Why isn't that guy wearing orange?

What a jackass.

Why aren't the goddamn mountains blue?

I want cold beer!

Why do people wander all over during ceremonies?

So, say, for instance, that you're having a Memorial Day service in a cemetery. You have a podium and some seats, and then you have a flagpole, and you have a memorial and a bunch of wreaths that are going to be laid in front of it.

Probably the immediate vicinity of the flag, memorial, and wreaths may not be a great place to stand if you are a spectator? Just maybe? And maybe if someone asks you to move because they have to lay wreaths where you are standing, you should move more than a foot and a half? And maybe you shouldn't wander aimlessly all over this area while someone is speaking? Or during the national anthem? Right? No?

The service is exactly the same every year. The level of sensitivity I ask is not unreasonable. Also, how do you not notice you're standing four feet from a flagpole?

Why didn't President Kennedy wear hats?

If you give a man a fedora, he automatically looks about 100% more like Cary Grant than he used to. This is clearly better than looking 100% more like Eddie Vedder.

And yet, de mortuis nil nisi bonum and all that, President Kennedy didn't wear a hat on his inauguration and everyone stopped wearing hats. Dear everyone, not wearing a hat does not make you look like Jack Kennedy.

So, if you consider that, wearing a hat, you look more like Cary Grant, and, not wearing a hat, you just look like the schlemiel you are, clearly you should be wearing a hat.

Why are jeans worn to church?

I've heard people tell me that God doesn't care. That, my friends, is just a lame excuse for laziness. You don't care, so you tell yourself God doesn't.

He might not. I don't presume to say.

But I care. Religion ought to take some effort. You're not golfing, you're not rolling out of bed to brunch at your club, you're not lounging on the Riviera. You're going to church.

Put on a blazer.

Why do top-split hot dog rolls exist?

If I explain, this entire post will sound like dreadful innuendo, so I'm not going to try.

Let's take it as read that the concept fails.

Why would someone put an addition on one side of a Georgian house?

Georgian houses are chiefly known for their symmetry and grace. Their grace is dependent upon their symmetry. They really don't have a whole lot else going for them besides regularity and convention. No interesting vaults, no intriguing half-timbering.

They are, however, attractive. You see a door flanked by two windows on each side and you go, "What a lovely house. I bet real, hardy, American types live there. They have some aesthetic sense and probably a few nice chairs, but they also have a good pair of heavy boots for when they have to shovel stuff."

If, however, you see a door flanked by two windows on each side and then some misbegotten, probably glassy, excrescence on one end, you weep. "Aha," you say to yourself, "I bet those people have only oddly-shaped chairs that are totally impossible to sit on and eat lots of wheat germ. Also they hate freedom."

Add on to the back if you can't afford both sides. That's a totally acceptable option. It won't throw the house off-balance on its lot, and it won't ruin the single, over-riding virtue of your house's style. It will also not tell people that you hate all things good.

Why is Mr. Weasley illiterate?

There are many words, even English words, that I don't use on a daily basis. Indeed, sometimes I encounter words I don't know at all.

Unless, however, it's something like "Featherstonehaugh," I know how to pronounce it.

"Electricity" is not hard to pronounce. Its spelling is phonetic, and, even if you hear it, it's not particularly complicated or a tongue-twister.

It makes no sense for a grown man with no known mental difficulties to say "eckeltricity." It's not even particularly cute. Being intrigued by plugs and batteries is rather clever, and makes the reader pause. Saying "eckeltricity" is idiotic and merely makes the reader want to throw things.

"Electric" also does not sound like "eclectic." I bet magical people even have the word "eclectic," since, you know, they speak English.

Why does Harry Osborn die?

I have absolutely no qualms about revealing this spoiler, because Spiderman III is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and now I have saved you the trouble of seeing it.

By the end of that movie, you hate every single character, except for Harry. He starts out being kind of a jackass, but, hey, his father's dead, cut him some slack. And, listen closely, because this is the important part, he redeems himself totally and in every way.

You know who starts out a jackass in that movie and then stays a jackass? That's right, Peter Parker, I'm looking at you.

We're not supposed to like Harry from the beginning, because he's good-looking and rich and MJ likes him instead of Peter. Well, um, I don't buy that. I too would like Harry instead of Peter, because Peter is a weirdo with an annoying voice and massive latent jackassery. The only possible way to make Peter more appealing than Harry is to kill Harry.

I would suggest, screen-writers, that you make characters who are supposed to be appealing actually appealing, instead of just killing off everyone likable so that MJ picks Peter by default. In fact, kill everyone but Harry, because they're all jerks. I'd totally watch Green Goblin Junior: Actually, Spiderman IS a Jerk.

Why don't people eat their crusts?

In anecdotal evidence, if you don't tell a child that he needn't eat his crusts, he will never question his obligation to do so. He requires some effete adult to tell him that crusts are optional, and some over-indulgent sucker to cut them off.

Don't do this. It makes your child into a sissy. It's a tiny, tiny step from crustless sandwiches to Smirnoff Ice.

Also the crusts are the best part. Fools.

Why was Wolverine terrible?

Look, once you get to X-Men Origins XXIV: Jubilee, the movies are allowed to be terrible. Jubilee is the worst.

Wolverine, however, is awesome. There is no possible excuse for the movie of his past to be stupid, schlocky, and lame. And especially for the most notably awful part to be claws I could draw in MS Paint. George Lucas may have had idiotic plots and brain-meltingly painful dialogue, but he also had pretty pretty pictures!

I'm pretty sure they were going for a franchise-possible concept, here, but at this rate no one's even going to see Cyclops, or even Nightcrawler. Wolverine is indisputably the best X-Man, and if his movie is a giant ball of garbage, everyone else's has got to be worse. Scatter-shot plot, bad special effects, and criminal under-use of Gambit? Thanks for nothing.

Oh, man, and don't get me started on the stupid cheesy love story. Jean Grey was bad enough, and at least she's interesting.

Why is Tom Wilkinson in every movie ever?

Look, people, I am totally certain that there are other slightly heavy, slightly creepy, older British actors out there. Tom Wilkinson doesn't have to be in everything.

But he's in every kind of movie, too! You just can't get away from him. You want pseudo-intellectual artsy crap? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind! You want over-blown, over-emotionalized, semi-historical garbage? The Patriot! You want a Desert Fox near-remake starring every minor actor from Pirates of the Caribbean II and III? Valkyrie!

And he's always exactly the same. Fromm is Mr. Dashwood is Cornwallis is Fennyman is blah de bloo de blah.

Seriously, there's got to be a whole crop of actors who are above a certain age and still need work. Be graceful, Mr. Wilkinson.

Why was there no bicycle polo?

Consider, if you will, polo. It's really not the cleverest way to spend your time, as it involves you, with a stick, chasing, on horseback, a small ball, with seven other people, also on horseback with sticks. Still, your pony has some self-preservation instincts, and, short of falling off, you're probably going to be okay.

Consider also, if you will, a bicycle. You pedal, it goes. Importantly, if you don't pedal, it stops. And falls over.

It is broadly possible that there are people out there who are "good" at bicycle polo. I have never seen them. Which is fine, because people who are "bad" at bicycle polo are utterly hilarious to watch, especially when they start cheating and just running while dragging their bicycles and imprecations are hurled at them from the commentating booth.

So please explain to me why I flew three thousand miles just to watch four lousy matches of real actual polo with ponies. Lame.

Why are adapters and chargers enormous?

I am packing to go abroad, so I am bringing my camera. It's not large. But I might need to charge it again. The charger will take up twice the space.

Why? Why why why? Why is it irregularly shaped and impossible to wind so that it is both compact and tidy? Why does it have random bits that stick out?

I understand that there are electronics involved, and they can be picky. But also, were these engineers drunk?


Addendum: I will be out of the country for the next week. I may or may not blog from there. Normal posts will resume on Monday the 11th.

Where's my Pimm's?