Do you have any thoughts on Alexa Chung’s fashion line?

Mike, by email

No. I appreciate this is not an acceptable position for a fashion columnist to take, but it is one I’m happily seizing. It’s so hard to be a contrarian these days, what with even the New York Times now publishing columns by climate change sceptics. How, I thought to myself, can I compete in the controversy stakes with that? Suddenly the answer was obvious: don’t have an opinion at all. After all, I have written so much about Chung – a private citizen – in my career that she would be totally justified in having me up for harassment at this point. So I’ve decided to let this one be.

But I will say this: if I were a fashion designer, I’d be a little naffed off with all the thin, wildly privileged women with no design training suddenly rocking up and announcing that they are fashion designers because they just lahhhhhve clothes. First Victoria Beckham, then Samantha Cameron and now Chung. I call this the Newspaper Editor George Osborne effect, which is when someone with no experience decides they can do something a lot better than those with real experience. So, there, that’s my opinion on the matter: Alexa Chung is the George Osborne of fashion. Make of that what you will.

‘For a while it felt very unfair that both of my dashing dads stepped down at the same time from their high-profile roles, or, as I call it, abandoned me.’ Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

Why do some people age faster than others?

Sarah, by email

Obviously, I wouldn’t know anything about this strange thing – what is it called again? Ah, yes, “ageing” – because I look exactly the same as the day I started at the Guardian. When was that? Hmmm, let me just check my contract ... 17 years ago?!?! Huh, I thought it was about eight, 10 at most. Well, nonetheless, if you look at my first security pass to get in the office and look at today’s there is no difference at all, honestly, let me just get them out and show you and ... Huh. Um. OK, er, never mind that, can’t talk about myself all day. Let’s get back to you, Sarah.

So, why do some people age faster than others, you ask? Well, I can already hear the Guardian’s science desk shouting out things such as “cells” and “biological clocks” and “methyl compounds” and all sorts of other crazy-ass sciencey words. And sure, science is nice. I am very much in favour of politicians deferring to it instead of, say, the Bible. But no one comes here for science, so let’s get to this column’s USP: vaguely dodgy theories about celebrities and style.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the discrepancies in people’s ageing rates a lot recently, because two of my idols exemplify this: Jon Stewart and Barack Obama. Ahhh, Jonny and Barry – how I miss thee. For a while it felt very unfair that both of my dashing dads stepped down at the same time from their high-profile roles, or, as I call it, abandoned me. This was very psychologically scarring. And look how everything has fallen apart since! If Jonny and Barry weren’t so dashing, I would be very cross with them.

The other week, I watched the Daily Show reunion on the Late Show, hosted by Stephen Colbert, and suddenly I understood everything. OK, not everything – I will absolutely never understand the appeal of Oasis, for a start – but I understood why Barry and Jonny had to leave. Colbert showed a clip of Stewart from 2000 and Stewart pointed out that he seemed to have aged about a thousand times faster than everyone else at the reunion: “Why has age ravaged me? I find this very peculiar. You,” he said, pointing to Daily Show alumni Colbert, Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Ed Helms and Rob Corddry, “are a garden of earthly pleasures and I am a small handful of pot pourri. This looks a group of students coming back to see Mr Holland. It’s really shocking.”

And it is, actually. Jonny and Barry seem to have both aged about 30 years in a decade. Barry has mentioned this, too, how he went from hot young thing to hot older thing seemingly overnight, some point in – oh, let’s just say – 2009.

Most presidents age during their time in office. Most, but not all. Bill Clinton, for one, aged surprisingly little between 1992 and 2000, and I think it’s fair to say he had a particularly stressful time in office. And yet, in classic Clinton fashion, he seemingly just styled it out.

Here’s what I think has happened. Since September 11, the US has been plagued by evil forces – no, not terrorists, but evil conservatives exploiting tragedy for their own personal advancement and gain. So, for the past decade, Jonny and Barry selflessly put themselves out there in the field and absorbed the worst rays these malevolent forces shot out of their blood-red eyes, and this played havoc with their physical shells. And it just got to the point where they had to step down, their work not done, but their bodies exhausted.

But here’s the good news! They are still my dashing dads because youth has always been overrated in all areas, including attractiveness, and they both – judging from recent photos – look a lot happier. Barry, in particular, looks like he is having more fun on Necker than, I don’t know, going to the UN. So what I’m saying is this: if someone looks as if they have aged faster than usual, this (a) probably means they’ve been fighting on behalf of mankind, and (b) is irrelevant, because it genuinely doesn’t matter. But, most of all, you should salute them for protecting you while they could from the worst of Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich. What do a few grey hairs matter next to that?