Dear Editor:
Earlier today, my brother posted a politically satirical picture of Big Bird on my Facebook wall. I found it pretty funny, but the more I think about it, the less funny this whole Big Bird thing seems. If you think about it, Mitt Romney basically told us that a vote for him is a vote against Big Bird. He says it’ll help pay for business tax cuts that will create jobs, but I find it hard to believe that the PBS portion of the budget would be a serious factor in such an effort. Even so, Governor Romney seems to think that PBS ought to be on the chopping block because it’s frivolous to spend on a large yellow bird who teaches kids to count when American jobs hang in the balance. But is that really what’s at stake? Is Big Bird really part of Mitt Romney’s 47 percent of Americans living on government handouts? Isn’t there another area that could be cut?
At present, the United States spends more on defense than nearly all other, “first world countries,” combined; a budget which Governor Romney plans to expand extensively. Couldn’t we easily afford Big Bird, and all his friends, for the cost of even a single missile amongst the myriads we already have accrued and on order? It comes down to more than dollars and cents. Consider the larger meaning of cutting shows like Sesame Street and other PBS programs. Isn’t there an intrinsic social cost in ceasing to provide non-market driven broadcasts; especially when it comes to educating the young? Funding PBS sends a message to our children (and to us) that we care about more than consumerism. I think it’s important to keep that message broadcasting. Even if it isn’t consciously perceived; the implication of shows like Sesame Street must carry through in young minds. If not, ask yourself why Big Bird is the current face of a crucial presidential election that looms so near in the future. In short: Vote Big Bird!
Today’s letter was brought to you by,
John D. Grossi (a viewer like you)
Weehawken