I hate to start a new thread, but I need to rant.

Manic Moran

This is something that I would ordinarily just append to an existing thread, but I can't seem to find a general political rant thread to append to right now. So, I'll open this up.

Rant about your favourite politician here. Barbara Boxer just hit the top of my rant list.

She's in a hearing yesterday, a General Officer is answering her questions. She asks a question, he starts his response with 'Ma'am,' the regulation term in the military for a senior of the female persuasion. (i.e. female of 'Sir').

She interrupts: "Do me a favor. Could say 'Senator' instead of 'Ma'am' It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, thank you."

Heaven forbid that the General worked hard at all to make his rank, and that she did not do him the courtesy that she was demanding for herself.

NTM

jank

Well he was in a civilian formal setting not a military one so imo she was quite right to interrupt.

Would the general have called another male senator "sir"?
Did she call him "general"?

Its just protocol.

Overheal

We have a Ranting and Raving forum that I discovered recently

But while I'm at it, check out papa bear on his talking points yesterday

"A study by the Pew(sp?) research center said flat out that Fox News had the MOST BALANCED COVERAGE in the US 2008 Presidential Election...inthecablenewsworld"

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/

Nevermind NBC, CBS, The CW (UPN + WB), DuMont, PBS, MyNetworkTV, and Parent Network FOX, which are all Broadcast Networks.

Manic Moran

jank wrote: »

Would the general have called another male senator "sir"?

Yes. Generally speaking, "Sir/Ma'am" is a statement of deference. Titles are used when discussing people in the third person, or when addressing a junior. (Or when being patronising to a superior). I call my officers "Lieutenant". My officers call me "Sir." If I were to address the President were I in uniform, I would say 'Sir'. I similarly said 'Sir' when meeting Prince Edward in uniform. It is considered good form to acknowledge a senior position the first time (Eg say "General" or "Mr President" first, then "Sir" any time afterwards), not mandatory, but at that point in the proceedings, the interruption came in the middle of questioning.

Did she call him "general"?

Not when she interrupted him. She didn't say 'Sir' or 'excuse me' either. It would generally be correct for her to use the title 'General' instead of 'Sir' given the presumption that she is senior. (Technically, Senators are not in the military chain of command, but deference to them is given as a courtesy)

Its just protocol.

It is.

NTM

silverharp

it obviously got up someone elses nose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHFPsiPYDA8

Victor

Parliamentary protocol dictates that one should refer to someone's title, not anything else, so you have "Ceann Comhairle, if I could speak on ...." or "I believe the honary member from Luton East" or "Minister Smith", "Senator Jones", "Deputy Murphy" or at council level is Mayor, Councillor and Manager, not Sir, Madam, Mister, Robert, Bob, Bobby, Bubs, Murph, "that b*****" or "that blue-shirt ****". As Major Winters told Captain Sobel in Band of Brothers, when the captain did not slaute him, "Captain, you salute the rank, not the man."

The General started it, the Senator was merely making a point.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

"A study by the Pew(sp?) research center said flat out that Fox News had the MOST BALANCED COVERAGE in the US 2008 Presidential Election...inthecablenewsworld"

Something smells in that report?

Manic Moran

Victor wrote: »

As Major Winters told Captain Sobel in Band of Brothers, when the captain did not slaute him, "Captain, you salute the rank, not the man."

And did Major Winters not give Captain Sobel the respect of returning the salute?

If she is egotistical enough to demand that she hear her title when the 'rules' do not require it ("Sir" is good enough for the President in the US, so it should be (and is) plenty good enough for Senators) then that's fair enough. She can do so, and we can laugh at her. But when she makes the demand without returning the respect by addressing the General as "General", or "Sir" (Which I would submit to be inappropriate given the courtesy deference given by the military to the elected representatives), let alone not apologising for the interruption, that becomes outright wrong.

There is a story of a commander walking by a lieutenant's office, the door was open, and there was an enlisted soldier repeatedly saluting. He asked what was going on, and the LT informed the CO that "Private Snuffy failed to salute me. So I'm having him salute me one hundred times as remedial training." CO then informs the LT that the LT now owes Private Snuffy one hundred salutes as respect must go both ways. It may be an apocyphal story, but the underlying theme is valid. I would never correct a soldier for failing to follow protocol (eg standing to attention when addressing me or calling me 'sir') without doing him the respect of using his title. He may only be a private, but he earned that rank.

NTM

LostinKildare

Barbara Boxer is really tiny -- 4'11. Maybe she has a Napoleon Complex.

Seriously, she asked the general to call her by her title. Men do that all the time.

What a bunch of crybabies the Republicans have become since they lost the ball.

Manic Moran

Men do that all the time.

When was the last time I asked to be addressed as "Captain"?

When was the last time a male senator asked to be addressed as "Senator" instead of "Sir"?

What a bunch of crybabies the Republicans have become since they lost the ball.

This incident has since hit the mainstream media, I caught it on NBC. Even on DemocraticUnderground she's taking flak for it. She was egotistical (acceptable, but open to poking) and not respectful (not acceptable). Unlike her California cohort, DiFi, Boxer is no respecter of the military. She may even think the General works for her.

NTM

Manic Moran

Today's "No Sense of Humour" award goes to California's Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg.

After The Governator called the Democratic party's latest budget proposal 'hallucinatory', Steinberg sent him some mushrooms.

To return the favour, the Governator, saying that the Democrats need some balls and have to make some tough choices to keep California's budget woes under some form of control, sent Steinberg a sculpture of bulls' testicles.

Steinberg was not amused, and returned the gift with a scolding note about the Governator not respecting the seriousness of the negotiations.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31443342/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

NTM

Lockstep

Do you vote Republican NTM?
From the posts of yours I've seen, you seem especially critical of the Democrats.

Overheal wrote: »

We have a Ranting and Raving forum that I discovered recently

But while I'm at it, check out papa bear on his talking points yesterday

"A study by the Pew(sp?) research center said flat out that Fox News had the MOST BALANCED COVERAGE in the US 2008 Presidential Election...inthecablenewsworld"

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/

Nevermind NBC, CBS, The CW (UPN + WB), DuMont, PBS, MyNetworkTV, and Parent Network FOX, which are all Broadcast Networks.

Didn't Fox take a case against Al Franken for his satire of "Fair and balanced"? The prosecution opened with
" we have x amount of subscribers..."
Judge; "I recieve Fox as part of my basic cable. Does this make me a subscriber?
Prosecution ".....yes..."

Manic Moran

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Do you vote Republican NTM?
From the posts of yours I've seen, you seem especially critical of the Democrats.

Depends on the election and the subject matter. I'm a registered Independent and do not vote party lines. In past elections I have placed checks next to Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians. Before the Primaries, my preferred candidate for President was one of the Democrat contendors, though I did end up voting for McCain as a preference over Obama.

I come across as pro-Republican on here, I think, for two reasons. Firstly, given that there are plenty enough other people on here to jump on Republican failings, there's not much more for me to add on that bandwagon, and I like playing Devil's Advocate. Secondly, on some of the subjects I feel most strongly about, the current Democratic Leadership and my local crowd here in California are diametrically opposed to the positions I hold.

NTM

Lockstep

I'm interested in hearing your opinion on the following, given that most Americans I know are biased towards one of the partys;

Policywise, what would view as the strengths and weaknesses of the Republicans/Democrats/Libertarians?

Manic Moran

I don't know if I consider the parties to have strengths or weaknesses. They just have various policies with which I either agree or disagree.

I would even wonder if one shouldn't consider 'deficiency' vs 'weakness.' For example, I don't like the way that both parties tend to pander to their more extreme wings. That's not a weakness per se, as they do draw a lot of strengths and votes, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good thing overall. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that the Democratic leadership has truly understood how dependant they are on the Blue Dogs, and I only hope that the Republicans have figured out that simply attacking character is no substitute for a viable policy statement.

On a personal level, I think the Democrats tend to be far too interfering in individual liberties and providing social services, I think the Republicans place far too much effort on trying to legislate their own morals on other people, and the Libertarians score well on the individual liberty side but fail miserably by failing to acknowledge many government services which (I think) really should be provided.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

They just have various policies with which I either agree or disagree.

Fair enough! Set party aside. So pick a policy we can fight over!:cool:

Manic Moran

Right now? Bicycle helmets.

The most bicycle-mad countries in the world (Notably Holland) do not have helmet laws. Yet in California, oh no. Heaven help any parent who should let their 17-year-old go out and about without a bicycle helmet.

It's for the Children!

NTM

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

On a personal level, I think the Democrats tend to be far too interfering in individual liberties and providing social services, I think the Republicans place far too much effort on trying to legislate their own morals on other people, and the Libertarians score well on the individual liberty side but fail miserably by failing to acknowledge many government services which (I think) really should be provided.

NTM

Thanks; exactly what I was looking for.

jank

Saw a clip on Hannity where he was giving out about San Francisco (the liberal capital of the World!:rolleyes:) where they were providing 3 different colored bins so that one can organize their waste into organic (red) recycle(green) and normal waste (black)...
So que Hannity "how dare they tell us what to do blah blah blah....another example of liberals interfering with our business... blah blah blah"

What a twat. It is these guys that are killing the GOP. I am telling ya, take half the fools of the air like rush and coulter etc. and the GOP can make a great comeback. But with the GOP with defacto leaders like rush then they will be a long time waiting to get back into power....

TBH I am just going to put my head in the sand for the next 8 years and see what obama and co do....they cant be any worse than Bush.

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

On a personal level, I think the Democrats tend to be far too interfering in individual liberties and providing social services, I think the Republicans place far too much effort on trying to legislate their own morals on other people

What civil liberties do you feel the Democrats intefere with? I'd imagine the 2nd Amendment is one.


Which of the policies that the Democrats/Republicans have do you consider beneficia;?

Manic Moran

kickoutthejams wrote: »

What civil liberties do you feel the Democrats intefere with? I'd imagine the 2nd Amendment is one.

I said 'individual liberties', not 'civil liberties.' (I think there's actually not much core difference on the civil liberties side between the two). See aforementioned bicycle helmet law for an example.

I believe that rights, liberties and responsibilities are all inter-related. Without the one, the others don't really exist. Yet every other month or so, I'll discover that California, wonderful Democrat stronghold that this has been for the last two decades plus, "has a law against that?"

Basically, it seems that my Democrat lawmakers don't trust us. They legislate against this, or for that, 'for our own good.' Not on moral grounds, like Republicans attempting to control abortion or same-sex marriage, those are simple opinions which you can at least respect for being opinions. Instead of individual responsibility, they seem to emphasise communal responsibility. I don't like that.

Which of the policies that the Democrats/Republicans have do you consider beneficial

Education (generally), lack of moral judgmentation of individuals for Democrats; defence, individual liberty and responsibility, reduced government spending for the Republicans. (Yes, I know about Bush's war debt, but wars are expensive and he didn't add many other subjects to the bill)
NTM

LostinKildare

Do you also object to laws that require the use of seatbelts and child safety seats in cars? What about smoke alarms?

Manic Moran

I think anyone with a lick of common sense should have a smoke alarm in their house, but mandates as a general principle are questionable. It all comes down to 'how do your actions affect anyone else.' I don't care if someone doesn't fit a smoke alarm and all their worldly posessions burn to the ground. They should have bloody fitted one. If they don't fit a smoke alarm, their house burns to the ground, but they're close enough to another house that that house burns to the ground, it's a concern worthy of legislation.

Basically I believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves, as opposed to thinking as the default position that people are utterly incapable of taking care of themselves and mandating everything. Governments should only get involved when your actions start to notably affect other people. It's my libertarian streak.

NTM

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think anyone with a lick of common sense should have a smoke alarm in their house, but mandates as a general principle are questionable. It all comes down to 'how do your actions affect anyone else.' I don't care if someone doesn't fit a smoke alarm and all their worldly posessions burn to the ground. They should have bloody fitted one. If they don't fit a smoke alarm, their house burns to the ground, but they're close enough to another house that that house burns to the ground, it's a concern worthy of legislation.

Basically I believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves, as opposed to thinking as the default position that people are utterly incapable of taking care of themselves and mandating everything. Governments should only get involved when your actions start to notably affect other people. It's my libertarian streak.

NTM

So your threshold is whether one's action (or failure to act) potentially harms others -- doesn't that extend to whether the act/non-act compromises the well-being of one's own children? It's not just about your neighbors, is it? What if you have children sleeping in that smoke-alarm-free house?

I don't agree that such legislation amounts to taking a "default position that people are utterly incapable of taking care of themselves and mandating everything." Minors have to be protected by the state from known risks if their parents don't have, as you say, "a lick of common sense." Yes parents have a moral responsiblity to care for their children, but we all know that they don't always live up to it. Hence all kinds of child protection laws.

There are a lot of statistics on fatalities and head injuries for people wearing helmets vs. not wearing helmets, so yes this is a well known risk.
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2007/bicycles.html

http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm


Like I said, do you support laws mandating child safety seats in cars? Most people do I believe. How is that essentially different from bike helmet laws for children?

And re wearing safety belts, should laws requiring their use apply only to minors, and not to legal adults? Or to no one? (No neighbors harmed in your fatal car accident that killed you and all your children, that is)

Manic Moran

What if you have children sleeping in that smoke-alarm-free house?

All the more reason for any intelligent person to fit a smoke alarm. Parents are legally responsible for their kids. Again, I point out to my belief that freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand. Taking your analysis to the logical conclusion, why even let parents, the untrained and uncertified people that they are, even take care of kids? They should be handed in to the custody of the professionals of the State, where they can be wrapped in bubble-wrap and kept in clean-room conditions. At some point for everyone, it becomes the dividing point between the State's problem and the parents' problem. My perspective is that it should be the parents' problem far longer.

There are a lot of statistics on fatalities and head injuries for people wearing helmets vs. not wearing helmets, so yes this is a well known risk.

If it's that well-known, then let the parents make the decision for themselves. You'll see the odd kid wearing a helmet in Holland. That's up to them to decide, they seem to be doing well enough.

Like I said, do you support laws mandating child safety seats in cars? Most people do I believe. How is that essentially different from bike helmet laws for children?

I will support awareness campaigns. I may even support some form of incentives like tax breaks. For example, US Congress has recently passed laws requiring cars to make an average of 35mpg at some point. Frankly, I want the choice of buying a fuel-sucking sports car like my current Audi. But the two disincentives are the cost of gas in itself, and the fact that I had to pay a 'Gas Guzzler' charge which was about half as much again as the overall sales tax on the car. Don't ban the things, leave me to work out the cost/benefit analysis on my own.

Besides, fewer laws means fewer things that the police need to remember chapter and verse. The California Penal Code is the size of the Bible. Part of the problem I encounter with police is that they just don't know the details of the laws they're trying to enforce. Keep it simple. And that's not to mention even the problems of being a citizen trying to stay within the law. We can't know Municipal code, county code, State code and Federal code. We're all routinely breaking laws in complete innocence that we have no idea that we're breaking, and, of course, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

And re wearing safety belts, should laws requiring their use apply only to minors, and not to legal adults?

Given that seat belts can retain a driver in their seat and aid in their keeping control of the vehicle, there is a fair argument in their favour to avoid accidents which may affect others.

NTM

LostinKildare

Your answer to my question

Like I said, do you support laws mandating child safety seats in cars?

is this?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I will support awareness campaigns. I may even support some form of incentives like tax breaks.

Seriously? You think awareness campaigns and tax breaks should take the place of laws that require that babies and children be restrained in car seats?

Your dogma is getting in the way of common sense. In your libertarian fantasy world all adults are well educated, with access to all available information that allows them to make well informed, thoughtful, responsible decisions for their children. In reality lots of parents are poorly educated and/or irresponsible, and the state has to require parents to protect their children from risks of death and grievous harm because many parents neglect to do so on their own.

I can't understand why you think the state can/should step in when an individual's actions threaten "others," but not when that "other" is the individual's own child. Is a child not equally deserving of protection from harm?

Manic Moran

In reality lots of parents are poorly educated and/or irresponsible, and the state has to require parents to protect their children from risks of death and grievous harm because many parents neglect to do so on their own

There has to be a line somewhere. Is there a law requiring three-foot-high fences around swimming pools and ponds in people's back yards? (280 children under five in one year in the US for pools and spas) Is there one requiring that kitchen knives be stored in child-proof drawers? They can't even force a parent to have a child vaccinated. There is no law saying that plastic bags cannot be kept in low cabinets, though the kid may suffocate himself with one. The State cannot mandate away every danger, it cannot remove from the adults the responsibilities inherent in parenthood, nor should it try. Instead of having a parent following a policy which turns into "It's not illegal, so it must be safe", it should be a policy of "think about the benefits and detrements of your choices"

Instead of adding line after line to the Penal Code in a futile attempt to protect kids from everything which may be dangerous, which people should be doing anyway, maybe the legislature should focus its efforts onto doing things like, I don't know, balancing the budget?

NTM

Victor

Safety protocol dictates removing the dangerous things first. Personal protective equipment should be a last line of defence.

Cycling helmet laws make little sense as they are only suitable for protecting people who have fallen off their bike, not people who have been run over by trucks (a leading cause of cyclist fatalities).

In the 19th century, railway workers used to be killed in their hundreds every year in the UK. Not because they did something particularly dangerous, but because the systems used were inherently dangerous. The railway companies didn't want to address the underlying cause, e.g. lack of safety guards on moving parts, because it would cost money. Instead they went for much cheaper education. It saved lives, but not enough. Current safety policy on roads is centred on 3 "E"s - education, enforcement and engineering (although other issues are being added like review of existing systems, research, etc.)

In the case of of fire alarms, in Ireland all new houses must have 3 detectors (2 smoke and 1 heat?). If this was left to self regulation, builders and landlords would provide nothing. Fitting them at construction stage is much cheaper than retrofitting.

The primary means of protecting children should be through education (especially of new parents and the children). Given that commerce is reluctant to do this education, and the community sector doesn't have the skills or finance, it is the state's job to do so. I think its mostly for the parents to put the engineering in place (e.g. child locks on cupboard doors, safety gate on stairs), the state does, at some point need to be able to say "no, you have gone too far, beyond what society considers acceptable".

the untrained and uncertified people that they are, even take care of kids? They should be handed in to the custody of the professionals of the State,

A touch of Sir Humphrey about that, but I'm sure he'd agree that such a course of action would eb too expensive.

Reindeer

LostinKildare wrote: »

Your answer to my question
Your dogma is getting in the way of common sense. In your libertarian fantasy world all adults are well educated, with access to all available information that allows them to make well informed, thoughtful, responsible decisions for their children. In reality lots of parents are poorly educated and/or irresponsible, and the state has to require parents to protect their children from risks of death and grievous harm because many parents neglect to do so on their own.

I can't understand why you think the state can/should step in when an individual's actions threaten "others," but not when that "other" is the individual's own child. Is a child not equally deserving of protection from harm?

I think your statements make a lot of sense. You see, I grew up in a time where none of these laws were in effect. A Libertarian Fantasy, you might call it. And it was a wonderful world, full of freedom and life. No seat belt laws, and on some cars no seat belts were even provided. There were no specific requirements for sprinkler systems in local businesses. No helmet laws for motorcycle(and still aren't any for bikes, btw). And yet here I am, alive and well. I wasn't killed by another car, nor did my head explode when I fell off my bicycle.

In the past 30-40 years, across the 1st world globe, I have seen more and more laws restricting what one can and can't do. I have seen the government try to take the responsibility of common sense, child rearing, etc. away from it's citizens and place this upon itself. This is all at the expense of creating less responsible parenting, and a society of citizens that are either dependent upon the state for guidance, and have become more than happy to set aside any freedoms they might have and give them to the state(as our friend LostinKildare has done), or are simply not used to having to make decisions for themselves - having become dependant upon the government.

As LIK has shown, you are a product of your environment. When you are raised in a governmentally controlled nanny-state, you learn to live in that state. You become dependant on the government, and you can not imagine someone living outside of it. How many governments throughout history can we count that have thoroughly made their citizens dependant upon them that have also guaanteed their citizens freedom?

Ireland hasn't really tasted real freedom in such a long time, so I do not expect it's citizens to fully appreciate it. Most believe themselves to actually be free citizens to this day. Perhaps that is true when it comes to socialism. But it is not real freedom compared to that of the US. Once a populace is used to being coddled, they are not at all eager to leave the only nest they know. Most Europeans are used to all the governmental control, from the start of their lives, until they die.

When you take up a conversation with such a person, you waste both of your time. How can a socialist argue against the benefits and demerits of a society they have never enjoyed the essence thereof? MTM, not every Irishman is fortunate enough to spend as much time as you in the US and then to return home as most that live for a significant time in the US tend to stay there, if at all possible, due to the freedoms therein. LIK is Lost In Ireland still, and will forever be until they live the life and understand.

Reindeer

"Ma'am" in military doctrine is much different than it is in civilian life. Being as Boxer is ignorant, I can see her issues with it. In most military branches, you only address female officers as Ma'am, or persons outside of the military. Same goes with Mr and Sir - those are all addresses for officers.

What I found rude is Boxer requiring she be addressed as 'Senator' and then goes on to ignore the rank of the Brigadier General whom has dedicated his life to his country at a pay rate that is a small fraction of what that greedy sell-out of a woman makes. I don't recall her using the Brigadier Generals rank ever. Her duplicity in this instance is just a small taste of her overall duplicity in the senate.

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is something that I would ordinarily just append to an existing thread, but I can't seem to find a general political rant thread to append to right now. So, I'll open this up.

Rant about your favourite politician here. Barbara Boxer just hit the top of my rant list.

She's in a hearing yesterday, a General Officer is answering her questions. She asks a question, he starts his response with 'Ma'am,' the regulation term in the military for a senior of the female persuasion. (i.e. female of 'Sir').

She interrupts: "Do me a favor. Could say 'Senator' instead of 'Ma'am' It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, thank you."

Heaven forbid that the General worked hard at all to make his rank, and that she did not do him the courtesy that she was demanding for herself.

NTM

JumAPond

jank wrote: »

Well he was in a civilian formal setting not a military one so imo she was quite right to interrupt.

Would the general have called another male senator "sir"?
Did she call him "general"?

Its just protocol.

Civilian formal setting doesn't matter in this case. He was in uniform, in a government setting. The protocal/rules say "Sir/Ma'am" in that case.

In all reality, if you hold a title i.e. Senator, Dr., Major, etc and would like to be addressed as so...I'll respect that. The issue I had with this, as a US citizen, is the disrespectful way it came out and her lack of knowledge on the subject. Also, the second piece of the story that they talked after and both have respect for each other is a load of b.s. As a member of the military he has to "show respect" even if he doesn't, otherwise in a setting like he was in, he would most likely have seen an end to his career.