Archive for June 2008

Gun Control

June 29, 2008

I caught Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday, during which the Heller vs Washington DC ruling, naturally, came up. The commentary that followed was enlightening with Juan Williams lamenting the negative effect in DC that such a decision might have. The following is a paraphrased snippet (the transcript is as of yet unavailable.):

Bill Krystal: What effect did the handgun ban have on DC’s murder rate? (Alluding to the fact that DC, despite it’s gun ban, maintained a growing murder rate that eclipsed other cities equitable in size.)

Juan Williams: I get what you’re saying, but maybe there’d have been more without the hand gun ban.

Brit Hume: Or maybe there’d have been less had the ban never been in place. Hume then quoted the old axiom of “outlaw guns and only the outlaws have guns.”

Juan Williams: (accurate quote) “Guns don’t make me feel more secure. Guns scare me.”

-Soob

By placing all power and warrant into a device created from human minds and used by the human free, what people have essentially done is stripped free will from individuals and gave it into the keeping of a piece of metal, or a bat, or a knife, or any other implement created by human imagination.

Guns are now the new devil, something to be superstitious of and something for the community to pass righteous laws to ban and restrict and control for fear that without control, the new devil will corrupt the souls of the innocent and defenseless.

Rather than internalizing responsibility, rather than saying that everyone has evil within themselves and can express it, such peeps focus it outwards and displace/projects it upon whatever canvass they deem fit.

Now it is not the individual that has the responsibility, now it is the responsibility of the gun itself and those that own it legally. The individual cannot kill and commit violence and thus scare people like Juan, so so long as we limit guns and the presence of it, we can limit evil by casting it out from our little village.

That’s not going to happen. It wouldn’t have happened anyways, because of the superstition.

Miyamoto Mushashi fought with kendo wooden sparring sticks. One time he went and crippled a man in a duel by fashioning a wooden katana out of the oar he used to row himself to the meeting spot. The man he was fighting with used a steel katana.

If having a superior tool to kill people with is the decider of how dangerous you are, then obviously the Palestinians are far less dangerous than the Israelis. You, if you have children, would do good to hide them from the Israelis, for they have bombs, technology, and Western military supplies. The Palestinians, using crude technology and almost medieval age implements, are of no danger to a nation wielding the fantastic repertoire of Western technological and military might. Right?

Wrong.

There are no deadly weapons, only deadly people. Deadly people and the sheeplike target/victims they prey on, that is. And also deadly people that prey on other deadly people. No better friend, no worse enemy.

Juan Williams, like most good and loyal fake liberals, do not understand the reality of violence. Thus, they do not understand the reality of humanity. And without comprehending human nature, they give not a care or the rightful respect due to human free will and human individual liberty. How can people have free will when the “Gun”, almighty gun say it with me, is the source of such Fear… and Power.

Fear and Power are the foundations of Democrat success. Naturally they would give quite a lot of respect to firearms. Much like the respect they give to America’s enemies, respect supposedly owed to terrorists and mass murderers. The “respect” is translated to mean “misplaced devotion”.

I do not deny that a firearm will make killing more efficient. I do not deny that a warrior can kill more with a firearm than he could with his bare hands or with a knife/blunt force instrument.

But let’s not misplace our devotion and be awed into worshipping a piece of rock, metal, or wood here. What deserves our devotion and our caution and respect is the human mind.

If the human mind was all important, why would Leftist revolutonaries seek to brainwash the newer generations with Marxist-Leninist propaganda? If the power of killing, if the power of having firearms was all encompassing, why wouldn’t all fake liberals want to have this power? They aren’t shy about appropriating tax money and pork barrel funds for themselves. If money is power, why would they refuse the power of the firearm? (Aside from wanting the power of firearms by using law to ban people from having them, that is)

Because Democrats have learned that violence isn’t the way. They have learned to convince and subvert people using words to change how people think when not even the force and violence of the Soviet Union succeeded. Yet the gun is a double threat to them then. It is a source of power, as they see it, that they themselves do not control and are helpless to permanently stop given the 2nd Amendment. The gun is also a source of power that does not come from Democrat politics (It’s not welfare. It’s not education. It’s not healthcare. It’s not a pork barrel project) yet is something the downtrodden almost always must have in order to successfully resist their oppressors. The one thing the White Southerners back before the Civil War worried about, even as Britain and the Amerindians waged war on the Colonies around 1812, was that blacks once armed, will use those arms to rebel. Stripping arms away from the downtrodden or those you seek to exploit is the first step in creating an oppression.

Given the power of indoctrination and brainwashing and propaganda and subversion, the “gun” is a tool that essentially is irrelevant against what Democrats would deem the major expressions of power. (US military putting tanks in cities to end riots, for example) Thus Democrats feel uncomfortable with people having guns and they themselves don’t see much of a need for them. This is not theory, I have seen plenty of Democrats explain their views on guns face to face with me, and some even more of that number explain things on the internet, although they never quite explain things in a clear fashion if they believe they are talking to a pro-rights proponent.

But that isn’t true for oppressed people, it isn’t true that for those with less power than the Democrat middle class, that guns are superfluous and a great deal of community danger. If blacks are right that there is an “institutional racism”, then why wouldn’t there also be an institutional bias towards stripping guns from blacks and giving them to whites so whites can terrorize blacks? If, everything Jeremiah Wright has said about the US government is true, that it created AIDS to wipe out black people, why wouldn’t white Democrat proponents of gun control be creating a law that will naturally bias whites against blacks? And yet, the downtrodden and poor vote Democrat. They vote Democrat because socialist or fake liberal policies created the break down in family and thus created the onslaught of gun crime across the nation in the 80s. The Democrats promise that if we ban hand guns, you’ll be safer from accidental discharge and criminals won’t have as easy access to guns as they otherwise would. Less school shootings in zones that ban guns.

On the other hand, blacks are very high at risk from suffering violence at the hands of other people, especially if they live in low cost housing environment owned by gangs. If black people are provided guns, which the Democrats are against given the example of Katrina, then black people will be able to find solutions to their oppression that wouldn’t require a master slave relationship with the Democrat party, which is, last time I checked, headed by mostly white people. And one of them happens to be Robert Kleagle Byrd, for some odd coincidental reason.

There is an obvious conflict here, of course. We know that guns provide power to a person, but that power is not an inherent trait of the device itself, that power is an expression of a man or woman’s desire and demand to be free. To be treated as a human being, owed the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the same as any other human being, regardless of differences in sex or race or ethnicity.

When you strip the ability of a person to have a gun, not strip away an ability that people never had, you are stripping their individual liberty away.

Especially if what the black libertarian people are saying is true.

Yet, Democrats do not see the need for guns, for their power does not derive from guns. Juan Williams is not kept safe nor is his family kept safe by Juan’s ability to own personal firearms for self-defense. The military exists to use guns to protect Juan. Cops exist to use guns to protect Juan, well except when cops are brutal pigs that violate people’s civil liberties that is. In the end, people with guns exist to protect Juan, they exist to kill with those firearms to defend Juan. They don’t exist to use those firearms to defend themselves. Big critical difference when it comes to how Juan is protected. He isn’t protected by his own actions as a citizen of a Republic, he isn’t responsible for killing or risking death to defend his liberties, the state of the Republic, or the rights of others.

No, Juan Williams is kept safe by his neighbors, he is kept safe by Americans that do own guns, he is kept safe by the police, he is kept safe by the good neighborhood he lives in, or he is kept safe by men and women who have used firearms to kill other people for Juan’s safety.

He is not kept safe by any personal ability on his part to be able to use violence to tear a man limb from limb with nothing but his bare hands. Now, physically you might not be able to tear off a man’s arm, but you bet you can tear the joints in his shoulder, elbow, and wrist so that his arm might as well be ripped off.

So, in the end, if Juan isn’t safe because of his actions, why should you be safe because of yours? You don’t need a power or a right to defend yourself. You have others to sacrifice for yourself. You don’t need to wield a firearm to kill others to defend yourself, you have lawyers, judges, a legal system, cops, and the Marines to do that. America is invulnerable, having a gun won’t make you any appreciably safer. That’s what the nation is all about, getting others to do your dirty work. I mean, how would a nation that demanded that its citizens defend their own rights ever be able to stand in the face of vigilantism and the deaths that will result from citizens killing people on a whim?

Losing the moral high ground and your son isn’t worth it simply to get the right to kill people on a whim.

But here’s the dirty secret most people don’t know. I don’t need a gun to kill people. I don’t need a firearm to permanently blind people by scooping out their eyes with my thumb and finger. I don’t, in fact, need a gun to to crush a person’s throat or cave in his skull. All I need is the intent and the knowledge/trained skillset.

To the Left, criminals have guns cause they are bad people, anti-social, or just plain evil. To the Left, conservatives wanting to have the same guns means that conservatives have lowered themselves to the same level. If a Democrat is pro-gun, that perhaps can be tolerated if he can use that to beat a Republican.

To me, criminals have guns cause criminals know how to use violence and they do it. Because they are mostly untrained, lazy as hell, and prefers to prey upon weaklings, they want to have a knife, a bat, gross number advantage, or a firearm in order to make the effort of crime just a little bit easier and more entertaining. If I ever want a gun, it won’t be because I’d like to convince the jury that the man who assaulted me needed killing. If I got a gun and trained in its use, it would be because a gun makes killing simpler once you have the intent and it gives you a range advantage. A firearm does not require that you get within melee range of the enemy. Ever hear of the Navy or Army phrase “if the enemy is in range, so are you”? Well that’s predicated upon the assumption that both of you have similar weapons in how far they can reach.

Most people don’t carry knives or bats or what not. Thus their optimum range from which they may inflict brutal and fatal damage is about half a feet. If you have a bat or knife, then the range is like 1 feet. If you have a sword, the range is Far enough so you can lunge from where you are at, stick your sword into a man’s belly, have it erupt 1-2 feet in his back, and still remain enough away that he doesn’t fall and drag your sword down with him. But a firearm? What’s the optimum range on a firearm? The answer is, whatever range you can get it to work at, based purely on skill.

Used correctly, a single headshot will inflict fatal damage. Used incorrectly, you’ll spend a lot of shots and get spray and pray.

But still, it is far better than hand to hand against firearms. Hand to hand against firearms requires that you either ambush the guy as he is coming inside a room, (Columbine and Virginia tech) or it requires that you somehow sneak up behind as he is capping people.

If you are in a long hallway, without cover, and the gunman sees you, well usually you’re not going to be able to close the distance in time.

What a firearm does for a person versed in violence, is that it allows you one more tool in your arsenal. Now you don’t have to sneak up behind somebody, you just need to aim and pull the trigger and hit what you are aiming at. And if the enemy gets into melee range and starts wrestling with you over the gun, just let gravity takes it course and fall backwards if the enemy is in front. Your body weight will naturally extend your arms and now the gun is going to be pointed straight at the enemy’s chest, while the enemy’s arms are essentially trying to hold you up against gravity’s pull. But if the guy won’t let you fall or you are on the ground wrestling, then let have the gun. Gun’s only useful at range, it’s just a piece of metal up close and personal like. Let him have the gun. It’s a good thing he has two hands on the gun, since that means there’s nothing covering his face from my hands.

We’ll see how well he aims without eyes to do it with. Or rather, I will see. I wonder if a person’s fingers are long enough, whether they can punch through the eye socket and reach the brain for an instant fatality. Probably only rarely, and only if the skull has no where to go to retreat from the pain.

In conclusion, people that don’t know the science of violence will never see the positive use of a gun for they will never comprehend what a gun has to do with violence. They’ll look at a gun in superstitious dread or awe, and that’s how serfs are supposed to look upon the weapons of their betters.

Islamic Slave Trade

June 28, 2008

This is an interesting over-view of the Islamic slave trade, during the times of Western colonization and American plantations.

While much has been written concerning the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, surprisingly little attention has been given to the Islamic slave trade across the Sahara, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. While the European involvement in the Trans Atlantic slave trade to the Americas lasted for just over three centuries, the Arab involvement in the slave trade has lasted fourteen centuries, and in some parts of the Muslim world is still continuing to this day

Slave routes
A comparison of the Islamic slave trade to the American slave trade reveals some interesting contrasts. While two out of every three slaves shipped across the Atlantic were men, the proportions were reversed in the Islamic slave trade. Two women for every man were enslaved by the Muslims.

While the mortality rate for slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as 10%, the percentage of slaves dying in transit in the Trans Sahara and East African slave trade was between 80 and 90%!

Almost nobody knows about this history in detail. And it is for a very good reason. He who controls the past, also controls the present and the future. For if a person determines that your father was poor and not entitled to inherit, does that not in fact dictate to you what you are and will be?

He who controls the past, or rather he who controls how the past is seen and remembered, also controls present and future events. It is probably the most easy way to manipulate things without using brute force.

Brian Sanderson’s Fantasy Novels

June 27, 2008

This is a comment I wrote on his blog concerning his fantasy novels which I have just recently read.
***

I’m writing this because of your intro to Warbreaker, which shares the same philosophy, only it looks like you came to it independently of any actual market success with such tactics, success that Baen has had a long time to figure out one way or another.

P.S.

Btw, I wanted to mention that I find your novels refreshing in that they don’t waste time with travel and description of scenery except when it is related to individual character development or perspectives.

I haven’t realized just how much angst I acquired because of the amount of travel in fantasy novels until I read the Khaaven Romances by Steven Brust, Final Empire, and Elantris. Final Empire was also funny in that the prologue and the comments on the beginning of every chapter seemed like a subtle joke on plot lines that try to develop characters while traveling, instead of developing characters while they are actually accomplishing work.

Whereas many series might have taken 5 books just to tell about the “Well of Ascension”, from the time it takes a person from a village to go to it I mean, you’ve already had these events occur before anyone has even started reading. That’s not only a time saver, but it is an ingenious plot twist.

I also like your heroic portrayal of events and characters that have an actual sense of responsibility and makes good on these things in one fashion or another.

One of the reasons why I like David Weber’s novels is because of the emotional impact of the characters.

War Crimes for Bush and Co

June 13, 2008

You might want to read this little comment and post thread concerning prosecuting your political opponents. I wrote some analysis comments there.

Defense of Life and Liberty

June 10, 2008

I haven’t had the inspiration to do any blogging lately, which is often a period I go into, so here are some posts which I have commented on. If you know me, I only comment on posts and blogs that attract my interest or inspire my muse in some way or fashion.

Let’s start off with Book’s Sheep post. She continues it on with another story about defenseless civilians being harvested for the good of evil, chaos, and destruction.

It is always fascinating to me that those who decry the loss of “civil liberties” the most are the ones endlessly working, night and day, to eradicate the defenses of the individual against the onslaught of mobs, government genocide edicts, and human rights violators.

Fighting Back: Part 2

June 2, 2008

Link

Another story about school officials that are both bureaucrats and petty tyrants.

In a war, they would be the ones given a field court martial and executed on the spot. But we’re a nation that follows the rule of law that does not recognize a state of war as existing between the people of America and the internal enemies of America, so those people are safe and secure while they turn the territory they control into totalitarian fiefdoms.

The Main Sewer Media, the academics, the Leftist agitators, the agent provocateurs that turn peace demonstrations into riots and killing fests, etc. are all connected by the strand of Revolutionary Marxism which preaches Social Collapse and Annihilation as a way to clear out new territory for Utopia.

Here is Totten‘s account of his visit to Serbia. This should give you a small sense of the MSM’s crimes against humanity.

“During the bombing here,” Sean said, “how bad was it?”

“I have very contradictory feelings,” David said. “On one side, I knew, I was sure, that Milosevic wouldn’t resign without bombing. The resignation of Milosevic was a result of the bombing. On the other side, I was with my family here, my boy, my girl, you know, and they were afraid. My son lived 100 meters from Belgrade TV, which was bombed, and I lived 200 meters, and I begged him to stay with me because we knew it would be bombed that night. He said no, that he passed all these buildings that were bombed and he saw that the Americans were very precise.”

“But it’s still dangerous,” I said.

“Sometimes they bombed the wrong thing,” he said, “but here in Belgrade they were very precise. It was not the kind of bombing as in the Second World War where they were bombing everything.”

“We will never do that again,” Sean said.

“You could see,” David said, “you could predict, they said what they were going to hit before they hit it. But it became very dangerous because they bombed all the official buildings and then they didn’t know what to do next if Milosevic wouldn’t resign. But Milosevic stopped at the right time.”

The bombed-out Belgrade TV station building wasn’t far from our starting point. It stood out as one of the few remaining demolished buildings from the air campaign. It seems to be left as a showpiece. It’s hard to say, though, if this building was left in its condition to wave the bloody shirt against Americans or against the Milosevic regime.
Belgrade TV, bombed by Americans in 1999

“We predicted it would be bombed because it was a massive propaganda mission,” David said. “And I was very sorry because 16 people who were innocent in that building were killed.”

“People chose to stay in it?” Sean said.

Sean and Filip Belgrade.jpg

No, David said. It was not by choice. The conclusion was that if people were killed, we would have an argument against the West. The man who was the general director at that moment is in prison because of it, because he gave orders to put people there.”

A memorial to the dead is placed across the street from the vertical rubble. All sixteen names are engraved in the stone. Above the list of names is written one simple question: Why?

Names of Dead Belgrade.jpg

But the truth is, everybody knows why. Civilians killed by Americans make for great propaganda. Journalists like Robert Fisk predictably complied and blamed NATO. It didn’t matter at the time that Americans hit the building at 2:00 in the morning when no one should have been in there. It occurred to few that Serbian authorities might want to cynically parade the corpses of their own innocents in front of the cameras, though an old Middle East hand like Fisk should have known it was at least possible.

General Manager Dragoljub Milanovic was handed a ten year prison sentence in 2002 for forcing these sixteen employees to remain behind and get killed.

How much blood does the media have on their hands? A thousand innocents? 10,000? A 100,000? One million, perhaps, given Stalin’s quote?

How many people will have been killed, maimed, and been left without families or loved ones because somebody in the media required just one more anti-American propaganda news story?
And yet these are the same people free from prosecution, execution, character destruction, career destruction, in addition to being protected by the very nation they have created a sea of blood to discredit.

That might seem fair or just to people, but it is not to me.

A comment reply to Bookworm’s post about media manipulations against Israel.

UPDATE: Read <a href=”Link“>Canno‘s very good Small Wars Journal link concerning the internal war waged against President Bush and how Bush ignored and sanctioned such attacks on his own policies.

On Media Manipulation and Fighting Back

June 1, 2008

One of the things that has infuriated me for years in the roiling battle between Israel and her neighbors is Israel’s utter ineptitude at courting the media.

-Bookworm

Be sure to read the comments

  1. Ymarsakar

    That is why every faction that is Good needs a counter-propaganda capability. Not having a counter-propaganda agency to counter enemy propaganda, is like not having missile defenses or nuclear deterences against enemy thermonukes.

  2. on 31 May 2008 at 9:23 pm 3SADIE

    Y:
    Point well made, but…….

    If a tree falls in the woods and there’s no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound.

    Even if there was a counter-propaganda agency would the press hear it – report it?

    Certainly, within the Israeli media investigations and the outcomes are reported. The looming question is whether or not the results, rebuffs, counter measures would be covered by AP, UPI, BBC, etc.

    I had to read EJP (European Jewish Press) to follow the ‘press’ coverage in the French courts over several months.

  3. on 31 May 2008 at 9:47 pm 4Ymarsakar

    Even if there was a counter-propaganda agency would the press hear it – report it?

    A proper counter-propaganda agency would already have manipulated, infiltrated, and subverted the “press”. That is what competency in the cloak and dagger world is all about. Converting enemy resources to your own. Counter-insurgency=converting Al Anbar enemy tribes to allied tribes.

    Competent leaders produce such results. Incompetent leaders get led around the nose by the MSM, who are themselves led around the nose by Islamic Jihadists and anti-American activists.

    I had to read EJP (European Jewish Press) to follow the ‘press’ coverage in the French courts over several months.

    Neo-Neocon did a good job covering those trials, especially since she went to Paris about the same time this thing was starting.

  4. on 31 May 2008 at 10:02 pm 5Ymarsakar

    The reason why you need competent leaders to complete manipulation operations against such agencies as the MSM is because of several factors. One is legality or what is known as your weak spot. If the enemy observes you have a weak spot which can be cavitated in with legal challenges, then you will be forced on the defensive and the only thing you’ll be countering is litigation lawsuits.

    Look at what they did and are doing to Bush when he fired those prosecutors.

    The point is, you have to use the enemy’s OODA cycle, get inside that cycle, and then wreck damage in such a way that the enemy will never be able to react and get his balance back.

    There are many methods to do this, but only a select few work depending on what situation it is.

    Nixon tried to conduct surveillaince on the media and got caught covering it up. That kind of action was both passive as well as fraught with obvious weaknesses that enemies will exploit once they see it. And exploit it the media did.

    The media, like the jihadists, are not demi-gods and aren’t invulnerable. This means that they have human foibles and they can be deceived and manipulated using their beliefs the same as the Islamic Jihadists can be.

    That is not the difficulty. The difficulty is that the “Good guys” have become so used to having the “overwhelming air and land superiority”, that they have forgotten and thus have scorned the use of deception operations. The big guy with muscles will almost never favor deception as opposed to brute force, for why should those with more brute force than anyone else have to lower themselves to trickery?

    In this sense, their morality is wrong. For one can never achieve the acme of battle knowledge or skill, as Sun Tzu described it, if one refuses to use deception in warfare and not only that, but refuse to train and get better at deception.

    How do you think people or the West will get better at deception when they refuse to deceive the media? How will American citizens get better at deception when the citizens and their political leaders refuse to counter the deception of the media?

    This puts the initiative and attack plan straight with the Main Sewer Media and their allies, not us. They will be the ones that are going to decide what the story is going to be and what stories will or will not be covered.

    This is a monopoly on deception operations that must be broken.

    As for the “how” of it, one method would be to conduct disinformation campaigns against the media. Force the media or manipulate them, ala Dan Rather, to report false information that is then used as an attack against us or the war. Discredit the media by using the media’s own attack plans against them.

    The reason why the “NO WMDs” blood libel by the media works so well is because Bush himself chose to use WMDs as the prime media justification because it was the only justification that could work to convince the members of the United Nations to back Bush. And Bush only went to the UN because he needed Britain’s support (Chirac’s support too).

    The media will report every anti-American propaganda event and anything that sheds a negative light on America. People may see that as a problem, but I see that as our salvation. For that makes the media predictable and when an enemy becomes predictable, he also becomes dead against competent foes.

    Currently the media is discredited not just because conservatives view them as biased and unreliable, but because Leftists and activist Democrats themselves view the Main Stream Media as biased: biased in favor of their parent corporations and what not.

    You have to shatter this perception, otherwise people can justify ignoring Fox News or good news about Iraq as “Haliburton trying to make more profit off the caskets of American soldiers”.

Dick Morris has a much more solid set of credentials than me when it comes to political subterfuge and media knowledge. HIs disaffection with Clinton policies and character assassins would also make him more useful as an inside contractor to Bush.

The point is, my ideas are not in a vacuum and there are many people that can and would do the same, if Bush had hired them as his advisers instead of Tenet, Powell, and so forth.

The President’s power comes directly from the people and that is only magnified by the Electoral College. He represents every American just as he represents every State in the Union. THe people in the Executive or Legislative branch gets their power and status from him, the President, not the other way around. Yet President Bush has allowed things to be that these bureaucrats and petty public officials are the ones that determine the tone and theme of the relationship of the President with the nation and its people and institutions.

Historically, when Emperors have wanted to break the corrupt and stagnant power of the aristocrats, meaning the bureaucracy, they have always went directly to the people. Emperor Krushru the Just of Iran and non-Iran in the times of Belisarius, the greatest Roman General in history, bypassed the nobility and the various aristocratic houses when those aristocrats refused to support the Emperor and did much to overthrow and destabilize things. Did you know that the Great Houses of Persia were the ones that, in the end, decided who would be Emperor? Krushru decided to change that balance of powers and he did so with the minor nobility or rather the small time land owners. He gave them Imperial territory and authority and they in turn directly served the Emperor. He created a new power base that he could call on for support against the internal enemies of Iran should they ever develop a spine to challenge him.

This, in modern times, is translated as political capital and political interest. Capital is what you have when you start out and interest is the increasing payments you get from your capital. The greater your capital and the less often you use it, the greater your interest and rate of increase in capital will be.

Bush has often allowed people like Tenet or the other people he appointed or kept on to decide the spending of Bush’s political capital with the people of the USA. This has bankrupted Bush in terms of popular support for such endeavours as Iraq.

Take Katrina for example. Bush, instead of nationalizing the National Guard and throwing the Mayor and Governor of New Orleans and Louisiana under the bus for gross incompetence and criminal negligence (cue congressional hearings), he chose to allow Blanco and Nagin to put the blame on Bush and to fetter away the political capital of the President of the US by creating a disaster zone within a disaster zone. Bush gave three days to those two to kill lives and ruin those that have survived. That is not what the leader of a nation who cares for its people should be doing.

I also recall that the “blame Bush” thing didn’t occur until after Nagin and Blanco had taken care of their own personal political fallouts with retarded public comments. There was plenty of time for Bush to take the initiative and destroy the character and public career of those two, but he didn’t and thus Bush’s record on Katrina was the one that got destroyed. First they hit FEMA and after that, it was obvious who their next target was.

In this kind of war, there is no surrender and there is no compromise. It is either destroy or be destroyed. Do not count on the Democrats to return your “mercy” with compassionate and fair treatment just because you treated them fairly and Constitutionally.

But of course, you don’t have to take my word for it. Just read this post by Cassandra.

Link

Once upon a time there was a serpent who was badly injured in a fight with another animal. It managed to slither away to safety but would have surely died if a benevolent man had not seen it suffering by the side of the road. The goodly man carefully wrapped the snake up and took it to his house, where he bestowed the kindest and gentlest care on the snake until it was healed and could return to the wild. Just as the man was releasing the serpent back into the grass, the ungrateful snake turned and bit him on the hand.

“What did you do that for?” cried the man, who knew that the bite of this particular snake was usually fatal. “Didn’t I take care of you when no one else would?”

The snake shrugged (no small feat for a snake!) and replied to the benevolent–and now doomed– man, “What did you expect? You knew I was a snake when you picked me up.”

- CWCID: Dr. Sanity


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.