I’m jealous of Elizabeth Warren, no matter what her DNA says


As President Trump and other Republicans have been trolling her to do for years now, Senator Elizabeth Warren released the results of a DNA test showing her American Indian ancestry. The data, while satisfying for Warren and her fans, was predictably mocked and maligned by the same Republicans who’ve been literally betting her to do it.

The test showed that Warren, whose family is originally from Oklahoma, does in fact have American Indian ancestry, though it dates back between 6 and 10 generations in the past. The Stanford professor who studied the data estimate that Warren is between 1/32 (8%) and 1/1024 (0.09%) American Indian.

I’ve done DNA tests from both 23 & Me and Ancestry, because I was curious about my genetic makeup as well. The results were wildly divergent, especially with Ancestry’s recent updates to their data pool. But the amount of African and Jewish genetic material was surprising.

23 & Me suggests I am 0.3% Jewish and 0.2% African, Ancestry DNA’s older model suggests a full 3% Jewish and less than 1% African, while Ancestry’s updated model has removed the Jewish and African components altogether. The possibility that I’m more than twice as black (0.2%) as Elizabeth Warren is American Indian (0.09%, the lower estimate) is fascinating, on many levels.

Continue reading

Why conservatives don’t believe in climate change, in one tweet


Republicans often get labeled “anti-science” for their skepticism on climate change. It certainly doesn’t help their cause that some of them resort to absurd conspiracy-mongering on the issue. The issue of scientific apostasy is indeed bipartisan; Democrats also oppose scientific consensus on a whole host of issues.

But on climate change, “scientists” keeps proving Republicans’ point. The IPCC today announced that without massive societal change across the globe, climate catastrophes will be overwhelming within just a few years.

As one meteorologist put it:

Yeah, that’s not happening.

Continue reading

Why not change the role of the Senate instead of dismantling it?


After the last few federal elections, and especially after the razor-thin Supreme Court confirmation vote, many on the left are finding fault with the composition of the Senate, which they say unfairly advantages Republicans. Never mind that Democrats have controlled the Senate and the House for exactly the same time over the last 86 years, just not always simultaneously, and for almost twice as long as Republicans have.


Naked partisanship aside, the complaint is that the two-votes-per-state scheme is undemocratic. Tiny states with more livestock than voters have the same Senate representation as the handful of states with most of the population.

Continue reading