There's Backwards and there's . . .

BurkeWords

Monday, November 24, 1997

The Black Leadership Forum -- and why they aren't the African American Leadership Forum is beyond me, although I'll probably be called a hate-mongering racist for calling them "Black" -- has realized that they didn't have a winning case if the Supreme Court heard the Piscataway reverse-discrimination suit.

Actually, they never had a case. They aren't a part of this suit at all. They are, however, a part of the settlement. Fearful that the Supreme Court would use common sense and decide this case on its merits, the BLF paid a substantial 11th-hour out-of-court settlement to make this case go away before it could set a national precedent.

Apparantly, they have something to be afraid of other than Ward Connerly. Which brings me to . . .

What if they had a conference on diversity and no one was allowed in. Well, it wouldn't be much of a conference.

What if they had a conference on diversity and they only let only side in. Well, you could confer with one other, but it wouldn't be very diverse.

But the lack of diversity wasn't a problem for the folks on President Clinton's National Advisory Panel on Race. Choosing the easier path, they decided more can get done if everyone has the same definition of "diversity", and if you have a different opinion of diversity, don't bother showing up.

When the panel convened recently at the University of Maryland, Ward Connerly, someone who fought hard for California's Propositon 209, was not allowed to speak because he had "nothing to contribute". Basically, it's my personal childhood philosophy of My Way or No Way. Say what I want you to say, or No Way you're going to say anything at all.

Even the L. A. Times took the panel to task for not allowing Connerly "misguided notions" to be aired. (What do you expect? This is the L. A. Times we're talking about.)

In the meantime, if you want to hear opposing views from leaders of the black community, you can hope that someone of the caliber of Walter Williams, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes or even Roy Innis will make a call into a talk radio show. You know, like when they call "known racist" Bob Grant.

Many years ago, back when I thought I would never hear the end of the Tawana Brawley hoax, Al Sharpton, C. Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox needed a scapegoat, a name they could toss to the hungry media, starving for any name to label as an accused Brawley assailant. They tossed out Stephen Pagones. Pagones responded by suing for defamation, and thanks to the lighting speed in which justice works, it's just getting played out now.

The circus was in full swing last week with Maddox, who is barred from praticing law for a couple more years, is representing himself and promises that he "will be heard". The judge has promised that the gavel will be heard as well -- and obeyed. "White justice" they scream. These three believe that they cannot get an impartial jury or a fair trial in Poughkeepsie. And the proof of this is that they are sure the verdict will go against them. They believe that the verdict will have nothing to do with the fact that they are guilty as sin.

Now, it's time to digress into unsubstantiated rumor . . .

According to Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa who is covering the trial for WABC radio (770 AM, New York), Mason may be the weak link in the chain. Having given law for theology (he, too, has been temporarily barred from practicing), his current mentor is the Rev. Calvin Butts. Butts in turn is on friendly terms with Gov. George Pataki and presumably Attorney General Dennis Vacco, who is Pagones' current employer. Add to this that Butts, whose voice carries some weight with his congregation, particularly in elections, may be mulling an election of his own in 2000, and you have to wonder what he may be counseling Mason to do. A settlement in the works?

Who knows. So far, this is only the hearsay of a forty-year-old man who walks around in a red beret and tells people that he "absconds from sex". On the other hand, he does some great investigative work at times, so stay tuned.

Mattel has announced that Barbie will get a new shape to replace her 38-18-34 figure that no girl can realistically aspire to. Rather than being seen as some mythical "ideal", Barbie's new figure will make her more like regular woman.

In fact, she'll be like many women I know: she'll have a closet full of clothes, and nothing will fit her any more.

As a followup to my comments about minivans a couple of weeks ago, I was all set to mention that I saw a P.S.A. for minivans featuring Big Bird. Things were looking good, I thought. Acceptance is coming.

Then I started reading all the nonsense about disarming airbags.

Soon, you will be able to have a switch to disable your airbags but only if you fit into a couple of specific categories concerning the age and number of your kids. You also qualify if you have short legs. The government plans to send you a form that you fill out to apply for a certificate that will allow your mechanic to install the switch, which you have to pay for out of your own pocket on top of paying for the mandatory air bags.

Some questions to consider:

• Will the mechanics fill out forms for their own cars? And will they're be a black market?
• If I buy someone else's car and it has a switch, will I have to pay to have the switch removed? Will I face prison if for failure to remove it?
• What happens if I still have my car after my kids are older than the age of exemption? Will I have to have it removed then?
• Do I really have to have six kids before my minivan will qualify for a lousy, stinking switch?

It's funny, aint it. The looney liberals keep screaming to keep the government out of the bedroom, but they have no problem with shoving the government into my car. I guess the only thing that's protected is if I have sex in my car, but only if it's protected sex. Actually, I think there are laws against that if the car isn't in my garage at the time.

Coming soon, the form you need to fill out to install an ashtray in your car where you certify that you have no kids and aren't planning to have any in your car at any time.

From: JWNFREE@aol.com
Date: 11/20/97 11:57:31 AM
Subject: Enjoying your Burke Words

Chris,

I am always looking for something to debate and thought if I read your commentary I could find something to chew. No such luck! I can't find anything to take you to task for. Keep up the good work -- but if you stray, I'll be on you.

Jim Woll

Note: Jim Woll is the publisher of Jim Woll's Newsletter -- Free

Jim, you couldn't find anything to take me to task for? Now there's a scary thought. But your last sentence sounds like a challenge. Well, I'm on your mailing list and I'll be watching you, pal. And if you stray, I'll be all over you like white on rice or Jesse Jackson on 209. Actually, there are times I think he's on Formula 409, but that's a thought for another day.