I thought that the New York Times Company firmly believes that advertising is an aspect of the freedom of the press. An intrinsic aspect. That was its defense, or excuse, for running an ad in the International Herald Tribune placed by Iran announcing that it was in the market to acquire various processes in its pursuit of nuclear power. An ideal is an ideal, isn't it! But now the New York Times and the Boston Globe, also owned by the Times Company, have refused (along with CNN and Newsweek), to publish ads placed by The Save Darfur Coalition. These ads would ask Fidelity and Berkshire Hathaway to disinvest from Petro-China which is, according to a column in today's Globe by Joan Vennochi, Sudan's largest partner in the country's oil industry. The ad was rejected, said a hapless spokesman for the Times, because "it singles out one company for the action of many that invest in China's resources." Would the Times print an ad that targeted many companies? By the way, Harvard has divested from companies with stock in Sudan-based resources, along with other colleges and universities. I like Warren Buffet who heads Berkshire Hathaway. And I very much like his daughter Suzie who once worked for the New Republic. And I know that Warren has now lined up with the Democrats and given them some money and addressed a Democratic fundraising dinner in New York on Thursday, so he's a certified progressive. But he has refused to carry his politics into his investment strategy. His money to the Democratic Party will do nothing for Darfur and his disinvestment would. Just as it did with other disinvesters from South Africa years ago.