Bok is truly an inspiring academic leader. He embodies the best principles of academic life, of honesty.

The Corporation made a great choice in appointing him. Perhaps they understand how much damage has been inflicted to the moral climate in the University.

One year is a very short time. Give Bok 4 more years. He will do wonders, some of them by simply being who he is. An honest academic who loves Harvard and understands service.
 

Richard,

Bang for the Bok, good pun.

Here's another title for Bok

'Harvard Healer',

and a title for another book:

'Healing Harvard'
 

oh give it a rest
 

Better than "Harvard Heel."
 

and better than 'Bitter Summers'
 

Women were responsible for 9/11.


Why?

Firstly, we know Osama bin Laden perpetrated the attacks. He's an evil
and cruel fellow, and there's no debate there. However, his motivation
is not entirely random and loony. He has many reasons for attacking,
but a large number of them stem from the massive American military
presence in Saudia Arabia and the Middle East in general, which he, and
many others, vehemently object to.


Secondly, one can assume the reason why America is there militarily, is
to protect the vast reserves of oil coming out of the region. The very
reserves that are so vital to the lifeblood of the American economy.


Now, here's where we get to the crux of the argument. Women's
liberation, without a doubt, has meant more women have now become
active members within the marketplace. They go to work more so, have
more money than before, spend it, etc. This liberation has 2
consequences: greater direct and induced consumption of goods and
services.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723

1.direct consumption- More women now have $$$ to buy items. Items such
as more food, clothing, electronics, clothes, automobiles. All of this
consumption means more gas is used, without any doubt.
Think of all the automoblies in the world that are now owned or driven
by women, to work, play, wherever. All this greater direct consumption
means more oil is needed.


2.induced consumption- For every $$$ spent by women, means more money
circulates within the economy. The multiplier effect. If a person
spends $1000 on shoes, the shoe owners in turn spend it on more
advertising, the advertisers spend more on office supplies, the office
suppliers spend more on corporate retreats, etc.


Some further estimates of mine:

Both induced and direct consumption, by a newly liberated women
populace, may contribute to a third of real GDP growth.
Meaning, for a 50 year period of GDP growth of 4% per year, the growth
might be 3% without the women factor. Over time, what that means is the
economy is over 117% larger. More than double.
Which means, we use more oil, more resources, etc. I know the lib
hasn't taken place over exactly 50 years yet, but it's just an estimate.

Also, if you look at America's imports, you will find x barrells coming
from the mideast.

What I'm saying is that if women's lib never took place:

a.) America's economy would be half as large
b.) America would import WAYYYY less oil from the Middle East
c.) Be self-reliant on it's own oil supplies for way longer
d.) Have no need to maintain such an aggressive military presence in
Saudia Arabia & co.
e.) Osama bin Laden would've never attacked on 9/11

Therefore, the price of equality is essentially 9/11, among other
things.

Oh and I'm also working on the assumption 9/11 was merely a lapse in
security intelligence. Terrorists attacked Madrid and London viciously
in a post 9/11 world, so in some sense, these types of attacks are
inevitable. It's exceedingly difficult to protect every citizen at all
times, without devolving into some sort of paranoid "big brother"
state.


I know you're probably thinking, 'by that logic why don't we just
discriminate against Germans and Japanese because that would make the
global economy smaller too'.
Here's the difference in my opnion:


1.) Capitalism is a good system
2.) As such, the free market determines prosperity of a group of people
3.) Female prosperity is directly a result not of the free market, but
gov't intervention
4.) If a man is denied prosperity, his entire family is hurt. But if
woman is, it's not as big a deal, because it's just her (single parent
families headed by women are relatively few).