If a male senator had said that, he would rightly be regarded as insecure, narcissistic, arrogant, and juvenile. Which is precisely why no male senator would ever say such a thing: He would know that he would be the laughingstock of the U.S. Senate.
Last week, a brief moment in time captured much that has gone wrong with post-'60s liberalism and feminism.
Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers was testifying at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. At one point during his responses to questions posed by the Committee Chair, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the senator interrupted the general to admonish him about using the word "ma'am" when addressing her:
"You know, do me a favor," Boxer said in an annoyed tone of voice. "Could you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?' It's just a thing; I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it. Yes, thank you."
"Yes, senator," the humiliated general responded.
The oxygen was sucked out of the room by Sen. Boxer's remarks.
It is hard to know where to begin in describing how reduced the U.S. Senate was at that moment. It is not due to differing politics that many in California are embarrassed to have Boxer as their senator; few Californians who differ from Sen. Dianne Feinstein are embarrassed by her.
To think that a body once called "the world's most deliberative" was reduced to this juvenile level is to mourn for America. The immaturity of a U.S. senator needing to ask to always be responded to as "senator" rather than "ma'am" in an ongoing dialogue with someone -- of equal stature, it should be noted -- should be self-evident to anyone.
However, in case it is not, two arguments should make this clear.
First, people in the military are taught to call their superiors "ma'am" and "sir." Thus, for example, a sergeant responding to a general will say, "Yes, sir," to a male general and, "Yes, ma'am," to a female general. Though not in the military, I always feel honored when a caller to my radio show says calls me sir. And I always have renewed respect for the military for inculcating that respectful form of address into its members.
To object to being called sir or ma'am by anyone, especially a member of the military and especially a high ranking member of the military is to betray an ignorance of the military and a tone deafness to civility that is appalling in anyone, especially a member of the United States Senate .
Second, and both more revealing and more instructive, is to understand how inconceivable it would be for a male senator to make such comments. Neither a Democrat nor Republican could imagine a male senator interrupting the testimony of a brigadier general to admonish him publicly, "You know, do me a favor. Could you say 'senator' instead of 'sir?' It's just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it."
If a male senator had said that, he would rightly be regarded as insecure, narcissistic, arrogant, and juvenile. Which is precisely why no male senator would ever say such a thing: He would know that he would be the laughingstock of the U.S. Senate.
For example, every Obama press conference transcript I read included journalists calling President Obama "sir," as was true for previous presidents. Can one imagine President Obama halting the conference to announce that because he had worked hard to earn the title, he expects never to be called "sir," but only "president"? It is inconceivable. People would have thought he had lost his mind.
Why did Boxer fail to think that way?
The answer is not only because she happens to act foolishly and childishly. The reason is deeper. Liberalism has lowered expectations of behavior for everyone in America except white Christian heterosexual males. They are the only Americans from whom dignified and mature conduct is always expected. Liberals treat women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and many non-Christians, with what is known as the soft bigotry of low expectations. Many liberal women, blacks, Hispanics, and gays know that and use it to get away with conduct and speech that no WASP heterosexual male could. People rise or descend to the level of behavior expected of them.
That is why those 17 seconds in the U.S. Senate were so revealing and worthy of attention. They encapsulated the way in which modern liberalism has lowered the bar of civility for so many in America. And they revealed -- yet another time -- why this particular senator from California is an embarrassment to her colleagues, her state, and the U.S. miltary. It was not, unfortunately, an embarrassment to Barbara Boxer.
#1
Read the article, he's got it dead on target, Blacks get a pass.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
06/23/2009 8:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
That's not what the article said, Jim. It said, 1) presidents get a break early in their presidency 2) presidents suffer when the economy suffers and 3) presidents who are viewed as likable suffer less than presidents viewed as less likable.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/23/2009 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
Major Garrett just challenged Mr. Obamas tone on Iran, essentially asking why he waited so long to show any outrage and whether hed been inconsistent. I dont think thats accurate, the president replies, defending himself. Track what Ive been saying. Right after the election I said we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome is. And he added, The United States will not be a foil for the Iranian government to accuse of meddling.
Excuse me. If I may be so bold. I hate to trouble you but.... I don't mean to impose... I'm not interfering... Far be it from me to suggest anything that you might be able to characterize as meddling. I'm no meddler. Not at all. I'm just over here, modestly deploring violence.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/23/2009 15:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Iran however has not recognized the the sovereignty of Western countries for nearly 30 years (US embassy,Carrell, Rushdie, cartoonists etc).
#2
"And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran..."
Oh so what were currently witnessing in Iran is a debate? Thanks for clearing that up for us Mr. President. Perhaps we should describe it as civil well-reasoned discourse - just with a little tear gas, Billy clubs, and water cannons mixed in. Funny how that sniper fire has way of deciding which side wins those types of debates.
This is a post-election video of Ahmadinejad in a meeting, in the city of Qom, with ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi. They are basically planning a coup: to take Iran from an Islamic Republic to an Islamic State (i.e.: pure dictatorship, no more elections after him). He says "I can feel the people are spiritually ready for that...". He also hints on the rigged elections: "now that the job has been achieved with your help..." film at the link
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
06/23/2009 12:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the diff between bogus elections and no elections isn't really that far
it would be a big deal if dinnerjacket announced he is ruling by divine right in prep for the madhi and abolished the council of experts
Posted by: lord garth ||
06/23/2009 19:09 Comments ||
Top||
... That ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom has not served American policy well in this crisis. We had tried to "cheat" -- an opening to the regime with an obligatory wink to those who took to the streets appalled by their rulers' cynicism and utter disregard for their people's intelligence and common sense -- and we were caught at it. Mr. Obama's statement that "the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as had been advertised" put on cruel display the administration's incoherence. For once, there was an acknowledgment by this young president of history's burden: "Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons." No Wilsonianism on offer here.
Mr. Obama will have to acknowledge the "foreignness" of foreign lands. His breezy self-assurance has been put on notice. The Obama administration believed its own rhetoric that the pro-Western March 14 coalition in Lebanon had ridden Mr. Obama's coattails to an electoral victory. (It had given every indication that it expected similar vindication in Iran.)
But the claim about Lebanon was hollow and reflected little understanding of the forces at play in Lebanon's politics. That contest was settled by Lebanese rules, and by the push and pull of Saudi and Syrian and Iranian interests in Lebanon.
Mr. Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo did not reshape the Islamic landscape. I was in Saudi Arabia when Mr. Obama traveled to Riyadh and Cairo. The earth did not move, life went on as usual. There were countless people puzzled by the presumption of the entire exercise, an outsider walking into sacred matters of their faith. In Saudi Arabia, and in the Arabic commentaries of other lands, there was unease that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with such ease and haste.
Days into his presidency, it should be recalled, Mr. Obama had spoken of his desire to restore to America's relation with the Muslim world the respect and mutual interest that had existed 30 or 20 years earlier. It so happened that he was speaking, almost to the day, on the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution -- and that the time span he was referring to, his golden age, covered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the American standoff with Libya, the fall of Beirut to the forces of terror, and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Liberal opinion would have howled had this history been offered by George W. Bush, but Barack Obama was granted a waiver.
Little more than three decades ago, Jimmy Carter, another American president convinced that what had come before him could be annulled and wished away, called on the nation to shed its "inordinate fear of communism," and to put aside its concern with "traditional issues of war and peace" in favor of "new global issues of justice, equity and human rights." We had betrayed our principles in the course of the Cold War, he said, "fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is quenched with water." The Soviet answer to that brave, new world was the invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979.
Mr. Carter would try an atonement in the last year of his presidency. He would pose as a born-again hawk. It was too late in the hour for such redemption. It would take another standard-bearer, Ronald Reagan, to see that great struggle to victory.
Iran's ordeal and its ways shattered the Carter presidency. President Obama's Persian tutorial has just begun.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
Obama's silence in the face of the violent and brutal Islamic crackdown on the Iranian people peacefully demonstrating for freedom is in keeping with Obama's previous silences:
1. Silent on the Black Muslim Riverdale bombers.
2. Silent on the release of the Black Panthers voter intimidation case.
His department of justice ordered the case dropped.
3. Silent on the murder of Private William Long by a Black Muslim -
Issued a very weak statement, though he loudly condemned the Tiller murder.
4. Silent on the French plane that crashed in the ocean, possibly blown
up by the two Muslim terrorists on board.
5. Silent on Iran - Issued a weakly worded statement.
On the other side of the coin we have:
1. Obama's bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia.
2. Obama's pro Islam speech in Cairo, with many fabricated platitudes about the history of Islam.
3. Obama instructing Eric Holder to issue a memo stating that Muslims were not to be discriminated against.
4. Releases Muslim terrorists from Gitmo to Bermuda, so that they can go into the restaurant business and hang on the beaches there.
5. Eliminating the phrase "war on terrorism" and replacing it with "overseas contingency operation" and "terorists" with "man made disasters".
There is a definite pattern in the behavior by Barack Hussein Obama toward the worldwide ummah (in keeping with being raised a Muslim in Indonesia). hat tip Jonathan Galt
#3
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity and ego.
Obama is convinced of his ability to work miracles of diplomacy. He went to Harvard! he's got a first-class temprament! He's an intellectual and scholar! And he's smarter than Bush! All the cool kids think he's boffo keen!! He said he would negotiate with the Iranians and win them over with sweet reason and by gosh that's just what he's gonna do, and he's not gonna let these protestors and neocons and inconveniently-vivid videos of people being shot down in the streets stop him!
Posted by: Mike ||
06/23/2009 10:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
On the other hand the Obama administration is now unofficially taking credit for the unrest in Iran.
This implies that regime destabilization, perhaps regime change has become an official policy. That's a move in the right direction IMO.
Obama's WH saying that his Cairo speech inspired the protesting and uprising in Iran is disgusting and despicable.
But he still is going to invite those who murdered protesters like Neda (while he was out eating ice cream - how inspiring) to 4th of july celebrations.
But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republics Islamic authority in its 30-year history.
An obvious veiled attempt at checking Rahm's "never waste a good crisis" box.... even if a few hundred unarmed young people get shot down in cold blood. Very presidential I'd say, very Bahía de Cochinos.
#7
I think Mike is right, here. It comes down to simple vanity & conceit, really. Obama thinks his "soft-power" approach is the ONLY way that can ever possibly work despite the fact that such an approach has failed miserably throughout the course of history when push comes to shove. Yet he is so convinced of his superior intellect, powers of persuasion, and singular greatness he is blind to all the signs around him that the soft-power approach-- while on occasion effective in the short-term if only because it serves to delay the inevitable-- ultimately leads to greater suffering and eventual failure.
In essence it's all about HIM and what HE is capable of, regardless of the reality that surrounds him. That's NPD in full effect.
#8
Maybe the WH spokesperson misspoke. maybe he meant to say was:
But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring,the government to shoot the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republics Islamic authority in its 30-year history.
Perhaps static on the line when Ralm and the MSM were having their morning conference call to go over their talking points.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
