So it's come to this: HIV-Positive TV Muppet Worries U.S. Lawmakers Mon Jul 15,12:43 AM ET LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers are worried about plans to introduce an HIV-positive Muppet to the "Sesame Street" gang, Hollywood trade paper Daily Variety reported in its Monday edition. A day after show executives announced they would develop the as-yet-unnamed character for audiences in AIDS-ravaged South Africa, five members of the House committee on energy and commerce said the Muppet would be unwelcome on American TV. In a letter sent Friday to the president of the government-funded Public Broadcasting System, which airs "Sesame Street," the lawmakers noted the average age of U.S. viewers of "Sesame Street" in the U.S. is 2- to 4-years old. "As such, while it is important to teach children in an age-appropriate manner about compassion for those who contract certain diseases, we would like to inquire as to whether there is other PBS programming, aimed at an older age group, which may be more suitable for such sensitive messages," Daily Variety reported the letter as saying. The letter to PBS president Pat Mitchell was sent by committee chairman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, a Louisiana Republican; as well as by Joe Barton of Texas; Richard Burr of North Carolina, Charles "Chip" Pickering of Mississippi, Cliff Stearns of Florida and Fred Upton of Michigan, the paper said. "We look forward to working with you to ensure that only age and culturally appropriate programs air on PBS, which is a mainstay that millions of parents have come to rely upon over the past 35 years," the letter also read. Joel Schneider, vice president and senior adviser to the Sesame Street Workshop, announced the new female Muppet at the 14th International AIDS conference in Barcelona. It is scheduled for a Sept. 30 bow in South Africa, where one in nine people have the virus that can lead to AIDS. The local version of the show is called "Takalani Sesame." Schneider told Reuters last week that there would be no explicit mention of sex. Daily Variety said Tauzin's letter gave Mitchell until Friday to answer such questions as the amount of money PBS dedicates to "Sesame Street," how much is being earmarked for the new Muppet, whether she will be introduced to the United States and whether corporate underwriters might participate in the decision-making process. Are we supposed to believe that these distinguished gentlemen have no better way to spend their time in Congress than make implied threats to PBS about a puppet they find objectionable? I feel safer already.
Would it make you feel better if Congress cleared this off their schedule by yanking any and all funding away from PBS? That would solve the problem.
Refman -- I see you know how to make implied threats too. Neat. Actually, PBS government-based funding has been going down ever since the eighties. They've had to rely more and more on membership to fund the biggest chunk of their budget. I assume the day is coming, when they will have to be a wholly self-funded entity. Here's the 2003 budget breakdown for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting: 25.6% -- Membership - $550,427,000 14.7% -- Business - $314,890,000 13.9% -- State Governments - $279,816,000 11.6% -- CPB Appropriation - $250,000,000 12.3% -- All Others - $264,516,000 8.0% -- State Colleges - $171,539,000 5.7% -- Foundations - $123,150,000 2.7% -- Local Governments - $57,159,000 2.4% -- Federal Grants, Contracts - $50,960,000 1.5% -- Private Colleges - $31,359,000 0.8% -- Other Public Colleges - $17,765,000 0.8% -- Auction - $17,217,000
Mrs. JB, You know I love your posts and you as well as your hubby as much as anyone on this BBS. However, as Popeye would say, "I can't stand me stand no more (or something like that)." I first read HEAD's thread on this "HIV muppet" when it first came out. I printed out the article and let other people read it (mainly people I work with). NO ONE who read it thought it was a good idea. It is admirable that the people that run Sesame Street are that concerned about the HIV virus and everything. But really, is that something that is appropriate for 2 to 4 year-olds to know? They will have plenty of time when they get into elementary school to learn and find out all they want to know about the HIV virus. Why do it now when they are at such a young age?? To me, it would seem like all it would do is confuse them and that would be more harm than good.
Mrs. JB. You accidently highlighted the wrong part. It's ok, I'll do it for you That budget looks eerily close to their 1999 budget...they must be good with their money! http://www.cpb.org/about/funding/whopays.html Really? Looks to me like govt based funding has done nothing but RISE from 1969-1992 (with the exception of a drop-off in 82-83) From 1992 on, funding seems to have leveled off in the area of $250M, before rising since the year 2000: 2000: $300M 2001: $340M 2002: $350M 2003: $365M 2004: $380M 2005: $Kevin Garnett? http://www.cpb.org/about/funding/appropriation.html
Manny - at this point they only plan to introduce the puppet to the South African audience where 1 in 9 people have AIDS and thousands of children are already orphans due to the disease. In that instance I think it is entirely appropriate. As far as America, these five congressmen are totally jumping the gun. There aren't currently any plans to introduce the character to American audiences. This just seemed to be another example of congressional members scrambling over themselves to rally around "American values" in the face of some insignificant threat (a la "The Pledge of Allegiance").
I agree with you that they are jumping the gun. However, I thought I remembered in reading HEAD's thread on this, that the producers of SS eventually wanted to introduce this character to American audiences. If that happens, I definitely have a problem with that. However, it would be nice to see that situation (if it arises) be dealt in a less controversial fashion.
That was neither a threat nor was it implied. There are a lot of things you can say about me, but saying that I imply any threats is just wrong. I was merely stating my belief as to a possible solution for your concern regarding Congressional scheduling.
if pbs was to put an HIV positive i dont think parents would be dumb enough to put it on that channel for their kids to watch it.
My query - Which would be more disturbing for parents: 1.) A muppet based on a person with AIDS. or 2.) A muppet based on Congressman James Trafficant? Finally, while I can understand Manny's comments about broaching the subject of a fatal disease American children, I wonder if it were some other disease without so much moral baggage, whether it'd be as big of an issue. How much different is it than the way in which they dealt with the death of the store owner character when the real life actor died? Is this not the logical progression of that? Would you be as upset if they introduced a muppet with terminal cancer? Using HIV as a pathology for exploring death and dying for these children makes as anything else. It is probably the most stigmatised common cause of death in the US, and therefore any lessons leared here would be mor easily accepted for other, less 'sinful' causes of death, like the aformentioned cancer, or other viral/bacterial causes of death, such as St. Louis Encephalitis. And, as the progression of the disease is usualy somewhat slow, it'd allow for the character to remain around for awhile without seeming unnatural. Death is an issue that young people have trouble dealing with, but with which they are confronted. One of my girlfriend's high school friends just died this last week. She had three children. My girlfriend was talking with another of her friends, who was spending time with the family. Friend B was talking to deceased friend A's youngest child, who happens to be about Sessame St. age, about general stuff and an invitation was extended to the child to come over to Friend B's house and swim in their new pool. The response? The child said that she'd love to, but she had to ask her mother first. In other words, this poor kid's mother was gone, but she was unable to comprehend it. I wonder how much good is done to children by sheltering them from the 'real world'. In my experience, children of wealthy families, who happen to also be the most sheltered children, often grow into the least responsable adults. I wonder if useful generalities about raising children can be drawn from this. BTW, I found this page on death and dying for children that seems to fit what I remember about 'generally accepted theory' on grief in young children. I think it's useful as a starting point for a subject that is perhaps not intuitively grasped by most people.
I see a pattern forming! Remember back to a recent thread about some 'celebrated hero' in which you and your husband chimed in with some statement about some guy being no more worthy of recognition than many other people? In case you really don't get it, here's the connection: Part of what these guys who think of themselves as leaders see as their 'job' is helping to find ways to celebrate those values which they believe in, while publicaly denouncing those which they don't. The celebration of John Doe as a hero actualy has nothing to do with Mr. Doe. It's like one of Aesops Fables, in that it helps to demonstrate 'virtuous behavior'. These people's attachement to this subject has nothing to to with muppets or education specifically, but is instead about their general lothing of what they consider to be a taciturn acceptance and even an affermation of 'amoral behavior' and it's concequences. It's more of the same in terms of the 'My friend has two mommies' books and such. Really, what they are saying is not that they object to people teaching this to children, but rather that they object to the thought that people who get AIDS didn't get it for being 'bad people' and that they are shocked that people who've caught it can look upon themselves with anything but shame. (I, on the other hand, find more connections between their modalities of thought and those of Ossama bin Laden than I do between those of myself and them, but that's not important here.)
Anybody got a problem with a muppet with cancer? AIDS is a worldwide epidemic and the more it spreads the less it is a "sin" based disease. The real problem here should be with the difficulties involved with teaching a child about death, which is an incredibly difficult thing to do. It is entirely unnecessary for PBS to include any kind of discussion of sex to promote tolerance of the dying. And that's what it is. Let's not forget that. And it's not just gay folks and it's not just junkies. This is a real thing now and every single one of us is going to deal with it before it's over. Just like cancer. The demonization of HIV is just one more prejudice for people to get over. It will happen. Kudos to Sesame Street for taking one of the first steps. And shame on every one of you who opposes it.
Don't be a bozo. The only reason it wasn't a threat is because you lack the means to make it happen. Don't act like you were proposing a reasonable solution. Your argument was akin to a parent saying to a child, "Well, maybe you wouldn't like any dinner at all, then." Then you come back with, well I was just proposing a solution... That old saying about how if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all never really resonated for me. Here's a better one: If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything. I mean, really. Just don't.
Actually, if you do the math, most of those increases do not even keep up with inflation meaning the net is actually a loss. 2000 - 2001 - Difference of $40 million or appx + 13 percent 2001 - 2002 - Difference of $10 million or appx + 3 percent 2002 - 2003 - Difference of $15 million or appx + 4 percent 2003 - 2004 - Difference of $15 million or appx + 4 percent So, while the actual dollar figure may be increasing, the percentage is well below the level of inflation in all but the move from 2000 to 2001. An increase of anything less than 10 percent per year in any business cannot possibly account for rising costs of goods and services, inflation, labor and any of a dozen other budget issues.
From 1992-2001, the annual inflation rate has hovered at just under 3%. Economic projections through 2004 yield little variance. "Inflation" encompasses the rise in the costs of goods and services. (As determined by the CPI-U, PPI, ECI, etc..) Well below? I agree that OTHER budget issues might arise, but a strict inflationary-adjustment argument to refute x34's post seems to fail.
anyone else find it disturbing that Miss Piggy is doing commercials for Grand Slam breakfasts at Dennys? They should show her eating some of the bacon or sausage that comes with it. Homer: Wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute. Lisa honey, are you saying you're *never* going to eat any animal again? What about bacon? Lisa: No. Homer: Ham? Lisa: No. Homer: Pork chops? Lisa: Dad! Those all come from the same animal! Homer: [Chuckles] Yeah, right Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.
So much for your credibility. Oh, ok. Just because you say so I won't weigh in on any topics. You sure laid down the law.
