Premise 1 - we are all people of goodwill, here Premise 2 - no one of us has a higher moral ground by virtue of who (s)he is, where she comes from, who he is related to, or how rich or how talented, etc. Premise 3 - one is not protected by pretending things weren't or aren't.

SeanM said context is everything, and that really says it. No one I know of advocates using hurtful, outdated characterizations just for the hell of it. If one were writing a song about the late 20th century using ethnic, racial or religious epithets, that one would be correctly castigated in most instances. However, if one is performing or writing in historical context, one would not use the term Afro-American for the hated N word in a song or story about 1910 Atlanta, it is anachronistic. Nor would Kike be out of place in a piece depicting Jewish folks in the Depression-era Lower Eastside of NYC.

Please check out www.laradio.com for Tuesday & Wednesday of this week. A Los Angeles radio personality referred to certain motorcycles as 'Jap Bikes', a was severely criticized...correctly. The term Jap is perjoritive and has no place in 1999, but used in context of WWII it is not out of context.

It was, I believe, a Supreme Court Justice (perhaps Brandeis or Holmes) who said that the antidote to (offensive) free speech is more free speech. I grew up in a time when insults, real and perceived, were retorted by "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" and "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you call me bounces off and sticks to you'. We maybe need more of that.

I have said my piece, and will say no more, here. If anyone takes issue and wants to pursue this further, I will respond to thoughtful and respectful E-mail or private message.

John- a 59 year old, white, Jewish, married, male, asthmatic.