« Liberals versus conservatives | MiddleClassBill's Blog | Social Security Administration parties at the Biltmore!!! »
Senator Boxer - try some etiquette lessons
Perfect example of how Congress is out of touch and too concerned with their own status. Senator Boxer is so petty and obviously suffers from low self-esteem. Congress will never get anything done if they keep up attitudes like Senator Boxer's.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/17/please-call-me-senator/
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/17/please-call-me-senator/
Advertisement
I disagree. She didn't asked to be called anything but what Californians elected her as.
June 20, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Did she feel like the General was being disrespectful?
June 20, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really can't say what her motivation was but I agree that she earned the right and deserves the respect of being called Senator.
June 20, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
couldn't she have asked in a less condescending manner? Was it disrespectful for a Brigadier General to call her Maam?
June 20, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have to see the whole hearing but I am willing to bet she addressed him as General or General Walsh
She is an officer of the U.S. government too.
June 20, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't answer my question
June 21, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could he have been more respectful?
June 21, 2009 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
My questions were 1) couldn't she have asked her question in a less condescending manner? and 2) was it disrespectful for him to call her ma'am?
Sorry to repeat them but you didn't bother to answer them
June 21, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You and I can think what want to think but she asked he complied. Case closed.
June 21, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
And she apologized...but why won't you answer my question?
In response to yours - he was plenty respectful - and he followed the Army Field Manual in how to address people that rank above him
June 21, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You answered your own question.
June 21, 2009 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so - why won't you answer the questions I posed?
June 21, 2009 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question is can other people on the left? Or must they defend all her actions just because she is a Democrat?
Where in this post did someone say something about Democrat before this post?
So the question is: why are you defending her actions that she won't defend herself?
She is an officer of the United States government. I saw exactly what she was doing beyond left, right, Democrat or Republican. And I still support her when she asked him to call her Senator because that is her title.
June 21, 2009 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me answer the question this way. She was being assertive. When I cast my vote for U.S. Senator,I voted for a Senator who would stand up for herself or himself. If she or he doesn't stand up for herself or himself how can I count on them to stand up for me? She asked--asked-- him to call her Senator. It said U.S. Senator on my ballot and that is what I want no more and no less.
June 21, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Big Boss Bill . . .
Send me 50 bucks and I'll answer your question.
Thanks in advance...
~OGD~
June 21, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's your address? I'll put the check in the mail today
June 21, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Sure you would . . .
But to save you money -- I don't give a shit if the General called Boxer late for dinner. On the other hand I could care less what the hell Boxer was upset about. Big fucking deal!
While you take up time in your life worrying and pissing an moaning about this small crap-- both sides of the aisle in congress are laughing at dimwits like you who get side tracked on crap like this.
That is all . . .
~OGD~
June 22, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
We talk about a lot of things on TPM, big and small. Sorry it offended you. If it's so trivial you can choose to just sit back and watch or you have the choice to express your view. God bless America. (And happy belated Fathers Day)
June 22, 2009 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
can you show me her apology
June 21, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she probably did feel that he was being disrespectful. Ma'am is respectful in Southern folkways and is the correct response according to the Army rules, but to Northern ears it sounds very much the way it would have sounded to the general if she had addressed him as Mister.
June 21, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right - because she's probably never had anyone in the military testify before her ever. Or speak to her fellow Congresswoman that way. You're giving her too much credit for being a naive Northerner.
June 21, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Bill - Your link was inactive and I didn't bother to trace it down to read what (Senator) Boxer said. I'll just try to make a much more general point about assertions employed in debates.
You said, "Senator Boxer is so petty and obviously suffers from low self-esteem."
In my experience, certain words tend to signify that a debater sees his or her evidence as too weak to justify an assertion on the merits of the evidence alone, and therefore perceives a need to reinforce the point in some other way. Typical words or phrases suggesting such weakness are "obviously", "clearly", "indisputably", and so on, all of which suggest that the point is neither obvious, clear, or indisputable.
I don't care if you disagree, because what I'm saying is obviously true.
June 20, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred - try watching the video, and then you can tell me what you think. My opinion is that her asking the General to refer to her as "Senator" instead of "Maam" was completely unnecessary. I don't know why she had to speak down to the General in public. A comment in public such as "I worked so hard to get that title" was over the top. What was her point in saying that?
I am somewhat relieved that she had the decency to call him afterwards and apologize
June 20, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
please link me to apology
June 21, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hello, Kettle? Pot here.
June 20, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with being critical of the Senator for unnecessarily dressing down a Brigadier General in front of a Senate hearing?
June 20, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with a witness dissing a Senator, intentionally or not?
Would you expect a Private to address an active duty General as "Hey, Mister"??
"Could you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am? It's just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title. I'd appreciate it." - Boxer
Is that really your idea of "unnecessarily dressing down"? It seems exceedingly deferential and polite.
Maybe the glass ceiling is a bit low in some quarters of the internet.
June 20, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, but the private could call him "Sir" and would never be dressed down for not calling him General. The general wasn't being disrespectful by calling her ma'am. That is standard military protocol.
I think I'll just call her Barb from now on. That seems appropriate to her level of maturity. I wonder when she decided that military guys using ma'am was disrespectful. She has surely heard this tendency before in members of the military, from the highest to the lowest ranks.
That she called to apologize obviously shows she understand the petty nature of her request and the peevish tone in which it was delivered.
June 21, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
can you link me to apology?
June 21, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't seem to find one, but I don't think it is really all that germane to the over-arching story. It actually doesn't surprise me that she didn't apologize. I wouldn't expect her to. Politicians in both parties are loath to admit when they might have been in error. I don't even think she really had anything to apologize for, though a recognition that she was being a little overly sensitive might have been warranted behind closed doors.
Also, the general didn't seem to take offense, so any question of apologies or lack thereof is probably moot at this point. I guess I just kind of agree with Bill's main contention that this episode is beneath a US Senator and seems to indicate either self-esteem issues or pettiness at not getting the answers she wanted that one wouldn't necessarily expect from a long-time politician.
June 21, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is considerable contention in this thread that she did indeed apologize. Some even using said "apology" to show that she was wrong.
June 21, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, they said that the "apology" showed that Boxer thought she was a little overly harsh.
I think an apology would indicate a level of self-awareness that most politicians seem to be missing, but the lack of an apology doesn't mean the underlying opinion put forth by this blog is out of whack. I don't think it is necessarily a partisan idea (nor all that contentious really) to say that Barb might have been a little overly sensitive or was playing political games as Gasket suggests below.
The only thing that I got out of this blog is that many on the left seem to be OK with bad or rude behavior as long as it is their side doing it. We saw the same thing with the Letterman debate. On the right, they excuse Hannity and all the rest of every bad behavior, yet would pile on Boxer for this statement. If I was going to critique Bill on anything, it would be his seeming acceptance of this sort of behavior from conservatives but takes liberals to task for the same sort of sins.
Again, more hypocrisy from political partisans on both sides that will simply ensure we never change anything really important.
June 21, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That she called to apologize obviously shows she understand the petty nature of her request and the peevish tone in which it was delivered.
Posted by jason everett miller in reply to a comment from eds
June 21, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS SEEMS TO BE MORE DOUBLE-SPEAK FROM YOU. It's particularly funny since you bring up the Palin/Letterman incident and hypocrisy . Your double bladed sword made mincemeat of your own arguments in that thread.
June 21, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know what I said. You also pulled that quote out a longer point that isn't dependent on an apology or lack thereof. If there was an apology, that would indicate Barb agreed the request was a little overly-prickly in nature given the situation. The lack of an apology doesn't make that impression less valid, just not something Boxer seems to acknowledge. Or maybe not. We don't know what was said on the call.
No doublespeak required, though you are again getting personal where no personal invective is required. Unless you are the type of person that considers each and every conversation a linear event rather than an organic creature that shifts as more becomes known and hopefully adjust our opinions based on that new information. I find your continued attempts at partisan framing to not only be transparent but also not at all helpful to the larger effort at turning American politics into something that can actually help transform America.
June 21, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: As to Letterman/Palin, here you are proving my underlying point that the left is as susceptible to hypocrisy as the right is. Anything goes as long as it is your side doing it, right? I have been equally critical of the right in excusing O'Reilly and the rest for their illogical rants.
June 21, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You argued both sides in the Palin/Letterman thread. I fail to see how that proves anything but your hypocrisy.
June 21, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you could use actual quotes of mine to back up your assertions? You can't because I didn't argue both sides of that issue. I offered a single opinion - that it is hypocritical to reserve condemnation only for your political rivals. Very simple and straightforward suggestion that applies equally to both parties.
You, on the other hand, are right here once again making the case that any criticism of your peeps is totally unwarranted and unjustified and any attempt to add a differing view to the issue must be belittled at every turn. You strike out with illogical assertions about opinions I have never espoused or promoted. You fail to accurately quote me or to understand the larger context of my opinions because you have no time to get beyond the caricature of what republicans are to you.
You have become that which you profess to hate.
June 21, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
i have never argued anything other than for an honest debate. Prove me wrong!
June 21, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are going a good enough job proving yourself wrong. Why should I interfere?
June 21, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO
June 21, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
June 23, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying you are a "creeping thing" or that you have a mental disorder?
June 23, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You said prove you wrong and that little tidbit certainly does. Being blind to your prejudice doesn't make it go away.
June 23, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If in fact, I AM wrong in this incidence, doesn't that make you in fact a "creeping thing"?
June 23, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you say so, though it really is just responding to your request with an actual quote vice an alleged opinion.
June 23, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question: What is wrong with addressing people the way they want to be addressed? If I prefer Ms. Orlando, why would you not just pay me the courtesy of calling me that. If a Ph.D. wants to be called Dr. So-and-So, so what? The name calling and nick-naming, and pronouncements of immaturity and overreaction make me weary. If she wants to be called Senator Boxer, BFD. That's her title.
June 21, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was more in the manner in which the request was made for me.
Seems to be a petty way to establish additional authority over someone who already clearly in a subordinate position. That is came so far into the hearing makes me think it was a momentary lapse of composure and common sense than Boxer actually believing the general was unaware of her position in the food chain.
Given Boxer's past performance as a senator, this seemed to be out of character to me. She always struck me as the kind of strong leader who wouldn't care what you called her as long as you answered her question.
June 21, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you watch the clip?
1) Boxer's comments weren't a simple request, it was couching a more nuanced meaning.
2) This is testimony before congress. Boxer's request is somewhat extraordinary under the circumstances. That's why this made the news.
June 21, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. I've seen other senators (who happened to be male) do exactly what Boxer did. Not newsworthy.
June 21, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Please prove your statement.
I have never seen a Senator jump on a witness who was saying "Yes, Sir/Ma'am" as a mere acknowledgment to a question before proceeding with the answer.
June 21, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I don't have a clip handy. I did find a military protocol manual (DA PAM 600-60), however, which specifically instructs personnel that female senators should be addressed as "senator." See page 26.
What have you got? Nothing.
June 21, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you bothered to read this thread you would have seen that I've already commented on that.
It says when GREETING a Senator. In other words, when first introduced into the conversation. This has been my experience as well.
No clips handy? How about even a description of a situation? Who was involved? When did the situation occur. Given you imply there were many, I'll accept two as a way of proving your point.
I know it's easy to make up statements when you are emotional, gasket, it's just tough to back them up.
June 21, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no clips. The examples of the significance of using the title "senator" that clutter my brain at the moment are not from hearings: 1. Al Franken deliberately using the title "Senator-elect" in reference to himself, 2. Roland Burris insisting he be called "Senator Burris," 3. McCain referring to then-Senator Obama as "that one" during a debate, over which TPM bloggers FREAKED OUT.
See more examples from an article called "It's OK, you can call me Mud."
June 21, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on both the non-verbals of the discussion, and the fact that all military personnel are briefed on how they should address Congress, I don't blame the Senator for correcting his breach of etiquette. Military brass are very formal in their address and very sensitive of formality. Calling her ma'am in that context was a way of speaking down to her and stripping her of her title in front her her peers. Do you think for one second he wouldn't have corrected her if she didn't use his title or called him by his first name? I think she was right to hold her ground and make it clear the Senate (and its members) won't be pushed around by the military - or that she is any less a Senator because she is a Dem and a woman.
June 20, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is that a way of speaking "down" to her by calling her "ma'am"? Military protocol says that officers can use the terms "sir" or "ma'am" to address someone higher than them in the chain of command.
June 20, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only can but should, in the ordinary course. Senator Boxer obviously didn't serve in the military ... wait, let me Wikipedia that...
yeah, she didn't serve, and she just misunderstood what was intended as a sign of ordinary respect to a senior official. Unfortunate screw-up on her part.
And for once I totally agree with MiddleClassBill!
June 21, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't a breach of etiquette. This is standard protocol throughout the military.
June 21, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a problem with a U.S. Senator, and woman, who asserted her hierarchical position of authority as an elected civilian, over a military officer, testifying in the Senate, who was cheekily disrespectful in his usage of a salutation?
Is your primary problem with Boxer's gender, or are you OK if I reference Saxby Chambliss as weak-kneed draft-dodging inbred cracker from Georgia, unfit to tongue shine the treads of The Honourable Max Cleland's wheelchair? How about referencing Lindsey Graham as the sexually ambiguous never married elderly gentleman from South Carolina with the adorable southern accented lisp, or Jim Inhofe as Okie Poster Boy?
June 20, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"cheekily disrespecful"???
I guess you aren't familiar with military protocol.
June 20, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been a while, but if my recollection serves, a Brigadier General packs 1-star, which means he has a handful fo military superiors, but not many. A Senator, because of the American system of civilian control over the military, outranks ALL Generals. The proper form of salutation for addressing a US Senator is "Senator", or if one wished to distinguish between gender when addressing a Senator, in Barbara Boxer's case it would be: "Madam Senator". "Ma'am" is disrespectful as hell, coming from any US Military Commissioned Officer, who is addressing a Senator on The Hill during an official hearing. A Brigadier General did not reach that rank without knowing the proper protocol for ass-kissing superiors. The military is a brown-nose world.
June 20, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
To say the military is a brown-nose environment reflects much on your general attitudes. I doubt you've ever talked with 2 or 3 star generals. It would give you another opinion.
In fact, Boxer is a member of Congress and therefore doesn't outrank the military -- she and he are not in the same line of command.
"Ma'am" is certainly not disrespectful. Neither is "Sir". And especially since this came in the middle of the briefing where one tends to "sir" or "ma'am" during the conversation -- on both sides of the conversation.
But if we go around talking of pulling rank and brown-nosing, then let us recall that I am (in part) Boxer's employer... and therefore she is the one that should be kissing my ass. Indeed, I think we would agree that you and I "outrank" any Senator.
The fact is that in real meetings and hearings, of which I have taken part, you typically use the formal title the first time in the opening (or during the introduction), and then not typically every time afterward. In fact, members of Congress have called me "sir" on numerous occasions despite my official title (which is not "Mister")...
If you watch the tape, the fact is that Boxer is a bit prickly at this point -- probably wasn't getting the answers she wanted, she was out of patience, whatever -- and expressed some frustration this way.
Now, she is human and allowed to be frustrated. What I am appalled by is the number of people here claiming that the General is sexist. That belies as much dumb ideological thinking as has ever been shown by the right in their own fun ways.
June 21, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I have had the fortune to converse with many high ranking US Military Commissioned and former Commissioned Officers in my life. The vast majority of encounters, I consider to have been good fortune. You doubted, without even a hair up your ass inkling of where/what I've been/done in this life. Your comment is nothing more than an exceedingly lame and flailing attempt to flame/troll whilst blindfolded. Although, I do score you with a Win in this round of Pin The Tail On The Donkey, and am truly amazed with your ability to award it upon the proper location of your own anatomy.
My Military experience was somewhat unique, and often has given me a soft-spot in with Officers who have extensive battlefield command experience. I was just a conscript who fulfilled just the required one-time duty, but because of my family's religion, was inducted as a Conscientious Objector, and served as an unarmed chopper evac medic one tour in Vietnam. I've had a few conversations with retired officers in which men who possess unassailable personal honour and bravery have gone weepy on me, and for good cause. There were a few things I did in my tour, that many would consider proved I am certifiably insane, yet I wouldn't trade boots with even of of these men. It's hard enough at times thinking about my past; but I would have placed a round in my head a long time ago if I'd been tasked with decision-making to complete orders, that sent young men to their deaths, for worthless cause, or from personal tactical miscalculation. They have defeated demons that would have utterly annihilated me. Careful where you tread; you traverse dangerously close to a place where trading barbs no longer is a trivial pursuit.
My duty and personality also provisioned me with an ability to press the insubordination envelope, when it felt like the right thing to do. I cannot recall one mush between the ears fresh outta West Point shavetail that ever deserved my respect, and only a few double-bars who had learned the ropes. Conversely, when the insignia salad turns into a silver oak leaf, Commissioned Officers almost always have seemed deserving of personal respect.
Aside from happenstance public encounters with military officers, plus meets during my annual trek down to the local VFW Hall to drop off a legion baseball donation, twice I have been involved with projects in which I was made the DOD liaison, and I am a casual acquaintance with a few officers through other friends.
In my experience, long-serving US Military Officers are often quick to express their own opinions regarding the brown-nosing environment that is a part of the advancement regime in the military. It's hard to move up from a Full Bird to a One Star by publicly expressing your true feelings regarding the runny-mouth asswipery of outranking Pentagon Staff Officers. It was career suicide to even express an honest opinion contradictory to NeoConniving CaponHawk Pentagon Civilian Renunciant Failures in the previous Presidential Administration during a hearing on The Hill. Hell, one of the few Presidential achievements of GW Bush was his proof that the Peter Principle is a myth, created and perpetrated by the liberal media, with his promoting the Iraq War Architect, Paul Wolfowitz, to be US IMF Representative, and Condi Rice to be Secretary of State from her unremarkable term as NSA appointee, in which her most notable act was to manufacture a heretofore unknown oxymoron example: "National Security". Clearly this proved that persons can and will be promoted beyond Their Level of Incompetence.
Truthfully, I've yet to view the video of the exchange, and if it was only a bit of friendly bantering, it was most likely an attempt by Boxer to set the General at ease. Senator Boxer has excellent rhetorical abilities, finely tuned for many different purposes, when speaking within traditional boundaries of decorum on the Senate Floor. They way she Boxered Norm Coleman's ears in a public flogging on February 26, 2003 was a masterful piece of work. Substantive evidence, that although Al Franken is by trade, a comedian, Norm Coleman is naught but a dumbfounded clown.
June 21, 2009 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will you write another 2000 words when you do?
I refuse to even converse with you since you haven't even done your homework.
Never did your homework but have plenty of opinions on the subject. No wonder you see the army as a brown nose environment.
Shame on you.
June 21, 2009 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Its stunning how completely you can miss the point!
June 21, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's his special talent.
June 21, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is Much DooDoo About Nothing.
I've now completed a mid-depth research data-dive into this topic, including viewing relevant parts of the hearing video. In his predictable manner, MiddleClassBill performed a slovenly copy-pasta from some other site's blog post, without noting where he acquired it from. The truly relevant concern exposed by this blog post should realistically be the inherent lameness of news in the future, if PJ clad bloggers, deserving only of public flogging, due to their delusions of grandeur, when fantasising about their model of total control of news dispersion, ever reach fruition. It will result in repeat-a-clowns' mash-ups of others' previously published work product, devoid of any value-added new insight or factual input. A nightmarish scenario: the 24/7/365 inexorable execrable march of pneumatic ditto-fatheads attired in silk jammies on parade.
Senator Boxer's simple request to be referenced as "Senator", instead of "ma'am", occurred during The U.S. Senate Committee On Environment & Public Works' (EPW) Full Committee hearing: "New Orleans Hurricane and Flood Protection and Coastal Louisiana Restoration: Status and Progress", June 16, 2009.
Senator Boxer is chairperson of the EPW Committee, and likely adverse to being referred to as "ma'am". This distaste is often expressed by notable women of her generation, who were at the forefront of successfully challenging societal gender-based stereotyping that had long impaired equality in opportunities for women. On the other hand, Brigadier General Michael Walsh, did not seem to be using the term as a derogation, and was instead using it in a manner that the U.S. military currently perceives as a proper form of salutation, when addressing a female superior. General Walsh seemed to be a bit uncomfortable testifying at the hearing, yet did not seem in any way offended when Senator Boxer requested that she be referred to in a non-gender specific form. He made an honest attempt to comply and she was certainly within her rights to request it. So what caused the blogacious repetitious republication of this non-story across the blowsosphere? It was, ditto-heads, ditto-heads, and if they stay alive; how will we ever manage to survive?
The Flash Stream Feed of the EPW's committee hearing can be viewed at the EPW Website. By viewing the relevant portions of the hearing there, it is possible acquire a contextual grasp of the situation. which was stripped away from the force-fed 20 sec sound byte, sliced and diced up into a form perfect for usage by Pavlovian-Trained Political Spinners, and considered to be a gourmet delicacy, because it possesses an ease of publishing, satisfying the special needs of techie willneverbes, who embrace blogging platforms, because the codebases contain standardised widgetry functionality, and over-abused fixed width templating, which has empowered even imbeciles like them to become Web{Mister/OR/Misses}PotatoHeads, onsale now at your nearest website hosting provider.
General Walsh's opening remarks begin at about the 29:00 mark in the flash stream. In these remarks, he often referred to Senator Boxer as "Madam Chair", never once using the term "Ma'am or "Senator". Ir was not until he began to answer Senator Boxer's questions, that General Walsh began to use "ma'am". Boxer's request to be referred to as "Senator" occurs just after the 42:30 mark, and was not stated with haughtiness, but instead with the simple rationale she had worked hard to become a U.S. Senator and preferred being referenced as such.
Why are contemporary conservative males such sans-a-testicles cowards when conceptualising gender equality? Is Acute Genitalia Deficit Disorder (AGDD) a congenital defect that predominates within the right-side of the political bipolarity, or is it a communicable affliction easily transmitted, and now approaching a pandemic level, within their small small revisionary world?
June 21, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently.
June 21, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find that most people who immediately question manliness in terms of testicles tend to lack them.
More mind reading. I've addressed the Senator as such and have seen others do so as well -- during hearings.
June 21, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS This generational thing is totally BS. Suppose Claude Pepper referred to an African American as "colored"? That was, in fact, the polite term used in "his" time.
Politicians as a rule are totally up to date on social customs as it's a key part of their job.
June 21, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politicians as a rule are totally up to date on social customs as it's a key part of their job.
Fire hydrant, quick!!!!!
From TPMDC:
Yep. They got those social customs down real good, don't they?
ROTFLMTO
June 21, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
=D
Apparently, not
And the L.A. Times was maybe a liberal newspaper back in the 1990s, but it isn't anymore. Some folks just can't keep current.
June 21, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This blog post suggest that a little politeness is in order and links to another web sight so that we can witness for ourselves how rude Senator Boxer was to the general. I am assuming that that sight is a regular hangout for MiddleCBill. The following quoted first comment by one of the people offended by the rudeness of the Senator is typical of almost every one that I read. It was rated five stars.
"Typical anti-American, military hating nut job Liberal. Might I remind this piece of trash that it is because of the General she disrespected who has given his LIFE to the military for her freedoms? She sould have apologized and Thanked him for his service instead of degrading him. What a piece of filth but then again, what Libs aren't?"
Nice company you keep, Billo.
June 21, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
gee sorry - next time I will just link to YouTube. Such a big difference.
June 21, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK Bud . . .
What IS your "official" title?
I can't hardly wait for the smoke to clear after this one ... If there's even an answer.
BTW -- Mine is Master of the Universe.
~OGD~
June 21, 2009 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I swear OGD, it's just toooooo good to resist. And especially after that snotty little response to PCA, I've pretty much gotta hazard a guess at what Congresspersons call Clearthinker.
So if it's not "Mister," then it's gotta be...
"BUTTMUNCH."
You know it's true.
June 21, 2009 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Must be tough siding with someone who has plenty of opinions but didn't bother viewing the video.
As I said, so much of TPM is about as intellectually honest as FNC: you already know what you should think based on your ideology.
Could this topic provide any better proof than that?
June 21, 2009 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Capt. Oblivious . . .
Yada Yada Yada . . .
You still haven't told us what your title is . . .
Come on now ... Spit it out.
I can take it.
~OGD~
June 21, 2009 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I got it. He's not denying it. ;-)
June 21, 2009 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Old duck... if you had bothered to read my posts rather than react like a child, you'd know the answer to your own question.
But if you insist: Send me 50 bucks and I'll answer your question.
Thanks in advance...
~CT~
June 21, 2009 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on ... Come on . . .
Tell us... What's your big bad title?
Professor? Doctor? Astronaut? That's it.
It's astronaut, right?
I'd call ya' a chicken but it's above you and it would be a diss on Bwak.
You punk!
~OGD~
June 21, 2009 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
WOW, Duck!
You'll call me a "chicken"? And this is your version of throwing down the gauntlet?
Seriously... when you post things like that how are people supposed to take you seriously ever?
I appreciate that you are fascinated by me. As I said, you can go read my posts and discern for yourself. You might even want to start with Miguelito's comment on my last blog. Apparently anyone with real knowledge can appreciate that I walk the walk.
As I said, I've been involved in enough formal briefings/hearings to know the score.
What exactly have you done with your life?
June 21, 2009 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
You're still blowing smoke . . .
I can see that you have no title other than the one that is bouncing around in that skull of yours.
What have I done? I already told you. I am, Master of the Universe. Now come on and tell me I'm not.
That says it all . . .
~OGD~
June 22, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see you still have no style of debate beyond the ad hominem attack. Perhaps you should be respectful if you seek respect.
June 22, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
And . . .
I see that ol' Bluster Butt is still lost in a midnight muddle . . .
Hah~
~OGD~
June 25, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I won't be going down to your level of debate, but suffice to say I would love nothing better than to be as rude as you are with no consequence. However, I actually use my own name so I am responsible for what I write. Unlike you and the other anonymous assholes who act like you.
June 25, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Send him $20 upfront, OGD. Save the rest so you can buy a vowel if you need it.
Just don't be surprised to see - B_TTM_NCH.
(C'mon CT, gimme a hint. Am I close?)
June 21, 2009 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
:^)
June 21, 2009 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not close, quinn.
I'm kind of embarrassed for you as well.
June 21, 2009 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey ...
Wanna see some real crystal clear thinking?
Here ya' go . . .
Bwahahahaha . . .
~OGD~
June 21, 2009 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I replied showing how you can't make a simple argument.
Must feel powerful being behind that keyboard getting out all the frustration of years of build-up.
Good luck to you, duck.
June 21, 2009 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh stow it . .
Your projections do absolutely nothing to upset me you moon head...
Now quick, run out and get some fresh air and Howl...
Me?
I'm sitting on the deck of my boat listening to Dylan.
~OGD~
June 21, 2009 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Makes sense. You only seem to serve yourself.
June 21, 2009 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct...
Considering that I am Master of the Universe and all...
~OGD~
June 22, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no! Now I'm agreeing with Clearthinker! Yikes!
Absolutely right that he meant this as a sign of respect to a senior official, and it's really unfortunate people could jump to the misguided conclusion that he's sexist just because she did not recognize his good will, have not herself served in the military.
June 21, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am having the same sense of cognitive dissonance, OT. I am also agreeing with very little needed in the way of qualification, both with MCB's original post as well as CT's defense of reason and logic as a means of combating the prejudice and hypocrisy endemic to partisan politics.
June 21, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, J.J.M.! ;)
June 21, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I already agreed above that she is a superior. But please show me where in the Army protocol it says that the proper form is "Senator" or "Madam Senator" but not "Ma'am".
You say it's "been a while" - do you mean it's been a while since you read the Army Field Manual? If you read it you'd see that what he said followed protocol.
June 21, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ma'am is not disrespectful in any way when coming from a member of the military to a superior officer or someone of a higher rank. Come on, PSA, you are usually a little less polemic than this statement suggests.
June 21, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why even both replying: he hasn't even watched the video at the center of the conversation!
June 21, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, the polemics assessment is close, but not dead on target. In a previous comment to you (i believe my last comment to you), I described a significant physical distraction, a lumbar vertebra which has for several months now, been slipped out of proper placement. Recently, there was a big change in this, and the vertebra seems to have centered itself properly along the lateral axis, yet at the same time, has met with great resistance along the vertical axis, and feels like it sits right at the very edge of where if belongs, without snapping into place. Maybe caused by compression of the adjoining vertebra, or maybe from inflammation. The discomfort/pain has reached a new level of exquisiteness, almost indescribable. It overrides a great deal of fatigue, which has caused my sleep pattern to get jacked out of place, and requires great effort to focus through, although it also seems to have over-clocked my mind. I am adrift on the crystalline sea of my neural system in a flashing storm, and feel like I'm getting DDOS hosed from within my own LAN. I'm dumping excess ballast as fast as I can, and this is being done with pure stream composition, mostly here at TPM. It isn't so much polemics, as it is free-falling along oblique connections. That's about as good as I can describe it presently.
In re the usage of ma'am in the US Military: you need to view it from perspectives of our 2-decade difference in service time.When I served, virtually all Female Military Personnel encountered elsewhere than stateside bases meant one thing only: Army Nurses. I'll try to keep this short and focused.
when I was real short-side on my tour with about 2 1/2 months left, we got ordered to assist in a big Marine/Army bugout, in which elements of the two branches and units had become separated. Orders were to simply pick-up what was there, without concern for branch or unit affiliations, bring them back to base, and let the respective commands sort it out from there. We made it back to the LZ for a 2nd Pick-up, and while checking some of the perimeter, I heard someone calling "corpsman" It was a savaged Marine, who was non-ambulatory, which meant a hump for me, so I saddled him up on my back cinched him down, and started trekking him up to my chopper. All of a sudden a big Marine Officer comes out of the helicopter bay with a stretcher running towards me. He was a LtCol. After getting back to base, the LtCol shows up at my residence doorway, takes me to the Commissioned Officers Bar, cracks open a new bottle of Tequila, and proceeds to drink me under the table. During that time he finds out that my two best buds had died in the same explosion about a month before, and I'd become transparently batshit crazy since then, causing me to become a danger to my assigned crews. When I wake up the next day, I find out that the LtCol had informed my CO about this, and convinced him to transfer me out to a Saigon Hospital for the last bit of my tour. The hospital kept me penciled into the duty roster, but treated me like a basket case, and I spent most of the next few weeks in Psych ward talking to MDs there. It cleared a lot of fog. Some of the nurses were downright sweet to me too. I pulled my duty weight for the last two months of my tour at the Hospital. It was almost unheard of to refer to a Nurse as "Ma'am", or the Surgeons as "Sir", "Captain" or "Major". We used first-names, nicknames, or for the tight-assed ones: Dr. 'surname', or Nurse 'surname'. Even the Colonel who was CO, was often just called, "Boss Bob".
June 22, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to hear about the continuing back problems. My mom has suffered from similar ailments for years, so I know how debilitating it can be. As for the therapeutic effects of writing, I can certainly relate to that.
Your story illustrates how much different certain situations can bring out different behavior patterns. Context is usually the most important thing to gauge while judging military matters, but by and large, relations between equals or near equals in the military brings with it a decidedly non-military informality in most cases.
That being said, I can understand the frustration of assumptions at the very beginning of a conversation.
June 22, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since you served in the military you should know that "ma'am" is NOT "disrespectful as hell". It's straight military protocol right out of the Army Field Manual.
June 21, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you say that the proper form for addressing a Senator is "Senator"?
Take a read of the attached document
handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA480156
It is a teaching document from the US Army War College and talks about military testimony before Congress.
Per the document:
"Civil-Military relationship, like many social interactions, both official and otherwise,
is bound by rules and norms. One important example of this is the absolute
subordination of the military to civilian leaders. So controlling is the norm of military
subordination that the most senior and respected military officer always greets even the
most junior Representative with the formal Sir or Ma’am even though there is no
regulation requiring such formality."
June 21, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how many people here have even watched the video?
"Ma'am" was used in the same way that "Sir" is... It's perfectly appropriate but people here are jumping to conclusions - particularly gender ones that are not on topic and reflect a knee-jerk reaction on their part. Do you know what can you call a female superior officer in the military? "Ma'am".
Imagine if a general (or doctor) was being questioned and called "sir" and the general responded with "Please call me "General" (or "Doctor") I worked hard for that title", no one here would be defending the general (or doctor). Listen to congressional testimony: "ma'am" and "sir" are both used on both sides of the table. It's very respectful and perfectly acceptable.
Was Boxer being "petty"? No, that's a bit over the top. Was her comment justified? No, she was a bit over the top.
June 20, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthink, and also Bill - I did watch the video, and you know what? I came away with a good feeling about both the General and the Senator. There seems to be anger in the blogosphere over this trivial contretemps, but what I saw were two individuals trying to be courteous. The General intended no disrespect with the use of the word, Ma'am, which he spoke in a very respectful tone. I believe Senator Boxer was justified, however, in taking some offense at the gender stereotyping that did indeed belittle the role of women in professional roles comparable to those of men. The General would have addressed a male Senator as "Senator", not "Sir", or at least protocol would have required it.
Watching the video instead of merely reading the transcript, however, also conveyed to me a strong impression of Senator Boxer's attempt at courtesy as well. Her request to be called "Senator" was expressed in the form of an appeal rather than a demand. To me, that was important, because she made the point she felt she needed to make without employing a scolding manner. If she added more words than she might have, and felt a need later to apologize for that, I find that even more commendable.
Putting it all together, I ended up finding both of them likable. Neither of them sounded angry, which is why I find the amount of blogosphere anger wasted on this to be puzzling.
June 20, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait - you are saying that protocol would have required the General to call a male Senator as "Senator", not "Sir"??? What would make you come to this conclusion?
There fact that she felt the need to request the General to call her "Senator" shows how petty and insecure she is. I hope people in California remember this at election time. She's more concerned about her image than passing laws to help her constituents.
June 20, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She objected because of the past history of sexism-- addressing women in terms of their gender rather than their profession was a technique for keeping them in their place -- much like the use of boy for black men.
June 21, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree with you if she was much younger and didn't realize that it was a respectful term. But she's in her 60's (?) and is an experienced Congresswoman.
June 21, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Ma'am" as sexism?
What dopey talk.
Pray tell, what is "Sir"?
Sexism?
Your ideology will serve you well on a college campus but most people will find you rather extreme in the real world.
June 21, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, MCB can be counted on for 'unusual' gripes (recently: Obama needs a math lesson, Barney Frank delaying closing a GM plant by 9 months, Why is Josh a Pussy...) Intellects like MCB are what put GWB in the White House for 8 years and our country and economy into one disaster after another.
In this case MCB might assuage any hurt feelings of the General by sending him a box of chocolates at the Pentagon.
June 20, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unusual gripes? Not really. All valid points unless you have something you'd like to discuss.
If you'd like to engage in a discussion of a topic I'd be happy to. But recently you've just posted some off-topic links to other posts and don't really respond to the points that were raised.
June 20, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't be necessary, Gen. Walsh has already indicated he felt no disrespect from or for Sen. Boxer.
June 21, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he's going to say that. He's grown up enough to know that he doesn't want to start a media circus out of her childish comment.
June 21, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
where is link to apology?
June 21, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no formal statement from her office that I could find. But various press sources have stated that she called the General after their exchange. According to Zach Coile, Boxer's communications director, "they had a friendly conversation, expressed their respect for each other and talked about how they looked forward to working together..."
If you try using Google you should find links to it.
June 21, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen that statement. Perhaps they both apologized or neither did. There is nothing here to indicate any regrets from either person
June 21, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then why would she have initiated the phone call in the first place?
June 21, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because they are working together.
June 21, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still commenting a thread that doesn't interest you?
June 21, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Learn to read time stamps
June 21, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why are you back here reading?
June 21, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice strawman. You said I shouldn't comment on a thread that didn't interest me. I never said the thread didn't interest me, and I don't take orders from pipsqueaks.
June 21, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You state below:
It's true, you don't listen to anyone. Not even yourself. What a sad jumble of confused impulses you are.
June 21, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did I say I wasn't interested? I listen to people, sure, but I verify, an exercise you might like to engage in once in a while.
When are you going to apologize for being lazy, arrogant, not "doing your homework," abusive, and misinforming people?
You are free to misinterpret my comments, you are not free to make sweeping statements of my intent. That is something you aren't qualified to judge.
I have judged you on the misinformation you have posted here and elsewhere.
Apparently the difference is lost on you.
June 21, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your intent is too feel important because you sadly lack that feeling for real.
You personalize everything but rage on trying to show everyone how good a person you are.
I don't have to infer intent, you scream it in every other posting.
June 21, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point out a personal comment I have made.
Once again, a mirror check is in order here.
June 21, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, limited intelligence display, Bwak.
1) You make personal comments all the time, most of your arguments are based on them. Next time I see one, I will be sure to point it out to you. Unlike you, I don't catagorize and log past blogs -- though I do recall you out and out lied in the past by not being Workerbee (a banned ID) even when shown the blog where you slipped up. Yes, those of us here back then all knew and discussed it. (I do like your following the "big lie" theory and blaming TPM archieves for that, however. As I said, you are guilty of all the bad behavior you accuse the right-wing of.)
2) My point was that you personalize all situations, e.g. inject yourself personally into them. If someone doesn't agree with you politically, you make it an attack on you. As I said, my first posting had you calling me a stalker who followed you from the last board you got booted from.
June 21, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: You are threatened by every male walking the planet and hypocritically follow gender double standards. PCA makes a comment about men's testicles (essentially harmless vernacular) and you comment and AGREE with it... but if someone said someone is a bitch, you'd be screaming from all on high.
I pretty much view you as a left-wing Bill OReilly -- only without the smarts to make money on your invectives.
June 21, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't point out a comment, eh?
Oh, and to reiterate, it's your strawman. All the emoting and angst won't change that.
The rest of your tantrum is twaddle not worth a response.
June 21, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too watched the video. I happened to post and watch it before this thread.
June 20, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh ... Fred . . .
Hannity and others of his strip blowing smoke through the mighty wurlitzer of public opinion feel this is a BIG fricking deal.
No surprise that those here crapping their skivvies over this are also in the same mode.
Monkey see ... Monkey do . . .
~OGD~
June 21, 2009 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you - I agree 100%. Petty might have been too strong a word but she is not showing many signs of self confidence. She is displaying signs of someone who cares more about titles than other things.
June 20, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that Bill's carping on this issue reflects more on him than on either the Senator or the General. That's just my perception. Others should review this thread and form their own judgments.
June 20, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with my "carping"? Why can't I complain about the Senator's actions?
June 21, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are starting to fall into the prejudicial and partisan thought-processes that you tend to point out in other people around here. That is unfortunate, because I have found your comments to be mostly spot-on and non-ideological in nature.
I suspect that MCB's underlying political opinions are making you overly critical of his fairly minor criticism of Barb. (No that isn't sexist. It is her name. I don't report to her, so I can use whatever word I want. It still is a free country, even if some would shut down all criticism as "harping" if it isn't in line with what they want to hear.)
June 21, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
I see ol' Wind Bag . . .
. . . flew through on his Christmas Goose . . .
Watch where ya' step . . .
Slippery when wet.
~OGD~