Saturday, October 20, 2012

Accountability and adulthood

I have observed that few criticisms irritate women more than the idea that many of them are not fully adults due to their refusal to accept responsibility for their actions and decisions.  And yet, regardless of whether we look at the law, the legal system, reactions to criminal behavior, sports, or even debate moderation during a presidential election, we observe the same lack of accountability played out over and over again.  Keep in mind this article was published BEFORE the second presidential debate, during which Candy Crowley attempted to insert herself into the proceedings as a judge as well as a moderator:
[B]y late Sunday night, the campaigns of both presidential candidates and the debate commission shot back, insisting that Crowley would be expected to remain mostly silent as the candidates fielded queries from the audience of undecided voters.

At the center of the controversy is a “memorandum of understanding” — agreed to by the commission and both campaigns — regarding Crowley’s severely limited role.

“The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period,” reads the memo....

For her part, Crowley appeared on CNN Monday afternoon and declared that she would flout the debate commission’s rules anyway.
What can we conclude from this, except that Crowley isn't a genuine adult individual, who can be expected to abide by the agreed-upon ground rules, who understands that she is only incidental to the presidential election process, and realizes that she will be held responsible for any failure to perform as expected?  Why did Crowley know that she could get away with flouting the rules so egregiously, why was she so confident that she could announce her intention to do so ahead of time without suffering any consequences for it before or after the debate?

Most importantly, if adulthood is indicative that an individual has reached the age of accountability, what must we logically conclude of an individual who cannot held accountable to the same degree as adults are?


Josh said...

Once she announced her intention to ignore the rules, she should have been replaced, or the candidates should have either not participated or similarly ignored the rules. But of course they didn't.

This also does refute the "alpha mitt" theory.

Shimshon said...

I love the reaction to the rules. It's the patriarchy trying to squelch the voice of wymyn (or something like that)!!! Instead of looking at it as a stepping stone to other debate formats they're bitter. Classic. I wonder if the next woman (and there'll probably be others) also violates whatever rules are agreed upon in advance.

Shimshon said...

It also speaks volumes about the muted reaction by men. Or non-existent.

Philalethes said...

There *are* no men in that arena.

"...who cannot be held acountable..." Actuallly we don't know that for sure; what we do know is that nobody even tried.

Feh said...

Mitt should have insisted that she abide by the rules.

Indeed, when she announced she would flout the rules on Monday, he should have insisted on a new moderator as a condition for his participation.

What a pussy he was.

Cail Corishev said...

That's a lose-lose situation for him (which is why it's setup that way, of course). Republicans, as the party of grown-ups, aren't allowed to complain about unfairness. It will be unfailingly portrayed as whining, which would be even less alpha. They only have two real choices:

Don't agree to moderated debates or let a third-party decide the questions in the first place. Insist on selecting half the questions yourself, and don't allow a moderator to be there to control what you say. If the Dems and the media won't agree to that, don't show up.

Show up and let them do their best to slant your positions and performance, and count on the righteousness of your side (and the perfidy of the other side) to shine through that.

The GOP chooses the latter tactic. Sometimes it works out, as with Reagan and so far with Romney. Sometimes it doesn't. They've never had the guts to try the former option -- plus, I don't think beltway Republicans ever really accept how far the other side will go to screw them, no matter how many times it happens.

Jeff said...

Slightly off topic: this is great story about a lady who had her (rationalization?) hamster put in protective custody:

Feh said...

"Republicans, as the party of grown-ups, aren't allowed to complain about unfairness."

Insisting that the other side play by the rules is not whining.

huh said...

Who really cares, do you people imagine that Romney would have said any more than he did had he been given more time? These are politicians, their objective is to sound like they're committing to do what you want, or at least what's best for you, while actually committing to as little as possible.

It wasn't Candy Crowley preventing Romney from explaining exactly how he's going to create 15 million jobs, and if you interpret her interruptions as advantaging Obama, then what exactly did it accomplish? All Obama did with his extra time (if he actually had any extra time) was make the same plaintive appeals for a second chance that he's been making all along.

You people are like little children playing a game that can't get over a bad referee call. Instead of arguing about petty things like that maybe you should get more serious about the game. Romney's in trouble because he's beholden to a lunatic party that cares only about increasing corporate power and getting into global power struggles. The democrats aren't any better but at least they pay lip service to minorities and the middle class.

Californio_6th_ gen said...

"..but at least they pay lip service to minorities and the middle class." I would say "Huh?" to huh.

So - it is ok if your CPA lies about your investments, but he apologizes after - everytime! HAhahahahahaha. Sucka...

Jack Amok said...

Insisting that the other side play by the rules is not whining.

Of course not, but it's portrayed that way by the Dems and their (to quote Instapundit) bylined supporterd.

SouthTX said...

Guess what. Mrs. gets gets a loaded 300C after shopping all day. She gets a pass. When we went shopping. She get's what she wants. I don't mind. I got monster kids, seems a fair trade. Oldest will probably get to drive it, although it may spoil him. Girls who walk the line get the best deal. Harsh truth.

SouthTX said...

Yes we are out there. Wife gets a pass, because I am an asshole. I get it. Sad but true. Lifes tough. Wife gets a pass.

taterearl said...

Sure having a man moderate might be better...but most male journalists/talking heads are whimpy betas at best and arrogant feminists at worst.

Chris Matthews had a "tingle" remember.

Angel said...

I saw this controversy and it seriously pissed me off. Like the other debate, clearly the women could give two sniffs of a rat's fart for the "rules" she agreed to. It is only funny to see the President get worked over and think "hows that feminisim thing working for you friend?"

I would have voted for the first one who said "Shut up BE OTCH!"

I love it, everyone else who signs a contract or takes a job assignment has to abide by the rules. But if you are someone IMPORTANT (and apparently that is a sliding scale) then you can make the rules yourself.

They should not have paid her and she should have been escorted the first time she started this nonsense, and been replaced by Courtney Stodden (and her Husband to help her pronouce the big words).

That'll learn em!

Angel said...

Again, South TX, please get a blog and post the link here!


realmatt said...

This is a woman who has never been hit in the face.

The type of woman that curses at other drivers while sitting in the passenger seat and flips them off, that gets her husband and sons in trouble with her stupid cunt mouth, excuse my French, but that's what she is.

Cail Corishev said...

Insisting that the other side play by the rules is not whining.

It shouldn't be, but it is. Heck, it has been in this comment thread.

Emotionally, Republicans are the party of grownups: having a job, keeping a budget, keeping your dick in your pants, etc. (Traditionally, that is. I'm fully aware that this hasn't always been the case in the way they govern, especially in recent years. But it's still how people see them, as the "Dad" party.) The Democrats are the teenage party: wishful thinking, instant gratification, don't judge me, we'd have peace if we just stopped building weapons.

So when they compete, the emotional image people have is of a bunch of grown men going up against a bunch of kids. If the kids cheat a little, the grown men will look like whiners if they complain about it. That's just the way it is.

LP2021 Bank of LP Work in Progress said...

"Most importantly, if adulthood is indicative that an individual has reached the age of accountability, what must we logically conclude of an individual who cannot held accountable to the same degree as adults are?"

There are few adults left.

If one wants wisdom, then stone cold truths and EVEN correction that accountability brings is simply part of adulthood.

Cycling back to American politics, perhaps its why I view most repubs and dems as eternal children and most women having the logic of a hooked-on-happiness-me-me-me logic.

As far as I am concerned all 3 groups are generally well meaning yet always learning but never understanding.

And this endless credentialism will die out with the boomers. No one cares about Candy's, Mitty Georgey or the current administration's precious fictional resumes.

Post a Comment