Summer's Controversy and Hillary

Gary C Gibson - 11:15am Feb 25, 2005 EDT (#147 of 147)
Reason and faith can discover a cosmic structure fit for rational parameters subject unto God's moral law.

Help those that can't afford to love America or leave it; buy a liberal a sailboat to leave for France.

This Summers conundrum is a sort of Salavdor Dali-sized political dramaturgy leaning over-much on the The Vaginal Monologues The issue is about elites and wealth, business power and network, the Prestige of Harvard in a world neither sexually egalitarian nor American, and with a wobbly tendency to transit toward authoritarianism.

Harvard just barely places ahead of my old school The University of the State of New York(Excelsior College) for alumni connections,social prestige and monetary endowment,one day a USNY alumnus may be elected to congress, or become a colonist to Europa...who can say, the possibilities are limitless, the probabilities somewhat less.

American females of the comfortable middle class would reasonably seek to take the top paying jobs and government/collegiate sinecures available to the most privelaged social mileau firstly. The present insiders would seek to keep whatever advantages they have of course. Others would sail to France or Germany in relation to their political spin state toward the left or right.

To mollify an agitated crowd Harvard may need to release President Summers to free agency,and then hire some well known female celebrity to become President. If Hillary Clinton were not in the U.S.Senate she would be an obvious choice.

President Summers was an old loyalist of Bill,his adroit oriental timing in tossing out Harvard's big bone of chauvinism to the leading national feminist masses may be such as to provide a bit of early political support of indignation and wrath needed to coagulate some of the milk in the nascent pudding of Senator Clinton's potential Presidential campaign to return the White House to the Clinton clan in 2008.

These elitist political issues fail to be of serious interest for those whom are merely poor. Raising one's income from 4000 a year to 24,000 a year is much more life changing than raising one's income from 50,000 annually to 250,000. The difference of moving from 3000 nights sleeping on the ground in a tent to awakening on a super-soft,scientificly comfortable feathery mattress high above the ground...to step downto the polished floor each morn,with a climate controlled environment, a refrigerator and a lifetime larder of food,high-techj eqp and to watch never-ending reruns of Ophrah or Washington Week in review is substantial.

Help the digruntled right wing move to Germany...give them a plane ticket and apartment on the Ruhr

From 50,000 to 250,000 a year may mean just more floor space and a more prestigious neighborhood and car. 4000 to 24,000 means having one's own teeth to old age,and having health insurance or even affording tyo raise a family in the expensive U.S. social environment. 50,000 to 250,000 means being able to have liver transplants, two or three families,and to afford tuition for one's kids and grandkids at Yale or Harvard.

Yet the top jobs and the striving for them are issues the elites care mightily about in the U.S.A. If they were as interested in keeping net loss of biota and ecological and social health and civil liberties improving instead of being degraded it would be of more interest to the poor.