I was reading the editorials in today's Omaha World-Herald, a paper whose editors frequently make Attila the Hun look like a reasonable person, when the following (reproduced in its entirety) caught my eye:
It was a strange scene when U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer of California cried foul during a recent congressional hearing. Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh referred to her as "ma'am" during his testimony, and she pointedly directed him to refer to her as "Senator."
In this age when a traditionalist mind-set sometimes collides awkwardly with a progressive one, the term "ma'am" has become an oddly divisive term in certain situations.
To many progressives such as Sen. Boxer, the term evidently is a symbol of retrograde thinking, a throwback to the day when married women went dutifully by their husband's name ("Mrs. John Smith").
To Gen. Walsh on the other hand, the term "ma'am" was merely one common in formal military usage.
In any case, the general's intention clearly was to show respect. By no means did he deserve such a hard-edged, public reprimand.
Although the taste of self-righteousness was no doubt satisfying to Sen. Boxer, it is excessive for a U.S. senator to make such a show of taking offense when obviously none was intended.
On such matters, the senator should beware of leaping to be so judgmental. It would help if she would raise her consciousness and devote more energy to appreciating cultural diversity.
There are so many errors of logic in this that it is difficult for me to know where to begin. One thing I will admit up front: I did not see the hearing in question, so I have no idea whether the World-Herald editor's description of the event is even accurate.
Is it possible that Sen. Boxer had, at some point prior [either before the proceedings began or earlier during them--Ed.] politely asked the general not to use "ma'am" and he ignored her request, which caused her to make the more pointed comments she made (presuming the editorial recounting is correct)?
Is it possible that the editor's description of the incident is not totally accurate? One person's upbraiding is another's mild request--especially when it's a woman speaking to a man.
What would the World-Herald editor have said if the tables were turned? I have had the personal experience of being excoriated by a judge for calling him "sir" instead of "Your Honor." But the judge was an older, white, male, in charge of the proceedings, and I was merely a participant, the child and spouse of career Air Force members, trying my darnedest to be polite, but getting the protocol wrong. No one thought the judge was out of line. Maybe Sen. Boxer wasn't, either.
How does the World-Herald editor know that "no disrespect was intended"? Did the editor call the general and ask? Words reduced to writing and descriptions of events (once reduced to paper) have an odd habit of sounding neutral. Why, this is the very stuff of diplomacy, to say the meanest thing in the nicest way, so that the other diplomats get the point but the general public does not. The editor was awfully quick to ascribe noble motives to the general and evil ones to Sen. Boxer. Maybe she didn't intend any disrespect, either, but she just wasn't as subtle about making her point as the general apparently was in making his.
Besides, even though "ma'am" is a term "common in formal military usage," the general was not in a military setting. In this country, the civilian authority controls the military. Hasn't the World-Herald editorial staff ever heard of "When in Rome, do as Romans do"? He was testifying before Congress. Yes, he is a military officer speaking in his official capacity. But he is speaking to his employers, the American people, via their elected civilian representatives. His military duty is to show them the respect THEY expect, not force them to accept his version of same.
Of course, the key to the entire snide little piece is the use of the word "evidently." Using it lets the editor ascribe all sorts of nasty motives to Sen. Boxer, yet deny nefarious purpose because the editor was only "speculating." He doesn't really know. Since many people do not read editorials with the skeptical care they should, they forget the "evidently" and go on about their lives believing that Sen. Boxer is a bad, bad, bad--liberal--bad, bad human being. Even if that's not "technically" what the editorial said.
The editor even got careless: "married women went dutifully by their husband's name"? Unless the World-Herald offices are a hotbed of fundamentalist Mormonism, it should have said "married women went dutifully by their husbands' names." Good grief! The World-Herald could use some better copy editors.
Not to mention that the closing line about "cultural diversity" is entirely irrelevant, and contradictory to the main point of the editor's comments. He was defending the use of traditional terminology by a traditional wielder of power against the exercise of a protest to same by a female, non-traditional wielder of power--who actually was the one in charge in that situation. The only cultural diversity the World-Herald seems to accept is the cultural diversity of white males.
The World-Herald editorial staff could do much worse than to take its own advice: "Although the taste of self-righteousness was no doubt satisfying . . ., it is excessive . . . to make such a show of taking offense when obviously none was intended. On such matters, [one] should beware of leaping to be so judgmental."
You may ask me why, when it exasperates me so much, I continue to read the World-Herald's editorial tripe. All I can say is, "keep your friends close--but keep your enemies closer."
Still, I may have to quit reading the paper in any event. I don't know how much more of its official hypocrisy and stupidity my blood pressure can stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment