I am no expert in biology, genealogy, or whatever else you might need to be to answer questions of ancestry.  So I will just pose a few questions from a non-expert.

If you have one parent who is 1/4 Native American and another parent who is 1/4 Native American, does that make you 1/2 Native American?  If both parents are 1/2 Native American, does that make you whole native American.  If they are also both 1/2 French, does that make you two people, 1 who is a whole Native American and 1 who is all French?  Or is it true that your blood can never be more concentrated than the concentration of one of your parents?

If you have 23 chromosomes and you get some from one parent and some from the other, can you be a smaller fraction of 1/23 of anything?

If you can trace your mitochondrial DNA all the way back to Eve, does that mean you can get fractional chromosomes?

If you are 1/32 of a full blooded Native American and you donate 1 pint of blood, does that mean you have given 1/2 ounce of Native American blood?  Or do you have some other kind of blood up to 31/32 of your height and the top 1/32 (or is it the bottom 1/32) is Native America?

Or is this like homeopathic medicine?  After enough dilutions, you don’t even have one molecule of blood that can be identified as a specific type?  Except for your mitochondrial DNA which can be traced back to Eve.

Does any of this have anything to do with whether or not JPMorgan will crash the world financial system?  If corporations are people, what mixed race are they?  Is their any Morgan left in JPMorgan?

As I thought about this some more, I started to think about the fact that in humans, cells replicate. So perhaps there could be a gene that would kill off majority blood and reproduce more of a minority blood cell. In that case you could be more fully blooded of one kind than your parents.

Most people would look at someone’s hair or skin color, and immediately repudiate this supposition. On the other hand, you can inherit a recessive gene from each parent, which then makes it dominant and it expresses itself in some recognizable attribute like having blue eyes when neither parent does.

Like people, corporations are said to have cultures. Where does that come from? Many people wonder if a CEO can impose a culture on a corporation. If corporations are like people, then people must be like corporations. Therefore people must have something analogous to a CEO that can impose a culture that is stronger than the ones inherited from your ancestors. Maybe the equivalent is an adoptive parent.

Perhaps Trofim Lysenko’s theories of genetics will be resurrected yet. In fact, what happened with Lysenko’s theories is something to think about when studying theories of intelligent design.

At The Real News web site, this item is headlined J.P. Morgan Funds Senate Finance Chair, Even Bigger Problem in the Wings. If you follow the previous link, you will be able to see the video and read a transcript of the interview.  It really does start out with the topic they headline, but I think my headline may focus on something even more important that was discussed later.

Thomas Ferguson: But the truth is, I think what you’re learning here is that you can’t believe anybody’s assurances that risks are controlled. You can’t believe the banks themselves. You can’t believe the regulators. The warning here, I think, is that you’ve got to devise mechanisms that will prevent this sort of thing from happening, that don’t rely on just the confidence, however much you repose in a single individual or a bank. And, indeed, the whole cult of the star CEO, the truth is is that nobody seemed to know for much of the last few weeks quite what the real story was—even in the bank, if you believe some of the reporting in the press.

Permit me to take a brief break from the all important story of Elizabeth Warren’s Native American heritage, and concentrate on something trivial that may only be a life or death issue for poorer people.

Clip from May 25, 2012, The Rachel Maddow Show where Rachel and Washington Post columnist, Ezra Klein, discuss and analyze Mitt Romney’s embrace of Republican Reverse Robin Hood economic and tax policies (i.e., steal from the poor and give to the rich).

You wonder if the reporters who delve into the gutter of personal attacks on family heritage have to take a shower after they use Republican political talking points to try to divert attention away from the real issues of the day.

From William Black on New Economic Perspectives, we have When Romney Messes Up and Tells the Truth About Austerity.

The latest example is his May 23, 2012 interview with Mark Halperin in Time magazine.

“Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office?  Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%.  That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression.  So I’m not going to do that, of course.”

So Romney is castigating President Obama for failing to do what Romney himself says he would not do if he became President.  He also admits to knowledge that for the most part he pretends he doesn’t have.  That knowledge being, that shrinking the federal budget at the wrong time would throw us into a recession or depression.  This is exactly what the professional economists have been saying for the past 60 or 70 years.

Was it better to think that Romney just didn’t know, or to find out that Romney knows full well what to do, but will say anything to undermine recovery while a Democratic President is in office?