Here's an interesting idea to jump-start the pre-reform brainstorm session in the S.A.: ask what works elsewhere. Julie Bindelglass tells me that the S.A. Senate Finance Committee, working with S.A.C., sent out a questionnaire to 14 other Universities about their practices.

A sample of the questions:

Who is in charge of the student fee money? Is it one person, a committee, part of the executive or legislative portion of the student government? What oversight is there on whoever is in charge?

What is considered when looking at budgets?

Do you distinguish between operational and event costs? What do you typically fund?

How do students have input in the financial process?

Do students receive reimbursements? If yes, how?

Is it a separate process for undergraduate and graduate organizations?

Bindelglass says that the committee is "aiming to have the report [based on the survey] ready after allocations," so we can't expect any meaningful change this year (and it's a toss-up whether the survey will net any decent ideas). That said, this is worth a shot.

More as it comes, folks.

(For an evening chock-full of warm, gooey Patriot goodness, check out some of our writers' past work [published here and elsewhere] on the student fee and the allocations process.)

• Deregulation Not To Blame For Financial Woes
• Apparently Some Billionaires Are Good, Others Are Bad
• Lousiana Lawmaker Paying Poor Women Not To Have Kids (Surprisingly, this should actually have a real strong effect in reducing poverty).
  
• Number Of Earmarks Increase With Size Of Government
• Tim Cavanaugh On The Death Of Free Love
  
• Bailout Politics
  
• Rep. Thaddeus McCotter Keeping It Real. (He actually does an awesome job of summing up why this bailout should not be passed. Plus, starting off a speech by saying congressmen soil themselves is always funny)

There's nothing I hate debating more than finances, so without delving into the specifics of the current financial crisis and my own opinion on the Federal Reserve's "Boom-and-Bust" system, here is a brief thought.

In the pinelands of New Jersey, which I live extremely close to, it is accepted that every few years a major fire will sweep through the forest, destroying most life. But the emergency services in the area do not put the fires out; in fact they set up a perimeter and allow the pinelands to burn while protecting surrounding communities.

Something about the way the pines burn allows the forests to sprout up again within months, fuller and more beautiful than before. It is the tired Phoenix metaphor, but rarely is it applied to human endeavor.

Which brings me to my point. For too many years, Wall Street has behaved in a way that sacrifices personal responsibility and decency for a healthy bottom line for investors. This has involved corporate America using corporate Republicans to implement friendly policies, including massive amounts of corporate welfare. Indeed, big-government conservatism has benefited big businesses while not allowing mom-and-pop stores to compete. The chorus for years has been "Healthy communities be damned! Instead, give me more and more for less and less. We won't ask about accounting practices or faulty business decisions. Just give us a healthy bottom line." And then we feign disgust when someone gets caught cheating.

As these financial fires spread, those in power (in government and in corporate America) are trying to scare us into accepting billions to bail out a relatively small group of people. And the recent rejection of the bailout bill will cause short-term pain, no doubt. But as a people Americans are faced with two options: accept socialistic governmental control of capital and an incredibly intrusive role in the economy, or endure the labor pains of a different system being born. No longer can we couple no corporate regulation with massive corporate welfare. When forced to chose, the best choice is clear.

So while alarmists in power continue to scream "FIRE!" at the top of their lungs, be not alarmed. Sometimes the best option is to let it all burn down.

Story here.

It seems conservative Republicans were able to rally others, and a significant number of Democrats, to join them in fighting this bill. While this has sent the markets tumbling (DOW is down 400+ points) it shows that it is better to pass a better bill, than to pass an expedient bill.

Quote from Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX): "If we lose our ability to fail, we will soon lose our ability to succeed. If we bail out risky behavior, we will soon see even riskier behavior."

UPDATE: The House does indeed reject the bill, 228-205. The market is still down 500+ points. There is no indication another vote will occur today so it will be interesting to see what transpires and whether the bill will be changed at all.

UPDATE: Apparently this speech by Nancy Pelosi is getting blamed for so many people voting NO.

DOW ends down 748.21. NASDAQ down 199.61. Yikes!

• Lost In The Financial Bailout Was Congress Passing $25 Billion In Loans To Automakers
• In Times Of Crisis, Trust Capitalism
• Avoiding The Next Crisis
• The Market's Letter To Hank Paulson (Satire)
• No "Big Bang" Til 2009: The Hadron Collider Shuts Down
• Swedish Man Goes Fishing, Catches Giant Elk

Our Fair University now has a JuicyCampus page. Blessedly, it has no content. For now.

Check back often if you want to see GW's finest viciously libeling each other with impunity.

Yesterday, Paul Newman--of acting and charity fame--died of lung cancer at his home in Westport, Connecticut.

Even if you weren't a fan of his acting work (you probably were, at least somewhat) or his politics, you have to marvel at a man that generated more than $200 million for charity by using his face to sell salad dressing and salsa.

He and his work (on- and off-screen) will be sorely missed.

You might've heard the section of the debate when McCain and Obama were arguing over what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said at a forum here at GW. Obama thought that Kissinger's position supported his conclusion, while McCain argued that Kissinger, one of his foreign policy advisors, proposed secretary of state level discussions with Iran.

Misconceptions and misrepresentations abound. For the record, I stand by my original argument against arming UPD. Obviously, Pat disagrees. That's fine, but he's being unfair in a few different ways. Shall I list them? I shall, I shall.

1) The comments section of a Colonialist post does not an argument make. I'm a bit insulted that Pat would find my argument to be equivalent (in quality, at least) to those being made in the comments to this Colonialist post. That's mostly because those comments are dumb. In fact, most of them aren't even arguments--just humor at UPD's expense. Treating them like serious attempts to justify opposition to this idea is a convenient way of dodging our responsibility to think critically.

2) Stop pimping UPD's "accreditation." Pat writes that "only about 10% of police forces meeting the standards necessary" to be accredited. Regardless of whether or not that statement is true (as opposed to the less impressive claim that "only about 10% of police forces are accredited"), it's simply irrelevant. UPD can be the most professional police force in the country, with accolades and accreditation to spare, and it will still be necessary for arming-advocates to prove that giving guns to UPD will solve some pressing law enforcement problem here at Our Fair University. Further, they need to show that the possible unintended consequences of an armed UPD are not severe and negative enough to sink its advantages. Blithe talk about UPD's accredited status does neither of these things.

3) This statement is completely, utterly false: "The main argument against arming UPD is based on the flawed premise that UPD is some bastard child of "real" law enforcement." False enough, I would say, that it makes me wonder if Pat read my post at all. One can have oodles and oodles of respect for UPD--perhaps more respect than they deserve--and still think that giving them guns is (at best) unnecessary or (at worst) a terrible idea.

• Returning Taxpayer Accountability
• An Absence Of Leadership
• Tragedy Of The Commons And Economies Of "Scales"
• Talking Points For Not Doing The Bailout
• If There's Any Reason To Oppose The Bailout, It Should Be Because This Guy Supports It.
• Poker Lobby Has Already Spent $283,000 In Q2
• Did Children's Programming Ruin Our Lives?

It is rare that I find myself as utterly nonplussed about a campus issue as I am presently, specifically regarding the arming of UPD officers here at GW. But the good folks at The Colonialist (who I normally find just as comical and jocose as the next guy) have really opened up a pathetic conversation which includes elements as farcical as the infamous Stop the Hate nonsense, without hundreds of years of racial hatred and paranoia to blame. Perceived racial insensitivity has been replaced by perceived recklessness on the part of the University because of their resolution to evaluate the advantages of arming a certified police force. To quote the frightened last words of Conrad's Kurtz... well, never mind.

Before I get to my ultimately elementary point, the unfledged opinions of my fellow students are worth derisively quoting, simply because they demonstrate the foolishness of the entire debate:

"its UPDs new recruiting program. 'you don’t even know how much fun you can have with a gun until you have some fun with a gun!!!'"

"Absolutely terrifying, that is my only thought."

"Not only this, but I feel sometimes school police instead of using the correct actions of detaining a student in a way where nobody gets hurt, will just rely on the weapon, not so much to shoot someone, but just the act of drawing it and saying to stop is something no 18-21 year old should not have to experience."

"I don't believe UPD should be armed because that gives them far too much power. If the situation is serious enough that it requires weapons then MPD or the Secret Service which patrol the campus 24 hours a day should get involved and take over for UPD."

Edit... Needed to add another one: "I remember playing Halo II with a ‘kid’ who also happened to be a UPD officer in my freshman dorm. The thought of him, of any of them, armed with handguns is absurd. The only plausible argument for arming our UP would be to prevent a Virginia Tech style attack here on campus. And honestly if something like that did go down, the last people I want in a firefight with me caught in the middle would be our university police officers, a step up from shopping mall security guards."

A more compelling argument for preventing the arming of UPD has yet to have been made (sorry, Bill). Police accreditation being what it is--with only about 10% of police forces meeting the standards necessary--how does UPD stand up to the big law enforcement offices? While the unaccredited Metro Police are trusted by nescient GW students, the accredited University Police Department have somehow earned the wrath of the vigilant student body. Imaginations have run wild with thoughts of accredited officers wielding handguns. Just think of the madness! Bodies lining the streets outside the Jump-off. Thurston raided by demented, gun-wielding crazies.

Here are the facts:

- US Capitol Police, Metro Transit Police, and the University Police of Georgetown and GW are the only accredited police forces in Washington.
- UPD officers have undergone psychological screenings, and years ago they began catering them for the possibility of an armed police force.
- UPD requires 60 college credits for police applicants, but prefers to hire those that have already attained a BA/BS degree.
- All of these standards are stricter than those held by MPD and even the Secret Service.

The main argument against arming UPD is based on the flawed premise that UPD is some bastard child of "real" law enforcement. This assumption is simply untrue. It is not too much to ask that University Police be treated as normal law enforcement agencies are treated.

Then again, if GW students had developed an opinion on the matter using evidence other than recurring nightmares from busted Thurston parties and their own "don't taze me bro" paranoid delusions, they would have come to this conclusion already.

Well, The Colonialist is (almost) right:

GWPatriot writers aside, I think the majority of our campus might feel similarly about this. However, I want to see what everyone thinks before ranting about it.

Travis is referencing this Hatchet article and the Dolores Stafford-inspired debate about whether or not UPD should have guns. You can expect to hear much, much more about this issue from us, but rest assured that our opinion is not so clear-cut. As with so many other issues, there really isn't a single "Patriot opinion" on this--just an aggregation of different opinions given voice by a particular entity.

The majority of the writers at The Patriot support arming UPD--and for good reasons that are worth considering. I, however, do not. I've said so in the past. I'll probably say so again.

Stay tuned for more--and remember, you can never expect all of us here at The Patriot to agree on anything. We argue with each other more than we argue with anybody else.

FOR IMMIDEATE RELEASE…

This week Logan Dobson, CCAS-U, submitted two pieces of legislation for consideration by the Student Association Senate. The first piece of legislation is a bill that would “open the financial process to all students” and the second is a proposed amendment to begin the process of giving Freshman Senators (currently non-voting) full voting rights in the Student Association Senate. In my opinion, both bills are not only worthy of consideration, they should pass.

There is no doubt that changing the financial process to allow any student to access any organization’s financial records will not alleviate all mistrust of the SA’s funding process, it will however take a step in that direction. Moreover, giving all students the ability to further inquire about how their money is being spent will not only help increase financial transparency, it will add necessary credibility to how student organization. For those reasons, the Office of the Executive Vice President is in full support of Senator Dobson, and Cosponsors Lockwood and Aswani in wanting to see SB-F08-01 pass.

Lastly, it has been my privilege over the last two weeks to work with Senator Dobson on the proposed amendment that would give the three (3) non-voting Freshmen Senators voting rights beginning in the Spring Semester, and then in perpetuity. I believe it is counter productive to have representatives that can not officially represent their constituents, especially in a city whose license plates bear the phrase “taxation without representation.” This year the class of 2012 became the first class to pay the increased student fee, and this year the class of 2012 should be the freshman class with voting representation in the Student Association.

Kyle J. Boyer

Executive Vice President

Student Association.

Here is in effect Senator Dobson's proposal on a statewide level:

“We want to show Maine taxpayers — down to the agency, person and penny — where their dollars go,” Bragdon said. “How can you get the most bang for the taxpayer’s buck?”

“We felt like Maine people, elected officials and the media really needed these tools,” Bragdon said. “The thing is, nobody’s looking, so nobody asks these questions. That’s what we want folks to do. Ask questions.”

The website has already exposed plenty of waste. It is very true that this information may seem trivial. However, no matter who you are, whether it is a student paying a student fee, or a citizen paying taxes, you should be concerned how your money is being spent. Websites like this and proposals like the one from Senator Dobson are laudable and will hopefully bring smarter spending.

• Drilling Forward
• SEC Wants To Ban Reality
• What About The Renters?
  
• Harry Reid Sneaks In Ban On Oil Shale
• A $25 Billion Aid Package For Detroit Set To Pass
  
• Ranking Of Countries Based On Corruption Perception
  
• For Greenwich, CT, Financial Crisis Is "Our Katrina" (NOT Satire)
  

I saw this exchange live today. Good job by Paul...

Let me take a moment to answer two of Hunter's four "open questions" about Senator Dobson's bill--specifically, the third and fourth.

Will it encourage student orgs to look elsewhere for funding so as to avoid scrutiny, red tape, public display of rejection, etc?

We can only hope. Anyway, I doubt they'll look elsewhere in order to avoid "public display of rejection." I assume Hunter is talking about the public display of rejection during the allocation process, but this bill has nothing to do with the actual process of allocation, and no direct influence on the amount allocated--it simply opens up to public scrutiny the manner in which those allocated funds are being spent. At most the effect on allocation amounts will be indirect.

Can it prove or disprove the SA-held notion that the fee increase money is actually benefiting smaller student orgs?

No. And it can't prove the opposite, either, because the bill has nothing to do with allocations. The proof that the fee increase benefits smaller groups (or doesn't) is, I think, to be found in the S.A.'s allocation report, which has always been available to the public.

It's important to deal with misconceptions like this, because nothing can kill a worthwhile reform movement more than supporters who expect too much from its first, modest steps.

• Will increasing transparency cause student orgs to become more prudent in regards to how much money they ask from the SA?
• Will it cause student orgs to become more prudent in regards to what events/activities for which they ask to recieve funding?
  

• Will it encourage student orgs to look elsewhere for funding so as to avoid scrutiny, red tape, public display of rejection, etc?
  

• Can it prove or disprove the SA-held notion that the fee increase money is actually benefiting smaller student orgs?

• Give Paulson A Clean Bill
• Don't Blame The Short Sellers
• A Political "Solution" - Part II
• Americans Text More Than They Talk
• Pennies: Enough Already!

President Aswani and Senator Rob Lockwood have signed on to cosponsor Senator Logan Dobson's bill to make student organization spending transparent.

Aswani called the bill "an opportunity to put clarity and objectivity on a complicated process."

"Ultimately," he said, "my colleagues in the Executive and I support any legislation that increases Student Organization accountability in spending of student fee money."

This is reform--however incremental--that The Patriot can definitely get behind.

UPDATE:

Logan tells me that "I think a lot of people were elected to the SA this year promising to reform the system. If people are truly serious about changing the way the SA does business, it's got a shot. I'd put the odds right now at 50-50."

Of course, that was before President Aswani decided to cosponsor it. Any other "S.A. insiders"--or outsiders--want to comment on how that might (or might not) influence this bill's chances?

I received an e-mail today from Cory Struble, the President of the College Democrats, in response to my (throw-away) post about the semi-botched Klobuchar event. In the interest of critical self-examination, I'll reproduce here (without much comment) some sections of the e-mail with which I actually agreed or which I think are worth considering. Mr. Struble argues, of course, that The Patriot has been unfair in its treatment of the College Democrats in the past. I leave you, dear reader, to judge for yourself.

Our budget for the [Klobuchar] event was.... $0. Program Board printed posters for us as part of a publcity consponsorship. Outside of that, no money was used from our SA budget allocation, or even our privately-fundraised revenue account, to fund the event. So, student fee money is not exactly going to "lame" events like this one. Senators can't charge speaking fees, and fortunately the Marvin Center provides space for free. [...]

I hate that you guys are always scapegoating the CDs and CRs. It's too easy. Dig a little deeper, there are many more important ways that students are getting screwed. [...]

I see my organization getting picked on too often for getting what you think is too much money. I (obviously) think we deserve that money, and, after all, the CRs have consisently gotten one to two thousand more than us in the past two years, and I would say they are a lot more "partisan" than we are.

I sent Mr. Struble my own response via e-mail. I welcome constructive criticism of what I write at The Patriot, and would like to thank Mr. Struble for providing what was, on the whole, a thoughtful, civil perspective. Certainly better than this, anyway.

From my inbox:

Dear The GW Patriot:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion USD. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gramm, lobbyist for UBS, who (God willing) will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a former U.S. congressional leader and the architect of the PALIN / McCain Financial Doctrine, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. As such, you can be assured that this transaction is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully,

Minister of Treasury Paulson

• "Wall Street" No Longer Exists
• A Political "Solution"
• Obama's "Tax Cut" Is Income Redistribution
  
• US Government Veers Away From Capitalism
  
• A Conservative Alternative To The Paulson Plan
• The Election Of 1800: The Birth Of Negative Campaigning
  

• Short Sellers Keep The Market Honest
• Why You Should Hate The Bailout Proposal
• From Bank Bailouts To Auto Bailouts?
• The Glass-Steagall Myth
• How Much Does It Cost To Buy A Vote In India
• The Financial Crisis Reaches Manchester United (Satire)

From The GW Hatchet:

Administrators rebuffed reports last week that the University was phasing out its unofficial hippo mascot, saying it was never discussed by the senior administration and that the bookstore stopped ordering hippo apparel because of a "misunderstanding."

Meanwhile, the strongest evidence for the hippo phase-out rumor, John Ochs, the University coordinator for licensing and trademarks, has backed off. He ain't talking to the press...anymore, at least:

John Och, the University's coordinator for licensing and trademarks, said on Wednesday that the school was concerned with using the hippo on apparel because it is not an official logo of GW and not legally protected.

"In terms of imprinted stuff, we're moving away from that," Och said. He added that the mascot was to be used less at University events.

"We are trying to get better brand recognition in the national collegiate market as GW," Och said. "The hippo is not a registered mascot and it's better for us to put forward one unified brand."

Och declined to comment when reached on Friday.

The irony of all this is that there's really nothing worth covering up here--if, indeed, a cover-up is going on. The whole issue--the fate of a second-rate, unofficial mascot whose "tradition" is barely a decade old--is trivial. And if the University isn't covering anything up, there would be even less reason for this bizarre flip-flopping. The only thing that Knapp & Co. can accomplish with this sort of behavior is a destruction of the little trust that students have developed in his young administration

Which brings us to this question: Why the reticence? Why not come clean?

Do it for the Hippo's sake.

The death in June of Ronnie White, alleged cop-killer, has been ruled a homicide (by strangulation) in a report from the Maryland medical examiner.

Few tears will be shed for a despicable criminal like White, though we all ought to be outraged by his death. He was almost certainly killed by a corrections or police officer, as they were the only people with access to his cell. It's that sort of deadly abuse of authority that legitimizes people who demonize the "law enforcement community," and makes it tough to be a good cop. Shame on whoever killed this man before he could face justice through the system.

Mary, Baroness Warnock, believes that "there's nothing wrong with feeling you ought to [kill yourself] for the sake of others as well as yourself."

In other words, some people are drains on society, who ought to feel guilty if they don't end their own lives:

Lady Warnock said: "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

"I'm absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there's a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they're a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.

It gets worse:

She went on: "If you've an advance directive, appointing someone else to act on your behalf, if you become incapacitated, then I think there is a hope that your advocate may say that you would not wish to live in this condition so please try to help her die.

"I think that's the way the future will go, putting it rather brutally, you'd be licensing people to put others down."

You know what's worse? She's right. Strictly speaking, people who suffer from dimensia or a host of other incapacitating diseases, and who benefit from universal healthcare programs like Britain's National Health Service are wasting the lives (or, well, livelihoods) of the people required to pay for those programs. Ditto, to a lesser degree, for anyone else that uses those healthcare programs. This is not to say that these people should be shamed into committing suicide (or be "put down," which sounds quite a bit--as one commenter suggests--like murder). Nor is it to say that they should even feel guilty, as they may be taking out of the system less money than they've put in.

But let's be honest: socialized medicine makes everyone everyone else's exploiter.

I'm not sure if this message from the Powers That Be at Our Fair University is a sincere clarification of a massive mistake on the part of The GW Hatchet and at least one University official, or a sly way of turning back and saving face after making a stupid decision. The announcement:

Contrary to popular disbelief, the Hippo at The George Washington University will continue to be a staple of student life at GW in the future. We understand the GW community's affinity towards the Hippo, and we hold the Hippo as a proud tradition of GW culture. There has been no University discussion regarding changes to the presence and usage of the Hippo.

Their excuse--that discussions last autumn about the "placement and utilization" of the Hippo on various pieces of merchandise led to a halt on orders of hippo-themed products which was misinterpreted as a decision to phase out the hippo--just doesn't gel with me, especially in the light of reporting by the Hatchet. GW's Paper of Record quoted John Och, University Coordinator for Licensing and Trademarks, as saying this:

"We are trying to get better brand recognition in the national collegiate market as GW. The hippo is not a registered mascot and it's better for us to put forward one unified brand."

That doesn't sound like an official who misinterpreted a decificit of hippo hoodies in the GW Bookstore. That sounds like the delivery of a very carefully scripted rationale for a marketing decision on the part of the administration. Further, the University has said nothing to contradict this:

The unofficial mascot will still make appearances at University events, but mostly at functions with children or when the official mascots are at away games.

We're owed better clarification of this issue than we've been given.

The Daily Colonial has the (depressing, predictable) story.

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN was set to be the College Democrats Kick-Off event guest speaker on Wednesday, but when the senator was not able to make the appearance, the College Democrats had to quickly rearrange the event.

Instead, two staffers from Klobuchar’s Washington, D.C. office took her place answering student questions. Later in the evening the audience was able to have a phone conference with the senator who named the “economic crisis” as the most important issue in this year’s election and endorsed Barack Obama as her residential pick.

EDIT: Allow me to mention here that I'm not blaming the CDs for what was obviously an unfortunate, unforeseen scheduling problem. I'm just lamenting the obvious lameness of the entire event. That said, it is worth remembering that our student fee money is going toward events like these. And President Aswani and others want this sort of partisan campaigning to be a priority for appropriations this year.

• Never Sell America Short
• Banning Short Selling Is A Terrible Idea
• Maryland Learning High Taxes Do Not Lead To Higher Tax Collections
• Drilling For Subsidies
• Paying Taxes Is Not Patriotism
• Can Binge Drinking Save Social Security?
• Congress Acts To Prevent Totally Lame Party (Satire)

I was having a conversation with a friend of a friend of a friend last night about Tarot and astrology. (Don't ask.) This person is, to put things mildly, a big believer in the prescience of the Zodiac.* Then she says, in paraphrase:

[Redacted] is a Capricorn and she's SUCH a Capricorn. But isn't it strange how some people are SO like their signs, but other people just aren't?

Yeah, I thought but dared not say, it's almost like the whole thing is completely random, and no better at predicting personality types than the flip of a coin. Ahem.

C'mon, people. If being religious and believing creationism is such a dealbreaker among the young and educated, why in the world is it still socially acceptable to believe stuff like this?

* Ladies, I'm a Pisces.

I sent in a couple of letters to the Hatchet for print. This one didn't make it:

• Federal Aid To Detroit Seems Likely
• Colombia Is A Willing Trade Ally
• How Does The Fed Work
• Biden On Tax Increase For The Rich: "Time To Be Patriotic"
• Man Suspends Himself Upside Down To Protest Rising Cost Of Living

I remember coming to GW and hearing about the hippo mascot, and it was as dumb then as it is now. A mascot that is not rooted in anything worth preserving on campus, it's hard to really grasp why the hippo became a mascot in the first place.

A statue sits in the middle of campus because, as many of you already know, former president SJT got drunk and bought the statue with school funds. It is a funny story. But a stupid reason to create a mascot at a school that already has one. Imagine the Fighting Irish with a second mascot, say a panda! Or the Trojans with a second mascot, say a giraffe! Having been to as many basketball games as I have, watching the ridiculous inflated hippo dance around on his head has never seemed "endearing" to me. It just seemed silly.

The fear seems to be that in the absence of the hippo GW sports will become hebetudinous with just "Little" and "Big" George to keep us riled up. But the hippo was representative of the laughable state of sportfandom at GW. Let it die.

On a side note: The Hatchet needs to stop phrasing their editorials as if they speak for the campus. It has been years since they have done any such thing.

For once, the Hatchet and I actually agree on something. It is a poor move by the university to get rid of the Hippo, which has turned out to be one of the few endearing things on this campus. One hopes they reverse it.

I'm sure I'll have more to say about this when the intial allocation process gets started in Bismarckian earnest, but I'm going to take a crack at the Hatchet's article on Aswani's recommendations to the Senate:

SA President Vishal Aswani recommended that the senate finance committee allocate a large percentage of student funds to politically oriented student organizations, Greek groups, small organizations and organizations that were highly productive last year.

Hopefully this isn't what Vishal meant when he pushed for reform of the allocation process. I want something a little more substantial than a King Canute proclamation. His recommendations seem fine, if sometimes a little rosy-cheeked and naïve ("small organizations") and sometimes a little obvious. (Did anyone doubt that political organizations like the CRs and CDs would get short shrift during this funding cycle?)

Then, there's this:

SA Sen. Julie Bindelglass (CCAS-U), chair of the finance committee, said she agrees with the recommendations Aswani made, but added that these recommendations are not foolproof.

Foolproof? Huh? Alright, allow my inner pedant to come out for a moment. It's obvious that--to avoid some obsequieous show of submission to the Mighty Vishal--Bindelglass was disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. But foolproof? What a poor choice of words. Ethan Hunt's break-in plans are foolproof. James Bond escapes from foolproof traps. A word like "binding" or "exhaustive" would have worked better.

Instead, Bindelglass used "foolproof," which inadvertently advertises something very true (and very embarrassing) about the Senate's allocation process. Take it away, American Heritage Dictionary:

Foolproof, adj. - Designed so as to be impervious to human incompetence, error, or misuse.

Not foolproof, indeed.

***

UPDATE:

Senator Bindelglass tells me in an e-mail that it wasn't her word-choice--but that she said Aswani's recommendations were "not a prediction." My apologies for assuming otherwise.

She also alludes to vague reforms to the allocation process, calling this year "a year of reevaluation for the finance committee." Bindelglass:

The finance committee has already commissioned a comprehensive survey of the financial processes of similarly oriented schools across the country, and pending that feed back, and the feedback of the student body, will take the necessary action.

Exciting, but I'll believe it when I see it.

In the October issue of The Atlantic, Ross Douthat makes a thoughtful argument for why it's so:

So yes, there’s an obvious line between leafing through a Playboy and pulling a Spitzer on your wife. But the line between Spitzer and the suburban husband who pays $29.95 a month to stream hard-core sex onto his laptop is considerably blurrier. The suburbanite with the hard-core porn hookup is masturbating to real sex, albeit at a DSL-enabled remove. He’s experiencing it in an intimate setting, rather than in a grind house alongside other huddled masturbators in raincoats, and in a form that’s customized to his tastes in a way that mass-market porn like Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas never was. There’s no emotional connection, true—but there presumably wasn’t one on Spitzer’s part, either.

This isn’t to say the distinction between hiring a prostitute and shelling out for online porn doesn’t matter; in moral issues, every distinction matters. But if you approach infidelity as a continuum of betrayal rather than an either/or proposition, then the Internet era has ratcheted the experience of pornography much closer to adultery than I suspect most porn users would like to admit.

Given the near-universal nature of porn use nowadays (Douthat, a social conservative, mentions that only about 14% of men claim that they've never looked at porn, and even admits to sampling it himself), this is an uncomfortable argument. Married (and otherwise attached) people that look at pornography rarely ever think of themselves as adulterers. As one of the more socially liberal members of the Patriot staff, I'm inclined to agree with them--or at least with the claim that porn use constitutes a betrayal so low on Douthat's continuum as to be negligible.

That said, Douthat's argument presents a welcome challenge to those of us comfortable with the notion that "cheating" has to involve physical contact with something other than your keyboard.

Well, they like Bill! reason links to the "thoughtful ... students" at The GW Patriot.

Click here for your moment of zen.

• Are We Running Out Of Rescue Cash?
• Trade Saves The Day
• Democrats Still Aren't Serious About Drilling
• Schwarzenegger Vows To Veto State Budget
• Barney Frank's Dumb Statement From 2003

"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness (of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."

• Market For Anti-Bush Merchandise To Collapse (Video)

Apparently Mr. Dobson is not making himself many friends within the SA, and I'm sure his most recent post didn't help (he lived blogged the first meeting of the year).
So to help the cause, I've decided to order some "Impeach Dobson" T-shirts. He has already said he will wear one, so join the cause!
email me at w.hunter.patterson@gmail.com if you are interested. I reckon they will be around $5.

Two new members worth mentioning:

I Drink Your Blog - Definitely NSFW, but in a snarky way (unlike, say, Inside GW), this humor blog, written by uber-hip people that hide behind uber-hip pseudonyms like "Icarus Kitsch" and "Danny Universe," has been publishing short pieces regularly for a couple of months.

The GW Statesman - I have my fingers crossed tight that this blog (which hasn't yet published any real content) will take off. After all, "the GW Statesman and its staff are growing rapidly and there couldn't be a more exciting time to be a progressive on campus!" Will they be the Costello to our Abbott? The Stalin to our Mussolini? The analogies (and possibilities) are limitless! Seriously, though, GW lacks a decent left-leaning political publication and blog, and hopefully the Statesman will change that.

Let's give a warm welcome to GW's newest netizens!

It's not the Jill Greenberg surreptitiously took extra pictures of McCain during a photo shoot, and then photoshopped them to make an "OMG SRSLY GUYZ REPUBLICANZ R EV1L" political statement.

It's that she thinks "warmongerer" is a word.

This is one dumb photographerer.

• Why It Was Right To Let Lehman Fall
• The Obama Campaign Is In Disarray
• Paulson's Courageous Action
• Maryland Revenues Fall Short Despite (Or Because Of?) Tax Hikes
• Utah Looking To Raise Cigarette Taxes
• The Game Theory Of Stacking Pitchers

For some reason I seemed to miss this entry in the Hatchet Blog:

While this does seem convenient to Student Orgs, it got me thinking. How about making this database accessible to every student? By allowing the process of Student Org spending to become transparent, the student body does not have to sit idly by while our recently increased student fee gets misused year after year. While obviously watching money slowly empty out of a Student Org account is quite boring, we may once and for all see just how much extraneous campus events, such as plopping a fake vagina in Kogan, actually cost. In addition, this could pave the way to further transparency in the initial funding process, and may bring about real change in the allocation process as a whole.

• The Progressive Case For Free Trade
• The Choice: Capitalism Or Regulation
• Too Few Regulations? No, Just Ineffective Ones
• Hurricanes Do Not Cause Oil Shortages
• Pencils and Politics
• CA Legislators Reach Budget Compromise With No Tax Increases
• Billionaire Tries To Protect Nantucket From Rich People

You'll be forgiven for not having heard about this yet, because the British government has gone out of its way to keep this vewy, vewy quiet.

The silence is sad, in a way, because the act in question--sanctioning Muslim Sharia courts to serve as officially-recognized arbiters in British civil cases--shouldn't be so repugnant to thinking people. As liberals (and, in global terms, all of us here at the Patriot are liberal), we ought only to worry whether these courts are really as "voluntary" as they claim to be, which are similar to the Beth Din courts that decide civil cases between consenting Jews. We might find Sharia law itself repugnant, but the degree of cultural relativism inherent in liberal political institutions is there for a good reason. If we don't like it, we don't have to consent.

It's an open question just how voluntary these sorts of arrangements really can be. The possibility that participation in these courts could be coerced is there, which is worrisome enough to justify significant state oversight. That is not sufficient reason, though, to dismantle the courts entirely. We have to swallow our principles here and admit that--since we allow people to make self-harming decisions elsewhere all the time--it would make sense only to a xenophobe to stop at sanctioning a Sharia arbitration court. Until more evidence exists to condemn or vindicate these courts in practice, I have to agree with this:

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

If you attend Our Fair University, you got the infomail today about the "Latino Heritage Celebration" that will straddle September and October, courtesy of the Multicultural Student Services Center.

The e-mail, of course touts such thought-provoking events as a "Welcome BBQ" hosted by OLAS, and "La Fiestasa," featuring "live music and authentic Latin American cuisine."

In case you were worried, though, that Latin America's heritage consists entirely of tasty dishes and performances by the "Littlest Mariachi," just click through to the online flyer advertisement. LHC, it seems, isn't pulling punches, with events including a debate on "Anti-Immigration Policies" ("Community purity or community downfall?") and an airing of the film "A Day Without a Mexican."

I'm glad to see that LHC's organizers aren't shying away from what, unfortunately, constitutes a large part of Latino heritage here in the U.S.: controversy.

I would like to introduce Patriot readers to two new bloggers: James Aston and Will Frey.

I have known James Aston since I came to GW, and he brings a concise and erudite voice to the Patriot. He has posted comments before, and I am sure anyone familiar with these comments, agree or disagree (they targeted some of my own opinions), are well aware of James' writing prowess and clarity of thought.

Will Frey is an enthusiastic freshman who's motivation and ambition have already made an impact on the Patriot in the infant stages of this year. He will also be principally involved in the print edition this year (which will, I assure you, print on a regular basis).

So, welcome to the Dark Side, James and Will! Your names are now irreconcilably linked to this venerable publication. May God help you.

Louis René Beres' post-mortem of the Party Conventions. True individuals need not attend:

Individuals who dare read serious books, and are willing to risk disapproval or exclusion now offer America its only real hope for a change to believe in. These rare souls can seldom be found at political conventions, in universities, in corporate boardrooms or anywhere on television. Their inner strength lies not in elegant oratory or even the enviable capacity to skin a moose, but in the far more ample power of genuineness and thought.

Never has a society been so keen on fetishizing individualism in theory (and stereotype), and so paradoxically hostile to it in practice.

• Divided Government Is Best For The Market
• How China Helps America's Poor
• Al Qaeda's Failed War On the US Economy
• McCain Pulls Ahead Of Obama On InTrade
• New Research On Retail Health Clinics
  
• Talking Trade With Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez (Video)

just a quick note to some readers:
As much as you may not like Julie Bindelglass, her policies and her overt ambition, attacking her character much less her looks is no way to go. I think Bill has brought up a good point; the GW blogosphere is starting to be taken seriously by people, and there is no place (ideally) for such personal attacks and infantile gossip. If you can't criticize a person without resulting to ad hominem attacks that make you sound like Perez Hilton, then I suggest you take your commentary to blogs that deal in such superficial manners. Such attacks are no longer welcome on this blog and will be swiftly deleted.

Alright, since we all seem to be in the mood to talk about media at GW, I thought I would throw my thoughts into the mix. First, I think it's necessary to point out that President Aswani has, for all we know, done nothing scandalous outside of having a particularly hostile attitude toward a reporter who may have been behaving like a jerk. This situation raises some questions worth discussion--not the least of which is the propriety of such an attitude on the part of the S.A. President--but that discussion should be had with the understanding that, at worst, Vishal Aswani is guilty only of offending our sensibilities as members of GW's campus media (and, perhaps, the sensibilities of other students). No S.A. bylaw requires that, when a Hatchet reporter comes calling in the wee hours of the morning, Aswani has to pick up the phone and answer his questions.

That said, we would probably all prefer a President that was open to our examination and criticism through media. We want Aswani to do all that is practically possible to assist reporters and bloggers at GW--to be as transparent as someone who has nothing to hide (which seems to be the case). As Aswani himself admitted, "no matter how we feel about those campus media outlets…we all (myself included) still read them." A President with a cavalier attitude toward the press betrays a cavalier attitude toward the students that rely on the press for accurate, timely information about S.A. affairs.

There is a difference, however, between behaving like a diligent watchdog and behaving like a rabid, hunger-addled pitbull. At some point due diligence on the part of reporters becomes an ambitious attempt to gin up news where none (or little) existed in the first place. While it's difficult to determine the point at which this sort of behavior becomes "unethical" (much less "illegal," as Aswani alleges), it's a lot like profanity: we know overweening journalism when we see it. And we ought to demand more of ourselves (especially if we are GW's paper of record).

Overweening journalism takes many forms: interfering with the functioning of the Student Association, harassing S.A. officials, enabling scuzzy political posturing on the part of ambitious Finance Committee chairpersons, and dwelling on the produce of GW's perpetual-motion rumor mill.

And here, I come to the Patriot's place in all of this, because we've done a lot of that last thing in the past--even basked in it from time to time. I've defended it before as a portion of that due diligence we ought to display in watching over the Student Association. (Simply because a rumor is poorly substantiated doesn't mean that it ought not to be reported, especially when the subject of the rumor is of moment to student life and the S.A.) I was wrong, though, to offer such a broad defense of peddling in rumors. In truth, the Patriot values the individual contributions of its writers so much that we rarely ever write down universal guidelines to restrict our content. This is aided by the fact that we are all in general agreement about which questionable "stories" are worth posting (the rumor of the Bindelglass Presidential run), and which aren't (the FARCEFARCEFARCE messages). Perhaps it's time, as one commenter suggested, for us to actually say it out loud. We have self-control, but have lacked transparency and honesty with our readers.

The past few weeks have shown both transparency and self-control to be sorely lacking on the part of the press and Student Association officials. You, readers, have a right to expect improvement from all of us.

just a reminder;
The first General Interest Meeting for those wishing to get more involved with the Patriot is tonight at 7pm. We're meeting on the fourth floor of the Marvin Center next to the couches, be sure to bring any ideas that you think would be good for print.

• The Sarah Surge In Black And White
• The End Of Facts
• What Was Feminism?
  
• Is Mexico The New China?
• Kansas Looks For 50 cent tobacco tax increase. (Another failure waiting to happen)
• Why Bling Is A Bad Investment
• Triumph The Insult Comic Dog At The RNC (Video)
  

This is my fourth year at Our Fine University, and never before has such a hodgepodge of petty drama consumed the "major pillars" of campus life at GW: the Student Association and the Hatchet. Equally critical of both over the past few years, the Patriot is in an undeniably valuable position to offer commentary on the ugliness of the past couple weeks. Unfortunately, in our pursuit of the "News" with a capital "N", some of that may have been lost on our readers.

On one hand we have the SA, doing things that seem silly to those of us uninvolved (like numerous retreats where hundreds of dollars are spent, regardless of where the money comes from). While the SA's official position is that they have "nothing to hide," nearly everything they have done has suggested otherwise. Having spoken privately and off the record with several members of Vishal's cabinet, there has been plenty to hide if Vishal wanted GW students to think that "all is well." At one point, numerous cabinet members were poised to resign because of things going on in the SA.

That being said, no resignations were tenured. While the potential for an "explosive" scandal may have been present, it never came to fruition. Having settled this problem in whatever way he did, Vishal has most likely eliminated the chance of such a scandal, and whatever crimes may have motivated the writing of resignation letters, it would be foolish to expect these crimes to become known to the student body.

On the other hand you have the Hatchet. Convinced of its own greatness and its unimpeachable role as GW's Truth Protectors, they donned capes and flew into action, harassing SA officials at all hours of the night in order to get an out-of-context quote that they can then misreport. The fact that the Hatchet has received the national attention it has in the past has always shocked this writer. But whereas last year they settled for poor grammar in their headlines and sore-kneed submission to the student fee increase, this year they seem intent on creating a scandal and thrusting a power-hungry SA official (Bindelglass) into the role of reformer.

Despite Vishal's curious secrecy, the temporary subversion of a few cabinet members, and the Hatchet's own Truth complex, the sun rose this morning, as it will tomorrow and the next day. And after days of posting "maybe money is wasted here, maybe money is waster there," little can be pointed to as major overstretch by Vishal or his administration. We are left, instead, with what has been familiar to us since CI: misreporting by the Hatchet (Vishal spent executive funds and then reimbursed the account, not vice versa, as the Hatchet reported), the asinine habit of unimportant SA officials to pursue Rovian political advancement through non-news items (see: Bindelglass in the Hatchet piece and tell me her own political pursuits are not obvious), and SA tools using student forums to levy personal attacks upon one another between Senate meetings.

I guess there really is comfort in familiarity.

Over at the revamped and very cool looking Colonialist, Vishal has posted a response to all the controversy surrounding who paid for what and who got reimbursed for it during two SA "retreats" at the beginning of the year. The response, to be blunt, is whiny and unconvincing.

The post is little more than a passive-aggressive rant against Logan Dobson and an "overzealous and young reporter". A reporter who he claims was "harassing my team by calling them non-stop and physically hunting them down at times" to get to the bottom of this story; this is his justification for attempting to cover it up. Aswani actually has the gravitas to say that he actually did try to cover the incident up, but only to protect his staff from all those "overzealous" reporters doing " unethical...sometimes illegal" acts to get down to the bottom of a story.

Aswani ends his rant by talking about how "disappointed" he is that he had to spend his first post on his new sub-blog talking about this pesky little incident, and does the old " Oh come on folks, why does the media only ever report on the bad stuff?"bit. Personally the post had the opposite effect for me and instead of putting me back in the "approve" column for the Aswani administration, I am in and will most likely remain disapproving.

As if frat life at Our Fair University wasn't marginal enough, UPD is investigating a claim that the punch at a Tau Kappa Epsilon party was spiked with date-rape drugs. (I thought of about 4-5 terribly inappropriate jokes that I could insert here, but decided that discretion truly is the better part of valor.)

Those with long memories will recall that this isn't the first time the Tekes have been in hot water with the University.

• The US Trade Deficit: Another Non-Problem
• "Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters say encouraging economic growth in America is more important than closing the gap between the rich and poor, and the best way to do that is for the government to move out of the way."
• How To Save Detroit, And $50 Billion
• David Beckham's Effect on MLS Ticket Sales
  
• What Your Global Neighbors Are Buying
  

It seems that Senator Dobson has treaded into dangerous territory.
The SA attack dogs are out in full force going after Dobson's coverage of a seemingly harmless incident that Vishal and his minions have balloned out of control (read: here, here, here). Because of this, Dobson is getting some real gems in the comment sections, some of which are attacking him (and sometimes us YAY!) for not having "Journalistic integrity":

Anonymous said...

Isn't this the second time you published something and then later half retracted (under the guise of clarifying or "clearing up the air" as you put it) the post. I seem to recall a similar spanking after being called into boyers office. You walk a fine line being part of the SA and a blogger, but for our sake, please have the journalistic integrity to stand up for what you believe, and stick by it. If you're going to post A) uninformed or B) take it down after you meet some resistance, why should we bother read what in dobson land is a love child between temporarily true and half true?

...and...

"Gross allegations by anonymous sources are, largely, unacceptable."
Trying to keep track of shifting journalistic standards between here and the Patriot blog is quite the task.

....Bill jumps to our defense:

"Trying to keep track of shifting journalistic standards between here and the Patriot blog is quite the task."

I'd love to see evidence of how our "journalistic standards" have shifted.

Given, you know, that they haven't. At all.

Most of us in the GW blog community have learned to roll our eyes at those who wish to hide behind the highly journalistic blogger-name of "Anonymous". It is used just so those who wish to hide can say whatever they really want without having to worry about reprisal. While this may be seen by most as just a form of protection through freedom of speech, I just see it as cowards who like to take shots without ever having to answer or be held accountable for what they say, something Dobson nor us at the Patriot have the luxury of doing.

• Is China Really An Economic Threat?
• The Vision Of The Left
• The Harvard Economy
• "A six-year-old article mistakenly seen by Bloomberg financial news users yesterday reported the bankruptcy of United Airlines and triggered a massive sell-off that nearly obliterated the company's stock in a matter of minutes."
• UK Hiring Mini-Snitches
• A Letter From Hank Paulson On The Recent Taxpayer Purchase Of Fannie & Freddie (Satire)
  

Senator Dobson on the SA executive branch's erratic behavior already this year.

Word on the street is that the College Republicans are starting their own blog. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I can't seem to stop my eyes from rolling at the thought.

As Editor of the Patriot, I would like to preemptively (GOP style) welcome the CRs to GW's blooming blogosphere, and offer my sincerest hopes that the CRs will exhibit more intellectual curiosity and integrity than the party they represent.

So here I sit, doing my facebook thing, and in my periphery I see an ad labeled "College Republicans" with the description "Tired of America-bashing liberals?" Since the degeneration of the Right and the devaluation of the word "conservative" are two phenomena that interest me, I clicked and was greeted by the RNC's new effort to indoctrinate college students. The National Anthem started to play and I was greeted with these words:

At the College Republican National Committee we know which side we're on. If you're a proud American, and you're tired of America-bashing liberals, you're in good company...and you're in the majority. You might not see us on the nightly news, because it's not fashionable to salute soldiers in uniform, fly the flag, or sing the national anthem out loud, but we're out here, working for what you believe in.

Not all college students are America-bashing Liberals. If you'd like to hear more from the future leadership of the conservative movement, please sign up for the free newsletter from the College National Republican Committee. We're the future of America and we believe in the same things you do.

I'm not entirely sure where to begin. The recent Republican National Convention has had me thinking about Sinclair Lewis' superb "It Can't Happen Here" (especially after reading Justin Raimondo's post on TAC's blog).

If you haven't read it, find a way to get your hands on it, because it is excellent and as prescient as "1984". Demagoguery of the kind the RNC is using is what Lewis warns us against. He also warns that our inability to come to grips with our own crimes leads to a borderline-religious image of America, leaving her citizens open to manipulation by both the government and by those in power in the business world. America, like all nations of the world, has had its fair share of crimes, but don't tell that to the RNC. Lewis describes the vulnerability of the "Land of the Free":

"Why, there’s no country in the world that can get more hysterical—yes, or more obsequious!—than America. Look how Huey Long became absolute monarch over Louisiana. . . Listen to Bishop Prang and Father Coughlin on the radio—divine oracles, to millions. Remember how casually most Americans have accepted Tammany grafting and Chicago gangs and the crookedness of so many of President Harding’s appointees?. . . Remember the Kuklux Klan?. . . Remember our Red scares and our Catholic scares. . .and the Republicans campaigning against Al Smith told the Carolina mountaineers that if Al won the Pope would illegitimatize their children?. . .Remember how trainloads of people have gone to enjoy lynchings? Not happen here? Prohibition—shooting down people just because they MIGHT be transporting liquor—no, that couldn’t happen in AMERICA! Where in all history has there ever been a people so ripe for a dictatorship as ours!"

Is it unfashionable to salute or wave the flag? Of course not. That's why the two candidates compete to see which one can get the most "waving flag" backdrops and the most soldier photo-ops. Is it unfashionable to sing the national anthem? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands at baseball games everyday. This is pure partisanship and demagoguery on the part of the RNC. The Left may have race-baiting and class-warfare, but the Right now challenges the patriotism and loyalty of those on the Left and spouts nonsense about how the whole world is against them. Which is worse?

But don't listen to me. I'm just an America-bashing liberal.

Here is the latest from the InTrade Prediction Markets.

Obama

McCain

According to a source that is of some importance within the Student Association, Senator Julie Bindelglass (CCAS-U) is already looking to run for SA President next year. The source speculates that Bindelglass is currently in the process of looking for an issue she can attach her name to that will increase her notoriety on campus. The source claims that Bindelglass is specifically looking for bits of corruption (which being chair of the Financial committee shouldn't be to hard to find) to expose and use as part of a platform as a "reformer". One wonders what Bindelglass has to say about this little controversy ?

Srsly.

In other news: no governor has ever done anything more noteworthy than George "Segregation Forever" Wallace. Or maybe Pontius Pilate (who killed Jesus Christ). Except Pilate, (who definitely killed Jesus Christ, by the way) was more of a Prefect rather than a Governor, as far as we know. Did I mention that he freakin' killed Jesus Christ?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is your Presidential campaign. Revel in the muck and the mire.

• Obama Might Not Raise Taxes On The Rich (Andrew Roth over at the Club For Growth raises a great question: If Obama concedes that tax hikes hurt the economy, why even consider raising taxes in the first place?)
• Ms Palin's Pipeline
• Fannie, Freddie and You: What It Means To The Public
  
• Detroit's Blackmail Attempt
• China And Singapore Sign Free-Trade Agreement
• Plans For a Grocery Bag Tax In California