Lefties have always been acting funny, ever since their sixty-ish hippie days, and the rest of us of course don't care very much for them.

The more protest McCain gets from "New School," the better. It shows how mainstream *he* is. That was a brilliant move on his part. So, to sum it up: Kerrey was sly; McCain was brillian; and the faculty and student acted stupid so that the rest of the world (read potential employers) may see what kind of undesirable element they are to our free society.

P.S. And please, don't lump us Ivies with that commie-pinko crowd. Most of us are complacent establishment types who don't give a rat arse about ideologies. Nuff' said.

I would harly say the amerikans show sheep-like passivity rather than active participation in their democracy. And I quess one of the reasons is that it\'s been mentioned so often.

You know what, this is ridiculously long. I'm going to stop now.

Yeh, sweetheart, you should've stopped a long time ago. No one thinks you are a homophobe for thinking homosexual behavior is immoral. Indeed, I encourage you to maintain that position and demonstrate your loyalty to it by abstaining from homosexual behavior. Got it? It's called free choice.

However, the instant that you attempt, in any way, to keep ME from engaging in homosexual behavior, is the instant I will label you a tyrant and a bigot. Spades are spades, know what I mean?

Gracie, if you are going to use words like "ultimately", you should understand that the supreme court does not have the final say on marriage issues. The people, do, in fact, have ultimate power, though constitutional amendment. It probably won't happen, but it's interesting to see the liberal fallback on the old faithful judicial system (coincidentally, the least democratic branch of our government) since they have had trouble for the last decade winning any election of importance. Amazingly, liberals can view themselves as obviously correct on any issue regardless of whether they are in the majority or the minority on that point. If they are in the majority (a rarity, but theoretically still possible), then they laud the broad support of the american people for their position. If they are in the minority (insert comical depiction of frequency) then it just shows how their view must be upheld against the ignorant masses by judges appointed by a long-ago liberal president. Apparently, they can't bring themselves to believe that everyday Americans who don't have time in their week to spend it on hating gays or women can just firmly believe that marriage is inherently defined as being between partners of the opposite sex and that no one has a right to decide whether another person should live or die even if they are dependent on that person's body for sustenance. No, if an American loves life she is called a woman-hater and if his religion states that homosexual behavior is wrong than he is called a homophobe. Tolerance! they cry, (except for Chistians), Honesty! (unless you need to deceive minorities and the elderly with scare tactics), Justice! (unless you break into this country illegally). You know what, this is ridiculously long. I'm going to stop now.

ok, so i just have to add my two cents:

i went to northwestern, and mccain was our graduation speaker a year ago. he was perhaps the worst graduation speaker i have ever had to sit through.

it's not his political point of view that made the experience so horrible (n.b.: i don't agree with his politics, but even students who did hated the speech) but rather that he used his hour-and-some-odd speech as a way to preach his political platform rather than imparting any kind of wisdom (or, heaven forbid, a little humor) to us soon-to-be graduates.

he phrased his speech, which concerned human rights, in such a way that he made it seem that if you disagreed with his political platform (in its entirety) then you were anti-human rights. i commend his speechwriters, as it was an amazing example of the power of propaganda and fucked-up logic.

to address all of the people who think that the demonstrations at the new school show the "intolerence of the left" while reverential silence of the right shows respect, think about what you're saying here.

who the hell are conservatives to judge anyone on the issue of tolerence?

secondly, i fear for any country whose people (even the smallest percentage) favors sheep-like passivity rather than active participation in their democracy.

i commend the new school students for standing up for what they believe in.

i am a new school grad student as well. there is no such thing as bad publicity. thus, president kerrey got what he wanted from his choice. mccain shouldnt have been a speaker at a liberal school like new school. without protest, democracy will crumble. but i have to add this: america is a very interesting place. there are protests and objections all the time. but nothing ever changes. it is like a joke, a system where democracy is a complete illusion. there is freedom of speech, but seems like nobody listens, it is like freedom of speech in a desolate island with ducks, frogs, and sea shells. maybe some deers as well. you can talk as much as you want. nobody will listen, and everything will always stay the same. ducks will still bug you with their quacks in the early morning. and frog legs will still be your favorite meal.

your numbers and stats and percentages are interesting, but irrelevant. the matter of civil rights is NOT A MATTER OF POPULAR VOTE. that is why all the ballot measures that were passed in 2004 against gay marriage will be overturned in the courts. (maybe ten years from now, but eventually they will declared unconstitutional.)

it is simply not true that "marriage should be decided by the people." constitutional issues are not settled by popular vote--they are settled ultimately by the supreme court of the US.

if you think a majority vote of any set of people should determine who gets what rights, then you are not knowledgeable or supportive of the US Constitution.

go read a history book! i have to get back to work.

As a New School, I believe I got a quality education.

But they'll protest anything and everything.

Just because they can.

Yes, these sentences are fragments, but you understand nevertheless, eh?

I'm a current grad student at the new school. McCain was forced on the school by Kerrey, probably to get each some free publicity. The New School has gotten a ton of free advertising, and McCain gets to play the martyr to his newfound rightwing base. So both Kerrey and McCain got what they wanted. But the students, the graduates, didn't. They wanted a day of celebration of their achievements, not to have to face a man who has come to support everything that the overwhelming majority of those students find wrong in the world. I'm proud of my schoolmates for responding in kind to this provocation, though I find it sad that it has benefitted McCain, and that so many on the right are so ignorant as to fall for this kind of manipulation.

hey... all these sweeping generalizations about liberals/conservatives/NSU/Mccain... they're really great and all, but really, this thing with McCain was between the New School kids and the administration, and no one else. The graduation was supposed to be a celebration of the students that were graduating.. the speaker should have been someone those students wanted. New school is pretty gay, liberal, anti-war, anti-conservative government ( I go there, I know ), McCain isn't exactly a hero for any cause of ours. I would go to a speech of his if he were just speaking on campus, any time (and i am all of the above), just not for my own god damned graduation.

The thing is, Bob Kerrey knows that too. If you ask me, it was all a scheme of his. I think he knew that graduation was going to be a disaster (fit for tv and news and blogs like this one), he had protesters and petitions at his door weeks in advance. I think it was all in order to draw media attention to NSU for being progressive, politically active, and kind of exciting. I mean, look at all you people, jabbering and yaking at eachother. who are you?

And according to a recent gallup poll, Democrats and Independents share similiar support for gay marriage, while Republicans are extremely opposed:

Democrats are nearly three times as likely as Republicans (53% vs. 19%) to say homosexual marriages should be legally valid, while independents fall closer to Democrats (45%).

Clearly, Republican homophobia is driving down support for gay marriage. The mainstream view is to give relative support for gay marriage.

Somebody brought up gay marriage polls to make supporters of gay marriage seem outside the mainstream. The poll they cited was an outdated CNN poll.

However, more recent polls show that, while the position to favor gay marriage is still in the minority, it is hardly outside the mainstream:

Fox News:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 4-5, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).

.

"Do you favor or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?"

.

Favor Oppose Unsure

% % %

ALL reg. voters 33 55 11

Democrats 45 43 11

Republicans 16 77 7

Independents 38 47 15

So, while a slight majority oppose gay marriage, 44% either favor or are undecided on the issue. Support for gay marriage in the Democratic party is a relative mainstream position. Support for gay marriage among Independents is not substantially out of the mainstream. Indeed, Republican party opposition is heavily skewed against gay marriage, making Republican opposition the out-of-the-mainstream view.

Further, a Boston Globe poll of Americans found a plurality of support for some legal recognition of gay unions:

"What about civil unions between gay or lesbian couples that would give them some, but not all, of the legal rights of married couples? Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry in your state?"

.

Yes Neutral

(vol.) No Unsure

% % % %

ALL

46 7 41 7

Democrats

49 7 37 8

Independents

42 14 39 5

Republicans

46 4 43 6

There is NOTHING radical in the support for legal recognition of gay relationships or even marriage.

intolerant fanatic gay mothers? anyone who reads this thread can see just where the hate and intolerance lay.

the u of t wasn't the best example, and thanks robert for pointing out better.

students, conservative/liberal/whatever, have every right to protest their commencement speeches. Paul Wolfowitz did not appear at the commencement ceremony, but in an academic forum whose premise is an open exchange of ideas- which is why he spoke uninterrupted. a graduation ceremony is different.

i usually avoid political topics that have lots of flaming going on because i find it so disheartening. posters like robert can be level headed and talk calmly about facts and points of view and then others talk about intolerant gay mothers and you are everything that's wrong with this country etc etc. how do you prejudiced people live in one of the most diverse cities in one of the most diverse countries and wake up and go to bed so angry at people different than you? or do you live in staten island? (just kidding, i love s.i.)

"this is a democracy and the majority rules, so get used to it..."

not exactly. one of the main purposes of our democracy is supposed to be protecting the minority from the "tyranny of the majority." meaning, it is your right to believe what you believe but you do not have the right to impose it on others.

this is simple civics. it is a shame that most americans on the right and the left don't even understand what the purpose of our Constitution really IS.

Actually, they surely would have allowed her to talk without heckling. They would never vote for her but it is polite to listen people like her in events like this. This is something people usually learn from their mothers.

You see this is nonsense. Texas is a bad comparison because the university is public university which doesn't proclaim to hold any particular set of values that it uses to recruit its students. A better example would be to compare how a commencement audience at Liberty University may react to being subjected to the views of an atheist during such an occassion. Or how might a BYU commencement audience respond if an anti-Mormon speaker was invited to their ceremonies?

The fact is, the New School has been host to conservatives for guest lecture appearances without any such demonstrations. In 2003, the New School hosted and appearance by Paul Wolfowitz, who is far more conservative than McCain. There were no disruptions.

In 2001, Hillary Clinton's invitation to speak at Yale's commencement ceremony provoked conservative student's to protest during the commencement.

In 2003, an anti-war activist, Chris Hedges, was booed and had his mic unplugged by conservative students at Rockford College's commencement ceremonies. There are precedents for conservative protests against liberal speakers during commencement ceremonies. This is nothing new.

would the u of texas have hilary clinton at their commencement ceremony without protesters?

Actually, they surely would have allowed her to talk without heckling. They would never vote for her but it is polite to listen people like her in events like this. This is something people usually learn from their mothers.

This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. (Maybe intolerant fanatic gay mothers are different when raising a child).

Liberals are happy to invite Talaban leaders, Tookie Williams and other murderers to give commencement speeches. Shame on you.

If you were at the New School graduation, let us know what the tone was like (boos? yelling? annoyed looks from Bob Kerrey?).

I was at the ceremony on Friday, my girlfriend received her master's degree in International Affairs and I attended with her parents. As has been reported in the New York Times, the tone was oppositional. I would say approximately 30-50 students (and a handful of non-students – I don’t know what percentage of the protesters were professors) stood with their backs turned to McCain during his speech; most of these held orange signs reading either “McCain does not speak for me,” or “Our commencement is not your platform.” The majority of these students stood silently, and I saw two large signs being held, though I couldn’t read them. About halfway through McCain’s speech the heckling became more obvious. I believe that most of the hecklers were sitting and not holding signs. Sections of the audience also voiced their displeasure at the length of the speech. Some members of the audience also sided with McCain, particularly when his speech mentioned the theme of his own “arrogance of youth;” there was loud applause at these moments that seemed aimed against the protesters. Also, several audience members (students and non-students) were yelling at the protesters. My girlfriend told me that two students in her program where screaming at standing protesters. My girlfriend told me that her understanding was that the screamers did not agree with McCain but thought that the protests were disrespectful. She also mentioned that she heard (but did not see) that security guards at the MSG theater were confiscating the orange pieces of paper that other students were handing out to the graduates as they walked in procession to the theater.

There were two student speakers at the event; each, in their own way, voiced their displeasure at McCain’s invitation to speak. The first student speaker was more direct and received a large and loud standing ovation following her speech, which preceded McCain’s. More than half of the students (perhaps 70%) stood to applaud her speech.

McCain did not appear to be shaken too badly by the protesting, though he stopped and stammered more than a couple of times following particularly loud booing or loud response to some of the heckling.

Well, Sean Hannity called his daughter a nut - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G470rfJQCI

As for McCain---he received worse treatment from the Bush Camp during the primaries and look how he forgot about that so suddenly. He'll get over it if he already has'nt.

Yeh, it isn't like these protesters at the New School were spreading rumors that McCain had an illegitimate black baby or started any whisper campaigns suggesting that McCain might be some sort of Manchurian candidate too stressed out by PTSD to properly fill his would-be role as commander-in-chief.

In their protests, the students at the New School simply called a spade a spade.

Fred Phelps, the Kansas Preacher you mention, is a complete looney and has about a dozen followers, mostly his own family. He's the reason state legistatures --Republican- as well as Democrat-controlled-- across the country are taking up laws restricting protests at funerals.

Really, are Republicans equally offended by Phelps? The evidence suggests not. Phelps' protesting at people's funerals is not a new thing at all. What's new is his target: military funerals. That offends the Republican constituency. Now, and only now, are Republicans concerned about his tactics.

Silence is complicity. The Republican silence on Fred Phelps is duly noted.