Skip

Free the Lesbian Bunnies!
January 26, 2005 10:04 AM   Subscribe

"The nation's new education secretary denounced PBS on Tuesday for spending public money on a cartoon with lesbian [BUNNY] characters, saying many parents would not want children exposed to such lifestyles." The "Postcards from Buster" series features a peripatetic bunny, Buster, who travels the country learning about diversity. The new head of the Department of Ed has requested that PBS return the money it used to develop the show featuring the sapphic rabbits. PBS has decided not to distribute the episode to its affiliates, but WGBH has promised to make the show available to stations who want to air it.
posted by mudpuppie (56 comments total)

 
Man, rabbits are into some crazy stuff.
posted by fatllama at 10:06 AM on January 26, 2005


Coming soon to a pbs near you. Nascar, gospel music and a never ending brass band...
posted by edgeways at 10:10 AM on January 26, 2005


The animated bunny isn't supposed to be gay, it's the live-action Vermont couple, right?
posted by 23skidoo at 10:12 AM on January 26, 2005


Rabbits are obsessed with sex. Our children shouldn't be exposed to that sickening, disgusting lifestyle.
posted by faceonmars at 10:12 AM on January 26, 2005


That's so ridiculous. I've watched the show and it's great. They portray all sorts of different types of families. Why would this be any different?

Why, just last week they profiled a Mormon family with (I think) eight children. Did anyone complain about that?
posted by quietfish at 10:12 AM on January 26, 2005


*gasp* teaching our children DIVERSITY! NOOOOOO!

If I had kids, I'd want them to see this episode. Of course, living where I do they'd probably be introduced to it anyway - my 8-year-old cousin, who is in Seattle public schools, has a few friends with two mommies or two daddies, and she thinks it's as normal as can be.
posted by salad spork at 10:14 AM on January 26, 2005


a trip to Vermont — a state known for recognizing same-sex civil unions.

To those of us that aren't obsessed with homosexuality, Vermont is a state known for its beautiful rolling hills, it's numerous white church spires, it's breathtakingly beautiful autumns, and its maple syrup.
posted by psmealey at 10:15 AM on January 26, 2005


Aww, crap, Margaret Spellings was supposed to be the non-rage-inducing cabinet secretary of the second term.

Lesbian bunnies aside, the concept of an "On the Road" for kids is absolutely fantastic. I wish there had been something like this for me. (Back then, the Republicans were interested in things like ending communism.)
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:15 AM on January 26, 2005


mmm maple syrup... wait, sorry got derailed there.

You know it's hard to find this lady's email address... still looking.
posted by edgeways at 10:17 AM on January 26, 2005


My daughter loves that show. She'd also love to see where syrup comes from and I guarantee she wouldn't think twice about two women making it.
It's not like Buster the animated bunny is going to show home movies of their wedding or the couple's personal sex tapes.
posted by Mamapotomus at 10:19 AM on January 26, 2005


PBS is definitely spooked by the FCC and the conservatives. Just last week it said it was editing a scene of with naked women going through a decontamination chamber.

I could see an objection if it was sex scenes -- but it isn't. In one case it is a bunny that happens to be gay; in the other it is women getting decontaminated from the fallout of dirty bomb.

What's next?
posted by birdherder at 10:21 AM on January 26, 2005


I love the phrase "sapphic rabbits."
posted by josephtate at 10:23 AM on January 26, 2005


fatllama, I assumed your comment was:

Man, rabbits are into some crazy stuff.

This would have been nice as a comment added to that thread...
posted by soyjoy at 10:24 AM on January 26, 2005


You can ask questions of the Dept of Ed. here

http://answers.ed.gov/cgi-bin/education.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=zE6HVIlh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0yNCZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_srch=

amusingly enough one of the catagories is Discrimination
posted by edgeways at 10:28 AM on January 26, 2005


This moral shit is just a smoke screen, in my view.

Keep people talking about meaningless "issues" while soldiers die, seniors are robbed, and rich white people rejoice as welfare is gutted.

But, by all means, don't forget the fucking talking sponge.
posted by orange clock at 10:28 AM on January 26, 2005


The logic is infallible -- if you can keep kids from seeing cartoon rabbit lesbians, they'll never learn there are actually lesbians in the real world! Genius!
posted by pardonyou? at 10:32 AM on January 26, 2005


I will write a letter to PBS asking them to return the money as soon as Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, et al., are asked by their secret gov't employers to return their payola.

Well? I'm waiting, Depts. of Education and Health & Human Services.
posted by aaronetc at 10:40 AM on January 26, 2005


So the episode is about maple sugar. Not about lesbians. There just happen to be lesbians in it. And PBS backs down over this. Fuck you, PBS; you used to be cool. Sack up.
posted by uncleozzy at 10:45 AM on January 26, 2005


Postcards from Buster is a great show. It fills a void of showing the cultural diversity in the country left by Sesame Street. I recall many live-action vignettes on Sesame Street that were ostensibly about a child's hobby but featured a non-traditional family, such as the grandparent being the guardian or single-parent households. They just don't show those anymore.

I am reminded of that quote on boingboing just after the election about some mothers finding Sesame Street, "too tolerant."

I am simply boggled by this "war on tolerance."
posted by frecklefaerie at 10:46 AM on January 26, 2005


She'd also love to see where syrup comes from and I guarantee she wouldn't think twice about two women making it

Why would anyone think twice about two women making syrup?

Making syrup... a euphemism for the new millennium.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:19 AM on January 26, 2005


Education Secretary looses mind, PBS looses balls, and the public looses.
posted by Vaska at 11:26 AM on January 26, 2005


And somewhere, a pedant is loosening his bowels over that sentence.
posted by DaShiv at 11:35 AM on January 26, 2005


...to make up for someone being too loose with their vowels.

*ducks*
posted by bachelor#3 at 11:44 AM on January 26, 2005


I just caught a look at the program in question.

What's the problem? It's a segment on making maple syrup in a show that shows all kinds of families doing such things around the country. They also did a show about martial arts and one involving Native American religious dances. Last week they did a show with the backdrop of a Mormon family. I don't see anyone up in arms about those. Next let's get on Sesame Street for doing a segment about a family where the grandmother is the primary guardian or a single-parent household.

Show two women and their family making maple syrup and suddenly there's supposedly some agenda. Take a look at the whole show. Its agenda is showing different people across the country and what they do, be that motorcycle retailers in Iowa, news workers in California, dancers in North Carolina, a family that makes maple syrup, ranchers in the Southwest, traditional Latino singers in Texas.

I've never understood the lash out against PBS. People complain about it being government-funded. I can understand that, but surely there are more wasteful things in the federal budget than PBS (The Federal Helium Reserve, for instance). If spending this money has set some sort of precedent, I'm not sure what it is. We already have Voice of America and propaganda stations broadcasting across the globe.

What people really complain about and what the above serves as a mask for is some sort of bias. So Frontline and the Newshour are biased. Fine, I see where that comes from, but that's two shows out of a whole schedule. It's people seeing what they want to see in the rest of the programming. Intolerance of tolerance. Hell, there's not even a "promotion" of anything. If you want to call that promotion, it's damn poor marketing.

Clearly enough people still want PBS around. I don't even have cable and its one of the most watchable networks on TV. I don't know how Scandinavian cooking (one of my favourite shows) has anything objectionable, nor the host of documentaries, children's shows, interviews and science specials. Watch out, they're pricing a 19th century Muslim prayer rug on Antiques Road Show. Call Homeland Security, PBS is promoting terrorism.

Take a look at the show in question. It doesn't have a bent, it goes around showing people in our country. There are different people in this country. Where's the mindfuck for these people objecting to it?

If lesbian maple-syrup makers, a sponge and a guy in a purple suit with a hanger on his head are the things that need to be objected to, we're in a much better position than people say we are. I'm going to negatively respond to any other social crusades brought up by this faction of our country because clearly they do not need to be addressed now that a "cartoon sponge in shorts is gay" is of such import.
posted by Captaintripps at 11:58 AM on January 26, 2005


My two year old son watches Buster nearly every morning so now I've got to worry about him becoming a lesbian?

ugh.
posted by birdsong at 12:11 PM on January 26, 2005


I've never understood the lash out against PBS...

Me neither. The money that went into this was mine, too. I want to see this program aired.

Public media in a democracy should be responsible not for spouting the moral stance of the government in power. It's responsible for exposing the populace to every voice and viewpoint, not simply those who can afford to have one, and not only those who stand in agreement with the commander in chief.

For the most part, PBS has managed to put the "fair and balanced" principles of the media conglomerates to shame. Good for them.
posted by sellout at 12:12 PM on January 26, 2005


The more I think about it, the less pissed off I am at the feds (It's like complaining about the grass being green) and the more pissed I am at the asshats at PBS knuckling under on this issue.

Fuck PBS's management if they don't have the balls to stand up for this.
posted by wolftrouble at 12:21 PM on January 26, 2005


Where's the mindfuck for these people objecting to it?

Presenting homosexuality as acceptable is their objection. They know it exists, but they equate it with child pornography or rapists or murderers. They, too, are different people who also exist in your country, but I doubt you would want those people and their "lifestyle" presented as if it were an acceptable community standard in a children's show. That's basically the objection here. A certain portion of the American population believes homosexuality is wrong and would prefer it to be illegal, and judging from the voter turnout last election in many states there is evidence they are the majority.

When you ridicule and attack these moral crusaders, they will see you as condoning a heinous (in their eyes) practice. Your time would be better spent trying to explain to them why homosexuality is not the evil they believe it to be. Not much better spent, mind you, but better nonetheless.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:25 PM on January 26, 2005


OK kids, give a rest to the people at PBS for being conservative in a time of absolute nipple-rific, towel-dropping hysteria.

Remember that PBS has nearly no money, and is getting less money. It's not a federal entity, it gets a weensy teensy amount of federal monies, and it really does exist on that pledge money that you may or may not be giving it every year. (Note to wolftrouble and anyone else who's complaining: did you send your money this year so that PBS can go the mat in legal battles?)

So, is really more cost effective for them to spend their money working to produce programming, or get stuck in court over one episode of a program or the decontamination scene? Giant media companies are nervous at going up against the REAL ASSHATS who have made the FCC their personal censorship bitch. What would you do if you were Pat Mitchell?

Want someone to get some balls? Tell the FCC that a vocal minority does not make a community standard of obscenity.
posted by beezy at 12:40 PM on January 26, 2005


For the most part, PBS has managed to put the "fair and balanced" principles of the media conglomerates to shame. Good for them.

Fuck PBS's management if they don't have the balls to stand up for this.

PBS mgmt just gave a certain bow tied asshole a new show.
posted by jperkins at 12:49 PM on January 26, 2005


http://answers.ed.gov/cgi-bin/education.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?SNIP-SNIP-SNIP

Jesus, TinyURL! would've been best for that particular URL. It'll make that huge, ugly url into this: http://tinyurl.com/6eupq.
posted by jperkins at 12:56 PM on January 26, 2005


Another solution would be to call up your local affiliate, and say that you have a check for them waiting to be signed and sent if they agree to air this episode.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:59 PM on January 26, 2005


jperkins: What's your point? Read what I wrote in the first part my comment. PBS is "responsible for exposing the populace to every voice and viewpoint..."

While it's PBS's responsibility to remain detached from the prevailing beliefs of the state, it's also their responsibility not to cling only to the left side of what can be aired. Carlson's a jerk, but the fact that he's a conservative being given a show on public television doesn't go against appropriate principles of fair and balanced broadcasting. Carlson may be a prick representing the wing you don't like, but as long as PBS is still doling out airtime to both left and right, they're fulfilling their responsibilities as a major media outlet far better than most networks.

I don't like the guy or his bow tie any more than you do, but there's nothing wrong with the hire.
posted by sellout at 1:00 PM on January 26, 2005


I don't like the guy or his bow tie any more than you do, but there's nothing wrong with the hire.

And conservative pundits have reached such a low that the only one that PBS could find to hire was Carlson Tucker? Especially given the circumstances under which CNN decided that it was time for him to go ("You're hurting America..."). It wasn't just the Crossfire format that sucked.
posted by jperkins at 1:06 PM on January 26, 2005


Beyond my first response is that the decision to hire Tucker smacks of a bullshit concession: "How can we possible be liberal when we hired Carlson Tucker and gave him his own show?" Fuck that and fuck asking the bully to leave you alone because you're doing nice things for them ("I baked you some cookies, so please don't hit me after school"). Conservative don't like NPR? Then swap a show along the lines of Democracy Now into their format and see how long it is before the conservatives agree to shut the fuck up about lesbian bunnies if you agree to move the new show to a less accessible timeslot.

What the assholes in marketing aren't getting is that there's a sizeable and growing chunk of the population that's very well heeled and more than willing to listen to a Rush Limbaugh of the left. Then we'll talk about parity. Until then, anything that the left does concessionary.
posted by jperkins at 1:20 PM on January 26, 2005


This would have been nice as a comment added to that thread...
soyjoy wins.

posted by fatllama at 1:22 PM on January 26, 2005


Jesus, TinyURL! would've been best for that particular URL. It'll make that huge, ugly url into this: http://tinyurl.com/6eupq.

Right now, it'll point to the page edgeways mentioned.

A year from now, when the thread comes around again on MeFi-A-Year-Ago, it might point to a movie of a naked Erik Estrada impaling donuts onto his schlong as the Star Trek fighting music blares in the background and get eight people fired. tinyurl bad, for here.

What edgeways should have done was linked the url. Who the hell cares if the url is five miles long if all you see on the page is "this ED DEPT PAGE." No harm no foul.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:49 PM on January 26, 2005


Well, yes, that was somewhat rhetorical. However, the program doesn't present it as acceptable. In fact it makes little comment on the matter. It's almost completely about making yummy maple syrup.

Presenting homosexuality as acceptable is their objection.

Indeed. I grew up amongst such people. I also have no problem presenting their lifestyle to children. That is, after all, part of being a parent.

They, too, are different people who also exist in your country, but I doubt you would want those people and their "lifestyle" presented as if it were an acceptable community standard in a children's show.

Attack and ridicule are not quite what I would attach to that post, though I'm sure they might see it that way.

When you ridicule and attack these moral crusaders, they will see you as condoning a heinous (in their eyes) practice. Your time would be better spent trying to explain to them why homosexuality is not the evil they believe it to be. Not much better spent, mind you, but better nonetheless.
posted by Captaintripps at 1:53 PM on January 26, 2005


And conservative pundits have reached such a low that the only one that PBS could find to hire was Carlson Tucker?

Though this doesn't really disagree with my comment on PBS' relative success at balanced broadcasting, you may have a point here. Perhaps PBS should have tried to find someone better.

Course, Carlson does have experience hosting a major program, and he is a familiar name. Not saying those are great reasons to choose him over other pundits, but I'm sure they come into play when making the decision.

On preview: Beyond my first response is that the decision to hire Tucker smacks of a bullshit concession: "How can we possible be liberal when we hired Carlson Tucker and gave him his own show?"

Why? This wouldn't be the first time public broadcasters have created conservative programs. The only thing that makes this one different is that it comes after Carlson's high-profile exit from Crossfire. I'm genuinely curious, what makes you think his hiring is a bullshit concession?

Then swap a show along the lines of Democracy Now into their format and see how long it is before the conservatives agree to shut the fuck up about lesbian bunnies if you agree to move the new show to a less accessible timeslot.

This is a joke, right? You think public broadcasting has a responsibility to shove left-wing programming in the faces of right-wingers until they start shifting their complaints around? Does this mean you think public broadcasting should have a left-wing agenda? That public broadcasting should play a vital role in pissing off conservatives or forcibly altering where their complaints are directed?

What the assholes in marketing aren't getting is that there's a sizeable and growing chunk of the population that's very well heeled and more than willing to listen to a Rush Limbaugh of the left.

Whoever he is, maybe he should try to get a show on PBS. He'd have a better shot at getting one there than on any other major media outlet.

Until then, anything that the left does concessionary.

Public broadcasting is not the left. It should not be, nor should it have to act like it is.
posted by sellout at 1:58 PM on January 26, 2005


The left needs a network just like PBS but without all the government attachments. Nature, Nova, and National Geographic are non-partisan and much better arguments for environmentalism and science-based policies than any Air America pundit could come up with.
posted by ontic at 2:17 PM on January 26, 2005


Right now, it'll point to the page edgeways mentioned.

A year from now, when the thread comes around again on MeFi-A-Year-Ago, it might point to a movie of a naked Erik Estrada impaling donuts onto his schlong as the Star Trek fighting music blares in the background and get eight people fired. tinyurl bad, for here.


From the tinyurl webpage: "By entering in a URL in the text field below, we will create a tiny URL that will not break in email postings and never expires." And what using that service does is allows you to post a url without adding another 50% onto the horizontal width of the page so that people have to scroll out that far to see if there's any real content there. And that whole design aesthetic thing.
posted by jperkins at 2:18 PM on January 26, 2005


Oh, and the Department of Education has apparently taken down its question and answer page in a very "educational" response to a bunch of its concerned constituents.

This site is currently undergoing maintenance.
Thank you for your patience.
posted by ontic at 2:19 PM on January 26, 2005


This is a joke, right?

Yes. Sorry for not making it more obvious.

Public broadcasting is not the left. It should not be, nor should it have to act like it is.

PBS could show loving tales of Ronald Reagan for the next decade round-the-clock and it will still be viewed as liberal because of its reliance on public subsidy (ok, that's a stretch with the Reagan bit). They're always going to be considered "leftist" even with the most balanced of coverage on their parts for two reasons:

1) the reliance on public subsidy;

2) because that's the MO of the current conservatives: every media outlet is liberal, with some less than others. Giving the conservatives a fallback position when something (however true) airs that they don't like.

I'm genuinely curious, what makes you think his hiring is a bullshit concession?

The hiring of a very public, conservative hack who was fired by CNN when it became an issue that he and the show that he was on weren't contributing anything to public discourse - given that PBS is trying to maintain its current government subsidies with the House, Senate and Presidency held by Republicans? I'm just the suspicious sort.

Nature, Nova, and National Geographic are non-partisan and much better arguments for environmentalism and science-based policies than any Air America pundit could come up with.

Now you're the one kidding, right? Or did I miss the announcement that the U.S. has decided to sign the Kyoto Accord?
posted by jperkins at 2:36 PM on January 26, 2005


Tucker's PBS show has been on since June. It's not like they "just" gave him a show.

Not that that somehow makes it okay.
posted by O9scar at 2:50 PM on January 26, 2005


Tucker's PBS show has been on since June. It's not like they "just" gave him a show.

I wasn't aware of that and it does make what I was saying, specific to him being hired, wrong.
posted by jperkins at 2:57 PM on January 26, 2005


To those of us that aren't obsessed with homosexuality, Vermont is a state known for its beautiful rolling hills, it's numerous white church spires, it's breathtakingly beautiful autumns, and its maple syrup.

To those of us obsessed with homosexuality, Vermont is occasionally a state known for same-sex couples pouring maple syrup over their bodies and rolling around in the hills.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:01 PM on January 26, 2005


Yes. Sorry for not making it more obvious.

Just checking. :)

They're always going to be considered "leftist" even with the most balanced of coverage on their parts for two reasons:

You're absolutely right about these. PBS is considered leftist by a lot of conservatives, and for these reasons.

What I wondered was whether you think it actually should be left-wing. Based on your comments (you implied that public broadcasting was making a concession, then stated that "anything the left does is concessionary."), I assumed that you do. And I disagreed.

...given that PBS is trying to maintain its current government subsidies with the House, Senate and Presidency held by Republicans?

That's not a new fight at all. The debate about public broadcasting and its use of government funds is as old as public broadcasting itself. (Even when Clinton was in office, PBS was under tremendous -- and similar -- pressure from conservatives.) I can't really see how Carlson's hiring could have an especially significant effect on it.

For those interested, Owen Fiss' The Irony of Free Speech goes into details and history about public funding, censorship, and the role of public broadcasting. Good read.

Now you're the one kidding, right?

Just to clarify, I didn't write that.
posted by sellout at 3:11 PM on January 26, 2005


I spent a year at PBS. It was a very sad year. Why? Because PBS is living on an economic model that has waay outlived it's time. PBS its viewer base is very old and dying, or very young and will have no money to give until they get out of day care. (translated: over 55 and under 10)

PBS is trying to figure out how its going to survive without that federal funding (it's not getting any more. Believe it.), while not selling itself to the obligations of advertisers, AND figuring out a mix of semi-commercial stuff (Suze Ormand, Mr. Bow Tie) to attract new, younger viewers, while still maintaining educational quality of its mission statement.

Stop the suspicion. These are moral people, trying to figure out how to do (as the maudlin ad campaign said) what no one else will. I've watched the calculation of telling a major sponsor to stop pitching their unhealthy sugar-type fruit snack in the 'brought to you by' message at the beginning of a flagship children's program vs. the number of shows it will mean not producing. It's a painful, hateful conversation.

PBS doesn't just produce programming - it supports a network of teensy community focused stations that are supposed to broadcast what the community wants. The best examples are ones that are run at colleges, who can afford to subsidize the as part of the television/communication program, and can actually complete the mission. (Howard University has one of the best -- they often give the finger to whatever white DC is interested in, and broadcast for the majority DC community)

However, a lot of stations realize that in order to raise enough money to keep running (really, they really do run on the pledge drive. That federal money? HA!), they need to show "softer" programming. Tucker Carlson comes into the mix. I'm sure someone thought that it was a good way to bring a cross of mildly intellectual entertainment (I said mildly, as in *not* Rush Limbaugh) to a new, younger audience.

[Side rant: Please note that they've had To the Contrary since 1992, just as point of comparison. (With a wide view of the political spectrum, in case anyone was looking.) Commercial television gives you the View.]

Is PBS run by liberal people? Pretty much. They work for half industry salary because they think what they're doing is important. Most people who work at non-profits are like that.

Do they see the value of balanced viewpoint? Yep. Is all programming shown on PBS liberal? Depends. It's not the Fox News Network. It does try to be intellectual AND entertaining. It was the only place on the air that had Howard Zinn and someone from the Cato Institute in the same news analysis panel, AND made sure everyone spoke in turn for an equal amount of time. Mormons AND lesbians. I'll let you decide where that lies on the political spectrum.
posted by beezy at 3:25 PM on January 26, 2005


This is where I wish that mefi had a means of setting up a parallel conversation without going the route of either a full blown FPP or taking our (increasingly interesting to me) PBS subthread to meta, which I don't think is appr either. Maybe I should come up with a question wrt PBS, post it on ask and link to it from here ;)
posted by jperkins at 3:34 PM on January 26, 2005


Buster Baxter (the young bunny) is the child of divorced parents. In the original "Arthur" books and PBS TV show, Buster lives with his mother. His dad is an airline pilot. There have been episodes of "Arthur" concerned with Buster's single Mom status, and others about Buster's often absent (but loving) father. Buster's world could be worse, but really... he doesn't have the best situation. The one benefit of all this is that he gets to travel with his Dad occasionally. This traveling ( in "Arthur") is the source for the "Postcards from Buster" spinoff. Now the feds and PBS are dumping on him? Poor Buster.
posted by R. Mutt at 3:44 PM on January 26, 2005


Metafilter: It's About Mormons and Lesbians
posted by jonp72 at 3:51 PM on January 26, 2005


Beezy:

Your comments are thoughtful and informed. Thanks.

So what's the solution? I grew up with PBS and I learned a lot of things from Sesame Street and Fred Rogers that I wouldn't have learned in my small, redneck Texas town. I want PBS to stay afloat. I want it to do for my kids what it did for me.

How can PBS accomplish that without becoming a benign lump of Barney? Seriously. I think you have ideas, and I'm curious to hear them.

PBS has to be run by good people. It just has to be. The problem is that in this current climate, they're running scared. And for good reason.

So how do we help? My $50 pledge won't solve this problem.
posted by mudpuppie at 3:58 PM on January 26, 2005


PBS its viewer base is very old and dying, or very young and will have no money to give until they get out of day care.

beezy, I adore PBS! haven't you ever freaking seen FRONTLINE, the best journalism on TV? I would love to work for PBS more than anyone else. Nature, Antiques Roadshow, Independent Lens, Ken Burns. I would give them money if I had any.
posted by scazza at 5:32 PM on January 26, 2005


it might point to a movie of a naked Erik Estrada impaling donuts onto his schlong as the Star Trek fighting music blares in the background and get eight people fired.

I've seen that movie. Great acting and cinematography, but someone should've tightened up the dialogue.

Also: Mmmmm. Donuts.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:21 AM on January 27, 2005


I should have linked the url but was running for time at the time, and I didn't know about tinyurl, mea culpa.

So... I can't find a direct email link to the new education secretary and the dept of ed question page is down? How.. convenient.
posted by edgeways at 9:16 AM on January 27, 2005


Edgeways, eschew tinyurl. Putting it in a link is great, but making its accessibility dependent on an unnecessary and unaccountable third party is bad.
posted by NortonDC at 7:50 PM on January 27, 2005


« Older Chastity Belts   |   Iraq-raq-on! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post