The Death of Irony

I had thought the word 'irony' would survive Alanis Morrisette's hatchet job in that song. On a meta-prose level, it is ironic that a song called "Isn't it ironic" has no irony in it.

But too many times I have seen the word used instead of the word coincidental, or sometimes, tragic. To help resurrect this excellent word and restore dignity to the english language, let me explain.

Irony is the difference, often to humorous effect, between what is expected and what actually occurs or has occurred. Case in point: One would think that the song, "Isn't it ironic" would have something to do with irony, and yet, it does not.

Coincidence is simply when two or more things happen at the same time, usually against probability. It can also refer to the same thing happening twice in a small proximity, again, against probablity. If two twins were each struck by lightning in two seperate thunderstorms, that would be a coincidence. In that case, the proximity would be their relationship.

Tragedy is closely related to coincidence. Tragedy is when two of more events occurr coincidentially, and together, they create a negative situation for the subject. Both events do not need to be negative. In fact, some of the best examples of tragedy are when the first event is a positive, and the second event makes that first event meaningless or worse. Most of the examples given in "Isn't it ironic" are actually tragic. Example: He wins the lottery, and dies the next day. Afraid to fly, and dies on his first flight.

"Now wait," you say, "A person wouldn't expect to die on their first flight, right?" Well, yes, that is true, but the chances of crashing on your first flight are the same as your 101st. So the fact that it happened would be simply coincidental. On the other hand, the fact that the Titanic sunk on it's maiden voyage is ironic, because the ship had been designed to be "unsinkable" and the owners had bragged about this fact before she left port.

Palin's closing statement - Take 2
The United States can afford to have an extremist and idealogue in the Senate, because in the Senate, extreme views are tempered by the opinions of 99 other senators and a consensus is reached that is designed to represent the country as a whole. However, the President does not have peers to temper his views. He alone directs national policy and sets the national agenda. This requires a leader who can work across party lines to get things done. Not someone who declines to call republican senators on the Ecomonic Rescue bill because he, and I'm quoting Barack Obama himself here, "isn't very persuasive with republicans."

If you want someone who will vote the democratic party line 96% of the time, then Barack is your choice. But if you want a leader who is an independant thinker, who will evaluate each decision to determine what is best for this country and the American people, not what is best for the Democratic party... or the Republican Party, for that matter... but what is best for America, then the only choice on Nov 4th is John McCain.