On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:40 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:01:35 -0400, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

In light of Colin Powell's position that the fate of the poorer people
of New Orleans was not due to racism, but only failing to realize
that those people had no means for transportation out of the city, it
seems to me that racism and bigotry were not involved. To me it's
significant that that position is held by a highly-respected person of
color.

Hi Walt,

Being bigoted does not necessarily mean one is racist. Bigots can
focus their intolerance on many subjects and be perfectly race-free.
On the flip side being racist automatically carries the label bigot.

Bigots are quite easily recognized, that is why there is the name to
denote the obvious. Certainly there is nothing subtle about this. I
cannot say that I have seen more than 20 minutes coverage on the
storm, especially when "news" is so evidently not informative as it is
salacious entertainment. They could have as easily run the movie
"Twister" to no different effect.

Further, those 20 minutes were not watched here, but in England where
the world was astonished by the third world class of impoverished
action taken.

As such, the folks at Fox would call me a bigot for being intolerant
of their coverage. However, it would be the Fox folks who serve the
American feed because their International feed was distinctly
different. None of you probably observed Rumsfield's visit,
un-edited, where the populace in a rage were yelling "**** YOU" at
him. I would suppose they were bigots too, given the inflexibility of
their opinion after rafting on the rooftops.

Fox was content to satisfy any audience, and I suppose that makes them
most catholic. [For those who are short on dictionary skills,
catholic means liberal or tolerant, a most amusing irony applied to
the Fox organization that literally serves all masters.]

Actually, at root, it means universal or "for all" (Greek kata
and holos).


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC