Monday, April 2, 2007

Letter From the Editor (Right World View Vol. I, No. 8)

I read the article entitled, "Purpose, Funding of 'Right World View' Questioned" in Volume 61, Issue 5 of the "Touchstone" with interest. Unfortunately, it misreports my views in almost every way. And one must wonder why another derogatory cartoon was used in the article.

There is an interesting apparent contradiction in the article. In the same sentence which seemed to say that we have not faced problems of being silenced, the author seems to hint that our club should be destroyed. This also overlooks the evident theft of half the distribution of our second issue. If that's not an attempt at silencing, I am not sure what is.

It seems to me that that the article was a purposefully slanted attack. Why? The article itself might better have been the subject of an editorial rather than set in the guise of investigative reporting. Especially if about half the article was edited / modified, as I was informed it was. I would hope that Joseph Fulginiti (Editor-in-Chief of the Touchstone) would agree with me that such modification (especially if it changes the intent of the article) would be inappropriate.

What is the Right World View; a Newspaper or a publication? Both, neither? There are so many possible titles, it is hard to pin it down. According to President Berman, on the front page of the first issue of the Touchstone this academic year, the Right World View is one of the two student-run Newspapers. Just an interesting note that was not picked up on in the article.

The preamble to the Mville College Code of Community Conduct includes the words, "The distribution of signed statements, publications and petitions is welcome…..", (Note the "s") recognizing and encouraging multiple publications, not just one. And there currently are at least three - the "Touchstone", "Right World View" and "Link" (not to mention "Graffiti", "Tower", and a myriad of newsletters). Why the fuss over "Right World View", Joe?

Let me now make a public request of Joseph Fulginiti - stop sending journalists to do so-called "investigative" reporting, and stop using offensive cartoons and pictures - they don't do you justice. Nothing that happens to the Touchstone is the Right World View's fault, nor mine. With this in mind, please leave the Right World View (including its writers and editors) alone and we will continue to afford you the same courtesy. I really do not want to see my name in your paper in any sort of negative light anymore and, here again, I will afford you the same courtesy.

On to some more pleasant news. You are holding in your hand our first official 16 page issue (in standard tabloid [11”x17”], no less). If you flip to the back page you can see that we now have broken the 50 contributors mark. I don't recall any other publication breaking these marks as long as I have been here. All this in our first year; our eighth issue.

We are proud to bring you a few new features. Photography lovers, we now have a featured photo section (page 14). We also have something new called "Castle View." Turn to page 15 and check it out. Have you ever felt poetic? We now have a section for you as well; the "Poetry Section" (page 15). Dance and Theater people, we haven't forgotten about you. There is a nice two page spread (pages 10 &11) about the upcoming Senior Thesis performances. All in all, I am very pleased with how this issue turned out and hope that you will be as well. Either way, let us know what you think by e-mailing or me personally at We are always interested in feedback and suggestions.

Andrew Berman

Right World View Article Link:

Monday, March 5, 2007

Money Issues Update

As you can clearly see, we were not able to fix our funding "snafu" as of yet, despite our best efforts. This has forced us to keep the same formatting as our last issue. Just as with that one, if you prefer to read this publication in its standard format (11x17 tabloid) it is available (in color) on our website ( What you are reading now is exactly the same as you will find on our website, it has just been scaled down in size.

We are doing everything in our power to ensure this publication will return to its normal size before the end of the semester.

On the brighter side, this issue has seen us expand once again. It has been our goal to add people to our staff each time we print. In this issue (as you can see to the right of this article), we reached 40 people. In part, this influx of people has forced us to expand the size of our publication. If you look at the upper left-hand corner of this page you will see the number 14. Although it may not seem like much, this represents a 1/6th growth in the size of our publication.

As always, we would like to hear what you think. E-mail us at and let us know.

Right World View Article Link:

Triple Take

Triple Take

Instead of our traditional Double Take, in this issue we chose to do a Triple Take. The topic is whether any branch of our government is the most dangerous or has the greatest potential to destroy our democracy.


The Constitution entrusts the Supreme Court with an awesome responsibility to judge the constitutionality of laws. It is the highest court in the land and, consequently, the most powerful. This power, if abused, represents the greatest threat to our democracy, as the Supreme Court is the government's least democratic branch.

The executive branch (or the president) is chosen by the people in a general election. Every citizen (barring certain specific restrictions such as felons) takes part in a vote through the Electoral College, determining who will be the next president of the United States. The legislative branch (comprised of both Congress and the Senate) is composed of members also chosen by election. These elections are restricted one of 435 Congressional districts, or states, respectively. One important similarity in both these branches is specified terms. Both of these branches are beholden to the people. If they fail voters' expectations, it is likely they will not be re-elected.

The Judiciary branch is led by the Supreme Court. The judges that comprise the court are not elected by the people. This is the only branch with members who are not votedinto office. Instead, the President nominates someone who then has to be confirmed by the Senate. As you can see, at no point in this process are the people or citizens asked for their opinion.

The members on the Supreme Court have life tenure. With no re-election, renomination or reconfirmation to worry about, these judges can go essentially unchecked. All it would take is five so called "activist" judges to threaten are very system of government. It would also be almost impossible to dislodge these judges, given their life tenure. Once in place, this block of judges would be able to overturn democratically created laws by finding "inferences" in the constitution or citing some sort of Natural Law.

This is not to say that the current Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy, rather the Supreme Court poses a greater hypothetical threat to our democracy than any of the other branches can. If corruption occurs in the other branches, the officials in question will not stay in power; their term will end or they will be impeached. In contrast, Supreme Court judges have no term limit and it is almost impossible to dislodge them without their consent.

I say all this as an aspiring lawyer who may one day have to argue in front of the Supreme Court. Hopefully, they won't hold this article against me.

Right World View Article Link:

The Vagina Monologues

The Vagina Monologues

Right World View

Generally speaking, Conservative organizations tend to despise The Vagina Monologues. Some groups send out literature against it and others make parodies of the play. Additionally, there are those who just ignore it altogether. To see what all the fuss was about, I decided to go see the play myself.

Before delving any further, I will draw a clear line between the acting and the play. The acting was marvelous. Despite being a fairly long show, there were only two apparent mishaps. A dividing wall fell down on one of the performers, and one of the ‘mood lights’ failed to turn on when it was supposed to. Even these looked like they could have been intentional. The packed room laughed when the play was funny and became somber on cue. To make sure this is clear, The Vagina Monologues was performed very well and I congratulate all involved on a job well done.

As to the content of the play itself, it was not nearly as bad as I was expecting, given what I had heard from others. The play showed many examples of ‘bad’ men. It was not trying to show that all men are bad, but some are, and it is important to make the distinction between messages of a few "bad seeds" as opposed to "a bad gender"

The play was about women's empowerment. Conservatives in general see nothing wrong with this. As long as it is not in the context of ‘radical feminism’, there is nothing wrong with women's empowerment. This empowerment should not be "over" men any more than men should be ‘over’ women, and should be towards true equality.

The play had some commentary on traditional Arab/Muslim female clothing. It made a point to not insult the culture; it did seem to condemn any woman being forced to wear clothes against her will. Again, Conservatives would generally agree with this.

Perhaps the scene with which Conservatives would disagree the most was a monologue about a 16 year old woman's sexual encounter with an older, ‘more experienced’ female. In the monologue, the older woman advises her that all men are bad, and that she should never rely on them. As mentioned before, there are bad men, but not all men are bad. In a healthy relationship you must be able to rely on your spouse and your spouse must be able to rely on you.

The money raised in the show will all go to charity. I would say that if you are curious about the play, go see it for yourself. Just don't bring children.

Right World View Article Link:

Letter From the Editor (Right World View Vol. I, No. 7)

For the better part of this academic year, I have been trying to keep what I perceived as a personal vendetta against me out of the limelight for its sheer absurdity. But given the article in the last issue of the Touchstone (Volume 61, Issue 4) entitled, "December Issue Delayed," this is no longer possible.

Before we delve any further, a bit of background is important.

Last summer, I advised Joseph Fulginiti (Editor-in-Chief of the Touchstone) that I was interested in starting a Conservative publication as well as remaining on the Touchstone staff. Had he expressed any opposition I would not have created "Right World View." Not only did he not object, he offered me some advice as to where I might find some writers. Nonetheless, when the first issue of the Right World View came out, Joe fired me. After reminding him of our understanding, he "rehired" me and named me "Assistant Editor" of the Touchstone. I remained in that capacity and produced the "Point/Counterpoint Debate" feature in its first issue of this school year (Volume 61, Issue 1). However, when the second issue of the Right World View came out, Joe once again fired me. It is noteworthy that, at about that same time, stacks of our second issue disappeared from its distribution points in an apparent attempt to silence us.

In an apparent personal pique at our success, Joe and his staff have seen fit to attack me, personally. These attacks have taken many forms - including (but not limited to) emails, deleting my name from "The Touchstone Staff" listing in the online version of its Volume 61, Issue 1, to the point now where that they have printed an article in their Issue No. 4 attacking my integrity by innuendo.

The online version of the article is introduced by the cartoon of a villain with a large nose wringing his hands, reminiscent of cartoons published by German propagandists during the late 1930's. It is noteworthy - given this cartoon - that the article makes pointed reference to my role as President of the Jewish Student Association - something that is totally irrelevant to the "publication delay" issue in question. The offensive cartoon is at the very least politically incorrect and totally unnecessary.

When I along with another member of the "Right World View" recently attempted to attend a Touchstone meeting we saw the same cartoon hanging on their office wall next to a picture of me, with a sign above them that read, "Take that Berman!" Why the personal vendetta?

The article impugns my integrity by suggesting that in my role as Chair of the Student Government Finance Board I was responsible for holding up the Touchstone's funds resulting in the delay of their publication. It omits the plain fact that the Finance Board is composed of several members, including one of Touchstone's own editors. Good reporting would have revealed that nothing like their baseless innuendo occurred and isn't even possible. Would the Touchstone's Finance Board member have allowed any sort of foul play to occur assuming it was possible? You know the answer.

Competition between different publications and free expression of thought are precious freedoms. Personal attacks and smear campaigns in the guise of investigative reporting aimed at destroying the "Right World View" ought not be countenanced. They should stop immediately.

Andrew Berman

Right World View Article Link:

Harley Newman - The Professional Lunatic!

Harley Newman, The Professional Lunatic, came to perform right here at Manhattanville on February 20th. A significant number of students made their way to the Pub to watch him perform. The show started with a burst of flames. This part of his performance was prevalent on the posters hung around campus.

There was a slight hitch with Harley making a fireball, namely a low ceiling and a desire not to light the building on fire. To perform the stunt, he had to step outside as the audience watched by looking out the window. After blowing a fireball, Harley continued to warm up the crowed by stopping a fan using only his tongue.

Changing things up a bit, he got ready to juggle using a bowling ball, a sword, and a bottle of water. Just as he was getting set, he hurled the bowling ball at someone sitting in the front row. Not to worry, the bowling ball was a fake and no harm came to any member of the audience. After having a bit more fun with them, Harley took off his shoes and socks and climbed a staircase of swords (blades face up).

After grabbing another volunteer from the crowd, Harley played a sort of follow- the-leader using a wooden board and a screw-like implement. When they were done, Harley took a woman's high-heeled shoe (which he brought with him) and shoved the spike from the heel up his nose. After taking it out, he licked it. In an apparent attempt to outdo himself, Harley then took a power drill and shoved it up his nose while it was on. After removing the drill, he licked it just as he had the high heel spike. When he finished with that stunt, he took a wooden board and placed his tongue on it. Using a stapler, he apparently stapled it to the board. This, just like the bowling ball trick, was a ruse. Getting back to some real stunts, Harley asked for a couple to help him out on stage. The couple secured him in a straightjacket and then with a rope of significant length. Once they were done, he had to free himself. To do this, Harley slipped off his shoes and then shimmied part of the rope off. He then slipped his arms to the front to take off the rest of the rope before unhooking a strap. Harley was then able to slide, with some understandable difficulty, the straightjacket over his head.

For his next stunt yet another audience member was selected from the crowd. Harley set three fur traps (which work by setting off a pressure sensor in the center, designed to snap closed holding what ever triggered it) on a table. The audience member took a rather large carrot and used it to set off two of the traps to show their power as they broke the carrots. To set off the third trap, Harley used his fingers.

Moving on, Harley took a plunger and stuck it down his throat, then proceeded to lick a sword and stick that down his throat. In the next part of the show, despite the fact that I did not volunteer, (though I really didn't mind) I became involved.

To perform his next trick, he pulled out a paper bag and two handkerchiefs, one green and one red. Ensuring that there was nothing "funny" with the handkerchiefs were two audience members (myself being one of them). I can personally attest that there was nothing unusual about the handkerchiefs I was given to check over. Both handkerchiefs were then put into the bag. He then blew up the bag and popped it causing the red handkerchief to ‘magically’ turn green and the green handkerchief to ‘magically’ turned red. This performance was obviously a joke, but it had its desired effect on the crowed.

Another audience member was brought up on stage for his next set of stunts. After blindfolding the participant and scaring her half to death with a sword, the real stunt began. Harley set the audience member on his shoulders before getting on a unicycle. Since he was blindfolded, Harley had to rely on the screams of his passenger to know when to stop before he hit the staircase of swords. The stunt, of course, went as planned. It was especially impressive given the low ceiling, which appeared to add some difficulty to the stunt.

Performing his next stunt required a bed of nails on the floor. Harley moved through the crowd, pulling seven people up on stage with him. After lying down on the bed of nails, he instructed five of the new audience members to stand on him on one at a time (meaning that at one point five people were standing on him).

Outdoing himself yet again, Harley pulled out a bed of only four nails. After taking off his shirt and belt, he proceeded to lie down on it. Next, he took out two fish hooks which were attached with string to a cup. Harley attached the hooks to his eyelids, filled the cup with water, then swung it around with his head.

For his final stunt, Harley took out yet another bed, this one being a board with a singular nail through it, and lay on top. This stunt ended the show, which lasted slightly over an hour. Afterwards, Harley remained in the pub and allowed people to lay down on the original bed of nails. Overall, it was a good show that seemed to be well received by all who came to watch. If he comes back to Manhattanville in the future, you should make it a point to attend.

Right World View Article Link:

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Money Issues

There is no nice way to say this: we are broke. You have probably noticed that the Right World View is formatted very differently than it usually is. Fear not, if you prefer to read this publication in its standard format (11x17 tabloid) it is available (in color) on our website ( You would think that as a member of the Finance Board (the Chair no less) that I would be able to ensure full funding for any club I am affiliated with. This couldn't be further from the truth. To prevent even the hint of favoritism, Finance Board members are required to recuse themselves in any matters pertaining to clubs they are involved with. In other words, I had no impact on how much money this publication would receive from the school, and had no input as to whether the Right World View would even be approved as a club.

The school did provide us with some funding, for which we are grateful, but it was not near what creating a school publication would need. Like any good club that needed more money, we set out to fundraise. We have had great success doing so, fundraising almost double the amount of money given to us by Manhattanville. Obviously, we have hit a snag. The funding we had lined up for this issue fell through at the last minute. We are doing everything in our power to ensure that this will not happen again for any future issues.

The problem (besides the funding) is that if we did not put this issue out now, the information it contains would be outdated by the time we were financially able to print it. Additionally, we would not be able to classify ourselves as a monthly publication. In order to be considered one, the publication must have an issue come out each month (at least six issues at this point, and certainly no less than five). We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding.

Right World View Article Link:

Iraq Surge or Withdrawal?

Iraq Surge or Withdrawal?

In light of the recent anti-war protest, we have decided to take a look at the war in Iraq and what should be done.

Right World View

As you read this, multiple wars are being fought. The one most muddled in controversy can easily be said to be Iraq. At the time of its start, it seemed necessary. Regardless of the reality of the situation then, this perception led to hostilities. Right or wrong, we cannot go back in time and change what happened and we must make the best of the current situation. So, what is to be done now?

Some say we should drop everything and leave now. This is probably the worst thing we can do. It would show the world that Americans are unwilling to take casualties. As our enemies have said, give the Americans a bloody nose and they will withdraw. Proving them right will only invite further attacks. Don't get me wrong, every American casualty (or that of an innocent bystander) is a tragedy, but they are also virtually unavoidable. Don't think for one second that if we left today the violence would end tomorrow. Leaving before the country is stabilized will ensure continuing conflict with the strong possibility of frequent massacres.

Maintaining the status quo does not seem like a good solution either. Although in the scheme of things, losing a few soldiers a day doesn't jeopardize our national security, that does not mean that it is something that should just be accepted. Everything possible must be done to reduce our long term projection of casualties that, at the same time, won't plunge a vitally important region into massive chaos.

Some things are worth fighting for. The prospect of losses must not deter people from accomplishing what must be done. As mentioned before, casualties are bad, but are also sometime necessary. The "good fight" must be fought.

An increase in troop levels holds the potential to bring this conflict to a favorable resolution. Our overall strategy has to be one of empowering the Iraqis to defend themselves. Before we leave, Iraq must be able to defend itself from without (from Iran in particular) and from within (the insurgents). We should not let Iraq revert to its former state. Stability at the price of freedom is not worth paying. The chaos of freedom is preferable to the stability of mass graves.

As for the war protester, they have a right to protest. It is a right that virtually all Americans cherish even if they elect not to protest themselves. There is something to be said about decency, though. It was reported that some protesters were spitting on a wounded Iraqi war veteran who was counter protesting. That kind of behavior crosses the line. Despite the actions of (hopefully) only a few protesters who crossed that line, protesting itself is generally a healthy form of voicing your opinion. When the conflict does come to an end, protesting is a freedom that Iraqis will hopefully be able to enjoy without fearing a suicide bomber will disrupt their gathering.

Right World View Article Link:

Letter From the Editor (Right World View Vol. I, No. 6)

Let me start this letter by sending my sincere condolences to Joseph Zahornacky's friends and family. Though I did not know him well, based on the many stories circulated after the tragedy, it is regrettable that I did not get to spend more time with him. If you read nothing else in this issue, I would encourage you to turn to pages 4 and 5 for a tribute to Joseph Zahornacky by some of his close friends here at Manhattanville.

It is notable the way the entire campus came together in the wake of the tragedy. Here at Manhattanville, there was a massive outpouring of sympathy and support from both the student body and the administration. Despite our relatively small population, enough people cancelled their previous plans to fill a significant portion of the O'Byrne Chapel during the memorial service.

The beginning of this semester has also seen the administration and student body getting along in other matters. Though it started out a bit rocky, on the two major issues thus far into the semester, notably 100 Nights and the finals week schedule, we have managed to come to amicable solutions before it was too late for both issues.

Changing topics, hearing people "trash talk" our country lately has led me to compare our country to others. Perhaps the most striking difference between our country and the so called "better country" (from the perspective of some), the USSR under Stalin, is that we are free to voice any of our dislikes of this country. People living under Stalin in the Soviet Union had no such luxury.

Here in America, people of differing view points will ban together to ensure the right to express their differing viewpoints. Free speech is something that nearly all Americans hold dear. Trying the same dissident speech permitted in our country in the USSR under Stalin would have resulted in vastly different outcomes.

Voicing opposition to the government was not permitted. If you were caught speaking out against the country you were likely to disappear. Not only were you picked up in the dead of night never to be seen again (either killed or sent to rot in some prison for the rest of your life), but the Soviets (or "Reds" as they were sometimes referred to) might then set out to erase you from history. It would be as if you never existed. Quite frankly, I'm proud to be an American living in a country where I and everyone else has no need to fear free thought and expression; a place where behavior like that (making people disappear) certainly wouldn't fly.

Andrew Berman

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

An Abortion Truce

An Abortion Truce

A compromise that may satisfy those on the Pro-Life and Pro Choice sides; use of artificial wombs

The topic of abortion is one filled with much controversy, as one should expect. After all, one side is fighting for what they believe is a human life, and the other is fighting to protect what they believe is a critical female right.

Few people can remain neutral on this topic and friends have been known to turn into enemies over it. For most, the argument boils down to when life begins. If it begins at conception, then abortion would be murder. If life begins at birth, then abortion could theoretically be legal up until the day the mother goes into labor. As it is set now, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that viability is the appropriate measure. In other words, after an unborn child/fetus is able to live outside the womb, it is illegal to perform abortion on a pregnant woman. Before that an abortion is at the discretion of the woman carrying entity.

Temporarily disregarding the moral issues, there is another interesting perspective to be considered, the rights of the child's father. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. By herself, a woman cannot create a child (let us momentarily disregard some interesting and controversial advances in technology that may make this statement technically false and look at more natural conceptions). A male is a required part of the equation to create the child. Why is it then that he has no say in what happens to what will be his child? The answer as it stands now is because he is not carrying it to term, though can this be considered equality under the law?

If a woman doesn't feel she is ready or willing to be a parent with all the responsibilities that entails, then she had the means to ensure she won't become a parent. If the same is true for a man, he has no such recourse and no such choice. The reverse is also true. If a woman wants to be a mother, then, baring any unforeseen complications she will become one. If a man wants to become a father, he has no such assurance and might not become a father as he would like.

So where is this truce? How can two sides that are so fundamentally opposed to each other ever come to an agreement on this issue? The answer is to give them both what they want. One side wants to protect life and the other wants to preserve the woman's right to choose. With a little imagination and innovation, both can be done at the same time.

Both sides sink huge amounts of money trying to convince the population their side is the correct one. Large sums of money are used for legal expenses working to either attain or preserve advances on their side of the legal sphere. By diverting some of this money into a new venture, the goals of both sides could be achieved simultaneously. This new venture is the creation of an effective artificial womb.

Once science makes an effective artificial womb, then abortion would automatically become illegal. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that viability is the point at which abortion becomes illegal. If viability is congruent with detection, then there is no time at which an abortion would be legal. Put another way, if by the time you can tell you are pregnant the entity is viable outside the womb, then there is no gap as there is today between detection and viability (the time period in which it is legal to obtain an abortion), and based on the laws that are already on the books, abortion would be illegal. This would make pro-lifers happy. Pro-choicers would also content.

Instead of the choice of terminating the entity growing in their uterus, the choice would be to transplant it into an artificial uterus where it could grow into maturity. Thus, women are not being forced to go full term with a child, and their choice is preserved. The money from both sides which is now being spent on public opinion campaigns and legal battles in the courtroom could go towards the cost of the procedure ensuring the woman in question would not even have to pay for the procedure herself.

As for the rights of the unborn's father, he would now have some say as to what happens with his child. Both could decide if they are in a position to properly raise the child or if it is better off being adopted or placed in foster care. Depending on how the law is set up, both might be allowed to make the choice individually where one elects to raise the child and the other renounces all their rights and responsibilities to it.

No matter how it turns out, all sides would be made happy with an artificial womb. Pro-life groups will be pleased that abortion would become totally and completely illegal. Pro-choice groups would be thrilled with the preservation of a woman's choice (it is a different choice, granted, but they still have the choice to no longer be pregnant). Those advocating the rights of fathers everywhere would be content that the father now actually has some rights, and comparable to a woman at that. There simply is no major downside to the creation of an artificial womb. It is for all these reasons that I encourage all sides to come together in this compromise that all can be happy with.

Right World View Article Link:

Letter From the Editor (Right World View Vol. I, No. 5)

Welcome back to another wonderful semester here at Manhattanville. While you are getting down to the business of doing what you came here for, learning, I encourage you to get involved with at least a few of the many clubs and activities the College has to offer. You will see this same message referenced in a few places throughout this issue in both the 'Call to Arms' and an article giving a brief summery of the clubs currently offered.

One thing I have been going back and forth on is whether or not to print some hate mail we received. I have opted not to print it, but if you the readers think we should, send us feedback with your opinions as to why, and the policy can easily be changed. The primary reason the mail isn't printed in this issue is because its content. One letter I received from a student stated that if this paper was the main campus newspaper they would transfer, and further added that they were not the only one with this thought. Upon further inquiry, based on the short back and forth we had, it appeared to me that the person who wrote the note might never have actually read the paper.

Another letter was from the leader of a club here at Manhattanville. The message offered no substance, it merely hurled baseless insults at the newspaper. It ended with a threat of prosecution against us if we exercise our constitutionally protected right to free speech and spoke to any one of their members in the future. I was further disturbed because the faculty advisor of the club was copied into the message and as of the writing of this piece, I have not heard anything from them.

Perhaps most disheartening of all are reports I get about Manhattanville faculty and staff who are unwilling to even be interviewed by our writers. Though we are technically a Conservative publication, we have writers and happily accept articles from all political view points. We have not been radical and instead tried to be (and I believe succeed at being) fairly centrist.

Moving on, I am proud to report that the Right World View was officially the largest campus publication by the end of last semester. Despite being the new kids on the block, only beginning last semester, we were the first campus publication to have an issue out, we printed more issues than any other publication, we printed more copies of each issue, and our issues had more square inches of content than any other campus publication.

In another bit of news, thanks to a new relationship, we now have access to a few different Wires. Perhaps more importantly, we can contribute to a Wire as well. This means that the potential readership of any given article written in this publication has expanded many times over. Keep that in mind if you are deciding whether or not to write for the Right World View.

Andrew Berman

Right World View Article Link:

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow