My advice as a departing senior is to make friends at other colleges, take advantage of the resources at all the colleges, and appreciate that you aren’t at a tiny liberal arts college stranded by itself in the middle of nowhere.

Yes, certain members of the colleges do stupid things from time to time. Two years ago, Debra Wood, the Scripps College Dean of Students, sent an e-mail to the Scripps College student body complaining about a “racist party theme” at CMC held by the class of 2010. This party, hosted by Class President Isayas Theodros, encouraged students to wear white clothing because there would be a blacklight. Earlier that year, (mostly) Pitzer students engaged in a ridiculous protest of Karl Rove.  During that same year, Harvey Mudd’s Dean of Students made the bizarre decision to report to Campus Safety writing on a whiteboard that said “Hillary is a foxy lesbian.” Just recently, Pomona’s The Student Life published the wrong commencement speaker for CMC’s graduation this year.  For its part, CMC’s administration recently decided to ban non-CMC students, except for a guest list, from Thursday Night Club.

As unfortunate as these incidents are, they are clearly the exception and not the rule.  The reality, however, is that most of the people who attend the Claremont Colleges are good people. Sure there are jerks everywhere, but stereotyping across campuses is way too common at all of the 5Cs. Furthermore, almost all the stereotypes reflect the different colleges of 5-10 years ago much better than they reflect those institutions today. All of the 5Cs have similar values and fairly similar students and we cooperate in tons of academic, extracurricular, and social activities. There are important reasons a good percentage of Claremont Colleges students applied to multiple colleges, transferred between colleges, or take a lot of classes with mixed student populations.

The Claremont Colleges are excellent institutions, but we would all be even better if we integrated more and were less hostile towards one another. In my experience, most people at the end of the day seem to understand this and treat the rivalries as a fun tradition that amuses us. There are some people, however, who take these pointless rivalries way too far. They vandalize property, harass peers, or get in petty disputes with people from other colleges for really dumb reasons. Don’t be these people and don’t let your friends be these people.

Various administration officials scrambled to respond to student outcry late into the evening. John Faranda used his Facebook profile to respond to the new group. Dean Huang sent an email out to the student body to calm things down, which was followed by another this morning. “We have agreed to let the Senior Thesis Fountain Party continue, in its old location,” he wrote, “but simply want those participating to be respectful of others and noise issues.” It was not made clear how student sentiment factored into the recent decision.

Is that Professor Ward Elliott we spy,snapping pictures on the left? Could that be a sign of senior faculty approval?

The timing of this incident could not have come at a worse time for the administration. Poor Andrew Brewer, Assistant Director of Annual Giving, has scheduled an event to collect senior gifts at the Senior Apartments tomorrow night. My guess is that seniors will be happy to take the free sandwiches and beer, but be far less generous with their wallets in light of recent news. Some seniors who have already donated have even been threatening to cancel their senior gift, but the viability of this option remains unclear. Furthermore, with many high school students expected on campus in the coming weeks, and many of them considering whether to accept CMC’s offer of admission, the Office of Admission must be concerned about an angry and unhappy student body expressing their feelings to prospective students.

The Fountain Party fiasco represents only the tip of the iceberg of student discontent.  This year the administration, led by the Dean of Students, has launched a concerted attack on CMC’s culture by canceling or amending many traditions. The Dean of Students indefinitely canceled TNC on the eve of Spring Break before announcing a reinstatement of the tradition starting this Thursday. In addition to beefed up security (reportedly staffed by the CMS Football Team) and fencing, TNCs will now be CMC-only with the exception of a guest list for friends of CMCers. The Dean of Students Office seems to be repeating the same strategy with the Fountain Party. After 26 years, the Madrigal Feast was canceled. Madrigal had been in danger for years and the Athenaeum had grown tired of holding the event, but it was a deeply unpopular move nonetheless.

Some of these have been attributed to Mary Spellman’s arrival at Dean of Students. Charles Johnson argues that killing traditions was her legacy at Sarah Lawrence College and he speculates that she was brought to CMC for that purpose. CMCers complained that with the Fountain Party and Madrigal Feast gone, two of the four traditions mentioned on Claremont McKenna College’s Wikipedia article have ended.[iv]

The CMC student body is deeply resentful of the administration’s assault on CMC traditions. A typical reaction was voiced by senior Max Mautner, “How can the administration be so stupid to remove a popular tradition just as an entire class is about to graduate?” In regards to the administration’s rationale for ending the Fountain Party, the reported complaints about students getting wet and professors disliking the noise don’t seem compelling to students. The fountain can be avoided with only a minute of extra walking time and the sound coming from the celebration can hardly be any louder than the construction of the “Taj MaKravis.” If some of these events are causing problems, the administration should proactively work with students and ASCMC to change them for the better rather than unilaterally canceling or modifying them.

More fundamentally, the administration’s approach seems guided by an overall strategy of trying to end CMC’s “party culture.” Way back in September, the administration met with RAs about semester-opening party events, stated that “things have to change,” and even threatened to turn CMC into a dry campus. If this is the administration’s strategy, they are highly unlikely to succeed. Fellow Forum writer Kevin Burke has made the poignant observation that partying is the dominant status game at CMC and the administration can’t change that reality. Moreover, the administration shouldn’t be in the business of trying to air-dry CMC. Students come to CMC knowing full well that we have an open drinking culture with parties available to all. Along with many other organizations, the Student Life Committee provides plenty of opportunities for socializing without alcohol. Students are capable of self-policing and feel comfortable criticizing their peers’ poor judgment. For most of its history, CMC has successfully discouraged drunk driving and alcohol poisonings by holding large, on-campus parties with a lax alcohol policy where students feel free to seek help if they need it. We absolutely should preserve this aspect of the CMC experience.

[ii] Despite Michael Wilner’s suggestion, I refuse to call this incident “Fountaingate”.

[iii] Yesterday, I emailed Dean Huang, Dean Nauls, and Dean Spellman to get information about this story. Only Spellman responded by telling me to speak with Dean Nauls.

[iv] Somebody evidently updated the article just hours after William’s announcement.

The United States needs to rebuke Israel’s move out of a concern for pressing American interests in the Middle East. No less an authority than Gen. David Petraeus made a bold statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 16 that “a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel” weakens Arab moderates who want to cooperate with the U.S., strengthens Iran by bolstering its clients of Hizballah and Hamas, and plays into the hands of al-Qaeda.  This conclusion came from a briefing he delivered in January to Admiral Muke Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Not reacting sternly to a blatant Israeli provocation would have sunk the U.S. deeper into this trap. Conversely, by working constructively on the peace process and reprimanding Israel when it steps out of line, the United States can strengthen its Middle Eastern allies while disempowering its regional enemies.

Despite this obvious problem, the Israeli government, AIPAC, and members of Congress have repeatedly tried to justify a stupid decision. Avigdor Lieberman, a right-wing nationalist and Israel’s Foreign Minister, compared Israel building houses in East Jerusalem to New York Jews building houses in Queens. John McCain criticized the Obama administration for publicly disapproving of Israel’s decision by stating, “It might be well if our friends in the administration and other places in the United States could start refocusing our efforts on the peace process.”

Furthermore, McCain is wrong to suggest that the Obama administration has been ignoring the peace process. President Obama’s early start on attending to Israeli-Palestinian issues differentiates him from most American presidents in recent history (most sharply in contrast with his immediate predecessor). In January of 2009, Obama and Secretary of State of Hillary Clinton appointed George Mitchell, a respected veteran of the Northern Ireland peace process, as special envoy to the Middle East. Obama’s Cairo speech further cemented the importance of this foreign policy issue to his agenda. No serious observer blames the Obama administration for delaying the peace process. The profound internal political divisions among both the Palestinians and the Israelis, the Netanyahu government’s shortsighted calculation that it has more to gain by avoiding negotiations with the PLO than through engagement, and other factors are responsible for the current impasse.

For those who care about the peace process, the Israeli government’s decision can only be regarded as irresponsible. To begin, Israel hardly can claim a legal right to pursue a large dislocation project in East Jerusalem. Every nation and international body that has articulated a stand on the issue regards East Jerusalem, at least formally, as an “occupied territory.” After Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, no country recognized the move. Shortly thereafter, U.N. Resolution 478 declared the annexation to be in violation of international law and thus “null and void.” The violation has already received condemnation from around the Arab world and might cause the Palestinians to retreat from diplomacy with Israel. U.S. envoy George Mitchell was on the verge of beginning indirect talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In terms of brokering peace, the Obama administration was faced no with good options after Israel put it in a jam by making the announcement. To salvage American credibility, the U.S. needed to respond with a clear denunciation. The American demands Clinton is making of Netanyahu’s government are quite reasonable: shelve the building plans, avoid new provocations, agree to talk about “core issues” in the proximity talks, and offer some new concession to the Palestinians to show good faith.

As an American Jew with a personal attachment to Israel, it’s hard not to feel embarrassed for Israel when Ben-Artzi, Netanyahu’s brother-in-law, calls Obama “anti-Semitic” and says he “dislikes the people of Israel.” Netanyhau has thankfully distanced himself from Ben-Artzi’s comments, but the incident won’t endear Israel to an American public that is showing signs of being less reliably pro-Israel. I think a number of Israel’s friends feel similar. Thomas Friedman, who is generally a reliable supporter of Israel, went so far as to accuse Israel’s leaders of driving drunk with their reckless decision. At least Ms. Clinton had the wisdom to speak sternly to Netanyahu on the phone for three-quarters of an hour on March 12.

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in bad shape. Netanyahu’s government made things much worse while simultaneously placing Israel’s most important ally in an embarrassing position. As a first step, the Obama administration was right to publicly denounce the construction plans. The U.S. saved face by preventing the tail from wagging the dog, supported its regional interests by positioning itself as an honest broker, and put welcome pressure on Netanyahu’s government to get serious about peace talks.

First of all, any movement that brings Sarah Palin back into the spotlight is bad for the Republicans. Although her speech to the Tea Party national convention has generated very different reactions, it is undeniable that the speech has brought her back into the limelight of national politics. Palin may inspire a dedicated base of followers, but the broad electorate’s lack of confidence in her was revealed in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 71% of Americans do not feel she is qualified to be president. Unfortunately for those wanting a Republican to win the White House in 2012, Nate Silver thinks Palin could win the Republican nomination for President. Given her performance in the 2008 campaign, President Obama must be praying for that outcome.

Another speaker at the Tea Party Nation convention is also toxic for the Republican brand: Tom Tancredo. The former Congressman from Colorado delivered an angry rant against immigrants. Bashing immigrants is not good for the Republican Party’s long-term political viability in a country with ever-increasing numbers of Latinos. If the Republicans want their relationship with the Latino community to resemble their relationship with the black community, Tancredo is the perfect man for the job.

Tea-partiers have already probably hurt the Republicans. They claim credit for forcing the moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava out of the race for New York’s 23^rd congressional district last year, which then allowed a Democrat to win a normally very safe Republican seat. They may be overstating their role in this electoral failure, but the fact remains that their brand of right-wing populism is a major political liability for the Republican Party. Winning the center is essential in American politics, but this will be extremely difficult if they are closely associated with self-described rightist counter-revolutionaries.

The political damage could get even worse for the GOP. Tea Party activists are even talking about running their own candidates in congressional elections! Indeed, Tea Party activists are currently preparing to field their own candidate to do battle for Harry Reid’s Senate seat. Given that the overwhelming majority of Tea Party activists would vote for a Republican in a two-way race, this development can only be described as a gift for Democrats.

The Republican Party may be able to prevent this vote splitting if it can successfully incorporate the Tea Party into the fold. After all, absorption within one of the major two parties has been the fate of most third party movements in American history. This task will not be easy, however, as the Tea Party movement is highly critical of the Republican Party as a whole for participating in the expansion of Big Government. Already, activists are becoming dismayed by the prospect of Palin hijacking the Tea Party movement.

I find the bizarreness of the Tea Party phenomenon a bit creepy. The Republican establishment should be absolutely terrified.

The game has solid graphics and looks beautiful when playing on a large screen. English announcers Martin Tyler and Andy Grey provide fairly entertaining commentary, though the repetition sinks in quickly as with all sports games. To overcome this problem, I recommend occasionally turning on the Mexican commentators and hearing the ridiculously extended scream of “GOOOOOOOAL!” Also, the game has a huge number of leagues and teams, ranging from the very low-skilled to world-class footballers. The controls are simple enough for a new player to pick up the basics immediately, but the impressive depth of strategy makes the game incredibly addicting. With five or six minute halves, a typical game takes roughly fifteen minutes, making it the perfectly timed study break.

To be fair, the game is not flawless. The AI (for n00bs, that’s artificial intelligence) is generally very solid and the game has a good range of difficulty settings, but stupid glitches will happen from time to times, such as when my goalie allowed a very soft pass from a defender to go directly through his legs with no strikers in sight. Penalty shootouts are a disappointing method to decide games still tied after two periods of extra time, though I suppose this mimics real soccer games.

Although the franchise mode is quite enjoyable, my exploration of the many different single player modes has been limited. The game is undoubtedly best played in multiplayer mode.  One-on-one is excellent for competitive gamers, and two-on-two FIFA 10 could be the best four-player gaming experience available. FIFA invites trashing talking, betting, yelling at teammates, and all the other hallmarks of poor sportsmanship that accompany a great sports game. Only the best games inspire competitive immaturity like this one.

To begin with a few criticisms, the obviously ideological nature of the publication can at times lead the authors to ignore obvious realities.  For example, Karthik Reddy’s article on America’s recent turn to Keynesian economics, mentions that the stimulus may lead to “crowding out,” whereby public expenditures displace private investment by raising interest rates.  Yet he must be aware that interest rates remain near zero and simply refuses to include this uncomfortable fact while describing the danger of crowding out.  The publication also has no qualms about unappealing metaphors.  Though Liberty’s Last Stand surely takes pride in being controversial, Spencer Kline (an editor-in-chief) might have considered it prudent to avoid referring to cheap low-skilled labor as “the grease that keeps our economy functioning at peak efficiency.”

On the whole, however, Liberty’s Last Stand is enjoyable and worth reading. Ariel Katz has the courage to argue in favor of the legalization and state recognition of polygamy and Andrew Jarmon presents a persuasive case for abolishing the corporate tax.   These article in particular highlight the unique contribution a libertarian publication can make to campus discourse.  To be sure, many of the articles will find a receptive audience at the generally liberal Claremont Colleges.  Matt Fillipo’s manifesto for progressive libertarianism will speak to many students at the Claremont Colleges (and CMC in particular) who are staunchly opposed to Prop 8, but would like lower tax rates to keep more of their lucrative consulting salaries after graduation.  Additionally, Livia Romano’s article on the human suffering in Latin America caused by the War on Drugs is informative and interesting.  The international perspective is particularly appreciated, especially given how infrequently we Americans tend to examine the effects of our policies on other countries.  Liberty’s Last Stand also has a blog, Penguins in Claremont, which features a collection of posts that generally attack the anti-liberty policies of various governments.  Some of these posts are quite funny, such as one that mocks Australia’s selective crackdown on pornography with small-breasted women.

What does the future hold for Liberty’s Last Stand?  Though I wish the publication the best of luck, the Libertarian Club has limited membership to draw contributors from and organizing libertarians has been compared to herding cats.  With all but one of the writers being seniors, the publication will need to inspire new writers and editors if it wants to continue past May.

Disclaimer: I am friends with many of the Ron Paul fan boys who write and edit Liberty’s Last Stand.

Most Birthers claim that Obama was born in Kenya, while others think his birth occurred in Indonesia.  Even though Obama has released a copy of his birth certificate showing that he was born on Oahu, these conspiracy theories continue to animate the fanatical right.

What is most surprising about these conspiracy theories is the number of relatively mainstream people willing to associate themselves with the Birthers or at least recognize the issue as a legitimate controversy.  One of CNN’s many reasons for dumping Lou Dobbs was his repeated raising of Birther issues.  More predictably, The Birthers have found audiences on conservative talk radio and conservative web sites such as Free Republic and WorldNetDaily.  The number of people who have serious doubts that Obama was born in the United States is shockingly high.  According to one poll, 28% of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States or are unsure.  These numbers, however, ignore an important geographic disparity: doubt about Obama’s place of birth is far higher in the South than anywhere else in the country. In the South, only 47% of respondents said they believe Obama was born in the United States, with 30 % unsure and 23% convinced he’s foreign born.

Many Republican politicians find themselves in an uncomfortable position when it comes to Birther conspiracy theories.  On the one hand, the Birther movement kills the Republicans’ credibility among the vast majority of the population and Republicans.  At the same time,   Rep. Mike Castle, a moderate Republican congressman from Delaware, was blindsided at a rally in July when a near-hysterical woman accused him of ignoring the “truth” that Obama was a citizen of Kenya.  Wanting to pander to the fringe without becoming entirely discredited by the lunatics, many Republicans have opted to align themselves only tangentially with the Birther movement.  For example, Republican congressman of John Campbell of California proposed a bill that would require presidential candidates to prove they are “natural-born citizens.”  On MSNBC, Chris Matthews interviewed Campbell and repeatedly asked him if he believed Obama was a natural-born citizen.  The extreme evasiveness of Campbell’s answers perfectly demonstrates his “wink-wink” strategy of secretly pandering to fringe elements of the conservative movement without having his reputation sullied by outright association.

As a final note to seniors still seeking employment, the Birthers are willing to throw down cash for investigations of Obama’s past.  Neil Sankey, a former member of Scotland Yard, has been hired by Birthers to investigate Obama’s personal history.  I know most CMC alums can’t match Sankey’s background, but perhaps “Topics in Forensic Science” has taught some desperate seniors enough to follow in the footsteps of Jonathan Ames.

Coming only a month and a half into the Fall semester, Fall Break isn’t necessary to give students a break from their workload — they’ve just had three months of summer.  At only two days (plus the standard two days of the weekend), Fall Break does not give students the opportunity for meaningful travel, especially since one needs to return to campus on the last day of Fall Break. For many students, traveling back and forth takes about a day itself, so a quarter of the break is spent in transit. Given how short Fall Break is, many students and professors simply use the time to catch up on work or get started on thesis. It isn’t much of a break at all.

Of course, an extra trip with friends to Vegas or Joshua Tree is fun, but it shoudn’t be a serious priority for the college to consider when scheduling, especially when those days could be put to better use. And those few days of Fall Break could. Ending Fall Break would make a week long Thanksgiving Break possible.*  This extension would give students more time to spend with their families.  Especially considering that many families travel for Thanksgiving, a longer break would make it easier to accommodate that travel.  There is clearly a huge demand for a longer Thanksgiving break considering the number of students that decide to leave campus early and the number of classes that are canceled the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. There’s even a Facebook group dedicated to the idiocy of class on Wednesday before Thanksgiving. It’d be better for students, their families, and even professors to extend Thanksgiving Break. Professors would not have to teach half empty classes, and with a longer break, they could give their students more time to prepare for what we all wish we had more time for: finals.

Ending Fall Break to make Thanksgiving Break a week long would also allow people to purchase cheaper plane tickets home.  Look how cheap a Southwest flight home would be for me if I could leave on Monday (just $54, compared to $114 on Wednesday)! When one considers the thousands of students, faculty members, and administrators who fly to be with their families during Thanksgiving break, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars of savings.  For the environmentalist, ending fall break would probably reduce the college’s carbon footprint as many students would travel back home one less time.

Instead of having two short breaks during fall semester that both only feel like extended weekends, let’s have a full-length holiday for Thanksgiving. If for no other reason… it’ll make your mother happy.

____________
* My proposal would add one extra day of break, but, if we need to keep the exact same number of days off, we could simply start classes on Monday during Fall semester rather than Tuesday.

Malcom Gladwell’s provocative New Yorker article“Offensive Play: How different are dogfighting and football?” makes quite a bold comparison, as the title suggests.  I’m not going to defend the comparison because I think the issue of consent makes all the difference in the world.  Even if one ignores the wrongheaded comparision, however, Gladwell’s article is worth reading because of its insightful and disturbing coverage of the neurological damage suffered by football players.  In particular, the descriptions of ex-NFL athletes who have suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a progressive neurological disorder caused by repeated brain trauma, is harrowing.  Thankfully, the risks of concussions have received considerable media attention and have made athletes,  coaches, and trainers more aware of the difficult ethical question involved in deciding how many concussions should a player suffer before he calls it quits.

The neurological dangers associated with football, however, are not limited to the highly visible incidents of concussion.  As Gladwell writes,

“A football player’s real issue isn’t simply with repetitive concussive trauma. It is, as the concussion specialist Robert Cantu argues, with repetitive subconcussive trauma. It’s not just the handful of big hits that matter. It’s lots of little hits, too.”

If these little hits can add up to damage as well, football players at all levels of play may be suffering ongoing brain trauma without even realizing it.  Data that comes from examining the University of North Carolina’s football team suggests that in an average football season, a linemen could get struck in the head a thousand times.  Thankfully, Division III football most likely involves fewer such blows to the head, but by how much is anyone’s guess.  These hits matter because Cantu says that people with CTE “aren’t necessarily people with a high, recognized concussion history. But they are individuals who collided heads on every play—repetitively doing this, year after year, under levels that were tolerable for them to continue to play.”

I believe the dangers associated with college football should not be underestimated, but it seems plainly obvious that the degree of risk assumed by the sport is comparable to other popular activities on campus.  Basketball, softball, soccer, baseball, and rugby all have moderate-to-high incidences of concussion.  Furthermore, as the number of serious alcohol poisonings at CMC can attest, irresponsible partying on the weekend could very well be considerably more dangerous than college football.  Clearly, CMC students could very reasonably decide that engaging in a sport they love is worth the expected danger.

What the high incidence of brain damage should make us wonder, however, is why our society so strongly encourages young men to join the sport in the first place.  I love football as much as the next college male and this article was inspired after the agony of following the 49ers defeat to the Texans on Sunday.  At the same time, I very much wish that I had been given more information about the dangers of the sport before I played high school football.  At least in my experience growing up, parents, peers, coaches, and trainers simply never discussed the neurological dangers associated with subconcussive trauma that are inherent in the game (ignorance of the issue is most likely an important factor here).  Furthermore, given that one study found that the greatest incidence of concussion was at the high school and collegiate division III  levels, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that only multi-million dollar star athletes are exposing themselves to serious risk.  Football is a beloved American institution and I don’t expect it to decline in popularity anytime soon, but as a society let us at least be realistic about the dangers of the sport and maybe be a little more proactive in telling our children about those dangers.

He criticizes the Obama administration’s decision to end the planned missile-defense system in the Poland and Czech Republic as showing weakness to the Russians.  Ever since President Ronald Regan’s Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980’s, Republicans have yearned for missile defense systems.  The only problem is they don’t work.  Physicists describe the challenge as trying to hit a bullet with another bullet.  In 2008, Russia had 5,200 nuclear weapons deployed, not to mention nearly 30,000 tons of chemical weapons.  If Russia really wanted to obliterate the United States, it is just absurd to believe that any missile defense system we could develop would protect us from the simultaneous deployment of over 5,000 nukes.

Krauthammer attacks the Obama administration for condemning the military coup against the Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya, in June of this year.  In response to the coup, every nation in the hemisphere, except for the United States, recalled its ambassador.  Furthermore, both the EU and the UN condemned the coup.  President Zelaya was by all accounts a corrupt leader, but why does it make any sense for the United States to isolate all of Latin America for the dubious reward of supporting over a government that nobody else in the region thinks is legitimate?  Even the right-wing Alvaro Uribe, the President of Colombia and America’s closest ally in Latin America, strongly criticized the coup.  Honduras is a country of minuscule geopolitical significance, which means we would gain very little even if America’s support somehow were crucial to keeping the new government in power (due to stalled negotiations, Zelaya remains out of power even with America’s condemnation of the coup).  Especially given the history of American imperialism in Latin America, it would have been absolutely crazy for America to support a coup condemned by the rest of the world which did essentially nothing to promote American interests.

Krauthammer’s essay shows how obsessed he is with America asserting its dominance with useless symbolic gestures.  The missile defense plan was doomed to technical failure and enraged the Russians.  Supporting a military coup against the democratically elected leader of Honduras would have done nothing to promote American interests in the region and would have enraged all of our allies in the region.  The Obama team made sensible choices, only Krauthammer’s ideological blinders cause him to think otherwise.  For some more discussion of the essay, I highly recommend the Opinionator blog of The New York Times, which has a good summary of Krauthammer’s essay and some insightful critical commentary.