Bloggers...thank you for your support! And, have a Happy Thanksgiving...

Since I hooked up with wordpress, I have been able to keep better track of my blog stats - and subsequently - determine what kind of activity is going on in respect to my daily posts.

Frankly, it has been quite heartening to discover these past few weeks that numerous bloggers have either "quoted" my comments on their sites or installed direct links to posts they have been keen on.

Not unlike me, many bloggers painstakingly struggle over their message - with a keen eye to the turn-of-a-phrase - before posting.

Then, after the little gem is published, most wonder to themselves.

Is anyone ever going to stumble on this post - and just maybe - read the material I slaved over?

Fortunately, when I step out the door, I get an immediate reaction to my musings!

When I waltz into a restaurant, or stroll down the street - even step into a crowded Hollywood nightclub - all eyes turn toward me.

"That's him," they whisper, "The famous blogger."

Nonetheless, the support I have received over the past few months, has been quite heartening.

Daily, I receive private e-mail messages about some novel or thought-provoking idea or two, bloggers pine to pass on.

Many are inclined to post a comment on the blog sites, too.

Since I started up my first blog over a year ago on the Fox Network TV Website ("On the Lot") my first-hand experience in the blogosphere has been about ninety-five percent positive!

Occasionally, I do get some wacko spouting off at the mouth, but rarely.

Also, through a glass darkly, I have had the chance to get a glimpse into the psyche of a handful of twisted individuals around the country.

For instance, one day I penned a post after a red carpet premiere in Hollywood, in which I noted that Jeff Goldblum was very kind on the eve of the screening.

Shortly after that, I stumbled across a screwball comment, that some Goldblum fan made on their blog.

The individual, who acted like they owned Mr. Goldblum, referenced my article in which I underscored the actor's good manners.

Rather than just link the story, or say thanks, he proceeded to make a negative remark.

"I LOL! We already knew that. It's too late."

Too late?

Since when is it too late to compliment a person on their exemplary conduct?

Notwithstanding, people do change over time.

Personalities (especially in the spotlight) are often in flux.

A few years ago, an actor may have been a mean scoundrel who spit in the face of the press; but today, they may be meek as a lamb.

Also, new fans are always coming into the fold every day.

For their sake, isn't it a good idea to mention how approachable the object of their admiration is?

Oftentimes, I run into twisted people with no common sense whatsoever, either.

For instance, recently I wrote up a post on an e-mail I received which was a satire on Obama's speech patterns.

However, when I originally penned the post, no credit had been attributed to the original writer in the e-mail I secured the hilarious material from.

One day I was cruising the net when I located the article with a credit to the original author.

Instead of just "lifting" the name of the individual, I actually spent a few moments to thank the blogger for including the author's name, so I could give the comedian professional credit in my own post.

Wasn't that the appropriate professional action to take under the circumstances?

The blogger in question proceeded to read the post - and due to an obvious lack of intelligence or abililty to read and comprehend English - summarily twisted and distorted my intentions in such a convoluted way that it boggled the mind!

The lady (who posts anonymously and uses a photo of Raquel Welch to represent herself online) proceeded to post a negative comment about me!

In contrast, any intelligent sensible person would have recognized my obvious thoughtfulness and professionalism.

Talk about wacko!

More recently, a couple of individuals attempted to post negative comments on my blog in response to my expose on Richard Raddon in recent days.

Since the posts were written anonymously - and were traced back to the LA Film Festival site - it was obvious to me that a person in support of Raddon was involved in some all-out skulduggery on his behalf!

Needless to say, I zapped their comments into oblivion.

What am I thankful for this turkey day?

To be blessed with the precious good fortune of having readers at my blog sites who are like-minded, sound in intelligence, and of good heart.

Happy Thanksgiving, eh?

Digg.com...Duh, Dude! Overzealous scoopers vie for big time! Jostling newsies (?) scratch for elbow room without much to offer!

In a post last week I reported on "The Saint" - a blogger who twisted and distorted facts in a post about a Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin - which was summarily submitted to "Digg" for instant glory, I guess.

A Los Angeles Times writer sniffed around a bit - and didn't think that the wild expose passed the smell test - so he engaged in a little sleuthing of his own to dredge up the truth.

Ah, the Saint fessed up.

Bald-faced lies!

In view of the fact he was using an online moniker (and his true identity was not known) what did the phantom post-it bandit have to lose?

Meanwhile, his unfounded allegations shook up a few reputations, and along the way caused many media types who prowl a myriad of scintillating sites for easy prey, to quote the insightful writer at the Times.

"Be careful what you swallow on the Internet."

The Times writer also made a passing remark that a post submitted to digg.com - if made popular by digg members - could end up rustling a few hundred-thousand new readers to blog enthusiasts' sites.

So, I decided to investigate "digg", to figure out what the fuss was all about.

I signed up, submitted a story or two, and waited for the sharks to bite.

Right off-the-bat, a post about Sarah Palin started to gain momentum - but as news flashes spun the story off into a new direction - the hits dropped off.

Within a day the item was old news, so it was understandable.

That's an integral part of the problem with digg.com.

Unless a news feature is posted right away for publication - it may become untimely - at the blink of an eye.

So, for starters, that is a big flaw in the digg scheme of things.

After a post is submitted (and before it sees the light of day) digg staff wait for members to vote on whether they "dugg" an article - to likewise determine - if the piece will nab a hot spot on the main digg site.

By that time - the story may have become so moldy, old and gray, or just plain long in the tooth - that not even the most nostalgic gossip monger would be likely to save the little ditty for his scrapbook.

Gosh, what a waste of energy for a writer!

Notwithstanding - I noticed that digg writers seemed to be tethering at the bit to snatch up every little news tid-bit that wormed its way off the wire - for packaging in a post to be zipped off to digg.

So many writers were jumping on the same story on the occasion that I cruised the site - it made me wonder - isn't there enough original material out there to satisfy the feeding frenzy?

Everyone appeared to be writing about the Palin subpoenas, the guy who got shot wearing an Obama T-shirt, McCain's attack on opponents, and blah blah blah.

The reports that were posted were run-of-the-mill, too.

I rarely came across any originality, outstanding news reporting, or stellar award-winning literary style.

I sh** you not.

Part of the problem with digg is that the writers are all so busy vying for hits and popularity, that they've overlooked the obvious.

It's important to focus on the craft of writing, the turn of a phrase, a structure that makes sense in the new-age realm of "anything goes" journalism in the fast-paced electronic media age.

Also, because the so-called "writers" are competing with each other, I noticed a bit of professional jealousy.

A story or two that deserved mention or credit was ignored by digg members.

Did the talented young upstart show them up for what they were?

Talentless hacks?

While I do believe that competition is healthy - at digg.com the whole process of writing and submitting and fielding responses - may be a waste of time for serious writers seeking to strike out on their own and attain credibility in the legitimate world of news reporting.

Especially when you consider that a man is often judged by the company he keeps.

At digg, stories were not always factually correct, often amounted to more opinion than news, and - for the most part - were awkward and amateurish in style.

As to graphics and supporting images to bolster the quality of the posts - in most cases - there usually weren't any to speak of to stir up the sensibilities.

The blah leading the bland!

Digg may be dugg by many, but didn't make it into the dug out, with moi.

Didn't digg dugging at all, dude!

Technorati...ping malfunction renders posts "old news"!

For those of you with blogs that are fed through Technorati by "ping", I guess you're as frustrated as I am about the update malfunction at their site which is rendering posts "old news" items before they've had a chance to be read!

For instance, over the past few days when Technorati failed to ping the blogspot site automatically (www.ijulian.blogspot.com), I tried to facilitate the function manually.

But, to no avail.

For days, posts failed to pop up on the site.

When they did appear in the queue, the posts were not timely and amounted to "old news".

I'm recommending that Technorati readers go directly to the source for the posts, until the malfunction is sorted out.

I, for one, would prefer my posts to be read while they are timely and newsworthy - not stale and outdated!

Good luck sorting things out your way!

Blogging...top hits for Paris, Obama, Phelps and Elvis!

Well, I find it totally awesome that web surfers are still hankering to yuck it up over a post about Paris Hilton and the "wrinkly old dude".

Although the tidbit peaked in the mainstream media over two weeks ago, the hits keep coming.


Just goes to show 'ya - contrary to the scuttlebutt - self-styled Paris Hilton continues to pique the public's curiosity!



The post I penned on Barack Obama's "stolen prayer" has held sway, too, if the blog stats are any indication.

Web surfers are still clicking on the commentary, daily.





The fascination with Elvis - and the subseqeunt efforts of fans to rustle up a star for the legendary crooner on the Las Vegas strip - boggles my mind, too.





Of course, there is one no-brainer.


Both die-hard fans - and the public-at-large - are still hungry for every scrap of news about Michael Phelps they can focus their grubby little keypads on.


Trailing behind in their wake, posts drumming up interest include features on:

*Arnold Schwarzenegger
*Jack Kerouac
*Bill Clinton
*Tom Brady
*World Hunger
*Rod Stewart

Bloggers...under "big tent" at Democratic National Convention!

Blogger keyboards at the ready...

Some have been grumbling at the Democratic National Convention that bloggers don't get any respect.

But, you've come a long way, newbie!

At the convention in 2004, those who loved to "post-it" in the blogosphere were issued press credentials, granted.

And, allowed to mingle with the elite in the mainstream media.

But, the relations were strained a tad.

At the Dems' big bash this year, illustrious bloggers have not only been given the "green light" for access to all the relevant (and not so relevant) political events, but given asylum - if you will - under a "big tent".

The grandiose digs herald a new dawn for Internet pundits who have gained momentum and power in recent days on the political landscape.

Just ask Obama and Clinton - who are still stinging from a spiteful blogger's word-stalking - on the campaign trail in recent days.

Although blogsters were required to cough up one hundred bucks for their credentials, the joyride include wi-fi access, free burritos, and never-ending kegs of beer to wash the high-protein snack down with.

Heh, they're making out like bandits in Denver.

I'd better hop on a plane, pronto, and join the fray!

But, there have been some glitches in communication - in spite of the state-of-the-art presence of gizmos provided by two generous sponsors - Google and Digg.

When MSNBC tried to hand over the reigns to a newsie in-the-field for coverage on the blog presence at the Democratic Convention this morning, a number of technical difficulties delayed broadcast of the reports.

The anchor man joked,

"This is all the way from the Bloggers' camp in the Ukraine, so the feed is slow."

In view of the way some of the legit high-powered media types treat 'em, they may as well be!

All kidding aside, the bloggers appear to be happy as clams in their comfy digs.

One web writer noted on-camera that the free-standing canvas facility provided an independent base for their cerebral musings to emanate freely from.

No, sir!

This savvy blogster didn't intend to be influenced - nor did he plan to kow-tow to - the Democratic machine spinning their own wheels just outside the tent flaps.

Google and Digg sponsored the 8,000 square foot facility which includes a theatre, lots of leading-edge gizmos, and all the blogger interaction you could imagine in your wildest web-surfing dreams.

But, what will the talking heads produce, I wonder.

I'll be cruising the net this evening to take a gander.

Let's hope what Barbara Ehrenreich once opined is not true:

"We who officially value freedom of speech above life itself seem to have nothing to talk about but the weather."