Ironic post for today
This weekend's most ironic post comes from Wonkette, as she skewers Bush for (are you ready?) not being funny.
Bush was a real cut-up in today's C-SPAN interview, replying to host Brian Lamb's query about seeing the "ghosts of past presidents" with the quip that he "quit drinking in '86." And the punchlines kept coming. Take, for instance, his response to Lamb's question about government oversight over broadcast content: "As a free speech advocate. . . " he began.Does anyone understand all that lesbian bunny shit? I never thought I would say this, but I think Wonkette should go back to doing jokes about butt sex.We laughed until we stopped.
We kid. Of course the president is a free speech advocate. Except when it comes to lesbian bunny rabbits. Bunnies who visit lesbians. Or maybe it's ghostly bunnies and drinking lesbians. Something like that. The government should totally protect us from them.
Comments
I'm pretty sure the "lesbian bunny" thing is about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/arts/television/27bust.html
Posted by: Martin S. - USC '88 | January 30, 2005 01:59 PM
Is anyone meant to understand the bunny thing? I don't Margaret Spelling understands it.
Posted by: K | January 30, 2005 04:21 PM
I just googled around and found that PBS ran a episode of a show called "Postcards from Buster" (who is a bunny) where he visited two Lesbian couples in Vermont during maple season.
Apparently the show focused on the agricultural side while treating the two couples as if their relationships were perfectly normal.
Margaret Spellings apparently found it in bad taste (go figure!) and voiced her dismay, naturally touching off an outcry.
Hope Margaret brought extra fingers and toes with her to DC as she will need them if she tries to go after every incident along this line.
The mystery is: were the Lesbians bunnies or humans?
If the former, does this disprove the old adage of 'fu.. oh, never mind.
Posted by: mal | January 30, 2005 05:14 PM
I not only understand the bunny thing, but I understand why *you* don't understand. Although, by now, it's obvious that you understand.
Posted by: OTTami | January 31, 2005 01:51 PM
I understand that, but what I can't understand is that you understand that I don't understand... or something. And which has a more pernicious influence on our children, lesbian bunnies or hermaphroditic sponges? Or James Dobson?
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | January 31, 2005 02:22 PM
It seems more and more that a certain segment of the population doesn't want ANYTHING that children watch to have any homosexual character, or even a character that some may THINK is a homosexual. Remember the Teletubbies, and SpongeBob, and now Buster Bunny.
I firmly believe that children should be exposed to and be aware of as many different lifestyles, religions, races, and beliefs as possible, so they can formulate their ideas about the world, and develop tolerance for minority ideas.
Then again, I don't have children, so what do I know? I was a child, however, so I have that perspective.
Posted by: Tracy Miller | January 31, 2005 03:55 PM
I understand that some people's religious beliefs are at work here, and that they don't want their kids exposed to certain things. Fine! Monitor what they watch. That's what parents do, right? Buy a fricken V-chip if you want (Q-chip?), but how about let's not try to bend television content to our own particular religious viewpoint? Christ, that's about as idiotic as those liberals with their "Fox Blocker (TM)"
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | January 31, 2005 04:01 PM
It makes as much sense as the liquor laws in Utah, where you're forced to drink 3.2% beer and watered-down mixed drinks because Mormons shun liquor. They don't drink alcohol, so why not just mind your own business and not ruin everyone else's time?
(of course, weaker drinks at a higher altitude could save you from potential social embarassment, so maybe we should thank them)
Posted by: Roger | January 31, 2005 11:20 PM