Bleat bleat bleat.
Mr. Moto: *It’s now to the point where restrictions on federal spending can affect any individual or organization. *
I don’t think the solution to that problem is simply to throw out all the public funding altogether—as I pointed out above, that just leaves us at the tender mercies of conservative oligopolies in the private sector.
Rather, I think we ought to require less ideological control of federal funding, so that the expression of diverse viewpoints is less vulnerable to the whims of bureaucrats, of whatever political stripe.
Mr. Moto: Bleat bleat bleat.
That’s your best response?
Hey, Moto, when you stop using my tax dollars to fund illegal wars and bury innocent people in internment camps then you’ll have the moral authority to bitch about [heavens] a lesbian couple on PBS, m’kay?
Fucking :wally
Hey, that’s above par for him.
No, kimstu. That’s my response to elucidator, who gave my points about equivalent consideration in his reply to me.
For nice folks like you and Polycarp, who had some substantive reply to make, I have lots more to give.
Public funding is ever at the whim of bureaucrats and elected officials, and they constantly attach conditions to it. Do you want to live in public housing? Your rights to certain activities are quite curtailed if you decide to do so. Do you want a student loan or grant? You’ll not get one as a young man if you’re not registered for Selective Service.
All of this in inevitable to a degree, and it becomes more and more intrusive the more government has a say about it.
I think the particular example here is quite silly, and I don’t think I would have sweated it much. However, I do understand the concerns of people who worry that their kids are being exposed to overly descriptive sexual programming at young ages. I think reasonable people agree lines need to be drawn. They just dicker over where those lines are.
I hope outrages like this, committed by Republican and Democratic administrations alike, illustrate for people that any dealings with the government are a Faustian bargain. Do you want to produce programming in your own way, without interference? Whether you’re a right-winger or left-winger, you’ll properly do so by raising the money yourself and going it alone.
You didn’t notice, I guess, that that’s not what I was bitching about.
And let’s leave your moral authority, and mine, out of this. If the only people that could post on a topic were those with “moral authority”, this would be a mighty empty board. I doubt either of us would be here to reply to Polycarp at all. 
Mr. Moto: Public funding is ever at the whim of bureaucrats and elected officials, and they constantly attach conditions to it. […] All of this [is] inevitable to a degree
True, but only to a degree, and we have some say about which degree we’re willing to put up with. (And by the way, it’s usually the liberals who are out there fighting for the civil rights of individuals against this sort of intrusion. E.g., the ACLU’s court battles against “drug eviction” policies, against “zero-tolerance” and locker-search policies in public schools, etc.)
Just because meddlesome bureaucrats are always going to try to attach ideological strings to public funding doesn’t mean that we have to roll over and take it. Nor does it mean that we’re obliged to renounce the whole concept of public funding in order to avoid the ideological strings.
It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that certain activities should get some taxpayer support, but that the taxpayers aren’t allowed to put too many conditions on the recipients of that support. You have the right to a certain amount of freedom that I’m not allowed to interfere with, even if I provided some of the money you’re using.
I think this attitude is actually much more principled and freedom-loving than slavish obeisance to every whim of whoever currently happens to be signing the checks. And I’m glad that liberals show so much spirit and determination in defending it.
Mr. Moto: Do you want to produce programming in your own way, without interference? Whether you’re a right-winger or left-winger, you’ll properly do so by raising the money yourself and going it alone.
But there is no “alone” when it comes to communicating with the public. Eliminating public funding because you’re scared that temporary officials will try to attach ideological strings to it—now that’s a Faustian bargain. That just leaves you, as I said, at the mercy of private-sector censors who are even less tolerant and more committed to ideological litmus tests than the government bureaucrats.
I’m sorry, but how is there anything even remotely sexual about a child saying ‘these are my moms’? Give me a fucking break. It’s no more sexual than a child who says “This is my dad and this is my mom.”.
If someone’s child needs to be that fucking sheltered from the world, perhaps it’s time to start building the plastic bubble.
E.
Again, that’s why I felt this particular case was silly.
I do think it points to a bigger picture problem, though.
I don’t understand the compulsion to reduce all same-sex relationships to “sex.” Is it “sexual” to show a kid’s mother and father?
Just because adults have filthy minds and can’t stop thinking about gay sex doesn’t mean that children have any such perceptions. The “sex” is entirely in the minds of the homophobes.
Which is what?
The rampant and endemic bigotry that infests your political party?
The fact that government feels the need to exercise control over vast areas of life merely because they control the pursestrings.
OMG!!! A quasi-libertarian paleoconservative! I thought they didn’t allow such creatures to survive!
May I extend to you the SDMB AuH[sub]2[/sub]O Award?
(And I hope you don’t mind a little good-natured ribbing. :))
Not at all. Why else would I be here?
I thought it was to spread joy and happiness like an emotional Johnny Appleseed.
That’s just a happy side benefit.
This strikes me as an overreaction on the part of the DoEd.
Would they balk at showing a single parent family? (For reference’s sake, Buster, Arthur, and all of their friends, to my knowledge, have two-parent families, so the cartoon version that kids are seeing does not tread into non-traditional family life at all). But the “Postcards” version shows kids in a wide variety of setttings; I don’t believe that any particular approbation is given to any particular setting… it’s just a how-things-are sort of segment.
I believe that persons of reason may disagree, reasonably, on whether or not same-sex couples raising a child is the best policy choice for a state to permit. But I do not believe any reasonable person can disagree that they exist, and that given that fact, it’s far more traumatizing to the children of such couples to make a huge stink over it. Better to simply show the family lives as they are.
Poor show on Ms. Spellings’ part.
As someone with roots in Vermont, who has sampled Vermont syrup, whose mother tapped maple trees as a child in the great Northeast Kingdom, I cannot let this vicious slur stand!
When my wife visited one year with me, she commented that the maple sugar candy tasted like brown sugar. My 90 year old grandmother piped up in true Vermont accent, “Better not say that in Vermont!”
If you have tried syrup as you describe, you have NOT tried authentic Vermont maple syrup. Retract immediately, or it shall be pistols at dawn, epees at brunch, Hot Wheels tracks at lunch, or Snap n Pops at dusk (your choice, but I warn you, I have mastered all the above weapons. Okay, only the latter two, but really, how hard could the others be.)
Seriously, Vermont maple syrup is simply the best maple syrup you will ever have. Try the maple sugar candy too, but not the blends!
As a native of Northern New York and formerly with family that owned sugarbushes, I must disagree, sir – Vermont maple products are a high-quality second best – much better promoted nationally than the Really Good Stuff, and almost as good. 