General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTwo Things I Will Remember GH Bush for: 1) his Eternal Hoax on the Public and 2) how he conceals it
Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2018, 05:31 PM - Edit history (13)
Before you read my brief little opinion piece, let me just say condolences to all who cared about GH Bush and
are currently mourning him.
Let me also say this: in our country, there is no such thing as defamation of the dead. A person's reputation dies with the person. Look it up on any search engine.
Now, here is my brief little opinion piece:
There is a reason why GH Bush was such a young enlisted man (a Navy pilot), and it is not because he wanted to go to war and risk death, but rather because: his father wanted him to go immediately to college -- and GH Bush hated academics. GH Bush was athletically inclined as a K-12 student, and was popular enough with his peers, but he was not academically inclined. So, against his father's wishes, off he went to fight in the war.
After serving in the military, GH Bush married college drop-out Barbara Pierce, who had been attending a woman's college, Smith, in Massachusetts. And, off GH Bush went to Yale, as his father demanded.
But serving in the military, reportedly with heroic results, and marrying, did not make GH Bush any more interested in academics. He majored in "economics" at Yale. But he hated studying, reading, going to school - he hated learning about such a difficult topic as his chosen major. So, what did GH Bush do? He dropped out.
Yale did not seem to mind that when he began his political career and sought elected office, GH Bush lied and claimed he graduated from Yale. Why should Yale complain? Yale is a private school. No one has access to GH Bush's academic records. The Bush family had long-term ties with Yale. So what that GH Bush was now engaging in what the private sector commonly calls "resume fraud." Big deal.
Of course, as this college drop-out continues to pretend he had a college degree, and began to win elected office, GH Bush realized: perhaps he should somehow publicly account for his, shall we say, "shorter" time at Yale. Thus, an idea! He was in an "accelerated" economics degree program! Yeah! That's it! An "accelerated" undergraduate economics program existed back then at Yale! Only problem with that is: it didn't and it doesn't.
But, that doesn't matter. In 1992 or 1993, Maureen Dowd of the NYT wrote an opinion piece praising both GH Bush and Jeb Bush for their respective academic genius - and writing, gee, what a coincidence that father and son each finished their undergraduate degrees in only: "2-1/2 years"! Wow! They're BOTH genius-level leaders!
In death, the Washington Post points out in their GH Bush obit that after "graduating" from Yale, GH Bush would have taken a job at Proctor and Gamble (meaning: he had a college degree, required of that company's executives), but, alas, he was passed over, and thus - turned to a job provided by close family friends.
It seems to me that once a person wins a political election in this country, on any level, the "resume fraud" of faking a college degree is no longer subject to question or possible investigation. The public taxpayer-funded salary obtained by that fraud is kept by the con artist. Political power from office remains and can only increase.
Now we fast forward to his vice presidential oath. The oath of our nation's vice president is different from the president's oath. It requires that the vice president not be concealing anything, or words to that effect. But by the time GH Bush took that oath, he knew he was a fraud who had faked a college degree to deceptively win votes, he knew he would use his VP office to publicly conceal his knowledge of his son GW's drinking problem, and that he would and did lie about the academic career of his other son Jeb -- who, like his dad and mom, is also a college drop-out (and like his dad, fakes a college degree -- and while doing so, deceptively won two FL governor races).
But, so what! Who's going to investigate a vice president who lies under oath and thereby breaches the oath? (And who will use that VP office to lie about two of his offspring -- who are future political candidates.)
And now let's fast forward over many other deeds and misdeeds of GH Bush - whether it's not paying attention to the AIDS crisis, his history of groping women (yes, history, as it didn't all happen recently to the eight women who came forward while he was in a wheelchair), or him vomiting on the Japanese official when on an overseas trip, or angering his conservative base by raising taxes, voting for Hillary Clinton, or whatever else.
Now, GH Bush has passed away. He will be buried at his presidential library grounds.
Did you know this? GH Bush is the only president in US history who never once set foot in the town he chose for his presidential library. He never once visited prior to choosing the location. Never once (according to news reports that came out at that time and I read). He did not grow up there. He never traveled there as a boy or an adult. He never went to school there. He never worked there. Nothing. He has no personal connection whatsoever to the place he chose -- unlike every other president who chooses a location for their presidential library.
Why did he choose this place? This place where he will be buried? Where he moved his entire family plot?
It may be because the TAMU (Texas A&M University) location has a unique saying, known as the "Aggie Code of Honor." Here it is:
http://www.tamug.edu/studentrules/Aggie_Code_of_Honor.html
"An Aggie (a TAMU student) does not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do."
So, to sum up my opinion: GH Bush is the first US president to successfully get away with "resume fraud" his entire political life, by faking a college degree -- and thereby he lied, cheated and stole -- yet, ironically, he will now be buried on land governed by: a Code of Honor that does not "tolerate" those who "lie, cheat or steal."
RIP GH Bush.
Note - 12/6/18 - Links to come - see my post #66 at end
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
anobserver2
(836 posts)Thank you for letting me share my thoughts.
mithnanthy
(1,725 posts)
dlk
(11,509 posts)It’s like the Silverado S&L scandal never happened.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)anobserver2
(836 posts)I feel I am under attack by some here for expressing my freedom of thought.
I believe my brief, current events opinion piece here is fine without sources, and without the need to explain
more.
Others can research what I wrote and see if Maureen Dowd or others
ever used the word "accelerated." Others can write an investigative
journalism piece and interview - and name or not name -- their "sources."
That was not my aim. Here is what I did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought
Freedom of thought
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom & no
such thing as publick liberty without freedom of speech", Benjamin
Franklin, 1722.
Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience or ideas) is the
freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or
thought, independent of others' viewpoints.
------
And thank you again to DU, for allowing me to share my thoughts.
anobserver2
(836 posts)In 1948, following his graduation, he was rejected for a post he wanted with Procter & Gamble. So he moved to Texas to go into the oil business and snagged an entry-level job through a family connection.
Nov 30, 2018
By Karen Tumulty
http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/01/can-you-be-sued-for-libeling-dead-john.html
An attorney’s blog on the rights of writers
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/30/us/new-races-their-own-for-2-bush-sons.html
New Races (Their Own) for 2 Bush Sons
By MAUREEN DOWD
(from page 5 of 6 of this archived article)
Jeb Bush attended the University of Texas, not Yale, but, like his father, he graduated in two-and-a-half years and with a Phi Beta Kappa key, too
https://bensguide.gpo.gov/about-this-site
Ben's Guide to the U.S. Government, a service of the Government Publishing Office (GPO), is designed to inform students, parents, and educators about the Federal Government,
https://bensguide.gpo.gov/j-oath-office
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush
After Bush received his military discharge, he enrolled at Yale University. He earned an undergraduate degree in economics on an accelerated program that enabled him to graduate in two and a half years, rather than the usual four.[14]
https://millercenter.org/president/bush/life-before-the-presidency
He completed an undergraduate degree in economics on an accelerated program that allowed him to graduate by 1948.
https://www.ethics.net/a/bye-bye-yahoo-ceo-the-ethics-of-resume-fraud
Ethics Center: Business Ethics
Bye-Bye Yahoo CEO: The Ethics of Resume Fraud
By: National Ethics Association on May 14th, 2012
Watching the ouster this week of Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson leaves us scratching our head. Why would someone talented enough to head up a major technology company claim to have a phony computer-science degree?
…no one is immune to punishment for credential fraud. Just ask Dave Edmondson, who in 2006 was forced to resign as Radio Shack CEO for claiming two fake degrees. Or Ronald Zarrella of Bausch & Lomb who offered to resign as CEO and wound up seeing his $1.1 million bonus rescinded. Zarrella had listed a phony NYU MBA on his resume.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)A few cursory searches yield nothing to corroborate this.
MousePlayingDaffodil
(748 posts)My own search did not even turn up an allegation that Bush did not graduate from Yale, or that his "accelerated" program of study was somehow illegitimate.
Absent the provision of some credible source for this allegation, I should think this post should be taken down. DU is better than this.
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)There are some gullible people here.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)
Docreed2003
(16,846 posts)It's total bs.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)I wasn’t expecting an answer from the OP.
obamanut2012
(26,041 posts)It should be deleted.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)
BannonsLiver
(16,288 posts)Alex Jones fever swamp stuff. I’m not an H.W. fan. My first ever presidential vote was against him in 1992, but this stuff and a lot that has been said about him, is nuttier than squirrel shit.
Docreed2003
(16,846 posts)Especially that it's nuttier than squirrel shit!
obamanut2012
(26,041 posts)As is calling Smith College a "girl's college."
"Smith College is a private, independent women's liberal arts college with coed graduate and certificate programs in Northampton, Massachusetts."
anobserver2
(836 posts)Thanks; I changed the spelling to: woman's.
Baitball Blogger
(46,673 posts)My dad would be in his mid nineties if he were still alive. A year younger than George Bush, Sr. That's for a reference point. He said that George Bush was actually born in France where his father was stationed or worked. As soon as it was safe, they flew him back to the States where they claimed he was born at the Bush homestead. My dad said everyone at the State department knew it.
So, my dad was a well-read Liberal and not subject to gossip. This claim he made stuck in my head because it was so revealing, which was not my dad's style. He usually kept these kind of things to himself.
I just wonder if there will be anyone who can follow this lead and confirm it one way or another. I would start with finding out where GB's father was working in 1924.
stopbush
(24,392 posts)So why not do it and get back to us, rather than tossing out unsubstantiated rumors?
Baitball Blogger
(46,673 posts)and all I will be able to confirm is where his father was working.
If there is any credence to this, someone else might have heard the same thing. Now that GHB is gone, they might come out and say something, which will start the ball rolling. There is no other way to do it, since there won't be a paper trail to follow.
It does have merit, if true.
stopbush
(24,392 posts)I’d suggest that’s probably where one is going to end up after doing their “research.”
Of course, for those who really love their CTs, no evidence is just proof that the evidence has been successfully buried by whatever nefarious power one likes.
Baitball Blogger
(46,673 posts)I didn't even remember his comment until Obama was hit with all that birther bullshit. That's when it occurred to me that it would be a huge stroke of karma if it turned out that what my father said was true.
I believe that every investigative researcher has to begin somewhere. It all starts with the questions that he asks. For example, how did Kavanaugh manage to have six investigations from the FBI, and he came out clean? The answer: because they weren't even looking for sexual dalliances in his past.
At some point, someone is going to write a post-mortem biography on Bush. It might even involve interviews with people who worked in the State Department or families of their nannies. How much would it take just to ask the question? That's all they have to do. If no one confirms it, then it's done.
stopbush
(24,392 posts)I’d say your dad’s rumor is highly suspect, less than a 1% chance of having merit. Just my opinion, of course.
There are many more-widespread rumors about GHWB, most notably his having a mistress. My guess is that’s a better line of investigation than the assertion that HW - just like Obama - wasn’t born here and should have never been president.
Baitball Blogger
(46,673 posts)It all comes down to who you are interviewing. It's going to be a long shot, since it all comes down to what people remember. No paper trail would exist.
But, if you're interviewing someone who was near ground zero, what would it take just to ask the question? That's all anyone has to work with. I wouldn't make this issue the primary target of any investigation. Just a Columbo, "Oh, one more thing..."
stopbush
(24,392 posts)Ugh. 😱
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Here is my "mini-Bush Sr bio." His dad, Prescott was outed as a traitor and that was why he rushed off to war to prove that he was a real American. He spent his life trying to atone for the crimes of his father--committing crimes of his own along the way. Because people who are attached, suffer. His need to "atone" for his dad gave him a lot in common with southerners who needed to atone for their racist/lynching/bigoted ancestors, which was why he was more socially progressive than many Republicans of his era. He made the perfect CIA chief because he was willing to go to any lengths to protect his country--including criminal ones. He spoiled his kids, because daddy did not love him enough. He was a womanizer for the same reason--because he felt unloved as a child.
shanny
(6,709 posts)dimson bush certainly didn't and doesn't show any signs of being loved or spoiled as a child. if anybody has daddy issues (other than the current occupant of the WH) it's that guy
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)From his CIA days.
They usually do pretty good background checks.
obamanut2012
(26,041 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)That's what I was trying to say in a round about way. Usually it's better if the reader draws the conclusion instead of the writer handing the conclusion over.
obamanut2012
(26,041 posts)anobserver2
(836 posts)I thought about your question, because I wondered: perhaps the CIA does
not even require a college degree for its directors. And based on what I recently read,
it appears to me they do not. Here is what I read:
https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-become-director-of-the-CIA
How to become director of the CIA
Christopher Burgess
Christopher Burgess, Traveled the globe, 30 years of it with the CIA
Answered Mar 5 2017 · Author has 270 answers and 361k answer views
The position of Director CIA is one of the many appointments made by the President of the United States (the Executive Branch) and requires the approval of the Senate (the Legislative Branch).
Qualifications vary from President to President. Directors of the CIA have included career politicians, active duty military officers, and from within the ranks of the CIA.
----------
Maybe GH Bush "forgot" to mention Yale on his resume. I notice I have never once seen
anything like "Yale - Class of 19whatever, BA or whatever degree in Economics" anywhere for him.
It's always just: he went to Yale, for "2-1/2 years" and "graduated" and "by 1948" -- and you the reader are left
to fill in the blanks as to the class, the degree, the major.
If he did claim a degree, and if he did lie, well, then in my opinion, he duped voters when he
was running for Congress and duped the Senate who confirmed his appointment as CIA Director.
But again, this is just my little opinion here in the peanut gallery: A politician lied. (And, got away with it.)
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Not that politicians don't lie, but CIA candidates, are well vetted, by pretty much everyone. Including all the other countries on earth (lies make leverage)
Candidates that will run a 15 Billion dollar budget, and meddle in the affairs of every country on earth. Well a few phones calls are made.
Plus he was confirmed by a Democratic Senate, and had weekly meetings with the President. Believe me. If you have weekly meetings with the President, the SS checks you out to.
anobserver2
(836 posts)I appreciate your reply. I think you raise good points, chief among them, that you really don't want a person in a position of power who could be blackmailed by others ( "lies make leverage" ). I agree with you.
But here are three points I have thought about, and perhaps deserve consideration:
1) Yale never complained. If the Ivy League school which allegedly issued a degree is mum on the matter, how can the CIA raise the issue years later? It makes it appear that: Yale was covering up. Does the CIA, which I have recently read recruits from Yale, want to make Yale look bad?
Also bear in mind this background: GH Bush was admitted as a legacy. In addition to his father, his grandfather and uncle went to Yale. So, no matter how much of a disaster he may have been as a student, he was going to: Yale.
However, over the years, it seems to me that Yale and its legacy policy changed, and Yale would no longer accept legacy admits who could not handle the work - a case in point being Jeb Bush. (The Boston Globe did a big article on Jeb Bush's high school years at a private high school, published in Feb 2015, and it is quite obvious from that article, wherein Jeb Bush was interviewed and did not dispute the claims made, that he was a disaster in high school in terms of academics. He was almost expelled for: "low grades." )
So, while Yale was willing to admit legacy admits in GH Bush's time - no matter how ill prepared the legacy may have been -- it seems to me, in my opinion, by the 1970's, this was no longer the case at Yale.
2) With Yale not complaining, how often does the government really complain when it discovers a govt employee has faked a degree? Maybe to our govt it is just not a big deal -- whereas in the private sector, it IS a big deal - and the person who fakes a degree is outed and ousted.
I read somewhere that hundreds or thousands of govt employees are known to have "degrees" from: diploma mills. These are fake degrees that are known to be fake, from fake institutions, etc. I was shocked when I read about this. Maybe it was all "fake news." I don't know. But I know that I thought: Gosh, it appears one can use a fake degree anywhere in our government - and obtain taxpayer dollars in salary. No big deal.
3) There was another point I wanted to make but I will post it later.
anobserver2
(836 posts)The 3rd point I wanted to make is this:
It is hard, if not impossible, to " un-do " what an elected official has done, if that elected official deceived voters
by faking a college degree.
In others words, as I mentioned earlier on the thread, it seems that if you get away with it by winning one election, then, you're home free in this country.
Because how can authorities " un-do " any bills you may have authored? Or un-do any death warrants you signed as a governor in a state that has the death penalty? Or bring back those who gave their lives in a war while you were
Commander in Chief pushing for that war? Or un-do a re-count that decided a US presidential election in favor of: a governor's brother?
It's not possible to un-do all these things. You can't un-do presidential elections or these other things by ousting the politician who is found LATER to have faked a college degree.
Whereas, by contrast, in the private sector, such matters are not at stake. The CEO found to have faked a college degree can still be outed and ousted because: the company is not dealing with matters of life and death impacting the public, or the creation of new laws impacting the public. The company can take away someone's financial bonus, and salary, and stop any projects or eliminate past products, but all these acts are not what can be done once someone has won elected office.
So, one would think: there should be a lot more vetting the first time someone runs for office. But, there isn't.
Yet, I notice in other countries, they are very much aware of the problem, and there are harsh penalties against politicians found to have faked a college degree.
In addition, I think I read there is one country, maybe it was Canada, where they have a procedure requiring every candidate for office to " register " their credentials and experience on a resume with the political party endorsing that candidate, and, if anything is later found to be fake, the party is required to publicly withdraw its support for that candidate. I read about that happening to a candidate.
In our country, with no required vetting of candidates, and with the rise of technology, it would not surprise me in the least if someday we have a president who claims he or she obtained multiple college degrees online - and in fact was never online at all, as someone else took the classes and did the work. Who's going to know?
The one positive I see on the horizon is more women, more minorities, more people who have to work really hard to get where they are to become candidates - who had jobs in the private sector (that were not handed to them by friends of the family), and who really did go to school - and earn a degree - if that is claimed.
The other positive I see is hopefully more people who did not go to college at all, and are willing to disclose that as a candidate, because I think more and more, that type of candidate will be able to appeal to a bigger and bigger base of others who did not go on to college. Perhaps like the late Sonny Bono they owned a small business/restaurant or had experience in another industry, whatever. I think people like that have a bigger future in politics - along with more women and more minorities.
In others words, real people who tell the truth about themselves -- and their credentials. That is my hope.
anobserver2
(836 posts)I happened to watch Rachel Maddow's show last night as she was going through the various charges
filed against Michael Cohen, and several times I found myself asking: Why wasn't Jeb Bush charged with that?
Michael Cohen collected $4 million dollars as a consultant in one count, which the government complained
he wasn't really doing any consulting work worth $4 million to various companies.
How in the world can Jeb Bush ever justify his $14 million in consulting fees that he collected from Lehman Brothers right before it collapsed? Even a Fox News Business reporter wrote an article questioning the basis for that fee.
All I am saying is this: in my opinion, we need A LOT more transparency in our own elections.
As a voter, I would like to know A LOT more about candidates before I cast my vote.
To me, that may be an opinion shared by many.
Perhaps one way to begin is to require anyone who claims a college degree and who wants to
run for office to publicly disclose his or her college transcript (grades can be redacted) the very first time
the person runs for office.
Because it is my opinion Jeb Bush doesn't even have a college transcript at this point (I think his father had it destroyed, but that is just my opinion). But he will tout his alleged academic genius via the media if he runs again.
The NY Times will publish more articles of him photographed in front of books and tell us how much he reads.
It is not enough what propaganda is created by the media. One has to understand the character of a person.
$14 million in consulting fees from a company that then went belly-up is a story never investigated. Michael Cohen's $4 million has been investigated. So should Jeb Bush's $14 million is my opinion.
And as to another presidential run by Jeb Bush? I would say: No thanks!
anobserver2
(836 posts)Excerpt below from:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/exclusive-why-doesnt-jeb-want-to-talk-about-lehman-bros
By Charlie GasparinoPublished July 10, 2015Charlie Breaks ItFOXBusiness
Jeb Bush apparently doesn’t want people to know that he worked at Lehman Brothers, the now-defunct investment bank whose collapse led to the broader financial meltdown in 2008....
How do I know this? Not from the Bush people or even from all those tax returns he released last week, but from countless anonymous sources on Wall Street and once source who isn’t: Anton Valukas, a Reagan appointed former U.S. Attorney who went on to become the examiner for the Lehman bankruptcy.
As part of his work looking at what caused the largest bankruptcy is the nation’s history, Valukas produced a report that runs nearly 500 pages. ...
...the Bush people are clearly hiding something given all the back and forth. Keep in mind that the paperwork that accompanied his tax returns—the same tax returns the Bush campaign went to great lengths to show how he paid the maximum tax rate—barely mentioned his work for Barclays as an adviser, and made no mention of his time at Lehman. We still don’t know, exactly, what he did at either firm.
Jeb Bush earned more money from Wall Street than any single source—nearly half of the $29 million he earned between the time he left the Florida governor’s mansion in 2007 and when he decided to run for Republican presidential nomination in December 2014.
And guess what: it would be nice to know exactly how the guy who wants to run the country made his millions in an industry as complex and controversial as banking. Wall Street isn’t a charity—it’s a big business that has warped laws, weakened regulations and has donated to countless politicians from both parties.
As someone who has covered Wall Street for 25 years, take it from me: We want to know what Jeb did for the financial industry now, not if and when he makes it to the White House.
-------------
Now, bear in mind: Jeb Bush, in my opinion, has:
1) no business degree,
2) no actual college degree,
3) never started his own business,
4) never worked as an investment banker, and
5) no qualifications other than his name (and elected office as governor, which he obtained by deception).
And this Fox news business reporter above, who has covered Wall Street for "25 years," finds it a bit odd that when a presidential candidate named Jeb Bush collects more than half of his $29 million in income from Wall Street, but won't say how or why he got those fees, then, more questions need to be asked.
I agree.
anobserver2
(836 posts)I'm sure other media also had some version of this story. This excerpt is from
The Daily Beast - also by Charlie Gasparino -
Jeb Bush’s Big Lehman Brothers Problem
Why won’t the Republican hopeful come clean about his involvement with two of Wall Street’s biggest banks?
Charles Gasparino
07.02.15 5:15 AM ET
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeb-bushs-big-lehman-brothers-problem
...Not much is known about what Bush actually did for Lehman—the firm that went belly-up in 2008 and sparked the wider financial crisis, and Barclays, the bank that purchased Lehman out of bankruptcy and continues to work out of its midtown Manhattan headquarters. He began working for the former after his term as Florida governor ended in 2007, and continued working for the latter until the end of 2014, when he decided to run for president.
The two banks were his biggest sources of income in recent years: Bush earned more than $14 million working for Lehman and then Barclays, which based on my understanding of simple math accounted for nearly half of the $29 million he made after he left government. Yet in Tuesday’s disclosure, and even in many of his public comments, Bush has downplayed his work for the two banks.
“I also was hired as a senior advisor to Barclays where I advised their clients on a wide range of global economic issues with a mind towards navigating government policies,” he writes in an essay that accompanied the tax returns. It is the only sentence that refers to his time at Barclays. And he doesn’t mention Lehman at all.
anobserver2
(836 posts)There are some interesting sources cited in this article about " legacy " admissions in the US here on Wikipedia --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences
Article excerpts:
...Legacy admissions are almost wholly confined to colleges and universities in the United States and are virtually unheard of in post-secondary institutions in other countries around the world....Legacy preferences in elite college and university admissions in the U.S. are widespread: almost three-quarters of research universities and nearly all liberal arts colleges grant legacy preferences in admissions.
...As a body of entering freshmen, legacies almost invariably have substantially lower GPAs and SAT scores than the larger body of entering freshmen, and, during their undergraduate careers, legacies as a body of students typically perform worse than the overall student body. ...
-----
According to the article, 75% of Americans oppose the legacy system, and it may even be illegal, but because many judges and politicians have benefited from it, there is little chance it will go away.
Reading this article, I was quite surprised at how widespread this system continues to be in America.
It also made me wonder what will happen with the Asian students' lawsuit against Harvard which is currently pending and how the outcome of that lawsuit might impact Harvard's legacy system, if at all.
anobserver2
(836 posts)I find I am still pondering all this legacy information. What a charmed life for those who are legacies - even if they drop out of school, the media and others, it seems, will make it appear the drop-out succeeds. People like GH Bush never have to worry about how they will finish school, if they have enough money to go to school, or applying for a job with strangers, or getting a job, or delaying marriage or delaying having children for economic reasons. Everything is just provided, thanks to friends and family: admission, money, jobs, etc.
Meanwhile, there are more young adults today than ever before returning home to live with parents and struggling to pay for college. Such different worlds.
Here is a journal article I haven't read but the findings look interesting, concerning legacy admissions:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775710001676
Economics of Education Review
Volume 30, Issue 3, June 2011, Pages 480-492
Economics of Education Review
The impact of legacy status on undergraduate admissions at elite colleges and universities
Author links open overlay panelMichaelHurwitz
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.002Get rights and content
Abstract
In this paper, I examine the impact of legacy status on admissions decisions at 30 highly selective colleges and universities. ...
Research highlights
▶ Legacy status increases the odds of admissions. ▶ Traditional analytic techniques underestimate the true impact of legacy status. ▶ The legacy admissions advantage is found across the student ability spectrum. ▶ The legacy admissions advantage occurs in colleges of varying selectivity. ▶ The legacy admissions advantage is further enhanced through early admissions programs.
-----------
Also, this opinion piece about legacy, published in the Washington Post, is quite interesting:
Ending legacy admissions is the right thing to do. But for black alums, it stings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/08/06/aaa7db6e-968d-11e8-80e1-00e80e1fdf43_story.html?utm_term=.9729e1f0ba93
Written by a black woman who made it into Harvard, she is reluctant to see legacy ever ending since now:
the legacy system would someday benefit her son.
----------
I can't help but conclude: GH Bush really had a charmed life. In my opinion, he was a legacy who failed school - but was propped up to the appearance of success, because the legacy system encompasses a whole lot more than just admission.
anobserver2
(836 posts)Re: "Plus he was confirmed by a Democratic Senate"
I was thinking more about this point you made here. In light of how CIA Directors are hired
(President appoints, Senate confirms, according to CIA person's quote I posted), and the
fact qualifications can vary, from military to career politician to within CIA ranks, I would
just say two things:
1) if GH Bush was nominated because he was seen as a war hero,
that would mean the Senate would have no reason to ever question his college experience
because that experience happened AFTER GH served.
2) And, if GH Bush's Senate confirmation did include mention of a degree from Yale, well,
then one would like to think the Senate would take an arm's length approach, and require
what is required of anyone who seeks a certain level job in a university or school district,
which is a certified academic transcript - which is made a public record. Had this been requested,
I honestly think GH Bush would have withdrawn as a candidate for this position, because
whenever there is a little sunshine, and money involved with the request, that is usually
enough to send these type of frauds running, in my opinion.
But I will bet the Senate did not act that way, and would not have thought to even question
any degree claimed by GH Bush.
It would be nice if the Senate did act at arm's length, and did request such documentation,
and did make it public, but, they do not.
Finally, as to others "checking" him out - again, Yale is a private school. Unless one is working
at Yale and has access to his academic records which are private, there is not a whole lot of
checking out. One would have to be very familiar with the Yale programs, etc and compare statements
made about GH Bush's academic career verses the reality of how he was admitted, what that legacy
admission means, what type of programs existed or didn't, etc.
This is all my opinion. But I do believe I put the correct analysis to the facts known to me, and my opinion is something I believe in. And it is perfectly OK with me that others hold a different opinion. No one need agree with me. I am just expressing my opinion and engaging in my Freedom of Thought here.
Thanks for writing.
anobserver2
(836 posts)I hope my response to you does not make it seem that I think it's OK for the Senate not to have demanded
proof of a claimed Yale degree from a potential CIA Director, because I think it is NOT OK if the Senate did not ask -
but with all the buddy-buddy pals in Washington DC on both side of the political aisle, it takes a deeper understanding of WHY it is important to demand something like a certified academic transcript from a career politician/war hero/etc who is now poised to take on a position like CIA Director.
There is a really good book written by the former student editor of Harvard's newspaper, concerning a young man, Adam Wheeler, who was criminally prosecuted in Massachusetts for faking his way into Harvard via forgeries, etc.
The book is called "Conning Harvard" --
https://www.amazon.com/Conning-Harvard-Story-Artist-League-ebook/dp/B00MJD770W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1544441145&sr=8-1&keywords=conning+harvard
He had to return scholarship money he fraudulently received, and he is prohibited by the court from ever mentioning Harvard on his resume, even though he did attend Harvard classes and did receive grades from those classes after being admitted on the basis of forged documents.
IMO, this is a rather sad story, because the young man was actually a good student already going to a good college when he decided to transfer by forged documents into Harvard. It is an amazing tale of the work he put into creatin the forgeries he did, and a very revealing look at how Harvard can be so easily duped.
In one of the last chapters of the book, the author explains why she believes it is important to catch people who
fake college degrees, and she writes about a number of people who faked degrees - and crimes they later committed.
That particular chapter is one I think should be required reading of any member of Congress who has the power to consider and approve potential appointments.
Because in my opinion, GH Bush not only faked a college degree, but that was just the beginning of what would be a crime spree he went on against the American public. In my opinion, he was without question the most corrupt CIA director, the most corrupt VP, and the most corrupt president in US history, and none will ever surpass him.
But to understand what crimes I believe he later committed (financial) and how he committed those crimes, against the American People, by misusing his CIA/VP/and Presidential powers, and abusing his power to deceive others, in order to benefit himself and his family and others financially, you first have to understand the nature of the person you are dealing with. Understanding he faked a college degree is an important start.
I hope you might consider borrowing the above book from your local library and reading the chapter I described - although the entire book is well written and really does read like a "potboiler." It's a real page-turner.
anobserver2
(836 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2018, 07:02 AM - Edit history (1)
Maybe you have already heard of this magazine article below or read it, but I never heard of it until a few years ago.
The article discusses efforts by the US Senate's "Church Committee" to investigate the relationship between media, journalists and the CIA.
Maybe the answer to your question is that the CIA knew GH Bush was faking a college degree, and perhaps they assured GH Bush that the media would never report it - and the Senate would never ask about it. Who knows.
----------------------------
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.
THE CIA AND THE MEDIA
How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up
BY CARL BERNSTEIN
...A CIA official who attempted to persuade members of the Senate committee that the Agency’s use of journalists had been innocuous maintained that the files were indeed filled with “puffing” by case officers. “You can’t establish what is puff and what isn’t,” he claimed. Many reporters, he added, “were recruited for finite [specific] undertakings and would be appalled to find that they were listed [in Agency files] as CIA operatives.” This same official estimated that the files contained descriptions of about half a dozen reporters and correspondents who would be considered “famous”—that is, their names would be recognized by most Americans. “The files show that the CIA goes to the press for and just as often that the press comes to the CIA,” he observed. “...There is a tacit agreement in many of these cases that there is going to be a quid pro quo”—i.e., that the reporter is going to get good stories from the Agency and that the CIA will pick up some valuable services from the reporter.
Whatever the interpretation, the findings of the Senate committees inquiry into the use of journalists were deliberately buried—from the full membership of the committee, from the Senate and from the public. “There was a difference of opinion on how to treat the subject,” explained one source. “Some [senators] thought these were abuses which should be exorcized and there were those who said, ‘We don’t know if this is bad or not.’”
Bader’s findings on the subject were never discussed with the full committee, even in executive session. That might have led to leaks—especially in view of the explosive nature of the facts. ...
Obscuring the facts was relatively simple. No mention was made of the 400 summaries or what they showed. Instead the report noted blandly that some fifty recent contacts with journalists had been studied by the committee staff—thus conveying the impression that the Agency’s dealings with the press had been limited to those instances. The Agency files, the report noted, contained little evidence that the editorial content of American news reports had been affected by the CIA’s dealings with journalists. Colby’s misleading public statements about the use of journalists were repeated without serious contradiction or elaboration. The role of cooperating news executives was given short shrift. The fact that the Agency had concentrated its relationships in the most prominent sectors of the press went unmentioned. That the CIA continued to regard the press as up for grabs was not even suggested.
Former ‘Washington Post’ reporter CARL BERNSTEIN is now working on a book about the witch hunts of the Cold War.
anobserver2
(836 posts)In my opinion - although that politician can easily get away with a fake degree as a candidate, and win elections, and
continue to be appointed to positions and elected to positions - and go all the way to the White House -
there is no way that politician can easily move into the private sector without risking being exposed as
a fraud, due to stockholders and others he may not be so chummy with.
In the private sector, an employer
can request and obtain one's college transcript because of that employer's legal obligation to perform due
diligence; not so in the public sector.
In the public sector neither journalists nor voters have access to college transcripts of candidates because
the college is private, or, if public, due to the 1974 FERPA law.
anobserver2
(836 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2018, 08:33 AM - Edit history (4)
For those who are interested and may have missed it:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7537718
Just remarkable to think how the outcomes of elections could have been different, how
different candidates might have run for office, and how the history of our country (and our present)
might be different, if voters knew more about who they were voting for and why -- as, in my opinion,
any voters thinking they are voting for "academic genius" in GH Bush or Jeb Bush were grossly deceived.
anobserver2
(836 posts)I think the answer to your question may perhaps be found in looking closely at what
is happening right now with the nomination of the new CIA director Gina H.
In November 2018 the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the CIA because the CIA
is not providing the public with enough material information about Gina H:
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/aclu-v-cia-complaint-0
If you read paragraphs 3 and 8, you get an idea of the type of information being
released by the CIA about Gina H: she likes "Johnny Cash" and she visited with
"Mother Theresa."
I am wondering if the same lack of information is what was presented to
what you claim was a Democrat-controlled Senate back when GH Bush was nominated.
In other words, perhaps the answer to your question is it's not that the CIA "missed"
the Yale fraud, but that the CIA knew but did not disclose it to the Senate. I don't know,
but based on what is happening right now with Gina H., according to the above lawsuit,
it seems like the CIA knows more than it is willing to disclose about nominations of CIA directors.
I know it is a shock that the government lies to the public, just as it was when we
all learned of the Pentagon Papers back whenever. I thought the recent movie with Tom Hanks
and Meryl Streep - "The Post" - about that era made some very important points about
how chummy and buddy-buddy the press can be with politicians.
It would therefore not surprise me that perhaps some media did know, and has known all along,
and knows now, that GH Bush was a college drop-out.
What is disheartening to me is that someone with that much "protection" probably does not think
any abuse of power will be reported or investigated either, and I believe such a person is correct.
However, in the private sector, that is why CEOs who fake college degrees are not tolerated and are
ousted - because you never know what else they might do or what other lies they might tell.
It is too bad that voters and journalists do not have the same legal rights to obtain a college transcript
as the private sector employer has in this country, as otherwise, there might be several more politicians
who would be out of a job. Who knows.
Because GH Bush had such high level positions prior to being nominated as CIA director, and if the
CIA knew but didn't tell anything about his resume fraud of faking a college degree, and since a college
degree is not even required for this job, the issue probably never came up at all.
But here is what happens in the private sector, below -- and it is quite telling to me that GH Bush, after
losing his 2nd presidential election, never sought any position in the private sector - maybe because
he knew he risked being outed as a fraud if he did.
https://www.ethics.net/a/bye-bye-yahoo-ceo-the-ethics-of-resume-fraud
Ethics Center: Business Ethics
Bye-Bye Yahoo CEO: The Ethics of Resume Fraud
By: National Ethics Association on May 14th, 2012
Watching the ouster this week of Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson leaves us scratching our head. Why would someone talented enough to head up a major technology company claim to have a phony computer-science degree?
…no one is immune to punishment for credential fraud. Just ask Dave Edmondson, who in 2006 was forced to resign as Radio Shack CEO for claiming two fake degrees. Or Ronald Zarrella of Bausch & Lomb who offered to resign as CEO and wound up seeing his $1.1 million bonus rescinded. Zarrella had listed a phony NYU MBA on his resume.
anobserver2
(836 posts)This is a really interesting article, quoting various Supreme Court justices when the Stolen Valor Act was being considered:
Law - Is A Lie Just Free Speech, Or Is It A Crime?
Listen· 5:465:46
Download
Transcript
February 22, 20126:56 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
Nina Totenberg
https://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147257716/is-a-lie-just-free-speech-or-is-it-a-crime
---------
My own take on this is as follows: Prior to (and immediately after) the Stolen Valor Act, it was considered "free speech" to go around and claim you have a military medal when in fact you do not, as I understand it. From the above article:
"At the center of the case is Xavier Alvarez, a former California county water board member who is an undisputed liar. Among his lies is that he played professional hockey, served in the Marines and rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis. None of those lies was illegal.
But when he claimed to have won the "Congressional Medal of Honor," that lie was a violation of the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to make false claims about receiving military medals.
Alvarez appealed his conviction and won. A federal appeals court struck down the law as a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
The government appealed to the Supreme Court, where Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on Wednesday told the justices that the law regulates only a narrowly drawn category of calculated falsehoods, and that the "pinpointed" pure lies targeted by the statute are not speech protected by the First Amendment."
So, to put it simply, it seems to me: If there was no Stolen Valor Act law (enacted under GW Bush, I believe), it would still be considered "free speech" to go around claiming you won a military medal - even though you did not.
Well, there is no such thing as the "Stolen Scholar Act."
So, apparently, it would be OK to go around in public claiming you have college degrees - even though you do not.
Indeed, look at what one Supreme Court justice said in the article:
Still, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered, "Where do you stop?"
Could Congress make it a crime for a person to falsely claim that he graduated from high school?
Verrilli conceded that Congress, or more likely state governments, could make it a crime to lie about having graduated from high school.
To sum up - Congress has NOT made it a crime to falsely claim that one has graduated from high school - or, I will add, college.
Therefore, if GH Bush or anyone else wants to go before the Senate to be confirmed as CIA Director -- a job which does not require any formal education as I understand it -- and wants to claim he got a Doctorate degree in ten minutes, right now that is considered free speech. It is not violating any "Stolen Scholar" law because there is no such law. What one is doing is exercising free speech.
Taking it one step further - it was only when the military vets became so outraged that others were falsely claiming to have earned military medals that the Stolen Valor Act came into being. So, likewise, scholars would have to become outraged that politicians lie and claim degrees they did not earn, thus requiring a "Stolen Scholar Act."
But until that happens, it appears lies in the public sector about educational credentials are considered to be free speech. Politicians are allowed, nationally, to lie, about such matters as education credentials.
Instead of more transparency in elections (Which I'm now guessing will never happen on this issue), maybe voters need more educating, to understand:
what a politician says is considered free speech. There is no such thing as the "Stolen Scholar Act" so you the voter have to evaluate the media's reported claims about politicians. If a politician claims he got a 4 year undergraduate degree in only 2-1/2 years and you read that in the newspaper, it doesn't mean the reporter went and fact checked it; it means the politician has the right to lie because the politician has the right to free speech.
And, you the voter have the right to choose to believe it or not believe it. ( But there's no violation of law because: There is no such thing as the "Stolen Scholar Act." )
Maybe it is thus considered free speech by the Senate and CIA.
But still - the private sector functions very differently than the public sector. When one comes from the private sector, works hard in school to earn degrees, then one is deeply offended that public officials lie about having degrees. Yet -- in the public sphere of speech:
."
"Justice Elena Kagan noted that quite a few states have laws on the books that make it a crime for political candidates to lie during a political campaign. But Verrilli said those laws too would likely be unconstitutional because they would risk chilling speech
So, when it comes to education credentials, it's all free speech if a politician lies.
Good to know.
anobserver2
(836 posts)Journalists could help educate voters by pointing out when a politician is making claim that
has not been fact-checked by the individual reporter.
Instead of acting as a megaphone for an educational credential claimed by a politician --
who may be exercising his free speech to lie to the public and to voters -- the news media,
I believe, has an obligation to always state:
"According to the politician, he has a doctorate degree he claims he obtained in ten minutes."
or whatever.
Be very clear and let the voter know: you the reporter did not fact check this claim.
Maybe someday there will be a Stolen Scholar's Act. But - I will guess not.
anobserver2
(836 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2019, 01:40 PM - Edit history (2)
In addition to writing:
"According to the politician, he has a doctorate degree he claims he obtained in ten minutes."
journalists should help educate voters by adding this:
(Under federal law, it is impossible for a journalist to fact-check this candidate's claim by obtaining a transcript
from the private college, and the candidate has not voluntarily released a transcript OR not possible to obtain from the public college because of federal law, FERPA. Only a private sector employer has the right to obtain a transcript from a college, whether private or public.)
And a really sharp reporter could add:
"According to the academic department of the college, there is no such thing as an 'accelerated' undergraduate degree program in this major" -- if that is the case.
That would really help educate voters.
Because here is what these free-speech / liar politicians can do:
-They can corrupt the front office of the university - the registrar and the lawyer, so that a 1-page
"academic certification" pretends the candidate has a degree; but
-They don't bother corrupting the academic dept from where the degree was allegedly obtained.
Consequently, you have the situation I encountered re Jeb Bush with my MuckRock thread to
the University of Texas:
-The liar lawyer and registrar will shove a forgery at you (or, me, as I did not ask for anything other
than a transcript, which I did not realize could NOT be obtained even for a presidential candidate),
-But the academic dept of that university, which I contacted without mentioning Jeb Bush's name,
basically told me: it's impossible for a degree to be obtained the way you (meaning Jeb Bush) describe.
I bet the same thing would happen with Yale -
--The liar lawyers/registrar might claim GH Bush has a degree; but
--The economics dept would tell you, if they don't realize you're asking about GH Bush's claims -
it's impossible to obtain an undergraduate degree that way (in only 2-1/2 years from that dept alone).
-------
A little test I did when Jeb Bush tried to go cross over to the private sector - into Major League Baseball, when
he publicly boasted he was buying the Miami Marlins with Derrick Jeter:
I wrote to Major League Baseball and told them I believe Jeb Bush was engaging in resume fraud and
urged them to obtain his transcript from the University of Texas. (Because Major League Baseball has
ethical standards to uphold for new owners and they are required to do due diligence.)
I believe that Major League Baseball front office DID go then ask the University of Texas for his transcript, which is their right
as a private employer under FERPA (Family Education Rights and PRiavacy Act).
Why do I believe they did?
Because here's what Jeb Bush then did: he "withdrew" without explanation, his effort to become a major league
baseball owner with Derrick Jeter.
Derrick Jeter , along with a different partner , is now the new owner of the Miami Marlins.
Jeb Bush either has a transcript that shows he dropped out of University of Texas, or, more likely, his father
destroyed any transcript, in my opinion
So, what did he have to do? Withdraw. And that's what he did.
My feeling was this: Jeb, if you're going to cross over to the PRIVATE sector, then your lies are no longer protected as "free speech." (And so - you're OUT.) The possibility of a little sunshine and transparency was all it took for him to withdraw.
This guy has gotten more than enough mileage out of faking a college degree. Major League Baseball doesn't want nor need a cheater new team owner.
But this is a hard lesson to teach Democrats it seems, if one wants to see all this in partisan terms:
Republicans can prosecute any candidate for falsely claiming a medal under certain terms of the "Stolen Valor" Act
but
Democrats can NOT prosecute any candidate for falsely claiming a college degree because there's no "Stolen Scholar" Act.
You have to wait until the candidate tries to move into the private sector - into a job or area where the candidate is not
best friends/or family friends with the private entity - and then suggest that entity ask for a transcript, which that private
entity (but not journalists or voters) can request under federal law (FERPA).
Then the bogus claim of the candidate will cause the candidate to: withdraw. And retreat.
The lies of the politician do not cut it in the private sector.
But what an eye-opener that Major League Baseball has a higher ethical standard for new team owners than we
have for candidates seeking such high offices as governor or president.
Major League Baseball does not want a cheater owning a team. And frankly, as a voter, I do not want a cheater
running a state or the country.
Unfortunately, cheaters are protected in their political free speech and can lie about degrees.
And if they have a relationship with a private or public university's lawyer and/or registrar, they can get away with it.
Just one little forgery of an "academic certification" is all it takes.
Political candidate degree fact-checking has to be done the same way the private sector does it: asking for a transcript.
But until there is a "Stolen Scholar" Act, the existing federal law - and free speech right of a candidate - does not allow that.
Journalists need to understand all this, in my opinion. And educate voters. Stop writing about these candidates' degrees as if the journalist has fact-checked it, when existing federal law does not even allow real fact checking via a transcript.
anobserver2
(836 posts)I never thought I would post so much on this thread. And it is just my opinion.
But our country has so many great people. Why is it too much to ask that our candidates be
required to meet the same standards any private sector employer requires of its employees?
Of telling the truth about their credentials?
Why can't we be an informed electorate - and have more transparency in elections?
Isn't it supposed to be: "Government of the People, by the People and for the People" ?
Just asking.
https://www.ethics.net/a/bye-bye-yahoo-ceo-the-ethics-of-resume-fraud
Ethics Center: Business Ethics
Bye-Bye Yahoo CEO: The Ethics of Resume Fraud
By: National Ethics Association on May 14th, 2012
Watching the ouster this week of Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson leaves us scratching our head. Why would someone talented enough to head up a major technology company claim to have a phony computer-science degree?
…no one is immune to punishment for credential fraud. Just ask Dave Edmondson, who in 2006 was forced to resign as Radio Shack CEO for claiming two fake degrees. Or Ronald Zarrella of Bausch & Lomb who offered to resign as CEO and wound up seeing his $1.1 million bonus rescinded. Zarrella had listed a phony NYU MBA on his resume.
anobserver2
(836 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2019, 11:38 AM - Edit history (1)
From an American patriot and Founding Father, self-taught lawyer Patrick Henry (1736-1799) :
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” ― Patrick Henry
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/361839.Patrick_Henry
-------------------
When our nation allows politicians to falsely claim college degrees under the umbrella of free speech, and to deceive voters to win elections -- by claiming a superior genius that does not exist -- I am hard-pressed to understand how that can possibly be good for the innocent person who stumbles upon such a situation, is outraged by it, but realizes: you are up against an American-created myth here, so instead of the truth shining any light, in the darkness what happens to you is this: all your individual constitutional rights are now taken away from you to silence you.
I believe this is what has happened to me. Through no fault of my own, I believe I stumbled upon a terrible situation which has haunted me for now 34 years:
A compromised CIA director abused his power, because he knew he was a fraud who could not make it in the private sector. He knew:
Were he not to win another election, then: gone is his purpose in life, his power, and his future income, because in the private sector: he risks being outed for his resume fraud.
So what does he do as a compromised CIA director? He steals millions from stockholder profits, embezzling, in a scheme against the public, to financially profit himself. He has the opportunity to do this as CIA director, and he has the motive, which is he can't make it in the private sector, and he has the means, which is the power of his CIA office.
All GH Bush had to do was to tell the head of this publicly held ad agency - a former military man himself - that it is his patriotic duty to fund "freedom fighters" (such as in Nicaragua) around the globe, and diverting the profits of this ad agency was unfortunately necessary to do this. (Some such nonsense as this.)
What is a CEO to do when a CIA director demands you divert profits to the CIA director? (How do you question that?) Is it patriotic to embezzle? Or is it embezzling - and a crime? (I think it was embezzling - a crime.)
After almost a decade of this embezzling -- resulting in the stock being chronically depressed of this publicly held ad agency (which had as a client the US govt/the US Marines) -- and stockholders asking too many questions (such as why don't we ever make any money from this stock? since the ad agency has the biggest clients in the country (Burger King, Kodak, Ford, etc) -- a stock fraud scheme was created.
The purpose of this stock fraud scheme was the same as a penny stock fraud schemes: to generate positive, fake, good news about this ad agency, in the hope this would create demand for its historically poor performing stock.
So how to do this?
To generate these fake good news articles, the former CIA director (now USA VP GH Bush), came up with a plan: a "feel good" hoax by this ad agency, unleashed upon the public. (Remember the recent news about a homeless man giving up his last $20 to help a woman buy gas for her car? And people touched by the story began donating hundreds of thousands to help the homeless guy? And then it all turned out to be one big "feel good" hoax as it was just a scam?)
Well, this feel-good hoax to conceal a decade or so of embezzling by a compromised CIA director went like this:
a full page ad in the NYT in Nov 1984, published a few weeks after this compromised former CIA director won a 2nd term as VP, claiming the public - yes, anyone in the public - could now get a job writing for this ad agency as a prize if you entered this writing contest. Wow! An ad agency this huge would now hire: on merit. You didn't have to be another white guy from an Ivy League school! Nope! You could be a woman! Black! Handicapped! Anything!
But the truth was: four white guys were already slated to take the four job openings.
Yet, when the secretary sending out the rejection letters to the 5,000 consumers duped by this hoax came upon my entry, she remembered my name -- and that I had previously applied to this ad agency (because I already worked in advertising - but not as a writer).
So she forwarded my entry to the creative director - who read it - and who was lonely and looking for a girlfriend because his had just died of some kind of brain tumor.
OH! A winner! he told his secretary. Tell that woman she is not getting a rejection letter!
So that is what I was told. And come to the agency. Where I then learned from this well meaning and earnest secretary, who had never even saw this ad: there are no jobs at this agency right now.
And there weren't.
I was the "5th" winner of this hoax -- and there was never supposed to be a 5th winner, according to the NYT business article that appeared as "news" in the NYT business section the day before the fake ad came out.
I realized for many reasons: this was a hoax on the public. A full page ad soliciting entries for a writing contest that has no advertised prize.
The next day I asked if I could pick up my work from this ad agency, and the secretary let me - and I then applied for unemployment insurance, as the ad agency where I had worked lost a big account and had laid people off, including me.
For the next 34 years, I was harassed by this compromised CIA director and his agents because: I exercised my freedom of speech, to walk away from a deceptive ad I knew was a hoax.
I did not know why this ad agency would do this to the public. But I quickly learned the media was not interested in writing about it as a hoax. They were writing about this ad as if it was a real contest, always highlighting the cute and creative 8 questions on the ad, and saying how clever these writing questions were, and how wonderful it was that wow, anyone in the public could win a job.
But it was just a stock fraud scheme I realized much later. And it was GH Bush, a compromised CIA director, who was directing it, to conceal his embezzling, is what I believe.
Well, he won't be prosecuted for any crimes he may have committed now, since he's dead.
But I do realize that the government does not like that I exercised my right to free speech by walking away from this hoax.
I understand the government never wants me to write my memoirs and describe in detail what I learned and how I learned it to arrive at my conclusions.
But this puzzle had a missing piece until I realized: GH Bush is a college drop-out and was not just a CIA director, but a compromised CIA director because of his resume fraud. He could never risk going out into the private sector in a high profile position where just one stockholder or one director could actually legally request and obtain from Yale his college transcript. Because if that transcript exists it would show: he dropped out. He never graduated with any degree in economics from any accelerated 2-1/2 year accelerated program in economics because no such program exists.
All my life I have been deprived of due process, harassed out of every place I have lived, deprived of my educational coursework and deprived of opportunity, falsely arrested for DUI, everything to make me look bad and not credible.
All because: I am a patriot. I believe what Patrick Henry believes. And my life is living proof of this:
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” ― Patrick Henry
PS The ad agency was then taken over in a hostile takeover, by a foreign entity, which still owns it today. This ad agency had been founded by a US Marine (J Walter Thompson).
It is the only US ad agency in history to have ever been taken over in a hostile takeover. (The stockholders, acting and voting over the objection of the ad agency executive management, accepted an outsider's offer to buy all their stock - because: this was the first time in decades they would make money from this chronically depressed stock. They were overjoyed to sell it.)
Of course, while I know what happened to me,
this is all my opinion what transpired behind the scenes.
And it took me until 2013 to understand this. And until 2018/19 to get the last piece of this puzzle to fit. Because I always thought: Gosh, why would GH Bush do this? Is he that greedy? That corrupt? I did not always realized: he was compromised by his resume fraud. his options outside the "Family Business" of "Public Service" were actually extremely limited. He had to grab all the money he could while he had the office of CIA Director - and IMO, that's exactly what he did.
And my life - my individual life - because I had the integrity to walk away from a hoax on the public - was destroyed. I did not know back then, as I do now, that the NYT and the CIA are buddy buddy, as the Church Commission revealed way back when in the 1970's and Carl Bernstein reported in Rolling Stone. I thought the press was supposed to be: a watchdog. Well, I learned: not always. The press completely missed the real story of the very dramatic fall of an American institution, JWT, now owned by the British (since 1987). I think the buy recognized by all the fake "good news" about this ad agency appearing in the press: this is a stock fraud scheme going on here; and yes, the stock has been chronically depressed for years...
I would really like to write a book about this, but I think I am going to be gagged from doing so. For 34 years I always have to try to stay one step ahead of all the criminal harassment in my face and it is not easy to constantly be threatened and try to live. But I understand now what happened. I didn't for many years. And in my heart, I am the true patriot, because I do believe this:
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” ― Patrick Henry
anobserver2
(836 posts)Since the Supreme Court is saying a politician can lie as a candidate, as that is the candidate's free speech,
and can lie about credentials and schooling (since that is not a crime), what happens when:
1) The candidate who lies about his education becomes governor - and the result is a permanent bio of that governor
which contains the college degree lie, and is therefore: a false public record (such as the bio posted with the governor's portrait in the Museum of Florida). Isn't that false public record also: illegal? Because a false public record in that state IS illegal. Or is it just considered: more free speech?
2) The candidate who lies about his education gets elected to Congress - and then is appointed to the UN, an Ambassador to a foreign country, CIA director, and takes the oath of office as VP, and more - is it now illegal to lie -- or is it still the candidate's free speech continued?
If elections had no consequences, then it wouldn't matter if a candidate lied about his educational background; but since elections do have consequences, and results become part of the historical record - when does the truth-telling begin after a candidate has
lied during a campaign -- and exercised free speech to lie as a candidate?
Does the truth just fall by the wayside? It seems to me: it does.
Goodheart
(5,307 posts)Even if I weren't an atheist I'd take offense to that.
obamanut2012
(26,041 posts)One of the first women's colleges in the country, still one of the top liberal arts colleges across the board, with many notable women alumni and staff, boiled down to "a girl's college."
Snidely calling "Barbara Bush" a college drop out of a girl's college (and, it should really really be "girls' college," as a graduate of the excellent Smith would know) really shows your character. She was intelligent, and was expected to leave college because she was getting married. Society really gave her no choice.
And guess what, genius? Most higher ed institutions, not only Yale, had accelerated for returning servicemen, including the one my uncle graduated from in less than three years after his return from the Pacific. His university was a mundane public university.
So many things to criticize GHW Bush and Barbara Bush, Sr. for, for this isn;t one of them. Just so petty and so misinformed, and as mean as any remark either of them ever said.
Calling Smith College a "girl's college" showed the bias of teh person who wrote this.
anobserver2
(836 posts)When you're writing a brief little opinion piece sometimes there are errors. I have changed "girl's" to "women's."
Now, here is a task for you: go out and interview some real life economists, as I did.
Ask them how plausible it is for an accredited university, or an Ivy League, to offer a 4-year degree in economics
in only "2-1/2" years.
Then tell me: how hard they laughed at your question.
And - why they said it's impossible. And then post the reason they gave you here.
In addition, write to the Yale Economics Department as I did.
See what they say about the history of their undergraduate economics department.
Then, post here.
Thanks, and have a good day.
(By the way, Yale does offer an "accelerated" degree program for undergrads in Latin American Studies - it's only 3 years,
And it does not accept CLEP tests, or AP test scores, or any transfer credits from anywhere. If you speak with people who
develop actual accelerated programs, you will find, as I did, that "3 years" is the absolute minimum. And, yes, I know that now you can get a Bachelor's in one year online from blah blah university or whatever diploma mill you wish.)
As for the CIA checking his background? Here's what I would say: Pretend you are head of the CIA. You discover the new CIA director is a fraud and is faking a college degree. Explain how disclosing that to the public will help the CIA.
As I mentioned, once these frauds win elected office - it's too late. No one will go back in time and disclose the fraud in public service. In the private sector though, it happens all the time, that a company discovers its CEO is a fraud and the stockholders and others want that fraud OUSTED.
But in public service? Well, every dime GH Bush collected, is, in my view, the result of fraud, and he and his estate should have to pay back the millions he obtained in public money salary and public money pensions.
Because that money is taxpayer money. Perhaps some do not mind doling out millions to fraud in public service, but I will bet you therer are voters, from all sides of the political spectrum, who get pretty pissed off when they discover their taxpayer dollars are paying the salary and pensions of people faking college degrees. That is why, in the private sector, a CEO will be outed, ousted, and the media reports it. But in the public sector? Do we really want to upset voters?
I guess not. But it remains very upsetting to me, and I will guess, to anyone else who worked hard in school and worked hard to pay for an undergraduate degree as I did.
Very upsetting.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)You’re obviously making things up, and citing no sources.
obamanut2012
(26,041 posts)obamanut2012
(26,041 posts)1. that isn't a little mistake, it shows your POV about women and college
2. Yeah, no, you didn't interview them and they didin't laugh. As I stated, they ahd special programs for returning military, my great uncle received an Engineering degree in less than three years.
3. Delete this OP -- it smells. It is a disgrace.
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)This unreal.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Many colleges and universities changed their schedules to accelerated during WWII including Yale, Harvard, and Cal-Tech. Yale went to classes 6 days a week and started summer sessions so those going for a BA could graduate in less than 3 years.
anobserver2
(836 posts)There was never any such thing at Yale as a 2-1/2 year undergraduate economics degree program. Nice try, though.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)He got a BA in economics in less than 3 years. Yale was offering BA degrees in less than 3 years.
hexola
(4,835 posts)Skip summer breaks - and take full schedules of classes.
4 years of college = 8 semesters.
Skipping summer break - means you are doing 3 semesters a year.
After about 2.5 years - you have 8 semesters in.
ellie
(6,928 posts)I did not know that about him but it sounds about right. The repuke party is filled with liars, crooks, charlatans, and confidence men.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)obamanut2012
(26,041 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It is more important to ignore the reality of him.
I wrote this:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211503036
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Why?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)The OP is bullshit. No sources, no citations, and he later states it’s opinion.
Kinda ignorant to believe something just because an anonymous poster said so without proof. Remember, proof lies on the ones making the claim, not the one refuting it...
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)are currently mourning him.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Look at the edit history. Also, it was edited AFTER you rec’d it.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)that GHWB dropped out of Yale?
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)This is silly.
anobserver2
(836 posts)that GH Bush graduated from Yale?
Kaleva
(36,240 posts)I see nothing in your OP that does that. Your OP would be more at home in the Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience group.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1231
anobserver2
(836 posts)"It's up to you to prove" -
-------
Why don't you go and talk to some real economists, like I did - and ask them to recommend to you a good
"2-1/2" year economics degree program - and then you go and enroll, and tell us how you liked it?
Waiting for your post!
Kaleva
(36,240 posts)Dude, cite some sources or pull this.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Waiting for you to post anything to back up your ridiculous assertions.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)from Yale. I asked you what proof do you have for claiming that he dropped out.
You have zero proof for your assertion. Your claim is pure speculation because your only proof is that you’ve talked to economists who have said that getting an economics degree in 2 1/2 years is nearly impossible.
All the accounts online say that GHWB got his degree in 3 years. I know someone who did a double major at Yale in 3 years. Her majors were molecular biophysics/biochemistry and psychology.
How in the heck did you even come up with this cockamamie story anyway 
anobserver2
(836 posts)It is so hard sometimes to deal with the audacity of the lies that the public is subjected to when it
comes to politics and politicians. It literally gives me a headache.
Thank you to those who understand
that we voters in the peanut gallery sometimes can indeed see through the lies.
stopbush
(24,392 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts)And overall, GHWB doesn't have a lot of fans on this board, apart from the many that I was happy to see are mature enough to honor his commendable military service.
Making such outrageous claims with zero in the way of proof is never a good look.
BannonsLiver
(16,288 posts)Fever swamp stuff. 
Raine
(30,540 posts)that you think you can pass off. 
Most people here though are informed enough even on those they don't like or agree with to know this is false.
anobserver2
(836 posts)I just wanted to again thank all those who recommended this thread.
And I have to say: I was quite surprised by certain comments on this thread,
which I found rather out of bounds.
I wrote an opinion piece. It is one person's opinion.
That's all it is.
When Maureen Down of the NYT writes a column praising a father and son political duo of
their academic "achievement" -- of completing 4-year college degrees in only "2-1/2" years.
and I take the opposing view -- that they did not complete anything; rather, the short length
of time indicates they dropped out -- then I am expressing my opinion. My opinion is different
than hers. That's it. You can agree or disagree.
Why the level of vicious meanness on this thread, I do not know. If you disagree with me,
and you agree with Maureen Dowd, well, good for you. It does not upset me. I do not scream
at you for your "source."
My "source" is common sense. When someone goes around saying he or she graduated
in only "2-1/2" years from an "accelerated" degree program that for various reasons
I do not believe exists, well, then, it seems to me a bit obvious there is something wrong with that picture.
And, wow - that means: In my opinion, a politician lied. Well - wowee kazowee. Now THERE's a first, huh,
that a politician, of all people, may have told a lie. Who would have ever guessed THAT could happen!
I notice there's not a lot of trust in government in recent years:
1. Trust in government: 1958-2015 | Pew Research Center
The public's trust in the federal government continues to be at historically low levels. Only 19% of Americans today say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right "just about always" (3%) or "most of the time" (16%).
[Search domain www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015/] www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015/
Survey: American public's trust in government near historic low
This is the longest period of low trust in the government since different groups started asking the question since 1958. Other times of low trust in government came during Bill Clinton's ...
[Search domain www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/03...] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/03...
The Long Decline of Trust in Government, and Why That Can Be ...
Trust in government has steadily deteriorated over the past several decades and continues to do so. Questioning the aims and efforts of government is a foundation of American citizenship. It's ...
[Search domain www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/upshot/the-long-decline-of-tru...] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/upshot/the-long-decline-of-tru...
------
But here on this DU thread, some people are jumping all over me because I guess they just
don't believe it is ever possible for any politician to ever lie. OK, fine with me. I am not
jumping all over you. Believe what you want, just as others believe what they want,
and just as I believe what I want. That's OK. That's why there are discussion forums like
this one.
I thought this an interesting article: "Why Politicians Lie" from the Washington Post.
One reason given: "II. Lying to Exploit Public Ignorance."
It seems to me that's what happens when politicians lie about college degrees. Many people
in the public are ignorant. They may well think it entirely possible to get a 2-1/2 year economics
degree - (from a program that does not exist). Whatever.
I was telling someone I learned from my experience here. As a voter, I see a pattern:
wealthy people can say whatever, get the media to publish it, and that is their world.
It's a different world for them.
My world, here in the peanut gallery, does not have time to see or source or analyze everything. But once in awhile
some topic, like resume fraud, or resume padding as it's sometimes called, which has become a topic
for researchers, does catch my eye.
And in this instance, with GH Bush (again, condolences to those mourning him), I think there is much
we do not know about him.
But in my little opinion piece, I expressed my opinion. I think he was a fraud. And I think someday history
may examine the matter further, and we will know more for the record.
Again, thanks to those who recommended my opinion piece.
And, again, condolences to those who mourn his passing.
hexola
(4,835 posts)"Donald Trumps foreign policy sucks" is an opinion...
This is a claim - that you try to support with ideas you say are facts.
So when you say "from a program that doesn't exist" you are just making shit up.
OP - did you ever attend college? Your tact here says "no."
Blecht
(3,803 posts)What the actual fuck? This is not opinion -- it's fantasy, and doesn't belong in GD.
I can't believe I wasted my time reading (and initially believing) this load of horseshit.
At least we have the ignore function here at DU which will allow me to avoid wading into any more steaming heaps coming from your keyboard.
tritsofme
(17,367 posts)As though she is some sort of victim because no one has embraced all of the lies and conspiracy theory nonsense spouted.
I needed a good laugh, thanks OP!
former9thward
(31,923 posts)Historians and media sources say he graduated from Yale in 1948. Where is the evidence from you, an anonymous poster, that he dropped out?
https://news.yale.edu/2018/12/01/lifetime-public-service-remembrance-george-hw-bush-48-ba
anobserver2
(836 posts)To all - an interesting scholarly article here, about resume fraud also known as "resume padding" -- from google scholar:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000033611.50841.55
“Small” lies, big trouble: The unfortunate consequences of résumé padding, from Janet Cooke to George O'Leary
RE Kidwell - Journal of Business Ethics, 2004 - Springer
...Cited by 27 Related articles All 11 versions
anobserver2
(836 posts)In my opinion, somehow this whole matter reminds me of the story
"The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes
"The Emperor's New Clothes" is a story by Hans Christian Andersen. The tale was first published on 7 April 1837 with "The Little Mermaid" in the third and final installment of Andersen's Fairy Tales Told for Children....
...Andersen's manuscript was at the printer’s when he suddenly changed the original climax of the tale from the emperor’s subjects admiring his invisible clothes to that of the child's cry.[3] Andersen’s decision to change the ending may have occurred after he read the manuscript tale to a child,[4] or had its source in a childhood incident similar to that in the tale. In 1872, he recalled standing in a crowd with his mother waiting to see King Frederick VI. When the king made his appearance, Andersen cried out, "Oh, he’s nothing but a human being!" His mother tried to silence him by crying, "Have you gone mad, child?". Whatever the reason, Andersen thought the change would prove more satirical.[5]