Columbia professor calls for 'A Milliam Mogadishus'

So the guy wants 18 million Americans and over a billion (insert whatever country's people here) to die? What an assface.

 

Rotten apple or not, it is a black eye on the whole academic community.

 

I just called Columbia University and let their Public Affairs Dept know how appauled I was. I didn't go nuts or anything, heck I am not even that mad. I just want disciplinary action taken against him. After a few transfers I spoke to someone in the PA dept and he was very nice. I told him that "I was appauled by Mr. Genova's comments and that any disciplinary action take against him would be excellent." I didn't even say to fire him, but I wouldn't mind if they do. I asked if he has received calls about this already and he said "Oh yeah."

Freedom of speech is one thing, but this is just way over the line. As a respected educational institution I don't know how they could stand to have someone represent them in that manner.

Call and let them know what you think. Let's protest.

Columbia University in the City of New York
2960 Broadway
New York, NY 10027-6902
(212) 854-1754

 

This is exactly why my advisor would always offer that quote to people. He dislikes that too many people generalize that all PhDs know what they are talking about or are smart about every little thing or even generally smart. He likes people to look at PhDs like other people. Sure they are smart about their specific area of study, but lets not generalize that they are all authorities about everything else.

 

I find it hard to believe that the guy will get tenure, which I assume that he doesn't have since he is an assistant professor.

Professor Foner is a noted left wing historian and you can see that even he thinks the statement was idiotic.

 

Neither. I've never voted a straight party ticket in any election. I have been a registered democrat before, so that I could vote in the primaries, but not currently.

 

That's like saying because Donald Rumsfeld went and visited and was buddy buddy with Saddam in the past, that it's a black eye on all Republicans. Or saying that because Dick Cheney as CEO of Haliburton, had business dealings with Saddam is a black eye on all Republicans. Even though these guys did these things and are even currently in the administration, it doesn't dampen the reputation of all Republicans, IMO. Perhaps you feel differently though.

 

I'm against the war, but to wish for casualties like this is insane.

 

1) With regards to this...er...gentleman, all I can say is his defense is that Voltaire was right.

2) Re: Academia, intelligence, etc...it's obviously a subject close to my heart, so allow me to break my usual pattern of brevity over substance, and get into it a little bit.

There are a few questions, and I know the resluts of many studies, but have neither the ability to link, nor often the actual study names at my fingerprints, but if you will give me the benefit of the doubt, I'll proceed.

A) By virtually every measurable intellectual standard, be it traditional means such as IQ, Int. Percentile, etc., or newer means such as the intellectual adaptablility and analysis tests, academics not only grade out as being of higher intellual ability than an average body, but are found to be have just about the highest intellectual readings of any broad demographic group. A few qualifiers for these findings: They are incomplete, and there are the standard culutural bias questions which the newer systems attempt to account for with varying degrees of success.

Secondly, there is often overlap with regards to what qualifies as an academic; for example many of NASA's top scientists also spen time in academic pursuit, ans as such may or may not qualify.

All that said, someone claiming that academics are no 'smarter' or, as has been said here, less 'samrt' than the average person would be standing on very thin evidenciary ice. Regarding the prof comment, I would agree that many members of faculty are close to idiotic in everyday conversation, but are brilliant in their areas of pursuit...a sacrifice they are largely happy with.

3) Another thing about contemporary academic life is that one aspect of it stresses seemingly contradictory priorities...The degree to which publishing is part of the job these days, and the standard dog eat dog world that is academic publishing usually means that an academic wants to find something new and exciting to say in his particular sphere, but the knowledge that his words will be tested, weighed, researched, and in the end challenged for credibility, bias, or faulty support by others in the field usually means that academics, by and large, usually try and maintian as much objectivity as there particular pursuit allows; There is little which can ruin an academics standing more than the belief that he sacrifices objectivity and validity for the sake of making his argument, or worse still, for 'sensationalism'...It's seen as short term gain, long term significant loss.

 

There is nothing common about sense.


This guy should be fired.


DD

 

self perception can be deceiving.

 

He is being sarcastic. I actually laughed out loud when I saw it.

MacBeth, thank you for your apology (defense). I think academic people are getting stereotyped. For example, students of philosophy are frequently perceived as no-use ivory tower type of people. But studies showed that people majoring in philosophy are among the top groups (second only to Math, if I remember right) to score the highest in all standardized tests and highest achievements in many lines of work.

That said, as I said earlier, being smart doesn't protect you from being misguided in many important issues.

 

In the spirit of Voltaire loving to mock people, what a most, splendidly intellectually stimulating reference with no quote, MacBeth. Please do another one, while I go pour a glass of port and break out my cardigan sweater and pipe to get better suited for guessing the quote.

Just give the quote, MacBeth, when outside the context of academia:

<blockquote><hr>"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
--Voltaire<hr></blockquote>
Or was it some other obscure dead, Frenchmen quote to which you referred?

 

Not if it's one person, eh?

 

Voltaire? Wasn't he the guy in the circus machine that spit out the quarter and made Tom Hanks "Big?"

 

If it turns out civilians are going to be confronting our forces with their guns, then screw them. We should destroy everything in a path to get where we need to go. If the Iraqis want to fight dirty by mixing themselves in with the civilian population(e.g. shooting from apartment buildings populated with civilians), then what are we going to do...show restraint and die? Hell no...we're gonna kick their ass. The Iraqi government keeps saying were going to experience a blood bath and hell on earth for our forces. That depiction works both ways. Are we prepared to sacrifice all of our soldiers to protect civilians being used as human shields by the Iraqi military? That is the ultimate question we are faced with and, if we choose to waver on this issue and not fight full out, then we are in for a rough Baghdad siege and we may not pull this off after all. Civilians have a responsiblity if, in their power, to get or stay out of the way of our incoming forces. If they don't do that, then they may just pay the ultimate price.

Personally, I think the Iraqis are giving themselves too much credit about their ability to defend Baghdad. I don't think they can stop us unless they resort to dirty tactics like civilian shields with us hesitating to fire. We have to be prepared to take out both their military and their shields if the situation calls for it. Otherwise, we should not have started this damn war in the first place. Ultimately, we had to know this would turn into a street war. If not, then Bush made a huge mistake calling for a war when he had to know Baghdad would only fall by street fighting as the most likely scenario.

I don't want to see many of our soldiers die because they were pondering whether to shoot at a questionable target. I'm sorry...but it's our people or their people. Save their civilians by being careful...and lay down more of our soldiers lives. It's that simple. This is a war not a picnic. Personally, I want our soldiers to return home alive. The tactics which lead to civilian casualties are a result of Saddam and his evil regime...like placing missile launchers and military equipment/weaponry near civilian targets AND using human shields to deter our troops. Yes, we do make mistakes or our bombs go astray....all tragedies of war unfortunately. We can try to be cautious...but extreme caution is going to cost our troops' lives. We have to be prepared to plow the road to get where we need to get to within Baghdad. If civilians decide to take up arms against our troops, then they will have to be killed. It's them or us. There's no such thing as a clean war. I guess we can hope for an uprising but fat chance on that.

It's all a sad reality of what lies ahead I do believe.

Surf

 

I agree. At some point, these civillians have to decide what they are willing to die for. Are they gonna die resisting Saddam's forces, at least trying to gain their own freedom, or do they want to die acting as shields or fighting for Saddam's force?

 

I don't doubt there will be civilian casualties and Saddam is as lowdown as can be for endangering them, but that doesn't mean we should kill everything in front of us. The areas where we are now, are the areas that are most anti-Saddam and therefore the most likely to be our friends. If we kill them what will that look like to the rest of the country. If we kill everyone we are trying to liberate, then what's the point.

 

Yea...I really meant if there is strong resistance basically in every direction in front of us...then we need to plow the road. I don't mean if there is little to no resistance. I guess I shouldn't have said everything...I certainly didn't mean no matter what kind of everything. Everything in regards to resistance is what I meant.

 

The big brain on that MacBeth guy is earthshattering. But you must get a 'smoking jacket' to go with the port. Cardigans are ill suited for such strenous mental exercise.