College authorities have warned that CCTV will be installed at Lady Margaret Hall in an attempt to catch students allegedly stealing food, adding that anyone caught could face rustication and possible police action.
Posters put up in the Hall on Wednesday and signed by Head Porter Lawrence Le Carré warned, “Someone has been taking food which has been purchased by other students…I have been invited by a delegation of students to catch this person. If you are caught it could well end in you getting rusticated and not getting a degree. This may well ruin your ambitions in life and get you a police record.”
Despite claims that they were “invited by a delegation of students,” the posters have been criticised for being put up without the JCR Committee’s knowledge.
Sports Rep James Ibbertson-Price said, “I think this is pretty invasive. They should have told the JCR Exec about this first and we could have talked to everyone about it. Stealing food is something which we can work out ourselves without resorting to this sort of thing. And I also doubt the University would appreciate thousands of pounds being spent on cameras just to stop people stealing food.”
Former JCR President David Tan also criticised the College’s failure to consult students, and he warned that their actions would have negative repercussions. “Even if food is being stolen, colleges are supposed to operate on a level of trust and I don’t think CCTV is right or necessary. There was a backlash against Hertford JCR when they tried to put up cameras in the JCR, so I’d imagine the same would happen here,” he said.
Students agreed that they did not see food theft as a particularly big problem in LMH. JCR Exec member Freddie Williams said it was no more serious than in any other college. “If he’s [Le Carré] just doing this on the basis of a couple of people stealing food from communal kitchens that’s pretty petty. You’re always going to get a couple of people nicking a bit of bread or something in any college, but this just seems unnecessary,” he said.
In an email sent out to LMH students on Wednesday night, JCR President Marlene Cayoun condemned the College’s failure to notify them of the scheme. “Although taking peoples’ food is never good, we can’t have people making threats as to the consequences of it on the part of the College or the JCR without their approval,” she said.
Le Carré claimed he had typed posters at the request of a group of students complaining about food theft. “I have not put up any posters. I was asked to type some stuff up for a group of students, I just typed what they wanted,” he said.
Le Carré added that the threats made in the posters were designed as scare tactics rather than real measures. “We have no intention of putting up any cameras,” he said. “The students concerned wanted to frighten the thief. Everyone makes such a song and dance about us not doing enough to stop thieves, and when we take do take action they make a song and dance about it. There are no cameras and the thief is free to steal what he or she wants,” he said.
Junior Dean John Stokl admitted that he was aware of the posters, adding that no such action would have been taken without the approval of the College. 
Cayoun encouraged students to come to the JCR Exec with their problems rather than reporting them to the porters. “It makes our job much easier if you approach us with these issues before heading to the lodge,” she said. “If any student feels their property is not properly protected, we will of course look into possible solutions as a JCR.”
She also hoped that the incidents would not affect the College reputation, saying, “Isolated instances do need attention but shouldn’t be taken to represent the general picture at LMH.”
Other students were sceptical that the threats were entirely serious. “It’s quite an extreme thing to do, but I really doubt they’re going to kick people out of uni just for stealing a packet of crisps,” one first-year student said.

Oxford 1 – 10 Cambridge WITH convincing wins against Exeter, Bristol and Bath behind them, the Blues Women’s Lacrosse team were prepared for a tough match this week in the University Parks, as they played host to their Varsity rivals. But despite having an equal share of possession, they could not have anticipated the reality check they were dealt when on the final whistle they had only one goal to their name.
When Cambridge shot out of the blocks to go 2 goals up after just 5 minutes, the girls in dark blue realised that victory would entail a fight from start to finish. However, some loose passing and turnovers against them at the beginning of the game undermined good work done in defence. After saving the first Oxford shot, a Light Blue fast break clinched them a third goal, asking questions of Oxford’s communication in defence. After their coaches called a timeout, the home side jogged back onto the pitch with renewed resolve, but unfortunately this did not translate into a score, as the attacks settled into rather flat play, inviting Cambridge to turn over, leading to a sustained attack around the Oxford goal and a fourth score for the visitors.
Not long before half-time, captain Els Sobczyk gave Oxford an early lifeline from the goal, pulling off a great save to redeem the score margin, and Claire Strauss made an excellent tackle on a Cambridge player’s shot to suspend Cambridge’s goal flurry. This seemed to lift the players  somewhat; after speedy first-year Leah Templeman flew past countless players in midfield to create a break for the Blues, Oli Valner linked up in attack and finally put Oxford on the scoreboard, deftly nudging the ball past the goalie, the post and into the back of the net.
With an appetite for goals, Oxford’s attack picked up pace, and Kate Hobday ran off a well-placed pick which Emma Readman had sprinted up from defence to set, only to see her shot skim the outside of the post. With the half-time whistle signalling a much-needed break, Oxford seemed to be back in the game, despite being 3 goals down.
Valner and Templeman looked dangerous around the Cambridge goal at the beginning of the second half. However, when the ball was turned over and play swiftly changed ends, Oxford’s defence was caught without a player marking the post and Sobczyk was given no chance against a precision-angle shot from a player running from behind the goal.
 In response to Cambridge’s re-applied pressure, the home attacks ran some set-plays, but some unusually slow stickwork and good hustling by the Cambridge goalkeeper, both in and out of goal, denied them a score.
Despite assertive defence from Rosie Price and Strauss who were forced to make two more checks on players mid-shot, the fast paced game Cambridge had chosen to play was working, and a sustained period of attack and sharp passing were rewarded with more goals. When the score reached 8-1 another Oxford timeout was called, but with 13 minutes left to play it would require something extraordinary for them to turn the game around.
Despite inevitable tiredness at the end of a very physical game early in the season, the Dark Blues did not give up, and the last quarter saw some of the most linked passes of the match. Amy Jordan was instrumental in some promising attacks on goal, and on most occasions it was the frustratingly good play of the Light Blue goalkeeper that prevented Oxford from scoring, as there was no lack of shots. When she decided to stray from her circle on a trip behind goal, Sophie Caulfield and Valner’s aggressive tackling raised spectators’ hopes as they seemed determined to secure another goal for their team.
It was not to be, however, and despite dominating the last few centre draws, Oxford did not have the consistency or finishing ability to match the Cantabs on this occasion. With inevitable complacency in the Cambridge camp, the road to Varsity will be bumpy for the Dark Blues. But glimpses of potential and impressive determination in the face of defeat suggest that this contest is by no means over.

St John’s College has been criticised after deciding to close its main kitchen next term, with students claiming that Americans on summer courses were being put ahead of students doing ‘proper degrees’.
Susan Hendrickson, Domestic Secretary for St John’s JCR, said the College’s decision to not postpone refurbishment until the summer vacation so as not to inconvenience American visiting students had proved unpopular.
“That’s a big sore point,” she said. “It’s annoying for students but the College said it did not want to inconvenience those tenants who stay over the summer, who are Americans who come back every year to do summer vacation courses. It’s a bit annoying in that we’re here to do proper degrees and they’re here to do summer courses, but its not going to ruin our term.”
The College hopes to have completed the upgrading of catering facilities for the start of Trinity Term, and in the meantime plans to use alternative smaller kitchens in the Garden quadrangle.
The reduced capacity of facilities means formal hall has been cancelled for next term, although informal hall will continue to be provided with extended opening times.
Hendrickson claimed that the College had made inadequate contingencies for the reduced capacity now available by extending informal hall.
“We do have another kitchen facility. It’s a smaller capacity and is not designed to feed four hundred people three times a day. So they are looking at increasing meal times and using reheated food,” she said.
Anthony Boyce, Principal Bursar at St John’s, said the College said it had planned the refurbishment to minimise disruption to the students and had consulted fully with the JCR and MCR.
“The refurbishment has been delayed by a full year to ensure that all of our alternative arrangements are in place when the work begins,” he said. “The JCR and MCR have been fully consulted over the plans, to ensure that any potential problems and difficulties could be identified and minimised.”

Club of the Year
Kickboxing
Judo
Basketball
Cycling
Women’s Lightwieght Rowing
FencingTeam of the Year
Women’s Hockey Blues
Rugby League
Women’s Netball BluesSportswoman of the Year
Frances Smithson
(athletics, multieventer)
Martine Bomb
(athletics, sprinter)
Hannah Bowe
(hockey)
Beth Wild
(hockey, cricket)
Rachel Hughes
(cycling, triathlon)
Rebecca Bayliss
(judo)
Justine Aw
(fencing)Sportsman of the Year
Dave McGaw
(cycling)
Richard Hildick-Smith
(swimming, modern pentathlon)
Matthew Dodwell
(fencing)

AS Michaelmas term hits its stride, swathes of fresh-looking university sports teams are taking shape. Every year clubs face the daunting task of trialling, selecting, cohering and competing in a far shorter period of time than at any other university.
One wonders sometimes how Oxford’s legions of competitors do as well, nationally, as they do. Balancing the multiple commitments of work and life and compressing the experiences of their peers into eight week terms, our captains and coaches somehow continue to produce teams that take on the best that student sport in this country has to offer – and win.
As the Sports Federation collates nominees for its prestigious awards ceremony, it’s now that the teams and individuals that have set their sporting scene alight get the recognition they deserve. The most high-profile amongst these are the Sportsman and Sportswoman of the Year gong; draped in BUSA gold medals, international honours, Varsity winning credentials and receiving the approbation of their nominating club committees, this section of our sporting demographic is special indeed. 
The question of who is to succeed Jonathan Blackledge as Sportsman of the Year is a pressing one. Blackledge sets a daunting precedent, having won the award for two years running. This athlete and cross-country runner won BUSA and non-student national competitions over the same distance and won the domestic Premier League with his club. Such a plethora of individual and team achievements was necessary for him to edge the other nominees to the prize for two consecutive years.
This year, the cycling and fencing clubs have provided the bulk of the nominees and again the field is strong, but it’s among the women that the competition looks fiercest. Last year’s victor, sprinter Martine Bomb, is again nominated after another sensational season on the domestic and international circuit and her club-mate Frances Smithson (06/07 Athletics Blues captain and competitor in high jump/triple jump/100m relay events) also looks a strong contender.
Smithson’s individual prowess at BUSA, Varsity and in the AAAs matches speaks for itself but her club recognises in her a personal fortitude and captain’s zeal.  As the closest ever Varsity victory was sealed this year, the team nominated her for this award as testament to the gamut of achievements, individual and motivational, which can combine to make a potential Sportswoman of the Year. 
Elsewhere in this category, the nominations have thrown up another interesting pairing as former housemates Beth Wild and Hannah Bowe also vie for recognition. They played alongside one another for the women’s hockey Blues and were both key players in this squad, nominated for “Team of the Year”. Bowe has managed to rack up a succession of senior international caps for Ireland in a string of high-profile games. As well as being selected among the best of the Irish best, she helped mastermind the girls’ BUSA Premier League victory and the subsequent run that saw Oxford placed in the top 4 of students nationally, scored in Varsity and even flew home to Ireland play for her local Gaelic football side in their national final! Bowe described her senior call-up after a gruelling trialling period as “a welcome relief – in hindsight what I did as regards training, travel and two or three tutes a week while still insisting on having a social life was probably a bit absurd but I was lucky enough to reap the benefits.” Beth Wild was among the top scorers during the same campaign and is also feted for her achievements in cricket – she has been part of the England squad for a number of years and is known for her prodigious batting on the Oxford women’s side. She is also the first female member of the Oxford UCCE setup but relishes being in a minority, saying “the setup in Oxford has been brilliant, very supportive, and challenging, since I constantly have to test my skills against the boys – this can ultimately only be a benefit for my game.”
The juxtaposition of the Athletics club’s internationally-acclaimed starlet and its inspiring captain, plus that of two friends who formed the most devastating Oxford hockey partnership in years, makes for an exciting contest. Rachel Hughes of the cycling club (multiple BUSA-medallist, record-holder and last year’s runner up to Bomb), Rebecca Bayliss of judo (1st Dan black belt, British Judo and BUSA silver medallist, reformist club President) and Justine Aw of fencing (top 8 BUSA, winner of national senior Slough Open) make up a scintillating panel of nominees. Nearly 300 guests at this year’s Sports Federation Ball will be privy to the identity of the winner on 22nd November, which will surely be tough to decide, given the relative merits of all the contenders.

by Fraser RaleighA calm week in Frewin Court; nice for the Union to know there can still be such a thing. Kate Denham introduced the debate, speaking clearly, logically and entertainingly and demonstrating the problems within the education system effectively if slightly simplistically with a bowl of apples and the puns to go with it. Andrew Marshall for the opposition was calm and self-assured, delivering his ripostes eloquently and speaking of the inequalities that grammar schools propagate.

First of the invited speakers, Graham Brady MP, who resigned from the Shadow Cabinet because of the internal row over grammar schools, shifted the blame on education away from selective schools to independent ones and re-iterated the statistics demonstrating the academic achievements of grammar schools.

Keith Bartley conceded that the schools worked but that the system itself was rotten, focussing on the flaws in the 11+ to the detriment of fleshing out the case against the record of grammar schools and failing to provide evidence for his claims regarding impinged social mobility.

After the unusual spectacle of a sitting President making a brief speech for the proposition in the floor debate Chris Woodhead, former head of Oftsted and David Jesson closed the debate for the proposition and opposition respectively. The two were the most enlightening of the debate as they both spoke fluently with minimal notes, bringing pure knowledge and experience as their main weapon. Woodhead talked passionately about the way grammar schools can be socially beneficial, cleverly separated the current 11+ exam from selective education as a whole and claimed that it was independent, not comprehensive schools that benefited from the abolition of grammar schools. Jesson was similarly erudite and unlike the rest of the opposition provided some convincing statistical evidence against selection.

While entertaining and informative, however, the question of class was too casually and broadly bandied about during his speech, and the debate as a whole, without allowing for the subtleties that exist in reality. Overall however the debate was intellectually stimulating, well informed and unspectacular; short, sharp and back to basics.

by Lizzie PatonShoes are controversial. For some they are simply necessities of practicality and convenience but for others, particularly women, they can be used as a means of projecting an idealised identity. For an object that gets trodden into the dust every day, these pieces of clothing are awarded unusual significance. They function as objects of deified beauty, worthy of worship and synonymous with elegance, high glamour and full-throttle sex appeal. They have the power to elevate us to the personality we want to be.

  Frivolous and fanciful notions perhaps, but try telling that to Cinderella or the Old Woman who lived in a shoe: these ladies’ domestic and marital destinies were shaped by their choices of footwear. The modern age fairytale ‘Sex and the City’ warned us of the financial perils of an unchecked ‘substance abuse problem’ as showcased by Carrie Bradshaw and her $40,000 debt as a result of her ‘needs’. An addiction to designer shoes can result in a seriously undignified fall from grace, made all the more painful by the dizzying heights experienced when it comes from the seductive edge of a Manolo Blahnik jewel encrusted four-inch stiletto.

Dangerous female obsession with shoes is not just the stuff of myth. Why for the sake of a few paltry scraps of leather would a girl throw herself deep into debt, as many undoubtedly have? Simply because they have a limitless potentiality as an expressive force. Yves Saint Laurent told Coco Chanel that “one look at the shoes told him all he needed to know about a woman”.

Many agree with him that they give a more accurate reflection than clothes. For whilst they share clothing’s ebbs and flows of seasons and indeed centuries, a beautiful boot or ballet pump is not subjected to all of the same constraints – it has no tubby thighs to flatter, no bingo wings to conceal. Praise be to the simple transmutability of a shoe, allowing you to be truly ‘fashionable’. Fashion is knowing yourself, what you live for and what works for you. You can embrace this all with your footwear, allowing it to do the talking as well as the walking with loud colours and bold designs or understated elegance and simplicity of shape.

   For me however, the joy of these items of pedal creativity is we can put on and take off varying personalities with the same ease and regularity as we do the shoes themselves. Think about the serious sex appeal and allure of a stiletto; they change the way you move, causing the wearer to walk in a more sensuous way. The body is also accentuated; heels thrust the hips and breasts forward, rounding off the derriere, making it seemingly more appealing. No wonder the right shoe can be seen as so erotic and empowering. All those teasing curves and tantalizing arches, preoccupied with revealing and concealing the delicacy of the female foot over her male counterpart, culminating in the titillating possibility of every shoe fetishist’s fantasy: toe cleavage.

According to thousands of women, the high heel is the ultimate weapon of sexual liberation, the pleasure afforded by them far outweighing the occasional pains of those pesky blisters and toe cramps. Shoes will always be noticed by members of sexes, however fleetingly, thus their influence should never be underestimated. Just think about the horror of socks and sandals, the prospect of which certainly leaves me quaking in my (caramel leather perfect for winter) boots.

Of course, I am aware that there are a fair few who disagree with me on the positive boosts and influence the shoe can bring to your life. I’ve heard lamentations that sex in high heels is the biggest of disappointments for men. Rather than a seductive prowl across satin sheets in skimpy attire, more often that not it involves tears to the duvet in the dark and an accidental prod of a four inch heel into the upper thigh region. One scarred sufferer described the “drunken stumbling of the previously revered resembling that of a physically challenged hamster.” How disappointing.

Gloria Steinem, the iconic feminist of the 1960s used the high heel as the embodiment of repression of women, famously stating, “If the shoe doesn’t fit, must we change the foot?” It is hard to reconcile the fabulous image of a gilded ‘Choo’ with the suggestion that shoes can in fact equally be wielded as tools of social oppression. The traditional Chinese practice of foot-binding, as well as the 3000 pair collection of Imelda Marcos, the former First Lady of the Philippines, serve as stark reminders that footwear can also reflect serious issues. In these cases, the pattern of the print and length of the heel are unimportant when placed in the context of human suffering. The 21st century has brought many topics of debate to the forefront of fashion, be they labour rights for the third world or anti-fur campaigns. I can only hope that shoes have skipped away from the darker and disreputable elements of their past towards a more optimistic and light-hearted future. It is time to ask not what you can do for your shoe, but what your shoe can do for you…

Stanley Ho
Hong Kong gambling tycoonIn May 2007, the University accepted a £2.5m donation from Hong Kong billionaire Stanley Ho, who has previously been investigated by the US government for suspected money-laundering and links with organised crime.
Ho, an Asian entrepreneur who made his $7bn fortune running Macau’s gambling industry, announced that he was funding a new University Lectureship in Chinese History at a dinner attended by Vice-Chancellor John Hood.
Nicknamed the “King of Gambling” in his native China, his company controlled a government monopoly on the gambling industry in Macau for forty years between 1962 and 2002.
Attempts to expand his gambling businesses have drawn the attention of foreign governments. In 1999 he invested $30m opening a new capital in North Korea’s capital Pyongyang, next to the Korean Workers’ Party headquarters. Ho was the first to tell the media in March 2003 that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was offering political asylum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
In September 2005, the Wall Street Journal reported that a number of US government agencies were investigating Seng Heng Bank, of which Ho is Chairman and Managing Director, for suspected links to criminal syndicates that were helping to finance North Korea’s nuclear programme.
In 1990, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police report on Asian Organised Crime listed Stanley Ho as a member of the Kung Lok Triad gang and allocated him gang-file number 89-11770. He was subsequently refused Canadian casino licences, withdrawing one application when Canadian officials opened an investigation and having others turned down for reasons which the government did not disclose.
A 1992 US Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs report found that while Ho was “not known to be involved in organised crime”, he had “some connection to organised crime figures” including former business partner and prolific gambler Yip Hon.
Ho denied any links to organised crime, when a spokesperson told Cherwell, “Dr Ho strenuously denies that he is involved in organised crime and has never been charged by any authorities anywhere. Furthermore, STDM [Ho’s gambling company] has historically co-operated with the Portuguese authorities in Macau in fighting against crime and triad activities.”Wafic Said
Syrian arms dealer
A £23m donation from former Syrian arms dealer Wafic Said in July 1996 led to the establishment of the Said Business School, located on Park End Street, in 2001. Said became a billionaire after brokering arms purchases for the Saudi Arabian government during the 1970s and 80s, overseeing the kingdom’s annual multi-billion dollar weapons imports.
After moving to Saudi Arabia in 1969 and establishing a design and consultancy firm, Said was awarded numerous construction contracts, many of which were related to defence. He later became Saudi defence minister, and in 1986 signed the ‘Al-Yamamah’ arms deal with the British government, purchasing over $30bn worth of arms equipment and services from British Aerospace and other defence firms for the next decade. Allegations appeared in the media that various prominent British figures were being paid large commissions illegally on arms contracts.
In July 1996, Said offered Oxford University £23m for a new business school. After congregation voted against proposals to build the new business school on a University playing field, the University proposed to build the new complex beside the city’s Victorian railway station. The application process  was expected to take months following a lengthy inquiry and consultation period.
However, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office personally intervened to speed approval for the business school’s planning application. Despite massive protests from students, staff and members of the local community, the building went ahead and the Said Business School opened on 5 November 2001.
The School intends to construct an additional building on the Park End Street site. Said has agreed to donate a further £15m to fund the building, with the remaining funds for the building coming from an as yet unnamed donor.Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud
Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia
Oxford University accepted a  “munificent benefaction” of £2m from the Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia in 2005, establishing the Ashmolean Museum’s Gallery of Islamic art and 10 Oxford scholarships for Saudi Arabian students.
Senior dons called the University’s motives into question after the signing of a “Memorandum of Understanding” with Prince Sultan University in May 2006, supposedly on the “basis of mutual assistance and the furthering of academic study and understanding” between the two universities.
One senior Oxford staff member told the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES), “I think it is short signed to give the impression to a donor that his donation has bought collaboration.”
Another senior University member raised concerns about signing a memorandum with the little-known Prince Sultan University. “This deal sounds very worrying,” he said. “Prince Sultan University is not an internationally reputable institution. It is unclear what the terms of this deal are, but what benefit Oxford gets from it and how it was concluded is extremely puzzling. It will be interesting to know what the University Council made of it, if they knew about it.”
The agreement’s academic value was accused of being undermined by the absence of signatures from either the Vice-Chancellor or Registrar. One academic told the THES, “This is deeply problematical. The academic case for this is entirely obscure. It looks like the partnership has been bought and signed for on behalf of the University by the development office, bypassing academic monitoring.”
In November 2006, a University spokesperson told Cherwell, “These things don’t necessarily need to go through Council or Congregation. This one didn’t. It was picked up on at the time, and now it has been. There’s nothing sinister about it.”The Flick family
German industrialists
The millionaire grandson of a German who was jailed as a Nazi war criminal withdrew his sponsorship of an Oxford University professorship after a campaign by University staff and members of the Jewish community.
Gert Rudolph Flick removed his £350,000 endowment in April 1996, designated for a chair in Human Thought at Balliol College.
In a letter to Sir Peter North, then the University’s Vice-Chancellor, Flick thanked the University for its “unwavering support, for which I will always be grateful…It has been an honour to be associated with Oxford University but, nevertheless, I hope that you will understand my position and will concur with my wishes.”
The chair was originally created as an enterprise by two wealthy businessmen of Jewish origin, publishing magnate Lord Weidenfeld and General Electric Company chairman Sir Ronald Grierson.
Critics accused Flick of using his wealth without any sense of guilt or responsibility, claiming it was derived from “dirty money”. His grandfather, Friedrich Flick, is alleged to have used slave labourers in munition factories during the Second World War. He was convicted of war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials and served three years of a seven year prison sentence.
Having rebuilt his business empire following his imprisonment, he died in 1972 as one of the world’s wealthiest men. In 1983, it emerged that his son, Friedrich Karl Flick, had reduced his tax liabilities by bribing German politicians, leading to a government scandal and the resignation of minister for economic affairs Otto Graf Lambsdorff.
Friedrich Flick died in October 2006 as the wealthiest person living in Austria. The Flick family has continued to refuse to pay compensation to wartime victims.

I apologize for the hiatus—the week’s events in Pakistan, where my family has relatives and friends, has my life a bit topsy turvy and my brain all full of political venom. This is not an international affairs blog so if you want my thoughts on the emergency martial law, visit my other blog, The Internationalists.

In the technology and culture world, it’s actually been a lighthearted couple of weeks, and there’s one very amusing incident I’d love your thoughts on. Stephen Colbert, the American comedian, is running for President.

For those of my British readers who don’t know him, Colbert plays an alterego on television [this of the Ally G persona relative to the real Sascha Cohen]. Colbert’s alter ego is a nightly news anchor on a fake news show called The Colbert Report, where he satirizes the sensationalism and self-aggrandizement that passes for journalism these days. He brings on real political guests and media personalities, then makes a farce of them in interviews. He has fake correspondents delivering false news reports that put a satirical twist on real current events.

For a while, everyone thought this was mostly a joke on the politicians and the state of American politics, but Colbert has a serious critique of contemporary media in mind. When the White House Press Corps (the group of reporters from all the major papers and news channels who cover the President) asked him to speak at their annual dinner last year, he took not only the President, but the reporters themselves to task .

This year, he announced that he would himself seek a nomination for the Presidency. So far, he hasn’t found a state willing to put him on the ballot. But what interests me is that at first he was trying to make his case outside mainstream media, to go along with his critique that mainstream media is an arm of the sick beast called contemporary politics. He was asking for support via a Facebook group and web campaigns and of course, his show.

Last week, however, I found that Mr. Colbert had published an Opinions article in the New York Times asking for supporters. What does it say that the man who’s made all his fame telling us how worthless the political system and the media are has to use old mainstream media to get himself on a mainstream political ticket to make any change?

Colbert would probably say the joke is on the Times, because they have had to grant him a place to speak up, allowed him to infiltrate. But I think the joke is ultimately on Colbert: his article begins with the fact that real Times columnist Maureen Dowd asked him to write. This is the stroke of genius that keeps the NYTimes afloat in this era of new, online media. The paper basically tells the Colbert’s of the world that their critique is fine and welcome, so long as it happens within the Times’ pages. Without agreeing with Colbert’s argument (which would amount to disavowing the Times’ own history that Colbert critiques), the paper incorporates his criticism and ensures that the debate about the mainstream press will still have to happen within the mainstream press.

Stephen Colbert—are you playing with the cat, or is the cat playing with you?