The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Good grief. We're funding PBS in South Africa?

0 Replies

Black people and white people living on the same street = wrong to a lot of people circa 1969. Why should I have to explain beyond that I have no idea.

:-)

Fine with me to settle it over Scrabble, will have to be later tonight though.

0 Replies

Quote:

Six Republican Congress members sent a letter this week to the private, non-profit Public Broadcasting Service asking that an HIV-positive character created for "Sesame Street's" South African version not appear on the show in the U.S.

"We are concerned that what may be fitting for viewers of Sesame Street in South Africa (which reportedly has the most HIV-infected people of any nation in the world) may not be appropriate for children in the United States, especially in such a very early age group," Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) wrote July 12 in a letter to PBS President and CEO Pat Mitchell.

But officials with Sesame Workshop, the New York-based non-profit children's television company that produces the show, said that despite media reports to the contrary, they never planned to air the character in the U.S

http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2002/WB020711.html

Looks like another case of what is appropriate for very young children rather than any more sinister motive.

0 Replies

I think Dys' point was that Congress HERE was making noises about funding for PBS being problematic HERE even though it was entirely a South African production and there were no plans to have an equivalent here.

But that's yet another can of mexican jumping beans. :-P

Gotta get back to work! (Going on a cleaning rampage while kid + hubby are out of the house with occasional sit-downs here.) Yer on for Scrabble later, Bill.

0 Replies

interesting take on this Fox, the program in question (only produced in South Africa) you take away the statement "

Quote:

We're funding PBS in South Africa

?" and then go on to make another statement "

Quote:

Looks like another case of what is appropriate for very young children rather than any more sinister motive

." This was NOT a US PBS program, it was entirely a South Africa program attempting to deal in a healthy manner with a South African problem (one in nine South African children suffer from AIDS) So I take it you object to South Africa's attempt to educate children regarding and epidemic in their own nation by punishing Sesame Street/ PBS in our nation (which does not/never did) air any of the South Africans program. Yeah, I call that sinister.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Black people and white people living on the same street = wrong to a lot of people circa 1969. Why should I have to explain beyond that I have no idea.

:-)

Fine with me to settle it over Scrabble, will have to be later tonight though.

My example defined the collective morality of a billion people. Your example represents the immoral bigotry of a bunch of fools... some parallel, that... but scrabble sounds more conducive to common ground. :smile:

0 Replies

This isn't going to end, is it?

The point is that homosexuality now is where racism was then. If you dispute that, feel free to do so in some substantial way. In 1969, when Sesame Street "waged the battle in the mind of three-year-olds" (and really this time, their target demographic is much younger than "Buster's"), there were a whole lot of people with racist tendencies of varying strength, just as there are currently a whole lot of people with homophobic tendencies of varying strength.

The question is, should Sesame Street have not pushed that envelope? The show made a whole lot of people uncomfortable -- uncomfortable enough that no show before it was integrated. It was the first one, even counting adult shows. Talk about waging your battes. Yet you have already answered "no" to that question, and I agree with you. What that means is that you can't use the argument that "we should always let the prevailing public morality dictate what is on TV", since you've already admitted an exception.

0 Replies

Maybe it isn't going to end.

I don't believe any lasting interpretation of the bible said it was a sin for various races to live on the same block. Therefore, no moral precedent existed to offset the prejudicial BS. Not so homosexuality. The bible specifically says no.

Damn it, I'm running out of clock on my scrabble game!

0 Replies

What does the bible have to do with anything?

Prevailing public morality -- that's about whether a lot of people think something is right or wrong, whether they were taught by their preacher or their father.

0 Replies

I see that unprovably different. I can forgive church inspired ignorance far more readily than any other kind. That eternity in the lake of fire stuff justifiably scares the hell out of an awful lot of people. Where is there something THAT compelling in "Dad was a bigot too"?

0 Replies

There are few things MORE compelling than "that's what my dad taught me -- you calling my dad a liar?"

I am happy to forgive all kinds of people for all kinds of things, including racism and homophobia. It doesn't matter too much to me where they got it -- what matters is that they find the means to overcome it.

0 Replies

Disagreeing with dear old Dad won't condemn you to fire lake for all eternity Soz... and may even be required for entry into heaven: Not the same.
I think we understand each other just fine though. :wink:

0 Replies

But will being nice to homosexuals condemn you to fire lake for all eternity? What about "love the sinner, hate the sin?"

Not to mention "honor thy mother and father."

ANYWAY.

Let's get to Scrabble already.

0 Replies

dys writes

Quote:

." This was NOT a US PBS program, it was entirely a South Africa program attempting to deal in a healthy manner with a South African problem (one in nine South African children suffer from AIDS) So I take it you object to South Africa's attempt to educate children regarding and epidemic in their own nation by punishing Sesame Street/ PBS in our nation (which does not/never did) air any of the South Africans program. Yeah, I call that sinister.

When you first made your post Dys, I knew nothing of this whatsoever. I responded with what I thought was a funny observation based on the very limited information in your post. (I keep forgetting some people have no sense of humor whatsoever and will assume the very worst of others no matter what.)

As I did not know anything about the South Africa Sesame Street incident, I educated myself after reading numerous references both from those who want this to be something sinister and from those who are reporting it as it was intended. The letter was written in response to MEDIA reports that it would be aired in the USA. There was no suggestion that it should not be aired in South Africa. I made the observation that this also appeared to be one of those judgment things about what is and is not appropriate for very young USA children.

Now you liberal types can go right along claiming that any point of view that is different from yours is evil, homophobic, judgmental, oppressive, censorship, etc. etc. etc. etc. As much as I like Sozobe and have appreciated the cordial and reasonable tone of her arguments, she does seem to really want to believe the at least some of us are homophobic because we hold a different opinion about a particular television show.

Nobody has suggested you pro-air-the-stuff folks are improper or incorrect or substandard humans. That you pro-air-the-stuff people seem to hold a poor opinion of the rest of us (posters on A2K, Republicans who wrote the letter, the Education Secretary, etc.) who have also been reasonable and cordial seems to me to be....well....intolerant.

0 Replies

I agree.

0 Replies

Well, Sozobe paddled my a$$ at scrabble, like a black redheaded and gay stepchild, so; that woman is mindless bigot. She should get over it.

0 Replies

I suspected she would be terrific at Scrabble. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Now you liberal types can go right along claiming that any point of view that is different from yours is evil, homophobic, judgmental, oppressive, censorship, etc. etc. etc. etc. As much as I like Sozobe and have appreciated the cordial and reasonable tone of her arguments, she does seem to really want to believe the at least some of us are homophobic because we hold a different opinion about a particular television show.

I don't think that's what's happening here. I think that the point that has been made and continues to be made is that the arguments for pulling the show are irrational. That has been demonstrated by folks more eloquent than myself.

For me, it comes down to this. If you feel strongly that the show is not appropriate for your child, you have ample opportunity to avoid showing it to them. But why should your strong feelings dictate what my kids are able to watch? I'm a taxpayer too, and I don't understand why someone else's child rearing rights trump mine when it comes to what is shown on public television.

0 Replies

The point was the parents who had been allowing their children all along to see the show wouldn't know what was coming. The point was that those funding the program (the Education Dept) had the right to demand the conservative bang for their buck and they made the judgment that the conservative audience would object to it. I don't know if I would have objected or not. I do know that those writing the checks should get to call the shots.

0 Replies

Hee hee! You're cool, Bill.

(We should settle more A2K arguments this way. I never disagree with Laeknir, anyway.)

I started to say something to Foxfyre, but if Bill can bow out gracefully, I can too. And you already know what I'd say about parents who had been allowing their children to see the program all along and how out of character for the show the "Sugartime!" episode is, in terms of not knowing what was coming.

Well, one thing more. I haven't called anyone here homophobic, and have on more than one occasion specified that I'm NOT calling anyone here homophobic. As FreeDuck points out, my comments have been specific to the validity or lack thereof of the arguments offered up, while also referring in general to the presence of homophobia today. (Does anyone deny that homophobia -- or whatever racist-equivalent term to use when talking about gays and lesbians vs. black people -- exists in a general way?)

(OK, so I'm better at Scrabble and Bill's better at graceful exits. :-) Goodnight!)

0 Replies

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know