Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Umm... no, sparky that isn't blatantly obvious nor beyond dispute. Made up scandals just don't have the same punch they used to.

If it's not obvious to you that she said "I'm part Cherokee!" on her job applications purely for career advancement and the associated personal gain (really,even if it were true), then there's no hope for a worthwhile conversation here. Why else would she do it?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Actually I don't believe a teacher having an affair with a student of legal age is a crime. Its grounds for dismissal obviously and perhaps should be illegal but isn't and hence the police wouldn't be involved. What you're recalling is the very last episode of Law & Order which took this story when it broke a few years ago and made it into a plot about an accused teacher threatening to attack a school.

So, once again we have the possibility of a knuckledragger myth to further the War On Education. Not sure why you guys don't want people to be educated until I hear Mitch McConnell or The Boner speak and then it all makes sense. "Job banks" as in having the union negotiate a contract where laid off workers are still paid to come in all day and do nothing were a vestige of the 1980's UAW-Big 3 labor battles and have been extinct for a long time. Recall, its 2012, not 1981.

Talk about myths. Opposition to or even criticism of goon teachers' unions means "you guys don't want people to be educated." From where I sit, there's no "war on education," other than the blitzkrieg led by Bob Chanin and the rest of his troops.

And a significant number of the teachers hanging out in rubber rooms had sex with students over the age of 18? Maybe even a majority? Got anything to substantiate that? I thought not. How's the air in the bunker?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

If it's not obvious to you that she said "I'm part Cherokee!" on her job applications purely for career advancement and the associated personal gain (really,even if it were true), then there's no hope for a worthwhile conversation here. Why else would she do it?

If she really wrote her job application "I'm part Cherokee!" then I wonder how she got the job. Or do you mean she checked off a box?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Umm... no, sparky that isn't blatantly obvious nor beyond dispute. Made up scandals just don't have the same punch they used to.

What part is made up? The part where she asserted Indian heritage based on cheekbones? Or the part where she allowed Harvard to pat itself on the back (for a decade) for hiring its first "minority" faculty member? Or the part where she plagiarized recipes for "Pow Wow Chow?"

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

If she really wrote her job application "I'm part Cherokee!" then I wonder how she got the job. Or do you mean she checked off a box?

Is the latter somehow less of a lie than the former?

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

If she really wrote her job application "I'm part Cherokee!" then I wonder how she got the job. Or do you mean she checked off a box?

well, either way. What's the difference?

 

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

What part is made up? The part where she asserted Indian heritage based on cheekbones? Or the part where she allowed Harvard to pat itself on the back (for a decade) for hiring its first "minority" faculty member? Or the part where she plagiarized recipes for "Pow Wow Chow?"

She asserted Indian heritage based on family lore. Next there's no indication she knew Harvard was "patting itself on the back" over her. Oh, and finally, plagarizing recipes for cookbook. OMG! Quick, somebody call Ken Starr! We need an investigation on this one!!!!

Really, is that the best you got? Not sure if you're one of these conservatives with a man crush on Scott Brown but somehow I'm just not sure "Cookbookgate" has a lot of legs.

If it's not obvious to you that she said "I'm part Cherokee!" on her job applications purely for career advancement and the associated personal gain (really,even if it were true), then there's no hope for a worthwhile conversation here. Why else would she do it?

Would you be so kind as to point out where she wrote "I'm part Cherokee" on a job application?

 

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Talk about myths. Opposition to or even criticism of goon teachers' unions means "you guys don't want people to be educated." From where I sit, there's no "war on education," other than the blitzkrieg led by Bob Chanin and the rest of his troops.

And a significant number of the teachers hanging out in rubber rooms had sex with students over the age of 18? Maybe even a majority? Got anything to substantiate that? I thought not. How's the air in the bunker?

Well as being educated doesn't seem like one of your strong suits, "from where you sit" doesn't hold a ton of weight, no offense of course.


So you can throw out unsubstantiated speculation ("these bums are just lazy") but I can't? I've got bad news for you, but it ain't a gonna work like that.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Well as being educated doesn't seem like one of your strong suits, "from where you sit" doesn't hold a ton of weight, no offense of course.


So you can throw out unsubstantiated speculation ("these bums are just lazy") but I can't? I've got bad news for you, but it ain't a gonna work like that.

Oh, Bunky. You're really losing touch with reality, aren't you? When in doubt, go ad hominem. And is it asking too much (especially of someone implicitly asserting intellectual superiority) to ask that if you put quotation marks around it and attribute it to me, that it's actually something I said?

 

[pirate]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

You'd be more convincing if you'd stop asking a question that's already been answered. I highlighted it in bold to make it easy for you to figure out which misrepresentation that you can't seem to let go of is.

I didn't ask the question looking for an answer...I answered it myself in the same post...doesn't matter to me if Harvard did or didn't, what matters to me is what Warren did.

Pretty sure we both have raised or are raising kids, I don't think either one of us would teach them it is ok to lie or perpetuate a shaggy dog story as long as the receiving party didn't directly act on it. Is there a percentage of action at which it becomes ok? "Son, if it was only 5% of the decision it is ok to lie, if it is 25%, it is wrong?"

So, as I said in that post, even if she was the only applicant ...she still did something I feel was premeditated with the intention of implying a circumstance she knew wasn't accurate and knew could only help their chances of being hired.

The Yahoo CEO probably didn't need his imaginary CS degree to get the job either, but it sure got him fired in a hurry.

Of course, he should be held to a higher standard than a US Senator.

We all complain about the ethics of lawyers and politicians yet defend someone that would do something like this and wants to be not just a lawyer, but the teacher of other lawyers and a politician. Really?


While I'm accused of bringing this up due to the letter after her name, I think that applies far more to her defenders than I.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Of course. Corporate America can't be at fault.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/U9rCc4SZNSI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>a

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Would you be so kind as to point out where she wrote "I'm part Cherokee" on a job application?

Sorry, don't have it on me at the moment.

This is all based on the news stories that have been circulating over the last couple weeks making this claim. I can't personally vouch for the accuracy. I guess it's possible it's all been made up by Fox News, and she actually was claiming to be white all along.

(but do check the mirrors while you're backpedaling)

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

She asserted Indian heritage based on family lore. Next there's no indication she knew Harvard was "patting itself on the back" over her. Oh, and finally, plagarizing recipes for cookbook. OMG! Quick, somebody call Ken Starr! We need an investigation on this one!!!!

Really, is that the best you got? Not sure if you're one of these conservatives with a man crush on Scott Brown but somehow I'm just not sure "Cookbookgate" has a lot of legs.



Would you be so kind as to point out where she wrote "I'm part Cherokee" on a job application?

Hmmm, isn't asserting Indian heritage "based on family lore" how that great intellectual Ward Churchill got a job as an underqualified department head at a state university? And shouldn't a person under consideration for a faculty position at America's "most prestigious" law school apply a slightly higher standard than "family lore?" And if that's the standard she's using, shouldn't she have explained it? And being the exceptionally bright person we all agree she is, shouldn't she have noticed Harvard's "error" in calling her a "minority " faculty member, and endeavored to straighten out the "misunderstanding?"

It's possible she didn't know that Harvard was bragging about her "ethnicity." In the same way it's possible His Panderness didn't know Rev. Wright was a racist wingnut after sitting in the pews for only 20 years.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I'm starting to think I blew it by NOT using my Native American heritage to my advantage.

Oh, well.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I'm starting to think I blew it by NOT using my Native American heritage to my advantage.

Oh, well.

Heck, there's still time.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I'm starting to think I blew it by NOT using my Native American heritage to my advantage.

Oh, well.

free education, a share of casino loot, and no bag limits on netting lake trout and whitefish? I'd be out beating a tom tom in my loin cloth if I was you.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

free education, a share of casino loot, and no bag limits on netting lake trout and whitefish? I'd be out beating a tom tom in my loin cloth if I was you.

"What you mean WE, kemo sabe?"

 

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I didn't ask the question looking for an answer...I answered it myself in the same post...doesn't matter to me if Harvard did or didn't, what matters to me is what Warren did.

Pretty sure we both have raised or are raising kids, I don't think either one of us would teach them it is ok to lie or perpetuate a shaggy dog story as long as the receiving party didn't directly act on it. Is there a percentage of action at which it becomes ok? "Son, if it was only 5% of the decision it is ok to lie, if it is 25%, it is wrong?"

So, as I said in that post, even if she was the only applicant ...she still did something I feel was premeditated with the intention of implying a circumstance she knew wasn't accurate and knew could only help their chances of being hired.

The Yahoo CEO probably didn't need his imaginary CS degree to get the job either, but it sure got him fired in a hurry.

Of course, he should be held to a higher standard than a US Senator.

We all complain about the ethics of lawyers and politicians yet defend someone that would do something like this and wants to be not just a lawyer, but the teacher of other lawyers and a politician. Really?


While I'm accused of bringing this up due to the letter after her name, I think that applies far more to her defenders than I.

I of course wouldn't encourage deceit. What I am saying is that there's a lot of conclusions being leaped to here with scant to no evidence to back them up. Much like Aqua Buddha was more of a stupid college prank than some deep psychological problem, the issue here is a matter of degree. Should Warren classify herself as an Indian for professional purposes? No given that any Indian heritage she has is rather small and I don't get the feeling she's immersed herself in the culture. Can she do so in the context of sending a recipe to a cookbook? Why not? As I've stated before, its more likely to me that she just got interested in the idea of being a Native American and listed it a couple of places without thinking that somebody as white as a ghost would be welcomed as an minority faculty member.

I also think its extremely unfair to ask someone to start backing up their heritage with documented proof and if they have trouble doing so they're some sort of criminal. I think les found this too as well as I have, it gets real hard to find records before the turn of the last century (in fact the 1890 census is almost completely destroyed). Furthermore most records don't tell you ethnicity. In hindsight she shouldn't have done this, but hindsight is 20/20 as the old saying goes. All I'm asking for is some proof that she used this in an orchestrated plot to gain unearned promotions.

Regarding the Yahoo guy, I feel the same way. Its a stupid reason to fire somebody who you feel is competent. Was it an honest mistake (as in did he minor in the second subject but not get a degree in it)? I don't know, but canning the guy over that seems like overkill. Who the hell lies about getting a degree from Stonehill anyway? It reminds me of the story a few years back of a football coach who's hiring got rescinded because somebody claimed he didn't earn a second degree that he said he had. The coach didn't remember exactly if he'd finished the second one 35 years earlier. Turns out, after he'd been turfed and the frenzy died down, he had in fact gotten the second degree. Problem was the job had already been filled. I'm all for smoking out deception and fraud, but there actually has to be deception and fraud, not speculation that "oh well, we can't rule this out".

Oh, Bunky. You're really losing touch with reality, aren't you? When in doubt, go ad hominem. And is it asking too much (especially of someone implicitly asserting intellectual superiority) to ask that if you put quotation marks around it and attribute it to me, that it's actually something I said?

For a supposed rough, tough, Reagan type conservative, you sure do cry a lot. Might want to get that checked out.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I of course wouldn't encourage deceit. What I am saying is that there's a lot of conclusions being leaped to here with scant to no evidence to back them up. Much like Aqua Buddha was more of a stupid college prank than some deep psychological problem, the issue here is a matter of degree. Should Warren classify herself as an Indian for professional purposes? No given that any Indian heritage she has is rather small and I don't get the feeling she's immersed herself in the culture. Can she do so in the context of sending a recipe to a cookbook? Why not? As I've stated before, its more likely to me that she just got interested in the idea of being a Native American and listed it a couple of places without thinking that somebody as white as a ghost would be welcomed as an minority faculty member.

I also think its extremely unfair to ask someone to start backing up their heritage with documented proof and if they have trouble doing so they're some sort of criminal. I think les found this too as well as I have, it gets real hard to find records before the turn of the last century (in fact the 1890 census is almost completely destroyed). Furthermore most records don't tell you ethnicity. In hindsight she shouldn't have done this, but hindsight is 20/20 as the old saying goes. All I'm asking for is some proof that she used this in an orchestrated plot to gain unearned promotions.

Regarding the Yahoo guy, I feel the same way. Its a stupid reason to fire somebody who you feel is competent. Was it an honest mistake (as in did he minor in the second subject but not get a degree in it)? I don't know, but canning the guy over that seems like overkill. Who the hell lies about getting a degree from Stonehill anyway? It reminds me of the story a few years back of a football coach who's hiring got rescinded because somebody claimed he didn't earn a second degree that he said he had. The coach didn't remember exactly if he'd finished the second one 35 years earlier. Turns out, after he'd been turfed and the frenzy died down, he had in fact gotten the second degree. Problem was the job had already been filled. I'm all for smoking out deception and fraud, but there actually has to be deception and fraud, not speculation that "oh well, we can't rule this out".



For a supposed rough, tough, Reagan type conservative, you sure do cry a lot. Might want to get that checked out.

Your lack is standards is everyone else's problem. Got it.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I also think its extremely unfair to ask someone to start backing up their heritage with documented proof and if they have trouble doing so they're some sort of criminal.

You're right, and this is one of the huge problems with affirmative action in general. It elevates the visible differences to being the most important forms of diversity while subjugating every other. And there are a LOT of forms of diversity that are overlooked because they aren't as sexy as the initiatives to hire women, blacks, and native americans to name a few. We'll all be better off when people can be individuals again.