Today when affirmative action is discussed most people conclude, "Discrimination against whites will only get worse. Minorities were not satisfied with equality. They went straight on into endless and increasing race preferences."

The old segregationists would say, "Give a N an inch and he'll take a mile."

What the old segregationist said was not nice, it was not respectful, but was it true?

And if it WAS true, why SHOULD it be respectful?

On the show "Married With Children," the star, Al Bundy, was the absolute ultimate loser. He worked for minimum wage at a women's shoe store, he never bathed, his feet stank, and his only moment of glory was a high school football game.

Once Al decided to take on the phone company. His son Bud asked Al's wife Peg if, since Al had obviously lost again, he would back down and get back the family phone.

She said, "Of course, he always loses."

Bud said, "I don't know, mom, he's a proud man."

And then Peg answered with a question I have wanted to ask a thousand times:

"Of what, dear?"

I am ALWAYS hearing about how some third worlders "are a proud people." These proud people's children are starving, their communities are garbage piles, they know nothing, but, "They are a proud people."

Of WHAT, for God's sake?

As for blacks who follow today's "black liberal leaders," why should one be respectful of people whose only asset is another people's guilt? Why should one be respectful of a people that wants to be forced on another people?

Yes, one must be respectful. Yes, no one is going to remember all the old segregationist warnings because they were not put the right way.

But WOL is here to make you think. So I am just suggesting that we might look at those old words not for their diplomacy, their appropriateness, or even their decency, but for the truth in them.