the one post you agree with and then use it to pat your own back some more.

Yea, kinda like you did with ignoring my quote of Obama and replied with a yea-but quote where he wobbled on the issues but saying the same thing in disguise.

My point throughout this thread is that his position IS nuanced.  The "yea-but" quote IS my argument.  His position on the subject of vouchers IS UNCLEAR.  He himself grew up in the most prestigious private school of his state and his daughters went to a private school in Illinois.  The fact that he has so many exceptions to his philosophical "in theory" skepticism of vouchers means that it's not hypocritical for him to send his daughters to a school to help the Secret Service protect them and when there is a world of difference between the pubic and private schools

I think you and I are in complete agreement about pubic and private schools, I'd be tempted to completely eliminate pubic schools were I to be in charge of government.

But your snide comments about how this decision is hypocritical make you into a cartoon for at least eight different reasons.  Give it up.

  This information about Obama's new Slavery program sounds really intriguing, maybe you should post a thread about it!  Maybe cite the Washington Times or WorldNetDaily?  Sounds like a great thread, hurry!

I'm obviously talking his "national service" proposals..

I know what you're talking about, I was telling you to continue being a cartoon.  Quick, post a thread from a illegitimate source with a misleading headline!

I'm not normally this harsh but your actions frankly deserve it.

[Gustaf]

Lunar, the fact that he has always been a hypocrite doesn't really make a difference to me.

As for "abominable", I'm not gonna mince words here, but I find opposition to voucher schools to be one of the positions I have the least understanding of. You're essentially saying "screw you" to people who live in slum areas, saying they shouldn't have the opportunity to get a better education for their children. You say it is great that Obama would not sacrifice his daughters for politics. Yet, this is exactly what he demands of the poor people who vote for him. The disgust you would feel for Obama if he did put his daughters in a public school is the kind of disgust I feel for the anti-voucher position.

The only anti-voucher position I can feel some kind of sympathy or understanding for is the one where you opposte public education alltogether.

I will also note that the opinion that we should not walk out on public schools that Obama expresses is rather typical. Proponents of vouchers tend to say "this is a chance for people to get away from the bad schools that their children are stuck in". The opponents will then say "we should improve public schools, not desert them" But then of course someone else should suffer the consequences.

I have never had any respect for those who say it is great that people suffer as long as those people are someone else. It makes my blood boil.

[Lunar]

Lunar, the fact that he has always been a hypocrite doesn't really make a difference to me.

Ok, well maybe he has never been a strong advocate against private schools and the hypocrisy just isn't there to a significant extent either.

As for "abominable", I'm not gonna mince words here, but I find opposition to voucher schools to be one of the positions I have the least understanding of. You're essentially saying "screw you" to people who live in slum areas, saying they shouldn't have the opportunity to get a better education for their children. You say it is great that Obama would not sacrifice his daughters for politics. Yet, this is exactly what he demands of the poor people who vote for him. The disgust you would feel for Obama if he did put his daughters in a public school is the kind of disgust I feel for the anti-voucher position.

I agree with your position on vouchers but you show a clear misunderstanding of the other sides points of view     I don't feel like defending something I don't believe in, I'll leave that to the other Democrats here.  You don't need to defend the subject with me, this is about Obama.  I agree with Vouchers.  I agree with Vouchers.  I support Vouchers.

That is not what he demands of the poor people who vote for him. 

The only anti-voucher position I can feel some kind of sympathy or understanding for is the one where you opposte public education alltogether.

Ok

I will also note that the opinion that we should not walk out on public schools that Obama expresses is rather typical. Proponents of vouchers tend to say "this is a chance for people to get away from the bad schools that their children are stuck in". The opponents will then say "we should improve public schools, not desert them" But then of course someone else should suffer the consequences.

I have never had any respect for those who say it is great that people suffer as long as those people are someone else. It makes my blood boil.

Ok, I agree in less harsh terms.  But your hypocrisy argument relies on a snippit of some platitude Obama gave, right?  Because he has had a long history of a nuanced position on the subject that would seem to diffuse any bogus, trumped-up exclamations of HYPOCRISY.  He specifically cites the subject of vouchers as something he disagrees with the Democratic Party on.

[Gustaf]

Lunar, the fact that he has always been a hypocrite doesn't really make a difference to me.

Ok, well maybe he has never been a strong advocate against private schools and the hypocrisy just isn't there to a significant extent either.

As for "abominable", I'm not gonna mince words here, but I find opposition to voucher schools to be one of the positions I have the least understanding of. You're essentially saying "screw you" to people who live in slum areas, saying they shouldn't have the opportunity to get a better education for their children. You say it is great that Obama would not sacrifice his daughters for politics. Yet, this is exactly what he demands of the poor people who vote for him. The disgust you would feel for Obama if he did put his daughters in a public school is the kind of disgust I feel for the anti-voucher position.

I agree with your position on vouchers but you show a clear misunderstanding of the other sides points of view     I don't feel like defending something I don't believe in, I'll leave that to the other Democrats here.  You don't need to defend the subject with me, this is about Obama.  I agree with Vouchers.  I agree with Vouchers.  I support Vouchers.

That is not what he demands of the poor people who vote for him. 

The only anti-voucher position I can feel some kind of sympathy or understanding for is the one where you opposte public education alltogether.

Ok

I will also note that the opinion that we should not walk out on public schools that Obama expresses is rather typical. Proponents of vouchers tend to say "this is a chance for people to get away from the bad schools that their children are stuck in". The opponents will then say "we should improve public schools, not desert them" But then of course someone else should suffer the consequences.

I have never had any respect for those who say it is great that people suffer as long as those people are someone else. It makes my blood boil.

Ok, I agree in less harsh terms.  But your hypocrisy argument relies on a snippit of some platitude Obama gave, right?  Because he has had a long history of a nuanced position on the subject that would seem to diffuse any bogus, trumped-up exclamations of HYPOCRISY.  He specifically cites the subject of vouchers as something he disagrees with the Democratic Party on.

I'm well aware of various arguments against vouchers. I live in Sweden, for crying out loud!
As I know you support them and since it isn't the topic I didn't get into it. If you mean that I painted a negative image of that position, it's true. I stand by what I said. The arguments commonly used I just don't agree much with. Note that you asked "why is it abominable". What I said is my explanation of why I think it is so. It's not supposed to be an objective assessment of the issue.

Back on topic: from what I've seen in this thread and elsewhere Obama does not support introduction of vouchers. That sort of, kind of equals opposing vouchers in my book. Saying "I oppose vouchers, but I don't hate them" is merely a political move designed to make people like you say to yourself "I can vote for this guy because he doesn't hate vouchers" while other people can say "I can vote for this guy because he opposes vouchers"

His nuanced position, like so many Obama positinos, seems to exist more in rethoric than in actual policy. You haven't showed that he actually supports it. I believe you know more about his positions than I do, so if you can find anything I would stand corrected. In that case there would be less hypocrisy.