![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On misbehaving:
Sep. 16th, 2009 11:03 amIt is unlikely that y'all are unaware of any part of the recent Trifecta of Notable "Adults" Behaving Like Ill-Mannered Children. Just to be clear, playing the roles of Moe, Larry, and Curly are (in no particular order) Mr. Wilson (R-SC), Mr. West, and Ms S. Williams.
Mr. Wilson has declined to proffer an actual apology. He may have made a faux apology in private, but his outburst was a public insult that requires a public apology. Or not, if one doesn't feel that one has done anything to apologize for. I'm inclined to believe the latter, and extrapolate from that a measure of his character. I assert that he was engaging in a calculated piece of theatrics that demonstrate contempt for civil conduct. It is asserted and not persuasively denied that Mr. Wilson felt less restrained by the virtue(?) of the complexion of the President. I've not come to any real clarity on the question in my own mind.
Mr. West appears to have proffered something resembling an apology, but I somehow doubt that it showed or contained any actual sincerity. Worse, his conduct was immediately treated as an understandable outburst by people in a position to show disapprobation and who should have known better. It has been posited that Mr. West would not have pulled such a stunt (the Hennessey speaking? I think not) were the person at the podium of a darker complexion. I'm not sufficiently familiar with Mr. West's body of work to have an informed opinion on where he might stand, but the argument does play into my own prejudices on the question.
Ms Williams offered an apology in a press release, then amended that verbally the next day. The amendment was along the lines of making a clearer statement of personal responsibility. Her actions on the court were inexcusable, but her subsequent actions to take responsibility for them are the mark of good character. In addition, her outburst came "in the heat of the moment". That doesn't excuse it, but it does set it in a context -- a context hard to find in the first two cases. Others have taken it upon themselves to rant about the line judge who was (as Ms Williams noted) Just Doing Her Job. That rantage has come perilously close to "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
Mr. Wilson is wallowing in the attention he is getting, but it is important that the House formally put its disapprobation on record. Anything less would be countenancing that level of misconduct. Mr. West is probably relishing all the attention he has gotten as well. I don't see Ms Williams wallowing or relishing.
I'm glad that Serena made unambiguous, public statements taking personal responsibility for her lapse. I'm disgusted with Mr. Wilson's manner of expression. Mr. West is simply a self-serving idiot (who may have a drinking problem).
Now, I'm not closely following any of these stories in the media, so I may have missed something. However, I'm
Mr. Wilson has declined to proffer an actual apology. He may have made a faux apology in private, but his outburst was a public insult that requires a public apology. Or not, if one doesn't feel that one has done anything to apologize for. I'm inclined to believe the latter, and extrapolate from that a measure of his character. I assert that he was engaging in a calculated piece of theatrics that demonstrate contempt for civil conduct. It is asserted and not persuasively denied that Mr. Wilson felt less restrained by the virtue(?) of the complexion of the President. I've not come to any real clarity on the question in my own mind.
Mr. West appears to have proffered something resembling an apology, but I somehow doubt that it showed or contained any actual sincerity. Worse, his conduct was immediately treated as an understandable outburst by people in a position to show disapprobation and who should have known better. It has been posited that Mr. West would not have pulled such a stunt (the Hennessey speaking? I think not) were the person at the podium of a darker complexion. I'm not sufficiently familiar with Mr. West's body of work to have an informed opinion on where he might stand, but the argument does play into my own prejudices on the question.
Ms Williams offered an apology in a press release, then amended that verbally the next day. The amendment was along the lines of making a clearer statement of personal responsibility. Her actions on the court were inexcusable, but her subsequent actions to take responsibility for them are the mark of good character. In addition, her outburst came "in the heat of the moment". That doesn't excuse it, but it does set it in a context -- a context hard to find in the first two cases. Others have taken it upon themselves to rant about the line judge who was (as Ms Williams noted) Just Doing Her Job. That rantage has come perilously close to "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
Mr. Wilson is wallowing in the attention he is getting, but it is important that the House formally put its disapprobation on record. Anything less would be countenancing that level of misconduct. Mr. West is probably relishing all the attention he has gotten as well. I don't see Ms Williams wallowing or relishing.
I'm glad that Serena made unambiguous, public statements taking personal responsibility for her lapse. I'm disgusted with Mr. Wilson's manner of expression. Mr. West is simply a self-serving idiot (who may have a drinking problem).
Now, I'm not closely following any of these stories in the media, so I may have missed something. However, I'm
