Look, it's really nice that the tenor has decided not to wuss out at intermission because of his allergies. However, it is not impressive enough to make anyone shout "bravo" when he walks back onstage, as should have been made clear by how only one person did so.
So, Mr. Yells-too-much-at-the-Met, maybe you should stop being a one man bravo brigade. It does not make you sound more cultured; it makes you sound like a buffoon.
Applause is for results or for people who appear at short notice. When someone finishes a production he has begun, which is incidentally his job, he deserves no more than the usual ration of acclaim. Sure, give him a robust reception when he takes his bow, but beyond that, you can keep your mouth shut.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Why do so many models look consumptive?
I realize they don't eat. But lots of people don't eat, and they still don't give me the TB heebie-jeebies.
This is worst, I think, in Anthropologie catalogues, because they sometimes aim for a Victorian/Edwardian aesthetic. Now, there were many nice things about that period. Gorgeous big hats, for instance, and men who were scrupulous about shaving.
However, tuberculosis is fun for no one.
So why do they cake eye make-up on models and wash them out and make them look as though they've left a blood-soaked rag just off-camera? Disease is not attractive!
This is worst, I think, in Anthropologie catalogues, because they sometimes aim for a Victorian/Edwardian aesthetic. Now, there were many nice things about that period. Gorgeous big hats, for instance, and men who were scrupulous about shaving.
However, tuberculosis is fun for no one.
So why do they cake eye make-up on models and wash them out and make them look as though they've left a blood-soaked rag just off-camera? Disease is not attractive!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Why do girls wear shorts with tights?
There's just something so odd and Henry VIII about it. It's perverse on a temperature level, but you could not unreasonably say that short skirts with tights also don't make sense, so I guess that won't fly.
It's also partly that girls seem to think that wearing tights disguises that their legs won't stand shorts that short. And while this is a little bit true, it is not that true.
Just wear some pants.
It's also partly that girls seem to think that wearing tights disguises that their legs won't stand shorts that short. And while this is a little bit true, it is not that true.
Just wear some pants.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Why does Guti now have "Guti.Haz" on the back of his shirt?
His name is José María Gutiérrez Hernández. This is a great name.
Since he's Spanish, and a footballer, and they tend to take a sort of modular approach to the nombres they put on their camisetas, the back of his shirt used to say "Guti." Which is fine. Kind of selling yourself short if you've got a moniker like his, but it also fits on your jersey even if you have kind of narrow shoulders.
He also plays for Real Madrid, and has, for fifteen years (or his whole career). He is therefore, perhaps unfairly, the Guti.
And "Guti" is short, snappy, and distinctive. I don't really know what "Guti.Haz" is, other than weird.
Yeah, and so what if it's his name and his shirt?
Since he's Spanish, and a footballer, and they tend to take a sort of modular approach to the nombres they put on their camisetas, the back of his shirt used to say "Guti." Which is fine. Kind of selling yourself short if you've got a moniker like his, but it also fits on your jersey even if you have kind of narrow shoulders.
He also plays for Real Madrid, and has, for fifteen years (or his whole career). He is therefore, perhaps unfairly, the Guti.
And "Guti" is short, snappy, and distinctive. I don't really know what "Guti.Haz" is, other than weird.
Yeah, and so what if it's his name and his shirt?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Why don't people understand commas?
I'm not even talking about the Oxford comma (the one at the end of lists) or the appositive comma ("my wife, Lisa"). Those might be sort of vaguely difficult and involve rules. You shouldn't screw them up, but I'll let it go.
I mean your bog-standard, clause-separating, happens-when-you-pause-in-speech comma. Read the sentence out loud. Probably, if you pause, you need a comma there. That's pretty much the rule. Commas are an aid to understanding. They were not sent from hell to make your personal life miserable, so get over it.
Have you no ear at all?
I mean your bog-standard, clause-separating, happens-when-you-pause-in-speech comma. Read the sentence out loud. Probably, if you pause, you need a comma there. That's pretty much the rule. Commas are an aid to understanding. They were not sent from hell to make your personal life miserable, so get over it.
Have you no ear at all?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Why do people try to change religions to suit them?
I can understand, if you had to be Christian or Muslim or what-have-you, because of some legal strictures, that you might want to change the faith to suit you better.
However.
No one is going to put you in an iron maiden if you can't recite the Nicene Creed. So, if you don't believe in it, and don't want to say it, here's a suggestion: DON'T.
Some people are Christians because they actually believe in the faith that the Church has handed down. Some people are Protestants because they believe in the faith that isn't quite what the Church handed down but they think is better. This is the correct reaction. If you don't like what the Roman Catholics are doing, nail some damn papers to a church door and have the courage of your convictions.
Being a destructive weasel and subverting a church from within so that it suits your ends is cowardly, vicious, and inimical to everyone who has joined it because they believe in its professed doctrine.
Religion is not mandatory. If you don't like it, leave, or start your own. If you can't accept the articles of faith, then this religion is not for you. This is how religion works. Why is this so hard, and why are you making my life miserable?
However.
No one is going to put you in an iron maiden if you can't recite the Nicene Creed. So, if you don't believe in it, and don't want to say it, here's a suggestion: DON'T.
Some people are Christians because they actually believe in the faith that the Church has handed down. Some people are Protestants because they believe in the faith that isn't quite what the Church handed down but they think is better. This is the correct reaction. If you don't like what the Roman Catholics are doing, nail some damn papers to a church door and have the courage of your convictions.
Being a destructive weasel and subverting a church from within so that it suits your ends is cowardly, vicious, and inimical to everyone who has joined it because they believe in its professed doctrine.
Religion is not mandatory. If you don't like it, leave, or start your own. If you can't accept the articles of faith, then this religion is not for you. This is how religion works. Why is this so hard, and why are you making my life miserable?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Why do online news outlets have video- or audio-only content?
Look, espn.com, I'm sorry I'm picking on you again, but you could try to be less awful. I do not want to watch you talk about possible QB changes, I want to read about it. That's why I've disabled your stupid mini-SportsCenter. I realize that some people (who are probably illiterate) would rather only watch SportsCenter forever. That's fine. You can have that option too.
The same goes for audio of political opinion columns. Why do these exist at all? Do people listen to them?
The reason I'd rather have text might be a bad one--it's because I like multi-tasking, and would rather have something I can leave whenever I want to, like an article--but I would think it's a common one. Also, the ability to skim is essential, so I can tell if the piece is actually interesting.
Can you imagine having to listen to, or watch, Bill Simmons read his whole column? Without a "skip all the Boston crap" option? Nightmare.
The same goes for audio of political opinion columns. Why do these exist at all? Do people listen to them?
The reason I'd rather have text might be a bad one--it's because I like multi-tasking, and would rather have something I can leave whenever I want to, like an article--but I would think it's a common one. Also, the ability to skim is essential, so I can tell if the piece is actually interesting.
Can you imagine having to listen to, or watch, Bill Simmons read his whole column? Without a "skip all the Boston crap" option? Nightmare.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Why has Gerard Butler turned into a total skeeze?
Maybe he always was one, but he used not to play them in films. He is now just a Scottish Bradley Cooper. Which is gross, and superfluous.
Gerard Butler used to be improbably sweet in films like Dear Frankie. Or misshapen and insane but still mildly lovable in Phantom of the Opera. I will even take dead-pan and honorable in Reign of Fire or oiled-up and psychotic in 300.
But now he's in stupid romantic comedies with Katherine Heigl (ick) and slots right into the greasy skits they dropped from Bradley Cooper's episode of Saturday Night Live for being too asinine, because they're better with a Scottish accent. Well, thanks for nothing. Maybe I'll just go watch dippy dragon films. Again.
Gerard Butler used to be improbably sweet in films like Dear Frankie. Or misshapen and insane but still mildly lovable in Phantom of the Opera. I will even take dead-pan and honorable in Reign of Fire or oiled-up and psychotic in 300.
But now he's in stupid romantic comedies with Katherine Heigl (ick) and slots right into the greasy skits they dropped from Bradley Cooper's episode of Saturday Night Live for being too asinine, because they're better with a Scottish accent. Well, thanks for nothing. Maybe I'll just go watch dippy dragon films. Again.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Why do people write (and say) "carmelized?"
If we're talking onions, the word is "caramelized." That is to say, when you're burning the outside so they end up being incredibly tasty, because the sugars have oxidized. It doesn't taste like caramel bon-bons, but the principle and the term are the same.
If you say "carmelized," I tend immediately to have an odd vision of onions cooked by the holy Elijah. Or in a habit of some variety, although I usually come back to earth when considering a discalced onion.
Vowels, people. Learn them. Use them.
If you say "carmelized," I tend immediately to have an odd vision of onions cooked by the holy Elijah. Or in a habit of some variety, although I usually come back to earth when considering a discalced onion.
Vowels, people. Learn them. Use them.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Why does Becks have a neckbeard?
It's gross, people.
Just because you're beautiful doesn't mean you can grow stupid facial hair.
Just because you're beautiful doesn't mean you can grow stupid facial hair.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Why do lousy beers try to market on taste?
Look, no one drinks Budweiser for the taste. Nor does he prefer Miller because of its unique savor.
Cheap beers are cheap. That is their virtue. That is their only virtue.
So market on the cuteness of Clydesdales, Bud, because that's really all you've got going for you.
Cheap beers are cheap. That is their virtue. That is their only virtue.
So market on the cuteness of Clydesdales, Bud, because that's really all you've got going for you.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Why does Bill Belichick always look like a hobo?
Chad Ochocinco was fined for having a chin-strap the wrong color. That's clearly ridiculous, but if the NFL is going to be that picky, don't you think they could start with making sure their coaches don't look like vagrants?
Coaches should wear suits. I know they're not allowed, because the NFL has an inexplicable never-ending deal with Reebok, but they still should.
Okay, maybe I'm insane and have high standards. But, seriously, not looking homeless is not a high bar. I don't care if Belichick wants to wear a hoodie with the arms cut off. He's a jackass, and you should tell him no, he can't. Maybe just to piss him off.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. No one tells Bill Belichick he can't do something.
Coaches should wear suits. I know they're not allowed, because the NFL has an inexplicable never-ending deal with Reebok, but they still should.
Okay, maybe I'm insane and have high standards. But, seriously, not looking homeless is not a high bar. I don't care if Belichick wants to wear a hoodie with the arms cut off. He's a jackass, and you should tell him no, he can't. Maybe just to piss him off.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. No one tells Bill Belichick he can't do something.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Why does the Navy bother to bring a band?
So I saw a ship commissioned today, and she was quite a boat, and in general it was a nice ceremony.
However.
There was a band. Four pieces of music were necessary: the national anthem, "Anchors Aweigh" as the crew lined the rail, the Navy hymn during the benediction, and, for whatever reason, "God Bless America" (don't even get me started).
Some stupid broad with big hair sang the first and the last of those. And she guessed wrong on her starting note for both--too high for "The Star-Spangled Banner" and too low for "God Bless America." What's the point in paying a band? Haven't the armed forces figured out that bands are infinitely better for patriotic songs because they have the range and most instrumental musicians can count? To four?
Look, if the crew can't stay in step to "Anchors Aweigh," or with each other, why bother to play anything at all? "Eternal Father, strong to save" is morbid! Just cut bands from our defense budget!
(I actually mean they should drop the vocalist overboard. For anyone keeping score.)
However.
There was a band. Four pieces of music were necessary: the national anthem, "Anchors Aweigh" as the crew lined the rail, the Navy hymn during the benediction, and, for whatever reason, "God Bless America" (don't even get me started).
Some stupid broad with big hair sang the first and the last of those. And she guessed wrong on her starting note for both--too high for "The Star-Spangled Banner" and too low for "God Bless America." What's the point in paying a band? Haven't the armed forces figured out that bands are infinitely better for patriotic songs because they have the range and most instrumental musicians can count? To four?
Look, if the crew can't stay in step to "Anchors Aweigh," or with each other, why bother to play anything at all? "Eternal Father, strong to save" is morbid! Just cut bands from our defense budget!
(I actually mean they should drop the vocalist overboard. For anyone keeping score.)
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Why did Rodrigo Santoro play Xerxes?
Specifically, why did he play a giant, bald, androgynous Xerxes?
Let's review what we have:
1. Rodrigo Santoro is gorgeous.
2. Rodrigo Santoro possibly cannot act.
3. Xerxes, according to various crazy people, is huge, hairless, and epicene.
4. Rodrigo Santoro, notably, has great hair.
5. Rodrigo Santoro is cast in a part in which he is deranged and looks nothing like himself.
Do you see where this loses me?
People: there are ugly men and women out there who can act. You cannot pretend that they are beautiful, but they might be excellent for the part. Why do you go to the trouble to make beautiful people up for ugly rôles?
Same goes for Eric Bana in Star Trek. Thanks for nothing.
Let's review what we have:
1. Rodrigo Santoro is gorgeous.
2. Rodrigo Santoro possibly cannot act.
3. Xerxes, according to various crazy people, is huge, hairless, and epicene.
4. Rodrigo Santoro, notably, has great hair.
5. Rodrigo Santoro is cast in a part in which he is deranged and looks nothing like himself.
Do you see where this loses me?
People: there are ugly men and women out there who can act. You cannot pretend that they are beautiful, but they might be excellent for the part. Why do you go to the trouble to make beautiful people up for ugly rôles?
Same goes for Eric Bana in Star Trek. Thanks for nothing.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Why do people document everything?
I'm going to posit that most toasts given at rehearsal dinners, etc., really don't stand up to scrutiny. They sound nice at the moment when everyone is tipsy and emotional, but a month later you're left with a video of someone you rather respect sounding like a pompous and inebriated moron.
Likewise with photos. Most photos are terrible. An even greater proportion of photos taken while intoxicated or of intoxicated people are terrible. And yet, we have them. And we feel we need to display them. Why do we do this?
Technology, of course, makes these things easier. Cameras hold hundreds of photos, and don't discriminate. Facebook just begs us to air our dirty laundry.
Certainly it's nice to have photos of good times and great people. Just...fewer.
Likewise with photos. Most photos are terrible. An even greater proportion of photos taken while intoxicated or of intoxicated people are terrible. And yet, we have them. And we feel we need to display them. Why do we do this?
Technology, of course, makes these things easier. Cameras hold hundreds of photos, and don't discriminate. Facebook just begs us to air our dirty laundry.
Certainly it's nice to have photos of good times and great people. Just...fewer.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Why is How I Met Your Mother now about Barney and Robin?
Oh my gosh, you guys, I am so bourgeois and I watch network television.
Anyway. I think in this week's episode, the "Mother" was not even mentioned. The episode wasn't even remotely about Ted. Now, I don't like Ted, and this is hardly the first time the show has forgotten that it has a telos, but this week was egregious.
Also, Barney and Robin are stupid and nauseating. Robin's awful at the best of times, because it's actually hateful when you pretend you don't have feelings and then flip out when people hurt them, and she really drags Barney down. Barney's charm is precisely that he is an irredeemable scoundrel. Making him into a second Ted helps no one.
I'm pretty sure Marshall used to be funny, too. Less sure about Lily, but I bet she used to be more funny than this.
Anyway. I think in this week's episode, the "Mother" was not even mentioned. The episode wasn't even remotely about Ted. Now, I don't like Ted, and this is hardly the first time the show has forgotten that it has a telos, but this week was egregious.
Also, Barney and Robin are stupid and nauseating. Robin's awful at the best of times, because it's actually hateful when you pretend you don't have feelings and then flip out when people hurt them, and she really drags Barney down. Barney's charm is precisely that he is an irredeemable scoundrel. Making him into a second Ted helps no one.
I'm pretty sure Marshall used to be funny, too. Less sure about Lily, but I bet she used to be more funny than this.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Why is Tom Brady a huge girl?
Do you know how tackling works? It's generally people trying to knock you over, and they generally go for the lower body because of truly bizarre and obscure physical concepts like center of gravity.
If you have a pre-existing knee injury, that's a shame for you. It does not mean that people are not allowed to look cross-wise at your knees. The rules do not change.
Like Rodney Harrison said, take off that skirt and put on some slacks, Tom Brady. You wuss.
If you have a pre-existing knee injury, that's a shame for you. It does not mean that people are not allowed to look cross-wise at your knees. The rules do not change.
Like Rodney Harrison said, take off that skirt and put on some slacks, Tom Brady. You wuss.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Why does acne exist?
And why isn't it totally dependent on environment?
I wouldn't mind if it boiled down to: if you don't wash your face, you get spots. Evolutionary cues that enforce hygienic habits are fine by me.
But to have widely variant susceptibilities to acne, regardless of care taken or amounts of salicylic acid used, seems monstrously unfair. I guess it's not particularly more unfair than various other genetic quirks, and it's far more minor than many, and not fatal, but it really is rubbish.
And why? What is the possible advantage to pimpliness?
I wouldn't mind if it boiled down to: if you don't wash your face, you get spots. Evolutionary cues that enforce hygienic habits are fine by me.
But to have widely variant susceptibilities to acne, regardless of care taken or amounts of salicylic acid used, seems monstrously unfair. I guess it's not particularly more unfair than various other genetic quirks, and it's far more minor than many, and not fatal, but it really is rubbish.
And why? What is the possible advantage to pimpliness?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)