Damnit, English!

According to statistics, it is very likely that you have uploaded pictures to your Facebook account from various events–or, if not you, then one or many of your friends–and had a hard time categorizing some of these photos. It is also very likely that you put the photos that cannot be categorized as “Italy 2004″ and “Summer 2008″ and so forth into a photo album entitled “Random” (or some variant). Really?

When you have a collection of things that have nothing to do with each other, they are not random; they are simply unrelated. Your album is a catchall; it is a disparate grouping of similar items (photos!) that have no other logical home. But I have an idea: use a random word generator to come up with the name of your photo album. I set it to “uncommon” and it gave me “Neurotransmitter.” If nothing else, please change your “Random” album to “Neurotransmitter.”

But honestly. The term is “non-sequitur.” This is not an uncommon term in the English language.

And here’s another thing! Jokes are not random!

As someone who has made jokes before and who has relied on the non-sequitur as a comedic device, let me tell you this: every “random” joke you hear was agonized over by self-loathing writers who desperately just want you to think they’re funny. Specifically, I’d like to address the late Mitch Hedburg and The Family Guy. These are two comedic vehicles who/that do not follow traditional story-telling techniques. They use (to varying–BUT NOT RANDOM–levels of success) jokes that are not tied to a plot.

Mitch Hedberg used a comedic style known as the one-liner; he would say one funny sentence and move on to the next. The Family Guy uses straight-up non-sequiturs,* cutting away from the plot to drag us through what is generously called a joke.

Furthermore, when a person, minding his own damn business on the street and then is blown up by a bomb, he is not random; he is simply unfortunate. An explosion cannot have a random victim; for that to happen, the explosion would have to happen and then INSTANTLY every person in the world (the universe, actually) would have to be assigned a number. Then the explosion would have to consult a random number generator to discover who its victim would be. If it it were to be truly random, the explosion would have to determine the number of victims also using the random number generator.

No, the person on the street was not random. As I said, he was unfortunate. The person who placed the bomb intended to kill (or maim, or startle) the people in the immediate area around the bomb. That was intentional. There was a measurable amount of thought that went into its placement (and its construction, and whether or not to use it). Maybe it was not understood and it was very likely not predictable, but it was on purpose.

And you know what? When you say your Facebook photos are random, I pay the number generator people to make your number come up for explosion duty each time.

*The Family Guy leans on non-sequiturs so much, in fact, that South Park suggested dimwitted manatees nosed balls into slots to compose all of The Family Guy’s the jokes. This suggestion has yet to be unproven.

Maybe you’ve gone to a bar and told the bartender you want a drink of six (or five, or seven, or eight) parts vodka to one part dry vermouth. Though I find this drink unpleasing, I do not judge you for this. I do judge you the moment you call it a Vodka Martini.

According to The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks (1948), vodka and vermouth together become a Bradford. Now that’s a drink name. It’s not a Vodka Martini. It’s a Bradford. There is no more need for question or argument; the issue has been resolved.

But the “Vodka Martini” is indicative of a much broader phenomenon in this age of 19-year-olds (and many women of all ages) who want to feel like they’re drinking but don’t actually enjoy liquor, wine, or beer. I blame Applebee’s, Chili’s, and TGI Friday’s.

These three restaurants have taken real drinks and named them incorrectly to make women (yes, women) feel sophisticated. For example, from the TGI Friday’s online drinks menu (in the “Girls’ night out” section):

What they describe is a Mudslide made with quality ingredients, served in a cocktail glass instead of the traditional tumbler. Just because it’s in a cocktail glass does not make it a Martini! When I drink wine out of the skulls of my slain enemies, does that mean I’m drinking brains? It absolutely does not. The drink in question is called a Mudslide, up (the “up” indicating that it is in a Martini glass instead of the traditional tumbler).

Listen. When you watch The Jeffersons, you are not watching All in the Family. They’re related; they come from the same place; they are both great. But they are not the same. People would judge you if you referred to The Jeffersons as All in the Family.

Maybe you think I’m being snobby and picking on Martinis because of the disgusting (both to my sensibilities as an English speaker and to my palate) proliferation of “Martini” drinks that are made with vodka and fruity flavoring. This is a lot of it. But there’s more.

If we continue to look at the menu at TGI Friday’s, we find things like the Pomegranate Margarita, the Tropical Berry Mojito Shaker, etc. They have taken real classic cocktails and sweetened them for the aforementioned 19-year-olds and all women. This is fine! They are a business. But when you change one ingredient—say, adding pomegranate to a Margarita—you must give the drink a new name. That’s the rule.

Here are just a few drinks pairs that gave very similar ingredients but something is different, so each has a different name:

Manhattan: whiskey, sweet vermouth, bitters
Rob Roy: scotch wiskey, sweet vermouth (NOT A MANHATTAN)

Margarita: tequila, orange liqueur, lime juice
Matador: tequila, pineapple juice, lime juice (NOT A PINAPPLE-RITA)

White Russian: vodka, Kahlua, cream
Colorado Bulldog: vodka, Kahlua, cream, Coca-cola (NOT A WHITE RUSSIAN FIZZ)

Hyperbole is a sacred, even hilarious institution of the English language–when it is used effectively. While we all grant that Frank Sinatra very likely did get a kick from Champagne, cocaine, and (while he may in fact not get much thrill from a plane–who does any more?) flying too high with some gal in the sky, we also see that he is making a grand overstatement to win the affection of a woman (Luck, perhaps?). We begrudgingly accept its use in everything from chicken sandwich commercials to, now, nearly ever political campaign ever.* But what about whiny Internet assholes?

I won’t begin to try to attack all hyperbole on the Internet. Much of it does bother me, but really, when you say “fuck my life,” you had better mean it. In the context, we can take “fuck” to mean “destroy irrevocably,” the idea being that a problem was so unsolvable and life-consuming that no refuge could be found in any other, more positive aspect of the fuck-sayer’s life. I find this to be exceedingly whiny and unnecessary in almost every instance.

Don’t misunderstand me here: this is not a rant against saying “fuck my life” in any situation. But let’s be selective! Some major life-fucks deserve FML; others deserve less severe fucks. I will illustrate scenarios and accompany them with appropriate fuck/subject combinations:

• Today I farted in the conference room and everyone knew it was me. Fuck me.
• Today I needed to clean out fifty port-o-johns at the spiciest chili competition. Fuck that!
• Today everyone in the world died. But somehow all the radiation from all those H-bombs doesn’t give me radiation poisoning! I was finally able to read all the books in all the libraries in the world. But then my glasses broke. Fuck my life.

*I said “nearly;” therefore it is not hyperbole! Also, that the statement is a goddamn fact makes it not hyperbole.

There’s a Budweiser commercial that talks about a combination foam number one finger and beer holder. They call it a “foozie,” a combination of foam and coozie.

But here’s the thing. “Coozie” is a variant pronunciation of the word “cooze,” which we all know is:

–noun Slang: Vulgar. vagina.

But that’s not all. I asked my mom’s boyfriend what he calls a foam beer holder. “Oh, well I call it a ‘coolie’.”

–noun Offensive. an unskilled laborer, esp. formerly in China and India.‘

The word is cozy. Ok? It’s a beer cozy. Like a tea cozy, but for beer.

I would like to take a break from the silly for a moment and talk about a serious semantic issue that really bugs me: When is a crime terrorism?

Two years ago, Congress passed hate crime legislation. My problem with this legislation is that is differentiates a hate crime from terrorism.

Wikipedia defines a hate crime as:

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

If we compare that to Wikipedia’s attempt at a definition of terrorism, we (I) see overlap:

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

Both of these definitions, at their core, translate to: “A person or group of people from a specific group is targeted for assault to send a message to the group at large.” The message is usually terror.

I realize this is one area where semantics is of the highest importance. To call something terrorism that was simply a random act of violence would create unjust and disproportionate penalties for petty thugs.

But we should not be so hesitant to call out terrorism when it happens. There are all kinds of terrorism, both domestic and international. Just because a person is white and just because he hates abortionists does not make him not a terrorist. When a person hates homosexuals and scrawls threatening messages on their property to incite fear (another word for terror), that is terrorism.

In short: hate crimes did not need their own legislation because there was already legislation on the books covering these “different” kinds of crimes: they are called anti-terror laws, and any hate criminal should be persecuted under these laws.