Parents and lawmakers speak out against Obama's speech to students

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I suspect that what happened here was that in the early days of the Georgia lottery, when they sent money to every school to invest in technology, schools didn't need Channel One as much. If you didn't have to be beholden to watching programing 90% of the time, why would you?

I wonder if only systems that really don't have money to fund replacement technology have kept up with it down here.

I never heard anything about its bias.

Actually, from what I was reading on the Channel One website, the schools don't have to pay for the technology. If the school signs up and says they'll show Channel One. Then Channel One puts in the TV, the satellite and all the equipment needed to show Channel One in school. All the school really has to do is show it 90% of the school days and give notice to Channel One (usually within 48 hours) if there is some technical difficulty.

If there was a fee to the school, I doubt that my school or any other school here would show Channel One. My school didn't even have enough money to buy enough protractors for the geometry classes (true story...lol).

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

Actually, from what I was reading on the Channel One website, the schools don't have to pay for the technology. If the school signs up and says they'll show Channel One. Then Channel One puts in the TV, the satellite and all the equipment needed to show Channel One in school. All the school really has to do is show it 90% of the school days and give notice to Channel One (usually within 48 hours) if there is some technical difficulty.

If there was a fee to the school, I doubt that my school or any other school here would show Channel One. My school didn't even have enough money to buy enough protractors for the geometry classes (true story...lol).

Oh, right. I guess I wasn't clear. The only reason to have Channel One, IMO, is if you can't/don't want to buy the technology a different way.

Since Georgia had the lottery money for a while to buy technology, I think a lot of the poorer systems were able to get some stuff that they otherwise would have tried to get Channel One to supply.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Quick!! Turn your TVs off and hide the kids!! Obama's voice will turn you into a socialist!!!

I think the real risk is that you'd die of boredom.

I don't think there's anyone left on the bubble to buy what he's selling tonight. People have already bought it or don't want it.

Anyone left in the middle is waiting to see the exact details, and I doubt he's getting into that tonight.

I suspect that he's just making people tired by being on the TV three days in a row: Labor Day speech, kid speech, and now health care.

How about some nice pictures of that cute dog instead, O?

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Oh, right. I guess I wasn't clear. The only reason to have Channel One, IMO, is if you can't/don't want to buy the technology a different way.

Since Georgia had the lottery money for a while to buy technology, I think a lot of the poorer systems were able to get some stuff that they otherwise would have tried to get Channel One to supply.

oooh ok, I understand ya now. And yeah, you are probably right.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think the real risk is that you'd die of boredom.

I don't think there's anyone left on the bubble to buy what he's selling tonight. People have already bought it or don't want it.

Anyone left in the middle is waiting to see the exact details, and I doubt he's getting into that tonight.

I suspect that he's just making people tired by being on the TV three days in a row: Labor Day speech, kid speech, and now health care.

How about some nice pictures of that cute dog instead, O?

Excellent.

[UGAalum94]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us...ewanted=1&_r=1

Eh.

Nice sounding rhetoric, but the specifics of how you do it are pretty important.

And if you consider all the limits he places on the system, I doubt it's even possible.

I happen to think the line about you won't have to change your insurance if you like it is about as honest as Palin's comments about the death panels. ETA: he says "nothing in this plan" will require it. No, but it might be a relatively predictable outcome if your employer thinks they can get something cheaper.

It's kind of an interesting read just to see him pander to such a wide range of constituencies. Late in the speech when he addresses reformers who wanted a lot more is probably my favorite part.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Just FYI, you went up about 10000 points in coolness in my book. You have achieved two of my professional dreams (membership in the SCOTUS bar and having cases before the Court).

- KSigKid
SCOTUS junkie

I'll sponsor you when you your time comes.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I know. Wow. MysticCat, did you actually argue them there?

Fortunately, no. I say fortunately because in every case I've had there except two, I represented the winning party in the court below. My briefs were to convince the Court it didn't want to hear the case -- I wanted to keep my win -- and they agreed. In some ways, that's not that impressive -- they hear few cases. But in at least one, I was pretty proud that they said "no" -- there was a fair amount of speculation that they would take it. In one other case, we asked them to reverse and remand for reconsideration without argument, which they did. In the one case where I was on the losing side below, they accepted our petition for cert, but my collegue actually argued at oral argument. (We lost.)

All of this is why I said I had "had cases" at the Court, not "argued," since that to many people implies oral arguments. But I have filed quite a few briefs, so I've argued in that sense. I've been there quite a few times and met a few of the justices.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It's just one of those days when I know what I mean but can't clearly and concisely communicate it to others.

I have those days too.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'll sponsor you when you your time comes.

Fortunately, no. I say fortunately because in every case I've had there except two, I represented the winning party in the court below. My briefs were to convince the Court it didn't want to hear the case -- I wanted to keep my win -- and they agreed. In some ways, that's not that impressive -- they hear few cases. But in at least one, I was pretty proud that they said "no" -- there was a fair amount of speculation that they would take it. In one other case, we asked them to reverse and remand for reconsideration without argument, which they did. In the one case where I was on the losing side below, they accepted our petition for cert, but my collegue actually argued at oral argument. (We lost.)

All of this is why I said I had "had cases" at the Court, not "argued," since that to many people implies oral arguments. But I have filed quite a few briefs, so I've argued in that sense. I've been there quite a few times and met a few of the justices.

Haha...you should watch out, I'll hit you up as one of my sponsors.

And...you're being far too modest. In the grand scheme of things, there aren't that many attorneys that get to brief the Supreme Court, and even fewer that get the Court to take their side (even if it's on a denial of cert). I think that's very cool, and it's a level to which many potential attorneys (including myself) aspire. Heck, I'm just excited that I've gotten to help draft a couple of appellate briefs in my time at law school. As someone who hopes to be an appellate advocate in their career, I'm seriously impressed.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

As someone who hopes to be an appellate advocate in their career, I'm seriously impressed.

Without a doubt, appellate advocacy is my favorite part of practicing law by a mile.

Good luck! You'll get there!

[KSigkid]

I'm sorry, but anytime anyone uses the "let's just stop the disagreements" line, or something similar, it sounds exactly like "just agree with me now, whether you want to or not, it will be a whole lot easier."

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I have those days too.

"Why am I not making sense?! I give up!!"

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'm sorry, but anytime anyone uses the "let's just stop the disagreements" line, or something similar, it sounds exactly like "just agree with me now, whether you want to or not, it will be a whole lot easier."

Is that in reference to Obama's Congressional pep talk: "the time for bickering is over! The time for games has passed! Now is the season for action...bring the best of our parties...show the American people what we can do!"

It's like the pep talk to kids! "Stay in school...it's easier...don't back talk me!!" Socialism, I tell ya! (kidding)

[SWTXBelle]

I addressed the school speech in my column (I was pro-speech, anti-stupidity). I did notice on the paper's website that I had 35 comments (but I don't read 'em - they are anonymous, and my e-mail is printed with every column, so I figure if they aren't willing to man up and stand behind their statements I should just save myself the grief.), which is far more than I ever have - I guess the good news is someone is still reading 'em!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I happen to think the line about you won't have to change your insurance if you like it is about as honest as Palin's comments about the death panels. ETA: he says "nothing in this plan" will require it. No, but it might be a relatively predictable outcome if your employer thinks they can get something cheaper.

But is that any different from the way it is now? How many Americans choose their own insurance program now? For most of us, our employers choose our insurance -- at most we get options as to premiums and co-pays/deductables. Surely whether any reform passes or not, employers can go for something cheaper if they can find it. I don't see how that can be pinned on reform; pin that on the free market.

The part of the debate that I don't quite get is the "just don't let it affect my coverage" sentiment. I know I've seen my premiums go up at a ridiculous rate in recent years, while benefits go down. Theoretically, I could look for somewhere else to cover my family, but practically speaking, pre-existing conditions rule that out. Sure, I'm basically satisfied with what I have, but I'd be a lot more satisfied if there was some stability in cost and benefits.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I addressed the school speech in my column (I was pro-speech, anti-stupidity).

Care to share?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Is that in reference to Obama's Congressional pep talk: "the time for bickering is over! The time for games has passed! Now is the season for action...bring the best of our parties...show the American people what we can do!"

Exactly...if someone truly felt that way, then why don't they give up their side of the argument? One of the easiest ways to stop the bickering would be just to drop the whole health care reform all together, or to concede more on his side.

Of course, I'm one of those that believes the "bickering" is a good thing...checks and balances and all that good stuff.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Of course, I'm one of those that believes the "bickering" is a good thing...checks and balances and all that good stuff.

Ditto.

The ignorance and anger that come with the bickering are just par for the course.