After our segment about Democrats in Congress trying to save public broadcasting -- don't kill Big Bird! -- @scarshapedstar writes:
That was clearly Cookie Monster at the press conference, not Grover. On a related note, if you guys need to hire a fact checker... :)
Because we take you seriously, and because we ourselves had a very small, brief intra-staff debate on this exact point, producer Mike Yarvitz called Rep. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts). The press folks tell us that was in fact Grover, which was the side Mike argued yesterday, FTW. (UPDATE: Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum -- 2012 Republican possibles -- are both pulling Big Bird's feathers today.)
Thanks for sending us on that errand. For our trouble and yours, we got this poster from Congressman Markey's office. Big Oil or Big Bird?
From Rep. Ed Markey's office.
Leave a Comment:
Folks, America has lost its mind.
That was clearly Grover: Note the pinkish nose sticking straight up. Cookie Monster has no nose.
Of course that's Grover. You can tell by the nose, which in this picture looks like it is on top of his head. Cookie Monster is the same color, but he has no nose.
Plus Grover is skinnier, where Cookie is plumper and furrier. I can tell easily that it's Grover (although Super Grover would have been even cooler!)
Not to mention that there are no tell-tale cookie crumbs on the podium or the ground.
And knowing Cookie he'd be eating the microphone.
Anybody else finding that picture of Bert rather disturbing? Not that I blame him for being mad, but wow.
The Bert and Ernies in the picture are the soft plush handpuppets they sell for kids, not the actual muppets.
But I agree, its totally Grover.
Bert's always pissed off about something... terminally grumpy
Bert's a tea partier?
OK - here's Grover (note bulbous pink nose)
and here's Cookie Monster (no nose)
The image is clearly Grover. Thanks for the diversion, TRMS!
Fave Sesame Street character: Bert.
2nd fave: Grover, esp. in his Super Grover form.
Rock. On.
I liked Kermit. Granted he was more on the "Muppet" side but he rocked those breaking news reports!
Holy mother of geek, I love Rep. Markey. And you guys at TRMS. :)
Thanks for featuring the awesomeness of my home state's elected officials today - Kennedy and Markey FTW.
Anyone (this includes you, RobDon) who favors Big Oil over Big Bird will feel the Wrath of Fan!
I say it doesn't have to be an either or...cut them both! For the same reasons! Both are fully capable of supporting themselves without my tax dollars. Arthur, Curious George, and other PBS programs have supporting merchandise and more than enough popularity to make it on their own.
Who is with me on this one?
Not I.
Just heard a show on NPR where they said that advertisers would pay for the programming in the large markets but not in remote areas. Public broadcasting is meant for us all-if this happened we would be the only western country without it.
(BTW, BBC is totally supported with government funds.)
"I say it doesn't have to be an either or...cut them both!"
Is there ANY government spending RobDon would not cut? I'd like to know.
Yes RD. If you don't have to support something then you shouldn't be required to. I personally think you can justify supporting NPR/PBS, but let's say we were taking that "once in a lifetime" serious hard look at spending. If we were, at that point in time, axing every program that didn't generate money for the economy or the government (or both) I think NPR/PBS would definitely be lost. So it isn't necessarily that this is a useless source of funding so much as we shouldn't prioritize it?
Hey, I like a lot of NPR. I do yard work listening to podcasts of "Wait, wait, don't tell me" and "Car Talk." I'm laughing out loud cutting the grass wondering what the neighbors think.
The government's contribution to public broadcasting will not make or break the organization. My point, Chris, is not just advertising is or should be a funding for public broadcasting. Viewer/listener contributions, corporate grants, and merchandise (many shows over great education value but also are commercials for products, e.g. Sesame Street, Arthur, etc.).
To answer Covah's question: No, there is not a government program I would not cut. I would chose to eliminate very few. I think all agencies if given a 5, 8, or even 10 percent across the board cut would find waste to eliminate, duplication of services to cut or streamline, more efficient ways of working, etc, just like manufacturing has done.
One reason companies are not hiring is they've found ways to be more productive with fewer employees. Crisis causes one to evaluate and prioritize ways resources are being used. Our government should not be shielded from this process.
IMHO. (Thanks for the civil discourse and if you have never listened to Wait, Wait, Don't Tell me you are missing a treat!)
"across the board cut would find waste to eliminate, duplication of services to cut or streamline, more efficient ways of working, etc"
What a lame excuse. "Cut government programs" means cut them completely, eliminate them along with the rest of government.
cut taxes=eliminate taxes completely
cut spending=eliminate spending completely
There is NO limit to Republican cuts, no matter what excuses they give, and whether you believe those excuses or not.
Evidence? "Make Bush tax cuts permanent" in spite of all the debt they have created. Then what? Does anyone think Republicans would NOT try to cut taxes again if they succeeded in making Bush tax cuts permanent?
When Reagan cut taxes in the name of supply-side economics David Stockman blew the whistle. Did Reagan say, uh, oh, and back off? Of course not. Reagan canned Stockman and went full speed ahead on tax cuts, creating massive debt. After Clinton created hundreds of billions in surpluses did Republicans say, what a great idea? Hell no! They stole the surplus and created vast debt with more tax handouts to the wealthy. And a few months ago what did Boehner say about "tax cuts for all Americans" that is, the 2% richest Americans?
Let's not hear any hooey about making government more efficient. That's a red herring. Republicans want to cut taxes and spending until there is no more taxes or spending left to cut, which will be when American government, which they hate with a passion, ceases to exist.
Another note on the "Republicans want to cut taxes so government will be more efficient" lie- military spending is a grotesque waste of taxpayer money. Yet do Republicans advocate cutting military spending? Hell no!
I think that is a point that needs amplification! They love to criticize government inefficiency, yet never call military incompetent or inefficient.
Sure. Billions being spent on wars, maintaining 700 military bases around the world. And of course what the tax payers hand out from the goodness of their hearts, to Israel & Egypt.
We the tax payers are quite big hearted in that way, you know.
Maybe we should reduce foreign entitlement programs before we gut our own entitlement safety net.
We gave Egypt around 50 billion and I heard estimates that his family net worth was somewhere in that range. Quite a coincidence! That is an entitlement program!
I do not know much about sesame Street. I am not of that generation.
I do value its way of starting children off learning math, spelling, even sort of heard of the "Bill song", how government works. That must be indoctrinating tots into government dependence. Why yes, we DO depend on government for quite a few things, indeed!
It's laid out in writing for frequent consultation.
I hear-tell schools stopped teaching what used to be required subject matter regarding Civics and Government, there is a definite lack of understanding the basics by some. Is it really unknown that 3 branches of gov't are co-equal and separate?
Anyway, I support PBS on the grounds of their fairness and it relates directly to Constitution/gov't powers, the shall have power to...
"Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
and through freedom of the press, which now encompasses more than newspapers and books,
I can see the Return on Investment (ROI) from NPR standing with the politicians. We get some quality broadcasting. What is the ROI of the oil subsidies? We give Oil companies money and in return they drill for oil in the USA and sell it on the world market. Since US oil output is a small fraction of total world output I don't see it lowering prices worldwide, so what do we get? Even if it does lower the world price why are the US tax payers sudsidizing the worlds oil price?
Or do we get something else I am not aware of?
"...do we get something else I am not aware of?"
screwed?
lots of jobs!
Crumbling infrastructure, Education & Health care suffering from paucity of funds, essential services like Fire Fighting and Law Enforcement getting hit not to speak of welfare programs. Cities, counties and states going broke.
But trillions down the drain for prosecuting senseless wars don't matter. We paid a whopping amount of 79 billion dollars of tax payers money to Israel over past decades and almost 40 billion dollars to the dictators in Egypt, again to protect Israel's interests in the region - so what?
We can spare the 'change'.