Get to 'em while they're young is the underlying strategy.
Fifteen-year old Miranda in The Tempest:
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here.
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in it!
Reply from her father Prospero:
'Tis new to thee.
– Act 5, Scene 1
The Left, speaking loosely, just doesn't "get it" about President Barack Obama's self-focused speech beamed into classrooms nationwide, on TV screens, Big Brother-like, wresting 18 minutes of valuable class time on the opening day of school.
It is all so very innocent, don't you see, designed to "motivate" and "inspire." Nothing more. Study hard, he urges, for a greater future, for a greater America!
Obama is the real message. Trust him. Nah, it's not a matter of self-promotion; not at all. It's pure-as-driven-snow selflessness. Look at me, he fairly shouts. Look what I did!
This President is well-practiced at speech-making, bringing it to near art form, with a cadre of excellent writers feeding teleprompters. (Woe be to Obama if the teleprompter breaks down.) Obama has has been on TV many times (112 by one count) so far in his presidency, like no other president. Why not pop up in the nation's schools, too? With this speech, a self-focused Promotion of Himself. Makes a swell photo op, too. Think FDR's Fireside chats, kiddies at his knee in rapt attention.
All the exposure continues a never-ending political campaign, and to many, polls show, it's wearing a little thin. Columnist Peggy Noonan, Reagan speechwriter, says she's bored by the avalanche of Obama-on-TV speaking at us endlessly, reassuredly. It's a full-screen Obama pitching kids, while seeking public approval for unpopular things.
In this schoolroom appearance, the audience is captive, receptive, wet-behind-the-ears children. Ensconced at their desks, sitting in home rooms, in school auditoriums, they are squirming, eager to get on with the School Year '09. Enough with the speech, already!
They have little thought of election year 2012. Just think! Young people now in high school will be voters then. Looking ahead is this smooth, egotistical man? Burnishing his public image? Preparing for a second term of trying bluntly to thrust America into a Euro-style welfare state at the very edge of socialism?
Now hear this: Teachers are proffered a handy "study guide" from a suddenly curriculum-minded federal Department of Education. Why? To instruct the youngsters' thinking along lines devoutly wished by bureaucrats at the Department of Education. They created the "guide" after consultation with the White House. Talk about "working together." Common goals? Curriculum-making at higher levels of federal government? So it seems.
A hint of the "study guide's" dubious purpose, as found in the first draft, asked kids to write to the president telling how they would help him. Boggles the mind, the audacity of these folks in the Obama administration. Out to "use" kids.
After public distaste (but NOT a lot of media censure), the agency revisited the loaded question. Now it asks young, impressionable young people how they will meet their own goals, not the president's. Educational Secretary Arne Duncan told CBS-TV's Face The Nation, "the question wasn't worded correctly" at first.
Oops? Gives away the prime motive for the President's speech?
Under pressure, the odious question was revised. Still, the original draft revealed for all time inner-deeper hidden intentions: Help the president! Secretary Duncan dismissed parental concerns about the "study guide" and Obama as Big Brother controversy, as "silly season." He got the memo from the White House. So much for parental rights.
Note, too, in mass media news reports, parents wary of Obama being force-fed to their offspring in schools, are invariably called "angry," besides being put down by Obama-fawning editorial pages. By their slants they support the President unquestioningly, rote-like. Why are we not surprised?
Contrary to media reports, no other president has insisted a presidential speech be beamed into the nation's classrooms, replete with "study guide." This would be an absolute first, make no mistake about that. Media would have you believe, mistakenly, that it is a routine thing. Historically it was not.
Consider this President's artful ways with words, Iago-like, his ability to rip detractors, calling them names such as heathens. (They "bear false witness" against his health insurance "reform" plan.) Putting him on TV to the school kids is an absolute stroke of genius for the Party-first folks.
Sadly, liberal media, most in lockstep, find great fault in wary parents' "silly" dissent. Media has blinders on, putting down au contraire opinion not in line with their liberal shibboleths. The uncritical, lack-of-depth put-downs expose a forever gap between Left and Right, blind obedience vs. healthy skepticism, political image vs. substance. Pandering to Obama's wishes is the name of the media game.
All publicity is good publicity? Well, what's good enough for P&G and Coca-Cola, is good for Obama: Voters of the future, today's children, are left with a lasting impression of their educators' pet object of worship, their hero, on big screen TV, a virtual "Big Brother." Writing down their thoughts about the event will only re-enforce remembrances of things past, on the first day of school, 2009, of a President front-and-center. What a stroke of genius by the party wonks!
"O wonder!" What goodly creatures are there here," exclaims impressionable, 15-year-old Miranda in Shakespeare's The Tempest. Indeed. Lifelong impressions among the young will stick, stick hard, some n'er to be challenged by a grizzled old parent, such as Prospero.
Schools should not do the bidding of the Federal government, no matter who is in power, or when. Injecting any agenda, of any party or any special interest group, disguising that with noble purposes — such as Study Hard, Kiddies — is dead wrong. (Isn't Study Hard a given?)
Naive, 15-year-old Miranda regarded villains washed up on her storm-tossed island in The Tempest as somehow "goodly," even "beauteous." Her father knew better: "'Tis new to thee," he advises knowingly, doing his parental duty.
Force-feeding presidential showcases (grandstanding?) into classrooms would be hunky dory to the President's one-time neighbor and supporter in Chicago, terrorist turned educator, William Ayers. Better still, young impressionable Hillary Rodham's early mentor, the radical leftist author of Rules for Radicals, the late Saul Alinski, would heartily approve, too. Both advocated "getting to" the young early with the message of the Left. Pardon the vulgar analogy, but so did Josef Goebbels.
Naturally, mass media point out the speech is devoid of "politics," totally apolitical, even "patriotic." Depicting it as uplifting, nothing short of "beauteous," media and talking heads will put their stamp of Good Schooling on it. Big Brother lives! "O brave new world, that has such people in it!"
Worldly wise Prospero says:
Mark then the badges of these men, my lords,
Then say if they be true…
Schools should not do the bidding of the Federal government, no matter who is in power, or when.
“‘Tis new to thee”, apparently, as well. A pity you weren’t able to warn them when Reagan and Bush Sr. did it. That might have nipped this whole Obama thing in the bud!
And when Bush did it the Left went bonkers, demanded investigations, held hearings…
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html
Of course, it must be ok now that we have The One in office. Can’t criticize him, nope.
I’ll save you all a lot of hot air, back-and-forth manufactured controversy about this issue, that is, for those who aren’t interested in simply manufacturing controversy by focusing on selective interpretations of current events. [Note to file: This is why an actual analysis of an issue is usually accompanied by more than just a simple reference to other links.]
As a general matter, the political Right has no objection to the President of the United States — whoever he is — addressing schoolchildren when the subject is “work hard and stay in school”. It makes no difference whether Bush, Reagan or Obama says this. This is the position taken before by the overwhelming number of elected officials and opinion leaders on the Right, and it’s the position taken today by the overwhelming number of elected officials and opinion leaders on the Right.
What we do object to, however, is a presidential address to schoolchildren that is (a) mandatory for children to listen to, and (b) is accompanied by a study guide that asks the children to think of ways to help a specific president rather than “their country”. This is not North Korea, China, Venezuela or Cuba; and Obama is our president, not our Dear Leader.
The fact that Obama’s people have removed any references to supporting his policies (rather than our country) makes his speech now as bland and unassuming as Bush’s and Reagan’s. However, it’s still offensive to insist that all school children hear him regardless of their parent’s wishes (an issue concerning local schools, not the president — but an authority issue nevertheless). And, the fact that the study guide was revised due to protests does not lessen any suspicions of the speech’s original intentions. A tactical retreat is not the same as never entering that fight in the first place.
All this becomes perfectly understandable when actually analyzing the issue instead of feinting confusion over it. It makes the following phrase perfectly understandable: “Schools should not do the bidding of the Federal government, no matter who is in power, or when.”
Mr.Ingles was chided on American Thinker this morning for the same lame argument. There as here, the posters are truly wise, heavy weight intellectuals.
And, the fact that the study guide was revised due to protests does not lessen any suspicions of the speech’s original intentions. A tactical retreat is not the same as never entering that fight in the first place.
I agree. I can’t imagine anything that Obama could possibly do to “lessen any suspicions” in those who figured the speech was incipient brainwashing.
Incipient brainwashing. Insipid comment.
Actually, you need look no further than American Thinker for examples of people calling this speech “brainwashing”:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/indoctrination_through_educati.html
Or WorldNetDaily:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108653
Etc. etc.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/obama-in-the-classroom-keep-your-kids-home-from-school-september-8.html
Though if you want a more insipid term, “indoctrinate” is even easier to find:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909020011
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/090901
Even this article happily plays the Nazi card.
Well, a search of every article supplied by Mr. Ingles reveals no use of the word “Nazi.” However, the “renewamerica” link makes some excellent points, in full context, which accurately describes the real reasons that people are objecting to the politization of our public schools. True to form, Ingles completely ignores them in his pursuit of demonizing his political adversaries.
The content of the speech was not immediately released. However, the content of the lesson plans and suggested classroom activities were available. The charge of indoctrination is perfectly justifiable.
This is why it pays to actually read a link before you cite it.
The subject, as originally described by Raymond, was about “calling this [Obama’s] speech “brainwashing”.
This is an insipid, inane observation as I noted above. The controversy on the Right is not about Obama’s speech, but about the teaching materials that were originally proposed to accompany it, and parental authority over what kinds of things said by politicians their children are exposed to.
The parental rights issue is not an Obama issue; it’s a general government authority issue between parents and their school system.
The teaching materials issue is an Obama issue. However, its focus is on the teaching materials that were originally proposed, not the independent fact that Obama decided to speak to schoolchildren.
People who have used the word “brainwashing” in this regard have directed it toward the teaching materials and related issues, not the fact that Obama decided to give a speech about working hard and staying in school.
This is born out by Raymond’s own links which he doesn’t apparently bother to actually read, or seems incapable of differentiating between Obama speaking and the follow-up teaching materials which asked students to support Obama and his programs (not the “United States”). It makes a difference to anyone who really thinks about the issue, instead of manufacturing faux outrage.
(1) http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/indoctrination_through_educati.html — “brainwashing” refers not to the “speech”, but to the “suggested teaching guidelines [which what] include Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?”
Calling the innocuous speech Obama actually delivered “brainwashing” is pretty insipid. Referring to the study guide originally proposed isn’t.
(2) http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108653 The brainwashing reference was an academic point, not a direct reference to Obama or his “speech”.
“I am not going to compare President Obama to Hitler. We’ll leave that to others and you can form your own opinions about them and their analogies. However, we can learn a lot from the spread of propaganda in Europe that led to Hitler’s power. A key ingredient in that spread of propaganda was through the youth,” wrote a blogger at the AmericanElephant.com blog, where the subject of the day was a national “Keep-Your-Child-at-Home-Day.” “Totalitarian regimes around the world have sought to spread their propaganda and entrench their power by brainwashing the children. I guess it’s easier to indoctrinate a six-year-old instead of fighting a 26-year-old or being challenged by a 46-year-old in the voting booth,” the blogger wrote.
Moreover, referring to the mindless drone on the Left as “brainwashed” isn’t referring to Obama’s “speech” as “brainwashing.” From the same link — “It seems to me that the president has enough help devastating the country with community service from the likes of ACORN, George Soros’ cabal of organizations, and brainwashed liberals who still adore him. My children are off limits.”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/obama-in-the-classroom-keep-your-kids-home-from-school-september-8.html The Atlas Shrugs link did not reproduce Obama’s speech when it talked about brainwashing in the “classroom”. Instead, it printed the original study guide:
Before the Speech:
• Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama and motivate students by asking the following questions:
Who is the President of the United States?
What do you think it takes to be President?
To whom do you think the President is going to be speaking?
Why do you think he wants to speak to you?
What do you think he will say to you?
• Teachers can ask students to imagine being the President delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States. What would you tell students? What can students do to help in our schools? Teachers can chart ideas about what they would say.
• Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?
During the Speech:
• As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:
What is the President trying to tell me?
What is the President asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?
• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?
(4 & 5)
Now we get a new word, “indoctrination”, added to the mix by Raymond in his manufactured outrage. But once again, it about the specific content of the speech, not the fact that a speech will be given. From http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/indoctrination_through_educati.html
“Unless we get public assurances from the White House that the president won’t address health care or global warming or the homosexual agenda (under the color of “human rights for people different than us”) this might be a great time for parents to exercise their opt-out authority and give their students a biography of George Washington to read while the President turns the minds of an entire generation to mush.”
BTW: When you actually click on the Glen Beck video, he’s talking about the “package” that accompanies the speech where school children are supposed to write down “what they think about the President”, and his programs, etc. Sometimes it pays to read more than the headlines.
So, once again we return to Raymond’s original comment. “I can’t imagine anything that Obama could possibly do to ‘lessen any suspicions’ in those who figured the speech was incipient brainwashing.”
I can. Don’t include any political references in the speech. Revise any “study guide” that follows to de-politicize it and make it about the USA, not Obama.
That would be a nice start, and for me personally, completely sufficient
Incipient brainwashing. Insipid comment.
Mountain Man – By “this article” I was referring to the one above by Gary Larson, titled “President Obama Goes to School”. Who did Josef Goebbels work for again? Starts with “N”, I think…
And the renewamerica article supplies “answers” to the questions with no basis whatsoever in the actual speech or even the lesson plans. “Tell our parents to support health care for everybody!” Really?
No, it wouldn’t. Indeed, you yourself said “And, the fact that the study guide was revised due to protests does not lessen any suspicions of the speech’s original intentions. A tactical retreat is not the same as never entering that fight in the first place.” Which of these two conflicting statements did you actually mean – the one where revising the guide would be “completely sufficient” or the one where you specifically state that revising it “does not lessen any suspicions”?
And it’s worth noting that Reagan, for example, didn’t hesitate to include lots of political references and pats on his own back in his speech. (See the link I posted above.) Were ‘suspicions’ raised because people worried that Obama would simply follow precedent?
My kids weren’t particularly impressed, and were much more concerned about the new friends they’d made in class and whether they could sign up for choir. A single speech by a politician of any stripe doesn’t form an indoctrination program. It’s amazing that people are so worked up about it.
Here we go again.
Mr. Ingles, the POINT is that most of the objections are related to the study materials (yanked after the legitimate criticisms of their inappropriateness).
To quote the renewamerica article:
“The guide that the Department of Education is sending out to teachers instructs them to direct their students to take notes, and in particular write down the answers to these questions:
What is the President trying to tell me? (That the planet is warming? That health care in America is a disaster?
What is the President asking me to do? (Tell my parents to support health care reform?)
What new ideas or actions is the President challenging me to think about? (New as compared to the ideas I’m getting from my parents, and new compared to the actions my parents want me to take? If they are “new,” this means they haven’t learned them yet from their folks.)
Then, after they have dutifully taken notes, the students are to gather in little clusters of mind-numbed gobots and discuss answers to the following questions:
What do you think the President wants us to do? (Tell our parents to support health care for everybody!)
Does the speech make you want to do anything? (Yes! Be a good Democrat instead of a wascally Republican when I grow up!)
Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us? (Yes We Can! Gag me.)”
These lesson plan features are worthy of all the criticism we can muster. You are free to disagree, but you are not free to misrepresent the issue or divert it to something else.
More adventures from “Captain Obvious”.
>you yourself said “And, the fact that the study guide was revised due to protests does not lessen any suspicions of the speech’s original intentions.
*** That is indeed correct. The revisions have not lessened my suspicions about the speech’s “original intentions”. The subject of the speech’s “original intentions” is different, however, from analyzing the content of the speech’s actual content as ultimately delivered. That revised content was indeed innocuous.
>A tactical retreat is not the same as never entering that fight in the first place.”
*** That is indeed correct, since the controversy was about the presumed content of the speech as identified by Gibbs and others (since no text was released at that time), and about the study guide which asked students to help president Obama (rather than help the country).
>Which of these two conflicting statements did you actually mean – the one where revising the guide would be “completely sufficient” or the one where you specifically state that revising it “does not lessen any suspicions”?
*** Once again we remind Raymond of his own words “I can’t imagine anything that Obama could possibly do to ‘lessen any suspicions’ in those who figured the speech was incipient brainwashing.”
To which I replied: “I can. Don’t include any political references in the speech. Revise any ‘study guide’ that follows to de-politicize it and make it about the USA, not Obama. That would be a nice start, and for me personally, completely sufficient [to ‘lessen any suspicions’ in those who figured the speech was incipient brainwashing.]”
I suppose I could have reproduced Raymond’s sentence again, but since he was the one who actually wrote it, I just figured (incorrectly) that he would remember the actual question he asked.
For those unfamiliar with the way Raymond ‘debates’, it’s always necessary to go back and look at what he actually said in the first place, rather than after-the-fact changing key elements of his statement (or yours) to help make his point. If you actually answer Raymond’s question, he has an annoying tendency to re-state it or re-define the terms he originally used so as to make your answer into something else than it originally was.
Since reading comprehension is an issue, let me go further and repeat my sentence again: doing the above would be a “nice start”. The word “start” implies that it’s not yet “finished”, which means that more still needs to be done.
This “start”, for “me personally”, would be sufficient to ”‘lessen any suspicions’ in those who figured the speech was incipient brainwashing.” “Lessen suspicions” (Raymond’s words) does not mean remove or eliminate them. It means just that. “Lessen”.
So we have a “nice start” that “lessens any suspicions” that the speech was “incipient brainwashing”.
Once again, “the speech” is not the same thing as the “study guide”, which was the major point of contention.
So, if you have a non-political speech in the first place, it “lessens any suspicions” that it is “incipient brainwashing”. This incipiency and brainwashing is further “lessened” by de-politicizing any study guide associated with the speech.
And so, in answer to the question Raymond posed: “I can’t imagine anything that Obama could possibly do to ‘lessen any suspicions’ in those who figured the speech was incipient brainwashing,” I can reply —
“I can. Don’t include any political references in the speech. Revise any ‘study guide’ that follows to de-politicize it and make it about the USA, not Obama. That would be a nice start, and for me personally, completely sufficient [to ‘lessen any suspicions’ in those who figured the speech was incipient brainwashing.]”
Why is this even arguable? Depoliticizing a speech and study guide are two obvious ways to “lessen the suspicions” that I, and others, might otherwise have that an action was “incipient brainwashing”.
>And it’s worth noting that Reagan, for example, didn’t hesitate to include lots of political references and pats on his own back in his speech.
Here is the actual speech Reagan delivered at the White House to visiting students from Students of John A. Holmes High School of Edenton, North Carolina and broadcast on the Instructional Television Network where only schools with the necessary hook up could receive it (this was, after all, 1986).
Maybe it’s me, but I think this is a wee bit different from a nationally televised speech to all the school children in America, with a ‘help the president promote his policies’ study guide attached.
And oh, on another “personal note”, I no more object to this speech than I do to the scrubbed content of the speech Obama actually delivered. I’d comment on Reagan’s study guide, but it appears there wasn’t one to comment on.
[Reagan] Thank you all, and welcome to the White House, and thank you for coming. I want to congratulate all of you from John A. Holmes High School in Edenton, North Carolina, on your great achievements this year and on your upcoming graduation. And a special greeting to Rob Boyce, the principal of this fine school.
As you know, my remarks are being broadcast live over radio and television to high school students throughout the country. While I was in Tokyo at the economic summit, I found myself thinking about all of you, and I decided that when I got back it’d be good to report to you — share some thoughts that I’ve been having about the future.
In general, conditions in our country are about as bright as this very bright afternoon. I was worrying when I put that line in there that it might start to rain, and I’d have to say something else. [Laughter] We’ve been working to take an economy that was in bad shape and get it moving and growing again; take our national defense and make it first-rate again after a long period of decline; and to restore reason, respect, and reality to our foreign policy. And I think it’s fair to say that we’ve made a good deal of progress.
Only 5 years ago our economy suffered from high inflation, high interest rates, mushrooming government spending, and steadily increasing unemployment. A lot of people couldn’t find jobs, and people on fixed incomes were finding it harder to buy the basics, such as food and shelter. Well, we got inflation down, interest rates down, and our economy created over 1\1/2\ million new jobs just last year alone. The poor are now increasingly able to dig themselves out of poverty, and that’s been good economic news.
The good news in defense is that our Armed Forces, which were suffering from neglect and low funding, have now made a comeback. Morale is up in the services, and the quality of our men and women in uniform has never been better — and I mean never. As a matter of fact, we have the highest percentage of high school graduates in uniform today than we’ve ever had in the history of our nation, even back when we had the compulsory draft. In addition, our nation has encouraged a more realistic sense of defense needs.
In foreign affairs we’ve kept our friends close and the lines of communication with our adversaries open. We’ve tried to give the world the sense that the United States has a coherent and logical foreign policy that reflects our respect for freedom and our opposition to tyranny.
The point is that all we’ve done has had, and will continue to have, a direct impact on your lives. And the fact is, it’s your future, not ours. And all that we’ve done, we’ve done with an eye toward how it would impact you. We want to make your future better, because tomorrow belongs to you. And since you’re the leaders of tomorrow, I wanted to talk to all of you as a friend about the things you’ll have to do to ensure a prosperous nation and a peaceful world. And I’m sure that peace and prosperity must be at the top of your agenda for the future.
You have some special responsibilities ahead of you — very important responsibilities. America is back, yes, but we still face major challenges in the world. And it’s your generation that will have to accept the primary responsibility for tackling these challenges. It’s important that you’re fit for the future and that you be all that you can be. So, go for it! In the area of education you have a responsibility to try to learn and care about scientific and intellectual inquiry. The world is an increasingly competitive place. And if we’re to compete, we’ll have to do it with brainpower — your brainpower. So, keep learning and hit those books.
We have to remain economically competitive, and that means being aware of two things: first, what makes economies tick, and second, what works in other societies. We’ve been trying very hard in Washington to make America even more economically fit by really overhauling our entire tax structure. When we came into office, the top personal tax rate that the Federal Government could put on your income was 70 percent. Now, you can understand, I think, that if you were getting up in those brackets — there were 14 different tax brackets, depending on the amount of money in each bracket you earned. And when you could look and say, “If I earn another dollar, I only get to keep 30 cents out of it,” you can imagine the lack of incentive there. Well, we lowered it to 50 percent, and the economy really took off. Now we’re trying to lower it yet again so that families can keep more of their money and so the national economy will be lean and trim and fit for the future.
And it’s your generation that will defend freedom from its adversaries. The biggest contribution you can make to that quest is to become a good citizen. Good citizenship is vitally important if democracies are to continue. Good citizenship means trying to understand the issues and great questions of your day. It also means voting. To vote is to take part in this grand experiment called democracy in America. It’s your right and your responsibility to take part. Good citizenship also might mean considering going into teaching as a profession. There’s a teacher shortage, as you may know. You could help ease the situation and give to others the advantages you’ve been given if you become a teacher yourself. And it’s also important that you stay in school. That diploma counts. And I just want to personally congratulate those who have overcome some disadvantage and who stuck it out and will graduate this year.
And part of being a good citizen, part of being fit for the future so that you can meet America’s agenda for the future, is seeing to it that you live your life with a clear mind and a steady intellect. And that means saying no to drugs. Nancy has traveled across the country talking to young people like you. And many of them have talked to her about the allure of drugs, about the drug culture, and the kind of peer pressure that you come under to experiment and try out drugs. But when you come right down to it, drugs are just a dead-end street. They have nothing to offer you. I think you also ought to remember we only get one set of machinery. If you wear this set out, you can’t take it and trade it in someplace for a used one or a new one. So, what you do now and early in your life decides how able you’re going to be to enjoy yourself when you get to be my age.
And I want to tell you, I’m enjoying myself. I’ve talked to young people from China to Europe to the islands in the Caribbean. And let me tell you, they’re incredibly bright and talented, and they’re going to create quite a future for themselves. And you can’t keep up or catch up if you allow your mind to be clouded by drugs.
Well, that’s more or less what I wanted to say to you today. I’ll be talking to many young people over the next few months, and I’ll be expanding on certain points and amplifying certain themes. But for today, before your questions, I just want to let you know that I have been thinking about you very much. You are a special generation, and you’re facing special challenges. And the biggest is to be ready for a future that will prove to be demanding and exciting. Soon, we’ll enter the 21st century, a time that’ll have more than its share of great wonders. The next 10 or 15 years may well be the most exciting and challenging in the history of man. There’s the continuing revolution in technology, the possibility of curing diseases that have stalked us from the caveman era. There’s the marvelous conquest of space, a rich frontier whose riches we’ve barely glimpsed. And there’s the struggle between the democracies and those countries which are not democratic.
All of these possibilities bring with them questions. And it’s your generation that will have to answer them. That makes you all very important, indeed. You have much before you. And all I can say is that you’ve begun brilliantly. Continue to pursue excellence. Be proud of your country and its heritage, and be proud of yourselves, as we are proud of all of you.
Now, that’s all I had to say in terms of prepared remarks. What I really want to do is take your questions. And I understand that Rob Miller will be asking the first question. So, Rob, step up to the microphone, and we’ll begin.