If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   Group plans "Million Muppet March" in Washington D.C. to protest Mitt Romney's threats to take funding away from PBS   (deadline.com) divider line 70
    More: Amusing, Group Plan, Washington DC, Jim Lehrer, Sesame Workshop, Big Bird, taxpayer money, PBS, objections  
•       •       •

3540 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Oct 2012 at 11:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-13 12:22:08 PM
4 votes:
Does Sesame Street receive that money? or does the corporation for public broadcasting?

All the reseach I have done shows that in 1981, the federal government withdrew its funding and the CTW turned to, and expanded, other revenue sources, including its magazine division, book royalties, product licensing, and foreign broadcast income.

Article is misleading. That money goes to public broadcasting as a whole. In fact it costs the CTW many millions more to produce the show than they charge to PBS to broadcast it. It is one of those win / win situations for the public and the producers of the show. The ROI on education that it provides is unmatched.

Not to mention this isn't about the budget, it's about shutting down PBS and NPR because republicans don't like science, education and the arts. Those are liberal things...
2012-10-13 12:15:04 PM
4 votes:

Fark_Guy_Rob: Guys are making 300k a year to move their hands inside a puppet.


media.salon.com

And some are making a hell of a lot more.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-13 11:16:38 AM
4 votes:
blogs.denverpost.com 

It certainly symbolizes what he thinks about education and spending money to help the non-wealthy.
2012-10-13 01:57:34 PM
3 votes:

BullBearMS: Well, yes. It's certainly not important to protest against the decade old endless war in Afghanistan or bullshiat like this:

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.


Please tell me you don't think Romney would end that.

Education is important. I mean, FFS, I never want to witness something like I witnessed in college, ever again. I know I've told the story on Fark before, but here it goes.

One day, I actually listened to a girl getting a basic U.S. Geography lesson in my dorm. She had no concept of where the Mississippi River was.

Ok, that's dumb, but no big deal, right?

This girl was in Air Force ROTC. If all went well, she was on the fast track to becoming an officer.

The guy? If he ever comes back to the United States, he'll have problems. He's vocal about how he feels about Jews, and one of his Weenerss when the USS Cole got hit by a suicide bomber in Yemen, he pointed at the screen and said, excitedly, "Hey, that's my old apartment building!" He wasn't kidding.

Education isn't just something nice that those evil socialists want to do; it's a matter of national security. Part of that is educational programming. PBS still has it. The former NASA Channel has Honey Boo-Boo. The private sector only does as much educational programming as the government forces them to do. There's a lot of homes out there where kids might not have access to a computer, tablet, smart phone, MP3 player, books, regular meals (nutritious or otherwise) or even at times heat, but their parent(s) almost certainly have a TV.

In the area I live in, we have a decent PBS station, with some kind-hearted donors. If the Feds cut CPB funds as part of their vendetta against NPR (don't kid yourselves, that's 99% what this is about) that station will go dark. I learned a lot of basics from Sesame Street, Electric Company (the one with Morgan Freeman), 3-2-1 Contact, Reading Rainbow, Readit, and so on.

Once we get past this, maybe we could get around to listening to the Pentagon, who has pointed out they need healthy, intelligent young men and women more than they need tanks right now.
2012-10-13 01:28:48 PM
3 votes:

legion_of_doo: Romney might kill Sesame Street, but Obama already killed NASA.


Considering the economy is still in the tank because of Georgie Boy, this is not a totally bad idea.

Space will still be there, but we need to take care of other matters, first
2012-10-13 03:55:08 PM
2 votes:

gimmegimme: BSABSVR is what you're advocating.


No. No it's not.

Both parties favor endless war. I do not.

Both parties favor protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed the economy. I do not.

Both parties favor the free trade agreements that have allowed the obscenely wealthy to move the manufacturing jobs to nations where they can pay slave labor wages and ignore environmental regulations without a financial penalty when they bring those goods back into the US. I do not.

Both parties favor the retarded drug war. I do not.

Both sides are bad, so stop voting for both of them.

dl.dropbox.com
2012-10-13 02:35:21 PM
2 votes:

rrife: Does PBS really need govt funding? They rake in millions in licensing fees, donations, etc and pay out crazy high salaries....can't imagine what the govt gives adds much to the bottom line.


How many times do we have to go through this? PBS does not own Sesame Street. PBS does not produce Sesame Street. PBS does not get the licensing revenue from Sesame Street. Sesame Street is produced by Sesame Workshop, which in fact does make nice money from the licensing. PBS stations pay Sesame Workshop for the right to air Sesame Street. They're separate entities.
2012-10-13 02:04:06 PM
2 votes:
Hrmm. This reminds me of once upon a time when some asshat politician tried to cut PBS funding.

The proper dem response would be to bring this up and claim Rmoney is no better than Tricky Dick. 'Course today's retarded GOP would refer to Mr. Rogers as a pink commie liberal socialist death panel sekrit mooslin. No way in hell they'll suffer what's really good for the children and actual (not to mention non-secular) family values .
2012-10-13 02:02:39 PM
2 votes:

Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".


How many times do we have to go through this? PBS does not own Sesame Street. PBS does not produce Sesame Street. PBS does not get the licensing revenue from Sesame Street. Sesame Street is produced by Sesame Workshop, which in fact does make nice money from the licensing. PBS stations pay Sesame Workshop for the right to air Sesame Street. They're separate entities.
2012-10-13 01:57:29 PM
2 votes:

Fark_Guy_Rob: If people really love crap that is on PBS then it doesn't need government funding. People will support it or they'll sell ads or do whatever else.


The whole point of PBS not running ads is so it doesn't end up like TLC. It's not as if we need another channel full of tawdry "reality" shows.
2012-10-13 12:10:17 PM
2 votes:
If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".
2012-10-14 08:39:06 AM
1 votes:
Wow, quite a few of the most rarely seen Fark IndependentTM trolls have turned up in this thread.

What a truly odd thread for them to congregate on.

This Big Bird stuff really seems to have pushed their buttons for some reason. I suspect that they always thought Snuffleupagus was a Libertarian.
2012-10-13 08:42:10 PM
1 votes:

Whodat: So then cutting funding to PBS won't actually be cutting funding to Sesame Street.


No, but cut funding to some PBS stations and they'll go off the air. Sesame Street will continue to exist; your kids just won't be able to watch it. (Christie already took WNJN off the air in New Jersey, because it replied on state funding).

But I have a feeling this isn't actually about PBS, but rather NPR, which is about the only non-biased media outlet out there. Yes, they still lean a little to the right, but that's mainly because they work hard to present both sides of any story they report. In some parts of the country, they're the only source for local news, which means there are people out there who are getting unbiased reporting and not being fed propaganda, which is why NPR must go.
2012-10-13 07:41:29 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: gimmegimme: Clemkadidlefark: "F" PBS. If they can't make it on their own, who cares?

The hundreds of millions of Americans who benefit because of the existence of PBS at a ridiculously low cost to the taxpayer?

At least they admit that it's not about the budget anymore and is instead some petty ax to grind they have with PBS.


www.motherjones.com

Or shovel...
2012-10-13 07:20:01 PM
1 votes:

gimmegimme: Clemkadidlefark: "F" PBS. If they can't make it on their own, who cares?

The hundreds of millions of Americans who benefit because of the existence of PBS at a ridiculously low cost to the taxpayer?


At least they admit that it's not about the budget anymore and is instead some petty ax to grind they have with PBS.
2012-10-13 06:40:46 PM
1 votes:

Fark_Guy_Rob: There are ENDLESS numbers of TV shows for children that are also educational that are don't funded with tax payer dollars.
It's a waste.


You have to ask yourself, can the biggest economy in the world afford .0012% of its budget to ensure distribution of really good educational TV and a safe starting ground for a variety of television programs? And apparently, you look at it and say 'No.'
2012-10-13 06:40:19 PM
1 votes:

Fark_Guy_Rob: I don't care who you vote for - but I honestly do question the value of government funding going to something like PBS.

If people really love crap that is on PBS then it doesn't need government funding. People will support it or they'll sell ads or do whatever else.
If people don't really love crap that is on PBS that we shouldn't waste government funding on it.

I know, I know, there are lots of things more serious on the budget than this; but that doesn't change my opinion on it. Guys are making 300k a year to move their hands inside a puppet. That may or may not be a fair wage for such things; but I sure as don't see any need to fund it with public dollars. Let the market decide.

I went overseas and saw the crap they produce here with funds extorted from people with the 'TV License Tax'. Absolute crap TV with the crappy publicly funded actors making many, many times the normal wage. If they're really worth that amount of money there is no need to forcefully collect it from tax payers.

There are ENDLESS numbers of TV shows for children that are also educational that are don't funded with tax payer dollars.
It's a waste.


Do you mean crap like The Office that is so bad it is copied by US commercial networks? Or perhaps crap like Fawlty Towers or Coupling?

Thank God we have your US commercial networks to provide the world with quality commercial entertainment like Toddlers in Tiaras.

On the other hand, thank God that conservatives in the UK are not extremists and we still have the BBC and actual high quality, intelligent content available,
2012-10-13 06:16:09 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: They stopped voting for the corrupt political parties as the first step.

A large group did yes. Because they found a more viable third option.


Horseshiat.

They realized that the existing politicians made no effort to serve the interests of anyone except the obscenely wealthy.

Just like today.

dl.dropbox.com

Stop voting evil into power.
2012-10-13 05:59:43 PM
1 votes:

Nutsac_Jim: It seem like the
feds simply pay for sesame street and then some other guy gets to collect all the big bird animal sales.


How farking stupid are you. Sesame Street pays its own production costs. The Federal government gives a VERY small amount to PBS to cover its operating costs, and the operating costs of the PBS stations, which are all independently owned.
2012-10-13 05:53:08 PM
1 votes:

ZeroCorpse: No matter WHO you vote for, the results are the same: The will of the people who are really in charge. The plutocrats. The guys who have been pulling the strings for at least a few hundred-- if not a few thousand-- years.

So all this worry about detention without trial, or rule of law is sort of pointless. Whatever you do, you aren't going to change it. You can debate it all you want-- That's your right (for now). But the debate is essentially useless because the people in charge will make the moves they want to make, whether it's Romney or Obama or Dick the Wonder Turtle in the White House. Sure, the person they select has some public responsibilities, and will have some minor effect on the way things turn out, but ultimately the President is powerless in the face of his masters.


That kind of ignores the Progressives who took back the nation from Plutocratic control during the Guilded Age.

It can be done.

it has been done.

Unfortunately, we did not learn the lesson of history, so now we are doomed to repeat it.
2012-10-13 05:48:07 PM
1 votes:

gimmegimme: thamike: Holy balls, this is stupid.

No, no. I think that BullBear and ZeroCorpse are making good points. Think about the 2000 election. We would be in the EXACT SAME PLACE had Kerry won the Supreme Court Election. Right? It doesn't matter who sits in the chair.


Right. Because when Obama said he would "fix the economy" what he really meant was protect those who destroyed it from prosecution!
2012-10-13 05:47:01 PM
1 votes:

Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".


You know how I know that you have no clue whatsoever about the difference between CTW and PBS?
2012-10-13 05:44:31 PM
1 votes:

thamike: Holy balls, this is stupid.


No, no. I think that BullBear and ZeroCorpse are making good points. Think about the 2000 election. We would be in the EXACT SAME PLACE had Kerry won the Supreme Court Election. Right? It doesn't matter who sits in the chair.
2012-10-13 05:44:27 PM
1 votes:
dl.dropbox.com
2012-10-13 05:39:59 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: Curious: gimmegimme: BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven"

Indefinite Detention:

Obama first announcing his plan for Indefinite Detention only weeks after taking office.

A radical new claim of Presidential power that is not afforded by the Constitution and that has never been attempted in American history, even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Obama still fighting for Indefinite Detention today.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

Yes, so let's all make sure Romney gets in office.

yeah because a totally farked up civil rights country can only be helped by being totally farked up economically too.

and if yours was sarcasm, sorry. as much as i hate where we are with civil rights and the war on terrortm adding economic suicide doesn't help.

So Obama protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed our economy from the legal and fiscal consequences of actions is just what we all needed?

That's going to keep them from doing it again?

Oh, wait. It's just going to make it more likely.

So who should I vote for then?

And don't be vague and say "anyone but Obama". I want an actually breathing human being to vote for.


WHY?

Why is it so important that you feel like you're "doing something" or at all involved in the selection of our leaders... Even when it's certain that your vote is about as useful as a propeller on a condom?

The fact is that no matter who you "vote" for, the people in charge will select the person who best achieves their goals of distracting you from what they are doing in the background.

You're worried about voting for which big, green face the Wizard of Oz projects on the screen, and not even considering that you can't get rid of the actual Wizard behind the curtain. Nor would you want to, because if you did the world would fall apart.

Go vote for Obama. Or for Romney. Or for a chair. Or for a squirrel named "Nutty" for all I care... but I'm telling you, it doesn't mean shiat. It's just an action they allow you to mimic in order to feel like you have some control over the results.

The role has been cast. You're just calling in votes on the reality show, now.
2012-10-13 05:36:35 PM
1 votes:

ZeroCorpse: You are at least somewhat close to the truth. Of course, the lack of real choice is exactly what is desired by the true powers-that-be. They want people to be occupied with the "us-vs-them" arguments, the social debating, the whining, and all the garbage the news and politicians can throw out there to entertain the masses. Meanwhile, the system-- the WORLD-- keeps working the way it always has, with the exact same people still in charge and making everything happen the way they intended it to.

Illusion of choice, indeed. And the thing is, the candidate you think is better? He/She/It is no choice, either. If they're sincere, then there's no way they will be selected by those who actually determine our "leaders", and even if they were picked, they wouldn't have any power anyway. The Presidency is a lie. Politicians are essentially actors being paid big bucks to make it look like they're doing something, when in fact they're just publicly debating and rubber-stamping the laws, rules, and moves that were decided for them by their taskmasters.

We do not live in a democracy. We do not even live in a democratic republic. This is a plutocracy, as is the rest of the world, and it's been that way for longer than any of us have been alive.

The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can get on with your life and stop arguing with "the other side" about minor, exceptionally stupid differences in personal philosophy.


2.bp.blogspot.com

I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message.
2012-10-13 05:33:57 PM
1 votes:

gimmegimme: Good point. We should suck away enthusiasm for Obama because R-Money will crack the whip on those bankers.


Oh look. Both sides are bad, so vote Democrat. How original.
2012-10-13 05:30:05 PM
1 votes:

Funbags: No kids, so I don't really have a dog in this race, but if Sesame Workshop didn't get their annual $7 million dollar subsidy, they would just shut down? They couldn't find a sponsor(s) interested in marketing to an impressionable demo that never changes the channel?

I guess that's why networks like Nickelodeon and Disney are so unprofitable.


PBS's programs are intended to educate, not just entertain? Spongebob and Disney exist to sell toys and and videos; they do nothing for literacy or early childhood development.
2012-10-13 04:57:11 PM
1 votes:

BullBearMS: Keizer_Ghidorah: It must be fun being a self-proclaimed Libertarian who's so afraid and paranoid of everything.

Apparently, it was fun to spend the last election cycle concern trolling about the Bushian evils of Indefinite Detention, Spying on Americans, and Endless Wars.

Only to defend all of them this year since Obama has not only continued them, but has cranked them all up to eleven.

However, this year's concern troll seems to be Big Bird, although let's take a look at what Obama's bipartisan deficit commission said it wanted to cut.

The goals of reform, as Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson see them, are presented in the form of seven bullet points. "Lower Rates" is the first point; "Reduce the Deficit" is the seventh.

So how, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?

Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases - tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans - the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest - and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.

It will take time to crunch the numbers here, but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans. And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?

Let's turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that's what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?

The answer is no, for a number of ...


Not sure how Obama has "hiked them all up to eleven", considering it's Romney who wants tax cuts on the rich and increases on the middle-class, and I've yet to hear of anything involving the Patriot Act under Obama. Obama's tried to do things like close Gitmo and get the economy and job situation fixed faster, but the right's done everything they can to stall and stop.

But I can see how it's much easier to just scream "both sides are bad!" and just give up.
2012-10-13 04:32:02 PM
1 votes:

BullBearMS: gimmegimme: BSABSVR is what you're advocating.

No. No it's not.

Both parties favor endless war. I do not.

Both parties favor protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed the economy. I do not.

Both parties favor the free trade agreements that have allowed the obscenely wealthy to move the manufacturing jobs to nations where they can pay slave labor wages and ignore environmental regulations without a financial penalty when they bring those goods back into the US. I do not.

Both parties favor the retarded drug war. I do not.

Both sides are bad, so stop voting for both of them.

[dl.dropbox.com image 515x320]


You're not going to accomplish anything by just sitting around and biatching how everyone isn't as cool and smart as you are politically.

DO SOMETHING!
2012-10-13 04:24:54 PM
1 votes:
I see about five different Romney shills going for the "hand up ass" joke. Marching orders must have been sent down from Fox News already.
2012-10-13 04:16:50 PM
1 votes:

gimmegimme: OscarTamerz: Democrats and muppets, two groups equally used to having somebody's arm up their asses controlling their every movement.

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 300x295]

I thought cons were mad that left-wing folks are radicals who are on their own in the American ideological ecosystem.


Cons say that their opponents are both sides of an extreme so they can work up the rage and hate to live their daily lives.

BullBearMS: gimmegimme: BSABSVR is what you're advocating.

No. No it's not.

Both parties favor endless war. I do not.

Both parties favor protecting the fraudulent bankers who destroyed the economy. I do not.

Both parties favor the free trade agreements that have allowed the obscenely wealthy to move the manufacturing jobs to nations where they can pay slave labor wages and ignore environmental regulations without a financial penalty when they bring those goods back into the US. I do not.

Both parties favor the retarded drug war. I do not.

Both sides are bad, so stop voting for both of them.

[dl.dropbox.com image 515x320]


It must be fun being a self-proclaimed Libertarian who's so afraid and paranoid of everything. At least Democrats aren't the ones trying to turn America into a misogynist, homophobic, ignorant, rich-man's-paradise, Christian theocracy that declares war at Israel's beckon call. The economy and job growth have risen slowly and steadily for the last 3,5 years ("It could go faster!" you may say, but it was the second-worst recession and the Republicans fought every attempt to fix it because they consider making Obama a one-term president more important). We're actually trying to get out of the conflicts.

I've also noticed that Libertarians always scream about how evil everyone else is, yet they rarely give suggestions for anything and if they do they're the same as one side or the other's plans.
2012-10-13 04:08:59 PM
1 votes:

hbk72777: "$45 million in merchandising during 2010 split between the Television Workshop and Henson productions."


"The Sesame Workshop hasn't always collected so much revenue from the merchandising of its characters. The show was created using Jim Henson's Muppets, and through the 1990s money the sales of Sesame Street dolls, playsets, and other toys was split with the Jim Henson Company and a German media group called EM.TV. Then in December 2000 the Sesame Workshop acquired the rights to Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster, and the other Sesame Street Muppets for $180 million. International licensing has also grown in recent years, especially as the show has gone global with shows like Plaza Sésamo (in Latin America), Sesamstrasse (in Germany), and Takalani Sesame (in South Africa). When The Sesame Workshop's revenue grew by 4 percent in 2005, the New York Times noted that this was "primarily because of new income from international licensing." "


And the operating expenses for the show are $133 million.
2012-10-13 04:08:36 PM
1 votes:

smitty04: "Four years ago, President Obama said that if you don't have a record to run on, 'you make a big election about small things.' With 23 million people struggling for work, incomes falling, and gas prices soaring, Americans deserve more from their president."


I was told under Bush that the President has no control over gas prices.
2012-10-13 03:35:00 PM
1 votes:

legion_of_doo: Romney might kill Sesame Street, but Obama already killed NASA.


Oh, yeah, NASA's really suffering right now. 0.5% of the federal budget (down by about 1 tenth of a percent from 2001) and mean old Obama refocused it for things like Mars exploration and the Orion MPCV. Just look at the team at NASA Jet Propulsion laboratory. They are obviously miserable.

www.csmonitor.com

F*cking ZeroFartBongo, that traitor.
2012-10-13 03:29:34 PM
1 votes:

Fark_Guy_Rob: I don't care who you vote for - but I honestly do question the value of government funding going to something like PBS.

If people really love crap that is on PBS then it doesn't need government funding. People will support it or they'll sell ads or do whatever else.
If people don't really love crap that is on PBS that we shouldn't waste government funding on it.

I know, I know, there are lots of things more serious on the budget than this; but that doesn't change my opinion on it. Guys are making 300k a year to move their hands inside a puppet. That may or may not be a fair wage for such things; but I sure as don't see any need to fund it with public dollars. Let the market decide.

I went overseas and saw the crap they produce here with funds extorted from people with the 'TV License Tax'. Absolute crap TV with the crappy publicly funded actors making many, many times the normal wage. If they're really worth that amount of money there is no need to forcefully collect it from tax payers.

There are ENDLESS numbers of TV shows for children that are also educational that are don't funded with tax payer dollars.
It's a waste.


Right.....except for those kids who live in houses where they can't AFFORD cable......

And PBS isn't just kids shows, they also do a lot to introduce the arts.
2012-10-13 03:28:55 PM
1 votes:

randomjsa: Compete in the open market like everyone else or go off the air.

It's that simple.


I hate knowing my kids will grow up in a world where they will have to contend with people like you. You offer nothing of substance or value to anything or anyone. You spew stupid wherever and whenever possible. Consider me trolled, because every time I see you out here, I get angry. Shove whatever response you might have up your free marketed ass.
2012-10-13 03:17:01 PM
1 votes:

LargeCanine: There isn't enough television. The gov't needs to subsidize it.


The more PBS has to beg for money in the open market, the worse their programming gets. There's no way in hell they'd let Carl Sagan or Julia Childs on the air today, as neither of them had "marketable personalities". There's no way in hell they'd show Monty Python or Fawltey Towers, as they're not mainstream.

/longs for the PBS of my youth, back when they were weird
//ends up watching a lot of programming from the BBC.
2012-10-13 03:10:51 PM
1 votes:
I do think this is an important issue. The Republicans want to eliminate very very very small parts of the federal budget that benefit everyone and massively expand the Defense Department. We could put an American on Mars if NASA had 5% of the money we borrowed and threw away in the Middle East.
2012-10-13 03:08:13 PM
1 votes:
randomjsa (farkied: "Holy fnck you're an idiot." - Nina_Hartley's_Ass): Compete in the open market like everyone else or go off the air.

It's that simple.


Yes, down with Nova, we need more Honey Boo Boo.

Remember, boys and girls:

* $450 million for the CPB: zOMG SOOOOOOOOCIALISM!

* Unlimited funds to blow schitt up in Iran: USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!
2012-10-13 02:49:25 PM
1 votes:
2012-10-13 02:47:20 PM
1 votes:

coco ebert:

I understand that, but what has been the long-term effect of such a protest? It didn't spark a movement, it didn't help make politics more level-headed (wasn't that the broader critique?)- ok, I guess it was just an opportunity to have fun. I guess that's cool, but it's so hard to get feet on the ground, I wish we were out there protesting austerity, the militarization of our police force, our f*cked-up foreign policy, or widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters, but I'm just a libtard anyway, what do I know...


The 60s-70s era of "movements" has gone, and as a culture we seem to have lost the patience and sense of purpose to create and maintain a unified front that strives to change policies using grassroots support. These days, we seem to expect that (in order to be taken seriously) a movement must strive to become an political party that competes with (or supports one of) the Dem and Repub parties.

Part of the reason OWS fell apart was that people expected them to behave like a political party rather than just a group of people trying to create awareness of corruption between Wall Street and the government. Instead of hammering our elected officials about the issues OWS raised, we hammered OWS for not presenting us with a leader (candidate for office), a party platform, detailed plans for correcting the situation, etc.
2012-10-13 02:45:40 PM
1 votes:

Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".


Top 25%, if I remember correctly.

And PBS doesn't own Big Bird or Sesame Street; they're owned by an independent non-profit called the Children's Television Workshop, who (in good capitalist fashion) sell the program to PBS.
2012-10-13 02:04:21 PM
1 votes:

BATMANATEE: Are people still pretending that Sesame Street gets federal funding? It makes hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Ken Burns documentaries and "learn to make shiatty paintings" shows might be in danger from federal cuts, but Big Bird will be just fine.


The whole issue is that, when that one mean old NPR poo-poo head said not-nice things about Tea Partiers, vendetta was declared. The only way to ensure that NPR never gets one red cent of tax dollars from the Federal government was to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Sesame Street will be fine. The OTA PBS stations? Not so much. I know the one here will go dark, and they play educational programming nearly all day. Like I said above, there are kids around here who might not even have decent food or heat at home, but they're likely to have a TV, so that source of education outside of their ignorant-ass parents pea brains will be lost.

I honestly credit Sesame Street with helping me learn to read at a pretty decent level by the time I was 4.
2012-10-13 01:39:57 PM
1 votes:
So how many here donate to PBS?
I give $50 a year.
WGBH in Boston (or any other major market) won't be affected by a loss of Gov. $ but some PBS station in East Jesus might.
As I Understand It, The Fed $ Mostly go to pay for underfunded stations. I'd like to think the slack-jawed yokels can count and know the ABCs.

/bertisevil.jpg
2012-10-13 01:11:06 PM
1 votes:

thurstonxhowell: soy_bomb: I completely understand why Obama supporters would want to focus on Big Bird instead of Benghazi.

Because we don't get a hard-on when we find out that Americans were murdered?


Or don't get all happy when young Soldiers die in the name of oil
2012-10-13 01:05:22 PM
1 votes:

soy_bomb: I completely understand why Obama supporters would want to focus on Big Bird instead of Benghazi.


Because we don't get a hard-on when we find out that Americans were murdered?
2012-10-13 12:48:34 PM
1 votes:

Fark_Guy_Rob: bonefish: Oh the puppeteer for Big Bird makes 314k a year? If you have a problem with it, go be a puppeteer for 40 years as a giant bird.

I don't have a problem with what anyone can earn so long as they are doing it....

1.) Legally
2.) Not with my tax dollars

I'm not against having public workers. We need them for certain things. But we need to be vigilant that we are paying them a fair wage and we need to be certain that we need them. Individual people can spend their money on whatever they want. The government should be very efficient and only pay for things it needs (and only at a fair wage).

I have seen little evidence than the American people benefit from having public funding go towards paying a puppeteer. I also suspect that 314k is well above the median pay for a puppeteer, but I'm unconvinced that, even if we as a society need public funding to hire puppeteers, benefit from having high paid puppeteers over moderately paid ones.


My two year old who learned the entire alphabet before 1 year of age and counted to 20 by 18 months begs to differ but, feel free to cut, cut away and the people who are really really good at what they do for children. He should've been watching Sponge Bob all this time. I'm sure a Nicktoon kid would get that headstart. The stuff that happens on PBS kids wouldn't happen for profit. You're right, investing in the future is bullshiat anyway.
2012-10-13 12:36:26 PM
1 votes:
tomWright:

Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.
2012-10-13 12:35:11 PM
1 votes:

tomWright: [images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 596x397]

Classic Obama rally?


Obama, Romney, who cares what anybody wants? Think about why Beeblebrox was the most successful Prez the Galaxy ever had, and it don't matter if your favorite wins, he's not really in charge anyway.
2012-10-13 12:31:57 PM
1 votes:
i.ebayimg.com

NYT columnist thinking about Obama policies
2012-10-13 12:27:32 PM
1 votes:
Just balance the budget and lower the United States national debt, Democrats and/or Republicans. Enough on this big bird and gay marriage trivia.

Oh, you can't, especially since 2008?

Let's try the Libertarian approach, since the Democrats and Republicans have joined forces to tank the economy.
2012-10-13 12:21:31 PM
1 votes:

thamike: Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".

You're getting Above Middle Class confused with the Wealthy 1%. Having to follow a faulty narrative out of an inexplicable sycophantic sense of duty has its disadvantages.


To make the top 1 percent, a household must have AGI of $343,927 or more.

Read more: Top 1 Percent: How Much Do They Earn? | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx#ixzz29CF Vd7tk

Facts are messy things.
2012-10-13 12:18:09 PM
1 votes:
Oh the puppeteer for Big Bird makes 314k a year? If you have a problem with it, go be a puppeteer for 40 years as a giant bird.
2012-10-13 12:14:42 PM
1 votes:
Do the protesters really think the only thing keeping Big Bird on the air is the PBS subsidy?
2012-10-13 12:13:08 PM
1 votes:

Whodat: If PBS can't live of the licensing of the Sesame Street characters etc. they have horrible business sense. BTW, Caroll Spinney makes about $314000 a year. Big Bird is very close to being a "1%er".


You're getting Above Middle Class confused with the Wealthy 1%. Having to follow a faulty narrative out of an inexplicable sycophantic sense of duty has its disadvantages.
2012-10-13 12:13:03 PM
1 votes:
I don't care who you vote for - but I honestly do question the value of government funding going to something like PBS.

If people really love crap that is on PBS then it doesn't need government funding. People will support it or they'll sell ads or do whatever else.
If people don't really love crap that is on PBS that we shouldn't waste government funding on it.

I know, I know, there are lots of things more serious on the budget than this; but that doesn't change my opinion on it. Guys are making 300k a year to move their hands inside a puppet. That may or may not be a fair wage for such things; but I sure as don't see any need to fund it with public dollars. Let the market decide.

I went overseas and saw the crap they produce here with funds extorted from people with the 'TV License Tax'. Absolute crap TV with the crappy publicly funded actors making many, many times the normal wage. If they're really worth that amount of money there is no need to forcefully collect it from tax payers.

There are ENDLESS numbers of TV shows for children that are also educational that are don't funded with tax payer dollars.
It's a waste.
2012-10-13 12:11:09 PM
1 votes:
Didn't Sesame Street explicitly ask that Democrats stop using Big Bird in a partisan way? Because doubling down like this undercuts all the criticism about "Republicans using Musician X's music".
2012-10-13 12:11:08 PM
1 votes:

limboslam: They do realize that sales from "Tickle me Elmo" alone far outstrip any public funding Sesame Street gets, right?


PBS gets profits from Tickle Me Elmos sales? Color Me Dubious.
2012-10-13 12:10:46 PM
1 votes:

Nemo's Brother: Obama's performance was so bad that this is all they have now.


That's not what the fact checkers are saying.
2012-10-13 12:09:01 PM
1 votes:

Nemo's Brother: Obama's performance was so bad that this is all they have now.


1.bp.blogspot.com

TUESDAY.
2012-10-13 12:07:25 PM
1 votes:

notmtwain: This story has no legs.


I feel some manipulation going here of an invisible hand of the market place.
2012-10-13 12:05:54 PM
1 votes:

coco ebert: thamike: coco ebert: I understand that, but what has been the long-term effect of such a protest? It didn't spark a movement, it didn't help make politics more level-headed (wasn't that the broader critique?)- ok, I guess it was just an opportunity to have fun. I guess that's cool, but it's so hard to get feet on the ground, I wish we were out there protesting austerity, the militarization of our police force, our f*cked-up foreign policy, or widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters, but I'm just a libtard anyway, what do I know...

Protests aren't immediately significant unless they are specific. The rally for sanity was not about protesting anything. It was just a reminder that most of the country is not actually made up of psychotic blowhards who want to shoot anything with a question mark.

I think I just have to accept the fact that people in this country don't feel things are bad enough to leave their homes and gather together to petition their government. They will get together for a large celebration like that rally, but not to protest. *shrugs*


Not trying to be a dick but are you doing anything to spread your message and get people into the streets? Or just lamenting the fact that we don't on the Internet?
2012-10-13 12:05:34 PM
1 votes:
Obama's performance was so bad that this is all they have now.
2012-10-13 11:40:14 AM
1 votes:

coco ebert: I understand that, but what has been the long-term effect of such a protest? It didn't spark a movement, it didn't help make politics more level-headed (wasn't that the broader critique?)- ok, I guess it was just an opportunity to have fun. I guess that's cool, but it's so hard to get feet on the ground, I wish we were out there protesting austerity, the militarization of our police force, our f*cked-up foreign policy, or widespread attempts to disenfranchise voters, but I'm just a libtard anyway, what do I know...


Protests aren't immediately significant unless they are specific. The rally for sanity was not about protesting anything. It was just a reminder that most of the country is not actually made up of psychotic blowhards who want to shoot anything with a question mark.
2012-10-13 11:23:11 AM
1 votes:

coco ebert: If it's tied to a broader movement for something, I'd support it. But please, no more of these "fight for sanity" waste-of-time protests. We have so many real issues to protest and it's so hard to get Americans in the streets. I love PBS but it would be a waste to protest just for that.


I was at the rally for sanity. It was huge and it was positive and fun. Its only purpose, if the name didn't tip you off, was to show just how common not being a shrieking cretin is, despite the news media's insistence of the opposite.
2012-10-13 11:22:25 AM
1 votes:
It obscures the larger issue that you can't pay for his tax plan by fishing through the national couch cushions for loose change.
2012-10-13 10:34:42 AM
1 votes:
It was my understanding that Sesame Street is sponsored by the letter Q and the number 6
2012-10-13 10:20:27 AM
1 votes:
This story has no legs.
2012-10-13 09:58:55 AM
1 votes:
thesignalinthenoise.files.wordpress.com

What happened to Romney just looking like a dumbass with the "Big Bird" comment? Is this really what we want to pounce on? Pick what ridiculous fabrication from a punk-ass mouth you're above harping on, Obama camp.
 
Displayed 70 of 70 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report