The disastrous hurricane Katrina got me to thinking about what it is that we really should regard as scary. I mean, a hurricane is what it is. It does not think, it does not plot, and it has no "political motives"ÂÂ. Hurricane record keeping is relatively new. Records of hurricanes, their strength, and the damage they cause have only been kept since 1886. Whether "global warming" is causing stronger hurricanes, a.k.a. Katrina, is an untested assumption. This was simply a very nasty hurricane.
What really should frighten the "you-know-what" out of you is how Americans have reacted, and will continue to react in the months ahead, to Katrina and the horrors she wrought.
Here is a list of things that, if they do not frighten you, should at least give you a worried pause:
1. An African-American leader, in a Foxnews interview, rather than condemning the New Orleans looting of plasma television sets and other electronic equipment and calling it what it was"â€Âstealing, justified the taking of items not necessary for survival like food, water, and medicines. And, in fact, he tries to pull the old "bait and switch" tactic in fallacious thinking by turning the conversation to the war in Iraqi instead of answering a direct question about the immorality of stealing unnecessary items during the aftermath of the hurricane.[1]
2. Jesse Jackson possesses such power over the news media in his African-American Imperialism that he is able to force it to change the term, "refugees" to something which he deems to be more acceptable. Jackson's continual social re-engineering manipulation managed to get "...several news organizations to ban the word in their Katrina coverage. Among them are The Washington Post, The Miami Herald and The Boston Globe."ÂÂ[2] It is frightening that this one man can wield such power to dictate what actual words you get to hear or not hear in International News Coverage.
3. If you want to see a perfect microcosm of Americans, go to the Yahoo.com news website. Click on any of the news stories concerning hurricane Katrina. At the bottom of the news story, you will find a link labeled "discuss"ÂÂ. Click on that "chat link" and read what Americans are writing about the Katrina disaster. Read and think, think really hard, about the hyper-racist reaction of the people who post comments about the African-Americans who were so tragically caught in the death and destruction of this hurricane. In my view, the very comments on this Yahoo chat forum should be the subject of an investigative story. It will appall you! Are these really Americans writing this stuff?
4. No matter how you regard The New York Times or Foxnews, you should read them both. I do. One should have the intellectual honesty and critical thinking skills to read both of these news venues to evaluate the arguments their pundits present. Don't you think so? If the truth be known, The Times is indeed the mouthpiece for liberals as Foxnews is for the conservatives. I do not give a "rat's fundament" either way. You should read both, in my humble view, so that you can evaluate "both sides of the coin"ÂÂ. At times, both Foxnews and The Times are "over the top"ÂÂ. Sometimes they both have something good to say. You read it, you think critically, and you decide.
However, I simply must protest at The New York Times writer, Alessandra Stanley, who wrote, "Fox's Geraldo Rivera did his rivals one better he nudged an Air Force rescue worker out of the way so his camera crew could tape him as he helped lift an older woman in a wheelchair to safety."[3]
The issue? The incident never happened.
In fact, the proof that this never happened is so solid that Rivera has his lawyer filing a legal protest since The Times refuses to retract the story. Read the story for the entire context.[4]
The point? The Times never should have printed something that wasn't true. And, when confronted with the evidence, ethics demand they print a retraction"â€Âtake it back. They have refused.
Is this journalism? Apparently, columnist Alessandra Stanley is such a popular writer with an equally popular by-line that editors are too afraid to stand up to outright lying. Is this another "Jayson Blair"�[5]
And just how did Blair bamboozle The Times as long as he did? Did they look the other way because he is African-American"� I don't know. I am not sure I want to know.
Doesn't The Times simply fall into the hands of their conservative critics by tolerating more irresponsible and unethical journalism?
Hurricanes? Scary!
What's happening to Americans "†scarier!
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168684,00.html
[2] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168653,00.html
[3] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168673,00.html
[4] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168673,00.html
[5] http://slate.msn.com/id/2082741/ |
