I'm probably going overboard talking about the whole Jessica McBride thing more, but to be honest, even though it's a relatively small blip on the radar (all things considered), I think it highlights a lot of interesting tangential topics that go beyond the original incident.  One of those things was what I called "The Speed of News".  Another of them is how we criticize non-speech.

From what I understand, the justification for what she did was to complain about Eugene Kane not saying something, or enough, about the increasing violence in Milwaukee, specifically regarding the death of Jasmine Owens.  Let's just take a step back and think about this for a moment.  Eugene Kane is a very controversial columnist in Milwaukee.  Lord knows that I've criticized him plenty of times for things he's posted on his blog, and in his columns.  But I try to actually criticize him for things he's actually said.  Between all the Hollywood actors who have said awful things about Jews and homosexuals, Don Imus using inappropriate language and getting fired, and countless other incidents where people have said inappropriate things and been criticized, it would seem that our only safe bet these days is not to say a word about anything.

Unless you're Eugene Kane.  If he doesn't say anything to provide us with the appropriate ammunition we require to score our political points, well then we'll just turn his silence into ammunition.  How dare he not say something that we can criticize him for later!  I have a blog to write and need a topic, or a radio show to put on and need something to fill the air time with.  His lack of speech is depriving me of my ability to speak!  That's not fair!

There are plenty of things that happen in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the country, or the world that I would love to blog about.  But my time is limited, as is my attention span.  Somethings make me so angry that I write long blog posts on the topic, then take a breath and never publish.  Sometimes I write very cool level headed posts that I think would be too controversial, and let it sit in draft, never to be seen by another's eyes.  I have one sitting in draft right now that I finished about a week ago that I will likely never publish.  It's killing me that I can't share it... but I know I shouldn't.  Often I choose not to blog about somethings because not enough time has passed since the incident, and I think time is needed.  That is very difficult for a blogger, where speed to press is often key to getting attention, but as I said before, I think we need to slow down sometimes.  Sometimes I just want to research a topic more before I write something that my name will be associated with forever.

Criticizing non-speech is really not that different from criticizing an opinion you've never heard.  In order to criticize it, there is an assumption that his silence has special meaning... and more than likely a bad meaning in your eyes.  Either that, or you assume he was going to say something you weren't going to like anyway, so you we might as well criticize that too.  It's really no better than an Ad Hominem attack, which I can't stand.

We should concentrate on debating ideas, not people.