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.

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

Mayor Nagin on 60 Minutes was also very compelling.

Yeah, I saw him too. Whew.

Haley Barbour and GWB look like ice scupltures in comparison.

Haley Barbour and GWB look like ice scupltures in comparison.

Haley Barbour is really coming out of this disaster well, all things considered. Of course, he's helped by Mississippi having its own emergency management agency that is way out in front of FEMA in that state.

Haley Barbour is really coming out of this disaster well

If you say so. Everytime I see him, he seems really surly and a Bush administration apologist. But at least he's keeping his cool.

I understand some MS residents aren't too happy for him because he didn't call for mandatory evacuations. Granted I don't know this for a fact, just something I read from a MS resident.

Haley Barbour wasn't sounding the Federal horn earlier this week. Now he's had a chance to calm down and get on message. Feh.

dw -- I think that's technically a complex question. Because, in your example, what Person B did is irrelevant to a discussion of Person A. It's tricky because I think it's actually a couple of fallacies in one:

1. "If what Person A did was wrong, then what Person B did was also wrong." 2. "If you did not condemn Person B, it's hypocritical to condemn Person A."

And there's probably more, but those are the ones that leap out at me. They're both unsupported distractions. #1 is a complex question, and #2 may be a false analogy. In a conversation, I'd just go with "What B did isn't the subject, and has no bearing on what A did," though.

I'm really curious to see how the Republican party is going to address the class issue (I don't think they'll do much with the racial aspect of this disaster). Because this really is the most obvious, visceral exposure of what it means to be left behind economically.

This is why Lyndon Johnson proposed The Great Society in the first place. But I think that rhetoric is exhausted now, even if the issues are basically the same.

But there is no Republican rhetoric to deal with the chronically poor. It's either "a rising tide lifts all boats" or blameful.

Strega! Did you see I got the Slow Bob? Many many thanks! Plus Steve Buscemi. Cool.

Haley Barbour wasn't sounding the Federal horn earlier this week. Now he's had a chance to calm down and get on message.

You are right about that. On Tuesday he was sounding panicked. I wonder if GWB promised to rebuild his coastal summer home too.

Oof.

*****

9/4/2005, 6:37 p.m. CT
The Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Police shot and killed at least five people Sunday after gunmen opened fire on a group of contractors traveling across a bridge on their way to make repairs, authorities said.

Deputy Police Chief W.J. Riley said police shot at eight people carrying guns, killing five or six.

Fourteen contractors were traveling across the Danziger Bridge under police escort when they came under fire, said John Hall, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers.