Shooting from the hip-o-crit

[captainsblog]

I'm modifying this ever so slightly from its original presentation, here, by sturgeonslawyer, but he obviously made the point perfectly well to me, at least, or I wouldn't be repeating it, would I?

Consider this scenario:

    * We have credible reports of a substantial threat of _____________.
    * The reports are not confirmed, and cannot be confirmed at this time.
    * Magnitude: if the threat is real and is carried out, the results will be catastrophic.

The only rational response to this situation is to prepare to meet the threat of __________ as if it were real, and to take every step possible to prevent its being carried out, and to blunt its effect if it is carried out.

So why, Dan'l asks and now so do I, are the Bushies so rah-rah about facing the threat dead-on (all too literally, many times) when you fill that blank with "terrorism," but they're in such denial, and so demanding of so-called "proof," when you fill it with "global warming," hmmmmmm?

If anything, you'd think we'd err on the side of caution with the second answer rather than the first. We can reduce carbon emissions, and our dependence on foreign energy sources, without violating our fundamental precepts of government, and even if the threat turns out to be overstated, we haven't hurt anything or anyone.

I know. This is making way too much sense. I'll stop now.

Comments

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

I admire the wisdom of your post.