The 2012 Election Thread

[AMDScooter]

^^^ Cont.

Warren never claimed anything other than family stories and that is the norm in academia.

Uh.. no. She's listed as a minority on official documentation from several universities she's worked at. It's far from the "norm" to claim minority status based on family stories. This is how it's actually done.. and I'm not seeing bedtime stories, scribblings on nonexistent marriage licenses applications or anecdotal evidence such as "high cheeks" listed anywhere.

A newly revealed document taken from a 1999 Affirmative Action Plan Book published by Harvard University indicates that Elizabeth Warren was officially listed as a Native American by Harvard Law School. Though Warren is not mentioned by name, the report shows just one Native American member of the law school. Reports in the Harvard Crimson from 1996 and 1998 both identify Warren as the Native American member of the staff.

. . .
Warren has said that she was not aware Harvard was using her minority status to publicly deflect criticism over the school's hiring practices. However, the fact that she was officially recognized as a Native American by the school raises the question of how they first obtained the information which led them to classify her as one. The current OFCCP website has an FAQ addressing how employers are to gather this information:

What is the correct procedure for a contractor to obtain the ethnic information of its employees and applicants?

OFCCP regulations 41 CFR 60-1.12(c) indicate that for any personnel or employment record a contractor maintains, it must be able to identify the gender, race, and ethnicity of each employee and, where possible, the gender, race and ethnicity of each applicant.

OFCCP has not mandated a particular method of collecting the information. Self-identification is the most reliable method and preferred method for compiling information about a person's gender, race and ethnicity. Contractors are strongly encouraged to rely on employee self-identification to obtain this information. Visual observation is an acceptable method for identifying demographic data, although it may not be reliable in every instance. If self-identification is not feasible, post-employment records or visual observation may be used to obtain this information. Contractors should not guess or assume the gender, race or ethnicity of an applicant or employee.

A contractor's invitation to an employee or applicant to self-identify his or her gender, race, and ethnicity should indicate to individuals that supplying such information is voluntary. OFCCP would not hold a contractor responsible for applicant data when the applicant declines to self-identify and there are no other acceptable methods of obtaining this information. [emphasis added]

In other words, the employer may visually identify the race of the employee, but in Warren's case that seems unlikely. No one looking at Warren would likely designate her as Native American. Based on genealogical information, she is (at most) 1/32nd Native American. So the most likely way this information became part of Harvard's official records is via "post-employment records"--i.e. a form like the one above which Warren would voluntarily have filled out herself.
. . .

Sure looks as if she must have made the claim herself.

If she wanted tribal citizenship, she could do it with as little as 1/128th blood heritage. But she hasn't gone for that.

She has not "gone for that" because there is not a credible shred of evidence to date that she is any part Cherokee. Or 0/128 seeing as you are into fractions. If you can produce some evidence other than her listed as a minority and Cherokee at the universities as I've shown above I'm sure she'd love to see it as well as the rest of us. To date the only ones (your expert included) who have claimed to have said evidence have gone silent on the issue.

No preferential treatment shown. No lies.

The mounting evidence says otherwise.

This is a smokescreen from the Brown campaign that blew through a 15 point lead. And it's not working because the latest (Rassy so you'll acknowledge it) polls out that were taken after this "hot item" was released still shows a tie.

It could very well be a smoke screen.. it's politics. But if it turns out to be entirely true as well she's in a world of hurt by her own doing.

On the other hand, and since this is an election thread, if the counter charges made towards Brown about using tax funded employees to do his campaigning make it through the process, I'd say that is a different issue. Especially when he's the one getting TP money from out of state and going along with the GOP party line about being a watchdog over how our tax dollares are spent.

Thanks a gain scoot. Nice post.

I can tell you which story is getting more traction pretty easily. As you say.. Warren's new trope is a "counter charge"... so you must agree that all's fair game.

Gee almost forgot. And that is the reality about family lineage actually stating on government papers they were Native American. Not today. Back at the end of the 1800s. From what I've read, many families stated white for obvious reasons and didn't ask to be included in tribal listings the government made.

The reality here is Warren sure appears to have listed herself as a minority to get a leg up. Cherokee specifically.

The reality is universities like Harvard used her to prop up their claims of minority hiring.

The reality is she has not produced one piece of concrete evidence to support the claim.

The reality is she's been caught in a lie.

[Dutchcedar]

...and go off topic by somehow changing my desire to have someone claiming self defense, defend that it in court. No idea about the relationship with this topic.

Sorry, missed this the first time around.

I'll explain the relationship with this topic. There was a debunked expert you touted at length there, just like the debunked expert you touted at length here.

I was suggesting that you file this expert's opinion in the same place you [should have] filed the previous one.

Get it now?

Maybe I should have made it more clear for you.

[otoc]

Sorry, missed this the first time around.

I'll explain the relationship with this topic. There was a debunked expert you touted at length there, just like the debunked expert you touted at length here.

I was suggesting that you file this expert's opinion in the same place you [should have] filed the previous one.

Get it now?

Maybe I should have made it more clear for you.

How do you come to the conclusion that either expert was debunked?

In the case if Zimmerman, there has been no trial. Nor did I hang my position on only the premise that Zimmerman stated that. Only that the situation warranted a trial where there hadn't been one. If that experts conclusions are used in trial and debunked, you will be correct. Other than that, you state an opinion or as you call it, a "claim".

In the case of Warren, the titled genealogist first found nothing, and then found another source that changed his mind.

Your self proclaimed TP hobbyist, found nothing. Essentially agreeing with the first round conclusion of the titled genealogist.

As to debunking, I see no proof. Nor do I know the standards real genealogists use. Obviously your position is based on what it takes to gain full tribal citizenship. I acknowledged that, but have not seen any standards of what it take to claim heritage.

I wouldn't mind a disagreement here between us, but I'm not the one making posts where sarcasm and ridicule is based on totality in an opinion that is only that: an opinion to take one position as truth by throwing out competing positions. I will call you out on that.

[Dutchcedar]

How do you come to the conclusion that either expert was debunked?

In the case if Zimmerman, there has been no trial.

We don't need trials to debunk experts. Straw one.

Nor did I hang my position on only the premise that Zimmerman stated that.

But that's the premise you made that we're discussing. Straw two.

Only that the situation warranted a trial where there hadn't been one.

Nice tangent, but we weren't discussing whether anything should go to trial. In fact, I don't recall anyone here claiming a trial shouldn't be held. Straw three.

If that experts conclusions are used in trial and debunked, you will be correct.

We don't need trials to debunk experts. Straw one again.

In the case of Warren, the titled genealogist first found nothing, and then found another source that changed his mind.

And is now silent after his work was debunked.

Your self proclaimed TP hobbyist, found nothing. Essentially agreeing with the first round conclusion of the titled genealogist.

You might wanna relook at that. He found documents that debunked the expert you were touting.

As to debunking, I see no proof.

Check your eyesight, then. Its been presented.

Obviously your position is based on what it takes to gain full tribal citizenship.

I never said or suggested anything of the sort. You're now just making stuff up.

I acknowledged that, but have not seen any standards of what it take to claim heritage.

Acknowledged it? You brought it up. You're the only one to mention it, if I recall correctly.

I wouldn't mind a disagreement here between us, but I'm not the one making posts where sarcasm and ridicule is based on totality in an opinion that is only that: an opinion to take one position as truth by throwing out competing positions. I will call you out on that.

Get off your phony high horse, otoc. Your schtick of being victimized by unilateral sarcasm and ridicule is so old and worn I suspect you copy and paste it off your clipboard.

[otoc]

+ ^^^ Cont.


The reality here is Warren sure appears to have listed herself as a minority to get a leg up. Cherokee specifically.

The reality is universities like Harvard used her to prop up their claims of minority hiring.

The reality is she has not produced one piece of concrete evidence to support the claim.

The reality is she's been caught in a lie.

It seems it is your reality that she has been caught in a lie. I can respect that scooter, but I see it in a different way which is why I included links to every position.

In general terms on the issue of claiming heritage. I included an article by a writer for the Weekly Standard that complained about the ability to make minority claims in academia. It is a self proclamation.

You included the OFCCP regs from 1999 and it also states the standard of a minority claim is "self-examination". You've shown no standard that states a lineage claim must be based on a lineage of historic government documents.

I tend to agree with the premise that heritage claims are muddy, but I'm not going to retroactively raise the standard on which such claims are allowed. That's not fair.

As to Harvard or Penn making claims, that's up to them to explain the process how they came to that conclusion. If their standard included anything above what the OFCPP allowed, "self-examination", then they have something to explain if the DOL wishes. If not, it is a red herring being offered by the MA GOP and Brown's campaign the both universities can ignore. What they do or don't do in making claims to having minorities gets back to what is allowed. You and I might not like it, but that's another argument for another day where I'd bet we would be in agreement.

Brown asked for an explanation, which he got in the form of statements released by Warren's campaign that clearly showed no preferential treatment was made in regards to her heritage. You've given us nothing on that. And I wasn't invoking Reagan, I was stating the background of one of the authors of those statements in the hope that there would be some acceptance on your part to his statement regarding Native American preferential treatment were:

totally stupid, ignorant, uninformed and simply wrong

Nor have you addressed the reality that many Native Americans at the end of the 19th century had a distrust of registering themselves on government documents and lived in a time of racism toward Native Americans. This is not unique and to call Warren a liar for what her ancestors very well could have done is once again raising the bar on making claims of heritage.

As to proof of what Warren placed on official documents, the only example we have is what Texas released. She listed herself as Caucasian and did not use minority claims.

What we do know as fact is

Warren had listed herself as a minority professor between 1986 and 1995 in the Association of American Law Schools desk book, a major reference for legal professors.

she stopped doing that in 1996. Whatever standard she used isn't bound by one that dictates official government lineage for you haven't shown us that this is the standard to which we must judge. That shows good judgment regardless of reasons and anything like the Penn statement made 10 years later is something Penn should address. Obviously Warren had no control over that.




The next point needs a quote from you

As far as Warren's "academic" years go.. her "pedigree" compared to her peers at Harvard is less than stellar borderline bad libberal comedy.

Cherokee Liz's Shoddy Scholarship

I guess this IBD OpEd is supposed to give proof that Warren is an idiot when it comes to publishing theories on the subject of consumer bankruptcy since "flawed data" and Obama were conveniently highlighted in red, lol.

No red highlights needed. It sparked my interest.

IBD based that on a 2010 story by a senior editor at The Atlantic. Megan really does have it out for Warren. I wonder if anyone ever checked out what Megan said...
hmm, seems like someone did...

Mike Konczal is a fellow with the Roosevelt Institute, where he works on financial reform, unemployment, inequality and a progressive vision of the economy. His blog, Rortybomb, was named one of the 25 Best Financial Blogs by Time Magazine. His work has appeared at The American Prospect, Slate, the Washington Monthly, the Atlantic Monthly’s Business Channel and The Nation.

Megan McArdle’s Hack Post on Elizabeth Warren’s Scholarship

So Megan McArdle wrote a long post attacking Elizabeth Warren as a scholar. What’s surprising is how little “there-there” there is to her critique. I would love to see nomination hearings based around how expansive of a definition to use for medical bankruptcies and watching Warren rip the face off of Senators when it comes to empirical methods. I doubt it is going to come to this, but I’ll go ahead and respond. (I’ve been waiting for part two to respond, which I assume may not show up.)



Because that isn’t what this is about. It’s about giving the impression that Warren is a weak scholar. Given that Warren is considered “the leading authority in the country on bankruptcy law,” being called a hack by McArdle, of all people, is something. Especially when we get a gem of a major screwup like this right out the door in the post:

Megan McArdle, blog post: 2. The response rate on their survey was only 20%. Given the deep shame surrounding bankruptcy, you have to worry that they got an unrepresentative sample. And how is that sample most likely to be unrepresentative? Well, one pretty likely way is that people who went bankrupt through no fault of their own–folks who got whacked by large and unpayable medical bills or a business closure–were more likely to respond than the people with drug or alcohol problems, profound depression that left them unable to work, compulsive gambling issues, and so forth….

Katie Porter, comments: Also, I would like to correct the misstatement, I believe of a commentator, that Ms. McCardle reproduces in her article above, that the response rate to the survey was 20%. The response rate was right at 50%, or just under that, depending on the exact metric for response rate used....<MORE>

I have no idea what to make of this. Megan opens her critique by saying that there’s a massive bias in the data sample implied by the low response rate of 20%. A commenter politely responds that the response rate is 50%. She is very polite as the 50% is on the front page of the 2009 study. Megan then says she meant the interview rate.
Nobody is perfect, especially on the blogs. I’ve messed up data on this blog before, I’ve confused terms that I knew but didn’t catch in a proofread, and I’ve used data and terms that I thought meant one thing that turned out to mean another thing. Anytime someone points this out I correct it, or pause and double-check what I thought, or quietly ditch using that information. Humility is usually the best antidote to being a hack.
But notice how Megan just keeps on going. This is one of the major planks of her argument, that the sample is corrupted, and when someone points out that what she stated was factually incorrect she just changing the terms and keeps on going as if she what she wrote wasn’t wrong. How is a reader supposed to read this? Did she mean to say interview rate in the beginning? Does she think that a 50% response rate is too low? Useless without a 50% interview rate? Did she know at the time of writing the difference between the two terms? Does she want to reconsider her argument?
(It’s pretty similar to the classic McArdle instance of “It wasn’t a statistic–it was a hypothetical” when it came to US profits of pharma.)
Which is a shame. Like the hypothetical case there’s no pause, no reflection, so as a reader I just want to assume bad faith and move along.
But I won’t. Let’s continue.
<LOTS MORE>

The tragic comedy to me, scoot, is while I researched this I found the link history for the IBD original was great, especially amongst the righter slanting blogs all only using the IBD interpretation. It took a little bit of effort to find the original by Megan since IBD neglated to actually link to it. No one mentioned the analysis of the analysis. Too bad for I'd think that would greatly mellow an extreme viewpoint that Warren is a joke.

[otoc]

Get off your phony high horse, otoc. Your schtick of being victimized by unilateral sarcasm and ridicule is so old and worn I suspect you copy and paste it off your clipboard.

My apologies dutch. I meant not to insult, only to express an opinion. I take it there was no sarcasm.

[Dutchcedar]

My apologies dutch.

OK


To the subject... if you're going to belabor this topic further, please show that this person is some part Cherokee, with some evidence.

[tucker]

^^^



Cigar Store Indian: Note the high cheek bones.

[AMDScooter]

It seems it is your reality that she has been caught in a lie. I can respect that scooter, but I see it in a different way which is why I included links to every position.

In general terms on the issue of claiming heritage. I included an article by a writer for the Weekly Standard that complained about the ability to make minority claims in academia. It is a self proclamation.

You included the OFCCP regs from 1999 and it also states the standard of a minority claim is "self-examination". You've shown no standard that states a lineage claim must be based on a lineage of historic government documents.

I tend to agree with the premise that heritage claims are muddy, but I'm not going to retroactively raise the standard on which such claims are allowed. That's not fair.

As to Harvard or Penn making claims, that's up to them to explain the process how they came to that conclusion. If their standard included anything above what the OFCPP allowed, "self-examination", then they have something to explain if the DOL wishes. If not, it is a red herring being offered by the MA GOP and Brown's campaign the both universities can ignore. What they do or don't do in making claims to having minorities gets back to what is allowed. You and I might not like it, but that's another argument for another day where I'd bet we would be in agreement.

Brown asked for an explanation, which he got in the form of statements released by Warren's campaign that clearly showed no preferential treatment was made in regards to her heritage. You've given us nothing on that. And I wasn't invoking Reagan, I was stating the background of one of the authors of those statements in the hope that there would be some acceptance on your part to his statement regarding Native American preferential treatment were:


Nor have you addressed the reality that many Native Americans at the end of the 19th century had a distrust of registering themselves on government documents and lived in a time of racism toward Native Americans. This is not unique and to call Warren a liar for what her ancestors very well could have done is once again raising the bar on making claims of heritage.

As to proof of what Warren placed on official documents, the only example we have is what Texas released. She listed herself as Caucasian and did not use minority claims.

What we do know as fact is

she stopped doing that in 1996. Whatever standard she used isn't bound by one that dictates official government lineage for you haven't shown us that this is the standard to which we must judge. That shows good judgment regardless of reasons and anything like the Penn statement made 10 years later is something Penn should address. Obviously Warren had no control over that.




The next point needs a quote from youI guess this IBD OpEd is supposed to give proof that Warren is an idiot when it comes to publishing theories on the subject of consumer bankruptcy since "flawed data" and Obama were conveniently highlighted in red, lol.

No red highlights needed. It sparked my interest.

IBD based that on a 2010 story by a senior editor at The Atlantic. Megan really does have it out for Warren. I wonder if anyone ever checked out what Megan said...
hmm, seems like someone did...

Megan McArdle’s Hack Post on Elizabeth Warren’s Scholarship

The tragic comedy to me, scoot, is while I researched this I found the link history for the IBD original was great, especially amongst the righter slanting blogs all only using the IBD interpretation. It took a little bit of effort to find the original by Megan since IBD neglated to actually link to it. No one mentioned the analysis of the analysis. Too bad for I'd think that would greatly mellow an extreme viewpoint that Warren is a joke.

It's nice that you were able to find one critic to her critic on one paper referenced in the article. However, it's not the only paper that's been called into question as I'm sure you well know. It also falls pretty short of explaining how she got chosen given her pedigree vs. others as noted in the article:

Her curriculum vitae shows she bounced from college to college, working as a lecturer or researcher, for a full decade after graduating from Rutgers Law, ranked 82nd by Top-Law-Schools.com. (She got her bachelor's degree from the University of Houston, one of the least competitive colleges in the country).

Questionable work after graduating from some of the lowest rated schools in the country. Bounced about for a decade until she started claiming she was a minority when all of a sudden Harvard becomes interested in her while under fire for a lack of diversity. Coincidence? Hardly.

I'm not nearly as interested in establishing a standard here as you apparently are, that tact misses the point by a country mile. Even if you could dig up something to prove her as 1/1500000000 native American (evidence which to date has yet to materialize), it was completely unethical (and possibly fraudulent) for her to claim minority status for the sole purpose of furthering her career. Even using the classic libberal arguments for diversity to justify affirmative action she simply does not qualify. She's never lived on a reservation or suffered discrimination due to her supposed heritage. She's a blonde haired blue eyed white chick who no one in this world would guess was any part Cherokee by simply looking at her.

She identified herself as a minority to advance her career. Period. The evidence clearly shows that. Since 1986 she has claimed to have Native American ancestry. She's made this claim to three separate employers—the University of Texas Law School, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and Harvard Law School. It's disingenuous for Warren to claim she didn't know schools were presenting her as a minority. Obviously, the schools didn't invent that detail--it came from Warren in the first place. She did not land herself a professorship until after she started claiming she was a minority and it's no coincidence Harvard used her hire to support their diversity claims when they were under fire for lacking in that area.

I do find it comical that extreme libberals are going to such lengths to cover for someone who obviously abused a system they supposedly champion. I'm sure if some white conservative running for office had done the exact same thing in their past to land a cushy professorship you'd be just as defensive. Especially if they claimed to be 1/32 black and offered up some anecdotal evidence like their great, great, great, great grandmother had "big lips" as proof... because that's not stereotypical or offensive at all.

[jimzinsocal]

Of course she's part Native American...why look...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/not-parody/

[AMDScooter]

Of course she's part Native American...why look...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/not-parody/

If I help my son author a report on humpidy dumpidy does that prove I'm part egg?

[Dutchcedar]

If I help my son author a report on humpidy dumpidy does that prove I'm part egg?

We're sure about the yoke part, but not the white.

[AMDScooter]

RP out...

Ron Paul ends his hunt for votes

&

Warren is still a shameless idiot.

Elizabeth Warren: ‘I’m proud of my Native American heritage’

&

Warren’s Indian Tales Help Turn Mass. Race Into Town vs. Gown

Contentions has already explored the contradictions at the heart of Elizabeth Warren’s use of her slim ties to a Native American ancestor to portray herself as a member of a minority group at Harvard University Law School. The Democratic candidate has become something of a poster child for the excesses of the world of affirmative action, but the story got a bit more damaging today when the Boston Herald reported that in addition to using her status as a 1/32 Cherokee Indian, she also went native during her time at the University of Pennsylvania.

The Herald discovered that Penn (where she worked from 1987 to 1994), listed her as a minority in a “Minority Equity Report.” Warren’s office is probably right to say that her reputation was good enough in the world of liberal jurisprudence to have earned her a job at prestigious universities. But the revelation that she was touted as a minority hire at yet another school makes her claim that she was unaware of her status as an affirmative action case that much less credible. When added to the fact that she admits listing herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools directory for a decade (supposedly in order to meet “other Native Americans”), this new information gives the story new life.


Far from a distraction from more important issues, the WASPy Warren’s use of “family lore” to get a leg up as a faux minority at some of the country’s most prestigious institutions speaks volumes about the cynical way liberals think about affirmation action and their thinly-veiled contempt for real minorities.

The bad news for Warren is not just that she has been taken off message for weeks dealing with a campaign hiccup that no one could have foreseen. It is that she has been effectively branded as a fake when it was her authenticity as a tough-talking advocate of liberalism which launched her political career.

Even worse, the affirmative action fraud reminds Massachusetts voters of everything they hate about Harvard elites. Though the Bay State is reliably liberal and Democratic, it is a mistake to think most of its citizens worship at the altar of Harvard. Warren needed her race against incumbent Scott Brown to be one of liberal versus conservative. Instead, the Cherokee story will help him frame it as one of town versus gown. And that is a contest that gown will lose every time.

[AMDScooter]

Confirmed.. Warren 0.00% Cherokee.

AMATEUR GENEALOGIST WHO BACKED '1/32 CHEROKEE' WARREN NOW ADMITS MISTAKE

Lynda Smith, the amateur genealogist who unknowingly found herself at the root of the false “Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee” meme introduced to the media by “noted” genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, acknowledged in an email to me this past Saturday, May 12, that her statement in a March 2006 family newsletter upon which Mr. Child based his claim of Ms. Warren’s Cherokee ancestry was made with no supporting documentation. It was, in fact, an honest mistake that Ms. Smith now acknowledges is entirely without foundation.

. . .

The story also puts to rest the "they were afraid to admit they had indian blood" meme.

. . .
Also, her parents Wyatt and Margaret (Peggy) testified in court in TN...to verify John Curtis/Dolly Honeycutt marriage in Chatham NC in 1793. This would indicate a couple that was part of Anglo/settler society. Margaret in particular is a little mysterious at this point, but the fact that she is allowed to testify in court and has knowledge of a marriage in Chatham NC in early 1790s wouldn't point to a connection with a Cherokee community. Wyatt is found in more documents and he is clearly not affiliated with the Cherokee community. He was from early settler stock.
. . .

[jimzinsocal]

More on the saga

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05...herokee-claim/