Yes, Jefferson was a slave owner and deserves plenty of odium for it (and for some other things too). Yes, some of his white descendents don't want to acknowledge his black descendents. Yes, some of the former are backing McCain. So what? Muammar Qaddafi just endorsed Obama. Is that really supposed to matter either?

The last time I checked, Qaddafi isn't working for the Obama campaign and hasn't organized or held any fund-raisers for him. Could you possibly come up with a lamer comparison? Sheesh....

Qaddafi has not in fact endorsed Obama. He's in fact criticized Obama's stance towards Jerusalem.

On the one hand, I understand the Jefferson descendants' refusal to permit the Hemings kin into their orginazation, since it hasn't been proven yet that it was Thomas, and not his brother Randolph, who fathered Hemings' children. Someone needs to get a lock of Jefferson's hair or something and look for patrilineal DNA that could put the issue to rest.

On the other hand, it sort of reminds me of the Daughters of the American Revolution's explanation for why it had no black members -- they could join, as long as they could produce documentary proof of ancestors living in the US before 1776. Of course, the fact that most slave births weren't recorded in a proper documentary fashion...well, that wasn't the DAR's fault, was it?

Those Jefferson descendants who continue to reject their black brethren are facing off against both science and history

Shocker, Republicans want to keep black people down and reject science and history.

Hearing that Abeles supports McCain will only push more Clinton supporters -- the vast majority of whom are committed Democrats and fairly progressive -- into Obama's camp.

Uh, that doesn't make much sense. If they're "committed Democrats and fairly progressive," then they're already in Obama's camp. If they aren't in Obama's camp, it's because they're racists, like Geraldine Ferraro. This news will just encourage them, it seems to me.

Paula Abeles -- a white Jefferson descendant who's been active in keeping black descendants out of Monticello family reunions -- has become a John McCain volunteer...

What a really stupid post. Everyone that votes will vote for somebody. Supporting a candidate means the voter likes his policies better than the other guy. It doesn't mean that the candidate supports the views of the voter.
Gee, I wonder who Luis Farakkan the racist is supporting?

I'd also like to ask Dana if it's more important to quash racism or is it more important to honor racists' right of free speech?

Need to get your priorities straight. Racism is bad, but is not illegal. Perhaps you would like to make it so?

I'm the Paulie Abeles smeared in the above post.
It was a smear in 2003 and its a smear now. Using pseudonyms in online chat rooms was an unspoken practice in both camps--not unlike what currently takes place in the blogosphere between HRC supporters and Obama.
If anyone has any questions about my activities either then or now--please contact me at spabeles@comcast.net

Cervants, your comment "If they're "committed Democrats and fairly progressive," then they're already in Obama's camp. If they aren't in Obama's camp, it's because they're racists..."
How incredibly intolerant of anyone who doesn't share YOUR views! That's what I love about Obama's supporters: anyone, for any reason, who doesn't support The Chosen One is labeled a racist! Let me know how many voters you convert with that line of rationale come November!

Typical Obamabot hubris. They have no valid arguments so they stoop to name calling and obscenities, racist being the nastiest thing they can come up with, I guess. And the most ignorant.

Thing is, no one believes it, not even them. It's a desperate attempt to hide the truth about their corrupt candidate and his backers. The 2008 Dem primary was rigged, hijacked and stolen by people who believe money can buy anything. But guess what it can't buy: Popular votes, 18 million of them!

Power corrupts and money is the roof of all evil. Obama's corrupt machine will destroy itself. History is the best proof of that.

Typical Obamabot hubris. They have no valid arguments so they stoop to name calling and obscenities, racist being the nastiest thing they can come up with, I guess. And the most ignorant.

Thing is, no one believes it, not even them. It's a desperate attempt to hide the truth about their corrupt candidate and his backers. The 2008 Dem primary was rigged, hijacked and stolen by people who believe money can buy anything. But guess what it can't buy: Popular votes, 18 million of them!

Power corrupts and money is the roof of all evil. Obama's corrupt machine will destroy itself. History is the best proof of that.

I'm a 42 yr. old male, disabled, living in North Eastern PA. I have been a Clinton supporter since the GOOD days of President Bill Clinton. Since then, I have volunteered as much times a I possibly could to the Clinton Campaign. I did not choose Senator Clinton solely on her marriage to the, in my opinion, Best President in my lifetime, I did so on all of th research I did on very candidate. Of ALL of them, one stood out with the very least experience, also the same one had a very unreported on past, for whatever reason, this same one has ties to more shady people than all of the Clinton-Gate scandals times 10. That one Candidate was the one that happens to now be the "Presumptive Nominee". I still am amazed at just how far he has gotten, considering everything I have learned and even more important all of the empty questions still unanswered, also most of which haven't even been asked. That's my much BIGGER problem, the UNKNOWNS; and there are MANY MANY of them, from Ayers, El-Hady, to all of his Trinity and Rezko ties. This Man, a Senator for less than one term has succeeded, much to my dismay, to become the "Presumptive Nominee", and it baffles me each and every day.
So, it ha NOT A THING to do with my support for Senator Clinton why I do not support Senator Obama, it is solely due to Senator Obama himself! Yet, no matter how well anyone points out these reasons, no matter how legitimate, the responses are all the same. If we do not support Senator Obama, we must be racist.... What a bunch of BS!
My Sincere Sympathy to All whom Support this "Presumptive Nominee",
JoeyLee*

Looks like the RNC checks were deposited this morning.

cervants can not craft a scathing response that puts all the doubters in their place at this time since he is occupied

"Using pseudonyms in online chat rooms was an unspoken practice in both camps"

No, in fact, it was not, particularly since you went well beyond "using a pseudonym." What you did was highly unethical and it is not a "smear" to point that out. That you refuse to own up to your despicable behavior and deception simply shows that you have not learned your lesson, as can also be seen with this amazingly revealing quote: "I really think I was working in the best interest of the majority of the family members to make the reunion a calm and civilized gathering."

As we compile our notes from our wonderful meeting with Senator McCain, I must tell you Obama supporters that the more you attack DIE Hard Clinton supporters like Paulie, the more you PUSH away the rest. So please keep it up.

Follow me over to Clintons4McCain.com

PS, the RNC does own the Clintonsformccain site; not ours. They have something entirely different planned.
And, i hope they include us when they implement it.

"As we compile our notes from our wonderful meeting with Senator McCain"

You mean the "notes" where he stands opposed to every major issue that Clinton supports?

"I must tell you Obama supporters that the more you attack DIE Hard Clinton supporters like Paulie, the more you PUSH away the rest. So please keep it up."

We intend to, since if Paulie were truly a "DIE HARD" Clinton supporter, she would not be supporting, or fund-raising for, McCain. Nor would her "DIE HARD" support for Clinton excuse her earlier despicable behavior.

"Follow me over to Clintons4McCain.com"

Why?

Obama's completely unqualified to lead America and all evidence indicates he, his wife, & too many of his close associates, both black & white, are anti-American, many with criminal & even terrorist records. Clinton WON the popular vote -- Obama BOUGHT the DNC. Accordingly, my group will vote for McCain if Obama is nominated. We'll trust our country's future to McCain, who's repeatedly put his life on the line for America, far more than to Obama, whose history, friends, and activities all indicate an abiding contempt for America & rank-&-file Americans.
Don't know or care whether Abeles has racist leanings--she's correct in her assessment of Obama's character & lack of qualifications. He & his camp are always quick to play the race card when it suits them, & just as quick to accuse opponents of "racism." They really like to have things both ways.

Here's a mantra for Senator Clinton's supporters (like myself) to adopt:

"I support Senator Obama despite the idiocy of some of his supporters."

I will not ever support Obama. And don't bet that all Clinton supporters will instead go to Obama over McCain, since Paula Abeles is a Clinton supporter now on McCains side. She has her own issues. But one thing we Clinton Supporters agree on is Obama is not qualified, in domestic and foreign affairs. Just a few years in the senate does not make one a President but the corrupt Democratic party does.

I just heard Paula speak on Fox news. Paula, if I can help you...please let me know, I will do anything that will help as every word you spoke was "truth".The same thoughts have been running though mhy mind for weeks but you had the strength to come forth. People should not vote for "Party" but for the best person to run this country in such difficult times. Obama changes day to day (learning as he goes). It is so scary. It is like people are standing behind their favorite baseball team rather than looking at the people!
Yes...the thoughts and ideals of McCain and Clinton are far closer, she has even said so..that she and McCain were the only ones qualified.
Don't go with your favorite party...go with the "person". Obama CAN NOT win. We must join together.
I am with you..let me know what I can do. Those who feel as we do...PLEASE do not give up your values and cave in..we will pay dearly.
Colleen Benedict
rbenedict@hvc.rr.com

This is Paula Abeles and let's get this straight. I understand fair people might be confused about this issue because of the media's sensationalized reporting of the Jefferson? Hemings issue--but these facts are irrefutable.
1. It was NOT a racial issue. The only Hemings descendent that had a DNA match and applied to the group was WHITE.
2. When the "Hemings descendents"--many of whom are not even descendents of Sally-- couldn't prove their case in court or to the membership--they resorted to threats to do everything possible to disrupt and sandbag the meetings.
3. Bloggers of both sides assumed identities to gain information from the other side. Everyone whose been on-line knows what this is like. The wife of the President of the Hemings family group posed as a young white reporter.

You may disagree with the decision--honorable people can disagree-- but both sides had facts on their side--and the decision was made on available data (see tjheritage.org for info on DNA and Scholar's Commission that reviewed all the historical evidence).

This is Paula Abeles and let's get this straight. I understand fair people might be confused about this issue because of the media's sensationalized reporting of the Jefferson? Hemings issue--but these facts are irrefutable.
1. It was NOT a racial issue. The only Hemings descendent that had a DNA match and applied to the group was WHITE.
2. When the "Hemings descendents"--many of whom are not even descendents of Sally-- couldn't prove their case in court or to the membership--they resorted to threats to do everything possible to disrupt and sandbag the meetings.
3. Bloggers of both sides assumed identities to gain information from the other side. Everyone whose been on-line knows what this is like. The wife of the President of the Hemings family group posed as a young white reporter.

You may disagree with the decision--honorable people can disagree-- but both sides had facts on their side--and the decision was made on available data (see tjheritage.org for info on DNA and Scholar's Commission that reviewed all the historical evidence).

Paula, why did you pretend to be a black woman?

I noticed on both your Fox interviews you never were asked if you are a racist. Are You?

You claim to be a Democrat but how do you feel about Muslims in congress?

Finally, are there any black people buried in Monticello family cemetery?

Whether or not Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson were parents together -- and I have no opinion on that -- it's important to note what science actually does and actually does not contribute to the discussion. Dana Goldstein factually misreports when she asserts that "[c]onclusive DNA evidence [links] Jefferson or one of his brothers to the black Hemings line." In fact, the DNA molecular findings showed only that someone carrying a Jefferson family DNA marker very likely fathered Sally Hemings's last child, Eston. So as a matter of scientific conclusiveness, to use Ms. Goldstein's language, the actual circle of paternity candidates is wider in two ways.

First, the circle of paternity candidates includes about two dozen in the extended Jefferson family as that family was acknowledged and perceived when the Hemings children were born. True, certain historians declare that historical evidence shows that, as a practical matter, only TJ himself could actually have been the dad. But that's only their interpretation of historical evidence. Science contributes nothing whatsoever to the sifting of the paternity candidates.

Second, given that at some point the Jefferson family DNA marker entered the community of the enslaved, and given that this could have happened in an earlier generation, the circle of paternity candidates also includes an unknown number -- maybe zero, but maybe more -- of members of the enslaved community. That is, as a matter of what science does and does not prove, Eston's dad could have been someone outside the acknowledged extended Jefferson family. Again, if arguments exist against this possibility -- and maybe they do -- those arguments are only matters of historical interpretation, not matters of scientific conclusiveness.

Given the volatility of this topic, please allow me to reiterate: I have no opinion about the paternity itself. I'm only blowing the whistle on abuse of the special authority of science. In an age when we bet on that special authority in matters ranging from global overwarming to vaccine efficacy, that special authority matters, and is worth defending -- and worth scrutiny -- in its own right. At TJscience.org, I've posted a lengthy essay, "Sally Hemings, Thomas Jefferson, and the Authority of Science." The essay's thumbnail summary blurb says, "Whether or not Hemings and Jefferson had children together, misreported DNA and misused statistics have skewed the paternity debate, discrediting science itself." Thanks.

Steven T. Corneliussen
Poquoson, Virginia

Ms. Abeles is only a Jefferson descendant by accident of marriage. Her husband, Nat, is the descendant. As a participant on the Yahoo site and a witness to the Cassandra episode, I can verify that Ms. Abeles has serious problems with telling the truth. No one but the Abeles' (I say, "Abeles" as we all believe that Nat was Cassandra and used his wife as a cover when he was revealed as a liar) had a "false identity" as they had to reveal their background and their name to the webmaster, David Works, in order to be able to participate. David, in tracing all participants unveiled the Abeles' deception - no one else listed on the website had used a false identity or background except the Abeles. This is a fact that can be verified by Mr. Works. Secondly, the Eston descendant who donated blood will tell you that they are not "white", but of mixed heritage.. yes, they appear to be 100% caucasion.. but, the DNA proved otherwise .. and they are very proud of their history. The fact that Ms. Abeles felt compelled to post this as a important point in her argument, is an example of her ignorance and is typical of those sad individuals who believe they can disguise their true beliefs by making excuses for their behavior. It is akin to saying, "why I have a friend that is black". There were no "dirty tricks" being planned .. merely invitations being arranged by those of us who could do so. The Hemings' are a proud American family with a rich heritage.. they have always demonstrated behavior of the upmost civility .. even in the face of those who have used rascist language in their presence. Sadly, I have witnessed the Abeles behavior and can verify that they are filled with anger and hatred. I support the Democrats, but do not believe that Mr. McCain is a rascist.. but, was unlucky enough to become associated with one (or two counting Nat). The Abeles should be pitied and we should all move on, as they do not deserve anyone's time or attention - on either side. Learn from history -- no one ever wins by hate mongering and lies. There are so many more important things to discuss and she is not one of them.

Go on ahead and vote for Obama. You will get,higher federal income tax,double capital gains taxes,free nationalized health care for illeagle immigrats. he's against drilling for oil here and now,says America is no longer a nation of Christanity and now is throwing out the race card by saying the republicans are saying he's to young a muslim and black. WELL DUH

I read with a certain bemusement Steven T. Corneliussen's attempt to position himself as the Alan Sokal of the Hemings affair.

That is because he is promoting an argument that can be characterized as crudely "postmodern" - i.e, he asserts that because laymen such as journalists and bloggers misunderstand and/or misrepresent science, the authority of science itself is called into question. The funny thing is, he is obviously attempting to build a foundation for an argument that the imperfect reception of science by laymen is symptomatic of postmodernism, when the actual case is that he is advancing what can only be described as a naive postmodern argument: that the grand narrative of science is threatened by its misunderstanding by laymen.

Yes, many people have misunderstood and mischaracterized both the DNA and Nieman statistical analysis, but that does not threaten science at all. Science will continue to do its work; Nieman's study will be examined and partially rebutted/corrected by folks who are not personal friends of Steve, and out of this give and take, more science will emerge.

It matters not one wit, scientifically, whether a mere blogger (with all due respect) like Dana refers to Jefferson's "brothers" (he had one), or characterizes the provisional DNA evidence as conclusive.

On the other hand, it matters somewhat in a practical, non-scientific sense that Steve is a non-scientist with long-standing ties to the Jefferson defenders, and, although he ventures no public opinion on the validity of the paternity issue, has quite publicly aligned himself with the historical camp concerned with the Jefferson "character" issue - which not a subject for science!

Concerning science in the Hemings-TJ discussion, the problem is not an "imperfect reception of science by laymen." The problem is misuse of science's special authority by those doing the transmitting, not the receiving -- starting with science itself, but extending also to certain journalists and, sometimes, historians.

One such misuse, criticized at length in the TJscience.org essay that I mentioned in my earlier comment, and alluded to in the comment that appears just above, took the form of a statistical study that purported to prove quantitatively that TJ fathered all of Sally Hemings's kids. Maybe he did, but the proof can't come from that study's glorified quantitative hand-waving. It's worth noting that certain credulous historians continue to credit that hand-waving as a pillar of paternity proof.

The other misuse is the one in question in this blog discussion. It began with the editors of the journal Nature, the world's leading forum for science. In late 1998, worldwide misunderstanding ensued from
* the misleading-at-best headline Nature's editors used on the DNA scientists' original report, and from
* prominently placed, factually incorrect statements in a summary and an illustration caption appearing with the companion article that commented on the scientific report.

Dana Goldstein's DNA inaccuracy calls that episode to mind, and may stem at least in part from that episode's lingering effect, which is a general but false impression that the molecular findings told more than they actually did.

Despite the bad start that Nature caused in the DNA discussion, many in the press, and almost all historians, have managed to report accurately on Hemings-TJ DNA. Ms. Goldstein is accountable for her DNA science misreporting, which matters because facts matter, and because science in civic and public discussion matters.

高压锅炉管

Travern, you are wrong about the requirements for membership. First one has to find proof of service during the revolution, and then descent from the individual who provided the service. Enslaved Africans can be traced, even if only for a small percentage of people. Some states did maintain vital records on slaves, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and even Virginia kept records. The northern states kept records as early as the 18th century, so there is documentary evidence that the DAR would find acceptable.

comments witten by Travern: "On the other hand, it sort of reminds me of the Daughters of the American Revolution's explanation for why it had no black members -- they could join, as long as they could produce documentary proof of ancestors living in the US before 1776. Of course, the fact that most slave births weren't recorded in a proper documentary fashion...well, that wasn't the DAR's fault, was it?"

thanks

thaaaaaanks

thanks

thanks

thaaaaanks
شات بنت السعوديه

thanks
بنت">http://www.sa-girl.com/city/1.html">بنت جده