Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/20...ver-dreadlocks

Wow. These young kids sure are racist.

The latest progressive terminology, "cultural appropriation". Remember when the Boston Museum of Fine Arts got in trouble for allowing people to be photographed in Japanese kimonos as part of a Monet exhibition? The term is so new that it wasn't even used way back then, July, 2015.

[Unregistered]

Trump Lawyers Claim He’s Under ‘Continuous’ IRS Audit

Trump’s campaign released the unusual letter from lawyers as the GOP front-runner tangled himself in an abortion controversy.

Christina Wilkie National Political Reporter, The Huffington Post

As the political press focused on Donald Trump’s contradictory statements about abortion Wednesday, his campaign quietly released an unusual letter from his tax lawyers claiming the businessman has been under “continuous examination” by the IRS since 2002.

The letter, signed by Sheri Dillon and William Nelson of the firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, gives no advice to Trump on his refusal to release any of his tax returns to the public. Every presidential nominee since Jimmy Carter has publicly disclosed at least a few years of tax returns.

But the lawyers’ three-paragraph letter does provide official-sounding backup to Trump’s claims that he’s being audited, so he can’t release his returns.

Trump’s tax returns have been under “continuous examination” by the IRS since 2002, “consistent with the IRS’ practice for large and complex businesses,” the lawyers wrote.

IRS examinations of Trump’s tax returns from 2002 to 2008 have been “closed administratively,” the lawyers wrote, “without assessment or payment.” That means the examination of those returns is finished.

IRS examinations of returns for the years since 2009 are “ongoing,” the lawyers said.

But here’s the catch: The lawyers said Trump’s recent tax returns — the ones the IRS is still auditing — are just extensions of his older returns, because they include “items that are attributable to continuing transactions or activities that were also reported on returns for 2008 and earlier.”

“In this sense, the pending examinations are continuous of prior, closed examinations,” the lawyers wrote.

This gives Trump legal backing for claiming all his returns are being audited, not just those under active examination.

Trump’s argument for not releasing his returns is silly for a few reasons, chiefly that there is absolutely no reason why a person being audited can’t release tax returns to the public. The returns belong to Trump. And while the IRS can’t release confidential taxpayer information, Trump could do what he wants.

Listening to Trump speak at a GOP debate in late February, you’d think he couldn’t wait to release his returns. “As far as my return, I want to file it, except for many years, I’ve been audited every year,” he told moderators. “I will absolutely give my return, but I’m being audited now for two or three [years of returns] now so I can’t.”

Shortly after Trump said he was being audited for the last few years, Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee, tweeted that Trump should release “earlier returns no longer under audit.”


This appears to be what the letter from Trump’s lawyers was helping him to avoid. By having his lawyers lump together 13 years of his tax returns into one giant “continuous” audit, and then claiming that, for some reason, he can’t release tax returns that are being audited, Trump is saying he can’t release any of his returns.

The lawyers’ letter is dated March 7, 2016, raising questions about why the Trump campaign waited three weeks before releasing it. A campaign spokeswoman declined to comment on the timing.

The campaign released the letter as Trump tried to shake off controversy over his comments earlier in the day that women who have abortions should be punished if it ever became illegal. He later said abortion providers, not women, should face the consequences.

When the subject of his tax returns comes up again, which it surely will, expect to hear Trump dismiss the importance of returns. “You don’t learn anything from a tax return,” he said in February.

If that doesn’t work, Trump may paint himself as a victim of bias at the IRS, a diversionary tactic he used on Feb. 25. “I’m always audited by the IRS, which I think is very unfair,” Trump told CNN. “Maybe because of religion ... because of the fact that I’m a strong Christian, and I feel strongly about it. And maybe there’s a bias.”

The idea that the New York real estate mogul’s personal income tax returns for a decade would be subjected to the same scrutiny the IRS placed on tax-exempt nonprofit social welfare groups is absurd. But that doesn’t mean Trump won’t say it.

“You see what’s happened. I mean, you have many religious groups have been complaining about that,” Trump said in February. “They’ve been complaining about it for a long time.”

[Unregistered]

Insight into the mind of a nutter......see above.....apparently they believe there is a blood test or something for blackness. Really. No lie.

Nutters....if as a physician you couldn't see skin but had the gamut of radiological, serological, etc tools available in a modern hospital you would have no idea about race. None. Dear god. Every now and then something slips out that reveals the true spectrum of beliefs that underlie a nutter view and there was one. Wow.

I believe it's called DNA testing. For example, when Henry Louis Gates, Jr had the former director of the NAACP, Ben Jealous, tested it proved that Jealous was the "whitest black man" Gates had ever met with Jealous' s DNA being 80% European Caucasian.

Geesh, and the libs keep trying to tell us they are so smaht.

[Unregistered]

If you say it, say it again, say it again, have someone else repeat it, repeat it again, tweet it, copy the link to the tweet, then mock in the most derogatory tones possible, it becomes truth.

[Unregistered]

oops. read on...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/us...tion.html?_r=0

Can't say that I blame them. Wishing for a third party to emerge.

[Unregistered]

I believe it's called DNA testing. For example, when Henry Louis Gates, Jr had the former director of the NAACP, Ben Jealous, tested it proved that Jealous was the "whitest black man" Gates had ever met with Jealous' s DNA being 80% European Caucasian.

Geesh, and the libs keep trying to tell us they are so smaht.

Over and over again.

And they never acknowledge the failures of their handiwork.

[Unregistered]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/us/bla...ege/index.html

[Unregistered]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/us/bla...ege/index.html

who do I see to get my five minutes back? What a bunch of tripe.

[Unregistered]

^^^

I think you can get a voucher for a free month of BET.

[Unregistered]

If they have Sanford and Son and the Jeffersons I'll take it. Jack Benny and Rochester - now that is classic!

Fred G. - His Tarzan line was great!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KunVw2WQE8

[Unregistered]

Drumpf will never ever ever release any returns. And he's clearly setting it up to somehow be the IRS's fault.

[Unregistered]

Race and ethnicity have no real biological meaning

For those nutters who are willing to inform themselves about DNA testing and race...

http://www.techinsider.io/what-genet...cestry-2015-11



DNA can tell us all kinds of things.

Genetic information can be used to uniquely identify a specific person using just a hair or a few drops of saliva. That data can also tell you if you have certain genetic ailments or are at an increased risk for others.

But one of the most common services provided by companies who do consumer DNA testing is an analysis of your "ancestry" based on your genetics, and there are real problems with that idea, geneticist Manolis Dermitzakis argued in a Reddit AMA question-and-answer session on November 17.

The University of Geneva genetics professor criticized attempts to pin down both "ancestral ethnicity" and "race" based on DNA.

That's because these things are concepts or ideas that humans have created, and they don't have a basis in genetics, according to Dermitzakis.

Genes can identify a person and find related people, but there's no genetic meaning of race or even ancestry — just because DNA can say you are related to a large number of people who live in a place doesn't mean you are genetically from that place.

'Ancestry' isn't as definitive as we'd like to think

To tell people their ancestry, consumer DNA testing companies compare markers in customers' genes to markers from other people around the world that are in their databases. They use those markers to give you as close an approximation to your "ancestry" as they can.

"I am always a bit worried about these companies," said Dermitzakis. "What ancestry are we interested in? Based on current populations or ancient? Because it is easy to say that one is very similar to inhabitants of Greece today but much harder to say that they are similar to ancient Greeks."

In other words, sure, you can say that the genetic markers in your database are similar to those of the people from a certain place that are now in the database of this genetic testing company. It doesn't necessarily answer the more fundamental question that many have, which is "where am I from?"

Many scientists have criticized the idea of using genomic data to talk about ancestry.

"If a test-taker is just interested in finding out where there are some people in the world that share the same DNA as them, then these tests can certainly tell them that," Deborah Bolnick, a geneticist and a co-author of an analysis on the topic told LiveScience in 2007. "But they're not going to tell you every place or every group in the world where people share your DNA. Nor will they necessarily be able to tell you exactly where your ancestors lived or [what race or social group] they identified with."

In 2013, the science education nonprofit Sense About Science released a public statement explaining why people shouldn't use these tests to determine their ancestry.

"The results from your DNA tests could be matched with all sorts of different stories," the statement read. "We don’t have to look back very far in time before we each have more ancestors than we have sections of DNA, and this means we have ancestors from whom we have inherited no DNA."

"You cannot look at [an individual's] DNA and read it like a book or a map of a journey," the group concluded.

Genes don't define 'race' either

By the same token, and perhaps more importantly, Dermitzakis dismissed the idea of using genetics to define "race."

There's a dark history of using genetics to talk about race. As Adam Rutherford (a former geneticist and now a writer) points out at The Guardian, one of the pioneers of the study of human genetics, Francis Galton, was also one of the creators of the eugenics movement. But since then, the study of genetics has exposed exactly why "race" is not a biological concept.

One Redditor asked Dermitzakis if the presence of certain genetic traits in certain parts of the world — traits that make fast-twitch muscle fibers common in a population in West Africa, or traits that made it easier for people in Nepal to adapt to high altitudes — defined "races" of people. The questioner wanted to know if there were racist implications in genetics that led to potential stereotyping of groups of people.

Dermitzakis said that trying to fit groups of people into "races" was biologically inaccurate in the first place.

"There are no races but individuals that sometimes are more related to each [other] than [to] others," he said. "If you see it that way then all data will make more sense."

The fact that certain characteristics exist in a certain area just means that those traits have been passed on frequently in that area. Because of those markers, genetic differences can be used to track the movements of populations around the globe, but there's no one genetic signal that makes anyone a different race.

As population geneticist John Novembre explained it in a later Reddit AMA: "There simply hasn’t been enough time since we spread across the globe for extensive differences to have accumulated across the genome."

Novembre says that "race to me, as I see it used in the world today and in US census categories, is something much more driven by historical legacy than biological understanding — it stems from a legacy based on judging a small number of external characteristics that hide the great amount of genetic similarity that exists under the surface."

The great irony of genetics, Rutherford writes, is that it is the very field that disproved the beliefs of some of its racially-prejudiced early practitioners. Instead of showing how different we are, we've learned that from a biological standpoint, we're 99.9% the same.

[Unregistered]

For those nutters who are willing to inform themselves about DNA testing and race...

http://www.techinsider.io/what-genet...cestry-2015-11



DNA can tell us all kinds of things.

Genetic information can be used to uniquely identify a specific person using just a hair or a few drops of saliva. That data can also tell you if you have certain genetic ailments or are at an increased risk for others.

But one of the most common services provided by companies who do consumer DNA testing is an analysis of your "ancestry" based on your genetics, and there are real problems with that idea, geneticist Manolis Dermitzakis argued in a Reddit AMA question-and-answer session on November 17.

The University of Geneva genetics professor criticized attempts to pin down both "ancestral ethnicity" and "race" based on DNA.

That's because these things are concepts or ideas that humans have created, and they don't have a basis in genetics, according to Dermitzakis.

Genes can identify a person and find related people, but there's no genetic meaning of race or even ancestry — just because DNA can say you are related to a large number of people who live in a place doesn't mean you are genetically from that place.

'Ancestry' isn't as definitive as we'd like to think

To tell people their ancestry, consumer DNA testing companies compare markers in customers' genes to markers from other people around the world that are in their databases. They use those markers to give you as close an approximation to your "ancestry" as they can.

"I am always a bit worried about these companies," said Dermitzakis. "What ancestry are we interested in? Based on current populations or ancient? Because it is easy to say that one is very similar to inhabitants of Greece today but much harder to say that they are similar to ancient Greeks."

In other words, sure, you can say that the genetic markers in your database are similar to those of the people from a certain place that are now in the database of this genetic testing company. It doesn't necessarily answer the more fundamental question that many have, which is "where am I from?"

Many scientists have criticized the idea of using genomic data to talk about ancestry.

"If a test-taker is just interested in finding out where there are some people in the world that share the same DNA as them, then these tests can certainly tell them that," Deborah Bolnick, a geneticist and a co-author of an analysis on the topic told LiveScience in 2007. "But they're not going to tell you every place or every group in the world where people share your DNA. Nor will they necessarily be able to tell you exactly where your ancestors lived or [what race or social group] they identified with."

In 2013, the science education nonprofit Sense About Science released a public statement explaining why people shouldn't use these tests to determine their ancestry.

"The results from your DNA tests could be matched with all sorts of different stories," the statement read. "We don’t have to look back very far in time before we each have more ancestors than we have sections of DNA, and this means we have ancestors from whom we have inherited no DNA."

"You cannot look at [an individual's] DNA and read it like a book or a map of a journey," the group concluded.

Genes don't define 'race' either

By the same token, and perhaps more importantly, Dermitzakis dismissed the idea of using genetics to define "race."

There's a dark history of using genetics to talk about race. As Adam Rutherford (a former geneticist and now a writer) points out at The Guardian, one of the pioneers of the study of human genetics, Francis Galton, was also one of the creators of the eugenics movement. But since then, the study of genetics has exposed exactly why "race" is not a biological concept.

One Redditor asked Dermitzakis if the presence of certain genetic traits in certain parts of the world — traits that make fast-twitch muscle fibers common in a population in West Africa, or traits that made it easier for people in Nepal to adapt to high altitudes — defined "races" of people. The questioner wanted to know if there were racist implications in genetics that led to potential stereotyping of groups of people.

Dermitzakis said that trying to fit groups of people into "races" was biologically inaccurate in the first place.

"There are no races but individuals that sometimes are more related to each [other] than [to] others," he said. "If you see it that way then all data will make more sense."

The fact that certain characteristics exist in a certain area just means that those traits have been passed on frequently in that area. Because of those markers, genetic differences can be used to track the movements of populations around the globe, but there's no one genetic signal that makes anyone a different race.

As population geneticist John Novembre explained it in a later Reddit AMA: "There simply hasn’t been enough time since we spread across the globe for extensive differences to have accumulated across the genome."

Novembre says that "race to me, as I see it used in the world today and in US census categories, is something much more driven by historical legacy than biological understanding — it stems from a legacy based on judging a small number of external characteristics that hide the great amount of genetic similarity that exists under the surface."

The great irony of genetics, Rutherford writes, is that it is the very field that disproved the beliefs of some of its racially-prejudiced early practitioners. Instead of showing how different we are, we've learned that from a biological standpoint, we're 99.9% the same.

Other researchers have said 99.5 %. Regardless 99. 9. 99.5 . is not 100 %. There is much more to read on the subject, many other opinions.

So what if race is determined by where people similar are from ? As the article says, give it time and the differences will be more determinable.

I know Progressives want everyone to be the same. Social Justice for all !

[Unregistered]

For those nutters who are willing to inform themselves about DNA testing and race...

http://www.techinsider.io/what-genet...cestry-2015-11



DNA can tell us all kinds of things.

Genetic information can be used to uniquely identify a specific person using just a hair or a few drops of saliva. That data can also tell you if you have certain genetic ailments or are at an increased risk for others.

But one of the most common services provided by companies who do consumer DNA testing is an analysis of your "ancestry" based on your genetics, and there are real problems with that idea, geneticist Manolis Dermitzakis argued in a Reddit AMA question-and-answer session on November 17.

The University of Geneva genetics professor criticized attempts to pin down both "ancestral ethnicity" and "race" based on DNA.

That's because these things are concepts or ideas that humans have created, and they don't have a basis in genetics, according to Dermitzakis.

Genes can identify a person and find related people, but there's no genetic meaning of race or even ancestry — just because DNA can say you are related to a large number of people who live in a place doesn't mean you are genetically from that place.

'Ancestry' isn't as definitive as we'd like to think

To tell people their ancestry, consumer DNA testing companies compare markers in customers' genes to markers from other people around the world that are in their databases. They use those markers to give you as close an approximation to your "ancestry" as they can.

"I am always a bit worried about these companies," said Dermitzakis. "What ancestry are we interested in? Based on current populations or ancient? Because it is easy to say that one is very similar to inhabitants of Greece today but much harder to say that they are similar to ancient Greeks."

In other words, sure, you can say that the genetic markers in your database are similar to those of the people from a certain place that are now in the database of this genetic testing company. It doesn't necessarily answer the more fundamental question that many have, which is "where am I from?"

Many scientists have criticized the idea of using genomic data to talk about ancestry.

"If a test-taker is just interested in finding out where there are some people in the world that share the same DNA as them, then these tests can certainly tell them that," Deborah Bolnick, a geneticist and a co-author of an analysis on the topic told LiveScience in 2007. "But they're not going to tell you every place or every group in the world where people share your DNA. Nor will they necessarily be able to tell you exactly where your ancestors lived or [what race or social group] they identified with."

In 2013, the science education nonprofit Sense About Science released a public statement explaining why people shouldn't use these tests to determine their ancestry.

"The results from your DNA tests could be matched with all sorts of different stories," the statement read. "We don’t have to look back very far in time before we each have more ancestors than we have sections of DNA, and this means we have ancestors from whom we have inherited no DNA."

"You cannot look at [an individual's] DNA and read it like a book or a map of a journey," the group concluded.

Genes don't define 'race' either

By the same token, and perhaps more importantly, Dermitzakis dismissed the idea of using genetics to define "race."

There's a dark history of using genetics to talk about race. As Adam Rutherford (a former geneticist and now a writer) points out at The Guardian, one of the pioneers of the study of human genetics, Francis Galton, was also one of the creators of the eugenics movement. But since then, the study of genetics has exposed exactly why "race" is not a biological concept.

One Redditor asked Dermitzakis if the presence of certain genetic traits in certain parts of the world — traits that make fast-twitch muscle fibers common in a population in West Africa, or traits that made it easier for people in Nepal to adapt to high altitudes — defined "races" of people. The questioner wanted to know if there were racist implications in genetics that led to potential stereotyping of groups of people.

Dermitzakis said that trying to fit groups of people into "races" was biologically inaccurate in the first place.

"There are no races but individuals that sometimes are more related to each [other] than [to] others," he said. "If you see it that way then all data will make more sense."

The fact that certain characteristics exist in a certain area just means that those traits have been passed on frequently in that area. Because of those markers, genetic differences can be used to track the movements of populations around the globe, but there's no one genetic signal that makes anyone a different race.

As population geneticist John Novembre explained it in a later Reddit AMA: "There simply hasn’t been enough time since we spread across the globe for extensive differences to have accumulated across the genome."

Novembre says that "race to me, as I see it used in the world today and in US census categories, is something much more driven by historical legacy than biological understanding — it stems from a legacy based on judging a small number of external characteristics that hide the great amount of genetic similarity that exists under the surface."

The great irony of genetics, Rutherford writes, is that it is the very field that disproved the beliefs of some of its racially-prejudiced early practitioners. Instead of showing how different we are, we've learned that from a biological standpoint, we're 99.9% the same.

Oh no! Obama's friend and PBS has been lying to us??? How unliberal of the.

[Unregistered]

Liberal policy about to hurt those Democrats say they want to help. It's not about helping the poor. It's about getting votes that keep them in power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/bu...e-worried.html