Catholic Ragemonkey

I almost hesitate
to say anything, because I don't want to start trouble; but... I am wondering if the 2005 Catholic Blog Awards are as "above board," as transparent as they should be. I was just reading over the guidelines and I noticed that a few blogs are mentioned by name as examples of a nominating procedure. In particular, "A Saintly Salmagundi" is named at least a couple of times. Is that a good idea, I wonder? I mean, couldn't that be taken as a suggestion by Awards personnel regarding who to nominate? Could that be viewed as Awards personnel revealing their leanings and trying to influence the nomination process?

I mean what would the world say if election ballots, upon being given to voters, were already filled for a particular candidate, or were already checked in affirmation of a particular proposal? Nevermind. I guess that has been tried in Iraq in the past and I guess we know what some of the world says about that.

What if Simon put aside his normal snarking bitterness and just lavished praise upon a particular American idol candidate from start to finish, never even giving another candidate a chance?

What if male judges at the Miss American Pageant didn't even acknowledge the talent (baton twirling routine) and intelligence ("How I plan to save the world" speech) of contestants and simply chose the one that had most sex appeal, looked best in a skimpy bathing suit, and seemed most likely to sleep with them?

I mean wouldn't we call in Jimmy Carter to monitor these election/selection processes? I just don't want the Catholic Blog Awards to be viewed as the trumped up party of some Banana Republic.

I suppose the only solution is for all of you to overwhelmingly nominate CRM for the appropriate categories and then to rally the voters to keep it all above board!