A would-be Republican challenger is trying to capitalize on Sen. Barbara Boxer's now infamous reprimand of a general for addressing her at a hearing as "Ma'am" instead of "Senator." According to Chuck DeVore, Boxer's dressing down of Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh of the Army Corps of Engineers reflected liberal contempt toward the armed forces and was just what you'd expect from a Vietnam War protester.

But you don't have to be a Republican to be appalled by Boxer's display of pique, which has become must-gag TV on YouTube. "Do me a favor," Boxer told Walsh at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "Could you say 'Senator' instead of 'Ma'am?' It's just a thing; I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it." To his credit, Walsh didn't reply: "Yeah, you did raise a lot of campaign contributions, Senator." Later, a Boxer aide said she and the general were pals.

Maybe, but Boxer had better forget about a campaign contribution from Miss Manners. As bloggers have pointed out, "Ma'am" is a term of respect comparable to "Sir," which is the way military officers address the president. It's also a contraction of "Madam," as in "Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton." (Walsh began his testimony by addressing Boxer as "Madam Chair.")  If "Ma'am" is good enough for the Queen of England, it ought to be good enough for Boxer. Yet it was the senator, not the monarch, who was not amused.

What's really galling about Boxer's snit is her refusal to give the general the benefit of the doubt. My mother taught her children that if someone knocks you over on a bus, assume it's an accident even if you suspect otherwise. There's no evidence that Walsh was deliberately belittling Boxer, but she flamed him anyway -- before TV cameras. That would be gauche even if Walsh were in the habit of referring to male senators by their proper title but not female senators. But Boxer didn't make that accusation.

Correcting the way someone addresses you almost always makes the other person uncomfortable. Reporters covering the Supreme Court cringed when the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist would correct a nervous lawyer who addressed him as just plain "Justice Rehnquist." Pointing out an error can be awkward even when you're demoting yourself -- which is why I no longer object to being called "Professor" by students who don't realize I'm a lowly adjunct instructor. Cardinal Newman (or maybe it was my mother) said that a gentleman never offends. Neither does a lady senator.

* Photo of Sen. Barbara Boxer by Rich Pedroncelli / AP

In Friday's Letters, more outrage about the proposed -- and rapidly rescinded -- raises for Assembly staffers in Sacramento.  Mary Cifuentes, of Glendale, sums up reader sentiment:

It is becoming more clear each day in California that politicians care only about themselves. It's also nice to know that after the news leaked about the pay raises, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Minority Leader Michael Villines thought they were a "mistake."

What kind of people are we electing? Are Bass and Villines aware that the unemployment rate has skyrocketed and most people feel lucky to even have a job? Everyone I know is worried about the future. Many companies have slashed pay, benefits and expenses.

Don't worry, Speaker Bass, we will suffer while you and your staff work to save this great state from ruin.

More on torture, Rep. Jane Harman's wiretapping scandal, campaign finance and presidential debate history, too.

Photo: Bass and Villines in November, 2008.  Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli.

In Wednesday's letters, Nancy Watkins of Lake Forest joins the chorus of animal lovers disappointed by the First Family's decision to adopt Bo, a purebred Portuguese water dog, instead of a shelter mutt.  She writes:

The Obamas have taken "limousine liberal" to a new level. They promised their daughters a puppy if they moved to the White House and, while they discussed rescuing a mutt, they in fact received a purebred Portuguese water dog from the Kennedy family, pledging instead to make a financial donation to the D.C. Humane Society.

The dog is absolutely adorable and has received worldwide media coverage, which will probably drive up demand for the breed exponentially.

What the Obamas have done is create a boon for breeders, while millions of equally adorable and sweet dogs suffer in shelters. They are role models for parents who recklessly promise pets to their children, creating even more shelter dogs. Shame on them.

In the meantime, others are already e-mailing in their frustration with the Bo backlash.  Bonnie Sloane, of Los Angeles, remarks this morning:

Regarding the kerfuffle over the Obama's family's choice of dog:  What a ridiculous waste of media attention.     

Adopting a dog is a family decision, not a fulfillment of a campaign pledge.   It's fine if the First Family chooses a rescue dog,  but these animals can have serious behavioral or health problems that not everyone is equipped to handle.   I assume the Obamas know their own pet needs better than we do.

I also recall that when our last three Republican Presidents -- Reagan, Bush I and Bush II -- chose purebred dogs, not a single protest was heard from the animal rights community.   Interesting.

Today's page also features three letters about Rosa Brooks' departure from the Opinion pages.  Most, but not all, of the correspondence we received was of the "good riddance" variety, including this note from James B. Davis of Beverly Hills:

I was overcome with tears of joy after reading the first sentence of Rosa Brooks' article last week: "This will be my last column for the L.A. Times." After suffering through her sanctimonious rants for years -- in particular her inability to write a single column without bashing former President George W. Bush -- I felt a great weight rise from my shoulders.

But then I read her second sentence: "After four years, I'll soon be starting a stint at the Pentagon as an advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy."

The Times will be better; the Pentagon will be worse. I guess we can't have it all.

Correspondence about HUD's dollar house programand Gil Cedillo's over-the-top spending habits, too.

Photo: Bo the dog meets the White House press corps.  Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

The Obama administration has abandoned the "war on terror" -- semantically, that is -- and author Reza Aslan says good riddance. In a pointed Op-Ed, Aslan argues that the phrase was counterproductive:

By lumping together the disparate forces, movements, armies, ideas and grievances of the greater Muslim world, from Morocco to Malaysia; by placing them in a single category ("enemy"), assigning them a single identity ("terrorist"); and by countering them with a single strategy (war), the Bush administration seemed to be making a blatant statement that the war on terror was, in fact, "a war against Islam."

That is certainly how the conflict has been viewed by a majority in four major Muslim countries -- Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia -- in a worldpublicopinion.org poll in 2007. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believe that the purpose of the war on terror is to "spread Christianity in the region" of the Middle East.

Also on the Op-Ed page, former Justice Department attorney David B. Rivkin Jr. bemoans the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to examine a West Virginia Supreme Court judge's refusal to recuse himself from a case involving his largest campaign contributor, and columnist Tim Rutten calls on the Los Angeles Unified School District to entrust its over-budget and behind-schedule arts campus downtown to a competent charter-school company.

On the other side of the Opinion divide, the Times editorial board again urges Washington to push Iraqi's Shiite-led government to reconcile with former Sunni insurgents. It shows little sympathy for former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), despite the prosecutorial misconduct that contributed to his defeat at the polls in November. And it calls on Sacramento to scrutinize why medical care costs in the workers' compensation system are rising so rapidly:

...[T]he mechanisms that insurers use to keep a lid on healthcare expenses are becoming increasingly expensive. And no wonder -- in the overhauled workers' comp system, more people are likely to review an injured worker's paperwork than his X-rays.

Credit: Anthony Russo For The Times

A California Supreme Court justice found the idea intriguing. So did the Times editorial board: To ensure equal marriage rights, the state of California could consider getting out of the marriage business altogether, performing and recognizing civil unions for all. People who want marriage could go to the church or other private group of their choice, and those churches or groups would be free to recognize only the marriages that fit within their beliefs.

Practically within moments after Justice Ming W. Chin posed that scenario to lawyers on both sides of the Proposition 8 debate, two college students from Studio City stepped into the fray. They received permission from the Secretary of State to circulate petitions for an initiative to do that very thing: Substitute "domestic partnership" for "marriage" in state law and while we're at it, undo Proposition 8. My first questions were of the more substantive sort, like, shouldn't we talk about this for awhile first? Would we be undoing the marriages of people who opted for a civil ceremony in earlier years and figured they were married good and proper? What would happen to joint tax filings for the federal government? And wouldn't "civil union" be a more acceptable term to voters than "domestic partnership"?

Then I read the proposed initiative in its entirety and realized that my worries might be a little premature. The real questions are, Just how easy is it to get permission to circulate petitions for an initiatives? Shouldn't the wording have to pass some sort of writing test?

The proposed measure calls for the term "marriage" to be removed from government legislation. The State of California's Law code would have "marriage" replaced with "domestic partnership," while the definition and rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide quality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect. Legally speaking, "Marriage" itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8."

Ali Shams, one of the two authors and a senior at UC San Diego, told me that he and pal Kaelan Housewright were operating via Facebook, though they would get an Internet page going soon, and were posting copies of the petition online in the hopes that volunteers would print them and collect 1.2 million signatures. The new faces of politics. At least they're involved in the process.

If only the state of California had thought to sell advertising for the Thursday morning screening, imagine the money it could have brought into the state budget. Surely one of the most highly rated shows from 9 a.m. to noon, whether on television or the Internet, will be the state Supreme Court's hearing of oral arguments on Proposition 8.

This is more than legal minds having it out for a few hours. The court might well indicate which way it's already leaning on the ban on same-sex marriage.

We'll be tuned in and logged on. Opinion L.A. will be posting commentary throughout the hearing, and welcoming your ongoing comments.

State Assembly members Mike Davis and Curren Price are among the eight candidates who met yesterday's filing deadline for the race to fill the state Senate vacancy left by Mark Ridley-Thomas.

The election is March 24. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's Office is still checking the nomination papers to determine whether all eight candidates complied with filing rules. The certification process then moves to the secretary of state in Sacramento.

Both Davis and Price are Democrats and were elected to the Assembly in 2006. Davis' 48th District includes a chunk of Koreatown, then covers a north-south swath of the city along, and to the west of, the Harbor Freeway. He's a former aide to Rep. Maxine Waters and former county Supervisor Yvonne Burke.

Price's 51st District includes Inglewood, where Price served on the City Council, and takes in Playa Vista in Los Angeles, all or parts of the cities of Hawthorne, Lawndale and Gardena, the community of Lennox and portions of Harbor Gateway.

The other candidates who returned nomination papers are Robert Cole, a member of the Los Angeles County Economy & Efficiency Commission; Saundra Davis, member of the Culver City school board; Mervin Leon Evans, an author, crisis consultant and perennial candidate; Jonathan Friedman, a financial analyst; Cindy Varela Henderson, a communications technician; and Nachum Shifren, an educator.

Henderson is a Peace and Freedom Party candidate. Shifren is a Republican. The rest are Democrats.

Under the rules of the "special primary," a candidate who gets more than 50% of the vote on March 24 wins the seat. If no one gets a majority, there will be a May 19 runoff -- more properly known as a special general election (no, really; I don't make this stuff up) between the top vote-getters of each party. In other words, Henderson and Shifren against the top Democrat.

* Photo of red-carpeted state Senate chamber by Robert Durrell / Los Angeles Times

There will be economic pain, at least in the short term, along with environmental gains as Califoirnia imposes steep new rules on diesel trucks, the editorial board warns. But the investment will pay off long-term in better health--and reduced public healthcare costs--as well as ultimately saving truckers some money on fuel:

When it comes to pollution, somebody always pays a price. Currently, the overwhelming majority of the costs are borne by the public. The air board estimates that the new rules will save 9,400 lives by 2025 and up to $68 billion in healthcare costs as cancer-causing emissions are reduced. Moreover, the fuel-efficiency requirements will ultimately save truckers money and help make up for the cost of the upgrades.

The board also offers President-elect Barack Obama advice on picking a new Education secretary: Someone who will keep the reform and accountability movement going, but be open to the many changes needed in the No Child Left behind Act.

On both sides of the fold, there is pondering on Obama's role in the allegations of pay-to-play surrounding Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich. The editorial board is glad that Obama came forward, if a bit belatedly, to address the issue in many Americans' minds about whether his administration was in any way involved. And op-ed columnist Doyle McManus writes that even though the early indications are that Obama's aides did nothing untoward in telling him the administration's preferences about the new senator the governor would appoint, these are always nervous times in case someone said something cringe-worthy:

At worst -- although we are not yet there -- the president-elect could even face calls to fire one of the aides he hoped to bring to the White House, merely for the appearance created by a conversation with Blagojevich in an era of high ethical standards.

Elsewhere on the op-ed page, Joel Stein frets about his status as a potential creditor of Sam Zell, and a human-rights advocate praises the San Diego man who lost his family when a military jet crashed into their home, for being honest about his pain and unwilling to give in to anger.

Blagojevich cartoon by Ed Hall/Artizans.com.

George Frey/Getty Images

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been emphatic about its role in the Proposition 8 campaign. Yes, it strongly urged its members to donate to the Yes on 8 campaign to repeal the right of same-sex couples to marry, as well as encouraging them to volunteer for the campaign. But the actual donations of time and money came from Mormons, not the church.

Gay-rights activist Fred Karger takes exception to that description, and now the state Fair Political Practices Commission is listening. Karger alleged that the church organized out-of-state phone banks to work on the campaign, and distributed thousands of the nearly-ubiquitous lawn banners as well as other campaign materials -- none of it reported as non-monetary contributions as the law would require.

The FPPC said it will investigate the allegations. If they're found to have merit, the church could be fined for each infraction.

The backlash isn't dying down so fast over the passage of Proposition 8, which gives signs of being one of those events that transform a group into a force. Proposition 8 has brought gays and their many supporters to a new level of anger and determination that the initiative's backers probably hadn't foreseen.

There are the ongoing protests, the legal challenges. There are the calls to boycott all things Mormon because the church strongly and successfully called on its members to donate and work for the Yes on 8 campaign, and even the movement to boycott all things Utah (including the Sundance Festival, hardly a bastion of social conservativism). And now a gay-rights group in Utah (not quite the oxymoron you might think) plans to use the words of the church itself to launch legislation there that would expand civil rights for gays.

In an apparent effort to soothe scorched feelings after the vote, Mormon Elder L. Whitney Clayton  said that in general, the church does not oppose civil unions and domestic partnerships created to extend equal benefits such as health insurance and property rights to gays and lesbians. Taking him at his word, Equality Utah says it will help draft five bills for the Utah Legislature seeking these as well as equal rights in employment, housing and probate. The idea is that the church, a powerful force in the state, is faced with a choice of either favoring these rights or coming off as less than honest.

Church spokesmen are mum on this issue so far.

Mormons have been beset this week by news that tends to cast their community in a negative light. A Holocaust survivors' group stopped all discussions with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, saying that despite a 13-year-old agreement to stop the practice, Mormons continue to posthumously "baptize by proxy" Jewish Holocaust victims as Mormons, a practice that deeply offends most Jews. And a judge has ordered the University of Phoenix and its parent company to pay $1.88 million to settle accusations that it discriminated against its non-Mormon employees.

Photo by Chris Detrick/AP