Nonfiction

Gonzales vs. Jefferson: Making Sense of Crazy People

Well, as many of you know, there is a bit of a tizzy going on up in Washington, D.C. Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) got his law offices raided by the F.B.I. Suddenly, Congress is interested in protecting Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. The F.B.I., and Attorney General Gonzales, claim they were completely within their rights to search the office of a Congressman being investigated for corruption. Congress is claiming historic precedent (first) and Constitutional protection (second). Meanwhile, Jefferson is jumping up and down waving his hands and swearing his innocence.

I was a bit confused. I have read the Constitution, many times, and I couldn’t figure out what the hoopla was all about. I mean, the man was being investigated for corruption. They found $90,000 of what was allegedly a $100,000 bribe in his freezer. And they even went to the trouble to get a warrant; a luxury we mere mortals cannot necessarily count on, anymore. So, for you poor souls who, like me, just don’t get it…here’s a breakdown of what I have been able to figure out.

The (Constitutional) Issue:

Article 1, Section 6 states that all Senators and Representatives

…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

It is being argued that the confiscation of legislative documents from Jefferson’s office violates this provision. This might be true, if the documents taken deal with legislation (in the sense of drafted bills, research for that purpose, committee reports, etc.). What is not included, according to the letter of the law and legal precedent, is anything else.

So that seems straightforward. But that’s not really the issue.

Continue reading

Logic 103: The Dark (Dark) Side of Logic

In response to requests from my logically-sound readers, you can now find links to Logic 101 (which covers the basic structure of logical arguments), and Logic 102 (which covers the Argumentum ad Baculum, Argumentum ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and Argumentum ad Misericordium) here.

Actual Article Begins Now:

All right, Logic fans, it is time for the next exciting episode in our cutting edge expose’ of the sneaky little fallacies which try to undermine the very foundation of dialogue as we know it. Last session, we talked about four of the most common fallacies at large in the world today: the Argumentum ad Baculum (where you threaten folks with evil things if they don’t agree with you), the Argumentum ad Hominem (where you call someone else evil in order to undermine their credibility), the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (where you say something’s true because it hasn’t been proven untrue), and the lousy, low-down Argumentum ad Misericordium (where you say someone should agree with you because you are so pathetic). We also covered a bit about how to get goth girls to talk to you, because that seemed to be very relevant. Speaking of relevance, all these fallacies were revealed to be “fallacies of relevance”, because they address situations where the premises you are using to prove your conclusion are irrelevant to the actual argument.

Everyone clear? All right. We are ready for our next foray into the treacherous waters of logical argument:
The Dark (Dark) Side of Logic. Continue reading