“Fun” might be pushing it a titch. “Almost inoffensive and occasionally not-completely-dull background noise” – I could agree with that.

What gets me about the Oscars is not the political stuff, but the Petronius- worthy spectacle of these unfathomably decadent, pompous doofuses pretending to have enough class even to pretend to have class – the proverbial debonaire syphilitics.

And their evident smugness and self-importance is too much to bear. The don’t smile, they grin sh*t-eatingly.

I hear what you’re saying, but Hollywood really has a long way to climb to get back up to doing anything merely relaxing and enjoyable. I found it insufferable and annoying – above all, boring.

“It’s a nice diversion, no?”

No.

How can you not like people being acknowledged for their hard work and excellence? Granted, when Al Gore and Michael Moore wins it is no fun but what’s wrong with Colin Firth taking home the prize?

King’s Speech was an excellent movie. Social Network was great, too (I also was bummed when Sorkin won based on his politics. Thankfully he kept politics out of his speech). The Fighter was a compelling story, Toy Story 3 was the best of the trilogy and True Grit was decent.

Sure, Hollywood can be a pain in the trasero with their childish world views but some of you should really relax and enjoy what was a fun event. No one like the opening scene with Baldwin and the Inception parody? Watch a little film, people. It’s a nice diversion, no?

Anyone else remember when it meant V for Victory? Good old Churchill!

But surprisingly not too many, given that SAG and the other Hollywood unions sent out General Quarters alerts to their minions to get their butts to Wisc. and demonstrate alongside the “public servants.”

I was SO glad The King’s Speech won. There was a late push by the cadre of the utterly loathsome Aaron Sorkin to get The Social Network over the finish line, but they didn’t make it. For once, their business instincts trumped their eternal, noisome Leftish nihilism.

I was glad David Seidler won for best screenplay for the King’s Speech as well: an older man who’d written for a lot of junky movies over the years, he got cancer, survived it, and decided to write one he could put his heart into. Good on him!

Also, turn the logic around: if jihadis can get celebrities, they can get schmucks too. The converse proposition doesn’t necessarily follow.

The question is what motivates jihadis. If they truly think that they’re doing Allah’s work, making enemies won’t put them off. Quite the contrary. (Much like we would feel if something we did pissed off child molesters; all to the good, right?) That’s pretty much the way I see them, but of course, I could be wrong.

I think the publicity you’re talking about is negative (for jihadi loons). Kill the denizens of Hollywood and you piss off all the millions of celebrity worshipers who pick up a copy of People at the check out line. Kill average Americans at the mall and you have successfully terrorized hundreds of millions who are entertaining the idea of what can be done to appease you so they can go back to shopping without fear.

You have stated precisely why the jihadists will not attack Hollywood. They know their allies from their enemies. A much better splash is the deaths of hundreds or thousands of middle Americans at the mall. Everyday people are the richest targets, not the Hollywood elites.

Remember Michael Moore lamenting that the 9/11/01 terrorists targeted “people who voted for Bush”? Liberals have no problems with blood being shed as long is its not their blood. If the jihadists attack a T-party rally liberals will be opening up their wallets/purses to donate to the Muslim Brotherhood.