Stupid fuck.
Not only is this guy demeaning the brave soldiers who are risking their lives over in Iraq right now, he is also demeaning the brave soldiers of the past who fought and died so stupid fucks like him could have the right to make such idiotic statements.
I do. I object to professors wishing death on America soldiers.
What I find most objectionable though is how lightly these things are dismissed as long as the speaker is promoting an agenda that opposes the interests of United States. If the same professor were to say, " Hey, I hope someone kills all the blacks" I’m sure he would be out of a job ( as he should be ) and I doubt many folks would be explaining away his “extreme or idiosyncratic viewpoint” as a stupid but harmless personality trait.
Of course, I have come to expect this from the academic crowd. Their idea of free speech is that they can say whatever they want and then puff themselves up with self - righteous indignation when they are confronted with any backlash. I believe we saw another example of this a few months ago that revolved around the exchange of letters between an Air Force Academy cadet and another “professor”.
Well, a pox on this “professor” ( I use the term lightly). If he has nothing but contempt for the lives of American service people and this country then I see no reason for him to be teaching at an American university. Problem being, I have no idea what else he would do, I’m beginning to think there is a lot of truth in the old saying - “Those that can,do. Those that can’t ,teach”. I suppose there is always the chance that he may starve and if this comes to pass and you stumble across him sprawled out in the gutter somewhere please give me a call. I do not usually urinate in public, but I will make an exception in this case.
In other breaking news, the rest of the hundreds of thousands of people that oppose this war don’t wish death on anyone.
So no problem with shelling out already high tuition dollars for an adjunct professor Phelps?
Does every nutjob viewpoint have to be paid for by tuition dollars?
Maybe some graduate level classes on the TimeCube?
:rolleyes:
Ah, but he’s an “assistant professor.” Considering the lack of seniority that entails, I wouldn’t be too nervous–perhaps this might just keep him in that position.
I wonder if they took student questions at the end. If they did, did anyone challenge that asshole, or was there just a bunch of the popular leftist bullshit so prominent among undergrads?
Ugh.
There was a “teach-in” (I hate that term–for some reason it makes me see red) here at Yale. It was pretty good: three professors and one assistant professor moderated by the famous John Gaddis. They had reasonable views of the war, without any statements that were even remotely close to radical. One in particular who’s stance I liked lined up every single UN resolution and US approach/response to them as an a to b to c of how we got where we are.
Then there was an assistant professor who, according to my friend, was on the panel because she was a specialist on the middle east. She was very difficult to understand, as her explanation was peppered with “gulps” and perforated with “sort of”, much like a student in a discussion section who hadn’t done all the reading but had something VERY important to say. I wish I had a better critique apart from saying that she was very inarticulate.
Logic can be wrong. It’s not always a Spock-esque, analytical application of the laws of physics and probability and so forth. Logic can be someone’s thought processes, which are internally consistent but lead to a conclusion which is far from objective or practical, and has little if any grounding in reality.
DDG’s link indicates that De Genova is skilled at talking “professor-speak”, but when he’s taking part in a “teach-in”, there’s no guarantee that he’s analyzing “anthropological disciplinary forms of knowledge and modes of representation”, whatever the hell that means. He’s probably just thinking “The more soldiers die, the sooner Bush will give up on this,” not taking into account the fact that, as has been pointed out here, those soldiers are people, with families, and so are the ones who have already died.
Well stated, but there is a tinge of anti-americanism and anti-semitisim in much of what the anti-war movement has to offer. That is why someone like myself, who is against the war, cannot identify with the rhetoric of the anti-war movement.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Wishing death on Americans seems as good a place as any.
Point well taken. This professor has been pretty much denounced and marginalized.
Hey, I am very against this war. However, I’m not at all against the soldiers. In fact, I support them and wish them luck. It wasn’t their decision to go to war. I understand that the professor has anti-war sentiments. However, wishing death upon the soldiers is JUST NOT OKAY.
You mean like, for instance, Professor Newt Gangrene?
Hey, nice one, 'luc. Instead of denouncing what even you should be able to call unacceptable behavior with a clear consience, you use the opportunity to get in a dig at the 'Pubbies. Good, show, you’ve convinced me of the rationality and common sense of the lunatic left, sign me up today!
I have to echo Weirddave here. elucidator, do you have nothing better to do than inject a totally meaningless slam of someone who has absolutely nothing to do with this debate? One can only assume that you tacitly endorse de Genova’s comments, since you chose to ignore them in order to equate them with Newt (who was a History professor before he went to Congress).
As a card-carrying Devil’s Advocate, I’m with Mr. Wrong. What did the Columbia Professor wish for – 1000 Mogadishu’s?
What an asshole!
Yet I support his right to utter dumbass-drivel that seems like Speech.
Columbia U is a beautful campus, I must say.