Erm... though the title calls it "racist", the article barely says anything close to that. In fact, the writer of that article appears racist himself:
... It was not a nice experience watching helpless blacks, the elderly, pregnant women, and children, being winched to safety by helmeted white guys.
Fortunately, a black guy, a volunteer, was filmed using an axe to chop through rooftops to help people escape.
So it isn't enough that humans are shown helping other humans irrespective of their skin color; the author instead states that it was "not a nice experience" watching white people save black people. Is it me, or does that seem quite backward?
The poor had been left to be washed away, then to fend for themselves. Maybe pockets of rich people will be discovered, guarding their possessions, but most likely there will be stories of the poor defending what they had. Those with money, white and black, got out.
This is the most truthful statement in that entire article. People with money got in their expensive sports cars or their private jets and got the hell out of Dodge. People without money were left to fend for themselves.
And thus the problem with the city of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana, and FEMA. None of these government organizations were adequately prepared to handle the transportation of the poor of the city. This is where the flaw lies, and it has nothing to do with anyone's skin color.
Maybe because more people respect/trust them than Bush himself
Let's see... in polls, Bush currently has a 40% approval rating. If we're going to go with loose facts (like you seem to be doing), that means 40% of more than 285,000,000 people approve of our president. I highly doubt even half that number have any idea who Kanye West is, let alone approve of his music or career path.
I beg you to start basing your arguments on actual facts.
Per Darth, your quotation is incorrect.