Thursday, October 30, 2003

What a cracker that Cap'n is

Digging through referral logs tonight, I noticed a visit from a Blogspot blog I did not recognize. Turns out some of my work is referenced and rebuked on a blog called Silver Rights, which is focused on "civil rights and related issues."

I thought about emailing the writer of that blog back with my rebuttal, but then I figured it's best done here for the public record.

The first swipe at the Cap'n came in a blog titled Southern blogger strikes out in anti-hate crimes argument. This was in response to the piece I wrote (in long form at about the Little 5 Points "hate crime" trial.

In that blog I'm called a "conservative" (I am not) and it charges that I believe hate crime laws "are an avenue for legally abusing white people" (I do not).

I'm not sure where Silver Rights got the second bit. Obviously not from reading my blog. My blog said all crime should be treated equally.

And if "hate crime" laws are such wonderful things that punish people more severely for crimes motivated by "hate", why did the two defendants convicted of the "hate crime" end up with a total of just 8 years in prison when the charge they pleaded guilty to (aggravated assault) carried a maximum 15 year sentence by itself?

If the judge was so damned outraged by the crime, why did he give them less than half the sentence he could have?

See, Silver Rights, I'm for stiff prison sentences for all violent crime, no matter the motivation. In my world, these shitheads would have gotten - and served - 15 years. In the real world of "hate crime" laws, they were convicted of a "hate crime" and still only got 8 years.

Do you, Silver Rights, feel better with these racist losers serving 8 years in prison after being convicted of a "hate crime", or would you have rather seen them serve 15 years for aggravated assault alone? I know the victims of this attack were none too happy with just 8 years.

Also, Silver Rights cited FBI statistics on "hate crimes" as evidence that "prosecutions, which are few, include whites as victims some of the time." Sorry, you're wrong. The FBI statistics are for reported incidents of "hate crimes", not prosecutions for hate crimes. Maybe you should spend some more time on your research.

The second appearance Cap'n Ken makes at Silver Rights is in a piece on MLK Boulevard, a "documentary" airing on Discovery Times.

In a blog titled Filmmaker explores "MLK Boulevard" the Cap'n is again referenced and rebuked.

There's so much misinformation about my review of MLK Boulevard in that blog, I'm going to have to pull out the • and go to bullet points:

• "Cap'n Ken, a blogger from Louisiana ..." Wrong. Maybe the URL or the tagline "The official blog of East Atlanta" should be a clue there. But I guess "from Louisiana" sounds better when you try to paint me as a bigot.

• "... he holds the filmmaker in such disdain that he refuses to refer to him by name ..." Nice leap of logic. The cracker writer from Louisiana really must hate this black filmmaker, huh? HE WON'T EVEN SAY THE BROTHER'S NAME!!!! Actually, I just didn't note or remember the guy's name. But way to go with the biased assumption.

• Cap'n Ken "accuses him of having faked footage in the movie without any support for the accusation." Maybe Silver Rights should actually read the pieces of my blog he/she excerpts. The third paragraph you lifted from my blog (the one where I make that "accusation") explains in detail what led me to that impression. To wit:

Now, the tape of this City Council meeting was taken from the local public-access cable channel. Such low-budget, government-run productions typically do not cut away from a council person as they are speaking to show others' reactions. I think the filmmaker - ala Michael Moore - assembled little bits and pieces of reactions (probably to unrelated things) and edited them together to create a certain impression of what happened. That's all too typical in these "documentaries".

• Silver Rights lifts this paragraph from my blog in which I state my understanding of the documentary's intention:

Is the renaming of a street in honor of King a fitting tribute, or is it a meaningless gesture that does nothing to promote King's vision and is just the default tribute required for all cities to pass NAACP muster?

and labels this "In a rhetorical question, Cap'n Ken says", and then concludes that "his position -- that such tributes are empty ...". Um, how'd you score in reading comprehension back in grade school? See, that paragraph states what the documentary is supposed to be about, not some conclusion I have drawn about the naming of streets after King. Pay attention, now.

• The last part of that paragraph "... is just the default tribute required for all cities to pass NAACP muster?" is labeled "his sneer at the NAACP". Wrong. Again. No surprise. There's no "sneer" at the NAACP in that line (as my wrapup below will explain), but Silver Rights is apparently so biased and so convinced that the Cap'n is some Louisiana conservative cracker that he/she reads everything as bigoted and negative.

See, here's the thing ... this documentary should have (and purported to) explore the question of whether naming streets after MLK really does anything to promote his legacy, or is it just the basic minimum requirement for a city to "go along" with the standard MLK tribute. I think there are a lot of cities that feel pressure from the NAACP and others to "honor" King by renaming a street, and I think cities often just go along to avoid any negative publicity. So instead of places looking deep into how King's legacy should be honored and his dream carried forward in their community, they rename a street and move on.

It would have been nice for the filmmaker (I don't remember his name - what a racist I am!) to actually explore that idea. That would have been worth time on my DishPVR 721. His leftist, afro-centric, predictable mockumentary did nothing to explore the issue.


Post a Comment

<< Home