Kevin Gentry of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation was kind enough to include my take on the role of online fundraising in his “Fundraising Tip of the Week” e-mail:

Direct mail and new media are complementary and reinforce one another.  Even with the best online fundraising campaign, you’d still be leaving money on the table without an offline component, just as with the best direct mail campaign you’d be forgoing funds without an online effort.

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the New York State Assembly, argue in today’s New York Times that the World Trade Center “redevelopment process was always intended to be a public-private collaboration.” They urge the Port Authority, the public agency that owns the site, to further assist with the project’s finances. Another government agency, the joint city-state Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, is also involved in the redevelopment.

Aside from mere symbolism, however, why should taxpayer money be spent to plan and construct a private office building that fairly clearly nobody wants to build? After all, if there were really demand for a 100-story skyscraper, then private financing would be forthcoming.

• Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) takes an unpopular yet important stand against deficit spending. Will his colleagues stand with him?
• Not only is the winning design for the new U.S. embassy in London embassy horribly ugly, but so are all the runners-up. Why do so many architects think their buildings have to eschew traditional design conventions to be any good?
• Simon Heffer offers some unkind words about the man who could be Britain’s next prime minister (maybe). “Cameron shifts easily on such issues because he has very few principles, other than his belief in himself as prime minister. If it is feasible one day to reward marriage through the tax system, he will do so. If it is not, he won’t really care less. Such is the mindset of the former public relations man, whose elastic intellect can be placed on whatever side of whatever argument.”
• And last but not least, Wired’s article about Google’s algorithm provides not only a fascinating look at search technology but an interesting case study of an organization that consistently innovates.

• Secretary of Defense Gates criticizes European governments for failing to provide adequately for their own defense. But it’s little wonder that they don’t manage these things themselves when the United States has for so long offered a security guarantee.
• There’s a major flaw in carbon-trading schemes, Jeremy Warner argues: no wealth is actually being created by these trades. “Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one.”
• The Obama administration has devised a new way to save money: stop subsidizing banks that offer student loans. Fair enough. The New York Times reports, however, that the government intends to continue funneling taxpayer money to schools and students and spend the “savings” from the subsidies elsewhere: “the savings would be used to aid early-childhood education, community colleges and needy college students.” Another way to save taxpayers money would be to, you know, not spend it.
• An Ohio clergyman suggests that lawmakers shouldn’t live in housing affiliated with religious organizations. Why? The Washington Post says “he called it a matter of church-and-state separation, with this a potential example of undue church influence on government through members of Congress.” Of course, the First Amendment was crafted to keep government out of religion — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – not to keep religion out of government.
• And last but not least, George Will offers his entertaining take on the state of the world at CPAC:

• Jonah Goldberg points out the obvious flaw in the left’s critique of the filibuster: “Of course the filibuster is undemocratic. This is not some bombshell revelation. And yet in indictment after indictment of the filibuster — and the Senate generally — you hear people level the ‘undemocratic’ charge as if it should be dispositive. The Senate was never intended to be all that democratic.” Besides, the left’s attack on the filibuster is opportunistic and politically-motivated, just like the GOP’s similar argument in the 2005 debate over judicial nominees. The filibuster may thwart the “will of the people” at times, but the Founders were right to understand that this isn’t always a bad thing.
• In an astounding letter in the Financial Times, Manfred Körner argues that green policies aren’t really about climate change at all but rather about achieving the left’s economic agenda. “Leaving the scientific issue aside,” he writes, “climate change advocates have built the necessary broad emotional and moral thrust behind the issue to make economic change acceptable and awaken a sense of urgency.” Still more astoundingly, he audaciously cites Joseph Schumpeter to make the case for such economic policies — never mind that Schumpeter’s concept of “creative destruction” is premised on individuals freely choosing their own paths, not command-and-control bureaucracies.
• And last but not least, Google has unleashed Google Buzz, a social media aggregator that plugs into GMail. David All points me to Robert Scoble’s pessimistic take on the new product. I’m less sure it’s doomed to mediocrity. For one thing, it’s built right into Google’s widely-used e-mail program, which is widely and frequently used.