Oh, Spare Me

Not content with her fifteen minutes, the naive and self-indulgent Ms. Jean Rohe was apparently compelled enlisted to post at HuffPo on her reasoning for speaking out against Senator John McCain at yesterday's New School graduation ceremonies.

One need only quickly gaze at the number of "I's" in her response to come to understand the genuine lack of true experience and perspective in her, as yet, young mind. It's the nature of the young to presume they know or have experienced much more of the world than they actually do or have. It's unfortunate Ms. Rohe had to take advantage of her few moments of mass attention to prove it. But, like most, I've been there.

It's an obviously forgivable offense on a personal level. The greater loss is to society as a whole when some seeking only to capitalize politically would hold up such maudlin sympathies as rhetoric with any truly significant meaning. She could have scrawled it in her year book and made as important a mark. See here, instead.

Here's my commencement speech:

If all the world were peaceful now and forever more,
Peaceful at the surface and peaceful at the core,

All the joy within my heart would be so free to soar,

And we're living on a living planet, circling a living star.

Don't know where we're going but I know we're going far.

We can change the universe by being who we are,

And we're living on a living planet, circling a living star.

Comments

[Gaius Arbo]

Whoa. High praise, indeed. Thank you very much for the link.

[Rick]

I'm not a huge fan of Senator McCain but I will say this. The man has quite literally been to hell and back. Staring down Chinese tanks...or poking tigers, to him isn't much. This is EXACTLY what happens when we do not teach our children history or manners. The senator more than the majority of those in congress deserve the respect of keeping one's stupid, uneducated, inexperienced mouth shut.

[Jason D]

Mr. Riehl,

I am glad to see you have your voice back, now *that* was a well put together post, with some logical arguments behind it.

I will however submit to you, counter arguments to your most important points.

With regard to the number of "I's" that Ms. Rohe used in her writings on the Huffington Post. The title of the post is: "Why I spoke up". Since the topic was *herself* it stands to reason that the content of her commentary would contain many references to herself, thus the abundant use of the "I" to refer to herself, and what she was thinking/experiencing. I don't believe that her generous use of the term "I", in this context, in any way reflects a lack of experience or perspective. Had she been writing about something else, such as the stock market, a current bombing, or any other such topic, the use of so many I's would have definitly reflected he lack of experience and perspective.

The other two points I would like to address are these comments which you make: "The greater loss is to society as a whole when some seeking only to capitalize politically would hold up such maudlin sympathies as rhetoric with any truly significant meaning. She could have scrawled it in her year book and made as important a mark."

First, I don't believe Ms. Rohes sympathies are in any way detrimental to society. If she were not allowed to make her comments, or was inhibited from saying what she felt, now THAT would have been detrimental to society. Her commentary was not for her personal political gain, as exhibited in her writings on the Huffington Post, she said that she didn't believe she would in any way be in the spotlight. Her comments were obviouslly Political, on the national level, and since Senator McCain is a national political figure who happens to be on the side that Ms. Rohe's political comments deride, her comments clearly are a blow to Senator McCain.

As for whether or not she would have made as much of a mark had she written this in her year book. . . Empirical evidence clearly refutes that argument.

[Dan]

As for whether or not ...

The excessive use of "I" in her writing is wholly relevant. The subject would be her argument for speaking up, not "her." She, just as "I", matter very little in the larger debate, excepting as for what arguments we might put forth. That she fails to understand that only supports my point. The venue was a graduation ceremony, not a political convention. In the commonly displayed self-indulgence and exxagerated self-importance of the young, they often lack a reasonable sense of time or place.

In the end, her argument is not much more than "I want it to be so." Ms. Rohe's emotions have never been elected to run anything, except perhaps for her boyfriend's life, assuming she has one, so far as I know.

[Jason D]

Mr. Riehl

I have read your comment above, and come to the conclusion that we are both right to some degree, with regard to her use of "I's".

The point in contention really boils down to how one parses the title of her post: "Why I spoke up". One only has to say this title aloud two times, with the emphasis on two different words to see what I mean. "*WHY* I spoke up" and "Why *I* spoke up". The different emphasis implied a different tack to any proceeding content. Now I will say, that since she spent so much time within her post, addressing her thought processes and motovations, she very likely intended for the emphasis to be on the *I*.

At this point it seems to me that your arguments rest on your comment that: "The venue was a graduation ceremony, not a political convention. In the commonly displayed self-indulgence and exxagerated self-importance of the young, they often lack a reasonable sense of time or place."

The fact that it was a graduation ceremony and not a political convention is irrelevant, she was an invited speaker, just as Senator McCain was. McCain himself made many political comments within his own speech: "I supported the decision to go to war in Iraq. Many Americans did not. My patriotism and my conscience required me to support it and to engage in the debate over whether and how to fight it." Using your logic, McCains speech would also be political and therefor not appropriate for a commencement ceremony.

Your last paragraph tries to close this argument out by stating that Ms. Rohe was not elected to any office, which is true, but as I said above, she was an envited speaker (Or she had earned enough Honors and Accolades to be selected to speak). She had every right to make any statement she pleased.

If you read her speech, you will notice that she makes no personal attack against Senator McCain, which is laudable in a time of Ad Hominem attacks.

Continuing, you made another insulting attack against her on the basis of ignorance: "never been elected to run anything, except perhaps for her boyfriend's life, assuming she has one, so far as I know." I really wish you would not do this, as it only weakens your arguments by revealing your bias.

As a journalist you should know better, and you should instead address facts under debate, and not hide behind the old standby of ad hominem attacks.

[Dan]

Continuing, you made another insulting attack against her

I did not. I attacked some imaginary boyfriend, just as I "attack" a young college guy I know who dates a young woman from my household. It's called ribbing. Geesh. As a journalist, I suggest you lighten up.

To the point, as A Senator, McCain was invited based mainly on his political experience. Naturally, he would talk about things he knows and personal experience. Unfortunately, Ms. Rohe, who was invited as a graduating Senior, failed to do that, jumping full bore into an argument on issues for which she is mostly unprepared to speak beyond venting just one more opinion.

That in itself isn't a bad thing, but, again, the venue enters in. Attendees weren't there to hear Ms. Rohe's opinions on the war, or anything else beyond possibly her relevant college-related experiences. And I doubt her lovely opening poem is going to get her listed at anyone's speaker's bureau any time soon.

[Jason D]

Yes, you did make a personal attack, that is irrefutable, you implied that she ran her boyfriend's life, and she has no life herself. No, I will not lighten up, as I take defamation seriously, as should you.

Basically you whole argument rests on proper venue, and I addressed that above.

You believe that political commentary's from the Graduating Senior are not appropriate, because of the Senor's lack of experience.

I believe that the Graduating Senior who has won enough accolades and honors has earned the right to make a speech about anything he or she pleases (Barring slander, of course).

Realistically speaking, she had the full support of her audience, so I still maintain that her choice was a good one, and it was the proper venue for her to articulate, and bring to life her ideas.

[Dan]

you implied that she ran her boyfriend's life

Call it a wild guess, she put you up to this, right?? ; )

[Jason D]

No, it is chear that YOU implied that she ran her boyfriends life.

I quote YOUR post: "never been elected to run anything, except perhaps for her boyfriend's life, assuming she has one, so far as I know."

Those were YOUR words, not mine.

[Rick]

"I quote YOUR post: "never been elected to run anything, except PERHAPS for her boyfriend's life, assuming she has one, so far as I know."

Perhaps? P-E-R-H-A-P-S. Somehow it seems like use of the word "perhaps" would make it a question, not an accusation

[Jason D]

Mr. Rheil

OK, Lets just take a moment to educate ourselves before we procede any further.

First let me say, that my favourite dictionary is Websters 3rd international version, a rather useful large tome, which me and my friends affectionatly refer to as "The Sacred Book Of All Words", we know it dosen't have all the words in it, but we consider it sacred none-the-less, as it has come in handy in many a late evening debate about the philosophies of life and God.

perhaps (adv) : possibly but not certainly : MAYBE

implicate (adj) : 1: archaic :to fold or to twist together : INTERWEAVE 2: to involve as a consequence, corollary, or natural inferance : IMPLY.

So now that is done, and I think we can agreen that these are the correct parts of speech for our definition, take a look at the style book. . . By the way . . . what style book did your newspaper use?

Continuing, I did not imply anything. I did, however, state that you made an implication. I made the statement as a statement of fact. I did this because you involved her boyfriend as a consequence of 'perhaps' i.e. *maybe* she has a boyfriend.

I quote you: "Perhaps? P-E-R-H-A-P-S. Somehow it seems like use of the word "perhaps" would make it a question, not an accusation"

Now, 'perhaps' as an adverb in a scentence does not imply that the sentence is a question. The correct way to convey that a statement is a question, is the use of the question-mark. '?'

OK, lets take a look at your implication.

I quote you: "never been elected to run anything, except perhaps for her boyfriend's life, assuming she has one, so far as I know."

Implication: (maybe/perhaps) she is running her (assumed) boyfriends life, "so far as you know".

Get it?

You admitidely made this statement in ignorance of the facts, i.e. you do not know if she has a boyfriend or not "so far as I know".

Rhetorical questions for you:

Does this make you ignorant? Maybe what makes you ignorant is the fact that you do not know or understand how to utilize the english language? Maybe what makes you ignorant is your heavy bias which closes your eyes? Perhaps you are unwilling to open your eyes for another reason.

Does the fact that I implied that you are ignorant offend you? I don't think it should, ignorance is easilly fixed.

What should offend YOU . . . is the implication that you are unwilling to open your eyes.