Jean Rohe

One of my most loyal readers, Rick, commented on my post applauding for Jean Rohe's speech at her graduation from the New School. He expressed his outrage at Ms. Rohe's "venom,"  and mocked the left, saying "you heckle while we govern." His comment echos the majority of the wing-nut blogosphere, who were "shocked" at her disrespect for two Vietnam Vets, or "citizen warriors," as Rick put it.
It's hilarious.
These are the same people who wore band-aids with purple hearts on them at the Republican National Convention; the same who enjoyed the Swiftboating of another vet, John Kerry.
Just last week, right wing bloggers were truly spewing venom at a retired Marine Colonel and Vietnam Vet.  "Vermin", "Traitor",  and "Disgrace" were some of the chosen words. One blogger wrote that the Vet ""should be rediculed, excoriated and frog-marched."   Another, the famed Norma D., talked of a "disgusting display of cowardice." Yet another declared that the Vet "has no honor left, no dignity."
It's OK with the Ricks of this world to use words like this to describe John Murtha or to lie about John Kerry's service.  It's an outrage to use venom like Jean Rohe did about McCain and Kerrey, the most viscious chraterization she made was to say that McCain did "not reflect the ideals upon which this university was founded." This is venom? Certainly not, but it's also absolutely true. The University was founded with a distinctly progressive set of ideals.  In its early years it trained people for four professions, Journalism, Teaching, Labor Organizing, and Administering public policy. It proudly states that it " has remained a fountainhead of social change, artistic daring, intellectual freedom, and educational innovation." Not exactly a conservative institution.

Comments

[Rick]

I did not express "outrage" Skippy, I expressed "embarrassment for you". You may, however, take literary license with my words. I give you permission. No, no outrage here. Bemusement perhaps, but no outrage. I find it laughable that this silly young woman believes a commencement is to "honor us (her included) above all". All that time and money and she enters the real world so profoundly unprepared. That faculty (likely not strung out on heroin) is responsible for the tragedy. It's hard to keep up with you folks . When did liberal become progressive? "Intellectual freedom"? I think not. You and I both know that "intellectual freedom" would lead to diverse opinion. Opinion is monolithic at that institution. That was evidenced by their intolerance of McCain and Kerry. It is a strange irony that they fought to preserve the first amendment right that the students and faculty used in an attempt to silence them.

Kerry, a Democrat, and McCain a Republican, are the real deal. That rudeness is a virtue on your side, is a puzzlement to me.

How quickly you leap from a commencement address to Kerry (J. F.) and the swift boat veterans. I realize this wound will be long to heal. That Kerry brought the matter down upon himself, is completely lost to you. His portrayal of himself as heroic in his spring of 2004 book "Tour of Duty", described incidents that those who served with him were unable to recognize. You immediately dismiss all that as "lies". In that neither you nor I were on the Mekong with them at the time, makes it no more than a "he said" "they said" story to us. You want it to be lies because it was your ox that was being gored. The only evidence supporting Kerry's version of events, was the "after action reports" which Kerry himself authored. His oft repeated story of "Christmas in Cambodia" (fighting the Khmer Rouge) was proven to be completely untrue as the PCF's whereabouts was detailed in the boat logs. It has turned out that Kerry and his boat crew were at a U S O show that evening. I believe you to be an intellectually honest person. Ask yourself this question. What would cause a couple of hundred veterans, who would make up a cross section of American society, (Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, O'Neill himself, is a lifelong Democrat), to forever relinquish their right to say that they had served with the "President of the United States"? You have to have an honest answer to this question or you will be unable to move forward. Those who dismissed it as "political" were only wishful thinkers.

Murtha has accused Marines of killing civilians "in cold blood" while an investigation is underway. Civilians may have been killed in an action, It would not be the first time. We are dealing with an enemy that does not provide sanctuary for it's innocents. On the contrary, they hide amongst them. That they were "killed in cold blood" may not ever be known, yet Murtha calls the press and with lights and camera rolling announces it to the world. This will be repeated on Al Jazeera and throughout the Muslim world. These words will cause the deaths of more Americans in the future as the necessity to retaliate will be perceived. The most deplorable aspect of Murtha's action is that he accuses those who are by statute unable to respond. They must stand mute. When Murtha was videotaped gleefully fondling bales of cash given to him by undercover FBI agents posing as wealthy Arabs, he was able to call out the press and give his "version" of what we all thought we saw. He was able to respond.

I enjoy your photography of Union Square.

Pax tecum.

[Jack Spratt]

What Jean did is employ the tactics of a Nazi. Disagree-then denigrate. In a university-ideas can be discussed and debated-but if they are drowned by propaganda, nothing useful can be had. In fact, quite the opposite is realized.

If McCain, a senator who has proven to be centered politically and a POW who served his country with distinction is to be treated like this, then we're-as a country-in trouble. Jean Rohe's speech was an self-rightous, auto congratulatory leftist piece of fluff. As a student obviously aligned with things communist with a bias only a 60s mom could love, she should have been replaced with someone who could have told those kids to aspire, achieve and contribute to this country and world. What they got was small minded sniping of the worse sort.

[bbbustard]

Thanks a lot for your comment, and I'd be really interested in hearing what your news source is. She never interrupted McCain. She spoke before McCain. She sat down and listened to what he had to say. She did nothing to drown him out. Her most vicious statement was that she thought that he did not represent the views of the founders of the University. In fact, after the ceremony, she put her arm into his as they exited together. I don't see the Nazi connection. If you knew anything about The New School, you would realize how outrageously wrong you are to bring up Nazis in that context. She disagreed with him: something that I understood you thought to be acceptable.

[David]

Quote: "I find it laughable that this silly young woman believes a commencement is to "honor us (her included) above all".

What exactly do you think is the purpose for a commencement, if not to honor the graduating students???

Jean was right on point. She did not attempt to dismiss McCain's right to his opinions--in fact, quite the contrary. She *validated* his right by referencing his speech and crafting an entire counter-speech designed to convey her disagreement with his viewpoints.