Shaquillian Logic

This slayed me:

"How can Benedict Arnold be reliable in what he says?" the Big Aristotle was quoted as saying in Tuesday's edition of The Los Angeles Times.

Shaq, the self-proclaimed "Big Aristotle," was responding to a comment made by his former coach Phil Jackson:

"He's the one guy that didn't really like to work," said the coach who boasts nine NBA championship rings. "I know Pat [Riley] got him working here in Miami. We had a hard time getting him to work. All the other players -- Michael [Jordan], Scottie [Pippen], Dennis Rodman, all those guys that we had, Horace Grant, they're all hard-working practice and personal work players."

Let's break down the Big Aristotle's statement, shall we?

Since this bit of logic isn't very complex in its nature, there is no reason to apply one of the pillars of Aristotlean logic, modal logic--complex forms of syllogisms with modalities--to a statement which can be broken down and analyzed with simple deductive reasoning.

Benedict Arnold was a traitor who switched sides in the American Revolution.

Phil Jackson was the Lakers head coach.
Shaq played for the Lakers.
Shaq signed with the Heat, leaving the Lakers, after the culmination of many disputes between him and Kobe Bryant about who would be the rooster in the henhouse.
Phil Jackson is still the Lakers head coach.

So, Big Aristotle, that would actually make you Benedict Arnold, wouldn't it? Now, to be fair, I'm assuming that you were trying to make a broader point, since multi-million dollar individuals who make their living putting a round ball through a hoop have, in recent years, been extremely sensitive to being "dissed." It is well known to those who watch these athletic soap operas that Phil Jackson actually favored you over Kobe when you played on Lakers together. So, that would make Phil's comments more an act of betrayal, not of treason.

I this case, I think Phil makes a better Brutus, wouldn't you? Take back the powdered wig and give him an oak wreath.