The GW Patriot: February 2008

Friday, February 29, 2008

Here we go...

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.

0 comments

Numbers.

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.

0 comments

Students Get 2 Days Dentention For Pennies

I Lost By 23 Votes

Just how many votes did OG get?

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.

5 comments

Florida 2.0?

The New Question

Running off

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.

1 comments

Thursday, February 28, 2008

The Revolution May Not Be Blogged

Early Morning GWTV Notes

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.

1 comments

More Birthday Madness

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Man of the People

Ralph Nadar on campus tomorrow night

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.

1 comments

How Much For Would You Bid?

New Issue is up

RIP William F. Buckley Jr

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

8 comments

Someone Takes Themselves Very Seriously...

Is the Earth cooling? Is that something that should worry us?

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

OG May Have Trouble Even With Strong Election Day(s) Showing

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?

11 comments

Gershwin and the Gulag

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.

1 comments

Why Does Obama Hate Mexico?

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?

1 comments

Happy Birthday Bill!

Monday, February 25, 2008

February Issue FINALLY

People I wished would have ran for SA President

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.

5 comments

"Indoctrinate U" Screening at GW

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.

1 comments

The Hatchet gets the right idea.

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.

5 comments

Sunday, February 24, 2008

JEC Committee Hard at Work

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?

6 comments

Black History Month Funding

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Golf In Cuba

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.

0 comments

Friday, February 22, 2008

It's 5 O'Clock Somewhere

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.

0 comments

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Hunh?

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.

9 comments

Packing Heat in the Classroom

We make the Hatchet (again)

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.

0 comments

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Great Onion Video

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

The Questions They Should be Answering

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.

5 comments

Pat's Keen and Witty Debate Observations

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.

0 comments

I Am Going To Run For SA Senator

EVP Debate...

... 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.

0 comments

Candidate's Debate Parth Four: The Actual debate. Edited and updated

*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

3 comments

Candidate's Debate Part Three: pre-game show.

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

0 comments

Live from the candidates debate: Part Two pre-debate notes

Live from the candidates debate: Part one Who's Who

OG will participate in the debate.

About That Debate...

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.)

0 comments

Blast from the Past

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.

2 comments

Are There Going To Be SA PAC's Now Too?

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.

0 comments

Cigar Tax In New Hampshire

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.

0 comments

I Wonder If There Will Be A Learner's Permit?

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?

0 comments

Debate Tonight: What to expect, what to not expect.

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.

2 comments

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Is The American Dream Still Alive?

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Modern Conservatism's Founder was a "Surrender Monkey"

"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?

9 comments

Who Wants A Coupon?

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?

1 comments

Newark Enjoying Homicide Lull

Is Protectionism Racist?

Friday, February 15, 2008

Great Ron Paul Video

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.

2 comments

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Ohio Couples Have White (Castle) Wedding

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.

2 comments

OG & "The Old Establishment"

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.

5 comments

OG is Out...of everything

US States In Comparison To Other Nations

On Valentine's Day, John Derbyshire

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."

0 comments

S.A. Senate: Keeping Busy

Happy Blogirthday!

Bizarre and Banal

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.

1 comments

OG off the Ballot, in the race.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Congress and the Juice

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?

1 comments

Handouts from the Ivory Tower

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.

0 comments

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Isn't It Time For School Choice?

New York's Crack Tax

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.

0 comments

Monday, February 11, 2008

Next Up on the Chopping Block

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.

0 comments

Is It Still Worth It?

A Petition...

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

Personally, I think she'd make a bang-up Batman villain. After all, she has the most important trait needed: a horribly bloated ego. Check it:

One student in the audience criticized Coulter for her remarks about Clinton, stating that Coulter is fueling the chances for Clinton or Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama to win the presidential election.

"I have single-handedly caused the Hillary campaign to implode," Coulter said, adding however that in order for a conservative to win in 2008, "It would take a miracle and that's what we need."

There you have it, folks. Single-freakin'-handedly.

1 comments

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Beer Consumption Per Capita Throughout the World

How the American Conservative Union Sees it.

How to Ignore a Smart Conservative (if you must)

Op-Ed In The Hatchet

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.

5 comments

Do You Have An Extra $450,000 To Spare?

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.

1 comments

Friday, February 08, 2008

And Now Back to Pat's Bloated and Self-Righteous Philosophy Posts

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."

4 comments

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Mitt's Out

How to Talk to a Neo-Conservative (If You Must)

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.

1 comments

Lay Off My Burger

From the AP:

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.
On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.
Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

Comment: While in no way does this justify living your life in an unhealthy manner, it just goes to show that a preventative health care system does not necessarily save millions of dollars, as argued by proponents of universal health care. Ultimately, people should be making the choices of how to live their lives, not government. Government is trying to dictate our behaviors on the pretenses that they know better and that it will save money, when ironically, living a longer and healthier life will cost more than allowing individuals to continue to live unhealthy lifestyles.

1 comments

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

OG? O Yes!

Kriticking Kozlowski

Out of curiousity, I decided to check out http://www.kk4sa.com/, the official website of newly-announced S.A. Presidential candidate Kevin Kozlowski.

There was much about his platform that seemed encouraging--particularly the elimination of mandatory J Street spending on GWorld, and the creation of a graduate housing resource center. However, I was left ambivalent, in part because of his proposal to expand the S.A. Senate:

Under [Kozlowski's] leadership, the SA Senate will be expanded to include seats not only by school, but by year and community. There will be Freshman, Sophmore, Junior, Senior, and expanded Graduate student seats. In addition, there will be Greek seats, including representatives of our Mutli-Cultural [sic] Greek organizations, Diversity seats, and seats for Mount Vernon residents.

Why not also add seats promised to the different genders? Sexual orientations? Popular majors? What exactly does he mean by "diversity" seats? Do Greek organizations (of which Kozlowski, as a brother of Pi Kappa Phi, is a member) really deserve guaranteed seats on the S.A. Senate?

The root problem with which Kozlowski seems concerned is that the GW student body is not "united" enough. This may be true, and--if so--I see reason to consider reforming the structure of the Senate. After all, there is nothing particularly sacred about the apportionment of Senators based on schools. However, the plan seems primed to backfire spectacularly and succeed only in further dividing GW along racial, ethnic, residential, and even Greek/non-Greek lines. Consider: who gets to elect these new Senators? Will "diversity" Senators be elected only by minority students? Will Greek representatives be elected only by Fraternity and Sorority members? How will giving these groups inordinately large voices in the Senate "unite" us at all?

I'm sure more details about this policy will be presented during Kozlowski's campaign--and for good reason, because it looks singularly unattractive right now.

6 comments

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

A Look Ahead: My Reaction To The Fee Increase

So fiscal restraint didn’t win, oh well. Trying to win on a platform of limiting funding is a tough task, and given our limited resources I think we faired well. So what does this mean? Obviously I won’t be affected, but it’s too bad for the freshman who had no say in the matter. Some of the students I talked to today justified their support of the fee increase by saying, “It’s only $7 more a semester…it’s not that big of a deal.” That is true. Buying lunch in the District can sometimes run $7. But to those of you who stood by principle, who felt that deciding for someone else is not fair, who believe the SA shouldn’t subsidize organizations that are inefficient, it’s no time to quit. Students should be deciding how their money is spent, not the SA, and its time to bring a fresh and fair voice to the SA.

As it is far too early to steer towards a candidate for the SA presidency, our vigor to fight SA control over the student’s money should not diminish. Let’s be the voice of those who feel student organizations should look to be self-sufficient, let’s be the voice of those who feel the current funding process is far too shady and let’s find a candidate who will be responsible with our student fees and demand efficiency.

Tonight is not simply a night of defeat, but also a night to focus and get ready to have our conservative voices heard come election time. For the first time in my time at GW, I am genuinely excited about the weeks ahead and hopefully finally finding a presidential candidate who will not sell out and become too entrenched in the SA.

1 comments

I hate being right.

The Results are in.

Betting on the Spread

I'm going to be the pessimist here and wager that, despite our wonderful, last-minute publicity drive and the nigh-on-irrelevant support of the Daily Colonial, the levy will pass by a big margin--possibly greater than twenty points.

Not that I'm averse to being proven (very) wrong.

(On an S.A. Presidential campaign side-note, Kozlowski is not the only candidate in the running at the moment. According to the Hatchet, Sophomore Tarek Al-Hariri announced his candidacy as well.)

3 comments

And now we wait...

....and so it begins.

Referendum event page doesn't have a Wall.

Four Ways to Spend Money

Milton Friedman once said:

There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
-Fox News Interview (May 2004)

I think this is extremely applicable to the faults of the SA in properly dispersing funds to student organizations. Since the SA is in sole control over the funds, they will not take as much care as an individual deciding where their personal funds are going. What incentive is there to act frugally or require the organizations use the funds efficiently? That is why I strongly advocate for individual choice in the student organization appropriations process. Allowing individual students to choose for themselves where their student fee will be used is clearly the best way to decide funding. Individual students will value their student fee more and will be far more engaged in student organizations. This is an extremely important reform that so far has not been raised in the SA.

0 comments

The SA's Motto: "We Work For You...

How to Vote:

The Daily Colonial and The Fee Increase

Below, an anonymous commenter links to the Daily Colonial's editorial on the fee increase. Refreshingly, GW's less-read newspaper voices skepticism along many of the same lines as have some of us at the GW Patriot:

Until the SA does more to educate students about the financial allotment process, we cannot support the student fee referendum.

[...]

The problem is that we are still wary of how these extra funds would be distributed, because we have yet to see transparency in the SA financial allotment process. Part of our concern and puzzlement comes from the fact that the top organizations get thousands of dollars, while many other organizations end up with virtually nothing. While it makes sense that highly active groups like the College Republicans and College Democrats, for example, should receive a large portion of funds - they might argue that they need even more - the disparity in allotments is staggering. Though there is hopefully a sound rhyme and reason behind the system, its not totally clear to us. And we are an organization who received $800 this year from the SA, after initially being denied funding in a hazy ordeal.

A wonderful, balanced editorial. I am a bit confused, though. Why do so few people share in my anger about the disenfranchisement issue? Yes, curbing S.A. spending is important. Yes, the allocation process is the source of (and potential solution to) many student organizations' funding issues. But where, oh where, is the outrage about the specifics of this fee proposal? Truth be told, when I vote against it, I will not be voting against raising the fee. I will be voting against raising the fee for a select group of students chosen specifically because they don't have a vote in the referendum with which to defend themselves. Do the editors of the Hatchet and the Daily Colonial not notice this, or do they not care?

0 comments

Monday, February 04, 2008

President Capp Doesn't Support the Fee Increase?

Nicole Capp, Student Association President will apparently join any group that she is invited to.

Today, the Editors The Patriot created a Facebook "Students Against the Fee Increase" in order to help combat the "fee" (read: tax) increase that the Student Association is attempting to levy up all incoming students who start in the fall, aka against students who have no say in this fee.

She joined our group and even was kind enough to write on our wall, not entirely supporting the fee increase:

Nicole Capp wrote
at 4:02pm
Hey Everybody. A few points to mention:

1) We are having another vote because we are considering a LOWER increase and a NEWLY accepted MATCH from the University on what we are paying. That's never happened before.

2) The SA does not spend the student fee money, nor does the University. It goes straight to student orgs.

3) The vote failed by a VERY lower percentage last time... if it fails again the students will have spoken and the SA will not recommend an increase to the

1 comments

The Hatchet Supports a Fee Increase

Having already editorialized in favor of past (and failed) fee increase proposals, today the GW Hatchet editorial page sang the praises of the latest fee increase proposal:

Life at an urban college can be intimidating and present fewer opportunities for involvement in student organizations. This is especially true when smaller organizations are left the crumbs of the financial pie after the budget allocations. Even the funds available to the largest students organizations on campus are often unsatisfactory to their leaders and members. Increasing student funds would take the first step toward uniting a stronger campus community, devoted especially to student life.

Let's parse this argument:

1) Life at an urban college can be intimidating and present fewer opportunities for involvement in student organizations.

2) The problem stated above is made worse when smaller organizations are left very little funding after SA allocations.

3) Increasing funding for student organizations will unite the campus community.

The Hatchet fails to explain exactly why increasing funding for student organizations will solve the problem they cite--the misallocation of funds. Isn't it possible that, by redistributing even a portion of the absurdly high funding allocated to groups like the College Democrats and the College Republicans (who together received in excess of $15,000 of funding in the Fall of 2007) we might solve the problem? Why not try that before we increase the student fee?

The editors of the Hatchet seem to believe that increased funding is a necessary prerequisite for good management of funding on the part of the S.A. Forgive me for thinking that they have things backwards.

It was disappointing to see the editors' take on the issue of disenfranchisement (none dare call it that, of course):

Current GW students will not even be burdened with the financial effects, since if passed, the increase would not be put into practice until the class of 2012. Students have the unique opportunity to be idealistic for the future of GW student life without actually having to foot the bill.

Most people would consider that "unfair." The Hatchet considers it an "opportunity to be idealistic."

If I were a member of the Class of 2012 (or 2013, or 2014, etc.), I would protest. Unfortunately, the Class of 2012 doesn't exist yet, so they can't protest.

But I guess that's the point, isn't it?

0 comments

More Choice Is Needed in Student Organization Funding, NOT A Fee Increase

Matthew Cohen (SoB-U) says he wants to be a "good steward," but who can be a better steward than the students themselves?

I think back to a good friend of mine, Jason Lah, who ran for a spot on the SA two years ago. He argued it would be far more beneficial to have students decide where their $15 would go, instead of entrusting the SA with giving out large percentages of the budget to organizations who probably don't really need it. Students, during the first week of each semester, would have the ability to earmark their student fee to the organizations they want to fund. If the student didn't participate in this process, their money would be turned over to be allocated in the old way by the SA.

I think providing students with the ability of choice is far better than entrusting the "good stewards" in the SA with our money, especially with MORE money if this referendum passes. I think the process of earmarking our student fee would get more people involved in student organizations and would allow the students to decide which student organization to support, instead of the SA making the choice for them. Of course, personal choice is not an idea coming from the SA. I mean, why trust the individual students to make their student fee be a representation of their opinion, when we have the "good stewards" in the SA to give the largest chunk of the funding to the Law School, Graduate School of Education and Human Development and School of Medicine and Health Sciences, who received almost 40 percent of the available $265,000 from the SA (GW Hatchet 10/18.07)? It is a shame the SA does not offer the student a say in how their money is used.

Daniel Curran says in the interview on GWTV, "At some point common sense is going to have to take over...(when) it's obvious that we need more funding." Well, my common sense told me to vote against this referendum the first time and I will continue to vote NO. I hope everyone else's common sense tells them to do the same.

0 comments

Greed May Be Good Afterall

What has gotten into the politicians recently? I hear it from all the Democratic candidates. I hear it even from Governor Mike Huckabee. Corporations and their good for nothing greed have ruined America and it is up to the federal government to save us from those evil profit-makers. But truth be told, is greed inherently wrong? What has come about that is not influenced by greed? Milton Friedman weighed in on this and it is still very timely today:

3 comments

Sunday, February 03, 2008

....and 1

One truly is the loneliest number. It also has a good deal of power. Not just the figure "1" but the actual idea behind it. It is solitary, there is not another, one truly stands alone. It can be a blessing and a praise, it can be a curse in the scar, and tonight, 1 was the New England Patriot's worst enemy.

Coming into tonight's game 1 was their most prized and deadly number: rank in terms of other teams in the year, cede they held in the playoffs, it was where they were heading in history, it is the number of games that had to win, it was the number of games they had to lose.

For the past few weeks, as commonly happens The Patriots had been anointed by the Media. Having already surpassed that previous record of the '72 Miami Dolphins record of 17-0, there-by hushing their criticisms. The Patriots could only truly lose to one team, themselves. The Media made rash proclamations, asking if Tom Brady was "the greatest quarterback of all time?". A question that was answered with a resounding "No" in tonight's performance. The media long ago crowned the (troubled?) genius Bill Bellichek as the greatest of all time, though some of his patent zone blitzes and coverages (or lack there-of) tonight will surely throw his divinity into doubt, if only in the eyes of non-Patriot, objective sports fans. 1 tonight is a jilted lover, who has been thrown into doubt.

Now, for the team entire, 1 is a haunt. A scar upon the face of the beauty queen. She will forever be first approached for her beauty and grace, but the scar will always beg the question "What happened?". At first, she will not be able to answer it. She will blush and turn away, changing the subject to the future, to something beyond what her scar reaches. But with age, as the awe fades, her scar will sink in and soon people might not even ask, it'll just be accepted as a part of her. The lean in the Tower, the crack in the fresco, the blemish on the apple. This is not what will happen, however.

Patriots fans, and those that support Boston-area teams in general, are the absolute most juvenile and pitiful in all of sport. They, successfully I must regretfully admit, have for decades portrayed themselves as the "lovable losers".Even though the 2000s, bringing with it mounds of success and good fortune, should has erased this, they continue to feel perpetually sorry for themselves. Boston fans have self-inflicted chips upon their shoulders. Because, once you frame yourself as a victim, you become addicted to your own pity and sorrow, and continually look for ways to be victimized. You secretly hope for failure, so you can reaffirm your status as the perpetual failure and loser. In short, Boston fans are afflicted with Sports-Münchhausen, playing the attention-craving mother perpetually bring her children to the Doctor, basking in the attention that is given to her pathetic psyche.

The Patriots were incredible this year, but I doubt we will hear about the 18 wins from the Patriots fans. The 1 that we were going to hear, associated with excellence, is now going to be associated with failure and disappointment. That "1" will be the 1 loss, the 1 failure. The Beauty Queen will love her scar, and she will tell anyone who will listen about it.

4 comments

Correction - UPDATED

----------

UPDATE: I've been hunting around for the actual details of the fee increase proposal. As far as I can tell, in the words of the GW Hatchet, is that the fee increase will "not affect any students until the class of 2012." Obviously, this means that the students entering the University next year will be affected. I don't know, though, whether or not the extra money gleaned from the fee increase will be available to students before 2012. I was given the impression, from the Cohen/Curran statement, that it would not. Anyone have any ideas?

Also, I feel the need to note how supremely unhelpful the S.A. website is in answering this question.

----------

I recognized one error that I made in my initial post about the fee referendum--a large one, but one that does not alter my opinion on the issue. I was corrected by watching the GWTV special, and I'd like to give credit where credit is due.

At first, I thought that the fee proposal was going to take effect with the Class of 2012 (that is, freshmen entering GW this autumn). I was wrong. In fact, the proposal would hike the fee in 2012, leaving us with our current amount of revenue until that point.

Naturally, this proposal ensures that we won't be allowed to unfairly spend the money garnered from higher fees for underclassmen (so the AARP metaphor was a bit off). However, that doesn't mean that this proposal passes muster: it still disenfranchises future students by making a policy decision for them before they have the opportunity to vote and provide input.

Senator Matthew Cohen calls this "being good stewards" of future Classes at GW. I would rather be a fair steward, and let them make the decision for themselves.

2 comments

In Honor of Black History Month

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Responding to Cohen and Curran

As reported below, S.A. Finance Committee Chairman Matthew Cohen (SoB-U) and Vice President for Student Affairs Daniel Curran responded to Hunter's and my questions about the proposed fee referendum. I was glad to see that the issues were being addressed, though I was unimpressed by Cohen's and Curran's responses.

I would like to respond briefly to their statements with regard to my question--I leave to Hunter the job of responding to their answers to him.

My question, as quoted on the show:

Instead of voting yourself higher taxes, they now want you simply to vote higher taxes for other people who can't vote in their own interest. What sort of students do they think we are?

Had I a transcript, I would quote their remarks, but I do not. The video is available here.

My points in response:

1) I regret the fact that Senator Cohen believed my statement to be too "political" (that is, too concerned with equating the fee to a tax, and too concerned with fighting "big government"). I found it funny, however, that he could deny the governmental nature of the Student Association. At one point, he even claimed that his job was not to "legislate." Bull honkey, Matthew. You run a Senate committee. If you aren't legislating, you aren't doing your job. Like it or not, the S.A. isn't just a feel-good institution designed to help students without risking waste or requiring some trade-offs. The S.A. is not our affable, generous Uncle Phil. It takes our money without our permission. It passes legislation. It holds referendums and elections. It is a government, and we are its constituency. Dismissing my criticism of the S.A. as "missing the point" because it uses the language of politics--taxes, coercion, conservatism, liberalism, limited government--risks forgetting that, for better or worse, the S.A. is political. I find it particularly Orwellian that an elected official and the Chair of a Senate Committee would deny this fact.

2) Vice President Curran makes an interesting point: because of the nature of bureaucracy, passage of any legislation is technically "legislating for future classes." That's true. However, it doesn't take four years for most policy changes to take effect. Also, there's a difference between incidental delays to typical legislation, and delays that are intentionally built into the legislation in order to ensure that it doesn't come into effect for four years. My objection was not to delays per say, but to delays designed to unfairly disenfranchise a group of students.

3) My position is not "glass half empty." It's "glass empty."

4) I realize that Cohen and Curran may have gotten the idea that I am conservative and only oppose the referendum because of some abstract philosophical commitment to low taxes and small government. Given the way I was quoted, this is understandable, though neither of these statements are true. I am not a conservative (though I do have a philosophical commitment to low taxes and small government), and I actually oppose this proposal because I think it's a bad idea. Judging from their statements, Cohen and Curran were unaware that students like me exist.

Beyond these points, I felt that Cohen and Curran did a good job of responding to the argument they wish I had made (that there really is no funding problem--a position I don't hold). How unfortunate.

0 comments

Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.

That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.

Oddly, Code Pink protesters are obnoxious enough to earn the ire even of traditionally left-leaning residents of Berkeley:

Even though the council items passed, not everyone is happy with the work of Code Pink. Some employees and owners of businesses near the Marines office have had enough of the group and its protests.

"My husband's business is right upstairs, and this (protesting) is bordering on harassment," Dori Schmidt told the council. "I hope this stops."

An employee of a nearby business who asked not to be identified said Wednesday the elderly Code Pink protesters are aggressive, take up parking spaces, block the sidewalk with their yoga moves, smoke in the doorways, and are noisy.

"Most of the people around here think they're a joke," the woman said.

* Title explanation: Daniel Berrigan of the Catonsville Nine.

2 comments

Recent Comments

Blog List

-

Friday, February 29, 2008

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Monday, February 25, 2008

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Friday, February 22, 2008

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Friday, February 15, 2008

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Monday, February 11, 2008

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Friday, February 08, 2008

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Monday, February 04, 2008

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Friday, February 01, 2008

Search The Patriot

Even if you hate The Patriot, you can still be a facebook fan

Contributors

Admin Control Panel

Blog Archive

Counter

_