The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

You were closer, deb, it's a caterpillar.

So there we go! Beans + worms, perfect.

LOL, no Mexican jumping beans jump because the worms inside them are....well....jumping.

(I'll let Foxfyre reply to nimh's and dlowan's posts before following up.)

if you can get into the Salon.com article I quoted from, and posted the url for, Fox, it clarifies that.

I will copy and paste that info if you guys cannot accss the article.

From memory, I believe it WAS federal funding. And the government DID cut it for that episode - but a deal was done.

NOne of which obviates Nimh's and my points about the dangers of governments interfering in the way this one has done.

Our government subsidizes none of our media other than PBS. Many Americans think it shouldn't be funding PBS either on grounds of a sort of separation of government and the press thing.

Yeah, this kind of thing does make me lean more that direction -- though it's nice not to have corporations pulling the strings, either.

Sigh.

I guess cable is where it's at.

Btw there is news on PBS -- Newshour, especially. Can funding sources (government) influence content there? (I'm not sure.)

Oh and since I mention cable, Nickelodeon has done all kinds of very purposeful and very effective diversity-embracing programming. "Little Bill" is very rich in African-American culture. "Dora the Explorer" has sozlet learning all kinds of Spanish words and lots about Latin American culture. "Blue's Clues" regularly has diversity/ cultural aspects, including having Marlee Matlin as a repeat guest.

Other channels are following suit -- Disney has a new one that looks interesting (though probably too old for sozlet), "American Dragon", about a kid who is half-Chinese, half-white, living in America, and descended from a family of shape-shifters (human --> dragon) on his Chinese mother's side. Looks like there will be all kinds of interesting identity/ cultural aspects.

I think that's all great.

"Tolerance has many faces in a case like this. And again I think we encourage and further tolerance when we don't demand that our way is the only correct way to look at something and everybody else is (insert any uncomplimentary adjective or adjectives here.)"

Well, Fox:

a. It is the nature of discussion that people argue their cases. This does not imply that we cannot see your view - can you see ours? Of course I am arguing my pov - and, once again, nobody is demanding anything. Nobody is saying that parents MUST have their kids see that program. What we are arguing is that they ought to have had the choice - and denying what we see as a preposterous "demand" - that we believe that showing the episodes (there were two) would be furthering some agenda of forced acceptance of gayness!!! (Have any of you looked at the link I gave - which is where I believe the whole "gay agenda" crap originated from? It is mighty instructive. Same damn southern baptists who have learned about racism are starting all over again with homophobia - wonder when THAT apology is gonna come?)


b. Once again - using your words - to what extent did blacks have the right to "demand" tolerance in the sixties?

Hmmm - it seems other countries can manage government funding of the media ok.

Bugger cable! It's so expensive!

Educational TV paid for by Governments has SUCH a capacity to improve outcomes for poor kids, dammit!!!! REALLY!!!!! They need all the stimulation they can get!!!!

Just get your processes right - don't throw babies out wuth right wing bath water!!!!!

Even Laura Bush recognizes the crucial nature of educational programming like PBS!!!!!

Another solution - which individualistic America prolly wouldn't buy - is to force other networks to make educational programming of at least as good a quality in order to continue to have licence to broadcast.

Here - a certain amount of local, and local childrens' content, is demanded.

However - the ABC (government funded TV and radio) is universaly acknowledged to do it best - but I see no reason why that should be so.

I've spend the 36 years debating similar subjects with a surrogate Sozobe, whom I love dearly and generally refer to as my sister. She too would have tremendous difficulty separating her arguments on a subject like this. Let me help.

You can make an outstanding case that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. However, no matter how compelling that case may be, it doesn't mean others have to buy it.

The Christians can make an outstanding case (apparently… there must be a billion of them) that the bible lays out the appropriate morals to teach children. However, no matter how compelling that case may be, it doesn't mean others have to buy it.

It makes ZERO difference that you are 100% convinced of your correctness. So are they.

If you tried, you could easily come up with a biblical interpretation of the sin of homosexuality in a program. Instead you pretend you can't because to admit the similarity would require you to respect the morality of those ignorant fools you disdain. They feel the same way about your morality… and will sneak biblical messages to your children every single chance they get, too. :wink:

Corporate donations are relied upon heavily by PBS, though. My mom has been involved with their fund-raising efforts for years, especially the auctions (very time consuming).

Government monies aren't blanket, but specific to various PBS programming, I think. I'll have to ask her...or look it up. I do know a certain amount (forget how much) was paid for the programming which includes the "Postcards from Buster" segments.

I'd be surprised, though, if any of the government money was targeted for any of the "news" programming

Hmmm - that sounds kind of good - a balance of government, corporate (American corporations historically show FAR greater public responsibility in terms of funding things and philanthropy generally than Oz ones do, BTW) and public donations - spread your pressure sources....

last I read (some time last year) the ONLY funding PBS gets from the feds is Dept of Ed funding of Sesame Street.

Exactly. That's why they have the option of turning off the show -- which nobody has suggested denying them.

I completely in agreement that it makes zero difference that I am 100% convinced of my correctness. That's also neither here nor there.



You are again "responding" by introducing an entirely new argument and/ or not actually addressing what had come before. What you seem to be responding to is when I said it was very difficult to think of how there could be a defacto -- not explicit -- endorsement of homophobia. For one, I did come up with an example. For another, I didn't say it was impossible -- I said it was difficult, and thought aloud of some possibilities.

At any rate, the larger point remains -- there is only something wrong with defacto endorsement if there is something wrong with that which is being endorsed. Defacto endorsements are given all the time. I see nothing wrong with a defacto endorsement of black children and white children playing together, so I have no problem with that defacto endorsement. I do see something wrong with a defacto endorsement of homophobia/ "homosexuality is a sin", and I'm ready to say why it would be wrong. It would have to do with the detrimental effect on gay youth (backed up with suicide rates and various studies), the detrimental effect on straight kids (backed up with research on bullying, among other things), and the importance of teaching tolerance (backed up with more research, maybe from the organization of that name.)

You are not making any such reasoned argument. I'm not saying the argument can't be made, or you can't make it. I'm saying it hasn't yet been made. "Public morality" -- oops, except for Sesame Street.

You seem to be reduced now to saying "Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you're right." Well, sure. Of course. If you'd like to convince me otherwise, give me something to work with.

I know a lot of people who are uncomfortable with gay people to varying degrees. I have a high tolerance for ambiguity, and have absolutely no problem imagining how there can be people who are largely moral, good people who still are homophobic. That Muslim girl from "Postcards" is a great example -- she strikes me as being smart, sweet, and with a good upbringing, but immediately said that homosexuality was bad and wrong.

What I am saying is that while I can imagine these people easily and do not hold the disdain for them that you ascribe to me, what do we do then? I do not think we should allow their prejudices to dictate what is shown on TV -- and neither, when it was put to her a little differently, did the Muslim girl.

JW, I checked the "Postcards" website and it does seem that the funding is mostly from Gov $$:



I know that shows like "Zoom" have a laundry list of donors/ sponsors that they thank during the credits.

(Kudos to your mom by the way!)

Yes, that's what I thought also. Seems like I read something in the neighborhood of $1M or more, which came out of the Dept. of Ed's budget (may be why Ms. Spellings asked for a refund, LOL).

I think Dys is most likely right and that's the only government funding PBS gets. The corporate sponsors and private donations cover the rest.

I've watched lots of PBS over the years and haven't yet seen any corporate influence over programming. I may have not been looking for it, though. I'm rather new to the "political" and PC scene.

Yes Postcards does recieve the large bulk of its funding from the Dept. of Education. The last figure I saw was the PBS overall receives about $300 million from the Federal government and when this is allocated among the state chapers, it is not unusual for a station to receive 23-25% of its funding from the federal government. Having some association with PBS in Kansas in the mid 1980's, I know PBS Wichita was receiving $600,000 from government sources at that time.

There have been challenges in the past of course and almost certainly some pending as to the constitutionality of the government funding any form of the 'press' that is constitutionally protected from government interference.

an interesting aside, in 2002 several republican members of congress suggested (strongly) that public funding of Sesame Street was problematic because (I'm not making this up) the sesame street program in south africa (funded entirely by South Africa, introduced a muppet character with AIDS (never shown in the US because it was totally a South African produced program)

Soz, sin=wrong to some people. Why I should have to explain beyond that I have no idea... and have no intention of trying. I vote we settle this once and for all over a game of scrabble!