Evil cartoon bunnies strike again

Evil cartoon bunnies strike again

: Hoo-boy. Washington, big media, and, of course, those wacky religious folks keep thinking that cartoon characters can ruin our morals. The latest silliness:

The nation

  • “Speak of The Devil” I believe is the phrase. That is, you mention something or someone and that something or someone pops up. Some folks have too much free time and really should get a hobby. Preferably something that keeps them too busy to fuss and fret about inconsequential things.
    (Day care for the chronically fretful. I could get behind that. :) )

  • TomK

    Y’know, I understand you’re on a crusade here, so I’m not going to try to convince you to stop, but fer cryin’ out loud, I have to answer enough tough questions from my 4-year-old. I don’t need PBS dropping this one on me too. Childhood is short enough, I don’t need anyone’s help speeding my child to adulthood.
    So no more PBS. We’ll stick with the Disney channel and reading books. I could care less how anyone lives their lives, but try not to mess with mine in the process.
    And before anyone accuses me of being a Jebus freak, I ain’t been to church in I don’t know how long.

  • TomK,
    Tough to whom? For the typical 4 year old it comes down to, “They live together because they like each other. Like Mommy and Daddy like each other.” That’s as far as it needs to go.
    The only one who has a problem here is you. Please stopping using your child to hide behind.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Libertarians sure change their spots when it’s the STATE shoving sexual stuff onto kids.
    Anything else, the STATE is the fount of all evil.
    But when there’s a possibility of epater(ing) the bourgeoisie, to hell with principle.
    I would also make a case which Libertarians might want to consider, which is that in our society, our money taken as taxes ought to be spent with at least some possibility of input from the taxpayers. I know. New concept. In this case.
    Jeff isn’t going to be happy until every horse in the country has had a nervous breakdown.
    The interesting thing is now this issue (end-arounding parents on matters of sex) makes certain people do a complete one-eighty.
    Someplace in my dictionary under, I think, “H” is a word for this.

  • Shinobi

    I mean if a Purple Dinosaur is acceptable what’s wrong with 2 women? I guess it depends on the context and how it is presented.
    I can see it now, 2 women with mullets in lumberjack outfits “I’m Mary” “I’m Kay” “We’re Lesbians, can you say that with us kids, Lesbians, that means that we live together and preform cunnilingus on eachother at every possible opportunity. Today we’re going to show you….” Hmmmmm Somehow I think not.
    As long as lesbianism isn’t the main focus of the show I don’t see why there should be a problem with it. I used to watch Reading Rainbow all the time, does anyone know if Lamar Burton was gay? I always thought he was.. but maybe it’s the name connection to Revenge of the Nerds.
    I will reserve judgement on the show until I see it.

  • paul a’barge

    This is pretty straightforward. PBS is running with tax dollars.
    If you want children’s TV shows promoting Lesbianism, by all means, go raise the funding yourself and put those shows into a medium other than the publicly owned airwaves.
    Otherwise, PBS should be filtering their programming for everyone, not just the radical agenda they strive to promote.
    Some day, we’re going to take their public tax dollars away, and then we can all agree to criticize or laud them on the merits, independently of their efforts to use my tax dollars to shove Lesbianism down the throats of our grandchildren.

  • I get enough of cartoon butts and Wayland Smithers on “the Simpsons”, thank you very much.
    Maybe next week Buster Bunny can visit Castro Street in San Francisco on Halloween Night. Or Fire Island on Memorial Day Weekend.
    –furious

  • Scott Harris

    I watched “Riding The Bullet” last night on USA Network. The network pixelated the breasts of a model in a scene of a life study art class. Fine.
    They also pixelated the breasts in the …sketch… being drawn by the student artist who is the central character in the film. Fine. If a little muddy on the scene.
    What they didn’t pixelate was the open skull of David Arquette’s character, an intensely vivd brain squirting blood… Uh…
    USA Network didn’t cut… well, not much except the breasts. And if they had slashed those they might have not had to pixelate.
    Ugh.

  • Danny

    Well, maybe that character was just drawing whaat he/she saw.
    Sorry, just couldn’t leave that one alone.

  • gunther

    “This is pretty straightforward. PBS is running with tax dollars.
    If you want children’s TV shows promoting Lesbianism, by all means, go raise the funding yourself and put those shows into a medium other than the publicly owned airwaves.
    Otherwise, PBS should be filtering their programming for everyone, not just the radical agenda they strive to promote.
    Some day, we’re going to take their public tax dollars away, and then we can all agree to criticize or laud them on the merits, independently of their efforts to use my tax dollars to shove Lesbianism down the throats of our grandchildren.”
    Not that facts should get in the way of a good argument, but just FYI: For fiscal year 2003, this was the source of funding for PBS…
    Public TV stations $113.8 million 29%
    Corporations 83.4 million 22%
    Foundations 62 million 16%
    Private producers* 55.6 million 14%
    Government: CPB 37 million 10%
    Government: other** 26.5 million 7%
    Individuals, others 7.7 million 2%
    Total $386 million 100%
    Government “other” includes the National Endowment for Arts, National Endowment for Humanities, National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Education, and various state governments. So at a maximum, governments in total accounted for only 17% of PBS funding. And the Department of Education, the source of this particular complaint, obviously contributes an even smaller portion (much less than 7%). Just how small does the government contribution have to be before they cease to have a veto on what kind of shows PBS can carry? Is it 1%? 0.1%? $1000? I’d like to know.

  • Del

    I think you’re giving the FCC too much credit. Why would they release details about shows that ‘weren’t fined’, that obviously aren’t indecent? They’re just trying to get some good PR. They know they’re starting to get beat up in the press, that people are starting to say that theyre going overboard, that they’re restricting free speech. I thought it was interesting too that they mentioned the PTC specifically. They’re trying to make them into the bad guys, that they’re sort of being forced to censor because of Brent Bozo and his kooks at the PTC. Gimme a break. They’re just sort of playing good cop/bad cop, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the PTC even realises that – plus they get publicity themselves. I don’t care if they did throw out a bunch of cases that are obviously not indecent; the fines that they are imposing are still chilling speech, unnecessarily – the marketplace would work fine without them.

  • Marthirial

    The more forbidden becomes the more alluring it gets.
    Fanatics, puritans, supremacist, they are just making things easier strengthening what they hate and bringing them to the spotlight by showcasing how irrational their arguments are, for example:

  • The article is a bit light on the details of this show, but it sounds like it focuses on farming and the production of maple sugar, and one of the farmer families is a lesbian couple.

    Just how does this “promote” Lesbianism? (And why the capital letter?) It’s not like the show was all about lesbians, how great it is to be a lesbian, and come on, join us in the sinful homosexual lifestyle! Yay, lesbians!

    I guess we can’t produce a documentary about the government, because showing Barney Frank would be promoting homosexuality, too.

  • Richard Aubrey

    You hit it right on the head, Eric.
    Barney Frank really is a homosexual.
    You wouldn’t need to make anything up to call him a homosexual.
    The cartoon in question went out of its way to make up a lesbian couple.
    It was unnecessary. As a member of the recliner school of economics, I am firmly convinced nothing that takes extra effort is done without a reason.
    Parents and taxpayers are completely within their rights to complain.
    As I keep saying, on the issue of end-arounding parents on matters of sex and kids, libertarians and liberals join to make the State all powerful and the parentss impotent. For the former, it’s not the usual principle.

  • John C

    There was a story in the Boston Globe about the show on Monday (I think) and it is even more benign than the description Jeff gave. Buster, the bunny, doesn’t even TALK to the parents, only the child. Buster or the child never mention that the two woman are his parents, they only show them in the background. But becuase of the recent insane mumblings from James Dobson, WGBH decided to take a cautious approach with the show. My guess is that 100% of five year olds would never figure out that a lesbian couple is being depicted unless their parents pointed it out. Good to know that The Parents Family Council is helping to silence images of caring, loving famalies.

  • TomK

    Look at you hypocrites. I specifically posted that I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, and that I could care less how anyone lives. Just leave me and mine alone and I’m fine. I also posted that my fix for the problem was to turn off PBS. No protest, no government intervention. All I did was state my reaction to the issue.
    The response? I’m the problem. I’m the one who’s wrong here. I’m using “excuses” to cover up some implied deeper problem (nice bit of long-distance psychoanalysis, you’re truly gifted).
    You people should be honest with yourselves. You’re no different than the moralizing religious types you claim to disagree with. Both of you want to tell me how to think, tell me how to act, and if I disagree, I’m out of line.
    To hell with all of you. None of would know real freedom or tolerance if it bit you.

  • Syl

    I don’t give a flying fig if one supports or is against gay marriage or whatever else. What I object to…and very strongly…is the use of childrens cartoons to fulfill ANY agenda at all.
    I don’t care who you are or what you believe, leave our kids out of it!

  • Kat

    A kid doesn’t need two mommies or two daddies, a kid needs a NORMAL childhood.
    But there is an agenda to be pushed, and the purveyors of that agenda are spending millions. Openly gay John Cameron Mitchell, told the Detroit Free Press’ Terry Lawson, he hopes that some kid out there who is confused as I was at that age will see it and realize there are more choices in life than he or she thought.”
    As NAMBLA says–Get em before 8 or it’s too late.

  • “Recliner School of Economics”
    Good one…I’m going to have to remember it.
    –furious

  • jeremy in NYC

    Yeah, leave our kids’ cartoons out of these agendas. I want that Charlie Brown Christmas special off the air RIGHT NOW.
    [/sarcasm]
    And Kat – yeah, that’s right. Two lesbians = NAMBLA. You’re gonna get a lot of folks to listen with that kind of critical thinking.

  • Everyone keeps suggesting this “pushes an agenda.” Acknowledging that gay people exist, and that gay families exist isn’t an “agenda.” It’s reality. What I object to is conservatives pushing an agenda by saying gay families should never be seen or portrayed in any media.

    kat: A kid doesn’t need two mommies or two daddies, a kid needs a NORMAL childhood.

    There’s no such thing as a “normal” childhood. Two hundred years ago, “normal” would have probably have been considered two parents, grandparents, and cousins living under the same roof. Two thousand years ago, “normal” might have included Daddy and two or three wives.

    What children need is a safe environment and nurturing parents that can provide for them. Children of gay parents are just as well-adjusted as the children of straight parents. All the research I’ve read about supports this.

  • Paul, how do you filter programming for EVERYONE? There’s a lot of different ideologies floating around this great country of ours, including gay folks. Or did you mean PBS should filter it’s programming for what YOU think is ok?

  • kat

    Well, Eric, you’ve read different research than I. Research overwhelmingly confirms that by far, the best unit is one dad and one mom even if it’s for joint custody..
    Here, for example, is how two center-left child welfare organizations report the news:
    * Child Trends: “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two-biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes.
    * A Center for Law and Social Policy Brief concludes: “Research indicates that, on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step- or cohabiting-parent households.”
    Robert Bauserman, PhD, of the Baltimore Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, reviewed 33 studies that examined 1,846 sole-custody and 814 joint-custody children. Bauserman found that children in joint-custody arrangements had fewer behavioral and emotional problems, higher self-esteem and better family relationships and school performance compared with those in sole-custody situations. The contact with both parents, he argues, is the key ingredient in kids’ adjustment, he said.
    However, many groups and ideologies have a personal interest in denying that it is best for a child to be raised by, or even to start out life with, a father and mother. And like Kinsey lied, people with an agenda can fabricate research that says otherwise.

  • Striker

    You are funny. Problem is that you got nukes. That’s not so funny. But anyway. You are funny. Continue doing stuff like this and cover up nude cartoon asses. Cause you are funny. Except for the nukes. This is even funnier than the Clinton-Lewinsky hearings. Laughing Stock of the world now that the Talibans have been removed from power. Religious fanatics are funny. Except when they got nukes. Like you.

  • Whatever works, when it comes to arguments for imposing particular beliefs on children that make the poor things some kind of litmus test. By demonizing whole elements of society, IMHO, you risk losing those kids’ respect when they see the world outside their controlled realm.
    Oh, shame for imposing the personal! but my kids grew up with a lesbian couple part of their immediate experience. No one ever had to explain them to the kids, the kids were comfortable and grew up heterosexual.
    When the first of the couple (ex-nuns) died, the other inherited her property, their mutual home. It was really sweet that no one’s family tried to fight it, their relationship was acknowledged and respected. I wouldn’t think that would be a subject offensive to any true christian. But then, I forget that God Is Love doesn’t have any meaning for ‘christians’ of some varieties.

  • Kat, you are conflating correlation with causality. (How alliterative!) Most of what you quote says that children do better with two parents than one. That’s not surprising. Two parents can share responsibilities, one can act as a backup when the other is unavailable, and so forth.

    For example, ” … children born to unmarried mothers … face higher risks of poor outcomes.” Single parenting correlates with poverty, and I don’t think it’s surprising that children raised in poverty would have a higher likelyhood of a “poor outcome,” whatever that means.

    Bauerman’s data just says that children in a joint-custody situation fare better than in a sole-custody situation. But not necessarily joint physical custody; they just need to spend significant time with both parents. That’s not surprising. Break up a kids family, and deprive him of a parent he’s grown up with all his life, and he might be more distressed than otherwise.

    Now my turn to quote, from the APA:”Beliefs that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation (Cramer, 1986; Falk, 1989; Gibbs, 1988; Patterson, 1996)…”

    There is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.

    So there is no data to support your hypothesis that two gay parents are less capable of parenting than heterosexual parents.

    So by suggesting that fully capable gay parents should not be seen in the media, it seems you are the one trying to push an agenda.

  • Franky

    This issue that because the money is public funds we should therefore not offend anti-gay sentiment doesn’t seem to make much sense. Surely homosexuals pay taxes as well and can claim some sort of right of representation.
    I think TomK’s got it precisely right: he thinks homosexuality is wrong, or at least something he doesn’t want his kid exposed to, so he doesn’t watch it – that should be the end of the discussion and people should respect his beliefs. Like him, I don’t demand Jerry Falwell’s rantings are taken off the air, I just don’t watch.

  • Kat

    Yes, Ruth, and I know a kid who killed herself when her mother outed herself.

  • Kat

    There are at least 144 studies of evidence.
    Sociologist Patricia Morgan has written the largest review of the research ever published in Europe. The book, Children as trophies?, considers 144 academic papers including 50 on same-sex parenting.
    In 1998 the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw MP, said that he was against gay adoption because “We should not see children as trophies”. He argued that the evidence showed marriage is the best environment in which to raise children.
    Patricia Morgan agrees:
    “If public policy is based on clear research, there is no case for changing the adoption law to allow same-sex couples or unmarried couples to be able to adopt children.”
    “It is difficult to find such poor quality research as that which purports to show that same-sex parenting is as least as good if not superior to parenting by married couples. In many cases the word ‘research’ is a misnomer since often the only evidence consists of collections of anecdotes. This is often advocacy parading as research. I hope my book will raise the standard of debate in this area.”
    * There is not a single published comparative study of the effects of homosexual foster care or adoption. Advocates of gay adoption can only cite studies on homosexual parenting. (page 127)
    * Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, many studies indicate significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenting outcomes for children, particularly the likelihood that children of homosexuals may become involved in homosexual behaviour themselves. (page 67)
    * In fact some researchers in favour of gay adoption even admit that such children are more likely to be homosexual. (pages 77, 78, 85ff)
    * Gender confusion seems to be rife with daughters of lesbian mothers. (page 78)
    * Studies commonly fail to test any hypothesis or use a proper control group. Sample sizes are so small that no deductions can be made. One study which was headlined as “Gay men make better fathers” did not even have any children in the study but merely asked opinions. (pages 55-56)
    * Evidence from around the world shows that the married family is the most successful child rearing environment. (Britain, USA, The Netherlands, New Zealand – see pages 87-90)
    * Pro-gay sociologists argue that gay adoption should go ahead despite the lack of evidence in support. (page 132)

  • ss

    It’s really ridiculous what the GLBT lobby has done to public consciousness regarding the significance of their condition?/affliction?/circumstance. They consist of a small percentage of the world population which is driven by biology to engage in conduct that many find immoral–whether biologically driven or not. That small vocal minority, unwilling or unable to abstain from such behavior, and unwilling or unable to be discrete, have foisted on the nation an intense cultural war that forces the entire populace to take sides on a minor issue of little real significance.
    The sides consist of, on one side, a small number of homosexuals and a large number of people jumping to the defense of society’s latest alleged oppressed, and on the other side, publicly asexual people unwilling to change moral codes under pressure from loud, santimonious iconoclasts wearing sex on their sleeves.
    By their extravagent politicking, homosexuals and their supporters, who demand public recognition and ethical re-education on overwhelmingly private matters, simply create “homophobes” out of persons who would otherwise simply oppose public expositions of sexuality.
    The real question to me is, why is the socially and biologically unimportant existence of homosexuality a matter of such public importance that children’s programmers feel morally obligated to give air time to lesbian bunnies?
    To those who think it’s necessary to annonunce themselves, We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” I would respond, “Great. I’m straight. Shut up.”

  • Morgan’s book relies heavily on Paul Cameron’s discredited research. The book was published by the Christian Institute in the UK, a notoriously anti-gay group.

    This isn’t science, it’s junk science. It’s not intended to report facts, it exists only to promote an agenda.

    Sound familiar?

  • Nina D.

    TomK,
    This is hilarious. What is being shown in the cartoon is what that might see if you bring your kid to the grocery store or to a local park. Two ladies with a kid. That’s it.
    Would you cover your child’s eyes and run out of the grocery store or park? Do you think your child would even notice it or need to have a conversation about it?
    I don’t really know or care about WGBH’s intentions. The bottom line is that two ladies in the background with a kid isn’t going to cause any trauma to a child. Again, it’s something you can see with your kid in public all the time.

  • Kat

    “We should not be treating children as guinea pigs in a radical social experiment. The rights of children, not the desires of adults, should be our primary concern. ” Amen

  • jeremy in NYC

    The sides consist of, on one side, a small number of homosexuals and a large number of people jumping to the defense of society’s latest alleged oppressed, and on the other side, publicly asexual people unwilling to change moral codes under pressure from loud, santimonious iconoclasts wearing sex on their sleeves.
    Yeah, I’ve always thought of America as publicly asexual. Why, the other day, as I was watching the latest Britney video, reading a book about Swaggart’s public apology for his dalliances and reviewing the fallout from the Janet Jackson halftime escapade, I remarked to my wife, “it sure is amazing what a publicly asexual people we are.”
    By their extravagent politicking, homosexuals and their supporters, who demand public recognition and ethical re-education on overwhelmingly private matters, simply create “homophobes” out of persons who would otherwise simply oppose public expositions of sexuality.
    Whew! Good point. I had forgotten that nobody cared about homosexuality prior to the gay rights movement. Man, if all those people blackmailing public figures who were homosexual, throwing gays out of the military and harassing gays (a la Stonewall) had only known how out of step they were!
    The real question to me is, why is the socially and biologically unimportant existence of homosexuality a matter of such public importance that children’s programmers feel morally obligated to give air time to lesbian bunnies?
    Huh. Yeah, I had the same thought when they showed straight couples in the background doing, oh, nothing at all. Why are they pushing straight sex on us by showing a man and woman standing together as a couple?
    To those who think it’s necessary to annonunce themselves, We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” I would respond, “Great. I’m straight. Shut up.”
    Me too. I think we should stop showing striaght couples together in the background. Because, you know, anything else isn’t “shutting up.”
    …and another thing. I saw a cartoon the other day, and there was a Jewish character in it! Why is Judaism being forced on us by these cartoon makers?

  • Kat

    Oh, the harmless little cartoons are simply part of their victim-minority propaganda techniques to facilitate the current sexual access to all American schoolchildren. I don’t buy their crap, and the biggest lying bigots are the homosexuals themselves.

    and I have good friend whose daughter killed herself because her family was intolerant when she became pregnant by the director of her christian school. the fmily probably saved my daughter’s life. It was always a big support to me when I chose tolerance.
    If you think I am making this up, well I will not give you a personal website but you can talk to the First Baptist Church in Chincoteague, VA

  • ss

    Good lord, Jerry. You perform a horrid fisking. My favorite paragraphs in it are still the ones I wrote.
    Excellent. Americans aren’t essentially sexually conservative, as proven by the existence of television’s notoriously low standards. No one ever complains there’s too much sex on TV. And I’m sure you’ve never heard any rebuke of Janet Jackson’s escapade. I mean, the FCC never took any action or anything. Oh wait.
    In fact, the scandals you mention are scandalous exactly BECAUSE of the conservatism of the American public. Your liberal friends surely wish those prudish Americans were more “in touch with their sexuality” a la the Europeans.
    And then you just went downhill from there with the “pushing straight sex” and Jews. Oy.

  • Kat

    I’m sure tolerance is a real help when thousands of young boys get impregnated with AIDS each year because we have taught them it’s normal sex.

  • S.

    The above sentence makes no sense, and it isn’t supported with evidence. Cameron’s study was discredited and certain people are citing evidence that doesn’t fit the case. In fact, every time something’s refuted, more stuff is flung out, and now it’s just ad hominem ranting.

  • Karl

    S, Haven’t you noticed – “Ad hominem ranting” and kat’s presence on this board go hand in hand. In the few weeks I’ve spent reading this, any time a church or gay-related topic comes up, she chimes in with the same insulting bigoted rants over and over again, usually with a mention of NAMBLA. I used to find it somewhat amusing but now it’s just annoying. Nothing ever gets advanced when “kat” is involved because the nonsense she spews just ruins the entire thread. Just like this one. I wish Jeff had a way of banning her presence entirely.
    kat, save us all and please listen to the advice of your fellow bigot up there “ss”, namely, “Shut up”

  • I find it hysterical that people are complaining that “the cartoon in question went out of its way to make up a lesbian couple.”
    But these very same people want the government to go out of its way to make sure gay people don’t exist.
    Sorry – but I’m not going back in the closet. I’m gay and I exist. I pay taxes too. The government should not be censoring me out of existence.

  • Eileen

    Karl,
    You’re sounding mighty angry. Calling Kat names is a waste of your time and belittles you. She objects to being called a bigot just for expressing her own views, which happen to differ from gay media’s agenda. Bigoted rants? Sorry, but due to your anger You come off as the ranter. She is entitled to her views; she is specificially entitled to her religious beliefs. So are each and every one of us. No person’s views are the same as any other’s. Get it? And just because we (all) differ doesn’t entitle you to call people names with whom you disagree. Are You a bigot [‘a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudice’]? Here’s a mirror.
    Yes, imo it Is a gay media agenda. Why? Because gay something or other ‘news’ (even though they represent a very small segment of the population) is being shoved in our faces every day across all media spectra – now into the schools and attempts to influence little kids via public tv. Heteros are really getting quite sick of it. Get it? Do you see media campaigns by heteros to influence gays to adopt a hetero lifestyle using taxpayer dollars, via daily media stories, school pledges, children’s cartoons, etc. and ad nauseum daily…?
    No.
    Downtown Lad,
    No one wants you to go back into the closet that I know of. You are who you Are and you exist just the same as I do. You are always welcome in my world. I could care less who you choose to love and how. I won’t try to convert you to being hetero; at the same time, hopefully you won’t try to convert me to Your sexual norms [unfortunately many of my gay friends Have tried to convert me to theirs]. We can all be tolerant and respectful of each others’ lifestyles and coexist – how about even try and love each other – quite happily that way, right? Get it?
    The gay agenda/voice is its own brand of evangelism [militant or crusading zeal] these days. No one wants to be forced into conversion/acceptance/spelled ‘tolerance’ of the agenda. Nor is it fair or right to call heteros names when they don’t ‘accept it’ wholeheartedly and without qualification. Evangelism is, imo, distasteful not only when applied to religion, but also to politics and matters of ‘sexual identity’.
    Stop trying to shove the agenda down our throats.

  • “The nation

  • Eileen

    Yehudit,
    Before I head to bed, know that typically I find your comments both balanced and extremely intelligent. I enjoy reading you.
    But I also am extremely tired of the ‘just turn the channel or turn off the tv’ argument in response to every single complaint the public has about television content these days. It isn’t just one small group here or there who represent the dissatisfied. In fact, I hear No One talking about how great tv is anymore.
    How about Instead media gets off its left wing, agenda driven butt, and works on creating something of value and substance for a change, something more than craven, crass and illiterate trash? [I don’t have bunny on the brain as I say this.] It would truly be great to find something worthwhile to watch on tv. This particularly holds true for those who don’t have satellite or cable options.
    Remember the ‘ole mainstream, majority viewers out here? We exist, too. If monopolist public broadcasters have forgotten, perhaps it’s time to remind them in many more ways than one.
    I’m tired of clickin’ and ditchin’.

  • M

    News of interest to this thread…
    .. CLEVELAND — Joining the animated fray, the United Church of Christ today (Jan. 24) said that Jesus’ message of extravagant welcome extends to all, including SpongeBob Squarepants – the cartoon character that has come under fire for allegedly holding hands with a starfish.
    “Absolutely, the UCC extends an unequivocal welcome to SpongeBob,” the Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC’s general minister and president, said, only partly in jest. “Jesus didn’t turn people away. Neither do we.”
    For that matter, Thomas explained, the 1.3-million-member church, if given the opportunity, would warmly receive Barney, Big Bird, Tinky-Winky, Clifford the Big Red Dog or, for that matter, any who have experienced the Christian message as a harsh word of judgment rather than Jesus’ offering of grace.
    The UCC’s welcome comes in the wake of laughable accusations by James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, that the popular SpongeBob and other well-known cartoon characters are crossing “a moral line” by stressing tolerance in a national We Are Family Foundation-sponsored video that will be distributed to U.S. schools on March 11, 2005.
    Later, an assistant to Dobson called SpongeBob’s participation in the video “insidious.”
    Thomas said, on the contrary, it is Dobson who is crossing the moral line for sending the mistaken message that Christians do not value tolerance and diversity as important religious values.
    “While Dobson’s silly accusation makes headlines, it’s also one more concrete example of how religion is misused over and over to promote intolerance over inclusion,” Thomas said. “This is why we believe it is so important that the UCC speak the Gospel in an accent not often heard in our culture, because far too many experience the cross only as judgment, never as embrace.”

  • jeremy in NYC

    “My liberal friends.” Hmm. Cliche much?
    SS, I’m sorry you don’t understand sarcasm, I’m sorry you can’t spell my name correctly, I’m sorry that you couldn’t think of an actual response to most of what I said, and I’m sorry (in the only point you actually responded to) you can’t understand the difference between mentioning “two moms” and someone (heterosexual) flashing their breats and prancing around in their underwear. Given the choice of exposing my kids to the mention of “two moms” versus a lot of the heterosexual depravity in the mass media, I’ll take the mention of two moms. But apparently, in your world, heterosexuals have to be stripping before they’re offensive, while homosexuals just have to be mentioned.

  • sorry i live in a real world and when kat, eileen, carsonfire and the like give their right wing neo-con spiels i do get repulsed. as i said my daughter is probably alive today because i was taught tolerance by a tight wing christian who caused her daughter’s suicide when she was pregnant by her ‘christian’ school director and committed suicide.

  • Ruth: That’s a very serious comment and I thank you for that and I say that to make it clear that I’m not making light of it at all as I also tell you that I love what I think is our typo: “tight-wing christian.” Kinda perfect.

  • Jon H

    “The nation

  • Franky

    Someone who continues to mention NAMBLA in every conversation about homosexuals deserves all she gets (bar banning), just as anyone who comes in here saying Jews rule the world, blacks are genetically inferior etc etc should get laughed out of here.
    I guess that’s the trick, Karl; to get angry would be to treat these views as if they had any legitimacy beyond the senile rantings of the old people’s home.

  • Frankjcapp

    There is no doubt that some form of backlash was going to form around the notion of gay marriages performed in MA and around the country.
    However, to try and “hide” the fact that there are indeed gay ppl in every single thread of the American fabric is, at best, anti-intellectual.
    I believe the problem stems from the initial perceptions people have when dealing with gay ppl — that is SEX. Most gay people don’t define their lives around SEX, but that is the way many straight ppl define us. Tom K (top) didn’t want the issue to come up … and the only reason I can imagine was because he didn’t want to discuss SEX with his 4 year old. Well, fair enough, except … when did SEX come up??
    That wasn’t the discussion in the TV show, it wasn’t alluded to, it wasn’t implied, and there were no double-entendres relating to it. It simply wasn’t an issue. It was about two ppl who live in a different family than what the xian right deems “moral”. Period. The fact that Tom equated that to sex is more telling on his state of mind than that of the producers.
    Until ppl stop thinking that gay means GAY SEX, we’re going to have a continued debate about seeing “gay things” on TV. I find the discussion immature, adolescent, and just plain ignorant.

  • Franky

    But Tom K is under no obligation to find it normal or right, no matter how asexual. And all those getting on his back are going to do more harm for gay rights than good – people like Tom K don’t agree with it (sorry for speaking on your behlaf here, Tom K) but has said he knows he can turn off (which some here apparently believe is a contravention of their human rights). The fight is not to get homosexuality labelled normal, but to stop the venom against it (also on display here). It’s the difference of combating the hatred rather than the distaste.

  • Karl

    Shouldn’t we be doing both, Franky? Both combating the hatred from the wackos, but also educating those like Tom K that don’t think it’s normal or right to be gay. I’m not saying it’s easy or won’t take a long time, but changing an ignorant viewpoint that will otherwise get passed down to Tom K’s 4-year old is certainly a worthwhile endeavor, I think.

  • Why read a book about a pet dog when you can read about a pet goat. The current president believes it to be the most exciting book he has ever read. So exciting that the last time he read it, it took him more than seven minutes before he could put it down.

  • Jon H

    Franky writes: But Tom K is under no obligation to find it normal or right, no matter how asexual.”
    Most people find the idea of septuagenarians having sex to be rather disturbing and unpleasant. Some thing the very idea is wrong.
    Should grandparents be excluded from depiction in cartoons?

  • Franky

    I don’t wish to rude but using words like “educate” is exactly the way to go about creating a backlash. It suggests that the opinion/belief is somehow ill-formed, when often it comes from the bible, i.e. the central part of many people’s faith. And this is something you’re just going to have to get used to: many people, religious or not, simply don’t like the idea. It’s not that they hate gays, it’s simply that it contravenes much of what we expect men and women to be (particularly in the case of men).
    I think the gay community is better off going for full rights as their rights, and leaving it essentially as something they understand is not for everyone; if the gay community is left alone by conservatives, the gay community will leave the conservative community alone. To seek a confrontation, especially when people think children are being used as pawns, will only cause a hardening resentment.

  • Joe

    Franky, I couldn’t disagree more. I’m not in the gay community and don’t really know if they need more rights or not. But I do know that the lives of gay people, especially young gay people – are they being “used as pawns” too? – would be much, much better and they’d be much, much happier if the many people who “simply don’t like the idea” would become educated or made to understand that there is nothing wrong with being gay. For they are right now, with their ill-advised beliefs, making the lives of many, many otherwise good people much, much worse. And I don’t know if they know that, and I don’t know if they’ve ever thought long enough about it to consider that if they truly “don’t hate gays” as you -and they – state repeatedly, then they shouldn’t be making the lives of gays so much harder by excluding them from normalcy.

  • Jeff, having seriously thought it over, I have concluded that “tight-wing” was the wrong Freudian slip, but as you may have noted I won’t use the cruder language. Thanks.

  • Mark