Okay, so, you have a winter boyfriend (or girlfriend), you have a cold snap, you have a warm place to be close, and you have nothing to do for the weekend. What next?

For years, Twitter has been terrorized by the ponderous musings of a person pretending to be a fridge in the offices of The New York Times. When will we learn its identity?

Remember: Gawker is trying out a new publishing format. Read about it here. Happening across the Gawker blogs: Review How Disney's Into the Woods Manages to Stay True to Sondheim | Defamer Jessica Chastain Reveals Beautiful Ex-Face On Instagram | Newsfeed "Totally Urbanized" Dog Takes Bus to the Park All by Herself

Spot the difference!

Critics haven't been especially kind to Disney's adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's musical Into the Woods. But children will listen.

Defamer "Fuckkkkkk Yasssssss" Says Miley Cyrus, Baring Her Nipples to God | Justice Like Everything in Brooklyn, the Nets Are For Sale, Too Expensive | TKTK There's a Hidden Dick on the New Charlie Hebdo Cover | Newsfeed Montana Cop Breaks Down in Tears After Shooting Unarmed Manhttp://gawker.com/how-to-read-ga...

Three essays from American public school teachers.

Are you a successful rap artist with millions of fans and a gold record under your belt? Might pot be 2 blame? Nancy Grace is on the case.

Grace invited 2 Chainz on her show Tuesday night to debate the dangers of marijuana consumption. Instead, as she is wont to do, Grace spent the segment attacking him from every angle. It was, if possible, even funnier than it sounds.

Here's Grace, a former prosecutor who once tried actual cases, taking on lyrics from Feds Watching...

2Chainz response to Nancy Grace yelling his lyrics at him is 💯💯💯💯💯💯 https://t.co/F4eRpFziMD

— Brian Floyd (@BrianMFloyd) January 14, 2015

...Attempting to drown 2 Chainz inside her seemingly infinite well of disdain...

NANCY GRACE SAID IT RT @BrianMFloyd that's it show is over shut it all down https://t.co/9odjAaQ1cp

— CJ Fogler (@cjzero) January 14, 2015

...And challenging 2 Chainz' accessories game on Twitter.

.@2chainz you're on. I'm gonna talk u out of this pot thing. Ps. I don't think that's a real rolex u have on. #Pot2Blame?

— Nancy Grace (@NancyGraceHLN) January 14, 2015

Still unclear if #pot2blame, but pretty clear that #graceis2good4u, 2 Chainz.

Update:

Here's the first segment of the show, which ends with a miracle: 2 Chainz shutting Nancy Grace down.

Grace: Let's just talk about you for a minute. You went to college on a sports scholarship, did you not?

2 Chainz: Yes, and I'm very intelligent, and smoking pot for me...

Grace: Can I get back to you in high school, when you were 16, and you were on a basketball scholarship, as I recall, were you using pot then?

2 Chainz: Uh-uh [shakes head], I was...

Grace: ...You were an athlete

2 Chainz: ...I was selling pot then

The new Charlie Hebdo cover is fraught with meaning... and dicks.

Don't forget: We're trying out a new publishing system where we post less often to the front page of Gawker. To see more Gawker stories, read the Gawker Newsfeed, located here.

If you use an RSS reader, update it with this feed, which will give you all content from all Gawker.com sections: http://newsfeed.gawker.com/rss/vip.

Regular commenters and those followed from main-page Gawker will be glad to hear that we'll be porting the list of "followed" commenters to all sub-blogs (except Valleywag and the Vane) some time this week, giving us a head start on making follow lists for each sub blog. (Update: This originally said some time today, but the tech team, for whom we should all be thankful, says it'll take more like a week. Sorry!)

I spent much of 2014 at a digital media startup that sought to experiment with new forms and delivery systems for investigative and public service journalism. The team I was working with planned to use humor and attention-grabbing stunts to create journalism that people actually wanted to read. That experiment… did not quite work out, but having spent months coming up with crazy ideas with a group of fiercely talented writers, reporters and generally creative types, the idea of going back to merely blogging about Mitt Romney for a living didn’t sound particularly appealing.

Fortunately, Gawker stepped in to save me from pure, hopeless punditry, offering me the amusingly vague title of "Special Projects Editor."

Prior to my hiring, this position was informally known in-house as the "pranks editor." Pranks, hoaxes, and stings don't have the best reputation at the moment. The organizations with the resources and talent to pull off great, revealing stunts are too humorless and chickenshit to do so. The sorts of reporters willing to use subterfuge to uncover great stories or embarrass powerful people tend to be partisan hacks who seek to mislead their audiences as well as their ill-chosen targets. Stings shouldn’t be the sole province of trashy TV newsmagazines and incompetent adolescent Breitbart cultists. A prank can aim higher than "worst twerk fail."

In my introduction post, John Cook already mentioned a few of Gawker Media’s greatest hits. My favorites are Deadspin’s sullying of the Baseball Hall of Fame and Gizmodo's perfectly juvenile universal remote prank.

To give you more of an idea of what sort of projects I hope to work on, here are a few of my favorite media hijinks of years past: Spy sending checks for absurdly small sums of money to various celebrities to see which ones would go to the trouble of cashing them; The Baffler revealing how The New York Times was taken in by faux "grunge" lingo; Dan Savage attempting to infect Gary Bauer with the flu; Christopher Morris leading a conservative MP to bring up a "made-up drug" in Parliament; Michael Moore having Janeane Garofalo confess the same sin at Catholic Churches across the country to see which ones were the most lenient; and Ken Silverstein enlisting Washington lobbyists to work for a corrupt and repressive regime.

It’s an eclectic list, encompassing targets and methods ranging from harmless tomfoolery to the exposing of serious corruption. Gawker Media, historical home of both celebrity dick picks and fearless investigative reporting, is one of the few legitimate American news organizations (and, yes, it is one of those, now) with the ambition, talent, and institutional courage to pursue projects like these.

Over the next few weeks, I plan to work closely with site leads, editors and reporters from all the Gawker Media sites to identify the perfect targets—the most obnoxious puffed-up blowhards, sanctimonious poobahs, corrupt gatekeepers, venal officials, and credulous watchdogs in each site's respective fields—and dream up entertaining ways to embarrass or expose them. Everyone who works for very long at a Gawker Media site develops a list, even if it's unwritten, of crazy things they'd do if they only had the time and resources. Now we do. It's going to be fun.

How a couple 20-something Irish kids keep perpetrating sloppy hoaxes—and somehow pulling them off.

Morning After Gay Comedian Has Literal Last Laugh on Dead Bully | Newsfeed Charlie Hebdo's Muhammad-Dick Cover Sells Out in France | Defamer What Would Miley Cyrus Look Like With a Bubble Bath Bush? Voilahttp://gawker.com/how-to-read-ga...

At some point in her life, half-limp side ponytail Jessica Biel decided to open a "kid-friendly" Los Angeles-based restaurant called—presumably on purpose—"Au Fudge." The "organic restaurant and bakery" is set to open on Melrose Avenue in May, but like all things in Jessica Biel's life, something about this eatery is just a little bit off.

Though Biel seems determined to make Au Fudge a place where children congregate—she called it "Soho House for kids" last year—the tone the Au Fudge Instagram account is decidedly adult, and frequently unhinged. Here is a selection of photos from the account, plus the captions the account manager (Jessica Biel? Her partner Estee Stanley? A lunatic with no official connection to the business but an overwhelming passion for Au Fudge?) chose to attach to them.

Suck that #freshstrawberry #icecream out of that#cannoli @aufudge making the kids happy

@aufudge #spreadforbread #chocolatepizza. Hope we get our permits today #crossfingers#werealmostthere

Happy Hanakah can't wait to make these potato latkes @aufudge !!! Stay tuned #food #healthy #filthy

Its happening again!!! Get ready bitches for some delicious salads!!

And so on. Suck that #freshstrawberry #icecream out of that #cannoli. #spreadforbread. Get ready bitches. #filthy.

The "Great Ideas" section of People.com reports that after many months of agony, Biel and her business partner Estee Stanley got their commercial permits for the restaurant over the weekend. A source who seems uniquely invested in this particular Great Idea tells the site that Biel and Stanley have "run into the usual snags and delays any new restaurant owner has, but it looks like they're on track now." Au Fudge announced the permit news on Instagram, screaming:

Be ready to get #fudged soon!!! @aufudge FINALLY got it's permits!!!!! 4/5 months we will be in business cross fingers!!!!

Social media does not necessarily predict the success of a restaurant. Biel and Stanley could always find other ways to promote their business—for example, by taking out a backpage ad in their local alt weekly. One thing that does affect the success of a restaurant, however, is the absence of a chef—and the one Au Fudge hired has already quit. A rep for chef Vic Cassanova told People.com, "There are no hard feelings on either side, it was just the right decision at this time. He wishes them all the best!"

Casanova, it seems, was not ready to get fudged.

[Photos via Getty/Instagram]

For a while, it was very en vogue for American retailers and corporations to tout that their products (or some of them) were Made in America. That trend is reportedly coming back into fashion. But "buying American" is not the best way to be a good global citizen.

It's easy to see the surface appeal of "Made in the USA." Patriotism. Supporting the American economy. Keeping manufacturing jobs here on the home front. Etcetera. It is beguiling in the thoughtless sort of way that political slogans are.

There are only two possible reasons for American companies to make a point of telling everyone that their products are Made in America. The first is PR. Patriotic labeling has the potential to pull in customers (or justify higher prices). We can dismiss this as the normal machinations of a for-profit business. The second reason is the one I would like to address: the idea that it is morally good for big American companies to support American manufacturing. That is, the belief that "buying American" is the best way for a company to be a good corporate citizen.

That reason—the meaningful one—does not hold up. It's jingoistic. It assumes that American jobs have more moral value than jobs in, say, Bangladesh. You don't need to be an ethical philosopher to see that that's not the case. Sure, accruing the maximum amount of economic strength to America at the cost of every other nation on earth is a fair position to hold if you're a real live American Exceptionalist who genuinely believes that Americans are the only people on earth whose quality of life has any moral value, but if you genuinely believe that, you need more help than I can provide.

As any neoliberal economist will tell you, globalization—the very force that robbed America of all of its manufacturing jobs in the first place—is effective because it is highly efficient. That is, it moves the jobs to where they are most affordable. It is the most effective system at lowering costs. Its raw economic appeal is relentless and unavoidable.

Unfortunately, globalizations biggest advocates have also failed to reckon with its downside—namely, its tendency to exploit the world's poorest and weakest people for the benefit of multinational corporations and first-world consumers. It's great for Walmart and its customers and suppliers that t-shirts can be made dirt cheap in Bangladesh, but it's not so great for the Bangladeshis who work long hours for minimal pay in horrible conditions to make those t-shirts. To simply say "at least they have a job" is a gross abdication of any concern for basic human rights. And if you are familiar with American jingoism, you know that we never tire of preaching to the rest of the world about our lofty and superior set of moral values, which make us such a great country.

"Buying American" is too simplistic. But buying into the current model of globalization is too horrific. There is, however, a third choice. An international minimum wage would allow us to maintain some of the economic efficiency gains of globalized manufacturing, while ensuring that it doesn't completely exploit the workers who do the manufacturing. (Yes, it could be indexed to cost of living in various countries; and yes, it could be unilaterally imposed by America, just by requiring companies who want to sell their products here to maintain certain standards.)

The world is full of very poor people who need jobs. The fact that they are very poor and need jobs does not mean that we are abdicated from the basic sort of ethical protections we demand when we are working in our own jobs. Child labor and slavery were both very economically compelling too, but we eventually decided we couldn't stomach them. This is no different.

[Photo of the mother of a Bangladeshi garment worker killed in a building collapse: AP]

A single question now plagues the minds of all Americans, weighing down our brains as we slump in our office chairs, then slump in our cars, then slump in our couches, and then slump into bed: how big is Justin Bieber's penis really?

The swaggy lil pop star and his cavalry of minders would have us believe that Justin Bieber has a huge dick.

Last week, Calvin Klein released photos of Bieber modeling their underwear for a new ad campaign. One memorable shot showed off the singer's protruding package in arresting profile. Shortly after the photos hit the Internet, a web site called Breathe Heavy posted what it claimed was the same image prior to re-touching. If that claim were accurate, it would mean that Calvin Klein (well, not him personally, although maybe) had stuffed Bieber's stocking nearly to bursting. Here are the two images side-by-side:

Bieber's team immediately insisted that Breathe Heavy's photo was fake, and requested the web site take it down. Breathe Heavy complied, originally replacing the photos with an editor's note, but eventually removing the entire post altogether. In that since-deleted note, Breathe Heavy's editor seems to accept Bieber's explanation at gunpoint.

Bieber denies the photo is real, and I respect that and will believe him.

The question, therefore, is: Are the claims of the Bieber camp correct, and the photo fake?

Or did Breathe Heavy have the real photo, and capitulate in the face of legal intimidation?

(It's easy to make a case that Breathe Heavy's photos are the real deal: We know that at least one photo was significantly retouched prior to publication, as Bieber's camp did not dispute an earlier TMZ story alleging that Calvin Klein sculpted Bieber's pecs, filled out his abs and bestowed him pubes in this ad from the campaign; furthermore, virtually every celebrity photoshoot in America gets touched up at some point. Why would Bieber's dick be a grand outlier?)

But in many ways this dispute is just a lead-in to an essential American question: What exactly is Bieber packing?

Let's be true detectives.

This is a screencap taken from a video of the Calvin Klein shoot that Bieber himself posted to Instagram. Here we have a direct, unaltered view of his package and can plainly see that it looks quite different than the massive knot he is sporting in the photo advertisement. Front-bulge will almost always look less impressive than side-bluge, granted, and this is a fine bulge, certainly, but one that seems far off of Calvin Klein's idealized Burmese python.

Last September, Bieber appeared onstage at the Fashion Rocks concert. For some reason he stripped down to his underwear, which produced a number of generally alarming photos such as this one.

There are a number of things we can glean from this photo. One is that Justin Bieber has muscles. Look at the strong boy! Another is that his happy trail does indeed appear to stop abruptly right about where it does in the pre-Photoshop version of the Calvin Klein shot in which a model gropes him. But because Bieber wore jet black briefs that reveal no hint of bulge, this photo doesn't help us understand how big his dick actually is.

For that, we must consult more candid shots.

In 2013, Bieber went to Hawaii and jumped off a cliff. After exiting the water, he was photographed walking on the beach, resulting in the image you see here:

This is perhaps the most revealing shot of Bieber's bulge in the wild. Does it look exceedingly large? I'd say not. In fact, it looks like any man's normal penis. Of course, it should be noted that it's unfair to judge a dick by what it looks like immediately after being submerged in the sea. However we can only work with the materials we have.

Next we will consult a Tumblr called Justin Bieber's Bulge, a blog "dedicated to Justin Bieber's glorious, wonderful bulge," which is not run by me. For a Tumblr devoted to one man's dick, it's a pretty boring blog, but there is one compelling photo.

Here is a fan shot of Justin Bieber in concert, his leather drop-crotch pants dropped well below his crotch. We can see a hint of bulge, and from this angle it does not look like Justin Bieber is trying to smuggle a butternut squash through airport security, as Calvin Klein might want us to believe.

That is evidence supporting the theory that Justin Bieber is adequately endowed. Arguing in favor of Justin Bieber's alleged big dick are two people: Tati Neves, a Brazilian model, and Bieber's trainer Patrick Nilsson. These two claim to have seen Bieber's flesh in the flesh, and if we're to believe them, Calvin Klein has staked its reputation on the right massive dong.

Neves claims to have slept with Bieber during his infamous Brazilian sex romp. Here is what she told a British tabloid about Bieber's D:

Speaking to The Sun, Brazilian model Tati Nevas said: "Take it from me, he's well endowed - and very good in bed."

Nilsson, meanwhile, was shuttled out to do damage control in the wake of the Calvin Klein Photoshop controversy. Here, according to Breathe Heavy, is his assessment:

And to make up it, here's a new quote from Justin's trainer Patrick Nilsson, who says JB is packing. "I can definitely confirm that he is a well-endowed guy. I sound weird saying that, but yes."

Indeed you do.

Two people claim to have personal connections with Justin Bieber's dick and claim it is large, but one is on Justin Bieber's payroll. While we will consider their opinions, the overwhelming visual evidence suggests that Justin Bieber's penis is perfectly average—large enough to adequately fill out a pair of briefs, but not so large that it could arouse envy and terror when plastered across sprawling billboards, or choke a cow, without enhancement.

In this case, it appears, Justin Bieber is the same as any man.

Still, we don't know for sure, and here is where we turn to you, our readers: Have you ever had sex with Justin Bieber? Have you ever seen his dick? Do you know someone who has? Are you Scooter Braun? Let's settle this debate once and for all. Email me at jordan@gawker.com or leave a comment below.

Reminder: Gawker is trying a new publishing system. Read about the change here. Happening elsewhere: Internet A Bot Bought Illegal Drugs And No One's Sure What to Do About It | Newsfeed This Gambian Coup Failed Because the Plotters Were Dumbasses | Defamer Jamie Dornan Got Yelled Athttp://gawker.com/how-to-read-ga...

As millions around the world rally behind Charlie Hebdo and the freedom of press, France has quietly been detaining people for exercising free speech on social media.

Among those reportedly arrested is French comedian Dieudonne M'bala M'bala—the frequent focus of charges of anti-Semitism—who wrote on Facebook: "Tonight, as far as I'm concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly," which combines the popular Je suis Charlie slogan with the name of Amédy Coulibaly, the gunman behind last week's deadly attack at a kosher supermarket. (We didn't say it was a funny post.)

According to the Guardian, Dieudonné posted the comment after attending Sunday's huge march in support of Charlie Hebdo, an event the comic described as "a magical moment comparable to the big bang."

"I'm finally going home," he wrote. "Know that this evening, as far as I'm concerned, I'm feeling like Charlie Coulibaly [French: je me sens Charlie Coulibaly]." He was arrested Monday and charged with condoning terrorism.

After his arrest, Dieudonné deleted the offending post, and took to Facebook to defend himself. "I'm being seen as an Amedy Coulibaly when I'm no different from Charlie," he said, a point several prominent journalists have echoed on Twitter.

@HeerJeet I made a pretty banner for those who would like it. No journalists have asked for it yet & it makes me sad pic.twitter.com/n4MhQ7knkl

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 14, 2015

Dieudonné later elaborated:

The real explanation:

' i feel charlie coulibaly '

—- ≻

' for a year, i am treated like the public enemy number 1, while I sought only to make laugh. [...] It myself as a amedy coulibaly, while i am not different from charlie '

The French government has previously accused Dieudonné of supporting anti-Semitism and banned several of his one-man shows last year. According to Agence France-Press, he'll stand trial for the "Coulibaly" Facebook post.

The comic is just one of dozens arrested by French authorities for condoning or threatening terrorism since last week's attacks.

From the BBC:

The justice ministry said on Wednesday that 54 cases had been opened since the murders of 17 people in Paris last week. Of those, 37 cases involved condoning terrorism and 12 were for threatening to carry out terrorist acts.

Some fast-track custodial sentences have already been handed down under anti-terror legislation passed last November

• A man of 22 was jailed on Tuesday for a year for posting a video mocking one of the three murdered policemen
• A drunk driver was given four years in prison after making threats against the police who arrested him
• Three men in their twenties were jailed in Toulouse for condoning terrorism
• A man of 20 was jailed in Orleans for shouting "long live the Kalash[(nikov]" at police in a shopping centre

Add France's leaders to the long list of those who support Charlie Hebdo but oppose actual free speech.

[Image via Getty]

Congressional Republicans, who 13 long years ago helped create a dumb massive federal "homeland security" bureaucracy, vowed this week that they'll keep it operating only if Barack Obama takes a harder line on immigrants to America. There's a simple solution here: Keep immigration open, and let the bureaucracy wither.

At issue is continuing funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The House GOP today passed a bill that will give the department the money it needs to stay open—$40 billion—but that would also overturn Obama's executive orders last year to make work authorization easier for immigrants and to reduce deportations of children brought to the U.S. without documentation.

Senate Democrats vowed to stop the bill, but for the wrong reasons:

Republicans are picking an unnecessary political fight that risks shutting down the Dept. of Homeland Security and endangering our security.

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) January 14, 2015

Reid agrees with leading Republicans. "I know there's a lot of consensus on our side that the last thing we need to do is to do something to jeopardize the security of our own citizens," Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told Reuters.

But is there a consensus that floating the Department of Homeland Security keeps American citizens out of jeopardy?

As a veteran, government employee, and defense reporter over the past two decades or so, the most direct contact I've had with the DHS is letting its employees wave a wand over my junk in an airport. There's one memorable exception. In late 2007, I attended the wedding of one of my then-fiancee's university friends. I struck up a conversation with another college friend of theirs, a conservative blue-blood from Northern Virginia. She had worked in George W. Bush's reelection campaign, and after his victory had been rewarded with a senior planning job in the Homeland Security headquarters.

"Nice," I said. "What do you do?"

"Well..." she stammered. "I can't talk about a lot of it. But it's, uh, like, subways and trains..."

"You mean infrastructure protection?"

"Uh, nah, it's just, ah... like, blueprints and stuff... subcontractors... security companies..."

Over the course of 15 minutes, it became apparent that she didn't know what she was paid upwards of $85,000 a year to do. It seemed to involve handing more money over to more people to do something.

She's now a homemaker with an SUV and an Old City townhouse; her husband, a former GOP lawyer, works for a federal environmental department and brags about summarily rejecting citizens' and journalists' Freedom of Information Act requests. Both share Benghazi-related material on Facebook and complain that the federal government is too large.

We fund DHS, and DHS theoretically protects us from dangerous threats. Like levee-busting hurricanes, theoretically. Or bombs at marathon finishing lines, theoretically. Or mass-shooters, theoretically. Or cyber-attacks, theoretically.

Of course it costs $40 billion a year. That's hard work:

The Department of Homeland Security sends its state and local partners intelligence reports with little meaningful guidance, and state reports have sometimes inappropriately reported on lawful meetings...

The Department of Homeland Security, for example, does not know how much money it spends each year on what are known as state fusion centers, which bring together and analyze information from various agencies within a state...

The DHS has given $31 billion in grants since 2003 to state and local governments for homeland security and to improve their ability to find and protect against terrorists, including $3.8 billion in 2010...

The DHS also provides local agencies a daily flow of information bulletins.

These reports are meant to inform agencies about possible terror threats. But some officials say they deliver a never-ending stream of information that is vague, alarmist and often useless. "It's like a garage in your house you keep throwing junk into until you can't park your car in it," says Michael Downing, deputy chief of counterterrorism and special operations for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Don't forget the drones.

Homeland Security is now the third-largest federal cabinet department, behind the Pentagon and the VA. Larger than State. Than Treasury. Housing and Urban Development. Commerce, Labor, Agriculture, Interior, all that. Ask America to take a selfie, and the first thing you notice is its commitment to looking all tough and military with security and shit. More rockets' red glare, less amber waves of grain.

But mostly, politically connected nitwits pulling down six figures to something something safety something infrastructure terrorists something. It's nice to know that Republicans and Democrats alike are equally committed to ensuring nothing endangers the American public's financing of this nitwittery, upon which the safety of our republic very clearly depends.

It is never a bad time to check in on how Wall Street is quietly working to undermine any attempt to slightly dampen the possibility that Wall Street could devastate the American economy, again.

Today's New York Times story on the bite-by-bite erosion of Wall Street regulation by Congress (aided by a massive team of Wall Street lobbyists) is exactly the sort of important and eye-glazing news that will be ignored upon publication, and then—when Wall Street does in fact bring our nation's economy crashing down again—the public will all howl in unison, "Why didn't the media write about any of this??"

Read about it now, fuckers!

Lobbying expenditures by every specific industry group declined in 2014, except for the finance, insurance and real estate sector. That sector increased its spending by 2.5 percent.

As of Nov. 16, Wall Street banks and other financial interests had spent $1.2 billion on campaign contributions and lobbying combined, a total that was on track to beat spending in 2010, when Dodd-Frank was being considered in Congress, according to Americans for Financial Reform.

Because Americans only tend to pay close attention to financial regulation rules that are perceived to be arcane during or in the immediate aftermath of a financial crisis, all the financial industry really has to do is delay and stall and mumble platitudes until the brief period of public interest subsides, and then get to work quietly undermining any and all regulations that they think might hurt their short-term profits. (They are currently working to roll back regulations that might save you, the taxpayer, from bailing them out next time their shitty derivatives business goes south.)

The only realistic way to combat this dynamic is to stay vigilant, write your elected officials, work for campaign finance reform, and occasionally burn down some mansions—unoccupied second homes only, please—to keep em on their toes.

[Who is the man in the picture? It is Jeb Hensarling, chair of the House Financial Services Committee. Know your enemy. Photo via AP]