quote: Last week I experienced deja vu. PBS -- the Public Broadcasting Service -- decided not to distribute an episode of its cartoon "Postcards From Buster" in which Buster the animated bunny meets two children whose parents are lesbians. The same day the secretary of education sent PBS a letter demanding that the network not air this show. "Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode," she wrote.
She also asked PBS to return federal funds used to make the episode.
The author's conclusion:
quote:Do we really want our public broadcasting network's funding to be contingent on how the education secretary thinks families should be portrayed on TV? PBS says its mission is to use "the power of noncommercial television . . . to enrich the lives of all Americans through quality programs and education services that inform, inspire and delight." All Americans includes all kids, regardless of which combination of adults comes together to love and nurture them.
This captures much of my unease with government-funded forums for speech that have limited resources. Someone has to decide what goes on the air (edit: assuming there's not time for everything everyone wants to put on the air). In a democratic country, that someone is going to somehow be beholden to the voters. On the flip side, though, this amounts to content-based discrimination, which I find abhorrent. It's the essence of why I think purely expressive government activities are problematic. I acknowledge the difficulty in precisely defining that term, because government must communicate with its citizens in order to function.
posted
Yeah, yeah. I hit "Add Reply" instead of "URL" on the edit screen.
I figured most jatraqueros would figure out what's going on and wait patiently. I forgot you two were on. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some conservative guy was complaining about this. It made me very annoyed. Lesbians exist. Why is it such a bad thing to show them on television? What the heck do they mean by "We can't show that sort of lifestyle?" arg... Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm not familiar with Buster the Bunny, I maintain that seeing PBS as purely expressive is an extremely limited viewpoint which avoids both its stated primary purpose and most of the content shown.
Lets create a different, hypothetical example. Lets say Elmer the Eel, which is an educational show teaching kids about sea life, happens to show a group of dolphins which gang up on a shark, killing it. Should that be banned?
(Basically, I'm saying some people do have homosexual parents. That a kid on a show has homosexual parents doesn't necessarily mean anything more than that some dolphins attack sharks -- both are things that happen.)
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, I agree with you. But it's paid for by the government, at least in part. I'm sure it would be easy to find a topic you would hate to see paid for with your taxpayer dollars on PBS. I'd bet a documentary that sings the praises of the ex-gay movement might qualify in that regard.
I know there's tons of topics I'd hate to see get government funding for dissemination.
In a pluralistic society, it's inevitable. Given that, and given limited resources, government funding of expressive behavior creates a choice between censorship and government responsiveness to the citizenry.
I would be one of those parents that would feel uncomfortable with such a program, produced by the government, directed at kids. While I appreciate the different moral and theological reasoning that makes homosexuality simply an alternate lifestyle, I disagree with it. I will not hold those people to my theology or morality, but I do not feel the government should be teaching my kids a different morality than what I am teaching my children.
By the same token, what if Buster the Bunny showed a strong religious family teaching its children that sex outside of marriage and homosexuality is wrong? This happens all the time too.
Frankly, I would be uncomfortable with that as well. This simply falls well outside the limits of what the government should be communicating.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what if you are just showing gay couples in a normal every day context, no one is saying, "Become gay today! The gay lifestyle Rules!" They are just showing ordinary gay people who happen to tap trees or something. This is why things like this make me twitch in irratating. It seems like some people will not be happy until there are no shows about gay people or books unless they say, "Homosexuality is evil and wrong and here's why."
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there is no reference to sexuality or having a family relationship, then I have little problem with it. But if the point is to show people that homosexuality is fine, then I do have a problem with it.
These are my kids, and I prefer to teach them about such things at my own pace. I'm irritated enough that my own youngest child came home from school saying that her friend's parents were not voting for Kerry because he thought boys marrying boys was okay. Of course, then we had to get into a discussion about it. I'm sure you wouldn't have liked what I taught my kids.
My kids have knowledge about this kind of thing, at a young age. I can honestly say that I had never concieved of such a thing at that age.n I really prefer that such thoughts are not rattling around in my kid's brain as their sexuality is developing.
Its life, I'll deal with it. But I don't want it to be the government showing that such a lifestyle is okay when I am morally opposed to it.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not, by any means, want there to be no shows about homosexuality. I believe in free speech.
But the government should not be producing shows that pronounce any kind of judgement on any family arrangement.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
If we stoped supporting PBS with government funds, and if we started charging religious institutions property tax, we could close the newly created (since Clinton was out of office, I mean) federal budget deficit in years, instead of, well, like, never!
But then, we'd probably have to actually put the funds we promised into Head STart, and No Child Left Behind, and in international family planning agencies, like we promised, and all that stuff.
Choices, choices, choices.
Oh, and don't forget--we have to fund the NASA Mars mission, too. Except if they're, like, you know, sending lesbians.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
funny thing sswa... if the government followed the constitution, none of those things would be funded.
And the only one of those that would be receiving a voluntary check from me would be the Mars mission.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am contiuously amazed at the enegery expended by people on what is essentially a non-issue. Does one episode of Buster Bunny override 36 years of educational programming? Where was all the outrage when Sesame Street started? Don't tell me that you thought Bert & Ernie were just "roommates".
If you believe that no government funding should be used for any type of media/arts/music, then how should it be funded? Just think, we could buy more bombs with all of that money that were using to teach little Johnny how to play the piano...Or better yet, we can cut federally funded welfare, because poor people don't need to eat.
And Pixiest...the constitution was never meant to be a static document, merely an outline of the basic guidelines on which our society should be based. I'm assuming that you're a woman, based on your screen name, and if we were to follow the original design and intent of the constitution, your opinion wouldn't even matter, because you wouldn't be allowed to vote.
But I digress...All of us can point to some governmentally sponsored program and say "That's a frivolous waste of money!" However, what you consider frivolous is a necessity for other people. Take basic examples such as social services for disabled people or the funding for your local schools.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually weather nor not I was allowed to vote was left up to the states.
How would these programs be funded? By charities. If no one contributed to the charities, maybe the programs aren't important to people.
If the individual states wished to enact these programs, they could. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting a state from doing such a thing. In fact, the 10th amendment specific reserves anything not listed in the constitution for the states.
If you think the constitution is a "guideline" then let's play poker sometime. Those rules can be guidelines too.
"Ooh. I've got a Royal Sampler!"
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I'm not familiar with Buster the Bunny, I maintain that seeing PBS as purely expressive is an extremely limited viewpoint which avoids both its stated primary purpose and most of the content shown.
Lets create a different, hypothetical example. Lets say Elmer the Eel, which is an educational show teaching kids about sea life, happens to show a group of dolphins which gang up on a shark, killing it. Should that be banned?
(Basically, I'm saying some people do have homosexual parents. That a kid on a show has homosexual parents doesn't necessarily mean anything more than that some dolphins attack sharks -- both are things that happen.)
Fine, fugu, you've made a wonderful case that not funding with, or showing on stations financed by, government funding (which is a far more accurate description than "banned") this is silly. But we live in a democracy, and except for a few cordoned off areas, majority rules.
Free speech is one of those areas. Here, we have a program that guarantees that two of our most fundamental principles - democracy and free speech - will clash head on. Why create a situation where the government must ignore one of its central tenets in favor of another?
quote:If we stoped supporting PBS with government funds, and if we started charging religious institutions property tax, we could close the newly created (since Clinton was out of office, I mean) federal budget deficit in years, instead of, well, like, never!
Edit: my original post wasn't fair, so I'll make three points. 1.) Property taxes don't go to the federal government. 2.) This isn't about money, but foundational principles of our government. 3.) I, also, miss Newt's fiscal responsibility that closed Clinton's early deficits.
posted
Pixiest...it was called the 19th amendment, aka "Womens Righ to Vote". And yes, the constitution is a guideline. Think of all the many interpretations that come out of reading the same line of text. The only way that it can continue to function in any relevant way is if it is a living-breathing document.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
THT: the 19th amendment REQUIRED the states to let us vote. But previous to the 19th amendment, MANY states already let us vote.
The constitution is NOT a living breathing document. It is a set of restrictions on the federal government. If you want to change it, there is a difficult amendment process.
When the majority wants to do something whacky, we have the consitution to tell them they can't do that. The problem comes when the courts don't uphold the constitution. When the court decides that something is so important it's worth ignoring the constitution. Campaign Finance Reform, the FCC, social programs in general, NASA (painful to give up, yes but it needs to be privately funded).
The government is not supposed to be mommy and daddy. It's supposed to be a final arbitor of desputes and a defender from external and internal threats.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The constitution is NOT a living breathing document. It is a set of restrictions on the federal government. If you want to change it, there is a difficult amendment process."
Yes, and because the restrictions and allowances are vague, the only way to read the constitution is as a flexible document. For example, "provide for the general welfare and common defence" allows public funding of the arts, as the arts keep the populace happy and healthy, which is part of general welfare.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're interested in keeping the populace happy, then unpopular arts wouldn't be funded, right? Or, at least, arts that pissed off large portions of the populace wouldn't be funded, while arts that a minority liked very much and the rest of the population didn't care about either way would be funded.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This is the preamble. It is the abstract of the document. This sentance contains none of the structual aspects of our constitution. It does not define the government. It does not give nor restrict any of the government's powers. It is simply stating what the DOCUMENT will do.
As such there is no "general welfare" clause of the constitution any more than there is a "more perfect union" clause of the constitution.
posted
Instead of public funding of the arts, I much rather have that same money invested in public school's art and music programs.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where in the constitution does it say that federal funds should be used to make TV shows? (or any other art for that matter?)
Stop funding such things with money taken from other people by force and the opinion of 'phobes with political power won't matter.
If you like PBS, fund it with your own money by CHOICE.
Pix and I have radically different views on acceptance of homosexual lifestyles, and yet we are in 100% agreement on this.
Let PBS sink or swim based on the market - if people want a show that portrays positive images of homosexual parents, they can certainly support one. If enough people don't support it, it will fall off the airways.
Either way, I can not watch it, and be comfortable in knowing that my tax dollars didn't go toward its production.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you believe that no government funding should be used for any type of media/arts/music, then how should it be funded?
Technology has made media dissemination extremely easy. You can write a book and sell it in PDF format (see Ebay), distribute MP3s of your newest songs, host an online gallery, or make a full-length movie with a digital camera for less than $6000.
posted
Pix, you should read the webcomic Angels 2200 ( http://www.angels2200.com/ ). Basically, a genetically selective plague wipes out almost all the men, so women are suddenly thrust into authority over most things (and lesbianism becomes understandably more common). Also, men are essentially removed from combat because they're too valuable a resource.
The story is about a squad of (young, female) fighter pilots who are thrust into service with little training due to a growing conflict between the colonies and earth. Start from the beginning, the story is fairly involved and hard to pick up if you don't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I read a story with the same premise (few men, excluded from combat) in one of the annual Best of Sci Fi anthologies. I'll never find it, but it was pretty good. I wonder if they're related.
posted
I've read a few of that nature. I recall one where men were gone altogether, and had undergone significant differentiation based on role.
The story was based around a man who was transferred there (alternate universe, iirc), his mind taking over the body of one of the "breeder" women.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest- "As such there is no "general welfare" clause of the constitution any more than there is a "more perfect union" clause of the constitution."
Don't know the constitution that well then, do you?
I quote Article I, section 8, of the constitution.
"he Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you believe that no government funding should be used for any type of media/arts/music, then how should it be funded?
Is this a serious question? How are most media, arts, and music funded? PBS isn't our only source of it, you know. If it goes away, we won't suddenly fall into the world of THX-1138. If anything, government-sponsored art sounds a lot MORE like the world of THX-1138 Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, it's pretty much a non-issue. Nobody is going to agree with everything on PBS, so if you don't want your kids to watch it, don't let them.
posted
Part of my problem is I'm extremely skeptical of arguments that sound like "we shouldn't fund it because some people disagree with it", as for any program some people will disagree.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Part of my problem is I'm extremely skeptical of arguments that sound like "we shouldn't fund it because some people disagree with it", as for any program some people will disagree.
But that's not the argument I'm making.
My argument is that truly expressing the will of the majority in this situation will require the government to engage in content-based discrimination. The only two solutions I can think of are 1) don't fund it or 2) fund everything.
posted
And we are agreed that there are at least a few situations where content based discrimination on the part of the government is acceptable; the question is if PBS is ever one of them (and more specifically if this case is one of them).
Actually, I'd be okay with PBS losing federal government funding, though I would require a (quite possibly content-agnostic) method of allocating a subset of broadcast bands based on non-profit status, managed at the state/local level. PBS doesn't rely on much government funding, really, they (and other non-profits) mainly just need a place to broadcast.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ernie and Bert are puppets. They don't even have bottom halves, let alone sexual preferences.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ernie and Bert are gay. They're based on a gay couple their writer knew.
As for article 1 section 8 of the constitution. I appologise for the excessively large quote but it's important to look at the section as a whole.
quote: Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
"The general welfare" in this article refers to the things enumerated in this list, just as "the common defense" refers to arming and regulating the milita, as is enumerated in this list. Why else would the government's duties to the militia be spelled out when their duties to the general welfare are not?
Further, this is a restriction on how the taxes are to be used rather than granting the government more power.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, Pixiest, that's not correct at all. The common defense is separate from the militia. Notice that in the militia the appointment of the officers is reserved to the states, whereas in the US armed forces the US gov't appoints the officers.
Nowadays militia members are better called police officers.
Each of the powers enumerated in that section is a separate power, the later ones are not generalizations of the earlier ones.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Fugu, the police don't enter into it. That's a purely local matter.
This part is the army/navy/airforce/marines. In the old days, these were sometimes refered to as "Regulars". Regular in this context means "Trained".
quote: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States
This part is what is now called The National Guard. In the old days, they were often called "Irregulars". These were the people who knew how to hunt and shoot, but lacked the training and disciplin of the Regular army. (This is not to denegrate the weekend warriors of today. They go through the same training and can be called up to fight in Iraq just as any other unit can.)
quote: , reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Puffy: As I have not looked it up on snopes, I will defer to your greater research. =)
posted
You're right and wrong. The national guard does fall under that clause, but its the part under command of the US.
The police and such are most of the militia (by far), though.
As for the armed forces, they are under these clauses:
quote:To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
It is worth pointing out that providing for the general welfare isn't a power, though, its something the government can use "taxes, duties, imposts, and excises" for.
quote:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
. Note that after excises its a comma, not a semi colon. That's not an additional power, but what the purpose of the taxes, duties, imposts, and excises are.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kinda bleeding heart commie pinko is this EducationSecretary? Hamming it up to rant on and on about lesbians when the real beef is humanizing bunnies.
It's bad enough that the liberal media uses BugsBunny to make folks chicken of hunting wascally wabbits without the government stepping in to fund and-yet-another false portrayal to make citizens duck their patriotic duty to prevent the rabbits' overbreeding agenda to increase their population so them thar lop-eared varmints can overrun our country.
I smell something fishy here. And it stinks of porkbarrel politics by heavy hitters of the meat industry to make mutton out of the sheep following their judas goat politicians.
posted
Brief aside: When I took Constitutional Law my 1L year, we covered in detail 3 clauses of the 14th amendment (equal protection, due process, and privileges and immunities) and maybe 6 sentences from the main body, with special attention to commerce clause, necessary and proper, the other privileges and immunities clause, and the foreign policy clauses. We covered in passing maybe another 5 or 6 sentences from the main body. We read case law, framers' documents, and commentary tracing the interpretation of those clauses from framing to present day. And this still gave us basically an overview of those items.
I am emphatically not saying no one but lawyers can talk about this, or provide accurate data. I am saying that anyone who raises a constitutional argument based solely on the text of the document is very likely missing something. There's a few areas where deeper analysis isn't needed, but these are seldom controversial. This analysis is readily available to laypersons on the web. Findlaw is a great source, as is cornell law school's site. Historians, political scientists, and others all right legitimate commentaries and critiques on the subject, and these are available as well.
If a subject is being disputed, though, the mere text of the document isn't enough to go on.
quote:But the government should not be producing shows that pronounce any kind of judgement on any family arrangement.
I'm going to change a few words: America for "The government"; "engaging in discussions" for "producing shows"; and "anything important" for "family arrangement."
"But America should not be engaging in discussions that pronounce any kind of judgment on anything important."
And this is why popular entertainment, American discourse, and even why the Presidential debates were trivial.
People think Political Correctness is bad? This is what leads to an affluent nation that's a cultural slum, or a small petty nation with small petty concerns and small petty people.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
