NYT: Harvard Chief Defends His Talk on Women

[DeepModem Mom]

Harvard Chief Defends His Talk on Women
By SAM DILLON

Published: January 18, 2005


The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, who offended some women at an academic conference last week by suggesting that innate differences in sex may explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers, stood by his comments yesterday but said he regretted if they were misunderstood.

"I'm sorry for any misunderstanding but believe that raising questions, discussing multiple factors that may explain a difficult problem, and seeking to understand how they interrelate is vitally important," Dr. Summers said in an interview....

***

In his presentation, Dr. Summers addressed the question of why so few women were on math and engineering faculties at top research universities.

"I began by saying that the whole issue of gender equality was profoundly important and that we are taking major steps at Harvard to combat passive discrimination," he recalled in yesterday's interview. "Then I wanted to add some provocation to what I understand to be basically a social science discussion."

He discussed several factors that could help explain the underrepresentation of women. The first factor, he said, according to several participants, was that top positions on university math and engineering faculties require extraordinary commitments of time and energy, with many professors working 80-hour weeks in the same punishing schedules pursued by top lawyers, bankers and business executives. Few married women with children are willing to accept such sacrifices, he said....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/national/18harvard.html

[Skittles]

1. he better do some serious back-peddling

nt

[Richardo]

4. back-*pedaling*

Sorry, but it's worth an ass-kicking!

[Skittles]

47. ooh, bad one

end of a verrrrrrrrrry long shift

[Proud2BAmurkin]

61. Didn't I read he used to bang the SKANK Laura Ingram?

?

[bemildred]

2. This idiot must have a death wish.

His position is, scientifically speaking, horseshit too.

[shrike]

3. I knew a Harvard-educated fellow with similar ideas

His exact words were "women are incapable of thinking in the abstract."

[MADem]

32. Sounds like he needs concrete proof

...like say, a cinder block upside his thick head!

[barb162]

42. oh, I guess I am not a woman then, damn I was thinking abstractly

I must be a man

[Justitia]

5. 1st rule - quit digging

His "explanation" is getting him in deeper.

You, sir, are an ignorant ass.
You embarrass the institution you work for.
And your wife.

:dunce:

[GoSolar]

21. You said it!

He should apologize and go away.

[BiggJawn]

39. He must want to come work in Indiana...

I'd bet one place I know of would be willing to go at least 450 kilobucks for a man of his idiocy...

[spooky3]

75. Are you kidding? He'll have plenty of job offers from all over.

His views, and hypocrisy--as reflected in the contrast between stated institutional goals and actual beliefs and concrete actions, are widespread in academe.

[October]

6. Let's flip the question

"Few married women with children are willing to accept such sacrifices, he said..."

As usual, the "difficult problem" is that women won't make sacrifices. Puh-leeze.

How many males who defend this cretin would like it if the question were flipped to:

"Why are so many men willing to abandon their children for 80 hours a week?"

[Southpaw Bookworm]

30. Ding, ding, ding

We have a winner . . .

To quote Gloria Steinem:

I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career.

[October]

52. Thank you, Southpaw Bookworm

I'm appalled there are even arguments on this thread over what Summers said/meant, etc. Disgraceful. Imagine substituting a specific race or the word "male" in place of his comments. He'd have been fired by now.

[spooky3]

76. I completely agree. Stereotyping on the basis of gender is alive

and well, and more widely tolerated than other stereotyping.

[old blue]

7. knee-jerk alert!!!

I don't understand why it is taboo to even consider the possibility of biological differences between the sexes. It is an indisputable fact that there are biological differences between men and women. It is well within the realm of scientific inquiry to examine how deep such differences run, and to what extent they are biological vs. social.

No one is making blanket statements such as "No women are fit for academic positions." Obviously, many are. However, there is hard data showing an underproportionate, though growing, number of women in math and sciences. Why any explanation should be a priori ruled out is silly.

[bemildred]

9. That is not what is "taboo".

What is "taboo" is suggesting that women, as a class, are in
some sense mentally inferior to men, as a class. To say that is
to be both morally tone-deaf and scientifically wrong.

[old blue]

11. I see no mention anywhere in his comments of mental inferiority.

The article does, however, say he alluded to "innate differences in sex." To me, that means "biological differences." I don't see how you can quite get to "mentally inferior" from that.

[bemildred]

15. So you don't feel this infers "mental inferiority":

"innate differences in sex may explain why fewer women succeed
in science and math careers"?

[old blue]

17. No, I see no necessary connection there.

whatsoever.

[bemildred]

20. So there is no "necessary connection" between

"math and science" and mental ability?

[old blue]

22. Look, he *never* said, and did not imply,

that the reason women are scarce in science and math has to do with mental ability. The elephant in this room is that, like it or not, no man ever had to take time out from his advanced training in math and science to bear a child. Irrepsective of who assumes the domestic duties after childbirth, this fact alone can account for a significant portion of the gender gap in the sciences, and has nothing whatsoever to do with mental capacity. Sorry to make more knees jerk, and of course a woman is free to choose not to have children, but many in fact do.

[bemildred]

24. I was waiting for that.

a.) One would think that the burden of raising children would affect
other fields of endeavor than math and science, yet he mentions only
those two. He does not say "women who raise children suffer a career
penalty" or the like, he cites "biological differences", that is, he
suggests that the difference is innate, genetic, congenital, not a
matter of choice, and he cites "math and science"

That is why it was a stupid thing to say, and sexist.

b.) It would be easy enough to sort out women that choose career over
child-bearing and consider how they do relative to similarly career
obsessed men, and why, but no such evidence is provided.

[old blue]

27. Hmm, that's a good point.

All I can really offer in my interest to give Summers the benefit of the doubt (since the article is very short on description) is that science and math are among the fields requiring the most rigorous training, and perhaps more relevantly, due to rapid advances are among the most difficult to get back into after a hiatus.

But your point is taken.

[Tansy_Gold]

66. Interestingly enough, girls do better overall in math and science

in grade school and junior high than boys.

It is only in high school -- in the U.S. -- when girls' grades and test scores in math and science begin to dip below the boys'.

Traditionally, this has been explained by the "social" pressure on girls to let the boys get ahead, let the boys "win," in order for the boys to "like" the girls and not be intimidated by them.

Science and math are considered "hard" sciences, best suited to traditionally "male" intellect; women are more suited for the "soft" or "social" sciences, the arts, etc. There is no objective, "scientific" proof that intellectual ability in any of these fields is affected by gendered physiology.

Tansy Gold, wishing Dr. Summers a pleasant retirement, effective TOMORROW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bemildred]

70. It's an interesting issue, but I would hazard

that an adequate supply of good female math teachers would
do much to remedy problem, positive role models in other words.

The female math students I was aquainted with in grad school did
not seem lacking in anything (I'm a guy), nor did the engineering
types I have worked with professionally. I just don't buy it as
some sort of congenital issue, it's social conditioning and the
like at work.

It's interesting in this regard that there is now a shortage of
males in the California State University system. One could speculate
that in another generation this will be seen for the drool that it is.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. What year is this?

Did you sleep through the 70s when all this was discussed?
You might want to regress to a time when sexism was acceptable, but most people thankfully do not.

[old blue]

12. If it makes me sexist to believe that there exist

biological differences between men and women, then I guess I'm sexist. But I'm also correct. If you wish to project all kinds of discriminatory beliefs upon me simply because I acknowledge very basic and obvious differences, I guess that's your right.

[DireStrike]

25. The differences between the average man and average woman

In terms of characteristics of thinking and intelligence, are less than the differences between men at both ends of the spectrum, as well as the differences between women at both ends of the spectrum.

[old blue]

29. Of course that is true

But the issue under scrutiny was not "why are there more men from one end of the spectrum in math and science than from the other end of the spectrum?" The issue under scrutiny was, "Why are there more men in math and science than women?"

In that analysis, the relevant statistics would not be so much the range and mean within the male and female populations, but more so the dispersion within each population about the mean.

[spooky3]

78. and that also is addressed in volumes of research. People should

refrain from offering views reflecting sexist (or racist, or whatever) assumptions about mean and variance differences, without reading this research and considering whether their views are supported by DATA. One might be surprised that these aren't what Summers thinks they are, and at the research showing the REAL reasons for the differences when they are found (see Tansy Gold's post above).

[schrodingers_cat]

69. I'd agree with your self assessment

As soon as one chooses to hold and assumption such as yours (and name it as truth), then you have created a set of limitations and parameters in your own mind that color any other thought or intake of information regarding the subject.
I know of which I speak - I have the same parameter limitations in regard to Republicans!!!!!!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. It's isn't taboo but if you read the article, he threw that out but

did not back it up. The humorous thing is that he pointed out that males either score extremely high or extremely low...would you want us to draw conclucions about YOUR entire sex on a random piece of information like that?

It is well within the realm of scientific inquiry to study those questions. It is not within the realm of scientific inquiry to make blanket statements and then strive to prove yourself right...that is what religion does.

[old blue]

18. The article doesn't really tell us what he might have said to support his

position. And it certainly doesn't tell us what "conclusions" he may have drawn. He merely seems to be one of the few approaching this with an open mind, and he's being raked over the coals for it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. There is nothing OPEN about dragging out old sexist presumptions

We could discriminate against males since they tend to die younger and have increased risk of heart disease thereby increasing the costs of retraining and health insurance in the workplace but we don't...why is that?

You, like he, simply don't have a problem with blanket statements that haven't been proven since they don't negatively affect you.

[old blue]

23. biological difference does not equal mental difference

"We could discriminate against males since they tend to die younger and have increased risk of heart disease thereby increasing the costs of retraining and health insurance in the workplace but we don't."

I wouldn't have a problem if we did. Or perhaps just cut a break to the insurance premiums of women. I'm actually surprised if it is indeed the case that we do not. I know I certainly had to pay higher car insurance simply because I was male. Was that wrong?

Whoever this guy is, and whatever his training, he seemed to be bringing up a point of contention that ought to be scientifically examined, given what we have learned *since* the 70s. Instead he is being told to "shut up," dismissed with namecalling, and people are using phrases like "the likes of summers." That's not "open."

I was only 5 when they ended, but I was unaware that the 70s disproved and closed the book on the obvious fact that there exist biological differences between men and women. It's a shame that some are afraid to examine the extent of those differences and what they might have to tell us.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. He said what he said without a shred of evidence..

nothing scientific about that...

[old blue]

36. What exactly did he say?

Apparently they kept no transcript or record. All I've heard are other people's characterizations of what he said.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. No... we heard the accounts of what he said by credible academics

some who had no problem with it... some who did...now you are grabbing :D

[old blue]

38. It is "grabbing" to ask what the man actually said?!?!?!?!

I guess that explains my experience so far in this thread.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. OK now you are being obtuse

There is no statement in this article but what was said was stated in the article yesterday MINUS the transcript and the general grasp of what was said was in THIS article.

Your experience in this thread thus far is framed by your unwillingness to acknowledge that what was reported to be said was colored by a rather obvious bias. It is quite diffucult to have a rational conversation with someone who pretends it is science to tar women with a broad brush.

[old blue]

46. I did not see yesterday's article until just now.

So I was drawing only from this thread.

After reading yesterday's article, I will concede that, at the very least, he probably said some things that on the surface resembled a demonstration of vulgar sexism.

I have a very hard time believing, however, that the president of Harvard would make such statements at a professional gathering absent a working scientific hypothesis. One doesn't get to occupy such a position by being an idiot (it's not like the presidency of the USA), and his refusal to retract whatever he said makes me fairly confident that this was no "Jimmy the Greek" moment and he actually had some scientific reasoning behind what he knew would be unpopular words.

It seems far more likely to me that, given the nature of the subject matter, some were eager to find fault and place words in his mouth. One need look no further than, say, post 31, to see such eagerness on display. And again, based on the content of the now two threads on this, I don't see a good reason to rescind the benefit of that doubt.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. Except that a scholar of equal prestige who happened to be a woman

and an academic at MIT heard it and perceived it the same way and was there. I have to no reason to deny her the benefit of the doubt. Summers comments prompted her to walk out. we're at an impasse. Nothing knee jerk about it..you just see an alleged scientific statement where there was no science to back it up..that's called belief not science.

[old blue]

50. Since you know what constitutes science,

then you must surely recognize that the MIT professor was *clearly* acting from emotion, rather than making a *scientific* response. I sincerely hope you are not basing your contention that Summers's claims had "no science to back them up" on the testimony of the woman who refused to even listen to all he had to say. A scientific response comes in the form of argument or demonstration--which she presumably would have had opportunity to make-- and not from walking out on a talk.

I never claimed my position on this matter to be anything other than mere belief. I've remained properly skeptical from the word go, explicitly citing the *lack of data.* I jhave sincere doubts that Summers would have presented such topics without any support whatsoever. Unlike most, apparently,though, I place the burden of proof on those who would charge that a presentation prepared for a professional meeting was nothing more than vulgar sexism.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. And I place the burden of proof on Summers since he made the claim

If he'd like to PROVE it's more than vulgar sexism, I am all ears.

[Tansy_Gold]

67. And Summers apparently has a long history of, shall we say,

bigotry.

Now, IIRC, wasn't "old blue" carrying on about the importance of "biological" differences between the sexes, and yet wasn't it also "old blue" who said biological differences weren't the same as intellectual differences?

Or is poor ol' Tansy Gold just confused?

[old blue]

73. yes and yes. What's he confusion?

Biological differences may include but are not reduceable to intellectual differences.

[old blue]

74. ok, then I think we've reached the source of our disagreement

that is, where to lay the burden of proof. I think we both are ready to condemn truly sexist behavior, just as we both are ready to listen to a scientific case. We simply disagree about what we can conclude from the information presented here. Good day to you :)

[spooky3]

79. why don't you spend some of the time you spend arguing READING

the scientific literature?

Would that not be a more rational, and less emotional, thing to do?

[October]

26. He wouldn't dare

He wouldn't have dare said "men lack a natural ability" or are just "not willing to make sacrifices" in order to raise a family...


The onus or "blame" or whatever you want to call it is laid squarely at the feet of women.

That's just another reason why people are irked by his remarks.

I happen to have a friend who is a research scientist (PhD) and another friend who is an electrical engineer. They are BOTH mothers.


Edited to clarify quote.

[old blue]

28. Notice he did not say those things about women either

Nor did he assign blame or responsibility anywhere.

[October]

51. He most certainly did

[old blue]

84. source? n/t

[Runcible Spoon]

31. all right I've read enough of this shit!

the language used, "innate/biological differences" is verbatim from 19th C evolutionists such as Spencer, Tylor, LH Morgan, whose work was used to justify British colonial "escapades" of exploitation. Now it's being "fashionably" resurrected to justify/explain the gender gap in academia. Before you spew out some naive uninformed defense of this piece of intellectually devolved swine, read those authors I mentioned. You will see that the language is not randomly chosen, but reflects a centuries-old meme that is conveniently trotted out to debase blacks, women, native americans, WHOEVER is the target of the times, which ever group is getting too uppity for its own good and threatening the hegemony of rich white men. I IMPLORE you! Educate yourself! /rant off/

[old blue]

35. Um, the only "innate biological differences" I'm talking about are

of the 'boys have a penis, girls have a vagina' variety. I can see very little that's even debatable about that premise. Anything beyond that are words that you are trying to stuff in my mouth and call "shit." The simple fact that men and women are constructed differently and perform different bodily functions has all sorts of social effects on us, and I think it's a valid topic for scientific study. If you consider that to be "shit," then I guess I can accept that.

I do not deny that malicious and/or passive sexism are evils to be conquered and remedied; I simply have yet to be convinced that that's what is going on in this case, and am distressed that so many are so eager to castigate what may be a legitimate line of scientific inquiry based on the scant evidence available here.

[Just Me]

41. Doesn't take a helluva lot of science to explain why men spend less time

at home precluding women from having an equal opportunity to achieve.

Society still financially rewards ambitious male workaholics and demeans women who fail to bear the greatest of parental burden. It's a form of discrimination passively reinforced by rewards and punishments built into our cultural system, having nothing to do with penises and vaginas.

[old blue]

44. I would argue that

the scenario you describe has a great deal to do with penes and vaginas.

I.e., though you prefer to end the causal chain at discrimination, I would ask why that discrimination ever took root. Then it becomes a social scientific question, and perhaps even beyond that, a biological question.

And geez, talk about blanket statements!

[Just Me]

56. You can't even spell "penis"; yet, summarily dismiss my observation.

DISCRIMATION is at the BEGINNING of this chain,...and I would just LOVE to see you deny THAT FACT.

Whatever, with the "blanket statements" bullshit,...which you have pulled out of your very small, boxed, uninviting, uninventive hat.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

65. Not to disagree with your basic point, but "penes"

is the plural of "penis".

And yes, it IS unjustified discrimination. Reply #6 says it all...

[Just Me]

77. Thank you. n/t

[old blue]

82. ok, here goes

You proclaim, very loudly I might add, that discrimination is at the beginning of this causal chain, and dare me to deny that "fact."

Ok, I deny it. All I have to do is ask why there would ever have been discrimination. Why did Ogg slap Olga and make her stay in the cave while he went out to hunt? If discrimination is, as you say, the uncaused cause, then Ogg slapped her for no reason whatsoever.

That just doesn't make much sense to me. Whenever the symbolic "first" act of discrimination took place, you can bet it did not just arise out of the ether, but rather it had some kind of reason behind it. Perhaps not a *good* reason, and almost certainly not a "justification," but a cause nonetheless.

I'm no evolutionary biologist, nor an anthropologist, but I can at least conceive of a situation in which sexual discrimination may have had a biological cause. It seems reasonable that it would have benefitted the survival of primitive humans to have a division of labor in the family. Someone go get the food, someone take care of the cave. If this regime proved beneficial from a survival standpoint, then Ogg's slap could at least be partially accounted for, if not excused.

So, I have offered a scenario in which discrimination is not the first cause--which is in all honesty a ridiculous proposition--but a regrettable side effect of the evolutionary, biological process.

PS: You are hereby invited into my uninventive hat.

[Runcible Spoon]

63. replace "black/red/yellow/white/brown skin" with "penis/vagina"

in your argument and what have you got? 19th C evolutionist arguments all over again. If you would like to renew these "valid lines of scientific inquiry" build a time machine and go back to 19th C England. Just don't expect a receptive audience here.

[Runcible Spoon]

62. yes even biological differences like "penis" and "vagina"

are NOT static categories! Where would you place intersexed people or transgendered in your convenient categories? Or how much relevance does a penis or a vagina have to species-wide consequences if you choose not to use them to make more humans? What is really driving human development? What exactly do you mean by :legitimate line of scientific inquiry" anyway?

[old blue]

83. granted

Granted, not everyone has one and only one of either penis or vagina, and not everyone who does have one or the other chooses to use them for reproduction. I don't see what that has to do with anything, other than your trying to score points by saying that my admittedly very general argument does not apply to transgendered people. Since I'm not trying to write a dissertation here, I can live with that omission.

You ask a very good question, though: "What is really driving human development?"

I don't know, but I mean my phrase "legitimate line of scientific inquiry" to apply to question just like that. Ones to which we do not know the answers, but the answers to which would enrich our understanding of the world and ourselves.

My problem with the response to Summers talk is that I see an unanswered scientific question at stake: "do biological effects play any role in the disproportionate number of men in the sciences?" And I see many automatically proclaiming the answer to be "NO" and castigating whoever would even dare ask such a question. That response is paying little respect to the search for truth, and much thrift to political motives. It gives me the same feeling I get when creationists start talking about the big bang.

I've been doing some checking, and it appears Summers is indeed a grade A jackass. Nevertheless, I stand behind all I've said here.

[DrWeird]

45. Nobody accidently says "Martin Luther Coon Day"

Oh, wait. That's a different bigot. It's so hard to tell these days.

[sendero]

59. Boy you stepped in it now..

... there is no reasoning with anyone on this subject here at DU and you might as well not waste your time.

People wonder what killed feminism, you are looking at it right here.

[gratuitous]

8. Mr Summers? Please give me that shovel

You've dug quite deeply enough. Please shut up now. You're not helping yourself with the "explanation." Return to your cave, and resume grunting at Oog for not building a fire while you were gone.

[Anakin Skywalker]

53. You Win!

For the best and funniest reaction to this story. :)

[yardwork]

57. Best. Response. Ever.

[spooky3]

81. LOL!

[Mizmoon]

13. This will be coming up more in the near future

There is a psychological tool we have been able to use to keep the peace, as it were, between the genders, races, etc. That tool is the adamant belief that we're all exactly alike - we are all red-blooded, need food and shelter, will die from poison, etc. We ARE the same.

Oh, but wait a minute. We have known that some illnesses only effect certain groups, like tay sachs for example. Now it's going a little further ... we have just recently begun to discuss medication that is gender and/or race specific, for example that new heart medication that does not work well on white men, but works very well on black men. That means that our biology is not exactly the same as we once believed.

So now we, as a racially charged society, are looking at each other again with new curiosity ... are we the same or not? Are we different? Does that mean one is better than another?

It's a big can of intellectual worms that will unwind for some time to come.

[yardwork]

58. Nobody says that we're all exactly the same

I don't think it's too much to ask that everyone be treated with respect and dignity. Summers's comments were ignorant, unsubstantiated speculation that women aren't as smart as men.

That's why people are unhappy with his statement.

[cap]

14. the only way the likes of summers can reproduce

is to find a woman who isnt working an 80hr week and convince HER to stay at home with the kids and not see her husband during most of her waking hours....

Many women would like to work more...it's just that the whole system is skewed to favor those who get wives who are willing to put up with this.

How can u really be a father and a husband only 32 hrs per week(168 hrs total in a week - 80 hr work week - 56 hr sleep = 32 hours). Those 32 hours are not exactly spent with a live wire !!! You just dont have much personality after all that work.

If any of these 80-hr week men wonder why they are getting divorced...

[devilgrrl]

34. I would think that the "Concerned Women for America" share...

his point of view.

Who cares what this guy thinks? Women are their own worse enemy.

[alfredo]

43. Non Sequitur on the glass ceiling.

[AirAmFan]

48. Summers got where he is thru nepotism and has proceeded to insult most

most of the world.

His recent incredibly sexist remarks remind me how he drove Cornell West away from Harvard with personal insults and how he deeply offended environmentalists and poor people during his World Bank days.

His most famous assertion was that somehow there was economic justification for locating toxic dumps where poor people live:

"Mr. Summers' name will ... forever be inextricably linked to some words he penned in 1991 which sent shock waves around the world. At that time, Mr. Summers, then chief economist of the World Bank, wrote in an internal memo, "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that." (From http://archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/html/content/toxtrade/trade.html )

And his self-righteous anti-environment stands made waves when he was Clinton's Treasury Secretary.

From a 1997 NY Times article, at http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~mtwomey/newspapers/1105summ.html

'November 5, 1997
Lawrence Summers: A Tough Guy at Treasury
By DAVID E. SANGER and LOUIS UCHITELLE

WASHINGTON --

He is the child of economists and the nephew of two Nobel laureates in economic science -- Paul Samuelson on his father's side, Kenneth Arrow on his mother's. ... When President Clinton finally declared the United States' position on global warming last month, Summers, the deputy treasury secretary, led the economic camp that won the day over the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, scaling back the United States' commitments on its emission of pollutants. ... he has bruised more than a few egos, from Republican members of Congress who complain they have been lectured on economic principles as if they were classroom dullards, to administration colleagues who have felt some sharp bureaucratic elbows....

"I've learned that being precisely analytically accurate is neither necessary nor sufficient for being constructive in Washington's debates," he said recently over lunch a block from the White House. "After being a professor of political economy, I guess now I'd give more weight to the political than to the economic than when I first got here."'

[IndianaGreen]

55. There is no misunderstanding in here...

He is a sexist pig and should resign his post. I am sure that Falwell's Liberty University will welcome this Neanderthal with open arms.

[bobbieinok]

60. replay of arguments raised in the 60s and 70s

that were replays of the arguments advanced against women voting

that were replays of arguments against women being educated

replay-replay-replay

[cosmicdot]

64. wonder what he knows re Harvard Mgmt. Co. and Harken Energy?

I mean if he wants to be embolden.

http://elitewatch.911review.org/Harvard_Corporation.html

... so many are feeling embolden these days ... the good ol'boys aren't holding back ...

how lucky it must be to feel so embolden on one hand and, and on the other hand, to have made it in such books as Arianna Huffington's "Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America" and Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: An Investigative Reporter Exposes the Truth About Globalization, Corporate Cons, and High-Finance Fraudsters".
http://www.namebase.org/sources/gD.html
http://www.namebase.org/sources/gB.html

well done, Mr. Summers -- hope it was all good


"The biggest institutional investor in Harken back then was Harvard Management Company, the private investment arm of the great university and steward of its multibillion-dollar endowment. As of March 30, 1990, Harvard was the single-largest owner of Harken stock, with 29.4 per cent of the outstanding shares. Curiously, the university's investments in Harken began a few years earlier, immediately following the company's purchase of Bush's foundering Spectrum 7 oil exploration outfit."

http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2002/07/11/bush/

[Kelvin Mace]

68. I am idiot, hear me roar

The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, who offended some women at an academic conference last week by suggesting that innate differences in sex may explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers, stood by his comments yesterday but said he regretted if they were misunderstood.

Translation: I stand by what I said, but I am sorry you didn't understand what I said. After all, women have problems understanding me, so it must be their fault.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

The taste of Republican butt does not improve with age.

"The NeoCons can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They do not feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

[American liberal]

71. I am so glad I read your post before I started a REAL flame war

They say ignorance is bliss. Maybe that's why I get pissed off so often: I know too much!

[Boosterman]

72. Kinda OT

On NPR the other day there was some sort of socio biologist or something that was trying to explain the differences between men and women from an evolutionary and biological viewpoint. It was very interesting but men came out the idiots in his view. men were more aggressive hunter types and women were more talented and varied in their talents due to the fact that they had to do everything else except kill the critters. they were also more valuable than men so were protected since you only need a few guys to hunt sire children. Interesting stuff and he had some good points.

[spooky3]

80. Pres. Summers: Mr. Burns called--he'd like to endow a chair for you

at The University of Springfield!

D'oh!

[AngryAmish]

85. He has no right to speak on the subject.

He must be silenced. Crush him.

[leesa]

86. Ah yes. The same type of misunderstanding his fellow bigot Bush had about

Muslims, eh? Dump this ignorant creep!