...is a confirmed Cherohonkee. :lulz:
I hate to say "I told you so", but....nah, actually I love to say "I told you so".
"I'm not Native American, but I play one on teevee."
I never understood the need for some people to identify with scant traces of indigenous blood, real or imagined.
Not just identifying. Trading on it.
"BUY MAH BOOK! IT'S GOT CHEROKEE POW WOW RECIPES! LIKE JELLO WITH CANNED FRUIT!!!!!!!"
In my case, it's very easy to get swept up in the BOSTONIRISHWHOCARESABOUTTHERESTOFYOURDNA thing, and one of the few things keeping me connected with my dad's ethnicity is the fact that like all the other french canadian families, we know there's a tiny sliver of native american in there somewhere. It changes the way I look at my ancestors: instead of a monolithic group of bland, white people who moved to the frozen north from somewhere in Europe, I see some star-crossed lovers from different worlds finding a way to live together against all the odds. And yeah, it probably didn't exactly go that way, but it changes it from statistics to a story, which is a lot of what keeps people connected to their family history past the generations they got to meet.
There's also the fact that white guilt is a common affliction among liberals, and having a genetic tie to a group that was persecuted makes them feel a little better about being born into privilege.
The interesting thing is that, probably similarly to how Boston Irish know generations of their ancestry, and have the stories of how who met who and what their lives were like, it's fairly deeply ingrained in NA people to know generations of their ancestors. This gets really important when it's time to go up in front of a tribal board for scholarships, etc.
I've been drilled since I was pretty young on who exactly my ancestors are, where they came from, what their relationships were like, how they met, etc etc.
I feel sorry for people who "just found out" about Native ancestry and want to learn more about it. Sometimes that's possible, by finding a branch of the family who hasn't lost their family line knowledge, but there is so much stigma against it, and suspicion of plastic indians, that it's really difficult for these people to come from outside and ever take their place in the tribal community. It's difficult enough for someone like me, mixed-race and urban, but at least raised in the community with a father who is well-known and active in the urban indian league.
The hierarchy for who is "really an indian" is kind of fucked up. It was designed that way by the BIA. The BIA doesn't WANT people rediscovering their native roots and joining tribes. They don't even want the existing tribes to survive, let alone grow.
Whats the reasoning behind that? No more tribes no more bia right? It seems counterproductive to job security.
BIA's a bureaucratic black hole. No-one's ever advanced far into the deepest reaches of Washington DC because of their work on Indian issues.
Furthermore, Indian territory is sovereign, right? Their own laws, own police forces, taxation systems etc. No state is keen on having zones outside of its control in its legal territory, and the few benefits that might arise from such an arrangement (ie tax havens, illegal weapons testing) are readily provided by the global marketplace nowadays.
The BIA is basically an organization designed to preserve an endangered species, they have no interest in seeing them get past the endangered stage. (Also what Cain said).
My ex and I both come from french canadian families that are loosely aware of the native american blood that got mixed in, but only loosely. In his case, they at least know the tribe for certain, my folks can only assume based on geography. It's kinda depressing, because it's easy to go and reconnect with the irish family heritage even with generations of downtime, and no one questions you for it no matter how slim the percentage is.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on May 18, 2012, 05:31:53 PM
The BIA is basically an organization designed to preserve an endangered species, they have no interest in seeing them get past the endangered stage. (Also what Cain said).
My ex and I both come from french canadian families that are loosely aware of the native american blood that got mixed in, but only loosely. In his case, they at least know the tribe for certain, my folks can only assume based on geography. It's kinda depressing, because it's easy to go and reconnect with the irish family heritage even with generations of downtime, and no one questions you for it no matter how slim the percentage is.
The BIA was originally created with the mission of ending the "indian problem" through programs of assimilation and termination. It was NOT created with the mission of "preserving" an endangered species, it was created with the mission of eliminating one. The blood quantum laws directly reflect that end-goal.
It has evolved quite a bit over the years, but because blood quantum, as measured by the BIA, is still used to determine the federal government's level of fiscal responsibility toward a tribe member, and the BQ laws are designed to minimize tribal eligibility through attrition.
Inbreed yourselves to death or lose your identity, basically?
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on May 18, 2012, 10:34:40 PM
Inbreed yourselves to death or lose your identity, basically?
Yep. Among populations with incest taboos so strong that people were often not allowed to marry within their own clan or village. That's one of the main functions of the modern pow-wow, incidentally; they're basically a hook-up fest where people can meet eligible singles they aren't related to.
Quote from: Cain on May 18, 2012, 05:29:51 PM
Furthermore, Indian territory is sovereign, right? Their own laws, own police forces, taxation systems etc. No state is keen on having zones outside of its control in its legal territory, and the few benefits that might arise from such an arrangement (ie tax havens, illegal weapons testing) are readily provided by the global marketplace nowadays.
It varies from tribe to tribe. I believe there are only a small handful (3, maybe 4) quasi-sovereign territories. Even those territories fall, ultimately, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government though it is by treaty rather than statute (insofar as you can call an agreement between two sovereigns that includes the right of unilateral amendment, a "treaty"). There was a time where many tribes were still allowed to deal with other states directly. That's far from the case now, though many have the ability to negotiate their own trade in ways that the 50 states cannot.
The overwhelming majority of tribes with territory (not all of them have territory still) are forced to cede some level of taxation and often even policing jurisdiction to their adjacent state or county subdivisions, with states generally wanting to grab more whenever there's a buck in it or some political points to be made by cracking down on immoral savages. Litigation in these matters is often atrocious. It's not uncommon to see treaty terms, constitutional law and statute (state and federal) all thrown in together to arrive at a decision. It's a smorgasbord of bullshit.
One ongoing dispute I can think of concerns Indian Gaming. U.S. Congress decides that Indian Gaming concerns need to "work with" their adjacent state governments when opening Casino's. "Work with" because saying "submit to" would be a violation of standing treaty. States then drag their feet in working out the terms of new casinos, effectively blocking them. There is no civilian recourse because the Gaming Concern is not, in this matter, under the state's jurisdiction--common law doesn't apply. So logically, the tribal government brings suit for breach of contract, under "treaty-ish" law. But then the states come back and say there is no right to sue due to sovereign immunity under common law. I'm probably hitting the details of that particular case a little fuzzily, but it illustrates the gist of the thing.
The legal sovereignty has been pretty much whittled away to irrelevance. I've gotta put the ongoing efforts to extinct the Indian nations on good old fashioned institutional racism and cultural hegemony. It's been going on so long at this point, it probably just looks like bureaucracy to it's chief practicioners.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 19, 2012, 01:30:40 AM
Quote from: Cain on May 18, 2012, 05:29:51 PM
Furthermore, Indian territory is sovereign, right? Their own laws, own police forces, taxation systems etc. No state is keen on having zones outside of its control in its legal territory, and the few benefits that might arise from such an arrangement (ie tax havens, illegal weapons testing) are readily provided by the global marketplace nowadays.
It varies from tribe to tribe. I believe there are only a small handful (3, maybe 4) quasi-sovereign territories. Even those territories fall, ultimately, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government though it is by treaty rather than statute (insofar as you can call an agreement between two sovereigns that includes the right of unilateral amendment, a "treaty"). There was a time where many tribes were still allowed to deal with other states directly. That's far from the case now, though many have the ability to negotiate their own trade in ways that the 50 states cannot.
The overwhelming majority of tribes with territory (not all of them have territory still) are forced to cede some level of taxation and often even policing jurisdiction to their adjacent state or county subdivisions, with states generally wanting to grab more whenever there's a buck in it or some political points to be made by cracking down on immoral savages. Litigation in these matters is often atrocious. It's not uncommon to see treaty terms, constitutional law and statute (state and federal) all thrown in together to arrive at a decision. It's a smorgasbord of bullshit.
One ongoing dispute I can think of concerns Indian Gaming. U.S. Congress decides that Indian Gaming concerns need to "work with" their adjacent state governments when opening Casino's. "Work with" because saying "submit to" would be a violation of standing treaty. States then drag their feet in working out the terms of new casinos, effectively blocking them. There is no civilian recourse because the Gaming Concern is not, in this matter, under the state's jurisdiction--common law doesn't apply. So logically, the tribal government brings suit for breach of contract, under "treaty-ish" law. But then the states come back and say there is no right to sue due to sovereign immunity under common law. I'm probably hitting the details of that particular case a little fuzzily, but it illustrates the gist of the thing.
The legal sovereignty has been pretty much whittled away to irrelevance. I've gotta put the ongoing efforts to extinct the Indian nations on good old fashioned institutional racism and cultural hegemony. It's been going on so long at this point, it probably just looks like bureaucracy to it's chief practicioners.
It does not really vary from tribe to tribe, legally speaking... not if they are Federally recognized. Indigenous sovereignty is complicated, and in numerous lawsuits between tribe and state, it has been upheld, meaning that states do not have the right to impose laws upon the tribes boundaried by those states, but that rather, tribes deal directly with the Federal government and come to treaty agreements.
Legally speaking, indian nations are sovereign.
Sort of like how Trayvon Martin was a sovereign individual.
I think i have a bit of cognitive dissonance here. I consider myself separate from irish americans. If your one eighth irish your not really irish but for indiginous americans... There is stuff on the line there and it is survival. It might be simultaneously the galway and the boston talking. Will have to consider this.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 18, 2012, 10:39:56 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on May 18, 2012, 10:34:40 PM
Inbreed yourselves to death or lose your identity, basically?
Yep. Among populations with incest taboos so strong that people were often not allowed to marry within their own clan or village. That's one of the main functions of the modern pow-wow, incidentally; they're basically a hook-up fest where people can meet eligible singles they aren't related to.
I'm pretty sure that the way it's set up, mixing with somebody from a different
nation reduces a resulting childs blood quantum. There's people who are full blood NA or close to it (say a mix like Ojibway, Lakota and Navajo) who can't get on tribal rolls. I've also heard of weird rules in some cases like having to be born on the rez or even have both parents born on the rez, things like that. And a lot of kids get yanked and adopted out to white families and never can get any kind of tribal status back. It's called "paper genocide"...making people disappear on paper.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 19, 2012, 10:48:38 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 18, 2012, 10:39:56 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on May 18, 2012, 10:34:40 PM
Inbreed yourselves to death or lose your identity, basically?
Yep. Among populations with incest taboos so strong that people were often not allowed to marry within their own clan or village. That's one of the main functions of the modern pow-wow, incidentally; they're basically a hook-up fest where people can meet eligible singles they aren't related to.
I'm pretty sure that the way it's set up, mixing with somebody from a different nation reduces a resulting childs blood quantum. There's people who are full blood NA or close to it (say a mix like Ojibway, Lakota and Navajo) who can't get on tribal rolls. I've also heard of weird rules in some cases like having to be born on the rez or even have both parents born on the rez, things like that. And a lot of kids get yanked and adopted out to white families and never can get any kind of tribal status back. It's called "paper genocide"...making people disappear on paper.
Yes, you can only claim BQ from one tribe, which has created a situation in which people who are full-blood Native are not considered Native at all for legal purposes. It's utter and complete genocidal bullshit.
Rules like being born on the reservation or having parents from the reservation are decided tribe to tribe, and are mostly about keeping resources in the community.
And yet if your mothers jewish youre jewish. I dunno makes sense to me if youre full na and you dont have a specific tribal affiliation you can claim one of two tribes.
Quote from: Chronicles of Twiddick on May 20, 2012, 12:08:06 AM
And yet if your mothers jewish youre jewish. I dunno makes sense to me if youre full na and you dont have a specific tribal affiliation you can claim one of two tribes.
Your blood quantum dictates your tribal eligibility, and you are labeled with that blood quantum. Your offspring, too, are labeled with that blood quantum. If you and your spouse are each full-blood indians, from sixteen different tribes, only the blood quantum from ONE tribe is counted, and your children will be full blood indian with not enough blood quantum from any one tribe to be a legally recognized as a tribe member.
Many tribes were left with so few members... only a few hundred, or fewer... that to marry within the tribe without marrying a close relative was impossible. And it only takes four generations to whittle BQ down to 1/16th. Four. That's it.
Many, many tribes have gone extinct due to BQ laws. The tribes who really lucked out are the confederacies, where several tribes were stuck together on one reservation under a single tribal identification.
Oh, and BQ is determined based on being able to trace lineage to someone on one of the census rolls the government took of indians on reservations between 1885 and 1940. If your ancestors weren't on a reservation or for any other reason did not participate in the census, you aren't legally indian. If you only trace to one ancestor and the rest are undocumented, even if they have always lived on the reservation, you are legally only as indian as your BQ from that one ancestor. If your ancestors were for some reason being punished by the US Army, for example they were captured Apache soldiers, then you are not legally indian.
The BIA has all kinds of ways to minimize the indian population. For a while the big thing was "termination"; disbanding tribes and then unrecognizing them when they got below a certain population. There are tribes on the Oregon coast that got terminated in the 1960s that are still fighting for recognition today.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 20, 2012, 01:06:50 AM
Oh, and BQ is determined based on being able to trace lineage to someone on one of the census rolls the government took of indians on reservations between 1885 and 1940. If your ancestors weren't on a reservation or for any other reason did not participate in the census, you aren't legally indian. If you only trace to one ancestor and the rest are undocumented, even if they have always lived on the reservation, you are legally only as indian as your BQ from that one ancestor. If your ancestors were for some reason being punished by the US Army, for example they were captured Apache soldiers, then you are not legally indian.
The BIA has all kinds of ways to minimize the indian population. For a while the big thing was "termination"; disbanding tribes and then unrecognizing them when they got below a certain population. There are tribes on the Oregon coast that got terminated in the 1960s that are still fighting for recognition today.
Yup. My paternal Grandma was full blooded Choqtaw, biologically. Legally she was white. Something about a deal the Mississippi Choqtaw were offered in the early 20th century, move to a reservation 1/4 the size of the current one, or abandon your culture. Overnight the Mississippi Choqtaw went from tens of thousands to 3 thousand. Anyone not descended from those 3000 is not legally Choqtaw.
I've always wanted to learn about that side of my heritage, but the fear of being seen as a "plastic Indian", like you mentioned, has totally kept me from reaching out to the tribe. I'm not interested in scholarships or stipends or anything...just knowledge of a side of my family I never got the chan,e to know.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 20, 2012, 02:12:24 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 20, 2012, 01:06:50 AM
Oh, and BQ is determined based on being able to trace lineage to someone on one of the census rolls the government took of indians on reservations between 1885 and 1940. If your ancestors weren't on a reservation or for any other reason did not participate in the census, you aren't legally indian. If you only trace to one ancestor and the rest are undocumented, even if they have always lived on the reservation, you are legally only as indian as your BQ from that one ancestor. If your ancestors were for some reason being punished by the US Army, for example they were captured Apache soldiers, then you are not legally indian.
The BIA has all kinds of ways to minimize the indian population. For a while the big thing was "termination"; disbanding tribes and then unrecognizing them when they got below a certain population. There are tribes on the Oregon coast that got terminated in the 1960s that are still fighting for recognition today.
Yup. My paternal Grandma was full blooded Choqtaw, biologically. Legally she was white. Something about a deal the Mississippi Choqtaw were offered in the early 20th century, move to a reservation 1/4 the size of the current one, or abandon your culture. Overnight the Mississippi Choqtaw went from tens of thousands to 3 thousand. Anyone not descended from those 3000 is not legally Choqtaw.
I've always wanted to learn about that side of my heritage, but the fear of being seen as a "plastic Indian", like you mentioned, has totally kept me from reaching out to the tribe. I'm not interested in scholarships or stipends or anything...just knowledge of a side of my family I never got the chan,e to know.
People are usually very willing to talk to people in your situation... they can be suspicious at first, but that's really close kin and you may be able to find some cousins you can talk to, or maybe even visit.
Nigel's right, people generally ARE helpful with this kind of thing and will offer all kinds of suggestions. Everybody knows there's lots of lost birds out here.
Maybe a jerk like Elizabeth Warren would have trouble, but as long as you don't act like you're trying to presume on anything (and I don't think you would) you should do fine.
You have a good handle on this, Nigel. My girl has also dealt with this bullshit. Her family can't make the single link required to the native founder of one of the towns near the Grande Ronde Reservation because a church burnt down 60+ years ago with the "only known" records.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 20, 2012, 01:06:50 AM
Oh, and BQ is determined based on being able to trace lineage to someone on one of the census rolls the government took of indians on reservations between 1885 and 1940. If your ancestors weren't on a reservation or for any other reason did not participate in the census, you aren't legally indian. If you only trace to one ancestor and the rest are undocumented, even if they have always lived on the reservation, you are legally only as indian as your BQ from that one ancestor. If your ancestors were for some reason being punished by the US Army, for example they were captured Apache soldiers, then you are not legally indian.
The BIA has all kinds of ways to minimize the indian population. For a while the big thing was "termination"; disbanding tribes and then unrecognizing them when they got below a certain population. There are tribes on the Oregon coast that got terminated in the 1960s that are still fighting for recognition today.
Here's another one. They basically hyped a great life in the city and stranded people in slums. And yeah, it impacted blood quantum...a lot.
http://www.pbs.org/indiancountry/history/relocate.html
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 20, 2012, 06:23:26 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 20, 2012, 01:06:50 AM
Oh, and BQ is determined based on being able to trace lineage to someone on one of the census rolls the government took of indians on reservations between 1885 and 1940. If your ancestors weren't on a reservation or for any other reason did not participate in the census, you aren't legally indian. If you only trace to one ancestor and the rest are undocumented, even if they have always lived on the reservation, you are legally only as indian as your BQ from that one ancestor. If your ancestors were for some reason being punished by the US Army, for example they were captured Apache soldiers, then you are not legally indian.
The BIA has all kinds of ways to minimize the indian population. For a while the big thing was "termination"; disbanding tribes and then unrecognizing them when they got below a certain population. There are tribes on the Oregon coast that got terminated in the 1960s that are still fighting for recognition today.
Here's another one. They basically hyped a great life in the city and stranded people in slums. And yeah, it impacted blood quantum...a lot.
http://www.pbs.org/indiancountry/history/relocate.html
Yeah, relocation was part of the termination program, which was ended by Nixon in 1970. It did a LOT of damage. The BIA basically shipped hundreds of thousands of indians into cities and dumped them on the street with no support at all. When I was a kid, downtown Portland was FULL of homeless indians. Portland isn't even one of the relocation centers, but what I heard is that San Francisco was getting so many indians that the BIA office there started giving them bus tickets to Seattle and Portland.
Huh, weirdly I was just on my new workplace's website and it references a "mass forced relocation from reservations to Portland in the 1950's" so there's probably someone there I can ask about it.
maybe not SUNNY DAY 10 CHICCHAN 6:54:53.52
7:07:07.? (http://elizabethwarren.com)
7:11:?? (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220502warren_i_used_minority_listing_to_make_friends/)
Quote from: hirley0 on May 20, 2012, 03:57:25 PM
maybe not SUNNY DAY 10 CHICCHAN 6:54:53.52
7:07:07.? (http://elizabethwarren.com)
7:11:?? (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220502warren_i_used_minority_listing_to_make_friends/)
Villager's cooking chicchan tonight for dinner. I like chicchan. Especially buffalo chicchan.
Quote from: Chronicles of Twiddick on May 20, 2012, 05:35:16 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on May 20, 2012, 03:57:25 PM
maybe not SUNNY DAY 10 CHICCHAN 6:54:53.52
7:07:07.? (http://elizabethwarren.com)
7:11:?? (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220502warren_i_used_minority_listing_to_make_friends/)
Villager's cooking chicchan tonight for dinner. I like chicchan. Especially buffalo chicchan.
I have some chicchan legs in the fridge, but my oven broke so I'm not roasting them as planned.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 20, 2012, 03:01:51 PM
Huh, weirdly I was just on my new workplace's website and it references a "mass forced relocation from reservations to Portland in the 1950's" so there's probably someone there I can ask about it.
I don't think you can ever get to the bottom of all the fucking over. The more you dig, the more you keep finding, no end in sight. And you never hear about the shit that's still being pulled unless you follow news sources that never make it to major media.
Because Real Amurkins
TM know that all indigenous peoples have a fuckload of casino money and need to shut up about stuff that happened a long time ago. :x
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 21, 2012, 02:25:00 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 20, 2012, 03:01:51 PM
Huh, weirdly I was just on my new workplace's website and it references a "mass forced relocation from reservations to Portland in the 1950's" so there's probably someone there I can ask about it.
I don't think you can ever get to the bottom of all the fucking over. The more you dig, the more you keep finding, no end in sight. And you never hear about the shit that's still being pulled unless you follow news sources that never make it to major media.
Because Real AmurkinsTM know that all indigenous peoples have a fuckload of casino money and need to shut up about stuff that happened a long time ago. :x
:horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 20, 2012, 06:39:59 PM
Quote from: Chronicles of Twiddick on May 20, 2012, 05:35:16 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on May 20, 2012, 03:57:25 PM
maybe not SUNNY DAY 10 CHICCHAN 6:54:53.52
7:07:07.? (http://elizabethwarren.com)
7:11:?? (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220502warren_i_used_minority_listing_to_make_friends/)
Villager's cooking chicchan tonight for dinner. I like chicchan. Especially buffalo chicchan.
I have some chicchan legs in the fridge, but my oven broke so I'm not roasting them as planned.
:)
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 21, 2012, 02:25:00 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 20, 2012, 03:01:51 PM
Huh, weirdly I was just on my new workplace's website and it references a "mass forced relocation from reservations to Portland in the 1950's" so there's probably someone there I can ask about it.
I don't think you can ever get to the bottom of all the fucking over. The more you dig, the more you keep finding, no end in sight. And you never hear about the shit that's still being pulled unless you follow news sources that never make it to major media.
Because Real AmurkinsTM know that all indigenous peoples have a fuckload of casino money and need to shut up about stuff that happened a long time ago. :x
And yet it's perfectly acceptable for Irish people to mention 8 centuries of domination that ended in 1922 when the English got sick of dealing with domestic terrorism. Some people find it charming even. But you know, Irish people are white people with quaint customs even when American, so it's all good right? :lulz:
Quick question: What does all this have to do with whether Elizabeth Warren will be a better senator than Scott Brown?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 21, 2012, 06:02:37 PM
Quick question: What does all this have to do with whether Elizabeth Warren will be a better senator than Scott Brown?
Nothing. Even if she was a shitty senatorial candidate she'd be an improvement over Sen. Brown.
Quote from: Chronicles of Twiddick on May 21, 2012, 06:05:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 21, 2012, 06:02:37 PM
Quick question: What does all this have to do with whether Elizabeth Warren will be a better senator than Scott Brown?
Nothing. Even if she was a shitty senatorial candidate she'd be an improvement over Sen. Brown.
And she likes Cherokees, albiet in a dumbfuck, misguided way.
Politics: Settling for the shit sandwich with the thinnest layer of shit.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on May 18, 2012, 04:58:18 AM
...is a confirmed Cherohonkee. :lulz:
I hate to say "I told you so", but....nah, actually I love to say "I told you so".
I wonder why it's never enough to be yourself.
I suspect that many people, deep down, realize they don't have a particularly interesting "self". Apparently even the ones that eventually transcend this find it a difficult habit to break.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on May 23, 2012, 11:46:05 PM
I suspect that many people, deep down, realize they don't have a particularly interesting "self". Apparently even the ones that eventually transcend this find it a difficult habit to break.
Well, sure. That's why new age fuckwads always have to go to horrible backwoods places in Brazil, when harmine is available right here.
Because "here" just isn't magickal enough.
Well, I guess the Republican strategy of "attack your opponent's credibility rather than her platform" is working pretty well.
I wonder when Elizabeth Warren will realise she was dumped in the MA race precisely to keep her away from anything FinReg related?
I mean, sure, now she's pulled even, but when she first entered, she was down 20 points against Brown.
It's one of the few races I'm interested in... though I'm fully aware of how ineffectual anything the junior senator from Massachussetts tries to do will be.
Trurh be told i dont really know a whole lot about either campaign. Ill probably vote for her either way because of my dislike for brown
Quote from: Twiddler Durden on May 24, 2012, 03:33:24 PM
Trurh be told i dont really know a whole lot about either campaign. Ill probably vote for her either way because of my dislike for brown
Essentially this. I'll look into it a bit more, but my faith in anything changing is pretty meh. I wonder if this place will turn into Scott Brown central again (my boss let "them" use the office as some sort of campaign call center last time there was an election). Which means no-one is going to shut up about politics ever (not that anyone really has since Obama was elected). And my eyes will glaze over as I listen to the lawyers talk about it and maybe I'll say something inflammatory just to make myself laugh.
It was pretty funny when he was on the phone pulling up to the office the other day and asked whose car was parked out front (I dunno). And note with a hint of disgust that they had both Obama and Warren stickers on their car. And I laughed
Warren took the Democratic nomination...
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/04/elizabeth-warren-clinches-nomination-with-record-breaking-95-majority/
95.77% of the votes.
Wowwwww.