Three public "apologies" struck me this weekend as less than complete. It seems that it's become commonplace for individuals not to apologize for their actions, but rather apologize if anyone is offended.

Isn't this a somewhat cowardly way to avoid taking real responsibility for words or actions by placing the responsibility to accept an apology on the party that may have been aggrieved?

Three examples (sorry MaryAnn, if you are offended by my comments. lol)

First: After Air Force one scared the heck out of New York City last week: Louis Caldera said in a statement. "While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused." He's not apologizing for doing something stupid or potentially terrifying, he's passively apologizing for any distress, "that flight caused."

Second, in Jordan, on the current trip by Pope Benedict XVI to Muslim nations, the news brought up the "apology" first given about possible offense to Muslims: Shortly after giving the speech, Benedict said he, "regretted that the comments offended Muslims" Again, there is no apology for the words spoken, or actions taken, but only "regret" that the receiving party might have taken offense."

Finally, in a May 5 letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sec. of Defense Gates apologized for the Air Force One incident, saying "we deeply regret the anxiety and alarm that resulted from this mission."

Again, a passive apology. This seems to be the M.O. of public officials now- deny responsibilty or blame by apologizing for the recipient being offended.

Although it was a small thing, I very much admired John McCain's rationale for skipping David Letterman during a scheduled campaign stop. When asked, McCain said, "I screwed up!" The audience cheered. There was no, "I'm sorry if that offended you." Just a straight up apology. Obama did the same thing too when Tom Daschle turned out to be the wrong appointee- He said, "I screwed up." In that case, it wasn't an apology, but what a refreshing comment to hear McCain and Obama sign say, "I screwed up." without parsing words or responsibilities.

If anyone finds offense in these words, the statement is given to mean no such offense.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

Three public "apologies" struck me this weekend as less than complete. It seems that it's become commonplace for individuals not to apologize for their actions, but rather apologize if anyone is offended.

Isn't this a somewhat cowardly way to avoid taking real responsibility for words or actions by placing the responsibility to accept an apology on the party that may have been aggrieved?

Three examples (sorry MaryAnn, if you are offended by my comments. lol)

First: After Air Force one scared the heck out of New York City last week: Louis Caldera said in a statement. "While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused." He's not apologizing for doing something stupid or potentially terrifying, he's passively apologizing for any distress, "that flight caused."

Second, in Jordan, on the current trip by Pope Benedict XVI to Muslim nations, the news brought up the "apology" first given about possible offense to Muslims: Shortly after giving the speech, Benedict said he, "regretted that the comments offended Muslims" Again, there is no apology for the words spoken, or actions taken, but only "regret" that the receiving party might have taken offense."

Finally, in a May 5 letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sec. of Defense Gates apologized for the Air Force One incident, saying "we deeply regret the anxiety and alarm that resulted from this mission."

Again, a passive apology. This seems to be the M.O. of public officials now- deny responsibilty or blame by apologizing for the recipient being offended.

Although it was a small thing, I very much admired John McCain's rationale for skipping David Letterman during a scheduled campaign stop. When asked, McCain said, "I screwed up!" The audience cheered. There was no, "I'm sorry if that offended you." Just a straight up apology. Obama did the same thing too when Tom Daschle turned out to be the wrong appointee- He said, "I screwed up." In that case, it wasn't an apology, but what a refreshing comment to hear McCain and Obama sign say, "I screwed up." without parsing words or responsibilities.

If anyone finds offense in these words, the statement is given to mean no such offense.

Don't have time to type more.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

Three public "apologies" struck me this weekend as less than complete. It seems that it's become commonplace for individuals not to apologize for their actions, but rather apologize if anyone is offended.

Isn't this a somewhat cowardly way to avoid taking real responsibility for words or actions by placing the responsibility to accept an apology on the party that may have been aggrieved?

Three examples (sorry MaryAnn, if you are offended by my comments. lol)

First: After Air Force one scared the heck out of New York City last week: Louis Caldera said in a statement. "While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused." He's not apologizing for doing something stupid or potentially terrifying, he's passively apologizing for any distress, "that flight caused."

Second, in Jordan, on the current trip by Pope Benedict XVI to Muslim nations, the news brought up the "apology" first given about possible offense to Muslims: Shortly after giving the speech, Benedict said he, "regretted that the comments offended Muslims" Again, there is no apology for the words spoken, or actions taken, but only "regret" that the receiving party might have taken offense."

Finally, in a May 5 letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sec. of Defense Gates apologized for the Air Force One incident, saying "we deeply regret the anxiety and alarm that resulted from this mission."

Again, a passive apology. This seems to be the M.O. of public officials now- deny responsibilty or blame by apologizing for the recipient being offended.

Although it was a small thing, I very much admired John McCain's rationale for skipping David Letterman during a scheduled campaign stop. When asked, McCain said, "I screwed up!" The audience cheered. There was no, "I'm sorry if that offended you." Just a straight up apology. Obama did the same thing too when Tom Daschle turned out to be the wrong appointee- He said, "I screwed up." In that case, it wasn't an apology, but what a refreshing comment to hear McCain and Obama sign say, "I screwed up." without parsing words or responsibilities.

If anyone finds offense in these words, the statement is given to mean no such offense.

It's hard to find offense with remarks made in confusion and with little research.

Regarding Pope Benedict XVI, he never apologized for past comments, but indeed said it was regrettable that others were not pleased with what he said and did not take its context well. The full set of transcript of the Pope's commentaries during his May 2009 Holy Land trip will appear in a day or two at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...ly-land_en.htm. Sonme transcripts have already been posted.

Also, AFN reported that King Abdullah of Jordan stressed the "importance of co-existence and harmony between Muslim and Christian," and warned that "voices of provocation, ambitious ideologies of division, threaten unspeakable suffering." The Pope and the King discussed the matter and "stressed the need to continue and deepen Muslim-Christian dialogue and coexistence."

King Abdullah is an educated man, and surely has personally read the Pope's 2006 commentary (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...nsburg_en.html) to insure he understands the man and his position. If King Abdullah can understand the context, then the "apology" issue appears to be trumped up for the sake of posturing.