Skip to main content

Donate Your Unused Ammunition To Gretna, Louisiana

Even in the wake of an unprecedented mobilization of aid and donations, there are still those determined to prove how “wronged” they were. I realize that I had sworn not to comment on any more of the Hurricane Katrina coverage, but this article was too good to pass up.

Apparently, the residents of Gretna, Louisiana have become the latest recipients of the dreaded “Racist” branding after it was discovered that after the hurricane, their Police Chief, Arthur Lawson, had blockaded the bridge that connects their city to New Orleans. Gretna, a small, upscale suburb of about 18,000 residents, in addition to having to deal with the devastation and loss caused by the floods, now also has to contend with the angry, fanatical finger-pointing perpetrated by a select group of ignorant but media-savvy individuals, including the mayor of New Orleans himself.

Regardless of Newsday’s flawed statistics, the town of Gretna is approximately 50% white and 35% black, numbers that make the town look less like the Aryan paradise depicted in the news and more like a capital of diversity, akin to Chicago or New York. However, because the town denied over 5000 “mostly black” evacuees access to its dwindling food and water reserves, the consensus among the clueless is that Gretna is “racist” instead of the more appropriate, “Gretna is logical.”

It’s not as if Gretna had an unlimited supply of survival equipment; in fact, they were just as endangered as those in New Orleans, and quite possibly without the majority of federal assistance that the larger city had. The people of Gretna, specifically the mayor and the police chief, acted in the best interest of their citizens, and if that resulted in the denial of assistance to thousands of outsiders, then so be it.

In other words, “Tough luck.”

Humans’ survival instinct is not a complex model by any means. Quite simply, if one is in harm’s way, then one will find the most direct and logical approach to reversing those circumstances, often at the expense of others. If a fire breaks out in my apartment building, I’m going to get up, grab my car keys and my collection of 1986 Mets baseball cards, and head outside expeditiously. I’m certainly not going to sacrifice my well-being and belongings to help people who are panicking, screaming, and leaping about chaotically. I’m not interested in being a hero, and I have no desire to make headlines or have a city-block named after me. I’ll leave that to firefighters, police and other supermen who are so often revered in the media as "heroes," often with the adjective “posthumous.”

Selfish? Damn straight. But logical, all the same.

However, neither the police or the mayor or the citizens of Gretna were acting selfishly, nor were they donning white hoods or goose-stepping to Deustchland Uber Alles while erecting the barrier to their town. They were simply displaying the honorable trait of self-preservation in response to the chaotic disaster and the fact that the New Orleans evacuees had burned down their mall.

That’s right, the poor souls who sought refuge in Gretna demonstrated their dire need for food, clothing, and shelter by setting fire to Gretna’s Oakwood Mall. I guess that they didn’t have enough Foot Lockers there to loot, so they struck a match instead. You'd think these people would be using their FEMA checks to purchase food and medicine, but it appears $2000 buys a lot of gasoline and Bic lighters.

I, for one, laud Police Chief Lawson, for his courageous actions, but submit that he didn’t do quite enough. Arming about 100 of his citizens with high-powered rifles and strategically placing them on the bridge with orders to shoot to kill might have sent a stronger message to the “desperate” evacuees.

“Turn around and keep going or I’ll drop you in your tracks,” is an easily recognized phrase, regardless of race, religion or social status. Especially when emphasized with a warning shot across the backside.



One In The Head And Two In The Chest, Mortals.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Too bad you are dumb as a stump. And you drudge postings all got shitcanned.
Valannin said…
Oh no! Something written on the internet was deleted? Whom do I sue?

And come on, ad hominem attacks? Is that the method of discourse being taught in the Kansas public schools these days?
Harry said…
These days if you act in your own self-interest, you are labeled, at the very least, as "mean spirited"; unless you are a wealthy leftist who can afford to pay lip service to "helping others" and are willing to use other people's money to do so. Then you are a humanitarian. Throwing "racist" around is just one more way to avoid solving problems.
J said…
Don't fret. The next wave of social darwinism (AKA Hurricane Rita) will surely eliminate him and the others who managed to squeeze by during round one. I am sure they will all be happy stealing television sets, setting malls on fire and crying RACISM in the afterlife.

Popular posts from this blog

All empty souls tend toward extreme opinions (W. B. Yeats)

Something occurred to me as I was having a conversation with a friend today, (she’s definitely one of the Outcast by the way), when she mentioned that I wasn’t very “open-minded.” The phrase “open-minded” is perhaps the most aggravating and deceptive American axioms ever invented. Why? Because it’s a trap. The only reason people see others as not “open-minded” is because they are not in agreement about a particular subject. If someone says, “I don’t think the U.S. ever put a man on the moon,” I’d disagree, because there’s tons of evidence to the contrary. But then I’d be met with the dreaded “you need to be more open-minded!” Well, shouldn’t they have the same level of open-mindedness? Of course not. Because in their lexicon, “open-minded” means “believing any old bit of nonsense as long as it goes against tradition.” Cold, hard facts scare these people, so they hide behind the gilded shield of “opinions.”

To be honest, I don’t believe there are any such things as opinions. There are f…

Tolerance Is The Virtue Of The Man Without Convictions

I know I'm a month late, but I finally made a New Year’s resolution: I’m going to stop being tolerant of things I cannot possibly tolerate. Quite frankly, I’m getting sick of the word and the abstract, often syntactically incorrect usage foisted upon us by the Thought Police of the American media and the educational system. You can’t watch a news program, or pick up a textbook without the word being flung at you from every corner, more often than not accompanied by a sense of shameful obligation. Religious tolerance, cultural tolerance; I’ve actually heard the phrase “gender tolerance” spoken more than once while at University. Because those in the aforementioned fields are typically of a one-sided, fanatical ambition – namely to strip the individual of the thought processes which makes one individual – journalists and educators co-opt words for their own purposes and reshape them to suit their own will and agenda. Incorrectly using the word “tolerance” to be a synonym for “accept…