Why do priests want to be my friend?

For those of you looking for a cheap Roman Catholic joke, look elsewhere.

I am constitutionally incapable of calling a priest by his Christian name, with the exception of men I knew well before they were ordained. In this case, however, I still call them "Father" in ecclesiastical settings. (Oh, and it's "Father Secombe," too, not "Father Fred." Yuck.)

I also think priests should wear their cassocks more often. A cassock, in fact, does not look like a dress, but instead makes the man wearing it look like a priest, especially if it is well-made. It imbues him with some hint of spiritual authority.

Which is the point. Priests are supposed to be figures of spiritual authority. That's why they're priests. Creating a distance allows them to be plausible. I'm not going to listen to Joe Random in jeans, even if he's got a string of MDiv's as long as my arm. It actually causes me acute discomfort when my priest is trying to approach me on a non-priestly level.

You want non-priestly interactions? Maybe seminary was the wrong choice, bucko.

Why has siding become an acceptable building material?

Aluminum or vinyl, I don't care. They're both vile.

I do understand that shingles are more expensive, and then you have to paint them every so often, whereas with vinyl siding it bleaches slowly in the sun but cannot be fixed, really. This, as usual, is no excuse.

Think of the psychic cost to your family of living in a house with siding. Think of the psychic cost to your neighbors. Siding is awful. It looks cheap and sort of immediately before post-war, which is a time we'd rather forget, actually. Blocky, hideous, and theoretically temporary barracks are brought to mind.

But this is supposed to be a house! Sometimes the house is even supposed to look "period," generally late Victorian. Let me assure you that the late Victorians used shingles. Siding makes your house look as though the people in the Playmobil factory got the units wrong and made a life-sized house out of plastic.

Gross.

Why do people patronize me about my political affiliation?

For those of you who may not know, I am a Conservative. But, since that's not a viable party and Bill Buckley, God rest his soul, is dead, I register Republican. This is because I believe in such out-dated, outlandish, and out-and-out evil things as freedom, limited government, and Western civilization. And somehow I can look myself in the mirror.

I'm pretty sure I have a right to register and/or vote Republican. I took a constitutional interpretation class once, and I've read some stuff. Plus, there was that box on the form.

I don't mind if you disagree with me. As I said, I believe in freedom. And you can tell me I'm wrong, and you can tell me I'm evil, and we can argue about it or not.

The one thing I can't stand is for people to look at me more in sorrow than in anger and tell me I'm stupid. "Please tell me you're not voting for McCain," they plead, as though only someone with the mental capacity of a backwards gecko could do so.

I can't even imagine how angry and insulted they would be if I tried to pull the same kind of garbage. So I would ask you, on behalf of all people of all parties who get patronized about them, please to have some common bloody decency and basic human respect.

Why hasn't Firefox fixed the alt-tag problem?

When the alt-tag is longer than 80 or so characters, it just cuts off into an ellipsis. This is really irritating. Safari, for instance, does not do this--it merely displays several lines of alt-text.

I know that "because Apple has fixed it" is not really a reasonable position to take when arguing that some other developer should fix a problem. Too bad.

I hate having to right-click and open "Properties" to be able to read the whole thing. It's a pain. Come on, Firefox.

Why do ballplayers walk the bases when they hit a home run?

It seems to me that, karma-wise, that's suicide.

Not sprinting I can handle. You're not trying to beat the ball anywhere, and there's no reason wind yourself and risk a twisted ankle if the ball is out of the park.

However.

It will not kill you to run or jog 120 yards. Or if it does, perhaps professional sports is not your thing. You should hustle a little bit. It shows that you're still in it for the game and the team, and not just for your own numbers and grandiose reputation.

In addition, the fielders have already given up the score. It is ungentlemanly to add insult to injury by mocking them with your leisurely promenade around the base-path.

Walking the bases is just rude.

Why is "Wheel of Fortune" on television?

It's asinine. It's full of yelling simpletons, and Pat Sajak is openly contemptuous--but they don't notice. To me, this is incredibly painful to watch.

It's never difficult, and generally the people aren't particularly likable. And even if they were likable at some point, all the pointless, pointless yelling would definitely turn me off.

Also, it comes on right after "Jeopardy," which is a great game show. Possibly the greatest of all time. The segue from Alex Trebek's quiet superiority and interesting clues to Pat Sajak's sneering and inane phrases is extremely painful.

We should just get a whole hour of "Jeopardy."

Why don't people know what it is that light years measure?

Fairly often, I see people measuring time in light years. They generally mean a pretty long stretch of time, too. Like an aeon.

This is not what a light year is. Instead, it is the distance that light travels in a year. Which is a pretty arbitrary, silly, and non-decimal way to do things, but I guess it helps with spectrometry and stuff. (Also, is this a year with February 29th, or not? (Please don't answer that; it was rhetorical.))

Despite having the word "year" in it, therefore, it is not a measurement of time.

The same thing applies to parsec, which, despite being an abbreviation of "parallax second," is not a measurement of time either, Han Solo.

Just...could people not use words they don't know in a failed attempt to sound educated and science-savvy? Then I wouldn't have to judge them.

Why did I just get home from work?

Well, you don't care, and I'm exhausted, so I'm going to bed.

Good night, chumps.

Why is "just off the boat from Eastern Europe" now a fashion choice?

And I mean just off the boat about a hundred years ago.

Those suits that men wear, that have about nine buttons in the front. What are they? They are fin-de-siècle poor immigrant chic.

They look terrible. Fat men look fatter. Thin men look like beanpoles. What happened to the two-button versus three-button war? That was the argument worth having!

And then, there is usually no vent in the back, just to make it worse. A man must have the perfect breadth to make that okay. A large man starts looking like an aircraft carrier. A narrow man starts to implode. Neither of these is desirable. Buy a suit with a vent! But not two vents, unless you are actually in Britain, where they are allowed.

It took us centuries, but in the first half of the twentieth century we actually figured out how to make a suit that didn't look poncy and didn't make you look like Benjamin Disraeli. And these ingrates just throw all that away.

Why are the American illustrations for Harry Potter so bad?

Apparently the Britain of Harry Potter is populated exclusively by people with no joints and enormous sneakers. Now, this is not entirely impossible, but I think at some point Ms. Rowling said something about knobby knees, so probably not.

Also apparently everyone is drunk. Or I am drunk. Or something. Because everything is inexplicably fuzzy and slightly out of proportion. And everyone has an inane smile on his face. This is worst on the cover of Prisoner of Azkaban, where Harry and Hermione and their gigantic tennis shoes are grinning like idiots on the back of something that at least has the excuse of being imaginary to look really weird. I don't know any thirteen-year-olds who smile that much, still less when in stressful situations involving cartoonish half-bird monstrosities like that one.

The illustrations got less infantile as the books went on, perhaps because the so-called artist was learning to draw. But they never got good. They stayed fuzzy and childish and deliberately but not successfully wacky. And in this country we never had the option of buying the adult, or "not stupid-looking," editions.

Why do people want to know how healthy fast food is?

I'll give you a hint: not very.

And yet, there's a movement to get nutrition information posted on menus at fast food places (and other restaurants). This is insane.

Fast food has a defined purpose. This is to get you hot, cheap, tasty food in a short time. This involves frying things and grease. It's not good for you. You should know that. When I get fast food, I certainly don't want to know the nutrition content. I'm just hungry and in a hurry.

If you eat fast food all the time you will get fat. It should not require the posting of the nutrition information for you or anyone else to realize that. What kind of milquetoast, hold-my-hand society are we trying to create here?

You want healthy food? Eat an apple.

Why am I always supposed to root for Jane Fonda against Robert Redford?

As far as I can tell, the stuffed shirt character is almost invariably in the right. By ten minutes into Barefoot in the Park, I wanted to kick Jane Fonda briskly in the seat of the pants. There was no point at which I thought that she was anything but ridiculous and selfish.

When I saw What a Girl Wants (not willingly), I wanted Amanda Bynes and her wackiness, which was not delightful, to disappear from Colin Firth's well-ordered and civilized life. The life may have involved Duckface, but at least she doesn't resemble a blowfish, unlike Amanda Bynes.

But always, always, Robert Redford ends up drunk and barefoot, and Colin Firth puts on the leather trousers, and everyone is happy-go-lucky and everything is coming up roses and life is grand and spring-colored.

Why can't Jane Fonda just stop being a hippie?

Why do people build and live in McMansions?

There is no possible reason.

If you're doing it to show off your money, all you're telling people is that your richesse is nouvelle. This is not to be desired.

Furthermore, they are almost always shoddily made, and will start to fall apart within your lifetime. House-wise, this is not so good.

And they look disastrous. They're made principally of polystyrene and plastic, and this does not look like stone and wood. The windows look cheap. The half-timbering looks like it's trying too hard.

They show no sensitivity whatever to the lay of the land. They are almost always too large for their plots, and look like an operatic soprano in size five shoes.

Their purpose is to declare themselves forthrightly as expensive. Not as well-made, not as well-designed, but as expensive.

You have to live with your house every day. Why make it soul-sucking?

Why do people watch Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet?

That thing is one ludicrous, year-long, narcissistic, over-opulent piece of stunt casting. I mean, I suppose that Robin Williams as Osric the supposedly funny makes sense. But Jack Lemmon as a sentry? Security must be pretty lax in Elsinore, if men are still standing guard at age 71.

And it seems slightly tacky to shoe-horn Judi Dench and John Gielgud into tiny rôles--at least Derek Jacobi gets a decent showing as Claudius. Indeed, the list of stars is long and distinguished. And I suppose they were pleased to be in such a humongous cinematic article, but I feel it's pretty pointless.

At the end, too, when Hamlet is carried out of the hall? Look, I know Mr. Branagh thinks he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he is not, in fact, Jesus. Could we all agree on that?

Personally, I prefer Olivier's. He was a brilliant actor, and there was no fluff. No absurd casting, and an extremely effective Elsinore as drawn by M.C. Escher. And, as an added bonus, Peter Cushing as Osric! What more can you ask?

Why hasn't David Beckham engaged some kind of speech therapist?

While it is true that his public speaking opportunities are somewhat curtailed now that he is no longer England captain, the chances that he will never again speak in some format where I will have to hear him are slim. And as long as there is one interview, the poor man needs some help.

He can't speak. It's rife with glottal stops and about an octave and a half above what you'd expect (and hope for). He mumbles and mispronounces things and it's dreadful.

I mean, I cried when he stepped down as captain, since it was pretty clear what he was saying even if I couldn't actually understand it. He's got the appearance and he usually dresses fairly well (especially now) and he's still good at football and appears to be a thoroughly nice guy, but I can't listen to him speak. At all. I can hardly watch him speak because I'm afraid of catching a blunder.

Plus, he could afford it. And he plays for LA now; he's got to have the time.

Why did they invent the laugh track?

That thing annoys the hell out of me. I mean, I know where to laugh. I have a sense of humor at least equal to that of a stoned monkey. I don't need the television to help me out with what's funny and what's not.

But no, now we get shows that say, "No laugh track!" as if this were something artsy and extremely realist, instead of the way all television should be in the first place. Boo.

Why did the films turn Lord of the Rings into a tawdry love story?

I know it's not very progressive, but I would like Arwen to appear for about thirty seconds, when she presents the banner (which should be larger than a handkerchief). She should be beautiful, and not talk much. She should not look like a duck.

She is not Glorfindel. It is totally stupid for her to take Frodo to Rivendell. She's not a tough warrior chica. She just isn't. Also, she doesn't get her jollies by wandering around between Weathertop and Rivendell just so she can flirt with an unwashed loser.

She does not give Aragorn a stupid necklace and have stupid rendez-vous with him on bridges in Rivendell just so he can maunder about it later. The life-force of the elves is not made of sparkly necklaces.

She does not have a big, stupid, whiny fight with her dad about Aragorn when she is already on her way to the Grey Havens. That conversation happened a long time ago and they don't have it again. She is not sick-makingly maternal (also, why is Aragorn about eighty when she has that vision about the child?).

Her fate is not tied to that of the ring. That's stupid. Deciding that she will die sometime, instead of living forever, does not cause her to come down with the plague. That is bullcrap. (Also, Aragorn leaves Rivendell with Andúril. Elrond does not make a stupid trip to Dunharrow just so he can give a stupid speech about Arwen's apparent hypochondria.)

If I wanted a romance, I would read about Beren and Tinúviel. Jackass.

Oh, and if Aragorn tried to plant one on Arwen in front of all the free people of Middle Earth? Elrond would kill him.

Why do we allow Jon Bon Jovi to pretend that he has more than one song?

Because he doesn't.

I went to college in New Jersey. Because I went to college, of course, I went through four years when "Livin' on a Prayer" was in everyone's top five favorite drunk songs. I think this is true, if sad, everywhere.

But, I think because I went to college in New Jersey, I was exposed to some of his "other" songs, by people who naïvely told me they were different. As in, songs by Bon Jovi that were not "Livin' on a Prayer."

But this is a lie. They are all the same song. Every single one. "You Give Love a Bad Name" is not a different song. Neither is "It's My Life." This is a cynical marketing ploy by his people, to make the stupid purchase multiple singles in the mistaken assumption that they are different.

Also, he needs a haircut.

Why do they put that horse and carriage on aluminum screen doors?

I think it is on the mistaken assumption that they class it up. They don't. It's still an aluminum screen door. It's better than nothing, because it means that at some point during the year you intend to breathe air that comes from outside, because you're not totally effete, but on a scale of screen doors it is at the bottom.

Plus, why a horse and carriage? Is it supposed to fool everyone, because there were no aluminum screen doors when horses were the main source of transport, so the door must be wooden? Those are some interesting powers of suggestion.

The doors clang and warp and instantly look dirty because they're white, and instantly look tacky because they have the stupid wavy edge on the window for the screen, but also, and this is important, because of the little horse and carriage.

Why is it called "Pretty" in Pink?

That dress is the most horrifying thing she wears in a long string of horrifying outfits. I mean, the hat and the glasses at the beginning are bad enough, and the blue dress and pearls she wears on the date are also bad (although the girl who mocks her for them really has no room to talk; everyone looks pretty ridiculous).

But that dress? She takes two nice dresses and makes one heinous thing. I'm not going to call it a dress any more, and I balk even at "garment."

It's vaguely tubular. Now, I'm pretty sure Molly Ringwald was in pretty good shape when that movie was made, but that thing really puts it up for debate.

Also the "sleeves?" Why would it have sleeves? It's supposed to be a prom dress. Those haven't had sleeves ever. At most there were the puffy things like a Disney princess, but those aren't proper sleeves. The whole collar and lace thing is probably best left unmentioned.

And of course it's pink, which isn't exactly her best color, but we can let that pass because it was the 80s and they did stuff like that. What's unforgivable is that every other girl in that room, however stupid she may look, does not even hold a candle to Molly Ringwald's eye-gouging sartorial perversity. One look at that thing and I would have given up on her; I can't understand why Blaine didn't.

Why do extra syllables appear?

Around where I live, one of the particular victims is "acme." For reasons unknown to me, this is often pronounced "ack-uh-me."

The other one that is currently bothering me is "para-puh-legic" for "paraplegic," which implies some sort of oceanic condition (yeah, yeah, I know, sue me, that would be "parapelagic," close enough).

When does either of these begin to make sense? Having letters that do not create a syllable is a well-known phenomenon (thanks, French), but I don't think I've ever encountered a situation in which a syllable is formed by an absence of letters.

I suppose a lack of spelling ability assists in this habit, although I think everyone can spell "acme." And it might be unfair to demand that people use only words they can spell (especially as it is clearly a losing proposition to demand that people use only words whose meanings they know, whoops), although it's tempting.

Sometimes I feel like Professor Higgins.