Who needs enemies?

I've never understood the concept of Gay Conservatives. Given how much scorn conservative politicians reserve for the gay community, both here and in the States, it's hard to understand how anyone could reconcile such conflicting ideologies.

Perhaps they're followers of leading philosopher and hotpants ambassador Kylie Minogue, believing it's better the Devil you know than the Devil you don't. By dry-humping the enemy, maybe they get first dibs on what new policies are being devised to further strip away their rights and maintain that sense of second-class citizenship to which they've grown accustomed.

Nonetheless, there's a thriving movement in the States, enabling homosexual fans of small government and minimal taxation to celebrate their conservative roots. Perhaps the most famous group is the Log Cabin Republicans, who claim to "advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians" from within the GOP.

But there's another group who also claim to look out for the interests of LGBT citizens, and they're stealing some of the Log Cabin's thunder. GOProud's paradoxical mission is to emphasize "conservative principles such as limited government, individual liberty, and national defense over what are usually considered bedrock issues of gay politics such as gay marriage, criminalizing targeted violence against gays and lesbians, and recognition of sexual orientation as a protected civil rights class."

They've been in the news this week because they're currently planning Homocon 2010, their very first celebration of gay conservativism, and have selected a somewhat controversial 'special guest' - Ann Coulter.

A polemicist and political commentator, who can often be found on Fox News screeching over anyone with a coherent viewpoint, Ann goes out of her way to offend people with her willingness to be anything other than "impartial or balanced". For instance, Ann claims that "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women." Great role model right?

In much the same way that Ann's happy recommending that her own voting rights be removed, GOProud think that she's the ideal celebrity to headline their forthcoming party. It doesn't seem to matter that she called John Edwards a 'faggot' in 2007, or that she took a pop at "irritating lesbian Constance McMillen" for daring to argue that she had a right to attend her prom.

Apparently, Ann has even described herself as the 'the right wing Judy Garland' - although perhaps that just means she's going to overdose before she takes to the stage. Or maybe she's planning to announce to the world what many people have long suspected, that she puts the 'T' in LGBT. Critics maintain that she has an Adam's apple the size of Dolph Lundgren's fist, and have lovingly renamed her 'Man Coulter'.

Whatever her reasons for attending Homocon (besides the considerable appearance fee), the real question is why would any self-respecting gay man want to hear what this hateful harpy has to say. It's like dipping your kids in honey and then asking a grizzly bear to babysit.

But then again, the gay community has always struggled with self-destructive behaviour, from drug abuse and alcoholism to unsafe sexual practices. Inviting Ann Coulter to the party is just the latest in a long line of harmful activities.

Cameron's blue period

Well, James Cameron finally delivered his gigantic blue baby, and it looks as though he'll get to keep the roof over his head. With a budget of around $300 million, everyone knew that Avatar was a big gamble - Cameron has even deferred his own profit participation options until the investors have recouped their contributions. But with the news that Avatar has claimed its second consecutive week as box office champion, with only a 2.6% drop (compared with the industry average of 40-50%), it's clear that Cameron knows what his fans want.

If you haven't seen it already I do recommend you seek out the biggest screen you can find and immerse yourself in a truly incredible 3D experience. The world of Pandora springs to vivid life, even though at times there's so much neon on display you'd think the characters were stuck inside an Essex nightclub.

As for the story (which I've dubbed Last of the Bluehicans since Dances With Smurfs was already taken), well, it does what all good science fiction should do, taking contemporary issues and exploring them in a fantastical way. More specifically Avatar addresses the conflict between technologically advanced invaders and primitive indigenous people.

Rather predictably, not everyone's so happy with Cameron's kick-ass comeback. Over on Big Hollywood, the right-wing movie blog for the mentally malnourished, critics are lining up to condemn Big Jim's opus for "being a "big, dull, America-Hating, PC Revenge Fantasy". You see, they don't like the idea of the military being portrayed as aggressors (an argument so ironic it makes my head hurt). Likewise, they think it's propaganda to question the ethics of genocidal imperialism.

And don't even get them started on the environmental concerns, as conservative hate-bucket Ann Coulter once said: "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"

Cameron has never denied the fact that Avatar is a parable, claiming "what this film ultimately does is hold a mirror to our own blighted history, where we have a culturally advanced civilization supplanting more “primitive” civilizations... And this country we’re in now was taken from its indigenous owners. And it’s kind of owning up to our own human history."

That's not how they see it over at Big Hollywood though. Taking it in turns to miss more points than a blind tennis player, these professional movie critics make inane comments like "Why couldn’t Cameron have left his agenda at home and crafted a non-political story in which Americans could be heroes..." I guess Carl Kozlowski missed the point that it's an injured US marine who heroically leads the Na'vi into battle. Or maybe he just didn't like the idea that the lead was played by an Australian.

Ultimately though, it's fascinating that all of these rhetoric-spouting imbeciles see the film as anti-American. They're seeing all the worst elements of human nature - greed, violence, aggression - and thinking "Yep, that represents me." More worringly, they're proud of the fact. But then, it's clear that Cameron was never going to win over someone who believes "Cameron’s... tribe is boringly perfect and insufferably noble … I wanted to wipe them out."

The funny thing is, I don't remember the same arguments erupting 26 years ago when another visionary science fiction film-maker told a similar story. Even though die-hard Star Wars fans hated the Ewoks, no-one looked at Return of the Jedi and said "Why does everyone insist on seeing the Empire as the bad guys?" I guess that's progress for you.