Shame On You, Bob Kerrey

Former Senator, now President of The New School, Bob Kerrey has posted at HuffPo to address the issues around Senator John McCain's recent speech at the school's commencement. 

That's all well and good and he's right to do so. But this?

More importantly -- and also lost in the charges and counter-charges -- is this fact: student protests are a necessary and essential part of democratic free expression. Did we not love the brave and disrespectful students at Tiananmen? Did we not applaud the determination of the student led movements that helped bring down the dictators that ruled Eastern Europe in 1991? Have we forgotten the critical difference students made in reversing an unlawful election in Ukraine or in driving the Syrians from Lebanon or who still seethe in discontent under the religious law of Iran’s mullahs?

Thus, when some of the critics of The New School students suggest they should have behaved with more discipline, as did the students at Liberty University, I strongly disagree. Our students were moved by idealism, not arrogance. I may not agree with their conclusions, but I do not begin with the presumption that my age gives me a privileged view of the truth. Quite the contrary – I believe that those of us who are older should keep our ears and hearts open to the possibility that our age may have cost us the most important of human characteristics: the hope for a better, fairer, and more just world.

Shame on Bob Kerrey for even suggesting there is anything remotely equivalent between what happened at The New School and Tiananmen, Eastern Europe or Lebanon. Academe has apparently robbed the former Senator of any sense of proportion in this regard.

It's disgraceful to compare America's long history and tradition of open, protected protest with what the world witnessed in Tiananmen Square and other such dangerous and even deadly places around the world. Good heavens has the man ever over-reached.

Defend your graduates if you must, but please don't misinform them that what was engaged in at your commencement was anything resembling the events you invoked in their defense.

From China and Eastern Europe to Syria and Lebanon, dissidents have been abused, tortured and killed for far less than anything your students exhibited or accomplished at your recent event. And suggesting there is anything like a similarity does them no good at all, while demeaning every brave and noble soul who has ever spoken out to tyranny while under significant threat.

How dare you abuse history, your graduates, us, and especially all peoples of the world who have ever stood up to speak real truth to tyrannical power by even suggesting such a link. Tiananmen alone likely left thousands of unknown dead and your upstart was publishing her mostly pampered, insipid rhetoric the next day on a blog.

Perhaps your actual goal was to give a handful of petulant students cover by making yourself the greater disgrace. Congratulations, you've graduated. Now take your diploma and for God's sake, sit down.

The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, also known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, June 4th Incident, or the Political Turmoil between Spring and Summer of 1989 by the Chinese government, were a series of demonstrations led by students, intellectuals and labour activists in the People's Republic of China between April 15, 1989 and June 4, 1989, leaving (according to Chinese authorities) between 400 and 800 civilians dead, and between 7,000 and 10,000 injured. An initial report from local hospitals put the number at around 2,000 dead.

Update: Apparently Bob Kerrey spells his name with two "e's." I knew this, really!!! I had to borrow one to grade his huffPo post. My bad! Corrected.

Comments

[SinCerely]

Spelling is very important when blogging.
As you see above. You never know when the top student of a junior high debate team will wonder onto your site and throw a few @'s around ;)

[don surber]

I'll forgive the misspelling

But using Es instead of Fs to grade a HuffPo post ...

[ben walsh]

What a joke. The students at the New School were doing their best to infringe on free speech because it wasn't to their liking. Pathetic.

[Stella]

Dang! I'm a 2006 grad of The New School, but I had to miss the graduation ceremony due to a severe hangover. Oh how I wish my last memory of this significant part of my life could have been listening to another student rip McCain a new asshole.

"Quite the contrary – I believe that those of us who are older should keep our ears and hearts open to the possibility that our age may have cost us the most important of human characteristics: the hope for a better, fairer, and more just world." You're damned right, Krrey (my bad,too!) - and for me, part of that hope is that people will open their BRAINS to the possibility that not everyone shares the same viewpoint. Hijacking a graduation ceremony is absurd, selfish, and childish - grow up and express your disatisfaction in a forum where it will draw some positive attention. Like maybe a political campaign or a VOTING BOOTH????

[Jason D]

Mr, Riehl,

You again prove your ignorance and weaknesses with regard to the use of the english language.

The president of the New University was making comparison showing that student protest has a long and honored history. He chose examples of protests that changed the world.

The fact that some of the greatest student protests occured under a violent regime, and ended in bloodshed has no bearing on the fact that the students of the New University were expressing their dissent, just as those students have in other parts of the world, i.e. it is a time honored occurence.

Thank God, I live in a country that does not kill its students for their outspoken dissent.

Using your logic of 'scale', the New University Students were not expressing true dissent, because they did not participate in a violent uprising, or were not detained violently.

If there were violence at the New University Commencement, you would have undoubtedly have blamed the dissenters.

I have already completly destroyed every single argument you have made about the New University Students' dissent.

Here: http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/05/oh_spare_me.html

and Here:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/05/another_insipid.html

You really are too easy, and it is mainly because of your eyes. . . They are closed. No-one follows the ignorant.

[David j.]

Jason D. is in love with himself and his supposed ability tho think critically. It is beyond the pale that he would compare the life-threatening (and life losing) efforts of brave Chinese in the face of those tanks with the pathetic effort of a priveledged young GIRL to embarass a U.S. Sentaor. I have the distinct feeling that both Jason D. and the pathetic graduate of The New School are not the kinds of protestors who would ever put thier lives in danger for thier beliefs. Most likely they both are the same kind of people who watched for several hours while Kitty Genovese was brutalized and killed not so many years ago...loud with the bravado but not so brave to act.

[Dan]

Mr, Riehl,

lol You are a peach, Jason. Are you sure your name isn't Richard Feder from Fort Lee, NJ?

I'm sure you're a fine young man, however trite at this point in your experience.

[Jason D]

Dan,

Nope, my name is Jason.

I live in San Jose, California.

I don't know who Richard Feder is, I'll Google him later, to educate myself.

I did, however grow up in New Jersey, Wayne NJ to be exact. I bet you will try to make something of that, even though it is irrelevant.

I am pleased that you have refered to me as a young man, because that is how I like to think of myself, young at heart. Although, I am not young in years.

Do you have a critical counter argument to offer? Or just character attacks?

David J,

Yes, I am proud of my ability to think critically, I am not always right, and I am always open to debate.

Do you have something to offer? A counter argument of some sort? Or are you just going to rest on Ad Hominem?

[Dan]

I don't know who Richard Feder is, I'll Google him later, to educate myself.

Please do. Perhaps you'll appreciate how sanctimonious you come off. Take yourself to a ball game instead of so seriously all the time. Your agruments are far from as worthy as you evidently think.

[Paul]

Ad hominem, Jason?...

"You again prove your ignorance and weaknesses with regard to the use of the english language."

The rest of your "writing" continues to go down from there.

I suppose you would recognise attacks better than anyone else.

As for that little girl in the crowd at the "new school" (btw...is that a special school for the mentally challenged?)... really...

[Jason D]

Dan,

Sanctimonious? Really, come on now, if that isn't the Pot calling The Kettle Black.

Paul,

Not all Ad Hominem is unjustified. I proved over and over again, (please take the time to read through all of my arguments) that Dan Riehl was mistaken and mis-using terms, I revealed his ignorance on many different topics. . . NONE OF THESE ARGUMENTS HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY COUNTERED.

Do you have something to offer besides?

I have been met with nothing but ignorant ad hominem attacking my character based on no evidence what-so-ever.

[Dan]

Not sure what time zone you're in, Jason, but the street lights are coming on here. I'll just assume you'll be back to play in the AM.

[Dave H]

It is not possible to "completly destroy" [sic] anybody in a blog comment -- other than the poster himself. Just offer your take and move along; the rest of us will decide for ourselves the effectiveness of your presentation.

[Jason D]

Dan,

I told you I live in California, the time zone I live in is Pacific Time.

I do wake up early in the morning, so I just might re-appear in the AM.

Let me just say, that if my tone came off a sanctimonious, it is because I like a civil tone to my discussions. There is nothing wrong with that. I am not attacking anybodies character based on ignorance, their age, nor their place of origin. I am mearly making comments on a Blog, that contradict the Blog owners conclusions. I don't view this as a game, it is a dialectic, and nothing more.

I don't intend for this discussion to be world-changing, and I don't expect it to. All I intend is to engage in a civil discourse, on the Topic of the speech that Ms. Rohe gave at the New University.

[Jason D]

Dave H,

You are right, I did get a big head there, and I apologize for that transgression. I could not "completly destroy" his arguments, and my arguments must rest on their own merits, and not my claims of their merits.

[Dan]

I like a civil tone to my discussions

Well, I don't believe I've been uncivil at all. What you lack in your responses is any sense of good humor. Obviously you haven't looked up Richard Feder or you'd see I was trying to tell you to lighten up.

[Stella]

Pardon me for not using the stock phrase A Star Is Born, this one below will actually have to accomplish something before achieving that designation. But obviously she's preparing for the day when she can take the stage at the Grammies and, um, speak nonsense to the powerful….

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.
Posted by: Jason D | Sunday, May 21, 2006 at 05:04 PM

Empirical evidence requires a hypothesis that can be tested either through experimentation or observation. Jason - please post the results of your tests so that we may more fully enjoy Mr. Riehl's proven ignorance.

Whats (WHAT’S – AS IN THE CONTRACTION OF “WHAT IS”) your point, Mr. Riehl? I think you just felt like hurling a few insults.
All you have contrubuted (CONTRIBUTED – DICTIONARY TIME IS IN ORDER!!) to this discussion, Mr. Riehl, is insults.
NO PRODUCTIVE OR INSPIRED CONTENT HERE, MOVE ALONG.
Posted by: Jason D | Saturday, May 20, 2006 at 04:05 PM
Hate to break it to you, Jas, but the simple fact that you think it doesn’t necessarily make it the truth. Argument refuted on the basis of irrelevant facts; Mr. Riehl may stay.
----------------------------------------------------------
No-one follows the ignorant.
Posted by: Jason D | Wednesday, May 24, 2006 at 04:58 PM

Jason - you are so, so, so correct! “OK, Lets just take a moment to educate ourselves before we procede (PROCEED, Jason) any further.“ I AM SO GLAD THAT YOU INCLUDED YOURSELF IN THAT STATEMENT; AFTER READING YOUR MANY COMMENTS ON RWV, IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU DO, INDEED, NEED TO BE EDUCATED. I’ve made a couple of corrections within the text I copied above; here are more examples of your boo-boos.

You fallacious little pip-squeak! Let’s start with this: “First let me say, that my favourite (AFFECTATION – OFTEN AN INDICATION OF A LACK OF SELF-ESTEEM) dictionary is Websters 3rd international version, a rather useful large tome, which me and my friends affectionatly (AFFECTIONATELY, Jason – look in you revered dictionary!!) refer to as "The Sacred Book Of All Words", ME AND MY FRIENDS? ME AND MY FRIENDS? You hopeless little ass – if you can’t figure out what’s wrong – hahahahah!!!!

---------------------------------
“Maybe what makes you ignorant is the fact that you do not know or understand how to utilize (THIS IS A GOOD ONE, Jas!! LET ME SHARE A LITTLE CUT AND PASTE WITH YOU; IT SAYS IT MUCH BETTER THAN I COULD: Usage Note: A number of critics have remarked that utilize is an unnecessary substitute for use. It is true that many occurrences of utilize could be replaced by use with no loss to anything but pretentiousness, for example, in sentences such as They utilized questionable methods in their analysis or We hope that many commuters will continue to utilize mass transit after the bridge has reopened. But utilize can mean “to find a profitable or practical use for.” YOU SNOB, YOU!!) the english (ENGLISH – CAPITILIZATION IS APPROPRIATE) language? Maybe what makes you ignorant is your heavy bias which (USE “THAT” RATHER “WHICH” IF THE REMAINER OF THE SENTENCE IS CRITICAL TO THE MEANING. USING “WHICH” INDICATES THAT IT IS NON-ESSENTIAL) closes your eyes? Perhaps you are unwilling to open your eyes for another reason. I don't think it should, ignorance is easilly (EASILY – REALLY EASY TO SPELL, Jas!) fixed.”

Not all Ad Hominem is unjustified. I proved over and over again, (please take the time to read through all of my arguments) that Dan Riehl was mistaken and mis-using (WORD TO THE WISE, Jas – WHEN YOU ARE CRITIQUING ANOTHER PERSON’S WORK, ALWAYS BE CERTAIN TO SPELL ALL WORDS CORRECTLY. BEEP!! F!! MISUSING IS NOT HYPHENATED – GO BACK TO YOUR DICTIONARY, Jas) terms, I revealed his ignorance on many different topics. . . NONE OF THESE ARGUMENTS HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY COUNTERED.
Do you have something to offer besides? (BESIDES WHAT, Jas? TEA AND CRUMPETS? YOU MUST LEARN TO WRITE IN COMPLETE SENTENCES; YOUR CURRENT WRITING STYLE IS SUB-STANDARD, AND THAT IS BEING KIND.)
I have been met with nothing but ignorant ad hominem attacking my character based on no evidence what-so-ever.
Posted by: Jason D | Wednesday, May 24, 2006 at 07:44 PM
“…ignorant ad hominem attacking my character based on no evidence what-so-ever.” I DO BELIEVE THAT IS THE SINGLE-MOST STUPIDEST STATEMENT I EVER DID READ. AND AS AN ASIDE, JAS, WHILE SOME OF YOUR ARGUMENTS MAY BE VALID; THEY ARE SO FULL OF POMPOUS, SELF-SERVING BS THAT WHO REALLY CARES?
-----------------
I am pleased that you have refered (REFERRED, Jas, REFERRED) to me as a young man, because that is how I like to think of myself, young at heart. Although, I am not young in years. (COULD YOU JUST GO BACK AND RE-WRITE THIS WHOLE MESS? BETWEEN THE SPELLING AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS, IT REALLY SUCKS. I’D NEED A BROOM TO CLEAN UP ALL OF YOUR SENTENCE FRAGMENTS AND I DON’T HAVE ALL NIGHT.)
Yes, I am proud of my ability to think critically, I am not always right, and I am always open to debate.
Do you have something to offer? A counter argument (Jas, YOU HAVE GOT TO USE THAT BELOVED DICTIONARY MORE FREQUENTLY; PROBABLY EACH TIME YOU WRITE A SENTENCE. “COUNTER-ARGUMENT” IS HYPHENATED) of some sort? Or are you just going to rest on Ad Hominem? (SAME WITH THIS BATCH – HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ONE OF THESE LITTLE THINGS – “ ; “ ? LOOK IN YOUR BELOVED DICTIONARY; YOU WILL FIND IT UNDER “PUNCTUATION MARKS.”)
Posted by: Jason D | Wednesday, May 24, 2006 at 06:12 PM
No, Jas, you are not always open to debate; your standard response is “…ad hominem…” - ad nauseam!! Try these nice words, just to spice up your dull, boring vocabulary - dirty pool, hatchet job, mudslinging, name-calling, personal attack, slanderous attack, smear. Try to remember that others understand the simpler concepts of logic, too, Jas – ad hominem included.
I saved this one for last, Jason; it’s kinda cute, ya know? “….The correct way to convey that a statement is a question, is the use of the question-mark. '?'….” (QUESTION MARK; NOT HYPHENATED – YOU SURE DO LIKE THOSE LITTLE SUCKERS, DON’T YOU? UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY ARE ACTUALLY CALLED FOR.)
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/05/oh_spare_me.html
Posted by: Jason D | Wednesday, May 24, 2006 at 06:25 AM
I just absolutely LOVE this one, Jas!!!! What I’d REALLY like to know is how you go about conveying that an apple is an orange? Look, Jas, get the freaking dictionary out and start reading; here is a little bit of a hint: STATEMENT – Something stated; a declaration. QUESTION – a. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply; b. An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture. Academically-inclined as you are, you may want to think “thesis statement” vs. “research question.” Kinda like apple cider vs. orange juice!!

One more (same post as the above) ”…You admitidely (ADMITTEDLY, Jas!!) 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"….”
THE GRAMMAR AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE SUCK; YOUR ARGUMENT IS STOOPID – LMAO – GIVE IT UP, JAS – GO READ YOUR BELOVED DICTIONARY.

[Dan]

Geesh! Stella got her groove on tonight! ha!

[Jason D]

Hello Stella,

I guess my sanctimonious BS is at an end, I'll try to communicate with you on the level that you communicate with me.

I'm glad to see that you have your groove back.

I quote You: "Empirical evidence requires a hypothesis that can be tested either through experimentation or observation. Jason"

This hypothesis is testable. Although, I would think that anyone with half a brain would not need to test it. You can think of it as a thought experiment. Don't hurt yourself.

I quote you, Stel : "Whats (WHAT’S – AS IN THE CONTRACTION OF “WHAT IS”) your point, Mr. Riehl? I think you just felt like hurling a few insults.
All you have contrubuted (CONTRIBUTED – DICTIONARY TIME IS IN ORDER!!) "

OK, the proper contraction is: "what's". The correct spelling is: "contributed". You are very intelligent Stel, I see the dictionary suggestion is working.

I quote you: "Hate to break it to you, Jas, but the simple fact that you think it doesn’t necessarily make it the truth."

Yes, you are right. This is open to speculation. It was a statement of opinion. That is why I used the phrase: "I think".

You also said: "I AM SO GLAD THAT YOU INCLUDED YOURSELF IN THAT STATEMENT; AFTER READING YOUR MANY COMMENTS ON RWV, IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU DO, INDEED, NEED TO BE EDUCATED."

Yes, we all can use a little education. I have never claimed otherwise, as I have said over and over again that I am open to argument . . . Do you have a constructive counter-argument to the actual topic at hand? You know, the topic that Dan wrote about?

Sigh, I guess not. . . I quote you: "You fallacious little pip-squeak!"

"Pip-squeak!" I say that out loud, with a high pitch tone, it's cute, and it humours me. I haven't heard that since grade school. It is nice to see first grade slang is still in use, and I welcome your unique perspective.

Moving right along. . .
"Let’s start with this: “First let me say, that my favourite (AFFECTATION – OFTEN AN INDICATION OF A LACK OF SELF-ESTEEM) dictionary is Websters 3rd international version, a rather useful large tome, which me and my friends affectionatly (AFFECTIONATELY, Jason – look in you revered dictionary!!)"

Affection is a lack of self-esteem? Wow. Where did you discover that psychobabble? I guess there are those like you who believe that affection is a weakness. I feel sorry for them.

Sigh. La di da. . .

"ME AND MY FRIENDS? ME AND MY FRIENDS? You hopeless little ass – if you can’t figure out what’s wrong – hahahahah!!!!"

"My friends and I." : Darn, Stel, I can't get anything past your big ass can I? Perhaps your boyfriend can't either - hahahhaaha ah hahahahahhahhah! It would be nice if you could comment on the actual topic at hand, that is; the arguments I put forward. Those arguments that are strong enough to defeat Mr. Rhiels arguments. . . Of which (yes, I am using the word: "which") you have absolutely no counter for. (Don't bother challenging my noun in this sentence, as it is clear what "counter" means in this context.)

"Do you have something to offer besides? (BESIDES WHAT, Jas? TEA AND CRUMPETS? YOU MUST LEARN TO WRITE IN COMPLETE SENTENCES; YOUR CURRENT WRITING STYLE IS SUB-STANDARD, AND THAT IS BEING KIND.)"

Again, don't bother challenging my sentence fragments, as I have the grammar down cold. My fragments are a matter of style and nothing more. My writing style is leaps and bounds above yours, Stel, why do you use in-line comments with all capitals? It makes reading your comments feel like I am grading a ten year olds' angry letter to Santa because she didn't get what she wanted for Christmas.

"“…ignorant ad hominem attacking my character based on no evidence what-so-ever.” I DO BELIEVE THAT IS THE SINGLE-MOST STUPIDEST STATEMENT I EVER DID READ. AND AS AN ASIDE, JAS, WHILE SOME OF YOUR ARGUMENTS MAY BE VALID; THEY ARE SO FULL OF POMPOUS, SELF-SERVING BS THAT WHO REALLY CARES?"

Those were personal attacks, and you haven't provided any evidents to refute that. Apparently YOU care, or you wouldn't have bothered commenting. Just because I say that Dan is making ignorant ad hominem arguments frequently, dosen't refute the fact that he is.

"I just absolutely LOVE this one, Jas!!!! What I’d REALLY like to know is how you go about conveying that an apple is an orange?"

OK. Care to point how my argument is like comparing apples to oranges? I didn't think so. Again, gasping for breath, aren't you?

The rest of your comments are unworthy of reply.

Do you have any arguments that actually deal with the topic at hand Stel? Comments about the way the blogger presented his arguments?

No. I guess not.

I'll modify my closing comment just for you, Stel.

Only the ignorant follow the ignorant.

[Stella]

...Do you have any arguments that actually deal with the topic at hand....
Posted by: Jason D | Thursday, May 25, 2006 at 04:03 PM

Damn, Jas - you aren't nearly as ignorant as I assumed you were as I read your earlier posts; I am filled with delight!! I eagerly await your next comment/argument; one that I am sure will actually pertain to (deal with) the topic at hand....rather than you.

[Stella]

Jason - you obviously missed the point that I was trying to make; I'll try to do so in a more civil manner. You have come into a blog that attracts a wide variety of personalities and political views; one and all are accepted and welcomed by Dan Riehl. Rather than engage in reasonable (or even heated) discussion or debate, you assume that every exchange must be an "argument;" thereby setting a negative tone to any interaction that you will have here. You have spent virtually no time addressing the issues at hand; you have repeatedly attacked Dan Riehl on a variety of fronts - most of which have absolutely no bearing on anything that goes on here. Your repeated rants about "ad hominem arguments" are pointless, and they waste people's time. No one cares about which is your dictionary of choice; your use of the word "tome" will not impress anyone here - we tend to be a rather well educated, intelligent group. Your behavior has resulted in your being labelled what is known as a "troll." Here's a link if you're not familiar with the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll Standard protocol is to ignore trolls, and that is what I will do with you after this post.