My lunch is in my tummy.

I'm not a morning person for about 6 minutes. Provided I have been woken up nicely. If I have been woken up not nicely (dog barking, child bouncing on my head, fire) I tend to be cranky for a good long while.

Sometimes though, I wake up cranky. And this gets confused with not being a morning person. It's very different.

I'd even BART over

BART as a verb.

Sounds like new slang for puking.

"Dude, you totally barted in Steve's car last night."

"Last night I got so Bart-faced...."

I am not a morning person and I've never been one. I've been an insomniac night owl since child hood, stuff like that I don't think gets changed. I should really find a job that's better suited to when I'm "awake".

I've dealt with a couple people who saw my non morning person-ness as a character flaw or a sign of immaturity and something I'd "grow out of" especially when I had children. I politely explained that even when I'm forced to get up early I'm still not a morning person.

I don't understand why a lot of morning people seem to think it's the better way and try and change or aruge with nightowls. It's seen as such a huge character defect, Yay! you (general not Buffista specific) like to get up, watch the sunrise answer email/exercise/read/do chores/whatever and then go to bed at 9 pm at night. More power to you, I prefer to do all those things to the beautiful moonlight and get up at 9 am. Or noon. Really preferably noon.

Yeah, I find the moral judgment that seeps into the morning/evening person thing (not here!) so puzzling.

I think a lot of people see it as a rebellion or a rejection of authority.

Or that you're lazy or slothful....

Or that you're lazy or slothful....

For sure. But why is staying up late inherently more slothful than getting up early? It can't all be about conformity, can it? And frankly, the world being what it is, a lot of us night-owls are getting considerably less sleep than the morning people. If you go to bed at nine and get up at six, that's nine full hours. Who's the slacker now, huh?

Damn that Ben Franklin anyway.

I think it's possible that one can become, if not cheerful to mornings, at least inured to them if one has children. Maybe it's like boot camp -- it breaks you down so as to rebuild you in its image. And some people's circadian rhythms do change with age, just like their metabolisms. But yeah, the assumption that it will change "when you grow up," as it were, is irritating.

Susan - hands are tough. Lots of portraitists didn't bother, you know? Or screwed the pooch and went w/o.

That's what I figured. There was this one portrait of the Duke of Wellington that I would've sworn showed his hands--and it does, to the extent that you can tell that he did, indeed, HAVE hands: [link] But as far as being able to judge their shape and size, NSM. (I found some images from later in his life where I could see his hands, and they match the rest of his build, which was...nice.)

In a weird bit of research serendipity, I did run across a description this morning of Napoleon's hands which matched what I'd deduced from his portraits--that they were surprisingly small and soft.

(Is anyone surprised that my alternate history, and therefore my weird brief obsession with hands in portraiture, features Napoleon and Wellington? No? Didn't think so.)