I will be participating in the TPM Book Club discussion of Eric Boehlert's Bloggers on The Bus. Eric wrote an opening post. Also particpating will be Jay Rosen, Atrios, Greg Mitchell, Amanda Marcotte and Ari Melber. Should be interesting.

The basic premise of the NYT piece is this: is the Bruno character--a flamboyant Austrian TV host--a homophobic caricature and will the Bruno film be seen by audiences as a re-affirmation of stereotypes or as an Out Magazine editor tells the NYT, a "two hour lecture" about the perils of homophobia served in an easy to digest comedic form?

I find this whole discussion strange and uninteresting on a number of levels: [More..]

Forensic Pathologist Michael Baden has performed an autopsy on actor David Carradine, who was found dead in his Bangkok hotel room last week. His conclusion:

"The autopsy findings and the evidence thus far available demonstrate that Mr. Carradine's death was not the result of suicide. However, to reach a final determination as to the cause and the manner of death we must wait for further information from Thailand as to the scene findings and the completion of the crime laboratory and toxicology studies that are still being performed."

Is he saying it could be a homicide, or that the death was accidental, and therefore not a suicide?

In related news, Spike TV will air a movie marathon of Carradine's films, including 'Kill Bill' and 'Kung Fu Killer,' on Saturday, June 13 from 2 p.m. through 3 a.m. EST/PST time.

As regular readers know, I fight a constant battle against the rehabilitation of Andrew Sullivan among progressives. Today Sullivan demonstrates again why I do this:

I must say that, to my mind, [Shelby] Steele has a point. It isn't the judicial rulings that trouble me so much as [Sotomayor's] non-judicial opinions and mindset. The constant, oppressive consciousness of her identity - racial and gender - and the harping on it so aggressively so often does strike me as a classic mode of victimology deeply entrenched in her generation.

(Emphasis supplied.) Andrew Sullivan has rightly obsessed on the discrimination faced by gays and lesbians in our society. It would never occur to me to describe his writings on gay rights as a "classic mode of victimology." To this day, Sullivan is unable to understand the issues of racism (his championing of "The Bell Curve" continues to this day) and sexism (his virulent sexism is exposed almost daily.) To him, concern about racism and sexism is "a classic mode of victimology." There is something wrong with him. UPDATE - Compare this Yglesias post about Victor Davis Hanson to what I write about Sully. The difference is no one, except me apparently, will write this way about Sully.

Speaking for me only

So much TV tonight. Top billing in my book: Weeds, where the Season 5 opener is on Showtime. Last season, with the addition of the "Mexican Mafia", was the most intense and best yet.

But, that's not all we've got tonight. [More...]

Bwaahahahahahahahah! Rothenberg is boycotting Tweety because Tweety is too partisan for Democrats. Bwahahahaha!

Speaking for me only

"Kung Fu" and "Kill Bill" Actor David Carradinewas found dead in his Bangkok hotel room today. He was in the midst of filming a movie. Some say it was a suicide, others natural causes. He was 72.

The BBC reports:

Thai newspaper The Nation reported that police believe the actor took his own life, and preliminary investigations found that he hanged himself.

Another paper says it was an "accidental" hanging. The Bangkok police say "He was found hanging by a rope in the room's closet." He appeared in over 100 films.

He was a huge talent. R.I.P. Mr. Carradine.

On MSNBC, Norah O'Donnell interviewed Warren Richey, who today reported in the Christian Science Monitor on the oral argument in the Second Circuit in the Ricci case. The interview yet again exposed the deep ignorance of the Media. O'Donnell in particular argued that Sotomayor was an "advocate" in the case. Richey made the inaccurate statement that it is "unusual" for cases such as Ricci to be decided by summary order. Tom Goldstein has already debunked this false claim:

From the pool of 50, the panel affirmed a district court’s decision rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation (as in Ricci) 28 times; it did so by unpublished order in 24. Whatever one thinks of the argument that the issues in Ricci deserved more attention than the panel gave them, the decision not to publish an opinion seems to have been pretty commonplace.

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

The hubbub about the ignorant attacks on unions on the crazy morning show put on by MSNBC reminded me of the letter the self proclaimed "liberal" Mika Brzezinski sent to the NYTimes:

. . . This liberal thinks The New York Times should follow Joe Scarborough’s example of speaking truth to power — regardless of which party is in power.

Mika Brzezinski
New York, May 11, 2009

Of course Brzezinski's actual role on Crazy Joe's morning show is to play Alan Colmes to Joe's Sean Hannity. And she plays the role to perfection.

Speaking for me only

NBC's Brian Williams promises an inside look at the White House tonight in a special report. He spent a full day with President Obama.

Did you learn anything? It's just beginning here.

Update: The best segment was Obama and Williams going out for hamburgers for them and staff to bring back to White House. [More...]

So the Court wouldn't give Rod Blagojevich permission to go to Costa Rica to participate in I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here, the worst reality show ever.

His wife Patti has taken his place. The show premiered last night and is on again tonight.

Patti is about the only watchable person on this disaster of a show. She actually does a good job defending her husband's administration. I liked her.

The world's dumbest newspaper columnist strikes again. The entire piece is a mass of incoherence, but I want to focus on one part:

I do not agree with Sotomayor on the New Haven affirmative-action case and have written a column saying why.

I have read Cohen's column "saying why" (my previous post on the column is here) and it proves yet again Cohen is a fool who has not a clue about the things he writes about. For example, the phrase "Title VII," which is what the Ricci case is about, does not appear in Cohen's column "saying why" he disagrees with Sotomayor on Ricci. Since the Ricci case is about Title VII, it is apparent, yet again, that Richard Cohen is an idiot who has no knowledge of the things he chooses to write about. He is, without a doubt, the worst major newspaper columnist in America. If Cohen were not a white man, he would be out of a job.

Speaking for me only