Aren't you worried that there's really no model that you can't support with that logic, no matter how dumb it might be?

You have to actually examine the specifics of the issue and see whether the measures actually reflect the reality. But in this specific case there's a pretty strong case that what's broken down is not the relationship between how many people are able to find work and the rate of inflation, but the relationship between how many people are able to find work and the "unemployment rate".

Yes. It comes with the territory of realizing that there are actors gaming the biggest systems around, and part of the game is building support for those gaming the system, without knowing which segments of our society are participating.

I'm more worried about the implicit economics textbooks cover how an old model was falsified in the 1970s, therefore we should assume every other economic model is also false argument he was responding to...

Have the metrics used by models changed? E.g. can you hypothetically define away inflation by excluding property prices from the basket?