# Lesbians on PBS!? Not while I'm Sec. of Education **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 26, 2005, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830 "2005-01-26T21:57:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/121 "2005-01-28T16:46:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But that would be the extent of your dispproval? You wouldn’t call for it to be stopped as inappropriate for a public broadcasting network subject? I would look at the factual accuracy of their claims. If their claims were accurate, then that’d be the extent of my disapproval. If their claims were factually inaccurate, then I’d question why factual inaccuracies were being broadcast with my tax dollars. If there were any controversy about the factual accuracy of their claims, I’d fall back to the peer-review scientific method. I would not base a formal objection on moral grounds. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/122 "2005-01-28T16:50:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But that would be the extent of your dispproval? You wouldn’t call for it to be stopped as inappropriate for a public broadcasting network subject? I might rant about the idioticy in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/123 "2005-01-28T16:57:26Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > If the enlightened folks on this board are so disappointed that such results can be achieved, they have only themselves to blame. Oh, go fuck yourself with a serrated iron dildo. I have always been in favor of both small government and complete personal liberty. Your kneejerk bashing of `liberals' and `democrats’ is simply moronic because it ignores people like me who fought, and continue to fight, the growth of _all_ government, not just the growth of the police state or the growth of socialism. In other words, you are so ignorant of the political landscape it’s a wonder you actually know who’s president. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/124 "2005-01-28T17:01:20Z")
I caught an interview with the Secretary of Education and one of the women shown in this episode before I left for work this morning on ABC’s morning show. They also showed some of the episode in question. While I wasn’t paying complete attention the footage shown looked inoquous enough. Here’s what struck me. Spellings said she objected to the episode because of the “sexualization” of our children. Is showing a lesbian couple going about their daily routine somehow more sexual than showing a heterosexual would be? I’m pretty sure there’s more to a lesbian marriage than sex, just as there is to a heterosexual marriage. The other thing that struck me is they had a shot of a cartoon rock band and the drummer was a female rabbit (I say “female” because she had decent-sized breasts) playing the drums in a halter top. Is this somehow not sexualizing our children while showing a woman in a sweatshirt and jeans who happens to be a lesbian is? I’m genuinely confused. One of the rules I learned on the playground is kids who are different are likely get picked on. I learned this when I went home to toad-in-the-hole, rather than meatloaf. To me, one of the essential roles for society as a whole which includes not only teachers, but parents, churches, and adults in general is to teach kids that it’s possible for someone to be different from them, but still be a neat, likable, human being. In the introduction to the segment, the host on ABC mentioned that among the “different” families Buster had visited in the past had been a devoutly religious family. Now, I can see why someone in favor of traditional morals would be supportive of that, but it still boggles my mind that such a person would refuse to see that tolerance extended to others. No, on second thought, it doesn’t. It goes back to the old “I said nothing when they came for X because I wasn’t X” mentality, and that’s a shame. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/125 "2005-01-28T17:08:56Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > I heartily disagree. She is using her position as Secretary of Education and including an official threat to funding. That is more than expressing her opinion. This is using the weight of the government to chill free expression and is tantamount to censorship. Aaiiieee! Yeah, I agree with you. What you missed in that quote is that I was giving **my** impression of the view that I thought **Mr Moto** was attempting to convey. Sorry 'bout that! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/126 "2005-01-28T17:14:55Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > I might rant about the idioticy in the Pit. I salute you for your consistent support of the principle of free speech. Quite frankly, I think you’re the minority. But you’re to be congratulated on having a consistent view and sticking to it… ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/127 "2005-01-28T17:16:17Z")
Sorry. I never claimed to be a full-blown libertarian, and nobody who reads my postings would confuse me with one. I can admire Albert Jay Nock and agree with many of his points while simultaneously disagreeing with others he made. **Polycarp** , I was specifically referring to what folks like **elucidator** would do with their pledge money. I’m willing to bet he doesn’t belong to the Moral Majority or the NRA, not only because he doesn’t support them, but also because he doesn’t want his dues used for purposes he doesn’t agree with. Is he censoring these groups by not doing so, and would he be censoring PBS if he stopped pledging funds? He has this curious view that cutting off funding entails censorship. Now, Ms. Spellings has a responsibility to allocate the funds of her department in a way that advances governmental goals and policies. If, in her view, that entails removing funding from a certain PBS program, that is right and proper. We may complain about the result, but we can’t call it censorship. All it is is an accounting decision. I don’t believe the liberal belief in free speech is content dependent, and mine certainly isn’t. However, the decisions liberals make with their own and with the government’s money certainly is content dependent. Conservatives decide the same way, and rightly so. Now, if this bothers you enough that you want to produce programming unencumbered by such considerations, there are other avenues of funding and support available in many cases. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/128 "2005-01-28T17:30:24Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Now, Ms. Spellings has a responsibility to allocate the funds of her department in a way that advances governmental goals and policies. If, in her view, that entails removing funding from a certain PBS program, that is right and proper. We may complain about the result, but we can’t call it censorship. All it is is an accounting decision. > > I don’t believe the liberal belief in free speech is content dependent, and mine certainly isn’t. However, the decisions liberals make with their own and with the government’s money certainly is content dependent. Conservatives decide the same way, and rightly so. Now, if this bothers you enough that you want to produce programming unencumbered by such considerations, there are other avenues of funding and support available in many cases. Right there is where we have a problem. Yeah, liberals tend to spend government money for what they believe government ought to do, without references to whether their opponents think that is a valid use of funds, and so do conservatives. But “government goals and policies” does **not** equate to “things the Bush Administration thinks are icky.” Remember that we have a couple in **Vermont** as Ms. Spelling’s initial objection here. In other words, she’s saying that depicting a legally constituted family, in passing, in a show predominantly on maple-sap products, is an endorsement of something that she happens to object to, or her boss does, so she’s entitled to threaten funding on those grounds? Think that through – it’s as much coercion as the “you can make the speed limit whatever you want, but no Federal highways revenue sharing if your decision isn’t 55” was. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/129 "2005-01-28T17:41:40Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > But “government goals and policies” does **not** equate to “things the Bush Administration thinks are icky.” What are government goals and policies, then? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/130 "2005-01-28T18:02:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What are government goals and policies, then? Exactly. I can’t think of one federally enacted initiative that is designed to support gay couples. OTOH, there is a clear federal statute designed to prohibit the extension of heterosexual marriage bennefits to gays (ie, DOMA). A government official, trying to determine the federal government’s position on this matter would reasonably conclude that this is not a subject the government wants to actively support. note: It’s important to consider federal policy here as we are talking about federal dollars. If a domestic partners bill were to pass at the federal level, then it would a different matter entirely. That would be a clear indication that federal policy was to ACTIVELY support gay unions. Again, I want to emphasize that I am fully in support of gay rights, including gay marriage. But the issue here is not what I think, but what the country as a whole thinks, and how an administration official should act to support the people whom she serves. VT and CA both have extensive Civil Union laws on the books. If those states want to use state funds along the lines of what we’re discussing here, I think that would be entirely apporpriate. We’re just not there at the federal level yet. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/131 "2005-01-28T18:12:23Z")
Umm – “Your guided tour of the Molehill Mountains will be conducted by none other than the Secretary of Education!” We have a situation where a kid, in a kid’s show, is taken to Vermont to see how maple syrup is made. While there, he meets another kid, who, it’s mentioned in passing, has two mommies. From this, you’re going to construct an elaborate discourse on the Federal support or lack thereof for same-sex couples? The kid, it was noted, has parents who are divorced. Therefore the entire program must constitute an attack on the institution of marriage, endorsing, as it does, the idea that parents can be divorced from each other! While we’re at it, let’s pick up on Fred MacMurray, who by adopting his youngest son’s best friend when he was orphaned back in a 60s sitcom, was clearly a pedophile grooming the boy for his nefarious schemes. And clearly reporting that guy in Glendale who left his Jeep on the railroad tracks is an endorsement of suicide! God, this depredation of the airwaves by displaying things as they are and not the ideal conditions (in the mind of our President) that they should be must end! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/132 "2005-01-28T18:22:36Z")
Please note, whatever defense I make of Secretary Spellings is rooted solely in the belief that, while I believe her decision wasn’t a good one, it was properly hers to make. If anybody’s rights were infringed, it is because of the huge effects federal spending can have. In the case of the Department of Education, there can be no question where blame for this properly lies. [From this history of the Department of Education:](http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/centers/child/briefs/Brief%20History%20of%20US%20DOE.pdf) > [@](#): > > In the period between 1908 and 1975, more than 130 bills were introduced to form a Department of Education, but it took two additional events toward the end of that period to transform department status for education > from dream to reality. The first was the election to the Senate of Abraham Ribicoff, former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), who began work in earnest on the formation of a department in the 1960’s. A second critical factor was the rapid politicization of the National Education Association (NEA) and its growing interest in a stronger Federal presence in education. In 1972, the massive union formed a political action committee, and in 1975 it joined forces with other unions to form the Labor Coalition Clearinghouse (LCC) for election campaigning. Along with other members of the LCC, the NEA released “Needed: A Cabinet Department of Education” in 1975, but its most significant step was to endorse a presidential candidate—Jimmy Carter—for the first time in the history of the organization. The NEA was no small player in the nomination process; the organization averaged 4,000 members per Congressional district, and some estimates suggest that the larger LCC influenced the selection of over 400 of the 3,000 delegates who attended the Democratic National Convention in 1976. > > NEA support helped to put Carter in the White House in 1976, but once there it was unclear whether his Administration would follow through on promises to consider department status for education. Education was not a top policy priority for the Carter team, and formation of a new department ran counter to his platform of streamlining the Federal government, but education was important to the candidate on a personal level. After much deliberation and study, Carter finally made good on his campaign promise and endorsed department status for education. > > Ribicoff was quick to support the President’s decision, and in March he and Senators Magnuson, Humphrey, Pell, and Nunn introduced yet another Department of Education Organization Act. The bill went to the Governmental Operations Committee, where the debates between October 1977 and May 1978 were at times bitter and acrimonious, but the Committee finally voted the bill to the floor, where the measure passed. The bill did not come up for a vote in the House during the same session, and the entire proceedings began all over again the following year. This time the bill did reach the House, where it passed in a close vote. President Carter signed the bill into law on October 17th, 1979, finally ending a struggle of almost 150 years to establish a Cabinet-level Department of Education. The NEA, Carter, Ribicoff, Magnuson, Humphrey, Pell, Nunn - gee, look at that. Not a Republican politician or organization in the bunch. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/133 "2005-01-28T18:30:20Z")
Interestingly, PBS had already come to the same conclusion as Spellings. From the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40188-2005Jan26?language=printer): > [@](#): > > PBS was surprised to receive a letter from new Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, warning the public TV network against airing an upcoming episode of the kids show “Postcards From Buster,” because PBS had already informed her office it would not send the episode to its stations, programming co-chief John Wilson says. > > \ > > “Ultimately we came to the conclusion that what was meant to be the background or backdrop of two families that happened to be headed by two mothers continued to find its way into the foreground,” Wilson said. > > “It’s too sensitive to raise in a children’s program,” he added. "We know we have a number of kids . . . who don’t have a parent or caregiver in with them watching to put it in context. At the end of the day what was meant to be a sort of background context of who this family is and who the parents are, overshadowed what the episode was really about, which was going to this part of America and learning about things that are uniquely Vermont. > > “Yesterday afternoon we literally decided that it was an issue best left for parents and children to address together at a time and manner of their own choosing.” ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/134 "2005-01-28T19:19:41Z")
> [@KJ](#): > > Wait, wait, wait… > > Isn’t Buster Bunny one of the main characters in _Tiny Toon Adventures?_ Is it also a character from _Arthur?_ > > Man, I was confused there for a second. The two rabbits, both named Buster, are of different taxonomies. The aforementioned Buster, surname of Baxter, is a humanoid rabbiton. Appearing on the television programs _Arthur_ and _Postcards from Buster_, he is more humanlike than most cartoon rabbits on television. He is also older than the other Buster, having appeared in the _Arthur_ book series which dates back to the 1970s. The other mentioned Buster, surname of Bunny, is a cartoony semi-humanoid rabbiton. He is a sort of straight man to the more wild and out-there Babs Bunny (unrelated), and both appear to be inspired by their mentor, Bugs Bunny (also unrelated). Of course, people with similar names is nothing new. In the _Arthur_ world, the intelligent Brain (real name: Alan) shares his name with a plotting cartoon mouse (real name: Brain); and Arthur himself shares his name with a lovable drunk portrayed by Dudley Moore in the film of the same name. Join us next time for our next study in the series: _Cartoon Character Immortality: Just Lucky or Blessed by God?_ ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/135 "2005-01-28T19:28:43Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > While we’re at it, let’s pick up on Fred MacMurray, who by adopting his youngest son’s best friend when he was orphaned back in a 60s sitcom, was clearly a pedophile grooming the boy for his nefarious schemes. Yikes! I never thought of the show in that light. From Uncle Charley right on down to the dog-that show was a hotbed of guy-on-guy action. How smoothly they slid in that subliminal message! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/136 "2005-01-28T19:36:24Z")
from the _Advocate_ online > [@](#): > > Vermont Public Television decided Wednesday morning that it will show the episode March 23, VPT spokeswoman Ann Curran said Wednesday. “This is something we think is an important Vermont story,” she said. “Civil unions are an important part of life in Vermont, part of the culture of Vermont.” ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/137 "2005-01-28T19:58:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Quite so. Children under 17 were not permitted in the Globe Theater for the first run of _Macbeth_, due to concern for content: too much Saxon violence. 😃 I heard with Romeo and Juliet, they didn’t want kids to get any crazy ideas! I’ve been right here, **mr.moto** , under my rock-with my three kids and the cat. My point is that now the attacks on kid’s programming seems more pernicious and strident–maybe that is just the party in power. And why start with kiddy shows? Methinks this is grandstanding on the part of the Reps–it’s “look! we have ‘traditional’ values!” spin shit. Shall we go back to the days where only white, nuclear families were allowed on TV?–and go back to the twin beds etc like the Ricardo’s and the Petrie’s had… Shouldn’t TV reflect age appropriate reality to kids? G/L couples with kids is a reality. Don’t they deserve face time-- even on a cartoon? A RL friend said that she agrees with Spellings b/c “it’s up to the parents to present diversity to kids”. On the face of it, that sounds good. I could beat the bushes in my school district and never come up with a G/L couple with a kid–much less ones that make maple syrup! TV and other media are great ways to expose kids to other worlds. I live (sadly) in a white bread world, where most of the moms still stay at home. It is very much a time warp around here. If anything, we need MORE stuff like this on TV-not the sensationalized crap but real people, living real lives, regardless of orientation, religion, race etc. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/138 "2005-01-28T20:01:45Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > I could beat the bushes in my school district and never come up with a G/L couple with a kid You’d be surprised. My son wasn’t the only kid in his kindergarten class with gay parents when we lived in _Texarkana_. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/139 "2005-01-28T20:19:43Z")
I am sure they are probably there–but I do not know them. There are 3000 kids in my daughter’s HS. No way do I know all, most or many of the parents. In the grade school–900 kids, same again. I don’t care if there are G/L couples with kids or not here. I would find it distasteful to go looking for said couple and drag them over to my house, just so my kids can see that they are just like everybody else. That’s why TV is good for stuff like this–we don’t know any Mormons, either, but my youngest found out about them via the show. I wrote a letter to my PBS affiliate, praising the show and requesting that they air this episode; given the audience, here(Chicago) , I am confident that it will air. I also stated that I depended on PBS to provide diversity in it’ s programming as it relates to social mores, and if it did not, I would no longer support PBS. I feel like PBS is in a vice, here, but felt I had to take a stand. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/140 "2005-01-28T20:21:43Z")
that’s _vise_, not vice! Oy. :smack: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830.md?page=8)