Why does Peter Sarsgaard have a film career?

First he was in The Man in the Iron Mask. In that film, he played Raoul, Athos' son. Athos was played by John Malkovich. And Peter Sarsgaard managed to be creepier than Athos! At the time, setting Mr. Sarsgaard up against Leonardo DiCaprio as an alternative for the young lady was laughable. Laughable. It still is. Even though Mr. DiCaprio had seriously gross hair in the movie.

Next, we come to K-19: The Widowmaker. That was a terrible movie. Its one redeeming feature was that Mr. Sarsgaard's character dies of radiation poisoning. I think he had a girlfriend, and she was probably sad. But no matter--he was still appallingly off-putting, even before he started oozing and sweating.

One must admit that Mr. Sarsgaard's irritating weirdness went virtually unnoticed in Garden State. Because that movie is full of people you know, and you hate them. At least he only robbed corpses. That was much less gross and infuriating than stupid Natalie Portman.

He's not that good-looking. I don't think he's a particularly good actor, because I think his characters are supposed to be vaguely appealing, and they are not. So what's the deal, people? Can't we just send him and Maggie Gyllenhaal to some weird island where they can be mildly sinister together?

Why don't all Republicans wear blue blazers?

All Republicans should have low golf handicaps, good manners, and a blue blazer. This is what I was raised to believe.

It is not true. Some Republicans are greasy, stupid, and wear bad suits. "All Republicans are stupid," I hear you cry. Well, piss off.

I don't care if you're stupid as long as you have good manners and a good speechwriter and a good suit. We could do worse. Plenty of clever people govern badly. If you have good manners and good clothes, though, they go a long way towards not precipitating major international incidents.

And, for crying out loud. If you're going to fail and betray your principles, could you at least do it with class?

Why aren't shoes made for walking?

I recently bought a new pair of black flats. They're driving moccasin style, but they missed the bit where the sole goes up onto the heel.

This is a problem. About a month and a half and maybe twenty miles (but probably less) later, I've worn through the shoe. Not the sole. The bit where my heel strikes, through the upper of the shoe.

They weren't expensive, but that's not the point. They're shoes. I should be able to walk in them.

Why do motorists honk at cyclists?

If he's riding in the middle of the road, sure. If he's weaving in and out of traffic, also sure. If he's generally making a nuisance of himself, I can understand it.

If, however, he is riding on an uncrowded road, in daylight, on the far right side, as he ought and as he has a right, piss off. This is especially true if you are in the left lane and have no desire or intention to be in the right lane.

I was once told that major roads were invented so that cyclists learned how to swear. I am pretty sure this is true.

Why do people have fake designer handbags?

And why are the fakes so often bad?

Look, $2,000 is way too much to spend on a handbag. This is why I don't have, for instance, the gorgeous orange Louis Vuitton handbag that I would buy if I were, say, the queen of France. But I'm not, so I make do.

A handbag is really just something to hold your keys and your phone and your wallet and the other disiecta membra of your life. It's nice to have a cute one. But cute handbags also come in "not obscenely expensive."

So you want a handbag that looks designer. This is because you care about the label. Wouldn't it bother you to have a fake, even a good one? Wouldn't it bother you more to have an obvious fake?

So you don't care about the label. Then why buy a fake? Use the tote bag you got when you started college.

Either way, there is no point in a fake. Plus, people buying them are always in my way when I walk through Manhattan. Get away!

Why is Lee short for "Leland?"

I'm broadly in favor of Leland as a name, actually. Not too long, not too short, not too effete, etc.

But for Lee Adama? Why not just "Lee Joseph Adama?" What's wrong with that? Why does it have to be Lee at all? What about George Joseph Adama? Or Ticonderoga Joseph Adama?

Fred? Peter? Rory? Actually, I kind of like "Roderick Adama."

Whatever. It's hard to articulate. Leland is a dumb name for Lee and that's all there is to it.

Why is George Osborne such a twerp?

Yes, I hate Becky Sharp. Of course I hate Becky Sharp. But that's all right, because you're supposed to. She manipulates, and she weasels, and she betrays people right and left, but it makes sense, for her. And at least she's not an idiot.

That she would be so cruel to Amelia, her only friend, is reprehensible but coherent.

But George! What is his possible justification for putatively contributing to Amelia's misery? It can only be that he is a twerp. A woman who is willing to betray her best friend--to whom you are married--is really not a woman to be trusted. This is basic stuff. I don't care how cute she is. You are a cad. And an imbecile.

George's only extenuating circumstance is that he is dramatically useful at the end of the book. By having been a twerp. Way to go, George.

Why is some idiot with an opinion and a webcam news?

On CNN right now, they are showing clips of random morons telling us what they think about the AIG bonus kerfuffle. This is not news. This is not journalism. This is not hard-hitting, this is is not useful, and this is not entertaining.

Administration talking heads aren't particularly entertaining, either, and they might be pretty stupid, but, and this is the important thing, they are not just yelling into a great big pit. Some of them actually know what they're talking about. They may not do the right or smart thing, but they are actually in possession of some useful knowledge and they have a modicum of influence.

It's hard to fill twenty-four whole hours of news. Fair. How about some cute puppies? At worst, people will complain that your coverage isn't hard-hitting enough, but they already do that. At best, maybe the puppies will make everyone feel better. Shouting imbeciles will definitely not do that.

Why are people such idiots about St. Patrick's Day?

It would be pleasant, on March 17th, to sit in a cozy pub with some corduroy-clad friends, to drink ninety pints of Guinness, and to write an incomprehensible novel or two.

Of course, this is precisely what we are not allowed to do. Instead, we are treated to bars packed like sardine tins, populated exclusively by boors and girls dressed in the products, apparently, of Tinkerbell's justifiably unheralded lingerie line.

Excuses to drink are fine. One needs them occasionally. But the holy Patrick is not impressed by your light beer or your body shots. Stop blaming them on him.

Why is March Madness such a big deal?

Sports are awesome. Some college sports are even awesome. It's possible that some people actually enjoy watching basketball. And there is a lot of basketball this month.

Enough that it will ever be even mildly amusing that ESPN has constant banners about how many man-hours will be lost in filling out brackets? No. Definitely not. Enough that all sporting news outlets have forgotten that other sports exist? There's a reason my homepage is BBC Sport.

People get this excited about the World Cup. But that's only every four years, and it's what we do instead of wars.

Why do bathroom stall doors open in?

I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons I particularly liked my eating club was that the doors in the ladies' room opened out.

Look, bathroom stalls are small. Why make them smaller? I refuse to believe that the public health hazard inherent in opening doors outward is particularly great. If anything, it would breed a greater consideration.

And yet, 98% of the bathroom doors I have encountered open in. Boo.

Why don't we get an "et tu, Brute" moment?

Having finally caved to the pressure to watch Rome, I've been generally fairly impressed (correcting, of course, for its being on HBO). Some minor geographical and chronological quibbles (the Aeneid, for instance, had not been written when Octavian was twelve), but by and large it's not so bad.

At the end of the first season, Caesar dies. I am terrifically sorry if this ruins the series for you, but you're beyond help.

He says nothing at this time. Nothing. He barely even gurgles. Brutus looks tortured and miserable, but Caesar just bleeds.

"Et tu, Brute" is something Shakespeare made up, I hear you cry. So? We have Cassius' "sic semper tyrannis" moment, why not "Et tu, Brute?" Problems of questionable plausibility and historicity seem to have little effect on the writers.

Also, Brutus was not a mama's boy, thanks very much.

Why does Twitter exist?

I am not interested in the unedited minutiae of people's lives. And even if I were, I would talk to them. You know, say something like, "Hello, how are you, what appallingly insignificant thing did you do today?"

Are we actually trying to obviate the necessity for all human interaction and thought? Are we aiming for a society that communicates only by electronic inanities? Are we so obsessed with documenting everything we do that we will soon cease to do anything?

Well, fie! I refuse. I will continue to write, and to think, and to speak, and to hell with the lot of you.

Why do women ruin films (part 5)?

Strictly speaking, I'll be talking about a television show, but close enough.

Martha Jones. Worst companion ever. Admittedly I actually have never seen any of the old Doctor Who, but I find it really hard to believe any of them were dumber or more useless than Martha.

Martha is supposed to be intelligent, and training to be a doctor, but the only time this ever shows itself is when someone goes "Hey, you're really stupid," and then she lists some bones, as if that proved something. Newsflash, Martha: it doesn't. Other than that she is invariably less useful than Rose was, and Rose was borderline illiterate.

Also, Martha? Your constant harping on your inferiority complex with respect to Rose would be much more poignant and less irritating if you were not in all ways totally inferior to her. Oops.

Why has Britain not discovered orthodontia?

Consider, if you will, Tobias Menzies's teeth. Also consider how rubbish his parents must be to give Tobias as a Christian name to someone whose surname was Menzies. Imagine if he ever has a friend with a lisp, who has to introduce him to people. Disaster!

But, back to his teeth. He's not old, nor is it likely that he is or was especially poor. So why are his front teeth so dreadfully wonky? He's a nice-looking bloke, and he has a rather engaging voice, actually. He'd probably sound a little different if his teeth were de-wonkified, but that's a small price to pay.

Here's a dig at the NHS! The state has ruined Mr. Menzies's mouth. Or at least they have not fixed it. And that causes us all daily pain.

Why doesn't Charlie's wife bring him a goddamn dime?

Seriously, how cheap are those sandwiches?

Why does Billy Joel go on tour with Elton John?

I don't mind Elton John, but I certainly wouldn't pay more money to see him. I would, however, because I am old and lame, love to see Billy Joel.

I find it hard to believe that either one of them can't sell out shows on his own. I mean, really? And wouldn't that mean more money for each? I don't understand music industry economics, or really the music industry at all, but that would make sense.

It can't be so hard to do sound for a piano that all technicians have threatened to strike unless the two combine their shows so that the pianos only have to be checked half as often.

Why is there so much applause in Congress?

I actually prefer not to be governed by acclamation. Sorry if that's a strange feeling for a citizen of a republic. A debate of ideas? A politician concerned more with good policy than with when he is seen to stand on C-SPAN? Is that really so much to ask?

It's self-congratulatory, empty, and wastes time. We already know that the Senate thinks it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. We don't need to be reminded constantly.

Do we not know where demagoguery (of the left or right) gets us? Has no one read a history book? In the last twenty-five hundred years?

Why is Charles Schwab still making those creepy ads?

You know, the ones with the almost-cartoons?

First, I question the decision to try to sell your company with cartoons or almost-cartoons. You are trying to convince people to entrust their money to you. To me, this would suggest that fake things were perhaps not the best idea.

But that's all by the bye. Have they never heard of the uncanny valley? It's a thing! Sociologists write about it!

Kind of human things are creepy. They just are. Avoid them.

Why didn't Marc Antony die of syphilis?

He clearly should have. I mean, what a thug. He didn't even have Alcibiades' political acumen. He was just a gross, lecherous thug.

Well, and possibly a military commander of considerable gifts.

But that's beside the point. He got where he was by a curious personal magnetism and good choice of sleeping locations. Many people have since, I suppose, but in those days before medicine and precautions, it seems unfair that he did so with few negative repercussions until Actium.

I mean, how does a man like that get to kill himself?