English Eccentrics and Eccentricities

A deliberate exaggeration like “My history teacher's so old, he lived through everything we've learned about ancient Greece” is a hyperbole. It is defined as being “used without the intent of literal persuasion” but of heightening effect or producing comic effect (A Handbook to Literature). Now, imagine a passenger on his way to meet his girlfriend but being stuck at an airport because of bad weather. He tweets his girlfriend that ‘Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!’ He is certainly guilty of using a hyperbole in its proper sense, i.e. without the intent of literally blowing up the airport. But what if law enforcement officials arrest the guy, question him for seven hours, confiscate his computers and mobile phone and fine him £1,000 because he was “sending a menacing message” ( tweetcrime )? Let's euphemistically call it a hyper-hyperbole.

Tailored to fit

The only man who behaves sensibly is my tailor; he takes measurements anew every time he sees me, while all the rest go on with their old measurements and expect me to fit them. George Bernard Shaw


Wearing a J. Peterman’s pale blue Sutton-Place-Dress is supposedly an outward expression of a woman’s regal behavior. “The clean lines. The crisp angles. The flowing steps. They bespeak a person who can run a neuroscience group or chair the library fund-raising committee.” To indicate is one meaning of to bespeak. According to the OED, the prefix be- , however, originally meant "about" as in behave (the ways one has about oneself). Thus, to bespeak something can also mean to talk about it, discuss it.
Its past participle, bespoke (=spoken about) is often used as an adjective, meaning custom made. Common in British English, it is recently used more frequently in the U.S. as well. There are BESPOKE CHOCOLATES and Bespoke Cycles. Silversea Cruiseline promises "Bespoke adventures off the beaten path," and visiting Paris, one should "[mill] about the 'Detox Corner' — the boutique — marveling at the bespoke all-natural products on sale" ("Going underground in a private Paris" NYT 3/28). If something is custom made, it is necessary for customer and manufacturer to have discussed the product's details and to have spoken about what is possible at which price. Hence a boutique where one can browse through bespoke products is a paradox. What is custom made cannot be off the shelf.
Even though a dress off the shelf may bespeak someone’s sophistication, a truly bespoke suit surely trumps it. Of course, it will cost more money as well as more time because "A client being fitted for a bespoke suit would have three or four fittings. We would take 20 to 25 direct measurements and we would look at their figuration" - unless the tailor is up to something else:

Chandler: Your tailor is a very bad man.
Joey: Frankie? What're you talking about?
Chandler: He took advantage of me.
Joey: No way! I've been going to that guy for 12 years.
Chandler: He said he was going to do my inseam and ran his hand up my leg, and then there was definite - cupping.
Joey: That's how they do pants. First they go up one side, they move it over, they go up the other side, they move it back, and then they do the rear. Isn't that how they measure pants?

Franken's bull

Senator Al Franken recently introduced the Student Non-Discrimination Act, a bill which "would prohibit discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. If [the bill is] signed into law, public schools that violate the statute could lose federal funding or be sued by victims" (MPR).
Asked why the bill only addresses bullying for sexual orientation, Franken had this to say:

Franken: Well, uh, we, you know, [bullying] - is illegal for so many reasons that--you know, race, religion, uh, national origin, disability, uh--I guess, I guess you can say that bullying--then it kind of depends on what you're talking about. If, you know, I guess kids have a right not to bully, but to basically, you know, tease each other about the stupidest things, but certainly not about those things...You know, "I don't like your taste in TV shows," or something like that--
Wurzer: What constitutes harassment under your bill, specifically?
Franken: Uh, I think that harassment and bullying is really, uh, it's one of these things that you know it when you see it.
Wurzer: Does--but does the bill outline anything specific?
Franken: I don't, uh, believe we have the language in it to define bullying, but maybe I do. I'm not--I'm not sure about that aspect of, of the bill. I know that it's, it's, it's defined the same way as it is for, um, race or for religion, or, um, the, uh, disability--the other reasons that are outlawed in, in--nationally. In other words, all these other things, uh, are, are national, uh, but not, uh, gay and lesbian.
Wurzer: How would a court determine that a school ignored harassment? Have you figured that out yet?
Franken: Uh, I think that they would just, uh, the facts of the case--I mean, that would be up to the court, and if the, um--you know, what I'm hoping is, is this'll start disappearing. Unfortunately, it's all too--it's almost sanctioned, as you can tell by the story in Anoka, by the schools, and I think that once we raise awareness about this, and have a law, that it'll, it'll, uh, bring down the incidence of this and make life a lot better for these kids.

Franken's argumentation could be deemed a logical fallacy could he be credited with logic. For example, the speaker diverts attention away from the fact in dispute rather than address it directly, which is called an irrelevant conclusion. Furthermore, his reasoning is circular since the statement that bullying comes in many shapes and sizes is simply repeated in different ways. Logial fallacy or not, the discourse is absurd.
There is a bill against bullying but it does not have the language in it to define bullying because bullying is just one of these things that you know when you see it. The bill is supposed to raise awareness about and bring down incidences of bullying. What an incident of bullying is, however, kind of depends on what you're talking about. Clear enough?
So, what is bullying? According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the original meaning of this word is "sweetheart," applied to either sex, from Dutch boel or German buhle , meaning lover. In the 17th century, the word’s meaning changed from "fine fellow" to "blusterer" and "harasser of the weak." In 1706, bully was applied to a "protector of a prostitute," in other words a pimp. In 19th century America, however, the slang phrase bully for you! was again positive, referring to someone "worthy, jolly, admirable."
Adding such an etymological note as preamble to the Senator’s bill - just to add to the confusion - and the directive that "kids have a right not to bully" as an amendment could surely help the courts to determine whether they deal with an incident of bullying or not.

Washington's Magnumimity

The Washington Post reports on the “efforts by officials to flood city streets with latex.” Their problem, however, is not how to submerge the streets under a “thick, whitish liquid.” Their problem is that teenagers demand free Trojan Magnums instead of the cheapo by the name of Durex even though “Consumer Reports magazine said in a report last fall that Trojan and Durex, as well as the Lifestyles condoms …, both scored 100 percent in tests of ‘strength, reliability, leakage and package integrity.’" It is not clear which two out of the three may be the both scoring 100%, but let’s assume all three are working just fine.
Still, because teenagers don’t like to ask school nurses for one, “they [are] not taking advantage of the condoms at school.” Whether or not city officials indeed would like teenagers to take advantage of condoms at school, they leave no stone unturned “to support the regularization of condom use citywide.” Since to regularize something means “to make it legal or official” (Longman Advanced American Dictionary), condoms are now obviously legal in Washington D.C. Had John Edwards only known!
In New York, where the NYC Condom “hit the streets in 2007,” citizens who hit the sack using it decide via online polls even on the wrapper's design. Yet, “Despite the fancy packaging, [the city’s HIV/AIDS prevention and control] agency has received requests for ‘larger sizes’ and ‘extra thin’ condoms.” Even though government agencies indeed are often conspicuous for their fancy packaging (as this dangling modifier insinuates), what New Yorkers are asking for are larger and extra thin condoms because the offered product is not quite satisfying yet despite its fancy packaging. Surely, city officials will oblige because they want “everybody who is having a sexual relationship to do it with condoms [and try] to give them whichever condom will help them do that,” or rather they want everybody to have whichever overnight bag helps him avoid this.