If they want the show it be shown they can us their own money to produce it and show it. All the government said is that this issue isn't one the government will be getting into, on either side.
Seems fair to me.
"A spokesman for PBS said that the government-funded network had agreed not to air the cartoon. "Postcards From Buster" shows the title character, an animated bunny, on a trip to Vermont, a state that recognizes homosexual civil unions. The episode included two lesbian couples.
Spellings told PBS (1) that her department's seal or any statement linking the department to the show be removed, (2) that PBS notify its member stations the nature of the show, and (3) that a refund "in the interest of avoiding embroiling the Ready-to-Learn program in a controversy that will only hurt it."
PBS, unlike other non-commercial stations, receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars. Other non-commercial stations depend on their listeners for financial support. PBS's viewing audience is basically affluent and well educated, but give only a small amount to support PBS."
I mean you would want a tax payers dallors to pay for a program that openly denounced homosexuality. Would you?
but did the program openly promote homosexuality, or did there just happen to be homosexual couples on it? there's a rather large difference between the two.
besides which, isn't the whole point of public television to produce shows that commercial TV won't? such as, for instance, educational programs.
It is a animated program. Nothing just happened in it.
Look if you like this program the answer is simple. Get money out of you pockets and offer to pay PBS to show the show. The idea of it being "Educational" is flawed. The Amush suffer abuse by people who don't understand them, Muslims also, Orthidox Christians and Jews, also suffer abuse or in tolerance. Sikhs have been killed due to not understanding them. Do we have programs saying Sikhs and their beliefs are normal and to be accepted?
It is only educational because you think it is. To about 60-80% of the population is it isn't educational it is special interests. As a special interest it does not require the support of the tax payers with out convering with the tax payers.
You want this program... then you can pay for it. I have notice liberals are very good at having others pay for their political goals. This is just yet another example of this.
Look. Think. All the groups you named are normal within their realms. Gay, straight, bi-, trans-, Christian with odd notions, people with other gods, they're fine. A program on PBS promoting tolerance has been chopped just for promoting tolerance. I do think it is in everyone's best interest to be tolerant. I'm trying to talk down to your level and tolerate you. In my opinion, 60-80% of the population could use a bunch of education.
But I know whom I care about and my politics go aglee in their needs' wake or as best I can do. I think I might be liberal, but not rich. I understand that others are not understanding. But my money goes to those I love. Which may or may not be the opposite (consider that word) sex.
You are misunderstanding decency. One cares for those one cares about closest first. So sorry, but you are misunderstanding love as well as decency. *sigh* And your spelling and punctuation are atrocious.
Sorry Dearlove, But he turned up his snout here and I had to do it. Or couldn't resist.
I have dyslexia which makes spelling difficult. I could have taken a verbal sat, but I was stubborn and took the written one. But if it make you feel better to look down at me because of this then feel free. I normally don't dignify those comments with a responce. I look at it this way... the purpose of language is to get a message accross... so did you get the message? Well then job done poor spelling and all.
Let me get this strieght your for government funding of teaching acceptance orthidox religious concepts right? Good the lets us not here any more complaining about teaching religion in school.
So you feel that since you know what is best for everyone else they must bow to your power and do learn to accept everything you accept? There is a name for that... I got news for you those other people feel the same way so why shouldn't you be forced to accept what they accept? (at least they have the numbers to back it)
Last time I looked it was rule by the people not rule of a few super elite who know how the world should be.
Okay, I understand dyslexia quite well. I got your message, albeit with difficulty, and disagree with you. Religion has its place, and it's not in public school. I haven't said the pledge of allegiance to that gaudy bit of tissue since I was 12, but will fight and die for my country.
Faith comes to one in many forms. I think it is something that is corrupted when taught. It has to be found in one's heart So I think it's important that everyone learn about the various ways everyone_is_so that they can find their own way to what is for them. And I think it's important that we all respect those who think differently. and agree to disagree. So a TV cartoon about tolerance seems like a good idea to me.
I am the last person (or close to it) that wants my government to teach religion, orthodox or otherwise. I do advocate everyone going their own way. But things like marriage and choice of faith and way of being are the choices or defaults for people who are them or pick them. And we all have to put up with them.
I do not know what is best for anyone. I just want them to be let be. I want my loved ones to be and maybe be supported in the idea that they're okay. I am not super elite. But I am willing to stick up for what I believe in and who I care about.
I could say more, but that would involve mentioning complicated things I think you wouldn't like and wouldn't be fair to others to mention in a public forum.
And most people are insecure and stupider than I am, which doesn't say much for any of us.
Then We will have to agree to disagree. Since I don't feel you have the right to force acceptance of anything even in the name of tolerance. Most world faiths can not bend to meet that idea (not unless you wish to make illegal their holy books... which is being worked on in Canada and Europe).
I see tolerance as don't hurt that person, acceptance as they are normal, and the government as not involved in pushing one set of morals over another.
So no teaching acceptance of religious beliefs by the government. And no teaching acceptance of homosexuality beliefs (ie normal) by the government.
If it means that much to you then you should back it with you money and not dig into other peoples pockets to fund it.
The government goes into our pockets and starts a meaningless war without our permission. It took away a budget surplus, gave us deficit spending, and now is telling us that the Social Security fund is soon to be bankrupt. I can't see what's right about any of that. The government takes and frequently does not return.
So one positive (and relatively cheap compared to war) cartoon might keep a Sikh from getting killed because of his turban. I consider it a good use of my dough. Maybe it'll keep a crippled brown guy from being dragged to death in Texas. Maybe it will let the coming generation be a bit kinder. I don't know, but it seems like a good investment to me.
And for the record, I'll say again that anyone crazy enough to get married who can find someone crazy enough to marry them should be allowed to be committed thusly. And though not a homosexual, I'm mostly atheist. I don't have much to be biased about except bias. *shrug*
(no subject)
Seems fair to me.
"A spokesman for PBS said that the government-funded network had agreed not to air the cartoon. "Postcards From Buster" shows the title character, an animated bunny, on a trip to Vermont, a state that recognizes homosexual civil unions. The episode included two lesbian couples.
Spellings told PBS (1) that her department's seal or any statement linking the department to the show be removed, (2) that PBS notify its member stations the nature of the show, and (3) that a refund "in the interest of avoiding embroiling the Ready-to-Learn program in a controversy that will only hurt it."
PBS, unlike other non-commercial stations, receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars. Other non-commercial stations depend on their listeners for financial support. PBS's viewing audience is basically affluent and well educated, but give only a small amount to support PBS."
I mean you would want a tax payers dallors to pay for a program that openly denounced homosexuality. Would you?
(no subject)
besides which, isn't the whole point of public television to produce shows that commercial TV won't? such as, for instance, educational programs.
(no subject)
Look if you like this program the answer is simple. Get money out of you pockets and offer to pay PBS to show the show. The idea of it being "Educational" is flawed. The Amush suffer abuse by people who don't understand them, Muslims also, Orthidox Christians and Jews, also suffer abuse or in tolerance. Sikhs have been killed due to not understanding them. Do we have programs saying Sikhs and their beliefs are normal and to be accepted?
It is only educational because you think it is. To about 60-80% of the population is it isn't educational it is special interests. As a special interest it does not require the support of the tax payers with out convering with the tax payers.
You want this program... then you can pay for it. I have notice liberals are very good at having others pay for their political goals. This is just yet another example of this.
(no subject)
But I know whom I care about and my politics go aglee in their needs' wake or as best I can do. I think I might be liberal, but not rich. I understand that others are not understanding. But my money goes to those I love. Which may or may not be the opposite (consider that word) sex.
You are misunderstanding decency. One cares for those one cares about closest first. So sorry, but you are misunderstanding love as well as decency. *sigh* And your spelling and punctuation are atrocious.
Sorry Dearlove, But he turned up his snout here and I had to do it. Or couldn't resist.
(no subject)
Let me get this strieght your for government funding of teaching acceptance orthidox religious concepts right? Good the lets us not here any more complaining about teaching religion in school.
So you feel that since you know what is best for everyone else they must bow to your power and do learn to accept everything you accept? There is a name for that... I got news for you those other people feel the same way so why shouldn't you be forced to accept what they accept? (at least they have the numbers to back it)
Last time I looked it was rule by the people not rule of a few super elite who know how the world should be.
(no subject)
Faith comes to one in many forms. I think it is something that is corrupted when taught. It has to be found in one's heart So I think it's important that everyone learn about the various ways everyone_is_so that they can find their own way to what is for them. And I think it's important that we all respect those who think differently. and agree to disagree. So a TV cartoon about tolerance seems like a good idea to me.
I am the last person (or close to it) that wants my government to teach religion, orthodox or otherwise. I do advocate everyone going their own way. But things like marriage and choice of faith and way of being are the choices or defaults for people who are them or pick them. And we all have to put up with them.
I do not know what is best for anyone. I just want them to be let be. I want my loved ones to be and maybe be supported in the idea that they're okay. I am not super elite. But I am willing to stick up for what I believe in and who I care about.
I could say more, but that would involve mentioning complicated things I think you wouldn't like and wouldn't be fair to others to mention in a public forum.
And most people are insecure and stupider than I am, which doesn't say much for any of us.
(no subject)
I see tolerance as don't hurt that person, acceptance as they are normal, and the government as not involved in pushing one set of morals over another.
So no teaching acceptance of religious beliefs by the government.
And no teaching acceptance of homosexuality beliefs (ie normal) by the government.
If it means that much to you then you should back it with you money and not dig into other peoples pockets to fund it.
(no subject)
So one positive (and relatively cheap compared to war) cartoon might keep a Sikh from getting killed because of his turban. I consider it a good use of my dough. Maybe it'll keep a crippled brown guy from being dragged to death in Texas. Maybe it will let the coming generation be a bit kinder. I don't know, but it seems like a good investment to me.
And for the record, I'll say again that anyone crazy enough to get married who can find someone crazy enough to marry them should be allowed to be committed thusly. And though not a homosexual, I'm mostly atheist. I don't have much to be biased about except bias. *shrug*