Why do some people exacerbate the language barrier for non-native speakers?

My French isn't very good. But it's best when someone speaks to me in correct French, with a preference for doing so slowly. I'm pretty sure that if someone spoke to me in bastard, pidgin, patronizing French, I would really struggle.

So why do native English speakers think that they will be understood better by non-native speakers when they use quasi-foreign inflections in their English speech, rendering it nonsensical?

I used to think this was the stuff of faintly humorous period British novels and films, as when in the Hornblower television series we see an enlisted man say, "This-a way-a" to a French prisoner because it sounds vaguely foreign. In this context it's slightly funny.

But now I've seen it done in real life. I was appalled. Aside from the issue of being understood, which seemed less likely to me because of the words and how they don't make sense, if someone tried to pull that kind of condescending crap on me, I would punch him in the nose. Not speaking much English does not make a man an imbecile or a child. And you should help him learn more by speaking correctly.

Why does the last oyster cracker never crumble?

As an accompaniment to many seafood soups, one eats oyster crackers. They're flaky and delicious and it's customary to crumble them into the soup.

The crumbling is achieved largely in the same way that otters open oysters: you take two and squeeze, and they crumble. Or, in fact, one of them crumbles. The other one never crumbles. So you take another one, and squeeze. But only one of that pair crumbles. And so on and so forth, until your soup is one enormous mass of cracker crumbs, but you are still holding one last, lone, whole cracker.

This seems like a pretty major design flaw to me. While it is true that, if you are very careful and strategic, and employ an awl or sledgehammer, you can crush that last cracker, it should be much easier. I mean, it's a cracker, for crying out loud. It's made chiefly of flour and air.

I think I hear New England laughing at me.

Why have we, as a culture, settled on nametags?

There is nothing good about nametags. The added convenience, soi-disant, is really not worth it. Especially as it consists in staring at people's chests so as not to create unnecessary tension, which, on the face of it, is ludicrous.

Introductions are clearly much better. Plus, if you take the trouble to be introduced, there's a chance you might actually bother to remember the name. Nametags remove the need for any kind of courteous effort.

Perhaps they can be useful at conferences and the like, where they also say the affiliation of the person in question, but, again, these things take about four seconds to communicate verbally and are often conversational opening gambits.

So. We have: staring at people's chests, making people lazy, and redundancy. These are the things the nametags entail. Charming.

Why does the US Mint mess with success?

Faces on coins are in profile. They have been. Forever.

Xerxes? Yup. Nero? Yup. Elizabeth I? Yup. Every monarch or ruler ever who had a coin issue ever? Yup.

But no, Thomas Jefferson does not get the same courtesy of not looking like an idiot on a small round piece of metal. (I pass over the Sacagawea dollar, which is so ghastly that I feel a little bit guilty mocking it.) Instead, some brain trust at the Mint decides that thousands of years of numismatic excellence are best ignored, and three quarter face does not look stupid. This is incorrect. It doesn't even fit.

The new nickels don't even look like money. Maybe they'll be money in some weird Heinlein future, but that will also be when Denise Richards can be a plausible pilot. That is not a time I ever want to live in.

Why is commuter breakfast so difficult?

This morning, I was travelling, after spending a largely sleepless weekend with a large percentage of my favorite people. By the time I reach a train station with food, therefore, the options are: coffee, or death.

I choose Cosi for my breakfast. I have never breakfasted there before. And yet again I learn why I am usually convinced that new things are bad.

I order a sesame bagel with cream cheese, and a medium coffee, disdaining to kow-tow to their asinine drink sizing system of "stupid," "meaningless," and "affected." You would think that there are not that many ways this can go wrong.

The coffee is the correct size, and actually pretty good. The little sleeve that's supposed to keep it from burning one's hand, however, seems to be have been specially designed by hippies to resemble an effective insulator but in fact to be made of recycled materials and also, amusingly, to be completely useless.

The bagel is discovered, once I have sat down too far away for any error to be remedied, to be square and suspiciously lacking in the cream cheese department. Bagels aren't square; this is not a Wendy's hamburger. And bagels lacking any sort of garnish or condiment are among the most depressing objects known to man.

I'm not Meg Ryan from When Harry Met Sally. I don't have unreasonable expectations. All I want, and this is really not too much to ask, is breakfast.

Why does the BBC hate America?

There's this sport. It's called cricket. It doesn't really happen in the States. Sometimes it gets broadcast on television, but it's generally India and/or Pakistan. Which is fine, except that I prefer England.

BBC Sport runs commentary on Five Live or Sports Extra. But the audio streams are often UK only (and they're not lying; they actually don't work in the States). Which is completely hateful.

It's not like there are other people clamoring for the rights. It's not on TV. I'm not sure they even bother putting it on XM radio. There's no way I could get it even if I paid for it. I know I'm not a rate-payer, and I don't have a UK television license, because I don't live in the UK, but some of the cricket commentaries are available in the States. With football, I understand, because other people actually want to watch the football, and there's competition for rights. But cricket is not like that.

All I'm asking is that I have the opportunity to listen to six hours of cricket a day for five days in a row. Is that so much?

Why do DVDs have region encoding?

If you're like me, you like British television. Even somewhat obscure and modern British television, by which I mean not Monty Python's Flying Circus. I mean instead something more like Green Wing, which is a show resembling what would happen if Scrubs and Arrested Development had a baby. And it was on drugs.

Green Wing is available on DVD in the UK, in region 2. Which I cannot play. Or at least I cannot play it more than about three times, because that's when my laptop decides it can't keep switching regions.

Why do they do this? Why does my laptop stop switching? Why does it need to switch at all?

I understand copyright issues and stuff, but in the age of BitTorrent, wouldn't you try to make an effort so that anyone who was even remotely inclined to buy something from you would be able to? Channel 4 currently gets none of my money. If I could buy Green Wing on DVD, they would probably have about sixty dollars of my money. Which is, granted, about three pounds, but you would think that every little bit helps.

I refuse to compromise my taste in shows just for some faceless schmuck with a bright idea.

Why do many sportswriters think that misogyny is funny and cute?

When I read a sports column, I would like it to be about sports. You know, football, or baseball, or something in that general arena. If it's Gregg Easterbrook I will tolerate some maundering, because about one random observation in ten will be amusing or interesting.

But I've never understood why strip clubs are ever germane. Aside from my basic problems with strip clubs, which should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of civilization, I don't see why they come up in these columns, and why it is always assumed I would like to read about them.

Yes, most people who read ESPN.com are men. It's true. But I know men who don't find this sort of thing appealing--or at least they say they don't, which is almost as good. Repression and lies make for a better world, people. Don't tell me they don't.

And why is Anna Benson's neckline the lead photo for a column more or less about baseball?

I know there's a school of thought that says that being open about it makes it better. I don't care. If I were the Sports Guy's wife I'd beat him up, and not just for being a whiner. I would really like it if it were not assumed, just because I like sports, that I am a permanently pre-adolescent boy.

Why are sporting statistics so ludicrous?

"This is the only 3.42 ERA ever in May for a left-handed pitcher who was born under a harvest moon in Borneo."

"This quarterback hasn't thrown an interception in the second half of six of the eight previous games that were played west of the Mississippi."

Okay, so they're not that ridiculous. Quite. But they come out with winning streaks like "fifteen of the last seventeen." Who decided to have it out of seventeen? That doesn't make any sense at all!

And what the hell kind of goofy computer program do they have to come up with these things? "Let's see. Parameters: against the NFC North, in the first five minutes of the third quarter, against an Italian linebacker, in months with a blue moon. Hmm. Aha! Four sacks!"

I know that we demand a constant stream of information nowadays, and that sportscasters spout inanities other than these. But if even possibly meaningful statistics probably lie, what's the point of useless statistics?

Why do people ask about my spiritual journey?

I don't have one. First, because I am shallow, and second, because I am Episcopalian.

Also, even if I did have one, it would be none of your damn business. The incredible condescending gaucherie of asking a question like that really gets my goat.

I mean, if I wanted to share, I would. There are people who talk willingly about their "prayer lives." I think they're a little strange, but they're allowed. But it's not really a good topic for interrogation.

Same for "spiritual journeys." They're made up, and any desire to talk about them smacks of a nasty exhibitionist streak, or at least a much more earnest and rock-ribbed Protestantism than I can handle.

And why on earth would someone else want to know about my putative spiritual journey? Isn't that the last word in egotism?

Why is Brian McNamee able to look at himself in the mirror?

This is his story, as far as I can tell:

1. Sold drugs, for lots of money, to people who, to his certain knowledge, were not supposed to have them.
2. Sold these people out to the feds.

Now, I am not condoning steroid use. Not at all. I even have a performance-enhancing drug rant lined up for sometime in the future. It breaks my heart that Andy Pettitte is possibly a cheater.

And I also know that, absent Brian McNamee, these guys would probably still have obtained steroids from someone else, and used them.

He still sets a really spectacular new standard for scum. State's evidence (or whatever this actually is in this ludicrous piece of crapulent show business) is all well and good, but it's more respectable when the guy who does it is a patsy, and not the orchestrator.

I mean, he's so low and lousy he makes me take the side of the cheaters.

Why do people get so worked up about Valentine's Day?

On the one hand, we have the people who are too keen. It is because of these people that the price of roses becomes ludicrous, Hallmark makes retch-worthy cards, and the cacao trees sweat with the exertion. They go into shops and buy everything heart-shaped, for their dear sweetie. They are cutesy and superior and irritating as hell.

On the other hand, we have the people who think that Valentine's Day was invented by Satan to make fun of them, individually, for being single. They come up with "National Singles' Awareness Day," possibly ignorant of the fact that this makes them look like bitter hags. They complain about the strictures of the holiday, make fun of people who try to be nice, and wear black instead of pink because they refuse to be bound by silly societal pressures. The irony is lost on them; they fail to realize that they could a) ignore it entirely (which is not really that hard) or b) actually not be defined by whether they are single or attached.

Going around in a pink haze of chocolate dust and pollen is annoying, but so are shrill harpies who tell you that you're not allowed. Mind your own business, suck it up and get on with your life. The teddy bears are really not a threat.

Why do baseball uniforms get worse and worse?

I'll talk today mostly about the trousers.

Let's face it. Many of today's baseball players, like many of yesterday's baseball players, are not exactly svelte. In fact, some of them are David Wells. Some of them were Babe Ruth.

So why are modern baseball trousers the least flattering things in existence? They're made of something vaguely stretchy, which, contrary to many opinions, is not actually slimming. Indeed, it highlights the junk in the trunk that many players are carrying.

In addition, the legs go to the ankle. And they're pretty tapered around the ankle. I'm not saying we should go back to stirrups, which were awful, but this style makes a bad thing worse.

Some players still wear tall socks. They look astronomically better than everyone else. Not only do the tall socks make them resemble baseball players meaningfully, but they are more flattering. Everyone knew the Babe was chunky, but did he ever resemble a lumpy blimp the way players do now? No, he did not. This is down to the socks.

I know that some of these men can throw a baseball accurately at over ninety miles an hour, which is extremely difficult. But they do not have the most athletic physiques, and I really think they should be encouraged to dress to downplay their figure faults. Because, seriously, gross.

Why was Sam Neill in Wimbledon?

This problem is more wide-spread than either Sam Neill or Wimbledon.

Sam Neill is, for me, Dr. Alan Grant and Vassily Borodin. He is not Kirsten Dunst's dad. That's just a tragic waste. Sam Neill's awesome.

I mean, I guess he has to pay the bills. But, honestly, a dumb romantic comedy with an irritating American woman who ends up with an apologetic British dude? Those things are a dime a dozen. And Kirsten Dunst is pretty hateful, making it even worse than the other eleven.

Why can't there be good movies for Sam Neill? Why can't he fade into a dignified retirement? Why do they make movies like Wimbledon?

Why are modern ecclesiastical vestments so ugly?

They look as though they were made by an impecunious theatre company with no natural taste. They look fake and cheap. And, of course, ugly. Again we have the products of the blind hippie workshops.

I understand that real vestments, made of heavy brocade and embroidered with gold threads, with the correct orphreys and bits of trim, are quite expensive and probably rather hard to come by. Not too many people do good ecclesiastical needlework anymore, probably because there seems to be not much in the way of demand.

Expense is no excuse in this case. If you can't afford real vestments, take services in stole and tippet. Either your congregation won't mind, in which case you'll be home free, or, if they mind enough, they'll give you money for proper vestments.

It is certainly impious to perform divine service in something that is obviously ugly. And if the priest does not recognize when something is obviously ugly, I have no hopes for the Church.

I will never understand why people prefer having shoddy things to having nothing.

Why do radio stations have such a limited repertoire?

The Beach Boys recorded a large number of songs. Most of them are better than "Kokomo." So why is it that "Kokomo" is the only one the radio ever plays? "Little Deuce Coupe?" "God Only Knows?" "Sloop John B?" Come on, people!

Or, if they're playing the Police, we get, invariably, "Message in a Bottle" or "Every Breath You Take." Oh, right, or, if they're feeling edgy, "Spirits in the Material World." But that's not a good song. Can't we get "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic?" I don't like the stalker song!

And they only ever play bad Beatles stuff--together or single. "Imagine" we get a lot, and I actually can't think of a single song ever recorded that beats "Imagine" for irritating sanctimony, including "Big Yellow Taxi." And when they get into Wings, it's always "Band on the Run," which is not actually bad, but is definitely inferior to "Live and Let Die."

You'll notice that all of the songs I mentioned were big hits. I'm not asking them to get obscure. But I can't be the only one who starts throwing things when Brian Wilson starts naming random Caribbean islands.

Why are people in the media always trying to convince us that scruffy is attractive?

Ryan Gosling does not shave for the second half of The Notebook. This is a travesty. In fact, from the advertising for the movie, I thought he was unshaven the whole time, because that's how he looks on the posters. That's part of why I hadn't seen it until quite recently.

He looks astronomically better without the scruff. In this, he joins about ninety-five percent of the male sex.

Tom Brady, for instance. Whatever we may think of him in a jackass sense, we know that he looks like a total idiot with the scruff. His Cary Grant (soi-disant) good looks do not take well to stubble. Also, on a side note, he plays in Gillette Stadium. They make razors.

No one looks better with the scruff. This is all a cynical lie. Possibly because men nowadays are lazy. They don't shave, they don't wear hats, they rarely wear neckties....

I hate being lied to. Buy a razor, jackass.

[As a response: I too am ashamed that I saw The Notebook. It was terrible. But also, though Eric Bana, Hugh Laurie, and Kiefer Sutherland do not look disgusting with scruff, they all look better without. And Indiana Jones doesn't count because he actually doesn't have time or water to shave. Which is totally different.]

Why are so many DVDs packaged really poorly?

There is, as far as I can tell, one type of DVD packaging that actually works. It's the one with the sort of yin-yang shaped thing in the middle that you press, and it releases the disc.

There are other ones that you press, but they don't work, and I'm always worried I'm just going to break the disc in half. It usually just degenerates into grabbing the DVD by the edges and pulling gently, hoping like mad it doesn't break.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have the cases that make no honest attempt to hold the disc at all, so that they drop out as soon as the outer case is open. Often, and why I don't know, in two-disc sets, one of the holders will be functional, and the other will not. This makes no sense at all.

If none of them worked, I would not be so annoyed by ones that didn't. But someone has it figured out. There's no excuse for the others.

Why are the cups on TV always empty?

It's really noticeable. Sometimes you can actually see that there's no liquid in it. But even other than that, you can tell.

Those fake sips they take when they're supposed to be drinking? No one drinks like that, unless the stuff is disgusting. And it's usually supposed to be coffee or water, which is not gross.

Would it actually be a problem to have liquid in the cups? Just for verisimilitude? I mean, I'm pretty sure spilling is a fairly minor concern, unless all actors have secret diseases where they pour all liquids on themselves. It wouldn't have to be hot, in case that's a concern. And it wouldn't really have to be colored. Just something so it doesn't look really fake.

Props departments must not have much dedication to their art.

Why do people clap between movements?

When I was in college, no one did this. At the university orchestra. You know, made up of college students. In an audience also made up of college students.

And yet, I go to a performance of a major metropolitan orchestra, with a legitimately famous soloist, playing a well-known violin concerto, and after each movement I hear applause.

It was louder at the end when all of the aesthetes condescended to join in, but there was an unacceptably high percentage of total barbarians in the hall. Not clapping between movements is one of the most basic rules of classical music. I think I've known that since I was about four.

And it's obvious. The orchestra does not relax between movements, and neither does the conductor. The soloist might, but he's also probably dressed as an Eastern European peasant, so he can't be trusted. If the conductor is still poised to conduct something, it is too soon to applaud!

I can't believe the riff-raff they let in.

Why are online menus nearly always PDFs?

I do not want a PDF of your menu. I would merely like to look at it briefly.

Downloading it and opening a PDF-reading application is more time than I would like to take (and I mean Preview here, and not anything Adobe makes, so my load time is really not very long). Then I have to throw it in the trash when I'm finished, too.

I'm pretty sure I know enough html or whatever to make an attractive menu that would just load in the browser. This would be exponentially more useful to me, and, I suspect, to other people.

Even if there is some compelling reason that the restaurants do this in terms of labor-saving, which I find unlikely, the annoyance that it causes the consumer should make them chary of it. It's pretty lame when in the middle of a swanky, Flash-heavy website I have to download a PDF.

[As an aside, our commenter is entirely correct in pointing out that the lack of PDF-viewing plug-in is a major flaw in Firefox. However, having had to deal with viewing PDFs in the Acrobat plug-in for Internet Explorer, and having to wait the nine hours that Acrobat takes to load, I have to say that that's not an experience I particularly enjoy. PDF menus are still lame.]