Sep

20

Quickspec – Populism Special

Written by

33 Comments

  1. anado  

    fyi first year link is dead.

  2. A Thought  

    Do you ever get the impression that Kulawik chooses topics solely to generate hate mail? There's no point in talking about how idiotic this piece is.

    • LOL  

      LOL @ civil debate (or lack there of)

    • i'm sorry  

      while in the past i've agreed abot pieces he's written (freshman, just search his name for last year's pieces) how is this piece not wholly relevant?

      There is obviously some other source for abortion payments and the upcoming issue of parental notification is huge. It's actually quite relevant to point the issue to columbia health services, which does a great job creating an understanding atmosphere in case a student does need an abortion.

      Also kulawik doesn't say much that is controversial-at worst he claims that many people might have a problem footing the bill and asks what columbia will do in case a parental notification act passes. Pretty sober stuff. I know that there's a good segment of the bwog which has a pavlovian reaction to the name kulawik but making an ad hom attack and them claiming you won't even present a fictional argument won't work on one of his rare good pieces (his military discrimination one was also good).

  3. Anna  

    The first link is fixed!

  4. jjjj  

    While it's always interesting to allow Kulawik to indulge his conservative wet dreams, no Parental Consent act is even close to passing in New York State. This hardly seems relevant.

    Abortion is unquestionably one of the most difficult, painful decisions a woman can face. Like any other medical procedure, it is covered by the Health Services fee. There's nothing the least bit illegal or ethically about that.

  5. he never  

    clamed it was illegal (read the article), but if you really think that it's not an ethical issue, please see the last 40 years of American politics

  6. moph  

    Columbia's only indirectly paying for the abortions Kulawik mentions. Unless I'm misunderstanding what he's talking about, it's covered under the University's insurance policies, and so it gets passed through to Chickering.

  7. re: bwooooog  

    "Instead, the $500 contribution toward the abortion will come from their Health Services Fee, a per semester payment of some $350. This math, however, does not add up. The remaining $150 or so must come from somewhere else. Whether Columbia draws these funds directly from other students or just adds to the health system's financial burden and takes from its coffers, there is an undeniable cost to be paid. "

    The cost is nowhere near 500/abortion and doesn't come from the Health Service Fee. That's what I mean. Of course, you can argue that's not a key point in his argument, but then his article reduces to the acknowledgement that legal medical procedures are covered by medical insurance. That's hardly a shocker.

  8. re; CU bills  

    If I'm right, sorta neither. It's something that Columbia is insured against, rather than that individual students are insured against.

  9. hmm  

    I can't say I understand why there is so much hatred for Kulawik's column. It's consistently one of the best-written editorials on campus. I rarely, if ever, agree with him. He's still a better writer than 90-95% of the Spec's columnists.

    • well  

      he's writing from a political viewpoint which is not favored on this campus. and he's really on the far right end of that set of views too

      • haha  

        you really think this is a "far right" position? He never argued against the abortion policy, but only if/as it applies to minors (if I read it correctly). Go take a trip to, well, 34 or so states in the middle of this country - then you'll find a "far right" position on the issue, but yeah, this is def. not his "audience"

  10. hmm  

    I can't say I understand why there is so much hatred for Kulawik's column. It's consistently one of the best-written editorials on campus. I rarely, if ever, agree with him. He's still a better writer than 90-95% of the Spec's columnists.

  11. poster 13  

    the relevant cost is not the cost of abortions to the insurance agency; it's the marginal cost of insuring against this as part of cu's deal w/ its insurance provider.

    that second cost (the only meaningful one) is the one i was talking about.

  12. Person  

    If I wasn't in in SEAS, I'd totally vote (do) that first guy. Model U.N./ open nerdiness rock.

  13. Extra Extra  

    Poster boy for Prochoice writes Prolife article

  14. someone  

    kulawik doesn't flush after he pees. i know because i live on his floor.

    • Post 28 & 29 =  

      same person

      it's scary how low these "open minded liberals" can be. I disagree with Kulawik pretty often, but in the end, he only looks better when compared to this petty crap.

      Here, let me try one:

      "You suck your thumb at night; I know this because I watch you when you sleep"

      Amazing what you can make up on an anonymous message board

  15. Stella the show

    I really hope that the Stella group is talking about the TV show...because they were funny, and I'd certainly vote for someone with that level of political acumen - were I a first-year and/or cared about CCSC.

    Damn Comedy Central for not picking up the second season.

  16. arrrggghh

    The aritcle wasnt about abortion per se, it wasnt even much about the University paying for it, its focus (which is neither pro abortion or pro life) is the hypocrisy of the University policy which requires a guardian to sign certain documents for students who are underage (acceptance letters, other things that under age students need their parents signatures on), yet allows minors, without parental consent to abort a fetus. I would venture to say that aborting a fetus is a bigger decision than signing a college acceptance letter, but you can debate that point.

    That, in essence was what the article was about it appears, so if you decide to criticize Chris, or his positions, please realize what you are arguing/debating.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.