"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
On a domestic front, The President of the United States is like the CEO of a major corporation. Each will seek out who they believe are the most qualified individual in their respective field to manage certain departments or specific projects....at least that's the way it's suppose to work. But more and more what we're seeing is these individuals hired in moreso because of their political associations (and wealth) than their profession expertise.
While I admit there is no concrete evidence to support the Michelle Obama - Princeton grad - political campaign contribution - CGI no-bid contract connection, the hint of a rather loose relationship is still quite...suspect...to some, but not so much to others.
For me, it's not so much the contract that's the big deal since it's already been shown here within this thread that CGI has had it at least since 2007 and will retain such until 2017. The question is when did this Princeton alumni come on the scene and why? If he's been there all along, no big deal. But if he suddenly shows up, I think it's fair to question why? But in the end, it's a moot point because as any CEO would tell you, they try to find people they know to be the best of the best to fill positions of critical need. We may not like it when that same hiring practice is put in place at the White House (I sure don't because it just wreaks of ethics violations not to mention cronyism), but until WE, THE PEOPLE, set our political biases (and bigotry) aside and start working together to tell our politicians "NO MORE OF THIS INSIDER HIRING BS" it will just continue. We really do waste time simply pointing fingers across the racial/political divide.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 10-27-13 at 08:15 AM.
"A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground
Wasn't this supposed to go out for bids? Was it ever bid on?
at the time she applied Harvard was giving black applicants a .5 credit on their GPA and when LSAT scores were on the 800 schedule, more than 130 points
In other words a White Male with a 3.6 GPA and a 740 LSAT (which was about the cut off we saw as yale undergraduates for acceptance into Harvard Law School) would be considered inferior to a Black with a 3.2 and a 640 LSAT score.
Michelle was not a successful professional. She was an affirmative action hire at Sidley and Austin where she didn't last all that long. Her salary went way up at the hospital where she was an administrator when her husband was elected as a senator.
btw in the late 70s and mid 80s Yale had the best students which was reflected what the Deans of Chicago and Cornell Law bot told me: "we consider Yale the best undergraduates and that is why we have more Yale undergraduates at our law schools than any other college save our own"
Legacy student. That's affirmative action. Just a different kind.
And Michelle was always a gifted student. She skipped 2nd grade, was on the honor roll throughout high school, was the salutatorian at her HS graduation, and graduated cum laude at Princeton.
She breezed into Harvard as a Princeton honor student, and was recruited to work at Sidley and Austin and the sum and total of your post is a bunch of garbage.
Her thesis was a a significant intellectual stretch too.
I'm very interested in learning about whether there was competitive bidding or not.