When a Bunny Loves a Bunny

You should probably start by reading this link. Done? Ok, now that we are on the same page, wtf?

The Buster character, I found out from one of my friends who has a PBS watching child, is animated and then superimposed into a real life scene. It's kind of like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? but on a public broadcasting budget. In this kind of representation, there is a line drawn between the stylized character that we identify with (Buster) and the live action characters that we observe (whoever Buster visits). With this in mind, I don't think that the show's creators were trying to promote a particular lifestyle any more than they have promoted any other lifestyle they have encountered over the course of the show. Instead, they seem to be promoting the kind of middle-of-the-road friendly multiculturalism that dominates instruction in the American school system. (which is problematic in and of itself, but that is the subject of another post)

So, what is Margaret Spellings upset about? What is the problem she has with lesbians that she doesn't have with Muslims, polyglots, or skateboarders? Her primary objection seems to be that the episode fails to meet the goals of the "Ready-to-Learn" program because it doesn't reach "as many children and families as possible." This is justified by her assertion that "many parents would not want their young children exposed to the life-styles portrayed in this episode." (see the last link for more context) From my own admittedly biased standpoint, this seems like a shaky argument. My first inclination is to respond with a series of rhetorically exaggerated and mildly unfair attacks (What about American parents who are anti-Semitic? Should we avoid representations of Judaism so we can reach them too?) or to make tired, but valid, point about how partisan politics is interfering in places where it shouldn't.

Instead, I think I'll leave things a bit more open to invite some kind of discussion on the board. I think that Buster's heart was in the right place and that he was treated wrongly out of fear that the department of Ed. might get some angry letters and a snarky mention on a Fox News talk show. But, I'm willing to listen to other interpretations.