I won't speak for John, but I don't see his or "Derridean" philosophical assumptions as contradictory to a specific value system that could lead to a political platform. In other words, we can still question the stability of language and still think racism is wrong. My understanding of Derrida (from my limited reading) is that these two things are very closely related, in fact -- that logocentrism is the basis of ethnocentrism so to undermine the latter you have to undermine the former.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

I intend to Jim, and if Ashcroft is accused of racism then I will keep my ears and eyes open but addressing Omlor world accusations would be like counting gas molecules in an open system. You would be better off trying to paint farts. Jim, contrary to his Derrida loyalty it appears he fears the margin. Imagine, someone with a non-Omlor worldview in a position of power, intolerable for Omlor's yet all they have to offer are political statements in newspapers promoting a supposedly unattainable neutral political apparatus. Or is that just omlorspeak to cover their grab for the center? Europe will be made in the image of Omlors and then evolve into the next heterogeneous phase and the rest of us farm animals will be bowing to the pigs and Tina will be urging on the Globally informed Europeans. And then us fat assed Big Mac eating 'mericuns will have to clean up the mess provided we haven't packed our bags for the promised land of Omlor world where the rides are guaranteed to thrill. Daniel

I think the important thing, Daniel, is that you stick with your truth criteria whether John respects it or not. So if truth exists and knowledge of it is possible, and if racism is wrong (and right and wrong exist), then if John calls an influential public figure a racist, we need to examine the claims.
What John O. says about Ashcroft isn't new or unique to him. I'm not really interested in joining the Ashcroft bashing, though, so I'll let others provide support for that side.
Jim