Johnson didn’t offer a sincere apology. He used an apology as a means of attacking his critics. A SINCERE apology goes something like this: “I apologize for plagiarizing a speech. It was wrong and a poor example for the students. I will endeavor to do better in the future.” THE END – no attacks, no conditional statements, no “but…”
So in the world of Fred, no one should ever apologize, because it doesn't really help. If an apology didn't help Clinton one would not work anywhere else?
The thing is, Clinton parsed words and wagged his finger at the camera saying he didn't have sex. Then he later attempted an apology. I didn't really care about Clinton's affair but I thought he should have given the job over to Gore after his finger wagging about not having sex (which was a lie unless you have a warped definition of sex).
The point is, if you give a sincere apology right away, you earn some respect for being forthcoming and the story doesn't become about your inability to apologize or admit mistakes.
I had pretty much dismissed the Dan Johnson issue, but HE keeps it alive by using public venues (Board Meeting, NCJ) to do everything but simply apologize. It's really an issue of his own making, but he will never see that. And by the way Fred - the President's speech writers are paid for the right to use their words. That's not plagiarism.
A “left of center type guy” would have given a sincere, no strings attached, apology shortly after the incident. THEN this would have been dropped back in June.
There is an old saying (in the public domain): If you’re stuck in a hole, stop digging.
Cyclist@1:26 - way to perpetuate the arrogant cyclist stereotype. From everything I've read the victim in this case was riding responsibly. However, your reply and tone implies that one should demand the right of way where it is legal. Yes, it may be legal, in some cases, to ride side-by-side, but it can also needlessly put people in danger. The CVC also stresses that one should yield and not demand the right-of-way.
The following statement from the NCJ is misleading and sensational:
"Without accreditation, students wouldn’t be able to transfer credits from CR courses to other schools, making its degrees all but worthless."
This is ONLY true for courses and degrees received AFTER accreditation is revoked. However, CR would not offer courses or degrees IF accreditation were revoked; they would close. In other words, NO courses or degrees awarded would be made "worthless".
Revoking accreditation does NOT have a retroactive impact on courses and degrees completed prior to accreditation being revoked.
This new status is very good news. CR has complied with the accreditation requirements and they should be off of probation soon.
I find it repulsive that people are using this tragedy to support their dislike of the District Attorney. It's pretty obvious that "Fire Paul" is just waiting for any tragedy that can support her dislike of this man (probably Rose) .
It's exploitative and shows little regard for the tragedy at hand, especially to those of us who had the please to know this wonderful, accomplished woman.
Business, especially food businesses come and go. It's not any easy way to make a living and patrons are always looking for the new best thing. Returning to Hum Co after many years I found very few of the places that once existed (with the exception of the Wildflower Cafe).
Great Breakfast Place now occupied by the fabric store
Pacific Rim Noodle House
Union Town Cafe
Jambalaya (bar-upscale restaurant)
All Comments »
In Print This Week:
Dec 5, 2013
vol XXIV issue 49
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation