Apr

15

Your favorite cast of characters

Written by

sfsCheck newsstands tomorrow, and you’ll see something familiar: a shiny New York Magazine cover story digesting the last 40 years of crazy activism at Columbia, featuring glamour shots of David Judd, Chris Kulawik, Karina Garcia and a smattering of other rabblerousers. Take a seat, because it’s a doozy, reaching back to the SDS protests of the 60s, racing through Minutemen, and parsing every protest and meeting since then for a larger point about College and the Left (it is New York Mag, after all).

Here are the takeaway points, in case you’re too mired in papers to read the whole thing: Radical kids today don’t have the energy of Mark Rudd & Co. Career-oriented Democrats don’t have the energy of the radicals. Kulawik doesn’t need energy, because he’s got skillz. Columbia has historically been riven by identity politics–mostly around Israel-Palestine–but now the lines are starting to blur.

Well, now everyone else knows.

– LBD

Tags: , , , ,

129 Comments

  1. alexw  

    My God, could they have gotten a more horrifying photo of Chris Kulawik?

  2. I remember  

    thinking Chris Kulawik was really cute... was I wrong? Or is New York Magazine wrong?

  3. AKA

    AKA The revenge of the nerds

  4. CC 10  

    Much props, Columbia undergrads. I feel kinda really proud now of this school. (Props especially to Jim Downie and Rahel Aima! CC'10 pride)

  5. wow  

    and kulawik just looks disgusting:

    http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/columbia070423_3_560.jpg

    it makes me want to throw up.

  6. DHI  

    Notice how different the lighting (and makeup?) is for Kulawik and everyone else in the article.

  7. i believe  

    my reaction for the most of the mugshots can best be described as
    "gaping in horror."

  8. yeah

    who did those pictures...way to portray most everyone in the most unflattering light..

  9. wow  

    kulawik's mugshot makes dick cheney look like an angel.

  10. bah  

    Agreed. They aren't bad, they're supposed to be candid it seems. And Chris K isn't cast too poorly- the girl in profile and Karina get bad treatments too. It's like, here are some kids with some really strong convictions, but they're just kids.

  11. ok kids  

    do you want to maybe READ THE ARTICLE instead of getting hung up on the graphics like superficial college students?

  12. yawn  

    I don't *quite* think we're at the point of takeovers of Hamilton yet, or socialist revolution for that matter.

    David Judd should focus on his compsci, so he can get a high-paying job at Morgan Stanley when he graduates.

  13. Funny  

    I remember that David Judd used to sleep during Principles of Economics. That explains his wacky understanding of the world!

  14. McFister

    Jesus, did Kulawik do his own make-up?

  15. cmon  

    we all knew what the article would say, even without bwog's helpful summary. the pics are sooooo much more amusing.

  16. It Sucks

    New York Magazine fucking sucks.

  17. blah  

    that's all i got to say.

  18. att: BWOG  

    columbia current new issue is now available on the web. www.columbiacurrent.com. bwog, link!

  19. Anonymous

    Chris' picture is awful, he's all splotchy. Then again, these aren't supposed to be glamour shots. I really liked the article.

  20. Savonarola  

    For the sake of balance, they should have thrown in some pictures of non-activist students, so the reader could compare and decide which are more attractive...

  21. Post Hoc Rock  

    Being loud doesn't make you smart. But it does make you right! Yeah!

  22. the shots  

    are pretty bad. karina is an attractive girl but the picture makes her look like an alien. (no pun intended.) also, i think kulawik had some acne breakout recently, so they covered him up with a whole lot of make-up. that's why he looks like shit. also the lighting is terrible.

    but does anyone know any of the other people? the seem fairly irrelevant to me.

    • CCAW member  

      none of them are irrelevant. all but saif & tina show up all the time and are pretty key to making things work. saif & tina do more pro-palestine activism, and are really prominent at that.

      to talk about the article, the conclusion was kind of screwy. our big accomplishment is we transcended race? uh, no.

  23. the other  

    people are all active members of the coalition against the war, and i think they're all quoted in the article.

  24. in the 60s

    in the 60s they were a threat, now it's a feature in a glossy magazine on a slow news week.

    Way to commodify your discontent, motherfuckers.

    • Anonymous

      everyone's a dick these days.

      OMG! People stand up for what they believe in. OMG! They are drawing attention to themselves and not applying to Morgan Stanley! Heaven forbid you ever get any publicity or recognition for what you do.

      • SDS

        If you wanna fight the power, do it. Burn stuff down, kill people, otherwise shut the fuck up. You're just making Columbians look like a bunch of spoiled brats appearing in New York magazine. Appear in the times because you killed Micahel Bloomberg or firebombed a recruiting station.

        • yes  

          the antiwar movement would be in great shape if it would just murder more people! you've got the answer right here!

          ... internet "ultra-radical" tool...

        • Anonymous

          Right. Killing Bloomberg and blowing up a recruiting station is going to make us look not like brats, but like psychopaths. Cool idea.

        • Rahel  

          Right, because violence is the ultimate answer. Not quite working in hegemonizing the Middle East right now, is it? I have to say, I'm not such a fan of firebombing either.

          What I AM a fan of is nonviolent direct action that actually effects social change as opposed to yknow, waiting/hoping that things might maybe, one day, eventually change through lobbying your legislators etc. This is why I'm in SDS.
          Ie when the New School/Pace SDS shut down the Chambers Street recruiting centre last month it was done with a nonviolent sit-in occupation of about 20 people.

          The article I thought was ok if a little condescending slash oversimplified. I'm kind of uncomfortable with this equation that freedom is a Western construct, nevermind me being enamoured of it in any way.

  25. goddamn protestors  

    They're ruining everything.

  26. Murder

    Yo, the state IS violence. To act, to cleanse ourselves we must use VIOLENCE

  27. Spartacus  

    Yeah! Then we can set up a brand new state...or something. I'm not to sure about step 2 of the Romantic Individualist/Anarchist/Misinformed Communist Revolution.

    But I'm 100% sure that step 1 involves using violence to defeat some other kind of violence. And if stating so on the internet doesn't convince you people, well then I just don't know what will.

  28. why is it  

    that i'm a "radical" on the left with more respect for chris k than ANY of the democrats at columbia?

    say the democrats: we need to sack it up, suck less dick and make fucking changes...AFTER mommy doles out 200,000 and i get my BA in political science. world, are you ready?

    • well,  

      considering chris kulawik was willing to have his picture taken for this article that doesn't exactly romanticize him, and that his appearances after the minuteman incident were textbook examples of sucking-up on tv, i can only conclude you hold your opinion because you don't know what you're talking about, so you reflexively hate on the dems, since you can't come up with an original opinion of your own.

      • so if one  

        has no original opinion, they are necessarily inclined to hate democrats? you democrats think so highly of yourselves - i'm glad you're the only ones.

        a democrat is a turd by virtue of the FACT that he is a bitch to a group of people, money, or some other representation of idiocy. republicans are certainly not immune to such accusations.

        obama worship?

        try self-worship. try frugality. try integrity. try love. try federalism. try not manipulation. try intellect. try a new beginning.

  29. Fanon II

    " Decolonization is always a violent phenomenon...Non Violence is an attempt to settle the colonial problem around a green baize table."

    • ok, dude  

      i can quote the Wretched of the Earth too:

      "there exists a brutality of thought and a mistrust of subtlety which are typical of revolutions; but there also exists another kind of brutality which is astonishingly like the first and which is typically anti-revolutionary, hazardous, and anarchist. this unmixed and total brutality, if not immediately comabated, invariably leads to the defeat of the movement within a few weeks".

      so fuck off and try some real world politics sometime. the US is not a colony and if we think that we're a guerrilla resistance, we'll be just as useless as the weather underground.

  30. Morgan Stanley

    I work for Morgan Stanley and we do a lot to help the earth, a lot more than this suck-dick so-called 'liberals.' I made seven-hundred thousand dollars this year. That's more than you'll make in a decade working at an NGO.

  31. ugh  

    so sick of Kulawik getting all this media attention. What has he done this semester? Is the media right in portraying him as the only Republican on this campus? Can't the other ones (if they exist) do something?

  32. Henry Kravis  

    Yes, poor little fucker. Maybe someday he'll even make a million dollars. Lucky him!

  33. Bill Gates  

    ha ha ha, laughing at seven hundred thousand dollars! ha ha ha, sorry, i gotta go back to burning all the hundreds i got this week.

  34. MS Banker

    Dude my fuckin' tax write-off bullshit donations this year will do more good for than any namby-pamby panty-waist protester ever will. Obama for ever!!!

  35. so wait  

    Ok, I'm game. I'm working for an investment bank, but I'm not an asshole. I'm not big on holding posters or yelling slogans. What should I be doing to differentiate myself from nos. 44, 49, and 51?

  36. did I mention  

    I'm also not big on firebombing.
    Sorry.

  37. WOO  

    Firebomb the firebomb factories with firebombs!

  38. yeah wtf  

    was that bullshit about your eyes lighting up over Western freedom? India is just as free

  39. alexw  

    HELLO I AM ARGUING ON THE INTERCUBE

  40. Judd is a dud

    What a self righteous over indulged little jew rich boy. The kid makes me sick.

  41. hello!  

    Can we say MADTV Magazine Cover Guy= Chris Kulawik?

  42. bah  

    these people are all douchebags and troublemakers. they're fighting for their imaginary bullshit causes. why write an article about them?

    oh, and save darfur!

  43. Yeah!

    Kulawik had harsher lighting staged on one side of his face while little jerko turd boy David Dud was made to look more angelic receiving frontal lighting.

  44. aaargh  

    I HATE THE YANKEES

  45. Ernest Mandel

    David Catallinotto is a Working Families Party tepid bourgeois-liberal stooge.

  46. Anonymous  

    The awe-inspiring caliber of discussion here does little to restore my shattered faith in the so-called 'humanistic education' to which we offer so much lip service.

    Tyler, Spivak: Where did we go wrong? Is it simply a failure to execute, or is something fouler afoot?

    lol, internet. (sigh.)

  47. Please  

    Would Mark Rudd have posed for New York Magazine? I'm pretty sure the only picture of him from that era I've ever seen was a mug shot, not a picture with soft lighting. That's not to glorify the '68 posters, but the ISO can hardly be pleased about this.

  48. Jimmy Donuts  

    Interesting article, if a bit sniffy...

    I can't help but keep thinking about how the Columbia riots in 68 royally fucked over the University's standing and campus life afterward. Notable professors left, such as Daniel Bell, who decamped to Harvard. I think there are still negative effects that are felt today.

    I can admire activism, but I somehow suspect that this is mostly about children of privilege seeking an outlet for their, ahem, creative abilities.

    • this thread sucks  

      Like most BWOG threads...seriously, though, children of privilege? I love how this campus is so able ignore or blur the very real lines that divide this campus, like class, race, etc...and use 'they're just spoiled kids' to be rid of people doing activist work. Just because you are a spoiled rich kid and all the friends you have are spoiled rich kids, does not mean everyone is...

      And Columbia's only value comes from its history of student activism, in my opinion...its the whack conservatives disguising themselves as 'liberals' who are fucking up our reputation.

      • our only value?

        A little selective/revisionist/narrow-minded, no? I mean I do seem to remember this school producing a lot of influential non-activistsm and this school's extracurricular life isn't dominated by activism, thank God...basically that wasn't the brightest of statements to put it mildly...

  49. "jew boy"  

    nice...

    i kind of hope that the anti-semite is the same person who thinks that 600,000 dead people is an "imaginary bullshit cause". i dont want there to be two such despicable people at Columbia, it increases my chances of meeting one someday.

  50. in the left  

    not pleased with everyone decisions to indeed commodify their discontent. also, some of these people truly are irrelevant to the left at columbia. karina garcia and david judd are key players, but none of the others ever really have any thing intelligent to say or any influence in organizing.

  51. hey  

    anyone else notice how mike nadler is missing? um, isn't he in charge of some massive political group on campus, with a lot of funding? oh right, but his group doesn't do anything. maybe thats why. also, chris has acne. that makes him a shitty person, right? ok good, i thought so.

  52. You joke?  

    Columbia's only value comes from its history of activism? Yeah, let's ignore the fact that more Nobel Laureates are associated with this school than any other on the planet. Let's ignore the pioneering work the university has done in developing a Core Curriculum. Let's ignore the thousands of bright students who attend the University each year, who number among the most intelligent and promising in the whole country.

    Let's ignore all that and instead focus on the fact that a few egotists took over buildings almost 40 years ago, preventing students from learning for a short while. Some legacy.

  53. Sprinkles  

    Catalinotto is a really good writer. You should see his stuff.

  54. Assapopoulos  

    For all you activists experiencing nostalgia for the '68 riots, why not enlist in the army? you can find a POSITIVE outlet for your interests in violence, kidnapping, bombing, and political destabilization, in Iraq.

    • well actually  

      no we can't, because the US project there isn't positive, which is kind of why we're activists in the first place.

      you're the one who agrees with what's going on there, right? why are you posting on bwog, not serving your country?

  55. Sprinkles  

    Does anyone else find it really, really funny that Urban Outfitters was selling keffiyahs under the name "anti-war scarves?"

    Heh heh heh. Just watch the fashion victims go.

  56. strange  

    Interesting if you actually have been a part of the left this schoolyear. Who are these people, ie Tina, Rahel, Kristin, and Dave? They kind of just sit at the meetings and don;t contribute that much. Strange choices considering the influential likes of Aaron Hess and Blair Mosner, although I imagine they didn;t jump at the opportunity to be in a magazine quite as fast.

    • Anonymous  

      Well, I think I was chosen because some of my views fit what Weiss was trying to accomplish with his article. Not everyone on the "left" is in the ISO or SJME, or a self-described radical. Also seemed like Weiss was focusing on undergrads, which would leave out some of the most vocal members of the group.

      And Ernie, thanks for making me laugh. Your Trotsky book wasn't half bad.

  57. That  

    article is like a hit list of "People who embarrass Columbia."

  58. Poo

    Look at me! Look at me! I'm a radical leftist college student. Pretty cool, huh? Look at me! Look at me!

  59. Poo

    "Whack conservatives"

    Did you really say that? Whatever, dawg.

  60. Impressive!

    Who did the writer contact to get these "revolutionaries" for comment? Did he just ask Kulawik who he thought would sound the least intelligent compared to him? I'm no fan of his, but shit - he comes off as a goddamn luminary next to this drivel.

    So Judd passes time during meetings pacing back and forth, muttering to himself like an autistic child?

    "People are at so many different levels of consciousness on this campus!" How insightful. Welcome to the world, little one. And when do the doctors expect you'll attain consciousness?

    "This is what the sixties felt like." Really? It felt like a screeching gaggle of children alienating anyone who might sympathize with them by behaving badly? I guess in 40 years when a new wave of kids are fecklessly drawing negative attention to themselves they can wax nostalgic about the stage rushing spectacle and know what the aughts felt like.

    Lillian, doll, if you think "the adults should be trying to catch up" to you, maybe you should consider attempting to actually become an adult yourself.

    "Fuck it, I am a radical." Uh, because you'll say fuck in a national publication? Or because you dare to wear earrings from the 75% off bin at Claire's Boutique on preternaturally extended ears?

    Really, the article must be quite comforting to right-wingers and hard-line conservaties. If this pathetic crew is representative of what they have to contend with from the left, they can just sit back and relax for a couple of years until these whining brats realize they're totally aimless and join everyone else at law school or an investment bank.

    • i agree  

      clearly because there's little scholarly depth in their two-sentence magazine quotes, all these people are idiots. whereas, by contrast, your own genius is evidenced incontrovertibly by the fact that the best you can come up with in order to make you feel like your contempt for anyone who's trying to make the world a better place has a basis other than crass selfishness is four or five cliched, ad hominem one-liners.

      • Impressive!

        What's with the blatant double standard? If you think "the best [I] can come up with" is what I offhandedly post in an online free-for-all comment forum, then certainly whatever the interviewees said to a reporter who they knew intended to publish their thoughts for widespread dissemination in a prominent magazine must be taken with equal weight as "the best [they] can come up with." And if that's the best they can come up with, we have a problem. "Scholarly depth" is setting the bar way, way too high. I would've settled for basic novelty or insight.

        It would be less hypocritical to compare the two sets of comments for what they are: isolated expressions of ideas that reflect more complicated beliefs. It's just that I'd hope that when given a platform like New York Magazine Columbia students could find something to say that would reflect better on their beliefs.

        Next - how do you figure that these people represent "anyone who's trying to make the world a better place"? I know all sorts of people doing real, concrete work to make the world a better place and I have enormous respect for them and the things they do. Things beyond, say, attending teach-ins or preaching to their choir. I have no generalized contempt for people who are trying to make the world a better place. Who does? Rather, this was, as you stated, ad hominem. I was calling out individuals in the article for offering a really weak display of what the left potentially has to offer. I summarized by saying that if these individuals are representative of the wider circle of people in their movement, that movement comes off as... less than impressive.

        Further, because there was no substance to their statements, the only kind of criticism possible is necessarily superficial and ad hominem. Nonetheless, I did also reference the meager content of the quotes, indicating that:

        - one was not useful or insightful, in fact, it might well be called a "cliche";

        - another drew an inapt comparison to the activism of the 60s;

        - and another established a dichotomy between the "revolutionaries" and "adults" which strikes me as pathetic if that is how they view their place in society.

        Finally, my remarks have no basis in "crass selfishness" - I see no self-interested purpose that is served by expressing irritation regarding an embarrassment to progressive politics. Moreover, my comments were relatively pointed and well-written. Certainly some other posts in this thread (e.g. "we're sick of your pretentious shit you sad sack pseudo intellectual scum bag" [#84]) might be characterized as "crass", but not mine.

        If the people in the article (you?) truly have something more thoughtful to add, please do. See above (#62) for an example.

        • double standard?  

          no, just demonstrating the ridiculousness of your standard... though it is worth noting that you could write as much as you wanted to, here, while the students in the article didnt get to choose what the reporter chose to pick out.

          the comments you attack:

          1) a comment in a meeting, not original on its own, but perfectly true, and something useful to keep in mind when targeting an audience for activism. its very frequently the case that stating what should be obvious is a useful reminder. we don't know the context, so why are you acting like it's absurd?

          2) you're not even addressing the comment, really, you're attacking antiwar protesters more generally as a "screeching gaggle"

          3) the point of the comment is that currently, students are *not* forcing adults to catch up to us, unlike the sixties, and that this should change. which is *obvious*, if you're not either an idiot, or predisposed to hate activists for unknown personal reasons. full context:
          "People don’t know that a 19-year-old girl desegregated the city of Nashville... It was college students doing that! Martin Luther King was running to catch up with the students. The adults should be trying to catch up to us. Because we have the power to change things now, and we’re going to use it!"

          4) Karina is a radical because she spends a great deal of time organizing in the school and the community with ANSWER, not because of her language - duh. in the article, she's pretty clearly conceding "yes, i'm a radical" to a leading question from the reporter.

          i don't buy that your attacks were intended to contribute in any positive way to "progressive politics", sorry. of course i can only speculate about your motives, but the sort of discomfort that many apathetic people have when implicitly asked to take political action correlates a lot better with the vicious personal insults of your earlier comment than does an attempt at constructive criticism.

          by the way, i do not identify myself in bwog comments when i'm talking to adjectives. i find the opportunity to attack an identified opponent anonymously brings out the worst in people (your comment being an example of this). if you publish your name, however, i'll reciprocate.

          • Adjective

            Since you took the time to provide a detailed response, I will respond in kind when I have a bit more time to give your remarks the attention they deserve.

            I am disinclined to include my name in this comment thread for a variety of reasons, but mainly because it would be totally superfluous. You know exactly who I am, and I know who you are, (although it is unclear to me if you outsourced part of the second post) so let's not attack each other as identified opponents, but rather exchange ideas as anonymous commenters.

            If you'd like to attack me ad hominem based on what you know about me and my motives, feel free. I'll make sure to correct any inaccuracies in your characterizations.

          • actually  

            i have no idea who you are, so perhaps you're wrong in your guess at my identity. i suppose there are a number of people i know who you might be, but i hope not, because i hope none would turn so uselessly vicious as soon as they acquired the cover of anonymity. generally, i have much more respect for political activists with whom i disagree than i do for random anonymous people in bwog comments who spew personal insults with no accountability. i actively attempt to discourage such people from posting their vitriol by being nasty in return, but i do not insult people who take responsibility for their words, whether in comments or linked articles.

          • also  

            no, i didnt "outsource" any of my post.

          • Adjective

            alright, then, we don't know each other.

            A. Yes, I could write as much as I wanted to, but I was just leaving a flip comment. I understand that journalists make editorial choices that subjects have no control over. I assumed the quoted students would leave a comment or otherwise protest at an unfair characterization of their remarks - as in a post #62, where one of the students expressed her feelings about the article. Regardless, they did say those things. They did agree to represent their organizations in a magazine. I think it's fair to hold them accountable for their words - what they said reflects upon their mindset.

            B. [re:1] That observation would be absurd in any context. When is there ever any group of people, anywhere, that is not at "many different levels of consciousness"? Even within a group as likeminded and politically homogeneous as the I.S.O. you are going to have varying degrees of awareness. It may well be true that it is helpful to state the obvious to fellow student activists, but in this case it's like saying, "People have so many different feelings on this campus!" Inane.

            C. [re:2] I most certainly was not attacking antiwar protestors. Her remark referred to the feeling she got from the Minutemen incident, she said that was what the sixties felt like. I wasn't alive in the sixties, so I can't speak to what it "felt" like, but my comment addressed her suggestion that the sixties felt like a small group of students taking a juvenile approach to protesting a speaker they find repugnant. I find the comparison to the sixties questionable. My remark had nothing to do with the antiwar protestors in a broader sense, although I am aware that the membership of both groups does overlap in some places.

            D. [re:3] You misinterpreted what I said. Or didn't understand it. My criticism of that comment is as follows: she refers to herself, and presumably other student activists, in opposition to "adults." I think it is pathetic that she doesn't consider herself, and her peers, to be adults. Who are "adults" in this case? Only their parents and professors? I think part of the problem is that student activists are looked down upon as being ineffectual, or as being children. Distinguishing students from "the adults" reinforces that (mis)perception. Now, I thought perhaps she didn't really mean to say that, but since you have defended and expanded upon the idea, I guess that *is* how the group thinks of itself.

            E. [re:4] I was being facetious - duh. It was a joke about what her idea of "radical" is - what qualifies her as a radical? From what I could tell, very little. So I facetiously offered possible reasons why she might be considered a "radical." I was being sarcastic.

            My point was that the term "radical" seems to have lost all meaning. Spending a lot of time organizing extra-curricular groups really does not put someone on the fringes of society. I hope. Civic-minded, yes. Radical? No. I understand she was one of the people to rush the stage at the Gilchrist protest -- I guess people might call that radical. The problem here is that by intentionally labeling herself (and presumably her fellow activists) "radicals", she is validating the right-wing marginalization of people who are doing things that are not only perfectly legal, but should be encouraged and promoted.

            I know it sounds cool to call yourself a "radical" but it's counterproductive bordering on asinine. Why don't we call the far-right, warmongering, hate-spewing contingent "radicals." *They* are the ones who should be considered deviant. Don't affirmatively assist them in co-opting the term "radical" such that the idea of giving all immigrants equal rights and protection, or allowing gays to marry, or getting all the troops out of iraq, immediately, are widely considered to be "radical" notions.

            F. I didn't claim I was trying to contribute to progressive politics. To do such a thing in writing would, to my mind, entail authoring more than a bwog comment. Moreover, I had no agenda in commenting other than to respond to the post. The post was essentially "Hey look! Classmates in NY Magazine! Talking about politics! Check it out!" So I did check it out, intrigued by what I might find, and was disappointed. Disappointed and riled up, because I truly believe that this type of divisiveness is problematic. That it is being perpetrated in a national magazine by inarticulate and/or immature group of Columbians is even worse. So I posted a comment regarding my initial reaction to the article in terms of how lame many of the students sounded, which seemed appropriate given the tone of the thread. Calling my remarks "vicious" is hyperbolic nonsense - at worst they were derisive. Settle down.

          • reply  

            A - you're really stretching. if people don't think journalists' quotes fully represent their views, they have an obligation to report this in Bwog comments? please.

            B - crap. universal truth is not intrinsically inane. more specifically, people talk about how "columbia students are like X" all the time. pointing out the obvious truth that columbia students differ widely is sometimes a necessary rebuttal.

            C - are you seriously saying nothing juvenile went on in the sixties? does the phrase "weather underground" mean anything to you? and, for what its worth, the protest against gilchrist seems to have accomplished its goals: 1) draw attention to the issue, 2) energize activists, 3) humiliate the vigilantes. yes, it also alienated the demographic which leaves "derisive" comments on bwog suggesting that they would never be found saying anything so banal as a bunch of "immature" antiwar protesters. forgive me if i fail to see why anyone should care.

            D - oh, come on. yes, "students" versus "adults" is not a very accurate or pc way to distinguish students from non-students. so any statement using this terminology becomes "drivel"? i didn't pick up on that because i didnt imagine your point could be so trivial.

            E Karina is an opponent of US military intervention anywhere, is an anti-zionist, and is an advocate of unconditional legalization and open borders. i believe she's also a socialist. i think that qualifies as "radical". sure, CCAW isn't radical. but that was the reporter's choice of word - Karina says "I".

            more, i don't see why "radical" should be accepted as a dirty word. if you want to make fundamental changes in society, you're not going to be able to appear mainstream just because you say "i'm not a radical".


            F "this type of divisiveness is problematic". that's pretty rich, given your comments.

            not vicious? "when do the doctors expect you'll attain consciousness"? i'm not sure how you split the difference between "vicious" and "derisive", but i'd say either term applies.

            if you were typing your post with no thought as to how it contributed to progressive politics, then you don't have any right to defend yourself by saying you were angry about "an embarrassment to progressive politics". you can't have it both ways - either your motives were political, in which case your comments can be judged politically, or your motives were more personal, in which case something uglier is going on.

            finally, one thing i didn't notice earlier: all the people who you choose to misread as irredeemably frivolous, with such willful obtuseness, are women. coincidence?

          • Rejoinder

            A - No, no obligation, and not necessarily here. I should have specified: if *I* were misquoted or mischaracterized in the (mass) media, *I* would take a moment to attempt to set the record straight. I should have just stuck with the more obvious fact that we have no reason to believe they disagree with the way they were portrayed, or that it was inaccurate.

            B - No, universal truths are not "intrinsically" inane. But that comment was inane. The CCAW needs to be reminded that Columbia students don't all care about politics to the same degree? Please.

            C - I didn't even sort of say that nothing juvenile went on in the sixties.

            D - Not any statement, no. You seem to be missing the point that I was highlighting things I thought were illustrative of a general naivete.

            E - You're right, the definition of radical is relative. It does sound like Karina would qualify as a "radical" by American standards. And hey, if it makes people feel better, or cooler, or more edgy, or whatever - let them call themselves radicals.

            I didn't say radical is a dirty word. I said it implies being on the extremes, or on the fringe. I believe that the things most of these activists stand for and want to achieve are very basic and fundamental. Not fringe. Not extreme or outlandish.

            It's not about saying "I'm not a radical", it's about NOT running around proclaiming how *radical* you are. The term is alienating and completely unnecessary except insofar as it gets you street cred with other "radicals." I sense being "radical" is more about being part of a little club than it is about wanting to change anything.

            F - I am not so arrogant as to think that my random comments have any "divisive" power compared to a general attitude/approach taken by a "movement" trying to rally support and enthusiasm.

            FYI: Vicious would be, say, like kicking someone in the head from a stage because you disagree with him. Derisive is more akin to mocking.

            For some of us, politics *is* personal. I don't have feelings about politics in an emotional vacuum. I also don't have to choose one of your two "ways" to "have it" - my motives were personal and political. I don't see what you're getting at with the "uglier" implication.

            Re: "finally": I guess you would call it a coincidence? I don't know. I do find it particularly irritating when females themselves reinforce stereotypes about women being political or intellectual lightweights, so maybe those comments irked me more. Maybe the writer himself portrayed the women in a more frivolous light and it affected me subconsciously? Now that you mention it, are they from Columbia or Barnard? The article implied they're at Columbia, but I wouldn't put it past them to be posing.

          • final post  

            A - so, basically, you didn't have a point, and your post had no justification. ok.

            B - i gave you an example, which i don't believe is even unlikely. you don't address it.

            C - you said that because you thought the protest was juvenile, it couldn't be what the sixties felt like. that pretty clearly implies the sixties weren't juvenile.

            D - so you were highlighting things that illustrated your previously existing belief, not actually providing evidence for that belief? that was basically my initial criticism, wasn't it?

            E - you "sense". for fucks sake.

            as above, "radical" was clearly the reporter's term.

            F - yes, you're only a very minor-league asshole.

            one who has "feelings about politics" which cause you to lash out irrationally, personally, and without political goal or justificiation at antiwar activists. ok. i guess that's a form of having "feelings about politics", but don't confuse it with being passionate about what you believe in.

            finally, i guess we've confirmed that the gender thing wasn't a coincidence, when you talk about "posing". please. i go to columbia, and, if im correct in assuming that you do too, you're an example of a fucked-up culture which makes me wish the school was more like barnard.

            goodbye. i won't be returning to this thread.

    • 8===>  

      Someone sure cares a lot about David Judd...I think someone has a crush ;)

  61. Just because...  

    The article was poorly researched and not accurate doesn't mean it should be completely lambasted.
    We live in really terrible times right now. There are a lot of activist groups on campus doing amazing things. I don't count CCAW among them, and also don't consider going to two meetings doing enough research for a seven page article.
    It was just badly researched and written. I feel badly for those who were exploited into this.
    Sitting in ISO meetings for hours is not going to make the revolution come any faster.
    Until we can create a large scale action against the war and stop getting hung up on words like "divestment" we can never succeed. The Israel/Palestine issue is polarizing and I feel like people discussing this for hours sitting in a Hamilton classroom is so ridiculous.
    And yes, I know it's probably useless to post it here, but it needed to be said.
    PS Whoever made the anti-semitic comment about David Judd, shame on you. Some people may not like him, but I expected more from my peers.

  62. resemblance  

    to hary potter dvd cover?

    sorry, i know it's immature to talk about the pictures. the article was pretty elementary, though.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.