i need a haircut, and pretty bad. i've had one haircut since august (august!?), equalling the boy's recent family record for not-getting-one's-hair-cut.

i've documented my haircut strategy before: rather than the normal three weeks or one month or maybe six weeks that a normal shortish-hair dude might do, i go at least three months between haircuts, and use this to justify buying more cd's.

i've been loyal to a certain barbershop since about august of 2002: cheapish (was $10, now $11) hair cuts, complete with cnn and limited conversation and noyes boys-esque hot shaving cream treatment on the back of the neck. getting pampered, but not in a gay way.

i last visited there in mid-august. rather than going in mid-october for my every-two-months haircut, i continued to hold out. and hold out. and hold out. and finally, when mid-december hit, i was too embarrassed to head over there ('where have you been?' they'd say), so i got a special $5.99 haircut at great clips.

(the thinking was, if asked on my visit, i could explain that i was home over the holidays and went back to my 'old place.')

flash forward to today, and i need a haircut, and i'm still embarrassed to head to my new old place. so it's time to find out how much the local chains are charging. and it's $13. or $12. or $12.79. not $5.99. for a chain-store haircut from a bulgarian woman (at least, that's how the glenview borics did it). it should be noted that bulgarian women do a fine job of cutting hair.

i'll keep you posted on the developments.

- - -

in other news, i received a postcard today letting me know that wnur's annual phoneathon fundraiser kicks off on wednesday, which seems to be earlier than in the past. i don't donate much to northwestern, but this is my cause. if you've got a spare $25, i'd encourage you to do the same. after all, it's responsible for me, which, i guess, is a good thing.