Obama sure is evil for talking to kids.

Geezleweez, President Obama sure is evil. Talking to kids. Man, that’s some nerve. He didn’t read them a story through a national disaster, but Okay, I guess talking to them with your own words is a big deal. Huh. Clearly, urging students to take responsibility for their futures is pinko rhetoric and a false diagnosis of how education works. If we taught Creationism and had good, religiously devout teachers in every public school, kids would learn without any effort, right? I think this says it best and without overly politicizing it:

Pittsburgh Public Schools Superintendent Mark Roosevelt told KDKA Radio: “If the president wants to speak to the students of America and talk about the importance of academic achievement and working hard, that is a wonderful thing and ought not to be the subject of debate.” (Source.)

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not worshiping the guy. I wish he had gotten off his ass to so something in the gay rights arena by now (or a few months ago, really), and I’m saddened by the lack of cojones in “the party” on healthcare reform — which is probably more aptly called revision than reform with the way things are going.

Why the hell is the White House not responding more to this minority of crazy far-righties? Are we supposed to be above criticizing other people’s criticism (if you want to call these attacks criticism)? Screw the moral high road. We’re not using guns and bombs but words and legislation. Take the gloves off, man! Mr. Obama is intellectually and rhetorically capable of smashing these goons. I can understand the desire for composure and not becoming the monsters you fight. I do. But where did all the brash liberals go? Have they been they busy helping with Michael Moore’s new film?  (Kidding, kidding; they’re around.)

Me, I’m not brash. And, depending who you talk to, too leftist to be liberal or too middle to be liberal. I do have a lot of anarchist and socialist leanings (no, they are not the same thing).

Socialism and Liberalism.

ultrafine0609
Article proposing differences between [Obama's] increasing liberalism in government and socialism:

“We aren’t headed for an era of socialism at all, since socialism is not a natural outgrowth of liberalism. Liberalism is a political philosophy that seeks to extend personal autonomy to as many people as possible, if necessary through positive government action; socialism, by contrast, seeks as much equality as possible, even if doing so curtails individual liberty. These are differences of kind, not degree– differences that have historically placed the two philosophies in direct competition. Today, socialism is on the decline, in large part because liberalism has lately been on the rise. And, if Barack Obama’s version of liberalism succeeds, socialism will be even less popular than it already is.”  (Read more.)

(Post your anti-liberal and/or anti-socialist and/or completely unrelated comments with the article on TNR or on your own site please, not here.  To the SPAM filter they go.   People using my freakin website to vent their issues in an unrelated way and not coming back is getting annoying.)