Wednesday, January 26, 2005

 

Perceptions, portrayals and a bit of etymology thrown in.

Commenter "Alex" refers to Barbara Boxer's "rhetoric" as "shrill (and) hysterical".

I'm not sure if that's his genuine perception, or if it's a portrayal. I didn't find her speech before the senate floor even the slightest bit shrill. Just to be sure, here's the definition of "shrill":
1. High-pitched and piercing in tone or sound: the shrill wail of a siren.
2. Producing a sharp, high-pitched tone or sound: a shrill fife.
3. Sharp or keen to the senses; harshly vivid: shrill colors.

I honestly thought Senator Boxer's tone was measured and modulated to carry well. She never raised her voice, and the pitch was a comfortable level to listen to. I'd advise "Alex" to go and listen again. That's being generous, because I don't think he listened at all. Oh, he may have heard, but he didn't let it sink in, didn't think about what was being said.

I do know this; "shrill" is almost always used to describe women, not men.

*eyebrow up*

Continuing along those lines, let's take a close look at "hysterical".

From "hysteria":

1. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
2. A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause.

I'm completely baffled. Senator Boxer was controlled, on point, and clearly fearless in being the first person to stand up to Condi's record of falsehoods. She showed no signs of excitation, her memory of Condi's very words was precise and accurate, and she seemed to be in full possession of her wits.

I think "Alex's" use of the word hysterical becomes a bit clearer when we remember that hysteria is related to hysterectomy.

At one time, it was common to remove the uterus as a cure for hysteria. This is a word that also has a very feminine connotation.

Is "Alex" being sexist? Without more input from him, I can't say for sure. But he's using words with an established history of sexism.

Her points were valid. They were well documented. They were presented in a clear, restrained and straightforward manner. But to some folks, any woman speaking truth to power is automatically shrill and hysterical, not matter how right she is.

Comments:
Don't get so offended by the terms "shrill" and "hysterical." If you'd prefer, I'll call Senator Boxer's antics exactly what they are: grandstanding to further her fundraising efforts.

What other reason would there be for Boxer and Kennedy and the rest of the 13 "no" votes to grandstand the way they did, when everyone took it as a foregone conclusion that Rice would be confirmed?

Note to Democrats and liberals: we just had an election that was basically a referendum on the Iraq war and teh administration's response to terrorism, and the Bush administration's conduct thereof. And guess what - YOU LOST!!!!

Liberals' continuous infantile intimations like those proffered by Boxer that the Bush administration constantly "lied" before the Iraq war are contrary to fact and common sense.

No, of course things weren't as the administration thought they would be when we entered Iraq.

But how come no liberal ever has any answer for the fact that Bill Clinton, John Kerry, the UN, Russia, France, and the rest of the world thought that Saddam Hussein had WMDs?

The question was never whether or not Saddam had WMDs, but what were we going to do about a situation that everyone thought existed? What were we going to do about someone who shot at our planes in the no-fly zones, tried to assassinate a president, invaded foreign countries, and who routinely tortured, killed and gassed his own people, and, to boot, who the whole world thought had WMDs? And who, it turns out, was making billions off of the Oil-for-Food scam?

That liberals like Boxer, Kennedy et al would not have changed course at all speaks volumes as to why Kerry lost and why Democrats lost even more seats in Congress. Until Democrats get serious about national security, they will stay in the minority for a LONG time.

So you can talk about Senator Boxer's "truth" all you want. I'll call her, a la Bill O'Reilly (he shouldn't have denied it), a "nut". Her attitude, and that of Kennedy, Harkin and the others, says all one needs to know about why the Democrats are out of the White House and out of power.

P.S. (Oh, by the way, if you'd like to return the favor and post your own nasty comments about my blog, please do so - I actually enjoy this stuff:
alexthelonewolf.blogspot.com).
 
Yeussh.

"Her points were valid." One only has to look at the Congressional Record to see what was voted upon when the Authorization of Force was agreed to by the Senate, and one would plainly see that WMD was clearly NOT the only justification to drop the gloves with Iraq.

"They were well documented." See item above. Boxer has a tough time with things like the past coming up to bite her in the butt (see Checks, Bouncing).

"They were presented in a clear, restrained and straightforward manner." Senator Boxer's first question in the Judiciary Committee hearing was an oration - not a question - that took more than her entire allotted time, and on several instances directly challenged the integrity of Dr. Rice.

"But to some folks, any woman speaking truth to power is automatically shrill and hysterical, not matter how right she is." Are you talking about Dr. Rice or Senator Boxer? How many times has Senator Boxer been proven dead wrong about facts in her career in the Senate and in the Congress? How many times has she been proven to be "taking both sides of an issue" (remember Robert Packwood)?

And so, when the press calls her on her statement and activity in the committee, what does she do? She turns around on Wolf Blitzer's show and plays the victim card: "I gave Dr. Rice many opportunities to address specific issues. Instead, she said I was impugning her integrity..." Note that this was after a better-than-ten-minute peroration, going over her allotted time, with the only opportunity for Dr. Rice to correct or contravene being after Boxer had dumped on her.

Truth to Power, indeed.

However, I believe Boxer would be a fabulous Presidential candidate. Hell, put SanFranNan on the ticket with her. First, we could see if the two really do exist independently of each other, and second it would result in another well-deserved 49-state ass-kicking.

Oops, I meant donkey-kicking. My bad.
 
Holy O Crap you sure get the wacked out commenters here!! I don't think little alexie needed to tell us all he likes showing his ass though, that was readily apparent. And you won't need to ever worry about hearing of him injured in combat either because it's damn unlikely he'd ether serve his country. That kind never do.
 
Alex,

Have you ever read the IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION?

Have you ever wondered if the UN, Russia, and France knew there wasn't enough of a threat to let loose war on the region?

Have you ever noticed that many of our "coalition" were offered financial incentives by the US to join in this venture? Or that, since it has not turned out as promised they are leaving the "coalition?"

Please think for yourself and not spew predigested rhetoric.
 
Scaramouche - You're onto me. Rupert Murdoch tells me what to think every day, for otherwise I wouldn't have an independent thought in my head. Yes, that's the ticket.

I suspect that, even in many liberals' heart of hearts, they're glad that a Republican is in charge of national security. There must be a reason that Bush, despite the onslaught of Michael Moore, Bush lied et al., improved his % vote totals in 45 of 50 states over 2000. Even my mother, who voted for Kerry, told me that she wasn't too upset that Bush won because he and the Republicans are the only serious option on national security.

Or, maybe there's another explanation. Maybe the vast right wing conspiracy cast irreversible spells on millions of Americans that somehow forced them to watch Fox News, read the New York Post and the Washington Times, and turned them into automatons who post on blogs and have the temerity to expose the ludicrous nature of liberal dogma. Yes, that's it.
 
Oh, and "terrible" - Unfortunately, no, I've never served in the military. I went to high school and came of age in theearly 1990's, when we were all under the illusion that this was a peaceful world and that there was nothing to worry about after the fall of the Soviet Union.

But sometimes I regret never representing my country. And if I were growing up today, you bet your a*s I'd have joined the Marines or another branch of the armed forces after high school, to protect unappreciative spoiled brat liberals who do nothing but talk about how much the United States sucks when this is the greatest country on the planet and the greatest, freest nation in the history of this world (does it make you queasy to read that?)
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?