The Perils of CNN

CNN is best known for being the first major cable channel devoted to 24/7 news coverage. It's polite to say that CNN has fallen off the wagon in the past few years, with its ratings taking a constant nose dive - at time half the viewership of the FoxNews Channel, even in primetime.

Besides loving Bill Clinton, faking stories out of Iraq, and claiming US soldiers are "targeting" civilians, a CNN reporter has just now admitted to paying Nigerian soldiers to fake a news story, so that CNN "has its story" and he "has his fame."

Way to go, CNN. I'm always proud.

CNN Spews Terrorist Propaganda

CNN put an article up yesterday describing a mass burial in Lebanon. The reporter admits that there were more reporters there than those being buried, and also admits that they were "invited."

We already know that Hezbollah (along with many Islamic terrorist groups) are masters of the media and propaganda. They know just what to do to look good for the cameras, including bogus tours of damage and fake ambulances.

The clear propaganda message in this article comes from descriptions of "maggots" and "blood" seeping from a body bag.

To those of you who don't know, strict Muslims bury their dead as soon as possible, nearly eliminating the need for embalming as most burials take place within 24 hours. Maggots take about 4 days to mature to the point and multiply to the number to be "pouring" from a body bag. Next, if blood was still running from the bag as well, there is no way maggots would have had time to develop. Therefore, what you have in this story proves that 1) those being buried were not strict Muslims, 2) the scene is staged or 3) the CNN reporter is lying.

I don't mean to negate civilian casualties - each death in this conflict is a tragedy. However, this blatant passing on or outright creation of false terrorist propaganda is inexcusable by any news outlet - especially CNN. It's clear to me that modern war is based on propaganda - and thanks to CNN anyone who fights terrorists ususally loses.

Old Media Fear

For those of you who don't know or don't care, the world Muslim community is raging due to a half cooked-up and incited story about Mohammed being portrayed in cartoons in a Danish newspaper. Evidently it's against Islam to make an image of Mohammed. Anyway, the peaceful people of Islam have retaliated against the Danes by boycotting Danish goods (good) and by rioting, killing, burning down Danish embassies, and threatening a "new holocaust" and "beheadings" on protest signs from Beirut to London (bad).

All the while the modern media cowers in fear. Companies like CNN say:

CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam

but they mean:

CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of cowardice of Islam.

Wimps. So now threats of violence and death keep things out of the newspapers? How many have died and been attacked in the name of Islam? Is the Times and CNN really so fearful that they won't print news? What a disgrace.

Oh, and by the way - if you are offended by Kayne "George Bush hates black people" West wearing a crown of thorns like Jesus you will get no sympathy from CNN. Why? Because you're not threatening to kill them for showing it.

Oh, and if you're wondering about my showing the cartoons - don't. A Catholic Priest in Turkey was killed because of images like this - I'll show it.

UPDATE: The old media, specifically the New York Times, has no qualms whatsoever with printing a 7-year old picture of the Virgin Mary made out of elephant crap to prove their point of the "power of imagery." But that's right - Christians won't march on New York City and burn the Times to the ground... that's the difference!

Why I Don't Watch CNN

Yesterday I lazily clicked through various news sources on cable television seeing coverage of the death of the Pope. I'm not as foolish as some, and I tend to bounce back between Fox News and CNN to get the opposite sides of the same story. In one such episode, I came upon CNN talking about one of President Bush's last visits to the Vatican - one in which he awarded the Pope the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I obviously had no way to record the voice-over, but here is the jist of how CNN explained the event:

"At the height of the presidential election campaign, President Bush visited the Pope in June and awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The visit was intended to show the American people that the president was more in line with the Pope's policies than the democratic candidate, John Kerry."

I changed the channel. Am I honestly to believe that:

1) the height of the election campaign was in June?
2)that Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom as an election stunt?

I suppose I am supposed to believe those things, but then again, that's why I don't watch CNN (anymore)...

Ms. Cheney vs. the Liberal Media

Lynne Cheney was on CNN with Wolf Blitzer tonight and was the victim of a typical liberal media ambush. Wolf, instead of asking about her new best selling children's book, decided to attempt to repeat Democratic talking points, and claim the Vice President is in bad health.

However, Mrs. Cheney came prepared, as Wolf later admitted. Here are a few relevant sections:

LC: You made a point last night of a man who had a bookstore in London, where radical Islamists gathered, who was in Afghanistan when the Taliban were there, who went to Pakistan. I think that you might be a little careful before you declare this as a person with clean hands.

WB: You’re referring to the CNN Broken Government special…

LC: I certainly am.

WB: This was the one that John King reported on last night.

LC: You know, right there, right there, Wolf. Broken Government. Now what kind of stance is that? Here we are, we’re a country where we have been mightily challenged over the past six years. We’ve been through 9/11. We’ve been through Katrina. The President and the Vice President inherited a recession. We’re a country where the economy is healthy. That’s not broken. This government has acted very well. We’ve had tax cuts that are responsible for our healthy economy. We’re a country that was attacked five years ago. We haven’t been attacked since. What this government has done is effective. That’s not broken government. So you know, I shouldn’t let media bias surprise me, but I worked at CNN once. I watched the program last night…

WB: You were a co-host of Crossfire.

LC: …and I was troubled.

WB: All right. Well, that was probably the purpose, to get people to think, to get people to discuss these issues, because there are a lot of conservatives…

LC: All right, all right, Wolf. I’m here to talk about my book. But if you want to talk about distortion…

WB: We’ll talk about your book.

LC: Right. But what is CNN doing running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans? I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question, and you didn’t answer it. Do you want us to win?

WB: The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want terrorists to win?

LC: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?

WB: With all due respect, with all due respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.

LC: Oh, Wolf…

WB: This is reporting the news, which is what we do. We’re not partisan…

LC: Where did you get the film?

WB: We got the film…look, this is an issue that has been widely discussed, this is an issue that we reported on extensively. We make no apologies for showing that. That was a very carefully considered decision, why we did that. And I think, and I think, of your…

LC: Well, I think it’s shocking.

Go ahead and read it all. As a few commentators have said, without taking credit from Lynne Cheney, a lot of these political pundits (a.k.a journalists) are simply not too smart. Using a credible and thought-out argument truly puts them in their place. Wolf's whiny little diatribe at the end about Mrs. Cheney being "armed" is representative of his complete bewilderment in not being able to verbally and intellectually dominate her. I guess Wolf should start listening to people that he disagrees with.

CNN is the enemy

How many times has it been now? CNN is now broadcasting terrorist death porn, also known as footage of terrorist snipers killing American troops. The chairman of the House Armed Services committee, Duncan Hunter, is now calling for the Pentagon to withdrawal all embedded CNN reporters.

Good idea.

The LA Times covers the story from within the same mindset:

Embedded reporters sign pledges not to show the faces of dead American troops until their families are notified, but nothing prohibits the use of pictures in which identities are not discernible.

And nothing prevents reporters from taking sides in a war - which neither CNN or the LA Times seems willing to do.

What's wrong with the news?

CNN's Nic Robertson ran a story last week from the ravaged streets of Lebanon. He was being directed by a Hezbollah terrorist propaganda artist and told him exactly where he could go and what he could see. The Hezbollah thug repeated over and over "shoot this" and "look at this" and "does this look like a military building?" The whole shoot consisted of Nic admitting that it appeared Israelis had attacked a purely civilian neighborhood.

Now Nic has come out and said that his segments was completely controlled by Hezbollah:

Hezbollah has “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations,” that the terrorist group “had control of the situation. They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath,” and he even contradicted Hezbollah’s self-serving spin: “There's no doubt that the [Israeli] bombs there are hitting Hezbollah facilities.”

Even though Nic painfully admitted what really happened, the damage has been done. No one watches Reliable Sources on CNN to see that Nic's original segment was compromised. And the lies go on.

Also, what kind of journalist allows himself to be used for propaganda purposes? He could have filmed the footage, and broadcast to CNN later - not right away when he was forced to report Hezbollah propaganda and lies. How can these people still be employed, and how can they live with the terrible work they do?

Update: Surprisingly, CNN's Anderson Cooper blasted through Hezbollah's propaganda wall in his report from inside Beirut. He described in detail how Hezbollah controlled what parts of the city were filmed. He also described how the areas attacked were civilian areas, but nevertheless were where Hezbollah works from. He included descriptions of Israeli leaflets warning civilians to leave certain areas before an attack came.

His most brazen effort to thwart Hezbollah propaganda was his description of "dummy" ambulances, staged by Hezbollah to race through the streets of Beirut at controlled interviews so the press would photograph them. Amazing. Props to Cooper for not being a media chump.

An Old Trick...

Today, CNN International has an article bashing Bush about his idea to use the US military as a police force if the Asian bird flu erupts in America. As you can see from the article, and CNN Int'l's homepage, the picture they posted of Bush is less than flattering:

As is pointed out in this post, "Anatomy of a Photograph", and by the fact that Bush's "I have to use the restroom" note was photoshopped and quite plainly enhanced by Reuters, are both examples of the press manipulating photos for their own purposes.

I'm not necessarily accusing CNN of doing anything out of the ordinary. This example just reminds me of a friend who worked for Iowa State University's student newspaper, the Iowa State Daily. At the time, Iowa State's president was Martin Jischke, and he wasn't exactly liked by the student body. My friend, a photographer for the Daily, told me that all of the photographers made every attempt to use only horrible pictures of the now Purdue University president whenever they need pictures of him for the paper. This is one I particularly remember:

Yes, the quality of this picture was intentional. It makes Jischke look like a fool. Now, there were literally dozens of pictures of 'ol Martin in this parade, but the photographers chose this one for the front page because it made Jischke look the worst. This is no different than the picture of Bush by the AP on CNN's site. They had literally dozens of photos to chose from; why did they pick that one?

In case you were wondering...

...how biased CNN can be? Here's an example:

Here is a poll from their front page today. I've ranted on CNN enough over the past few months, put I think this poll takes the cake. A bit biased? I think so.

Oh, and in case you were wondering about the results: 63% say Ann, 37% the UConn students. From nearly 93,000 votes (so we know who reads the CNN site).

Now I will be the first to admit that Ann Coulter can be a bit off her rocker sometimes, but she is no more stupid than John Kerry or certainly Howard Dean. The odds of seeing a poll on their stupidity? Not likely...\

Stolen from RWN.

A Lesson on Objectivity in the Press, via the Daily Kos

I'm glad that a Kos contributor wrote this article today on conservatism versus liberalism in the media. His arguments are as follows:

In general, liberals value journalism, or facts, and conservatives value punditry, or opinions. Far-right conservatives are indeed obsessed with the press, because they see the reporting of facts as being inherently "liberal".

...

So-called mainstream journalism attempts, at least, to cleanly separate factual reporting from opinion... But it is, or was, a core tenet of journalism: report the facts, and expose the truth, and leave opinion out of it.

Awesome! This is my point exactly! For most of the world, objectivity is an illusion; the idea that you can completely separate yourself from what you know is impossible. Your bias, whether known or not, influences what you read, how you interpret it, and what you make of what you know. What you should attempt to accomplish in your lifetime is to more fully see and understand your own subjectivity so that you realize its affect on your daily life. Reporters and scientists would have you believe that they have removed all bias from their work; however, due to our understanding above we know this to be impossible; a delusion. Scientist, professors, reporters, and people like me are all influenced by their environment and what they believe. If someone denies this subjectivity, it will be even more pervasive in their work.

The Daily Kos would like people to believe that conservatives don't like journalism in the mainstream media because we believe "news" to be inherently liberal. This is so funny because it ignores that most people in the media are liberally biased. It's not hard to see in the daily editions of the New York Times and the Des Moines Register, and even the AP that whoever is writing the articles isn't exactly seeing the world how I do.

News is, from a number of sources, inherently liberal. From others it is inherently conservative; this isn't exactly a secret here. However, when news sources claim to be "objective" we know this is bogus. If you want a counter to FoxNews, watch CNN. If you want a counter to the Washington Post, read the Washington Times.

Conservatives aren't annoyed by media bias - as I have stated above bias is inherent in all that we do and think. However, people like me get annoyed when news sources claim objectivity when they are far, far, from it. As far as I'm concerned, Fox should change it's name to CNN, and CNN to LNN (if you get my drift). Let's quit this charade of objectivity and call news what it is.

UPDATE: By the way, I know that some people don't think that the AP is biased. Does anyone remember how the AP wrote that Bush supporters booed during a rally during the election when Clinton was announced as ok after his heart surgery? One of the biggest AP bias-proving events in recent memory.

CNN better than NYTimes!

Today I saw an article in the Times entitled City Releases Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 Attacks. I assumed that this article would highlight some aspects of the dialog on the tapes, or maybe the story would cover the firefighters and their families' reactions to listening to the tapes and what their loved ones had said on 9/11. Instead, the Times' 16 paragraph story had six paragraphs covering the tapes that were released and ten paragraphs covering the valiant efforts of the Times' to get those tapes released. I happened to be watching CNN at the time, which covered the reaction of the release of the tapes with a number of excerpts played as well. CNN mentioned that it was the Times' legal battle that brought the tapes out of the classified drawer, but refrained from, as the Times could not, covering their own coverage of the story.

Why You Shouldn't Watch CNN, Either...

Tonight on CNN... A special about the United State's entry into World War I, with a description of the sinking of the Lusitania. The narrator went on in describing how the sinking of the passenger liner in 1913 signaled a new "no holds-barred," as she described it, kind of warfare where women, children, and civilians in general were legitimate military targets.

In a similar way, she went on to compare this loss of civilian life with the bombings of London, Dresden, and Hiroshima during World War II. However, she went on to compare and insinuate that these horrible disasters of death and destruction were no different than deaths caused by suicide bombers in Iraq.

No. Fundamentally, no. While the bombings of these three cities were horrible and destructive, and possibly only the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being necessary to end WW II, suicide bombers in Iraq want nothing of victory for a cause or a country. They are not retaliating for the acts of a scourge of mankind so terrible that soldiers were encouraged to take pictures of the death caused by such Nazis so that future generations could never forget. Fanatical suicide bombers in Iraq and other countries want one thing - people dead. Whether it is Christians, non-Muslims, Americans or those cooperating with them, these monsters of terrorism want nothing more than the death of anything and anyone that opposes their fanatical view of how the world should be.

How dare CNN compare that to actions taken during WW II.

How is that news?

The "News" Disgusts Me

Is it just me, or has the world gone crazy?

A huge storm system moved through town today, and so I was watching the local news channel for weather info. I left the TV on CBS and ended up watching Katie Couric's "News" cast. The entire thing has been the most insane take on "news" or even "reality" than I have seen yet - we're talking worse than CNN here.

Let me summarize my frustrations with a single segment - coverage on the war in Iraq. It's no question that casualty figures would frame the segment, and every mention of things going well in Iraq followed by the obligatory "but." The segment totally ignored the ongoing military operation in Baqubah and instead claimed with no evidence that the military admitted that top al Qaeda leaders "escaped" from the city. Casualty figures were then reported as if they were independent of the operation (and remember that the old media likes to describe casualty figures as if our solders were just standing around getting killed - but ignoring a 10,000 soldier operation should be criminal). Finally, the correspondent finished by claiming that the "surge" in Iraq was being met with an al Qaeda "surge" of its own as he signed off with the inevitable picture of Iraq citizens bleeding and being carried off on stretchers. "Reporting from the Pentagon" was the only informative thing the reporter said.

This kind of reporting begs the question of whether or not the national old media is honestly trying to deceive and mislead the American people, or whether or not the reporters in the field (or in a posh hotel in D.C.) are so inexorably anti-war and anti-administration that their reports are written in such a way that it seems they want those watching the newscast to think the war in Iraq is lost/our soldiers are dying for nothing/the entire Iraq situation is hopeless.

I absolutely despise the old media. If you watch ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or even FoxNews it's time for you to branch out. The media does not want you to think for yourself - they want to tell you what the world is like and they want you to believe them. Even though they aren't even there to cover it.

A rock could do a better job of reporting the war in Iraq than Katie and her "news" team. Ridiculous.

Delusions of Objectivity

CNN's Jack Cafferty has been given a six-part special to look at "Broken Government." In the weeks leading up to the election Jack is doing a "news" special that describes how:

We're being bled to death, literally and figuratively in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have no border security to speak of, no port security fives year after 9/11, Social Security and Medicare well on their way to insolvency. Our national debt is staggering.

China is kicking our butt. Like I said, had enough? Our leaders lie to us and steal from us, and do it all with a straight face. They don't think we get it. I think we do. I honestly think the upcoming midterm elections will be breathtaking in the message that deliver to Washington. It's my fervent hope that every single incumbent on the ballot will lose. It's time to start over.

This is a "news" story. Did you get that - a "news" story.

If anyone still thinks that CNN is a serious and non-biased non-partisan news agency they need to take a deep breath of reality.

A Ridiculous New Level of Partisan Bickering by the Press

"I want to watch CNN! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa!" - White House Press Corp.

Today a reporter from the Washington Post, while on Air Force One, complained that the TV's on the plane were always tuned to FoxNews, and it being a "Republican-leaning network" he wanted the TV's changed to CNN. He claimed to have been told by a man who's name he couldn't remember (convenient, huh?) that the TV's were to stay on Fox. Upon complaining to Scott McClellan, Scott had the channels changed.

This goes right into my view about tolerance. Why is it when my colleagues talk about moving on after grad school they refer to wanting to go places that are "more liberal?" If I wanted to go somewhere more conservative I would never have come to college, let alone grad school. It's humorous to me that a political ideology that claims to be tolerant of others refuses to listen to another side of an argument or another way of thinking. How ironic.

Winners!

I haven't thought much about the State of the Union speech last night. The reason for this is because I thought that it was good, but not earth shattering at all. Unless you get all of your news from CNN or CBS you're going to be aware of everything Bush was talking about. Although Paula Zahn thinks that Bush is already a "lame duck president" (this is why I don't watch CNN) Bush did have a lot to say that wasn't able to be filtered by the media.

My favorite part of the speech was when the Democrats unilaterally showed what they stand for.

Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security-

Whoo-hoo!! We are the Democrats and we blocked Social Security reform!! Yea!!

Didn't it sound like Bush was then scolding a disobedient child?

-yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away.

True. So why is it the Democrats cheer at their ability to stop needed legislation? Because they are the party of mindless opposition. Congratulations.

Why do I EVER Watch CNN?

Flipping to CNN this evening, I was expecting to catch Larry King Live. Instead, I did find myself watching what was supposed to be Larry King Live. Besides the fact that a habitual lip-sync artist was being interviewed (Ashley Simpson) Larry King was noticeably absent. In his place? Ryan Seacrest. The question - is he better or worse than Larry King?

The Tolerance of Intolerance

I saw a few news stories today that illustrate many people's new woldview. No longer does majority rule and the rights of the minority are protected. Now the rights of the minority supersede the authority of the majority. As I explained in Rumble of the Protected Classes, this ideology of the desire to make sure that no one is offended can only end in two minorities or "protected classes'" whose "rights" conflict going head to head.

Our first story comes from the Telegraph opinion section and evaluates a situation I had already heard about.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Tory-controlled) has now announced that, following a complaint by a Muslim employee, all work pictures and knick-knacks of novelty pigs and "pig-related items" will be banned. Among the verboten items is one employee's box of tissues, because it features a representation of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. And, as we know, Muslims regard pigs as "unclean", even an anthropomorphised cartoon pig wearing a scarf and a bright, colourful singlet.

That's right, folks. Because one Muslim person complained about pigs, no on can have any of them displayed. Even Pooh bear. The other story comes from CNN, where opposition by the minority is driving to change history:

The banner of St. George, the red cross of a martyr on a white background, was adopted for the uniform of English soldiers during the military expeditions by European powers to recapture the Holy Land from Muslims, and later became the national flag of England.

Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.

"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.

Indeed this is true, but who cares? Do we as Christians desire the destruction of the Coliseum in Rome because it reminds us of the many Christians butchered there? Do we as Americans desire the removal of the Union Jack or the Rising Sun as examples of those countries that waged bloody wars against us?

Both of these are ridiculous (so much so to even be humorous) examples of our insatiable desire not to infringe upon the "rights" of minorities in society. I hope that we as Americans realize the futility of these efforts and do not fall into the same trap.

UPDATE from Cox and Forkum Editorial Cartoons: Perils Before Swine

Journal(terror)ists

Our favorite anti-American British newspaper, the Guardian, yesterday had an article about the press and the US military in Iraq: US forces 'out of control', says Reuters chief.

Reuters has told the US government that American forces' conduct towards journalists in Iraq is "spiraling out of control" and preventing full coverage of the war reaching the public.

I'm sorry about this, but "preventing full coverage of the war?" What a ridiculously foolish and unbelievable statement! If you followed the mainstream media, as well as Reuters' coverage of the war in Iraq you would assume that US and Iraqi military units are just drivin' around Baghdad trying to find IED's with their Hummer tires! The media has not covered anything in Iraq other than the death of US soldiers, and occasionally Iraqi police. Fact.

The Reuters news service chief referred to "a long parade of disturbing incidents whereby professional journalists have been killed, wrongfully detained, and/or illegally abused by US forces in Iraq".

This is an interesting thought. Now, why is it so hard to tell terrorists in Iraq from journalists? Maybe because in many ways they are the same thing? Just as in the West Bank and the Gaza strip, it seems that journalists get such good pictures of terrorist activities it's almost as if they knew the events were going to take place... I apologize for my inability to find the evidence on the web of journalists' photos of car bombs going off, and of Palestinians firing rockets at Israel - I simply don't have time to look today. But all-in-all, there have been numerous incidents of "journalists" being right alongside terrorists in their daily activities. I don't feel too bad when four terrorists run around a corner in Iraq; three holding AK-47's and the fourth one a camera. It's either the terrorists or the soldiers over there.

Oh, and does anyone remember Eason Jordan? No? He was the head of CNN's news division, but he stepped down after he made unsubstantiated claims that he hoped no one would find out about during a journalism conference in Switzerland early this year. He told the media there that the US had "targeted" journalists. Of course his claims were both untrue and ridiculous - so much so that those who tried to corroborate his statement were refused access to the audio recordings made of the conference! Of course once news spread through the blogosphere Jordan had to jet from his job. Poor guy - spouting off anti-American propaganda to the press while hoping that no one will find out during a time of war can be so tough on employment.

Anyway - this notion that journalists in Iraq are being killed and detained purposely by the US military is false. So false, in fact, that the only motivation that can be created for the military to do so is to "prevent full coverage of the war." When CNN and the Guardian start covering schools, roads, and elections instead of dead soldiers, prisoner abuse, and beheadings I might be inclined to start to believe them.

CNN Plays the 'Black Card'

I'm not sure why I watch CNN. Today, however, I found the desire to check out another point of view on the Katrina disaster. What I saw was pathetic.

Evidently the truth of the story is that the relief mission was not undertaken soon enough. This was not reported as an opinion, but as a fact. The reporter on Lou Dobbs Tonight went on to describe and report on the unrest of those people left behind in New Orleans. Numerous black leaders and African American associations (the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP) are calling on the government and it's leaders to start treating the refugees of New Orleans like American citizens, insinuating (rather, it was the point of the whole story) that the reason black Americans in New Orleans are still there and that the relief mission 'did not happen soon enough' was because the people are black.

Lou Dobbs, in a very unCNN way, asked the reporter in the field why these African American organizations have not thought about the fact that the mayor, governmental structure, and police department of New Orleans are predominantly black, and should face the first wave of responsibility. The reporter replied that these organizations have not begun to 'point fingers.' Lou pointedly disagreed, indicated that in fact it is exactly what they are doing.

Ok, here's how it works. These people were ordered to leave the city before Katrina hit. Even if these people were unable to leave the city, they should have gone to the Superdome. Those who went there are now in Houston. The fact of the matter is that these people refused to leave their homes, refused to go to the Superdome, and now expect the government to get them out. If Katrina had hit New Orleans like was predicted, most of these people would have died in their homes, not been flooded out of them the next day.

The people of New Orleans have shown us the worst sides of human nature. Those who refused to evacuate are now complaining that the government hasn't rescued them. Others claim the reason they are still there is because they are black! Others still remained behind with the obvious intention of conquering the streets while the city was empty - shooting at police, relief workers, national guardsmen, and coast guard helicopters.

The truth about this situation is that the government and national guard possibly could have reacted faster. However, the fact that many New Orleans citizens have decided to hang out and wait to be saved, and others are running amuk shooting people, gives rise to the idea that a portion of this after-storm disaster is the fault of the citizens of New Orleans.