Skip to main content

scorn tissue

i've always been aware that i have a tendency to frown a lot. my brow furrows when i concentrate. my expression when i talk to other people often involves an expression of curiosity or skepticism. and, yes, that means that i developed lines around my eyebrows at a young age.

what i'm realising now is that i may have moved beyond the point where "wrinkle" describes what's on my forehead. looking at the line- properly a "glabellar line", it looks a lot more like a scar than a line in the skin. it's a deep ridge that's obviously been there for a long time. if i stretch out the skin, the way it would be stretched if i had plastic surgery, the line is still clearly visible (although this procedure would give me these nice, almond-shaped eyes).

there are a number of options open to someone in my position. aside from the aforementioned plastic surgery, i can also choose to have my face pumped full of botox, or i could have a process called subcission, whereby the epidermis is cut loose from the muscles and tendons underneath it and is allowed to float, frown-free on the surface. (no word on what happens when i actually do want to scowl at someone.)

the immediate problem with all of these solutions is that they make me want to scowl even more.

in that way, i suppose, my little line is a scar. it's a scar from all the various things i've gone through, all the things i've been exposed to that have perplexed, annoyed, worried or infuriated me. what i can say, as i run my finger over the little ridge at the point where my eyebrow meets my nose, is that there have been enough of those incidents to leave a pretty deep scar.

so, no, i don't think i'm going to have my face rearranged or pumped full of botulism any time soon. maybe i'll just claim that it is a scar and make up some crazy story to explain how i got it. except that the amusement i'd get from spinning this yarn would probably leave me with laugh lines.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…