Where can you find a right wing nut on this campus?

Written by

sdfA Fox producer told Bwog yesterday that Chris Kulawik would be going on with Jamie Colby to oppose Columbia’s decision to host President Ahmadinejad. In typical face-off style, the anchor had him as a counterpoint to journalism school student Bess Kargman, who was supposed to argue in favor of the visit. In fact, they both did, and Fox was the one with egg on its face. Colby tried to compensate by alluding the points her guests refused to make. 

“I think it’s interesting that Bess is Jewish, saying a man should come who wants to wipe Israel off the map,” Colby observed. Also, “I have to wonder how much this has to do with publicity, since we’ve been talking about it for a few days.”

Find all of Fox’s segments on Ahmadinemania here

Meanwhile, we really really want to ignore this guy, and we’re not huge fans of Columbia administration either, but when you say that they’re “like serial child abusers who are constantly molesting the student population with, this time, a publicity stunt,” we kind of sit and twitch for a while. 


Tags: ,


  1. flabbergasted

    "I have to wonder how much this has to do with publicity, since we've been talking about it for a few days."

    Well gee, it's not like Columbia made you talk about it and air multiple segments?

  2. I'd love

    a link to the Jamie Colby video, instead of just to a page about her on Fox.

    Is there one? I've looked everywhere. Please?

  3. also

    "I think it's interesting that Bess is Jewish, saying a man should come who wants to wipe Israel off the map"

    trotting out the implied self-hating jew arguement? truly pathetic attempt at discrediting.

    what a truly $hitty network.

  4. lol  

    I love how incoherent Fox News' argument is.

    Evidence for Columbia's narrow-minded liberalism: "Would Columbia allow someone who opposed homosexual rights to speak there? Of course not!"

  5. alma mater

    Where can you not find a left wing nut on campus?

  6. Sanchez is wack  

    Matt Sanchez makes me sick. Bill O'Reilly declined an ivitation to speak at Columbia last year, he was nervous about vertigo outside the no-spin zone.

    Does Sanchez ever stop to think that perhaps the most important thing on his resume is a degree from Columbia University?

    In reference to four, Ahmadinejad holds public hangings and is adamently against homosexual rights, looks like we managed to trump that...

  7. sanchez' resume

    he's an escort. that's all he needs.

  8. not only fox

    spec and bwog were both wrong in assuming kulawik was going to be were a bunch of spec commentators who labeled him a hypocrite

    Then again who cares about the truth

    • almamater

      Yes, if they had done a modicum of research, they would've realized that he signed a petition endorsing the visit as an unmatched "learning opportunity in world affairs" just a few days ago.

    • um,  

      spec and bwog got the info from fox, and people were calling him a hypocrite because they knew he had signed that your own research first.

      • i'm sorry

        but you're a retard if you think my comment is to blame. When so called reporters try to give information about something they are responsible for the research. Now spec and bwog obviously didn't go to the source in kulawik either because they were 1-too lazy, 2-are obvious liberal schills or 3-don't understand what reporting is.

        If you're reporting an item and can contact both of the first person sources themselves don't be surprised when people call you on your bullshit because in your ineptitude you chose to run information as a fact based upon second hand accounts.

        Maybe they should do their research instead of having you all over their balls, they are the 'reporters'.

  9. almamater

    Yes indeed, the statement that you quote is poorly worded, and, perhaps, not entirely thought out. But the sentiment behind it is nevertheless quite valid. Many people on campus sympathize with Ahmadinejad because he is an "outspoken" enemy of their primary fiend, George W. Bush. They are willing to overlook the fact that he is also rabidly homophobic. Just as they are willing to overlook the fact that the Iranian revolutionary regime brutally suppresses free speech, curtails the press, and tortures labor leaders. He is not being invited to speak here because his views on these issues conflict with the majoritarian views on campus, but, rather, because his anti-American and anti-Israeli views command a large following amongst the faculty and student body.

    • i was #4  

      bullshit. every single person i've talked on campus thinks that ahmadinejad sucks—from my dorm floor alone, that includes an iranian girl, an israeli girl, and gay me. all of them want him to speak, and all of them stand against his views.

      and most of the students are probably not overlooking the guy's views on gays, women, etc., considering the graphic signs that were posted all over butler/campus.

      but i won't just use generalizations; maybe everyone i've talked to happens to be part of a minority. still, bollinger seems to have invited him as a negative example, not as someone we should emulate: "this will bring us into contact with beliefs many, most or even all of us will find offensive and even odious."

      • almamater

        Despite the fact that Bollinger intends to sharply question Mr. Ahmadinejad, the truth is that Ahmadinejad was not invited here to serve as a "negative example." He was invited here as an expression of the University's willingness to engage individuals of his ilk in dialogue. My point is that the University does not invite individuals who generate comparable ire amongst the anti-American elements of the faculty. Unfortunately, the University's "openness" is always most poignantly expressed and vehemently invoked when the world's rogues arrive at the Waldorf Astoria for their occassional colloquoy on the banks of the East River.
        There is no question that Ahmadinejad has sympathizers on this campus. And there is no doubt in my mind that his invitation to speak here has much to do with that unfortunate reality. Of course, as you've described, some people wish to attend the event so that they can challenge the Iranian leader, including, presumably, President Bollinger. I applaud their belief in such free discourse. Personally, however, I don't think that people with any sense need to hear a refutation of such odious views.

        • Empirical Evidence?  

          "There is no question that Ahmadinejad has sympathizers on this campus. And there is no doubt in my mind that his invitation to speak here has much to do with that unfortunate reality."

          For someone without any doubts, do you have any proof of this? Quotes from such "sympathizers?" Statistics that sympathizers constitute a significant part of the student/faculty population? Anything that might suggest the causality of those sympathetic sentiments? Can you even define "sympathizer?" Are you talking about people who oppose military strikes against Iran? Or people who actually support his foreign and/or domestic policies?

          Or did you simply leave those things out so your comments could sound matter-of-factly short and sweet? Because really, Bwog readers would love to hear more about your speculation.

          • almamater

            You need only take a close look at some of the comments posted on Bwog these past few days, or watch Alejandra Aponte's interview on Fox News for the empirical evidence that you seek.

        • i'd say  

          there is a lunatic fringe who might think he's just awesome for his hatred for the west. but i don't think there is a single person on this campus who actually agrees with his policy on gays, women, etc. any admiration for ahmadinejad requires overlooking everything other than his bush-hatred.

        • bob f

          Is Columbia University President Bollinger also going to apologize to the Iranian people for Columbia's awarding of an honorary degree to the Shah of Iran after the CIA's 1953 coup in Iran? See for more info about U.S. role in Iranian history.

  10. almamater

    The comment above is in response to #4.

  11. almamater

    Don't think for a second that Ahmadinejad has been invited here merely to offer an opposing view, in the spirit of free debate. Do you think the University would ever deign to invite President Bush to participate in the World Leaders Forum?

  12. almamater

    Well, we'll wait and see. If it does, then this charade will command a modicum of respectability.

  13. our dean

    University Dean John Coatsworth, aging relic and bastion of liberal idiocy appeared on Fox News to defend the invite of a man who is supporting and participating in killing American servicemen and women.

    “If Hitler were in the United States and he wanted a platform from which to speak he would have plenty of platforms to speak from in the United States. If he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion, to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him.”

  14. No, because

    He's not smart enough for us.


  15. so...

    How many people think the secret service has been reading BWOG for the past week? Cause I know they have.
    Hey pal! How's it goin? Saved The Decider from any more assassination by pretzel attempts recently?

  16. The Hitler argument

    I am so sick of this argument. Yeah, you know what? If Hitler were alive today, I think that not only would Columbia invite him to their World Leader's Forum (his being a pretty powerful world leader and all), a lot of people would want to go see him, if not to engage him into debate, at the very least to see history being made. I would too.

    This is going to be just like that; this is going to be good, and anyone who doesn't want to hear what he has to say on ideological grounds is missing a real opportunity.

    But that's their problem.

    • you're too

      stupid to understand the post.

      I posted that snipped w/the deans quote from a right wing blog to demonstrate how stupid it is to equate the two. Hitler has already been known to have committed one of the most vast and hideous genocides in the history of man. If he was invited to Columbia to speak, I would hope somebody would have the good sense to bring take him out.

      Ahmadinejad, while vile, still isn't up to that level of evil.

      Anything Hitler would say would necessarily fall under figthing words whereas Ahmadinejad might just parrot philosophical (and reprehensible) talking points. By your logic, you would invite Osama Bin Laden for a speech here.

  17. almamater

    The invitation of any high-ranking administration official would suffice.

  18. NEWS

    Something Not Related to The Mahmoud-athon

    Columbia Wins Baker Blast!

    I wonder how many people showed up for the Blast?

    • EAL  

      Roar Lions! Columbia beats Marist 31-7! I was there in all my rainy glory! Now let's hope the Lions do well against the dreaded Princeton Tigers next week. And a decent-sized crowd showed up too.

      Why no mention of the game, Bwog? Or are you part of the cynical campus conspiracy out to squelch any flourishing of the flame of school spirit?

  19. awesome

    david judd compares ahmadinejad to gilchrist

    and then says this isn't the same free speech issue as with gilchrist because it may open up a dialogue in the wake of rumors the US might strike iran

    never mind press documented cases of ahmadinejad's royal guard blowing up innocent iraqi's to create instability or other murderous things he's done.

    take note bwog cause i know you equate the kulawiks and judds of the world together.

    Kulawik despite obvious hatred towards the guy used the same priniciple he supported in bringing gilchrist to support bringing ahmadinejad here (and you assumed the opposite for some reason) whereas Judd has now made an extraordinarily circumlocutious argument which hinges upon the possiblity of the opening of a national dialogue from a Columbia Event which may help to squelch a war which is based upon rumors of a strike he's dug up.

  20. chris's bit  

    I was so pleased to see that Kulawik pointed out that the comparisons between Hitler and Ahmadinejad were ill founded, because of the different times and situations. Not what Fox were hoping for, I'm sure.

  21. almamater

    Kulawik brought Gilchrist here because he believed, and still presumably believes, that Gilchrist is an appropriate embodiment of conservative Republican values. It is dishonest for him to cite that event as an expression of his belief in discourse and debate. If he wanted a debate with political opponents, he could have invited instead.

  22. Do you

    really need to give that subhuman piece of trash a legitimate platform from which to spill his vile insanity in order to understand his views? Are his regular network broadcasts not enough? Why do you wish to legitimize his views at a World Leaders Forum, of all places? He is no leader; he is a hate-filled warlord who would love nothing more than to publicly behead you for the sin of being a westerner. By your logic, if it can be called that, Osama too should be invited for a speech on our campus -- for how can we believe the translations and rephrasings of his audio tapes to be his true beliefs? How can we believe that he orchestrated attacks on our nation if he can't even show us the the airplane ticket stubs?
    Your idiocy sickens me.

  23. Show me  

    where Spec said Kulawik wasn't signing on.

  24. #33 again  

    In fact:

    “How many people in the western hemisphere, or the world for that matter, will get a chance to protest him [Ahmadinejad]?” said Chris Kulawik, CC ’08 and president of the College Republicans who signed the statement. He later added, “I think he’s one of the most dangerous people in the world today.”

    So STFU, do your own research, and lay off Bwog and Spec's back on this one.

  25. we're famous

    Columbia finally has a headline on drudge!!!!


    and links to the youtube link:


  26. seriously,

    nice coverage Lydia!

  27. is there  

    any video of this?

  28. I don't understand  

    what the whole bruhaha is about. Ahmadinejad can't blow his own nose without permission from the mullahs that actually run Iran. He just has a bit more flair than most puppets.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.