QuickSpec: Interesting Parallels Edition

Written by


  1. no offense bwog  

    but i don't know that fertilizer is really a story. yes, to make shrubs grow you need to feed them. covered.

  2. when

    Kulawik is the voice of reason, you know somethings wrong.

    • Savonarola  

      Agreed. Do you know a way that I can voice my opposition to their demands, and urge the administration to ignore them? I am really disturbed that the administration is actually taking them seriously, and I wonder if it is because they aren't aware of the overwhelming opposition to the strikers among the student body.

      • response

        I think the most effective way may be an email campaign to bollinger/brinkley which shows the overwhelming number of student emails are against the strike

        Otherwise, op eds to the spec and some of the local papers are also probably a good idea

      • Aga  

        YES! JOIN THE FACEBOOK GROUP "We Do NOT Support the Hunger Strikers" (at:
        Some way of showing Bollinger/Brinkley/etc. how many students do NOT support the strike is in the works.
        Also, to counter many of the comments here, this facebook group (that is, the one NOT in support of the strikers) is actually MUCH closer in numbers to the number of members in the group in support of the strike than may appear at first sight. If you take the time to actually look through the members of the facebook group in support of the strike, you will see that an extraordinarily high percentage of their members have no stated relationship to columbia (I am in the process of calculating the exact numbers, but for now I *think* it will be around 40% non-Columbia). The group "We Do NOT Support the Hunger Strikers" is open ONLY to Columbia-related individuals, because after all, how many STUDENTS here support them is crucial.

        Anyway, do join the group if you are not in support of the hunger strike!

    • also  

      agreed. he's done some pretty stupid demonstrations in his time, and written some terrible columns, but he's dead on here.

      on the other hand, why are people doing the "why we eat" thing tomorrow? it just gives the strikers a shred of sympathetic publicity that they actually might not squander. they look like idiots right now; let's keep it that way.

    • here here  

      i was so disturbed that i agree with him.

  3. DON'T  

    distribute an unfunny flyer entitled "Why We Eat". That would just make you look like a huge jackass.

  4. it'd

    it'd be awesome if the facebook group leaders could organize this as it only would involve digital involvement--something i think we can spare in between classes

  5. dsjdsjk  

    "That horrible smell anywhere northeast of Low—explained!"

    Thank you Bwog. I believe I was the first to ask for an explanation, in the comments a week or two ago. I am pleased to see Bwog responding to the overwhelming need for answers on this issue.

  6. Anonymous  

    Great column by Kulawik.

    Hopefully, after the column today and potentially more Spec op-eds to follow, the hunger strikers will realize that a large, vocal part of this campus does not support their cause.

  7. Anonymous  

    bravo, chris. i don't often agree with his methods (and almost never with his political views), but that was one of the most well-written and well-argued editorials i've read in a while.

  8. basically  

    Brian Mercer is a huge douche. I can't wait until he graduates and gets off campus... oh wait. damn.

  9. Wait  

    I just went and looked at the polls, and they're actually pretty solidly anti-strike. I still don't think they're statistically significant, but now your point is really off base.

  10. kulawik fan  

    Chris Kulawik really did write a great column today. I especially enjoyed his choice of the word "coterie."

  11. these  

    speclines suck. is somebody training for daily editor today? aww. regardless, neither funny nor clear.

  12. Spec Poll  

    wasn't an internet poll. It's on the front page from a sample of 106. If you think it innacurate, find out who did the poll and critique their methods.

    • um no

      it says that the majority of people generally support the demands---some of the specific demands are obviously troublesome

      and the poll in question says that 52% are against the strike and 51% are in favor--3% fall into don't know. the first graph is similarily out of 106% . there's no rounding explanation here and its just lazy to put the raw number as a pie chart.

      Furthermore, the tipping point for a lot of people angry with them are their coercive, ridiculous methods. The spec curiously didn't list any polls on that and in the one where they asked for people's relative concern for the strikers, almost 50% say a 5 or less.

      And unlike most polls, there's no methodological details given--to be expected from amateurs like the spec.
      Nothing here indicates support for the strikers.

  13. well  

    the answer lies in the small number, 106. but when you consider how online comments are more like 99-1 against the strikers, at least now we know that there's more than 1 person who supports them

  14. but  

    online comments and internet polls are supposed to be even more biased by self selection, aren't they? Can we really assume that Bwog commenters are representative of the entire student body?

  15. boars ass  

    where's the large vocal opposition? until i giant cardboard shark battling the giant octopus i will continue to believe that the opposition is only on bwog, where uh, people bitterly oppose everything ever

  16. Well.  

    I'll agree with Kulawik that radicals should not get a voice just for being radical, but the simultaneous claim that minorities should not get a voice because they are minority is revolting.

    Besides which, from what I understand, his advice is: trust the system. The system works. If the system ignores you, that's for the greater good. His demonstrating example: a student group that's had 40 years of being ignored and have not changed tactics. Oooookay.

    • uhhh

      i can't believe i'm about to defend chris kulawik here.

      i've just re-read his article and i don't see anything that would indicate that he believes minorities should not get a voice. read carefully: he says that minority voices should not be FORCED onto the administration, and that the administration cannot possibly comply with the demands of every single interest group on campus. clearly, the minority view DOES have a voice. kulawik is saying that this voice should not be allowed to strong-arm everybody else into agreement, not that this voice should be silenced.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.