Toast to the 'fiscally and socially conservative' world, which says...

..."I know, how about a movie about two gay black Arabs who stumble upon a CIA plot to help Israel take control of the Temple Mount?"

The next blog to mine (one I pushed the next blog button located in top-right of the screen) was this 'fiscally and socially conservative' one. Amongst a lot of Islam-bashing, Chavez-ridiculing and various other tendencies, the blog argues that the Academy would have been better of giving away Oscars to the following movies, instead of the ones it chose:

10	Mr. & Mrs. Smith	Fox	$186,336,279	3,451	$50,342,878	3,424
11	Hitch	Sony	$179,495,555	3,575	$43,142,214	3,575
12	The Longest Yard	Par.	$158,119,460	3,654	$47,606,480	3,634
13	Fantastic Four	Fox	$154,696,080	3,619	$56,061,504	3,602
14	Chicken Little	BV	$133,559,402	3,658	$40,049,778	3,654
15	Robots	Fox	$128,200,012	3,776	$36,045,301	3,776
16	The Pacifier	BV	$113,086,868	3,181	$30,552,694	3,131
17	Walk the Line	Fox	$110,749,000	3,160	$22,347,341	2,961
18	The 40-Year-Old Virgin	Uni.	$109,449,237	3,006	$21,422,815	2,845

This is an excerpt from the Top 100 US box-office grossers of 2005. Sorry, Maverick, no Crash.

Henceforth Oscars should be given to movies like The Longest Yard, or the 40-year old Virgin, which are not 'boring', do not have deep social themes, and yes, do not have any gay guys (unless they are being lampooned or ridiculed).

Then, we will rightfully relegate small movies* (which stay small, since nobody watches them) to their place.

Here's a toast to a fiscally and socially conservative world.

*Small movies nominated this year were: A movie about gay sheep herders; a movie about "the McCarthy era." (Wake me when its over); yet another movie about racism in America. (It was better with Sidney Poitier.); and another movie about a gay guy, this time a very troubled writer.