Against “because [noun]”

Because this

Because this

Let’s talk about the construction “because [noun]” and how it became the bitter non-joke in this Slate tweet, shall we? Click here for hardcore pornography instead. Okay—the “because [noun]” construction affronts me here for two reasons:

  1. It substitutes a formula for wit.
  2. It implies contempt for the noun “America.”

Reason (1) is subjective. I submit that “because [noun]” is not funny anymore, if it ever was. It was pleasing at first as a kind of audacious shorthand. But audacity disappeared with novelty, and now the construction is mainly used to imply wit where none exists. You can’t jump to the moon because gravity. The Senate refuses to confirm Merrick Garland because politics. This baby is smoking because Florida. None of those is clever, but they all convey a certain sardonic attitude, and they all presume the reader knows enough about [noun] to skip the other words.

Which brings us to reason (2). In the sentence “Two-thirds[sic] of U.S. schools have ‘active shooter’ drills because America,” the fraction of schools that practice for mass shootings is the news part. The “because America” construction is the ‘tude. We are to understand that active shooter drills are bad, both by the scare quotes and by it being news that two thirds of schools have them. A two-thirds majority of schools having fire drills isn’t news. And why have the schools come to this sorry pass, where they must practice for mass shootings? Because America.

Bro, that’s unpatriotic. It is true America experiences many more mass shootings than any other developed nation, and that is surely a judgment on our national character. But shit, man, has our contempt become so settled? Am I to read “because America” and smile ruefully, recognizing the byword for morbid hypocrisy? This sentence assumes the reader will read in “America” both the widespread fear of death by shooting and the cynically embarrassed failure to do anything about it.

Anyway, thanks to the magical “because [noun]” construction, Slate can communicate that whole vexed idea with the same smug laziness as a Garfield cartoon. I’m not getting out of bed because Monday. School shootings because America. Nah—school shootings because gun lobby and mental health system. School shootings because us. Whole blog about Slate tweet because personality disorder, but still. We should retire the “because [noun]” construction, lest it tempt us to hack our way through—as we all do from time to time—without considering the occasion.

Willy set me off on that entire jag with this tweet. You should probably follow him.

Friday links! I declare weekend edition

Barbecue

It’s almost noon in the one true time zone, so it’s basically the weekend. And not just any weekend—it’s the weekend of Memorial Day, a holiday of pure enjoyment uncomplicated by any depressing overtones. It must be party time, because my neighbors have put a smoker in our shared yard, right next to their grill, their fire pit, their canopy tent, their second grill, their chairs, their woodpile and their broken-pieces-of-palettes pile, amid the general distribution of their beer cans. Today is Friday, and I can’t escape my home office quickly enough. Won’t you bang something out and knock off with me?

Continue reading

Montana has campaign contribution limits again

Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl spoiling some fun, probably

Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl spoiling some fun, probably

Montana is making news faster than I can have opinions about it. No sooner do I write a fun Indy column praising Judge Charles Lovell for striking down our campaign finance laws than he strikes them up again. It was satirical while it lasted. Probably, mooting one column is worth it to restore some limit on what political parties can give to candidates’ campaigns, as Lovell did today. With a heavy heart, I suspend my campaign for comptroller or whatever. I will still accept unlimited donations from political parties, but they’ll have to be in cash.

Gary Johnson inexplicably polling 10%

I...[coughs]...I would like to live in a perpetual war of all against all.

I…[coughs]…I would like to live in a war of all against all.

Brush off your papasan chair. You’ll want to be sitting down when you learn that Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson is polling at 10% against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Did your socks fly clear across the dorm room, knocking over your bong and short-circuiting your stereo, which lurched into Sublime? That’s because Gary Fuckin’ Johnson, the man who knows there shouldn’t even be a government, is polling better than any third-party candidate since Ross Perot. So reports FiveThirtyEight with this baffling lede:

Gary Johnson might be on the verge of becoming a household name. At the moment, he’s probably most often confused with that plumber who fixed your running toilet last month or your spouse’s weird friend from work who keeps calling the landline, but he’s neither — he’s the former governor of New Mexico, likely Libertarian candidate for president, and he’s polling at 10 percent in two recently released national polls against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Yes, Gary Johnson’s name is so ordinary as to thwart the expression “become a household name.” Maybe we should rewrite that sentence. Regardless, the takeaway here is that 10% of voters are now sophomore geography majors.

Continue reading