I rarely read articles of any kind, but when I do, I usually have an opinion about them.

• "What Is A Musician Without Fans?"
  • This article is about how to connect with fans in order to excel in your musical career.

As a fan of various types of entertainment, this article holds a lot of truth and can be applied to any profession. If you are becoming an actor, a musician, a politician or a medical surgeon, you can really benefit from creating your own celebrity status via social networking. Ashton Kutcher had the right idea. Put yourself out there and make that personal connection with your fans. Take the feedback they give you as constructive criticism. A lot of people gain a false sense of support from people they love when they're first starting out because a)your family (and your friend-family) loves you and they'll think your great no matter what and/or b) they love you and want you to be successful, but don't have the heart to tell you the truth about your music/writing/acting/etc. If you have room for improvement (which everyone always does), your fans will let you know what it is that can be changed and give suggestions about how to change it. If you listen to them, you will go far. If you connect with them and show them that you are a real person who does the same everyday things that they do, with the only exception being that you have a job that requires a higher profile in order to be as successful as you want to be, they will care enough to carry you to where you want to be on the ladder...possibly further. There's a saying: "It takes a village..." Think of your fans as your village. As long as you stay personally connected to your village, you will have their support.

• "Heather Has Two Mommies, One Daddy, and Several Matriarchal Women in the Community Who She Thinks of as Moms"
  • Polycamp—the Summer Camp for Kids Growing Up in Poly Families—Is All Grown-Up Now

I'll admit, I wasn't completely sure what the word "polyamorous" meant. Because of my curiosity, though, I was determined to research it and find out. I still have some questions, but for now, I'll have to settle for searching the internet until I actually meet someone who lives this lifestyle.

As for the article itself, I really don't have an opinion. I thought it was interesting to read, though. I will say that it made me realize that it's astounding how little people are willing to accept outside of their own beliefs. The less accepting we are of other people, regardless of our own feelings about someone else's lifestyle, the less we can expect to be accepted. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, bi, asexual, transgender, monogamous, polygamous, misogynist, chauvinist, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Christian, Pagan, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, black, white, brown or pink! You need and want that acceptance, so why not give it to people that you might not agree with? Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that you can't accept that they are living their life the way they see is best for them. They aren't pressuring you to become one of them. You don't have to join their way of thinking, feeling, or living, but people need to start accepting that everyone finds fulfillment in their own way and no one can tell them what is and isn't good for them.

I'd also like to add that I don't agree or disagree with this lifestyle. I'm curious to know more before I form an opinion. Regardless of my opinion, I accept that this is okay for the people who live this way. What I was trying to say in the previous paragraph is that it's shocking to me that a lifestyle like this, which has been around for centuries, can be so harshly judged, yet people think it's completely normal to be in monogamous relationships. This brings me to an article of "Savage Love" that I read a few weeks ago, which mentioned an book called "Sex At Dawn." Basically, the book studies the history of sexual relationships between humans since the beginning of time. Humans are not designed specifically to be monogamous. That isn't to say that monogamous relationships shouldn't exist. As has been said, "To each their own." However,if you've ever been in a monogamous relationship with someone who cheated on you and then lied about it, you were probably dating someone who doesn't really handle "monogamous" very well...if at all. Especially if they did it more than once in the same relationship...or any relationship they've ever been in. However, my guess would be that the cheater probably never considered another option and if they had, just happened to try it out on the wrong person in the wrong way...a VERY wrong way.

Anyway, I could go on about this but I have other things I need to attend to. If I have any further thoughts or feelings about this subject, I may return to discuss it further. Feel free to leave your comments! Please be constructive and thoughtful, though. :)

• "We Saw You"
  • It's one big "I Saw U" for the people of Seattle and outlying areas who were observed when they thought no one was looking.

This is just a lovely article. It's funny, disgusting, entertaining and sweet all at the same time. It's also a nice reminder that no matter what we do, when we do it, where we do it, there's a good chance that SOMEONE has caught you in the act, even if you never realized it. I hope that doesn't make anyone feel paranoid.

• "Elections Have Consequences -- For Nightlife"
  • Seattle bars might someday be allowed to keep serving alcohol past 2 AM and they may have Mayor McGinn to thank for it.

My opinion on this: Economically, it makes sense. It could actually have a positive effect on the City of Seattle and Washington State as a whole. Longer bar hours means longer transit hours, more revenue for local hotels and other late-night businesses, as well as a bigger profit for the Washington State Liquor Control Board, which controls a big portion of our state's budget/income. This is only part of the benefits of keeping later hours. Honestly, I wasn't sure why anyone would oppose this proposal. However, some people believe that more alcohol being served into the wee morning hours could cause more violence in the streets (which Pioneer Square already has enough trouble with.) It could also be a noisy disruption to Seattle residents and more work than it's worth for the SPD. However, I still think it would be beneficial for many reasons. As someone who has to take a ferry to Seattle every time I want to go there; if the bars in Seattle stayed open later, I wouldn't have to take a day off from work to go to my best friend's birthday celebration or bachelorette party (because that's where my friends like to go to celebrate special occasions.) We would have more time to hang out and enjoy the evening (and spend our hard-earned money on expensive alcohol that we probably could have gotten at home for much cheaper.) When we miss the last ferry (because someone is bound to get so shit-house drunk that they need to be carried while another one of us is bound to break a heel off of our favorite high-heeled shoe and stand complaining about it for 10 minutes, then wish out loud that they could have another drink but none of us are willing to pay for a cab, especially when we run the risk of Drunky Drunkerson puking and costing us an automatic $500 fee for the cleaning bill...*deep breath*) we will have a place to cool our heels until the ferry starts running again.

• In the article, Richard Nordstrom states, "There's no accountability here for bars that overserve, don't properly train their security teams, or leave piles of trash outside their establishment," Nordstrom adds. "Regulations need teeth—like escalating fines—to be legitimate, and these seemingly have none for nightclub and bar owners."

My opinion: You are not right about one thing, Mr. Nordstrom. There ARE consequences of accountability for bars that overserve...STATEWIDE. I have known bartenders who overserved and the bar and the bartender both had to pay seperate fines, and the bartenders had to go to court. In some cases, the bartender lost their license to serve alcohol. The fines themselves are already pretty hefty outside of Seattle (I have no idea what they are within Seattle city limits). So if you want your regulations to have teeth, then you need to start strictly enforcing the regulations you already have in place before implementing new ones. Think of the bars as the city's children. Inconsistency with children works about as well as constantly changing regulations against a bar. Yes, I compare everything to children. Why? Because they are a life-force that needs to be taught what to do and how to behave and without teaching them the rules of life, they become nothing but rampant, angry, whirlwinds of chaotic energy...just like a bar that already has problems but the bar owners refuse to acknowledge the problem, so it explodes onto the street and becomes a nuisance to the neighborhood around it, but the city (the hypothetical parent of the hypothetical child) refuses to handle the nuisance in a consistent manner. However, I do agree that security teams need to be properly trained and it should be mandatory for them to go through the police training that is now offered to them on an opt-in basis. That is something that should be implemented regardless of how late the bars stay open now and in the future. Nightclubs and bars having trash outside their establishments isn't just a nightlife issue. Do you realize how often I go to Seattle and see Starbucks cups and McDonald's burger wrappers floating about in the street? Kinda gross...and those are obviously not places that stay open all hours of the night. One thing that should be added to your list of regulations, is how much a homeless person can accost someone in front of any establishment before an officer of the law or the establishment's security team intervenes to protect their customer base as well as passersby. I only say this because of the doorman at Noc Noc who did not step in when a bum tried to grab me and nearly started a fight with some of my friends in front of the establishment because I wouldn't give him my McFlurry...if it hadn't been my birthday, Mr. Homeless Guy, I probably wouldn't have thought twice about letting you have my McFlurry. Then again, if it hadn't been my birthday, I probably wouldn't have had a McFlurry either. I really don't enjoy them, but it was my birthday and I wanted ice cream. He then tried to accost me again later when I stepped outside with a friend for a cigarette. Luckily, she saw him, threatened to cut him and told him it was in the trash can down the street if he really wanted it and he left me alone after that. Enough with that situation...cracking down on the homeless people who become a public nuisance is an entirely different matter. However, I do think that the security team of nightlife establishments should be allowed to intervene when customers are approached by aggressive homeless people outside their establishment. The homeless are worse in some parts of the city than others, and as a young female who has had to walk to the ferry alone at night once or twice, that can be a terrifying experience.

• Regarding the "jackass citation"

My opinion: Yes, long overdue. I think this is where homeless people should be held accountable. Just because you're homeless, doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law. It should also be given to anyone who is relentlessly harassing someone else for their personal information when leaving the establishment or following someone down the street for more than a block before asking for a cigarette or "35 cents."

• Regarding some of the commentators of the article, one in particular, who I found to be highly annoying simply for the fact that he said he had an opinion, but he never really said what it was. The same one, in fact, who only states over and over again just how far he's willing to go to see that McGinn never makes it back into the Mayor's seat.

My opinion: If you say you have an opinion, state it clearly. Let yourself be heard. Great, you don't like your new mayor. I get that. What does that have to do with the article? How do you feel about the subject at hand? Also, it makes it nearly impossible for anyone to take you seriously when you start calling people names and throwing a hissy fit like a two year old, just because they tried to understand your point of view so they could know whether they agreed with you or not. Not to mention that when you start to argue your point in a political debate and then proceed to say that you have little to do with politics beyond voting, you're kind of defeating yourself. No one who is remotely interested in politics or what your opinion might have been should/will take you seriously after that argument. Learn how to argue like a big boy and THEN participate in the conversation. (A movie quote comes to mind: "You have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie...") Also, about the statement that the said commenter posted regarding the way McGinn didn't consult neighborhood associations and only his "cronies" before forming a proposal: Why should he? You don't get the answer before you've formed the question. It's a proposal, not a matter that's yet ready to be voted on. Proposals are a way of creating a dialogue with said neighborhood associations. Also, are you part of these neighborhood associations? Are you a member of McGinn's committee? If not, then how do you know he never spoke to these neighborhood associations? Unless you're tight with the man in charge of the proposal, there's really no way you can actually know that he didn't strike up a conversation with the daytime establishments and residents in the areas that would be affected. these are the kinds of conversations that "random" people strike up in bars and coffee shops to put their feelers out to see what people in the area think about a certain thing that is only a gleam in someone's eye, but could produce itself into *gasp* a city proposal. If they did this in Seattle, the Liquor Control Board would have to allow it in other parts of the state as well. I can see the downside of this, but I also see the upside. So, I guess I'm kind of on the fence because the downside could be really bad but the upside could save our asses from becoming another California. Mayor McGinn is not the only person to blame if it fails, either. I say, let Seattle have a trial period to see how it works. If it's successful, keep it. If it isn't, let it go. What do they have to lose?