Here are two things I recently found out that aren't really worthy of a full post quite yet.

• Seems we have JuicyCampus 2.0 up and going, and there's already a herpes thread! More on this as it degrades.
  
• There's a rumor rumoring around the rumor mill that the EBK will be in attendance at tonight's SA meeting.EBK if you're out there let us know if you're coming!
  

At the beginning of September, a Hatchet columnist wrote about why the college ranking systems are dumb and how GW shouldn't let itself change because of them.

Okay, okay: once again, every other media outlet missed something. As juicily ironic it was to hear someone related to George Bush talking about how the size of government should be reduced, that's not the story here.

In arguably the most interesting moment of the evening [missed by the GW Hatchet report], Bush nigh endorsed underdog Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio.

If you're completely oblivious to the situation, Marco is the more conservative, younger, more charismatic candidate in the 2010 race. Not to mention he doesn't have one of those fake orange tans like moderate, Obama-loving Charlie Crist.

I saw Rubio speak here at GW last year - he was quite impressive and is a rising star in the conservative movement. He is a passionate, motivational and ideas-driven statesman who has already drawn interest as the conservative answer to Barack Obama.

So in response to a blunt question from Junior Moses Weisberg, "Will you endorse Marco Rubio?" Jeb responded "not yet."

Not YET. That's news. Jeb departed from his stated neutrality in the race, heaping praise on Rubio while deriding the NRSC's decision to endorse Charlie Crist, saying that their obsession with winning was purposeless.

Luckily for Marco Rubio, he doesn't need Jeb [yet] or the National Republican Senatorial Committee to destroy Crist in every straw poll so far and continue to gain support both in Florida and nationally.

Former Patriot EiC John McCormack is currently a writer at The Weekly Standard. He has done a bang-up job as of late covering campaigns, maybe a little too good of a job. John recently had the cops called on him by R-I-N-O candidate for congress Dede Scozzafava. The story is here. Bill Kristol backing his reporter up here.

Big ups John, taking the Patriot code of pissing people off to the big time!

Neither I nor, I think, anyone here at the Patriot is conceited enough to believe that GW President Knapp ever reads our little web publication. But I couldn't help but think, in a fit of self-importance, that President Knapp's recent editorial in the Hatchet was a little bit of a response to my writing of last week demanding a specific vision for GW.

Knapp certainly provides things resembling ideas in his piece, but I'm not sure I feel like I have any better sense of where the university is going after reading it. The closest he gets to something like an idea is this:

We must continue investing in student learning and experience, on campus and off, and we must increase our investment in the kind of discovery that will firmly establish our international stature. In short, we must increase what we invest in our students, our faculty, and the infrastructure that supports them both.

But these are pretty vague generalities. And why is it, exactly, that we need to spend more money in order to achieve greatness?

Knapp goes on to say that he wants to raise 60 million dollars to spend on these new projects. But why spend that money? By my extremely rough calculations, raising 60 million dollars from outside sources could reduce tuition for every student at this school by $3,000.

We are one of the most expensive schools in the country. Grand plans for new spending should take a back seat to affordability. And, for all Knapps talk of how wonderful our financial situation is, we shouldn't forget that GW is roughly a billion dollars in the hole.

So, President Knapp, I have some brief advice. Perhaps GW should focus on paying down its debts and reducing costs here at GW before we embark on grand new spending adventures to become the "world-class, 21st-century version of the university George Washington envisioned."

I know it's not glamorous to pay your debts and reduce tuition costs, and it might even get people mad at you. Certainly the editorial page editors over at the hatchet, endlessly clamoring for more services from the University, would not be happy with you. But it's the right thing to do.

And who knows? Maybe if GW students stopped graduating with crippling debt levels, they might be a bit more willing to donate to the alma mater. And with that money, you can build all the science centers your heart desires.

This past weekend I had the great fortune to go see Jon Stewart present at the Smith Center. I love the Daily Show and find its bashing of all sides of politics hilarious.

Needless to say he is quite different doing stand-up as opposed to the Daily Show. Nevertheless he was funny. He tended to stick to topics of politics and race. The former was unsurprising to me but the latter was quite surprising.

On the politics he mostly called for us to wait and give Obama a chance before passing judgment. Also, of course, there was the Bush bashing that is his staple. Nothing too new there.

The on race I thought it would be the liberal same old same old of whining and yelling at "whitey." He did in fact do this for most of his routine. Getting very disappointed I was suddenly shocked right near the end of the routine where he brought up the position I take on this. "Just get over it, you've had a lot of trouble yes, but get over it" was essentially what he said.

I was quite surprised to hear someone I considered very liberal say something of that sort about minorities and race. He even came from his own Jewish perspective with an example. To summarize more or less, he gave this example.

"If you are a Jew living in a majority Christian town and they want to put up a Christmas tree at Christmas, you don't need to insist a large menorah be put up as well. They are celebrating the birth of their savior, you are celebrating that the oil lasted a bit longer than you thought! Just get over it!"

I found this encouraging that he advocated for moving past all the horrible things that have happened in the past and just try to live peacefully with one another. There will be bigots and racists from every group. But most of us, in the end, just want to live a happy peaceful life regardless of our religion, race, or sex.

Apparently there was a carbon monoxide leak earlier this evening in the fishbowl, occurring around 11pm Sunday evening.

We got the news today that UPD Chief Dolores Stafford would be "retiring" as soon as her replacement is found. All that was missing was a pronouncement of a desire to spend more time for her family.

To engage in rampant speculation, this shouldn't really be too surprising. Chief Stafford has a mixed record in my estimation, which her rampant support for videotaping students at all times in the name of crime prevention scaring me as much as her advocacy for arming UPD heartens me.

But when you take a public stand on something as controversial as arming UPD and then the university rejects your idea, as GW did last year, it's really not too hard to see that a break-up was inevitable here. One hopes that the next UPD chief will have more of an ear to issues of student privacy.

In a move straight out of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, GW has a new 'green strategy'.

So, it seems that current Student Court Chief Justice Jen Goldstein has resigned from her seat on the PB executive board. . Three cheers to Goldstein for doing the right thing here and not allowing this situation to descend into a SA-tool led circus. As noted in the Hatchet post, there is going to be an ivestigation. The investigation doesn't involve whether or not Goldstein could hold both positions. The investigation is regarding whether anyone knew Goldstein held both positions and why nothing was done about it previously.

I'm glad that Chapman is investigating this. I had a feeling something fishy was going on when I got a few phone calls last week from some low-level SA tools asking me to play down the story. They also tried to feed me some information that turned out (by accident) to prove that not only did the SA execs know that Goldstein's position might be in violation of the rules, but that they were actively trying to cover up the entire situation.

So much for there not being a circus...I at least hope they have a trapeze artist.

You've probably read The Onion, America's most trusted news source. Well sometimes it can be good for a laugh, but what's even better is when a "real" news source ends up sounding like the Onion. Check out a recent Hatchet headline:

Man caught after sexual advances in Thurston



Is this something new in Thurston? Men making sexual advances?

... fail. Though, not as epic as other headline fails.

Today is Columbus Day. It is the day we as Americans, or even residents of the Western Hemisphere, commemorate the discovery of the new world by Cristobal Columbus. Recently, however, all the PC-whores have been condemning the day as a celebration of genocide and Evil White-Imperialism. I, of course, disagree with those who wish to talk down this extremely important day. Consider this: had Columbus not sailed the ocean blue (in 1492), where would be today? Some will argue that someone else would have discovered the Americas, and that may be true, but it is impossible to actually determine such.

For better or worse, Columbus's discovery is a pretty big reason why we are all here today. And if you don't like it, then consider what condition you would be in right now had your ancestors not heard of that brand new land called America...er...New Spain...er...Hispanola...whatever, you know what I mean.

So what does everyone else think? Is today a day that needs to be celebrated with a day off? Or was Columbus just another one of those racist, genocidal maniacs that we need to condemn for what they did to the New World?

We're now two years into the University Presidency of Steven Knapp. His predecessor, the larger-than-life SJT, was a transformational president with a firm goal: transform GW from a two-bit commuter school into a real, respected 4 year university. SJT was by no means a uncontroversial figure, but it is hard to argue that GW is not better off after his presidency.

So what of his successor? President Knapp, it seems, is utterly deficient of a comprehensive vision for this school. He proposes much but focuses on little, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to hope that we will emerge from his presidency better than we started it. But more important than that question is the feeling that has blossomed under his watch, a creeping feeling that this university isn't going anywhere.

President Knapp has called for a revitalization of the sciences at GW, with new faculty and new programs to go with it. But these efforts are expensive, and largely without purpose. GW has a reputation as a school for international relations and politics. Why attempt to pivot against our nature? Knapp has given no clear declaration of why GW needs to develop a scientific focus.

Knapp has similarly called for cost reductions for students. But he has provided no indication that he is willing to control the kind of spending that necessitates our high tuition. Costs of attendance have not gone down at GW since Knapp's presidency, they have risen. Continuing to provide more and more financial aid while expecting many others to pay an ever-increasing full tuition is not a solution; keeping down costs and realizing limits is.

Academics continue the plateau achieved during SJT's tenure, with advising continuing to be a topic of complaint. Our president has fiddled with the advising system, institution complementary programs like GPS in order to staunch the bleeding. But these are not solutions. GW needs a far closer look at its advising and academic problems, one that Knapp has been unwilling to give.

One may point to Knapp's record on green initiatives as a success story, and here in fact he has had some success. But this, after all, is a university. Having a green university is no substitute for a good university. Continuing to focus so much time and effort on green initiatives while so many problems exist at GW is, for lack of a better phrase, missing the forest for the trees.

Contrary to what an article like this might imply, I love GW. This school is too damn expensive to attend unless you love it. But we are suffering from a scattershot president who proposes much and follows through on little. Instead of focusing on the problems that need to be fixed, Knapp has insisted on solving problems that don't exist, like GW's science programs. GW needs a leader with enough presence of mind to see what this school really needs, and enough vision to see how to get there. Thusfar, Knapp has provided neither. I hope he acquires both.

While I am typically loathe to critique a random Hatchet op-ed, the asinine among which are a dime a dozen, the current issue published an interesting joint op-ed about the trials and tribulations of the LA City College's student newspaper.

October 7th, 2009 marks the 8th anniversary of U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan, and this Monday, Robert Gates and Hilary Clinton spoke on the issue at the well-attended event held in Lisner Auditorium. It would seem that anniversaries are a time to renew vows of commitment, even for military operations.

I was not among the GWU students who competed with our university’s resident hordes of ex-Clinton campaigners for a ticket to the Clinton/Gates event, which sold out within 30 minutes. But according to summaries of the event on CNN, Clinton and Gates promised a “long-term” commitment to Afghanistan:

"We're not leaving Afghanistan," [Gates] declared, adding: "There should be no uncertainty in terms of our determination to remain in Afghanistan and to continue to build a relationship of partnership and trust with the Pakistanis. That's long term. That's a strategic objective of the United States."

Hillary Clinton tried—and in my opinion, failed—to provide a distinction between the foreign policy objectives and strategies of the Obama and Bush administrations:

Clinton said a regional approach supporting both Afghanistan and Pakistan would help achieve the U.S. goals of defeating terrorists and protecting America and its allies around the world.
…
Clinton…said "people really have opened up to America again" since Obama succeeded Bush as president. "We're back to listening, we're back to engaging," she said in a dig at the past unilateralism under Bush.”

More rhetoric about “diplomacy” doesn’t change the fact that there is virtually no difference between Obama's and Bush's foreign policy--and certainly no difference between Obama’s Robert Gates and Bush’s Robert Gates. After eight years, we are facing ever-increasing casualties and troop levels, even as more and more Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan (56% of Americans as of the beginning of October). Who exactly is Clinton “listening” to?

I don’t think that all national military policy should be decided by national polling—and certainly not by international polling. But there should be a clear causal link between our continued involvement in a military operation and our national security, and we should never entangle so deeply in another nation’s destiny that we can make an unconditional promise that “we’re not leaving.”

Special prize to whoever posts a comment with the best caption. Bonus points for including what Michelle Obama and Julie Bindelglass are thinking while they pose for this glorious pic:

So, I think I'm ready to blow this one out of proportion and give it official "-Gate" status.
alternatives to GoldsteinGate are welcome.
I have gotten a few "anonymous" emails in the past few hours throwing varying opinions and SA lawstuff at me.
First we got Anon1 throwing more Constitution knowledge my way with this tidbit

Section 5. Student Court Membership A. The total membership of the Student Court shall be five (5), two (2) of whom must be undergraduate students at the time of appointment, and two (2) of whom must be graduate students at the time of appointment.
B. Students serving as judges on the Student Court shall be those registered for academic credit at The George Washington University. They shall not be on academic or disciplinary probation or suspension. They shall not be elected or appointed officers of the Student Association or any student organization.

From that it would seem pretty cut and dry. But then of course someone (anon2) brings up "Well, what about Brand Kroeger" to which I respond "Brand Kroeger is no longer a student" to which anon2 kinda sputters and asks why I didn't bring it up then...blahblahblah. Failing on that point, Anon2 sent me this (not so) little tidbit, regarding the SA Charter:

Jen like any other justice would be required to recuse herself from any and all issues regarding an organization that she is affiliated with. As a result her conflict of interest no longer is a conflict.
The constitution or the bylaws state that Student Court members cannot be Executive Board Members for any organization; however the Charter is higher than the Bylaws and the Constitution.
The Charter States: Article III Section A: Protect student rights, including those specified in the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities http://www.gwstudentassociation.com/files/2009/05/charter1.pdf

The Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: Article IV Section B Clause 1:The students of The George Washington University are free to organize and join organizations to promote their common and lawful interests, subject to University regulations. All members of a student organization must be currently registered students of the University. The fact of affiliation with any extramural association or national organization or political party, so long as it is an openly declared affiliation, should not of itself bar a student organization from registration or recognition. However, action may be taken to insure that the University does not, through the activities of campus student organizations, stand in violation of laws that place limits on campus political activities. The administration and faculty shall not discriminate against a student because of membership in any student organization meeting the conditions of this section. http://gwired.gwu.edu/dos/GuidetoStudentRights/

This in essence means that there can be no discrimination against a student based on their involvement in a Student Organization. The Constitution and the Bylaws are discriminating in saying that students cannot be in the SA if they hold an e-board position. Therefore students who hold e-board positions are allowed to hold positions within the SA, because otherwise it would be discrimination in violation of the SA Charter.

So now, I am thoroughly confused. It is against the Constitution for her to be in the SA Student Court, but not against the SA Charter? Did no one bother to look at this before writing either? None thought that this "non-discrimination" clause (which is vague to the point of irrelevance) might possibly conflict with a honest attempt to make sure that the Student Court is as influence free as possible? Me thinks this needs further investigation.

Jen Goldstein is one of the current ungrad justices on the SA Student Court.
Jen Goldstein is also the Political Affairs Chair for Program Board.

Is there a conflict of interest here? Some I have talk to you say yes, others say no.

Thoughts?

*Update*
The real conflict of interest lies where the Student Court has to deal with elections, which include elections for PB Chair and Vice-Chair.
From the Constitution:

C. The Student Court shall also have the jurisdiction to finally adjudicate Joint Elections Committee appeals from participants in Program Board and Marvin Center Governing Board elections, to the extent that the constitution of the Program Board or Marvin Center Governing Board, whichever is applicable, permits.

Two SA Senators have been suspended for failure to attend three consecutive committee meetings. Anthony Marenna and Brandon Feldman are the guilty parties.
*EDIT*
Apparently it is in the rules, and Baker/Ashida acted completely within their authority, however, I'm still not a fan of Mr. Baker. Ashida, he gets a pass for now.

So, there's that.

*UPDATE*
Apparently Marenna is going to take this to court, does he have a case? discuss.\

*ANOTHER UPDATE!!!!!!!**
Marenna took it to court, Ashida/Lifton pleased no contest (it seems my arch-nemesis Baker wasn't involved, so his slate is clean) and Marenna and Feldman will be back in the Senate tonight. We'll see how this goes.

The Hatchet picks up on the concern over the University's embarrassingly slow response time in informing students about the bomb scare on Tuesday. I posted on it on Tuesday. The Hatchet gets my thoughts on the subject but does the journalistic thing and asks the emergency management office, who hilariously calls the response time in informing the students, via InfoMail "very quick".

The Hatchet has the first story regarding the death of GW student Laura Treanor . The story points out something that was probably known by every bar-goer in DC, that Adams Mill was a place notorious for relaxed serving standards, especially when it came to underage patrons. There are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding the death of Laura Treanor. Namely who was the person (or people) allowing her to drink past a reasonable level. We know the where, it is time we know the who and subsequently the why. Unfortunately the parties responsible, who know who they are, probably will never come forward and admit their own fault. Combined with the University's infamous slow-footing, we and more importantly Laura Treanor's family, might never know what really happened that night.