I smite thee! ...The Diary of Nod

Speeches, Apologies and Peace Treaties

Twelve years ago, then Louisiana State House Representative Steve Scalise went around speaking in opposition to the "Stelly tax plan". During that time, Scalise may have spoken to the Wrong People.

The European-American Unity and Rights Organization hosted a convention and one of their organizers invited Scalise to speak, but it's debatable who he was invited to speak TO. Scalise either spoke to EURO directly or to the Jackson Heights Neighborhood Association and some members of EURO -- because that conference organizer was also a member of the neighborhood organization and borrowed the space for the local group.

Scalise is now a U.S. House Representative (R-LA) and the newly elected House Majority Whip -- and he either spoke to a White Nationalist group or he spoke to a neighborhood organization which was tangentially related to the group.

Apologies ensued.

We all know why he apologized -- whatever the truth is, he has to immediately distance himself from any appearance that he supports them or their rhetoric or their ideas.

Is this good? If we put our umbrage and outrage on Pause for a moment, do we want to say that representatives should not engage with their constituents if those constituents say awful things? Is it better that we ostracize those persons rather than speak to them on ANYTHING? Scalise went to talk tax policy -- what's wrong with that?

Other than We're-The-Good-Guys, how is this any different than criticizing someone for speaking with ACORN or the Black Panthers -- or 60 years ago, working with the NAACP? I know, I know, "We're The GOOD GUYS." What does that matter? Is it not ok to talk with the Bad Guys? Do you know how peace treaties are made?

Absolutely, if Scalise spoke in support of racist rhetoric or racist ideas, he should be taken to task for it. This should happen whether he did this in front of the group or not. What he should be permitted to do, what he should be ENCOURAGED to do, is to engage them as constituents in his normal role as an elected representative, whether it was individual members at a neighborhood organization meeting or the members as part of their convention.

And further, we need to be able to engage persons and groups we disagree with, when we find areas we DO agree. This is how peace treaties are made.

The alternative is that battle lines are drawn between the entirely subjective Good Guys and Bad Guys and nobody from one side is allowed to talk with the other.

posted by Lachlan @ 12:21 AM 0 comments

From Columbia Law School, the redefinition of the word "trauma":

In his email, Mr. Scott wrote that following existing policies for “trauma during exam period,” students who felt their performance could suffer because of the decisions in the Ferguson, Mo., and Staten Island cases could request a delay.

Have we expanded the word "trauma" to include the non-indictment of someone you don't know for the murder of someone you don't know? How loosely should we definite this? If I cut my finger, would that be enough "trauma"?

The existing policy certainly included deaths in the family, possibly some language for a case-by-case death of a friend. How many persons at Columbia Law School knew Eric Garner personally? How many personally knew Mike Brown, when Ferguson (outside St. Louis) is 900 miles from New York City?

What about all of the other persons killed in violence every year? Will the school give delays in exams for students who know a victim not named on cable news? How far does this extend?

We should not minimize the trauma persons experience by conflating it with being upset about persons we didn't know, simply because that person has become a symbol in death.

posted by Lachlan @ 8:49 PM 0 comments