Why is there so much freaking college basketball on TV?

It's bad enough that it's on all the time. It is much worse that it made the Aussie Open coverage start late. Completely unacceptable. If ESPN tells me that Open coverage starts at nine, there should be only two people on my television screen at 9:30, not ten galumphing giants. I will even accept Novak Djokovic, if necessary.

Why are we still surprised that the ancients hated women?

Every time I read a new classical author, or even inspect a volume on the Athenian acropolis, people are quick to inform me that, in antiquity, women were not everyone's favorite.

No! Surely not! This changes everything!

You say that a fourth century Christian author was not especially keen on the female of the species? And he used Eve as a type? How absurd! I would never have guessed. And in classical Athens, power was concentrated in the hands of men? That's crazy talk. I will certainly get extremely angry about this right now, and feel slighted forever.

Come on, people. I think we're pretty much on board with classical misogyny, which was chronic and ubiquitous. No one except a lunatic will argue this point. But it was also a very long time ago, and it is not going to change. Prudentius will never grow out of his contempt for ladies, and Aristotle likewise is never going to change his mind.

So, if you're going to point out that Cato the Elder hated chicks, please do us a favor and also say something else.

Why do books that are electronically typeset transliterate Greek?

In the old days, when someone actually had to set all the type, and it would be complicated and expensive to use a different alphabet, transliterating Greek made sense. There was also, presumably, the possibility that the printers didn't know Greek, and therefore the likelihood of error and nightmare page-proofs skyrocketed.

Nowadays, however, we have PDFs and Unicode and other magical things that make Greek easy. There is no excuse to have transliterated Greek, and it is an impediment to understanding. Even in italics, ate does not look like ἄτη. And it never will. Even atê isn't close.

The worst is when some things are transliterated and some are set in Greek, because the transliterations consequently catch you off guard. And, of course, there's the problem of pretentious and hellenizing transliteration, which I have addressed before. If you just provide the Greek, none of these problems arise, because the classical texts are standardized.

So get on that, presses.

Why are my new penny loafers not really penny loafers?

They look like penny loafers, but the piece of leather with the penny slot just sits on top of the vamp. It's not sewn down. The penny slides right out!

This is a travesty.

Perhaps there will be glue.

Why is Toyota so perverse?

There is now more than one type of Prius. So now there needs to be a plural of Prius, for everyone to know and use.

Because Toyota is strange, they have a poll or something on their website that asks you to help them choose a plural. I will present the choices, and destroy them.

1. Priuses. Probably this is the way to go. For the pedantic, "Priusses." It's a logical, English formation. It decides to treat "Prius" as a neologism ex nihilo, but that's fine.
2. Prii. Nope. "Prius" is not a second-declension masculine noun in Latin, and therefore its plural is not "Prii."
3. Prien. Again, no. Pseudo-German, which I assume this is meant to be, makes no sense in this case and that wouldn't be the formation anyway.
4. Prium. What? Seriously, what? That doesn't look plural. That doesn't even look nominative! Stupid!

The actually correct choice, if you're asking anyone with half an education, is "Priora." "Prius" is the neuter of the adjective "prior" (which, yes, means that). Therefore, the neuter plural of this substantive (in the nominative, because we do not inflect our nouns) is "Priora."

That this is ludicrous is not my fault. It is Toyota's fault, for choosing a real word. If you're fussed, I suggest you just start referring to a Prius as a Wooblus, of which the plural, evidently (for Wooblus is a second-declension masculine noun, even if I just made it up), is Woobli.

Why have they completely fumbled the new Three Musketeers movie?

In casting The Three Musketeers, your first priority is D'Artagnan. He needs to be good-looking and uncomplicated. It helps if he doesn't look a complete buffoon with a fussy moustache and beard. And if he is completely incapable of expressing moral shades of grey, that's all to the good. Proven ability to buckle swash is also a plus.

Yes, Orlando Bloom is obviously your man. But no one has copped to this. The Percy Jackson kid (of whom I have no knowledge, nor any care to know) will be D'Artagnan.

What makes it much, much worse is that Orlando Bloom is actually in the movie. As the Duke of Buckingham.

Did anyone read the book? Orlando Bloom can certainly not play a world-weary Lothario. He could barely get Kirsten Dunst into bed in Elizabethtown; his chances with Anne of Austria seem slim. He might be slightly too old to play a really perfect D'Artagnan, but that's everyone else's fault for holding off too long on the film.

It's probably impossible to make a plausible movie of The Three Musketeers, because books by Alexandre Dumas are absurd and ridiculous. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try, and doesn't mean you should ignore gifts when they fall into your lap. Idiots.

For good measure, Orlando Bloom should also remake any and all Errol Flynn movies. Especially Captain Blood. And not the weird General Custer one.

Why isn't everyone much more creeped out by La dame aux camélias?

I include the various adaptations: La Traviata, the 1936 Camille, Moulin Rouge, etc.

Look. She has tuberculosis. She's contagious, she's coughing up blood, and she's dying. The doctor possibly orders a few months in the country, but he probably does not recommend the attentions of an importunate and jealous young man. Which is what the poor woman gets.

That she is more or less a prostitute is largely irrelevant, as the hooker with a heart of gold has been a trope in drama from time immemorial, but she's dying! This is not romantic! Armand (or whatever your adapted name is), this is gross!

As a side note: why does no one ever contract the consumption from the character who has it? It's highly communicable.

Why is Black Swan probably awful?

Let's see. We have:

1. Natalie Portman being intense and driven but also (gasp!) vulnerable. Check!
2. Vincent Cassel being sinister and manipulative. Check!
3. Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis getting all up close and personal. Check?

I am so sure that all kinds of things that are not at all predictable are going to happen and it's actually so mind-blowing and not merely an excuse to have two nice-looking actresses wear not-very-much and make not-actual-porn. This is definitely true. No one is type-cast at all. It's very deep. Says many important things about perfection.

Oh, and then Natalie Portman grows feathers. Awesome.

PS: No, I have not seen it, and I am not going to. I hate both Natalie Portman and pretentious films.