But really, what makes them logical?

Now we enter round 2 of the logical fallacy game. Again, I am pulling quotes from the speech President Obama gave this past Tuesday, December 6th, in Osawatomie, Kansas. Here are three more logical fallacies I spotted in the text:


We're going to start with Ad Populum:

My grandparents served during World War II.  He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line.  And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism.  They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.  (Applause.)

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known.  It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth.  And you know what?  Every American shared in that pride and in that success — from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.  (Applause.)  So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you’d take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement. 

Obama is saying these common values we often call "the American Dream" are the reason for our large middle class and strong economy. He is telling the reader that these values are the recipe for a successful economy, and since these values accompany his policies, then his policies are the answer. This is nothing new. Often, we see rhetoricians (not rhetorists like I so brainlessly posted in my last Blog) us ideological values as reasons for a more concrete, adjustment in the state of the economy. By doing so, he is misusing common values and giving us a perfect example of Ad Populum.


The next example represents the use of a Straw Man fallacy:

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia.  After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess.  In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years.  And their philosophy is simple:  We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

Here, Obama is is misrepresenting the opposing argument. Obama oversimplifies the fiscal conservative ideal to one line that indicates stereotyped, negative intentions. It is almost like he is putting words in their mouth to spin their message so that it works in his favor. In my opinion, this fallacy goes hand in hand with the general nature of politics. It's just a race for the next, best straw man.

My last example shows a Red Herring fallacy. In this example, Obama is pointing out a fallacy called upon in a fiscal conservative argument:

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune.  “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us.  If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.  Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers.  But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else.  And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

In the last line of this section, Obama says, "And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty." The argument brings in a topic that is completely unrelated. The price of liberty? That has nothing to do with prosperity trickling down. Thus, bringing in a reason that is completely unrelated to the argument makes this an example of Red Herring. This, too, is a logical fallacy very well liked by politicians, but rhetoric is filled with these little gems they call "logical fallacies." All you've got to do is look!

I'm still not, quite sure why they are called "logical fallacies."

Today, I'll be discussing logical fallacies. In this Blog and the next, I pull quotes from Obama's speech in Osawatomie, Kansas on Tuesday. Each quote demonstrates a different logical fallacy. This is not to say anything negative about Obama. In fact, this is an incredible speech. I may not agree with all of his politics, but I can certainly appreciate a well-written piece of literature.


That being said, let's dive right in. Shall we? We will start with a fairly basic fallacy, Bandwagon:

That is the height of unfairness.  It is wrong.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.  (Applause.)  And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me.  (Laughter.)  So do most Americans — Democrats, independents and Republicans.  And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

Essentially, Obama is telling us if all these people agree, we should too. Thus, we have Bandwagon. Let's move on to one that is a little harder to recognize. Here is a little something rhetorists like to call Begging the Question:

Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending.  But we don’t have unlimited resources.  And so we have to set priorities.  If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values.  We have to make choices. 

This statement is a web of circular reasoning. The evidence he uses sandwiches the point he is trying to make. He says we have to set priorities because if we had unlimited resources, we wouldn't have to set priorities, but we don't have unlimited resources, so we do have to set priorities. See how that works? Then, he does it again! He says we need to set priorities, and tax codes that reflect our values will prioritize the growth of our middle class, so we have to make choices (prioritize.) Throughout this statement, his reason for needing set priorities is we need priorities. If you're a visual person like I am, let's just say it's like a venn diagram of reasoning. 


Now we have our final example for today, the False Dilemma. Hit it Obama...

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time.  This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class.  Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

This example is pretty self-explanatory. Basically, Obama is giving an either/or situation as reasoning. In this argument, there are no exceptions - either a change is made or the middle class is forever screwed. This is a false dilemma at its finest, and a perfect way to close out the first part of my discussion on logical fallacies.

Since when is "The Axe Effect" a rhetorical device?

This image is an advertisement for Axe Body Spray. It tells you if you "spray more," you will, in turn, "get more." So I have to ask myself: '"Get more"? Whatever do they mean?' More rabbits? They use the word get like the object is some sort of concrete possession, like shoes or koozies. 

Instead, they are alluding to a common cultural phrase where getting some refers to sexual activity. The allusion uses rabbits as a substitution for sexual abundance, playing on what is considered common knowledge, the incessant sexual nature of rabbits. More importantly, every element of the advertisement deals with sex. This automatically brands the woman in the advertisement as a sex symbol.

As if the connotations brought upon by the dirty words and bunnies weren’t strong enough indicators, the woman is represented as an animalistic, sexual deviant. She is crouching down with her legs spread wide open. The message of this position is pretty clear, and is furthered by her crouching crawl that resembles a wildcat ready to pounce.

She is wearing a string bikini… A string bikini in a meadow next to bunny rabbits? Well, I give them props for pulling out all the stops. There is an underlying irony to this advertisement and other Axe ads. Cleary, no woman is going to go primeval and pounce any many wearing Axe Body Spray. However, regardless of whether the advertisers are making intentional, comedic gender stereotypes, they are certainly exhausting all possible gender assumptions. The woman in this image is highly objectified, and it can be argued that objectifications like this encourage such practices in our culture. She is portrayed as a crazed creature with a ferocity that suggests she needs a man and an intensity that suggests finding a man is her one and only pursuit.

The use of irony and appeals to sexuality in this image function as appeals to pathos. The ad is targeted toward men. Not only is the intended audience expected to long for attention from women, but also they are expected to relate to the advertisement because of the irony. The ad is supposed to be funny. Guys everywhere are supposed to giggle, nod their heads, and say “yeah,” as if they are trained to indulge in this humor. In other cultures, this ad would be seen as incredible offensive, but in our culture it can be interpreted as a direct response to the feminist movement. In fact, it is almost making fun of everything feminism battles against. Axe successfully uses humor to play on the common assumptions about gender and sexuality. The reason Axe is successful in their degrading appeals is they use irony, and irony is like that little clause that makes it okay to be politically incorrect.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/raim0007/gwss1001/axe.jpg

There is an advertising consultant somewhere out there without a job.

This image is an advertisement for an Intel Core 2 Duo Processor. The purpose of this image is to show that buying this product can greatly increase the performance capabilities of one's employees. However, the racial connotations are remarkable visible in the photograph.

For starters, we have the white-collar, white skin-colored male, who represents the employer. The black athlete represents the employee. The two types of figures are used in juxtaposition to place value on workers in relation to their occupational status. The employer is standing tall with a smug grin that is an appeal power. In contrast, the employee is bent over in a runner's stance that can easily be perceived as a bow.

What I find most interesting in the image is that the runners are not positioned to go in the same direction. I assume the advertiser is trying to use the substitution of the athlete to show a fast and forward-moving work model. However, if the runners were to take off as is, they would collide into one another, rather than moving in the same direction toward the company's maximum performance. This decision on the part of the advertiser makes the case for racial suggestiveness even stronger. It seems the "employees" are positioned the way they are as an indexical sign for bowing to a ruler. This decision promotes a connotation of power and submission, which play to racial bondage and white power.

The image's caption reads, "Multiply Computing Performance." Okay, so one could possible argue that substituting black men for maximum computing skills goes against traditional racial stereotypes. At the same time, this is an advertisement for a computer part! Naturally, the advertiser would employ recognizable terms like this one. More importantly though, don't you think using the same black man superimposing all of the employees makes the argument that their work is repetitive or mechanical? Is speed, power, and performance all they have to bring to the table? There are no individualized assets represented in the employees. However, the employer is solely standing there, and he can be the brains behind the plan. He is not working hard at all, but he still manages to supersede the power and assets of the employees.

Perhaps, I am reading too much into this image, but each of my arguments fall into place given the backdrop of American history. I want to close by pointing to the phrase, "your employees." This language is an appeal to human possession... an appeal that finds its root far back in the darkest parts of American history. How did the advertiser manage to miss all of the implications of this ad? And what do ads like this tell us about American culture?

Analysis of Overpopulation Political Cartoon

The cartoon juxtaposes the well-off, elderly lady and the young family. The elderly lady is dressed well with her gloves, fur coat, and heavy makeup. The younger couple is sporting the "worn" look. They have big bags under their eyes, which indicate they are tired and over-worked.

These physical features add another element to the cartoon. Not only is the artist trying to represent overpopulation, but they are also attempting to bring attention to the strain on social security. The elderly lady is used to represent the aging population. The younger couple represents the generation having to work longer and save harder because of the draining social security funds.

The elderly lady is the only one in the cartoon smiling, and she is also the only one carrying a purse. The purse is used in substitution of the government's financial resources. All of the resources are going to the current elderly population, while the workforce is being drained. Although the elderly lady's question is a logical one, the father's sarcastic remark makes her seem almost naive. In addition, the child is reaching out to her. However, she pulls away in a standoffish gesture, but her hand remains in a position with her fingers spread. It seems as if she is positioned to grab something, which puts the artist's final touch on painting her as greedy.

The overpopulation elements of the picture are fairly surface. One symbolic element is the child's stroller. The stroller is green, a color that typically represents the world or the environment. The child is sitting on this environment. Because he represents the growing population, the audience can infer he is smothering or squashing the environment. He is also reaching out for resources that are not available, and his parents look like they are struggling to provide.

Blog 5: Beginning Analysis for Major Paper

In Reagan's "Tear Down this Wall" speech, he plays to the listener's pathos using German phrases and speaking to the listeners directly. He also plays to ethos by listing the United States' contributions and successes of the past and present. The following are three, key quotes I pulled from the speech for further exploration:

"To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countryment in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.]"

This quote uses a metaphor to describe the figurative connection Reagan is attempting to fortify between East and West Berlin. He is including the East Berliners by comparing their proximity to him with the West Berliners' proximity to him. He uses this introduction to show a main argument in his speech, "Es gibt nur ein Berlin." This argument is a phrase used during the cold war by protesters fighting the division imposed by the Soviet Union. It is a relatable phrase for his audience. It shows that Reagan understands the Berliners' perspective. Reagan even goes so far as to call it a "firm, [...] unalterable belief."


"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

This quote initially strikes me as a dare. I believe this was the objective of Reagan's word choice. He uses parallelism to demonstrate force. He directly addresses Gorbachev, reiterating the weaknesses of the Soviet Union mentioned earlier in the text. Reagan uses antonomasia by directing his grievances at Gorbachev, rather than the government figureheads of the Soviet Union as a whole.

"Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower's one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere--that sphere that towers over all Berlin--the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed."

Reagan uses hyperbole in this quotation to express the treatments used on the glass. These treatments are intended to represent the efforts made by government officials in the east. However hard they try, the sun still strikes the tower and makes the sign of the cross. Reagan uses the sign of the cross as a metaphor for love and worship. He says these things cannot be suppressed to express hope for the Berliners. This foreshadows a later statement that expresses the one thing keeping Berlin afloat: love. Reagan uses parallellism again here for emphasis. He compares the sign of the cross made from the tower to "the city itself," using metaphor to stir up the people of the west and (more strategically) the people of the east.

I'll Pray for you. No?

“Pray for You," recorded by Jaron and the Long Road to Love is a fairly humorous example of irony in text. The song starts with the narrator explaining a message the preacher delivered in a Sunday church service...

He said you cant go hating others who have done wrong to you.

Sometimes we get angry, but we must not condemn.

Let the good Lord do His job and you just pray for them.

With this intro, the audience expects the rest of the song to be a wholesome, church-like message. However, this certainly is not the case, which is made apparent as the narrator proceeds to list all that he is praying for. He prays her tire blows out, her dreams never come true, and other hateful wishes.

Yes, this text is a play on words. It is also ironic. The tone conveys positive wishes and a kind-hearted message. Prayers are ordinarily in the best interest of whoever is being prayed for. Thus, it is ironic that this song is actually a hateful, angry post-breakup ballad. 

The clever use of irony allows the listener to relate with the narrator. Rather than following the country music stereotype of wining or sulking, "Pray for You" breaks the mold and gets the point across without the annoyance. Using irony also implies that the text should not be taken completely seriously. Clearly, the narrator doesn't actually want his ex-girlfriend to be "flying high when [her] engine stalls." It does, however, convey the magnitude of his bitterness toward her. 

Weatherphors: A look into the lyrics of Sister Hazel

For me, Sister Hazel encompasses the music of the 90's. Many would probably think more along the lines of Matchbox Twenty, Pearl Jam, or another mega-hit group, but I prefer the upbeat alternative sounds that mimic the feel of 1990's popular culture. However, it is not just Sister Hazel's sound that reels me in. It is their offbeat, almost crafty, lyrics that have taken hold of my iPod and my soul. Every Sister Hazel song is stacked with metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy, and the like. For today, I've chosen to focus on a metaphor common to several Sister Hazel tunes. Let's call it the weatherphor.

Sister Hazel uses weather to describe all kinds of relationships. Take Swan Dive, for example: The lyrics say, “Would you think you could meditate in the middle of the eye of a hurricane; Would you now but somehow we were tethered here together; We can weather our the weather here.” In this example, they are making reference to weather with the hurricane and creating, out of this reference, an opportunity to use weather as a reference for the struggles in life that may affect a relationship.

In Champagne High, they say, “Spring turned to summer; But then winter turned to mean; The distance seemed right; At the time it was best – to leave.” In this case, they use the seasons to describe the transformations in a relationship. The seasons and the weather we associate with those particular seasons are a metaphor for the good and the bad that came with the relationship described in this song.

And of course, there is Your Winter. The song title in itself is a metaphor. They use “your winter” as a metaphor for that slump you’re in when a relationship ends. In this song, he is saying he does not want to be his ex’s winter. He will not be that someone clouding her days.

Sister Hazel does an incredible job of embedding these and many other metaphors into their lyrics. Relationships can only be described the same way a certain number of times, and Sister Hazel makes that break with the common lyric language to engage listeners with a brand new perspective.

 

Modern Romantic Comedy - the Cinderella Storyline

In the Modern Romantic Comedy, you can expect a strong-willed, hard-working female who is stuck in some sort of lower status, whether it is in her social class, her appearance, or her popularity. She is always a very relatable character, making her the perfect protagonist for a modern day female audience. The male lead is typically of a higher status. However, he doesn’t quite fit the mold of his societal counterparts. He falls in love with her genuine nature and ultimately brings her into his world through their romance. You can also expect some resistance from significant characters in his and her lives, but in the end, these people are overruled by the couple’s love; prince charming rescues Cinderella. They are always seemingly destined to be together, and they always live happily ever after.

In A Cinderella Story and Ever After, the classic Cinderella Story mold is presented with a few modern twists. In A Cinderella Story, Hillary Duff’s character is an unpopular, insignificant orphan. When she snags the “prince charming” played by Chad Michael Murray, everything falls into place and she can live happily ever after. Ever After is the classic tale in the classic setting. However, the movie offers a new perspective on the storyline with original details, making it a modern rendition.

The American President is a romantic comedy about the romance between a Washington, D.C. lobbyist and the President of the United States. Annette Benning plays the intelligent and successful Washington lobbyist, Sidney Allen Wade, hired by an environmental interest group. She is pursued by Michael Douglas’s character, President Andrew Shepherd. Shepherd’s staff does not support the romance. In fact, his election opponent uses the romance in his campaign against the President. Wade’s boss is against the relationship from the start, and he ultimately fires Wade because of how her personal life affected her work. Nonetheless, Shepherd rescues Wade in the end with an eloquent and passionate press conference speech. Again, they all live happily ever after.

Pretty Woman with Julia Roberts and Richard Gere is yet another example of the classic tale with a very modern twist. Roberts plays a California hooker, and Gere is the millionaire hunk. But Robert’s character isn’t just your everyday Hollywood hooker; she is Julia Roberts, America’s sweetheart. She is cute, honest, and most importantly relatable. Gere’s character gives her the true princess experience. He buys her whatever she wants, flies her to the opera, and saves her from his raunchy attorney. She steals the heart of society’s most eligible bachelor, and they live happily ever after.

The End.