Bitchy Boxer
By The Misfit | June 18, 2009
Having grown up in a military family, saying “ma’am” and “sir” was ingrained in me from a very young age. Even though I haven’t spent any time around the military in years, I *still* say it. It is a sign of respect that even members of the military use on a daily basis.
So you can imagine my complete indignation when I read this article about Sen. Barbara Boxer’s attitude toward a Brig. Gen. who had *gasp* the audacity to call her “ma’am” instead of “senator”.
I’ve heard male senators called “sir,” I’ve heard Presidents referred to as “Mr.” and no one seems to raise an eyebrow.
I really despise the snotty and frankly ridiculous antagonistic attitudes of women sometimes. Whether she’s worked hard for the title or not is irrelevant. That she’s treated with respect and apparently cannot afford that same respect to someone else is mind-boggling.
It gives the rest of us a bad name.
Topics: annoyances for the misfit | 7 Comments »
June 19th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I GOOGLED “BITCHY BOXER” AFTER HEARING THE
ACCONT OF THE SENATE HEARING…….
SHE’ AN F…ING JOKE. IT’S DISGUSTING THAT
SHE OCCUPIES A SEAT IN SUCH A REVERED HALL
OF GOVERNMENT
PLS ACCEPT MY CONGRADULATIONS ON YOUR
TIMELY POST
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT ON FOX NEWS
JPS
June 19th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Hi John!
Thanks for stopping by. I know it’s been on Foxnews.com. Don’t know about TV because I’m not in a position to be able to watch it currently. It got worse today because she is apparently refusing to apologize. Moron. I just don’t understand what’s wrong with people. Seriously.
June 20th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Not that I’m defending Boxer’s character – because I’m not but I think these things are just the nature of language and how it lives. I would think in this case it’s similar to words like individual, colored, negro, queer, etc., etc. Words that either have a positive connotation and now a negative meaning or just the opposite. How many women use their maiden names now after being married? This was unthinkable even when I was a kid – unless your family was Royalty or extremely wealthy and influential. Once again, I personally do not like ‘lady’ Boxer but I think her desired title is not so important in the ‘big picture’. And how and what is going on between Senators and special interests is much more serious – I think the time of ‘revered hall’ and all its glory days have passed us by and whether it’s a Mr., Mrs., Ma’am, Sir or Senator there are very few if any politicians who understand ideology and principles. Matter of fact I can’t think of any Senators who have any cohesive ideology or principles. Two examples in the HoR who do are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich – two people who have ontological integrity and thus principled, disciplined direction – and they, although on complete opposite sides of the spectrum probably agree more then most politicians (at this point they don’t have any choice but to agree). What this means is they approach their views with the construct of thinking itself as the beginning and any judgments arrived through such an act must have some kind of ‘grounding’ – to do otherwise is to be an ‘Ayatollah’ – which is strange because even the Ayatollahs in Iran are aware of this ‘grounding’ and they, unlike our politicians, are aware of the difference between subscribing to ’scientific method’ as dogma or ‘religion-pure’ as dogma. American politicians find ‘ground’ in special interests (as they believe it to be reflected in the dogma of Ayn Rand Individualism – see ‘individual’ Maiden names not reflective of historical validity) and thus the Boxers of the Senate, when asking to be addressed with respect, just sound ridiculous. I think in this sense, when claiming ‘Fox News’ represents some greater truth, reveals our systemic hypocrisy – because by Fox News’ Ayn Rand truths, Boxer has ‘won’ and therefore has earned her right to tell anyone, Generals or Kings, how she should be addressed. We get what we want as individuals, such as Boxer has done in the glorious name of Individualism, but when it doesn’t fit ‘my’ personal agenda it’s not okay… Boxer, the woman who arrived at her position on her own merits, won – you or I didn’t…get over it. Do you see where principles and ideological grounding is important even in such a simple but ignorant statement of ‘call me Senator’. But then again, Fox’s greatest asset is playing on these inherent hypocrisies we live and getting a rise out of its viewers – and all for the sake of the Ayn Rand winning Individual mind set of the Mr Rupert and the Fox executives making the cash and pulling the strings (winners by virtue of their own natural abilities). Zero responsibility to a living, existing, non-individual-dogmatized world. I thought the most recent article about the DoJ refusing to release Vice Presidential memos and minutes because they are afraid of ‘the Jon Stewarts’ having too much fodder for good jokes to be insane. In other words the DoJ has said that the revealing of this said hypocrisy is what makes Jon Stewart so influential and gods forbid that the hypocrisy should be brought to the light of day. Be careful with your Fox News because in essence you get what you asked for (or is that didn’t ask for?) – i.e. more Barbara Boxers in position of power. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
June 20th, 2009 at 3:15 am
Keith ~
You know I adore you and respect your opinions, but I have to call you out on this one. To equate the word “ma’am” with words like “colored” or “queer” (which, at least in the academic sense does not have a negative connotation – queer, I mean), or any other potential derogatory word is a bullshit argument. It’s pretty much like comparing apples and oranges. In the larger sense “ma’am” has never been used as a means of derision. And in all the rest of your argument, you’ve done exactly what a lot of people do, which is essentially change the subject.
The point was that she was rude and condescending and not because Fox News said so, as you pointed out. That’s a bit like shooting the messenger because you don’t like or agree with the message. I watched the exchange (you can pull it up on youtube as you can just about everything else). It’s obvious she has a chip on her shoulder and was attempting to put Brig. Gen. in his place. It was a power play and by playing it, Boxer set her own self up to be held to task. When you have bad manners, it shows. If you really want to make an argument, why don’t you address why and how people think it’s okay to be rude in professional settings? Or really in any type of setting. This sort of behavior is, of course, not solely delegated to the hallowed halls of congress. We see it every day in every situation. And just because it’s prevalent in our society doesn’t make it acceptable behavior.
Welcome back, btw. Haven’t heard from you in a while.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:01 am
I’m not justifying her actions. But I put them into context, which is something that comes with principled contextual decisions derived from grounded ideology (which, I would argue, is something that is no longer possible to develop in the American education system). And I do firmly believe, as is shown throughout the history of words, that they do in fact evolve to have contradictory meaning at different times. It’s not your or my decision to decide the positive or negative connotation of a word. Words like ‘queer’ just don’t get a positive meaning with a snap of the fingers – it evolves over time (history) through actions like those of the ‘Mrs. Boxers’ of the queer world. And as for Mrs. Boxer’s, I think her comment was ‘General… if you could please call me Senator because I’ve worked hard for the title.’ I guess in her eyes, it’s like addressing a judge as ‘Mr. Judge’ And my point was ‘who cares if it’s Mrs., Senator, Your Honor, Mr., Dr., Lord, when there are so many other problems that reach down to the fundamental way in which we as Americans have come to perceive ourselves and so-called issues… like being more concerned about one’s title. And I find it unfortunate that people use Fox News or any news source to make judgments because these news sources get their viewership by eating away at people’s sense of self-inflicted hypocrisy – see source ontology for the self-advantageous, Ayn Rand objectivism.
Section 8, Article 1 of the US Constitution does state that Congress signs ‘the Generals’ paycheck – so in the meaningless scheme of things ‘who can demand irrelevant respect?’ Mrs. Boxer, of course – remember, I do not like the lady either. And my point was; there’s got to be some ‘context’ to the discourse and not self-inflicted misguided judgments fed by terrible (and in this sense villainous) media. Or else, in a way we really support the Boxers and the rest of them in Congress. You can’t talk about a topic without it having a context – otherwise you’ve fallen to the senseless meaning of ’soundbite media’. There’s a reason you’re getting a higher, higher education… (it’s sexy)
I hope everything is going well for you in Scotland. I’ve been keeping up on your blogs, though. So I’ve been following your story – well, at least as much as you’re giving us
June 20th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Keith, you will never hear me say that words can’t change meaning over time – I am well aware of that fact – what I am disputing is that “ma’am” has become one of them. If you want to talk about putting the exchange in context, watch the actual exchange. It isn’t only what she said, but how she said it. She was a complete snot hellbent on putting the Brig. Gen. in his place – which is absolutely ridiculous for any number of reasons. There is a time and a place, Keith. You, yourself, said that her “”desired title” is not so important in the ‘big picture’.” What she should have done is let the Brig. Gen. answer her questions and not grandstanded before he could even get started. I agree that there are far more important things to worry about, but the fact of the matter is that this kind of crap is indicative of much larger problems that exist in the hallowed halls of congress.
Personally, I say we scrap them all and start over.
I know I haven’t said much about what’s going on school-wise at the moment. That’s because my dissertation topic is on the hush-hush side at the moment (which you know because I’ve said as much on my blog… he he he). But rest assured I’ll fill in the gaps at the appropriate time.
How’s your own writing coming? Working on anything new or are you editing previous material?
June 20th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Also, I wanted to comment on the Brigadier General and Mrs. Boxer in regards to the news media (Fox and the lot) and point out that what they, the media, should be reporting on, so that you and I can make real judgments in regards to Mrs. Boxer or the General is how much money flows into the weapons manufacturers and contractors for which the General works as a private consultant, adviser or sits on their BoD – his ’special interests’ which are of no interest to the American people (wow, that was a long sentence). No bid billion dollar contracts for his special interests… Or he might actually have a stake in the company building the The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline and the Nabucco lines then the Middle East would need a continued presence of a 200,000 US Soldiers to protect his ’special interest’ which are less then obvious – and definitely not in yours or my interests…but alas we don’t know because the News isn’t news, but only entertainment. Wouldn’t it be nice if we got to decide how much an employer had to pay us? A hundred million? Fifty or a hundred billion dollars of tax payer money a year? No bid salaries for everyone! And as for the ‘lady’, we don’t have to go into detail about how much money her and her Clinton Clan Pyramid of Power suck out of private interests for their own political purposes. If Fox wasn’t part of the problem – getting their share through advertising profits and political control of their own market, and getting us excited over such nonsense in the process and making us think about quasi nothing, they might actually be forced to provide us with this information and not leave it to so-called ‘fringe groups’. The radicals who only want to be able to make a fair judgment. Maybe the General deserves to be called General Daisy Cuddles and Mrs. Boxer, ‘Your Highness’ – we don’t know because we don’t get the story but only the grandstanding and the little tit for tat of ‘my special interest is better then your special interest… so you can call me Senator.’ So in reality Fox News keeps us talking about issues that have very little meaning in our daily lives and that’s exactly how they make their money.
As for the ma’am part, where, when and how do you think these changes occur? I think Mrs. Boxer has given us a very good idea of a ‘first time’. I wouldn’t be surprised if the word, ma’am now slowly becomes an issue with many women… the Boxer Rebellion? But this doesn’t guarantee such an evolution will occur – only history can decide that. The only thing evil about it is that it distracts our attention – and that’s something just built-in into a ‘good’ Politician’s demeanor and tone… ‘that Babs is kick-ass, she gave that warmongering villain General a tongue lashing like nobodies business!’ Or ‘what a cunt, she made a General call her Senator!’
Recently I’ve been rewriting Split Character Syndrome. I just got done with roughly the first 125 pages and now I’m going back and reworking some things to make those pages flow a little better into the next part of the story. I’d spent a lot of time rewriting Agent Eno Modgnik as well. I think I finally got a pretty solid version but I’ll wait a bit longer before I go back and give it another read. Six months away from something seems to be the right amount of time. So to answer your question, yes, I’ve been writing and editing. How about yourself? Have you mostly focused on the required writing for school or is there something else you’ve been working on?