From Yahoo News:
CHICAGO – Ousted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich says he’s “blacker than Barack Obama” and tells Esquire magazine that he was a real person in a political arena dominated by phonies.
Blagojevich, referring to the president as “this guy,” says Obama was elected based simply on hope.
“What the (expletive)? Everything he’s saying’s on the teleprompter,” Blagojevich told the magazine for a story in its February issue, which hits newsstands Jan. 19.
“I’m blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived,” Blagojevich said. “I saw it all growing up.”
The White House refused to comment.
(And in the words of real Black people everywhere…NEGRO PLEASE!!!)
FULL STORY HERE.
51 responses to “Rod Blagojevich Says He’s “Blacker” Than President Obama”
Mo,
First let's clear one thing up: Blogo apologized, called himself "Stupid, stupid, stupid."
Second, have we ever got ourselves a teachable moment.
I bet that you would find Blogo sympathetic to racial issues and to the state of being Black In America in the 21st century. As we have discussed many times, all is not as well as some would like to make it seem, on both the right ("when will they stop carping about 'equality' and get a damn job?') to the left ('Aren't we making so much progress? Things are so much better, why even complain?'). It's difficult to have a legitimate discussion about where class and race intersect.
I don't know all the details, but I would understand Blogo's point if it was that he had a hard-scrabble life and Obama had a life of privilege. Blogo was equating "black" to "having to come up the hard way" and he was saying that he can relate to folks who are struggling better than Obama can.
He was calling Obama an elitest who was cashing in on his color to try to purchase some solidarity from people whose experience he knew little about.
That's a fair starting point for a meaningful discussion about how the powers that be use race to separate people who would otherwise have a whole lot in common.
But the problem Walt is…he DIDN'T say that and landed nowhere close to it. Yes, that's a fair discussion if he wanted to make the point that he (Blago) was more in tune with the needs of the working class or the economically disadvantaged.
He didn't say that.
He instead opted for the "Blacker than thou" attitude statement. And if he knew ANYTHING about being Black, he'd know that such a statement is a TREMENDOUS insult. In Black circles, that's akin to calling President Obama a sell-out, an Uncle Tom.
If he were really "Black" or "Blacker" than Obama…he would've known that.
Going further, it's insulting to equate "struggle" with being Black. "Shining shoes" helped him understand being "Black?"
Really?
Morris,
Feel free to focus on how riled up it gets you. I understand. Once you're done being riled up, there is a lot to say about the issues this stirs up.
I'll start with this:
I can never be black. You can never be white. And yet, in order to truly bond, we must be able to relate to each others' experiences.
In other words, it's up to you as well as me to bridge that gap, and "You'll never be black," while true enough, also sounds exclusionary, as in "Don't even try to understand."
Where would we be if we left it at that?
I'm all for relating…but I won't use "shoe shine" as a measurement point on a yardstick.
But can you understand why he did? Do you acknowledge that it wasn't meant in an insulting way?
(Tone deaf, yes.)
And what I'd really like to submit is that we be careful not to think we know everything we need to know about a situation or a person based on a choice of words.
I've spoken clumsily in my life. I'd think we all have. If you're attracted to a person based on one thing they've said, I think you owe it to yourself to find out what else they have to say, so you'll have a better idea who you're dealing with before drawing conclusions.
This is not a person "unaware" of the implications of his rhetoric. This is a person intimately involved in politics and media for quite some time. I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt as to being "clumsy."
(And no, not Harry Reid either).
Neither get the benefit of the doubt. I take issue with the remark itself, and am not all that concerned with what he "meant." The remark itself is the issue for me. Who is he even to THINK he has a handle on what it means to "be" Black and then the audacity to disrespect the president along those lines?
Of course you reject the words and their meaning.
On the other hand, you have no evidence that either Reid or Blogo have any animosity at all toward blacks.
As I've said before, ignorance is not racism. It can be and often is insensitive, and then you have nothing left but apology, explanation, and efforts to understand.
There has to be a "tomorrow" in things like this.
Quick story: I was down south on assignment in 1990 and made a joke about two women in the cafeteria. I knew one of the women "very well", and so I knew for sure that I was joking. Up north, such a joke would have been laughed with or shrugged off. Chances are high that no offense would have been taken.
I got reamed by the other woman. She didn't know me, didn't know my sense of humor and was highly offended at my "suggestion". In her mind, others had heard me say it and how were they to know what to believe? (My smile might have been a give-away, but I digress.)
In other words, I was in a different culture and without realizing it I had trampled on a norm and more of that culture.
You will probably flick me for comparing "southern", which is a geographic cultural difference, with "black", which of course is the source of almost all of our national trauma.
But you and I don't need to carry that weight. We had nothing to do with yesteryear. We are free to say "Ooh, my bad, didn't know that was a sore spot" and LEARN from each other.
I have suspected that Blogo was a fall guy in a lot of what went in in Illinois. He's probably feeling singled out for persecution. He's angry, perhaps bitter.
He's going through some things that you or I could relate to, if we tried.
Morris wrote:
"
Who is he even to THINK he has a handle on what it means to “be” Black and then the audacity to disrespect the president along those lines?
"
I would say that he doesn't get it.
And let me say that disrespecting Obama for not being a "real black" is not a sport that Blogo invented, which swings back around to Reid, whose point was "Obama might just be white enough to get elected."
Life in the raw, Morris. Don't duck away.
C'mon Walt, you know me…I don't duck away and I was explicit in not giving Reid a free pass either.
The only distinction I'd make was that I find someone trying to "appropriate" Blackness for their own gains more offensive than someone "commenting" on it.
Blago tried to take a level of ownership in Blackness and that is more distasteful to me.
Morris, your irritation is duly noted.
Is that the most important thing about you? You want to be known as "Morris the Irritated"?
Assuming that you don't (and I of course know that answer) then we ought to be willing to get past the anger and on to the teaching and learning.
I would take Blogo's defense here, because somebody should.
Because he did not mean to come off the way he did. Because by exploring his own insensitivity and ignorance, he can help us explore our own.
Because that's a better way forward than many, if not all, alternatives.
You're oversimplifying my response. It's not irritation. It's a refusal to accept certain behavior or excuse it. I disagree that this is a teachable moment because certain lessons are simply obvious and not necessarily in need of deeper dissection.
Michael Richards (though more inflammatory) was also NOT a teachable moment. It was stupidity lacking basic common sense. But I've given you already what you asked for Walt, though I guess you didn't see it. I explained the reasons "why" such remarks are offensive and why those outside of the African-American putting themselves out there as "authorities" on the Black experience is really not cool.
I know, Blago has a book and he's not ever going to shy away from the press but the remarks were in a word, crass…irrespective of how clumsy or insensitive Blago was. I think they can and should be treated as such.
I'm not so sure I agree with that. Sometimes wrong is wrong and neither needs nor deserves an advocate. This isn't a court of law and Blago isn't required by law to be offered representation.
to the extent that there was a "and what he meant was…" post-facto to the quoted remark, and to the extent that it has not been thoroughly analyzed, yes this is (still, waiting to be) a teachable moment and yes, he deserves somebody to take up his side.
On the subject of "some stuff is just inexcusable" – of course, and if he could take back those words I'm sure he would. And if Reid knew then what he knows now, so would he.
But we have to let people off the mat when they meant no harm and were simply off-key. As I said, Blogo may harbor no malice whatsoever toward blacks. Is he insensitive and, in ways, ignorant?
Yes. Which classifies him as 'human'.
All of us are human, but not all of us are ignorant. And being so woefully ignorant at that age and experience in politics (Blago) I just shrug my shoulders. Being "ignorant" and being able to claim "ignorance" are two different things. There is and has been a willful desire historically for Blago to act ignorantly. His thumbing of his nose at the FBI when he knew they were watching him is another example of this. This is par for his course.
Reid conversely, doesn't have such a political record, so it's easier for me to allow him to claim "clumsy" or "unintended ignorance."
"
Impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich says it was stupid and wrong for him to tell Esquire magazine in an interview that he is "blacker than Barack Obama."
"It's a stupid metaphor to say I'm blacker than Barack Obama, that I apologize for," Blagojevich told WLS Radio in Chicago this morning, according to the Associated Press. "It's not appropriate for me, a white person, to stand out somehow and claim to be a black person, that's just wrong."
"
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/…
I cannot defend that Blago knew better than to say what he said. I cannot, with a straight face, attempt to convince anybody that this is just a case of not enough exposure to the real world.
What I can say is that there is a real issue here. For a white person to say "I'm blacker than…", a comment I've heard many times, is really a criticism of the other person, in this case Obama. Blago was criticizing Obama for not doing enough for disadvantaged people, who are disproportionately black.
And I have seen, in this very space, many posts about that very subject. Is Obama 'black enough?' Does Obama 'get it?' Is Obama turning his back on 'black issues' and 'black causes'?
These are legitimate questions, worth exploring. I know that you have.
Then there is the other side. A white person cannot know what it means to be black in America; that would be impossible. But I know you know that we can try to understand and relate, and I know that you know that I believe we can and do still share common experiences and common frustrations.
And I still say that when we allow ourselves to be divided along racial lines, we are playing the game exactly the way The Man wants us to.
On the subject of “some stuff is just inexcusable” – of course, and if he could take back those words I’m sure he would. And if Reid knew then what he knows now, so would he.
But we have to let people off the mat when they meant no harm and were simply off-key. As I said, Blogo may harbor no malice whatsoever toward blacks. Is he insensitive and, in ways, ignorant?
Yes. Which classifies him as ‘human’.
Mo, Walt, you both have made valid points in your assertions. I, too, believe in the opportunity to overlook a faux pas. But I, too, am not naive enough to believe that a veteran of Chicago politics (my hometown), with it's racial diversity and yet it's chasmatic racial divides, has not taught Blogo the prudence to know better than to equate himself "blacker" than a popular local African American politician, let alone one that became the President of the United States.
Blagojevich understands incendiary politics and knew the inference he made, pundits and detractors of Obama had made politic hay of the same. Saying "I'm sorry" and then penning a deal to man the desk opposite Sarah Palin on Fox News, or cementing a book tour deal in the confederate corridor does not count as an act of true contrition. "Let me see, inflammatory rhetoric and press coverage, or demeaning karaoke obscurity…hmmm."
Walt, you say that Blagojevich MAY harbor no malice whatsoever towards Blacks, but thats a supposition on your part. Do you have anything to support that he harbors good will towards Blacks? Remember, during the post slavery segregation era, the most vehement zealots of racial oppression were the ones whose economic backgrounds differed only in the complexion of their own complexions from the people upon whom they vented their ilk's collective frustions and disappointments.
Race is a diversion. It's a "hot-bed" issue, sure to get you a pass on the real issues of parity and true equality. Blame the victim.
The real, true telling question is this: would Blagojevich (or any other white politician) have said that he was more "black" than another politician if Obama had NOT won the White House?
That is how you judge the content of a man's character.
"Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell." James 3:5-6
Roger,
I believe that Blago was expressing frustration and did so in a loose way. "Mouth ahead of brain" and all that.
Does it reveal, as Morris said, an arrogance on Blago's part that he can, in any way, relate to the experience of being black in America?
Probably. And that's where the teachable moment comes in. To the extent that such an assertion is offensive to "actual" black folks, if Blago cannot understand that, perhaps somebody else can. But if Blago's sympathies lie with the disadvantaged, and if he, as a white man, can see the unequal playing field afforded to blacks, perhaps especially in urban settings, then why would we want to throw the man overboard for what may be a matter of "over-relating"?
How many dramas have we seen where one person says "I know what you're going through" and the other says "Oh, really? Have you had (dramatic event) happen to you too?"
We try, as humans, to relate to each other. We fall short, but it's the trying that matters. It's the concept in one's mind that another's experience, while not the same as our own, is valid and is deserving of understanding.
What I find slightly annoying is the tendency we have as a society to draw broad conclusions based on scant evidence.
If we really care about solving complex problems, we have to have the next thought, and the one after that.
Walt,
I think you give Blago too much benefit of the doubt. If his "spirit" were one in unison with the poor and disadvantaged I don't see how that would ever come out of his mouth. His main point was criticizing the President along racial lines, not the policy.
Also, this is 2010, there are other underprivileged, underserved minority groups in this country and in Chicago too. He was making a racial point, not a policy argument.
Walt:
I do not argue that your point is well taken that we as a society have a knee-jerk reaction to the scarcity of information that is dissimenated via the popular media; "conventional wisdom" has become a convention that lacks much of what it touts to purport.
That said, however, we must look at the reality of the information that we do obtain and the validity of the qualifiers used in deducing from whence media gleans the 'sound bite of the day'.
I would venture to say that there is a 'teachable moment' enshrouded in most events or statements covered by the media from Cornel West to Kenye West, it just depends on the context within which the media desires that it be judged.
Gilbert Arenas gave us a teachable moment: don't gamble and fail to think while in possession of illegal weapons. Mariah gave us another: don't drink and talk. (To be fair, you could add: do not advocate anti-gay legistlation when cruising airport men's room for sex; do not go for a hike in Argentina on Father's Day; do not try to make a hole-in-fifteen and a host of others.)
My point is that the media is the final arbitrator of what is worthy of attention, and who the spokesperson of that focus will be. All too often, it is simply a pandering for sensationalism that determines whose face the microphone winds up in front of, and whose sound bite makes the six o'clock news.
Blagojevich had his fifteen minutes of fame, but he had become as irrelevent as Joe the Plumber. He was on the skids, the butt of a bad joke in the media. Blagojevich watched the stupid-turned-sensational in the meandering rantings of Sarah Palin AND he has a book. Walt, you do the math.
We can debate and counter until the cows come home, and we will never know for sure if this was blatant insensitivity (a Ross Perot "you people" moment), or was it capitalistic opportunism at it's finest (remember he did try to sell Obama's seat…HISTORY!)
There are MUCH better subjects and opportunities to enter into meaniful dialogue on racial relations, tolerance and understanding than to attempt to toe tag this manipulative ploy and attempt to render it relevent post-mortem.
Roger,
You need to come around more often. It's nice to have your viewpoint which is slightly different from everyone else's who most often contribute…yet you value substantive and high-brow debate.
With as much practice as I get from swimmning against the tide, I could lap the Atlantic without a sweat.
🙂
I'm 50 on Friday. Feeling extremely world-weary. My two chances to speak on Tavis' radio show found me pessimistic that things can really change for the better, other than through awful, painful means.
Humans are, in general, stupid, and getting stupider.
And it's getting pretty lonely.
If you accept that the media is the "final arbiter" of what we talk about and how we talk about it, we may have found the problem. I most certainly make no such concession.
Morris does a very cool thing. He throws topical information against the wall and lets us whack away at it. He goes deeper than almost any other blog both in what he covers and the manner in which it gets analyzed. This is a great place to smash something to bits and see what it looks like.
So, when the most complex and challenging issues come up, I come here for that. It satisfies me.
However, now and then we find ourselves in a place like this, where peoples' minds are made up already. I hearken back to Gates/Crowley. Raise your hand if you didn't have your mind made up the moment you heard the story.
Liar.
So, we have to push back against a natural human tendency, enhanced by media presentation, to leap to conclusions.
When we make that mistake, we often make the next one: Defending it.
If we have the courage (and after all, there are no weapons on display here other than biting wit and withering intellect), we can and we must smash these subjects to bits and see what they really look like.
Because from the sound of things, you black folk are gonna have to get used to us white folk meaning well and saying it wrong from time to time.
It does not make us bad people and, speaking as both a white man and a white man who has been known to be insensitive, we deserve an opportunity to explain, to make amends, and to learn a lesson.
Aw shucks Mo. You had me at, "You…"
Sorry for the lay-off. Had real life issues to deal with. I know that Walt has been salivating for more grist for the mill.
Walt, I do not concede that the media is the "final arbiter" of what is relevent, only what ultimately is covered. It fact, there in lies the rub; the irrelevence of the current circus that passes for socially conscious news coverage.
I did not annoint Fox and Friends, Limbaugh, Hannity, Couter, Beck et al and I most certainly did not sanction the prattlings of a Sarah Palin as a person of substance and gravitas. But I do not have any say in the matter as I do not control the Murdoch Machine. I have access to no portional forum within which to counter the biased screeds excreted by this "fair and balanced" megalomaniacal mechanism.
So no, I do not think that these who hold the power hold the truth, only that they hold the power to disseminate what is, all too often, errantly deemed the truth.
And because of this, I couldn't agree with you more, Walt. The world is getting stupider with each rotation. In the age of information, we're getting 'dis-ed'!
Roger,
Somebody mentioned the new Mamet play "Race". I've read a review. Apparently there is a line in there which is uttered by a black man and goes something like: "In case you're wondering if blacks really hate whites, the answer is yes. We hate all of you."
While I don't believe that, I do believe that many blacks suspect that all whites are, to some extent, racist. That, in private moments, they say things about blacks which would be considered offensive. That they don't "really" accept blacks as equals in all ways.
I saw a lot of that suspicion at work in Gates/Crowley. When there were late revelations that Crowley's version may not have been 100% true, I saw a lot of "Ah ha!"s and "You see?"s.
That was a real educational moment for me. I tried to discuss predispositions in light of that, but did not get very far.
So tell me, am I basically right? Do blacks, in general suspect that whites, in general, are racist to some extent?
Walt, this is a very interesting question and not one that comports entirely to simplistic answers.
I have incurred the ire of some of my white friends by concluding that blacks (in the United States) are not racists and that they can not be. I further elaborated that "racism" is the implementation of an institution that is initiated by the controlling society. Those who are in power determine who is to be subordinate.
As such, and in direct corollary to your question, blacks in the United States are not racists, but rather reactionarys (reactionists, if you chose).
If one kicks you in the can, that is one thing to be dealt with; if one hangs a sign on your back saying, "KICK ME" and the line of willing participants stretches to the horizon, that is another.
When the instruments of racism stop being utilized, when the kicking truely stops and the playing field is truely level, I think white America will find that blacks in this country realize we have symbiotic history together. I hope it will not take the invasion of extra-terrestrials for that to happen.
LiberalMenace, I'm sorry; got used to replying to Walt.
liberalmenace is walt. I created a new blog yesterday (a spoof, ssshh, don't tell anybody) and it kept me logged in as that name.
Roger, my question to you was this: Do black people in general, the ones who you know, generally believe that all (or maybe most) whites are racist beneath the surface, no matter how they may act on the outside?
I ask this in reference to the topic of this post, lest we forget.
And, as I stated, the question is not so, and pardon the obvious, black or white.
Whites are a product of their environment. Blacks have experienced being a captive product of that enviroment. Can whites relate to the experience that blacks have shared within an exclusionary society? Can blacks not be suspicious of or harbor ill sentiments over past (and present) abuses?
I don't want to speak in broad generalities, and certainly can not speak for all black people (an anomaly often associated with any spokesperson who is of our race), but I would example the shared similarities of the Jewish experience and say the African American people harbor a healthy cautious, "Never forget: Never again" retention in their DNA.
Healthy skeptism, Walt. I know there are whites that would lay down their lives for the cause; I am a product of Freedom Riders, C.O.R.E., SCLC, The Rainbow Coalition and others. Yet, not all is fair in fair Camelot.
Roger,
You're not arguing that whites are born with an implicit racist bias, are you?
And if you are, or are at least arguing that children of whites in America are likely to be taught that they are the superior race, my next question would be: Do you believe a person can become conscious of such a bias within themselves and overcome it?
(And please note that I never asked you to speak for all blacks.)
But to make sure we don't wander too far off point: Do you suspect that Blagoyovich is a racist who "revealed" himself with his comment?
No, Walt. I never said nor implied that there is an innate "racist" gene in whites. Whites in America model after the whites in South Africa (and if you take deference to that statement, hear me out).
Apartheid in South Africa was an accepted convention. One, if they were white, did not have to mull on the right or wrong of it; it simply was, and it was deemed a necessity for the survival of the (white) country.
Does that mean that good men and women did not question the practice, did not rally and resist and join in the struggle? No. It means that that was the CONVENTION and that those who resisted did so at their own peril. "Evil prevails when good men do nothing about it."
The lines of class, ownership and chattle were clearly defined in the experience blacks found themselves within in the United States. While a few good white men (and women) resisted and even sacrified their lives and fortunes in the cause of black liberation, the convention was to see them swimming against the tide (something you're familiar with, Walt).
And yet, they did it. They found it in themselves to seek a higher understanding. That is your answer, Walt. Man can overcome his enviroment when he seeks a higher plane. South Africa elected an African President, and America elected an African-American one.
God is love and love conquers all.
We agree. Well said.
Now, how do you see Blagoyovich in that regard?
I would LOVE to jump in this but real busy today at the job. But I am definitely following along, very very good read.
Blagojevich feels that his environmental upbringing qualifies him to address that which he witnessed, but he is stating it from a voyeuristic perspective.
His father OWNED a laundromat in the ghetto. I was raised in Chicago all of my youth and adolescence. I never lived in a house until I moved out of the state as an adult. Ownership was not a conventional consideration. My mother lived in an apartment for 40 years at one address.
I think that Blagojevich's political ambitions drive his perspectives, and his ventings surrounding this issue were tinged by his adverserial relationship with Obama. How else could you explain such an over statement?
Politians are animals onto themselves; they make strange bedfellows.
In all fairness to Blago, he said all the right things about how foolish a statement he made.
And that's what I'm after here, a recognition by you, by Morris, that the man is allowed to regret his mis-statement and that we don't need to be so absolutist about our reaction.
And of course, just as in Gates/Crowley, our experiences inform our perspectives.
I think what disappointed me most in that dialog was the tendency by many who commented to believe that their perspective was not only unique but unknowable to somebody with a different experience. Of course there is always some truth to that, but I have to believe that reasonable people can come from different experiences, hear the same set of facts, and come to some common conclusion about what went on.
It might take some time, but so what? Is "easy" a necessary condition before we tackle issues?
It seems to me that too many people say "Yes" to that. They are willing to give an issue a certain amount of thought but no more. If their conventions are challenged they take it as an opportunity to defend themselves, not to reflect on their perspectives and biases.
In other words, they are determined to come out of a situation exactly as they were before.
You could say I come from the completely opposite approach. I start from the standpoint that I want to learn, I want to be affected, I want to be changed, I want that knowledge.
So, if I'm Blago and I say something stupid and offensive, I want to apologize (check) and I want to have a conversation (we'll see) where we investigate what was behind what I said and see where it leads.
I can relate to the man. And if it was an honest, albeit boneheaded attempt at empathy, that is (a) not exactly dishonorable and (b) a great starting point for something positive to come from all of this.
LiberalMenace, I’m sorry; got used to replying to Walt.
Tomorrow I will be 50. The Rev. King would have been 81. I know the holiday is next Monday, but I would like to take a moment to speak of my feelings for a man who I have taken to calling "The Last Great American".
Roger wrote, above, "Man can overcome his enviroment when he seeks a higher plane."
That was so beautifully said that I immediately started breaking it down. I decided that the word "enlightenment" belongs in there somewhere, and it reminded me that Dr. King believed in the same thing. He believed that enlightened humans were incapable of unjustice, of inhumanity, and therefore of racism. He spent the last 15 years of his life, knowing he would die young, moving from city to city and issue to issue to represent the belief that we can talk to each other. He knew in a way that many of his contemporaries flatly rejected that not only did you need to find some white folks you could trust, not only did you need a number of white folks on your side, but that there were good, honorable, decent people who understood his message of enlightenment and considered themselves enlightened.
I am one of those people.
I cherish the man and all he stood for. Some will choose to peck away at his shortcomings. I'm comfortable saying that his personal peccadillos were first and foremost human frailty, and second and most important, vastly overshadowed by his contribution to modern society. He was the rightful heir to Gandhi, and it is no mere tokenism that we celebrate his birth as a National Holiday.
Happy Birthday, Reverend. We miss you now more than ever and we are ever thankful for what you gave us.
liberalmenace is walt. I created a new blog yesterday (a spoof, ssshh, don’t tell anybody) and it kept me logged in as that name.
Roger, my question to you was this: Do black people in general, the ones who you know, generally believe that all (or maybe most) whites are racist beneath the surface, no matter how they may act on the outside?
I ask this in reference to the topic of this post, lest we forget.
[…] at the Mo’Kelly blog, Roger wrote: “Man can overcome his enviroment when he seeks a higher […]
Faith springs eternal. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus's blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus's name; on Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand; all other ground is sinking sand.
On the anniversary of Martin Luther King's birthday, I find it so appropriate that we have had this incisive debate and introspective dialogue on the state of race relations from each of our unique perspectives.
I do beg to differ as to our ability to perceive and accept alternate points of view. Those points of view hold validity, and thus the debate holds substance; without that there would be no debate.
Walt, you said you like to visit this site to smash things to pieces to get to the commonality that binds us rather than the differences that contest us. I think we have achieved that cathartic objective as we agree on the foibles of the human spirit, even when it's intention is deemed to be for the betterment of the human condition.
You spoke of the dichotomy of King's legacy against the revelations of his private tribulations. In every man, no matter who, exists the potential for greatness and for calamity. In the spirit of God's unmerited grace, we are to forgive all transgression and seek an idyllic assessment of one's intent in that context; turning a cheek to be slapped anon and being slow to anger or suspicion. Lean not to your own understanding.
I would love to say that that is (in total) a description of me, but God is still working on this building. I still am prone to my own deductive reasoning, analytical assessment, and investigative journalistic processes. Via these, I, too, am subject to the foibles of human fragility for which you ask pardon for others.
I can employ my God given power of discernment, but to surrender all objectivity to a supposed theocratic ideal is not what I glean from my interpretation reading the scriptures (i.e. wolves in sheep's clothing; wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove; etc.).
I do not have faith in man, but rather in God.
I know of you to be a good man, Walt, who I do not judge by the color of your skin but the content of character, which speaks volumes. You say you came here to smash these issues to bits and discover what they are made of. Suffice it to say we are all on a discovery trail; it is the process of that discovery that surprises, astounds, and enlightens.
If we are still alive, we should be open to the journey: Dr. King would have in no other way.
Correction: Dr. King would have it no other way.
No earthly being has ever inspired me more.