I knew it! As I surmised in my last post, I knew there was no way that Laurel and I, who go to movies at real theatres regularly, could have only gotten 10 Oscar winners right, while my sister and brother-in-law, who spend about half the year in St. Lucia, where movie-going plays a second (or nineteeth) fiddle to margarita drinking and lying in the hammocking, could have gotten 16 and 17 Oscars right. Today Carol Ann fessed up in a revealing email message:
"Anyway, you were right on our internet use for winning the annual first prize. Bob actually went to a web site where they listed 42 different people like Roger Ebert and all the movies they thought would win. But as you can see, Bob didn't get them all right, so the majority isn't always the one to vote for. I voted for Michael Moore because he has done some good documentaries. But after listening to his speech, I will certainly not see the movie and add to his pocket change."
Regarding Michael Moore, he did go a bit, or a lot, over the top in his "acceptance speech" (did he actually ever thank anyone? I don't think so.) Even though I like Michael, his fanaticism on the left is almost as disturbing as Bush's fanaticism on the right. I came across this supposed expose of "Bowling for Columbine", and it has a ring of truth about it. This guy, David Hardy, seems to have done a lot of research about the "facts" Moore puts forth in his documentary, which Hardy doesn't consider to be a documentary at all, but more of a diatribentary. Maybe so. But Michael Moore makes people think, and challenges the status quo, qualities which are deserving of an Oscar.