I decided sometime during eighth grade that attractive women looked hotter when they wore glasses, especially the black-rimmed kind. Then I saw that scene in How To Marry A Millionaire when David Wayne convinces Marilyn Monroe that she looks sexier wth glasses than without, and I knew just what he meant. Flash forward a few decades to Thursday, 7.19.12, when I saw Tony Gilroy‘s The Bourne Legacy and decided that Rachel Wiesz looks extra-double super-fetching because of the black-rimmed glasses she wears now and then in her role as a scientist.

Marilyn Monroe, David Wayne in How To Marry A Millionaire.

I’ve been watching Weisz for 15-plus years and it’s been “okay, fine, whatever” as far as her looks are concerned. She’s beautiful, of course, but we’ve known that for years so I don’t melt into my seat or turn into jello every time she appears on-screen. It’s almost like she’s my sister or my ex-wife or something. But when she put on those glasses in Legacy it was suddenly “whoa…wait a minute.”

But after searching online this afternoon I wasn’t able to find a single still of Weisz wearing those glasses in any scene from The Bourne Legacy…not one. That means she or her publicist either (a) told the unit photographer they didn’t want any taken with the glasses or (b) killed all glases shots upon submission. In other words, Weisz is apparently just as convinced that she looks like hell with her Bourne glasses as Monroe’s character was convinced she looked like hell with her glasses in How To Marry A Millionaire.

There’s no talking to women about how they look really good in a certain way if they themselves haven’t come to this conclusion first, so this is the end of it. The only men that women will even think about trusting as far as what to wear or what attitude to project or how to wear their hair or whatever are gay guys, or more particularly gay hair stylists or fashion designers. The opinion of straight guys means absolutely zip.

Rachel Weisz, director-writer Tony Gilroy during filming The Bourne Legacy.

Because of the dominance and dictatorship of the National Rifle Association, “we have laws no one wants — not cops, not the military, not even most gun owners themselves — except the NRA,” writes The Daily Beast‘s Michael Tomasky.

“Democrats went gun-shy in the 2000s. By 2008, Barack Obama had little to say about gun control, even trying to disavow his signature on a 1996 document signed by some Illinois legislators backing a ban on all handguns. In 2009, there were 65 pro-gun Democrats on Capitol Hill. The lobby owns the GOP, well, lock, stock, and barrel.

“Earlier this year, the Indiana state house passed — with NRA backing — a bill spelling out when citizens could kill police officers. Some prominent military leaders wanted military personnel to be able to discuss gun safety with troops as a way of trying to stem military suicides, many of which are committed with personally owned guns. The NRA was having none of it.

“And so it’s no surprise that Obama and Mitt Romney (who once supported waiting periods and the assault weapons ban) produced mealy-mouthed statements on Friday that didn’t even include the word ‘gun’. Many Democrats from urban districts will continue to oppose the NRA. But the party will continue to quake, shooting after shooting after shooting, bodies upon bodies upon bodies.

“So this will happen again. And again, and again. In fact, as I said above, we are likely headed for a day in this country like the following. At a movie theater, in a mall, at a commuter rail platform, in a restaurant — some glory-seeker opens fire. Most people duck and scatter, but a decent percentage of them produce their pieces. The gunman goes down like Warren Beatty in Bonnie and Clyde, but, since ‘most people’ aren’t marksmen, maybe a few other people do too, and maybe, oh, a three year old.

“But hey. There’s always a spoilage factor. Rights are sacred. From their cold, dead hands…”