what are YOU looking at?
say you're ugly. do you know it? seriously. am i ugly? would i know? would i care?
we all look around at the available mate choices and evaluate them on our own terms but there's no one who does not include "good looking" in their criteria. the difference is how we define good looking. or, so we say. we all seem to agree that brad pitt is good looking. i don't hear anyone denying julia roberts is good looking. we can all agree that christie brinkley, mel gibson, and johnny depp are good looking, right? what about adam sandler? laura san giacomo? jesse james? hmm? there are some people we all agree are good looking, and then there are people that we say... well... it's a matter of choice.
so how does this work? do we all have an innate sense of how good looking we are? are we genetically programmed to find someone in our own range of looks?
sometimes people pick a partner who's better looking. lyle lovett married julia roberts and say what you want about interpreting good looks - that guy is not good looking by any traditional standard, and ms roberts is universally considered to be good looking. yeah, yeah, lyle's a musician and that goes a long way. musicians are known for being sensitive and caring and intelligent and blah blah blah - and he may very well be all that & a bag of fritos. but - he is not good looking, and that's what we're talking about here. obviously in this case, julia was blinded by his other attributes, but their relationship didn't last - and was that in any part due to their mismatched good-lookingness?
so - we all sort of match up with people in our look range. from the first time i saw my old man right up to today, i have always thought he is quite handsome. i would like to think i am not too far off base on that b/c here's the thing -- i see ugly couples all the time gazing at each other like they are the bee's knees and i just have to think - what are they seeing? do they really see A Gorgeous Person, or do they see A Good-Enuf Person? are they like - oooo, look at my best-i-can-do mate, my settled-for partner! um... i don't think so. i think we all look at our mates and think - ah, now that's a looker!if you look at your partner & don't think you've nabbed a looker, well that's just kind of sad.
bare yellow bulb, vol 1










so, this is my current book - world without end - and it's 1014 pages, and it weighs probably 7 lbs and really, when one is on crutchers, one wonders what compels one to choose such a weighty tome. even not on crutchers, one still hesitates to lug around a tome of this volume. i can see the appeal of the kindle. wouldn't want to read from it all the time but it would be nice to be able to read from the real book at home and carry the kindlized version around for reading in the car. or, for reading while on the stationary bike.
olympia snowe - pictured at left - republican representative from maine always votes with the dems. when they are counting reps who are voting with the dems on this or that - they always mention ol' olympia and usually her fellow republican from maine, susan collins. now i have no problem with these women voting in whatever way is representative of the population of their state, but if that means they vote democratic, then why don't they just go ahead and switch over?
susan collins - pictured at right - is pro choice, pro stem cell research, pro lgbt rights. let me make it clear right now that i am steadfastly ambivalent & conflicted on these issues - but i am not a senator of the united states who professes to be a member of the party whose platform does not endorse these stances. now -- if she switched sides and declared herself a democrat, the dems would have as much of a problem with her as the republicans do b/c she's got her conservative side, too. she voted against senate oversight of cia activities. that's pretty key to the liberals - exposing to the light of day everything the spies are doing - and she's against that and she's for a whole slew of national security measures. see? conservative.
so you've heard of buzz aldrin and neil armstrong - first men to walk on the moon - but what about michael collins? heard of him? eh? what does an irish revolutionary have to do with space travel, you ask?
speaking of eejits - someone at nasa erased the original tapes of the transmission of video data from the apollo 11 moon landing. there are secondary tapes created simultaneously, and i won't bore you with the details, but to sum it up: the secondary tapes are completely valid but not as good quality as the primary tapes. in the 70s and 80s when satellites began to proliferate and generate a plethora of 24/7 data, nasa was scavenging for tapes and apparently erased & taped over the moon landing. not sure really how that could happen. weren't they marked «moon landing - save»? and, if the faded ink on the peeling paper label was unreadable - didn't they look at them before they erased them? and, what were they doing so short on tapes - why didn't they run out to officemax and get some more?



i am reading this book dragonfire which has elaborated helpfully on the cover - a novel - because you would not want to confuse this book with any actual factual books about dragons such as dragon handbooks or care of dragon instruction manuals. those would of course be shelved in an entirely separate section of the liberry. hmm... i just now clicked over to the dewey decimal classification system to enlighten you as to where the dragon handbooks & instruction manuals would be shelved, and blimey if the ddcs doesn't take up 4 freaking volumes! the intro alone is 3freakin7 pages! at any rate, you'd find the dragon books in a section such as "Obedience training (pets) - 636.088" or somewhere between "Deer - 599.65" and "Elephants - 599.67". the ddcs doesn't list factual actual dragons - it only lists them in the fiction category, and i'm really not sure why.
today is friday on thursday. wellkommen.
speaking of tines - we were cutting our pizza with our forks, you know how you'll cut with the side of your fork - wanka-wanka-wanka - back & forth. wanka. wank. a. yeah, well, you know how you'll cut like maybe pizza or waffles with your fork? we're sitting there tearing at the 'zza, and my old man goes «they should make forks with a slightly sharpened side, not like sharp-sharp but like sort of sharp.» and we looked at each other and went «yeah!» and of course my old man is all the time thinking up this shizzle and then we see like the next week that someone's making a billion off his idea, selling the product on an infomersh & in walgreens's «as seen on teevee» aisle. here's the thing about the slightly sharpened fork - firstly, if it's overly sharpened you'd just cut your mouth and that's bad but you know that forks have an established rep as being a wee bit dangereuse with their tines all pointy, so there's already a caution factor with the fork. the benefit of the slightly sharp side would outweigh the danger. and secondly, as per elvis & junior, the southpaw would require the southpaw fork or else they'd just be cutting up their fingers and be no further along on the 'zza and that's just an aggravation.
