Plus We Can Flirt on My Space

Quote:  “Good night, good night! Parting is such sweet sorrow,/ That I shall say good night till it be morrow.” William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet.

Figure of Speech:  oxymoron, the compressed paradox.  From the Greek, “sharp dullness.”

The ancients Greeks, those witty chaps, made their term for an oxymoron … an oxymoron! (By “sharp dullness” they meant “cleverly stupid,” not “old knife that can give you tetanus.”) 

Shakespeare, that even wittier chap, uses it as a neatly packaged expression of love.  It’s hard to say goodbye, but then I can look forward to saying hello.  This reminds Figaro of the old song line, “How can I miss you if you won’t go away?”

Speaking of which, we’re giving you a chance to miss us for a few days.  Occasionally, Figaro’s clients have the ill grace to make him work every once in a while.  He hopes to get back to figuring late in the week.  If you can’t wait that long (and who can, really?), throw him some rhetorical questions in Ask Figaro, or read excerpts from his new book.

Snappy Answer:  “Morrow is, like, so yesterday.  So just IM, me, ‘k?” 

But They Found WMDs in Saddam’s Brain Scan

Quote:  “There comes a point where the absence of evidence does indeed become the evidence of absence.”  Senate Intelligence Committee report, dismissing links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Figure of Speech:  chiasmus (key-AS-mus), the criss-cross figure.  Chiasmus is the Greek letter “X.”

Before the war, our spies failed to find links between Bin Laden and Hussein — proving, the White House concluded, that we had bad spies.  The Senate Intelligence Committee now says otherwise:  Not only did Saddam Hussein not harbor terrorists, he actually tried to arrest al-Qaeda members.

The report rhetorically bitch slaps Donald Rumsfeld, who said before the war that “the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.”  Both Rummy’s version and the Senate’s use a chiasmus, Figaro’s very favorite figure.  It takes a phrase or clause and repeats it in mirror form.  Use a chiasmus to seize your opponent’s argument and flip it onto its back.

The White House is now forced to reach this conclusion:   Senators are bad people.

Snappy Answer:  “Ask not how the evidence makes you look, ask how you make the evidence look.”

Update on Saturday, September 9, 2006 at 12:47PM by Figaro

I’m already getting mail saying, Wasn’t Rumsfeld logically correct? The answer, my fellow figaristas, is no.

True, his quote doesn’t in itself commit a fallacy. What makes it illogical is its context. Because the Bush administration made the initial claim that Saddam had the Big Stuff, the burden of proof was on them. By pushing the burden onto his opponents—forcing them to prove the opposite of what he couldn’t prove himself—Rummy commited the “burden of proof” fallacy. It ranks right up there among politicians’ favorite Logic Busters.

This Is the Drug Czar's Brain.

Quote:  “We have dealt with criticism of the campaign from adversaries, including those who advocate the legalization of drugs. And we have periodically needed to place these findings in context, especially because all major youth surveys report declining teen drug use.” John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, in the AP.

Figures of Speech:  (1) The red herring fallacy.  (2) Fallacy of guilt by association.  (3) Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this), or the Chanticleer fallacy.

The White House drug czar wins the Figaro Fallacy Prize for packing three logic busters in just two sentences.  Fallacious props to Czar Walters!

The backstory:  After spending more than a billion dollars on anti-drug ads, the administration hired a firm to study whether they worked.  In 2005, the researchers concluded that the ads actually make girls and young kids more likely to experiment with drugs.  The White House took immediate and decisive action:  it suppressed the data.  Finally, the watchdog Government Accounting Office got hold of the study and released the findings in late August of this year.

Undaunted, the czar reached into his arsenal of fallacies.

First, he set launched a red herring by ignoring government-funded research and talking about “adversaries.”

He followed up with a second fallacy, putting the GAO and White House funded scientists in league with hemp-wearing potheads.

Without taking a breath, our fallacy champ hurled number three, implying that, because drug use declined while the ads were shown, the ads caused the drop.

A fallacy trifecta!  Beat that, Mr. President.  Your drug guy just set the anti-logic bar pretty darn high.

Snappy Answer:  “Dude, whatever you’re on, can I have some?”

Yeah, But the Republicans Keep Rolling Doubles

Quote:  “The danger for Bush is if McCain and Graham say we don’t like it, that is pretty much a get-out-of-jail-free card for the Democrats.”  Cliff May, president of the conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, in the L.A. Times.

Figure of Speech:  antonomasia (an-to-no-MAY-sia), the name swap.  From the Greek, meaning “to name instead.”

The president wants Congress to let the administration try suspected terrorists in restricted military tribunals.  The trials would allow evidence extracted by “coercion,” a.k.a. Torture Lite.  And classified material could be used without the knowledge of the accused.  The White House had tried this before without asking Congress, but the Supremes shot them down; something to do with the Constitution or whatever.

This time, three Republican senators — war hero John McCain, former military lawyer Lindsay Graham, and former secretary of the Navy John Warner — want the tribunals to skip the torture stuff and allow the accused to see evidence. 

These heavies give the doves a license to peck — or, as Cliff May puts it, a get-out-of-jail-free card. That’s an antonomasia, a figure that substitutes a proper name for a description or vice versa: You’re no Jack Kennedy for “You’re no great statesman.” Our Lord and Savior for Jesus.  So how does a Monopoly card make an antonomasia? Figaro figures it’s close enough to a proper name, being unique to a game that, if played in Guantanamo, would constitute a form of torture.

Snappy Answer:  “The Dems will still never pass Go.”

And Now, the George Bush Orchestra Will Play a Swinging Patriotic Medley.

And it’s one two three, what are we fighting for?

Don’t ask me, I don’t give a faq.

Next stop will be Iraq.

Click to read more ...

Mad Ave's Sexy New Fantasy

Quote:  “Bold moves. They happen every day.”  TV ad for the Ford Freestyle.

Figure of Speech:  hypallage (hy-PAL-la-gee), the order shifter.  From the Greek, meaning “swap.”

An ideal family — Mom, Dad, gender-balanced kids, dog — takes a weekend excursion in an oversized car.  Then Dad gets dropped off at a condo development.  “Thanks for inviting me this weekend,” he says wistfully, hugging the kids goodbye.  Cue tagline.

The ad mystifies commentators.  How does a divorce sell cars?  And what’s the bold move — kicking dad out of the house?

First, let’s get the figure out of the way.  The hypallage switches the order of words for poetic effect.  “Every day, bold moves happen”  becomes “Bold moves.  They happen every day.”  Call it the Madison Avenue hypallage.  Cute slogan.  It gets a sentence of its own.

What’s the rhetorical strategy?  Redemption.  It’s what everyone needs.  Advertisers and salespeople have a reputation for creating needs where they do not exist, but that is rarely true in a literal sense.  In rhetoric, you start with needs; the persuasion happens when the marketer makes you believe that its solution will meet them.  A man responds to a beautiful woman in a car ad out of his need for — well, out of his need for a woman.  But the sexual revolution is long gone and women buy cars more than men do.  So Mad Ave exploits a different yearning:  for reconciliation, not sex.

Which makes you wonder why the Ford couple split up in the first place.  Figaro guesses money squabbles.  They were over their heads in car loans.

Snappy Answer:  “Chapter 11. It happens to SUV makers.”