Senator Elizabeth Warren has never referred to herself as 'Pocahontas.' True, she may have fudged the numbers a bit regarding her ethnic background, and that is no small thing, but by the same token, it was an isolated incident. It's not like she's been running around running-off-at-the-mouth claiming some fabricated, Native-American heritage.

Pocahontas lived during 1596-1617 - yes she was young at death. She was a member of a faction of tribes known as the Tsenacommacah. The Navajo Nation as we (historically retrospect) now know or think of it, did not exist until 1868 although their history reaches much further back in time, obviously.

The two timelines are so disparate that to use a Native American reference as a segue for flippant commentary at what should be a ceremony signified and dignified only with class and reverence, is disappointing.

For this author's part and in the interest of full disclosure, I have been trying to make amends via various, Native American, spiritual methods in paying penance for direct, paternal, ancestral warfare made upon the tribes of the Shoshone and Paiute - in the western United States historically speaking. There was and still is a tribal bond that was established through these efforts. However, I will say this: The constant, incessant, and internecine warfare between all tribes in North America made for a history as orally told and re-told to be allegorical at best.

That being said, it's a safe bet that any reference given the timelines that put the Navajo Nation in the same context time-wise with the first tribes who first interacted with the first colonists of the Americas, is ignorant at best.

The POTUS' selective, cultural sensitivities

For all of Dubya's faults, the current, U.S. President might want to take a cue from him as to how to handle an event with statesmanship-like decorum; not take every segue which may present itself at any given moment.

Discuss this news on Eunomia

That in and of itself is an interesting segue in that the current POTUS seems to suffer from George H.W. Bush Syndrome, e.g., great in foreign relations but not so much domestically.

The fair and operative question to ask is why does the current POTUS think going off-script serves any purpose? Forget about placating the base; they shouldn't be interested in one-off one-liners.

The President really needs to stay on message That is the conundrum of the H.W. Bush paradox; of being more amiable abroad than affable at home. A reasonable argument can be made that Winston Churchill was also a victim of the paradox' end-result: Leading a nation through conflict but not rewarded thereafter by the voters in a domestic context or due to domestic issues which no longer required a war-time leader. C'est la gere.

A presidential gaffe a day keeps the issues away

Between tweets that amount to feuding with the NFL, LaVar Ball, Senators Corker, Flake, and Franken, along with 80% of the sum-total of tweets, wherein the wide world of the blessed Corps is the Chief of Staff? For all the accolades some on the right pay to President Trump being able to circumvent "the mainstream media" via his Twitter feed .

. . They're mostly inconsequential and replete with jibberish.

A recurring pattern of behavior has been established as a norm via Twitter which shows itself every-so-often, like during the Navajo Talkers' honoring. The awkward silence may have passed but who in their right mind would try and put tribal elders - the age and rank of the remaining Code Talkers - on the spot in terms of understanding and responding to an ethereal reference referring to something that has come to light only recently? Stick to the script Mr. President!