I've been part of BlogExplosion for quite a while now. I like the service very much. It does exactly what it claims to do - bring more traffic to our weblogs.  That's not the only reason I signed up, though.  The main blog I use for posting political opinions is made up of a small community of people who don't always get along very well. Okay, how about they throw hissy fits and go on the occasional verbal rampage. It's stupid and childish, so I went in search of another place to do my blogging where I was less likely to have some moron criticizing me because he's a fading star.  that's how I wound up at BlogDrive. Occasionally I think about closing the other place down completely, but there are some people there I really like, one in particular has become an online friend, and I've got a truckload of stuff I'd want to move.  So I keep things as they are and have most of my surfing credits going toward the other place.

One of the main subjects of dissent at the other journal site is who shows up on their most read journals of the day list.  For some that seems to be an indicator of just how good a blog is because it's a measure of how many people read it in one day.  I wasn't a member of Blog Explosion long before I realized that a topic of dissent there is the rating system. It's the same popularity issue at both places.  The journal community does it with numbers of readers; Blog Explosion does it with arbitrary numbers members assign to each other through a ratings system.

I didn't really care about the rating system at Blog Explosion. That's not why I joined. I just wanted more traffic, and I wanted to see what the rest of the blogging world was about. I got what I expected. But in the process I also got rated whether I liked it or not. I didn't pay much attention and as a result, I didn't know what my rating was unless I made a point of checking which I didn't often do.

I know some folks took the ratings very seriously. A message board was set up to discuss it. Complaints were received by Blog Explosion because people wanted to rate anonymously. Rating wars were apparently going on with low ratings as the revenge. So, BE made the ratings anonymous and had a poll to get input on what system should be used. I had no idea how that was going. When I saw a blog I really liked a lot, I rated it. My ratings were in the 9 point range with 10 being the highest rating available. The criteria I used for my ratings system was purely subjective. I liked the place for a number of reasons that mattered to me, so I rated. I didn't bother with those that weren't my preference. Frankly I liked being able to leave comments far more than the numbers rating game. With comments I could be specific about what what on my mind. So I did more commenting than rating.

The other day I found out that BE has revamped the rating system. I found that out because I read it on a blog I was visiting. So I checked out the new system. In my opinion, it's a fucking mess. There's about a bazillion and five categories I'm supposed to rate and then it all gets merged together into one final number. I noticed that I already had one rating. So I read it.

I don't know who it was who rated my journal. I don't care, nor will I bother to find out even if I can find out which I don't know that I can do. The main point the reviewer seemed to want me to know was that he or she didn't like my layout. No, let me rephrase that. He or she really HATED my layout. Big Time. Enough to finish the rating and then add an additional comment that the layout really stank.

This is hilarious to me. I used to have more to my layout, but there were some suggestions that it was too busy. So I de-busified it. It is now about as bland as it can be and still have what I want. No flashy colors. Easy on the eyes. Bland. The content was my focus. My one and lonely reviewer said the content was okay, but geez... that layout is dreadful.

Now, this could be interpreted as sour grapes, but it really isn't. I don't care what that reviewer thinks of my journal. Not one bit. I have been criticized for what I write, for what I don't write, for what kind of fancy layout I have, for some vague I-hate-the-layout complaint that tells me nothing about how to fix it. for being on a most read list, for being a sycophant, for being a bottom-feeder... the list goes on. If I took any of this to heart, I would never blog another word.

So what's my point? Believe it or not, I do have one. I'm not going to participate in the latest version of BE's rating system. I think it's ridiculously bogged down with categories, and I have no interest in that kind of evaluation for my blog or someone else's. I will, however, continue to leave comments. It's my opinion that blog owners get more pleasure from those anyway. There's nothing wrong with blogs being competitive, but there's Blog award spots for that.

As for that stupid most read journals list at the other place... there's still people who don't realize the list is too easily manipulated. They continue to throw temper tantrums because of who is on the list and who isn't. Puhleeeeze. Grow Up. Try blogging because it's a nice pastime from which there is some recognition if just one person shows up to read what we've written.

All these subjective opinions simply don't matter, but still.... I Mind.

I never thought I'd say this, because I've never been a cheerleader for this guy, but I want Howard Stern back on my radio station in the morning.

I completely understand why my local station dropped Howard. I don't disagree with their decision. He was becoming a royal pain in the ass with his whining and complaining about what his job had become. Instead of making the best of the time left in his contract, he seemed determined to make the worst of it. And why should stations continue to carry his program when all he did was encourage people to subscribe to Sirius? Not a very bright move unless Howard was looking for a way out of the time left on his current running contract. Which is probably why he's doing what he's doing. No point in being naive.

However, the problem is that when my local radio station dropped Howard, they replaced him. Of course they would do that. The thing is, they replaced Howard with two flaming idiots. Whatever Howard Stern is, he's not a flaming idiot. I may not like all the T&A Howard promotes, but he is about more than that so I can overlook what there is of it.  And even though I don't agree with much of Howard's politics these days, that's not all he's about either. I could overlook his political tantrums because there was always something that eventually took its place.

Now there's no relief from the flaming idiots. They begin and end their program with pathetic nonsense, and they use all the time between the beginning and end with the same horribly stupid content. They call themselves Nipsy and Earl. I call them Ditzy and Hurl.

The only people who think Ditzy and Hurl are funny are Hurl and Ditzy. They think they're hilarious, so they giggle and cajole each other through segments that can only be described as painful.

I knew Howard's time was limited, but I just wasn't ready yet to have something like Ditzy and Hurl replace him. I believe if Howard would just shape up, the local station would take him back for the duration of his contract.  I wish there were some way to appeal to Stern, but I haven't got anything he'd want. So I'm doomed to Ditzy and Hurl for as long as they last. This could be the death of public radio as we know it.

After surfing around to different blogs since yesterday, I'm getting the impression that liberals believe Barbara Boxer is some kind of hero because she found every way she could think of to call Condoleezza Rice a liar without actually using the "L word". 

News Flash: that doesn't make Barbara Boxer a hero. It makes her a very bitter, very stupid, very obnoxious Senator. Today Joe Biden is trying to match Barbara Boxer for stupidity and obnoxious. He's doing a very good job.

Both Boxer and Biden have the notion that in order for the Bush Administration to be acceptable in their eyes, this means the Bushies have to put on hairshirts and grovel around on the floor pleading forgiveness for making so many mistakes. This is absurd, but it's what the cratz want, and they won't stop presumably until they get it. I hope hell freezing over has some meaning for those people because that's the only time any Bush Administration official should ever subject themselves to such uncalled for behavior. 

Why is it so hard for the cratz to understand that George W Bush DID NOT LIE when he spoke about the invasion of Iraq to be for the purpose of stopping their proliferation of WMD's?  Just about the time I think, "okay, they have to get it NOW", one of them comes up with some ridiculous new take on the subject that shows one thing very clearly. It isn't that they don't get it. It's that they WON'T get it. Because as soon as they acknowledge the truth, that seems to indicate they will give up some high moral ground in debating who tells the truth and who doesn't.

When every nation on the globe believed that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's because all the nations involved in intelligence gathering to determine what Hussein was up to concluded that indeed, he had WMD's, how does it make any sense to suggest that George W Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq? Based on the conclusions of intelligence agencies all over the world, George W Bush believed Iraqi WMD's existed, and he was unwilling to allow Iraq to continue to violate numerous UN Resolutions.

Everything that came after stems from that original intelligence. Add to that the continued disregard of Iraq for all UN Resolutions, there was more than sufficient reason to stop Saddam Hussein from building a larger stockpile of WMD's and pimping out his country for terrorist activity. For Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden to suggest otherwise shows their ignorance of the facts. All it would take is for both those blowhards to read a few books by people far more knowledgeable on terrorist activity than either of them will ever be. However, both of them reject any information that does not fit with the picture they want to portray of a president hell bent on lying his way through one term and doing the exact same thing through a second. They are doing their country a huge disservice with their unrelenting show of disregard of facts that are available to anyone who wants to take the time to learn them.

Just because the cratz don't want to believe the truth doesn't mean it has been either kept from them or distorted for their consumption. They are behaving like spoiled toddlers throwing temper tantrums, and it is beneath the dignity of the government positions they hold to allow them to continue with their fantasy portrayal of the Bush administration. Why should the Bush administration admit to mistakes they did not make? That's just plain ridiculous.

And besides that, I really REALLY mind.

In my travels around different blog sites, I came across one blogger who wrote about the Armstrong Williams story that hit the headlines last Friday morning. The blogger wanted to know why news like this is always held until right before the weekend because what happens is that it loses its interest over the 2 day news respite, and by Monday morning, no one cares anymore. The blogger's inplication was that because Armstrong Williams is Conservative, this is a winger trick. Hah! Not so fast!

While it's true there is a news story about Armstrong Williams accepting a contract worth $240,000 from the Department of Education to promote the No Child Left Behind Act, and while it's also true that there are questions of ethics involved with what Mr Williams did, there was another story reported last Friday as well. Only this story got little to no coverage. Why? Because it was dwarfed in the liberal media by the Armstrong Williams story. If we're going to talk about deliberately releasing stories so they receive the least amount of attention and impact, then the story to which I refer would have to be noted as well since it was released BEFORE the story on Armstrong Williams. Further, it should be noted that a story about a conservative was used as a smoke screen to hide the bigger story involving a well known liberal.

Now, I know who Armstrong Williams is because I watch Fox News and MSNBC News coverage. Williams has been a guest on both news networks, and he obviously has Conservative leanings. But Mr Williams is hardly a household name. No disrespect intended because I believe Mr Williams is good at what he does, this ethics business notwithstanding, but he doesn't have the name recognition the other party in last Friday's press release has. The name of the other newsworthy personality? Hillary Clinton. Beginning to understand now, are we? Yeah, I thought we might.

Last Friday it was reported in the media that David Rosen, former finance director for Hillary Clinton, was charged with 4 counts of filing fictitious reports that misstated the contributions for a Hollywood fund raiser held on Hillary Clinton's behalf. The FBI reported that it has evidence that the misstatement of funds was deliberate so that Clinton would have more money to spend on her campaign. The business man who hosted the event, Peter Paul, told the FBI that since he had personal conversations with the Clintons during the time of this fund raiser, it is impossible to believe that neither Senator Clinton nor Bubba Clinton was aware of the costs to the campaign or the funds collected.

So why do you suppose that this story didn't receive more media attention? And why in the complaint was Senator Clinton referred to merely as "Senator A"? Before liberals start getting their dresses up over their heads about when the media chooses to release its stories, perhaps they should be more aware of the number of stories that are released so quietly with so little attention that many are completely unaware of them. This is a Clinton trademark. And Armstrong Williams is the fall guy.

I think I may have misspelled Amber Frey's last name in an earlier post. My apologies to spelling purists. I couldn't care less what Amber Frey thinks.

CBS has announced that they have bought the rights to Amber Frey's book and plan to make a tv movie of its contents. You know, if I were a CBS stockholder, which I'm not (thank God), but if I were, I'd be screaming my head off at the programing director of that place, because whoever it is has his/her head so far up his/her ass (s)he will never ever see daylight again.

John Danforth, US Ambassador to the UN, until he's replaced, gave a statement today that should have those who want the US out of the United Nations screaming and tearing hair. Count me among the screamers and hair tearers.

In my travels around the internet today I've run into a few blog posts about the courage and guts of Barbara Boxer, Senator from California. I ignored the first post. There's no accounting for the misguided, and there is that sometimes annoying thing about free speech. Then I saw a second entry on the subject. That got under my skin a little bit more. One more entry on the subject did it. It was either write a rebuttal or explode. I hate exploding; thus, the entry Barbara Boxer is a dick. The reason for that has to do with the deliberate and calculated disruption of the certification of the electoral college votes in the House of Representatives and Senate yesterday.

First off, could we please be clear that no one has provided one shred of proof that the election tally was either tampered with or outright manipulated in Ohio. John Kerry does not refute the fact that  George W Bush won the state. No one does. And the reason no one can do that is because it didn't happen. This past presidential election was the most lawyered-up election in the history of elections. Yes, there were problems with voting. Gee, golly, gosh, there always are. But the fact of the matter is that with all the attention given to this election, while problems may have been pinpointed in the process, the election was not... repeat WAS NOT... stolen.

That's a fact, but you wouldn't know that to hear Representatives Conyers and Jesse Jackson Jr tell it. According to them, we're back at that disenfranchised state of affairs again, and, according to them, this couldn't have been more clear than in Ohio. *Editorial Comment* -- Bull Feathers.

In the 2000 electoral college certification, the cratz tried to disrupt the proceedings by making objections to the vote count in Florida. It's certainly within their rights to do that, but without a Senator to sign the complaint, nothing but the complaint was registered.

For the 2004 election the objecting Representative cratz found themselves a Senator willing to sign the objection thus, according to a law enacted in 1877, stalling the certification process and throwing it into a 2 hour debate in both Houses of Congress. The cratz say that 6 Senators were willing to sign the complaint petition, but the names of all 6 were not revealed. Just one name was released, and that name was Barbara Boxer. She stepped up to perform another of her purely partisan acts designed to do absolutely nothing but give her an opportunity to get her name and face on the news AND create a problem where there wasn't one.

Every single time I have seen a Senate Committee meeting on C-Span where Barbara Boxer is involved, it is clear that her main reason for being is to insult, denigrate, belittle, and try to intimidate conservatives. I used to believe Maxine Waters was the most abrasive female in Congress. Nuh uh. It's Barbara Boxer by a nose. A nose which, by the way, should be entering rooms 3 hours before she does because of the whoppers the woman consistently tells. If it's conservative, she abhors it, and she is willing to make a huge pain in the ass of herself whether or not there's rhyme or reason to her argument.

It was well known before the objections to the Ohio vote were made by cratz Representatives that even with a Senator's signature to the complaint, the reult of the Ohio vote would not change, nor would the overall electoral college vote be any different at the end of the mandatory 2 hour debate. So, the only reason Barbara Boxer did what she did was to get in the face of conservatives in some pathetic effort to rail once again that George Bush is still president of the US.

The woman is a menace. It's a given, and we don't need a 2 hour debate to reach that conclusion. Just listen to the harpy for 5 seconds and her motives are crystal clear.  So let's cut the crap about Barbara Boxer having courage and being gutsy. She's a dick. Period.

I love to knit; hence the alias "Purlie Rowz" which also sounds like Pearlie Rose.  Okay, so it's hokey, but I like it.