quote: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.
Wrong. The Constitution is not a set of restrictions, it is a document meant for and purposed to establish and define our rights. It is not supposed to restrict them, and the only time it has restricted them didn't last very long (prohibition). "Thou shalt not" may be fine for the Ten Commandments, but that isn't what the Constitution is about.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say your definition is correct in a goal or aspirational sense - it was constructed almost exclusively to preserve rights while providing for a functional government.
In a functional sense, though, the Constitution has 3 functions:
1. It defines, very imprecisely, what the federal government may do (that's why it's called a constitution of enumerated powers). This definition includes positive statements of powers (regulate commerce) and prohibitions on infringements on rights (1st amendment). It is in this sense that "set of restrictions on the federal government" is both somewhat accurate and incomplete.
2. It places limits on what states may do, but states have general power unless that power is revoked by the Constitution. This revocation can be a rights protection (the 14th amendment, most often) or it can be a reservation of power for the federal government or for other states.
3. It imposes duties on states (full faith and credit, recognition of citizenship of all residents) and the federal government (census, republican form of government guarantee).
Off the top of my head. I can't think of any clause, short of the preamble, that can't be categorized into one or two of these groupings.
posted
I meant to post that. It was on the front page of washingtonpost.com today under the headline "PBS Chief: 'Buster' Didn't Boot Her." It was in the TV column. I didn't see the print edition or any other news sites today.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone actually see this show? Maybe not the episode in question (since it was, like, burned or something) but any episode? I decided to turn it on one day as I love the show it is spun off from, "Arthur." These books about Arthur and his friends are excellent reading for the little ones. My daughter, now 5, has had us read these to her since she was old enough to point at a book to make a choice. She even named her favorite baby doll, Kate, after Arthur's baby sister.
The show is about Buster, one of Arthur's friends, who travels the country and sends back postcards or phone calls or whatever to Arthur to tell him about what he sees. He visits with different people with different backgrounds or cultures doing different things. It has animated segments cut with a lot of voice overs covering live interviews and shots of whatever it is Buster is visiting. This week, I saw one with a cowgirl who works on a ranch with horses. It was cool. I let my daughter watch it (we usually don't do TV after school but I made this exception) and she loved it. She loves horses and seeing a girl not too much older than her doing all these things just made her little heart leap. The show was cute and educational in a nice way. Wasn't as funny or clever as "Arthur" but it was still good.
So after this half hour of indoctrination, I asked my daughter what she thought of it. She said: "I want to marry a girl when I grow up." Honest.
No, she didn't. I kid.
But honestly, the homogenation of our country is kind of sickening. I think what little the Feds give to PBS (looking at my local stations, it provides just under 25% of support...most comes from people like me, the viewer)is money well spent. If anything, it gives parents choices other than the pablum on "market driven" tv.
Oddly enough, I think PBS is more driven by the consumer than market driven television. At least the local NPR station is like that. They have their yearly fundraisers on the air. They ask for callers to call in and support the shows. If a show gets little or no calls of support while it is on, they get a very clear indication that it might not be a show worth keeping. The shows with the most listeners are the ones that get the most calls. A fairly clear-cut way to ensure at least your local base is getting the kind of programming they find worthy of supporting.
Market driven fluff does no such thing. It isn't based on what people want, it is based on what they think advertisers think people want. Or what they think they can afford to do and still get advertisers.
Our government is a democracy but those in the 49% shouldn't have to feel that EVERYTHING they value should be off the air and out the door until they win an election. The Constitution lays out a Republic and a Republic is concerned with all its citizens, not just those who have a majority in opinion.
I think it is good that there is some funding for the arts...governments have been doing this throughout all time. If we don't agree all the time that is healthy.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They did a show where Buster visits some Mormons (they were referred to as Mormons on the show). If you don't show Mormons, is it okay to show the Hispanic kids who had so many Catholic icons? Is it okay to show Chinese celebrating New Year?
I mean, we have some pretty big issues with the Catholics. My husband had to go to the store on sunday once, and my 8 year old says "What, is he Catholic now?" We have a sister in law who is Catholic and we try to explain there isn't anything "wrong" with being Catholic.
But my first impulse was that we would not watch the show about the Lesbians. But that belies my opinion that they are not more evil than Buster's own family, where the parents are divorced. The thing is, Buster's parents (on the Arthur show) are shown with the resultant or causative quirks intact. Like his mother wakes him up early for Christmas the whole week before it actually occurs and forces him to eat dozens of pancakes.
Anyway, I was surprised they did the show about Mormons. PBS decided on their own not to air the Lesbian show. I think demanding the money back is stupid. They should get their money back for the shows about trying to find a moose in... I think it was one of the Dakotas. That show was so amazingly boring.
P.S. I don't know about bert and ernie, but kermitage.com included "sex" in the hobbies of the drummer "Animal". Umm, not that I can envision that.
posted
:bump: great, someone who's actually a fan of the show posts and the thread dies. Figures.
I was going to say some other things about Buster. He's a compulsive eater and also an underachiever/class clown. And there was a series of episodes (again, on the original Arthur show) where he goes to live with his dad (who is a pilot) for a while and when he comes back he's all maladjusted. Though he does get over it.
The new show does tend to glamourize living between two parents a bit. The dad got a job being an air chaffeur for a rock band on tour.
Oh, and I realized that while showing lesbians is one thing, showing lesbians with kids is another. Since kids begin to know where babies come from, it means the lesbians had the babies with someone other than their love partner. It makes it somewhat more complicated.
posted
Lesbians can also adopt and go to sperm banks just as married couples can (well, actually its harder for them, but I was more meaning physically). Also they can have children remaining from heterosexual relationships.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but it complicates the "born gay" understanding. Which I'm actually okay with personally.
I wonder how old my kid will be before the topic of fertility treatments comes up. Probably 14. Anyone want to wager?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
We have a sister in law who is Catholic and we try to explain there isn't anything "wrong" with being Catholic.
