Planet Princeton: Police Release Video of Princeton Professor’s Motor Vehicle Stop and Warrant.
Not quite the incident one expects, given the early news. My immediate take: Township police have gotten politer than I recall. We were white kids, and we got threatened with jail as we were drawing on the pavement in chalk (1970?). An elderly neighbor disapproved and called ‘em. “Urchins!” The sargeant was particularly “mean.” Times have changed from those days, of course.
There’s a statement from the professor, here.
This sounds a little precious to my ears: “But I can say that what I experienced was far more likely because my skin is a deep brown, my nose is round, and my hair is coily.” A Beyonce reference, methinks. A little dramatic. She is also maximizing her treatment and minimizing her own guilt (“handcuff to a table for a parking ticket”). No mention of the sum total of outstanding legal issues. They really can’t be considered in isolation.
There’s are a couple of other details those outside of P-town would miss. Besides speeding (22MPH over the limit), the speed was done in an area that is a prime location for deadly accidents. You see her zoom over the Stony Brook bridge just below the battlefield. It’s a slight ‘S’ that is blind, with the concrete abutments both blocking sight lines and allowing limited shoulder space. A lot of people have shimmed over the line there and had deadly head-ons in my day, and harvested many a cyclist. Cops love to sit that area because of the young-professional-powerful-car population overestimating their capabilities at that particular spot. Everyone who frequents the road should be familiar with the place, the danger, and the police penchant for lurking there.
So, as a policeman, what would you do at the car window with this: Speeding 22mph over the limit in a known accident-prone area, suspended out-of-state license (with incorrect address), two unpaid and unresponded-to parking tickets that officially require an arrest? Benefit of the doubt and let her drive away?
I can sympathize with the Professor’s fright, especially as a person of color. But I also wouldn’t expect any better treatment as a white person. I would have expected to be unceremoniously tossed in the slammer for being caught speeding with a suspended license alone.
As a professor - a person I expect to be intelligent - she shouldn’t be driving at all with that alleged fruit salad of legal issues.
But as all urchins who grew up in P-town know, the ‘intelligentsia’ tended to be the most ridiculously illogical of our neighbors. Professors, uniquely protective of their reputations, at any cost. I knew one to argue over a ticket for driving with parking lights in fog, because low-beams won’t travel as far (physics, as opposed to the law on the books).
Color or not, same old P-town. It should blow over.
Later: On Facebook, other Princeton residents have chimed in their experiences, all remarkably similar. This was not an abuse, but normal operating procedure no matter your color. Something the professor could have found out, had she asked before accusing. However, knee-jerk reactions are in vogue, so all is forgiven.
Messy Nessy Chic: Take an Eerie Tour of Greece’s Sinking Ghost Town.
The Establishment: An Open Letter To Gloria Steinem On Intersectional Feminism.
Powerful. Do read it, share it to others.
naked cap: Tax Breaks for Big Pharma on Top of Unreasonable Price Hikes.
“The Allergan merger enables Pfizer to move to Ireland and cut its taxes. As expected, Read claims that the money will go to increased R&D. He implies Pfizer doesn’t have enough money for R&D right now. Let’s see what Pfizer’s 2014 financial statements say about that. In 2014, Pfizer reported net income of $9.1 billion. P. 58. It paid dividends of $6.6 billion, and repurchased stock for $5.0 billion, a total return to shareholders of $11.1 billion. No wonder there is no money for an increase in R&D.”
WaPo: Nobody involved in the Albright-Steinem-Clinton flap has much to be proud of.
But get this - “Take a moment to look closely at the chart below, pulled from a 2015 report compiled by the Rutgers University Center for American Women and Politics and the Higher Heights Foundation. Note the fact that a majority of white women — and white women alone — have backed the Republican presidential candidate each election since 2000.” My surprised italics.
Is it sexist to critique Hillary’s delivery?
A person quietly emailed me and told me it was unfair that I criticize Hillary’s speaking style, and not Bernie’s. They are correct. But not for the reason they believe.
Bernie is a product of his environment. You’d be as likely to get a Brooklyn woman to change her delivery style as a Brooklyn male ... that is, not at all. Sure, he shouldn’t bellow like a bull. Can he learn not to? I don’t believe so. I worked in NYC. I know his nature. Doesn’t matter if he’s male or female. It’s a regional trait. In the same vein, old Southern gentry tend to all near-whisper [try Shelby Foote, Burns’ Civil War series]. They don’t change either, neither male nor female. But the fact I didn’t mention the above makes my comments about Hillary’s style seem sexist.
Hillary is a different story. She’s *adopted* this new style of rhetoric, and it’s a terrible fit. It is not her former method of address. I don’t have to spell it out for you, you can go look at Youtube as well as I can. See her style when addressing Congress over the original Hillarycare hearings. Then try her debate style during her Senate run (try the Buffalo debate). This is not about being female, younger or cuter. LISTEN. This is all about calm, precise delivery. She’s sharper than a razor. She could eat Reagan for lunch with that rhetoric.
That - THAT is the Hillary I want to hear. Not the current cartoon persona she’s lapsed into. What she’s doing now is going to hurt her nationally. She is going to be our likely candidate (sorry fellow Bernie fans). I simply want her to correct the mistakes she’s making in her delivery, and guarantee that we won’t have a rabid Conservative in the Presidency. I think it’s a huge deficit - we judge politicians by their speaking style. The media amplies those judgments. Think it’s minor? Ask Howard Dean. And the media’s already giving her grief over it.
Quick metaphor: If you were paying a mechanic (let’s say female, for argument’s sake) to fix your tire, and she pulls out a bent tire iron and doesn’t seem to do a good job, are you going to return to that service station? No.
I’ve run across more than one site saying to critique Hillary’s speaking is sexist by nature. I disagree strongly. The same articles go on to claim Clinton, Reagan had ‘feminine’ speaking styles. That statement alone takes the top of my head off, from someone claiming to be above the sexist fray. The goal of feminism is to make gender irrelevant (see the Steinem quote yesterday). Reagan (and you all know I disdain Reagan) at least knew how to use pauses to emphasize historical moments. In his supposedly ‘feminine’ style, he didn’t have to shout “Tear down this wall.” He raised his voice for that one point, but I wouldn’t call it a shout. Nowhere near the volume of Bernie or Hillary over rudimentary debate issues. The scale is all wrong. It’s Bernie, of course. But Hillary shouldn’t rise to that level. A quiet rejoinder would make Bernie more of an odd duck, if she’d just understand that.
As a teleprompter, the politicians I’ve supported all knew some basic things. For instance, you wait for applause to die down, you don’t raise your volume to try to talk over it. Talking softly over the diminuendo of applause is a well-worn effect to secure silence from the audience. You should have complete memory of your dossier, such that you can lose a teleprompter or written speech and sound coherent. Bernie has a limited set of points, so it’s simpler for him. Hillary’s dossier is much broader and deeper. Either she’s overrehearsed (with too much in her head), or she’s not practiced enough. She pauses, flicks those eyes looking for words. That shouldn’t be happening. The “I’s” in Hillary’s speech are sounding insincere, mixed with this head bobbing arm waving animation she’s started to fall into. These are terribly bad habits. I would suggest the Imperial “We” rather than constant “I’s”. “We - my foreign policy team and I - we approached ...” would sound much better if used ONCE in a statement. Rather than the machine-gun of “I did’s”.
Do you see why I’m doing this? I liked Hillary very much in the ‘90’s. If she’d run then, she would have had my vote. It was her laser-precision that attracted my interest. Stronger than her husband. The way she’s running today - all I can see is room for improvement. If she’s the nominee, she HAS to win. I think her speaking style is unnecessarily going to handicap her in the general race. I have no reservations that she is a very intelligent person. So, I say - the same as I tell Bernie he should never have left foreign policy such a huge black hole in his debate performance, I say similar to Hillary. Fix your speaking style. Return to the rhetorical style you once commanded - and can command again. This new persona is JUST NOT WORKING. It’s not working for me, it’s not working for many Dems I talk to. You’re hitting important points, but they’re not framed in such a way that they have enough penetration. We’re distracted by the delivery. If you stop mugging and gesticulating, we might be able to soak in a fact or three.
I say it, because I want you to be your best. Not my version of a feminist icon. Not because I want to hold you down and handicap you for being a woman.
Because if you’re running, I want you to crush the competition. Your voice is a powerful tool. Scale, volume, timbre are all parts of maximizing that tool. Use it to its fullest. You know this, I shouldn’t have to even mention it.
NY Times: Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright Scold Young Women Backing Bernie Sanders.
How the mighty have fallen. Replace “Hillary” in this article with “Carly” to see how silly this all is. And Steinem’s comment! One of her famous quotes from her heyday: “A gender-equal society would be one where the word ‘gender’ does not exist: where everyone can be themselves.” I believe THAT philosophy is the one young ladies today adhere to. I am not a woman, so I can’t speak for them, but among the ones I talk to ... platform, issues and character matter more than sex today. As a female friend drily related to me: “Every woman’s had a woman boss. And they’ve never forgotten it.”
Later: Steinem walks back her comments, “misinterpretation.” Will young women believe that? Doubtful.
AJ America: ‘Hot Yoga’ Guru Loses Sexual-Harassment Suit.
“One witness, Sharon Clerkin, is said to have testified that Choudhury once announced at a packed training session, the majority of whose participants are usually women, that ‘I should rape more girls, it’s good for business.’”
NY Times: Hillary Clinton Raises Her Voice, and a Debate Over Speech and Sexism Rages.
NPR: No Comment From Grinning Martin Shkreli At House Hearing On Drug Prices.
Everything that’s wrong with capitalism, in one human waste.
Dazed: Meet Hijarbie, the world’s first hijab-wearing Barbie.
“I’m filling a gap and hoping to create a positive awareness for the Muslim girl [snip] I want her to be inspired. This is about creating an alternative and having toys that look like you, which, at the end of the day, leads to better self-esteem.”
Techdirt: Countries Sign The TPP ... Whatever Happened To The ‘Debate’?
“... today’s symbolic signing should really be an exclamation point on the near total lack of transparency and debate in this process. The 90 day window was a perfect opportunity to have an actual discussion about what’s in the TPP and why there are problems with it, but the administration showed absolutely no interest in doing so.”
Entrepreneur: Union Plumbers Donate Time, Supplies to Flint Residents.
Brita’s don’t filter lead effectively. I hope they researched options before doing this. I mean, I really appreciate the gesture. But it should help fix the problem.
NPR: Does Egypt’s Law Protect ‘Short-Term Brides’ Or Formalize Trafficking?
Horrific. My heart screams in outrage.
SF New Mexican: Over 1 million face loss of food aid over work requirements.
“The provision applies to able-bodied adults ages 18 through 49 who have no children or other dependents in their home. It requires them to work, volunteer or attend education or job-training courses at least 80 hours a month to receive food aid. If they don’t, their benefits are cut off after three months.”
And for those who do have children? They don’t have to work?
BillMoyers: The Escalating Media Assault on Bernie Sanders.
“When pollsters match Sanders against the four top-polling Republican hopefuls, on average he does better than Clinton does against each of them — even though she, like Bush, is supposed to be ‘best positioned’ to ‘capture the broad, sensible center ...” Quote from the article, a la Chicago Tribune.
ImgUr: Monument to Choctaw assistance during the Irish Potato Famine.
Footnote in history; bespeaks so much.
New Economic Perspectives: Tax Credits and Dollars—Playing Charades with Low-Income Housing.
WaPo: In the age of Trump, grim warnings from Holocaust survivors.
“Thinking that Germany was somehow unique is wrong.” We already learned once during GWB, must we flirt with disaster again?
BBC: Oregon stand-off - Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum, a militiaman apart.
The leaders always seem to avoid consequences, the ‘true believers’ end up cannon fodder. He will be more powerful as a symbol now, because it is his words that will be reused, not the Bundys. What he asked for is more local control, more local decision-making - not at all unreasonable. Tax cuts and Republicanism have robbed Federal oversight of those features. The ironies are clear.
I feel so bad about his death, even though I did not agree with the methods used by these guys. I wish I could help his family.
NY Times: Concepcion Picciotto Dies; Kept Vigil Behind White House for 3 Decades.
“Ms. Picciotto was also familiar to five presidents, though they ignored her. ‘Not a single president ever walked across the street from the White House to meet her or to recognize her quest for peace and justice’ ...” One of those footnotes in history, that supply needed context to the era. RIP, good lady.
SF Reporter: Was the disclosure of Acoma traditions exploitation or scholarship?
“... his decision to publish without consulting the Pueblo — even after promising he would do so — raises the question of an ethical or professional failure on his part.” There’s a turn-of-the-last-century arrogance about this, that goes beyond the moral/ethical question. The pueblos have their own native scholars, museums, research facilities. This history, this knowledge is not in danger of being lost. And they are more than willing to work with non-native scholars. This information will probably become available at some point in the future, given demographic trends among the pueblos - why the urgency to publish now? Noone’s life depends on seeing it in print. This whole thing feels wrong, beyond just the broken promise.
New Economic Perspectives: Wall Street Declares War on Bernie Sanders.
“The Wall Street plutocrats, with good reason, fear Bernie – not Hillary. Indeed, it is remarkable how vigorous and open Wall Street has been in signaling through the financial media that it has no problem with Hillary’s Wall Street plan.” You can feel the fear.
Business Insider.AU: Ecuador To Sell A Third Of Its Amazon Rainforest To Chinese Oil Companies.
“The seven indigenous groups who live on the land are not happy, especially because last year a court ruled that governments must obtain ‘free, prior, and informed consent’ from native groups before approving oil activities on their indigenous land.”
The Australian: Not a good look.
“A lone man with a camera these days is not a good look.” Sadly, ‘tis a concern. And imagine having something other than a pale dermis.