Look, I subscribe to just about everything Steele wrote. The issue is that we have an atmosphere where only black men are considered qualified to speak out on these matters. Steele will surely be accused of being a sell-out and an Uncle Tom, but -- to a publisher -- that's probably preferable to having one of your white columnists accused of being a racist.
And that is the point!
No, you don't get my point.
As I said before, I disagree with you two as to what you consider to be the "motives" of the WSJ.
What makes you think that the WSJ doesn't think it is refreshing, and rare to see a black man with that point of view, and would want to print what he writes to prove that Jesse Jackson, et.al. doesn't speak for ALL blacks?
But let's just drop it, since you haven't been able to see that the WSJ could have another "motive" other than the one you two want it to be. Thank you.