’ve never understood the “one or the other” mentality. Being a mother, I am in an ever present state of multi-tasking. So when a male acquaintance said that the Cosby scandal was a a distraction from the grand jury decision regarding Ferguson, I inquired, “How?”
He asserted that if the lead news story becomes Cosby, then Ferguson and the protests in response to the police violence there become a footnote to the issue of racial violence in the town. He took the view that I’ve seen from a lot of men lately, which is that it is horrible “if” these alleged sexual assaults occurred, but we need to “wait until all of the evidence comes out” for us to fully understand what happened with these women and Bill Cosby.
This is my issue: If you find it necessary to take a “wait and see” approach to the outcome of the allegations mounting against Bill Cosby, wouldn’t it logically follow that you would have taken the same approach to the accusation that Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown without adequate cause? In order for you to be OK with Bill Cosby bullying news outlets to silence these allegations, it follows that you would have to be OK with Missouri Governor Jay Nixon declaring a state of emergency ahead of the grand jury’s decision in an apparent attempt to silence the people of Ferguson. Why would you believe the accounts given by eyewitnesses to Michael Brown’s slaying, but not believe the testimony of women who say they experienced rape at the hands of a particular man?
[For more of this story, written by Andrea Cambron, go to http://billmoyers.com/2014/12/...nce-eitheror-option/]
Comments (0)