Here’s something I have trouble with…
Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish brings to our attention this advice: Don’t consent to police searches. As he quotes Scott Morgan:
It’s always possible that police might search you anyway when you refuse to give consent, but that’s no reason to say “yes” to the search. Basically, if there’s any chance of evidence being found, agreeing to a search is like committing legal suicide, because it kills your case before you even get to court. If you refuse a search, however, the officer will have to prove in court that there was probable cause to do a warrantless search. This will give your lawyer a good chance to win your case, but this only works if you said “no” to the search.
And if you watch the video, you see a lecturer with a ponytail advising us how to politely refuse. That runs against my instincts (and, I’ll confess, the ponytail doesn’t help reassure me that the advised behavior is consistent with being a good citizen — silly, since I grew up in the 60s and used to have much longer hair than that, but the reservation is there).
This brings back to mind the fascinating lecture that Kathryn brought to my attention sometime back, explaining with great force and conviction why we should never answer police questions at all, but rely on the 5th Amendment no matter how innocent we know ourselves to be.
It’s very persuasive — but still runs against my grain. Maybe it’s my core, gut conservatism (real conservatism, not the kind you hear Republican politicians talk about all the time), which involves a deep respect for authority. Or my communitarianism, which demands good citizenship. I don’t know.
But here’s my prediction of what would happen if I were seriously questioned by police about anything: I would be deeply torn between my own desire to cooperate fully, and all this advice I’ve heard not to. And this would make me very uncomfortable and agitated. It would show on my face, intensifying the officers’ suspicion. The police would turn up the heat, thereby increasing my discomfort over my dilemma, thereby making me seem more guilty…
I think I’ll just stay in my house from now on and not answer the door.
Related Posts
Man, your prejudiced ponytail comments right at the start were enough to turn my stomach. Then you define conservatism as being willing to give up your rights (vomit). Respect for authority doesn’t mean you have to be a bootlicking jerk who judges ppl with long hair and feels the need to tells other people to also give in to the police state.
Not surprised to our different reactions to this. In fact, I was just about to post it to my Facebook page as sage advice, when I wondered, “gee I wonder if Brad has seen this, I bet he’ll be really bothered by it.”
Good citizenship (or even a “respect for authority”) demands that we know and exercise vigorously our civil liberties. Authority behaves better, does not overstep its bounds, when dealing with a citizenry that is civically-educated, knows its rights, and asserts them. History has shown this to be the case, over and over again.
The core problem of what I take from you to be a generally blasé attitude about civil liberties is two-fold: one is that it relies solely on the assurances of authority itself that it would NEVER use these (fill-in-the-blank) extraordinary powers (like indefinite detention of American citizens) against an innocent person like yourself (because, with no recourse, if they say you are not innocent, then you are not innocent), and secondly, because you put too much faith in the “exceptionalism” of our Anglo-based culture or something, to think that usurpations of authority and erosion of civil liberties is something that is culturally impossible in our society, it only happens in those “other” kind of places.
The point is not to never answer police questions, but not if you are remotely a suspect. You have a right to an attorney. Use it.
The police are permitted to lie to you and make deals they don’t have to or even can’t honor.
If the police are searching you, you are a suspect. Do not consent without advice of counsel.
The deck is seriously stacked in the State’s favor–they have loads of taxpayer funded resources at their disposal. You do not. Even if you are innocent, you may be wrongly convicted–of course, CPD would never do such a thing,but plenty of police latch onto a theory and try to prove it, rather than look at all the evidence as see what they come up with. Prosecutors are supposed to be governed by overarching justice, but far too many are just out for the won/loss record.
The Innocence Project has no shortage of cases.
Whoa, H.B., chill! I would definitely advise you not to submit to questioning if you can possibly avoid it…
The ponytail comment was nothing short of bigotry. Shame on you Brad for that disgusting comment.
As for the issue at hand, our very conservative defensive driving instructor said in no uncertain terms that if you are ever involved in a traffic accident, NEVER admit guilt. Don’t do the investigators job for them.
And Phillip — no need to get all geopolitical…
Here’s the thing for me. WE the people are the state. Laws are enforced on OUR behalf. Effective law enforcement is in the interest of the citizenry. Therefore I would feel guilty not doing anything I could to help in an investigation.
That’s not to say I would not follow this advice. As I said above, it would just run against my instinct, so I would be very uncomfortable either way. So it’s best I just not be questioned. Best to take it on the lam, to avoid such questioning. I’ve done that before. I’ll share that story in a separate post…
Oh, I should add… candor is more a part of my nature than it probably is for most people. Not that I’m so good and so honest; I’ve just had more opportunity to exercise it. I have spent so many years being paid to tell people what I think (and as editorial page editor, I insisted that everyone share what they PERSONALLY think, in columns, and then I went beyond that by starting a blog) that it’s the only thing that comes naturally. And it’s a value that I internalized even more than most editorialists. For me, it’s not just what I carefully compose for publication — it’s public speaking, being interviewed, all sorts of other venues for saying whatever is on my mind.
So clamming up comes hard to me.
Sometimes, about some things, I’m discreet. Things a gentleman doesn’t disclose. Very personal matters that involve other people. Or confidences shared by others. But I feel the strain when that happens.
Bud, you and H.B. are having a powerfully emotional reaction on the ponytail thing (which I did not have to disclose, but chose to, knowing that some would react emotionally).
There’s nothing disgusting about it; it’s perfectly rational.
Here I am, trying to be a good citizen, yet trying to be open-minded about this legal advice. I see this guy in a suit on the video very confidently asserting what I should do, and he seems authoritative. If an upstanding-looking fellow such as this says it’s OK, perhaps it is. Then I get the shot from the back, and see the ponytail.
And I infer from that this this is a guy who strains against convention, and takes pride in doing so. He wants us to know that that is who he is. If he IS a lawyer (which one assumes, although he is not identified as such), then he is someone who chafes under the dress code that is imposed on attorneys in court. (OK, man — I’ll wear the suit, but dammit, I’m keeping my freak flag, even though I have to keep it furled in the courtroom.)
This is someone who is straining at limitations. That puts his advice in a different light. This isn’t advice from the moderate core of society, but a guy who clings to the countercultural yearnings of his youth (and is way too old to be doing so).
A guy who feels the somewhat exhibitionist compulsion to flout convention in that manner, as harmless as it is, is simply not the person most likely to make me feel like a counter-authoritarian gesture that runs against my grain is OK. He does not increase my own emotional comfort with something that feels like bad citizenship to me.
You’ll note, in the second video, that the lecturer goes out of his way to tell us that an extremely respectable jurist, who headed the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials, agrees with him. He is deliberately reaching for maximum respectability by asserting that. He knows that it helps his argument.
Whereas if he cited William Kunstler or some other legal source with a more countercultural, fringe reputation, he knows that it would not have the same force. In fact, he wouldn’t even have bothered citing such a source. The listener would think, “Well of COURSE Kunstler would tell me not to talk to the cops…”
I’m not projecting anything at all on the ponytail guy. He himself is communicating to me and the rest of the world, by wearing it, that he prefers to identify more with the Kunstler end of spectrum I describe, rather than the Nuremberg-prosecutor end.
If someone wears a suit, he’s telling you something. If he wears medals on civilian clothing (like my friend Moss Blachman, who wears a tiny Bronze Star pin on his lapel), he’s telling you something else. Anything a person does within the context of a formal or professional setting (the sort in which a man would wear a suit) is a deliberate signal: “I’m telling you something about me.”
And when someone is telling me something about himself, I listen.
I think you’re pretty naive about these issues (and, to echo what others have said about you in the past, pretty blind to your own privilege). If you want to educate yourself about some of the larger societal issues concerning both excessive prosecutorial discretion and police discretion, read the following two books:
1. William Stuntz, The Collapse of American Criminal Justice (Harvard Press 2011). The late Bill Stuntz was a professor at Harvard Law School as well as a relatively conservative evangelical Christian. Though intended for a general audience, this book is thoroughly researched, comprehensive, and humane. You’ll find some discussion of the book in the recent New Yorker article entitled “Caged In America,” which discusses the mass incarceration phenomenon in the United States.
2. Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New Press 2010). Michelle Alexander is a professor at Ohio State’s law school and was a clerk on the United States Supreme Court. The focus of this book is narrower than that of Stuntz’s book, but again, it’s well researched and compelling (even if you ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions).
The police aren’t the enemy, but some degree of skepticism about the exercise of police discretion to stop, question, search, etc. is a duty of good citizenship, especially in an era of almost unbridled police and prosecutorial discretion and power.
I realize, by the way, that this post isn’t entirely responsive to the original post, but you seem either ignorant of or excessively sanguine about the larger issues.
Hope you find this helpful.
There’s a comedian who has a bit about 50 and 60 year old guys who have ponytails. It’s usually the same guys who’s forehead extends all the way to the back of their head. I view it the same as the same age bracket that insists on wearing earrings like it’s still the disco age.
Golly, now I’m being condescended and lectured to. (Again with the “Brad is blind to his privilege, just because he finds ideology based on identity to be unpersuasive” — which is the context of that meme of Kathryn’s).
I just can’t win, can I? First the cops, now the civil libertarians. As I said, I’ll just not answer the door…
But wait! The jackbooted thugs will kick it down, won’t they?
Which reminds me — I need to run over to USC, by the Blatt building, and see that black helicopter Kathryn called me about earlier. (I am not making this up.)
I’m sorry the “blindness to your own privilege” comment struck you as condescending.
You still might find the books useful. And for the record, Stuntz certainly wasn’t someone one would define as a “civil libertarian.”
I’m not having an emotionally powerful reaction on the mention of a ponytail, but I do wonder if you brought it up just to stir some emotion. If the speaker were black, would you have done the same? The description added nothing of substance to your post, and I would like to understand the purpose.
People in this world judge you by your appearence. That might not be right but that’s the way it is. I agree that wearing a pony tail (or a nose ring or a three piece suit) is a way of telling the world about yourself. I’m sure the guy wouldn’t be surprised that his hair might turn people against what he is saying. In fact, I bet he’d relish it. After all, he’s advising people not to cooperate with authority.
Brad–What’s the difference between a ponytail and a bow tie?
I choose not to color my gray hair (anymore). I hesitated to stop in large part, not because I care about looking younger–quite the contrary–age has its privileges– but because it makes certain political statements that I perhaps do not wish to make: “I don’t care what you think.” “I don’t care whether men find me attractive any more.” “I’m a crunchy granola freak.””I have given up.”
Just as I do not put bumper stickers on my car, I do not wish to be prejudged by my sartorial choices (except inasmuch as I do dress to preserve some privilege). Other people make other choices–tattoos, piercings, high-heeled shoes, obviously artificially colored hair, crew cuts, and so on. I have found that the more I can put aside my own conservative fashion prejudices, the better I can assess the actual person and possibly learn something of value from him or her.
I do think that if you spent more time with the underclass, you might have a better understanding of their reality. I think if you knew committed same-sex couples, you might change your mind on gay marriage. You have said that the births of your children convinced you that your position on abortion is correct; why wouldn’t other experiences affect your points of view?
Whoops! I spelled appearance wrong. People judge you on your spelling too.
WLTX identifies it as an Apache, but it’s a Black Hawk. Apaches are attack helicopters – they don’t have the extra seating like a Black Hawk. Part of activities for eWeek (Engineering Week).
On Saturday, weather permitting, a Black Hawk or a Chinook will be landing.
I meant “describe” rather than “define.”
If someone wears a suit, he’s telling you something. If he wears medals on civilian clothing (like my friend Moss Blachman, who wears a tiny Bronze Star pin on his lapel), he’s telling you something else. Anything a person does within the context of a formal or professional setting (the sort in which a man would wear a suit) is a deliberate signal: “I’m telling you something about me.”
-Brad
I guess a guy who wears a bow tie with a Searsucker suit is telling you he’s a jackass.
Seriously Brad, can you possibly be any more of a stereotypical blowhard on this topic? If your point here is to suggest it is somewhat discomforting to deny access until required, my pushback reaction is to feel very comfortable in NOT doing so. You confirm the worst of what we suspect “the man” is trying to do to us. “The Man” is up to no good and should be resisted because Brad says the ponytail is offensive. What other conclusion can I reach from this bigoted nonsense.
Also, I think your wounded feelings are a tad disingenuous or coy: you love to stir the pot on the culture wars, rattling cages right and left, and then feign dismay. If you don’t want to talk about the culture wars, don’t. It’s your blog. Please own it when you do.
Ponytails can be an emblem of the culture wars. If you don’t want to deal with the fallout, don’t comment on wearers of them derisively or dismissively.
ponytail = bow tie
The quick take-away for everyone: First impressions matter.
Everyone is influenced by the way we initially perceive others. Everyone. While these impressions are regularly incorrect – or at least wholly incomplete – they are almost always not without some foundation of truth. I’m talking about impressions people convey – not the racism, etc. that can be projected onto a person. That’s a different matter altogether.
Everyone ought to be aware of what they are projecting; and how that is likely to be perceived. That’s life.
Martin, that’s right. I choose to wear a bow tie (some days — not as often as people think) and that says something to people. It’s a vague, in-the-eyes-of-the-beholder thing, but it’s a thing.
And a lot of thought went into it. I used to want to wear one in the early 80s, but I went through about a decade of working for editors and publishers who wore bow ties, so I couldn’t do it because the message it would send to people would be “suck-up.” And I wasn’t about to send that signal. So, dissatisfied, I went back and forth between wearing deliberately anonymous (but tasteful) regimental stripes and wearing more individualistic ones such as my Van Gogh tie, seen here, my much-maligned Mark Twain tie, and those squared-off knit ties like the George is wearing on the Beatles IV cover (I wore one of those just this week).
I started wearing them after I became EPE, because by then my only boss was the publisher, and he didn’t wear bow ties.
Now that we have that out of the way, would somebody tell me exactly where I said a ponytail was offensive? Where is the place where I said anything other than this: I think the argument of not talking to police makes logical sense. But I have an illogical, instinctive reaction against following it because of my good-citizen, respect-for-authority, Boy Scoutish impulse to help the police do their job. And it doesn’t help me get over that for the guy telling me this logical think to affect a look that says he wants to be seen as countercultural or antiauthoritarian.
For instance, if Rusty DePass tells me that he likes Rick Santorum, I go, “Uh-huh.” Big deal. Just what I would expect. But if Kathryn Fenner says that SHE likes Rick Santorum, I’m going to sit up and take notice.
If the Nuremberg prosecutor says don’t talk to the police, I think, Wow, that’s something. If a guy with a ponytail does, I think there’s nothing particularly persuasive in this.
Kathryn says my dismay is feigned. Personally, I find it hard to counterintuitive that y’all who are telling me you’re offended really are, because it doesn’t make sense, given what I actually said. But since you tell me you are, I believe you.
But I have something far more interesting than ponytails to talk about now. The police are talking to people at my church, because someone says they saw Tom Sponseller there Sunday (a day after he disappeared).
Wow.
By the way, I have no idea how reliable that witness is, because I don’t know who it is. Neither did my source.
I do know that everywhere I go, people are talking about this…
Well, Brad, you seem like a rational guy to me, so if you are not feigning your dismay, why do you keep doing things (stirring up the culture nest) that cause you dismay?
You may not be conscious of doing it, but it is a bit of a cognitive disconnection if you truly loathe discussions of culture wars yet persist in starting them.
As far as Tom Sponseller goes, when has a well-known, repsected and liked person just vanished into thin air in broad daylight? He’s distinctive looking to boot, so if he showed up on a surveillance camera, you’d be pretty sure it was him.
I worked with him on the hospitality zone task force, and grew to like and respect him after some initial wariness. He seems to be a decent, honorable family guy, so it seems especially bizarre.
Like if you disappeared…in a black helicopter….flown by a guy with a ponytail
““I don’t care whether men find me attractive any more.” “I’m a crunchy granola freak.””I have given up.””
Isn’t that part of the woman’s side of the marriage contract?
“I guess a guy who wears a bow tie with a Searsucker suit is telling you he’s a jackass.”
No, it’s a desperate attempt at trying to look like a Southern gentleman, which flew out the window around 1960… to try it now is just sad.
The worst offenders are the ponytailed guys wearing searsucker suits and bow ties. There’s no hope for them and they should be rounded up and sent away to the land of black socks and sandals (otherwise known as Florida).
I would decline the search, cause I have Alabama bottle rockets somewhere under my seats.
I don’t think most of us are offended; I think we are wondering “why?” 99% of the people particapating on this blog respect you and your opinions, but again, your mention of the ponytail added no substance. You have not answered my question that if the person was Black, would you have mentioned that? Why Brad?
Brad, you have good points. I am retired military and retired state employee (SCESC). I have a spotless police record, yet from experience and lifetime observations I dislike and do not trust police. They tend to live by their own rules of behavior. I am sorry you have to deal with so many pompous asses within your viewership.
Bob, seriously — a black guy walking around black isn’t making a statement. A white, middle-aged guy in a suit wearing a ponytail definitely IS. All I do is listen to what he’s saying. He deliberately projects an image, all I do is oblige him by paying attention.
Unless you’re suggesting he was born with the ponytail, and that it is impossible to remove…
And guys — it’s “seersucker.” You don’t buy them at “Sears.”
Kathryn, I didn’t bring this up to be a culture discussion. It was meant to be a discussion of our obligations as a citizen versus what is seen as a smart legal strategy. It’s something I’m torn about. So I set out the reasons — on the one hand, on the other hand. For instance — on the one hand, this guy is suggesting that noncompliance is an acceptable thing for a solid citizen to do; on the other hand he’s going out of his way to project an image of being anti-authority. So of COURSE that affects the effectiveness of his argument — since, as I made clear, I’m a communitarian-leaning guy who needs to be reassured that this is something that is acceptable for a person with a strong sense of citizenship to do.
If I had left it out to avoid offending y’all’s oversensitivity, I wouldn’t have given you a complete picture of my dilemma. And frankly, it wouldn’t have occurred to me that you WOULD be offended, because that’s absurd.
If a guy’s wearing a campaign button for a Libertarian candidate for president, for instance, of COURSE that affects my perception of where he’s coming from. So does a ponytail.
Sheesh.
Brad, if the guy with the ponytail was also wearing a bronze star pin how would that look be evaluated?
I don’t think that would have affected me one way or the other. That symbol doesn’t seem relevant to the libertarian-vs.-communitarian dilemma here.
As I said, Libertarian Party button WOULD have an impact. Actually, come to think of it, any POLITICAL button would in that classroom setting. Because then it would make him less a guy offering sound legal advice, and more a guy given to expressing ideological or political arguments, even in a setting that you would expect to be relatively free of such. If he thought it was appropriate to project his political views to students, then he might be inclined to flavor his interpretation of the law according to his ideology.
If I noticed a Bronze Star pin, I would say “Thank you for your service.” But it wouldn’t affect my perception with regard to this discussion.
But Bud’s question, as does Bob’s, highlights our disconnect here. I bring up something that is relevant to how I perceive where this guy is coming from, and y’all perceive it as the worst kind of Identity Politics issue — one in which a single factor causes me to think of a person as “good” or legitimate, or “bad” or illegitimate.
And what on Earth have I ever said to make you think I’m so simple-minded, so stupid, so evil? What is the point of being as candid as I am here, if y’all who have read so many thousands of words of mine are going to so easily put ME in the kind of simplistic box that I would never put another person in?
And what’s offensive to me is that, by reacting so viscerally, you are saying that I am putting another person in just such a simplistic box. How on Earth could you think that?
And since Kathryn has brought up Kulturkampf, this is precisely what I hate about it: both sides have decided to oversimplify the world, so that if you make this honest observation, you’re one of THOSE awful people. It’s like… above, when Kathryn assumes that I don’t know and am not friends with “committed same-sex couples.” How absurd!
By the way, I’m about to be out of pocket most of the rest of today — and tomorrow’s not looking too good, either.
I say that in case someone asks me a question and doesn’t get an answer, or wonders why it takes a little longer than usual for me to approve your comment…
Ok, he was making a statement. Just like I was making a statement when I had a ponytail. I almost died, couldn’t grow hair, but now I’m better and can grow my hair. Please don’t judge why people wear ponytails. There are different reasons for different people.
By the way, here’s the Wikipedia explanation of where the word “seersucker” comes from:
“The word came into English from Hindustani (Urdu and Hindi), which originates from the Persian words ‘shir o shakkar’, meaning ‘milk and sugar’, probably from the resemblance of its smooth and rough stripes to the smooth texture of milk and the bumpy texture of sugar.”
I’m now picturing some Persian with a ponytail — say, Sayid on “Lost” — going around talking about milk and sugar….
I’m glad you can grow your hair, Bob.
Well, as the guy on this blog who DID wear a ponytail proudly for all the 1990s (and yes, Stephen, with the balding front…hey you grow the hair where you can, right), I say we lighten up on Brad. It’s impossible not to have certain gut reactions to external appearances; it’s how open you are to potentially overriding those initial, almost unconscious impressions that counts. Plus it’s true in my experience that just about every man I know with a ponytail is someone I’d describe as seeking to be a true individualist and not a unquestioning drone of mainstream conventional values (though he might well embrace most). So Brad’s point about from whom the don’t-let-yourself-be-searched argument would be most compelling to him seems perfectly legitimate to me.
Brad, I realize that last comment might be taken to imply that I’m calling you a “unquestioning drone of mainstream conventional values” and I just want to say I didn’t intend such an implication!
No problem. And I just remembered Sayid wasn’t Persian; he was Iraqi. I was remembering he was in the Republican Guard and confusing it with the Revolutionary Guard…
So you have no problem with telling your close friends who are in committed same-sex relationships they cannot have what you and Miz Dubs have?
I do find it hard to believe that you are particularly close to a same sex couple and oppose gay marriage. I don’t mean that you aren’t aware of such couples–I mean you actually care about the people involved.
@Phillip– As such an amazing auditory artist, the visual of a skullet (bald in front, party in the back) doesn’t give you pause?
I guess I’m just square. Your current do looks quite nice….
@ Steven–FWIW, Professor Fenner hated my dyed hair and loves my gray. I find that a lot of men dig gray hair. In fact, a woman wrote a fairly popular book on it.
http://www.annekreamer.com/going-gray
“Plus it’s true in my experience that just about every man I know with a ponytail is someone I’d describe as seeking to be a true individualist and not a unquestioning drone of mainstream conventional values (though he might well embrace most).”
In other words, “a loner”. Why do people have to be so dramatic and colorful when the same thing can be said in two words. I just want to tell these types to get to the point and stop with the windbag approach.
@Kathryn – There’s a fetish for everything, maybe his is older women. Put it up in a bun and he may have flashbacks of that mean old librarian he knew growing up.
I’m at a graduate weekend at Hilton Head for my Riley Institute Diversity Leadership program. There’s a guy here with a ponytail.
I thought y’all might enjoy the irony of that…
“Riley Institute Diversity Leadership program”
One question… Why, nothing else to do this weekend?
Okay I Googled it, now I know what the weekend agenda in Hell must be like.
Actually, it’s pretty awesome. I just heard one of the best lectures I’ve heard in years, delivered by Furman President Rodney Smolla. It was brilliant. Basically, he challenged the group on their understanding of how the Constitution speaks on such issues as wealth distribution and affirmative action.
Of course, the Constitution — or rather, the current interpretation of the Constitution according to the courts — is silent on the first, and takes a nuanced view on the second. (He predicts, however, that the case the Supremes just agreed to take on affirmative action could actually, for the first time, establish the principle that the Constitution is color-blind.)
His point, stated somewhat overtly but even more strongly implied, is that the people on opposite ends of the spectrum who claim that either a) the Constitution forbids redistribution or certain special entitlements or b) that the people have a right to such are both wrong, which of course they certainly are. Which is why we have to be able to engage in civil give-and-take on such issues; there is no slam-dunk predetermination of these matters.
In other words, it was a very UnParty speech, equally dismissive to the articles of faith of left and right. We have a deliberative process for a reason, so that we might work together to find consensus answers, not rely upon absolute rights or pure ideological answers dictated by a majority plus one.
In this presidential year, it seems like eons since I’ve heard anyone approach such questions so intelligently.
Just had an enjoyable political chat with Alston DeVenny, husband of Susan & law partners with the uncle of @fitsnews in Lancaster. #OneSC
Actually, Steven, most people are startled to find out I’m as old as I am despite the gray hair. Sunscreen, not smoking, exercising and eating well go a long way to keeping the complexion looking young. Improbably dyed hair doesn’t make up for an aged complexion.
Libby Heath has been silver since her twenties, and appeared on numerous The Firm videos.I only wish I looked as good as she does.
I think when someone owns their look, whatever it is, they look so much more attractive. Short hair on a balding man beats a comb-over (or a skullet), and shiny, well cared-for gray hair beats desperately dyed….and don’t get me started on plastic surgery, Botox and fillers…
FYI, turns out the guy with the ponytail is a Catawba Indian — Keith “Little Bear” Brown…
Ha!
It looks more like a braid, anyway.
Perhaps I was unclear. I meant the guy with the ponytail here at the conference in Hilton Head — not the guy on the video. I don’t know what HIS excuse is…