[Ghoulish Delight]

Everything's about context. For example:

Presidente Fox's comments were a reference to the stereotype that Meixcans hold of blacks as hard workers. "He works like a black man" is a common saying in Mexico. So while even "positive" stereotyping has its pitfalls, I don't consider his comments particularly mallicious.

Compare that to Galloway's use of "Zionist" and "fundamental Christians." He pointedly meant those as insults. A far more distressing thing.

The view of prop 200 being racist has to do with who it affects, how, and why. My personal opinion is the resolution has to start at the border. If you don't want illegal immigrants, do more to prevent them, and relax that requirements for legal immigration. But I'm of the opinion that politicians (on either side) don't want that because of what it will do to the economy. These kinds of denial of service aren't going to slow illegal immigration. It's still more attractive to be here. So all that it's doing is putting illegals, who, in Arizona, are nearly all hispanic, at risk. It may not be because they are hispanic, but the fact is that it's a law that affects almost exclusively hispanics and fails to address the root problem.

Is the "N" word inherently racist? Language is tricky. On one level, words are just words and only have power if we let them. On the other hand, if we don't create a distinction, then it becomes difficult to recognize where the dividing line is. If we allow people to be okay with using racial slurs, then it makes it that much more difficult to impress in the society how to recognize true racism and that it's a problem. Yes, language only has as much power as we give it, but I think it's important for us to give it that power.