David Zanister in LA Weekly said..."City Council President Eric Garcetti took the (LAUSD/AB 1381) ruling head-on. 'Nobody wins from defending the status quo. And in many ways, that’s what was defended today',” Garcetti declared.
No dummy! (And even though you are a Rhodes scholar, your public speak has deteriorated into "you big dummy talk!" Sorry, bro...maybe that is because you are defending something ""dumb" -- and you're only as smart as your dumbest argument, which this is.)
I learned in Philosophy class at Ohio State (the LAUSD of colleges at the time), you are using "faulty logic" in your fancy dummy-speak. Just because the court finds something un-constitutional, doesn't ALSO mean status quo was defended.
For example, "4 million people are moving to the region in the next ten years -- so we need to build high density where there is no sewage and narrow road and no space in the classrooms and not enough police/infrastructure to accomodate." (THAT'S FAULTY LOGIC, Y'ALL!)
Or, "All my campaign contributions must be listed on the City's Ethics' Website, so that means all my money is "clean". (Again, "A" DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN 'B".)
LA Weekly's David Zanister said..."Uh, technically, it was the state Constitution that the judges were defending. But who needs that crusty old document? It’s not like elected officials in California take an oath to uphold it or anything. And who reads that fusty City Charter cited by the judges?"
So that's called "faulty logic", Eric. Because of "A" (ruling of unconstiutionality) means that "B" happened (status quo was defended in "MANY WAYS."
Villaigrosa and his "Hypnotized Dummy Patrol" (Excellent School Reform Lemmings) keeps on repeating THAT mistake of a logical premise over and over in the press. "All we know, is that we need reform, and we need it now."
Very true mayor, but that doesn't mean the State constitution and city charter have to be violated to achieve this goal, and the courts have added, it must not be violated. Plus who said YOU get the job, just because reform is needed. If that were a valid premise then ZD wants to declare, "All I know, is the Lakers need to start winning and they need to start winning, NOW. Hire Zuma Dogg as the new Lakers "center". (O.K., now do you see how weak-ass Mr. President's logic is?)
Z-Man, you're right, it WAS supposed to be put to a vote (ask Huizar/Padilla), and that was FIRST on the list of problems ZD spent so many hours rattling off on AM talk radio. IT MUST BE PUT TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. But Mayor Tony said that the campaign would have been too expensive. Just because you feel it would have been too expensive, doesn't mean you can circumvent the constitution and charter, bro.
(Needed to be put to a vote of the pueblos. And if people want reform, as you say they do, it would have easily passed, right. Oh yeah, you would have had to change the state constitution first, and that kinda would have slowed down the flow of construction money into you short-list of preferred contractors.)
So that's a little bit about WEAK ASS SPIN, like we have seen so many times right here on the comment section of Mayor Sam -- it's called "faulty logic."
IN OTHER WORDS, Just because we need school reform, doesn't mean YOU automatically get the ball. Maybe some other folks have something to say about the matter, too.. So stop acting like the mayor gave you the keys to the city, mayor.
And Garshady...What are you doing??? I know you must have taken a far better philosophy class than Little ZD did, back at OSU...So why are you talking like a Fred Sandford opponent in debate class?
I KNOW ZUMA DOGG ISN'T SMARTER THAN YOU -- SO YOU MUST BE SPINNING...BUT THIS WHOLE MAYORAL SCHOOL HI-JACK, JACK MOVE IS SO WEAK, THERE'S NOT MUCH TO SPIN. AND THAT'S WHEN FRED SANDFORD HAS TO SHOW UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TO SAY, "YOU BIG DUMMY!" (Now go give Aunt Esther a big kiss like Antonio gave Laura last night.)
reference: The Z-Files/LA Weekly.com
Official Website of Zuma Dogg
