It seems that the racist moniker has yet to fully escape itself from this university. About 30 minutes ago,I, along with all my fellow GW students received as slightly confusing email from the GW InfoMail system regarding "Radio Comments About Street Corner Foundation Request to Use GW Venue for Celebrity Charity Basketball Game"... apparently a DJ named Big Tigger (bit of a dangerous name..but ok) is claiming the university is being unfair and "racist" because of it's refusal to allow his charity celebrity basketball game to be played at the Smith Center. The Hatchet just posted something to explain some of the situation,but I'm still a big confused.
I just hope we don't bring the FBI in again.

Looking over these election numbers, a couple of things really struck me:

Tarek Al-Harari, despite seeming to have a some what strong presence and was incredibly well spoken and through in the debate only got 267 votes or 6.38%.
Raven Burnett: the aloof and poorly spoken freshmen received 538, 14.08% of the vote?
Wonder what happened there?

For most of the graduate seats, the winners were determined by 2-3 votes, not difference, but total. Whitney West will represent the CCAS-Graduates with a win of two votes, compared to the dozen or so that received just one. The same could be said for the graduate seats in ESIA, SEAS (the winner there had 3 votes), The Medical School (winners had 3 and 2, respectively), and College of Professional studies (4 votes for the victor there). Most likely the Graduate students have grown-up and realize the SA is dress-up. The same could not be said for the Law School Seats, which actually looked like they were competed for (winners had 40 and 38 votes)

Lamar Thorpe received one vote for CCAS graduate and two for the Graduate seat on MCGB, making him one vote away from more fake power for him to exploit.

Some students were suspended for two days for paying for lunch with $2 in pennies. Frankly, this is a bit ridiculous. Pennies are legal tender, I don't know why they are getting in trouble paying for lunch with American currency.

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNDERGRADUATE SENATOR

• Daniel Preiss – 362 (65.46%)
• Bryce Holman – 36 (6.51%)
• Joe Hallahan – 19 (3.44%)
• JJ Gottschalk – 13 (2.35%)
• Dave Colin – 6 (1.08%)

I DEMAND A RECOUNT. THE JEC IS CONSPIRING AGAINST ME!

The JEC didn't list OG in their unofficial results because of his write-in status. But the statistics they did release show that 26.08% of counted votes did not go to Kozlowski, Aswani, or al-Hariri.

Presumably, a substantial portion of those votes went to Oyiborhoro. But how many? It seems that--despite the obvious obstacle of a name so long and foreign that it makes him the write-in candidate from Hell--OG may have netted upwards of 20% of votes cast.

Impressive.

A post on the GW Hatchet's liveblog announcing the election results:

Undergrad4StoppingHate'08: "RECOUNT! OG DEFINITELY GOT THE VOTES BUT THE JEC DIDNT COUNT THEM ALL. THE JEC WAS OUT TO GET HIM FROM THE START WITH THE PETITION STUFF. RECOUNT!"

Who do Oyiborhoro and al-Hariri supporters dislike more--Kozlowski or Aswani?

Clearly, Kozlowski has an uphill battle ahead of him, given the fact that Aswani beat him by more than 5 points last night.

In the run-off, my money's on the moustache--and it always has been.

For those of you that cared to notice, we were not at the Election announcement. We predicted (correctly) that it would take well over the needed amount of time, much like last year. So we decided not to waste our time.

it seems Vishal Aswani and Kevin Kozlowski are moving on to the next round, congratulations. Maybe the Hatchet will not-endorse you again.

...congratulations to those who won their elections outright tonight.

From CNN: Jailed Saudi blogger is a Net phenomenon.

And, of course, let us not forget about Kareem.

Nothing seems to frighten authoritarian governments more than Web 2.0.

Don't ask why, but I found myself entranced, watching GWTV at 9 in the morning, today. The channel was airing interviews with the candidates for the S.A. Presidency, and I caught the talks with Kevin Kozlowski, Tarek al-Hariri, and Vishal Aswani. (I'm not sure if they spoke with OG--they probably did, but I was busy doing laundry and didn't catch it.)

Two observations:

1) Tarek al-Hariri almost, sort-of came quite close to maybe, kinda advocating the abolition of the student fee. He hedged on the point, claiming that the fee increase was the best option at the time, but that he'd like to see a shift to outside sponsorship of student groups, and wants to find "the best way to get more money without having the student to get his pocketbook out." A milquetoast answer, to be sure, but encouraging nevertheless.

2) Vishal Aswani called himself "a die-hard Hillary supporter." Oh, crap. I can't change my vote after the fact, can I? Just kidding.

Our Fearless and Dear Editor-in-Chief Patrick Ford is 21 today.

Tonight at the basketball game (GW won!) OG participated in the "Pita Pit Dance Contest", which he won. He was then booed by a good portion of the student section, drowning out the cheers.

email from PB:

GW Program Board Welcomes

Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader and His Vice Presidential Running Mate

With Remarks on Global Corporate Dominated States and the Destruction of Democracy

Nader and Running Mate Deliver First Public Address

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008

6:00pm Doors Open, 6:30pm Start

The George Washington University

1957 E Street, N.W., Room 213

Washington, D.C. 20052

Free admission for first 50 students who e-mail use@gwu.edu.

(Please request reservation for yourself only. Requests for more than one seat will not be granted.

First 50 will receive confirmation e-mail to present upon arrival and must check-in at 5:45 p.m.)

For all others, first come, first serve, limited tickets $2 at the door.

For further information, contact Toby Heaps at (202) 441 6795 or toby@votenader.org.

*Paid for by Nader for President 2008*

I've already emailed in, I would love to hear the "consumer advocates" latest rant.

Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch is up for auction. In addition to the house, the winner will get:

– All elevators.

– All railroad tracks, railroad equipment, trains, locomotives, rail cars and other rolling stock.

– All ferris wheels, carousels, merry-go-round type devices.

Who would want that creepy place?

www.thegwpatriot.com

It is with great sadness I report the passing of a personal hero of mine, William F. Buckley Jr. Without him, modern intellectual conservatism would look very different, and no doubt it would look much less intellectual. I will write more later, but to paraphrase something once said about C.S. Lewis:

"If wit and wisdom, style and scholarship are requisites to passage through the pearly gates, Mr. Buckley will be among the angels."

RIP

"We are the cusp of history today. write in OGHENERUEMU OYIBORHORO."

The cusp of history.

Data collected over the last year shows that 2007 may have been the coolest year in more than a decade--calling into question the relative influence of anthropogenic and solar factors on global temperatures.

Unfortunately, this isn't very good news. If global warming is a fever, global cooling is tuberculosis.

Apparently OG has racked up quite a few violations in his write-in campaign for SA President. Last I heard the tally was at 45 violations. Although we should not be surprised by his thusfar unethical campaign tactics, it still is pretty unbelieveable.

So even if he wins or gets into the run-off, he may be disqualified.

I'm sure I don't even need to ask, but I wonder what Troy Roth's thoughts are on his roommate's indiscretions? They just can't seem to stay out of trouble, can they?

The New York Philharmonic Orchestra played a concert last night in Pyongyang, North Korea.

I never thought I would ever, ever have the opportunity to write that sentence.

Needless to say, Kim Jong-Il was not in attendance. The high note (no pun intended):

The piccolo sang a long, plaintive melody, cymbals crashed, harp runs flew up, the violins soared. And tears formed in the eyes of the sober audience, row upon row of men in dark suits and women in colorful traditional dresses, all of them wearing pins of Kim Il-sung, the nation’s founding leader.

And there, the Philharmonic had them. The stirring performance of a piece of music deeply resonant for both North and South Koreans ended the concert in triumph.

“This is difficult to describe,” said one journalist’s government-assigned minder, who was sitting in the audience. “My heart is booming. It’s too exciting.”

The audience applauded for more than five minutes, and orchestra members, some of them crying, waved.

People in the seats cheered and waved back, reluctant to let the visiting Americans leave.

Here's to the unifying spirit of the arts.

Rich Lowry wrote a great article debunking the rhetoric Obama has been using the past few weeks criticizing NAFTA.

For Barack Obama, hope can triumph over anything, except for open trade with a neighboring country with an economy 1/20th the size of ours. Then, all is despair.

Obama's culprit is Mexico, our third-largest trading partner. It is trade deals like NAFTA -- the 1993 accord eliminating tariffs among the U.S., Mexico, and Canada -- that "ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with teenagers for minimum wage at Wal-Mart," Obama intones. Feel inspired yet?

The big picture doesn't justify this Dickensian evocation of gloom. Since 1993, the U.S. economy has grown by 54 percent. The jobless rate has dropped from 6.9 percent in 1993 to 4.9 percent today. Manufacturing output has increased by 63 percent. Canada and Mexico are our first- and second-largest export markets, and U.S. merchandise exports to them have increased at a slightly faster clip than exports to the rest of the world.

...To blame NAFTA for the long-standing trajectory of U.S. manufacturing -- the sector has been losing jobs since 1979 -- is the politics of scapegoating. What is Obama going to do if elected? Browbeat Mexican President Felipe Calderón to return his country to the statist and autarkic policies of the 1970s?

Patriot Blogger Bill Flanigen is 21 today!!!

Happy Birthday!!!!!!!!!

Just wanted to let everyone know our print issue for February is done. I have the proof in my hand and it looks great. We should have 400 copies tomorrow so be sure to look out for it.

Best,
Pat

After receiving a good deal of flak, I've decided to revise my list to the more appropriate title of people who I wished would have run for SA President.

Current SA President Nicole Capp: The candidates have it right, she did a swell job this year. Not only has she given the SA some,albeit weak, form of creditability and brought many back into the pro-SA fold, she has also placed into permanent statute spending caps for the Executive branch, a clear response to previous president's lavish spending of student funds. She also doesn't play politics or use her position as a soapbox to champion a certain social causes, she simply does her job. While her support of the fee-increase was regrettable, I feel one could over look that in lieu of her other accomplishments

Current SA EVP Brand Kroeger: Nicole aside, he is most likely the most popular and well-respected member of the student body. He is smart, articulate, and has a clear sense of direction in regards to steering the SA. Alas his interests lie with becoming the chairman of the CRs, and it is an election year, so who can blame him? He is no doubt a Newt Gingrich of the SA establishment, someone we all wish would run, but we know they won't.

Current House Proctor, former Cabinet member, and WRGW radio personality David Earl: Now, the effort of full disclosure here, I will tell you all that David Earl and I are members of the same fraternity, but I had the privilege of knowing him before I came to GW and through several activities outside our fraternity, so I will speak of him in terms of those. David Earl shows a rare brand of dedication and intelligence to every task he endeavors upon. There are fewer wiser, stronger and more accountable leaders on campus than Mr. Earl. If he was elected President, his commitment to the well-being of students would be unbound, as would the progress of the SA

Current CCAS Senator Will Luton: Will possess a level head on his shoulders, which might make you say "Ok and....?" but I tell you with that alone he out ranks the majority of his fellow senators and students.

Former President of the College Libertarians Anthony Baumann: The "Ron Paul" candidate if there will ever be one. There would be no one more committed to fiscal responsibility more than this man.

Former SA President Lamar Thorpe: ..........just kidding.

Patriot Editor-in-chief Patrick Ford: I had left him out of my previous list because I assumed it might have been implied. Pat would be elected, and be instantly unpopular with the status-toolbaggery crowd. Pat is anything but at tool.

A press release from the GW College Libertarians:

February 25, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Chad Swarthout, President, GW College Libertarians
E-mail: chad_s@gwu.edu, Telephone: +1 (630) 730-9815

Speech codes. Censorship. Sensitivity training. Enforced political conformity. Intolerance. Hostility to religion. Violations of freedom of speech and conscience. Kangaroo courts. We usually associate such things with the repressive regimes of North Korea, China, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union. But instead, this assault on free thought is taking place all over America--right now--on our nation's campuses.

Produced by On The Fence Films with the support of the Moving PictureInstitute, award-winning filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney's documentaryfilm Indoctrinate U reveals the ugly truths about academia that youwon't see in glossy admissions brochures.

"When we think of college, we think of intellectual freedom. We imagine four years of exploring ideas through vigorous debate and critical thinking," Maloney said. "But the reality is very far from the ideal. What most of us don't know is that American college students surrender their rights to free thought and free speech the minute they set foot on campus."

At once a warning and a wake-up call, Indoctrinate U is stirring up controversy and sparking much-needed debate. By exposing the higher education's best-kept secrets, the film--which London's Daily Telegraph found to be "as slick and incisive as anything by Michael Moore"--is calling for the kind of change academics have long pretended they don't need to make."

To the tune of tens of thousands of dollars a year, students are being robbed of their
educations," Maloney said. "Higher education is systematically defrauding students, parents, and taxpayers. And many trustees, the people who are supposed to be overseeing this system, are letting it happen by failing to act."

Prominent professor Stanley Fish agrees; he recently used his influential New York Times blog to state that "So long as there are those who confuse advocacy with teaching, and so long as faculty colleagues and university administrators look the other way, the academy invites the criticism it receives in this documentary."

Now this acclaimed film is coming to The George Washington University for a special one-night-only campus screening. Indoctrinate U will screen at the Cloyd Heck Marvin Center 3rd Floor Amphitheater, 80021st Street NW, Washington, DC on Monday, March 3, 2008, at 9:00 PM.

The film was produced by a team headed by Stuart Browning, a software entrepreneur, blogger, and filmmaker; entertainment attorney Blaine Greenberg; and Thor Halvorssen, former CEO and executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Frayda Levy, president of the Moving Picture Institute (MPI), served as associate producer.

MPI is a New York-based organization dedicated to promoting freedom through film. To learn more, visit MPI's website at thempi.org or contact Marina Lyaunzon at marina@thempi.org.

Please RSVP to Chad Swarthout at chad_s@gwu.edu or on Facebook at http://gwu.facebook.com/event.php?eid=8925987197

Naturally, all are welcome.

It seems the 13 times that the candidates paid homage to Nicole and Brand in the debate last week have back-fired for them. The Hatchet has endorsed no one for SA President. This comes as a (semi) surprise to me, but upon further reflection it seems to make perfect sense.
The Hatchet, like it or not, is usually very supportive of the SA establishment, loudly trumpeting from its pages anything that remotely smacks of "achievement" or "progress". Those words have been lavished upon Nicole and Brand this year, bringing the standard with which the Hatchet grades others to a high bar, and there isn't a single candidate to cross it. The Hatchet, like myself, thought the candidates to be "unimpressive", a word that is a vast understatement to the massive mediocrity that our four candidates seem to possess. The Hatchet, though offering scathing reviews of each, urges us still to vote. Why? Why should I have to pick from a crop of candidates that none of you support, yet we have to pick out someone to support? I don't think so.

I plan on writing someone in and no not our editor Pat Ford. But someone who I feel should have run for President, someone who literally could have continued on the polices of Nicole & Brand. Alas that person is not running, yet they will still receive my vote.

I suggest you all write someone in as well.

From Ben Balter, Chairman of the JEC:

Committee lays Moral Framework for Election, Establishes Swear Jar

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to heightened concerns of moral drift, the Joint Elections Committee announced today, the establishment of a swear jar. The committee hopes that the glass container - which serves as an homage to the transparency by which the election has been administered thus far - will not only encourage Committee members and candidates to watch their tongue while near the office, but also serve as a broader moral beacon for the election as a whole. The measure, passed by a unanimous vote in Saturday’s meeting establishes penalties ranging from twenty-five cents to a dollar depending on the obscenity evoked.

“THIS IS SUCH F****ING BULL***T!” Exclaimed Committee chairman Benjamin Balter, prior to the measure passing. Clarifying the statement later that evening he added, “we’ve been running a pretty tight ship all semester. That doesn’t mean we need to start talking like sailors.”

The Committee has taken a series of steps this election season to encourage friendlier campaigns. Past years have seen a “scoreboard” available online featuring a running tally of candidates’ violations as well as an overall sensationalizing of complaints. Although still within the scope mandated by the charter, the Committee has dramatically scaled back the amount of public attention given to rules violations.

Balter elaborated, “sometimes we loose sight of the fact that at the end of the day, we’re talking about a campus election. Having one too many posters may be fun to read about for some, but this election should be an election of issues, not an election of rules.”

The Joint Elections Committee (JEC) is an independent body that administers student elections at the George Washington University. The JEC is comprised of two appointees from the Student Association, one appointee from the Marvin Center Governing Board, one appointee from Program Board, and one joint appointee from the three organizations listed above.

Opinion: The JEC seems to be very well run thus far and I have had little to complain about, but this seems a bit silly. I am having trouble seeing the point. Thoughts?

A friend involved in the Finance committee has told me that the largest cosponsorship awarded by the SA this year was upwards of 10,000 dollars for Black History Month to the BSU. I don't know about you guys but I have not seen 10,000 dollars worth of entertainment.

Does anyone really believe that the SA funding allocation process is fair and responsible?

From the WSJ:

In 1962, Mr. Castro lost a round of golf to Ernesto "Che" Guevara, who had been a caddy in his Argentine hometown before he became a guerrilla icon. Mr. Castro's defeat may have had disastrous consequences for the sport. He had one Havana golf course turned into a military school, another into an art school. A journalist who wrote about the defeat of Cuba's Maximum Leader, who was a notoriously bad loser, was fired the next day.

Now, top officials on the island want to turn Mr. Castro's Communist paradise into a hotspot for this decidedly capitalist sport, to generate hard cash for its cash-strapped economy. Last year, Cuba's minister of tourism, Manuel Marrero, announced plans to build as many as 10 golf courses to lure upscale tourists.

Comment: Maybe this is what golf needs, if support for golf is truly in decline.

Reuters:

Liquor makers in central China's Henan province are planning a legal challenge to fight a ban on Communist Party officials and civil servants drinking alcohol at lunch during work days, state media said on Wednesday.

Local restaurants are complaining they have taken a hit in terms of fewer lunch customers and lower revenues from not selling as much alcohol, the report said.

"Drinking is a private affair and holding public office shouldn't keep someone from consuming alcohol as long as it does not affect their work," Xinhua quoted lawyer Kang Yinzhong, representing the Henan Alcohol Association, as saying.

Apparently, I can't forget someone's last name without actually intending to insult them. A comment on my recent post about the S.A. Presidential Debate (in which I accidentally referred to Charles Basden as "Charles Basler"):

1. Bill, I appreciate you correcting the name, but your apology is about as shallow your reporting. I know for a fact you and your whole blogging team knew his name because it was pointed out a week ago by "stop the hate" and an "apology" was posted (the one that made entertaining remarks about being jealous of OG)...the fact of the matter is you should own up to the fact that this was an intentional act of disrespect. I understand you like to get a rise out of "the minions," but dont act fake and then have the audacity to label someone "irresponsible and rude."

I reiterate: Hunh??

I never said that I didn't know his name, and had never written about Basden before. Given that I've only posted his name once (or perhaps twice) in the past, it should be understandable that I goofed and wrote "Basler" instead of "Basden." When I realized the mistake, I corrected it, and included a note in the post. In the outside world, we call this a "brain fart."

Anyway, if I wanted to insult the man, I would have picked something better than "Charles Basler." That's not even insulting! Usually, if I'm being intentionally disrespectful, I try to do better than replacing "den" with "ler" in someone's last name.

Jeez.

A semi-anonymous student (with a "concealed carry" permit) at the University of Utah is carrying a gun into classes.

I'll let you judge for yourselves.

Debunking a rumor, held by myself and others, that this blog and publication are not read. The Hatchet has twice in the last three days mentioned and quoted the Patriot.

First during the SA Presidential debate, which both ourselves and the Hatchet were live-blogging, we got these hat-tips:
"8:10 p.m. GW Patriot. I’ve received word that The GW Patriot is also live-blogging the debate. I’m a little busy right now, but I’ll take look when I have the chance, and link to it from here. (Update: they have multiple posts, so check out their blog home page.)"
8:00 p.m. Questions have gone to the floor. The editor of The GW Patriot asks Oyiborhoro why he went over 100 days without holding a committee meeting (Oyiborhoro is the chair of the senate’s student life committee), while the by-laws state that a meeting must be held every 30 days. Oyiborhoro says this was not the case, that he did hold meetings and that a recent meeting on Feb. 4 was canceled due to an emergency. We’ll have to check with EVP Kroeger, who holds the committee binders.

As well as an article printed in today's Hatchet. The article borrows my count of how many times the candidates mentioned Nicole and Brand during the debate, at 13. But the real kicker is a direct quote from the blog:
"Kroeger, the SA's current executive vice president, got away with his casual garb this time. Capp, apparently, made the correct decision on her casual outfit. The GW Patriot, a conservative blog, called her "very attractive." "


So, basically, we're the sh*t now.

Nation Of Andorra Not In Africa, Shocked U.S. State Dept. Reports

Not too far from US policy if you ask me...

A few queries from a humble student to the candidates for the S.A. Presidency, in light of tonight's debate:

Tarek al-Hariri:
Other than leading GW Peace Forum, what have you done on campus? Also, why in the world do you smoke Camels? I mean, come on.

Kevin Kozlowski:
Your "GW United" plank involves a plan to reapportion the S.A. Senate on different grounds. One of the new seats you would like to create is a "diversity" seat. How will this seat be apportioned? Who will be allowed to vote for this seat? How will this "unite" the students of GW?

OG Oyiborhoro:
You explained that you walked out of the Senate meeting this year because you felt your voice was not being heard. Fair enough. Presumably this is because you were not being allowed to speak. Why do you believe you were not being allowed to speak?

Vishal Aswani:
You have campaigned partially on a promise to reform the S.A.'s student allocation process, but you have only generalized about this promise. What sort of specific reform(s) would you make to the present system, and why?

On a side note: Charles Basden*, of whom I have heard only good things up to this point, was behaving in an utterly reprehensible manner at the debate. The "Question and Answer" session is intended for questions and answers, not soap-boxing, and David Ceasar proved himself to be incredibly forgiving for putting up with what Basler said to him. If he had a point to make, Basden ought simply to have phrased it as a question and tossed it to a candidate.

After watching the performances (and, alas, they were all performances), I'm leaning towards Aswani. Apparently, Pat didn't see him contributing much to the discussion**, but I noticed that he was the only candidate questioning the allocation process. Also, Aswani was the only candidate brave enough to use the word "privatize" in his discussion of J Street. Props.

Also, props to Greg Hirsch of NORML for ensuring that the marijuana issue got some attention--despite the fact that none of the candidates seemed really interested in talking about it.

* Edited. I got his name wrong originally. Thanks to a commenter for pointing that out.

** If we have a little bit of dissent within the editorial board of the GW Patriot, who cares? After all, the right has never been enamored with "solidarity," anyway.

I left before the EVP debate so these are only observations on the SA Presidential debate:

-The Hatchet mentions that we exist and are in attendance. In other news, Hell is suspected to have begun "global cooling."

- OG has been placed at the end of the debate table and has to answer each question last... I suspect racism.

- OG and Kevin's push for more student involvement is eerily familiar to P (Puffy Papa Daddy) Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign.

- Award goes to Kevin for the first candidate to advocate "change." Beats OG as the "Obama candidate."

- OG, realizing his attempts to show he has reached out to diverse student groups has failed because all the groups he lists are minority groups, cites that he has worked with "Jewish students." New nickname: "Original Gentile" (credit to JJ for the nickname).

- The hip thing to do seems to be to randomly and without relevant cause for segue plug your candidate's website.

- Kevin suggests that a solution to J Street problems is to "make small talk" with students. That is all he has been doing with the debate audience and he has been disappointing thus far. (www.ronpaul2008.com)

- OG has begun to employ the finger point. He now points during every answer. Personally I like the Clinton thumb point more.

- OG, when questioned about his nagging tendency to "walk out" of SA meetings assures us that he will not walk out if he is SA President. I guess we'll have to take his word for it.

- Vishal's only real contribution has been bad jokes and awkward comments.

- Tarek "Peace Fascist" al-Hariri continues to plug his Peace Forum. Never heard of it...

Since Hunter didn't post my question, it went as follows: "OG, you have spoken a lot about holding meetings such as 'Colonial to Colonial' and the 'Student Task Force.' The SA bylaws require committee heads to hold a meeting once every 30 days, yet it was reported that your committee hasn't held a meeting in over 100 days. How can we count on you to hold meetings as SA President if we couldn't count on you to do so as SA Senator?"

His answer: I held a meeting but it was cancelled (doesn't that mean he didn't hold a meeting?). I WILL HOLD MEETINGS AS PRESIDENT!

I guess we'll have to take his word on that as well.

So apparently, there is only one person running for SA senator in the Business school:

School of Business Undergraduate Senator

• Daniel Preiss

I have therefore decided to run as a write-in candidate for SoB Undergraduate Senator. It should be a wild ride.

JJ

... I won't reply to every question.

Raven Burnett's title is the "candidate of Change"... gets a laugh. She is not incredibly articulate, honestly, it's painful.

Ted O'Neil has a cloud of pure smug above him. wants an "Office of Constituent Services", he has an obsession with the Vern.

Kyle Boyer, wants a reduced student fare for the metro. He's by far the most articulate and knowledgeable up there.


..this one is really boring.

*Note: This was written while the debate was going on, therefore I was not able to capture every single word, I just attempted to get the main ideas of each point, my personal comments were put in italic, N&B is a reference to how awesome of a job Nicole and Brand (President and EVP, respectively) did this year*


First Question: from Andrew Ramones "What is the biggest problem in the SA, and how will you solve it?"
Tarek: says the "The SA is a good organization" but that the SA is "not a governing body and take themselves too seriously" Good point (?)
Vishal: Finances, more specifically how and why they are allocated. Says system is too subjective, wants to change it into an "objective system".
K-Koz: "Nicole and Brand have done a great job" (that's one). says he is"only candidate that can continue that progress". GWUnited- more Senate seats... even though we have a problem filling out our current seats, he wants more.
OG: Apathy, he will "advocate on behalf of every student" really? every single student?


Second Question Mallory Thompson: " Why should a student care about voting? why should they vote for you?"
Tarek:Makes 2nd Nicole and Brand reference, says students don't vote because they don't know what the SA does for them
Vishal: with internet voting students will be more likely to vote, says "I truly am the voice for every student"
K-Koz: "this SA is their SA", he seems to be really hammering home this GWUnited stuff. he will "Work with anyone who will get elected" third nicole and brand reference.
OG: Talks about his "write-in" status. "job security and alumni relations" as most important things when we are students, and after we graduate. So: should GW be responsible for my job after I graduate?

Third Lizzie W.: " Why are you qualified?and how will you Lobby in Rice Hall"
Tarek: Says he has worked with the administration during the "Islamo-fascism" crisis, can't see why the administration won't be respective.
Vishal: Makes fourth N&B reference of all the candidates during the debate. Refutes the statement that lobbying is necessary.Calls for need to work with smaller groups
K-Koz: Talks more on advocacy, will go to Rice keeps hammering home that is he the "only candidate" qualified.
OG: "not afraid to walk to Rice Hall" . Talks about his work with trying to start an Africana Studies major.

Andrew question for K Koz: regarding his "Reallocating the Senate Seats"
K-Koz: "our schools (ESIA,CCAS, SEAS,etc) are not what defines us...we have to define ourselves as individuals." .

Mallory question for Vishal: "How doable are you ideas?"
Vishal: talks about how he wants to use a full and diverse cabinet, and that's how his work will get done. Diversity=productivity

Lizzie for OG: "How do you plan to accomplish diversity through the SA?"
OG: Talks about his "vast array of friends", SA is a "circle of insiders", talks about all the friends he has and how will bring them, 4,000 on facebook alone!

Andrew for everyone: on " Continuing the policies of Nicole and Brand" N&B Fest
Tarek: wants to continue the town halls that no one shows up to.
Vishal: he will continue everything, "I will give my cell phone out to everyone", I'm so drunk dialing him.
K-Koz: "My number is already on facebook" (audience chuckles), more town halls, more N&B. Talks about qualifications... Kevin, we get it- you are the ONLY one who can continue on the policies of Nicole and Brand.
OG: Colonial-to-Colonial. "You the student gets to talk to the administrators, and they can talk back to you" OG, taking down the Ivory Tower.

Mallory for Everyone "Campus Dining plan"
Tarek: says we should "take a cue from the DC map that does not include a J Street" and "the only people happy with Sodexho are Sodexho". fiery and funny
Vishal: Tries to be realistic, Sodexho will not be gone in seven days... and then said he was going to get rid of Sodexho immediately....wait..what?
K-Koz: claimed no one likes the dining situation (plugs website). Advocate for improved hours, and will work to get rid of mandatory spending.
OG: makes a cute joke about his disqualification. "Form a task force" SA CTU? says Dining Services commissioner will be very important.

Lizzie asks aquestion to Tarek : "How will you achieve your goals"
Tarek: Advocating should become a habit. Talks about different ways of funding.. kinda speaking out against the fee increase..kinda

Andrew Ramones to OG how he " react(s) to people who disagree you"
OG: defends walking out of the SA meeting as "for the students"

Mallory for K-Koz regarding his "GW 2008" Policy
K-Koz: says he wants to make GW the "epicenter of politics" this election center. makes a swipe at American, because Obama spoke there..instead of here.

Lizzie for all the candidates: on "Working with other elected officials"
Tarek: ready to work with anyone, "I will embrace anyone.. very metaphorically"
Vishal: "I am literally ready to embrace them"
K-Koz: repeat ^
OG: talking about his experience being on Madison's RAC, Joint committee of Faculty and Students.

Audience Questions:

first from Nicole Capp "How will you make sure that all the money goes to advocacy"
Tarek: meetings, meetings, meetings
Vishal: more money from the outside, repeats of Tarek

Pat Ford will be asking a question: OG "Colonial-to-Colonial to Student Life"
Blows of the question " will show up, as he did as Senator"

Greg, a senior from GWNORML "Changing Marijuana Policy"
K-Koz, doesn't directly answer the question and talking about the meeting with any student org. the Patriot editorial board approves!
OG: 'students shouldn't be punished for a first time".

Lamar Thorpe asks a question.. not really, he's grandstanding, refutes Vishal's answer about "99% advocacy". "What have the four of you been doing?" takes swipes at Vishal, K-Koz and Tarek
Tarek: talks about his work as president of the GW Peace Forum, forged alliances.
Vishal: talks about his advocating for a LGBT resource center,what about a WASP center?
K-Koz: claims he has always "stood up for student orgs" , academic advisiing for the Elliott School, supports the LGBT center, N&B reference.
OG:c "I Took it to the next level", regarding his advocacy (FEED, Stop The Hate). plugs GW Stop the Hate.

Daniel Huey, a question for OG: " creating division simply for the sake of new programs"
OG:talks about how Stop The Hate "let me talk to student leaders" like fellow BSU e-board members, and Cabinet members

Freshmen asks about Freshmen voting rights
Tarek: will support freshmen voting rights,
Vishal: did not support the bill in its past form, but now supports it because it includes first year grad students, and will include each school

Charles Basden, BSU President: not asking a question, he is instead "clearing the air" about Stop The Hate...he looked right at us and the guy who asked about "Stop the Hate".

Grad Student Senator asks about Grad student affairs:
Tarek: simply Urges more work with the graduate students

Logan Dobson,a candidate for Senate regarding the "apathy of people not running for office"
Vishal: claims it's the first year that this has happened (lack of filled seats). calls for more advocacy, tips hat to N&B. "We (the SA) take ourselves too seriously"

Matt Cohen asks a question to K-Koz about "little things we can change"
He repeats himself, again, nothing worth writing again .. he is "qualified".


Closing Statements: Repeating themselves.

Debate Winner: Nicole and Brand.

Debate Loser: all non-SA tools

Nicole Capp, looking very attractive I might add is about to talk. She has written remarks:
urges us to "look hard for someone we like". she talks about how much her and Brand have enjoyed their time, but "it's hard". She urges the candidates to "Say what we think", I wonder if that courtesy is extended to the audience? Apparently there is another debate on the 24th.
Editor of the Hatchet is out to tell us how much they and the SA represent the students. The Patriot just got name dropped as "other media in attendance". There is an out of body voice, introducing everyone, it's scary. No direct questions between the candidates (that's sad).

The Presidential candidates are out now.

and so it begins

Some notes:

• OG's name is in quotations: "OG" Oyiborhoro.
• There was an emergency broadcast bleep
  
• There are a ton of "KOMO for CCAS" stickers around, for Michael Komo.
  
• David Cesar, editor of The Hatchet just told us to "talk amongst yourselves" do to technical difficulties. Thanks, mom
• All of this is unnecessary, but there is literally NOTHING going on here.
  

The entire editorial staff of the Patriot is in attendance, and there is no one sitting by us. Coincidence?- strike that, a random guy in a green North Face (alone) three seats over.

Lamar Thorpe is here, observing the crowd like he still runs the place. Nicole Capp and several of her minions as well. Attendance seems to be high, unfortunately.

Despite being off of the ballot, OG Oyiborhoro will indeed be included in the SA debate tonight, Jack Morton auditorium at 7pm. This will definitely make it interesting, considering OG is running against the "old establishment" that he accuses his fellow candidates to be a apart of.

I forgot to forward the e-mail or make an announcement, but the editors of the GW Hatchet did extend a formal invitation to the writers/bloggers of the GW Patriot to attend the S.A. candidate debate tonight, and cover it on our blog.

All are encouraged to turn out, observe, and post their thoughts afterwards. Unlike Hunter, I'm not worried about the debate being unfair. Last year's was perfectly fair. Almost to a fault. However, the lack of a candidate who stood in opposition to the fee increase (and the presence of only one candidate who has called for serious reform of the allocation process) will probably cause a lack of diverse viewpoints. Not that this surprises anyone even vaguely familiar with the Student Association at our fair university.

(Oh, in unrelated news, Fidel Castro has resigned in Cuba. He's expected to be replaced by his brother Raul, because democracy in Cuba is too important to be left to a free, fair, popular election.)

Can a year's time turn a bad idea into a good one? I don't think so, but apparently YAF disagrees. This Valentine's Day, they held a little-noticed rally which was virtually identical to the one that was planned by the College Republicans last Valentine's Day (but which, thankfully, didn't go forward):

Dressed in suits, male participants in YAF's rally offered slices of wedding cake to participants and passers-by. The group members also distributed "information regarding the Left's attack on marriage," according to a press release for the event.

"We're trying to be positive," Sauvage said. "We think it's very important on a campus like ours to at least show people that there is an organization like ours that's willing to stand up for these traditional values."

Given that Sergio Gor, YAF President, was instrumental in pushing the controversial idea through the CR bureaucracy last year, it's no surprise that YAF--which typically sticks to ranting about Islamo-fascism--took up the mantle of "defending traditional marriage" this year.

Regardless of your opinion on marriage (I'm one of the few writers here whose opinions are closer to Allied in Pride than YAF), you should be able to realize that talking about "the Left's attack on marriage" doesn't count as "trying to be positive."

Just admit it, folks. You were being negative. Very negative. Everybody else knows that. In part, at least, your inability to accept your negativity is why you YAFfies are so damned good at marginalizing yourselves. Keep up the good work, guys and gals.

GW Hatchet:

As the Student Association candidates begin to launch their campaigns, they can now turn to a consultant with some experience managing student government campaigns.

Senior Steve Miller is the founder of CollegiateConsulting.org, a political consulting group that aims to help students run campaigns for student government elections.

"Every year, thousands of college students run for positions in student government and other campus organizations," Miller said. "The Collegiate Consulting team understands Facebook, beer pong, student orgs, frats and campus newspapers … More importantly, we know how to use this understanding of college life in 2007 and political campaigns to make a collegiate campaign successful."

Comment: I thought Matthew Cohen (SoB-U) in the video about the Student Fee increase said the SA was not pretend politics, but simply students helping other students? If candidates actually use this service, it firmly shows the SA is nothing more than a sham and only helps those who want to dress up and pretend like they are in politics.

Kinda going on a theme here, but there is a new cigar tax being proposed in New Hampshire:

HB 1510 bill would impose a 60 percent tax on the wholesale price of all cigars. You read that right: 60 percent.

The tax would apply to all inventory, not just each cigar sold. So a dealer such as Garofalo, with an 8,500-square-foot store and thousands of cigars in stock, would suddenly have to hand tens of thousands of dollars to the state for the privilege of continuing to do business.

Roy Kirby, a former employee of Garofalo's, opened a Two Guys Smoke Shop in Seabrook. He took out a loan on his home to open the 3,000-square-foot store. He cannot afford to pay a 60 percent tax on his inventory, he said.

"I'll go bankrupt and be out on the street," he said.

New Hampshire cigar shops thrive on business from Massachusetts residents who come here to buy their cigars or stop on the way to or from other attractions such as skiing or hiking. A 60 percent tax would push the price of cigars sold here higher than the price of those sold in Massachusetts, with its 30 percent cigar tax and 5 percent sales tax.

BBC:

Smokers could be forced to pay £10 for a permit to buy tobacco if a government health advisory body gets its way.

No one would be able to buy cigarettes without the permit, under the idea proposed by Health England.

He said it was the inconvenience of getting a permit - as much as the cost - that would deter people from persisting with the smoking habit.

"You've got to get a form, a complex form - the government's good at complex forms; you have got to get a photograph.

"It's a little bit of a problem to actually do it, so you have got to make a conscious decision every year to opt in to being a smoker."

Comment: This is ridiculous. Is there any real shock that bureaucrats are planning on creating more red tape to deal with smoking? First off, the British government is touting the fact that the form to obtain a license to smoke would be unnecessarily complex. Secondly, is there really any more need for taxation of smoking? Cigarette taxation is already at all-time highs.

As someone who does not smoke, I find requiring someone to apply for and carry around a smoking license is absurd. I also have a funny feeling that if this comes to fruition in England, it will only be a matter of time that it arrives in the US. Isn't it sad that the ideals of personal freedom and liberty are fading away?

Tonight the SA presidential and EVP candidates will be having their one and only debate. I, and I hope other people somewhat concerned with our faux-government, will be in attendance. Here are somethings to Expect, some things not to Expect.

Expect

• The Phrase "Brand and Nicole have done a great job this year..." uttered by each candidate, followed by and "And.." or a "but.." stating what they can do to continue this legacy
• rousing support of the recent fee increase
• Each to unnecessarily kiss-up to each other.
  
• The phrase "More student input" to be mentioned, ad naseum .
  
• Each candidate to call for the end of mandatory spending in J-Street.
  
• Tolerance and Diversity
  
• the freshmen, Raven Burnett to be asked "Who are you?"
• Raven Burnett to hit home that she is no way an SA Toolbag
• Myself to become convinced that Raven Burnett is change I can believe in.
  
• to be disappointed
  

What not to expect

• A candidate who was against the free increase
• a candidate (apart from the that freshmen Raven) who is not knee-deep in SA/GW toolbaggery
  
• That freshmen Raven to be treated fairly by the moderators
  
• The Daily Colonial to have someone there
  
• The Colonialist to be allowed to ask a question
  
• The Patriot to be allowed to ask a question.
  
• to be impressed.
  

With only $25, this guy tried it and found it is very much still alive.

"Now indubitably Saddam Hussein is unrighteous, but so are nearly all the masters of the "emergent" African states (with the Ivory Coast as a rare exception), and so are the grim ideologues who rule China, and the hard men in the Kremlin, and a great many other public figures in various quarters of the world. Why, I fancy that there are some few unrighteous men, conceivably, in the domestic politics of the United States. Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away? Just that is what happened in the Congo, remember, three decades ago; and nowadays in Zaire, once called the Belgian Congo, we zealously uphold with American funds the dictator Mobutu, more blood-stained than Saddam. And have we forgotten Castro in Cuba?

We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States – even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary; while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands. Nor is this all: for now, in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems."
-Russell Kirk


Sad when a movement's founder would be shunned from his own movement if he were alive today, no?

AP - The federal government said Friday it will begin mailing out $40 coupons next week to consumers to help pay for converter boxes that will save their analog sets from becoming obsolete.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration agency is overseeing the $1.5 billion coupon program to subsidize converter-box costs, estimated to run between $40 and $70. More than 2.6 million households have requested nearly 5 million coupons since Jan. 1, the agency said.

Every household, regardless of whether it needs a box, is eligible to receive two coupons. Initially, $990 million will be used to pay for coupons and cover administrative costs, which are capped at $110 million. An additional $510 million could be allocated, but those coupons are reserved for households that only have over-the-air television.

Comment: I don't know what is more unnecessary, a $1.5 billion converter box subsidy or the steroids investigation. Doesn't the federal government have ANYTHING better to do?

AP - Newark marked its 33rd day, Friday, without an official homicide, a startling fact for a city that has averaged about two killings a week over the last few years and saw homicides spike 50 percent from 2002 to 2006

It's A Start

This economist thinks so:

While it might come off as a bit harsh to that kid, Ron Paul makes a great point. The role of government is not to decide what is good for us. Instead, it should protect us from foreign invasion and provide common goods, such as roads and lighthouses. It's ridiculous that there is such a large segment in America that has lost the ability to live their lives based on their own decisions and instead wait for the benevolent government to take care of them.

AP:

Three couples got the Valentine's Day wedding they craved on Thursday, marrying at a White Castle in the restaurant chain's home city.

The morning ceremony at the burger joint, which features the slogan "What You Crave," involved a flower girl who threw salt and pepper packets instead of rice, and employee name tags on the grooms' lapels.

The cake resembled a White Castle tray holding three "slyder" burgers, fries and a drink — all made of cake and frosting.

Comment: Personally, I would've picked a classier place, but you never know. For them, this could've been classy.

As a commenter pointed out earlier, OG is actually not resigning from the Senate, and will be continuing his write-in campaign for the S.A. Presidency.

Here's what he told the GW Hatchet:

“People said no,” Oyiborhoro told me. “The old establishment said no. They tried to subvert the democratic process at GW. People are tired of the old establishment and that’s why I’m running. I’m going to win this write-in campaign.”

A few questions:

1) Who (other than OG himself) said "no"?

2) How (other than through the simple enforcement of election regulations) was "the old establishment" trying to subvert "democracy"?

3) Why is "democracy" now synonymous with "Oyiborhoro's campaign"?

4) Who the hell is the "old establishment," anyway? Can I join?

Or, wait, maybe OG just demagoguing here. Go figure.

OG is done..

Out of the Senate, Out of the SA Race. He's using the old "Working with inner-city kids" excuse, not the fact that he is actually has been disqualified from the Presidential race, on top of attempting to defraud thousands from the student body.

good Riddance.

Interesting way to look at the US economy.

HT: Carpe Diem

John Derbyshire, a man who is quickly becoming my favorite columnist, writes warmly and affectionately on love. What he writes of is the antithesis of Ayn Rand's selfish views of love, and being the somewhat-stoic hopeless romantic that I am I will always side with Derbyshire, and with the Romantics of history.

John Derbyshire on Love.

A highlight: "Here is the evidence, as much as you could ever wish for, that human beings were not designed to be alone, and that life begins properly only when a soul is paired off with another soul. WITHOUT YOU, I WOULD ONLY BE A HALF, declares "Vin" to "J." He is exactly right. We have made something of a mess of this natural pairing in our modern society, with our casual hedonism, easy divorce, and media displays of wanton eroticism. The center still holds, though. As long as Cozyball is willing to say to Honeybunny in the pages of the New York Post that "I will love you till the end of time," the human race will be all right."

Sometimes, the Student Association government parodies itself.

No word yet on when the S.A. Senate will be holding hearings to investigate steroids in Major League Baseball.

Congrats!

Today, the GW Patriot Blog turns one year old. The development of its motor skills is coming along fine, and our pediatrician tells us that it will begin teething in a matter of weeks.

The only two words I can muster to describe this:

A senior adviser for Student Association presidential candidate Tarek Al-Hariri admitted yesterday to creating fake campaign Web sites to mock SA Sen. OG Oyiborhoro.

Freddie de Sibert, a senior, registered the online domain og4sa.com Feb. 7 and had it redirect to the Wikipedia entry for "race card." Al-Hariri said he was unaware of de Sibert's actions until The Hatchet informed him Wednesday afternoon. De Sibert is an authorized representative for Al-Hariri's campaign, according to the Joint Elections Committee. He also created Al-Hariri's Web site.

To paraphrase Kissinger, S.A. politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so damned small.

No word yet on what effect this may have on the Al-Hariri campaign, though I get the feeling that this is probably the most publicity the campaign will ever have.

Sighting irregularites (like have signatures off of JEC signing forms), the JEC will not allow OG Oyiborhoro on the SA ballot for President, instead he will be running as a write-in candidate. No word yet from Charles Basler and BSU that this is apart of the "hidden agenda" headed by Brand Kroeger and Nicole Capp to disenfranchise black voters. But then again, I haven't picked up this morning's Hatchet yet.

With the economy possibly teetering on recession, hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, and constituents worried about CIA torture admissions, Congress today took a step toward tackling the most pressing issue before the public: Roger Clemens' alleged steroid use.

The chairman also said that Clemens' past remarks included "conflicts and inconsistencies" on whether he had discussions about human growth hormone with
McNamee.

Clemens met individually Thursday with House lawmakers, including Waxman.

Wednesday's hearing comes a day after the House committee took testimony from four doctors who testified on "the myths and facts about performance-enhancing substances such as human growth hormone, B12 and other substances."

Does anyone actually think the government should be involved in this at all?

I just read the GW Hatchet's article on political contributions from GW faculty and administrators. Nothing really surprising here--just a lot of fodder for those bothered by (or, uh, encouraged by) the left-leaning tendencies of college professors:

University employees overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidates in this year's presidential election, with more than 40 percent of all campaign contributions going to Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, a Hatchet analysis of [FEC] campaign filings found.

GW faculty and administrators who listed their employers as GW in Federal Election Commission documents donated $21,075 to the Illinois senator's campaign, and $16,520 to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), the next-largest recipient.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was the third-largest recipient and the overwhelming Republican leader, with $7,100 coming from GW staff.

Other donations went to former Democratic candidate Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico ($3,850), former candidate Mitt Romney ($1,000), and former candidate and former senator Fred Thompson ($1,250). No other candidate received more than $500.

Curiously, the largest single contribution (of $4,600)--from Business School Professor Howard Beales--went to McCain.

Apparently, the Administrators gave relatively little, because they're concerned about their public image:

Administrators, Pelletier said, try to appear neutral so parents are not put off by what is perceived as a liberal agenda.

"They as parents don't want to send their students to a university that doesn't espouse the values they have or at the very least tries to be neutral in their value systems," he said. "As a result academics are starting to say 'We need to give the impression that we are nonpartisan.'"

Why not just be honest with parents? It's not like many of them are checking FEC records when making college decisions, anyway.

A man from my neck of the woods in San Diego taught for 17 years without being able to read, write or spell. Yikes!

You know it's getting bad when New York is considering a "crack tax"

LA Times:

There aren't many state governors trickier than Arnold Schwarzenegger when it comes to budget sleight of hand, but New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is Siegfried to his Roy. Spitzer's approach to his state's serious budget shortfall -- and it's so crafty that our pride is a little wounded because our governor didn't think of it first -- involves imposing a new tax on a group so universally despised that few voters could possibly object: drug dealers.

Spitzer's proposal, dubbed the "crack tax" by Gotham wags, is a sales tax on drugs such as marijuana and cocaine. Logicians and other wet blankets would argue that you can't tax an illegal product whose sales are of necessity off the public books, but that isn't quite true. After you've convicted a drug offender, you can seize his cash and other assets as taxes on the narcotics found in his possession.

Vishal Aswani will be following Nicole Capp's footsteps this year as another non-Junior running for the S.A. Presidency. Aside from waxing poetic about his 'tache (no joke), Aswani's website features mostly mundane, half-developed policy positions (many of which are identical to those proposed by Kozlowski). It's standard political fare, full of glittering generalities without too much substance to offend or delight.

This, however, was encouraging:

Resources are vital for student organizations to host successful and attractive programming on campus. Though the current financial process of the SA has worked well within the current regulatory framework, it’s time to change the framework we use for allocating funds. I witnessed so much anxiety over this issue this past year, and even in the recent student fee increase, there was a disagreement from over 1,000 students, many who voted against the resolution because of a negative perception of the current financial system. The current budget allocation process is too subjective and too dependent on the views of those serving the finance committee, and sometimes lacks a true understanding of the over 400 student organizations on campus.

Aswani has not yet laid out a clear plan to solve this problem, but he deserves our attention and kudos for actually mentioning it, and giving some credit to those of us that criticized and voted against the recent, lamented fee increase. I'm excited to see where, if anywhere, he goes with this line of thinking.

"Inflation has rendered the penny useless. Nothing can really be bought with a penny anymore," says Stephen Dubner, author of Freakonomics. It currently costs 2 cents to make a penny and 10 cents to make a nickel. Is it any surprise our wasteful government still makes these coins?

...for Halloween to be renamed "Coulterween."

The US doesn't crack the top ten in per capita drinking

See Who's #1

HT: Carpe Diem

Lifetime Ratings from the American Conservative Union

John McCain: 82.3
Ron Paul: 82.3
Sam Johnson (my congressmen): 98.0
Ted Kennedy: 0

In answer to an audience question at a YAF meeting, Ann Coulter said: "Ron Paul is very smart. So I don't want to talk to him too long for fear that he will convince me."

I just got word that my op-ed will appear in The Hatchet tomorrow:


More Choice Is Needed For Student Organization Funding

After the recent vote to increase the student fee, one area of concern is how the new money will be used. Many students were already concerned with the process of student organization funding, and adding more money has the potential to exacerbate the problem. One solution to this new influx of funding that has to now been kept silent is the idea of personal choice.

Imagine an option that would take place during the first weeks of a semester. A student would go online and decide to earmark a portion of their student fee to the organization(s) they genuinely care about, instead of grudgingly handing over their fees to be used as the SA chooses. Allowing a student to decide the allocation of a portion of their student fee would energize students to become more involved in the organizations they support. They could choose to earmark the whole amount to one organization or divide it amongst multiple organizations. It’s their choice. Student organizations, in turn, would have to truly work to bring meaningful programming to campus or else risk not having support from individual students. If the student didn't participate in this process, their money would be turned over to the SA Finance Committee and allocated the old way.

Some critics of this say that this would further the disparity between the large and small student groups on campus. But wouldn’t allowing students a say in how their money is used bring about a fairer and more representative process? Smaller organizations could benefit as well. With the fee increase, opening up a portion to personal choice would not drastically hinder smaller organizations to secure current funding levels. In addition, smaller organizations could rally their supporters to make sure they earmark the maximum amount. Out with the old system of allocations and in with a system of individual choice.

The SA, in their “Mid Year Review Status” from January 29th, actually tells student organizations to use all of their funding because if they don’t, it may not be there next year. That is just begging the student organizations to use their money in an irresponsible manner, simply to show the need for more funding the following year. A system of individual choice would require the organizations use their money wisely, in order to secure support from individual students.

I think providing students with the ability of choice is far better than entrusting the SA with all of our money, especially now that the referendum has passed. Keep in mind, this is simply an option and if you choose not to participate, the SA will continue to appropriate as they always have. I think the option of earmarking a portion of our student fee would get more people involved in student organizations. In addition, it would require student organizations to bring more programming to our campus or risk the loss of support from those whose opinion really matters: the students.

Washington Times:

Thanks to the compounded negligence of four successive generations of politicians in Washington, D.C., however, every family in America is now on the hook for $455,000 over and above what they owe on their own mortgage, or student loans, or credit cards or can expect to pay in taxes under the current tax system.

This is largely because of the middle-class welfare state initiated by President Franklin Roosevelt, expanded by President Lyndon Johnson, expanded again by President George W. Bush, and generally maintained and nurtured by all presidents and Congresses in between.

"I know it is hard to make sense of what 'trillions' means," Mr. Walker said. "One way to think about it is this: Imagine we decided to put aside and invest today enough to cover these promises tomorrow. It would take about $455,000 per American household — or $175,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States."

In December 2003, just before the 2004 election year, President Bush signed into law Medicare Part D, the prescription drug entitlement. It is now a tidal wave forming on our fiscal shore. "In fact," Mr. Walker told the Budget Committee, "the federal government's obligations for Medicare Part D alone exceed the unfunded obligations for Social Security."

Comment: I'm not sure of the rest of the GW Patriot readers out there, but I sure don't have $450,000 lying around. The lack of care that the two major federal entitlement programs are going to require $450,000 per household, invested today, to fund the programs in the future is ridiculous. Why is this not more of an issue? McCain has spent very little time talking about a solution, and as always, the Democrats solution is to expand the programs even more. It's time for SOMEONE in the Republican Party to stand up and bring some spending discipline to ensure that more programs like Medicare Part D don't get passed, and that we start cutting programs so families are not stuck with a $450,000 bill.

In times of political despair I turn to Russell Kirk's essay "Why I am a Conservative." Kirk would not fit in with today's conservatives; he was against the first Gulf War so he would of course be against our second adventure in the region. This essay has been my manifesto for years and would love to get a response.

For your comments and reading pleasure:

"From the hour I began to reason, and possibly from the hour I began to feel, I have been a conservative. Mundane circumstances have little enough to do with social convictions. My boyhood may be said to have been spent in the railroad yards; at college, living on peanut butter and crackers, I hugged my poverty about me like a cloak; and I have not the slightest expectation of eventual worldly prosperity. If any young man is bent upon advancement, I advise him to enlist in some "liberal" undertaking, for the conservative element which services in our country does not have wealth, or influence, or even adequate means of expression.

Liberal prejudice - either old-style Manchester liberalism or new-style collectivistic liberalism - have dominated our climate of opinion for a great while; and the serious press, the private foundations, the universities, and even the surviving private patrons have been affected by this climate. The liberal, old style or new style, swears by the evangels of Progress: he thinks of society as a machine for attaining material aggrandizement, and of happiness as the gratification of mundane desires.

The conservative, on the contrary, thinks of society as what Burke called the great mysterious incorporation of the human race, held together by tradition and custom and immemorial usage, a living spirit; and he thinks that happiness comes from duty done and from an understanding of the vanity of human wishes.

The American industrialist, by and large, has been a liberal, and so has the American labor organizer; they have differed about means, rather than ends. I do not mean that no industrialists, or no union organizers, are conservatives; some are truly conservative, but they are exceptions. The obsession with economics - a Benthamite and Marxist obsession - which has oppressed nearly all discussion of the wants of Americans for a good many years, is only now beginning to give way to some serious discussion of wht we really want from life, and of how we may keep life tolerable.

And it is still true that the writer, the scholar and the aspiring public servant, if they are after the main chance, will do well to profess publicly a devotion to liberalism and progress and change for change's sake. Liberalism, old style or new style, remains the prevalent orthodoxy, with the usual rewards attached to conformity. One may safely cry up the virtues of big business, or may safely preach the gospel of the omnicompetent state. But neither attitude is conservative.

The American mind has certain archetypes and of these two, I think represent the old New England breed of men - leavening the nation - from whom I happen to be descended. One of these two types of New England intellect is that which I call the mind of Emerson. It is fond of alteration and tinkering, convinced of the inevitability of beneficent progress, unable to credit the reality of sin, inclined toward leveling, contemptuous of the past, and bent upon dissenting from everything established.

The other principal type of New England intellect is that which I call the mind of Hawthorne. It is suspicious of change, skeptical of progress, convinced of the terrible power of sin, in favor of human nature (flawed though it is) in its present state rather than some radical revision of human character upon a Utopian recipe, reverent toward the past, mindful of the universe as a realm of mystery, and cognizant that proliferating variety is the mark of a healthful society, while uniformity if decadence.

From the beginning, I was in Hawthorne's camp. The modern "liberal" world, as I have come to understand it, is making its way strait toward what C. S. Lewis calls "the abolition of man" - toward a society devoid of reverence, variety and the higher imagination, in which "everyone belongs to everyone else," in which there is collectivism without community, equality without love.

The intelligent conservative does not set his face against all reform. Prudent social change is the means for renewing a society's vitality, much as the human body is perpetually renewing itself, and yet retains its identity. Without judicious change, we perish.

But change itself cannot be the end of existence: without permanence, we perish. Burke's standard of statesmanship was the union in one man of a disposition to preserve and a ability to reform. In some ages, the tasks of reformation looms gigantic; in other times; the tasks of conservation takes precedence.

Ours, I think is an era afflicted by alteration at vertiginous speed, a time of material and moral innovation, in which no man can catch his breath, and reason is overthrown by appetite. What the twentieth century requires is the checkrein, not the goad.

Precisely what does the American conservative want to conserve?

First of all, he wants too keep humanity human: he is determined not to allow men to b reduced to the sensual and equalitarian condition of Dr. Johnson's bull in a pasture, thinking, "Here is this cow, and here is this grass: what more could I ask?" There is grave reason to fear that the infatuation with material aggrandizement which marks our generation is leading toward just that condition, in which we shall be starved for imagination and hope and love.

Second, the conservative wants to protect that heritage of civilization which the painful labor of numberless generations of men has bequeathed to us, and which is now menaced by fanaticism and the craze for the new. The conservative knows that we are pygmies mounted on the shoulders of giants, able to see further than our ancestors only because of their support, and liable to tumble into the abyss if, presumptuously, we sneer at the wisdom of our ancestors.

Third, the conservative seeks to protect the elaborate civil social edifice which, under Providence, has developed in America - our government of laws and not of men, our economy characterized by volition rather than compulsion, our institutions calculated to make a man his own master, our political system which prefers variety to centralized uniformity. A well-intentioned sentimental collectivism, the conservative believes, would deprive this society of its vitality and respect for individuality. Besides, power corrupting as it does, no Utopian collectivistic system long remains either well intentioned or sentimental.

I am not disposed to exchange the manifest benefits of Christian civilization and American life for any New Morality or any New Order. We are afflicted by many moral and social evils, and there is every reason for the true conservative to turn his hand to prudent reform. Yet, if worst comes to worst, I prefer the devil I know to the devil I don't.

For all too many Americans, "liberalism" has become a good term, a charismatic expression implying prosperity, security, liberty, novelty, progress and the happy state of being in the swim. The time has come when we must inquire whether the actual policies of political liberalism lead to any such benefits.

It appears to me that our more advanced "liberals" have now quite given up any concern for freedom of personality, and are endeavoring to persuade us, instead, to submit to a regime of life in death, a colorless mediocrity and monotony in society, an emptiness of heart, a poverty of imagination.

They are no longer interested in liberal education, or freedom of choice, or in asking themselves just what true human happiness amounts to. What, Indeed, are our liberals liberal about? They do not aspire to make the human person truly free, under God; their aspiration is to make us identical units in a monolithic society. To the representative modern liberal, the world is a very simple place, and man has only very simple material needs.

With Hawthorne, I think that we live in a universe of mystery. I think that men are better than beasts, and that life is something more than the satisfaction of appetites. I think that variety and growth - not equality and uniformity - are the characteristics of a high civilization.

Therefore I am a conservative. Very possibly I am on the losing side; I often think so. But, out of a curious perversity, I had rather lose with Socrates, let us say, than win with Lenin."

Romney exits the race.

Looks like the GOP has a nominee presumtive.

The flame war concerning Ann Coulter’s impending visit to GW continued in the opinion pages of the GW Hatchet today, with an op-ed and a letter to the editor on the subject appearing.

The letter was from—who else?—Iris Somberg, the Vice President of GW YAF, who I once regrettably described as “Gary-etta.” Apologies to Iris. She probably didn’t deserve that. But then, in a way, she lives up to the name. If such a thing as “establishment conservatism” exists at GW, the shallowness of its ideas and rhetoric has always been best represented by students like Livacari, Gor, and Somberg.

True to form, Somberg’s letter to the Hatchet is written the high style of neo-conservative demagoguery. It’s difficult to find a passage not worth quoting to demonstrate this point, but I’ll try:

Reading the critical letters to the editor regarding Ann Coulter’s appearance at GW this Saturday makes me wonder if these students have ever bothered to actually listen to a conservative speaker. Instead, these leftists try to repress the conservative voice on campus because they are afraid of having a real debate that they will inevitably lose.

[…]

Even though I appreciate all of the free advertising these students are providing GW
Young America’s Foundation by acting like the typical leftist on campus, I think it would be more beneficial for them to attend the event and see what Coulter has to say. Who knows, maybe they’ll actually learn something.

[…]

Instead of fighting to prevent free speech, they should embrace this challenge to their beliefs and join us for an intellectual discussion.

Somebody drop Iris a line, and inform her that (a) to hate Ann Coulter one need not be a “leftist,” (b) protesting someone’s speech is not equivalent to “prevent[ing their] free speech,” and (c) Ann Coulter is not, not, not an intellectual.