CNN's "Black in America" misses the mark

You know, I like Soledad O'Brien’s work. Since she’s joined CNN, she has at least made a concerted effort to give Black lives a seat at the network's heretofore unbalanced coverage table. So I really wanted to watch this special. However, I had no expectations or pre-conceived notions that it would be some groundbreaking, life-changing or particularly edifying commentary on our lives. After all, to quote Sugar over at Sugar-N-Spice, "I already know what it's like to be Black in America!"

I was more interested in filtering out the noise of statistics and “expert” opinions to see if there’d be any signs of change in the coverage we ‘re afforded given our highly touted “post-racial” society. I wanted to see if we’d changed as well, given all this new found, rampant pride in the symbolism that is Obama. In both cases, I saw little if any change. And if we’re honest, in light of an Obama presidency, the possibility of any real change heading down the pike appears fleeting - at best.

Give a carefully crafted, media-hyped speech on race, channel MLK or JFK as appropriate, throw in a Father's Day lecture wherein he fronts like he knows what the Black experience in America is all about and all you end up with (to borrow a phrase from bell hooks at Portland, Oregon's, Lewis & Clark College back in 2006) is an eager audience of "unenlightened white people worshipping at the throne of Black mediocrity" joined by a group of Black folks for whom the shaming and blaming of their own has taken on an eerie, Stockholm Syndrome-like quality. Man! If he's selected to the Burning House, his presidency will only provide even more fodder for those who insist we “Quit whining!” because slavery’s over.

I'm no shrink, but I believe Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (in our case, Post Traumatic Slavery Disorder) is no less prevalent or debilitating to the souls and minds of our people as that suffered by returning war veterans, battered women, abused children or even - elephants, as it turns out. Yes, I said elephants! For all CNN’s questions and portrayals of dysfunction in the Black community and all the Black participants’ responses to those questions and portrayals, it seems not many people really get, or care to get that fact - which brings me back to the elephants.

20/20 did a segment tonight on elephants suffering PTSD. And, if as Stossel said, “It may change the way you look at elephants,” then why is it that the same disorder, brought about by the same kinds of brutal circumstances which manifest the same undesirable, anti-social behavior in elephants, has not been connected to what is going on in the Black community? Why doesn't it “change” the way white folks and even some Blacks look at the Black community?

Gay Bradshaw, director of The Kerulos Center, was featured in the segment, so I looked her up. I came across her very interesting essay entitled, "Elephant Breakdown" and based on what I read, she gets it! She sees how trauma causes depression, separation anxiety and anti-social, often violent behavior. Look, I know people don't want to be compared to animals, but I challenge you to read the essay and NOT find the distinct similarities, not only in the nature of the trauma, but in the response to it.

As I continued to watch, I thought I was losing my damn mind when the segment about paying 4th graders for good grades came on! I get the incentive thing, okay? And I even applaud Professor Fryar, who came from a crack-infested environment, trying to at least find a solution (Talk about pathology! Having a whole family of crack dealers might make one more inclined to understand the "dollar-bill" mentality - but in a legal way of course). I even agree wholeheartedly with his “meet people where they are approach.” To my mind, that is the only chance of getting through to anyone!

All that being said however, I just cannot believe I'm the only person concerned how this little, Black, poor, 4th grade boy is already equating his self-worth only to that dollar bill and what it can bring! Can I be the only person who saw how hard little man was working, trying to help his Dad keep them in their home only to be put out anyway? Can I be the only one cognizant of the lasting and damaging effects feeling helpless and not good enough can have on children? Not to mention fathers! Does nobody else see how our society is helping to perpetuate this cycle? I'm not mad at money, but isn't there something terribly askew here?

Even in the proud moments, I saw pain. The first thing Butch, the Little Rock superintendent wanted the cameras to get as they visited his office was the sign with his name on it saying he was the superintendent. He even said, “A lot of people wait a long time to get their name on a sign.” I don’t know about you, but that's not a lofty goal of mine. But that seemed more important than sharing what he'd been able to achieve in carrying on the legacy of the Little Rock Nine (but then again, after watching the documentary celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock Nine, I can see why he didn't want much made of that ).

Even as he talked about loving the view from his McMansion in that predominantly white, Little Rock suburb, the pain and anger of having white police question his even being in that neighborhood during the building of his home was evident. (That reminded me of an incident that happened when we put our Texas home, in an all-white neighborhood, up for sale. A white realtor brought a white prospective buyer to see the house while I was in the front yard gardening. She pulled into the driveway, came up to me and asked if she could speak to the owner. I said, "That'd be me and apparently my agent needs to emphasize that "By Appointment Only" stipulation in the listing." I have to admit, like Butch, I was pissed at her assumption, but I sure took great pleasure in debunking it!).

And again, more pain as he avoided the conversation about his middle son, who'd not followed in his prescribed, "I am somebody" footsteps - getting locked up, embarrassing his brother the prosecutor and the entire family. Of course there are kids who never get into any trouble (or never get caught!), but being a mother of two grown sons myself, I know that number is way less than some would have us believe. Yet when it comes to our children, perfection is demanded lest they draw the scorn of the larger society and the shame of their own people heaped upon them for making the same mistakes many children make in the course of growing up.

Our families are constantly measured against the white, "nuclear family" yardstick. And of course in the eyes of those who choose not to see, we'll always come up short - if for no other reason than the fact that, since the days of Kunte Kinte, someone else’s culture has informed what OUR families are supposed to look like, what OUR names should sound like, what OUR language should sound like, how WE should act, how WE should dress, what OUR hair should look like. Not only does the list go on and on, but the indoctrination continues. Really, how many of you have HOAs or Condo Associations to whom you PAY good money to tell you how to act like a grown-up in the house for which YOU ARE PAYING? How many of you have been turned down for jobs because of those dreads or braids? I know I can raise my hand to both of those! I swear, we seem to be the only minority for whom "ethnic cleansing" was 100% successful.

Unlike many people, I see all the huge occurrences in our community of single-parent households, increased HIV/AIDS cases, absentee fathers, disproportionate incarceration and drop-out rates among our youth as symptoms of much deeper, more pervasive problems which are rarely, if ever, addressed in any substantive way by anyone. Unless and until we truly begin to understand and seriously address the causation staring us all in the face, the symptoms will continue to destroy Black communities from within, while our lives continue to only be their “stories” without.

The rampant patriarchy in America only serves to further diminish our efforts to thrive as a people. And we not only have white men to thank for that, but Black men as well. I’m certainly sick and damn tired of whites constantly using Black single-mothers as whipping posts for the ills of this society, but trust me, I’ve also had my fill of people like Obama, the reverends Sharpton and Jackson, Bill Cosby, that Cosby-kid-by-marriage, Joseph C. Phillips and others jumping on that same bandwagon.

With the exception of Obama, I know the others should know better. Hell I’m a South Carolina girl from a large extended family held together by women, so I know Al and Jesse ought to know better! One of the most damning legacies of slavery is the resulting “village” kept together by Black women as their husbands, sons and fathers were sold off as chattel - or while they or their “girl chillun,”as my grandmother used to say, were left to be raped and brutalized undefended. Don’t talk to me about Black single mothers! Stop measuring my sisters against that white, “nuclear family” yardstick! I'm proud of the way our women have stepped up, stepped in and kept moving despite all the obstacles they’ve faced, so don't look for me to wield the overseer's lash.

Two parent families are great – if you have one. But unless both parents stand "whole" in who they are (and considering our PTSD, many do not, phenomenal financial success notwithstanding), abuse, neglect, abandonment and brokenness can be just as destructive in a two-parent home as in a single-parent home. Having a “man” in the house won’t change that.

In our discussion over at Sugar’s place, ea asked: "Is there any substantive or symbolic difference to a child who doesn't know his or her father whether money comes from him or from the state?" I answered, “Good question, but its answer is not a simple yes or no. I think there's a substantive, not symbolic difference to a child who doesn't know his/her father, but where the money comes from has little, if anything to do with it.” And I firmly believe that. To the kid, it’s not about the money, really it isn’t. It’s about filling that hole in his soul with love, acceptance and encouragement – no matter who’s giving it.

She went on to ask: “Is there some "vicious cycle" in which the lack of a parental male role model leads to more young men not having any notion of what it is to be responsible for anything, much less a child? If one suggests that answer to this question is the affirmative, does that mean that women are inadequate, or better, incomplete as roles models for male children?” To which I replied: “And my answer to your other question about the "vicious cycle" is also yes. But that doesn't mean women are inadequate role models for male children, just different - with different sensibilities (a reason a woman president would have been a great thing!). The noted paradigm however, requires that the socially acceptable, dyed-in-the-wool sensibilities of "men" be different than those under which most women operate.” I stand by that statement as well, because this is a both/and, not an either/or situation. We've got to consider the whole pot of greens, not just the neckbones!

I’d been invited to participate in an online/call-in discussion to be held after the special ended by a sister-blogger. I was interested in hearing the feedback and offering some of my own. Once we were all connected though, the call was hijacked by one of the most racist white men I’ve heard in a very long time. I cannot even repeat some of the things he said here, though I did record it to play for my husband when he gets back into town. Gotta to let him know his “post-racial” candidate’s still got a lot of work to do!

I was startled at my first gut feeling of rage mixed with pain. Immediately I felt like I’d been hurled back into mid-60s, early 70s South Carolina. It was a feeling of which I thought I’d long since disposed. But old wounds die hard. The moderator ended the call and everyone else hung up - but I didn’t. It took me a few seconds to get past the rage and pain, then I composed myself and calmly asked him, “Why are you so afraid?”

Peppered with "cunts", "bitches" and a lot of "niggers", he railed about how he hated us and was not afraid of us and we would see. After about a half-minute or so, I just laughed and told him, “It must really suck to be you with all that misdirected anger boiling in the pit of your stomach. I’m going to hang up now and you should really go and see somebody about that because it’ll kill you one day if you don’t. Bye-bye now!”

A “post-racial” society we are definitely not, don’t let Obama fool you. That caller is not alone, trust me. There are plenty angry, fearful, hateful people out there just like him and we would do well not to forget that. But, as we hold onto that thought, let’s not forget to hold onto each other and those who aren’t anything like him. Let’s purposefully acknowledge (apologies are nice but my grandmother always said, “It ain’t what you say, it’s what you do!”) and seriously address how we got to this place in all our lives. And please Lord! Let’s stop doing the same things and expecting different results - particularly since that’s not been working for any of us up to this point, if the truth be told.

History or His story?

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 will no doubt go down in the record books as "historic." And for many Blacks especially, it means the world. I am not one of them. It's not that it doesn't matter - because it does. I simply do not believe in the senator from Illinois. I believe his run for the presidency is only about his story, with the history of it all being a mere collateral benefit.

Our insecurity as a people is Post Traumatic Slavery Disorder writ large. It keeps us hoping for, and grabbing onto anyone who looks like us for a sense of security, self and belonging even when that anyone may not have our best interests at heart. I understand it, but it still boggles the mind. The only treatment for such a disorder is to look inward, not outward, for the love and acceptance one seeks. It's difficult, but possible and definitely worth doing if, as a people, we are to survive.

Zora Neale Hurston once said, "All my skinfolk ain't my kinfolk." Sen. Obama has made the veracity of her statement quite apparent to me over this long primary season. His story is not my history (neither is Sen. Clinton's, but we do have that pesky little gender thing, which often if not always breeds misogyny, in common).  Master strategist that I've come to believe he is, there is no doubt in my mind he'd been planning this attempt for some time which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But it got bad for me pretty quickly when I realized he was just a politician - no more, no less than Sen. Clinton (with the exception that her fight for universal health care being a long and dedicated one, unlike the senator from Illinois whose not had time to formulate a real passion for anything other than his own self-aggrandizement) - willing to say or do anything to continue writing his OWN story. I've no problem with the writing your own story part, it's the doing anything in order to accomplish that, that makes me want to wipe the green slime off me.

He knew he'd have to get his "skinfolk" behind him and he knew exactly how to do it - CHURCH. Most of us do love church, don't we? So, Barry went to Chicago and Barack - the community organizer, 20-year dedicated member of Trinity United Church of Christ where he found "religion," married his Black wife and baptized his children - was born (and let's not get it twisted, I have no problems with Rev. Wright I can't handle).

Unless there's some deep and grand plot to hoodwink white Americans by pretending to "denounce" his pastor and leave his home church in search of another, less Afrocentric one, Sen. Obama used my people and their insecurity to advance his own personal agenda and that ain't cool - at all. There's no "Balm in Gilead" to be found, not even in the highest office in the land, for the wound this little lost boy is trying to heal. That melanin in his skin, coupled with no positive connection to it whatsoever in his formative years, seems to have left a hole in his soul.

His political expediency regarding Florida particularly sticks in my craw because I live here now. I also went through similar political shenanigans imposed on us by Republicans when I lived here in 2000. Who woulda thunk it? Blacks, having been considered "three-fifths persons" constitutionally, had their value in Florida literally decreased by a "Black" man in back-room dealings with the DNC that halved the delegates votes, discounted the popular vote and handed him the Democratic nomination on a silver platter (Donna Brazile, I love that a sister has risen to such a powerful position in the Democratic party today, but your complicity in this internalized racism is both obvious and pernicious). And adding insult to injury, his Black supporters, so intent on having the first Black president supported it! A bit of the oppressed becoming the oppressor don't you think?

Being a South Carolina girl, born and raised, disenfranchisement of any kind really brings the "Angry Black Woman" out in me. A little S.C. history: In 1895, South Carolina enacted laws with the explicit intent of eliminating the electoral privileges of blacks (with Louisiana, North Carolina, Alabama Virginia, Georgia and Oklahoma hot on its heels). “Pitchfork” Bill Tillman, the Democratic governor of South Carolina during those dark days, reveled in the glory of that kind of disenfranchisement saying on the Senate floor in 1896:

“We have done our level best; we have scratched our heads to find out how we could eliminate the last one of them; we stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not ashamed of it.”

Figuratively, Obama's "strategy" concerning Florida and Michigan was the same thing to me. His "post-racial candidate" strategy is definitely working for some whites however. Either that, or they're just trying to find a justification for supporting him since he is now the nominee. In a recent Salon.com article -- "What role did race play with white Democrats?" -- one of the "round table experts" (what makes these people experts anyway?), Tom Schaller said this:

"Can I just say one thing about Obama and his post-racial identity, which I talk about at all public events that I do. The other thing that is the crazy wild card here, we just talk about him as a black candidate and her as the white candidate, and is America ready? But obviously, he's just not your average black candidate, and not just because his middle name is Hussein and so forth, but the fact that he's half-black and his black half is continental African. And that matters. And we don't talk about that that much. But I think it's [important]. There are so many things that are different about Obama from historical black leaders. He doesn't come from a clerical background, which produced leaders over the years, whether it was Martin Luther King or Jesse Jackson or more recently Al Sharpton. He is half-black and so he's not full-blooded black, so to speak, and whether you believe in one-drop racism or whatever, it does matter. He's literally lighter-skinned. And that's something that's talked about in the black community and is going to have to be talked about in the white community. And that his black half is continental. It is different when your family is recently emigrated as opposed to being a slave descendant. And I think what's going to be really interesting about all this Rorschach notion of how white America sees itself and how white America sees black America is about how it views Barack Obama as a sort of sui generis black candidate. He is not Al Sharpton, and I think that's clear on so many different levels. But I think the question is, how much does his difference from Al Sharpton really matter?"

Sui generis??? I had to look that one up (some of us old people are woefully inadequate as the American lexicon constantly changes). It means, "constituting a class alone." A fitting description? Not really, there are plenty "light-bright-damned-near-white" highly educated, comparatively rich men like him out there who believe their skin color makes them better than (Brown Bag Test ring any bells?). Yet another sad truth about the Black experience in America.

A pleasing description to the senator from Illinois? Undoubtedly. How do I know? Well I don't KNOW, but back in February of 2007, when 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft asked Obama why he considered himself Black even though he was raised in a white household, the senator responded, "Well, I'm not sure I decided it. I think, you know, if you look African-American in this society, you're treated as an African-American." Sui generis, indeed.{smdh}

(Oh, that concession speech? Not as quickly forthcoming as I'd expected.)

No permanent friends, no permanent enemies...

“No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent issues.”-- Rev. Al Sharpton

I heard the reverend say this during one of his last broadcasts on what was Miami's only Black talk-radio station, WTPS-1080AM (Radio One sold WTPS to Salem Communications Corp. for approximately $12.25 million in late 2007. It's now Christian talk-radio.). I remember immediately writing in my Things to Blog About file, "more like, just permanent - opportunistic issues!" (I've got to check out the National Action Network's site to try and ascertain membership growth !).

Early in the primary race, the tenor of his show as it related to politics was surely not pro-Obama. His tone was notably different when, during her segment on his show, Jeri L. Wright, publisher of Trumpet Magazine and Rev. Wright's daughter, expressed her concern about Sen. Obama ceding to his handlers on the issue of having Rev. Wright speak at his coming out party on the Old State Capitol steps in Illinois. There were even rumblings that the reverend was jealous of the senator, particularly after he discussed Sen. Obama’s endorsement of Richard M. Daley for mayor with guests, Dorothy Brown and William "Dock" Walls, the two Black candidates who also ran for mayor last year. But that was before Sen. Obama started looking like he could win this thing.

He invited the three remaining Democratic candidates to come on his show via telephone to discuss issues. The last candidate was to be Sen. Obama, but he wasn't available, but Mrs. Obama filled in. After that call, I noticed a slow but sure turnaround in Rev. Al. Though he didn't say it then, I knew he'd soon be throwing his support behind Sen. Obama. He did. I’ll venture a guess the senator and Rev. Sharpton are not and never have been "friends" - at least he’s honest about that part.

The reverend falls into the same category as those Daley boys in Chicago. In December 2006, William M. Daley (former Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton Cabinet and adviser to the Gore campaign) became an advisor to the Obama campaign. The next week, Hizzoner himself (well, the son of THE Hizzoner - same difference), six-term Mayor Richard M. Daley, threw his support behind the senator's campaign as well (quid pro quo?). In this Newsmax.com article, "Daley Machine Backs Obama," writers Jim Davis and Tom Squitieri clearly laid out how beneficial it can be to have opportunistic issues in common. Politics makes strange bedfellows and the history of the Daley Machine (this post by Skeptical Brotha gives a short, but telling account) bears that out.

September 7, 2007 brought yet another opportunistic endorsement for the senator from Illinois - Former Denver Mayor Federico Peña (also former Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of Energy in the Clinton Cabinet as well as a "friend" of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson). With that endorsement came the announcement that he'd also be co-chair of the senator's national campaign.

The recent endorsements from former senators Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma are just more opportunism. Though they both bring extensive records on foreign policy and national security and are from states where Republicans historically dominate - as is usual in politics - their endorsements didn't come without some quid pro quo. Both will be serving as advisers on the senator's national security foreign policy team.

As for the Richardson endorsement, I'll just say, with "friends" like these, Sen. Clinton needs no enemies (Do you hear the O'Jays singing, "They smile in your face, all the time they wanna take your place..."?). And before you jump up and down, NO – friendship does not equal endorsement. But endorsement sure does seem to equal opportunity. In an April 12th interview with the Seattle Times, when asked if there was ever any talk of the vice presidency, or any other job, in an Obama administration, the governor's response was very telling - "I never say never in politics, but I'm not pining for it." According to the writer, the governor also suggested, he would not settle for just any Cabinet post, having served before. You be the judge.

I'd like to remind the governor of his reaction to his "friend," Federico Peña endorsing Sen. Obama before he was even out of the race. It might just help him understand why his "dear friends," one of whom for which his wife "has great affection," would be a little warm. And Robert Reich? Please! You would think that if your "friends" of 40 years were doing things which, according to Reich, his conscience wouldn't let him be silent any longer, he'd tell the friends - first!

Let’s be clear, as much as I talk about, think about and write about the necessity of real change - it is never, ever done in a vacuum. I understand how things are done in this country, from the bottom to the top. I know there is w-a-a-ay more, "What's in it for me?" than there is pure altruism or doing the right thing. Trust me, I get that. But somewhere in the midst of all the glad-handing, backroom dealing, false promises and the greasing of palms, it's hard to believe that actual, long lasting "friendships" can turn on a mere difference of issues. But I guess that's just me.

My Spin Control is Better Than Your Spin - Why Just Plain Truth Cannot Stand On Its Own

There are so many more takes now on what led to Jena, what happened in Jena and what will happen in Jena. Depending on who’s doing the commentary, the noose-hangers, the DA, the Jena 6, Justin Barker – hell the whole town - are either saints, sinners or somewhere in between. It all depends on the spin. Until a couple of months before the March on Jena, there was no national media coverage - network, print or radio – was even talking about what was happening in that small Louisiana town. That is, with the exception of Howard Witt, the lone American journalist whose May 2007 article in the Chicago Tribune is the reason I knew anything about the Jena story at all (THANK YOU Howard Witt!). I was so angry no one was talking about it much less doing anything about it. I read the story over the phone to my husband who was overseas at the time and said, “A school fight?? You know how this is going to turn out.” Witt’s June article led me to the Friends of Justice website and Alan Bean. As I read the comments from people in ENGLAND about the BBC documentary on the blog, I was absolutely shocked to find out that America’s shame was a bigger story “across the pond” than in her own backyard. Bean’s blog led me to the documentary. The Jena 6 had been arrested, charged as adults and five of them had been bailed out. Mychal Bell had gone to trial (on reduced charges) and been convicted by an all-white jury in virtual anonymity and here in the good ole U.S. of A., most of us were asleep at the wheel. Then, Black talk-radio got hold of the story and it blew up, culminating in that beautiful September 20th day when thousands (yes, THOUSANDS, I was there) marched on Jena for equal treatment under the law. There were national news outlets everywhere. And seven days later, Mychal Bell walked out into the sunlight after almost 10 months, most of which was spent in an adult prison facility. So you’re asking, “What does this chronology have to do with spin?” Let’s first take a look at the definition as it relates to this case. Spin (noun) - a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation presented for the purpose of influencing opinion. Based on Jason Whitlock’s September 29th column (critical thinking requires I read him whether I agree with him or not), Alan Bean followed the definition to the letter. And not only is he absolutely right, Bean admits it. I’m a “just the facts ma’am” kind of girl - no embellishment, no framing, no spinning. I want to be able to evaluate information for myself and come to my own conclusions. But here’s the thing, were it not for Mr. Bean’s “spin,” there would’ve been no information to evaluate! No one else was writing or talking about these Black kids in that predominately white town which, as one resident pointed out early on “doesn’t have any problems with THEIR BLACKS.” No one else was writing or talking about this D.A., those excessive charges and how what was happening in Jena is happening all over America! Not Mr. Whitlock, not other Black writers like him, not affluent Blacks who hold court on “the problem with Black folks” in the bright media lights - No one!! I don’t know about you, but I prefer the opportunity to evaluate the “spin” rather than being assaulted by the internalized racism and self-hatred manifested in the shame-and-blame game played by Mr. Whitlock, et al. who continue to assist the powers that be in the divide and conquer tactics that are so counter-productive to our survival as a people. Engaging in spin control (noun) - the act or practice of attempting to manipulate the way an event is interpreted by others (after-the-fact) seems more Mr. Whitlock’s style. Do I think Alan Bean “gets” the BIG picture about racism and how it’s affected Blacks in America all these hundreds of years? No I do not. But he gets some very important parts of it and is trying to do something about it. Do I think he has a personal agenda? Absolutely! So does everyone else who’s been a public part of the Jena story. What that agenda is, remains to be seen and as my grandmother always said, “Whatever you do in the dark, will always come to light.” There is, however, one point on which Mr. Whitlock and I agree. Mr. Bean would do well not to underestimate either the gravitas or credibility of the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton. As he said in his blog, “…nobody is going to write a groundbreaking story about Jena, Louisiana simply because some white preacher told them to.” And thousands of Black people will not march nor lend the full weight of their support solely for that reason either. Oh! And why can’t just plain truth stand on its own? Because as Jack Nicholson’s character, Col. Jessep, in A Few Good Men so succinctly put it, Mr. Whitlock –“You can't handle the truth!”

Mychal Bell Finally Granted Bail!

I was listening to Rev. Sharpton's radio show earlier and via telephone, he said the judge had granted a $45,000 bond and they would probably be able to get Mychal out today. Finally, after 10 months, this child will be able to be with his family! I found it interesting though that LaSalle Parish D.A. Reed Walters announced he would not appeal the decision overturning the conviction of Mychal Bell because after consulting with Justin Barker and his family, it was "in the best interest of the victim and his family" to do so.

The fact it was the "right" thing to do in the best interest of Mychal Bell and his family based on the facts of this case was never mentioned. That's because it wasn't ever about the "right" or "wrong" of any of this. It was about the fact that these BLACK boys were GOING to be punished by a system that continues to be institutionally racist despite the leaps and bounds of the Civil Rights Movement.

And for every Mychal Bell who's just been freed on bond, there are millions just like him who continue to languish and I firmly believe that is no mistake - and neither should you.