Im a Racist

[MooseMom]

Newt Gingrich is a reflection of the image of God?  You may be right, but...are you sure?  LOL!

So, does this mean that President Obama, too, is a reflection of the image of God?

[Hemodoc]

1. Operation Fast & Furious. Weapons were sold to Mexican cartels through intermediaries hoping to track the weapons and use that to break up the cartels. It didn't work (surprise, surprise). But legitimate officials in Mexico might have every reason to consider that to be an act of war.

I agree that this action was very ill advised and poorly executed.  I understand the thinking behind it and the hoped for results, and I'm sure that had it worked, our opinion would be different.  But yes, I agree with you here.


2. Speaking of war...the President authorized military action in Libya without following any of the provisions of the War Powers Act. Now it is possible to argue that the WPA is actually unconstitutional itself but the President never tried to make that case. Rather, when called on it he just said he didn't think the WPA applied. To send our military forces into war with no legislative approval or oversight of any kind certainly seems unconstitutional to me.

I don't think the President can win here.  There are those who criticize him for "leading from behind" after they had previously argued that Europe should do more in the realm of policing the world, so I get confused as to what the criticism actually is.  I have no doubt that Mr. Obama had the benefit of much legal counsel on this matter.  I feel that the debate is underpinned by the definition of "war"; as there was no formal declaration of war, is sending in air power under circumstances such as those in Libya at the time really "war"?  I don't know the answer to that, but Mr. Obama made a judgment call.  I don't envy his position.

3. Recently President Obama made three "recess" appointments to the NLRB. These are positions subject to Senatorial "Advice and Consent" and for whatever reason approval for the individuals nominated was not forthcoming. So the President unilaterally made these appointments using the established and normally accepted procedure of "recess appointments." Recess appointments are used to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess and thus unable to vote on a nominee. Those appointed in this way may serve until the next election cycle. Unfortunately though, in this case the Senate WAS NOT in recess which is a very official and specific act.

Did you know that one of the recess appointments is a Republican?  I can see your concern on this issue, but Congress has stalled the appointments of so many people, and I suspect that since the NLRB cannot legally function without a quorum, House Republicans recognized that fact and sought to keep the NLRB from being able to rule on cases in their purview.  It is very possible that the courts may overturn these appointments, and if they do, so be it, but I personally applaud the President in doing what he can to break the partisan deadlock and get things going.  This is the type of obstructionism that Americans are fed up with.

One last thing as a general comment.  I am grateful to anyone who serves in our military, but I can't help but get this odd vibe that resonates with an implied message that if you have served in uniform, your opinion is somehow more valuable and your service trumps everything.  I am also grateful to everyone who works to improve the lives of their neighbors and of there communities in ways that go unrecognized and don't usually come with medal ceremonies.  I am grateful to, say, cariad who risked her life and bullied her way into a clinical study so that future transplant recipients might not have to be subjected to harsh post-tx drugs.  I am grateful to rsudock who, using her experiences with lifelong kidney disease, works in a hospital and counsels young renal patients.  I am grateful to Okarol who is such a staunch advocate for people with renal disease.  I myself would like to think that I've helped people in my community from the time that I was 17 and lied about my age so that I could donate blood (I was a regular donor until I was 34), or when I was in my early 20s and volunteered as a translator at the Texas Heart Institute, or when I was in my 30s and volunteers as a support network for parents whose children had just been diagnosed with autism, or just a few years ago when I began volunteering at our local hospital.  So, please don't fall into this mindset where only military service is the most ultimate and worthy way in which to serve our nation and our communities.  This is not mean to be an attack of any kind, rather, it is meant to expand the definition of "honorable service."

Thanks for listening.

Hemodoc, those must have been painful experiences for you.  I am so sorry that your first wife's family did not give you a chance.  I sorta know what that feels like (not a race issue, though), and it's not fun.  I don't think you look like a monkey, but I do wish you'd learn to pick up your socks!  LOL!

Actually, they were planning on using it as a means of imposing gun control with the false accusation that Americans were supplying guns to the Mexican cartels. Actually, it was our government and this plot against the second amendment has come back to bite them as it should. And people wonder why we don't trust this man.

http://americanvisionnews.com/675/atf-planned-fast-and-furious-false-flag-attack-on-2nd-amendment

Psalms 9:15     The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made: in the net which they hid is their own foot taken.
16     The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah.

Psalms 35:7     For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, which without cause they have digged for my soul.
8     Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.

[Hemodoc]

Newt Gingrich is a reflection of the image of God?  You may be right, but...are you sure?  LOL!

So, does this mean that President Obama, too, is a reflection of the image of God?

Of course. Makes you step back and think a bit on something that we are all guilty. But I would advise understanding how God looks upon these issues.

[MooseMom]

Newt Gingrich is a reflection of the image of God?  You may be right, but...are you sure?  LOL!

So, does this mean that President Obama, too, is a reflection of the image of God?

Of course. Makes you step back and think a bit on something that we are all guilty. But I would advise understanding how God looks upon these issues.

I agree.

[YLGuy]

One thing needs to be addressed.  Different races can be racist against others.  Just because someone has darker skin does not exempt them from being racist against others with darker skin.  If I were to marry someone of Asian decent or maybe Filipino decent or Latin American decent I still could be racist against other races.  My marriage would not be an argument that I am not racist just as my party affiliation would not be an argument that I am a racist.  Saying that certain movements have underlying racism does not mean that I am calling everyone that affiliates with that movement a racist. 

I worked in downtown Oakland, California.  I was the only Caucasian in my office.  One day the conversation turned to racism.  The other people in my office were telling me that people within their same race there could be some of the worst offenders.  That lighter skin people within the same race could be some of the worst offenders at times.  Bill Cosby had an episode that directly dealt with this issue.  In it they had the paper bag test.  Some characters in that episode compared their skin color to a lunch bag.  Being lighter than the bag was good and being darker was bad. 

I always taught my children that someones' outer appearances does not define them.  I put my arm next to theirs and showed them that our skin was not the same color.  I then asked them if I have darker skin than theirs does that in any way make me smarter, nicer, meaner, slower, stronger...? 

If A=B it does not mean that B=C. 

[Sluff]

I agree with you YLguy. I have seen it from all different races.

Here is a short story,

I was traveling through Texas one evening and all my lights went out on the upper half of my trailer. (I drive a semi for those of you who don't know that)
So I pulled into a truckstop that had a shop but it was closed and didn't open until 8 am the next day. There was a lot of trucks there with there dome lights on with other drivers stopping for the night and one other truck parked on a odd angle to the rest. That driver asked me if I would give him a jump start because his batteries were low. I got my cables out and jumped his truck and with in minutes it started. I then explained my problem and he came over to my truck and temporarily fixed my problem until I could find a shop open the day. We both helped each other according to an old fashion truckers code shook hands before we parted. This driver was Mexican and spoke very broken English and we worked through it and I learned a trick that I will use again someday, but sadly because of his being Mexican the other drivers would not help him.

Here was a good family man in a different country than his, broke down for several hours and these other self righteous individuals wouldn't lend a hand for 10 minutes when they were just going to bed anyway. Yes racism is still alive and well folks.  I came out good though and made my delivery on time.

[CebuShan]

I am sure that I will be attacked for adding my 2￠but I can't believe how hateful everyone is on this thread! All of you claim to be just expressing your opinions but you attack each other if you don't agree.  Then you have the nerve to call each other disrespectful. my grandmother used to say that was the pot calling the kettle black. Moosemom, Hemodoc can't you just agree to disagree without being so hateful? I used to enjoy a lively debate but nowadays one risks being arrested for voicing a different opinion. No, I'm not going to say where I stand on this issue because I come to IHD to feel encouraged not to be attacked. Please, try to be a bit nicer to each other.

[Willis]

Wow, where have the conservatives been hiding you, Willis? This is actually a reasonable reply focusing on serious issues. I have this confusing feeling that I am tempted to call "genuine interest in what you have to say".

Just one question, if I may. You say that "President Obama is the President now and must be held responsible for the actions of his administration" do you also believe that he should receive credit for the great things that have happened during his presidency, like taking out Somali pirates and Osama bin Laden? (If you answer in a certain way, I might just faint, so please be careful!)

 (About the recess appointments, do you think that it would appear that calling a session for all of 30 seconds in order to say that they were not in recess was a deliberate and rather underhanded move to attempt to thwart the President?)

Concerning your first question, I'd like to stipulate first that I think there are a lot of things that Presidents actually have an influence on and many other things (perhaps most) that are just out of any President's direct control.  So, in the case of my three examples...

1. Fast & Furious seems to have been dreamed up and led by people in the Justice Dept. I assume (and it's only an assumption) that President Obama at least gave his imprimatur to the operation. However, it wouldn't surprise me at all if (1) he was not given the full details and made a poor decision based on bad information, or (2) the operation was conducted without his knowledge. So it might not be "fair" to pin the whole thing on him in principle. However, once the disastrous results of Fast & Furious became known, and nothing significant was done, then the President took ownership by failing to act. Since he's ultimately responsible for those acting under him, he should have immediately fired the Attorney General and/or the imbeciles who thought it was a good idea. He would have taken himself off the hook by such action. Like so many political scandals, it's the cover-up that becomes worse than the original bad deed.

2. Now concerning Libya...that is squarely on the President's head. He did not follow the protocols of the War Powers Act and even when a sub-committee in Congress officially reminded him of his duty to consult Congress within (I believe) a 60-day window... he refused to report and insisted it wasn't necessary. Now concerning the War Powers Act and the ability of a President to deploy troops: this could be a big bag of unconstitutional worms! Rightly, no military action should EVER be taken without a Declaration of War. However, we've seen in modern times that this is not always practical and that's why the WPA was enacted. In other words, a small "amendment" to the Constitution was made legislatively to allow a President to act quickly when necessary and without consulting Congress. All parties did a "wink wink" at the legality of the act and as long as everyone goes along there is no problem and everyone's ass is covered. We have many other extra-Constitutional traditions so this is not a unique situation. But when President Obama decided to cross swords with Congress on this particular issue he must be held responsible for setting what may prove to a bad precedent for future Presidents to follow.

3. Finally, concerning the recess appointments, that was just juvenile behavior (IMO) by the President because he couldn't get his way. Even though the Senate was playing games with the nominations (which both Democrat and Republican-controlled Senates have been doing for decades) and clearly use procedural means to thwart the President as you say, for the President to do what he did was simply out of bounds. A President is never without options and by resorting to these recess appointments he was basically telling Congress that he could do whatever he wanted to do. Nah, nah, nah. That may be true in the short run, but this could come back to bite him on the behind. I'm sure many Senators have said to themselves, "Don't get mad, get even." That unfortunately will likely not be good for US.

My point is that at least for the last two items the President's hand was all over these actions. Whoever came up with the ideas originally or handled the logistics, it was President Obama in the Situation Room telling the Cabinet, "Do it."

Now to come back to your original question, I do think President Obama deserves credit in the same way for the Somali pirate and OBL situations. Everyone at the table was looking at him to say "Do it" and he did. At least the OBL assassination was not without incredible risk politically which is the primary motivation of any politician. Once the military had convinced him they could do it, he had to weigh the costs of possible failure inside a foreign country with which we are not at war (Pakistan). That decision was a right and good one in my opinion, but like President Carter's 1979 Desert One fiasco in Iran, a million things could have gone horribly wrong and such a failure would have been his cross to bear too. So kudos to the President--OBL is dead and that's good for him.

I do wonder though at times how we've come to a point that Presidents (at least the last 3 for sure) have assumed the power to kill anyone considered an enemy--especially as in a recent case a man who was an American citizen living in Yemen. Yes, these are bad men and I think they deserve their 72 virgins or whatever but still...this seems like a slippery slope to me. The power to call for the execution of anyone without a trial is a power akin to that of kings and tyrants. President Obama may be doing what has to be done, but I don't remember anything in his campaign for Hope and Change that implied he would out-Bush President Bush.

 

[MooseMom]

Moosemom, Hemodoc can't you just agree to disagree without being so hateful? I used to enjoy a lively debate but nowadays one risks being arrested for voicing a different opinion.  Please, try to be a bit nicer to each other.

I'm sorry, but I cannot ignore this.  Please tell me EXACTLY what I have said that is "hateful" toward Hemodoc.  As a matter of fact, I have come to his defense, reminding people here on IHD that he has done so much for the renal community through his blog postings.  I often post supportive things on his blog, and I am an avid reader of his writings on various sites on the web.  He knows this.  I've reread all of my posts on this thread and the other GOP nominees thread, and nowhere do I see any evidence of me being hateful toward Dr. Laird.  Adamant, perhaps, but "hateful", no.  And if you, Hemodoc, feel that I have EVER behaved "hatefully" toward you, then I stand right here, right now and apologize most profusely.

Willis, your post is thoughtful and insightful.  I can understand your reasoning and don't entirely disagree.  Being President is a job that I would not want to have, and as much as I may disagree with a particular president's policies, I do perhaps naively trust that they make their decisions with the best of intentions.   

Edited to add...I don't feel like Hemodoc has treated me "hatefully".  Never occurred to me, not once.  I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I am not sure he is going to appreciate one more false accusation levelled against him.

[Hemodoc]

Moosemom, Hemodoc can't you just agree to disagree without being so hateful? I used to enjoy a lively debate but nowadays one risks being arrested for voicing a different opinion.  Please, try to be a bit nicer to each other.

I'm sorry, but I cannot ignore this.  Please tell me EXACTLY what I have said that is "hateful" toward Hemodoc.  As a matter of fact, I have come to his defense, reminding people here on IHD that he has done so much for the renal community through his blog postings.  I often post supportive things on his blog, and I am an avid reader of his writings on various sites on the web.  He knows this.  I've reread all of my posts on this thread and the other GOP nominees thread, and nowhere do I see any evidence of me being hateful toward Dr. Laird.  Adamant, perhaps, but "hateful", no.  And if you, Hemodoc, feel that I have EVER behaved "hatefully" toward you, then I stand right here, right now and apologize most profusely.

Willis, your post is thoughtful and insightful.  I can understand your reasoning and don't entirely disagree.  Being President is a job that I would not want to have, and as much as I may disagree with a particular president's policies, I do perhaps naively trust that they make their decisions with the best of intentions.   

Edited to add...I don't feel like Hemodoc has treated me "hatefully".  Never occurred to me, not once.  I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I am not sure he is going to appreciate one more false accusation levelled against him.

Hateful, no. Did you get under my skin a few times, well yeah, but it looks like we might actually be making a bit of progress after getting past all of the cliches that are so rampant. As I said a couple of days back, we truly have much more in common than that which divides.

I believe that the media manipulates the positions to a point where people simply cannot communicate with each other any longer until we can put aside all of these "talking points." The lessons learned from the book 1984 should be at the forefront of discussions with the barrage of media dominated and media controlled manipulations of the political discourse.

Folks, they are the enemy, not you and me.

I appreciate you as always.

God bless,

Peter

[cariad]

And remember the picture that was photoshopped of the lawn of the White House being turned into a watermelon patch?  When I first saw that, I thought that it was supposed to be some sort of advertisement for the First Lady's push to eat healthier and to perhaps grow some of your own food.  I thought "What a clever photo!  Wouldn't that be cool, to turn a bit of the White House lawn into a garden with a watermelon patch!"  I grow my own herbs and berries, you see, so that's why I though it was be rather fun.  It didn't occur to me that the photo was supposed to be a racist jab, but it seems like that was indeed the intention.

If you really want to know why that depiction of watermelons on the White House lawn is heinously racist, then you have only to read the history, history that most blacks and a fair few people of other races are painfully aware of in this country. This rather reminds me of the resurgence of the word 'colored' as of late. A good friend of mine, a prof at the uni, and I are the same age. We both were floored to hear people in the younger generation using the word 'colored' to describe blacks in classes this past semester. As she said to me "do they not realise the history they are invoking?" I noticed that black students were taken aback but did not seem to want to start an ugly argument. Younger whites were utterly clueless and did not seem able to feel the tension that they had created.

Did you read Invisible Man, MM? Remember I yam what I am? People identify and are identified with food. That's why I find Hemodoc's remarks that you quoted confusing, as a woman from the Philippines would not be associated with fried chicken, watermelon and other southern food. Those types of insults are reserved for African Americans and it is a blatant and despicable reference to past abuses of black individuals.

Here is a link with a clear and engaging essay that explains this. There are some disgustingly racist images, though, so brace yourselves.

www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/may08

[Gerald Lively]

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Goering quotes

Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
Benito Mussolini

I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.
Jim Garrison

The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism.
Henry A. Wallace

You begin to realize that hypocrisy is not a terrible thing when you see what overt fascism is compared to sort of covert, you know, communal politics which the Congress has never been shy of indulging in.
Arundhati Roy

[CebuShan]

My final word on this subject: "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." - Plato       

[Hemodoc]

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Goering quotes

Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
Benito Mussolini



I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.
Jim Garrison

The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism.
Henry A. Wallace

You begin to realize that hypocrisy is not a terrible thing when you see what overt fascism is compared to sort of covert, you know, communal politics which the Congress has never been shy of indulging in.
Arundhati Roy

Not sure how that post relates to the prior posts, but let me take a swat at the ball. I would consider myself fairly patriot, not to the extent of some of m friends, but nevertheless, I served honorably in the military and I appreciate the freedoms we have here in America. Yet, I opposed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, well at least the extended stay there once we had cleared out Osama Bin Ladin's folks camping out there. I don't recall anyone speaking against pacifists on this thread or the others. We stick our nose into too many people's business around the world, plain and simple.

I am not at all what you would call a pacifist since I believe in a strong military for deterrence. After placing my hand in an oath to solemnly protect and defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic which I am technically still obliged since I was an officer, the role of the military and freedom are intertwined when combined with a moral people. I don't believe in nation building ventures. Not any of our business in most cases and not a very good track record in the second case.

On the other hand, fascism does not always involve military oppression to occur. The Patriot Act, the NDAA points to an apathetic populace blinded by polemic disputations who willingly give up their own freedoms for the failed promises of security. Once again, the enemies are not the DEMS or GOP's, it is the folks manipulating the rancorous dialogue between folks that in the end analysis have much more in common and much more at risk and little to benefit from these manipulations.

Obama has done nothing whatsoever to restore any of the freedoms lost under the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, or Johnson years let alone back to Woodrow Wilson and the path to serfdom that he placed us on, I don't expect anyone after them to do so either. The NDAA is only the latest example in our march to outright fascism right here in America where American's are blinded by a false sense of freedom in the ongoing up and down battle between the DEMS and GOP. While we are all focussed on these raging political battles,the creeps in Washington over and over again pass things in congress completely outside of our view.

That my friend is where the enemy and the battle is where the DEMS and GOP hang out together and are best friends at the end of the day, but appear as fierce enemies during the day. Who is fooling whom?

Ephesians 6:12     For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

[cariad]

I just noticed that Peter asked for links to Fox news mentioning Saul Alinsky. I am quite sure you could do this yourself, Hemodoc, but I went to foxnews.com (I now have to steam clean my computer to get the icky anti-Obama residue off it, thanks very much) and typed in the name and the first thing that popped up was this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/25/gingrich-attacks-on-obama-resurrect-saul-alinsky/ I have only skimmed it, but the title says it all. This is someone who has not been in the public consciousness for quite some time. Notice the phrase "mantra-like repetition" to describe Gingrich's tactics.

Hemodoc, whether you watch Fox or not and whether you discussed Alinsky with your friends or even your black best friend (whom I sincerely hope you've called by now with all the promises to do so), you would never have connected the President to Saul Alinsky if Gingrich had not put that 'talking point' as you call it in your head. I watch MSNBC (infrequently since I cut my cable about 6 months ago) and they were showing clips from Fox about this very issue, also pointing out that Gingrich is actually a fan of Alinsky's methods, as are most Republicans, because they work. You are as wrapped up in repeating so-called propaganda as anyone else.

I am not sure where the fixation with calling your best friend and getting politically active comes from. I mean, great, do those things, but you write them as if they are some sort of threat. Are we supposed to be terrified that you are going to connect with your friends and become more involved in politics?

[Hemodoc]

I just noticed that Peter asked for links to Fox news mentioning Saul Alinsky. I am quite sure you could do this yourself, Hemodoc, but I went to foxnews.com (I now have to steam clean my computer to get the icky anti-Obama residue off it, thanks very much) and typed in the name and the first thing that popped up was this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/25/gingrich-attacks-on-obama-resurrect-saul-alinsky/ I have only skimmed it, but the title says it all. This is someone who has not been in the public consciousness for quite some time. Notice the phrase "mantra-like repetition" to describe Gingrich's tactics.

Hemodoc, whether you watch Fox or not and whether you discussed Alinsky with your friends or even your black best friend (whom I sincerely hope you've called by now with all the promises to do so), you would never have connected the President to Saul Alinsky if Gingrich had not put that 'talking point' as you call it in your head. I watch MSNBC (infrequently since I cut my cable about 6 months ago) and they were showing clips from Fox about this very issue, also pointing out that Gingrich is actually a fan of Alinsky's methods, as are most Republicans, because they work. You are as wrapped up in repeating so-called propaganda as anyone else.

I am not sure where the fixation with calling your best friend and getting politically active comes from. I mean, great, do those things, but you write them as if they are some sort of threat. Are we supposed to be terrified that you are going to connect with your friends and become more involved in politics?

Oh come on Cariad. I became aware of Saul Alinski during the last election cycle. I have been tempted to actually read some of his books instead of only excerpts here and there, but really I couldn't care less about his rantings on how to bring about societal upheaval outside of the manner in which Obama has used his protocols as Alinski's own son testified in a NYT opinion.

I don't impose terror against anyone at 5'6' inches in height. I am only telling you over and over again that false accusations of racism and other polemic attacks will backfire in a backlash of anger against these tactics.  Didn't you get enough of that with the 2010 congressional elections?

But if you folks want to keep thinking these false things about the Tea Party and and other such things, my irritation at being called a racist has ebbed into outright raucous laughter. Sorry, but if you folks want to believe these things, that is actually helpful to the GOP which I promise will result in higher voter turnout. Anyone unjustly accused of any wrong or misdeed always activates them to action.

I would hope you would give me a little bit of credit to think on my own. Just because Fox is talking about Alinski in no manner has anything to do with me talking about it. Like I said, I don't have TV here in CA and I haven't watched Fox since early December. You can believe that or not, but really I wouldn't waste more time trying to prove something so inconsequential.

Have a good day Cariad and think about why Alinski and his ideas are dangerous to America.  Have a good night.

[Hemodoc]

Thanks for the link Cariad, first time I have seen this. In addition, I don't follow what Newt says very often either. I spend most of my time reading about dialysis issues and have only in the last week spent any time at all on all of this political nonsense since I first responded on the GOP thread. I believe both parties have sold us out long ago. So much for me being a fascist anti-semitic GOP supporter as Gerald is trying to tell the world. LOL.

My wife has been wondering the last few days why I just start to laugh for no reason at all. She looks over at me typing away on my computer and asks me if I am OK. I showed her a couple of the comments against me and she just laughed hysterically as well. I am actually a fairly apolitical person tired of broken promises and fat cat politicians messing with my freedoms and my money. Perhaps it is time to get a bit more involved actually with the way things are in this nation.

In any case, give it a rest Cariad, I have known about Alinski for at least four years already.

[Gerald Lively]

HD said; "So much for me being a fascist anti-semitic GOP supporter as Gerald is trying to tell the world."

And you complained about the suggestion of racism.  Apology please!

gerald

[Hemodoc]

HD said; "So much for me being a fascist anti-semitic GOP supporter as Gerald is trying to tell the world."

And you complained about the suggestion of racism.  Apology please!

gerald

Dear Gerald, you specifically said I was just like Father Coughlin who is an anti-semitic fascist. I have voiced support of the GOP. So are you telling me that you have repudiated your accusation of me being like father Coughlin?

HD;

There are many issues in contemporary America that ought to be addressed.  The rise of the Tea Party is very much like any fringe movement that has risen during difficult times. (see the Great Depression) Yes, you and Glenn Beck sound much like Father Coughlin.

After the 1936 election, Coughlin increasingly expressed sympathy for the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini as an antidote to Bolshevism. His weekly broadcasts became suffused with antisemitic themes. He blamed the Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers", and also claimed that Jewish bankers were behind the Russian Revolution. On November 27, 1938, he said "There can be no doubt that the Russian Revolution ... was launched and fomented by distinctively Jewish influence." [25]


Social Justice on sale in a New York City street, 1939
He began publication of a weekly rotogravure magazine, Social Justice, during this period. Coughlin claimed that Marxist atheism in Europe was a Jewish plot against America. During the last half of 1938, the fraudulent, anti-semitic text The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published in Social Justice. From July to November, weekly installments of the Protocols were printed in the magazine.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

I would state that you are the one to owe me an apology my friend. I am not a fascist, nor am I anti-semitic as is documented for Father Coughlin which you have stated that I allegedly sound just like him. I don't think so, but have a good night.  By the way, I have not made cast any aspersions your way once. If I have, for that you do have my deepest apologies. But to the best of my failing memory, I have only retorted your continuous imaginary false accusations. In any way, this dialogue is becoming quite unproductive. Believe what you may about me, a person you have never met, never known yet you seem to be my one expert on all of my inner thoughts and secrets. That is quite a talent my friend. In any case, this is growing tiresome. Believe what you want.

Thank you.

Peter

[MooseMom]

I've been thinking all day about watermelon being an age old symbol of racism and why, and I was also struck by cariad's comment about how younger students were using the word "colored", not realizing the tension they were creating.  I realized that I had no idea that "colored" was a bad word choice.  It wouldn't occur to me to use that word as it seems outdated, but who am I to judge which labels are offensive these days and which are not.  And who DOES decide these things.  That these young students didn't know this word was 'bad"...is that a good thing or a bad thing?  One would hope that the younger generations that follow us wouldn't have this racist history of vocabulary to draw on, you know?

When I was a young girl, I was visiting my cousins in NYC.  One of them told me a joke that had the word "wop" in it.  I had no idea what it meant, and I told this joke to one of her friends because "wop" made a funny sound.  I was puzzled when this friend didn't look best pleased.  When she realized I didn't know what I had said, she told me, and I was mortified.  Was I being racist or just ignorant?  Who gets to decide?

When I was in college, one year I had a suitemate who I liked a lot.  Four of us shared a suite; three of us had lived together before, but this one suitemate was new to our group.  She was in the habit of staying up very late, and one night when I was still awake, she nervously told me that she had something to tell me.  I had no idea what it could be, but she was not confident it would be something I'd be OK with.  She preceeded to tell me that she was....Jewish.  I kept waiting for the really awful news, but, well, I guess that was supposed to be it.  I wasn't sure what she was expecting, and to this day, I'm not sure what past experience in her life had made her think that being Jewish was some sort of personal failing.  Again, I felt really ignorant because obviously this was supposed to mean something, just like "wop" was supposed to mean something, but it meant nothing to me. 

When I moved to the UK, it was a unique experience, and it was interesting to discover for myself that racism is a learned behaviour.  When I moved there, I didn't really know about the frictions between the various countries that make up the United Kingdom.  I didn't know that Glasgow had a Catholic football team and a Protestant football team.  I hadn't yet been "taught" that the English were bastards and the Irish were drunkards and the Welsh were unintelligible and the Scots were, well, Scots.  LOL!  And we won't even touch upon the failings of the Germans and the French!  But by the time I left, boy, had I had an education.  I wish I had never learned these things.

Anyway, this is all appropo of nothing, but it's been rattling around in my head all day and I have to get rid of it, so this seemed as good a place as any.  If I were to say something that I didn't intend to be racist (being generally ignorant again), but someone took it as being racist, then did I say something racist?  Again, who gets to decide?

[willowtreewren]

I've been thinking all day about watermelon being an age old symbol of racism and why, and I was also struck by cariad's comment about how younger students were using the word "colored", not realizing the tension they were creating.  I realized that I had no idea that "colored" was a bad word choice.  It wouldn't occur to me to use that word as it seems outdated, but who am I to judge which labels are offensive these days and which are not.  And who DOES decide these things.  That these young students didn't know this word was 'bad"...is that a good thing or a bad thing?  One would hope that the younger generations that follow us wouldn't have this racist history of vocabulary to draw on, you know?

When I was a young girl, I was visiting my cousins in NYC.  One of them told me a joke that had the word "wop" in it.  I had no idea what it meant, and I told this joke to one of her friends because "wop" made a funny sound.  I was puzzled when this friend didn't look best pleased.  When she realized I didn't know what I had said, she told me, and I was mortified.  Was I being racist or just ignorant?  Who gets to decide?

When I was in college, one year I had a suitemate who I liked a lot.  Four of us shared a suite; three of us had lived together before, but this one suitemate was new to our group.  She was in the habit of staying up very late, and one night when I was still awake, she nervously told me that she had something to tell me.  I had no idea what it could be, but she was not confident it would be something I'd be OK with.  She preceeded to tell me that she was....Jewish.  I kept waiting for the really awful news, but, well, I guess that was supposed to be it.  I wasn't sure what she was expecting, and to this day, I'm not sure what past experience in her life had made her think that being Jewish was some sort of personal failing.  Again, I felt really ignorant because obviously this was supposed to mean something, just like "wop" was supposed to mean something, but it meant nothing to me. 

When I moved to the UK, it was a unique experience, and it was interesting to discover for myself that racism is a learned behaviour.  When I moved there, I didn't really know about the frictions between the various countries that make up the United Kingdom.  I didn't know that Glasgow had a Catholic football team and a Protestant football team.  I hadn't yet been "taught" that the English were bastards and the Irish were drunkards and the Welsh were unintelligible and the Scots were, well, Scots.  LOL!  And we won't even touch upon the failings of the Germans and the French!  But by the time I left, boy, had I had an education.  I wish I had never learned these things.

Anyway, this is all appropo of nothing, but it's been rattling around in my head all day and I have to get rid of it, so this seemed as good a place as any.  If I were to say something that I didn't intend to be racist (being generally ignorant again), but someone took it as being racist, then did I say something racist?  Again, who gets to decide?

MM, your post puts me in mind of the song from South Pacific: You Have to be Careful Taught.

No better place to voice these thoughts than here.

Aleta

[cariad]

I just noticed that Peter asked for links to Fox news mentioning Saul Alinsky. I am quite sure you could do this yourself, Hemodoc, but I went to foxnews.com (I now have to steam clean my computer to get the icky anti-Obama residue off it, thanks very much) and typed in the name and the first thing that popped up was this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/25/gingrich-attacks-on-obama-resurrect-saul-alinsky/ I have only skimmed it, but the title says it all. This is someone who has not been in the public consciousness for quite some time. Notice the phrase "mantra-like repetition" to describe Gingrich's tactics.

Hemodoc, whether you watch Fox or not and whether you discussed Alinsky with your friends or even your black best friend (whom I sincerely hope you've called by now with all the promises to do so), you would never have connected the President to Saul Alinsky if Gingrich had not put that 'talking point' as you call it in your head. I watch MSNBC (infrequently since I cut my cable about 6 months ago) and they were showing clips from Fox about this very issue, also pointing out that Gingrich is actually a fan of Alinsky's methods, as are most Republicans, because they work. You are as wrapped up in repeating so-called propaganda as anyone else.

I am not sure where the fixation with calling your best friend and getting politically active comes from. I mean, great, do those things, but you write them as if they are some sort of threat. Are we supposed to be terrified that you are going to connect with your friends and become more involved in politics?

Oh come on Cariad. I became aware of Saul Alinski during the last election cycle. I have been tempted to actually read some of his books instead of only excerpts here and there, but really I couldn't care less about his rantings on how to bring about societal upheaval outside of the manner in which Obama has used his protocols as Alinski's own son testified in a NYT opinion.

I don't impose terror against anyone at 5'6' inches in height. I am only telling you over and over again that false accusations of racism and other polemic attacks will backfire in a backlash of anger against these tactics.  Didn't you get enough of that with the 2010 congressional elections?

But if you folks want to keep thinking these false things about the Tea Party and and other such things, my irritation at being called a racist has ebbed into outright raucous laughter. Sorry, but if you folks want to believe these things, that is actually helpful to the GOP which I promise will result in higher voter turnout. Anyone unjustly accused of any wrong or misdeed always activates them to action.

I would hope you would give me a little bit of credit to think on my own. Just because Fox is talking about Alinski in no manner has anything to do with me talking about it. Like I said, I don't have TV here in CA and I haven't watched Fox since early December. You can believe that or not, but really I wouldn't waste more time trying to prove something so inconsequential.

Have a good day Cariad and think about why Alinski and his ideas are dangerous to America.  Have a good night.

I never said you imposed "terror" against anyone. You seem to be bringing your own colorful reading to everything that anyone who disagrees with you says. You stated you personally would become politically active if we did not drop our opinions of the tea party and the birthers and stop talking about it. That comes off as a threat, and sadly, a pretty lame one, truth be told. Everything you said about engaging more Tea Partiers in politics can also be said about progressives. I have no fear of the other side, I welcome it because they 99 out of 100 times are their own worst enemies. People have had enough with corporate interests hijacking this country, and with zillionaires whining that, among other things, teachers are greedy for making $50k a year and having health benefits that don't make you shudder at the thought of needing a doctor's assistance. So what else have you got? Because I am not looking to you for permission on what I can and cannot talk about, and whether or not I should continue with conversations like the one that MM is continuing below. These are important discussions that I enjoy having and remain baffled why you insist on taking it so personally.

Saul Alinsky (which is actually spelled with a y so I am not sure why someone who is so familiar with him cannot even get that straight) is the latest monster to be reanimated by the Republicans. If you were so concerned about him, why have you not mentioned it until Gingrich did? You can claim all you want that you have not seen specific articles or programs, I don't doubt that for a moment, but I do sincerely doubt that you were warning the masses about Alinsky's influence on President Obama before Newt's campaign came along. Whether you've known about him for years, you chose an interesting time to suddenly be preoccupied with his teachings. And I wish I had time to read his book. It sounds like a groundbreaking piece which has many people thinking about how to get people engaged with the world. I think his Rules for Radicals could be used by the kidney community to fire up more patients to demand better dialysis. Actually, I probably should make time to read it as I am about to embark upon a project that involves healthcare systems, and from my political experience with fighting for the life of public schools, I can say that the toughest part of organizing is getting people to care enough to overcome their cynicism.

I am glad you are finding this so amusing as I do have a dry sense of humor that is often missed in print. I'm having a brilliant time as well. It's pointless to keep talking if we're not enjoying this, and able to inject humor here and there. See, the thing about steam cleaning my computer, that was a joke. Everyone knows anti-Obama residue requires an organic solvent to remove. Steam would just cloud up the monitor. 

[cariad]

I've been thinking all day about watermelon being an age old symbol of racism and why, and I was also struck by cariad's comment about how younger students were using the word "colored", not realizing the tension they were creating.  I realized that I had no idea that "colored" was a bad word choice.  It wouldn't occur to me to use that word as it seems outdated, but who am I to judge which labels are offensive these days and which are not.  And who DOES decide these things.  That these young students didn't know this word was 'bad"...is that a good thing or a bad thing?  One would hope that the younger generations that follow us wouldn't have this racist history of vocabulary to draw on, you know?

Neither good nor bad, intellectually, just interesting. However, bad in that the young black students most certainly DID understand, at least from what I could tell. Terrible, in fact, that white students are not made aware of these issues and feel entitled to just ignore it. Ignoring racism does not make it go away, it feeds it. Ignorance of racism leads to claims that people are being oversensitive when they are only reacting to very serious (and as Sluff pointed out, still very much present) problems. It is not for the white students to decide that it's time to start using colored again. I posited to my friend that this was a reaction to the inherent clunkiness of terms like 'people of color' or African American. It sounds stupid, but having to write or say 'People of Color' over and over makes a person question whether there isn't an easier way. At least that is what I am hoping and that it is not some concerted effort to exercise a 'right' to label others as we choose.

Colored means different things in different places - in South Africa colored is anyone who can not be classified as black or white. It is not a stigmatized word. Gwyn used the word colored in his early years in America, which my friends found shocking (not because he put his foot in it in front of them, but because I told them he used that word. I was convinced this was a cultural difference or misunderstanding.)

When I was a young girl, I was visiting my cousins in NYC.  One of them told me a joke that had the word "wop" in it.  I had no idea what it meant, and I told this joke to one of her friends because "wop" made a funny sound.  I was puzzled when this friend didn't look best pleased.  When she realized I didn't know what I had said, she told me, and I was mortified.  Was I being racist or just ignorant?  Who gets to decide?

Just ignorant. Of course! First, you were a young girl. Second, even if you weren't, if you didn't know and someone informs you that this is a slight against Italians and you take that seriously, how could it be considered racist? I would have been mortified if one of my kids said that because I would have be concerned that people would have thought I was using that kind of language in front of them. I have a story about something much more trivial that Liot said, but I'll have to save that.

When I was in college, one year I had a suitemate who I liked a lot.  Four of us shared a suite; three of us had lived together before, but this one suitemate was new to our group.  She was in the habit of staying up very late, and one night when I was still awake, she nervously told me that she had something to tell me.  I had no idea what it could be, but she was not confident it would be something I'd be OK with.  She preceeded to tell me that she was....Jewish.  I kept waiting for the really awful news, but, well, I guess that was supposed to be it.  I wasn't sure what she was expecting, and to this day, I'm not sure what past experience in her life had made her think that being Jewish was some sort of personal failing.  Again, I felt really ignorant because obviously this was supposed to mean something, just like "wop" was supposed to mean something, but it meant nothing to me. 

OK, I might be able to enlighten here. Maybe not. My family's jewish but my dad hates all religions equally, so I was raised atheist. People take their religions so seriously. (I know. Understatement?) Your suitemate was worried you wouldn't like her anymore, not that you would suddenly start a pogrom against her, but just that this would fundamentally change your view of her. Until I came on this forum I was never so vocal about being an atheist because there are many, many people in this country who back away from you like you are toxic waste if you say you are atheist. (I have a story about that that will also have to keep! So many stories!) I don't see foaming-at-the-mouth attacks on atheism as prejudicial (though there is that) I see it as anti-intellectualism mixed with sheer terror that I might somehow convince someone that I am right and their entire religion is a waste of time. And I have a similar story about telling Gwyn that I had had a kidney transplant and reasons aside, apparently I built so much tension up before mentioning my history that he actually responded "God, I thought you were going to tell me you used to be a man or something." (I really don't remember making that big a deal of it, but Gwyn and I often remember things differently.)

When I moved to the UK, it was a unique experience, and it was interesting to discover for myself that racism is a learned behaviour.  When I moved there, I didn't really know about the frictions between the various countries that make up the United Kingdom.  I didn't know that Glasgow had a Catholic football team and a Protestant football team.  I hadn't yet been "taught" that the English were bastards and the Irish were drunkards and the Welsh were unintelligible and the Scots were, well, Scots.  LOL!  And we won't even touch upon the failings of the Germans and the French!  But by the time I left, boy, had I had an education.  I wish I had never learned these things.

Anyway, this is all appropo of nothing, but it's been rattling around in my head all day and I have to get rid of it, so this seemed as good a place as any.  If I were to say something that I didn't intend to be racist (being generally ignorant again), but someone took it as being racist, then did I say something racist?  Again, who gets to decide?

You said something racist but that does not mean you are a racist. It depends on whether you dig in and arrogantly defend your statement, or just say, oh, oops, thanks for letting me know, I don't want to come off as an uneducated boor. I really don't see any decision that needs to be made. The problem is not people who genuinely don't know, the problem is people who, upon learning, don't care.

I had this discussion with Aidan, based on reading more through that Jim Crow Museum website that I linked. There is a page about racist memorabilia and it mentions a pokemon card named Jynx. Pokemon is all the flipping rage with children these days, so I buy these card for my kids and we parents try to convince ourselves that it has some educational value, but I had no idea that they slipped one in that looks like something out of a minstrel show. This is happening right now, and the corporations are bypassing parents (because show me the parent that doesn't shriek in abject terror at the idea of having to understand pokemon) and indoctrinating children to accept racist imagery. Now, Aidan was of course adorable about this. He so wanted to learn, he so wanted to know how to be a good person and a good friend. (His black friends are as obsessed with pokemon as he is as far as he reports.) I asked him to find me the card but he said he did not think he had that one, that he probably traded it because "it's not a very good card". I asked him how he would feel if he were L. (a black friend) and he saw this depiction of people with his skin color, and he instantly got it. I told him if he did come across that card that I wanted it. I am attending a university - I could get this in the right hands and demand to know what we can do about it. There is a television program called Dragon Ball Z Kai and there is a black character on there that Aidan said he thought was just supposed to be 'an alien'. This character was so grotesque that I originally showed it to Aidan thinking it had come out of a cartoon of the 30s, so it was he who informed me that no, that is actually a present day character. The website described him as a "faithful servant". Aidan reports that "he's really the only guy on that show who looks like that" (as in, has dark skin). Is it OK for a television program to use these images with children? I certainly don't think so, and I get to decide when it's my kids and their intellectual growth. They need to know in an age-appropriate way what is going on here. I explained the term 'Uncle Tom' to Aidan with reference to the Dragon Ball Z program. I've been thinking about the Pokemon card. Jynx? As in, let's evoke images of voodoo priestesses putting curses on people? Abhorrent. See for yourself:
http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/newforms/
(Not that I think anyone is actually following these links, but I happen to think that this is a truly well-done website that discusses racism in a calm and intelligent manner and manages to not put anyone on the defensive.)

[cariad]

Wow, where have the conservatives been hiding you, Willis? This is actually a reasonable reply focusing on serious issues. I have this confusing feeling that I am tempted to call "genuine interest in what you have to say".

Just one question, if I may. You say that "President Obama is the President now and must be held responsible for the actions of his administration" do you also believe that he should receive credit for the great things that have happened during his presidency, like taking out Somali pirates and Osama bin Laden? (If you answer in a certain way, I might just faint, so please be careful!)

 (About the recess appointments, do you think that it would appear that calling a session for all of 30 seconds in order to say that they were not in recess was a deliberate and rather underhanded move to attempt to thwart the President?)

Concerning your first question, I'd like to stipulate first that I think there are a lot of things that Presidents actually have an influence on and many other things (perhaps most) that are just out of any President's direct control.  So, in the case of my three examples...

1. Fast & Furious seems to have been dreamed up and led by people in the Justice Dept. I assume (and it's only an assumption) that President Obama at least gave his imprimatur to the operation. However, it wouldn't surprise me at all if (1) he was not given the full details and made a poor decision based on bad information, or (2) the operation was conducted without his knowledge. So it might not be "fair" to pin the whole thing on him in principle. However, once the disastrous results of Fast & Furious became known, and nothing significant was done, then the President took ownership by failing to act. Since he's ultimately responsible for those acting under him, he should have immediately fired the Attorney General and/or the imbeciles who thought it was a good idea. He would have taken himself off the hook by such action. Like so many political scandals, it's the cover-up that becomes worse than the original bad deed.

2. Now concerning Libya...that is squarely on the President's head. He did not follow the protocols of the War Powers Act and even when a sub-committee in Congress officially reminded him of his duty to consult Congress within (I believe) a 60-day window... he refused to report and insisted it wasn't necessary. Now concerning the War Powers Act and the ability of a President to deploy troops: this could be a big bag of unconstitutional worms! Rightly, no military action should EVER be taken without a Declaration of War. However, we've seen in modern times that this is not always practical and that's why the WPA was enacted. In other words, a small "amendment" to the Constitution was made legislatively to allow a President to act quickly when necessary and without consulting Congress. All parties did a "wink wink" at the legality of the act and as long as everyone goes along there is no problem and everyone's ass is covered. We have many other extra-Constitutional traditions so this is not a unique situation. But when President Obama decided to cross swords with Congress on this particular issue he must be held responsible for setting what may prove to a bad precedent for future Presidents to follow.

3. Finally, concerning the recess appointments, that was just juvenile behavior (IMO) by the President because he couldn't get his way. Even though the Senate was playing games with the nominations (which both Democrat and Republican-controlled Senates have been doing for decades) and clearly use procedural means to thwart the President as you say, for the President to do what he did was simply out of bounds. A President is never without options and by resorting to these recess appointments he was basically telling Congress that he could do whatever he wanted to do. Nah, nah, nah. That may be true in the short run, but this could come back to bite him on the behind. I'm sure many Senators have said to themselves, "Don't get mad, get even." That unfortunately will likely not be good for US.

My point is that at least for the last two items the President's hand was all over these actions. Whoever came up with the ideas originally or handled the logistics, it was President Obama in the Situation Room telling the Cabinet, "Do it."

Now to come back to your original question, I do think President Obama deserves credit in the same way for the Somali pirate and OBL situations. Everyone at the table was looking at him to say "Do it" and he did. At least the OBL assassination was not without incredible risk politically which is the primary motivation of any politician. Once the military had convinced him they could do it, he had to weigh the costs of possible failure inside a foreign country with which we are not at war (Pakistan). That decision was a right and good one in my opinion, but like President Carter's 1979 Desert One fiasco in Iran, a million things could have gone horribly wrong and such a failure would have been his cross to bear too. So kudos to the President--OBL is dead and that's good for him.

I do wonder though at times how we've come to a point that Presidents (at least the last 3 for sure) have assumed the power to kill anyone considered an enemy--especially as in a recent case a man who was an American citizen living in Yemen. Yes, these are bad men and I think they deserve their 72 virgins or whatever but still...this seems like a slippery slope to me. The power to call for the execution of anyone without a trial is a power akin to that of kings and tyrants. President Obama may be doing what has to be done, but I don't remember anything in his campaign for Hope and Change that implied he would out-Bush President Bush.

Room spinning..... feeling dizzy.....

Kidding. This is so unbelievably refreshing to read. I don't know enough about the Mexican gun situation to comment right now, and I think I might agree with you on many other points, which as I've said, is so confusing I need time to sort my thoughts out. Thank you for this reply.

[MooseMom]

I've taken the time to read all of the above, though quickly, and I don't have much time for a considered reply (there's nothing really to reply to...I don't disagree with anything), but as we are telling stories, I have just one more...

As you all know, my son has high functioning autism, and he spent most of his school years in a terrific school in the UK for children with "normal" intelligence but also with language or speech difficulties.  This school was located in another education authority, and as such, he was entitled to free transportation to and from school.  This took the form of private taxi (those great London cabs!), and he had the same driver(s) each day for years.  He shared the taxi with three other students.  So, over the years, I got to know the cab drivers (a husband and wife team) quite well; my son was always the last to be dropped off, so the cab driver would often have time for a quick chat.

One day, the driver told me in a hushed voice that my son had said that another of his cab mates had black skin.  The inference was that my son may have some racist thoughts and I needed to be aware of that.  You know how kids are..they will say all kinds of things they don't really understand.  Well, I know my son isn't perfect, but I also knew that a fair few of his schoolmates were from all kinds of different cultures, and maybe there was some racial problem there that I didn't know about.  I had never "taught" my son about racism; it was just not a conversational topic that ever came up.

Of course I was mortified, so I gently quizzed him about what he had said.  Now remember that my son's verbal skills were not well developed, but in a way that was a good thing because he would get right to the heart of the matter without being too wordy (unlike his mum!).  I asked him what he said, and he replied that he has said that X had black skin.  Well, that happens to be true.  I couldn't detect any judgment or underlying feeling in his reply, rather, it was a statement of fact.  So, I asked him, "Well, what color is YOUR skin?"  "PINK!"  He didn't say he was white, rather, he said he was pink.  And that was a statement of fact, too, because he is not made of china.  This still makes me laugh to this day.

Cariad, regarding the students using the word "colored", did anyone speak to them about how this word was perceived?  Were they given the opportunity to learn that it causes harm?  Language is such a fluid thing at the best of times.

Did you know that in cockney rhyming slang, Americans are called "septics"...septic tanks = Yanks.  Is that racist?  It sure is funny!