I had meant to blog on “Town Hall” on Proposition 8 I attended now nearly two weeks ago in West Hollywood. I had some interesting experiences where I was pegged as “the gay Republican,” yet my remarks were treated with respect and my person with dignity.

I, like everyone else who signed up to speak, was given a chance to address the gathering. I received a few hisses, but no one interrupted my comments (limited to two minutes as were those of all speakers) nor did anyone attempt to shout me down.  Kudos to the organizers for leading a civil discussion.

That’s not to say I don’t have some criticisms of the event. While some time has passed since the meeting, some of the issues that came up remain timely. One thing which struck was how many speakers contended the passage of Proposition 8 had at least one positive outcome: it sparked a new spirit of protest in the gay community.

They seemed to think that protest was a good thing and wanted to return to the heyday of the 1960s and 1970s where such angry gatherings were a regular occurrence.

I thought of that enthusiasm for demonstrations when, earlier today, I read Patrick Range McDonald’s LA Weekly post on an upcoming protest against President-elect Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to offer the invocation and his inauguration next month. That Orange County pastor supported the “Yes on 8″ campaign.

It seems that some gay activists are just looking for an excuse to take to the streets. Why this need to be perpetually angry and to vent their spleens so publicly?

Maybe they should ponder Camille’s Paglia’s post about how such protests often lead to a backlash. Instead of taking to the streets, they should engage in some introspection, wondering why they’re so ready to rant and rave.

And Bruce and I review the seconds to our nominations for Grande Conservative Blogress Diva, we are a bit delayed in determining who will win a spot on the official ballot.

First, there were so many seconds for these talented blogresses so it’s going to be tough to winnow the list down to a manageable number. Second, we wish to avoid the problem of last year’s competition, when we announced the finalists, then posted a poll which didn’t work, aggravating some of the aspirants.

As soon as we determine the finalists, we’ll post a poll (hopefully no later than Sunday) and alert the nominees. And then it will be up to them to alert their supporters.

As I’ve been finally getting around to cleaning out my e-mail boxes (which contained on Monday more than 400 missives), I have discovered some gems, notes from friends I mistakenly missed, praise from readers and links to thoughtful posts and articles on the web.

On reader alerted me to Camille Paglia’s extremely rich post from about a week ago.  While the whole thing merits reading, in large part because of her praise of Sarah Palin (yet again) and criticism of the snobs who belittle her, it struck me how this diva (and yes, she is a diva and would delight at that appellation) offers an opinion on the Prop 8 protests nearly identical to my own:

After California voters adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, gay activists have launched a program of open confrontation with and intimidation of religious believers, mainly Mormons. I thought we’d gotten over the adolescent tantrum phase of gay activism, typified by ACT UP’s 1989 invasion of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, where the communion host was thrown on the floor. Want to cause a nice long backlash to gay rights? That’s the way to do it.

Emphasis added.

She has more on marriage, stuff I may get to in a subsequent post where she wonders, given the lifestyles of many gay men, if they (i.e., those gay men) really want marriage. There, she understands that marriage is not an open-ended commitment where each spouse has (sexual) relationships outside the union.

Just read the whole thing. And note how many diverse voices see the recent rallies as counterproductive. And how this wise woman uses a term, “tantrum,” I have used to describe them. I’m honored to be in such company, particularly on this issue.

When it comes to gay issues, I don’t always agree with my friend David Benkof.W hile sometimes I think his ideas are off-the-wall, more often than not, even when I disagree with him, I think he raises an important point which, all too frequently, others have ignored. In his latest Op-ed, he puts forward some sensible ideas for ensuring that more states protect same-sex relationships:

A strong case can be made that more same-sex couples would be protected if the gay and lesbian community . . . would jettison the whole marriage campaign and focus on a new, national strategy of “mutual commitments” to protect same-sex couples not only in states like New Jersey and Massachusetts, but also in places less welcoming to gays such as Georgia, Nebraska and Texas.

The 30 constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, including Proposition 8 in California, are a direct result of the lawsuits-for-marriage strategy practiced by gays and lesbians since the mid-Nineties, including successful suits in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut. So achieving marriage in three gay-friendly states (two now that Proposition 8 has passed in California) came at the expense of barring marriage in 10 times as many states, many much less hospitable to same-sex couples.

In short, he believes, that if gay activists weren’t so hung up on the word, “marriage,” and focused instead on promoting state-recognition of same-sex unions, they might have great success in finding voters — and state legislators — more response to their pleas. This may not be ideal, particularly for those obsessed with “achieving full equality” (whatever that means), but it will improve upon the current situation.

I agree with David that litigation to force gay marriage through the courts has led to a backlash at the ballot box. And I’m not the the only one. Even Jonathan Rauch, the most thoughtful and articulate defender of same-sex marriage, has observed that gay marriage has lost in each of the thirty states where it has been on the ballot.

With social attitudes towards gays changing, we should focus on something that wasn’t achievable as recently as ten years ago, promoting civil unions, what David calls “mutual commitments,” through state legislatures.

You may not agree with David on this point, but at least he has put forward a different strategy than the failed policy of the gay organizations.  So, just read the whole thing!

From Log Cabin Republicans National Office (via email):

President-Elect Barack Obama hasn’t even taken office yet and he’s already using the Bill Clinton playbook on gay issues.  Politics over principle. Not exactly change you can believe in.

Exhibit 1:President-Elect Obama didn’t appoint even one openly gay person to his senior staff. 21 senior staff positions in the White House. Not one LGBT person. (You’ll recall that Sen. John McCain has a long record hiring openly gay people to senior positions both in his presidential campaign and senate office.)

Exhibit 2: No openly gay cabinet appointees. Maybe it’ll still happen, but with only a couple slots left, don’t hold your breath unless you want to pass out. Read more about grumbling from the gay left about the lack of appointments.

Exhibit 3:Lowering expectations on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. News reports say Democrats won’t consider the issue in 2009. Of course, in 2010 it’s easy to predict that congressional Democrats will say, “Sorry, but we have to wait until after the mid-term elections.”<

Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan writes, “”[It's] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.”

As the New Year begins, Log Cabin will continue reminding gay and lesbian voters that actions speak louder than words.

Amen.

EXCEPT… what Log Cabin (and the entire The Gay(TM) Establishment) forgets is that OBAMA OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE.  So picking Rick Warren IS sticking to Obama’s principles.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

His reaction to the choice of his Senate successor certainly suggests he will.

In an editorial today, the editors of the Chicago Tribune point out that while Obama aides, notably Chief of Staff-designate Rahm Emanuel, talked to “Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s chief of staff about Obama’s preferences” for the Senate seat he has vacated the president-elect and his staff have, in recent days*, avoided “commenting on the selection of his successor:”

. . . we’d like to hear Obama say one thing loud and clear right now: The best thing for Illinois citizens would be to hold a special election to fill his Senate seat.

There’s no legal issue that stops Obama from expressing his views on this. It’s a critical decision for Illinois. Do we hold an election or leave the appointment of a senator in the hands of the governor?

Earlier in the week, when a Tribune reporter asked Obama about this, Obama said he would leave the decision to the legislature.

Leave the decision to the legislature?

While Obama has so far done a reasonably good job of selecting competent individuals for his cabinet, he has so far failed to make controversial decisions about policy. Here, he has a chance to stand up for the citizens of the state he once represented.  In doing so, however, he would take on some in his party who would prefer a Democratic Governor appoint the state’s next U.S. Senator.

Instead, he punts, deferring to the state’s Democratic legislature.

Does this indicate once he takes office next month as president, he will defer to the Democratic Congress on controversial issue?

Given how his fall campaign and recent cabinet pick suggest a move to the middle and the leftist agenda of the congressional leadership, let’s hope not.

——-

*Particularly since the media have raised the questions in the wake of Governor Blagojevich’s arrest earlier this month.

UPDATE:  Jim Geraghty offers a similar sentiment to that of the Tribune‘s editors:

I would note that a few words like “I think a special election is a good idea” from the president-elect would go a long way towards making that happen. He doesn’t have to say so as the next president; he can say so as a citizen of Illinois.

You have to know a bit about me to appreciate this story.  I am a very courteous person.  I’m the guy that still opens doors for people (men or women).  And I try my best to show my manners during the trying times (weekly) that I fly for work.

Last night I was boarding a full flight from Philadelphia to Charlotte.   I was in row 4 (middle seat), but had to use the bathroom in the back as the plane loaded.   After doing my business, I slowly and courteously made my way forward — ducking into rows to allow others by as I progressed forward.

At about row 7, an African-American woman with a shirt blaring “OBAMA — HOPE AND CHANGE FOR AMERICA!” faced me.

I quietly said, “I am a couple rows ahead, may I get by?”

Her LOUD response with her palm in my face:  “NO!  JUST HOLD ON AND WAIT!”   I rolled my eyes, fearing that this is a sign of the World of Hopeandchange that we are in for beginning in 30 days.

Her husband behind her saw what happened and his face showed signs of embarrassment.  He asked what row I was in and I showed him four fingers, but then said “Never mind.”   I wanted them to get past me.

The two other people in row 4 who brazenly stole my personal magazine I had brought onto the plane — well, that’s a story for another day.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

That’s my three-word (four if you count the article) review of Slumdog Millionaire, a brilliant, touching Indian movie I just saw.

Of course there are many (many, many, many) differences between the recent release and its 1994 American counterpart, but they have a certain thematic unity–and one key element which makes each film a brilliant sum of its component parts — and then some.

Since I went into this film knowing little about it, save that numerous friends and acquaintances from different walks of life loved it, I will not offer a more comprehensive review, save to say:  See this movie!

Some top retired military leaders and some Democrats in Congress are backing William White, chief operating officer of the Intrepid Museum Foundation, to be the next secretary of the Navy — a move that would put the first openly gay person at the top of one of the services.

The secretary’s job is a civilian position, so it would not run afoul of the ban on gays serving in the military, but it would renew focus on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as President-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office… (Washington Times)

Very interesting news. White serves as Chief Operating Officer of the Intrepid Museum Foundation and is on the Board of Trustees and Executive Committee of this worthy group as well as the Fisher House Foundation. He also is involved in many other charitable efforts and has been for years. While all of this is definitely praiseworthy, I’m not sure how this would make him qualified for the job. Still, he does sound like someone I’d find to be an excellent candidate to appoint to something were I the president. The fact that he’s gay is intriguing considering DADT. Were he to become SecNav, it give more push to repeal the ban against gays serving in the military. Elaine Donnelly and other DADT proponents have good reason to be afraid of the possibility.

The question remains, however, will Obama give White the nod or will it be someone else? We shall see. Regardless, it is very encouraging to know that White is backed by many retired senior officers. My, how times have changed…

– John (Average Gay Joe)

While President-elect Obama’s choice of Arne Duncan to head the Department of Education has, by and large, earned accolades from conservatives, the current Chief Executive Office of the Chicago Public Schools  has done one thing which concern those of us who oppose the further Balkanization of America .

Duncan recently recommended the creation of the Social Justice High School—Pride Campus which would “address the needs of the underserved population of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth and their allies (LGBTQA youth).  He pushed this “explicitly gay-friendly school” to keep “students from being bullied and ostracized” and “where half of the students were expected to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.”

Let’s hope gay activists and others join much of Chicago’s political establishment in opposing this new type of segregation.  Shouldn’t our goal (and that of our supporters) be to find a place for gays to live openly in the mainstream of American society?  Shouldn’t we focus on means to change the minds of those who would make life difficult for gay teens rather than encourage those teens to study separately, among those just like them?

While Duncan’s efforts are certainly well-intentioned, they are just one more sign how the agenda of  the various minority groups have changed, from overturning laws and policies and changing attitudes which defined us by our difference to creating institutions which do just that–keeping members of various “minority” groups outside the mainstream.

I don’t think Duncan’s support for this school should disqualify him from being confirmed as Secretary of Education.  But, his support should raise some red flags.  Let’s hope Senators press him about this in his confirmation hearings.  And let’s hope he doesn’t favor the further Balkanization of American society, with separate institutions for each and every interest group.

On the whole, it does seem has the knowledge, understanding and ability to promote real education reform.

As a follow-up to AverageGayJoe’s posting from yesterday, I have a simple question.

Is there ANY American religious leader that would be acceptable to the Radical Gay Left to do an invocation?

Perhaps Rev. Wright?  Maybe Father Pfleger?

I’ve got it!  The Gays(TM) would love to have the Iraqi Shoe Guy give the prayer (in Arabic of course).  That would be perfect for them — mixing rabid anti-American hatred with fashionable footwear.

*sigh*

I can almost hear Joe Solmonese whining voice as he complains about the choice of Rev. Warren…..

“Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” the president of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solomonese, wrote Obama Wednesday. “[W]e feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.”

Waaaah, waaaah, waaaah.  (And did he really say “blow”?  *snicker*)

Did you Gay Leftists REALLY think Obama was going to carry your political water?  In that case: how dumb you are.

[RELATED: James at The Skepticians agrees -- Obama will probably sell out The Gays(TM) in no time]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (JohnAGJ): Welcome, InstaPundit readers!!!

Please don’t get me wrong.  I have always admired Caroline Kennedy.  Her Mom raised her right — good values, sensible manners and she carries herself with a quiet dignity that most people have long forgotten.   I don’t agree with Ms. Kennedy’s politics, but I like her and her life story.

That being said…. what on earth makes Caroline Kennedy any more qualified to be a United States Senator than Sarah Palin was for Vice President?  Palin had 16 years of elected public service going into this election; Caroline has none.  When did the US Congress become the House of Dynasties?

If crawling around the Oval Office on your hands and knees and playing underneath the President’s desk qualifies you for the Senate — let’s appoint Monica Lewinsky as the next Senator from New York.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Because Mary Cheney has not fit their image of what the lesbian daughter of a prominent politician should be, most gay activists have dissed the younger child of the Vice-President they love to revile.  Yet, in her own quiet way, this strong woman has done more to promote greater understanding of gay people than has the entire leadership of the gay “rights” organizations.

The reason?

Mary has appealed to an audience, the audience we most need to reach as they harbor the greatest amount of animosity and ignorance against us, which most gay activists would rather malign than influence:  social conservatives.  By living a normal life (well, as normal a life as she can when her dad’s Vice President) and coming across as a loving daughter to her parents and partner to her beloved Heather, she shows people just how ordinary and non-threatening a gay person can be.

As the daughter of the Republican Vice President, she has had ready access to conservative circles.  When her book was released, she appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s show, exposing his social conservative audience to her ordinary life as well as to her strong arguments for gay marriage.

As I was going through my accumulated e-mail earlier today, I learned that Mary Cheney gave more to the “No on 8″ campaign than did the former heard of NGLTF, Matt Foreman.  In writing on his story (with his typical  anti-Republican hyperbole), blogger Petrelis does discover where that gay leader’s true priorities lie:  he gave ten times as much to Democratic Party candidates as he did to a ballot initiative in his bailiwick.

I wonder how many gay bloggers on the left besides Petrelis have noted Mary’s largesse?  They’d rather demonize her for not being the person they want her to be than praise her for the accomplished woman she is.

While Mary has done much to advance so many of the causes they support, they can never forgive her for her conservative politics.  For them, one’s political ideology matters far more than one’s commitment to gay people.

As the most pro-gay Vice President in U.S. History leaves office next month, what gay organization will praise RIchard Cheney for providing a sterling example of how a man should treat his lesbian daughter and for defying the president who tapped him as his running mate on a gay issue?  Don’t hold your breath.  That pesky (R) after his name inoculates him, in their eyes, from doing any good.

Just as Mary’s failure to emulate Candace Gingrich prevents hear from winning the accolades she is in due.

Rick Warren to give invocation at Obama’s inauguration.

Warren is hardly a fan of gay rights, which Obama supposedly champions, as can be seen in this interview:

h/t Good As You

Where’s that hopeandchange liberal gays claimed I “betrayed” by voting against The One?

UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers!!!

– John (Average Gay Joe)

You know those so-called “Human Rights” Commission in Canada.  Have you ever noticed that the only people who seem to suffer for the speech codes those commissions eneforce in the Great White North come from the political or cultural right?

Mark Steyn offers an interesting observation:  why is no one citing the hateful statements of radical Muslims?  They go after anti-gay preachers who merely oppose gay marriage, but ignore anti-gay imams who want to kill us:

If it’s okay for Imam al-Hayiti to say homosexuals and lesbians should be “exterminated”, why is the Reverend Stephen Boissoin under a lifetime speech ban merely for objecting to gay marriage? Why are bald statements of Islamic supremacism cool when an imam makes them but the subject of a week-long trial in Vancouver for an infidel magazine that quotes such an imam?

There’s no logical answer except the one we already knew – that, while the bullies of the “human rights” regime are happy to beat up penniless pastors in Alberta and while Lucy Warman, the CJC and other cardboard crusaders get their jollies hunting down every birdbrained “Nazi” posting witless drivel on unread websites from his mum’s basement, they have no desire to tangle with the most explicit and well-funded source of “intolerance” in today’s world. If the point of the Lynch mob’s draconian powers is to protect “human rights”, they’re useless: “honor killings” will become all but routine but they’ll still be obsessing about some adolescent with a swastika tattoo and second-hand jackboots. What a bunch of fairies.

Read the rest to see just what he means by “fairies.”

Wonder why no left-wing gay activists have noted what this conservative pundit has observed?

I just got an e-mail from some loon on the left, one of those sent through moveon.org. The e-mail bounces if I try to reply. Well, Miss Barbara sent me a link to some article on alternet which I won’t waste my time reading, but her commentary made me laugh, a real, rich full-bodied laugh. In her attempt to slime the president in a sentence, she revealed much about herself and her Bush-obsessed peers.

In her missive, titled, “AlterNet: Bush Tries to Whitewash History; Portrays Himself as a Victim,” barbara@moveon.org writes, “Bush is the typical sociopath: it’s all about HIM.”

Um, Barbara, to you and your peers, it is all about him, all about Bush and how he can do no right.

And I doubt that the president portrays himself as a victim, but Barbara and her ilk really have become obsessed with this man. What will they do when he’s no longer president? Continue to blame all ills on him? Still try to impeach him?

TIME names Barack Obama its Person of the Year.

Really?  No, really??   Did anyone see that coming?  I mean after all, TIME’s Washington Bureau Chief is now VP-elect Joe Biden’s Press Secretary.

I think this puts Obama on the cover more than JFK, all of the Popes and Jesus combined.

In The Tank.

UPDATE:  Jonah Goldberg shares my cynicism.

Why didn’t Time consider God for having the wisdom and compassion to deliver Obama to us? Or, for the more secular minded, why didn’t he thank the gamma rays that ignited the life-spark that ultimately created single-celled life-forms which, eventually through the magic of evolution, brought us the One?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UP-UPDATE (from Dan):  OK, I kind of disagree with Bruce on this one.  He’s right that the media has been in the tank for Obama, but, well, given that he did win the presidential election, he pretty much earned the “Man of the Year” title, though, I will note that TIME has ignored some Republican presidents when they won re-election (or election).  And I recall that they dissed the real man of the decade as the 1980s drew to a close.

While most pundits are focused on the scandal surrounding the Democratic Governor of Illinois, few people are paying much attention to the shenanigans of the Democrats in Minnesota.

Shortly, after November 4, when all the ballots were counted, Republican Norm Coleman led his Democratic challenger Al Franken by about 300 votes.  As the recount concluded, Coleman led by a smalerr margin, minuscule in terms of percentage of the vote, but a margin nonetheless.  So, you’d think that Franken would concede defeat.

But, no, not for Democrats in close elections.  Just like in Washington State in 2004, Democrats weren’t satisfed when Republican Dino Rossi led the first count and then the recount, so moveon.org paid for yet another recount, ballots were discovered in King County (Seattle–the most liberal juridiction in the state) and, presto chango!, Democrat Christine Gregoire eked out a win.

Or, recall Florida in 2000.  Each successive recount showed George W. Bush with a lead, but Al Gore wanted to keep counting.  You see, Democrats want to keep counting until they win (while they seek to exclude ballots which tend to favor Republicans).

And they’re trying that in Minnesota, with Franken raising the issue of the “Fifth Pile” of rejected absentee ballots only as it was becoming clear that he would not win the recount.

On Friday, the Minnesota Canvassing Board “recommended that all counties include the absentee ballots that were unfairly rejected on Election Day in the recount.“  On its face, that sounds like a good decision.  The only problem is that the board didn’t set a uniform standard, thus allowing election boards in each of the state’s 87 counties to use their own discretion in determining which ballots to count and which to exclude:

(more…)

[UPDATE and Point of Clarification:  Readers, please note, that we are not yet voting on the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva, only asking for seconds (or additional nominees) to the list below.  When nominations close at midnight on December 18, Bruce and I will, based on the seconds each diva blogress receives, determine those we include on the official ballot.  And yes, I will consider as a "second" those who believe they're casting a vote.]

I have long defined a diva as strong, talented and confident woman who commands the respect of men.  This year, we will once again determine which blogress commands the most respect of gay conservative men.

She need not be conservative herself (at least three of the nominees below are not), but must by the the power of her prose, the eloquence of her expression and the intelligence of her ideas have earned the enmity of the angry left and so endeared herself to gay men like us who admire strong women who speak their minds, even at the expense of encomia from those in the entertainment industry and the MSM.

So, check out these blogresses below and let us know by Thursday, December 18 at midnight (eastern time) either in the comments section or via e-mail which of these ladies we should include on our ballot to determine the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva for 2009.

• Amy Alkon
• The Anchoress
• Ann Althouse
• Little Miss Attila
• Tammy Bruce
• Dymphna of Gates of Vienna
• e-Claire
• Bridget Johnson of the Rocky Mountain News
• Sondra K of Knowledge is Power
• Mary Katharine Ham of The Weekly Standard
• Rachel Lucas
• Michelle Malkin
• neo-neo con
• Jennifer Rubin of Commentary Contentions
• Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury
• Pamela of Atlas Shrugs
• Virginia Postrel of The Dynamist
• Debbie Schlussel
• Fausta Wertz

UPDATE: A reader nominates Pundita.

UPDATE:  And don’t forget Sister Toldjah.

*Please note that I fixed the grammar in the paragraph defining a blogress diva.

Like many film buffs, I’m a fan of Robert Wise‘s 1951 flick The Day the Earth Stood Still.  While it has some clunky moments and some weird plot points, it is on the whole a solid flick, made particularly strong by the quality of Wise’s direction and the acting of Patricia Neal and Michael Rennie.

Importantly, he succeeds in creating drama in potraying human relationships, with Rennie’s Klaatu arrival on earth creates tension between Helen Benson (Neal) and her boyfriend and that alien serving as a kind of father figure to Bobby Benson (played by Billy Gray), son to Helen.  The human drama gives Klaatu’s visit more meaning.

From watching the peviews to the remake, released on Friday, it seemed the filmmakers eschewed human drama for special effects and a political message (on the environment).  No wonder the film’s opening did not meet expectations.  No matter how great the special effects, if a movie lacks story and relationships, it won’t resonate with the public.

With its tendentious story line, it’s much more likely to alienate its potential audience.  As Brandon Gray put it at BoxOfficeMojo:

The marketing campaign for The Day the Earth Stood Still eschewed the human drama of the original and focused on the swarming destruction of buildings and trucks, making the picture look like a generic alien invasion or disaster movie. In bold print, ads declared the end of humanity, yet showed no humanity to begin with, such as relatable characters or storylines. Even the famous robot Gort received no play, just fleeting glimpses. The remake’s environmentalist propaganda (that man is destroying earth and must stop or be wiped out) was a different message from the original’s plea for peace and was obfuscated amidst the special effects chaos, contradicting the contemplative nature of the movie’s title. All told, few compelling reasons to see Day were offered to potential moviegoers beyond the vague spectacle and the promise of the new trailer for X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

The bottom line is: cool special effects alone do not sell movie tickets. Nor does political propaganda.

Still, I may just see the new release if only because Kathy Bates is in it.