Tired_Old_Man

Here is the Actual Law

And they have been abused. If BuSh wants to keep on fighting these wars efficiently, he will need to ask congress to legislate a draft. But, ah, there's the rub. If BuSh reactivates the draft, he would have to be more selective which wars he starts and he will have to prove that the wars are needed. The public will be less gullible to BuSh and Rove when they have their children taken away from them forcefully. Point to Ponder: Why didn't George W. BuSh select Karl Rove to be his Secretary of State? Was it because BuSh realized that the foreign diplomats are too smart to fall for Rove's mind-games? or Was it because keeping political power was more important to BuSh than a successful foreign policy?

I guess by now everyone is aware that John MarK Karr was released with all charges dropped on all the cases against him. From the Linked Article: Karr was released from jail Thursday after Sonoma County authorities lost critical evidence in a 5-year-old child pornography case. He was released a little more than a month after DNA evidence cleared him of suspicion in the slaying of child beauty queen JonBenet, whom he claimed to have been with when she died in Colorado.

We are confronted with two issues. One is our brain. The other is the assault on our brain. Our brain is sometimes compared with a computer, but it is very different although it makes many computations. Our brain has separate parts that control different things. On one extreme is our primitive brain (sometimes caused the reptilian brain) and on the other extreme is our intellect. At it's most primitive is the need to stay alive. Then there is the urge to mate and pass on our genes. We can not be blamed for being attracted to beautiful people. In the poll/thread about liking fat people as a mate, many admitted that they would not want a fat mate. That is a biological urge. Males can not control what type of female gives them an erection. I have noticed subtle biological changes in women when someone that meets their idea of attractive walks into the area. It is not within our control to be turned on by certain physical traits of the opposite sex (or the same gender in some of us). Then there is the assault on our brain. The people that need to sell products have learned what and how to get people to want things that their primitive brain would not want. Sometimes they find a way to use our primitive urges against us to sell us something. What does a half-naked women have to do with the pro's and con's of a car brand, shaving cream or a myriad of other products? Besides not being able to control who we are attracted to, we know instinctively what attracts the members of the gender that attracts us, so we preen ourselves to attract them. Sometimes we do it with hair products, sometimes with physical fitness, sometimes with clothing (fashions), and sometimes with surgery. Why did Michael Jackson and Cher have so much cosmetic surgery? Probably for very different reasons. But maybe not as different as we would like to think. They both wanted to be loved, maybe Michael wanted to be loved by himself and maybe Cher wanted her audience to love her. But it still goes back to the basic (though distorted by modern life) primitive needs. When I was in post surgery group therapy, all the women talked about looks. I told them I didn't care about my looks. “Then why did you have Bariatric surgery?” “For my Health!!” When you let your intellect rule, that is the reason, but we are complex beings with a complex brain. Our brain is in a tug of war within itself and our brain is in a tug of war with the sellers of merchandise. All cosmetic surgery has risks. Many types have benefits. Some benefits are more real than others. Some benefits are more important to some than to others. I know a women who has had repetitive cosmetic surgery and Bariatric surgery. She had the some cosmetic surgery before the Bariatric surgery, but the Bariatric surgery spurred her on because she continually set her goals higher and higher as her weight went lower and lower. We must reach a medium, a happy medium with our brains. Too much of a good thing may not be good. Too much of a bad thing is definitely a bad thing.

I would love to be an elephant: They need to eat 18 out of 24 hours They need to eat 18 out of 24 hours They need to eat 18 out of 24 hours They need to eat 18 out of 24 hours They need to eat 18 out of 24 hours They need to eat 18 out of 24 hours They need to eat 18 out of 24 hours They need to eat 18 out of 24 hours They need to eat 18 out of 24 hours and I would never get Pregant!! :girl_hug: :faint:

I don't know if this would qualify as an "Indian Health Services" job, but Maybe you can get a job in Connecticut at one of the Indian Casenos taking care of the people who pass out when they hit the jackpot or go into shock when the nightmare caused by dreams of hitting the jackpot hits them. :faint:

BTW-I pay the cost of the GYN visit and Pap-Smear every year anyway. The cost is worth it to keep my wife of 39 years around. We have almost 11 years to go to reach our 50th Wedding Anniversary. The Quest to reach that milestone was one of the main reason for my decision to get a Lap-Band, so I am not going to let the stupidity, ignorance and arrogance of my Medical Plan administrators stop me from reaching our "Big Day".

As a man, I have very little first hand knowledge of Pap-Smears. But I do have first hand knowledge that it is not covered by my Employee Provided Medical Insurance Plan. So many other more expensive and less important items are covered. Is this just another slap in the face to women by male dominated policy makers? :girl_hug:

You weren't asking me, but I also watch FOX for the same reason. They are laughing right in the faces of their viewers when they call the most biased, one sided news shows: "Fair and Balance" and When Bill O'Reilly refers to his show as the "No-Spin Zone". A more Realistic name for "Mr. O" might be "The Spinning Top" or at least the "Top Spinner". If you haven't seen it, rent "OutFoxed-Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism"

It would be easy for the Republicans if Hillary becomes president. They will not have to learn anything new (God forbid). They will start saying, "everything is Clinton's fault" again. :faint:

Flag s were first used as a way of coordinating battles. In a way it was the way of knowing who was with you and who was again' you. That is why (hold your breath for the drum roll) I do not pledge allegiance to the flag at any meetings or events. I might just as well pledge allegiance to a F16 fighter plane, M16 rifle or an M1 tank. I would willingly pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the USA, but not to a piece of cloth who's purpose was an implement of war. I would die to protect our constitution, while many of those who claim to love the flag and who claim they would give their live for the flag, want to change the constitution and thereby gut it of the freedoms that it guarantees us. Flags today are often used for the purpose of browbeating. “Either you love the flag or you are not a true American” or “Either you love the flag or you are not a patriot”. I don't love clothe. I love freedom and humanity.

You need to either use a spreadsheet to do the calculations or a calculator set up to figure out loan payments. They have those types of calculators on web-sites that entice you to refinance your home. Just put it the sum owed on your loan as the price of a house with the interest rate and then the sum that would be owed if you take the course as the price of the house. This is more a math question than a nursing question.

YES Because I had: Diabetes High Blood pressure Heart Problems Knee Problems Ankle Problems Kidney problems Liver problems Problems making love to my wife Problems getting in and out of my car and truck Problems doing work around the house And now most of those problems are gone or much better.

by Heather Wokusch Since Congress recently handed Bush the power to identify American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain them indefinitely without charge, it's worth examining the administration's record of prisoner abuse as well as the building of stateside detention centers. As Texas governor (from 1995-2000) Bush oversaw the executions of 152 prisoners, and thus became the most-killing governor in the history of the United States. Ethnic minorities, many of whom did not have access to proper legal representation, comprised a large percentage of those Bush put to death, and in one particularly egregious example, Bush executed an immigrant who hadn't even seen a consular official from his own country (as is required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which the US was a signatory). Bush's explanation: "Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it?" Governor Bush also flouted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by choosing to execute juvenile offenders, a practice shared at the time only by Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Significantly, in 1998 a full 92% of the juvenile offenders on Bush's death row were ethnic minorities. Conditions inside Texan prisons during Bush's reign were so notorious that federal Judge William Wayne Justice wrote, "Many inmates credibly testified to the existence of violence, rape and extortion in the prison system and about their own suffering from such abysmal conditions." In September 1996, for example, a videotaped raid on inmates at a county jail in Texas showed guards using stun guns and an attack dog on prisoners, who were later dragged face-down back to their cells. Funding of mental health programs during Bush's reign was so poor that Texan prisons had a sizeable number of mentally-impaired inmates; defying international human rights standards, these inmates ended up on death row. For instance, a prisoner named Emile Duhamel, with severe psychological disabilities and an IQ of 56, died in his Texan death-row jail cell in July 1998. Authorities blamed "natural causes" but a lack of air conditioning in cells that topped 100 degrees Fahrenheit in a summer heat wave may have killed Duhamel instead. How many other Texan prisoners died of such neglect during Bush's governorship is unclear. As president, Bush presides over a prison population topping two million people, giving America the dubious distinction of having a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any other country. When considering that (based on 2003 figures) the US has three times more prisoners per capita than Iran and seven times more than Germany, the nation looks more like a Gulag than the Land of the Free. The White House has also stifled investigation into the roughly 760 aliens (mainly Muslim men) the US government rounded up post-9/11, ostensibly for immigration violations. Amnesty International reports that 9/11 detainees have suffered "a pattern of physical and verbal abuse by some corrections officers" and a denial of "basic human rights." Then of course, there's Guantanamo, where the US is holding hundreds of detainees in top secrecy and without access to courts, legal counsel or family visits. Add to that the thousands of Afghans and Iraqis the US has imprisoned (including a large percentage of innocent civilians) and countless US secret prisons across the globe, and it looks as if incarceration is the nation's best export. While Abu Ghraib may have left administration officials falling over themselves with protestations of compassion, it's worth remembering that the Bush White House has fought hard against the International Convention Against Torture, especially a proposal to establish voluntary inspections of prisons and detention centers in signatory countries, such as the United States. Put it all together, and last week's passage of the Military Commissions Act is ominous for those in the US. As Bruce Ackerman noted recently in The Los Angeles Times, the legislation "authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any protections of the Bill of Rights." The vague criteria for being labeled an enemy combatant (taking part in "hostilities against the United States") don't help either. Would that include anti-war protestors? People who criticize Bush? Unclear. In 2002, wacko former Attorney General John Ashcroft called for the indefinite detainment of US citizens he considered to be "enemy combatants," and while widely criticized at the time, Congress went ahead and fulfilled Ashcroft's nefarious vision last week. Ashcroft had also called for stateside internment camps, and accordingly, in January 2006 the US government awarded a Halliburton subsidiary $385 million to build detention centers to be used for, "an unexpected influx of immigrants or to house people after a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space." New programs that require additional detention space. Hmm. The disgraceful Military Commissions Act and the building of domestic internment camps are yet more examples of blowback from the administration's so-called war on terror, and we ignore these increasing assaults on our civil liberties at our own peril. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1004-35.htm

You are I assume white and I also assume that the customers were. If I am wrong, much of what I say may not apply, but much still will. What angers me is that people only see and mention things when other races or groups are involved. Many years ago, I had a part time job driving a delivery truck for an auto-parts store. Our machine shop had done some work on a V8 engine and I had to deliver it to the customer. One of the more senior men was assigned to go with me because it took two people to unload the big Cadilac engine. The other man was driving. He was a WASP and in a hurry to make the delivery and get back to the store. We traveled some heavily congested streets and the highway where there was a lot of construction that required unusual lane changes and merges. The area we were in is one of the most intergated areas in NY. A car with a Black driver cut in front of us at one of the merge points, and my coworkered yelled out, "Those niggers can't drive for $hit". Later we had a dash for the open lane with a man wearing a Yamaca and my driver yelled out, "those Jew ba$tards can't drive for $hit" and of course when when a man's car wearing a turbine came close it was "those towel heads can't drive for $hit" and I also heard "Damn women can't drive for $hit", Damn chinks can't drive for $hit", and so on and so on. BUT When he had to jam his brakes on to avoid a car of a nondescript white man, I did not hear "those white ba$tars can't drive for $hit". When I asked him why he said, "That idiot can't drive for $hit" instead of mentioning his race, he was too dumbfounded to give me an answer and then claimed that he was not predjudiced. I imagine if an obese person had walked in front of us at a stop sign or when we had the green light, I would have heard, "Those fat slobs can't walk for $hit" or "those fat slobs think they own the street". He only saw differences in the people who made him mad.

A carrot, an egg and a cup of coffee You will never look at a cup of coffee the same way again. A young woman went to her mother, and told her about her life and how things were so hard for her. She did not know how she was going to make it and wanted to give up. She was tired of fighting and struggling. It seemed that as one problem was solved, a new one arose. Her mother took her to the kitchen. She filled three pots with Water And placed each on a high fire. Soon each pot came to a boil. In the first pot, she placed carrots, in the second, she placed eggs and in the last one, she placed ground coffee Beans. She let them sit and boil, without saying a word. In about twenty minutes she turned off the burners. She fished the Carrots out and placed them in a bowl. She pulled the eggs out and placed them in another bowl. Then she ladled the coffee out and placed it in a third bowl. Turning to her daughter, she asked, "Tell me, what do you see?" "Carrots, eggs and coffee," she replied. Her mother brought her closer and asked her to feel the carrots. She did and noted that they were soft. The mother then asked the daughter to take an egg and break it. After pulling off the shell, she observed the hard-boiled egg. Finally, the mother asked the daughter to sip the coffee. The daughter smiled, as she inhaled its rich aroma. The daughter then asked, "What does it mean, mother?" Her mother explained that each of these objects had faced the same Adversity: Boiling water, and each had reacted differently. The carrot went in strong, hard and unrelenting. However, after being subjected to the boiling water, it softened and became weak. The egg had been fragile. Its thin outer shell had protected its liquid interior, but after sitting in the boiling water, its inside became hardened. The ground coffee beans were unique, however. After they were in the boiling water, they had changed the water. "Which are you?" she asked her daughter. "When adversity knocks on your door, how do you respond? Are you a carrot, an egg or a coffee bean?" Think of this: Which am I? Am I the carrot that seems strong, but with pain and adversity, do I wilt and become soft, and lose my strength? Am I the egg that starts with a malleable heart, and then changes with the heat? Did I have a Fluid spirit, but after a death, a breakup, a financial hardship or some other trial, have I become hardened and stiff? Does my shell look the same, but on the inside am I bitter and tough, with a stiff spirit and hardened heart? Or am I like the coffee bean? The bean actually changes the hot water, the very circumstance that brings the pain. When the water gets hot, It releases the fragrance and flavor of the bean. If you are like the bean, when things are at their worst, you get better and change the situation around you. When the hour is the darkest and trials are their greatest, do you elevate yourself to another level? How do you handle adversity? Are you a carrot, an egg or a coffee bean? Count your blessings, not your problems.

Symbols of hate, if not known to be symbols of hate by the viewer, may not effect people in a hateful way. When I was a child, I used to draw Nazi insignias on pieces of paper. I had no idea what it was, except that I had seen it in movies. When I was told what it meant, I stopped. Many people in the USA today, proudly wear that symbol. My father died in Berlin fighting against the people who flew that symbol on their flag. Many of the soldiers who fought under that symbol in WW11 were not as evil as the people who live in the USA in 2006 and who fly that symbol on a flag. Many of the German soldiers were drafted into military service and were brainwashed that they were defending Germany. I would say all of the Americans who fly the Nazi banner in the 21st century espouse the ideas that the banner represents and many of those same people also fly the confederate flag right next to their Nazi flag. If you flew the Confederate Flag at your school because it was what the school expected you to do, but you had no hatred of Blacks, nor condoned slavery or the idea that whites are superior, of course you are guilty of nothing. If you espoused the principles of slavery or the superiority of the white race, whether behind a confederate flag or Nazi flag, then you have only yourself to blame and only you can make amends for that. What was in a person's heart as a child is often governed by their parents and/or their peers. What is an adult's heart is the responsibility of that adult. Failure to grow is not totally the fault of the childhood experience, but the failure to reason, learn and challenge the past.

They never knew hate, and knowing of it would not have saved them. A few days after the tragedy, one of the World News TV shows was discussing the "strange idea" that these people, the Amish community and the family members of the victims had forgiven the killer and had invited the wife of the killer to the funerals and to help her grieve. Yes, it is a "strange idea". An idea that I believe was preached about 2000 years ago by a carpenter. We are a nations of Christians who know very little of and follow very little of the teachings of Christ. I am glad that the Amish set an example for the rest of us with their "strange idea".

We have had threads in this forum recently on politics that did not get out of hand even though the threads went on for days. So I both hope and think we can discuss this issue without name calling. I lived in the North for 58 years. I worked in Queens which is a Borough of NY City for 35 years and lived in another Borough, Brooklyn for about 54 years. Most of my co-workers were from the more conservative Long Island. I went to college for almost 3 years in the middle of Pennsylvania. I now live on the Treasure coast of Florida. There is not much difference in the places that I have lived. In each of the places, if there were no Blacks around, whites would have no problem with making an anti-Black racial slur or an anti-Black comment or criticism. If there were Blacks within sight, but out of earshot, many whites would cover their mouth and lower their voice before making those kinds of remarks. The only difference I have noticed is here in Florida, some people like to fly their confederate flags or have confederate flag stickers on their cars/trucks or wear tee-shirts with confederate flag pictures. Some of the tee-shirts with the confederate flags on them also have challenging remarks. I saw one recently that said, "If this flag bothers you, you can kiss my a$$”. Another had drawings of a confederate flag and Jesus kneeling on the front along with writing saying "Two things we need back in our schools: the confederate flag and Jesus Christ" on the back. Another confederate flag shirt said, "If this flag bothers you, then you don't know your history". I thought the confederate flag was the flag of the states which tried to succeed from the United States of America and therefor was in opposition to the USA and that the soldiers carrying the confederate flag were shooting at the people who carried the American flag. I guess it confuses me because it seems that the same states that support the American flag anti-desegregation constitutional amendment most fervently also support the confederate flag most often. It seems like many of the people I meet from the South are still fighting the "Civil War" or the “War between the States" as they like to call it and are supporting both flags, though not the principles of both of the warring parties. I struck up a conversation with one of the confederate flag tee-shirt wearers and one who was selling them along with shirts with Jim Crow symbolisms at a kiosk in the largest mall in my area of Florida. They both told me that they like the ideas that the designs express and it sends a message to certain people and those people that support those people. Neither would specify which "certain people" they were referring to, but since one was a salesman and the other was shopping, they didn't know each other, but they seemed to know that they agreed with each other, it must have been common knowledge. We can debate whether it is better that these things are left unsaid or whether it was better when people knew who their enemies were. I don't think there is any debate about the level of overt violence. It is way down. But many people use code-words now. Many politicians know and use the code-words. They are not like the George Wallace's of 30 years ago who came right out and said things. That is both good and bad. People don't have to hear the words as much, but many decent people are fooled when politicians use words that seem ok, normal and decent to them, but have hidden meanings to those in the know. It is a shame that a person can be preaching hate to one person and preaching good political philosophy to the person right next to him while saying one thing. Is it better to be sneaky or out in the open? Is it better for people to hear the hate who have no knowledge of those kinds of hate? Or is it better for some people to remain ignorant of their enemies, while other people do not even know that there is a war (of words and ideas) going on?

I want my wife, son and daughter-in-law to read it. :faint:

I do not think diversity has run amok. I think things are being done which are foolish and I sometimes wonder if people who are against diversity sometimes set things up to discredit diversity. Why put someone who speaks broken English in a job that requires fluent English and good language skills? I doubt that the company wants to go out of business, but maybe the department head doesn't like Mexicans, so he puts a Mexican on the customer service line that one reaches when you select "One" for English. Not just any Mexican, but the one with the heaviest accent and worst conversational skills. I was speaking to an Hispanic on a customer service call about trying to straighten out a bill. She was having a hard time understanding my name, so I spelled it out phonetically. Let's pretend my name is Thomas Manual. I said Michael, Alpha, Nancy, Utah, Alpha, Larry and she replied what is your next name after Nancy? She thought my name was "Michael Alpha Nancy Utah Alpha Larry". That has nothing to do with diversity. It is about choosing the wrong people for the wrong job.

From TOM to TommyO: How Could I ever think that anyone with my name would be full of hot air. I think that your opinion is just as valid as mine, though I think you are wrong. I have been called an anarchist. I dislike authority for authority's sake, but I would never rebel just to rebel. Yes, Carlene hit the nail on the head when she assumed that my point was that people who speak different forms of the same language are as unable to work together as people who speak different languages. I would never say you were full of hot air. If you called me a jerk or worse, I would still not say you are full of hot air. I would just speak around the insulting comment. Before I went to work for the airline the I stayed at for 35 years, I was told by a friend that worked there, that they did not allow beards on new hires. I had had a beard for the previous 7 or 8 years and both me and my wife liked it, but she was a mother to be who had to stop working because of her pregnancy and the starting pay was over twice what I was making as an electrical assistant and had medical benefits. I could have stuck to my guns, went for the interview and been turned down, but I had a family to consider. After I passed my probation, I grew my beard back. About 7 years later, I applied for a promotion to maintenance instructor (which is management) and I told me perspective Manager that I would not shave off my beard. I got the job because of my talent. About a year later, the son of one of the mechanics that worked there applied and got a job as a mechanic. I had met the son as a young teen when I visited his father's home many years earlier and he was impressed with me because of my flashy (and very fast) motorcycle and because of my Tee-shirt with a picture of a lawn with a sign saying, "KEEP ON THE GRASS". One day, I heard some of the other instructors saying, “too bad that he (the son) was not going to pass probation since he is already a better mechanic than his father”. I asked why and one instructor rubbed his face in the beard area. I went to the son and said, “if you trust me after all these years, shave”. I could not go into too many details, but he shaved, passed his probation and had many years of earning top dollar with good benefits, raised a family and bought a home. IMHO, one must decide which battles are worth fighting and which are not. If someone needs to speak a dialect of English to survive in his rough and tumble neighborhood, fine do it. But if he wants to escape that neighborhood and its poverty and crime, learning to speak properly is not too much to ask. TOM PS: My name is not TOM, but I still would never insinuate that you are full of hot air.

If you have not seen it yet, may I recommend that you rent the DVD of the Oscar winning movie "Crash". One of its main points is that people who are discriminated against are no less likely to discriminate against other people.

We can pretend that we do not see race or think about race. We can pretend that race is of little importance and the big problems are solved. In the USA, we have got to a point where certain comedians can make a certain joke, but another can not. Chris Rock makes a lot of jokes putting down certain commonly accepted ideas that Blacks are supposed to have as well as those of whites, but if Jay Leno would make the same exact jokes in a concert he would be labeled a racist. In one of Chris Rocks' movies, he comes back to life (after Heaven has made a mistake) as an old white man. While in a store with a Black woman, he sings along to the radio and when the word "nigger" comes up, he continues singing and gets punched in the face for singing that word. In an episode of "Girlfriends" which is a Black version of "Sex in the City", one of the 4 main characters is a girl with a white mother and Black father. Her half-sister who is all white is visiting for a party and when all the girls sing along to a song and the word "nigger" comes up, she continues singing and is told off for singing that word by the biracial half sister, who in turn gets told off by the (supposedly all Black) other cast members. At what point can you say "nigger" ? Is 1/2 Black enough? NO. Note even if you are not trying to pass for white. How about 3/4 Black? Does it depend on how light you are? Well, Bill Cosby can say the word. Recently when he criticized Black male teenagers for their dress and attitude, he caused an uproar. He is one of the few people in the USA who can make the statements that he made with only a modicum of criticism. He was criticized by some Blacks for giving whites ammunition to use against them. And it was picked up by many Republicans. I heard a Republican first quote Bill Cosby and then Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I dream of the day when little children will be judged not by the color of their skin...". I wish people could be judged by their intent. But while Bill Cosby may be just a comedian to some, he is a de facto spokesman for the Black community and as one who knows the value of education and the need to meet some of society's rules to succeed, he was one of the few who could start a needed dialog.

We can pretend that we are not talking about race. But when I made the mistake of using Ebonics to make a point about grammar, then all succeeding discussion about Ebonics had racial overtones. There is a thread called "What color/race do you see" in the "Lap-Band Talk Lounge" that some of this thread might be better moved into. In the USA, we have got to a point where certain comedians can make a certain joke, but another can not. Chris Rock makes a lot of jokes putting down certain commonly accepted ideas that Blacks are supposed to have as well as those of whites, but if Jay Leno would make the same exact jokes in a concert he would be labeled a racist. In one of Chris Rocks' movies, he comes back to life (after Heaven has made a mistake) as an old white man. While in a store with a Black woman, he sings along to the radio and when the word "nigger" comes up, he continues singing and gets punched in the face for singing that word. In an episode of "Girlfriends" which is a Black version of "Sex in the City", one of the 4 main characters is a girl with a white mother and Black father. Her half-sister who is all white is visiting for a party and when all the girls sing along to a song and the he word "nigger" comes up, she continues singing and told off for singing that word by the biracial half sister, who in turn gets told off by the (supposedly all Black) other cast members. At what point can you say "nigger" ? Is 1/2 Black enough? NO. Note even if you are not trying to pass for white. How about 3/4 Black? Does it depend on how light you are? Well, Bill Cosby can say the word. He is one of the few people in the USA who can make the statements that he made with only a modicum of criticism. He was criticized by some Blacks for giving whites ammunition to use against them. And it was picked up by many Republicans. I heard a Republican first quote Bill Cosby and then Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I dream of the day when little children will be judged not by the color of their skin...". I wish people could be judged by their intent. But while Bill Cosby may be just a comedian to some, he is a de facto spokesman for the Black community and as one who knows the value of education and the need to meet some of society's rules to succeed, he was one of the few who could start a needed dialog. I was watching TV news, the other night and they showed an American soldier in Iraq. he had just captured an Iraqi and told him to get down. The Iraqi did not understand English so he yelled louder and then louder to lay down. I don't understand why the Iraqi did not understand, they both could speak and hear, so why should a little thing like language get in the way?