Hmm. OK, I understand your reasoning. Not sure there really is a systematic process related to the time since the last scandal, but if so then I get it. Thanks. Glenn

There is an error in statistics in this column. The columnist asserts that the odds of a scandal increase as time progresses without one. That is not so. If you look prospectively at a given time period then, yes, the odds increase over time. But once time is on-going, the odds do not. Imagine a dice game. At the outset, you can conclude that the odds of rolling "snake-eyes" over a given period of time is "x" and so the odds are high that at the conclusion of that time you will have rolled snake-eyes. But once you start rolling the dice, they have no memory. If you roll them a thousand times without rolling snake-eyes, the odds of rolling snake-eyes on the next roll are exactly the same as on the first roll. If anything, the absence of a big Obama scandal suggests that the odds of one coming up at any given time are relatively low. That's because the same factors that caused an absence of scandal before will continue to apply, whether they be an ethical administration or, perhaps more likely, a sympathetic press corp. (As an aside, I'm no Obama fan, and will vote against him (again) but give the guy his due.)