Archive for Tools - Human

Ding Donn, Alberto’s Gone

Far be it for Jaq Phule to complain about the imminent departure of AG squared (no, not that AG, we all like that one), but Jaq would like to have a few words about the whole farce.

You see, quite a few people are caught up in the whole attorney-firing scandal, in claiming that this was the primary reason why Fredo got fired.

A few words on being fired: Gonzo was not fired. He resigned. The eight attorneys at the heart of the scandal were fired. They are the only people anywhere close to the president that Jaq can think of that got fired since Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre.

At your job, would you say it’s been (a) less than, or (b) more than, thirty-four freakin’ years since the last time somebody got fired?

Maybe a precedent set for some firings is a good thing, eh?

The mythos of the official “resignation” is just plain silly wonkery. The implication is that the President and all his little munchkin men are too awesome in their abilities as Leaders to make poor hiring decisions. As such, they never have to fire anyone.

Even Michael Brown resigned, if you recall. Richard Freaking Nixon resigned, when all hope was not quite lost — as Bill Clinton proved decades later, you can beat impeachment just by convincing Congress it’s too scary a presidential precedent to set. After all, anyone politically ambitious enough to argue impeachment is probably also politically ambitious enough to run for the damned office itself. They don’t want that marr on the history of that glorious office. Why dya think virtually no Democrat of any stature is arguing impeachment nowadays?

Okay, but what about the argument that the attorneys were fired for political reasons, and for this someone must pay?

That is possibly the dumbest thing Jaq has heard in virtually minutes.

The good old US of A is supposed to be a democracy. Leaders are democratically elected to serve the democratic electorate. This means that their primary incentive to being is to do things which convince a bare majority of the electorate that voting for their sorry asses is the only way to avoid massive pain and get beaucoup goodies. And this, dear friends, means that whatever democratically elected leaders, and the cronies they rode in on, will do first and foremost, things which are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED!

Don’t blame a duck for quacking like a duck.

One of these election cycles, Jaq will tally up all the times each party accuses the other of having “political motivations” for whatever random act of legislative or executive stupidity that comes along the pike. Whichever party gets the fewest, Jaq will vote for. Or possibly against, depending on how spiteful they’re feeling.

Still, Jaq is happy that this brownshirt will be leaving. Much happier than at the departure of Rove, who is now freed up to wreak havoc for the next administration, because Alberto is leaving under a much larger cloud of stinkiness. Jaq is happier, partially because of Gonzo’s influence on warrantless wiretapping, but mainly for this statement, made to the Senate Judiciary Committe:

The fact that the Constitution—again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away.

This is possibly the stupidest fucking statement ever uttered in the halls of Congress, and boy that’s saying something. For good old Al, let’s break this down syllogism style, right?

Habeus corpus is either God-given (innate in man’s natural state if you prefer P.C.) or else is a political right granted by a state. If it is God-given, then it cannot be lawfully taken away. If it is not God-given, then it must be granted before taking it away. If it can be taken away by the Constitution under a circumstance, then either the Constitution is invalid by natural rights theory, or else must be granted implicitly by the Constitution.

What Alfredo here is saying instead is that “well, we can’t take it away, but that doesn’t mean we’re giving it to you either.” What the hell does he think habeus corpus actually is, dental floss? Jaq believes this shows a complete and thorough lack of understanding of the Constitution, habeus corpus, and just plain common sense. These are not redeeming antiqualities you want to have in the guy who’s supposed to be enforcing the highest law of the land.

Not to mention that generations of legal scholars since 1215 AD have come to the conclusion that “the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action”. Scrap, wrap, and toss; it’s not guaranteed to be granted by the Constitution after all.

So, while Jaq is happy that Gonzo and his ceaseless, somewhat insane looking sycophantic grin are even now packing their crap out of D.C., Jaq is less than happy about the lead up or the execution of this. Fire the bastitch, and fire him for being a scary freakin’ fascist. Don’t play games.

And for all the people who keep saying, “What a shame he failed, because he’s Hispanic,” haven’t we moved past this b.s. yet? I sincerely doubt that anyone but a fringe minority of gas station employees working in rural regions containing five counties to a high school remotely ever thought that Gonzo was somehow less than qualified because of pigmentation, or where his ancestors lived. Don’t be sensitive about this. No one person can represent their entire race, and Al’s miserable failure means no more in racial terms than Michael Brown’s vast sea of incompetence meant that people ever would say, “what a shame he failed — he’s so white!” At most, Alberto only ever represented the dimbulb who thought his name was actually “Alfredo”.

Leave a Comment

Jaq Presents: Phallacies

A brand new feature is probably not a big deal, only four days into the existence of the blog.  However, since this is a big hint into some of the meat of the matter mentally masticated by the master of this mess, which Jaq shall be spewing forth in blogentries to come.

Fallacies may strictly be defined as defects in argumentation.  And there’s nothing wrong with committing defects in argumentation.  Nobody’s perfect.  Defects in communication are completely harmless — so long as whomever on the listening end of said communique identifies and renders harmless problems.

 To help me explain today’s fallacy, Lou Dobbs has graciously volunteered to assist Jaq Phule in a small demonstration.  Say hello, Lou!

                         Hello, Lou!

Now, you may have noticed that Lou is an absolute tool. “Now wait just a gravy-smothered minute,” you gasp. “You can’t say that. That’s an ad hominem fallacy!”

Jaq agrees, that this is a case in point example of an argument which is defective. It’s more than that, because you can’t make this kind of fallacy accidentally. More than that, by placing the picture of Lou with his head replaced with a hammer, it’s funny. (Jaq thinks it’s funny anyway.) You’re introduced to Lou, shown slanted humor, and then told flat out he is a tool. In this way, Jaq has combined inputs both visual and verbal (since you’re reading it in your head).   Combining channels like that is a trick that is used to confuse your brain into agreement without rational thought, and is why the political cartoonist is so highly regarded by newspaper editors.

Now, don’t get Jaq wrong, there’s no such thing as totally unbiased reporting. HOWEVER, There is such a thing as reporting in such a way that pushes an agenda, and does so not by rational argument but by innuendo and rhetorical brain tricks. Someone else’s agenda is probably not good for you, so what we’ve all come around the table to discuss is mental judo, or how not to get taken in.

Now Lou is an excellent candidate for skewering. Certainly Lou commits ad hominem rather blatantly. In fact, many of Lou’s arguments boil down to nothing more than ad hominem. Jaq has sworn never to rehash stuff from the LRC blog, but it’s so hard not to when the very topic Jaq wanted to write about is dancing nekkid in close proximity:

In this clip, Lou talks about one of his favorite subjects, immigration. Unfortunately, this is a subject that Lou is ill-equipped, mentally, to actually be coherent in. Clearly he disagrees with the open borders economists who are the subject of Lou’s report. However, Lou cannot actually articulate any points of disagreement other than to call these economists “idiots” and “jackasses”. Brilliant, Lou. For that kind of analysis, CNN pays you an exorbitant salary and feeds your ego. Congratulations.

Lou Dobbs may in fact be a tool. But whose tool is he? And whose tool is the toolmaker?

We’ll have more fun with Lou later.

Comments (2)