The Funniest Thing I Haven't Seen Anyone Mention

I'm sure you've all heard about the "incident" between Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and Brigadier General Michael Walsh, in which Boxer lectured Walsh for addressing her as "ma'am" and insisted he address her as "senator" because "I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it."

Goodness, where do I begin?

1) She worked so hard to get that title? More so than the general, whom she didn't see fit to address by his title? I doubt that.

2) The general was well within military protocol. Section 4.18 of Army Field Manual 7-21.13 states:

A soldier addressing a higher ranking officer uses the word sir or ma’am in the same manner as a polite civilian speaking with a person to whom he wishes to show respect. In the military service, the matter of who says sir or ma’am to whom is clearly defined; in civilian life it is largely a matter of discretion.

3) I've seen some writers claim that the "ma'am" was a result of some kind of misogyny on the general's part. The previous point shows that not to be the case, but in case you needed some more evidence, I would point out that Walsh called male senators "sir" on many occasions.

4) Apparently Boxer had no problem with "ma'am" two years ago, as she called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "ma'am" three times. (Of course, at the linked article points out, calling Rice "ma'am" was nowhere near the most offensive thing Boxer said to her during the hearing.)

5) I'm not sure about this, but I believe that a U.S. Senator is nowhere in the hierarchical structure of the U.S. Army. The use of "sir," "ma'am," or even a title for someone outside the military is done as a courtesy, a show of respect. It seems to me that Boxer insisting the general call her "senator" is a lot like a McDonald's manager asking a Burger King worker to call him "manager." The general obliged the senator because frankly, he has more class than she does.

Oh yeah, I promised a funny thing that no one else has mentioned. I guess it's not so much funny as...interesting? Ironic? Inane?

6) My gut feeling is that Boxer didn't care for "ma'am" partly because she is ignorant of the military protocol, but mostly because she thinks of it as a misogynistic term for old ladies. I'd just like to point out that the term she insisted on--"senator"--comes from the word senex, meaning...old man. It's the same place we get the words "senior" and "senile." In contrast, "ma'am" is a shortened form of "madam," which comes from the French "ma dame" and Latin "mea domina," meaning "my lady." It's used (of course) as a respectful term for addressing a woman.

Hmm...perhaps Boxer was right to insist that she not be called "ma'am" after all.

"And All The Women In My Family Are Female."

Petitedov has a post on the alleged threatening remarks yelled about Barack Obama during a Sarah Palin rally in Scranton.

One of the things that struck me was the defense offered up by Jeff Sonderman, the Metro Editor of The Scranton Times-Tribune, the paper that "broke" the story:

“We stand by the story. The facts reported are true and that’s really all there is.”

This is what's known as a tautology. That is, since the word "fact" means "true," you're comparing synonyms. It's like saying "All the women in my family are female." It's not only faulty logic, it's redundant. What Sonderman essentially said was "All the true things we reported were true." Of course that says nothing about things that may not have been true.

It Depends on What Your Meaning of the Word 'for' Is

I usually find factcheck.org to be pretty fair, but this article of theirs reprinted over at Newsweek.com (hat tip to instapundit) bothers me a little. It criticizes the RNC for padding its claims that Obama voted 94 times "for higher taxes." While some of the RNC's claims are a bit questionable**, Lori Robertson throws out 23 of the votes because they

are votes Obama cast against changing tax rates from what they were at the time. Taxes would not have gone up. They would have been "higher" only compared to the cuts being proposed.

And?

By Robertson's own admission, the votes are for the situation in which the taxes would be higher. What is the problem here? The claim is not that he voted to raise taxes but that he voted for higher taxes. The statement (as it pertains to the votes in question) is correct. I'd even go so far as to argue that the spirit of the claim is correct. The whole point of the RNC making the statement is to illustrate that when presented with a measure to vote on, Senator Obama often chooses the option that means higher taxes. These 23 votes are in line with that argument, and should be included. So who's padding now?

It may seem like I'm once again picking nits (which is what I thought factcheck.org is supposed to do) but think of it this way: If one is presented with a proposal to lower taxes, and one is given three voting options--for it, against it, or abstain--which one of those votes would you consider voting "for higher taxes"? It certainly can't be abstaining (which I suppose he could have done had he not wanted higher taxes), and it just as certainly can't be voting for the proposal, which would lower taxes. So what does that leave?

What upsets me about this? Robertson and factcheck.org should know better. I've found them to be--for the most part--reliable in the past. Now, I really have to wonder whether this was an unintentional mistake, or a case of manipulating words in much the same way that they accuse the RNC of doing. Either way, it's disturbing.

**For example, the RNC counted 17 votes on 7 measures. While multiple votes on the same measure are technically accurate, given the RNC's statement (they didn't claim he voted on 94 measures, after all) I think this one does smack of "padding."

Maybe I Should Pick "Less" Nits...

...but I can't help it. I just sent an e-mail out to some friends, and the whiz kids over at Yahoo! have apparently written a little blurb designed to pop up after sending my message informing me that I can "download in less steps." It's fewer steps, damn it! This is not a difficult rule, and you people are supposed to be professionals.

This makes me fewer confident in our educational system.