Annie Dookhan, chemist at center of drug-testing scandal, arrested today.
The DNA test that confirmed Liz Warrent's Cherokee heritage!
Everybody look here! I'm a racist! I think I'm clever, but I'm just a racist!
How is that racist? Didn't Warren claim she had "high cheekbones"?
I'm afraid the word racist and racisim have gotten diluted and isn't as effective when it should be. Everyone is a racist now a days. Too bad.
Why is it racism when people speak the truth about Liawatha
Nice supporters you got here!
I know it'll be hard for you, because Republicans have descended into a Manichaean swamp in which you're either with us or you're pond scum that needs to be ground into the dirt with a steel-toed boot, but try for a second.
It's not Warren you're being offensive to - it's Native Americans.
I'm a Jew. You come up to me and start complaining that, oh, Sen. Franken is a money-grubbing kike while you're wearing a fake big nose, I might get a little upset. I might even take a swing.
Native Americans, I gather, feel the same way about war cries and tomahawk chops and all the other crap Brown supporters think is oh so witty and clever. Just because there's no Native American equivalent of the ADL in Massachusetts to haul you out of the swamp for some public ridicule doesn't mean it's right. It just means you're being a bunch of pathetic bullies seeing how far you can go.
Also Adam, Wasn't Warren disrespectful to the Native American delegates she ignored at the DNC? How about the group that traveled her to meet her? I find that rather disrespectful and would have hoped she could have spend a little time with these groups. She'd have been a better person for it.
The commenter is certainly not clever and I'm sick of hearing about this, but how is the comment racist? She's.... white. The tomahawk chop thing? Yes, that's racist, I agree, and the Atlanta Braves should be rebranded. But calling someone out for pretending to be a minority? ehhhh I'm not seeing "racism". It's more like trolling, isn't it?
You might want to read this:
... and they have been there for more than a century, it is REALLY good odds that she is even more than 1/32 Cherokee.
That's because people had good reason to hide mixed bloodlines - like "black scots" etc. - because they would be disenfranchised were they considered to be "not white enough".
Anybody with a strong grasp of the history of Westward migration would understand that!
The citation that is supposed to show EW is not pretending to be a minority only shows that she did not claim minority status in applying to Rutgers Law or for her first Job at University of Texas.
I am not sure that E.W. did anything wrong. The law schools probably were playing the numbers game. Around the time EW was hired, HLS was under fire for minority issues.
Below I will paraphrase from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell
Derrick Bell was leading protests because HLS had (in 1990) 60 tenured Profs, 3 were black, 5 were women but none were black women.. by 1993 HLS still not hired any minority women, so Professor Bell continued to take a leave of absence as protest. Lani Guinier became the schools first tenured female African-American prof....
....The report by the university's (of Texas) Minority Equity Committee includes a list of faculty members who worked at the school. Warren worked there as a law professor until 1995, when she left to take a job at Harvard Law School.
The report listed the names of minorities in bold and italics, and Warren's was included among those names.
I can't figure out why Brown supporters think these types of comments would do anything but drive undecided voters to the Warren camp. That's my reaction anyway. Maybe it's actually a sophisticated sabotage strategy by Warren's people? I dunno.
I'm actually a little shocked to see the increased onslaught of Brown TV ads attacking the lack of documentary evidence that Warren is Native American. It's getting a little weird... like a witch hunt. Is he going to demand a DNA test next? People in Mass. are out of work and local businesses are struggling, but all Brown and his supporters seem to want to focus on is Warren's genealogy! BIZARRE!
Neither D or R here.
I was actually going to vote for Brown because I felt that he was running a decently clean campaign, focusing on issues, not attacking, etc., while I felt that Warren's ads were the sort of divisive crap that I've come to abhor, the us vs. them shit pitting special interest groups against one another.
The latest ads (not to mention the Brown workers idiotic displays of ignorance) have prompted me to reevaluate my vote. And those things may cost Brown MY WIFE's vote, which is a greater sort of loss. I tend more toward R (when I tend either way) but MY WIFE is much more likely to vote D. She was definitely going to vote for Brown, but these ads have almost certainly given her - and others like her - pause to reconsider.
He's not running on the record. Nice guy or douche, he can't seem to justify his actual votes to his constituents.
So he's decided a scorched commonwealth campaign is his only chance.
For a guy that would have been in the number one GOP spot for Governor next time, he sure isn't playing the long game very smart.
If they want to keep running their mouth while hitting a wall at 88MPH, I say we let them.
They think it's satire or comedy, but to middle class independent voters it's nails on a chalkboard, and just reinforces their view that these people are unserious and unfit to lead.
People are worried about the economy, their neighborhood, local businesses, the shrinking middle class and shrinking wages, ect. If they want to focus on the sideshow, let em. It's less time Scott Brown gets to talk about his connection to those things.
Warrens out knocking on doors of the middle class and getting her consumer message out.
Browns, a sitting US Senator, is out there with employees insulting Native American Tribes trying to score political points. That does wonders for the image of the Commonwealth and Boston, doesn't it? especially with our history.
I don't know if I want a senator that lies about her past, practices law without a license when she feels like it, and obfuscates a career defending big corporations from the little guys she pretends to care so much for now. She could have come clean about all of this stuff and moved past it, going on a narrative of atoning for past sins by now taking up the flag of the little guy, but instead she continues to deny and evade the questions. The entrenchment says a lot about her character.
Warren's law practice is a bigger deal than her phony minority status and yet is getting virtually no coverage.
Then you should vote for the guy whose main focus is other people's family trees.
So prove it.
This Rovian bullshit where you make a claim, then tell the whore she needs to prove it unbecoming of a Massachusetts senator's campaign.
If you have cold hard facts on your side, Prove it. Lay them out. Stop with the slander, and show us the proof of everything you claim.
Here's a fact for you anon: Your mothers a whore! Now prove she is not! Why? Because I said so!
There's a reason why this is all but settled in the media, and in public opinion outside of idiotic right wing circle jerks. People making accusations need to supply evidence for their prosecution.
Or, you know, you could use that Internet connection of yours to check the validity of the accusations you just made. (Hint: they're all baseless.) And I care enough about this to comment even though I thought I was reading an article about the lab tech's arrest...
And how is all this relevant to the story at hand, which concerns a self-professed "chemist" who was hired by the Commonwealth based on a falsified resume, and who then proceeded to turn much of our criminal justice system into a farce?
There are a great many comments that could have been submitted concerning this tragic affair. Too bad that all of the commenters to date have chosen to write about something totally irrelevant, which has absolutely no connection to the subject at hand.
Coakley is going after Dookhan with the tremendous zeal of someone who 1) is known for swimming in circles around people she can scapegoat and crucify for the sins of her buddy buddy chums and 2) denied up down sideways and crossways that it was necessary to cross-examine lab techs and argued that their determinations should be entered into court as unassailable facts.
Will Coakley ever take responsibility? Will she ever expect it of her astroglide pals?
That's what they do,hijack a comment section for their own whacked out obsessions. Read a story about puppies being rescued in the Globe or Herald and the comments quickly devolve into "Obummer","Liawatha",and "Cadillac Deval" bullshit. It's a shame that the UHub comment section is starting down that road. Best to just ignore them and hope they go away.
While Ms.Dookhan is certainly to blame for her reckless actions and lies,the bureaucracy at the lab must take a lot of the responsibility. Layers of "management" that cared only about reducing backlogs and showing X number of samples processed to their bosses. I'm sure that a slow and careful chemist at this lab would have received many "a talking to" about getting those numbers up,while Ms.Dookhan looked like a star for hers.
Ms. Dookhan would have been asked to demonstrate how she got through so many more samples than others, in order to bring up the numbers for the entire laboratory.
In a real laboratory, they would have used software that would have flagged her shenanigans long ago.
The problem is that this laboratory was run by hacks, not by people familiar with modern notions of using technology to track chain of custody, etc.
Again, I blame Coakley for insisting that the evidence produced be unassailable, thus protecting her politically connected "managers".