Censorship and Bigotry from the Dept. of Education
Do y'all know Buster the Bunny? If you have kids you might. Buster travels around the United States in his PBS Kids show, exploring the many diverse cultures that make up our country. From Mormons in Utah to Hmong in Wisconsin, Orthodox Jews and Pentecoastal Christians, Buster learns about traditions and families different from his own. But, as you might guess, he has a whole lot in common with the kids he meets. It's really the core of public television's mission to increase awareness, provide multiple viewpoints, and create lifelong learners engaged with our world.
Enter Margaret Spellings, the new Secretary of Education. The moment she stepped into office, one of her first tasks was to champion bigotry by attempting to censor Buster.
The reason? One episode features Buster visiting Vermont, where gay civil unions are legal. He visits real kids who teach him about farm life and maple sugaring. The clincher, of course, is the kids — in real life — have two mommies. They don't dwell on it, or veer off into some sort of "gay agenda" subtext some conservatives enjoy obsessing over. It's just a fact of their lives Buster learns about. Something that any real kid visiting Vermont (or their local school or church) might well encounter.
The mission of the Department of Education is to "ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation." The DoE site also cautions, "Please note that in the U.S., the federal role in education is limited. Because of the Tenth Amendment, most education policy is decided at the state and local levels."
If that's the case, why in the hell is the education secretary interfering with it's own mission, and the mission of public broadcasting? When did the mission of the DoE become one of censorship and bigotry? Margaret Spellings needs to keep her holier-than-thou nose out of my television. Margaret Spelling needs to keep her closed-minded, anti-education, right-wing religious beliefs at home. Trust us to decide what's right for our kids. That's what Twin Cities Public Television is doing.
Tell Margaret Spellings to let families make the responsible choice. She's not the mother of our kids.
margaret.spellings@ed.gov 202 401-3000
Watch Ryanne's video interview with the senior editor of Postcards from Buster
UPDATE: Congressman Barney Frank Denounces Administration's Anti-Gay School of Thought
posted by Chuck Olsen @ 5:37 AM |
| 
21 Comments:
"We saw it coming, one of the editors is kind of a conservative guy..said, this is outrageous"
They knew exactly what they were doing. This episode has nothing to do with "sugaring"; it's an introduction into homosexual lifestyles.
This is another example, just like poor ol' SpongeBob, of very fucked up people using children to advance a very adult agenda.
When Jerry Falwell "outed" Tinky Winky I thought to my self he must be off his med's.
But it turns out that he was most probably on to something.
The DoE funded this, that is why they have oversight responsibilities. The Secretary is following the will of the vast majority of people in this country.
You want you're kids to learn about homosexuality? Hook 'em up with "Americablog", they have the "inside scoop".
The next thing you know, we'll have goof-ball heterosexual couples getting "gay married" to prove how hip they are.
Yea, I know it sounds far-fetched but you can never tell what some of the nuts out there might do.
... talking about meds, swiftee did you forget to take yours ;-)? Conservative as I may be, hiding your head in the sand is not the answer. Ignorance is not the answer. At least for me...
The paranoid, vocal, scared-of-the-gays minority will see this kind of bigotry fly in their face, in due time.
The DoE - or any funder - does NOT have the right to censor or have any input into content. Funds are granted based on the track record, mission/educational philosophy, and concept. Buster is being true to the mission of public television and the DoE for that matter.
Don't you think families (and individual public television member stations) should decide what's right for their kids? Are you for more government Swiftee? Are you for the government being the nation's babysitter?
Also, Swiftee - you might want to learn how to read, and then get a sense of humor. We got "gay married" (domestic partnership - haha? haha much?) not because we're hip - though obviously we are - but because of health insurance. Now keep your dirty hairy nose out of my business, jerk.
"I have not stats to back me up, but I'd bet that "sugar farming" isn't in the top 10 occupations of same-sex couples."
Right. In fact, anyone want to bet that it took some digging to find this outfit in the first place?
They were chosen because they are homosexual sugar farmers.
"What do you think they're going to show, the couple's bedroom and (ooooh!) accessories?"
No, they're going to show one of the daughters trying to explain her family's living arrangements.
"And why exactly is SpongeBob supposed to be gay?"
This is a canard. None is saying that SB "is gay". A homosexual support group made a video using SB. They don't deny the purpose is to introduce kids to "accepting diversity" as represented by same sex couples.
"At my kids' daycare, there are at least 3 families with same-sex parents. It's just not an issue to kids."
Well, your part right. It shouldn't be an issue that young kids need to deal with. There is nothing you, I or anyone else can do about men and women who drag their biological kids into their new realities.
That doesn't mean we need to make a bad situation worse.
"And I'm waiting for any evidence that shows "exposure" to gay role models alters sexual orientations."
Well this is an interesting point. There are actually quite a few reports floating around. Unfortunately, they have almost uniformly been promulgated by individuals or groups supportive of homosexuality.
Here is an interesting piece regarding a Swedish debate on adoption though:
"Those in favour see the law as an instrument for eliminating discrimination and a logical extension of the Registered Partnerships Act from 1995."
"Those against argue that the principle of the best interests of the child has had to take a back seat under the new law, which may harm both the children involved and Sweden’s prospects for adoption in the future."
"Many of the [adoption] referral bodies that were critical of the law felt that the current body of knowledge concerning children in homosexual families was inadequate."
"Almost nothing is known about how adopted children fare in such families. A number of the referral bodies felt that it was not possible to draw any general conclusions on the basis of the research findings cited by the Government."
"The National Board of Health and Welfare, for instance, criticised the selection of research studies and the methods applied in them. The individuals surveyed in these studies for instance had not been chosen at random."
ie.: They were chosen to support a pre-determined conclusion.
"Kids will not learn anything about homosexuality from this episode. At the worst, Swiftee, they'll learn that same-sex couples exist. And you know what? They do!"
Krispy there are a whole lot of things that exist that I wish I didn't have to prepare my kids for. But I do, and they learn what they need to know in due time.
But there is no plausable explaination for putting this issue in the faces of 5 and 6 year old kids other than blatent manipulation of the innocent!
It will inevitably confuse them and there is no possibility that a rational explaination can be understood by such young kids.
Tell ya what:
You do what you feel is right for your kids Krispy and I'll do the same. And in the mean time, let's leave children's programming that we all pay for acceptable for all the children.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Swiftee, you slay me. You do what's right for your kids and I'll do the same? I'm so glad we're in agreement. If you want to shield your kids from reality (that there are children with loving same-sex parents) - go ahead and shield them from reality. I want my children educated about people that are different in this country and world, so they don't turn out to be pathetic bigots like you.
GIVE PARENTS THE CHOICE.
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION IS NOT THE NATION'S BABYSITTER.
-------------------
Here are a few comments from Ryanne's thread:
Because of your post, I wrote Margaret Spelling and reminded her of the significance of Brown vs. the Board of Education.
I think she must have forgot or something.... it can be much easier to avoid, run away from or censor something then to deal with it, talk about it, confront it, or talk to your kids about it if they have questions.This is just another example of the righteous right and their extremist Christian agenda trying to impose their censorship and suppressive ways on the American people. Just when I thought we had come a long way toward equality and acceptance of one another on all levels emerges today’s regressive regime.I would not like it if my children turned out gay, but I will love and always accept them. Its not the media that really makes children what they are- its the parenting. It's time to wake up, and realize that this is human nature and you can't discriminate against it like we used to about blacks.
Swiftee attacked my relationship, and his comment was deleted.
Personal attacks will NOT be tolerated in this forum.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Swiftee is banned until further notice.
Some conservatives seem to have a problem with the fact that gay couples even exist.
If my (hypothetical) five year old asked me, after watching this program, "Daddy, what's a lesbian?" I would simply answer, "Well, that's when two women love each other like mommy and daddy do." Simple. You don't need to get into a conversation about anal sex with your pre-schooler.
I have gay friends, and when and if I've got kids, I am not ashamed that they know this. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice (and the evidence to date backs me up) and therefore it is unhealthy to be ashamed of gay people. They are who they are, just as hetrosexuals are who they are. Deal with it.
Keep in mind that Swiftee has lost his commenting privileges. He is free to respond on his own blog, of course.
SpongeBob in a video promoting homosexuality? Sorry, but you have been listening to drugged Rush again. It was a video incorporating SpongeBob and other cartoon characters to the tune of "We Are Family" about how in the wake of 9/11 we are still all humans around the world, with more similarities than differences. I know, I know, this kind of tolerance is bad enough for a Republican, but it was not SpongeBob endorsing homosexuality or anything like that.
Why is it that the most virulently anti-gay Republicans turn out like J.D. Guckert? It sure makes me wonder.
Too funny - You clowns whining about censorship, and then deleting posts. Clearly swiftee has revealed you on this one.
Looks like its not just Hypo-Chris Dysksta, that can't live his purported beliefs.
Your intolerance should be a source of shame to you.
Ladies and gentlemen, the most predictable Anon-a-troll comment of the year. There she is folks!
---
Jeff Jarvis had troll trouble today too:
I've had my fill of the troll. The bridge fell on him. This is my house and I reserve the right to kick the trolls out.Posted by Jeff Jarvis at February 16, 2005 09:12 PM
I keep finding more great comments about this issue.
Jeff Jarvis:What's so extraordinarily distasteful about all this is the idea that merely exposing a child to a person who is homosexual is somehow offensive or wrong. How intolerant. How bigoted. How unChristian. How unAmerican. How many first stones they're throwing, these fools.Andrew Sullivan:
So why is it okay to present a single parent or no parents but not two gay parents? If Mormons are portrayed, why not gays? Why should young children be exposed to the tenets of Christian fundamentalism but not even learn a simple fact about life in Vermont? The lesbian couple are not front and center in the piece; they are background. They are Americans. And, according to the Bush administration, they must be airbrushed out of the country. Not a good sign.
Johnathon, use YOUR head. You (the hypocrite collective) brought up a very sensitive political issue that has alot of strong feelings on both sides.
You further positioned yourselves as the ones on the high road (ie anti-censorship.) Then when those feelings inevitably came out (which should surprise no one) your response was censorship.
You crapped on your own porch.
The further fact that you equate positons other than your own narrow leftist/politically correct one with "crap" really is just as telling an indictment as the censorship.
Mark Gisleson, I'm confused by your post. Do you really want to talk about the issue, or are you trying to be a tough guy?
It's really simple: Open debate is welcome, trolls and personal attacks are not. End of story, end of thread.
(ps - do not feed the trolls.)
<< Home