Stewart on Goodling testimony, to which is appended a discourse on stooges
Want to hear a summary of the latest round of bullshit testimony from DoJ officials? Tune in to The Daily Show: "Listening to their testimony, it's like the entire Department of Justice is taking a shit inside my head!" They would have us believe that the list of attorneys to be fired spontaneously generated itself out of thin air.
Let's hawk a big loogie of disrespect upon Alberto Gonzales, Ultimate Stooge of the Universe, and all the lesser stooges who covered for him.
And now:
If Person A is the stooge of person B who is the stooge of person C (in that case at hand, A=Goodling, B=Gonzales, and C=Bush), and person B is declared "Ultimate Stooge of the Universe" by an authoritative political commentator, what does that make person A? Isn't person A a bigger stooge than person B? The stooge of a stooge is more stoogey than a mere stooge, no matter how deep in stoogeitude the latter may be. Of course, one could argue that Bush himself is a stooge, but the argument still holds: whether Bush is a stooge or not, Goodling certainly has a greater degree of stoogeity than her boss; this follows directly from the nature of stoogeity. Whereby it follows that no one who has any underlings can really be declared "Ultimate Stooge of the Universe", since their flunkies will always out-stooge them. What we can say about Gonzales, however, is that he has maximized the possible stoogieness of his current position relative to Bush. Goodling may be a bigger stooge overall, but her stoogieness relative to Gonzales comes no where near Gonzales' stoogieness to Bush. So Gonzales is in fact deserving of the "Ultimate Stooge of the Universe" moniker, because he has attained the greatest degree of stoogeosity that it is possible to achieve, given his position in the hierarchy. And that is all that one can demand of a craven, boot-licking minion, i.e. a stooge.
Let's hawk a big loogie of disrespect upon Alberto Gonzales, Ultimate Stooge of the Universe, and all the lesser stooges who covered for him.
And now:
A discourse on the nature of stooges, and
inquiry into the nature of the Ultimate Stooge
inquiry into the nature of the Ultimate Stooge
If Person A is the stooge of person B who is the stooge of person C (in that case at hand, A=Goodling, B=Gonzales, and C=Bush), and person B is declared "Ultimate Stooge of the Universe" by an authoritative political commentator, what does that make person A? Isn't person A a bigger stooge than person B? The stooge of a stooge is more stoogey than a mere stooge, no matter how deep in stoogeitude the latter may be. Of course, one could argue that Bush himself is a stooge, but the argument still holds: whether Bush is a stooge or not, Goodling certainly has a greater degree of stoogeity than her boss; this follows directly from the nature of stoogeity. Whereby it follows that no one who has any underlings can really be declared "Ultimate Stooge of the Universe", since their flunkies will always out-stooge them. What we can say about Gonzales, however, is that he has maximized the possible stoogieness of his current position relative to Bush. Goodling may be a bigger stooge overall, but her stoogieness relative to Gonzales comes no where near Gonzales' stoogieness to Bush. So Gonzales is in fact deserving of the "Ultimate Stooge of the Universe" moniker, because he has attained the greatest degree of stoogeosity that it is possible to achieve, given his position in the hierarchy. And that is all that one can demand of a craven, boot-licking minion, i.e. a stooge.
Comments