Alec calls universities divesting from companies that do business with the Sudanese government as "warm" and "fuzzy". This leads me to ask the following question: how is depriving funds to a government that is allowing for the slaughter and displacement of its citizens warm and fuzzy. I understand Alec's frustration with diplomacy (although I don't know why that's warm and fuzzy either). When I think of diplomacy, I think of cold and prickly ambassadors not teddy bears, but I think it's unfair for him to throw divestment with their lot. What's depressing to me is not that some college students are calling for their institutions to divest, but rather that only SOME college students are doing so. College students understand that many corrupt governments need foreign investment to stay in power. Depriving governments of that aid can spur the downfall of the regime, as we saw in South Africa. And this isn't an instrument of elite institutions. Illinois and New Jersey have divested from Sudan as well. Now, I know Alec might not concede that my native land of NJ is superior to his homestate of Yale...I mean, Connecticut, but might he, being an econ major, concede that divestment might just work?