Hey y'all. I just skimmed a weekend's worth of posts.

This weekend I'm finally going to get around to assembling a Go bag.

Yeah, I guess the denial is not actually the best plan, huh? I'm going to get that Target Red Cross kit, too.

There are some Evil Bunny Alliance recruits who have been waiting for their fangs; instead, they're going to Houston to be helpful and (hopefully) consoling bunnies.

This is the sweetest thing ever, Jilli.

Every time I think it cannot get worse, it does. I'm sick to my stomach.

Uh huh.

I've no money to donate, but I'd like to let the megahot diver I saw on CNN know that he's welcome to come over for a shower.

You're a giver, Allyson.

Lo! It is time to make pancakes. I haven't had pancakes in a few weeks.

In excellent news, I made waffles this morning, and they were YUM. I totally wish I had a waffle maker now.

Also, Go Fug Yourself has a great compilation of Katrina donation links and stuff. [link] FYI.

So, and I'm asking this in all seriousness, do we think the country could collapse?

I don't think so, but I agree that another serious crisis -- say, a terrorist attack killing more than 100 people -- could help send us over the edge.

I keep trying to remember that we made it through a civil war and a great depression.

One of my few hopes is that Bush may try to get a quick upswing in his approval ratings by appointing a moderate-seeming, black or hispanic woman to the court. Though if he could find one willing to agree with the administration, she'd probably turn out to be Clarence Thomas in a skirt.

I think it takes more to make a country collapse. I'd certainly hope so. Britain had the shit bombed out of it, and it didn't collapse.

Unless no longer being the world power is collapse, in which case -- yeah, I don't have that much empathy.

OK, hivemind, I need the term/phrase that describes Person #2's fallacious line of reasoning below.

Person #1: I believe that Person A should be fired because they had their hand in the till.

Person #2: Well, Person B was corrupt, and you never called for Person B's ouster. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

I want to say "circumstantial ad hominem." But I haven't been debate class in 15 years.

Person #1 is arguably stating the hidden premise that all persons caught with their hand in the till should be fired. This premise is contradicted by Person #2's statement. Which is really me just restating what's above.

I don't believe it's an ad hominem, because Person A's behavior is a legitimate part of Person #1's argument (ignoring the contradiction shown by Person #2) and I think for something to be ad hominem the information about the person is irrelevent.

It's been even more than 15 years since my last logic class.

edit for clarity, I hope.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!!!!!!!!!

(I have no idea, btw)

I don't think this is sufficient to topple the country in its totality. However, the number of people who have been displaced and are now having their suffering magnified by government apathy and incompetence is in the seven figures, in a nation with readily available firearms and relatively free mobility throughout. Bloody coups have arisen out of a lot less.

Broussard on "Meet the Press" was really intense. You could tell Tim Russert was a bit taken aback by the emotion displayed.

Let me rephrase it a bit and get rid of the connection.

Person #1: I believe that Person A should be fired because they had their hand in the till.

Person #2: Well, Person B was a member of the Klan, and you never called for Person B's ouster. Therefore, your argument is invalid.