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?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

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 …