I watched the authors on C-SPAN during their book tour and was intrigued.

I just bought the book, and I am... disappointed.

Oh, the jokes are amusing enough, and the explanation of logical fallacies is dead simple to understand, and the examples given are spot on- let's make no dispute on that. A quick reading of this book will educate the thoughtful mind on exactly how and where our leaders are trying to fool us.

The problem is that, well, it's a quick read. It's too quick. It is, to be frank, shallow- a quick dip on each topic, then rushing on to the next, without fully developing or explaining any one item, much less all of them. This is a book to which the word "profound" need not apply; there are no openings available.

The book also suffers from leaning too heavily on the Bush administration for examples. True, George W. Bush and his cronies have raised lying to the voters to new heights, but there needs to be political balance in an educational work such as this; otherwise a large portion of the readership will tune it out as being partisan. I say again, Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Rice, and the rest of the Bush White House employ logical fallacies and outright deception like Olympic champions- but that's no excuse for failing to give more than token gestures to demonstrating Democrats' equally offensive use of the tactics.

One final quibble: if you can use the eight letter word for bovine excreta without censorship, you can use its four letter root word without censorship. If you can't say the word without blanking out letters in the w--d, you shouldn't use the word at all. Please don't treat your readers like little kids, especially since little kids know quite well what "the F word" is- even if they might not know what it means.

I suppose I'm just piling on, but I also was quite disappointed with Aristotle and an Aardvark after enjoying Cathcart and Klein's previous book. I expected some bashing of conservatives and Republicans, but I (perhaps naively) expected balance. After all, politicians are politicians no matter which side of the spectrum they pretend to be from. While there were a few examples of silliness from the other side of the aisle, Cathcart and Klein spent the majority of the book bashing President Bush and other conservatives.
However, they did provide frequent examples of ad hominem attacks, such as the many derisive pseudo-titles given the President and the "hilarious" little reference to Tom Delay's background in the extermination business. What? Does providing a needed service and running a successful business prepare a person less well for public office than getting rich through the legal extortion that is our current tort system (e.g. a certain former senator from North Carolina, presidential candidate, and moral leading light)?
I have seen far better explanations of logical fallacies in textbooks for Freshman Composition and Introductory Public Speaking. I'm sure Cathcart and Klein will cry over my critique all the way to bank; nevertheless, I won't be buying any of their work again. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. If the authors had any integrity, they would market this book with a marketing line like "If you loved Fahrenheit 911, you'll love Aristotle and an Aardvark."
Too bad I can't get my money back.

The problem with this book is that unlike Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes it picks the low lying fruit, skips a tight organization, and with some light sprinkles of other material, is basically a sustained rant on George W. Bush.

Not that GWB & crew don't make for great examples, but the other book was timeless, this book is locked into an era. Not only that, the lead line about Aristotle isn't a clear joke, just the title and forced into the book later.

This could have been much better with some work.

Good and entertaining, but if you learn anything from the book you'll be able to identify some of the authors' own fallacious arguments. Just goes to show that personal politics blinds even the experts.

Good read if you've been baffled by the slippery verbiage which has been flowing out of Washington recently. Fun stuff to explore and marvel at.

I got this book for my husband for Father's Day and he loved it. In fact, he's enjoyed telling so many of the jokes. He just sits there and snickers or howls, and then we get to hear all about it. He loved it!

I was convinced to read this book when I stumbled upon it at an airport bookstore and saw that it had (a) quotes from The Daily Show's Jon Stewart, and (b) funny story jokes. That was enough for me!

In this slim volume [just 3 CDs for the unabridged audiobook], the authors illustrate a broad array of logical fallacies (with fancy philosophical names like "denying the antecedent"*) using quotes from current politicians and lots of jokes (see Appendix A for an example). Members of the George W. Bush administration are the primary targets, although Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others don't get left out.

The quotes are funny and the jokes are funny. The book is light, quick, and enjoyable.

The philosophy provides a structural framework: the authors go through various fallacies one-by-one, giving a short description and then examples and jokes. One could probably learn something about philosophy from this, but I admit that a few days after having finished the book, most of what has stayed with me are the quotes and the jokes.

I listened to the unabridged audioboook narrated by Johnny Heller [just 3 CDs]. He does a good job except when he is imitating Dick Cheney or George W. Bush: Then, not so much.

* That may not be the actual name. I'm recalling here.

Appendix A: A joke from the book, retold by me

A man approaches another man on the street and says, "Jones, you've completely changed! You used to be fat and now you've lost all the weight and are thin as a rail. You used to wear nice suits and now you're wearing these rags. You even used to be short and now you're tall." The other man responds, "My name isn't Jones," to which the first replies, "So you've even changed your name!"

Just as most citizens seem to be suckers for illogical political argument, I'm a sucker for any book about politics and logic. I came across this book in the store and it seemed promising, but ultimately, all I got out of it is that I shouldn't buy books I know nothing about on a whim.

The high ratio of attacks against Republican logic vs. Democratic logic didn't bother me and it shouldn't bother you either. The authors are attempting to point out logical fallacies used by politicians, and if they do their work well, you should be able to spot them afterwards coming from politicians of both parties regardless of what examples are used in the book.

My criticisms of the book are:

1. I'm not a moron, so I doubt I missed many of the jokes, but I didn't find them that funny. Many of them seem to be there only to reinforce how ridiculous each logical fallacy is. I'm talking about the jokes in the body of the text. There are longer jokes inserted in the text that (I assume) aren't jokes by the authors. The ironic thing about the jokes in the body of the text is they are the best examples of the fallacies mentioned because...

2. The examples aren't great and aren't explained very well. The Rumsfeld example about the absence of evidence is one that screamed for a much better explanation than the authors give (and it was one of the lengthier explanations in the book).

3. The fallacies themselves aren't explained very well. The book I always return to when I want to refresh my understanding of a fallacy is With Good Reason by Engel, which explains them succinctly. Someone with little background in logical fallacies shouldn't use Aristotle and an Aardvark to better understand them.

Still, there are some good examples. The explanation of Kerry's distinction between civil unions and marriage was great. If all sections of the book were this good, it would be a great book.

Ultimately, after making you laugh, a book like this should help you detect the fallacies when they are used in the real world, but I don't think it explains them enough to allow for that, which makes it read more as a criticism of specific statements.

With all the illogical statements made by politicians, spin doctors, and political pundits, there is plenty of material for a book like this. Until someone finally writes a good U.S.-based book on political illogic, Crimes Against Logic by Jamie Whyte is your best bet.

I'm not supposed to get overwrought about politics. This book is just the ticket. It's smart and so very funny. I would recommend this to any political junkies out there.

Their first book Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar . . .: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes was a home run, this was a foul ball or at best a pop up.

This is a great follow-up to Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar. These guys are really funny. I learned a lot about philosophy and politics. Buy both of these books.

I purchased this book concurrently with the duo's previous book - Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes. That one was as advertised - providing a gentle introduction (or perhaps re-introduction) to, say, the iedas of Rudolf Carnap in a well-written and often humorous-enough way.

This book ("Aristotle and an Aardvark") attempts to do the same for "political doublespeak" Unfortunately, it falls flat and seems dated already, quite soon after its original publication. Even though this book shares the same basic format as the previous one, this one suffers from three fundamental flaws:

1. If you're a likely reader of this book, you will already likely have encountered the vast majority of examples of quotes in your regular internet browsing over the last few years. The specifics of Kant or Schopenhauer illuminated in the previous book required at least a philosophy major's background knowlege of philosophy. The "research" for the factual content of this book could more or less be summed up from skimming CNN and watching the Daily Show.

2. I'm left-of-lenin liberal, but reading a book teeming with wink-wink ad hominems about George W Bush and co seems dated and gratuitous. I was expecting something more timeless, along the lines of the Philosophy book. Instead, we get jocular Tom Delay bashing.

3. The "theoretical" content of this book (which, by the way, would probably be more accurately called "... through theory and jokes", though that sounds rather unsaleable) is weak. It's largely an abridged list of standard logical fallacies. Unlike Wittenstein, this tends to be something that the target audience already knows. As such, the theoretical framework largely exists to make yet more George Bush jokes, interspersed with a slag on, say, Ray Nagin for balance or something.

On the plus side, the cartoons and unrelated jokes are good. There's probably something there you can work into a talk or lecture if you're an academic.

Overall, I expected something much more enlightened, witty, and intelligent.

In case it's not clear already: read the authors' other book, and probably give this one a miss.

This book examines the political speak in a penetrative way that uncovers the naked truth of each statement. Be sure to read Extra Credit and the Debates. This book is brilliant.

I read their book, "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar" and liked it a lot. I was very disappointed by this book. It looks quickly thrown together - many errors and poor logic. Few interesting points. Sorry to see this quality after reading their other book.

Aristotle and an Aardvark

So, I'm playing Texas Hold `em with the Pope, President Bush, and Hillary. Obama is too young to play with anything except pennies, so we didn't invite him, and McCain went to Mexico to buy cheap Viagra. No wonder he's for NAFTA. The Pope is broke again and trying to convince the rest of us to let him throw his big, pointy hat into the pot, but what am I going to do with it? I could sell it on EBay, but it'd be a pain to mail. Hillary decides to light a Cuban cigar, and crack a joke, "Did you see Barack Obama at that rally surrounded by all those Kennedys? I couldn't tell if he was running for president or bartender."* Wait a moment. I've been handed yet another memo from the legal department. It appears that if I am going to finish this column, I'm going to have to read this disclaimer: Please note that views expressed here are those of the columnist. We neither agree, disagree, condone nor claim that any of his ramblings actually approach reality. Besides, our sources claim that the Pope only plays the nickel slots, and we called Bill, and he said Hillary would take Pennsylvania, but wouldn't smoke a cigar...
The last time Pennsylvania's primary actually made a difference was 1976. So you can be sure that we'll have lots of doublespeak flying our way, and that's why I picked up a copy of Aristotle and an Aardvark Go To Washington: Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy and Jokes by Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein. These authors of Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar aren't falling for any election year tricky talk or weasel words, and neither should you.
Cathcart and Klein break out some great jokes as well as political cartoons. They explain what politicians are really up to when they state: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." (Donald Rumsfeld); "It depends on what the meaning of the word `is' is." (Bill Clinton), or even "I am the Flail of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you." (Genghis Khan) I find it refreshing to hear an honest politician speak his mind. You can always count on the "Scourge of God " to tell it as he saw it. No, wait--that was the diplomat, Attila the Hun.
Have you ever heard a politician deliver a speech or press conference and know in your gut that their pronouncements were certifiable BS, but you just couldn't put your finger on why? Sure, sometimes the speaker fails to make sense simply because they convey a straight-out lie. This book will help you with the subtler stuff. For example, words that have been cunningly crafted to sound like they mean something important and compelling, but that upon careful inspection can be revealed to be bull scatology, which is far more insidious than outright lying, because it can be harder to detect.
Utilizing quotes from Al Sharpton to Adolf Hitler, Hillary Clinton to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield and Genghis Khan, these philosophical comedians help us learn and identify many stratagems. There's the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy", where you shoot a bunch of holes in the barn door and then draw a target around them. There's "Doublespeak", such as electronic intercepts NOT wiretapping. And then there's the good old "So's your mother" argument, which is misleading by getting personal, "Your Mom wears combat boots", which reminds me my high school days.
Presidential candidates often seem to cloud the issues saying anything and everything to get elected. Appearing to have said nothing and everything on both sides of an issue all in the same breath. They are speaking another language, and this book can help translate. I found it quick and easy to read, hard to put down, and funny, but the authors have a lot of material to work with. I believe Will Rogers nailed it when he said, "There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you." Now, I have to be off. I'm going hunting with Dick Cheney. I hear its open season on Qualye...

*Joke originally told by Jay Leno, much to Hillary's chagrin. You don't actually think she's that funny?

Author of "Hobo Finds A Home" and editor "Of A Predatory Heart"

I read Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington after reading Cathcart and Klein's first book, Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar. Unfortunately, I did not find this one nearing as entertaining.

Foremost, it must be said that repetition of the same jokes over and over again became quite tiring. There was also nothing really new and innovative about the humor; most of the jokes about politics and politicians have been told before. Contrast this with Plato and a Platypus, where the humor was fresh and the punch-lines worth repeating.

As some of the previous readers have mentioned, there was a clear bias towards the Left. While the Republicans have been in power for the first six years of this decade and thus can provide more comedic fodder, I was still expecting a bit fairer treatment by Cathcart and Klein. But then again, I should have expected as much when Markos Moulitsas, founder of DailyKos, praises the book on its back cover.

Even still, it is an interesting read and you will learn how to identify the double-speak and fallacious reasoning so often employed by politicians. My personal recommendation: check-out this book from your local library. You'll learn a few things, and still have the $12.89.

I've never before read such a combination of serious philosophy and politics. The latter can't always be termed "serious", in real life, but the authors have been able to link them in a humorous way so that understanding them both is facilitated. Believing them both is another matter, but the attempt is fun.

This is one of the most delightful books I have had the pleasure to read. Anyone interested in logic, philosophy, and/or politics will love the book. It skewers politicians on both sides of the aisle. Rick Santorum, John Kerry, President Bush, and many other politicians are ridiculed, justly so. It is a great introduction to logical fallacies, while being very funny at the same time. I highly recommend this book.

A bit of a disappintment after the previous book "Scorates and an Aadvark..." still worth reading.

Even though the book is about Washington politics, it is quite evident the author does not like President Bush. I am no fan of Bush or some of his cohorts. Having said that, the constant anti-Bush theme gets boring at times - nothing really new. The persistent political inconsistencies cited by the author of many politicians and political groupies are well known and equally ignored by most people outside of the Beltway.
There are times when the humor is quite good and the jabs well placed.

First off, Cathcart and Klein are extremely talented writers. I wish I had their rhetorical flair. In addition, they are fair philosophers. They no the terms and definitions and provide proper examples to illustrate their points. The book does, however, suffer, both stylistically and yes, at times philosophically. With the other reviews being so glowing (so far at least), I am going to highlight some draw backs.

The jokes, like their first book, are just downright funny. While maybe not as humorous as their first volume, they are funny nonetheless. I don't want to say which jokes are "best" because at some point, jokes and their ability to make us laugh are a result of one's taste and experiences. The jokes rate about 4 star and half stars.

Stylistically, the book suffers on a couple of levels, but I'll address only one. The book is organized largely as if it was a Keith Olberman or a MoveOn.Org tract. Does anyone remember those "Chick" tracts? They are those very, right wing, Christian Fundamentalists tracts that obfuscates certain "Bible" issues and "the way to salvation." Well, this book does the same thing. The title suggests one reads this book to "understand" "political doublespeak." Well, yes, but the "doublespeak" is so one sided that President Bush and most conservatives end up looking like mental midgets in almost everyway while even when liberal Democrats commit errors, they obfuscate and "spin" to make sure the GOP still looks the "dumber" for it. For example, on page 77-78, they take the infamous Kerry's lack of an education sends you to Iraq/in the military speech and claim yes, he committed a straw man, but they place more of the onus on the GOP for using his words against him. Here they obfuscate the issue as well as go on a red-herring. Their point was made with Kerry's speech, but they were bent on making their point with the GOP. Further, they do not show that these GOP leaders (as well as many Democrats) missed the point of Kerry's sentence (Ignoratio elenchi), in fact, the understood his point quite well, as they themselves admit by pointing out that Kerry "shoots himself in the foot." (Also, why defend a man that claimed he was making a joke - where is the punch line?)

There are many more examples, but I would then belabor the point. I would have preferred a more balanced presentation, slapping both sides of government up the side of the head since they both provide so much fodder. The book would also become less tiresome. Someone like me buys this book, not for the philosophy or logic; I have that under my belt, but I purchase this book for the fun. Now, this is not to say they do not occasionally take a pot shot at the left, but the balance is so skewered, the book looses its punch for moderates and fair minded conservatives.

Yes, buy the book. One will learn the basic terms and insight on logical fallacies(most of the time), but understand this is a primer with a tilted slant.

Well, lets see. I will admit that I have read very little of this book, but what I have read I have really enjoyed and found to be extreemly hilarious. I was turned on to the book one day when I arrived at my parents house to find my father sitting in his chair one afternoon laughing out loud. I took that as a vote of confidence that my father of all people would not be laughing out loud if this book was indeed not funny. In fact he has been slowly savering this book, which is a sure sign that it is a good read. I recently purchased a copy of the book for my boyfriend knowing that he will get the same joy out of the book as my father.

The authors present a sensible analysis of utter nonsense, which is to say, the nonsense uttered by many of our (arguably) elected officials. A valuable comic spin on the tragic machinations that are currently playing themselves out in Washington, DC.

A hilarious collection of political quotes, exposing logical fallacies (better known as bulls**t) of the quoters - by the authors of the best seller "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar" - a similar treatise on philosophy.

Some are just white lies: President Reagan's aide Michael Deaver was asked how the President had reacted to Congress's authorization of the sale of planes to Saudi Arabia. Deaver quickly said, "The President said, "Thank God." Actually, the President had said, "I feel like I've just crapped a pineapple."

But some are blatantly transparent: "It's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I'd call that a failure." - Homeland Security Advisor Townsend on why bin Laden had not yet been captured.

Some involve shooting the arrow at a barn, then drawing the bulls-eye around wherever the arrow landed: The wednesday after 9/11, Rumsfeld complained there were no decent targets for bombing in Afganistan and we should consider bombing Iraq, which had better targets.

Special sections for all occasions, such as how a politician can avoid apologizing: "Mistakes were made" - Nixon about Watergate, Alberto Gonzales about his attorney-generalship. For those who can't resist puzzles, a pop quiz is provided at the end - you get to match various quotes with their corresponding logical fallacies.

Text is quick to read, hard to put down, and completely entertaining - the book leaves you wanting more. There are 22 excellent all-purpose political cartoons, mostly from "New Yorker" magazine. The authors mix in some great jokes when needed to further illustrate a point. As Will Rogers said, "There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you."