My last post, The Bailout Part II got almost 600 viewings in about a month or so. I usually get around 180-200 or so, so that one is out of the ordinary. I re-read it and it isn't bad - I gave what I think is good information about getting started in what I think is the most powerful tool for not only forecasting the stock market but also forecasting social trends - The Elliot Wave Principle. I was kind of proud of that one so maybe that one deserved 600 viewings, who knows?

But while I was getting beaten up last night for having the audacity to express my concerns over Obama, I noticed that post had received over 570 hits in less than 24 hours, three times more than the total count I usually get.

Why? It wasn't really that good. It wasn't bad - I worked hard on organization and comprehension. But still, it was a rather mediocre post. I flubbed a couple of grammar spots and I noticed (while I was getting beaten up and trying to figure out why) that it was a little screechy. In fact, it reminded me of posts frequently made by another of us, in retrospect. I really didn't mean to do that but I guess I did and I know from experience those things aren't easy to read. I wasn't fair to the Social Security Administration, to be sure. After all, it wasn't the SSA's fault Congress drafted a bad bill that allowed the greedy Congress to spend all the Social Security receipts, leaving them with a bunch of worthless IOUs. I'm sure there are other things wrong but criticizing the post wasn't really on peoples', lets call them "readers" minds so I wasn't able to get feedback in that regard. That's OK; I think I'm objective enough to critique my own posts and I don't think that one was good enough to generate nearly 600 hits in less than 24 hours.

I checked others' hit counts, including someone who I think is arguably the best writer in our little corner and I'd say 150 - 180, 220 total is about normal for YourHub/Longmont. I found that you can click on a post and if you are the same guy, it still increments the counter. But isn't the propensity of one to hit the same post over again generally proportional to the number of readers? The answer is 'yes.'

Hmmmm... Something smells rotten in this little town.

What's up? Maybe the answer can be found in my own post, from a couple of statements that may (or may not) turn out to be prophetic:

1. If you raise the slightest questions, they will come after you.
2. If you want to survive in a fascist Obama state, you better not cross this guy.

I heard that Obama has his little army of blogger attack dogs that are waiting to swoop down and reassure anyone who dares criticize the Messiah that "he will be reelected" and just like the Borgs so eloquently put it, "resistance is futile." I would presume the objective is to de-moralize so that possibly there are a few people who would be dejected enough to not bother voting.

Well, hear this...

I won't be intimidated. On Tuesday, I will be happy and eager to cast my vote for McCain. If I wasn't "happy" before, I certainly am now. I will be serving as a poll watcher to ensure that everyone who has a right to vote get to cast their vote and also to ensure that anyone who doesn't have a right to vote get a provisional ballot with the challenge reasons so stated. I would also encourage anyone else who has doubts about McCain's chances to not take any chance of their own and instead show up at the polls in complete defiance, I mean confidence - with a smile on your face and cast your vote for McCain. We're the good guys; we don't pull crap like I was subjected to last night. But they do, obviously.

Call me paranoid. Call me delusional. I don't really care. You can also call me jazzed beyond belief that a bunch of Obama toads would make li'l ole me a target.