sharon kinsella wrote:I'm not, nor will I ever be color blind. Jim, and believe me I know you try really hard to do the right thing, but when you are color blind you are saying there are no differences in people. I've never been on the wrong end of Jim Crowe, have you. I've never been judged as less than by the color of my skin. We can't afford to eradicate our differences when it comes to getting to know each other. We are all the totality of our experiences. I'm going through a thing right now, where I live, where if I ask for inclusion as wiccan (oh no that's evil, you just came in here to get into an argument) or lesbian (do you have to say something, can't you just be quiet).
People don't always come right out and say their motivations, they give a million reasons all around the real thing they are doing. I've gotta stop now. 50 years is a long time to keep having to say the same stuff. I'll just stay in my apartment, read my books and not be bothered any more, ya all have fun.
Sharon
You are right about a bunch of this from one side. I am not going to argue this.
If I am with people that have a chance to say racists things, and they do not, I have to
believe they are not racists. When other people in the room might say racists things, and
others do not, and frown on it, I have to think they are not racists. When people have to
react quickly to help, or do something to or with another, and they never hesitate because
of the color of their skin or the sex, they are not racists or sexist.
To me that is the bar, what you do, not what you think or what you say. I know that might
seem like a low bar, but then I am tired of PC. You know I care more what is in a person's
heart and mind than what they say. As I pointed out, I often say stupid things for many
different reasons. Does that make me a racist?
I have had the chance to look at some of the documents, and some of the facts, and even
talked with a couple people close to this events and court. The only person yelling racism
is Avery Friedman. The courts are looking to see if fair housing was violated, and if so how,
it was not looking at it being violated based on race. Because, a large population of Hidden
Village is of color, it was thrown in for good measure. In fact the city found that the city
was not in-violation of anyone not getting fair and equal housing. To my knowledge, it no
moves to the owner to the city, not the residents. The owner is not a man of "color." So
race should never come into this discussion again. Seriously.
There are many groups that are protected for good reasons from discrimination, and a
person that takes negative action on another because of race, religion, sex should be
taken to task if for no other reason than for being ignorant of what they are missing.
However, not one part of this discussion or action the city took in any way was based on
any protected group of people. That should be understood as well.
In many states and court districts with the original finding would have nullified the other
charge. But in a reading from the Ninth District Court, there is precedent and ruling like
this can stand without the other charge. Our District court has never ruled on this, so
interpretation is opened to the judge. No one has complained about her looking to the
Ninth District. All that I have talked to underlined is is proper and within her court to do so.
I have issues at times with the city, but they are not racists.
FWIW
.