Jibber-Jabberwocky

If a politician or a mayor has his hair going grayer and his arguments in many layer,

And if he has every citizen confused, from the surveyor to the dart player to the local fearless dragon-slayer,

Then get a headache, take a Bayer, say a prayer, listen when thus speaks the old naysayer:

The ruler claims he gets his answers from the other realm, the psychic, the soothsayer.

He moves full-force, full-throttle to behold the crystal ball with its swirling hues and mottles,

But the only spirits he really contacts … are the distilled ones that come in bottles!

He passes himself off as the model man: “I’ll stick to it; I’m tenacious! I’m benevolent and gracious!
I’m vigorous and active, or shall I say, vivacious!”

Thou politician, speak the truth! You’re immoral and salacious! You talk too much; you’re loquacious!
You cause much aggravation; you’re vexatious! Your logic or lack thereof is appalling; every word is fallacious!

Go ahead! Try argumentum ad baculinum; it just makes matters worse!

You’ll sway no one by appealing to fear and threats and force!

Do try ad crumenam, but I warn you now, your argument is in poor health;

All you are saying is you must be right because you have some wealth.

You use ad misercordiam, ad ignorantiam. You say the reasoning seems witty, or reasonable at first glance.

We see right through the lies. You have but appeals to pity and arguments from ignorance.

You say one event caused another because it occurred before; you owe logic an apology.

Some things are interrelated, but others are only linked by chronology.

There’s causality, versus that events that happened by the clock, by the hour’s stroke;

If you make the above mistake, you’ve committed post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Use vague or misleading language and linguistics? That’s called equivocation.

Draw conclusions from insufficient statistics? That’s hasty generalization!

Your debates are hollow! You distort arguments into weaker ones, then proceed to refute.

That’s just a straw-man fallacy. You’ve not made a point. Everything you say is moot!

Try to throw ‘em off the scent with immaterial topics, comments that have no bearing?

Why not say something that matters, instead of just using the fallacy of red herring?

The apparent wisdom with which you speak is but a frail illusion.

For you just mislead people with ignoratio elenchi – the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion!

Your argument assumes its central point is proven, and uses this in its own support.

That is circulus in demonstrando – arguing in a circle – and your argument falls short!

Many people would like to see your kind gone. Any politician they wish they could impeach!

How appropriate, in fact, because most equate “government” with “parasite” and “leech”!

What is it that holds up the process, prevents progress, is the poster child for hypocrisy?

I think we all know the answer can only be “bureaucracy”!

Of course, no matter what your field, you’ll always have people who argue and disagree,

But everyone has some complaint or another against the government and the branches three.

Those in executive can have the terms consecutive! The decisions of judicial can seem awfully superficial!

And a source of consternation is those who pass new legislation!

I make no qualms about it: I’m often disillusioned with the government and the law.

I think I’d rather be forced to eat that cold leek and potato soup they call vichyssoise!

Back to the three branches for a moment. How to describe the budget in terms not abstract?

Here’s a suggestion: Why not call it an amateur balancing act.

Let’s be frank. I may do the honest ones a disservice,

But I’ll call the government and the branches as I see ‘em … namely a three-ring circus!

On writing "Jibber-Jabberwocky"

The poem involves politicians and fallacies of logic. The poem makes a seemingly endless string of rhymes, some of which work based on the original (classical)  pronunciation of some Latin phrases. The title is a combination of “jibber-jabber” and “Jabberwocky,” both of which refer to meaningless or nonsense talk. That title refers not just to politicians but also to the poem itself, since I felt it rambled on and on. The poem was inspired by a class I took about logic. The rhyme scheme of the poem was partly inspired by the Dr. Seuss format.