Eddie & The Robesonian, Cont.
First, to clarify the “cont.,” here is the link to my May 1 entry, which is mainly merely a bloggy record of my Friday evening radio show, but because it was a.) May Day, and then because b.) Eddie left before I went on-air, I ended up playing a set of May Day/Memorial tunes at the beginning of my show. Because I feel Eddie Hatcher rarely gets the attention he deserves, I ended up dropping some links in that blog entry, in reference to his passing.
The Robesonian has added an editorial to their post-mortem commentary, and Michael S. Hamden managed to post the first response. After you read The Robesonian’s commentary—or maybe *before* you read it—be sure to scroll down and read what Mr. Hamden had to say. You will find me in the Hamden court. The Robesonian’s remarks have me shaking my hung head.
Earlier this week I was talking to someone who didn’t know anything about Eddie Hatcher, period, and as I explained the situation from my perspective, here’s how I characterized it:
“Sure, it took nearly 20 years before they started getting any justice in Robeson county, but I think if those hostages had not been taken in 1988, if it had not been for Eddie Hatcher, it probably would have taken 40 years, or more.”
And yes, you can quote me on that, forever.
It’s good to see The Robesonian comes clean, openly, on their willful ignorance of Eddie’s correspondence. Also to their credit, they didn’t remove Michael S. Hamden’s response. Still, they equivocate in their begrudging acknowledgment that Eddie Hatcher bore a message of truth, and this speaks to the on-going complicity of the media in government corruption.
No matter how you try to slice it, corruption ran thick through Robeson County, and no matter how anyone behaved after being released from prison for the 1988 hostage-taking, corruption in law enforcement is inexcusable. The media willfully turning a blind eye to reports of such corruption is inexcusable. According to the logic of The Robesonian’s editorial, exposure and elimination of systemic corruption is only acceptable if the messenger of that corruption passes some vague credibility criteria, which, I suspect, is defined by the very purveyors of the corruption.
And the circle, it goes ’round and ’round…
8 July, 2010
…just a word about the uninvited and unwelcome ads that are now showing up at the end of this blog…
!!!PLEASE IGNORE ANY ADVERTS THAT MAY APPEAR ON THIS BLOG!!!
If you see any advertisement for *anything* on this page, please know it was inserted *without* permission. It seems to be a problem with IE browsers; I’ve not seen adverts appear in Firefox, but that may be related to my cookies settings… I don’t know. Anyway, I’d prefer that visitors to this blog NOT click on any advertisement that may appear ***any***where on this blog. I have not authorized these ads, and since they’ve only recently begun to appear, I’m not sure the machinations behind the cause…