Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s Distributed Muddle!!!

Apuzzo Finally Found The Bench Which Supported Him!

I guess Mario Apuzzo, Esq. read my “A Pazzo” article. Today in his blog comments we find:

I of IISqueeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, the artsy fartsy Obot queen, has taken a stab at my Jack Maskell article. You can read her haughty prose here. http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/he-says-apuzzo-i-say-a-pazzo/

She says that I have misread Minor v. Happersett because the Court said that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” I say, so what in light of the fact that the Court also said: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Hence, the Court said that at common law, if you were not born in the country to citizen parents, you were an alien or foreigner. This is the same exact thing that Congress reflected in its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. So Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, has proven nothing but to show that she does not understand what she reads.

Then Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, turns to my logical analysis of the Maskell argument. In the first part of her attempt at logic, it is quite clear that she has totally missed my point about Maskell’s first argument being invalid. I showed that Maskell’s first argument as having this invalid logical form (“natural born Citizen”=NBC; “citizen at birth”=CAB):

All NBCs are CABs.
All X’s are CABs.
Therefore, all X’s are NBC.

To show the invalidity of this argument, I wrote:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, says that this argument is not valid and faults me for presenting it. She misstates my presentation, even attempting to prove me wrong by showing by use of some other irrelevant logical argument why this argument is not valid. I said that this Maskell argument is not valid because it violates the rule of the undistributed middle and also is fallacious for affirming the consequent. I said that this is the argument presented by Maskell. So, what is ironic is that Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, attacks me, in her twisted and incorrect way, for the argument when what she is really doing is attacking Jack Maskell.

Then Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, takes a shot at the second part of my logical analysis of the Maskell argument:

All CAB’s are NBCs.
All X’s are CAB’s.
Therefore, all X’s are NBCs.

Continued . . .

June 12, 2013 at 2:40 AM

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…

II of III explained that I took Maskell’s invalid argument (above) and made it valid through this logical form. I did this to show where Maskell’s informal fallacy is hidden. I showed how this argument is logically valid, but unsound because its major premise, All CAB’s are NBCs, is false. I explained that Maskell has not presented any evidence to prove the truth of this major premise. I presented U.S. Supreme Court case law which addressed the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” and this case law does not support Maskell’s thesis that all “citizens at birth” are “natural-born citizens.” And even though Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, comes to Maskell’s aid, she also does not present any evidence to show that Maskell’s major premise, as reconstructed by me, would be true. What she does in place of presenting any evidence that the major premise is true is just to say that the premise does not strike her “as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” From this statement we can see that Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, has very little understanding of informal logic and fallacies. An informal fallacy has the exact facial appeal that she relies upon. But when its underlying truth is tested, it fails.

I have demonstrated how Maskell has not proven that his adjusted major premise is true. I have also presented my evidence that shows that the adjusted major premise is false. I have therefore unmasked the informal fallacy of the adjusted Maskell major premise, i.e., that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Yet, Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, says that I have proven nothing. On the contrary, she is the one who just says a lot of mixed up nothing (like her art work), demonstrates how incapable she is of understanding case law, and proves how ignorant she is when it comes to logic.

June 12, 2013 at 2:42 AM

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=4091601506130883249

Blah. Blah. Blah. Well, once again Mario Apuzzo MISSES THE WHOLE DARN POINT of my article!!! I clearly said that I was saving a substantive refutation for later. The point of the Apuzzo/A Pazzo post was to show how Apuzzo’s use of syllogistic forms was misplaced and darn near useless when it is the major premises themselves which are at issue.

Apuzzo says the same thing but just doesn’t understand the impact of his own words. This is from his original article:

All CABs are NBCs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

This argument is valid because if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must be true. But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound, meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false. This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound because its major premise is false.

Notice how Apuzzo admits that in this proper logical form, Maskell’s argument is LOGICALLY valid. In Mario’s mind, what is it that renders the conclusion UNSOUND? Is it LOGIC??? Is it Aristotle speaking from beyond the grave??? Naw. It’s just that Mario disagrees with the Major Premise. That’s it! Maskell thinks one thing, and Mario thinks something else.

BUT, that is NOT the stuff of which logical fallacies are made. It’s just a disagreement. It happens all the time. I don’t think Mario Apuzzo is wrong because he violates forms of logic. I think he is wrong because he misinterprets applicable law, bases conclusions on inappropriate legal authorities, and flatly doesn’t know what he is talking about.

I guess you could put some of that into syllogistic form, to wit:

Major Premise: People who think earlier Supreme Court cases (Minor Happersett 1875) trump subsequent cases (Wong Kim Ark 1898) are wrong;

Minor Premise: Apuzzo thinks earlier Supreme Court cases (Minor Happersett 1875) trump subsequent cases (Wong Kim Ark 1898);

Conclusion: Apuzzo is wrong.

But why go through all that??? It isn’t necessary. It is simple enough to say, “Apuzzo commits error by focusing on earlier cases to the exclusion of subsequent cases. DUH! If I did utilize syllogisms in that fashion, it would not be for illumination, but obfuscation.  That was my whole point with the earlier article.

Sooo, let me close with an Artsy Fartsy Irish Poem:

Losing To Wit

Apazzo ignores the courts’ rulings,
To busy himself with his droolings.
To Wit: he’ll keep losing,
‘Cause he keeps refusing
To listen to Squeeky Fromm’s schoolings!

Squeeky Fromm
Artsy Fartsy Girl Reporter

Note 1. Undistributed Middle/Distributed Muddle. For ESL’s, this is a word play on logical fallacies (Undistributed Middle), and confused messes (Distributed Muddle).

mud·dle (mdl)

n.
1. A disordered condition; a mess or jumble.
2. Mental confusion.

v. mud·dled, mud·dling, mud·dles
v.tr.
1. To make turbid or muddy.
2. To mix confusedly; jumble.
3. To confuse or befuddle (the mind), as with alcohol. See Synonyms at confuse.
4. To mismanage or bungle.
5. To stir or mix (a drink) gently.

v.intr.
To think, act, or proceed in a confused or aimless manner: muddled along through my high-school years.

Note 2. The Image Caption.  The Bench also means:

World English Dictionary
bench (bɛntʃ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. a long seat for more than one person, usually lacking a back or arms
2. a plain stout worktable
3. ( sometimes capital ) the bench
a. a judge or magistrate sitting in court in a judicial capacity
b. judges or magistrates collectively
4. sport the seat on which reserve players and officials sit during a game
5. geology a flat narrow platform of land, esp one marking a former shoreline
6. a ledge in a mine or quarry from which work is carried out
7. (in a gymnasium) a low table, which may be inclined, used for various exercises
8. a platform on which dogs or other domestic animals are exhibited at shows
9. ( NZ ) a hollow on a hillside formed by sheep

Note 3. The Image Easter Egg:  Malt does more than logic will, to justify Apuzzo’s swill.

This is a word play based on two lines from  A.E. Housman, in A Shropshire Lad, XLII (#62) the one which begins, “Terence, this is stupid stuff”.  Here is an excerpt:

Oh many a peer of England brews
Livelier liquor than the Muse,
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God’s ways to man.
Ale, man, ale’s the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think:
Look into the pewter pot
To see the world as the world’s not.

http://www.bigeye.com/housman.htm

Note 4. To Wit. The Irish Poem is based on a punning use of the legalistic phrase “To Wit” (Namely) with the general meaning “To Wit” (To Humor) being the clear winner in many arguments.

The phrase to wit, meaning namely or that is to say, is primarily used in legal texts and speech, though it sometimes spills over into other types of writing. In general, unless you’re going for a formal tone, to wit bears replacement with one of the many alternatives, such as namely, specifically, in other words, more precisely, or to clarify.

Here’s an example of to wit used in a legal context:

The indictment charged that Broadnax “did knowingly possess, in and affecting interstate commerce, a firearm, to wit: a RG Industries, Model RG 31, .38 caliber revolver, serial number 019420.”

http://grammarist.com/usage/to-wit/

Deputy Jerome Corsi Jumps Birther Ship!!!

Before Deserting The Ship, Jerome Corsi Says Good-Bye To The Rest Of The Cold Case Posse

Well, one thing I missed during my time off was Jerome Corsi’s departure from Birferdom on April 19, 2013. Here is a link to the story at Dr. Conspiracy’s website:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/04/jerome-corsi-birth-certificate-issue-a-dead-horse/

During the 2 minute plus excerpt from the interview, Corsi called the Birther issue a “dead horse.”  He said the issue has been marginalized. However, he maintained that he still believed it.  But. . . there were other issues which need his attention. Imagine that, an author just walking away from what would be one of the most devastating stories in American history to go off on some other issues. If true, this story would be bigger than Watergate. Our very own Manchurian President, and Jerome Corsi just prisses away from it with an, “Oh, I’ve got some other fish to fry. . .”

Corsi now has his own website:

http://1776nation.com/

It has been up and  running since January 24, 2013 as near as I can tell. There are no overtly birthery articles. No stories about the Cold Case Posse. As a matter of fact, Corsi managed to completely ignore Deputy Zullo’s shock and awe speech June 1, 2013 speech t0 the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Convention in St. Charles, Missouri.  The speech which supposedly impressed so many law enforcement personnel. Corsi should have been beaming with pride with his recent comrades scoring a victory like that.

But he wasn’t. Corsi is in Washington now, and is running with a more sophisticated crowd. He needs to distance himself from all that wahoo Birther stuff. That is how you can be sure that there is nothing but crapola in the Cold Case Posse report. That is how you can be sure that there were never any legs to the story. That is how you can be sure Corsi never believed any of it.

Anybody who bought into the whole “Where’s The Real Birth Certificate” farce he peddled out to be mad as heck. They got PWNED!  To give the Devil his due, Corsi never endorsed the idiotic “two citizen parents” nonsense pushed by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. and other Birthers.  I guess there is some stuff even rats will turn their noses up at.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image: This is PLAGUE: DANCE OF THE RATS. Rats dancing at the time of the plague. Oil on canvas by an unknown Flemish artist, 17th century. Copies can be purchased at:

http://www.artflakes.com/en/products/plague-dance-of-the-rats

REPENT??? Poo Poo Simmons Warns Of The Apocalyptic GREAT OBOT TIZZY!!!

Even When Simmons Stopped To Make A Pitch,  The Manure Kept Flying

Well, I am not afraid to admit that I am scared stiff!!! I have re-written Poo Poo Simmon’s GREAT OBOT TIZZY post in Biblical terms for effect:

Lo, in those last days shalt all the minions of the Great Usurper be afflicted with a fit of tizzy, and they shalt fall over as DEAD as the knobs of doors!!!

Here is the link to the story, as originally written for those who are interested:

http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/06/stunning-revelation-obots-are-in-tizzy.html

I think he is on to something, and I am really, truly scared. Because, when I read the following lines, I ALMOST DIED!!!

If it turns out that Sheriff Arpaio is successful in getting Congress to investigate the authenticity of Obama’s BC, the Perkins-Coie legal team, who will be defending Obama, will be hard pressed to simply dismiss Reed Hayes as a “quack.”  This fact will be especially significant now that it is a revealed and proven  truth that members of the Perkins – Coie  firm have used Hayes as an expert witness! Their own prior cases, where Hayes was used as a witness, would be severely compromised if they use Saul Alinski-styled mocking  attacks on Hayes.

Luckily, my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., an attorney, was there drinking with me, and she quickly pushed me off the couch and began CPR on my lifeless body! After what seemed like an eternity, and me seeing a white light where Puff, my first kitten ever, was meowing for me, I spit out a lungful of Franzia White Zinfadel Wine, and a soggy Cheeto. I recovered rapidly, but I felt I had a duty to warn all the Obots and Anti-Birthers out there.

Because my research indicated that all us Obots and Anti-Birthers are susceptible to an actual medical condition known as FATAL HILARITY!!! Yes, it is possible to die laughing, and it has been documented throughout history. I am NOT just making this up! As Wiki notes:

Death from laughter refers to a rare instance of death, usually resulting from cardiac arrest or asphyxiation, caused by a fit of laughter. Instances of death by laughter have been recorded from Ancient Greece to the modern day. The first recorded use of the alternative term FATAL HILARITY is from 1956.

Pathophysiology

Death may result from several pathologies that deviate from benign laughter. Infarction of the pons and medulla oblongata in the brain may cause pathological laughter.

Laughter can cause atonia and collapse (“gelastic syncope”),which in turn can cause trauma. See also laughter-induced syncope, cataplexy, and Bezold-Jarisch reflex. Gelastic seizures can be due to focal lesions to the hypothalamus. Depending upon the size of the lesion, the emotional lability may be a sign of an acute condition, and not itself the cause of the fatality. Gelastic syncope has also been associated with the cerebellum.

Historical deaths attributed to laughter

Zeuxis, a 5th-century BC Greek painter, is said to have died laughing at the humorous way he painted the goddess Aphrodite – after the old woman who commissioned it insisted on modeling for the portrait.

One ancient account of the death of Chrysippus, the 3rd century BC Greek Stoic philosopher, tells that he died of laughter after he saw a donkey eating his figs; he told a slave to give the donkey neat wine to drink to wash them down with, and then, ‘…having laughed too much, he died’ (Diogenes Laertius 7.185)

In 1410, King Martin of Aragon died from a combination of indigestion and uncontrollable laughter.

In 1556, Pietro Aretino “is said to have died of suffocation from laughing too much”.

In 1660, Thomas Urquhart, the Scottish aristocrat, polymath and first translator of François Rabelais’s writings into English, is said to have died laughing upon hearing that Charles II had taken the throne.

On 24 March 1975, Alex Mitchell, from King’s Lynn, England, died laughing while watching the “Kung Fu Kapers” episode of The Goodies, featuring a kilt-clad Scotsman with his bagpipes battling a master of the Lancastrian martial art “Eckythump”, who was armed with a black pudding. After 25 minutes of continuous laughter, Mitchell finally slumped on the sofa and died from heart failure. His widow later sent The Goodies a letter thanking them for making Mitchell’s final moments of life so pleasant.

Diagnosis of his granddaughter in 2012 of having the inheritable long QT syndrome (a heart rhythm abnormality) suggests that Mitchell may have died of a cardiac arrest caused by long QT syndrome.

In 1989, Ole Bentzen, a Danish audiologist, died laughing while watching A Fish Called Wanda. His heart was estimated to have beaten at between 250 and 500 beats per minute, before he succumbed to cardiac arrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_from_laughter

After reading the above descriptions, I figured when I saw the words, “If it turns out that Sheriff Arpaio is successful in getting Congress to investigate the authenticity of Obama’s BC” . . . I began to laugh and swallowed the half-chewed Cheeto and the sip of wine and thus began my short journey to Beulah Land. Fortunately, I had a trained attorney there, or there would be a little RIP thingie over my head!!!

Now, it is just not possible to read some of this Birther stuff and not go into hysterics. My goodness, most of what we do is tease the idiots and laugh at them. I am not sure that we should all REPENT, or anything like that, but maybe we should be careful to not read Birther dribble with food in our mouths, or when floating in a swimming pool.  And all those little “rolling on the floor laughing our asses off” emoticons??? If we are not careful, those could be the last thing we ever type!!!

If this Internet Article saves just one Obot or Anti-Birther life, I figure it is worth it!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Why Birthers Would Make Lousy Spies!!! (Or, Testing Some Avvocato Dip. . .)

After Mastering The Use Of A Garret, Mario Was Confident That He Was Ready For Lesson #2 At Taft’s Online Spy University!

There are several personality traits and mental attitudes which make a good spy. It goes without saying that a spy must be intelligent, and able to gather truthful and useful facts to develop accurate intelligence information.  Of course, problems with basic cognitive functioning would cause many Birthers to stumble out of the gate. For example, what would a foreign spy agency do with an Agent Butterdezillion report? Can you imagine Colonel Sergei, in Moscow, getting this from her:

Sorry I am late with this report. No matter how many times I clicked  “File” on the computer word processor, the file cabinet wouldn’t open. Finally, I had to manually pull the drawer open and take out the contact information. Then, when I clicked on “Save”, it was the same thing. The file folder just sat there on my desk and I had to manually put it back in the file cabinet and close it up. We need to get new computers, or maybe the Americans have hacked my desk???

Anyway, I took pictures of Professor Smith’s papers at his office. I gave him the cookies that I dosed with some of those little blue From Los Angeles Airport pills you gave me.  They didn’t work right. Instead of going to sleep, or going back to the airport, he just ran off to bathroom hollering and cussing like a crazy person a couple of times. Every time he ran to the bathroom, I photographed some more stuff out of his desk.

Great news!!! The missile test was a complete flop. The report said that the test was a success and the warhead impacted with the target at 22,000 feet.  So, I checked the airport and there was no missile flight schedule on file. Good thing that I am so thorough! So, I got to thinking was this a valid or invalid missile test??? If it wasn’t on file with the airport, it had to be an INVALID missile test, and the only reason that Professor Smith would say that it had impacted at 22,000 feet would be if that was horizontal feet not vertical feet!  A VALID missile test would go up in the sky somewhere. Because in the City Municipal Code, there has to be record for anything that goes over 1,000 feet high, even it is a balloon or bottle rocket. So this was a successful invalid test.

Therefore, the invalid missile must have gone about 4 miles (22,000 feet divided by 5,280 feet per mile) along the ground and hit the target before it ever took off! Because, he never said that it hit the target ON SCHEDULE, therefore it must have been before the target took off, or after it landed, but there is no record at the airport of any targets landing. This is indirect confirmation that the missile is not really a missile after all, but some kind of gun that they have to get within 4 miles of any of our planes to hit. All we have to do is plant some trees around our airbases, for the warhead to hit first, and the Americans are screwed!

Well, maybe using Butterdezillion as an example was a bit of a stretch.  Obviously she would never get past the written part of the spy exam, becoming paranoid about every question, and trying to pick out what part of the questions was some kind of trick. But maybe you are wondering why you should take my word about any of this spy stuff?  Well first, if you look at Note 3. below, British Intelligence wants me to apply for a job with them because I did sooo good on their online test! That has to be worth something.

Second, how about we perform a more realistic thought experiment, by using a Birther lawyer as the spy. To avoid using any real persons,  the spy will simply be known as the Avvocato, which is the Italian word for lawyer. I got this idea from an episode of Vegas, where the cops thought the bag man was nicknamed the Avocado, only to figure out later it was the lawyer, the Avvocato. Credit where credit is due.

So, two scenarios, in the form of dialogue:

Scenario 1: Basic Intelligence Gathering

Feb. 2006, From Col. Sergei: We need you to research Sen. Barack Obama. Inside report says he will make presidential run.

Mar. 2006, From Avvocato: He will be unable to run. He is not a natural born citizen. Not two citizen parents. His father was African. He may be Kenyan born, also.

June 2006 From Col.Sergei: Definite Obama is entertaining presidential campaign. Should we deploy operatives into his campaign?

July 2006, From Avvocato: No need to. He is ineligible for the office. Must be born inside United States to two citizen parents.

August 2006, From Col. Sergei: Are you certain. Secondary asset indicates he is natural born citizen.

September 2006, From Avvocato: Positive. See Emer de Vattel, Law of Nations. See US Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. Don’t worry, I got your back on this one!

I submit the statements above clearly demonstrate how Avvocato would respond. As a Birther, he would have been unable to provide an honest assessment of the situation, even after receiving contrary assessment from secondary source. The report from a non-impaired agent would have read something like this:

If born inside United States, 99% chance he qualifies as natural born citizen. Great weight of legal authority holds person born inside US to parents other than diplomats or invading soldiers is natural born. See 1898 US Supreme Court Case, Wong Kim Ark. Additionally, subject was citizen at birth and not required to go through naturalization process. Suggest deploy operatives.

Now, lets try a second scenario where an operative is employed in field work, and must respond to a dynamic and changing landscape:

Scenario 2. Field Work

March 2009, From Col. Sergei: Decided this end to disrupt Presidency any means possible. Can you mount credible  legal action?

March 2009, From Avvocato: Affirmative. I have useful idiot ex-naval officer for client. Will file eligibility law suit.

April 2009, From Col. Sergei: Reports indicate federal district court threw out your claim. Should we continue this operation or change course?

April 2009, From Avvocato: Judge is crooked. Have appealed to higher Federal court. Expect success.

June 2009, From Col. Sergei: Reports indicate federal appeals court rejected your suit. Russia not made out of money. Should we redeploy assets and efforts?

June 2009, From Avocato: My legal opinion is correct. Will eventually prevail Appealing to US Supreme Court.

September 2009, Fromn Col. Sergei: I am catching heat this end. Reports indicate you are laughing stock among peers. Do we need to abort? Plus, what means frivolous when judge says it???

September 2009, From Avvocato: No, recommend continue course. Case in Indiana state court on appeal, and will go our way.

December 2009, From Col. Sergei: Reports indicate Indiana appeals court shoots down claims, based on US Supreme Court case.  Prepare to abort operation.

January 2010, From Avvocato: No, must continue. Have got them where we want them. Need extra funds for sanctions, please.

February 2010, From Sergei: Reports indicate your useful idiot is taking out full page ads, and putting flyers on cars in parking lots. Can you control him? Need progress.

March 2010, From Avvocato: No luck supreme court. Am preparing 200 page brief and will put online. Do you want copy to read?

March 2010, From Col. Sergei: Uh, can I pass on reading that report? The Life of Lenin is only 119 pages, and I am stuck on that. Will take your word brief is good.

April 2010, From Avvocato: 200 page brief finished! Have ordered 50 bound copies for headquarters staff and higher ups! This will re-assure them!

May 2010, From Col. Dimitri: Col. Sergei suffered a heart attack. I am your new handler.  I Read your brief. Your Burn Notice is attached.

Once again, I submit this is exactly how a Birther operative would proceed. Mentally healthy spies would take notice of failures, and try something new.  The point of a successful operation is to achieve the desired result, not pamper the ego of the operative. It is essential that new information be input into the operational matrix. Here, Avvocato was unable to adapt to the input in the form of repeated courtroom losses, and the rejection by his peers. Rather than operating in the real world, Avvocato was stuck in his own reality.

Birthers simply lack the mental wherewithal to gather accurate and germane intelligence information. They also lack the ability to adjust to a changing environment and learn from their own mistakes.  I hope this provides useful information to the Spy Agencies of The World. Do not hire Birthers!!!

Plus, if anybody at these agencies has a record of my phone calls with the youthfully indiscreet pictures of me wearing a Franzia Wine Box hat and nothing else, I hope they will find it in their hearts to delete them.

Thank You!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image: This is Carl Spitzweg’s The Poor Poet. Wiki says, in part:

Carl Spitzweg (February 5, 1808 – September 23, 1885) was a German romanticist painter and poet. He is considered to be one of the most important artists of the Biedermeier era.

He was born in Unterpfaffenhofen as the second of three sons of Franziska and Simon Spitzweg. His father, a wealthy merchant, had Carl trained as a pharmacist. He attained his qualification from the University of Munich, but while recovering from an illness he also took up painting. Spitzweg was self-taught as an artist, and began by copying the works of Flemish masters. He contributed his first work to satiric magazines. Upon receiving an inheritance in 1833, he was able to dedicate himself to painting.

Later, Spitzweg visited European art centers, studying the works of various artists and refining his technique and style; he visited Prague, Venice, Paris, London, and Belgium. His later paintings and drawings are often humorous genre works. Many of his paintings depict sharply characterized eccentrics, for example The Bookworm (1850) and The Hypochondriac (c. 1865, in the Neue Pinakothek, Munich).

Here is the link, which you may enjoy visiting because of several other unique works you can find there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Spitzweg

Note 2. The Image Caption, and Garrotes. For those who may be ESL, the caption is a word play on the words garret and garrote. A garrot is a weapon frequently used in literature by spies and assassins.  As Wiki describes it:

The garrote has been used for centuries as a means of silent assassination. It was widely employed in 17th and 18th century India as an assassination device, particularly by the Thuggee cult. Practitioners used a yellow silk or cloth scarf called a rumāl. A garrote can be made out of many different materials, including ropes, cable ties, fishing lines, nylon, guitar strings, telephone cord or piano wire. The Indian version of the garrote frequently incorporates a knot at the center intended to aid in crushing the larynx while applying pressure to the victim’s back, usually by means of a foot or knee.

A stick may be used to tighten the garrote (the Spanish word actually refers to the stick itself) so it is a pars pro toto where the eponymous component may actually be absent. In Spanish, the term may also refer to a rope and stick used to constrict a limb as a torture device.

Since World War II the garrote has been regularly employed as a weapon by soldiers as a silent means of eliminating sentries and other enemy personnel. Instruction in the use of purpose-built and improvised garrottes is included in the training of many elite military units and special forces. A typical military garrote consists of two wooden handles attached to a length of flexible wire; the wire is looped over a sentry’s head and pulled taut in one motion. Soldiers of the French Foreign Legion have used a particular type of double-loop garrote (referred to as la loupe), where a double coil of rope or cord is dropped around a victim’s neck and then pulled taut. Even if the victim pulls on one of the coils, he only succeeds in tightening the other.

If you like reading about grim stuff like that, there is more at the wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrote

Your average garret, on the other hand, is a:

A top-floor or attic room, esp. a small dismal one (traditionally inhabited by an artist).

They are usually pretty safe, unless you are a woman, and some guy wants to take you back to his. . .

Note 3. The Intelligence Officer Test: Here is an online test given by the British MI5 Security Services:

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/careers/investigative-challenge.aspx

I took it, and did just fine. It sure would be fun to be a Double-Naught Spy, and dress up like Emma Peel and stuff!  But I am an American, so I guess I will just go on being a Girl Reporter.

Note 4. For ESL’s Avvocato Dip is a word play on avocado dip, a dip being both a rather goofy individual, and something you can scoop a potato chip into.

Note 5. Disclaimer. Any resemblance between The Avvocato and any Italian-American Birther attorney from New Jersey who has a ex-naval officer client is purely coincidental.

OMG!!! Deputy Zullo and The Space Posse Tackle The Moon Landing Hoax???

Obviously, Zullo And The Space Posse’s Investigation Lacked Gravity

OMG, I just got a document purporting to be between document examiner Reed Hayes and Deputy Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse. Apparently, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has decided to sic the posse on the alleged Moon Landing Hoax. The new investigatory posse is called The Maricopa County Space Posse.

I am not sure I believe this one, but as always, I report and YOU decide. I wouldn’t have thought the goobers would ever investigate Obama’s birth certificate, so who knows??? First, here is a pdf upload I made of the 5 page document:

ReadRight Document

Next, here is a page by page image post, for those without a pdf reader. Click on any Image to make it larger:
Page 1:

Page 2:

Page 3:

Page 4:

Page 5:

My goodness. There was a time when I would have had no questions about the authenticity of the above. But then I met the Birthers. . .

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: PDF Images:  Here are the actual jpegs that were in the non-pdf document I received. I am not sure if the trfr to pdf changed the aspects or not.

1.

2

3.

Reed Hayes And The Crapomite Maneuver!!!

In Hindsight, They Probably Should Have Realized He Was Just A Big Dummy

Well, if you have never seen The Corbomite Maneuver from the first season of the original Star Trek TV series, then SPOILERS! Don’t read any further!

Now, for those of you are are still here, this is what Wiki says about the episode:

On stardate 1512.2, the Federation starship USS Enterprise, commanded by Captain James T. Kirk, finishes a third day of mapping stars, when novice navigator Lt. Dave Bailey (Anthony Call) spots a large spinning colored cube floating in space. Kirk arrives and orders the ship to back away from the object. The cube responds by coming even closer and emitting harmful radiation, and Kirk destroys it.

In the midst of a series of attack drills, Spock informs the Captain that a much larger object is rapidly approaching.

Responding to the object’s destruction – which the crew soon learn was a boundary marker – a gigantic glowing sphere quickly approaches the Enterprise. It fills the bridge viewscreen, even at low magnification. The vessel’s controller, Commander Balok, identifies his ship as the Fesarius, the flagship of the “First Federation”.

Mr. Spock manages to get a visual of Balok, a grotesque, blue-skinned humanoid with a frightening face. Balok ignores Kirk’s greetings, and announces that he will destroy the Enterprise for trespassing into First Federation territory and destroying the marker buoy. Balok informs the crew they have ten minutes to pray to their deities before their demise.

Mr. Spock compares the situation to a game of chess: “In chess, when one player is outmatched, the game is over.” He regrets that he can find no logical answer. Kirk replies that the solution is not chess, but poker. He bluffs, telling Balok that the Enterprise has incorporated into it a protective substance known as Corbomite which, when the ship is attacked, creates an equal force rebounding on the attacker.

Apparently falling for the ruse, Balok does not destroy the ship as previously announced. Afterward, Balok makes direct contact with the Enterprise, requesting details on the Corbomite device. After allowing sufficient time, mostly to cause Balok to worry the details, Kirk refuses.

A tug ship then detaches from the Fesarius and tows the Enterprise deep into First Federation space, where Balok announces he will intern the crew and destroy the Enterprise. Under tow, Kirk orders the Enterprise to increasingly resist the tug ship’s tractor beam. Just as the Enterprise’s engines are about to explode from the overload, it breaks free. This disables the alien vehicle.

Rather than flee, Kirk, McCoy, and Bailey form a boarding party to render assistance. Spock remains on the Enterprise to assist them, in case this was a trap. Scott, operating the transporter, tells them to bend down, as the scan on the alien ship reveals it has a very low ceiling. Upon arrival they discover that the “Balok” who appeared on their monitor is just a dummy, and the real Balok resembles a hyperintelligent human child. He enthusiastically welcomes them aboard, offering them “tranya”, his favorite beverage.

Balok explains that he was merely testing the Enterprise and its crew, to discover their true intentions. Although he had read the Enterprise computer records, he felt they could have been a deception. He created his dummy alter-ego, as he knew his true appearance would never frighten anyone.

Everybody lives happily ever after. This is what I suspect is going on with Reed Hayes, the document expert for Deputy Zullo and the Cold Case Posse.  First, no report from Hayes has been presented either in court or in any of Zullo’s numerous appearances.  If such a report even exists, then it must be pure crap or it would have already surfaced.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Posse have already tried to get prosecutor Bill Montgomery to prosecute Obama, and he refused for lack of evidence. A copy of the refusal is in Note 1., below. If the Cold Case Posse had a report from Hayes, and presented it, then it obviously did not contain enough to permit prosecution.  If the Cold Case Posse had such a bang-up report, and did not present it to the prosecutor,  just prior to the presidential election, then there is something else going on between Obama and Arpaio, such as been alleged by Orly Taitz. In that case,  the report will probably never see the light of day.

Post presidential election, there have been numerous chances for Zullo to present the report, and no particular reason to prolong the process. Zullo has gotten egg on his face for his numerous statements that all legal hell is about to break loose, and then there is nothing but the sound of crickets. His credibility is suffering.

Just a few days ago on June 1, 2013, Zullo spoke before the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Convention in St. Charles, Missouri. Supposedly they were shocked and awed by what they heard. They may have actually had the chance to go into full seizure mode if there was a credible report from Hayes. I don’t think there is any kind of explosive report sitting out there, or it would already have been detonated.

Second, I don’t see Reed Hayes risking professional Hari-Kari by becoming known as that Birther document guy. Imagine Hayes has just recited all his credentials for a jury, and gives his opinion and then. . . opposing counsel gets up and asks, “Hey, aren’t you the same expert who said President Obama’s long form birth certificate was a forgery???” That’s when a judge has to give his Everybody STFU! or I’ll clear the courtroom! speech because of all the laughter.

Unless the rent  was due, or the pantry was bare, I don’t see Hayes putting any of this silliness down in writing in any big way. You might get a little speculative musing that falls far short of accusing Obama, or his handlers, of forgery. Which brings us to the final reason why I think this whole thing is a Crapomite Maneuver, where Zullo and the Gang are trying to get as much mileage as possible from a pile of crap. That is, Zullo has already tipped his hand about what he has, and what input he got from Reed Hayes.

From FreeRepublic, we learn that on June 1, 2013, Zullo said:

Some of the anomalies that we have pointed out today were first discovered by a certified document examiner named Reed Hayes.

Mr. Hayes conclusion after examining Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate pretty much says it all. Mr Hayes says that: ‘In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion the birth certificate is entirely fabricated.’”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3026199/posts

Oh WOW! I am all in a tizzy! NOT!!!  Again, no report has been presented to back up this claim, and Hayes hasn’t even seen the actual long form birth certificate. All he has seen is a PICTURE of it on a computer screen. Sooo, there are some anomalies on a computer picture. Did somebody violate the Online Picture Anomaly Act???  Did someone cross state lines to perform an act of Incompetent Uploading???

Nothing new here. Same old crap we have been looking  at for months.  Meanwhile, Captain Zullo struts around with, “I got an expert! I got an expert!”, and all the time he is holding 5 crummy cards, with an 8 high. I call the bluff. Go ahead Zullo and pull the Crapomite Maneuver. Just do it outside, and take a bar of soap with you. I’ll turn the water hose on you to clean off all the crap. With the nozzle set to “sting.”

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Refusal To Prosecute. This is from the ObamaReleaseYourRecords website:

(Click On Image To Make Larger.)

He Says Apuzzo, I Say A PAZZO!!!

Apuzzo Was Pretty Sure This Wasn’t A French Poodle

First, why do I say a “PAZZO”??? In Italian, “pazzo” as a noun means a madman, lunatic, or bedlamite. As a phrase, “pazzo” means “off one’s rocker.” Some of the adjectival meanings are even more fun, including, but not limited to, “moony” and “batty.” If you don’t believe me, there is a Google Translate screenshot, redacted for sizing, at Note 2. below:

Next, I need to explain why I prefer the Apazzo  pronunciation and spelling. Here is a link to his latest bit of drooling:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html

Once again he dives head first into a four inch deep pool of Aristotelian Logic to critique one, Bob Quasius of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

“The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.”

http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen

The purpose of this article is not to discuss all that is substantively incorrect with Apuzzo’s argument. I will save that for a future post.  To show the problems with his logic it is only necessary to lift the legal covers enough to properly frame the issue.  Since Poor Mario spends a lot of time jumping up and down about an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett, let’s use it to set the stage:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,”and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

It is clear that the Minor Court views citizenship as natural born versus naturalized, since by 1875  most of those alive 88 years earlier on September 17, 1787 had died.  What really wads up Apuzzo’s pantaloons is this statement from the 2011 Maskell Congressional Research Service  memorandum, wherein the :

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”  In this memo, he also added:  “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.

See the Natural Born Citizenship link in the website header above for the entire memo.  All that Maskell says is that most legal authorities think if you are a citizen at birth, then you are a natural born citizen. The Minor Court seemed to adopt the same view. That is a logical conclusion since the whole purpose for such laws in the first place was the desire of Congress (or before Congress, English kings and English parliaments) to extend the same rights of citizenship to those Americans born overseas as they would have had if they had been born inside the country. I would feel comfortable making that argument in court.

To attack this conclusion Apuzzo resorts once again to the FORMS and STRUCTURES of logical arguments. Here is what he does:

First, as to the formal logical fallacy, let us break down what Maskell and Quasius actually said into its logical form.  I will use the following symbols:  Natural born Citizen=NBC, and Citizen at birth=CAB

All NBCs are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen” mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

First, it is a tautology to argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a born citizen.  Second, this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent (affirming that one is a CAB does not prove that one is a NBC).  Third, this argument suffers from fallacy in that it violates the rule of the undistributed middle (the middle term CABs is not distributed in either the major or minor premise meaning the term has not been defined as belonging or not belonging within the class of NBCs).  So, while the major and minor premises are both true, the conclusion, which equates a CAB to a NBC is false.  We should see intuitively that the conclusion does not follow from the two premises.  An easy way to see the invalidity of the argument is the following:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

We know that this argument is not valid because, with dogs being comprised of more than just poodles, Bubbles can be a German Shepherd or some other type of dog.

Poodles??? The first thing that Apuzzo screws up is the form of such statements which is usually. Any undistributed middle is by his own hand.  Let us obtain the proper logical FORM from here:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Syllogism

A properly constructed syllogism consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The conclusion has a subject (S) and a predicate (P) which are derived from the premises. The major premise addresses the predicate, the minor premise addresses the subject and the two premises share a minor (or middle) term (M) which connects them. For example:

Major premise:  All M are P.

Minor premise: All S are M.

Conclusion:        All S are P.

Let’s compare this with Apuzzo’s form!  Let M = poodles, P = dogs,  S=Bubbles

                          Proper Logical Form         Apuzzo Logical Form

Major Premise        All M are P                             All M are P
Minor Premise       All S are M                              All S are P
Conclusion              All S are P                               All P are M

Major Premise       All poodles are dogs              All poodles are dogs
Minor Premise       Bubbles is a poodle               Bubbles is a dog
Conclusion              Bubbles is a dog                     Bubbles is a poodle

Properly executed, you discover that Bubbles is both a poodle and a dog.  In Mario Universe, assuming that Bubbles is a pit bull,  then you end up giving a small child a pit bull for Christmas.  But, even if Bubbles were a poodle, it would simply be a lucky guess because of the FORM.  Apuzzo’s form is logically invalid and can not be relied upon to provide true answers.

Now, lets assume that Apuzzo is wrong about CABs and NBCs and that they are both exactly the same thing as believed by Maskell and the Great Weight of Legal and Historical Authority. Then let’s put the matter to the logic test in proper logical form:

Major premise:       All NBCs are CABs
Minor premise:      Cruz is an NBC
Conclusion:             Therefore, Cruz is a CAB

Major premise:       All CABs are NBCs
Minor premise:       Cruz is a CAB
Conclusion:              Therefore, Cruz is an NBC.

Yes, I can live with either conclusion. Neither strikes me as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue. It would all depend on the truthfulness of the premises. For example, if a court ruled that all CAB are NOT NBC’s, then Cruz may or may not be an NBC. Which brings you to the second big problem with Apuzzo’s whole approach to this thing. Which is, his whole approach to the thing.

Not only was his logical form screwed up, but the entire process of using syllogisms to provide an answer or enlightenment in this case is logically of little probative value.  That is because it is the major premises themselves which are at issue. Are all natural born citizens also citizens at birth? Are all citizens at birth natural born citizens?  If the major premise is incorrect, then the correctness of any  conclusion arrived at as a result of that error would fall into the Lucky Guess category. Amazingly, Apuzzo gets to this exact same point when he says:

Second, now let us examine the informal fallacy of the Maskell/Quasius statement.  Now we will test the truth of the major and minor premises of the argument.  To do that, we need to help Maskell and Quasius a little by converting their invalid argument into a valid one.  Here we go:

All CABs are NBCs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

This argument is valid because if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must be true.  But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound, meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false.  This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound because its major premise is false.

Yeah. Duh. If one’s major premise is screwed up, the conclusion may or may not be screwed up, but one is logically incapable of determining that fact from the form of the argument itself.  One can construct valid arguments based on false premises and resulting in silly or sane conclusions all day long and end up nowhere. Sooo, what does Mario Apazzo, Esq. do after reaching this state of enlightenment???

Does he say to himself, “Well, CRAP!  This process is getting me nowhere fast. Maybe I need to do a re-write because whatever I syllogism out is going to be totally dependent on the truth of the premises  the person uses. Which is what we’re all fussing about in the first place. Back to the drawing board!”

OH Hell No!!! He goes on to construct a whole new set of major and minor premises and starts syllogizing all over again.  He isn’t destroying Maskell or  Quasius with LOGIC. . . He admitted  himself that using logical forms doesn’t work unless one accepts the underlying premises. So all he is doing is just spouting off his opinion and glossing it over with some if, thens, equals, and therefores like he is Mr. Logic or something.

He’s PAZZO for doing it, PAZZO for doing it wrong, and PAZZO for thinking nobody would notice.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Also see this from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

Note 2: Pazzo, in translation:

Note 3. The Image. This is La Bete, the Beast, from the French film, La Belle et La Bete (1946). This is an absolutely beautiful and fantastic film and if you have never seen it, please remedy that. Here is a little about it from Wiki:

Beauty and the Beast (French: La Belle et la Bête) is a 1946 French romantic fantasy film adaptation of the traditional fairy tale of the same name, written by Jeanne-Marie Le Prince de Beaumont and published in 1757 as part of a fairy tale anthology (Le Magasin des Enfants, ou Dialogues entre une sage gouvernante et ses élèves, London 1757). Directed by French poet and filmmaker Jean Cocteau, the film stars Josette Day as Belle and Jean Marais.

The plot of Cocteau’s film revolves around Belle’s father who is sentenced to death for picking a rose from Beast’s garden. Belle offers to go back to the Beast in her father’s place. Beast falls in love with her and proposes marriage on a nightly basis which she refuses. Belle eventually becomes more drawn to Beast, who tests her by letting her return home to her family and telling her that if she doesn’t return to him within a week, he will die of grief.

Upon the film’s December 1947 New York City release, critic Bosley Crowther called the film a “priceless fabric of subtle images,…a fabric of gorgeous visual metaphors, of undulating movements and rhythmic pace, of hypnotic sounds and music, of casually congealing ideas”; according to Crowther, “the dialogue, in French, is spare and simple, with the story largely told in pantomime, and the music of Georges Auric accompanies the dreamy, fitful moods. The settings are likewise expressive, many of the exteriors having been filmed for rare architectural vignettes at Raray, one of the most beautiful palaces and parks in all France. And the costumes, too, by Christian Bérard and Escoffier, are exquisite affairs, glittering and imaginative.”[2] According to Time magazine, the film is a “wondrous spectacle for children of any language, and quite a treat for their parents, too”; but the magazine concludes “Cocteau makes about a half-hour too much of a good thing—and few things pall like a dream that cannot be shaken off.”[3]

In 1999, Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert added the film to his “Great Movies” list, calling it “one of the most magical of all films” and a “fantasy alive with trick shots and astonishing effects, giving us a Beast who is lonely like a man and misunderstood like an animal.”[4] A 2002 Village Voice review found the film’s “visual opulence” “both appealing and problematic”, saying “Full of baroque interiors, elegant costumes, and overwrought jewelry (even tears turn to diamonds), the film is all surface, and undermines its own don’t-trust-a-pretty-face and anti-greed themes at every turn.”[5] In 2010, the film was ranked #26 in Empire magazine’s “100 Best Films of World Cinema”.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_and_the_Beast_%281946_film%29

This also explains the Image Easter egg.