Who, Exactly, Does Barbara Boxer Think She Is?

If you haven’t seen this video, have a look and see what you think.

I’m wondering why Barbara Boxer feels the need to interrupt a Brigadier General mid-sentence as he attempts to answer her direct question.

It was nice of the Senator to point out just how hard she’s worked advance her career. She has to attend fund-raising dinners! In high heels! That’s probably much harder than, say, going into harm’s way to protect spoiled, self-absorbed elected officials with delusions of grandeur.

Senator Boxer’s actions make it appear as though she feels she just might possibly be General Walsh’s superior in some way. I’m not sure where she would get an idea like that, since the U.S. Senate is outside the military chain of command. Really, when you get right down to it, the good Senator is just an employee of the people of the State of California, not a member of some super-elite ruling class or…princess.

Of course General Walsh was following military protocol by addressing Senator Boxer as “ma’am.” Various male senators had been addressed throughout the day as “sir,” with no apparent hurt feelings.

From FoxNews.com:

…[Brigadier General Michael] Walsh surely meant no disrespect, as military protocol advises that officers may use “sir” or “ma’am” when addressing anybody higher than them on the chain of command.

“We would call them ’sir’ or ‘ma’am’ or ’senator such-and-such’,” Army spokesman Lt. Col. Nathan Banks said. Banks said any of those terms would be “appropriate” when addressing a senator.

According to one guide, the Navy and Coast Guard typically use “mister” or “miss” to address officers below the rank of commander, and “sir” or “ma’am,” or a specific title, to address anyone at that rank or higher.

“You can never go wrong by using ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am,’ but it is a nice touch if you can properly address a senior officer,” says the guide, Military Protocol: Uniformed Services. (Read the complete article.)

Regardless of her motivation, this exchange certainly doesn’t reflect poorly on the General. However it reveals Senator Boxer to be small, petty, childish and arrogant. So much for strong, confident women.

Did I already mention delusions of grandeur?

Update: Chuck DeVore is running to unseat Barbara Boxer in 2010. Chuck is a solid conservative. You can help defeat Barbara Boxer by contributing to his campaign.

Huh.

It appears Dan Rather is still subject to occasional moments of lucidity.

Tehran, Twitter and Tianamen

Dear David Letterman

I used to occasionally watch and enjoy your show, especially your top ten segment. That is why it is so very distressing to me to realize you may have taken leave of your senses; specifically your sense of humor and your sense of propriety.

To help get you back on track, I’d like to offer a some simple tests you can use to determine if your jokes are actually funny or just in poor taste.

Test 1

Would you consider telling your joke to your mother or daughter? Or a nun? If not, your joke may not be funny. Proceed to Test 2.

Test 2

Would you consider telling the same joke about your wife, mother, sister or daughter? If not, there is a good chance that your joke is not funny. If you still have doubts, proceed to Test 3.

Test 3: Ultimate Litmus Test

Would you consider telling the same joke about Michelle Obama? Or about Sasha or Malia Obama? If not, your joke is not only not funny but has very likely passed beyond the bounds of decency. Anyone telling this joke should probably be banned from polite society.

Mr. Letterman, since you seem to be both humor and propriety impaired, I hope you make use of these simple tests when formulating your top ten lists in the future.

Sincerely,

Itsonlywords

Liz Cheney Is Magnificent!

She is as lucid and articulate as her father, but without the baggage. Listen as she slams President Barack Obama’s “middle ground” approach to keeping the country safe (the good part starts around 2:15 into the video).

When you’re fighting terror, keeping the country safe, your objective is to keep the country safe. Your objective can’t be, let’s try to find middle ground, um, you know, on a political spectrum. You can’t look at this as a political issue and you can’t look at it as a test about, well, some decisions make conservatives angry and some decisions make liberals angry. You’ve got to ignore that because at the end of the day, saying you made a decision because it was a compromise between liberals and conservatives is not the same as saying you made the best decision to keep this nation safe, regardless of what the political polls say or regardless of what your political opponents say.

 

Dripping With Irony, But Not In A Good Way

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, Democrat and Catholic, has been a strong proponent of abortion rights. Speaking at a retirement luncheon for Karen Cooper, long-time Washington State director for NARAL, Gregoire said, “We are blessed to have had you as our great leader.”  She then spoke of  “those, candidly, not yet born who will benefit from your leadership.”

Gregoire’s comments go beyond those of a politician who has pragmatically adopted a pro-choice position and mark her as a true believer. Invoking future generations who will benefit from Cooper’s work with NARAL, an organization, remember, who’s name originated as the National Abortion Rights Action League, with no consideration given to those who will never be born because of that same work, indicates a callousness and shallowness of thought that I find extremely disturbing.

Trade-Offs

If anyone reading this believes that phosphate-free dishwasher detergents will deliver results as good as those containing phosphates, please raise your hand because my name Juma Kidawa. I am a Nigerian princess desiring only to share with you my rightful inheritance of $5 million American dollars, which only I can do through your kind offices if you will be so good as to share with me your bank account number by return e-mail.

It appears I’ve been an unwitting participant in Washington’s phased roll out of the ban on phosphate-containing dishwasher detergents. The ban, which was signed into law in 2006 and is already in effect in Spokane County, is set to take effect state-wide in July, 2010. This left me thinking that the “good stuff” was still available on store shelves in my area. That may be true, but it’s not all that’s available and my last purchase is a case in point.

Residents of Spokane County have taken to crossing over the state line and buying their dishwasher detergent in Idaho. While some have tried to characterize this as smuggling, that’s not really the case; while the law makes it illegal to sell dishwasher detergents containing phosphates, it does not outlaw possessing them or using them.

Proponents of the ban contend that Spokane residents are getting less than optimal results from the phosphate-free detergents because of their hard water. I would disagree. The phosphate-free Cascade that I’ve been using is not only giving me consistently poor results – this detergent fails to clean even the residue of mayonnaise off of a table knife (even on the extra hot cycle) – but dishes are also left with a faintly sticky residue that makes me wonder if I shouldn’t be rinsing them off before using them. And hard water is certainly not the culprit. From the City of Everett’s website:

Everett’s Drinking Water Filtration Plant uses advanced filtration processes to remove possible contaminants and takes steps to reduce the corrosiveness of the naturally soft water. Chlorine is added to make sure the water is free of harmful organisms. Fluoride is also added for dental health purposes (emphasis mine).

Since this purchase was a mistake, you would be correct in thinking that I haven’t tried any other phosphate-free products and it may well be that there are others that will work as well as those containing phosphates; I sincerely hope so. Jeffrey Hollender, CEO of Seventh Generation claims their products work as well as high-phosphate detergents, without any special effort. The experience of Spokane County residents may indicate otherwise.

As noted in the article, there are measures that can be taken to improve the performance of phosphate-free products, among them installing water softeners or choosing a product that contains salt; both assume that hard water is the reason for poor performance. These are apparently not the same people who believe that salting icy streets will harm the Puget Sound ecosystem. (Note: that article also provides a good illustration of why government agencies may not be the right choice for guiding environmental policy.)

Please don’t assume that I’m not interested in protecting the environment; I certainly am and that’s reflected in my daily life. Protecting the environment while protecting our standard of living involves a series of trade-offs. People understand this. Trading phosphates and squeaky clean dishes for fewer algae blooms in our lakes and rivers may well be a trade that’s worth making, but please don’t insult our intelligence by asking us to ignore the evidence of our own eyes.

(Note: Jeffrey Hollender was incorrectly identified in the article as being the CEO of Seventh Heaven. He is actually the CEO of Seventh Generation.)

When Is Enough Enough?

A few weeks ago, Bamos, a regular blogger at Daily Kos, posted an entry detailing a “social experiment” he’d conducted on Twitter. During the height of the ARRA legislation debate, when feelings were running strongest, he opened a Twitter account with the user name InTheStimulus.

His intention was to post a series of false “facts” about the stimulus bill and watch the reaction of the conservatives who were following him. His early tweets were fairly plausible but as time went on, they became increasingly outrageous. Judging from his post, his apparent motivation was to illustrate the stupidity of conservatives and he and the people who commented on the post were duly scornful and self-congratulatory. The story came to the attention of some Conservative tweeters and eventually to me, as I was one of the tweeps caught in the sting operation, as I detailed here.

Bamos’ blog post appeared to be the end of InTheStimulus; a search of Twitter returned an error. Bamos, however, was unwilling to drop his game. Rather than deleting the InTheStimulus account, he had simply deleted all the updates and changed his user name to TheAngryRighty. TheAngryRighty differed from InTheStimulus as there seemed to be no real attempt to deceive anyone. The updates were silly and TheAngryRighty was obviously a caricature created by someone with a fairly low opinion of conservatives’ capacity for rational thought.

Eventually TheAngryRighty stopped posting updates. That could and should have been the end of the story, but Bamos resurfaced. While his motive remained the same – to scam conservatives – his tactic was far less benign.

This time, rather than selecting an anonymous persona, Bamos chose to  impersonate GOP Representative Don Young of Alaska. At first, the updates were designed merely to portray Representative Young as a tech-ignorant buffoon but eventually an update was posted that started to generate some buzz.

Just received a memo from the White House: either I sign a loyalty oath to Obama, or "my life will be difficult". Insane. (I won’t!)

Reactions ranges from outrage over the request to dismay at the refusal to sign. In any event, it seemed like a prudent time to call foul. Quite aside from the fact that identity fraud is a crime, there’s no reason to think that Representative Young is anything other than a decent human being who’s chosen a life of public service. He deserves better.

As for Bamos, well, I guess he just doesn’t know when to leave well enough alone. Rather than learn something from his original experiment, he and his readers chose to cling to their prejudices, confident in their own superiority.

Enough, I say.

In Which Michael Steele Miraculously Discovers His Spine

Upon news of Senator Arlen Specter’s abandonment of the GOP, Michael Steele had the following to say:

Let’s be honest-Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.

Then, in an e-mail sent yesterday afternoon:

I hope Arlen Specter’s party change outrages you. It should for two reasons:

First–Specter claimed it was philosophical–and pointed his finger of blame at Republicans all over America for his defection to the Democrats. He told us all to go jump in the lake today.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe a word he said.

Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. He loves the title of Senator more than he loves the party–and the principles–that elected him and nurtured him.

He goes on:

Facing defeat in Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record, and an end to his 30 year career in the U.S. Senate, he has peddled his services–and his vote–to the leftist Obama Democrats who aim to remake America with their leftist plan.

As recently as April 9th, Senator Specter said he would run in the Pennsylvania primary next year as a Republican. Why the sudden change of heart? Clearly, this was an act based on political expediency by a craven politician desperate to keep his Washington power base–not the act of a statesman.

This is stronger language than I would have expected from Steele and, frankly, based on some of the bizarre statements he’s made since becoming RNC Chair, I might have expected him to apologize to Specter for making the GOP such a small tent.

So congratulations, Chairman Steele, and here’s to hoping we’ll see more of the new you in the future.

Excuse Me? Twitter Is Fueling Panic?

In a self-serving piece, CNN makes the case that Twitter is fueling unnecessary panic over the swine flu.

The swine flu outbreak is spawning debate about how people get information during health emergencies — especially at a time when news sources are becoming less centralized.

Buzz about swine flu on Twitter is stirring conversations about how people get health news. Some observers say Twitter — a micro-blogging site where users post 140-character messages — has become a hotbed of unnecessary hype and misinformation about the outbreak, which is thought to have claimed more than 100 lives in Mexico.

“This is a good example of why [Twitter is] headed in that wrong direction, because it’s just propagating fear amongst people as opposed to seeking actual solutions or key information,” said Brennon Slattery, a contributing writer for PC World. “The swine flu thing came really at the crux of a media revolution.”

Twitter’s popularity has exploded in recent months, and Slattery said it’s a new development that a wide number of people would turn to the site in search of information during an emergency.

Setting aside fears about swine flu, the reporter, John D. Sutter, leaves no doubts about CNN’s fears, stating that the controversy comes as news sources are becoming less centralized. As their market share continues to drop, any indication that people are turning elsewhere for primary news sources has to be discouraging and must be the reason Sutter chose to set the tone of the story based on Brennon Slattery’s input. Slattery, a writer for PC World, makes the claim that Twitter is propagating fear.

Maybe it’s just me, but a contributing writer for PC World isn’t where I’d turn to determine if a news source – any news source – was fueling panic in matters relating to public health. I might turn to the CDC. Oh! And look what they have to say.

A spokesman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, said that the online buzz about swine flu is a good sign. It means people are talking about the issue, and that’s the first step toward learning how to reasonably protect yourself.

“I think it’s generally a useful development, but I would encourage people to look to other sources, especially established, recognized medical authorities,” said Glen Nowak, chief of media relations at the CDC. “It shows that people are engaged and they care and that it’s caught their attention — and those all are good things.”

How about that, the health experts at the CDC say, the online buzz about swine flu is a good sign and it’s generally a useful development. But that’s not really the focus of CNN’s story.

Even so, my sense is that panic may be rising, but, seriously, with congress investigating the outbreak, President Barack Obama requesting $1.5 billion to respond to the outbreak, and the World Health Organization raising the pandemic alert level from three to four (out of six), why blame Twitter for fueling panic?

You Say Yes, I Say No

But does that mean we can’t respect each other? For some people, the answer, apparently, is “yes.”

I had an exchange on Twitter today with @X* which came about as a result of my declaration that I love Dick Cheney. I do. I can’t help it. I think his treatment by the press has been spectacularly unfair.

Here’s what followed:

@X: wow , I lost so much respect

@itsonlywords: Why, because I like Dick Cheney?

@X: yes, to the rest of the world, the man is a criminal

@itsonlywords: I’m sorry you feel that way.

No response. I couldn’t leave it alone, so I looked around for a stick with which to poke @X.

@itsonlywords: I’m curious. What is it exactly that you don’t like about Dick Cheney?

At this point @X could have responded with a list of reasons he doesn’t like the former VP, along with links to support his position. Or even a list with no backup. Then again, maybe not.

@X: if you have to ask, there is no use discussing it. We live in a different reality and world. Hes a criminal. I hope he rots

I believe in second (and even third and fourth!) chances, so I wasn’t ready to give up just yet.

@itsonlywords: No, seriously. List his crimes, I want to understand your position.

Apparently that question was so offensive that, not only did I not receive a response, @X blocked me. For those of you not familiar with Twitter, blocking a person prevents their updates from appearing to you.

Think about this. @X feels so strongly about Dick Cheney, it causes him to lose respect for another individual, yet when asked he can’t give even one reason why. Instead, he resorts to personal attacks, saying “if you have to ask, there is no use discussing it” (i.e., you’re too stupid to understand) and “we live in a different reality and world” (i.e., you seem to be a little off balance…are you off your meds?); he then repeats the claim that Cheney is a criminal, as though the mere fact of repetition makes it true. He feels so strongly about Dick Cheney that he calls him a criminal and hopes he rots, but can’t list a single crime.

Yet this belief, so passionately held, is apparently so fragile that it can’t withstand even the hint of a challenge. @X could simply have ignored my update about Dick Cheney; it was directed to another person, so no response was required from @X.

I found this exchange to be quite discouraging. I’ve been having great conversations via Twitter with people all across the political spectrum and this is the first time it’s ended badly. Obviously we all hold some opinions that are rooted in something other than fact. My high opinion of Dick Cheney, for example is based on my impression of him after listening to him speak and reading a few things he’s written. It may well be supported by facts, but I wouldn’t be able to cite them. Accordingly, I wouldn’t presume to challenge someone holding an opposing belief.

That a person can hold a belief so passionately with apparently so little factual basis for that belief and act so swiftly and decisively, with so little debate, leaves me without much hope for a return to civility in the public forum.

*@X’s name has been changed to protect his identity. In fairness, the possibility exists that @X could have defended is position with facts but chose not to do so; however it seems unlikely to me that a passionately held belief would not be defended if it were possible to do so.