PBS doesn't need the money though, especially Sesame Street which pulled in 140 million in merchandising sales on its own! Removing the government subsidy would not affect anything at all except removing the strings of government from its productions.
Well put! This whole idea that private industry is the infallible super hero that's going to save us all is lead-paint covered half truths.It is important for a successful society to fund the arts, sciences and education. This means privately, commercially and yes, some federal funding too. It's another form of America's infrastructure. These areas are just as important to our landscape as roads and bridges. They give us the next generation of innovators. The federal investment is incredibly small, yet needed. Complete privatization of everything is not the answer. America is a blending of ideas and methods and should remain so. We shouldn't surrender everything to private industry.
Trying to keep this non-political...I missed this last night, but yay for Big Bird! Just like the Muppets themselves, BB was never really out of the spotlight and we can see by the millions (and it was like millions) of people who set Twitter ablaze on Thursday that PBS is a station that has literally helped to teach millions of kids to count, to read, to discover places they may never go to, science, etc.
While I'm not gonna go political about this, I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson had the best quote to explain the utter stupidity that cutting funding to such an educational station is like -
"Cutting funding from PBS is like removing text files off your 500GB hard drive"
It's basically the notion that cutting funds from PBS does nothing to cut down any type of budget that our (US) government spends. It's the equivelent of taking text files (which are incredibly small) off a 500GB HD in order to save space instead of, oh I don't know, removing the 420GB of files and applications that aren't being used.
It depends on what is actually on the hard drive, if you're being literal about it.Trying to keep this non-political...
I work in software and I've been involved in a long project to reduce the size of a product. While the idea of removing text files to save space sometimes sounds dumb, it's sometimes necessary. Sometimes removing the really big files causes too many problems and it becomes necessary to remove 5,000 small files instead of one big one. Any one of the files can be accurately described as not making a difference, but together they do make a difference, however small.
I am being 100% factual about an actual hard-drive-related subject, not making a subtle analogy for political thoughts. I just find the quote to be highly ironic because it's exactly what I've been doing for months.
I fully understand his quote. I'm refusing to go political w/r/t Big Bird, so I'm not commenting on the meaning behind his analogy. I just find the actual example ironic for the aforementioned reason. I'm required to reduce disk space but I'm not allowed to touch the giant files causing the problem, so I'm stuck removing text files.It depends on what is actually on the hard drive, if you're being literal about it.
For instance, my hard drive could contain 1,000 text files, but removing those would do nothing but free up may be a MB of space versus say removing World of Warcraft which is say...50 GB will all expansion packs installed. You would have to have a ton of text files to make up the difference for removing something as large as WoW.
DeGrasse Tyson was making a generalization, if you will, in regards to Romney's statement - funding for PBS is, in this case, not the equivalent of uninstalling WoW (or any large application or game) from a system. It's basically makes too small of a footprint to make a difference, which is why Romney's statement for cutting PBS funding is flawed and makes no sense.