Spellings wants PBS money back
The Washington Times
George Archibald
January 27, 2005

(excerpt)

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has asked the Public Broadcasting Service to refund taxpayer dollars used to create and distribute an episode of a cartoon program that features lesbian parents, saying the subject matter was inappropriate and undermines the show's effort to promote literacy.
   The "PBS for Kids" episode of its popular "Postcards From Buster" program, originally scheduled to air Feb. 2 in classrooms across the country, had been pulled for review after some affiliates of PBS complained about its content. It was produced with Education Department grant money from a literacy initiative.
In a letter to PBS President and Chief Executive Officer Pat Mitchell, Mrs. Spellings insisted that all references to Education Department funding and sponsorship be deleted from the program credits and "any materials about the program," such as teacher guides and student workbooks.
   "Congress' and the department's purpose in funding this programming certainly was not to introduce this kind of subject matter to children, particularly through the powerful and intimate medium of television," Mrs. Spellings wrote in a letter sent Tuesday.
   PBS Chief Operating Officer Wayne Godwin yesterday said that the public television system already had decided not to provide the episode to member stations and that the Education Department's financial contribution to the episode "will be used to fund the production of a replacement show."

Full story: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050126-114917-8619r.htm

PBS pulled the website that explained the episode, but Google didn't.  Here is an excerpt from the Google page describing the contents of the episode:

While there, we visited Emma, David, and James, who live with their two moms, Karen and Gillian. Karen and my mom used to work at the same newspaper together

Link to the Google page: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Q9T2mzoyJ4YJ:pbskids.org/buster/blog/vt_hinesburg_bl.html+pbs+postcards+buster+vermont&hl=en&lr=lang_en

puhleeze...I'm sure there were people in the 40s, 50s, & 60s who thought the same thing about interracial relationships.  It's nothing but bigotry ::)


You got that right!!!

puhleeze...I'm sure there were people in the 40s, 50s, & 60s who thought the same thing about interracial relationships.  It's nothing but bigotry ::)


Although an inter-racial relationship is between members of the opposite sex (as intended).  What's next, inter-species life partnership?  "'Cause I really love my goldfish and the evil government can't take that away."  ::)

:D

Just another excuse for the right to attack one of their favorite targets.  I guess they're trying to give Spongebob a rest.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that all this fuss and bluster of homosexuality, in all the forms it takes, is either a distraction from the real issues or an expression of the insecurity uptight conservatives feel regarding their own sexuality (or both).

. . .or an attempt to grasp a biblical moral rite.  :-\\

;)

Is the country really ready for this? I mean the majority of the country.

Homosexuality approved in the most sacred and only squeaky-clean TV channel left?

I'm not taking sides on this issue, but objectively, if the majority of the country disapproves of homosexuality in one way or another, then it stands to reason that PBS should do whatever is necessary to make certain to keep that subject out of their programming because their purpose must be to please the majority. If not, their funding goes down the toilet. All this happens whether we like it or not. It's the reality of things.


IMO, why barrage kids with social issues during a cartoon? I'm more than certain they become exposed one way or another to social issues from their daily lives. Cartoons should be carefree entertainment.

. . .or an attempt to grasp a biblical moral rite.  :-\\

;)


Since I do not hold the judeo-christian bible as anything more than (a distrorted) historical document, your "grasping" for it is of no import to me.  Grasp it,. fondle it, caress it, as far as I'm concerned, stuff it.  It has no place in our laws or in our public policy.

puhleeze...I'm sure there were people in the 40s, 50s, & 60s who thought the same thing about interracial relationships.  It's nothing but bigotry ::)


As someone in an interracial relationship I would like to say that there are people in 20's and 30's who
have the same problem as their older counterparts.  The bigotry has not gone away but it has become
more relaxed.  The same will happen in the case of Homosexual relationships, there will be diehards,
and their young, it will take time.  I was in high school before I even heard the word, let alone have
any grasp of its meaning.  It's better now,  thank(insert chosen deity here)

Although an inter-racial relationship is between members of the opposite sex (as intended).  What's next, inter-species life partnership?  "'Cause I really love my goldfish and the evil government can't take that away."  ::)

:D


That would be one segment of the Furry subculture called Fursuiters.

Is the country really ready for this? I mean the majority of the country.

Homosexuality approved in the most sacred and only squeaky-clean TV channel left?

I'm not taking sides on this issue, but objectively, if the majority of the country disapproves of homosexuality in one way or another, then it stands to reason that PBS should do whatever is necessary to make certain to keep that subject out of their programming because their purpose must be to please the majority. If not, their funding goes down the toilet. All this happens whether we like it or not. It's the reality of things.


IMO, why barrage kids with social issues during a cartoon? I'm more than certain they become exposed one way or another to social issues from their daily lives. Cartoons should be carefree entertainment.


Well said.

Dear god, not this again......

They are fricking cartoon charcters are cring out loud!  Most kids don't get an entire grasp on reality until at least 5, 6, or older!  The idea that somehow seeing gay cartoons makes kids wants to become gay, therefore the episodes must be pulled, is being used as a cover to "convince broadcasting companies to broadcast more "wholesome entertainment" " First the whole Janet Jackson scandal, now this!

It won't before long that the US government and "family value watchdog groups" have complete and utter control of all media!!!!  >:(

http://www.content-wire.com/Custom/Icon/Thumbnail/red-fish.jpg
RED HERRING

Another distraction from REAL issues designed to get both sides whipped into an indignant frenzy.  While the population at large gets bent out of shape over baloney like gay cartoons, the robber baron class proceeds to fleece us blind!

Well said.


Thank you.

To me, having a cartoon showing a home where the two adults just happen to be the same sex is not something to be up in arms about. Now if they showed these same two people in the bedroom-that would be a bit much for a children's show. Vermont is one place this episode WILL be shown-for one thing, it takes place in Vermont and we Vermonters know that homosexual couples are NOT a danger to society-in fact, they are part of our society. We know many same-sex couples (had two at our wedding and the third one we invited didn't show). Knowing these people do not hurt our marriage at all.

I think it is great that PBS is showing different families, different ways of life, different religions, etc. It tells kids that there are many different kinds of people/families in this world and one is no better or no worse than the other. Most prejudices stem from fear of the unknown. If kids get a bit of knowledge about different people, they won't fear them.




Cat

http://www.content-wire.com/Custom/Icon/Thumbnail/red-fish.jpg
RED HERRING

Another distraction from REAL issues designed to get both sides whipped into an indignant frenzy.  While the population at large gets bent out of shape over baloney like gay cartoons, the robber baron class proceeds to fleece us blind!


Exactly! I think it's sad to deny the existence of families such as this. I'm all for children having loving environments surround them, regardless of makeup.

Tanya

Exactly! I think it's sad to deny the existence of families such as this. I'm all for children having loving environments surround them, regardless of makeup.

Tanya

And remember...as important as it is to Republicans to protect children from the satanic influence of "Heather has two mommies," it is equally important to said Republicans to protect children from the satanic influence of pre-natal care, post-natal care, early childhood nutrition, ecologies free of pollutants, well-funded public education, guaranteed childhood heath coverage, and a whole raft of other secular humanist iniquities, thank you very much.

Is the country really ready for this? I mean the majority of the country.

Homosexuality approved in the most sacred and only squeaky-clean TV channel left?

I'm not taking sides on this issue, but objectively, if the majority of the country disapproves of homosexuality in one way or another, then it stands to reason that PBS should do whatever is necessary to make certain to keep that subject out of their programming because their purpose must be to please the majority. If not, their funding goes down the toilet. All this happens whether we like it or not. It's the reality of things.


IMO, why barrage kids with social issues during a cartoon? I'm more than certain they become exposed one way or another to social issues from their daily lives. Cartoons should be carefree entertainment.


I respect your opinion on this and see your point, but I disagree.  H.L. Menkan (sp) once said "the role of the press to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable".  I use to support my local PBS channal because they aired controvertial programs, like Bill Moyers' stuff on the S&L scandal, Iran/Contra, a series on Africa etc.  When they stopped, I stopped.  I read today that Vt. Public TV WILL air the Buster Bunny show, so I might renew my pledge.

And remember...as important as it is to Republicans to protect children from the satanic influence of "Heather has two mommies," it is equally important to said Republicans to protect children from the satanic influence of pre-natal care, post-natal care, early childhood nutrition, ecologies free of pollutants, well-funded public education, guaranteed childhood heath coverage, and a whole raft of other secular humanist iniquities, thank you very much.


But Max, he asks sardonically, wouldn't providing all these things discourage "personal responsibility"? 

Check this out:

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050131/NEWS/501310381/1018/OPINION

This editorial (from a Pulitzer Prize winner) says it all.