snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Inboxer Rebellion (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Jim Hill's Letter to Barbara Boxer (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=49032)

Malruhn 04 August 2009 05:10 PM

Jim Hill's Letter to Barbara Boxer
 
I hope my snopes-fu was up to this one - as I searched all over and didn't find a thread about this e-mail. Cool - I finally have one that arrived before we destroyed it!!

Quote:

Subject: Fwd: Jim Hill's Letter to World Asshole - Barbara Boxer

This checks on Google.

Many of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer as she admonished a brigadier general because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing. This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines. I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry. Long fly Alaska !!!!!

Babs:

You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong.. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equalled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered [Remember Mary Jo]), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two? Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.

Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.

What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.

Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"?

Have a fine day. Cheers!

Jim Hill
16808 - 103rd Avenue Court East
South Hill, WA 98374

Please circulate this to remind every voter that the "cesspools" MUST be pumped out when we go to the polls in November, 2010. Honoring and respecting the voters is a thing of the past for many of those in our congress and senate.We need to vote their arrogant, self serving asses out of office if America is to get on the long road back from the devastation that these self serving cowards have brought upon us!
Well, if nothing else - spell-check gives it a thumbs up!!

snopes 04 August 2009 05:17 PM

I was puzzled about what set her off. As far as I could tell, the general was being appropriately deferential to her position by addressing her as "ma'am."

Ryda Wong, EBfCo. 04 August 2009 05:25 PM

I'm puzzled as to who cares. She made a polite request. He responded in a polite manner. She ever made a bit of a joke about it. She didn't "scold" anyone.

What on earth is so wrong with that?

Ellestar 04 August 2009 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 1015166)
I was puzzled about what set her off. As far as I could tell, the general was being appropriately deferential to her position by addressing her as "ma'am."

I, of course, don't know for sure, but for some, "ma'am" is a term that has an unflattering connotation with older women or women who demand deference. When we moved to the south, I couldn't believe the number of women who insisted upon being addressed as "ma'am" because it was always said with such derision where I had lived before.

It could also be that she felt that the general was using "ma'am" to call attention to her sex/gender in ways he wouldn't have with the other senators, so she was being extra careful that she was being considered equal to the other senators that he addressed.

Could be it's just her personal preference. I don't like being called "ma'am," but I generally don't take offense to it.

dfresh 04 August 2009 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. (Post 1015176)
I'm puzzled as to who cares. She made a polite request. He responded in a polite manner. She ever made a bit of a joke about it. She didn't "scold" anyone.

What on earth is so wrong with that?

But she is a woman! Probably a feminist too, since she is a Democrat (or do we call them Democratics? I forget.) That means she hates men, especially the military.

Ryda Wong, EBfCo. 04 August 2009 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar (Post 1015179)
I, of course, don't know for sure, but for some, "ma'am" is a term that has an unflattering connotation with older women or women who demand deference. When we moved to the south, I couldn't believe the number of women who insisted upon being addressed as "ma'am" because it was always said with such derision where I had lived before.

LOL. I did the opposite, came from the South to a place where I get weird looks when I call people ma'am and sir. I'm trying to ween it out, but it's habitual.

If someone asks me a yes or no question, it's always "yes, ma'am" or "no, sir", unless the questioner is a child. This was literally beaten into me from birth.

Ryda Wong, EBfCo. 04 August 2009 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfresh (Post 1015180)
But she is a woman! Probably a feminist too, since she is a Democrat (or do we call them Democratics? I forget.) That means she hates men, especially the military.

The response to this whole non-issue is a great example of just how misogynistic the right wing is.

Lainie 04 August 2009 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. (Post 1015185)
The response to this whole non-issue is a great example of just how misogynistic the right wing is.

I'm pretty sure dfresh was being ironic.

snopes 04 August 2009 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar (Post 1015179)
It could also be that she felt that the general was using "ma'am" to call attention to her sex/gender in ways he wouldn't have with the other senators, so she was being extra careful that she was being considered equal to the other senators that he addressed.

But if he addressed male senators as "Sir," wouldn't he be calling attention to her sex/gender by addressing her as "Senator" rather than "Ma'am"?

Ryda Wong, EBfCo. 04 August 2009 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 1015196)
But if he addressed male senators as "Sir," wouldn't he be calling attention to her sex/gender by addressing her as "Senator" rather than "Ma'am"?

The question is what did he call the other senators. All the links I've seen are just that one portion of the session.

And that is only one of many possible reasons Ellestar gave.

Ryda Wong, EBfCo. 04 August 2009 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lainie (Post 1015189)
I'm pretty sure dfresh was being ironic.

No, no! Not D-fresh's response. The response by all the right-wing pundits!

I got that D-fresh was being ironic.

Ellestar 04 August 2009 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 1015196)
But if he addressed male senators as "Sir," wouldn't he be calling attention to her sex/gender by addressing her as "Senator" rather than "Ma'am"?

Still, "Senator" is a gender-neutral word. While "sir" isn't gender neutral, it's heard often enough in an over 80% male Senate to make "ma'am" more conspicuous.

snopes 04 August 2009 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar (Post 1015209)
Still, "Senator" is a gender-neutral word. While "sir" isn't gender neutral, it's heard often enough in an over 80% male Senate to make "ma'am" more conspicuous.

But still, "Sir/Ma'am" and "Senator" are two distinctly different forms of address. If he were to use the former exclusively with male senators and the latter exclusively with female senators, that would imply the two groups were inherently unequal.

Ellestar 04 August 2009 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 1015212)
But still, "Sir/Ma'am" and "Senator" are two distinctly different forms of address. If he were to use the former exclusively with male senators and the latter exclusively with female senators, that would imply the two groups were inherently unequal.

I personally think that having different words for forms of address already testify to an inequality between the genders, but I know that not everyone would agree with me on that.

I don't think that using "sir" for men and "Senator" for women who prefer it is inherently unequal because the speaker could just as easily use "Senator" for all, but not "sir" or "ma'am" for all.

Dr. Winston O'Boogie 04 August 2009 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar (Post 1015209)
Still, "Senator" is a gender-neutral word. While "sir" isn't gender neutral, it's heard often enough in an over 80% male Senate to make "ma'am" more conspicuous.

So? If he consistently called the male senators "Sir" and Senator Boxter "M'am", he is consistent and respectful. Now, if he called the other senators "Senator" and her "M'am", yeah, I'd be pissed off if I were her. The correct military response to a male superior officer is "Yes, Sir"; the correct military response to a female superior officer is "Yes, M'am". If he's being consistent, I've got no problem with it.

snopes 04 August 2009 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Winston O'Boogie (Post 1015219)
The correct military response to a male superior officer is "Yes, Sir"; the correct military response to a female superior officer is "Yes, M'am". If he's being consistent, I've got no problem with it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-calling-maam/

Quote:

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.

Ellestar 04 August 2009 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Winston O'Boogie (Post 1015219)
So? If he consistently called the male senators "Sir" and Senator Boxter "M'am", he is consistent and respectful. Now, if he called the other senators "Senator" and her "M'am", yeah, I'd be pissed off if I were her. The correct military response to a male superior officer is "Yes, Sir"; the correct military response to a female superior officer is "Yes, M'am". If he's being consistent, I've got no problem with it.

But you weren't the one being addressed. Senator Boxer was and she told him her preference. I'd have no issue with it if a male senator preferred "Senator" to "sir," too. It wasn't disrespectful for him to default to "ma'am" when they first started speaking to one another. It wasn't disrespectful for her to ask for her preferred address, either.

Again, personally, the word "ma'am" grates on my nerves and if I would have to listen to someone refer to me as "ma'am" after every question, I'd come up with another form of address, too.

snopes 04 August 2009 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellestar (Post 1015222)
It wasn't disrespectful for him to default to "ma'am" when they first started speaking to one another. It wasn't disrespectful for her to ask for her preferred address, either.

Sorry, but I'd say it was disrespectful of her to interrupt him in mid-sentence to ask him to address her as "Senator." It could have been handled much better if she had said something at the beginning of the proceedings, or if she had waited for a suitable pause in his testimony to make her request. As it was, she came off appearing as if a technicality over a form of address was more important to her (and thus to the Senate) than the actual business at hand.

Lainie 04 August 2009 06:59 PM

I still don't think she did anything deserving of the vitriol spewed in the OP letter though.

As for this sentence:

Quote:

This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.
Wow. That's a lot of misogynistic insults to cram into one sentence. And the last part gives Boxer way too much credit -- if California is the laughingstock of the nation, many people had their hand in making it so.

AnglRdr 04 August 2009 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lainie (Post 1015280)
Wow. That's a lot of misogynistic insults to cram into one sentence.

Also, doesn't California have one of the highest rates of college graduates in the country?


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.