House of Eratosthenes

Her ugly mug is a distraction, her physique is a distraction, her weird slurring speech is a distraction, her thoughts are a confused muddled mess, her prejudices are easily discerned, she can’t keep them out of the discussion; and the audience — I would hope — is generally a few steps ahead of her in figuring out what’s going on.

I remember in that debate she ruined, all the fanfare before AND after about what a wonderful moderator Candy Crowley is. Certainly, there were people blowing the trumpets and producing the fanfare, but it always had the feeling of being forced, like enthusiasm for Soccer in the U.S. Disregarding which way she leans, and it’s obvious which way that is, it’s painful to watch her work just like it’s painful to watch anyone do a job requiring some suite of talents they don’t have. I guess the definition that’s missing, is what the job is.

If a freer exchange of information during a moderated discussion would make the liberal side look bad, which is usually the case, what’s the job of the “moderator”? To stop that from happening? It’s difficult to conclude that the Crowley “fans” have any other goal in mind. If you believe, as normal people do, that we should be learning more from a discussion moderated by this moderator than we’d learn from a similar discussion with no moderator at all, your mind draws a blank as you seek out some aspect of this role that Candy Crowley does well. She just sucks.

I don’t know why she attracts the kind of high profile she does. So, she’s won lots of awards, apparently doing things the way I’ve been seeing her do them. That just makes her part of a large and growing problem with our society lately; conclusions drawn, with the weight of authority thrust behind them, and within that weight of authority a busy patchwork of functionally anonymous busybodies, pointing to each other, nobody ever burdened with the chore of crisply explaining a justification or rationale. Candy Crowley’s great, because this guy says she’s great, because that other guy says so, because those people say so. No one explaining why, and meanwhile, she sucks.

“Rhetoric.” Pffft.

Candy Crowley’s great, because this guy says she’s great, because that other guy says so, because those people say so. No one explaining why, and meanwhile, she sucks.

Gee, that sounds familiar. I believe the words you’re looking for are “expert” and “peer reviewed.” Candy Crowley’s great because all the experts have deemed her so in their peer reviewed publications. The Science is Settled.
- Severian | 08/25/2014 @ 08:02
It’s far easier to bestow greatness than to earn it.
- TN Tuxedo | 08/25/2014 @ 11:19
Good marbling.
- Rich Fader | 08/25/2014 @ 12:43
Fatty and meaty at the same time, with just a hint of stale liberalism and one-sided Wikipedia editing. Who knew that a left-wing nutjob’s “reporting is equally distributed between the Democratic and Republican parties.” Hand Obama a debate sundae sprinkled with attacks on Romney, serve Romney crap candy, and get lauded for your “fair and balanced” behaviour.
- P_Ang | 08/25/2014 @ 14:41
[…] Is Better For Obama to Have His Eye Off Something Than On It” Recline Rant IQ Shredders What is the Appeal of Candy Crowley? Dad Destroys Games “How Are Our Kids Supposed to Grow Up When We’re Out Here Acting […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 08/31/2014 @ 11:33

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

What is the Appeal of Candy Crowley?Monday, August 25th, 2014

What is the Appeal of Candy Crowley?
Monday, August 25th, 2014