By adamg on Mon., 10/15/2018 - 8:55 am
The Herald reports.
Think Donnie will pay up now?
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
The Herald reports.
Think Donnie will pay up now?
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
History shows that the Trumps
By Kinopio
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:35am
History shows that the Trumps don't donate to charities. They steal from them.
There is no need for Trump to
By Murkin
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 6:58am
There is no need for Trump to make the donation. Cherokee Nation just took a shit on Warren’s claim.
http://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20181015_Cher...
The point there
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 7:18am
Is that being of Cherokee ancestry is no more relevant to being a member of the Cherokee Nation than being white is relevant to being American.
The Cherokee Nation is not an ethnicity, it's a political entity. Every single Cherokee who stayed behind in the East through pretending they were white ensured that they and all of their descendants could never again be counted as members of the Cherokee Nation. That was a political choice then, and the definition of membership today remains a political choice.
Really?
By Roman
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 10:49am
Your defense is that the Indian Tribes explicitly recognized as quasi-sovereign ethnostates in the original Constitution are not *really* ethnicities?
Should I write slower?
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 12:50pm
Ethnicity and citizenship are different things. You're from what again, Bootlickistan? So ethnically you're Bootlicki, but you are a citizen of a country called America. Your kids won't be citizens of Bootlickistan even if some unfortunate Bootlicki woman marries you and procreates, making a passel of little mewling Bootlickis.
In the case of Native American tribes, history is very specific and complicated. Once upon a time it was of great benefit to individuals of Native American descent to pretend to be entirely white. Many of us whose antecedents were in this country a few hundred years ago, especially in the area of the Carolinas, can count such people in our family trees. The Cherokees of Oklahoma are distinct, because they've paid their dues for a hundred and fifty years.
Nowadays it's possible to be a benefit to someone to be defined as Native American, because some Native American tribes (hello casinos!) have figured out how to make big money off the fact, and they'd like to share that money with fewer people, and because some federal contracts are steered towards people who claim Native American identity. If you want to understand how that works, look into the matter of Vortex Construction.
Most Americans don't claim to be Native American, or even part Native American, even if we are. That's because being Native American is a political matter as well as an ethnic matter. It was unbecoming and incorrect for Sen. Warren to list herself as Native American in that survey so long ago, and she should work harder to clarify what it means to be Native American today.
only tribes determine tribal citizenship
By anon
Fri, 10/19/2018 - 8:25am
"I'm not enrolled in a tribe and only tribes determine tribal citizenship"- Elizabeth "Betsy" Warren
Watch: Elizabeth Warren's family story
Hey, we agree!
By Roman
Tue, 10/23/2018 - 2:09pm
.
All you have to do to understand how
By MC Slim JB
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:39am
the right will respond to this news is read the comments section on that Herald piece. "It's fake, it's too small, she still used it unfairly to her advantage", and so on. Right-wing morons will continue to believe right-wing lies: the facts do not matter.
As a rule, I advise against reading the comments of Herald readers, unless you want to convinced that the human race is hopelessly doomed by its own pig-ignorance, childishness and bigotry.
Fairness Due
By MrDines
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:22am
But, the Globe's comment section aint no fountain of glowing dignity, either.
Media Congratulates Trump for Spreading Lie About Sen. Warren
By anon
Fri, 10/19/2018 - 8:32am
nymag:
"although it was false"
Razib Khan: Geneticist by day. Also history, evolution, books, etc. Tweets only represent me. Pay me for my emotional labor Austin, TX
The difference between Trump and Warren
By Stevil
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:30pm
Trump is a right wing populist that promotes policy to get votes that he knows are bad or is too dumb to know are bad
Warren is a left wing populist that promotes policy to get votes that she knows are bad and is too smart to say otherwise
This progressive crap is just another word for socialism - and as Maggie Thatcher used to say - it all sounds wonderful until you run out of other people's money.
Basically a vote for Warren is a vote for the other side of the paper and more divisive politics.
Want a female Democratic pragmatist for president that would do a much better job - get Gina Raimondo from RI to run - sadly coming from such a small state it would be hard for her to get traction - but one can hope.
Please, please, please - find me a moderate Democrat to run for president and get this idiot out of the White House!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!
By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:35pm
OMG SOCIALISM!!!
RUN! RUN AWAY!
Your hyperbole is ridiculous. Your greed is obvious.
Says the person...
By Stevil
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:16pm
That has already run out of their own money.
Not so
By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 2:24pm
I have plenty of money. Retired early, even.
Still not buying your bullshit.
So you're greedy then...
By Stevil
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:20pm
Since you've hoarded plenty of money. Not very socialist of you. Rather armchair liberal in fact.
Also
By Anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 12:38pm
Majority thrives and minority gets completely, absolutely, irreversibly screwed under fascism (see pre-WWII Germany.). Under communism, minority thrives and majority gets royally screwed (see USSR, Cuba, Nort Korea, etc.) When given the choice of the two which is exactly where we’re headed now that fringe lunatics from both ends of the political spectrum are screaming the loudest, where do you think we’ll end up?
Civil War?
By Stevil
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:26pm
And three countries - the west coast, the east coast and middle America?
Frightening thought - but it seems that's where we're headed.
Actually...
By lbb
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:28pm
...the majority DIDN'T thrive in pre-WWII Germany. Rationing was in place before the outbreak of the war: food, clothing and soap. Hitler was an idiot with regard to the economy as he was with regard to nearly everything else.
the rules
By SC from JP
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:40am
It's so great that one side can refuse to release tax returns (and pays no price) while the other side is expected to put their birth certificates and literal fucking DNA tests out there.
Maybe Trump can get a
By Dave
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:46am
Maybe Trump can get a friendly newspaper to claim that Trump has released his tax returns to them.
[img]https://www.tonyrogers.com/humor/images/kerry_foot...
Except there is NO law or rule
By roadman
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:22am
mandating that anyone release their tax returns for viewing (and inevitable misinterpretation) by the public and the media. Rather, release of tax returns - much like Warren's DNA test - is another pointless sideshow designed to deflect attention from the work our politicians are supposed to be doing but aren't.
I'm sorry, WHAT'S the distraction?
By lbb
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 1:30pm
I'm sorry, WHAT'S the distraction? If Herr Trump and his surrogates hadn't relentlessly blown this dog whistle, there wouldn't have been any DNA test.
So yer saying...
By Stevil
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:18pm
Lizzie is Donnie's dog?
Scott Brown's campaign mgr Jim Barnett--6 yrs of racist drivel
By anon
Fri, 10/19/2018 - 9:03am
huffingtonpost:
snopes:
I'm sorry, but there's a *huge* difference...
By bibliotequetres...
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 4:49pm
... which is exactly why the media has asked for presidential candidates in the general election to release their tax returns, but has not asked them to submit DNA tests.
Here is a partial list of what can be learned from tax returns:
1) What the candidate's approximate income is, as this helps form his world view.
2) Broadly, the sources of income, including direct payments for work contracted, debt carried over, certain types of loans, etc. All of these disclose potential conflicts of interest and ethical vulnerabilities. They also shed light on his work history & life experiences.
3) Verification of prior statements about earnings, capital holdings, and wealth; this can reveal whether or not the candidate has been honest.
4) Whether or not the candidate has made errors, the size & significance of those errors, and how quickly they were rectified. After all, it is the responsibility of the president to submit the budget to the House and Senate, and while the heavy lifting is done by OPM, a baseline of financial competence is not too much to expect.
5) If the candidate's share of responsibility for the common defense & general welfare that he has paid is in line with others in his income bracket, and how it compares to his greater constituency.
There are few experiences that almost all American adults share. Filing taxes is one of them. As such, it's a reasonable benchmark to use.
In the unlikely event the tightwad pays up ...
By adamg
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:43am
It's almost like
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:51am
She was telling the truth the whole time.
So hard to process...
Somewhat exaggerated truth.
By Refugee
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:16am
Somewhat exaggerated truth. 1/256th is awfully dilute. Is that enough?
But I think the root of the problem is that she must have started coloring her hair a long time ago. If she kept her hair dark instead of golden then nobody would have blinked an eye.
Warren is descended from a
By anon
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:19am
Warren is descended from a Native American. It is now scientifically proven, so yes that is enough. Facts matter.
Calculated Political move.....
By Pete Nice
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 8:13am
Doing this test and making it public was a political move that was well thought out and will most likely backfire. The bottom line is she is a white woman who more likely than not marked off on an application that she was Native American and those institutions she worked had listed her as a person of color in their HR stats.
In an election this will crush her and the move here appears to have backfired. Don't think she will get out of the Dem race in 2020 if she goes in....
So, no it isn't enough.
So if I understand correctly...
By erik g
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 9:46am
Failing to perfectly word the statement "one of my grandparents claimed Native American heritage": electoral suicide
Literally a neverending deluge of outright lies, corruption, incompetence, treasonous conduct with foreign governments, and malicious treatment of every minority known to man, and from the current president: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
See my comment above
By Stevil
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 10:10am
Merely different sides of the same sheet of paper.
Yes.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 10:57am
But we aren't talking about making statements about grandmothers. We are talking about checking off boxes for affirmative action purposes. That is a political issue.
You can shake your head, but both sides need to take different approaches. This issue is going to hound her unless she is able to address it honestly and even then it might not work for her.
Hey Pete
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 12:56pm
Did you ever work for Harvard?
I did. I filled out that survey about 20 years ago.
Those boxes you speak of are boxes that are checked off AFTER you are hired, not before. They have to do with assessing the composition of the current workforce, not affirmative action.
I actually worked part time for Harvard for 2 years.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 1:36pm
(and about 6 other colleges) Never filled out a survey but....
It is the perception. I'm not saying why she did it or for what reason, but checking it off at any point puts you in a better position in the future if you want to further yourself. I am not saying that is why she did it or if it would even help her. But it is all the same when it comes to perception.
Perception is a strange thing
By Roman
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 2:32pm
About fifteen years ago, I had the minor misfortune of getting mixed up in some internal politics of student services at Chicken Scratch Tech, which despite the name is actually a highly ranked university.
The particular department I had dealings with was a place where being openly gay or transgendered helped you climb that particular corporate ladder. My evidence for this? A whole lot of the middle and upper management and workforce in this department was openly gay and the head of the department, with whom I had many discussions completely unrelated to the issue of gender or sexuality or ethnicity would occasionally go off on a well-mannered and eloquent digression about the beauty of the LGBTQQA ('queer/questioning/ally' in the parlance of the time) activism on campus.
He was a heterosexual white male with a wife and kids. I don't know if he actually believed any of it or if he was just virtue-signalling with all his might to maintain the respect of his subordinates and to stay in the good graces of his superiors. But the overall culture of the place was that if you weren't conspicuously doing LGBT activism in your spare time, you weren't going with the flow.
Some women I knew who worked there that were straight and married. But if you didn't know them, the way they carried themselves and dressed and cut their hair, you'd tacitly assume they were lesbians.
There's nothing I particularly object to about nearly all of those people. I was friendly with most of them and they did good work, but in retrospect, I'd bet some of them were faking it, if just a little. Not that they were secret members of the Westboro Baptist Church, but more that they probably didn't have strong feelings one way or the other, but weren't above faking a little heartfelt activism to mesh with the culture of the place better.
Different survey
By Stevil
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 3:54pm
There is a law professor at Cornell that was on Dan Rea last night. Very balanced approach and he says straight up - until/unless Warren's hiring records are released (don't hold your breath - Harvard isn't going to do that as a matter of policy) - we don't really have enough information to know if her position as a "woman of color" got her any preferential hiring treatment.
HOWEVER, filing out this form did get Warren on certain lists and she was declared a "woman of color" which made her a highly desirable target for hiring. Impossible to tell if this had anything to do with here getting hired but two interesting coincidences:
1) My understanding is that she was the only faculty member that did not attend an Ivy League law school. Something - not her academic pedigree - got her on the hiring list and ultimately to the top of the list - in exception to every other recent hire (I have heard this but did not read the article myself, so if you have other info - I will be happily corrected).
2) According to the guest on the radio, immediately upon qualifying for tenure, she removed her name from the list identifying her as a "woman of color".
Smoke, no fire - but certainly raises more than eyebrows.
There's never fire
By Roman
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 4:29pm
That's the point. It goes little-by-little.
There was plenty of smoke in the 1760s when Benjamin Franklin proposed a separate colonial parliament. Independent, but still loyal to the crown, so no fire.
False that Warren enjoyed an affirmative action advantage
By anon
Fri, 10/19/2018 - 10:32am
WBUR:
Claiming Native American
By anon
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 9:56am
Claiming Native American ancestry did not advance Senator Warren's career in any way shape or form: FACT. The nasty anti-Native American rhetoric coming from Trump and his supporters makes right-wingers look stupid, arrogant and ignorant. Just stop.
Not really a fact, but you can believe it....
By Pete Nice
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 12:54pm
It could be true, it might not be. But not a fact by any means.
She didn't lie
By BostonDog
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:23am
She never said she was 50% native. She said her parents told her she had distant native ancestry. Her parents were correct.
It's all stupid. No one should give a shit about something as meaningless as someone's heritage as it relates to their ability to govern or be a good citizen.
No, but...
By bosguy22
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:06am
She said it was known her mother was of Cherokee heritage...that's why her parents were forced to elope. I'm not sure a woman with1/1024th N.A. blood, 10 generations back of being a Native American is enough for anyone to object to their son marrying her.
There's also the pesky fact that they didn't actually test her DNA against actual Native American blood, but blood from those of Mexican/Central American ancestry. So, she's either 1/52nd-1/1024th Native American, or 1/52nd- 1/1024th Mexican/Central American, but hey, strong chance.
Edit: I did mean elope, not adopt.
Blood
By BostonDog
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:34am
The scientists don't have a large sample of Native DNA since many N.A. object to being taking advantage of in this way. Yet, SURPRISE, that's exactly what's happening by both political parties.
Ah, that makes sense!
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 9:46pm
I have an identified ancestor.
Every time I log into 23 and Me, the %Native estimate increases. Now I know why: more samples mean more identified markers that match my genome.
Explains a mystery for me!
One of many, the latest of which was a daughter of my father's first cousin who was adopted out because her mother was very young and unmarried at the time. Thing is, she is a second cousin but she matched very strongly - high end of first cousin. Segment analysis indicates that she is also likely to be related to my mother. Sheds some light on the search for her father.
Oh you card
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 12:51pm
Always with the trailer park tales!
Great fun with kin
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 1:00pm
Shootin at cans, swillin beer, and explaining what all the genetic stuff means.
Great times!
Hopefully this works
By Stevil
Tue, 10/16/2018 - 1:39pm
Don't know the embedding trick - so here's a link to I'm my own grandpa by Ray Stevens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw
Quite funny
I think
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 10:52am
You mean "elope," not "adopt."
Warren's parents got married in 1932. Do you know what prejudice was like in rural America in 1932? Seriously, people were trying their damnedest to look as white as they could, and even a rumor of being not entirely white was a big scandal.
It's a matter of record they got married in a different town, in a parsonage rather than a church, and with nobody in attendance. Maybe they had another reason to elope, I don't know.
I do know that Warren said she had a very small amount of Native American blood, from a great-grandmother or some such, and it looks like a scientific process conducted by a reputable expert upheld that assertion.
How far would you like the goalposts moved?
Goalposts moved?
By bosguy22
Mon, 10/15/2018 - 11:09am
She specifically said her parents were forced to elope because her father's parents objected to their son marrying a Cherokee. Her mother "may" have Native American blood from her great, great, great, great, great, great. great, great, grandmother. That is NOT enough for anyone to object to a wedding even if it is true. It's not me moving the goalposts.
Pages
Add comment