I've heard a number of talking heads comment that, "If _____ would just admit to the offense, then the American public will forgive." This is another media myth, that makes us feel right about castigating a suspected culprit. It's not true. If a politician comes clean, fesses up, then they will be mercilessly attacked anyway. When was the last time anyone heard, "Well, Joe has admitted to the _____, and apologized, so we're forgiving him/her." Just doesn't happen, but it gives us reason to attack remorseless Joe.
Very interesting, your choice of a name. We should allow for forgiveness for poor old Joe, not that redemption isn't an end in itself. There is no guarantee of absolution.
I didn't choose it. It's just a common manner of speech, as in "Joe Blow" or your "average Joe." Is that the senator's name?
Politically, I think demands for an apology should be ignored. First of all, if someone has to demand that you apologize, your apology isn't legitimate and, secondly, everyone knows that, so your apology is not going to be accepted. Giving in to such demands simply adds weakness to whatever else it is that you are being accused of.
Like whats'ername , the newly elected Muslim Democrat representative who has been spouting all that anti-Jewish hatred lately?
Muslin is the fabric; muslim the religion. I like your humor. If it was intended---if not you just learned something new, LOL. eta: just re-read Shirl's post. You are a quick one, Gospodin Bulgakov.
Apologies should come from the heart, be "sincere" which, unfortunately, is usually decided by whether you're Republican or Democrat. They shouldn't be dependent on timing, or whether or not they were demanded. I know you didn't mean all apologies are a sign of weakness, though some people feel exactly that. Politically, I have to agree with you, but moral decisions shouldn't be decided by political thinking. I'm not naive; speaking realistically just makes me sound that way.