Why do people sing along to ambient music very badly?

I don't mean people who just can't sing very well. I feel kind of bad for them, because I love singing along to stuff, and it's not really their fault they do it badly. I cut them some slack on pitch.

But pitch is one thing. Rhythm and lyrics are different. I hate it when people anticipate a line or destroy the phrasing and timing. Chances are I'm also singing along, but I now cannot hear the actual music and am having my ears assaulted by someone's near-random caterwauling.

And then they don't know the words, but they keep making noise--generally a loud, almost toneless, nasal humming. This also makes it really hard to sing along, for the aforementioned reason of drowning out the original music and also through the red haze of rage that descends because of their lack of consideration and musical sense.

If you're going to sing along loudly enough for other people to hear, you should take the trouble to know the song.

Why do topsiders wear out just when they're most comfortable?

I mean, for the first week, they shred your feet. But it's worth it, because then they're broken in and the most comfortable shoes you own.

But then, after a while, they become so comfortable that they're exactly like being barefoot except for the protection they provide against broken glass, tetanus, and small and stupid snakes. They start looking mildly disreputable, but this is forgivable and indeed encouraged.

This is followed almost immediately by the stage where the stitching that holds the sole on gives out, and the whole construction of the upper starts disintegrating. At this point they are still ludicrously comfortable, but they no longer provide any protection against even extremely shallow puddles.

At this point you need to buy a new pair, which starts directly to destroy your feet. This cycle is unfair, and I protest.

Why are there people who are habitually late?

There's no excuse for it, and it's incredibly rude.

If you're late once in a while, it is possible that there are legitimate extenuating circumstances. If you're late all the time, it means you're inconsiderate and unwilling to take the trouble to be on time.

There isn't really anything that makes it all right. You've inconvenienced everyone, and possibly thrown off people's plans seriously.

It just says you don't care.


PS There were no posts Christmas Eve and Christmas, because I was tired and they seemed like reasonable days to take vacation. Rest assured I still hated plenty of things.

Why are most Christmas decorations incredibly tacky?

I'm going to stick to the outdoor ones here, in the interests of brevity.

The worst offenders are those inflatable things. Grinches, giant snow globes, Santas, what-have-you. They are all hideous, and often they fall over and/or deflate, making them still less aesthetically pleasing (although quite symbolic of something, perhaps the decline of civilization).

And then there are Christmas lights. They come in: multi-colored, flashy, nets, icicles, and those weird tube things. These are also all hideous. Lights, if used, should be white, in plain strings, preferably spaced rather widely, and used only to outline charming architectural features (à la Boathouse Row in Philadelphia in former years). Fake candles in the window can be attractive, but only if they are centered and not (this is important) those dreadful orange bulbs in their fake candelabra. But most should be avoided. Why drain the power grid and spend more money just to look vile?

Anything beyond wreaths and greens and some simple lights is just not good. Giant nativity scenes in your front yard, while they may be cute and certainly put the "Christ" in "Christmas," are kind of terrifying. New-fangled and spectacularly ugly inflatable monstrosities are extremely terrifying. It's just not worth it.

If the Joneses have bad taste, don't try to keep up.

Why are the eighties back?

Mostly for women. I saw a girl not too long ago, wearing a denim miniskirt, capri-length leggings, and high-heeled ankle boots of the slouch/scrunch/I don't know the technical term and I hope I never do variety.

She looked awful. Obviously.

And then there are the high waisted skirts and trousers, and the bag-like sweaters, and the ugly big jewelry. No good, people.

The worst part is that these are people who saw all the Molly Ringwald films at a formative age, and if they are anyone I knew, or anyone normal, went, "Great googly-moogly, what in the name of all that is holy is she wearing?" Or words to that effect. Particularly Pretty in Pink. My eyes bleed just thinking about it.

We have already gone through this. We should know better.

And, as a side note, if I have to suffer through the fashion, could I get some of the music? I mean, where's my silver lining here?

Why don't people know how to name thoroughbreds anymore?

The winner of the Grand National a couple years ago was named "Numbersixvalverde." Just like that. No spaces or anything. In last year's Kentucky Derby, there was a horse called "Imawildandcrazyguy."

These sound like dumb screennames. I guess there might be rules about how many words you can put in a horse's name, but "I'm A Wild And Crazy Guy" is a stupid name for a horse whether or not it has punctuation and spaces.

Horses used to be named things like "War Admiral," whose sire and dam were "Man O' War" and "Brushup," so the name makes sense. And doesn't sound stupid at all.

There have been stupid names for thoroughbreds in the past, such as Secretariat's dam "Somethingroyal," but those were the exception rather than the rule.

"Sam P." is not a name for a thoroughbred. If you're going to embarrass the jockey, let it be for the color of his racing silks, not the spectacularly lame name for his mount.

Why do sports teams change their names stupidly (or just have stupid names)?

Syracuse, for instance. They used to be the Orangemen. Now they are the Orange. This is even dumber than if they had become the Oranges, and that would have involved a large citrus fruit mascot. The "Orange" is meaningless. I mean, did Holland complain?

Or, say, Dartmouth. I'm not saying they had to remain the Indians (which apparently they only ever were unofficially--see link in comment--"official" mascots are a pretty new thing), but I think they could have come up with something better than the "Big Green." Because that makes you look like you want to be Cornell (who are the Big Red), or at least that you have less imagination than they do. What about the Beerkegs?

On the score of stupid team names of the idiotic quasi-collective noun variety, we also have the Harvard Crimson. But at least they've been the Crimson for a long time. This is not as dumb as the Utah Jazz, which makes no sense at all. What about the Utah Mormon Tabernacle Choir, or something? (A comment notes that they used to be in New Orleans, so it makes sense. I knew this. You'll note that the Titans realized that "Tennessee Oilers" was stupid. And "Jazz" is a lousy name for a sports team anyway, whether or not it's relevant.)

Name your team something intelligible, meaningful, and plural, please. None of this post-modern placatory nonsense.

Why do people bother to say "no offense?"

If you know that what you're going to say will probably cause offense, don't say it. Pretty basic rule, there. Saying "no offense" just means that you're conscious of your own tactlessness but are forging ahead with it anyway, which makes you a jerk.

Saying "no offense" also does not absolve you from causing offense. The onus is on the offender not to cause offense, not the offendee not to take offense. Within reason, I mean. I hate overly sensitive people too.

People seem to think that "no offense" is good manners. It is not. It is the opposite of good manners.

Why was In Good Company so unsatisfying?

Movies without resolution are really annoying. When I go to see a film, unless there is a sequel in the offing, I would like loose ends tied up.

I'd like a story. With a plot. And all those fancy words like "climax" and "dénouement" and possibly other French expressions that are even sillier.

I do not want to see Topher Grace and Scarlett Johansson give us the equivalent of a disaffected shrug and then a weird, useless shot of Topher Grace running along a beach. Other parts of that movie were good, but the end completely ruined it.

Maybe this means I'm shallow or a philistine. I don't really care. Story-telling used to be an art. Now the art seems to be refusing to tell a story in such a way that people will think it's clever, and that you are so talented for making it irritatingly unconventional, in that it's not a story.

This is lame.

Why would anyone ever write "The Christmas Shoes?"

Is there a worse Christmas song?

Many Christmas songs are poignant. "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," for instance, especially when sung by Judy Garland, is extremely affecting. "White Christmas" would make hardened sergeants cry when Bing Crosby sang it at USO shows during the war. "I'll Be Home for Christmas" is touching.

"Syrupy and emotionally manipulative crap" is not the same as "poignancy," idiots. No one wants to feel guilty at Christmas just because some jackass wrote a stupid song.

And it almost never rhymes! It's not just the content that's rubbish.

I do love shoes, but if I were dying, I'm damn sure I wouldn't want my child to sacrifice his dignity in doggerel that doesn't even have a meter.

Why is "problematic" so ubiquitous?

People are so proud of having nuanced opinions, even if they are not actually nuanced and are merely nit-picky. This irritates the hell out of me.

They sit in seminars and say "I think the use of dialect here is problematic," which is a completely inane statement because you're talking about Mark Twain and the dialect is the point, but by saying "problematic" they win points with the other pretentious idiots in the class who will then chime in and say "Oh, yes, I thought so too." All "problematic" means then is "I have no idea what I'm talking about so I'm going to say random crap but it will pass muster because I have cleverly set everyone up to expect a wrinkle."

The other villain here is "problematize." I almost used it once in an essay, and then nearly threw myself in front of a train. The word is "complicate," people. Don't make yourself sound like a jackass.

Why do people revise hymns?

Hymnal revision, per se, I don't mind. Ralph Vaughan Williams had not been born when the first hymnal was compiled, so obviously there had to be new ones.

But, I have a problem.

Lord Christ, when first thou camest to men
Upon a cross they bound thee
And mocked thy saving kingship then
By thorns with which they crowned thee.

has been modified in the Hymnal 1982 by

Lord Christ, when first thou camest to earth

with no other alterations.

You will note that "earth" does not rhyme with "then."

Further, in the same hymn, we have (in the new version):

and all those nations' pride, o'erthrown
Went down to dust beside thee

replacing

and all a nation's pride, o'erthrown
Went down to dust beside thee.

This refers to the actual destruction of the Temple. The revised version is utterly meaningless.

Furthermore, the hymns are things that people actually wrote (as to be poems), not created by some soulless collective, so modifying them to fit our stupid politically correct needs is artless and utterly lacking in aesthetic sense. But we have shown that these revisions are cruel and ignorant, as well as meaningless. I hate these people.

Why is the Scottish Parliament house so hideous?

I mean, if my legislature looked like that, I'd be extremely skeptical of devolution.

It looks like a tenement on acid, which, although in Scotland it may be a design goal, is not actually a good choice for a building people are supposed to take seriously. That no one takes a devolved parliament seriously is not helped by its being housed in a building that pales embarrassingly in contrast to Whitehall.

Furthermore, this monstrosity is at the bottom of the Royal Mile. Which is one of the loveliest streets in a beautiful city. It is also in close proximity to Holyrood Palace, the state residence of the royal family in Scotland, and a shining example of ordered luxury.

The parliament is, it is true, fairly close to some unfortunate council housing, because it is after all Scotland that we are discussing. But a super-egalitarian (by which I mean ugly) approach to public and government architecture will probably only succeed in making people feel equally miserable.

Why does Ben Silver only sell ties for British universities?

Their shop is in Charleston. Which is, last I checked, in South Carolina. Which is in the United States.

An extremely small percentage of people who live in the States went to British universities. I know most of those people, and there are about six. So Ben Silver's selection seems counter-productive.

Now, it does mean that it's very handy for me to buy a tie for my hypothetical friend who was up at Merton College, Oxford. But I have many more friends who went to distinguished universities in the States, and I would like to buy them equally well-made neckwear. And yet, unless my friends all went to Harvard, Yale, and Columbia (in which case I can buy them ties from J. Press), I am out of luck.

I can't be the only person in the world who dislikes wearing a university, old boy, or regimental stripe to which I am not entitled.

Why are there so many naked people in clothing ads?

I thought they were supposed to sell clothing. Am I wrong?

Bill Buckley once wondered why Abercrombie & Fitch put its catalogues in brown paper. I have never wondered this, but that's because I grew up at a time when Abercrombie & Fitch was a place where people bought over-priced and pseudo-preppy crap, and not a real store where people bought clothing for the outdoors.

Perhaps this is why they have so many naked people. It distracts the idiots who shop there from perceiving that they don't need and shouldn't want the clothing.

What really gets me, though, is the sweater ads with naked people. Sweaters are for cold weather. You would think, perhaps, that if one person in the photo was wearing a sweater and a scarf, the other people would at least be wearing shirts. In whatever bizarre universe Gap inhabits, however, temperature is extremely localized.

There's a time and a place for nudity, and it's not clothing advertisements.

Why does everyone on NPR have that voice?

It's the same voice. All of them. All over the country. Every show (well, that's not Garrison damn Keillor). Male and female.

Why? WHY?

I hate that voice. Even if I didn't feel as though the voice thinks it's better than me and knows everything, the constant nasal drone would drive me insane.

Everyone on the BBC sounds the same (or used to). But this is okay, because BBC English is not irritating. If you're going to have some institutionalized American radio accent, I would like Jimmy Stewart, please.

Why do people record songs that Elvis already did?

It's never even close to as good.

For starters, Elvis could actually sing, which cuts out about 80% of people currently making albums (or who ever have). Furthermore, he was Elvis, which means he had a distinctive style, and that style at least mildly resembled music.

But now they play things on the radio recorded by some maundering female. Once, it was "Blue Christmas," but now sounds like a duck having its toenails pulled out.

What's the point? The song was popular because of the way it sounded. Making it sound horribly and cruelly different would not seem to be a winning proposition.

I suspect that what's really to blame here is the need to dig up 24 hours a day of Christmas music for over a month. Which means you'll really be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I just wish people had souls. If they did, neither the motivation (all Christmas all the time) nor the fuel (dreadful re-makes of excellent classics) would be a problem.

Why are internet ads so strange and annoying?

You know those mortgage ads with the dancing alien? What the hell are those?

I definitely do not feel more inclined to re-finance my mortgage when presented with a poorly done animated gif of an alien, or a woman in a tracksuit. In fact, I'm definitely not re-financing my mortgage with people who use these things.

What kind of weird idiot would click on that kind of ad? I mean, I know there are lots of weird idiots who use the internet, so maybe my opinion of mankind is too high. Maybe people even click on those damn things. Maybe even enough to make money.

How sad is that?

Why does anyone wear pleated trousers?

They make thin people look fat and fat people look fatter. They are more disastrous on women because they make even normal hips look about as massive as Greenland. They destroy the line of any outfit and they look wrinkly almost immediately.

The only possible reason to have pleats in trousers if it is 1942 and you are Jimmy Stewart and your trousers don't have a waistband, which means they would fall down if they had a plain front.

All these things are elementary and merely require eyes to discern. Pleated trousers don't even look good in the catalogue. Why on earth would anyone suppose they looked acceptable on someone who's not a model?