THINGS JUST DIDN'T SEEM RIGHT, SOMEHOW

Post surgery continuation.

The pic above comes from a photo taken in Santa Monica, California. On the Third Street Promenade.

Here’s a still foggy rumination on the Monkey Numbers. This morning mine were 6,250, then a while later they were 14,300.

Ok, I thought, enough is enough. But in today’s world that doesn’t hold true. Enough is never enough anymore. The default human setting is More. So here’s some more on the Monkey Numbers.

First, I thought I’d do some testing, see how Nights of Naked Mannequins ranked against some global heavy weights.

Just for a sort of baseline reference point, I Googled Jesus Christ. Jesus was doing all right, so it seemed at first. He got 49,800,000 “results.” I reflected upon that. I couldn’t find any meaning in the numbers, you understand. They seemed sufficient, in a way, but who could tell? Well, the next test entry seemed obvious.

So I typed in the Beatles. If you know why that was the logical next entry, then I suspect you’re old enough to be allowed to read Nights of Naked Mannequins. If you have no clue what the hell I’m talking about, it’s a simple matter of youth. You’re not stupid, just young. You see, back at the peak of their popularity, John Lennon made the innocuous statement that the Beatles seemed more popular than Jesus. Where I was from, I believe he was probably right.

All Hell broke loose, of course. People had record smashing sessions and all that. Big brouhaha.

Well, turns out John was right. At least on Google the Beatles are more popular. My Google tallied 98,800,000 “results” for the Beatles. By the way, both tallies took .09 seconds according to something hidden deep within the digits of Google’s labyrinth. Look at those numbers. It appears that the Beatles are very nearly twice as popular as Jesus. And they broke up in 1969!

Lennon, I believe, has been technologically vindicated. He was merely stating a fact, apparently, although nobody knew it at the time. We couldn’t actually verify his assertion until this century.

I couldn’t resist after that. Something came over me. I went on a sort of Google spree. I Googled Madonna, and, quite frankly, was disappointed. She only rang up 85,700,000 “results.” My god, woman, quit fartin’ around! A real slacker, that’s what she’s become. Maybe it was the time allotted her. Her tally only took .08 seconds. This is sort of like bob sledding. She could have made up a lot of “results” in the corners if she had another .01 of a second.  OK.

But her pop offspring, Britney, outdid her! The girl came up with 97,800,000! No justice when the truth is told.

Here’s where it gets a little crazy. I can’t fathom those numbers. I just don’t understand what they refer to. Look, I went to the end of Madonna’s number online, page by page, click,click,click. You know what? I only got to actually see just over 1,000 “results.” At that point I came to a kind of border crossing, barbed wire everywhere. Google wouldn’t let me see any of the other 85,699,000 or so “results.” And there’s no arguing or debating the issue. I was held up at the border. Couldn’t even get a badge, nothing. I would love to be able to put in a request for Number 43,128,689 or whatever of the “results,” please. And then have it brought up to the front desk in .09 seconds. Bastards are just lazy.

I couldn’t resist these, of course: Satan does a credible 34,800,000. The old woman is hanging in there. (Let’s do away with sexism!).

This frightened me: Justin Bieber (isn’t he, like, only eight years old?) rattled out 201, 000,000! What the hell is Google going to do when he can vote?

My biggest numbers of the day and winner of today’s Monkey Number award come from, not surprisingly, Lady gaga, 375,000,000. But maybe she cheated. It took her .10 of a second, after all.

Huge disclaimer: If you, yourself, like, Google, those people, like, don’t expect to get, like, the exact same numbers, like, that I did, cuz, like, it all depends upon, like,  on how many monkeys are, like, working behind the border, like, at that exact time and, like, definitely, like, it varies . . .