Angrytheresa's Page

In a recent Internet discussion, the subject of Hillary Clinton's gender presentation came up. Several people in the discussion said that their main objection to Hillary Clinton was how masculine she was. Here is my assessment of that complaint.

My perspective on the masculine perception is that it has a lot to do with the way Hillary uses her voice, her hair, her eye contact, and her body language. (Not that "use" is exactly the right verb for all those aspects, but you can see what I mean.) She doesn't shrink in any way. She stands her ground, and while women are generally conditioned to say excuse me and I'm sorry, even when the onus doesn't fall on them to do so, she doesn't engage in that kind of self-justifying behavior.

Recently, I read that in one culture other than American, women are trained to raise the pitch of their voices and speak in kind of a falsetto at work, in deference to male coworkers and bosses. The automatic labeling of Hillary as masculine comes from, in my estimation, this kind of deep-rooted filter that women should act like princesses or children.

In person, Hillary Clinton strikes me as beautiful. Her media position at this time has as much to do with how she looks as anything. I wish more people could see her and see her real smile. I am pleased and proud that Mrs. Clinton knows how to handle ridiculous attacks on her gender. She puts them in their rightful place, expected but silly.

Angry Motorists Torch Speed Cameras in England

If you click that link, you'll see a picture and story about a burned out red light camera, an automated camera that takes pictures of speeding drivers and sends the pictures and tickets to them in the mail.

If you click the photo in the story, you'll go to the website of a group that resists these cameras by destroying them. I confess, I think it's funny, even though there is a cost to the public treasury.

I think that this kind of enforcement is fundamentally unfair and inappropriate. There are several reasons.

I.  A camera is not the same as an accuser.

Our adversarial court system is set up so that people accused of a crime can confront their accusers in court. A ticket based on a photo leaves the accused person with no one to confront. There is no way to confirm that the camera and other measuring devices were working properly at the time the picture was taken, even if the camera can be said to have been working properly when it was set up. Since accused people cannot confront their accusers, this method of enforcement does not conform to constitutional requirements.''

II.  A camera captures information unrelated to public safety purposes.

When a camera takes a picture and creates a permanent record of that moment, that action is like a search and seizure in my opinion. The picture can answer questions like, which car, did what, when and where. The picture can also show cargo and number of passengers, which goes beyond the scope of the intention of the camera. When the camera captures and divulges information that would ordinarily be covered by Fourth Amendment protections, it is infringing on citizens' constitutional rights.

III.  Cameras don't prevent accidents.

The cameras do not appear to be making any difference in preventing injuries or collisions.

"The data are very clear," said Dick Raub, a traffic consultant and a former senior researcher at Northwestern University's Center for Public Safety. "They are not performing any better than intersections without cameras."

Thus, citizens put up with an infringement on their constitutional rights that doesn't appear to serve a public safety purpose.

IV.  The cameras may create unsafe conditions.

The flash on the speed and red light cameras is between 300 and 400 watts. This wattage is commonly described as not blinding to motorists. However, depending on road conditions and an individual driver's eye strength, the flash may be blinding for up to twenty seconds. Senior drivers may be flash blind for a longer period because their eye lenses are more brittle due to aging.

What to do...

Vote no on red light and speeder cameras.
Contest red light tickets as appropriate.
Don't speed or run red lights.

The Glens Falls Post Star
Published: Thursday, December 20th, 2007

Editor:

Regarding a story that appeared in The Post-Star on Dec. 6: "Rep. Gillibrand announces she is pregnant."

First of all, I must admit that I am a male chauvinist and that there are, thankfully, differences between men and women. There are many occupations suitable for women and their physical attributes. Carrying a weapon while serving in the Armed Forces and firefighting are not suitable lines of work for women to prove that they are physically equal to men. How many male police officers feel comfortable with a 100 pound female backup?

And now, I have to add serving in the U.S. House and Senate as an occupation that may not be suitable for women.

Ms. Gillibrand's current pregnancy makes a strong case for my opinion. Ms. Gillibrand was elected to serve her constituency, and while she is away from her elected office she cannot perform those duties. The taxpayers who were duped into voting for her will have to pay for her medical benefits. Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, Ms. Gillibrand receives excellent health benefits, courtesy of her constituents. We will be without representation in Congress for a time leading up to and following the child's birth. There will be times when she and the new baby will visit doctors. You can add those days to the total that she will not be serving her constituents.

The current base salary (2006) for members of the House and Senate is $165,200 per year. I wonder if Ms. Gillibrand will do the right thing and reimburse the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $452.60, her daily salary, for each day that she is unable to perform her elected duties. For some reason, I doubt it.

RON BLACHUT
Queensbury

Sometimes my mind is blown by the things people come up with. When it comes to female backup, Mr. Blachut assumes that police officers will be uneasy. I think this is an assumption based on obvious data. But since he doesn't indicate a basis for the assumption, I am inclined to think that Mr. Blachut can't know for sure exactly what police officers think and what the situations are in which a woman's possible smaller size would not be a disadvantage.

The same thing is true of Mr. Blachut's assumptions about Representative Gillibrand's ability to fulfill the duties of her office. Pregnant women work all the time. New mothers work all the time. I am certain that Representative Gillibrand has both the integrity and the ingenuity to balance home and work responsibilities without neglecting her office. Further, a well baby check-up doesn't take all day. Representative Gillibrand may be able to have her appointments either before or after work hours, on lunch hours, or on weekends. And a refund? Please. Mr. Blachut is applying a double standard if he doesn't expect the same of any other politician who is away from work for personal reasons.

Having said all that, it is entirely offensive that Mr. Blachut combines his personal philosophy of male chauvinism with matters in the public arena. Beginning with the theory that women are "less than" men, Mr. Blachut arrives at a faulty world view. His world is one in which anything that is different is obviously substandard. In fact, Representative Gillibrand  has credentials from Dartmouth and UCLA that help her apply knowledge to the practice of politics. It shows that even though women may accomplish amazing things, they must always  be prepared for detractors who base everything about performance on details of biology.