Fwiw.

I don't have children in government schools, so I can't say next Tuesday's "presidential message" shakes me much. But I will add this, fwiw.

If he's just there to encourage kids to "not drop out", "apply yourself", "learn how to get along with others and be a good citizen", then I don't think it should be mandatory listening.*

Most kids, a good majority, get that at home. That's the parents' job -- maybe a little bit on the teacher to impress. But the president -- shouldn't he have bigger things on his mind than inspiring the nation's children?

Maybe looking ahead at foreign policy, our role in Afghanistan, which is easy enough to ignore sure. But a big issue in, how long we can afford to community build, and have opportunity for exploitation of poor p.r. ? What have we learned from the countries who tried to reshape this region in the past?

Why not see how Israel deals with Iran, and maybe take the "defense from above" approach ourselves, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, where-ever needed. Sending more and more bodies in, not to fight for the most part as I understand it, but to community build, infrastructure and the likes, while winning hearts and minds... is that the current strategy? hmm...

I'd hope the president would be working more on reshaping that, when he gets through with the domestic agenda battles, not looking out trying to affect the long-term dropout rate. Delegate the soft stuff. Maybe let the First Lady take on such a social-building campaign? Otherwise the president risks getting typecast -- hard for the people to see him switch from character to character.

(There were plenty of other reasons sure, but looking back, surely it was hard to take President Carter seriously in other roles, after he solicited Amy's advice on foreign affairs, did that disastrous Playboy interview, and courted public and media ridicule by appearing on tv to remind us all to turn down the thermostat, put on a sweater, and turn off the lights in empty rooms to help save energy. He got typecast as Mr. Rogers. PR matters, even if you think you're the master of the game.

Remember, again for example, after President Lincoln's election, how even though half the country's politicians knew the "other half" was disaffected, they really underestimated the discontent and lack of satisfaction at being heard that the soon-to-be-seceding states represented? I don't think we're anywhere near seccession level, don't get me wrong, but I do believe the national administration -- perhaps Congresspeople of all parties -- still haven't come to grips with the level of discontent and lack of faith the American people currently have in their leadership.

It can be dangerous this "split", not so much internally, but should the need to rally together as a nation by some yet unforseen threat that might arise -- economically, militarily, or otherwise. We can't just paper over these differences though, trying to temporarily placate this "side" or that; such coalitions often crack under pressure, and the lack of outside pressure currently upon us is one blessing we probably should be counting while we can... Likewise, we can't just hole up and hope that such storms pass over to assess the damage: eventually, we will have to come together to decide priorities as a country, to prepare for other future shocks ... )

Besides, if it's the first day, or the first week of school, sitting the kids in front of a television set is inefficient. That message could much more easily be delivered in the classroom en masse, by a local community leader: the teacher who is just taking the reins and could better use that time, I am sure.

Target the schools who might need that message coming from the president, perhaps, and don't take it personally (another racial drama) if local schools choose to opt out of the hourlong is it? t.v. message.

Fwiw.