By way of Sarah Hoyt, guest-blogging at the InstaPundit, I am sent to this post by Herbert London at Pajama Media about the differing treatment of Muslims, Catholics and Jews under ObamaCare.
He gets off to an interesting start:
ObamaCare uses the Social Security language of the Internal Revenue Code to determine who is eligible for “religious conscience” objection to the insurance mandate. Specifically, the law provides exemptions for adherents of “recognized religious sects” that are “conscientiously opposed” to accepting benefits from any insurance, public or private.
As a consequence of this provision, Muslims may claim a religious exemption that is denied Christians and Jews. Since Islam believes insurance is haraam (forbidden) and likens insurance to gambling, the religion is excluded from requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Others who fall into this category are the Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists. Although the U.S. Constitution grants all Americans equal protection of the law, some Americans are more equal than others.
Ok, I can go with the flow here. I recall Quakers and conscientous objectors being exempt from the draft into military service, so similar logic may apply here.
This, however, is when the red flags started waving (my emphasis):
In a curious way the privilege granted Muslims and denied to most others translates into what Muslims call “dhimmitude,” or the taxing of non-Muslims in exchange for the acceptance of their presence. Intentionally or not, ObamaCare allows for the establishment of this practice and Sharia dictates in the United States. Conversely, if a Christian refuses to pay for required health care insurance, liens can be placed against assets and hard prison time could accompany noncompliance. Non-Muslims are, in effect, paying a tax to subsidize Muslims.
Oh, now, back up - the individual mandate enforcement mechanisms in ObamaCare were famously and comically toothless.
Hard prison time will not be accompanying non-compliance; liens may technically arise (per one expert) but cannot be published or filed.
With my confidence cratered, I went back to check the primary claim of Muslim exemption, and guess what? Snopes has tackled this very topic.
Their short answer is FALSE. Their gist is that exemptions from ObamaCare will parallel exemptions from paying the Social Security tax. Some religious groups, such as the Amish, have a long history of seeking and receiving such an exemption (as well as a loss of Social Security benefits), so they would probably receive a similar exemption from ObamaCare.
But per Snopes, Muslims in the US have no history of seeking exemption from Social Security. Absent that precedent their prospects of a successful waiver from the ObamaCare mandate are slim.
Send better agitprop.
--Oh, now, back up - the individual mandate enforcement mechanisms in ObamaCare were famously and comically toothless.--
And the water that boils the frog starts out refreshingly pleasant.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 11, 2012 at 06:22 PM
Is anyone surprised by this? This was going around the email carrousel for the last year or so. Now all of a sudden its "news you can use"?
OT: There is irony and then there is Elizabeth "Fauxchohantas" Warren speaking tonight in the Fenway neighborhood of Boston as the BoSox play who? Why the Indians of course:)
Posted by: Jim Eagle | May 11, 2012 at 06:22 PM
"and likens insurance to gambling, the religion is excluded from requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Others who fall into this category are the Amish, American Indians..."
So Sacajawannabee Elizabeth Warren doesn't have to abide by ObamaCare? Yippee!
I was worried I was gonna' have to convert to Islam, or grow a beard and drive a donky court in Amish country in order to beat ObamaCare.
Hell, I've got "high cheekbones! 1/32nd, here I come.
Woo, woo, woo!
Posted by: daddy | May 11, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Never mind.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 11, 2012 at 06:28 PM
The Sawx fans will be in a foul mood after hilljack POS Josh Beckett got booed and run after 3 innings of throwing batting practice last night and the team lost the 9th out of the last 11. Poor Liz just can't catch a break.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 11, 2012 at 06:32 PM
Darn --I had just paid off the New England Genealogical Society to pawn off an Algonquin birth certificate as the real McCoy birth certificate of my gggg grandmother.It's true if you looked closely the Minsk was scratched off the header and Salem substituted but they said it would do.
Posted by: Clarice | May 11, 2012 at 06:33 PM
I believe Taranto would call this a 'bottom story of the day';
NYC gets over 4 million false 911 calls … made by cell phone users’ butts.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 11, 2012 at 06:34 PM
Huh.
Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement healthcare reform law
IRS now hiring 1,054 agents to enforce ObamaCare. This is just the first wave. IRS says it will soon need 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce ObamaCare
Healthcare Reform Law Requires New IRS Army Of 1,054 The Internal Revenue Service says it will need an battalion of 1,054 new auditors and staffers and new facilities at a cost to taxpayers of more than $359 million in fiscal 2012 just to watch over the initial implementation of President Obama's healthcare reforms.
Sharia is already being accepted in some American courtrooms as an appropriate legal framework for dispensing justice.
Yep. Nothing to see here. Move along.
OMG !
Sandy
Posted by: Sandy Daze | May 11, 2012 at 06:36 PM
Why the Indians of course:)
I would work in indentured servitude for seven years for the person who could get Warren to demand the BoSox drive the Indians off their land.
Posted by: Soylent Red | May 11, 2012 at 06:38 PM
From reader bobo on polipundit
I understand that Warren’s fallback position now is that she once had a dreamcatcher hanging from her rearview mirror in high school…
Posted by: Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA | May 11, 2012 at 06:55 PM
calling DoT, calling DoT, public service announcement needed in aisle 1
Posted by: Chubby | May 11, 2012 at 06:55 PM
Snicker snicker
Zero disapproval 55% while approval is 44% per RASMUSSEN today. That is what is known as a landslide.
Posted by: GMax | May 11, 2012 at 06:59 PM
snicker snicker guffaw!
Keep telling yourself that, it will make the disorientation and deep depression ever so much greater. Do stay away from sharp objects in early November.
Posted by: GMax | May 11, 2012 at 07:04 PM
Now you see it, now you dont. I think Registration is the ultimate answer TM.
Posted by: GMax | May 11, 2012 at 07:07 PM
Just caught up to Clarice's mention 2 threads back about Legal Insurrections story up on Lizzy Warren's ancestor's 1894 Marriage Application. That Marriage Application is the one that supposedly told us GGGGrandma was a Cherokee. LI sez that 1894 Marriage Application does not exist, and that the reputed source for the document has suddenly gone mute and won't respond to questions.
Here's the link, for other JOMer's playing catching up like me:
Genealogist for Elizabeth Warren 1/32 Cherokee claim goes silent, source document shown false.
Posted by: daddy | May 11, 2012 at 07:17 PM
I vote for registration, GMax.
Posted by: centralcal | May 11, 2012 at 07:18 PM
So are Muslims refused by hospitals unless they pay in advance? Obama is just afraid they will target him if he doesn't kowtow
Larry Kudlow just said he is beginning to think this election is over.
I sure do like the sound of that.
Posted by: Jane | May 11, 2012 at 07:20 PM
And thank goodness American Indian's aren't subject to ObamaCare, due to "insurance" being vaguely akin to "gambling."
We sure wouldn't want any form of gambling getting it's nose under the teepee on an Indian Reservation, no Sirree!
Posted by: daddy | May 11, 2012 at 07:24 PM
Snopes? Really?
Posted by: thebronze | May 11, 2012 at 07:27 PM
when if comes to muzzies, the morbidity pool is easy to predict.
Ask the Israeli bus drivers and passengers. Or you can ask the Afghanis, Iraqis, Balinese tourists, passengers on United and American. I could go on, of course.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | May 11, 2012 at 07:30 PM
"Larry Kudlow just said he is beginning to think this election is over."
We need to immediately do screen shots and recordings of every Dem who the last 3 years has told us what a genius Obama is, because if they frantically dump him now for Hillary, etc, that Memory Hole is gonna' be suddenly better at swallowing stuff than a Black Hole in a Star Trek flick.
BTW, anybody seen hide nor hair these last 3 years of Michael Beschloss of "He's the smartest guy who's ever been President" infamy?
I'd pay to see that nincompoop try to walk that adulation back.
Posted by: daddy | May 11, 2012 at 07:34 PM
That's not the reason, there is a degree of predeterminism and frankly fatalism in that culture, the phrase inshallah, 'if god wills it' dominates their thinking. Spanish culture
with the 7 centuries of Moslem occupation,
has a similar expression, ojalla,
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 07:34 PM
I recall Quakers and conscientous objectors being exempt from the draft into military service, so similar logic may apply here.
They were exempt from combat duty, not service, correct? Isn't that a significant distinction?
Also military is an enumerated power so I would think there would be more discretion in managing such affairs via necessary and proper clause. If the military thinks it is best for morale to keep those folks out of combat, they can do so. The arguments for it are obvious.
IANAConstitutionalScholar
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 07:37 PM
I'd pay to see that nincompoop try to walk that adulation back.
He'll do it by saying he was too intelligent, too intellectual, too deep to be President. He'll do it by trashing the Presidency b/c his guy was no good at it.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 07:41 PM
You know what is inconsistent?
We have educated (supposedly) trolls here who applaud the evolution of Obama's position on same-sex marriage but marvel at the legitimacy of Islamic law???? But why wouldn't they because according to one of their world-wide accepted spokesterrorists there are no homosexuals in Iran or any muslim country for that matter.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | May 11, 2012 at 07:41 PM
Social security is not insurance. It's just a kind of welfare, and there's no reason Moslems would object to it. If they object to any and all insurance, then they would be exempt from Obamacare.
But that's not why the piece is crap. It's crap because if they're exempt from Obamacare, and receive no benefits from it then it's ridiculous to claim they're being subsidised. What subsidy? They're getting nothing. And to call this the dhimmitude of the rest of us is pure demagoguery, of which Herb London should be ashamed.
Posted by: Milhouse | May 11, 2012 at 07:43 PM
He hasn't chimed in this year yet, but apparently facts have not penetrated;
http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/31/team-obama-finds-hope-for-2012-in-a-history-lesson/
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 07:45 PM
I mean't to add except the dead kind. Gay Muzzies that is.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | May 11, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Public Service Announcement:
The man who posts here as Ben Franklin is Dana Gilbert Ward of Pitzer College. For a number of years he posted here and elsewhere as "Semantic*leo" (without the asterisk), and occasinally as Al Asad. One can sample his product with Google. The owner of this site has requested that those who use it refrain from responding in any way to Franklin's comments, and it appears that the request is being honored. Thank you.
Now we return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 11, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Porch:
He'll do it by saying he was too intelligent, too intellectual, too deep to be President.
From BOTW:
I actually agree that the American people would be far better off had he not been president.
Posted by: hit and run | May 11, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Oh I meant to cite Meghan, but that would be unnecessarily cruel, Taranto has no such scruples.
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 07:54 PM
I object to anything that puts the government and collectivism first and the freedom loving individual second. Simple. Plus I am a un
Posted by: Jim Eagle | May 11, 2012 at 07:54 PM
Good catch, hit.
P.S. You are supposed to be in Carrboro right now.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 07:55 PM
..apologetic anti-Islamist and everything they stand for, like you know blowing up your neighbor, your wife, your son, your daughter, or anyone else who doesn't believe in 6th century sculputers.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | May 11, 2012 at 07:56 PM
Porch:
P.S. You are supposed to be in Carrboro right now.
Indeed. However,hit and run jr has basketball practice at 8:30. Oh,crud. I gotta go.
Posted by: hit and run | May 11, 2012 at 07:57 PM
Satire is not just dead, but has gone zombie, as this statement proves;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjE7IcxaB3Q
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 08:00 PM
Totally understand hit - I'm home w/3 kids and have been sick all week. Thing 2 may be succumbing as well. Counting the minutes until I can put Thing 3 in the crib.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 08:03 PM
Sorry, to hear that Porch, we've just recovered from a cold after about two weeks.
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 08:11 PM
I suppose if I were an @sshole prog, I would want desperately to tell myself that RAS can not possible be right cuz if he is, whoops:
A new Rasmussen poll shows Republican Tommy Thompson leading Democrat Tammy Baldwin by 50-38 in a potential Senate match-up in Wisconsin. This is an open seat currently held by Democrat Herb Kohl. Thus, Wisconsin represents an opportunity for Republicans to pick up a Senate seat.
Thompson’s lead isn’t suprising. Before becoming Secretary of Health and Human Services, he was an election-winning machine in Wisconsin, having been elected governor of the state, which leans Democratic, four times. In his last two races, 1994 and 1998, he captured 67 and 60 percent of the vote.
Thompson’s presence on the ticket in November might help another former center-right governor, Mitt Romney, in Wisconsin. Depending on the condition of the economy, Romney could be competive there.
Posted by: GMax | May 11, 2012 at 08:13 PM
Live there like I have and feel its immense hatred for anything post-Crusade or not according to some pedeophile fueled bearded mullah, then maybe you would. You do know that liberal, left thinking academics are the first they will decapitate and feed to the dogs Obama likes to eat, don't you?
Posted by: Jim Eagle | May 11, 2012 at 08:13 PM
Poker night begins in 45 minutes. My place. Feelin' good.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 11, 2012 at 08:13 PM
Thanks narciso. It comes and goes. Would be no big whoop if Mr. Porch hadn't been out of town since the 3rd!
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 08:14 PM
Heh, when did the MSM last admit a Repub candidate could be competitive in WI. Bush was, yet I don't recall it coming up...YMMV on that though.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 08:16 PM
Break a leg DoT. Or whatever they say in poker.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 08:16 PM
JiB, you do know that TM has specifically asked that poster not respond to that buttwipe, correct?
Posted by: GMax | May 11, 2012 at 08:17 PM
DoT.
Do you drink when playing poker? Don't tell me you do because I gave it up after I lost $2 playing with a drink in me:)
Posted by: Jim Eagle | May 11, 2012 at 08:18 PM
Btw, JiB, how far have you gotten in the Matthew Pearl book.
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 08:19 PM
Porchlight, re Quakers & the draft: I was taught in Firstday School that Friends should register for the draft. We were also told to reflect on whether we would hit someone to stop them from hurting someone else (e. g. a younger brother or sister). If you truly would, you are eligible to serve in combat. If you truly would not, you are a conciencius objector. This was a separate thing from the general teaching of non violence.
Posted by: henry | May 11, 2012 at 08:20 PM
Thanks henry for the clarification. I did not mean to object to Quaker objection (so to speak) but just to point out that conscious objectors were not exempt from service, just combat - so I don't think the analogy to Muslims, Amish, etc. wrt Obamacare applies.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 08:27 PM
The rather chronic downpours haven't helped much in that regard, a problem that doesn't occur in Austin, I believe,
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 08:30 PM
DoT:
Poker night begins in 45 minutes. My place. Feelin' good.
I spent most of last night in the hole. Which was particulalrly disconcerting because I "borrowed" the cash from the girl scout cookie pouch. Fortunately I got a big hand in the waning minutes and ended up pocketing a fair amount of change which I will now spend on mrs hit and run. May your night not be so perilous.
Greetings from Lewis Rec Center.
Posted by: hit and run | May 11, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Porchlight, meeting houses attracted lots of people who assumed membership was a free pass from military service. They now control many meetings and push activist protest agendas -- including unFriendly activities like marching and carrying protest signs. Traditional meetings are hard to find anymore.
Posted by: henry | May 11, 2012 at 08:36 PM
Pouring rain in DFW, and has delayed the Rangers despite them being up 1-0 and the bases loaded against the douche C J Wilson.
Posted by: GMax | May 11, 2012 at 08:36 PM
THey have succumbed to O'Sullivan's law, Henry;
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/05/11/peter-schweizer-politely-kos-condescending-msnbc-contributors-krystal
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 08:37 PM
--I spent most of last night in the hole. Which was particulalrly disconcerting because I "borrowed" the cash from the girl scout cookie pouch.--
It's only a matter of time before we find your hide stretched over a barbed wire fence like we used to do to coyotes in these parts.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 11, 2012 at 08:40 PM
"Do you drink when playing poker?"
In moderation. Excess in moderation, that's my motto.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 11, 2012 at 08:42 PM
I have really moderated my moderation in the past few years.
Posted by: hit and run | May 11, 2012 at 08:48 PM
We were bringing up the Post's flawed business model, that's only the tip of the iceberg;
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/05/11/does-anyone-at-the-washington-post-realize-that-obamas-policies-are-killing-their-company/
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Good luck, DoT,,hit, I don't know what we're going to do with you..
Posted by: Clarice | May 11, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Well there are no chainsaws involved this time, right,
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 08:51 PM
They now control many meetings and push activist protest agendas -- including unFriendly activities like marching and carrying protest signs. Traditional meetings are hard to find anymore.
henry, I'm sorry to hear that. If it helps, sort of the same thing has happened over the centuries to my church (C of E/Episcopal). I found a splinter "continuing" church which makes me happy, fortunately, but they are also difficult to come by.
I think one of my h.s. classmates, who is really a dear, but has silly ideas, is a member of one of the reformed meetings you describe. She's quite the OWS supporter. Gah.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 08:53 PM
The rather chronic downpours haven't helped much in that regard, a problem that doesn't occur in Austin, I believe,
Funny you should say that - it has been pouring all week. But yes, quite unusually, at least compared to last year. Not complaining though!
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 08:57 PM
O/T, but no more O/T than the rest of you...
via BOTW: "Duck Is Mauled in Central Park, Apparently by a Loose Dog"--headline, New York Times, May 11
For the life of me, I cannot imagine that being considered newsworthy in any other city (much less a small town) in the world. What's next? "Breaking: purple martins swoop to attack swarm of mosquitos".
Posted by: AliceH | May 11, 2012 at 09:05 PM
There are plenty of real problems with ObamaCare. It seems counterproductive to make carp up. Kudos to Tom for applying his BS meter to a fringe argument.
In Narc's link, Schweitzer shows a**holes like Ball and Toure how a grownup handles their adolescent, ad hominem approach to political debate.
In the end, that is the winning way, not the Chicago way.
On the poll issue, I'd much rather be in Romney's position than ElJefe's at this point in the election cycle. That doesn't mean I'm complacent, because I'm not. I'm just not pessimistic.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | May 11, 2012 at 09:14 PM
Hahahahaha. I guess Gallup is now a verklempt pollster:
Despite the recent political emphasis on wealth inequality and the call for higher taxes on the rich, more than six in 10 Americans think the United States benefits from having a class of rich people, unchanged from 22 years ago.
Epic Fail on the Occupy Bullshite
Posted by: GMax | May 11, 2012 at 09:21 PM
narciso,
Way finished. What a good read about my alma mater. Never even knew these things ocurred or who these peoples were. Highly recommended.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | May 11, 2012 at 09:22 PM
Ras--Obama leads Romney among likely voters but my a smaller margin now--49-44%
Posted by: Clarice | May 11, 2012 at 09:25 PM
Go to get around to it, you know it's eerie, how life imitates Silva's art, with the whole Saudi/AQ caper, excepr there doesn't seem to any Gabriel Allon, on the way.
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 09:26 PM
As we see, trolls seem to infest nearly every halfway decent comment section, I'm not stipulating that the Daily Caller is that way;
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/palin-endorses-cruz-in-texas-gop-senate-primary/
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 09:30 PM
You have to be fairly intelligent, a viable citizen and somewhat lucid to even be picked for a poll, right? Or are just picking someone who knows how to answer a phone?
Posted by: Jim Eagle | May 11, 2012 at 09:30 PM
IMHO Snopes is not always reliable.
Posted by: Frau Quatsch | May 11, 2012 at 09:31 PM
Reposting my comment from HotAir to see what y'all think (I post under another screen name there). The italicized part is from another comment I was replying to:
******
In another interesting coincidence, Elizabeth Warren’s Husband, Bruce Mann, was a Professor of Law and a Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania before he got his job at Harvard Law School.
So Professor Bruce Mann would likely have an good perspective on minority hiring policies at BOTH Harvard Law and the University of Pennsylvania.
Any relation to Michael Mann, also at Penn?
But this brings up a really interesting point. Everyone knows that faculty angle to get jobs for their spouses when they move to a new institution. That usually involves some wrangling (my department has been the “beneficiaries” of some of these maneuvers).
Maybe HLS really wanted Mann, and he insisted Warren be hired as well. But because Warren’s resume was just a tad lackluster for HLS, they needed a hook, and decided (perhaps with some strategic hints from Mann/Warren) that she could be justified based on the Native American status.
Sort of an AA hire with a bonus.
*****
Now I have a related idea. I don't know anything about Warren's husband, Bruce Mann. When did they marry? Is that when she started listing herself in the directories as Native American? Maybe so that she could more easily tag along when he got hired somewhere? And then they both got to HLS, and there was no need after that?
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 09:36 PM
"does-anyone-at-the-washington-post-realize-that-obamas-policies-are-killing-their-company/"
Narciso,
Don't jump the gun on the WaPo's demise just yet, because they'll always have Sally Quinn to hold up the WaPO's Religion section.
It's truly difficult to beat Sally's credentials. From her bio on Wiki:
"...the job interview included the following exchange:
"Can you show me something you've written?" asked Managing Editor Benjamin Bradlee. "I've never written anything," admitted Quinn. Pause. "Well," said Bradlee, "nobody's perfect."
Amazing. Given a job like that without claiming to be an American Indian!
Wiki also tells us:
"A notable incident of her career was her claim that Zbigniew Brzezinski, then the National Security Advisor, jokingly opened his fly in front of a reporter, a claim The Post retracted the following day."
And:
"Henry Kissinger said, "[The Post reporter] Maxine Cheshire makes you want to commit murder. Sally Quinn makes you want to commit suicide."
Even more: "Quinn left the CBS Morning News after the February 1, 1974 telecast. She chronicled her short, disastrous television career in the bestselling book "We're going to make you a star!"
Here's her list of Journalism Awards:
1) The Georgetown Dish honored Sally Quinn with its first-ever award for Literature & Style
2) Part winner (with her hubby Ben Bradley) of The Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity Award
3) Andy Warhol did her portrait 6 times.
So Narciso, you just tell me where else you can find quality credentials like that in any other newspaper in America?
Posted by: daddy | May 11, 2012 at 09:37 PM
The Mann you're thinking of is Penn State, not Penn.
Clarice - Is that WI where it's 49-45 Obama?
Posted by: danoso | May 11, 2012 at 09:40 PM
Henry,
Thank you for the insight into the Quakers. Very much appreciated.
Was interested years back in a history book to find out that a Quaker branch from my North Carolina County (Carteret) left the state due to Slavery, moved north to Ohio, and became instrumental in promoting the cause of Abolition through an anti-slavery newspaper they created.
I can't wait till Sally Quinn gives me the inside scoop on you guys:)
Posted by: daddy | May 11, 2012 at 09:42 PM
Yes, it is, danoso.
Porch, you may be on to something. Somewhere I saw someone did a parallel timeline of her career and her present husband's and there was a lot of overlap..I think even going back to her first job in Texas, but as to that last point, my memory may be less good.
He's her second husband. I think she was married to her first husband when she took the job in Texas.
Posted by: Clarice | May 11, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Ok, because the timelines seem to match, as do their academic interests after a fashion;
https://www.law.upenn.edu/alumni/alumnijournal/fall1999/article2/
I'm stumped on that point, daddy, but I hear Lisa Miller is a pretender to the throne, sort
of like Deborah Norville, epic facepalm.
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 09:46 PM
Well I was thinking it was a tad light, but then I read that Warhol did her portrait six times, and I am thinking boy this is a big fing deal, right Mr. Vice President?
Posted by: GMax | May 11, 2012 at 09:46 PM
Daddy, Quinn won't know whether to write about the 5 minute or instant Quakers. ; )
Posted by: henry | May 11, 2012 at 09:46 PM
They now control many meetings and push activist protest agendas -- including unFriendly activities like marching and carrying protest signs. Traditional meetings are hard to find anymore.
That is sad. I come from a long line of Quakers and in doing genealogy, I've read hundreds and hundreds of Quaker Meeting Minutes. My Quaker ancestors, who came from Wales in 1726 to escape religious persecution, were the first to volunteer for the American "rebellion." True that they did not wish to take up arms against their fellowman, but they opened their farms for hospitals and general lodging, they transported supplies over wilderness roads to keep our troops fed and equipped, they were shot at and some killed, but always they were about freedom and liberty. And some risked being "disowned" because they believed so strongly in the cause.
Posted by: Sara | May 11, 2012 at 09:47 PM
Frau- I have had the same experience.
Someone will do a group email to make a point. I'll glance at it and say that's true. Interesting timing and go back to work.
Next thing I know someone irate is saying here's the snopes to show that's not true.
If it's someone I know well I will say, calm down they don't get it all right.
" But I checked snopes".
How useful.
Posted by: rse | May 11, 2012 at 09:51 PM
Porch,
In an early Harvard Crimson story, Warren refused her first offer of tenure, probably, speculated the paper, "because her husband, Bruce H. Mann, a visiting professor of legal history at Harvard, was not offered a position here."
Warren Rejects Law School Tenure
Posted by: daddy | May 11, 2012 at 09:55 PM
I think that's the lazy way out, show me the
regulation, which Sibelius likely hasn't written yet,
Speaking of 'mind arson; how can one really build on this foundation;
http://www.law.upenn.edu/legalhistory/conference/details.html
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Sara, my ancestors also left Wales for the St David's & Valley Forge area. Even then, some took up arms anyway. Freedom, liberty and above all respect for the inner light of each individual are essential. Modern activism shows no respect for the target, it is a very sad turn.
Posted by: henry | May 11, 2012 at 09:57 PM
Clarice,
I poked around a little. Per wiki Warren and Mann married in 1980. She is listed as "white" when at UT beginning in 1981. (Mann also taught at UTexas - wonder if they met here.) Then she's listed as Native American beginning in 1986.
She started at Penn in 1987.
Now, did Bruce Mann also begin teaching at Penn in 1987? Haven't confirmed that yet.
I was wrong about her following Mann to HLS, though. She got there before him, in 1995. He stayed at Penn until 2006 and then moved to Cambridge. Which means they were separated for quite awhile - interesting. Shades of Bill and Hill?
If he started at Penn at the same time she did, that might be significant. His CV was much more distinguished than hers at that point, so her AA status could have been the hook.
After she was established at Penn (as a Native American!) she wouldn't have needed as much help to get to Harvard.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 10:01 PM
In case some of you do not know.
Tammy Baldwin is gay. Very gay.
Posted by: Gus | May 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM
From narciso's UPenn link:
"Professor Mann began his teaching career at the University of Connecticut School of Law where he taught legal history, property, and trusts and estates. Soon, he accepted visiting professorships at the University of Houston, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Michigan, Princeton, and Harvard, endeavoring to coordinate his assignments with those of his wife, Elizabeth Warren. Warren is currently the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard, and - by her husband's account - "the country's leading academic expert on bankruptcy. She's a natural teacher, the finest Socratic teacher on the planet." Warren also won the Lindback and Levin awards while at Penn."
I believe they were both at the Univ of Mich at the same time, too.
Posted by: Clarice | May 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Aha, daddy, thanks. So maybe he helped her get to Penn and she helped him get to Harvard.
I don't think she helped him get to Penn, though, because as mentioned, his resume was much heftier than hers at that point. But you never know. They might have been desperate for high cheekbones.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM
As for HLS someone today dug up numerous times HLS bragged about their Indian teacher--IIRC it was at AoS.
Posted by: Clarice | May 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Whether or not STEROIDS helped Barry Bonds, he took them.
Whether or not LYING ABOUT MINORITY STATUS helped Elizabeth Ward Churchill Warren. She lied. WHY DID SHE LIE? For an advantage.
She's toast.
Posted by: Gus | May 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Re: Lizzy's hubby Mann and her accepting tenure in 1995:
"Warren, who taught at the law school as a visiting professor during the spring of 1993, said yesterday the offer had been available since that time, but added that family circumstances had kept her from accepting the position until now..."
"Warren, who will begin teaching a course on credit in the fall, said she will come to Cambridge tomorrow to begin searching for a residence here. Her husband, Bruce H. Mann, is a visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and will remain in Philadelphia, she said.
"Our younger child just left for college," Warren said. "Welcome to the nineties, and the joys of the two career couple," she joked."
Woman Tenured At Law School
Seems it was more a priority to have the Indian on the Faculty than to have the hubby, because as the story tells us:
"In recent years, the Law School has been criticized for its low number of women faculty. The issue sparked wide-spread student protest in 1992 and 1993. However, Warren's appointment comes as the latest in a series of recent women faculty hires."
But not to worry. She was hired for her ability. Even Harvard said so. Being a desperately coveted Indian or a desperately needed woman counted for nothing. Don't even go there.
Posted by: daddy | May 11, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Yes he did, Porch, from the link at 9;46,
Posted by: narciso | May 11, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Henry at 09:46.
LOL!
Posted by: daddy | May 11, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Thanks y'all for the links. One nice thing about academics is that their CVs are usually fairly easy to track down. :)
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 10:10 PM
--What's next? "Breaking: purple martins swoop to attack swarm of mosquitos".--
LOL. That's why I love Alice.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 11, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Can you think of another nice thing, porch? Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends and all..but they do seem the exeption.
I never could stand to be around kids who lived to get "a's" And academics just seem like adult versions of those people who sold their youth and souls for adult approval.
Posted by: Clarice | May 11, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Porch,
Just for interest, the top Crimson Harvard story I linked (at 09:55) states that her hubby is "a visiting professor of legal history at Harvard."
That does not seem to be reflected in your and Clarice's pasted CV stuff, so my guess is that if these professors flop around periodically between schools as visiting Prof's, it's not always reflected in the semi-official CV histories we find on the net.
Just FYI, my wife, who used to be in the Nuclear Business, following the birth of our first and her decision to stay home and raise the kid instead of going back to work, was asked to not quit but instead list herself as under a "leave of Absence", because it looked good for the company/industry to have her listed on the books.
Posted by: daddy | May 11, 2012 at 10:23 PM
And academics just seem like adult versions of those people who sold their youth and souls for adult approval.
Pretty much. I have lots of academic friends, too. They're nice, usually, and good neighbors. They like, support the arts. They dress neatly and are usually pretty involved at their kids' schools.
And some of them do good work. But yeah, I hear you.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 10:27 PM
So looks like in 1993 both were teaching at Harvard, but only the Squaw was offered a job.
To the dogs.........
Posted by: daddy | May 11, 2012 at 10:31 PM
if these professors flop around periodically between schools as visiting Prof's, it's not always reflected in the semi-official CV histories we find on the net.
That makes sense daddy. Mann has been at HLS since 2006 - I think. But his Harvard page just has a list of institutions where he's previously taught, rather than the date-place format of the CV.
Still, it looks pretty clear that they started at Penn together in 1987 after she first listed herself as Native American in 1986, and that she actively sought to get him hired at Harvard in one fashion or another beginning in the early-mid '90s.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 11, 2012 at 10:33 PM