

R.I.P.
Useful but endangered.
''It's possible I made some reference to innate differences. . . I did say that you have to be careful in attributing things to socialization. . . That's what we would prefer to believe, but these are things that need to be studied."
Summers said cutting-edge research has shown that genetics are more important than previously thought, compared with environment or upbringing. As an example, he mentioned autism, once believed to be a result of parenting but now widely seen to have a genetic basis.
In his talk, according to several participants, Summers also used as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral parenting. Yet she treated them almost like dolls, naming one of them "daddy truck," and one "baby truck."
Well, obviously if his daughter anthropomorphizes trucks, then girls must be genetically predisposed to not want to pursue or excel in science!
Now, I know I'm one of the many who are up in arms about his comments without actually hearing the context in which they were made. So, take my criticism with a grain of salt. But, do think long and hard about what it means for a college president to be open to the possibility that women do not pursue science as much as men due to genetics. He is not some biological theorist - he crafts and implements educational policies at one of the most prestigious colleges in the country. The implications of his personal beliefs on this issue could be huge.
Additionally,
Summers' third point was about discrimination. Referencing a well-known concept in economics, he said that if discrimination was the main factor limiting the advancement of women in science and engineering, then a school that does not discriminate would gain an advantage by hiring away the top women who were discriminated against elsewhere.
Because that doesn't seem to be a widespread phenomenon, Summers said, "the real issue is the overall size of the pool, and it's less clear how much the size of the pool was held down by discrimination."
Yes, and how often has this "well-known concept in economics" been used to justify discrimination? I've heard it used plenty of times to explain why discrimination will not happen in the labor market (or at least why it won't be sustained), and have never been convinced that this popular economic principle is put into practice in real life.
I certainly empathize with MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins' statement about why she had to leave Summers' speech:
I would've either blacked out or thrown up [if I hadn't].
Court records reflected that Shamrock is a meat and poultry trader that buys salvaged, damaged and otherwise distressed product from insurance companies in salvage sale situations for subsequent resale. In May 1998, Shamrock purchased 162,000 pounds of product from Stoner and Company, Inc. The product was part of a salvage operation resulting from a refrigeration failure at Bruno's, Inc. of Birmingham, Alabama, a retail store distributorship. On May 14, 1998, Shamrock sold 660 cases (41,807 pounds) of pork butts to R.W. Zant, a Los Angeles, California distributor, via Lighthouse Trading, a Newton, Iowa meat broker. Two hundred cases were sent directly to R.W. Zant, while the other 460 cases were delivered to a Los Angeles cold storage warehouse. Soon after its receipt of the 200 cases, R.W. Zant and Lighthouse notified Shamrock of complaints that the pork butts were spoiled and had a sour odor. Though Shamrock had been notified of this spoilage, it caused the other 460 cases to be delivered to Professional Food Systems, an El Paso, Texas retail store distributor. Professional Food Systems, in turn, sold some of the 60 cases of spoiled, putrid pork butts to New Mexico retail stores prior to learning the meat was adulterated. Importantly, the adulterated pork butts were recovered before they were sold to retail customers.
Meanwhile, international humanitarian and charitable organizations that have increasingly come under scrutiny for not only inefficiency, but also due to the larger effects of “international NGO-ization” that actively hinders grassroots development and autonomy, are suddenly propelled to the forefront as saviours for the Third World. Let us be clear that there is no doubt that humanitarian work in order to save lives and provide adequate access to food and shelter is absolutely necessary. But the larger context must never be lost: international aid and NGO work will largely defuse the anger of those affected by the tsunami. Anger that again the people of the Third world are not important enough to matter; that again, preventative measures (such as early detection measures that exist in the Pacific rim) that could have been taken were considered expendable. The power and anger of the people has again been channelled into victimization to curb any political resistance.
The author's linkages between natural disaster assistance and corporate crimes against humanity are astute and I'm glad someone put them in writing. Does anyone know if Pepsi or Dr. Pepper are similarly evil? Will I have to resort to the expensive Dr. Brown's Diet Cream or Jones' FuFu Berry?