is taking the piss out of Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan but it's not very funny when he does it to people with differnt color (paler) skin who know, with great certaintly, that they're the creme de la creme. Von Fritzl in Austria is now showing the first signs of dementia, according to Austrian authorities. Well, he would, wouldn't he? He couldn't be representative of anything Austrian, famous for its cream cakes an wiener schnitzel. Show everyone in a flattering light; that's the idea of comedy all right. Has David Rakoff any understanding of Grand Guignol or is he too sensitive for that knockabout stuff. Maybe he's an Austrian too.

Homophobia is NOT the last acceptable bigotry. Try being openly atheist or agnostic in this religion-crazed society.

Have you ever had to pee in a cup to prove that you were worthy to have a job?

Last I heard, no one has been locked up for being an atheist or agnostic in this country during my lifetime to my knowledge.

Bruno and Borat use exactly the same formula and yet I don't recall similarly negative reviews about Borat. In general, the intelligentsia and critics were in stitches over the conceit of using a stereotypical antisemite to make fun of antisemitism. I wonder why it worked so well in the minds of so many critics then; whereas, the formula fails so completely now.

Is it possible that it was never funny then, but that out of fear of being called antisemitic, nobody dared to say anything negative?

From MerelyMortalMale:

"For years gays made fun of straights, calling them "breeders" who lived in boring "ticky-tacky" houses. They trumpeted that the TRULY liberated people were gays who humped anything under the sun, consigning monogamy to idiots. And, too often (by nefarious inference) kids were seen as fair game sexually. It took Village People to raise them and NAMBLA to exploit them."

Now here we have a shining example of pure, undiluted, willfully uninformed bigotry. Take a good look, folks. Here is the face of the right-wing culture warrior - the kind of person that would try to tie all gay people to NAMBLA and pedophilia, and would try to make promiscuity an invention of those perverted homos. His answer to bigotry? Get back in the closet and cower.

As a straight male, faithful to my wife and family for over 20 years, I hasten to say that you're a pretty poor specimen of the straight, family-oriented human being.

"The writer's use of the term "the gays" tells so much very loudly. Homophibia is very much alive."

I also noted that and found it very, very strange. I tried "the blacks" and "the women" and all variants achieved Othering. Perhaps an editor composed the title, which makes it even worse, for it might suggest homobigotry at the top of Salon.

Why are gays such blue-noses? Recently I watched L'll Abner, the 1950s fi,m version of the Broadway play and if there were an anti-hill-billy defamation league around at the time (and maybe there was) they would have been all over it. Banned in Knoxville or something. Relax. You guys have won. You are now mainstreet enough to be mocked and derided like the rest of us.

- and in his film he (almost) brings peace to the Neareast! -

It's one of the real 'moving' parts (besides the reunion with his lover) - and it (almost) brought tears to my eyes!

Why David left it out in his critic? - I guess he thinks only Heteros can save the world!

You know what else is bad for gays? Will and Grace, America's Next Top Model, gay pride parades, and countless other examples where homosexuals conform to precisely the stereotype SBC is lampooning in this film.

SBC does not have an obligation to choose sides or proselytize. He is obligated to entertain and make money. To say that SBC should be using his Bruno character to spread postitive awareness or some shit is ridiculous. . . should Ali G be a vessel for him to promote a positive image of idiot chavs in the UK? Give me a break. Of course we can all come together and agree that chavs (or wiggers as they are often referred to in the US) are a deserving target . . . and we don't really care about foreigners from the 'stans, so we let his Borat minstrel show slide because he embarassed a lot of conservatives. But OH NO! He is going after the sacred cow of the liberal media! WAHHH! WAHHH!

...terkoy (Gub damn libruhls!) and merelymortalmale (But what about the menz?!?) wedge into this thread.

Whenever I hear straight people suggest that gay people slip back into the closet, I recall that daily flaunting of privilege, those church bells and the $30,000 parties and honking that constitute many weddings. There's also the engagement ring, which women should shift to their middle fingers when showing it to their gay siblings, coworkers, and neighbors.

I'm in agreement with jonswift - from the view point of literary satire, the greatest satirists have been the ones who had the darker visions.

I remember in 12th grade our English teacher wanted us to read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" out loud. I raised my hand and started to read with, let's say, a theatrical flourish. The reaction from the class was outrage. Once I got to the part about the "ragout" and other recipes, the teacher had to call the whole thing off. The class did not understand what Swift was getting at.

Instead they imagined the great 18th century satirist to be a demented monster who proposed the English allow the Irish to sell there babies to "feed" the English, and of course, that is literally what he wrote, but functionally, Swift's discourse is altogether something else. "A Modest Proposal" represents a subversive denunciation of English policies and English attitudes towards the Irish. Even in a society where many viewed the Irish as sub-human, it is not surprising that quite a few people didn't "get" Swift's "proposal," nor is it surprising that most of my classmates didn't either.

Of course, like most people I haven't seen the movie, so I'll have to wait to see if I "get" it, or if there's nothing much to "get." As for satirists it's important to remember they're often misunderstood. Consider Voltaire. How many people have read "Candide" and failed to understand that the maxim "everything happens for the best in this best of all possible worlds," is one very funny, but very dark razzing of Leibniz and not words to live by?