Thursday, April 15, 2010

Welcome Wine Blog Award Judges!

Honorable Wine Blog Award Judges,

Welcome to HoseMaster of Wine! Make yourselves comfortable. Would you like a drink? Sure, I've got wine. I'll open any of those free samples I have stacked up over there. You know, those samples remind me of my wine blog--they're both an endless parade of crap. No, no, it's no bother. I know, there are way better samples at Heimoff's house, but I won't make you tell me how much you admire me. Oh, wait, just a second, I need to find the right wine glass for your selection. Hmm, you mean Riedel doesn't make a Wines We Can't Sell Glass? They ought to.

So, while I have all eleven of you here (why, it's like you're a football team, only with far worse head trauma) let me show you around. You can get kind of lost in here, I know I have. Now, over there on your left you have my brief autobiography. Sure, it's impressive, but hardly comprehensive. I know that you want to award the Best Writing on a Wine Blog trophy to someone with prestige, someone with talent, someone who will make you look like you actually know what you're talking about even though you were selected based on how you look in an evening gown (I told you to wear that plunging neckline, Tom Wark, aren't you glad now?), so let me add to my autobiography that I recently was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Blogging. I know, I know, it doesn't carry the prestige of the Wine Blog Awards, but what does? I mean, I haven't wanted a prize this much since my last box of Cracker Jack. And when you think about it, Cracker Jack and the Wine Blog Awards have a lot in common. Both prizes are buried in corn and nuts. You can bet on the corn to win. (That was for you, Tommy Boy.)

And aside from the Pulitzer Prize, I've also won the James Beard Award for Blogger Who Most Closely Resembles James Beard (though I just edged out one of the BrixChicks) and a MacArthur Genius Grant, which I had to return when they found out I had borrowed my IQ points from Jay McInerney and they were forgeries. I should have known, I always get stupider after I read his wine pieces. Anyhow, I would make a most distinguished recipient of the Best Writing on a Wine Blog Award. And, so you know, I have a stunning Valentino to wear to the awards banquet.

Now, right below my overly humble autobiography, you'll find the quotes about my wine blog from major publications and critics. I refer to this as the "rest room." And, here, once again, I've modestly left out some other notable quotes:

"If HoseMaster of Wine were a wine, it would be discarded for having too much volatile acidity and being overly bitter."--Robert Parker (1947-2009)

"Washam is so funny I forgot to laugh."--Alder Yarrow, Vornography

"There's only one blog I would never miss. I just wish Washam would go away so I could prove it."--Eric Asimov, The Poor

So making me a finalist, with an asterisk, maybe, to note that you think I'm the best choice, would seem to be a popular concept.

How about a refill of those drinks? Yeah, I know, the wines suck, but, hey, they're free and I'll be praising them in an upcoming post, just to show I'm a regular kind of blogger.

Just a little way down the hall from the rest room is where I list other blogs that I think worthy of my eight readers' attention. OK, in fact, these are my eight readers. They probably deserve some kind of nomination too, but, I wouldn't know, I never read them. Recommended blog lists don't actually imply that you read these other blogs. Hell, no, what would be the point of that? No, recommended blog lists are the vestigial organ of a wine blog. They serve no actual purpose and get no use. They are an appendix in every sense of the word. They're coccyx and tonsils for suckers (oh, you know who you are, coccyx suckers). No one ever clicks on them, except for very lonely, very scary people. But having them removed is painful and unpleasant, so we just leave them there forever. But you knew that.

Just beyond the library of blogs is where all my Followers congregate. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NEVER GO IN THERE! It's my little Abu Ghraib, and, well, you probably don't want to know those people or know what goes on in there. Let's just say I have a legal opinion in my possession that says Hoseboarding is not torture under the Geneva convention.

So there you have it, my little slice of Heaven. Kind of cozy, ain't it? I hope you had a nice time here. Feel free to wander around in the archives, or as I like to call them, the septic tank. I think when you're finished here you're going to want to make me a finalist for the Best Writing on a Wine Blog Award.

To help seal the deal, just sit tight, I'll be right back. I want to slip into something a little more comfortable. If I'm not back in ten minutes, meet me in the bedroom. I've got some Boner in a Can I'd like to show you.


Samantha Dugan said...

Mad Pimpin' dude. Just to prove it I am going to send a mass email to all 9 people on my contact list and beg them to vote for you. No need to thank me, just doing my part to keep it real. Good call on the Boner in a Can though, damn....wish I had thought of that. Course all I can do is lick the damn thing so I guess it wouldn't have worked for me anyway.

Arthur said...

It seems to me that the Wine Blogging Awards are like a comparative wine tasting: Both end up selecting the most outrageous and over-the-top offerings. Not that this is always synonymous with "the best".


abc said...

As your 9th reader I feel offended that my blog is not on your list.

Joe said...

Boner in a Can: sixty percent of the the time, it works every time.

Charlie Olken said...

Dear Jose--

Your entry to the Wine Blog Awards is hereby returned. It has come to attention of The Committee that you have not received the requisite number of free samples (damn, there you go again with that redundancy--samples are free by their very nature, especially if you are a tree or a very short person or know nothing about wine and thus will gush about anything that has alcohol) to be considered for a Wine Blogging Award.

It has further come to our attention that the Pulitzer Prize you were awarded has been rescinded when it was discovered that you were not Marvin Shanken after all. Apparently, the beard fooled the committee.

Furthermore, your claim of having eleven supporters is a greatly exaggerated. You have only eight, although it appears that "abc" (who the Committee admires greatly because she and her daughter wear Boston Red Sox hats) may yet up the count to nine.

Besides, we, The Committee, have a much better idea. We are rejecting all entries to the category Best Writing in A Wine Blog and will award the prize to Samantha Sans Dosage. We will do this even though it appears as though she somehow has come to like you. But, unlike you, she has fans everywhere who would drink Champagne from her tattoo if they only could.

We thank you for the interest in our Award, and assure you that your efforts will not go unrewarded. Your box of Cracker Jacks is in the mail (and Nixon did not lie).

Ron Washam, HMW said...

Judge Daddy,

No, I said I had eight readers (nine counting Amy, an unfortunate Red Sox fan) and there are eleven judges. Because the Wine Blog Awards need more judges than the Supreme Court, though it also has a right-leaning bias (only, in this instance, it refers to which way one leans after using Boner in a Can).

However, despite your poor reading comprehension, I agree that we should just award the Best Writing to Samantha, though I am willing to share the trophy with her since I'm sure the judges will find my post irresistible--whoever the hell they are. I know Wark is one, because he said so on his blog, and I'm pretty sure the others are Sleepy, Dopey, Bashful, Happy, Grumpy, Sneezy, Doc, Horny, Dyspeptic and Flatulent. Which sounds a lot like my love life.


If you're not a marketing guy, you should be. I like your slogan for Boner in a Can. I was thinking more along the lines of, "Boner in a Can--because some times you need Inflation to avoid Depression."


Awards are not for the recipients, awards are for those who bestow them.

Amy Love,

Done. Now make me proud.

My Gorgeous Samantha,

With you around, who needs Boner in a Can?

I adore you!

Arthur said...


RE: "Awards are not for the recipients, awards are for those who bestow them."

Well... that's kind of what I was saying (about blog awards and comparative, enjoyment/preference-based rating of wine - which really amount to the same thing....).

Charlie Olken said...




You leave me speechless.

Well, almost speechless. Millions of people PAY to read the ratings of folks like me (well, not millions in my case, but then, I am not Marvin Shanken, thank you very much). Without them, the ratings do not exist. You absolutely have this bass-ackwards.

I don't write a blog for the fun of it, or because I have a brilliant sense of humor or because I can move people to deep emotions with my observations about the people and their wine.

I write a publication that only exists if people want it to exist. That does not make it more noble than a blog. It just makes it raison d'etre the opposite of what you say it is.

Marcia Macomber said...

#7 reporting in....I've got to get back to my newsletter....

Joe said...

yes, marketeering is my day trade. Sadly, that line (other than "boner in a can") was taken from "Anchorman". In an effort to redeem myself, I submit: "Boner-in-a-Can Ltd. not responsible for damage caused to contents by sharp edges of freshly opened can"

Judge Daddy said...

Note to Arthur--

Yup. The HMW has snagged me again. I have put his words in your mouth.

I had a different bone to pick with you because you lump all reviews and all reviewers in one big bag. Not right, old friend.

As for Jose, please read what I said to Arthur about why ratings continue to exist.

And now, I am outta here before I get into more trouble.

Ron Washam said...

Judge Daddy,

See what I mean about reading comprehension...

You give ratings, not awards. When the Wine Blog Awards bestow the "honor" of Best Wine Blog more than anything it signifies that they feel they have the expertise and authority to give such awards, which, in my opinion, they do not. Though they are perfectly entitled to do so. But it has all the shadow authority of Wikipedia, with its parade of mysterious "experts." Proclaim it loud enough and it becomes truth.

You are not a mysterious expert, and your magazine has earned its respect and authority through years of integrity and devotion and study. I wasn't referring to you, or your other critical colleagues. I was referring to "official" organizations bestowing awards upon people who have no idea who those giving them awards are. Accepting the awards validates them more than it validates the people they pretend to honor.

Think they'll still make me a finalist?

Ron Washam said...


Don't quit your day job.

Marcia Love,

Get your priorities in order. Blog comments first, newsletters a distant second.

Samantha Dugan said...

Ha so there Ron! I don't need to lick no canned boner. Sweet ass deal if you ask me....I get to have Judge Daddy lap Champagne from my lower back AND I might win a prize?! This blogging business is AWESOME, and a little pervy might I add.

You two flatter me....and make my girlie parts tingle. Back to deadline!

Steve Heimoff said...

Dear Hosemaster, it's nice to see you have not retired, which some of us thought you had. I entirely support your lobbying for an award. You are a great writer.

Steve's Good Friend said...


Steve Heimoff is a friend of mine. I told him that you were not really a curmudgeon, and he believed me. Steve believes everything I tell him. For example, when I told him that you held him in the highest regard, he said to me "It's a good thing that I have a sense of humor".

He meant himself, of course. Smart boy, that Steve. Did I tell you that he is a friend of mine?

Ron Washam, HMW said...


I start with lobbying and then follow up with out and out bribery. But it still won't work. The actual name of the category is "Best Writing on a Wine Blog That Makes Us Look Good Award." Damn fine print. But thanks for the kind words.

And how come no one seems to know the definition of "hiatus?"

Steve's Good Friend,

Come on, Tish, now you're bragging.

Marcia Macomber said...

Dearest Ron:

I, too, have noticed the confusion over the definition of "hiatus." But you, of all people, should well know (as do we all) that after years of seeing TV programs on "hiatus," we all know it to mean "death" or "endless oblivion/never-to-be-seen-again."

Hence, we ALL thought you politely meant you were permanantly departing the bloggosphere, stage left [cue Klieg light out].

Ron Washam, HMW said...

Marcia Love,

Ah, but being a wordsmith I choose my words carefully. But I do understand the confusion. And, to be honest, I did not think I would return. It took some major psychic adjustments, but here I am. And, as that paragon of wit, Louisville Juice, said, I'm as moderately funny as ever.

Still waiting for you to visit Healdsburg...