New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Recently I wrote a letter to the editor of the Greenwich Time regarding administrative regulation of student media at my high school, but especially of the student newspaper. Here’s a fraction of it:

The systematic, bureaucratic censorship of The Beak (the name of the paper), as well as all other student media at GHS, severely hamstrings the intellectual and informational quality of its product. A myriad of regulations are enforced on a whim by a single faculty adviser who has the pressure of school administration on his shoulders. Similarly, other publications, such as the satirical Weekling, and any organization wishing to disseminate information are unilaterally censored by the overbearing student activities office.

In the three years that I have written for the paper I have had three editorials censored–one on abortion, one on Islam, and one criticizing a myriad of invasive laws including bans on steroids, prostitution, marijuana, and the drinking age. In addition, I have witnessed a list of columns not published because of the whimsical regulations on what is “appropriate” for young adults.

The case I am trying to make is not one a moralistic, first amendment one. To the contrary, I do not think that the first amendment holds much weight in this situation. Thus, I am not disputing the Supreme Court decision from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which essentially says that because the school is essentially the property of the government, the school administration has the right to regulate student speech to their liking.

However, whether the school can and whether the school should regulate speech are two different issues. Call me a romantic, but I thought that the goal of a school was to maximize the body of knowledge and curiosity of students (although I think that makes me more rational than romantic). I do not see how schools could at once be promoting an intellectual environment when they are systematically stifling various issues and opinions.

Take the issue of teen pregnancy, for instance, which was the disputed topic in the Hazelwood case. Few would dispute that it is a touchy subject. But what audience better to address it with than teens? The article in question contained primary sources discussing the reality of the issue. I don’t see how talking about the matter in an open and honest manner could hurt students. To the contrary, I can only imagine that talking about it would inform students and prevent pregnancy for those who are informed by the newspaper article.

Similarly, one of my censored columns was a critical examination of certain aspects of Islam. While conventional wisdom tells us not to discuss religion in public, not discussing religion freely and in a philosophical manner does nothing to reduce “intolerance” (which is what my editorial was labeled). The more informed and rational people are and the more they understand that it is okay to disagree even on matters as fundamental as religion, the more rounded and tolerant our educational institutions will be.

The saddest part about the censorship, which I should also mention is not practiced nearly as much as it is practiced in colleges, is that it muffles the creativity of students. While schools should be attempting to teach their kids as much about the world as possible, they only have so much time. The greatest reflection on educators is when they can foster the creativity and passion of individual students. Such initiative is manifest in students who examine fringe and risque issues in a scholarly manner. And while these cases are rare, the last thing that should be done by in response is censor them.

Popularity: 52% [?]

The great actor Charlton Heston died this weekend at the age of 84. Why he was rightfully best known for his prolific career as an actor, including his heroic rolls in The Ten Commandments, Planet of the Apes, and Ben-Hurr, there is also something to be said about his political activism which went strongly against the Hollywood grain. For five years he served as the president of the NRA, and the video linked shows his most famous moment in that capacity as he responded to efforts by the Clinton administration to curtail gun-ownership rights.

Popularity: 37% [?]

In the 1984 Democratic presidential primary the once heavily favored former Vice President Walter Mondale and young, post-partisan upstart Senator Gary Hart were running neck and neck by March. Hart, who was running on the slogan of “new ideas,” had momentum up until a debate in which he was expounding on that phrase. In a rebuttal, Mondale quipped, “When I hear your new ideas, I’m reminded of that ad, ‘Where’s the beef?’” That sound bite was the nail in Hart’s coffin. With New-Deal Dems as his foundation, the former Veep went on to capture the nomination only to be defeated by Ronald Reagan in an electoral landslide.

Twenty-four years later to the month the Democratic presidential primary is similarly juxtaposed. Senator Barack Obama, who has only a third the experience in the Senate that Gary Hart did in 1984, actually has a slight lead in the delegate race, a lead that almost no one would have predicted two months ago. And while Senator Hillary Clinton has essentially been asking for the beef for more than a year now, it appears that this campaign’s “where’s the beef?” moment will never come.

But what is so great about Barack Obama that has prevented him from meeting Gary Hart’s fate? How in the world could this man, who was in the Illinois state legislature just three years ago and would have trouble answering “where’s the tofu?”, overtake the juggernaut that is the Clinton political machine?

The answer is essentially found in the nature of both Hart and Obama’s campaign.

Both senators were underdogs. Both were going up against a candidate with more experience, more institutional support, and more policy expertise and issue familiarity. Both harnessed the power of rhetoric and idealism that reigns supreme among many Democrats. Both appealed to the wealthier, more educated, more liberal, less partisan, less politically needy Democrats, dubbed in this election as “latte liberals.” Winning these voters is almost like a popularity contest, the winner is the one with the blank slate, the non-partisan image, the high-falutin rhetoric, and the cool-kid reputation.

The simple reason that Obama is actually winning this race, while Hart met his demise, is that Obama is more of those things to more people than Hart could ever be. Hart was a popular politician. Obama, on the other hand, has become a phenomenon. The media adores him, celebrities glorify him, and the young and idealistic revere him. A new cult of personality has rallied around Barack Obama, casting him as the savior of a nation without ever auditing him for substance. The sad irony for Hillary Clinton is that she can’t get rid of the guy with the funny name for no other reason than he’s as slick, if not slicker, than the only other politician who has ever been able to overshadow her.

But while “Slick Willy” won two terms by building a coalition, Obama is making headway by rallying the political equivalent of idol worshipers. Rather than center the campaign around a platform, accomplishments, or a track record of any kind, the Senator’s candidacy has been built around his image as a post-partisan messiah–the second coming of Jack Kennedy, perhaps. Serious voters should have ceased to take Obama very seriously when Oprah started going around telling people that Obama “is The One.” They should have been similarly squeamish when they saw a music video called “Yes, We Can!” created independently by about a dozen celebrities consisting of them singing along to an Obama victory speech.

The concept was creepy in the first place, but the fact that the video was created without the sanction of the Obama campaign should also raise alarm. Powerful politicians are supposed to have their own heroic self-image, but when others start buying into that same self-regard it ceases to be cute and becomes just frightening. In the same way it was frightening when at a rally in Texas “The One” interrupted his stump speech to blow his nose and the 17,000 in attendance responded with resounding cheers.

I had the opportunity to witness the phenomenon first hand when I attended an Obama rally in Hartford last month. During his speech, he stopped to toss water and call medical attention to a woman who had fainted in the front of the crowd. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but not too long thereafter, while watching the news, I discovered that the episode was not at all random. In fact, the woman in Connecticut was the sixth to be documented fainting at an Obama stump speech this election season. The severity of the trend has led the Obama campaign to ensure medical teams remain in close proximity to the crowd at all times. It raises the question, how much credibility should a candidacy have when its events feel more like a rock concert than a political rally and it’s fanatics behave more like teenage girls at an NSYNC concert than partisans?

The media hasn’t carried itself much better. In a recent study, the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs found that the Senator has received the most favorable coverage of any candidate by a country mile. The study, which evaluated about 800 election stories by the major TV news outlets in December and January, counted 84% of stories about Obama as favorable. Meanwhile, the ever-oppressed Hillary Clinton received the least favorable coverage, with only 51% positive. This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, for anyone who opens a newspaper, news magazine, or watches a news channel semi-regularly. At least for me, watching the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and Wolf Blitzer futilely try to hide their man-crushes becomes unbearable at times.

The media’s fetish reached an apex of sorts in the last debate between the Democrats, hosted by the Obama sycophants at NBC. At one point, Tim Russert essentially asked Clinton a pop-quiz question, testing her familiarity of the political situation in Russia. Then the question shifted to Obama, but at that point the hard part had already been answered for him. Not only was it emblematic of the media’s general bias, but it was also a missed opportunity for them to really test Obama’s issue knowledge. Those paying attention are well aware that Clinton knows all the intricacies of policy and details of geopolitical situations better than anyone. Obama on the other hand, who has not been in a serious elected position for four years even, needs to be vetted.

For all the empty jabbering about change, there has not been a lot of talk about what Obama’s concept of change actually means. The whole notion that Obama is so fabulous because he’s offering change is fundamentally nonsensical. What’s so special about a presidential candidate offering change? Is not the point of almost every campaign–incumbents aside–that they will offer something unique to the presidency?

To the extent of my knowledge, there has never been a candidate who ran on the slogan “A status quo we can believe in.” Moreover, it is not even as if the “change” that Obama is offering is unique in 2008. There is almost no part of his platform that is exceptional when juxtaposed with the other Democrats who ran for the nomination. His domestic agenda is so hard to distinguish from Senator Clinton’s, for instance, that the Clinton campaign has even accused Obama of copying her economic plan.

Allegations of plagiarism aside, there remain absolutely no new political ideas coming from Senator Obama’s head. For those who have actually looked over his policy positions–which I surmise does not include many of his supporters–they will have little trouble deciphering that Obama is little more than a populist proposing a greater government tyranny over the market place. Despite talk of the “audacity of hope,” his campaign has been based on an extraordinary amount of fear: fear of free trade, fear of “predatory lending,” fear of global warming, fear of the price system and a free market in things like healthcare, the list goes on.

People have become so entranced by Obama’s rhetoric that they are failing to recognize the realities of his candidacy. Behind the deep, facund voice, Barack Obama is little more than a Gary Hart with a third the experience. While I realize it may be the political equivalent of little kids discovering there is no Santa Claus, young voters need be told there is nothing substantively special about the glorified Democrat with the funny name. When push comes to shove, an Obama presidency will mean more government, more spending, more regulation, and less freedom. The scary part is that Obama can sell even a useless, tarnished agenda like that one to voters. If he really offered hope and change, he would put his silver tongue to use by advocating market reforms and the roll back of massive government programs that are on track to bankrupting us in the near future. But the fact is he’s not doing that. As such, Americans will need a significant reality check, and quickly, because by November, it will be too late.

Popularity: 85% [?]

With David Patterson being sworn in today as the first blind and black governor of New York, I thought I would back track and drop my two cents on the sex scandal that is responsible for his assumption of the office.

I am typically a believer that personal issues should remain just that even for politicians, and they should be judged on their political ideology and leadership even if they are a bit scummy. In Elliot Spitzer’s case however, the hypocrisy may have been just too stark to ignore. As governor, for instance, he signed a bill upping the penalty for patrons of prostitution, making it possible for johns to go to jail for up to a year.

The hypocrisy shouldn’t come as to much of a surprise for a politician as arrogant as Spitzer. It was not just prostitution where he sought to intrude on people’s private lives and dealings: it included was music advertisers, banks lending to the less wealthy, and individual companies like AIG as well. And yet, he thought he was above the laws that he created and enforced.

But while Spitzer’s sexual escapade was individually scummy, there was nothing fundamentally sinful about it the social sense. Spitzer and the prostitute’s actions did not harm anybody, they did not coerce anyone, nor violate anybody’s rights. The arrangements of their relationship were voluntary and mutual. Of course my reasoning brings into question the illegality of prostitution, but it deserves such examination despite popular opinion being for the ban.

I find the legal status of prostitution strange because while sex is legal when its free, it isn’t when it costs money. I can think of no other good or service on the market whose exchange is legal when it’s free, but illegal when there is a monetary fee attached. Moreover, prostitution could be made substantially more safe if it were legalized. By bringing the industry out into the light, there would be better checks on infected prostitutes and STDs.

Next, much of the defense of anti-prostitution laws I’ve been hearing in the past week’s relates to the exploitation of women. This invites a two-pronged response: first, it does not constitute exploitation when women chose to venture into the industry themselves–as is mostly the case. Second, when a prostitute is indeed exploited–coerced, harmed, etc.–who is she going to go to for help? The police? Not as long as prostitution is illegal. Because prostitution is illegal, all the “exploitation” remains in the dark, and the woman exploited remain unprotected. If the practice was legal however, these woman would have the same protection anyone else does, and thus would be substantially safer.

If people really wanted to demote exploitation of women, they would make prostitution legal, as a means of granting women who chose to engage in it equal protection under the law.

And that’s that single most important issue at hand amidst the ado about Elliot Spitzer.

Here is a column elaborating on the things I am talking about from the opinion pages of the Chicago Tribune.

Popularity: 43% [?]

Since the “Yes, We Can” music video has become somewhat of an internet hit at DipDive, Will.I.Am has chartered a new video called “We Are The Ones,” which to me appears to be even more inane and idolizing than the first. Whenever I discuss with others how bizarre these videos are, they make point to mention that they are not sanctioned by the Obama campaign as if that absolves him. But, actually, the fact that the video was not his campaign’s doing is perhaps even more frightening than otherwise. Powerful politicians are supposed to have their own heroic self-image, but when others start buying into their messianic self-regard is when it ceases to be cute and becomes, instead, just frightening. For when voters begin viewing any public figure as transcendent, it gives them free reign to as they wish politically, with less and less opposition.

You can see the video by clicking the link below:

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 42% [?]

Bill Buckley, the conservative writer, commentator, and founder of National Review, died yesterday at the age of 82 in the town neighboring my own. I have subsequently spent time reading more on the man and watching more of him. His prominence is owed to his unfettered defense of conservatism throughout the post-WWII era when the Left really dominated the zeitgeist and moderates, in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller, had a hold of the Republican Party. Today, American politics is centered noticeably further to the right in part because of Buckley’s promotion of figures from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Regan. And the fact that it is now hard to imagine the Nixons and Rockefellers of the world leading the GOP is a tribute to Buckley’s way with words.

In the second-ever issue of his brain-child, the National Review, he declared the magazines mission statement, which included its famous vow to “stand athwart history yelling, stop.” While this represents my own fundamental discontent with the philosophy of conservatism–for no philosophy can have merit by virtue of being the status quo–it appeals to both my romantic sense, by unequivocally promising to fight for a successful tradition, and my rational one, by standing for limited government and individualism at a time when collectivism was rising to the top of the intellectual order.

The doctrines of conservatism, which today is often cast as a three-legged stool consisting of aggressive national defense, traditional social values, and economic libertarianism, was different in many ways from what it was in 1955. Perhaps the biggest change from early Cold War conservatism, was the relative rise of the third prong, economic libertarianism, which Buckley was particularly known for. As a matter of fact, he claimed that he floated between the self-label of conservative and libertarian for some time during the latter part of his career. Additionally, he came out against the war on drugs later in life, but at the same time his reasoning was rooted in the impracticality of the fight rather than individual rights–hardly the essence of a true libertarian.

Politics aside, what remembrances seem to have concentrated on are the style of the man himself and his unmatched way with words. Watching him and hearing him and reading him, I gained a sense of an aura of refined elitism–and I mean that in only the best way–that arose from his able mind and own rebelilon against the liberal intelligentsia. His quick wit and sesquipedalian vocabulary were second to none and made his writing unmistakable.

Of all the obituaries I read today, here are the links to the five best:

from The New York Times

from Ann Coulter

from The Nation

and from the the two most Buckley-esque journalists left: Peggy Noonan and George Will

While the sources of these articles generally mix as well as water and vinegar, all of their memorials include great recollections of the man and are well done. The irony of the timing of Buckley’s death is that it coincided with the nomination of a Republican presidential candidate who is out of favor with self-proclaimed conservatives and who appeals to the center of politics, while the Democrats may be running on their most liberal platform in decades this year. The question remains: did Buckley die alongside the modern conservative movement for which he served as a fountainhead? I think that is probably overly-simplistic, but the question has been asked and is well worth asking. I anticipate that the American conservatism is still politically strong despite an unpopular president and will remain more like the party of Ronald Reagan than that of Gerald Ford in the years to come.

Popularity: 52% [?]

Since the negative article was published on the front page of the Wednesday Times, the backlash has been overwhelming against the story. An article from today’s Daily News covered not only the backlash but also the response of the Time’s executive editor.  It sounds a lot like he is blaming readers too:

The embattled executive editor of the New York Times defended its John McCain story Friday with a novel explanation for the flood of critical e-mails the newspaper received: slow-witted readers.

“Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction,” Bill Keller wrote in a Times Web site Q&A forum. Readers posted 2,000 comments and sent in 3,700 questions.

“I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot,” Keller added.

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it. “Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

That point, he said, was that McCain, “this man who prizes his honor above all things and who appreciates the importance of appearances, also has a history of being sometimes careless about the appearance of impropriety, about his reputation.”

Not only is the paper’s top editor arrogant in his defense, he does not actually address the substantive grievances raised about the story first among those being why the article featured a completely unsubstantiated implication of sexual impropriety with a lobbyist.

The rest of the story did little more than summarize past questions about potential conflicts of interest between McCain and certain lobbied interests on no more than a few occasions. It did not break any story younger than the eight-year-old story of the female lobbyist and went all the way back to the Keating Five controversy back in the late ’80s.

The common denominator among the few of these stories is that not one iota of malfeasance has ever been brought to light in the decades they have been known to the public. The Times’ front page article did not change that–at all. And its nothing more than arrogance and wishful thinking on the part of Keller and the Grey Lady to suppose that fault over the matter lies, not with the editorializing of news, but with the readers.

At the end of the day, however, this story may be a blessing in disguise for McCain who has trouble exciting conservative Republicans. But if the “liberal media” has it out for the presumptive nominee then he must not be so bad (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). For instance, conservative talk show hosts, who have spent the past month or so discrediting McCain’s ideological credentials, have rallied around him on this issue as have donors. Essentially, the Times story gave conservatives something to get excited about. And whereas funding for Republicans had been hard to come by of late, this controversy has been the fountainhead of new donations:

 Team McCain has parlayed The New York Times anonymous-source hit on the GOP front-runner into a cash bonanza.

A campaign fund-raising letter ripping the “particularly disgusting” Times story and pleading with contributors to fight back “was the most successful to date,” a top McCain aide said Friday.

The aide gave no numbers, but the McCain campaign reported raising $11.7 million last month - topping the $6.8 million he collected in the previous three months combined.

The Republican National Committee sought to piggyback on McCain’s success with a similar fund-raising letter of “outrage” at The Times. That prompted a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser defending The Times.

Popularity: 37% [?]

Yesterday, the New York Times broke an eight year old story announcing the possibility that McCain had an extramarital affair with a much younger DC lobbyist. The story cited former McCain aids who grew suspicious of the Senator for appearing more than usual with the woman thirty years his junior back around the time he was first running for president . Of course, the Times had no evidence of the impropriety but chose to feature the aspersion in the first paragraphs of an article entirely criticizing McCain for his involvement with wealthy and influential donors.

The thing is that some of the story may actually be relevant–regarding the “maverick” of a Senator, who is known for his battles on campaign finance and ethics reform, who may have gotten a little to cozy with some wealthy patrons–but the Times chose to relegate that story while featuring the aspersion of an allegation of McCain maybe having a crush.

Now, here is valid criticism from Megan McArdle:

McCain is not a classical liberal; he’s the product of an intensely hierarchical honor culture that he seems to think would substantially improve the rest of us if we adopted more of its values. I have no shortage of respect for the military, and their willingness to place their own lives between the rest of us and war’s desolation. But that doesn’t mean I think America would be a better place if we had a more martial state. His record bespeaks little respect for spontaneous order and individual freedom. What free-market instincts he evinces seem to have come as part of the conservative ideas combo-pack he bought because it was cheaper than buying the parts individually–all he really wanted was the national greatness and the moderately conservative social structure.

This is the most accurate description of McCain I have ever read and it goes to the heart of why I am not too fond of him. But, at the same time, I foresee myself voting for him because he is effectively less harmful to the economy and the country as a whole (”100 years in Iraq” not quite withstanding). On the other hand, Barack Obama is the image of a more rational, intelligent, thinking man’s president on the surface (juxtaposed with McCain’s traditional-patriotic image), but underneath it he will rule with a more heavy hand over the economy. My constant inclination is to vote for the political substance under the facade which is why I lean towards McCain. I don’t think there is much evidence to say that if America votes for what they perceive as a thinking man’s politician over a military-traditionalist one that it will in the long term lead to enough positive, free market reforms to necessarily outweigh Obama’s anti-market plans.

Hence, I disagree with the libertarian blogger’s assessment and endorsement of Obama, and choose to stick by McCain, who as of now appears to be the least-worst choice.

UPDATE: McCain responded to the allegations of the Times in a press conference this morning. The full video thereof can be accessed by clicking the link below:

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 43% [?]

From Obama’s website:

Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal. He will help the world’s weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.

Of course we are also used to hearing the clamoring of a myriad of inconsequential celebrities for more funding for the third world. And its not only liberals like Obama who trump up foreign aid. Remember that President Bush pledged $30 billion more in AIDS funding for Africa in the coming year.

Normally the foreign aid debate is casted as those altruists who care about the prosperity of the third world against the thrifty, America-centric who rather the money be kept at home. That’s conventional wisdom, but perhaps conventional wisdom is not always correct. At least in this case it appears not to be, as the same foreign aid that Obama proposes doubling has historically done little good to jump start the economies of the world’s poor.

From Michael Beran, regarding foreign aid to Africa and also addressing the Millennium Project that Obama endorsed:

From Walt Rostow and John F. Kennedy in 1960 to Sachs and Tony Blair today, the message, [NYU economist William] Easterly says, has been the same: “Give more aid.” Assistance to Africa, he notes, “did indeed rise steadily throughout this period (tripling as a percent of African GDP from the 1970s to the 1990s),” yet African growth “remained stuck at zero percent per capita.”

All told, the West has given some $568 billion in foreign aid to Africa over the last four decades, with little to show for it. Between 1990 and 2001, the number of people in sub-Saharan Africa below what the UN calls the “extreme poverty line”—that is, living on less than $1 a day—increased from 227 million to 313 million, while their inflation-adjusted average daily income actually fell, from 62 cents to 60. At the same time, nearly half the continent’s population—46 percent—languishes in what the UN defines as ordinary poverty.

Yet notwithstanding this record of failure, the prosperous nations’ heads of state have sanctioned Sachs’s plan to throw more money at Africa’s woes. In July 2005, G-8 leaders meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, endorsed Sachs’s Millennium thesis and promised to double their annual foreign aid from $25 billion to $50 billion, with at least half the money earmarked for Africa. This increased spending, the Gleneagles principals proclaimed, will “lift tens of millions of people out of poverty every year.” No doubt, too, Africans will soon be extracting sunbeams from cucumbers.

Once again, the notion that charity would actually hurt Africans in the long run is unconventional, but it is nonetheless all given evidence supports it. But if we dig deeper down and logically examine the incentives that the foreign aid creates we have no trouble rectifying theory and reality. This is what I wrote in a newspaper editorial (October issue, page two) on the subject back in the fall:

Charity demonstrates bad causation to Africans. In a simple economic sense it says: we will give you money because you are poor. At the same time organizations, like the Heifer Club, may say that they only will continue to supply funds for the needy if they show good behavior or meet some set of standards. To be sure, that is a more intelligent approach, but at the same time it does not eliminate the primary incentive which says, ‘we will give you money because you are poor.’ Hence the result is a confused myriad of incentives which occasionally set good standards on one hand, but always require minimal productivity on the other.

Let me also add, as I did later in the column, that aid only temporarily bolster the status quo, making the current regimes more acceptable, and does nothing to fix society’s foundational ethic and establish rule of law and defend property rights.

Popularity: 37% [?]

Here’s his reason:

 I have made repeated efforts to encourage the Chinese government to use its unique influence to bring safety and stability to the Darfur region of Sudan. Although some progress has been made along the way, most notably, the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769, the situation in Darfur continues to worsen and the violence continues to accelerate.

…And I’m sure China really cares…

When it comes to politics, entertainers consistently demonstrate that they aren’t very bright. Then again I guess we shouln’t expect much from Spielberg who didn’t graduate film school until 2002, and most certainly did not study international relations. Normally, it takes a little more than the cries of celebrities to register any leverage on world superpowers. The point adds to what I have already said about the naivete of the “save Darfur” movement. Here is my first post on why “I don’t care about Darfur.”

I have more recently written another newspaper article elaborating on the impracticality of interventionalist Darfur policy. If you press the “continue reading” link at the bottom of the post you will be able to see it.

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 37% [?]