Friday, October 21


David Burge -- of inimitable Iowahawk fame -- offers his insightful five prescriptions for maximum blogging "impactfulness" and I've decided to measure my blogging against those standards, as I sure would like to put some mustard on the hot dog, treble ACSOL's daily hits, generate a boxcar load of links, and, most of all, attract more RSS subscribers (or, as David terms it, "an obedient RSS cadre") for my site from folks using aggregators. And if there's anyone in the blogosphere who holds the proverbial keys to the universe, it's David Burge!

So, here goes. (And I encourage ACSOL readers to leave "Comments," as a much-needed assist.)

David's five (5) "positive blog dimensions" to achieve a quantum leap in "impactfulness" by putting reader-attracting "sizzle" into one's blogging style are (drum roll, please):

1) pith; 2) persistence; 3) anger; 4) snark; and, 5) sexiness.


I suspect this fails the Iowahawk test. An example of "verbal tersity" it is not. But, am I not belatedly beginning to get it together and making David and Bill O'Reilly proud? I know; I know; my brand of pithiness doesn't rise to the abbreviated level of a Glenn Reynolds-style guttural utterance, but I'm trending in that direction, right? (What do you mean, WRONG?).

After all, isn't this next to genius?


The Iowahawk admonishes bloggers to post "as frequently as possible to keep the click-o-meter humming," with a minimum of "three servings per day" recommended. I think I meet that test. Yesterday, as an example, I put up 8 posts, and the day before that, a total of 9. My goal has always been a minimum of 4 and it's typically a cold day in hell here in Houston that I type the words, "Blogging will be light today!" (albeit, it may be "lite"). My principal screw-up in this area is that I tend to put up many posts in the morning, sometimes a few in the afternoon, but typically hardly any into the evening. I'm too busy watching "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Gunsmoke" reruns! Remember, too, I'm just a one-man-band.

So, do I get a Passing grade, Folks?


I trust I don't require a defense attorney to prove that I am anything but reluctant to "spice things up with some anger salsa"; and, I cannot imagine any of my readers thinking it feigned when my systolic number makes Mount Everest's summit appear more like a California foothill.

As an example, does this example measure up?

How could any American, armed with this information, place any credibility in the president's global war on terror? Global war! We're not even coming close to winning the one right here at home on our nation's southern border!

"OTM crisis!" That's an understatement. The illegals -- the so-called "undocumented" stoop labor yearning to make a better life for themselves -- are even trying to down U.S. Border Patrol helicopters! It's incomprehensible that the GWOT has any legitimacy whatsoever or can gain any traction with its critics when the president and the Congress refuse to declare a second front along the contiguous U.S.-Mexico border. Is there any country in the world that would tolerate this sort of thing?
Oh, I do see yours and David Burge's point, however. There's not a hint of "brutal profanity" in my rage. Maybe it's my Catholic upbringing (or the fact that I am an inveterate milk drinker). I don't even like the term friggin'; but, I do read "Ace of Spades HQ" multiple times a day hoping some of it will rub off on me and I'm absolutely not put off by The Mudville Gazette's caveat about "rough language." After all, I don't want my writing to be as sterile as Mason-jar jam.

Dammit, I'm trying!


The Anchoress uses the word "snark" and "snarky" (or their derivatives) a lot, and I envy that, but mostly because I'm not even sure what the word means and I take some delight in my facility with wordsmithing, while much admiring her delicious turns of phrase. David Burge terms "snark" as "anger's prissy grad student brother" and anything but a "mopey teenage cousin's sarcasm." That leaves me still wondering what being "snarky" is all about, but irrevocably convinced that David is MENSA, while I'm MUDDLED.

Am I too dumb to snark with alacrity?


Hey, ACSOL and this blogger must be slam dunks in this category, and that's even absent a full-body shot of me (replete with a Russet potato in my boxer shorts) in my site's stealth "profile."

After all, I wrote this:

Michelle Malkin throws a real scare into Geena Davis' fans -- the fictional, first-woman-ever President of the United States with the best set of lips to grace the Oval Office since White House intern Monica Lewinsky was testing for dust balls under President Clinton's desk. (Indeed, many would argue that Monica was more resolute than the desk.)

And, better yet, and continuing my obsession with Revlon-painted, Collagen-enhanced, "pillow lips," I wrote this:

Frankly, I don't know what The Anchoress' issue is with the "bubble-lipped mud-wrestling babes at Fox." Unless, of course, she's tired of hearing her husband's unmuffled, heavy breathing coming from the family room between Bill O'Reilly "Factor" segments when a breathless, ravishing, blonde hair-on-black silk blouse posed Lauie Dhue displays lips the collagen-equal of Angelina Joli's, but with a glossy sheen so lustrous that you just know she had to have run herself through a car wash's hot wax cycle two or three times with her mug facing skyward, like a turkey drowning in a rainstorm. Those aren't DNA lips. No, only modern science could achieve such a look ("at BASF, we don't make Laurie Dhue's lips; we make them look better"). Thank God for chemistry.

Good stuff, right? So what do you think? Did I pass your test, David? Flunk me and I'll install one of those ubiquitous, pandering tip jars!