Britney's a bad mom and Notre Dame has a bad football team and Rolling Stone doesn't matter, but some recent reviews drive home that point for the umpteen-hundredth time. Rascal Flatts' utterly bland and pointless, even by their standards, Feels So Good was awarded 3 out of 5 stars while Gary Allan's solid, if unspectacular, Living Hard only rated a 2 of 5. WTF? Do they have ears? I realize two different people did the reviews, but honestly. What's the standard at RS now? Airplay? Unit shifting? If so, that makes sense, since the Flatts will surely have 3 number one hits and another top 5 off their current drink coaster while Allan will struggle to get two songs in the top 10. Rascal Flatts is shiny and pop and mom friendly and background music and vanilla pop tarts. Gary Allan is edgy and real and dad friendly and roll down the windows/crank it up or go cry in your beer music and a cold pizza/bloody mary breakfast. Rolling Stone is in the magazine selling business. Artists who sell large amounts of albums sell magazines. RF will be triple platinum by Christmas while Allan will maybe hit gold around February next year. Quantity over quality. Barry Bonds is a cheater. Water is wet.