Why do stores wear my clothes out for me?

I am capable of wearing out my own clothes. That's part of the fun. If I'm not sailing, my Nantucket reds don't fade. It's a fact of life.

I can wear holes in my own jeans. I can tear my own t-shirt, and put it through the wash so the colors bleed and the silkscreen fades. I don't need the manufacturer to do it for me so that hundreds of girls walk around like distressed clones.

It's stupid. I prefer my clothing not to be worn out when I buy it. Clothing should be intact when they are asking for money.

Why do people wear incorrect team gear at sporting events?

You know, maybe you're at a Phillies game where they're playing the Rockies, and you see some girl in a Devil Rays jersey. Why does she do this? Why does it happen all the time? You get this a lot in football, too, and generally with children, in which case it's mostly forgivable, but sometimes it's adults.

Do they think they get a prize for getting the right sport? Because seriously, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. No one's going to come up and say, "Well done, and did we get dressed all by our lonesome today?"

Baseball caps are different, because people wear them all the time and at some point they cease to have a meaningful team affiliation but have merely become part of someone's skull. It's slightly weird to wear one to a game that features neither of the teams playing, but you can be forgiven.

No one says you have to wear team gear at all. Most people will give you credit for knowing you're at a baseball game whether or not you are wearing some item of clothing that indicates your knowledge. And if you're wearing a Mets jersey just to spite everyone, weren't you ever taught that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all?

Why do people wear white shoes outside the prescribed time period?

This time period is somewhat dependent on one's location; in the tropics one may wear white shoes any time. But in general the rules are Memorial Day to Labor Day, or, if one is in the Navy, May 15th to September 15th. May to September, at any rate.

This year, I saw a woman wearing white shoes on the first Sunday in Eastertide. Now, I make an exception at Easter, because it's possible for one's outfit to require white shoes, and the vestments at Easter are white so it's appropriate. But the Sundays around Easter are not fair game.

And why not? Because it looks ridiculous to wear white shoes in March, that's why. It's cold out, it's probably windy and raining, and tanning season has not begun. White shoes are therefore unflattering and incongruous.

And wrong. What it mostly is is wrong. Don't do it.

Why is logo creep getting so bad?

I know that everyone likes to make fun of FC Barcelona because they refuse to allow their famous shirts to be sullied with any sponsor's emblem, but I think they're right. Any shirt looks better without a Samsung or an Emirates or a Vodafone across the chest.

But I'm actually willing to accept the logo on the front of the chest. It's been that way for a while, it's not really that spectacularly gauche, and in this day and age it costs a lot of money to keep a professional football club alive. That's the way it is. So I've come to terms with that logo (though I am glad to see that national shirts, so far, do not have them).

It's getting worse, though. Atlético Madrid is the one I've noticed--on the back of the shirt, there's the name at the top, and then the number, and then a sponsor's logo at the bottom. Now, again, I know they need the money. But it just looks gross. It's crowded and aesthetically disastrous. It's worse for Atlético because their shirts are striped and the logo has a solid field, so that the shirt begins to look cheap as well as ugly, but this is never going to end well.

These men are footballers. They should not be walking billboards. You have actual billboards for that. Give them a break.

Why are American patriotic songs terrible?

The national anthem's okay, if unsingable. "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" is all right, but of course it was also stolen from the English, which seems cheating somehow. "America the Beautiful" is a wonderful song, but you do run into the pilgrim feet with stern, impassioned stress, which is rather silly. "God Bless America" is frankly bad. And everyone since Irving Berlin has written utter, utter bilge.

I speak today chiefly of "God Bless the USA," as I believe it is called. Has anyone ever written a more sick-making song? Especially one that was meant to be taken seriously? It's hokey, it only sort of rhymes some of the time, and it sounds like garbage.

...and I just actually looked at the words written down and it's worse than I thought. I knew that the USA of the song was a USA of illiterates (viz.: "There ain't no doubt...."), which is embarrassing and should not be immortalized but could perhaps be put down to colorful vernacular.

I'll quote the whole first verse:

If tomorrow all the things were gone I’d worked for all my life,
And I had to start again with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars to be living here today,
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom and they can’t take that away.

Seriously? What is that? Tortured syntax, ambiguous pronouns, gratuitous cheese, it's all there.

And then the second verse:

From the lakes of Minnesota, to the hills of Tennessee,
Across the plains of Texas, from sea to shining sea,
From Detroit down to Houston and New York to LA,
Well, there’s pride in every American heart,
and it’s time to stand and say:

Does Texas have plains? They don't come to mind for me, but perhaps I am strange. And what in the name of all that is holy is the meter supposed to be?

I wouldn't mind if it were a throwaway song. A lot of the songs written for, say, England for World Cups and the like are dreadful. But in two weeks no one will listen to them. This song has staying power. It's atrocious! The English, they have "Jerusalem." They have "There'll Always Be an England." Yes, those songs are sappy and "Jerusalem" is tripped out, but they rhyme and they have tunes and grammar and everything.

I ask you please to boycott "God Bless the USA."

Why has "please RSVP" entered common parlance?

"RSVP" is an abbreviation of "Répondez S'il-Vous-Plait." "S'il-vous-plait" is the French equivalent of the Elizabethan "an it please you," now shortened, in our cold and less lyrical time, to "please." I bet you can figure out "répondez."

Thus, "Please RSVP" means "please respond, please." This is really stupid.

I can understand if you want to retain the sense of "please," and are skeptical of the Francophone chops of your audience. In that case, you can merely write "please respond." No French, no ambiguity, no redundancy.

Why do pre-tied bow ties exist?

They never look right. They gape, rather, at the front. And they are not better than a real bow tie in case of a strangling maniac, so you can't even argue safety.

A bow tie is not actually that difficult to tie, either. All you have to do is learn. Which will take you five minutes. Five minutes will allow to seem like a grown-up and not a seven-year-old for the rest of your life.

I will also take this opportunity to inveigh against gentlemen who seem to think it's all right to wear a four-in-hand to dinner or in the evening. It's not. Since people stopped wearing dinner dress as a regular thing, it has ceased to evolve. Therefore fancy touches and experimentation are not allowed. Also, if you're wearing a four-in-hand with a rather high-buttoning waistcoat (which is what happens), it makes it appear as though you have been wearing the same thing since you got married in the morning. Fool!

A gentleman is lucky in that he may wear the same thing to dinner forever. I don't understand why he can't figure out how to do so correctly.

Why do people fly those tacky seasonal flags?

You know, the ones where you have some kind of psychedelic pansy for "spring," and then for Christmas you have the word "joy" and some crazy designer's idea of what a brass instrument might look like. There appear to be dozens of these for every year, and many different sets.

They're dreadful. Usually people forget about them at least once a year, so as Memorial Day approaches they still have that ugly Christmas flag up, now soiled and faded and even worse than it already was.

If you have a flagpole and don't want to take it down, fly an actual flag. There are lots of options. Oh, and that stupid flag motif one--the one that looks as though someone ate the stars and stripes and then was sick--that you fly for Flag Day or Independence Day or whatever patriotic holiday you can be bothered to observe? Just fly the flag. It's much better.

I know what time of year it is. I can read a calendar. I don't need an ugly nylon rectangle to clue me in. The flags do not tell me that you are pleasingly domestic and observant of seasons. They tell me that you have no imagination and no natural taste.

Why are DVD special features often terrible?

Specifically, why would you ever release an entertainment DVD without a gag reel?

Generally, I don't actually care how you made whatever weird special effect, because it's not interesting in the least, especially nowadays. You used a computer?! Surely not!

Your script meetings are also not fascinating in the least, and I probably want to have Words with you on the score of the script, so that's not a winning proposition either. And the use of sewing machines is elementary and universal.

Gag reels, however, are unique and hilarious. And, extra special bonus, they take zero extra effort. You already have the footage. All you do is have someone do a title graphic--which ought to be closely related to other title graphics you have, for aesthetic continuity, so all it involves is typing different words.

But I own 1047891237 hours of Lord of the Rings explanatory footage and none of it is a gag reel. There have got to be days of film of Orlando Bloom falling on his face, and I'm sure it's hilarious every time. But no, all I get is people who consulted on Elvish pronunciation but were apparently incapable of reading Tolkien's actual instructions on the topic. Thanks, Peter Jackson. Thanks so much.

Or series one of the new Doctor Who. No gag reel. So I actually don't know if Christopher Eccleston is a real human being with a sense of humor or just an intensely evil cipher with big ears and a manic smile. I trust in the former but I have no proof.

I shouldn't have to wonder about that, and I should have many many hours of amusing hobbit pratfalls, but I don't. Thanks for nothing.

Why do films hit you over the head with symbolism?

I prefer my symbolism subtle.

But I was watching Ned Kelly last night. Near the beginning, they're trying to break a horse, but he's too wild, so they shoot him. I figured that I now knew the plot of the movie, viz., Ned Kelly ends up an outlaw, and the law can't control him, so they shoot/hang him. And lo, I was correct.

I was not watching Ned Kelly for an English class. I had no desire to do anything but be entertained. Over-analysis is emphatically not my thing. I would have liked merely to enjoy the movie. But no. We were told by significant looks from everyone involved and a certain wistfulness on Heath Ledger's face that this shooting of a horse was significant.

I don't mind a second level of narrative. That's fine by me. I do mind when the subtext becomes text and starts beating me about the head and shoulders.

Why are there people who don't like the Beatles?

I mean, that just flat out don't like the Beatles.

I'd try to compare it to disliking some other popular or cultural phenomenon, but the comparisons break down immediately because no band or author has been as prolific and as varied as the Beatles. It's just a lazy untruth to say you don't like them.

Maybe you don't like their poppy early stuff, because you've heard it all eight million times on annoying radio shows. Fair. Maybe you don't like their totally weird experimental stuff, because it's totally weird and experimental. Also fair. And maybe you don't like the white album, because frankly it was pretty bad.

But, seriously, to say, "I don't like the Beatles" is an open admission that you hate freedom and probably don't have a soul. Couldn't you at least be a bitter music nerd and decide that you only like the songs that are a minute and a half long and not really singable, like "Golden Slumbers?"

They're not my favorite band and they don't have to be yours. But please, slow down, listen to Revolver, and come back and see me.

Why doesn't the United States Senate have something better to do?

I saw a piece on ESPN.com about how Arlen Specter is of the opinion that the Patriots videotaping scandal is not over, and how he would like an independent investigation.

Yes, seriously.

At least steroids are actually illegal, or controlled. Videotaping football teams isn't illegal, it's just wrong and cheating. And against NFL rules. Not against the law. Only against NFL rules.

Now, I can understand Senator Specter's being bitter because the Eagles lost by three in the Super Bowl to the Patriots a few years back. I'm bitter too. And I'm also kind of skeptical about this whole video thing, since it seemed to go away awfully fast.

However. There would have to be evidence that Tom Brady had stabbed Kurt Warner for me to want the Senate Judiciary Committee to be involved. Otherwise this is a ridiculous dog-and-pony show that makes both the Senate and the NFL into laughingstocks. I know that with the Senate in particular it's pretty much a lost cause, but could we pretend that our upper house had some dignity?

Why does Sports Illustrated keep sending me things?

When I was abroad for four months, I was kind of homesick. So homesick, in fact, that I purchased MLB radio so I could listen to baseball at really odd hours of the day once you factored in the time difference.

At this time, if you bought MLB radio, it came with a subscription to Sports Illustrated (SI), and there was no opt-out option. This is the first thing I resent. I did not want a subscription to SI, especially as they weren't going to ship it to Scotland so I could actually read it.

SI is really only worth it for some of the photographs. Other than that, the writing tends to be sophomoric or downright insulting, and it's full of things that aren't really about sports but instead about the human condition, politics, or why I'm a bad person. These are not things about which I want to read when I'm reading a soi-disant sporting publication.

But they sent it to me. And then, because I was stupid or not paying attention, they renewed my subscription automatically, and wouldn't let me cancel it until the year was up. I did so, and finally the magazines stopped arriving on my doorstep, for me to flip through and then put directly in the recycling (you know, except for their better photographs of David Beckham).

So now they send me whiny missives asking for my subscription to be reinstated. Does this work on people? It makes me less likely to subscribe again, because now I am reminded of all the irritation SI caused me in the first place. This war of attrition by little envelopes is not going to wear me down. Stop wasting the paper to send them, idiots.

Why do church choirs attempt music that is beyond them?

Palestrina, for instance, is hard. All polyphony is difficult because it does not consist of an autocratic melody and background, supporting harmonies.

It does not count as Palestrina if the sound goes up to heaven like the shriek of a dying pig. And if this is the case, maybe you should change or update your musical choices somewhat. Not every choir is a painstaking monastical assembly.

This is what Howells is for. Or Purcell. Or even, to a lesser extent, Elgar or Bainton. Easy stuff that you can fake if necessary. Or your Austrian composers--Mozart and Haydn will often work in a pinch because everyone knows how it's supposed to go and will fill in the gaps.

Steer clear of Byrd, Palestrina, and anyone with awkward diphthongs like Messiaen. Avoid elaborate soprano solo bits if your soprano is consistently a quarter step flat.

The sheet music does not guarantee holiness. The execution matters.

Why do academics pretend that psycholinguistics is a discipline?

It's not. It's total garbage.

Did you know that languages first come up with language terms for black and white, and then red follows? And that colors like ochre and heliotrope tend to lag a little? Could you have figured that out by thinking for about four and a half seconds while you were drunk?

This is a discipline that doesn't care why words mean things. This is a discipline that avers that if we all agreed to reassign "duck" to mean "particle accelerator," this would be a legitimate and acceptable move. That's an extreme example, but not actually that far-fetched.

I took a course in this fake discipline. I stopped doing the reading in the second half of the semester and made stuff up on the exam. My midterm and final grades were the same, and they were good. Now, in a field like English, where the whole point is sitting there and thinking about stuff, that would be understandable, and possibly okay. But this is supposed to be a science. I should have to look at data. Or something. I should not be able to make it up. Imagine trying to do that in chemistry--no lab time, no reading, no problem sets. Probably you'd lose track.

But no. I got to write essay questions on how we use "up" as a metaphor for "more." Deep stuff.

PS I just realized that "psycholinguistics" is a horrible word and I should probably be shot for making it up or using it. But then I bethought me that it's entirely appropriate for the bastardized and ignorant quasi-science it signifies.

Why do people mispronounce "coup de grace?"

They usually pronounce it as if it were spelt "coup de gras." ("coo duh grah," I mean, in case there's some question.) What does that mean? "Blow of fat?"

I can understand the belief that, in French, one pronounces none of the letters that are there. It's often true. But it's never, ever true when those letters are followed by an "e."

I think it would be better if people just gave up on the Frenchness and started saying "coop duh grayce," as they do with Havre de Grace in Maryland. That, at least, is evidence of a total and respectable contempt for all things foreign.

Come on, people, it's just French. The pronunciation rules are less phonetic but far more consistent than English. Get it together. Or stop pretending.


PS I'm considering a "France" tag. Thoughts?

Why is Rachel Dawes in the Batman films?

Full disclosure: in my youth I read many, many Batman comic books. And yet, I have absolutely no recollection of this character. Now, I'm not quite willing to declare that she doesn't exist at all, because she might have shown up in some weird place I never read. But I read a lot of them and she made no impression, so my guess is she's made up.

Why? Why would they do this? Bruce Wayne is allowed to have weird sexual tension with women, it's true, but it really shouldn't be some stupid doe-eyed harmony-spouting weirdo. Also I question the choice to let her find out and then not make her move to Fiji. (You will recall that the old movies let the woman find out, but only pretty grudgingly, and then she disappeared.)

Also, apparently Kat(i)e Holmes doesn't want to be in the second one, or something. Now, for me, this would be a sign from above that Rachel Dawes is a stupid one-film character and life would be far worse if she were allowed to become a stultifying recurring one, but nobody asked me.

So they picked Maggie Gyllenhaal! Are they trying to make me hate this movie? Me, personally? Honestly!

Let's review. Rachel Dawes is a stupid hippie, and probably made up. Women in Batman films should go away because Bruce Wayne is not a maundering softie. Katie Holmes is weird-looking and Maggie Gyllenhaal is repulsive (and won't this destroy her indie cred or something?). We've already run one Batman franchise into the ground; now that we have a better one, can we at least attempt to make it work?