Posted by Carl, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Sep 18, 2009 at 5:49 pm
It seems obvious that this second letter was published to try to draw out and bait those fearful bigots that supposedly populate our community. Of course, those who label one crowd bigots are usually bigots themselves in one form or another.
This paper needs, along with its editor, needs to move on.
Posted by Gwynne Young, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I really don't know what Carl is referring to, that my letter was directly aimed at baiting bigots. I was very upset at the fact that the president's speech wasn't aired for my children. So I wrote a letter. It seemed to me that the people who didn't want their kids to hear President Obama's speech were getting more attention than those of us who welcomed it. I am opposed to intolerance. I do not think that makes me a bigot. Quite the contrary, by definition. I hope that the lesson isn't that if we don't like intolerance we should keep our mouths shut. There used to be a time in this country when it was a bad thing to be intolerant. Now, according to Carl, it's bad if we point that out.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I think you're losing this one Gwynne when you say, "It seemed to me that the people who didn't want their kids to hear President Obama's speech were getting more attention than those of us who welcomed it. I am opposed to intolerance."
You really don't know the reasons why, you are just assuming. Maybe people just want politics, Left or Right, out of the schools. You come just short of suggesting that intolerant people (bigots) were behind the move to prevent the speech being shown in school. That's painting with a pretty broad brush.
If you were "very upset at the fact that the president's speech wasn't aired for [your] children" it seems to me that you are looking for some one to blame. That's the root of intolerance. Maybe the schools just can't afford to take more time out of their already pressed schedules to teach the basics.
And why are you so upset that "your children could not see their president talk"? I'm left wondering why you couldn't have just recorded the event for yourself, and shown your children on your own?
BTW, the president will be on TV tomorrow again. Be sure that you and your kids don't miss it. (And he has actually been on TV more than any other president has been in there first nine months in office.
Posted by Gwynne Young, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Baloney. President Obama's speech had nothing to do with politics, despite the fact that it was variously portrayed as a call to Socialism and indoctrination. It was a call for children to do well in schools.
I am showing my kids the speech, and they saw President Bush speak on TV and have seen President Obama speak on TV. But it is not the same experience as sitting with other children your age and listening to the president talk to you.
I have explained to my kids that all presidents are presidents of the entire nation. When you, Observer, insist that President Obama's speaking before children was somehow different than presidents of previous generations doing the same, you are the one inserting politics into the discussion.
Posted by eric, a resident of another community, on Sep 19, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Observer, while some classrooms didnt air the speech because of conflicts with lesson plans(reasonable, but I think a poor choice), some made that choice for stupid reasons. Schools in MV DID get calls from parents threatening to keep their kids away so they wouldnt have to be "exposed" to the president. One Los Altos school DID cave to this pressure (as covered by the Voice). The President was speaking to schoolkids about the value of education-- that should get covered only at home?