Monday, February 05, 2007

A Parable, By Mayor Waldo

My previous post was in response to a recent diatribe from Waldo Jaquith directed at Rep. Virgil Goode. It was not Waldo's first foray into this realm, and I'm certain it will not be his last. Not only was my initial trackback deleted in an apparent attempt to hide the truth from his readers, my response was also met with some derision in the comment section at Waldo's site. I even was called a name based upon a rather vulgar representation of the male anatomy, by Mark Brooks, a Democrat and chair of his County's party committee. Another, a gentleman who actually appears on my right sidebar Virginia blogroll, suggested that I am somewhat dense.

My primary response to all of Waldo's rather uncouth visitors was the old adage, "put up or shut up". If any of my facts are shown to be untrue, I will publish a public retraction of that item in my original post, in a newly published post, and in the comment section of Waldo's original post.

It's been well over 24 hours since I posted yesterday's article, in today's era of the internet and Google, that's an eternity. You can find out how to build a nuclear bomb in that period of time. No one has refuted an item yet. (By this, please do not assume I am closing my challenge. It remains intact. Please research this issue and find a fallacy in my post.)

In a rather strange reply, in the comment section of his original post Waldo did in fact admit to the truthfulness of my response. He even goes so far as to turn it into a parable. (Just for Chris, Lynne, Alex, Elle and Carl, a parable is a brief story that illustrates a spiritual or moral lesson, but I'm sure you all knew that already.)

I urge you to go read all of Waldo's reply to my request for a factual refutation. It's quite an interesting little peek into the liberal mind. But first, let's all sit in a circle, join hands, and listen while Waldo relates his parable.
I’m Waldo, mayor of Nonesuchtown. I was recently reelected thanks in no small part of my friend Phil. He was my #1 campaign contributor. Phil’s from up in D.C., but he’s thinking about moving down here. He owns a couple of chain businesses, and we could certainly use some of his money down here in Nonesuchtown. So I go to Ginger, a friend and a resident of my town. I explain to Ginger, who owns some rental houses, that it’s important to the town that Phil move down here. My hope is that he’ll decide to locate some of his businesses here, which would be good for the tax base. The trouble is, I tell Ginger, he needs some persuading to move down here. If I could tell him that I’ve found a house for him with low rent and no deposit, I think he’ll do it. Ginger’s not sure, but I vouch for Phil, and she has her attorney draw up the paperwork.

Phil accepts the offer. He moves down here and rents from Ginger for a year and a half. But before any of his stores can open, he gets busted by the police. Turns out he was using the house to run a meth lab. Phil goes to prison. The house is a wreck, because that’s what running a meth lab does. It requires thousands of dollars in improvements. With no deposit, poor Ginger is stuck with the bill. She made enough in rent that she breaks even on the entire deal. But she hadn’t budgeted thousands of dollars for repair bills — that money was earmarked for her daughter’s college fund.

Who’s fault is it? Well, there’s enough blame to go around. First and foremost, it’s Phil’s fault, no question. Ginger certainly messed up taking a renter without a deposit which means that, by extent, she erred in trusting me — after all, I didn’t actually call up that Phil was a big-time investor in my campaign. Finally, I messed up — I vouched for Phil which meant that I was asking Ginger to trust me, not Phil, which of course she’d do as her friend and mayor.

I have absolutely no legal obligation to help out Ginger with her bills. She’s a big girl, and she made the deal with her eyes wide open. And I didn’t draw up her contract, although I did come up with the terms. But I do have a reelection campaign coming up in a couple of years, and I’ve got my reputation to look after. What with all of the money I made from Phil, it be so terrible to cover Ginger’s costs. (After all, it’s not really my money, anyhow — it’s my campaign’s money.)

Whether I pay back Ginger is ultimately a gamble — will the voters of Nonesuchtown care about the fact that I wrongly vouched for a criminal? Will they care to the tune of the cost of the repair bill?
Dead on analogy Waldo. It's perfect, except for just a few little details. Like all of them. You know how those details can be so messy.

Just as he did with Virgil, Waldo has misrepresented a few facts. Let's look at them, shall we?
  • Ginger sold the house, she did not rent it.
  • Phil's meth lab was in San Diego, not in Nonesuchtown.
  • Phil did not wreck the house he bought from Ginger, instead he increased it's value by at least 50%.
  • The house is still in Nonesuchtown, on the market, and will eventually add to the economy of Nonesuchtown.
  • Ginger is still receiving residual payments from Phil's brother, who now owns the house.
  • Ginger's repayment to the grantors was not made with her daughter's college fund. It came instead from a business account she has just for such contingencies.
  • Ginger did not lose money on the deal, she in fact made a profit.
Again, rather than looking only at the facts, Waldo spends much more time trying to divine the motives of Mayor Waldo and Phil. All the while assuming Ginger to be a virginal innocent lass who was led by the hand into a bad deal.

There is more than enough evidence that Ginger saw Phil as a hunk, and was willing to do whatever it took to get him into her bed. She was even willing to lose a considerable chunk of change in order to do so.

It turns out that Ginger had her fling with Phil, gained enough from the affair that she didn't lose monetarily, and still has Phil's brother making regular payments to her bank account.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I read that "parable" and found it somewhat hard to follow. He obviously couldn't refute any facts so he went to the odd length of crafting an analogy that is completely off base and detached from the reality of this situation.

As a law professor once told me, analogies are the weakest form of argument.

And so it goes...

Roger A. "Rowhey" Jarrell II