Senator Boxer: Senator, Yes, Senator
June 20, 2009 / 11:36 am • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierFrom BlackFive:
Apparently, Barbara Boxer, a Senator from California where some of the biggest military bases exist, doesn’t understand respect when she hears it.
As a former Army Officer, if one of my soldiers called me “Lieutenant”, instead of “el-tee” or “Sir”, I would know that he found me lacking. Calling me by my job title or rank is only done because it is the lowest requirement of respect.
The. Lowest. Requirement. Of. Respect.
***
BG Walsh was showing Barbara Boxer respect by calling her “Ma’am” instead of “Senator.” Believe me, the title “Senator” does not really hold a whole lot of credibility in the US military. It’s a job, and a Corporal leading a team in Baqubah has more honor than most of those holding that title.
From now on, it’s Senator. And it’s more than she deserves. Vote for Chuck DeVore.
33 Responses to “Senator Boxer: Senator, Yes, Senator”
June 20 2009 / 11:58 am
Reply
I can’t believe you found this! I ran a post on Boxer too and a reader mentioned this snippet from Austin Powers, I searched high and low on the net to find this to no avail. A hit tip to you, your skills outpace mine 10 fold…..
LCR
June 20 2009 / 12:28 pm
Reply
Melissa, you silly thing. Laugh at someone elected to represent the people of California and wants to be addressed as “Senator” and at the top of the page you write “Dr. Melissa Clouthier”.
Fer sure, that degree from some chiroprractic school earns you a title and you use it. I suppose whether or not you like Boxer, she earned her title.
June 20 2009 / 2:33 pm
Reply
“Senator” doesn’t hold a whole lot of credibility among the citizens, either.
June 20 2009 / 4:41 pm
Reply
fuster – So she has her title on the page. I’ve been following this blog for a long time and have never seen her say, “Please don’t call me Melissa, call me Doctor.” Sorry, your barb has no point.
June 20 2009 / 4:56 pm
Reply
Jeff, sorry also. If Melissa thinks it appropriate to use her title on a blog that hasn’t a damn think to do with chiropractic medicine, why would she think it inappropriate for a Senator to ask to be properly titled.
The officer before her was addressing a US Senator during the course of the Senator’s work. If the officer was testifying before a judge, he would be expected to address the judge as ” Your Honor”, not as “Ma’am.”
June 20 2009 / 11:28 pm
Reply
As usual, the point completely flies by fuster.
Besides, anything that has to do with California shouldn’t really be taken seriously. They’re a bunch of silly fruitcakes out there and the fact that they elected an insecure doofus to the Senate makes that state pretty much a laughingstock (especially the delicious idea that they’re essentially bankrupt trying to do all of those stupid things they do there, though that state isn’t the only one that does it). Of course, here in New York, we have Patterson and Schumer, so it’s not much better. At least in my state’s case I can say that most of the bullcrap happens because of NYC. Personally, I’d love for upstate to secede and become a separate state. Dare to dream…
June 20 2009 / 11:56 pm
Reply
Mat, you brilliant dude. Upstate NY, without NYC, has about enough money to last through a long weekend.
We can agree to look down on California and the barrel scrapings that it sends onto the national political stage.
We have the folks from California to thank for the two most criminal presidential administrations of the last century.
June 21 2009 / 2:23 pm
Reply
Boy, fuster you still don’t get it. You use the persons title when you greet them (when the hearings starting during introductions). After that you refer to them as Sir or Ma’am when you are in a conversation with them. ALWAYS. That’s military protocol.
Even when talking with the President – it’s Mr. President when you greet them, Sir (or Ma’am) DURING a conversation. Then as a salutation (Thank you for you time Mr. President/Senator/Congressman) you repeat the title.
June 21 2009 / 2:33 pm
Reply
Dave, I understand your point but allow me to point out that military protocol is not the operative system when called upon to testify either in courtroom or Congress.
This wasn’t conversation, this was testimony.
I would guess that Boxer was neither offended or prickly, but was likely using an old device to remind the officer that he was in a subordinate position.
June 21 2009 / 2:37 pm
Reply
Fuster. Please check your Military chain of command. They are not under the Senate nor the Congress.
And the members of the Military (especially those on Active Duty) are ALWAYS under Military Protocol. ALWAYS. /sigh
June 21 2009 / 3:09 pm
Reply
Don, yes the officer is required to conform to military protocol and can not do less than that requires, but he, in this setting, can be made to conform to a more stringent standard.
I did not mean that he was militarily subordinate. I meant that he was subordinate in the sense that any person testifying is subordinate to a member of a judicial panel before which that person is required to offer testimony
June 21 2009 / 11:16 pm
Reply
“Mat, you brilliant dude. Upstate NY, without NYC, has about enough money to last through a long weekend.”
Spoken like a true twit. Most of the money that upstate makes goes downstate for all of the giveaway programs. I think I’m in a position to know, but thanks anyway.
“We can agree to look down on California and the barrel scrapings that it sends onto the national political stage.”
That’s a prize understatement, but I should probably warn you that California’s situation is a canary in the birdcage for the rest of the country.
“We have the folks from California to thank for the two most criminal presidential administrations of the last century.”
Hmmm…would that be Nixon and Reagan? Wow, how…er, original. Didn’t really see that coming…(rolling eyes). Nixon, of course, but Reagan? Please. Tell you what, you can have those two if you add Clinton (lying under oath) and Obama (centralizing the executive power).
June 22 2009 / 7:53 am
Reply
Fuster:
I seems you lack some basic knowledge. The military of the United States is a part of the executive branch of goverment in the republican form of government set up by the constitution. It is directly supervised by the Depatment of Defense — a cabinet level department of the executive branch. As such the military is not suborninate to the other branches of government.
Within the military, there are certain military courtesies observed by military members. To give the readers digest version of this you use the rank in written communication — Dear General Smith –, introdcutions to others and or in greetings — Good morning General. However, you use Sir or Ma’am in conversation. An example combining two of these might be “Good morning General Smith, you wished to see me, sir?”
June 22 2009 / 10:21 am
Reply
Mat, try to think back and remember the number of officials of the Reagan administration, including cabinet-level, officials convicted of felonies, fired or forced to resign. Was it about twenty or thirty or more?
June 22 2009 / 10:41 am
Reply
We have the folks from California to thank for the two most criminal presidential administrations of the last century.
Obama and Clinton?
June 22 2009 / 12:19 pm
Reply
fuster,
“Mat, try to think back and remember the number of officials of the Reagan administration, including cabinet-level, officials convicted of felonies, fired or forced to resign. Was it about twenty or thirty or more?”
No more than any other administration, it seems. Every one has some bad apples. 20 or 30? I somehow doubt it. Even your Messiah has some real “winners.”
But I digress. I see that you didn’t really argue my selections as “criminal” administrations. You ask for proof and every time I provide it, you sidestep it. Typically liberal.
June 22 2009 / 12:59 pm
Reply
Mat, more than thirty. Look it up. Firings, forced resignations and sixteen officials convicted. You find that only the Nixon administration is comparable.
I can’t sidestep your assertions about the Obama administration because it’s, as yet, baseless.
June 22 2009 / 1:09 pm
Reply
Clinton – 47 (and that’s not counting the ones that have fled the country and ones that are dead) (it also doesn’t count the criminals that are still serving in the Congress, because no AG will go after them for fear of their own job and well-being)
June 22 2009 / 1:25 pm
Reply
Dave, give me some info on the Clinton 47. What does that 47 mean?
June 22 2009 / 1:32 pm
Reply
# Whitewater:
* AK Gov. Jim Guy Tucker – fraud felony convictions – 3 counts (Tucker resigned facing impeachment)
* Jim McDougal – fraud and conspiracy felony convictions – 18 counts
* Susan McDougal – felony – 4 counts (pardoned during Clinton’s last minute pardongate payoffs)
* William J. Marks Sr – conspiracy
* Stephen Smith – conspiracy
* Larry Kuca – Fraud
* Neal Ainley – 2 misdemeanors for embezzlement
* David Hale – guilty plea – conspiracy
* Chris Wade – felony – Whitewater real-estate investor
* John Haley – recent! 1998 on fraud
* Robert Palmer – felony for conspiracy
* Charles Matthews – guilty plea for bribery
* Eugene Fitzhugh – Whitewater – bribery
* Webster Hubbell – #2 ranking Justice Dept. Official – felony for embezzlement and fraud
* John Latham – CEO of Madison Bank – bank fraud
# Campaign Finance:
* Johnny Chung – Clinton cronie – felony guilty plea – funneling money from China
* Gene Lum – convicted – felony for money laundering for the DNC
* Nora Lum – convicted – felony for money laundering for the DNC
* Howard Glicken – guilty plea – 2 midemeanors – funneling foreign donations
* Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie – guilty plea – illegal Clinton campaign donations
* John Huang – Clinton cronie – felony guilty plea – funneling money from China
Now, those are the major ones and just took me about 45 seconds to find. You’ll have to figure out the REST yourself. Oh yeah, that number is actually not the final, because there are still some out there WAITING because they have fled the country.
And that doesn’t even include the FBI files “mysteriously” missing and where they were found.
June 22 2009 / 1:43 pm
Reply
Dave, how many of these people were serving in the administration? Cronies, pinochle-partners, or people that Clinton stood next to on the elevator don’t really say anything about the criminality of the administration.
A list of the guys that Reagan was associated with and who were also convicted of crimes would run long, but wouldn’t represent the administration.
June 22 2009 / 1:48 pm
Reply
Did I count wrong, or was your total 2 administration members?
June 22 2009 / 1:56 pm
Reply
Works both ways Fuster, even though you can’t seem to SEE it that way. You want to point out that ALL the Reagan ones were Best Buds for Life, and that in a Dem administration they weren’t. I call BS on that right away.
Double standards I guess are your forte since they appear in all your posts. If a Republican or Conservative does something (or an associate), then they MUST be bad and willingly and knowingly broke the law. But if Dem and Liberal do it, well they didn’t know them that well and weren’t in the behind the scenes and are clearly not linked in anyway.
And don’t think that I’m defending any wrong doing by anyone of either party, but don’t claim one is “better” because even though he LOST his law license (because, why? He BROKE the law) and the wimps in the Senate couldn’t follow the Constitution and impeach him – and compare that to political witch hunts and “after the fact interpretations” charges.
June 22 2009 / 2:04 pm
Reply
Dave, we agree about law breaking and not defending those who break the law.
However, my point (somewhere way back) was about people in the administration who were engaging in criminal activity during the administration. That’s all that I was pointing to and that’s all that on the list of 16 convicted and thirty or so forced out of office.
I started this pretty much as a continuation of somebody’s joke about California, and nothing more. You folks started jumping on it and blew it up IIRC.
June 22 2009 / 2:10 pm
Reply
It’s not a “joke” to allude that an Administration that is on the opposite side of the aisle than you are is “the most” corrupt, when there is ample of evidence to show otherwise. I find it funny how Lib’s “jokes” tell us more about them, than what they “think” they mean when they type it.
June 22 2009 / 2:18 pm
Reply
Dadgummit, Dave, if you want to keep going, then show the evidence that other administrations were as or more corrupt than Reagan’s. Clinton’s admin doesn’t come close to RRs
June 22 2009 / 2:37 pm
Reply
Fust – I showed you just SOME of them. Again, just because you don’t want to BELIEVE the facts, doesn’t make them all-of-the-sudden non-facts.
And just to bring this up to date – how many of the OB Appointee’s from the Clinton Administration seem to have “forgotten” to pay their taxes? But isn’t that against the law?
June 22 2009 / 2:43 pm
Reply
Dave, you posted a list or people, not administration members. Your bs list includes people who were investors, friends, associates, and even a guy who was a political rival of Clinton’s.
That’s a pile of crap, not a list of administration crimes and it’s not a matter of my believing in the list, it’s just a stupid damn list for the purpose in which you’re trying to use it.
Here, read this stuff. It’s from some site that I don’t know and looks like a guy with a left-leaning grudge, but it’s better than that list you copied.
http://www.bartcop.com/convictions.htm
This guy is not being fair to your side, but he’s got the numbers.
June 22 2009 / 3:27 pm
Reply
DaveR,
Just ignore fuster. He’s just the latest lefty troll (I suppose he’s a replacement for Glynn and Mr. Chuckles) that’s decided to habit this blogsite. You can send facts (your listing was priceless) ’till you’re blue in the face and he/she will never accept it.
The only goal for these people is to screw around and it’s increasingly obvious that this person is one of them (probably sent by DailyKos).
June 22 2009 / 3:43 pm
Reply
Nope, Mat. Send facts, I’ll argue facts. Have never seen Daily Kos.
June 22 2009 / 4:19 pm
Reply
Actually, he’s more than likely a member of one of the MSM’s surfing blog sites and comments from Conservatives to “catch” that ticking time bomb so they can “report” it first.
I run across them on every site. They are fun to play with though, I will admit.
June 22 2009 / 8:23 pm
Reply
Dave,
True, but they get extremely boring after a while. The conversation eventually turns into “I know you are, but what am I?” I’d much rather have a rational discourse about things than dealing with liberal children.