Why is no one sleeping with Brutus?

Back to complaining about Rome. I don't know why this suddenly bothers me, but it's been weighing on my mind.

Everyone, in this series, is sleeping with everyone else. Some of it is legitimate--Brutus is thought by some to have been Julius Caesar's son, and Antony would go to bed with anything that moved--but some of it is clearly ridiculous. I point here to Octavia, and apparently half of late Republican Rome.

But, amid all this rampant and ludicrous bed-hopping, no one is sleeping with Marcus Junius Brutus. Not even his wife.

Why? It's not like the actor was repulsive, or that his pillow-talk wouldn't have been interesting. If nothing else, we could have gotten a Shakespeare-adjacent scene in which Portia (I avoid the pig-spelling, so, sorry, pedants) complains that he is too secretive. They could have had that conversation without clothes on, so I don't know why HBO balked.

Is it because their marriage is widely believed to have been at least mildly functional, and they they just possibly cared the slightest bit about one another? The fashion for idealization has gone out, I realize, but I'm pretty sure it's also dishonest to pretend that absolutely everyone was a deranged nymphomaniac.

Why do some traffic signals not take cyclists into account?

Some traffic lights won't change unless they sense an automobile or a pedestrian presses a button. This is a pain in my neck, because I'm a huge hippie and I cycle everywhere.

In many states, it is illegal to cycle on sidewalks. Generally this law is not enforced, but many cyclists, for reasons of comfort, expedience, and not shaking the hell out of their nice road bikes, prefer cycling in the street. This makes pressing traffic light buttons somewhat difficult.

Also, evidently, bikes do not trigger the sensors in the street. This probably makes some kind of sense, with physics or somesuch, but that won't buy me a cup of coffee. Or, you know, let me cross the street legally and with minimal risk to my life.

So, thanks for thinking ahead, traffic planners!

Why is the new nfl.com so much worse than the old?

It's full of extraneous fanciness, but it's impossible to find what you need. What is a big play alert, and why do they pop up all the time, thereby making it impossible to click on useful links? Why is there a graph of them at the top of the scores page, instead of actual scores?

Why is the GameCenter totally unintelligible, and why does it eat processor? Why do fan comments show up on the "game information" tab?

I don't know that, content-wise, it's gone downhill, but I stopped reading it about four years ago when I realized it was even worse than all other sporting news outlets. Stupid and hard to use is a great combination.

Why does voting have to be "cool?"

Look, if someone needs validation from a trendy t-shirt in order to do his civic duty, I'm not sure I'd cry if he didn't vote.

To put it another way: every time I see a "Rock the Vote" or similar t-shirt, I want to kick the person wearing it in the seat of the pants.

Certainly these people, if eighteen years of age and not felons, may vote. But if they are too overcome with their ennui to go to the polls on their own account, tough.

Why are modern trophies hideous?

Trophies used to be pretty straightforward--a cup, or a dish, or the armor of your slain foe. So far, so good. Then they got slightly fancier, and you could get a soccer player or a bowler or whatever. The Heisman, for instance. Still, representational, simple, obvious, and probably metallic or something.

Recently, though, people have decided that these are boring, or insufficiently up-to-date. So instead, when you win the best sprinter at the Tour de France, you get a trophy that looks like someone did a bad PhotoShop blur of a cyclist in green and then sent it to the emergency Lucite factory, yesterday, because he forgot he'd signed a contract.

Or the other option, which is abstract geometric shapes that are totally unrelated to the competition. Which, despite (presumably) being intended to be original and ground-breaking, all look the same.

If the other option is "ugly and/or generic," which it seems to be, why did we abandon the cup?

Why do stores lie to me?

Look, I don't mind paying full price for toothpaste. It's fine by me. Toothpaste is just one of those things you have to buy.

What I do mind is when it says that the toothpaste is $7.49, but that it comes with $2.00 on the store card thing, which means I'm paying $5.49.

This is not true.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of the possible rebates or whatever that come from store membership cards are never redeemed. This is, in fact, why they exist. Because you can tell people they have the opportunity to get some money back, and they tend to operate as if they already have. This is because people are idiots. Also, redeeming such things involves keeping track of paper and taking forever at the cash register, both of which are at least mildly undesirable.

$2 in store points is not even remotely like $2 off an item. Stop lying.

Why is feminist literary theory insane?

Okay, so, for real, I recently read an article that claimed that, if you prefer to read a whole play instead of assorted random fragments from a play, you hate women.

This was news to me. I like reading Homer, which we have in its entirety, which means that I would prefer to sit only with aristocratic Athenian males and drink, forever, and ignore women, slaves, and poor people. Which, in fairness, I kind of would. Athenian aristocrats seem like pretty neat people. And if paying attention to women means I have to hear drivel like this, count me out.

Some Euripides exists only in fragments. This excites me because I don't like Euripides much, and hey! less to read. But, apparently fragmentary classical literature should thrill me because it represents evidence that a misogynist culture has fallen into dust. Which is deranged.

Look, it's fine to argue that Sappho is not worse than Pindar merely because we have less of her. Hard to judge, because there's not much to go on, but feel free to argue. Just stop being crazy.

Why does "Talk Like a Pirate Day" exist?

Asinine.

Pirates are funny when you're eight. They are slightly more interesting now that they are androgynous and backed by a booming Hans Zimmer score, but, quite seriously, if anyone said "savvy?" to me, I'd punch him in the nose.

I guess this makes me joyless and sad, but in a world in which Armistice Day passes unnoticed, I have trouble getting excited about invented and witless observances.

Why do we get so much information on indisposition of athletes?

"Indisposed" is really enough for me. I don't want to know that so-and-so ate a bad prawn. I just don't.

I understand that you don't want your team accused of being wimps, or you don't want some player to come under fire unfairly for being a lazy jackass when in fact he just has food poisoning. Or whatever. So you give lots of information. Right now you probably don't want to say "flu-like symptoms," on account of the hysteria, and that's fine.

But. Figure something else out. "Gastro-intestinal" is a word I never want to hear during a sporting event. Ever.

Why is the window on pears so narrow?

Pears are great. They taste delicious, they have a good texture, and they make a mean crisp.

They are also, however, properly ripe for approximately .12 seconds. The time between "tooth-breaking" and "mush all over your shirt" is far too short.

You buy, say, three. They are not quite ripe. You try the first one anyway, because you're an idiot. The experience is not pleasant. But you persevere! Two days later, you eat the second one. It's tasty and perfect. But two pears at a time is a lot of pears, so you wait on the third one. Say, a day. You anticipate a delectable repeat of Pear No. 2, but you are a fool, and Pear No. 3 has disintegrated spectacularly in your hand.

Yes, yes, this is how fruit works. But couldn't it work this way with some kind of fruit that's gross? Instead of pears, which are great? All I ask is a few more days.

Why does Evian now have commercials with creepy babies?

In these commercials, there are babies on roller skates. Babies, in onesies, on roller skates, doing tricks, in front of other babies. Everyone seems pleased.

Except that, of course, the babies are not real. Because real babies cannot actually skate. And so the babies are right smack dab in the middle of the Uncanny Valley and intensely horrifying.

"Live Young" is a stupid, ungrammatical slogan, and the choice of infants to visualize it is equally stupid. No one wants to return to infancy, because being an infant, while rather cushy, is boring and useless. Youth is all well and good, but the range that people tend to prefer is the one in which you can walk reliably and without assistance.

The E-Trade babies were stupid and gross too, but at least they weren't terrifying.

Why do people say "physical" when they mean "violent?"

This pervasive issue has completely taken over modern sports-writing. "A physical encounter at Stamford Bridge" is what you will see when the writer actually means "John Terry was beating people with sticks." "The Steelers are a very physical team" means "In Pittsburgh, they enjoy shattering kneecaps."

This sort of euphemism is employed, presumably, so that people don't feel guilty about liking sports in which people cause pain, often on purpose. It is also employed to make fans feel less squeamish about liking Hines Ward, because he is a "physical" player, and not a "violent psychopath."

This is asinine and sissified. Precision in language, please.

Why doesn't anyone ever think to shoot the bad guy in the head?

Of course he's wearing body armor. Of course your bullets will ricochet harmlessly off his chest. His head, however, is unprotected, largely so that he can sass you with no impediments.

So, shoot him in the head. All your problems will be solved.

Why are girls wearing sacks nowadays?

You've seen these dresses. They have a knit bodice, tank-top style, generally black, and then there is a brightly colored print or solid skirt. The waist is high, the hemline is high, and the tailoring was done by someone who was high.

I think someone is under the impression that the high waist and hemline give the illusion of longer legs. They might. But only at the cost of the illusion of morbid obesity. I have seen thin girls in these things. They don't look thin. Girls who are already not thin look less thin. This is not a good fashion choice!

Seriously. These dresses are awful. Sometimes they are paired with leggings. A newsflash, ladies: no garment is improved by the addition of leggings.

Why are candy stores so psychically damaging?

They invariably assault the customer with astounding sensory overload, from the neon speckles on the walls to the truly awful music on a loop. Most people can tell they're in a candy store without having "Lollipop" blasted at them. Or "Candy Girl." Honestly, they can.

Children probably don't notice. But they're not paying, and they probably wouldn't mind if the walls weren't a searing lime green with red and purple dots. They will still eat the candy.

Can you imagine working in one of these places? A five-song loop of cutesy, atrocious music? Or, alternatively, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on the big screen? Over and over?

All this, and diabetes.

Why does Dick Enberg do tennis commentary?

I don't think I heard him say a single thing about tennis during Federer vs. Robredo this afternoon. Or during any other match I have heard him commentate. He makes weird analogies to other sports (that generally don't work), and talks about his colleagues' kids.

I don't know about you, but when I'm watching tennis, I'm not looking for insight on John McEnroe's various offspring. I'd like statistics, maybe, or explanations of odd rules. It would even be better to talk about the Federer children, although that's getting pretty old and is none of our business.

At any rate, it seems stupid to have someone in the booth who seems not to understand what sport is going on, when play starts and when it stops, and why anyone would care. You know, maybe people watch tennis because they are interested in tennis.

If you're going to admit that your commentary is totally pointless, stop paying people to do it.

Why do women ruin films (part 7)?

So, this is rather late in the game, since the last film in the ever-worsening series came out years ago, but I hate Ana Maria or Anamaria or whatever her stupid name is from Pirates of the Caribbean.

Strangely, I have no problems with Zoe Saldana herself. I think her accent's a bit dodgy, but in fairness Caribbean accents are weird as hell and I can't claim expert knowledge. She's not odd-looking, and she isn't a perversely terrible actress.

She is, however, saddled with an absolutely excruciating part. She insults everyone constantly but has no skills of her own, which is useless. I don't think you ever even see her working around the ship. Her lines are stupid, they are timed badly, and she's not plucky--she's irritating and hateful. Elizabeth Swann is pretty plucky, and (except for the asinine corset pain line) not particularly irritating. So clearly these people were capable of writing female characters who aren't awful. They just refused.

Well, thanks.

Why do they play terrible music at the US Open?

"Cotton-Eyed Joe" should never be played anywhere ever. "Dragostea Din Tei" was hip years ago, and was bad then.

I don't mind playing the "Imperial March" from Star Wars when Roger Federer comes on the court. That's mildly clever and funny.

But it's not really clear why there has to be music at all. I guess we're American, we're boisterous, we hate the English, Pimm's Cup, and silence, and we love truly awful music from our adolescence--it all follows.

What would replace this kind of music? I have no idea. I reserve the right to be entirely negative. Just make it stop.

Why didn't anyone burn all known manuscripts of Euripides' Helen?

What on earth is the point? Who wants to vindicate that trollop? As an intellectual exercise it may be interesting, but as a play it's a big pile of who cares.

The plot? Helen sits the war out in Egypt, and Menelaus finds her. They live happily ever after. This concept may not be entirely original with Euripides, but he perpetuated it and for that he deserves a kick in the pants.

There's a long, stupid recognition scene, and Teucer shows up, for whatever reason. Hateful. Totally hateful.