Why are there so many unshovelled sidewalks?

So we've had around three total inches of snow. Not a lot, you'd think. And it's not. Three inches of snow is a totally reasonable amount to shovel.

It is also an optimal amount for being compacted into a death-dealing icy mess.

I know this, because I walk places. Well, I slide places.

If you are a little old lady living alone, it is probably okay that your sidewalk is not shovelled. It may be a poor choice for other reasons, but the sidewalk I will accept. If you are not a little old lady, your sidewalk should be clear. There are probably ordinances about this.

If you are a commercial establishment, your sidewalk should definitely be clear. If it's not, you are saying to everyone, including your customers, "We don't care if you die." Is this a good message? Probably not, I should think.

No one's asking you to throw your back out. Just pay some kid five bucks, for the love of Pete.

Why do girls whine about high heels?

It's very simple: if you don't want to wear them, don't.

They can hurt, it's true. If you wear them too long, it's excruciating, so then you take them off briefly and then they hurt even more when you put them back on. If this bothers you, don't wear them.

They look nice. In fact, they look nicer than flats. So you run a cost/benefit analysis: do they look enough nicer to deal with the possible pain? If yes, wear them. If not, don't.

You have made a choice to wear those shoes. They are certainly not the only shoes you own. You bought them, and you pulled them out of the closet. A lot of men find ties uncomfortable. Now, they're sissies, but the principle is the same. If you don't like wearing neckties, have the guts to offend the eyes without one. Complaining about a sartorial choice you have yourself made is inane and contemptible.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Why do I have to watch not sports?

Dear ESPN,

If there is tennis on, I would like to be watching it. I do not want to watch replays of this or other matches if there is a point being played. I do not want the announcer to say "And two quick points for Simon" after watching something that is not those two quick points.

I do not want to watch a press conference with any player. I do not want to watch Serena Williams talking about who designed her dress or how excited she is about President Obama. I also do not want to watch Roger Federer talking about the kind of tennis Andy Roddick is currently playing. I would not want to watch René Lacoste, back from the dead, mocking modern tennis's sartorial sensibilities. (Well, maybe I would. But even that could wait for a break between sets.)

If there is a ball or a puck moving on a court or a pitch or a rink or a swamp, that is what I should be watching. It's sports. We watch for what happens, not for what people say about it. Just set the camera and leave it.

No love at all,
Angry Face

Why do people use "sufficiently" incorrectly?

Generally they say things like "well, that was sufficiently awkward," by which they mean that something was extremely awkward.

Now, there are instances in which things can be sufficiently awkward. But they must be sufficiently awkward to do something. The sufficiency must have some effect. Sufficiently hot to fry an egg. Sufficiently deep and wide to kill Mercutio. Sufficiently awkward to make me never want to return to the scene of the crime.

Otherwise you can just say "very." It won't be graceful, but it also won't be wrong.

Why doesn't Denethor have table manners?

Look, I realize that Denethor is not, strictly speaking, a nice person, and that he is a pretty lousy father to Faramir, and that he is being driven slowly insane.

He is still the steward of Gondor, and he knows which fork to use. He can eat tomatoes without spilling them all over his chin. He does not eat meat with his fingers. He probably does not speak with his mouth full.

The men of Númenor did not sail from the West and establish kingdoms so that Denethor could make fruit explode. The blood of Númenor does not run in his veins so that he can eat like an animal.

Come on, Peter Jackson. I realize that terms like "subtlety" are foreign to you, but could you try to pay attention to terms like "characterization?"

Why can't people check their books out?

If you take a book off the shelf and do not return it within, say, an hour, you should check it out. Then people will not see that it is "available," go to look for it, fail to find it, and e-mail everyone who uses the library.

I don't mind the e-mailers. It's annoying, sure, but it's not their fault someone was a jackass.

There are friendly, helpful people at the desk. You can check things out to your carrel, or to yourself. Your library card is your ID card, so you really should have it. Also, if you end up not needing the book after all? You can just return it. Checking it out does not commit you to dragging it around on your ankle until the due date.

This is how libraries work, people! It's not hard!

Why are acid wash jeans back?

I saw a girl yesterday wearing pinky-purply skinny acid wash jeans.

Fortunately, a friend of mine was nearby with some smelling salts, and I soon recovered. But they were horrifying.

In the 80s, many things were better. Teen movies were The Breakfast Club instead of She's All That, Billy Joel made Glass Houses instead of River of Dreams, and Nicolas Cage's hair had not yet taken on a strange, terrifying life of its own. Also, Reagan was president.

Fashion, you will note, was not on that list. From big shirts to those wretched little ankle boots (yes, I know they're back in, how sad), from giant shoulder pads to high hair, from dropped-waist dresses to blazers with rolled up sleeves, the 80s were one giant eyesore.

We grew up looking at the pictures and laughing. And now we're wearing that stuff? Unironically? Not just to 80s night at our eating club? Seriously? Acid wash jeans?

Why are atheists so self-righteous?

It is my experience that atheists, and, to a certain extent, agnostics, are very much into being better than you. They have not got a faith, and man, will they let you know it.

So, how is this better than going all Jesus all over everyone? I have no idea. Going on about how you are so intellectually consistent and admirable and superior, and you have no out-moded superstitions, and you are totally free from all of the cultural baggage carried by the major world religions is at least as irritating as a little good old-fashioned evangelism.

My favorite, however, is people who were raised atheist and still play the intellectual superiority card. That is garbage. I suppose it is broadly possible that they have worked it out for themselves, but merely having irreligious parents does not entitle them to profess that they are some kind of mind.

And they seem utterly to lack the self-awareness that might make this acceptable. I was raised Anglo-Catholic, and I'm uppity as dammit about it, but I understand self-deprecation. The iron certainty and cussedness with which these people approach religious debate makes them, in fact, less respectable interlocutors.

Well done, atheism. You have been hoist by your own petard.

Why are there gift stores?

I don't mean souvenir shops. Irritating as they may be, I can understand the urge.

I mean those stores and catalogues that sell only gifts. And by "gifts" they mean "stuff that is stupid and no one will ever use but you will buy for them because you need to get something, right?" Like a USB hub made to look like the TARDIS. Or any of those shirts that have things on them that make you chuckle for a second and a half until you realize that people actually buy these things, like the ones that have snotty tags in (bad) Latin. Or a crystal duck. Or any number of pseudo-Celtic things.

One ought only to have things that one knows to be useful or believes to be beautiful. Thus one should only give such things to other people. And if there's nothing obvious, one ought to get something consumable, because then the recipient will not feel obliged to display the badly designed and shoddily made symbol of open-mindedness and transcendence that you have bought from Signals.

I'm no Thoreau, I do not think that gift-exchange is out-moded, savage, or creates needless obligation, and I like having nice things. But having stupid, useless things is stupid and useless and I wish people would stop exchanging them.

Just buy them a bottle of gin!

Why do I find graffiti ubiquitous?

Of all the things I hate, vandalism is one of the ones that I simply do not and cannot understand. You know, vandalism, and double-breasted waistcoats.

By vandalism I mean the wanton and pointless destruction or corruption of property. I wouldn't mind it so much if there were any gain to be had. But there is no profit from scrawling a mis-spelled word on a newspaper dispenser. Nor from spray-painting an ephemeral tag on a railroad bridge.

Carving your initials into the mantelpiece in your dormitory I understand. That is done in the sentimental hope that, years from now, when you are a doddering old man in tweed, you will return, and find that your name has mellowed and receded, to be overtaken by the fresh scars of later classes.

I suppose perpetrating graffiti cements some sort of status, and I should be grateful that, compared to other activities with the same object, it is largely harmless and rarely fatal. But it's symptomatic of a deeper disregard for things that are beautiful, or valuable, or not yours. And to that I object.

Why is all Somerset Maugham the same?

It may not all be the same, as I gave up after three or four, but I feel that that's a reasonable sample size.

Did you know that W. Somerset Maugham thinks that you are depressingly bourgeois? Because he does. Well, unless you are a person with total disregard for the niceties. Then he likes you. But you don't read this blog, so there we are.

I think that in order for Somerset Maugham to approve of you as a person you are required to destroy people's lives. You're allowed to do it on principle, regardless of what that principle is, or you may do it just because it has never occurred to you not to.

Also, shaking bruises gin? What the hell, man?

Why do women ruin films (part 3)?

Recently, I saw Music and Lyrics. Yes, I am rather ashamed. But I am also angry. Do you know why?

Because if Drew Barrymore hadn't been in that movie, I would be allowed to enjoy it. And many parts of it are hilarious and brilliant. For instance, I would definitely watch "Battle of the 80s Has-Beens." That would be one of the best shows on television.

However. Drew Barrymore is not one of the best shows on television. She seems to be put in movies to be cutely neurotic. Well, honey, neuroses are actually not cute at all. And naïveté also has its limits. Quirks do not make you interesting. If you are already interesting, your quirks are tolerable. This is how it works. As it stands, you are a mystifyingly irritating waste of space, dragging down the comic genius of the film.

Also, brush your hair.

Why don't men have their dinner trousers fitted correctly?

The dinner suit is slightly more difficult than regular trousers, because we're not working with a cuff, so there's less wiggle room. The hem should still skim the laces.

I'm talking to you, every man in Hollywood. If your trousers are so narrow that they bunch over the calf and have all kinds of wrinkles before they settle in a giant pool over your comically pointed shoes, you look like a buffoon. Perhaps a fashion-forward buffoon, but this is in fact not a plus.

A dinner suit is the third-most flattering thing a man can wear (after evening dress and the US Marine Corps dress uniform). Or it should be.

All the women have tailored the hell out of their dresses so they fit perfectly. Can you honestly not get your trousers hemmed so that they don't bag, sag, and wrinkle? If you're Alec Baldwin? Seriously?

Also, Tom Cruise should not wear a double-breasted jacket. That man is tiny.

Why aren't Jedi allowed to marry?

I should probably wait to post this so I seem slightly less like a gigantic loser, but it's really pissing me off.

Force-sensitivity runs in families, right? Empirical evidence seems to point this way, not to mention what various people say in the original trilogy before the scourge of midichlorians.

Further, the Jedi have an interest in perpetuating their order so that peace and hippie-tude can be maintained in the galaxy, yes? If Force-sensitivity is an inborn condition, this would seem to require breeding. We're not talking monks, here. Any schmuck can become a monk. Monks just sit around copying classical manuscripts rather badly.

The only possible justification for this garbage is so that Anakin and Padmé have to get married secretly. Which is totally not necessary for the plot, actually, and in fact tends to make the audience go, "Well, he says all kinds of awkward things around Obi-Wan, he spends the night at her apartment, and SHE IS PREGNANT. You don't have to have Force-clairvoyance to figure this one out." Don't try to tell me that the Coruscant tabloids don't have compromising photos of Anakin sneaking out of her building at all hours of the night.

So basically, George Lucas decided to have an incredibly stupid injunction placed on the Jedi just so that he could inflict on us an un-ending string of ineffably excruciating secretive love scenes. Thanks, George Lucas. Thanks so much.

Why are people so obsessed with celebrities?

I must confess that I am addicted to Go Fug Yourself, and therefore look at many pictures of celebrities. I am addicted because the pictures are mind-blowingly hilarious, the writers have a panache that I (usually) envy, and because Victoria Beckham is pretty much my hero.

However. My involvement with celebrities ends there. I don't care who is dating whom, or who had a messy break-up with whom, or who seems to have had plastic surgery, et cetera, et cetera. They are people with lives. That's nice for them. I like watching their movies. Why would you depend on the latest news about the Jolie-Pitt-Aniston debacle for your entertainment or happiness? It's actually sad. Would you like your life plastered across the tabloids?

"But they're famous and therefore fair game!" I hear you cry. Garbage. They are famous. They are famous because they are good at the entertainment industry. Many people are good at other industries and we don't care about their lives.

And the worst is the obvious pleasure people take in the melt-downs and break-downs. "Ha ha, look, they have all the money in the world but they're still screw-ups--am I not just the most functional little human of all time?" these people think smugly to themselves. I'm not saying that drug problems or the other issues that seem to plague the entertainment industry are anything but reprehensible, but I am saying that, for instance, Amy Winehouse's self-destruction should not make you gleeful. That is gross.

Get a life, chumps.

Why does Padmé pack her own bags?

Okay, so, this is a woman who obviously can't get dressed without the help of three maids and a crane. And I'm not even talking about her hair.

So why does she pack her own bags? I realize that she needs something to do during the scene in which she informs Anakin that he "makes [her] feel uncomfortable," possibly because he is totally insane, but it shouldn't be something for which she obviously has nineteen servants. Maybe some embroidery. Maybe some major state matters? Isn't she supposed to be some kind of hotshot? I don't know.

Look, Attack of the Clones is a really lousy movie, and a lot of that is because, you know, the big plot is awful and the actors aren't very good and the dialogue makes you want to gouge out your own eyes with a rusty spoon, but it's the little things like that, that make no sense at all, that really get me.

Why does Joe Buck still have a job?

Not only that, but why does he still have the best job ever? Last year he called the Super Bowl and the World Series. And he was terrible. And that is not fair at all.

If you're calling the game of the year, you should sound like you care. A lot of sportscasters say totally asinine things, and this is of course worse on television, because the audience doesn't really need an announcer to say what's going on. But Joe Buck takes it to a new level.

I suppose he's not likely to take sides? Because he's a robot? Is this really what we want?

ihatejoebuck.com is taken but under construction (lame!). I was considering ialsohatejoebuck.com, where people can post their most hated Joe Buck memory. Thoughts?

Why is Trader Joe's totally useless?

For obscure reasons of my own, I required cranberries and ground mustard. It has never been my experience that either of these is a strange thing to need. And I don't demand that the ground mustard come in the little yellow Colman's tin.

The farmer's market had neither of those things. Or, it might have, but I figured it probably wouldn't, and, additionally, that Trader Joe's was adjacent and probably would. So I didn't bother looking very hard.

Thanks for nothing, Trader Joe's. No cranberries. Okay, fine, produce is pesky, whatever. The spice rack appeared to have about four varieties of spice, most of which seemed to be flavored sea salt. Not very useful. But! I noticed that in those racks along every aisle there seemed to be spices. Undaunted, I decided to look at all of them, ignoring, for the moment, that this is probably the most asinine way ever to display spices.

Still no mustard. I have looked at the entire idiotic store, and there is still no mustard powder.

At this point the kitschy fake folksy stuff--where they pretend they're local by painting the names of nearby towns (badly) on the wall, or they pretend to be hip and carefree by wearing all the same Hawai'ian shirts--really starts to grate and I torch the place.

Okay, no, I don't. But seriously. If you're going to be huge fake hippies, can you at least be an effective store?

Edited to add: And I live in a state where Trader Joe's can't sell wine. Honestly, what's the point?