9.21.2002

 

I'm beyond flattered that Jeff Cooper has added my blog to his linked pages run by other library night watchmen. I find his work to be very insightful and well crafted. Now that he has linked me, I'm suddenly feeling the pressure to give this blog a more legitimate reason for existence ...

... which is the perfect segue to ...

God damn George W. Bush and his enclave of belligerents who believe the sanctity of human life (US version) is more important that the sanctity of human life (that of anyone who doesn't agree with us or toe our line).

Mr. Cooper made some good commentary on the rather shifty-seeming shift in policy making yesterday:

This approach to government—determine a policy, then offer a series of dishonest (or at best half-honest) rationales in support of the predetermined policy—is deeply corrosive in a democracy; it betrays utter disdain for the public. And, as others have observed, this approach has characterized the Bush administration from day one, from the tax cut on down. Rather than focusing on the fundamental dishonesty of the administration's methodology, however, the Washington Post today essentially celebrates its effectiveness. As Tim Dunlop notes today, the approach works only because the press's fascination with winners and losers rather than policy allows it.

The administration's approach is alarming in another respect as well: the president and his advisors seem indifferent to the larger consequences of their actions. We saw this with the tax cut. When opponents argued that the plan would cause the deficit to explode, the president simply asserted that it wouldn't. And when deficits did in fact return, the administration insisted that the tax cut had nothing to do with it, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

We're seeing the same thing with Iraq. It is quite clear that the administration intends to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It's not at all clear, however, what the administration envisions happening next. Indeed, at one point the administration suggested that it would not decide that question, but would leave it to the international community. That may have been a faint gesture toward multilateralism, but it came across as an abdication of responsibility. Unless we go in with a clear vision of the endgame and the aftermath, how dare we act unilaterally to throw Iraq into disarray?

I don't know how much I can agree with the last paragraph, not because I think Mr. Cooper's concerns are invalid, but because I don't believe our leaders have the privilege to consider an end game strategy at the moment. I think to have this privilege, you need to have the justification to forcefully exert your proposed end, and I am still not convinced this needs to happen.

But apparently this is not a concern for the Administration. Take yesterday's fundamental policy shift that the Bushies are trying to bring to fruition to justify their contention that force is needed in Iraq now. You need to read this article in its entirety (for one, because it's amazing that I can so incensed off a Yahoo! News article, which is the USA Today of internet news), but I need to highlight this comment:

"As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed," [Bush] wrote in "The National Military Strategy for the United States of America."

Self-defense? Since when does taking an agressive stance and attacking another amount to self-defense? This isn't hockey or football, and the maxim "The best defense is a good offense" absolutely cannot apply. And remind me, when was the last time in an international conflict that the US was the clear agressor nation? Yeah, I forgot when that was too. I think one of the reasons our military is so widely respected, other than the fact that it's well trained, well led and well supplied, is that its leaders are usually pretty good about employing it only in necessary situations. If we start going into lands of "emerging threats" with guns blazing on the basis of self-justification, the terror attacks are only going to increase, and I sincerely believe that. Think other peoples complain of US imperialism and efforts at hegemony now? Wait until the Bush Doctrine (has anybody called it this yet? Am I coining a term?) goes into effect, then you'll really hear the tables thumping.

Another question: supposing the Bush Doctrine does go into effect (god forbid), then who makes the decisions on what constitutes valid emerging threats? I think this is VERY DANGEROUS, and if the voters let this happen (and I wonder if we are powerless to do anything against its happening right now, which is alarming), I think we'll start to see a disappearance of crucial elements of democracy in the coming years. Way too vague for comfort under any administration, and under current circumstances, I don't know about you, but I don't want someone who has to be briefed on who the world leaders of various countries are during his campaign so he doesn't look completely stupid. Not saying I know them all, but I assure you if I were ever to run for president, I sure as hell would.

And COMMON SENSE? What? You're kidding, right? Going into lands where the population is starving and shooting them up because people there might want to massacre a couple thousand people with tactics largely beyond their means in most circumstances is common sense? You know, I don't like thinking there are people out there who want to massacre anyone like that, least of all potentially me, but witch hunts against those sorts of things is NOT common sense. It's more like facism, and that is absolutely not an exaggeration.

Read the full article to get the sense of how stupid the Administration sounds right now.

You know, I think this Administration has done a decent job of handling the turmoil of last year. I admit, when Bush was theoretically "elected" two years ago, I was concerned that he would not be able to handle the day to day grind of the job. As it stands, he seems to be balancing against a normal life better than anyone (bimonthly vacations to Crawford, all the exercising - you have to be impressed at that). I still didn't agree with him on a lot of issues, but at the very least, I had lost a great fear that he would really screw the country domestically and internationally over for a few generations.

I've now re-developed that fear.

(0) comments

9.20.2002

 

She insisted on discretion. I did my best to comply. After dinner sometimes, we walked back to my place, inevitably chatting up some passers by about their children and their lollipops. She was half an inch taller than me and occasionally wore little clogs that made her an additional inch taller. Walking next to her, I felt very young in those moments.

I could never tell if she was in awe of me or simply tolerated me. She made me wonder if we meant anything or if we were convenient. I was her first, and it was weird.

When we held hands, she used to take her thumb out of the interlocking pattern of fingers and tuck it into the space between our palms and let it rest there. It always felt so comfortable to hold her like that. One day in the shower she was washing my back and rubbed the bar of soap over small ridge of bone at the base of the back where the body starts to split into symmetry, and it tickled so much I nearly fell over. Every time we showered together after that, she would torture me like that and giggle as I squirmed.

I left her place the next morning trying to remember her name and wondering if I was going to tell my sister.

She was the most unpredictable girl I had ever known. I could never decide if I adored her blindly or adored the smile she placed on my face with hers. She called me once right after having sex with another guy, and we talked about our jobs. We were never been photographed together, just the two of us.

The lights had to be off. I had to be on top. She didn’t want me to look at her while we were doing it. But she swore that she liked doing, so after we decided to break it off, we did it again.

We’d lie on the floor together in various states of undress and let the CDs run through to the end. No one ever paid my hands such attention. I’d tell stories of little consequence, and she would toss me a half smile of contentment, and the flickering light of the candle in the corner would catch her eye and we would fall silent.

(0) comments

9.19.2002

 

Cracker Barrel it is for the Blondemaster. Not only did she wrangle up the requisite ten comments (even with "technical" problems), she also managed to help the Hose Monster Blog achieve a record number of hits in one day. Good times, good times.

BM: here's the menu: Figure out what you want so we can spend the good part of the meal enjoying some frosty beverages out of mason jars.

The comments also kept me entertained all day. And I love it when people mock me. Just in case you haven't read them, here's the highlights, occasionally with my comments:

• It also sounds to me like Chris has an unhealthy obsession with hair and with the Blondemaster.
  
  My obsession with hair is well documented. Whether it's unhealthy is open for interpretation. As for the unhealthy obsession with the BM: you have to admit, she's great subject material.
  
  
• Hosemaster is a strange boy who often thinks about haircolor and just wanted a friend to share this obsession with.
  
  Guilty as charged on all counts.
  
  
• Blondemaster, you should keep your hair. Chris, i think you want to get down the blondemaster's pants ... to see if it's all blondmaster
  
  Absolutely the funniest thing that has ever appeared on the Hose Monster Blog. Transcendent. Well done KSwans.

Okay, must get myself to bed tonight so I can subject my body to more torture tomorrow. I have been reminded every morning this week getting out of bed that my body is not meant to be playing two games of softball, one flag football game and two matches of racquetball each week. Tomorrow's addition: ice hockey.

Cheers,
Mighty Mouse

(0) comments

9.18.2002

 

The Blondemaster, whose name has been mysteriously absent from this blog for far too long, emails with a very pressing question:

"Should the Blondemaster make a change to the hair color? Maybe go a little less blond - some low lights or something?"

Let's start with a little background on the Blondemaster to help you picture the situation completely:

As I've said, the Blondemaster is further proof of the general truth that I have very attractive female friends. She's just the right height, has these shocking blue eyes, is tons of fun and an amazingly hard worker. And I learned about a month ago, shortly after waking up very hung over on her couch, that she looks great in a bikini. (I'll admit it, I was checking her out. We're friends, it's cool - she can check me out if she wants.)

And of course, she has this shock of blond hair.

I have not seen her for about a month, but I last remember seeing her right after she had her hair cut. Her hair has good body, and it generally bounces off the top of her head a little before falling with just a bit of a negative slope/curl down to maybe a few inches lower than her jaw line. If I recall correctly, it's of a pretty uniform length all the way around her head. The bangs are long and are more or less integrated into the larger structure of her hair.

Every once in a while, she pulls her hair back into a very short pony tail, or even sort of piles it on top of her head. One day at work she had the piled look going, and she was wearing these little spectacles that perfectly completed the "sophomore in college sitting in her chair at 2 am studying sociology" appearance. She looked fantastic. I'm a sucker for those innocent intellectual looks.

The hair color, I assure you, is natural, though it's beyond bleach blond. The picture of Chrissy gives you an idea, but think more extreme than even that. (And the choice of Chrissy is purposeful, since she actually lives in a Three's Company world. She lives with two of my friends [who don't like me much anymore; they never call, they never write, they never visit. I'm very sad about the whole thing...], one of whom is a gorgeous brunette [also with great hair] and the other, who would be a perfect "ne'er do well" guy if he didn't seem to have his shit so completely together, with the task of striking a balance between the two of them. Their life is one misadventure after another, and every once in a while I have the privilege of playing Larry or Mr. Furley or some other bit character in the drama.)

So now you have an idea of the canvas with which we are working. Sorry for descriptive indulgence. Let's return to the original question: should the Blondemaster tweak the hair color?

To preface, I have very strong opinions about hair. It seriously is one of the first things I notice about a girl. I will NOT date anyone with bad hair, or bland hair, or hair that leaves one without a single remark to make about it. Furthermore, I am generally opposed to hair coloring, just like I am generally opposed to colored contacts or anything else that falsely presents true physical characteristics. When asked for advice on the matter, I have never once advised someone to dye their hair or do anything to it that might unnaturally change the color. No one listens to me, but still, that's the way I vote.

That said, for some strange reason I seem to be strangely attracted to women with slightly altered hair coloring. A few of my ex-girlfriends/flings/lovers will bear that out. Don't know why that's the case exactly, but oh well. So changing hair color is definitely not a turn off to me. Maybe it's just the principle.

Shit, this is supposed to be about the Blondemaster. Back to the question. Again.

First off hun, stay blond. You're a great blonde. I don't know how I would feel about you any other way. I certainly wouldn't know what to call you if you change.

As for bringing the tone of the blond down a little bit ... I dunno. At the very least you'd probably reduce - quite ironically at that - the number of times you get asked if your hair color is natural. And it might look really great. But will it balance with your complexion? Will the darker shade of blond alter the way pink seems to work so well on you? How weird might it look as it grows out? Highlights tend to look a little punky when they grow out; will low lights make you look like you have some spectral glow between your scalp and your hair when they start growing out? I've heard of plenty of people trying to go more blond. I'm not aware of any stories going the other way.

I guess I'd have to offer the absolutely worst comment of saying that I would have to see what it looks like before I sign off on it, which obviously does not help. On the other hand, the fact that I am not coming down strongly on the "don't change it all" side of things may be indicative of the fact that I really think you should. I don't know. Let's throw it out to a vote.

All of you currently reading this: Leave a shout out for the Blondemaster below. Give her your thoughts. Even if you don't give a shit about what she does with her hair, just say something. If she wrangles 10 comments, or even if 10 comments mysteriously appear saying "Aunt Jemima Rules!", I'll take her to dinner at Cracker Barrel next time I see her. She loves Cracker Barrel. And I need an excuse to be seen paying for a girl at dinner, so I don't start feeling like I am a total loser. Don't let us down.

Oh, and feel free to send her some feedback directly. Just don't forget to leave a comment. A night of chicken fried steak, mashed potatoes and fried okra is at stake.

(0) comments

 

I consider it an extreme honor and privilege to be linked on a site that puts blogging gems like this out.

Since I had no clear cut winner in the nickname vote, I'll just spend a little time as each one.

Cheers,
Iron Man

(0) comments

 

One of the ugliest men is sports gets a new job and George W. Bush was almost the commissioner of Major League Baseball. My head is spinning.

On the other hand, the Wizards could use some old muscle in the middle, and now maybe they can get discounts on their meds. And hell, anybody would be better than Bud Selig.

(0) comments

9.17.2002

 

Too many opinion/political rants the last few days. Must get back to being completely silly and not adding anything of value to anyone's day.

I was rapping with Sarah the other day about nothing in particular, and we briefly discussed the fact that I am rather inappropriately named (not the Hose Monster name, of course). True, I'm a pretty upstanding kid most of the time, but I wouldn't ever describe myself as "Christ-like," and given my general skepticism of all forms of religion, including Christianity, well ... we'll just say that something else might be a little bit better.

On the other hand, I have had a whole host of nicknames during my life. Maybe I should start going by one of those. Which would you vote for among:

• Wart
• Tito
• Vacuum
• Rubio
• Boutrous Boutrous
• Sergio
• Mighty Mouse
• Mustafa
• Secret Agent 917
• Rodrigo the Fabulous
• Cheesy

Want to vote on your favorite? I'll go by the winning name for the rest of the week. Or just feel free to propose your own name for me.

Damn I need to get a life...

(0) comments

 

(0) comments

 

A rather left leaning professor here (leaning is a bit of an understatement; he falls off the sidewalk occasionally because of the strength of his convictions. But to be fair, his academic credentials are top-notch and he has an impressive history of advocacy in very high courts) has taken to abusing the law school mailing list to promote his quest to get students to boycott military recruiters coming to campus, based on the military's practice of discriminating against bisexuals, gays and lesbians.

He does not stand alone in his opposition to military recruitment on campus. For some time, many law schools have published non-discriminatory recruitment policies, and pursuant to those policies, have forbade military recruiters to use on campus recruitment facilities. Even as the military has stepped up its pressure on schools, many have resisted the pressure from the military.

Harvard Law School changed their policy this year. And many schools are following suit, which is causing some rather heated debate similar to the one building up here in the cornfield.

The easiest current target is the almost ten-year old "don't ask, don't tell" policy still in force with regard to sexual orientation in the military. Note that this policy does not preclude gays or bisexuals from military service, but does restrict their freedom to expression of their sexual orientation.

Do I think this is a discriminatory policy and the military discriminates in their recruitment? You bet. Do I support the military's freedom to use campus facilities for recruitment? Yep, I'm for that one too.

The military's opinion of gays openly serving is discriminatory. No doubt. I think it needs to change. The greater question is to what. One of the biggest arguments the military makes in support of its discriminatory policy is the need for unit cohesion, and its claim that an openly gay soldier immediately polarizes the unit. I buy this argument to some extent, but that does not make it right. (What it does do is make me shake my head that so many people still take such issue with homosexuality and will let someone's different lifestyle affect their own capacity to do their job. Unfortunately, we could argue that many who grow up dreamiong of joining the armed services are people who will take issue with having to work with gays in close quarters with no privacy. I have no suggestions to fight that problem; our civilization simply needs to advance and bring those dragging their feet along. A blanket statement I know, but frankly, I think most people would agree with me, and certainly most who read blogs to begin with, as we tend to be more liberally aligned than those who stick to traditional media).

On the other hand, (and I'm not claiming that this makes the discrimination okay), the military is a separate beast than what many of us purport to understand, and due to this wholly different nature, you could strongly argue that normal rules do not apply. When you sign up for military service, you voluntarily sign away certain liberties you enjoy as a civilian (this argument would certainly be less persuasive if were were living in a time 30 years ago when compulsory military service was a huge issue in the nation, but thankfully that time is past). In return, you receive outstanding job training and a host of other benefits, such as money for education and leadership training, benefits that can greatly serve a soldier, sailor or airman upon his or her return to the civilian sector. Moreover, you are not dependant on the advantages of military service to better yourself in our society; you have thousands of outlets other than military service and plenty of benefits you receive through these other outlets.

I'm digressing. The point is that when you become a soldier, you agree to a restriction of certain liberties. And in the interest of unit cohesion, perhaps a voicing of sexual preference is one liberty that should be restricted. As I've said, I think the unit cohesion argument is tenuous at certain points, but nonetheless somewhat true. Ultimately, I don't know how to feel on the issue yet, and I welcome your thoughts.

But back to the issue of military recruitment on campus: I reiterate that I believe the military should have the freedom to use campus facilities. I regret its use of heavy handed tactics like the Solomon Amendment to achieve its means, and I think the threat of a suspension of federal funds as a means to enforce its presence deserves sharp criticism. But I stand by my opinion. The military is an important employer with legitimate needs to feel, legal and otherwise, and I think they should have the opportunity to pursue the very best candidates with the same tools other employers have. If the military is not your bag, you have the choice not to work for or even to talk it.

As for boycotting the military's presence: knock yourself out. If you don't agree with an employer's stance on issues or whatnot, you have the absolute right to not engage them in discussion and avoid their recruting table. You even have the right to counsel others to do the same. I've heard arguments that the recruiters are not at fault for the policies of their employers, and thus they should not draw our criticism and our shunning. I think that's a stupid argument: since when has a boycott ever concerned itself with the actual culpability of those bringing the message? We have effected change over the years by voicing opinions, not by worrying about those making the contrary opinion and who's upholding them. If you have an opinion and want to make an action out of that opinion, keep it peaceable, but more power to you if you do. I respect your integrity and your committment to your principles, even if I do not necessarily share them.

However, I will absolutely oppose any efforts to influence or restrict students from talking with JAG recruiters through any means other than absolutely peaceable. Voice your opinion, make it known but don't force it on another.

One other thought: I understand that people want to boycott military recruitment because of its policy of discrimination. I think that's fine. But if you do want to assign blame, think about where you're assigning it. Like most federal bodies, the military is beholden to the Congress and to the President. The "don't ask don't tell" policy is a creature born of an executive order in 1993 and later made law by Congress, employing essentially the same stipulations as the executive order. Many of the brass and the rank and file of the military may support the policy, or even desire a stronger one banning gays outright. But the truth is that our generals, admirals, seamen and privates, and the policies with which they comply, are largely at the control of the Legislature and the Executive. So if you're truly on board to effect change, make sure you're targeting your efforts at those who are crafting the policies controlling the Armed Forces.

Lots of holes in my arguments, and I realize that much of the evidence above supports the side I'm not on, but this is just one of those moments where I simply have an opinion, for better or poorer empirical support. Shoot me to pieces if it makes you happy.

(0) comments

9.16.2002

 

I revise my last statement. The US only got its first concrete demonstration of "world support." So it's time to move on to another. The Administration's next item on the wish list? A little something more. Any excuse for Rumsfeld and Cheney to go in with guns blazing.

On the other hand, does anyone really think that Iraq will unconditionally comply? Saddam has played this game multiple times before. How long before he starts resisting and Georgie is back at the bully pulpit pushing the world again, this time for Security Council for an endorsement of armed action? I give it four months, tops.

Hey, at the very least, war is good for the economy. And the US economy could still use a shot in the arm.

(0) comments

 

Dear Hose Monster:

I have noticed that you talk about girls a lot, so you must think about sleeping with supermodels and the like all time. I’ve even heard that you’re completely in love with a fictional person. But you seem like a nice guy, so you might be a great person to ask this question. Why do guys only want these skinny anorexic big boobed girls who aren’t real?

Two-step Molly


Dear Two-step Molly:

Have you seen Brooke Burke lately? Or Heidi Klum? Do you need to ask that question now?

Bad joke. Sorry. Okay, so yeah, I talk about girls like that a lot because I think it is a lot of fun, and often a source of some great humor. I also actually really enjoy playing the part of dumb male, so that’s part of it too.

But why do we actually do it? In some part, women like that represent every man’s ultimate dream of living his life as though it were a beer commercial. But most of us are not stupid enough (I hope) to think that life could ever be like a beer commercial. Besides, if we really tried to live our lives like that, we would all end up with beer bellies, scars on our faces, and most of us will anyway, except for that guy who eats a Chiquita banana every day and then goes barefoot waterskiing.

Next time you get a guy who’s your good friend nice and drunk, ask him who he fantasizes about. Ten to one says he names the cute girl down the hall who’s really shy, or one of his friends. Maybe even you (make sure he’s good and drunk, but be wary he’s not just trying to get into your pants). I know I don’t really fantasize about Britney Spears or anyone like that. I fantasize about people I actually know (uh oh, is that too much information for the people who actually know me? Sorry Adam, don’t be upset…); they’re real to me.

DISCLAIMER: I know the fact that I’m nuts about a fictional character somewhat undercuts my argument. I’m an idiot. But for the record, I’m crazy about her for the fact that she’s smart as a tack, obsessed with her work and the fact that she carries a gun. The fact that she looks great in pin stripes has nothing to do with it (but she does look great in pin stripes).

Take care. And fantasize about Brad Pitt tonight for me.

Cheers,
Hose Monster

For actually interesting advice with respectable answers, try Dan Savage.

(0) comments

 

Told you that the US would coax the opinions of the necessary parties into getting what they want. Meanwhile, the UN supposedly "mulls its next move." I interpret this to mean that they wait for the US to bully opinion into the next position they want it at.

On a more positive note, at least the US unilateral argument is, on its face, now out the window. At poor Donald Rumsfeld will have to wait to start planning how to flex his muscles until the next time Iraq decides to inhibit the efforts of the weapons inspectors. This is growing all too familiar.

But if Iraq really is a threat, I suppose this is a good thing.

On a completely different note, apparently my recent efforts at exploring the mysteries of the men's room are my best efforts at blogging. At the very least, I know Alfred would like to see more of that. Am wondering if I should try to more tightly focus the Hose Monster Blog on a certain topic. Maybe a weekly men's room feature...

(0) comments

9.15.2002

 

In the September 11 Commemorative Edition of Newsweek, in the “Perspectives” section (sorry, no link: I cannot be bothered to pay the money for access to the Newsweek archives to find it for you), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is quoted as saying, in regards to the idea of international support for US military action against Iraq, “It is less important to have unanimity than it is to be making the right decisions and doing the right thing.”

God this sort of thinking makes me mad sometimes.

I do not claim to know why Muslims or anarchists or terrorists or Orthodox Christians or whoever seem to develop a hatred for our nation. But if I had to hazard an explanation, I would be very tempted to start with the supposition that this self-justifying style of thinking might constitute a pretty important reason.

What makes Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (because if you really think Iraq is all Dubya’s project, then you’re sorely mistaken. This is the veep’s and Rumsfeld’s project. Dubya is in it in part because he likes the idea of finishing the job his daddy started) so goddamn sure they are right? On what objective evidence do they base this? Do you feel threatened by Iraq tonight?

I know Tony Blair is expected to reveal evidence that is very condemnatory of Saddam. I know the Saudis just said the US might have access to air bases. I know Colin Powell is pushing for UN involvement. And I know the Bush administration want to put the onus for all of this on Saddam. I know the news on this changes every day, as we coax world opinion around.

And ultimately, I think Rummy, Cheney and Bush will get their way, which will serve to justify Rumsfeld's thinking, at least in his own head and many others.

But I’m still incensed at the SOD’s comment. Shit, with such an ignorant statement, he may very well think he's inherently right simply because that's what he thinkg. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong. But it's that asserted assumption of rightness that can be so American at times that pisses off so many.

Wonder if Rummy sits up and wonders why all but one other country in the world is not supportive of military action in Iraq (or very conditionally supportive), at least at the moment? Why the elected leaders of that one other nation are openly questioning Britain's support of US-led action? Again, not saying one stance is right or wrong. I'm just pissed that one of the most powerful men in the nation, who we never elected, is attempting to make policy based on his own opinion, and his own understanding of right and wrong.

For a man who has lived in a democratic society for a long time, I'm surprised Mr. Rumsfeld still misses a number of key points on majority rule, democracy and the like. At the very least, he ought to pay some lip service to the majority opinion before stuffing the "we're going to do it anyway, so you can either support us now and share the credit or let us kick ass and then deal with our anger about it later" unilateral approach down the nation's and the world's throats.

Hell, maybe he is right and Saddam really is the threat they're all making him out to be. But god, the words he uses: "better to be making the right decisions and doing the right thing" than having some consensus. Translation: everyone who doesn't not explicitly agree with me (us) is wrong. So screw you.

Damn. I cannot even articulate a decent argument about this now. Let's hope Colin Powell has a good week.

(0) comments

 

I'm starting to think that we should all endeavor to blog drunk at least once a month.

Sounds like a great idea, I know. But why exactly?

For starters, we all know that we tend to say things under a state of alcohol alteration that we might not otherwise say. And those statements often tend to be rather amusing. So I think it's reasonably to suppose that many of us might type up some rather interesting things on a blog in an altered state. And hell, I don't even know who have the people who read this blog are, or what they look like, so what the hell do I care if I disclose my fascination with girls in pin stripes or whatever. Conversely, you the reader might think, hey, now we've actually got something interesting! Do your readers a service. Amuse them.

Then there's my argument, backed up by lots of empirical evidence, that blog readers respond to drunk blogging. Scout's honor. The one time I blogged drunk, I posted a lot of uninteresting drivel that basically amounted to me complaining that I was horny and no one wanted to help out with that. Revolutionary, I know. Yet I received more comments on that post than any other previously or since. And since we all love comments, here's a great way to get them.

I think drunk blogging my also encourage bloggers who normally disappear during the weekend to post something, give them an excuse to blog. Be a loser like me and blog on the weekends. It will enhance your sex life, promise.

Then there's the... oh hell, I'll just admit it, I want everyone to blog drunk for my own personal amusement. I don't care if you want to or not. I just want to entertained. And I'm okay with that.

(0) comments