DAS Blog

It looks like I might experience my first huricaine (although the sat. image of this storm appears about as organized as the Democratic party). Hopefully everything will be ok. Hopefully it'll just turn into a tropical depression and give this place some much needed rain.

Should I be like a pundit or a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and claim that, once I go through a tropical system, I can understand and hence pontificate about the experience of Katrina survivors?

*

In other news -- I'm still feeling too lazy even to commentwhore properly, but check out the thread on the post to which Atrios links to under the title "Wanker of the Day: George Will". I wonder how many people who respond to global warming with "let's wait until all the evidence is in" proudly supported going into Iraq, and still do, even though not all the evidence was in? Of course, any rational analysis of the situation would have to include costs of both action and inaction: and the costs of inaction in Iraq were overstated by bedwetters and the costs of action were understated (perhaps because GWB has ensured that the bedwetters don't personally have to pay anything for the Iraq war? it's our children and grandchildren who will have to pay the monetary costs ... and it's "those brave men and women" who risk their lives -- not any of the bedwetters who are obviously too scared to risk their lives: and who can blame them?) whereas the costs of action on global warming are also overstated by many of the same people -- go figure. In such a rational analysis, of course, going to war without all the evidence? -- not prudent! making absolutely sure we don't Cheney Mother Earth? Very prudent indeed. Whatever happened to the days when conservatives said "better safe than sorry"?

The rhetoric, though, is one of the most peculiar things about Iraq (i.e. cf. the global warming debate) -- how anti-reactionary the rhetoric of the supporters of the war was. Even before the war, paleo-cons criticized the neo-cons (former lefties or the descendents thereof) for "maintaining an activist point of view". Already we are seeing the war blamed on "liberals". This war should discredit at least a certain branch of conservativism, but do you think given the rhetoric used to justify the war, it'll end up being the case that we liberals will get blamed for the war? And was the "liberal" rhetoric used done as part of an "if it goes wrong, let's make sure the liberals get blamed" strategy, or am I being too paranoid. IMHO, the "invading Iraq will be good for Israel" argument was also just something used to sell the war to certain people with more influence than sense that revel in behaving acording to anti-Semitic stereotypes of how they have dual loyalties -- but if my paranoia extends to this selling point as well, then certainly it is the case that GW Bush is no friend of the Jews, eh?

I cannot wait for the Germans to say we Jews stabbed them in the back regarding WWI, er for the 'Murkin people to say we liberals stabbed them in the back regarding Iraq.

*

Meanwhile, tying together a few topics that were all quite the subjects of discussion a while back, another commentwhore.