Monday, July 3, 2017

Gov. Chris Christie: Bridgegate Reposted Analysis

Is entitlement contempt?

When Robert E. Lee turned down the offer to lead the United States forces so that he could defend his homeland from invasion, he took a field command. 

As such, subordinates quickly learned about his character when he refused food rations or other comforts that his soldiers were not afforded.  This was his norm.  

Contempt  

At any time, we may lie, in panic, for example, and hurt within and seek to fix that which we have broken.  Liars, however, are those who have a habitual norm of deception. 

 Liars hold the world in contempt.  They have an expectation that they may use their communicative skills to continually deceive any and all, whenever they so choose.  The contempt becomes evident over life, as a personality trait.  


Elitism


We find many examples of such contempt by politicians. 

They claim special status for themselves and their family members, as "more important" than others.  

They live behind walls and arms, while denying citizens the same. 
They complain about public schools while refusing to support  the same with their own children and grandchildren.  The contempt is revealed in language and works its way out in behavior, with two sets of rules;

1 for them and another for the others.  

Elitism can endanger your children, while protecting their children. 


Gov. Chris Christie was recently photographed having a beach day at a beach that he shut down in an attempt to gain a balanced budget.

Several years ago, "Bridgegate" scandal hit and analysis showed that the subject did not issue a reliable denial.

In 2014, Gov. Christie visited Maine where I asked him about it.

Here is the analysis in which we seek to learn:

Analysis Question:  Did he know about the closing of the bridge?

For some, would such a strong leader not know about such a large move by his team?

We let the subject guide us to the truth.




When someone gives a "mea culpa" we look to see if the pronoun "I " will be prominent, or if blame will be shared via the use of the word "we."  We also seek to learn if passivity is employed for the purpose of minimizing or failing to take responsibility for actions.  First is the statement itself, and then the statement is repeated with analysis. 



GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE: Good morning.
I come out here to this office where I've been many times before and I've come out here today to apologize to the people of New Jersey. I apologize to the people of Fort Lee and I apologize to the members of the state legislature.
I am embarrassed and humiliated by the conduct of some of the people on my team.
There's no doubt in my mind that the conduct that they exhibited is completely unacceptable and showed a lack of respect for the appropriate role of government and for the people that were trusted to serve.
Two pieces to what I want to talk about today. The first is I believe that all of the people who were affected by this conduct deserve this apology and that's why I'm giving it to them. I also need to apologize to them for my failure as the governor of this state to understand the true nature of this problem sooner than I did. But I believe I have an understanding now of the true nature of the problem and I've taken the following action as a result.
This morning I've terminated the employment of Bridget Kelly, effective immediately. I've terminated her employment because she lied to me. I brought my senior staff together I think about four weeks ago tomorrow. And I put to all of them one simple challenge: If there is any information that you know about the decision to close these lanes in Fort Lee, you have one hour to tell either my chief of staff, Kevin O'Dowd, or my chief counsel, Charlie McKenna.
And I told them that in an hour I was going to go out in a press conference. And if no one gave me other information to the contrary that I was going to say that no one on my staff was involved in this matter.
Over the course of the next hour, Kevin and Charlie interviewed each member of my senior staff, came back and reported to me that they all reported that there was no information other than what we already knew that had been testified to by Senator Baroni regarding this incident. I then questioned Kevin O'Dowd and Charlie McKenna directly, since they are the only two who report directly to me, and they assured me that they had no information that would change my ability to be able to say that no one, in response in Angie's (sp) question, on my staff was involved in this matter.
That was obviously a lie. And the emails that I saw for the first time yesterday morning, when they broken in I believe the Bergen Record story, proved that that was a lie. There's no justification for that behavior. There's no justification for ever lying to a governor or a person in authority in this government. And as a result, I've terminated Bridget's employment immediately this morning.
Secondly, I have and will continue to, started yesterday, to once again now have personal one-on-one discussions myself with the remaining members of my senior staff to determine if there's any other information that I do not know and need to know in order to take appropriate action.
I'm not completed with those interviews yet, but when I am, if there is additional information that needs to be disclosed, I will do so. If there's additional actions that need to be taken with my senior staff, I will do so.
I will tell you, though, it's been written a lot over the last couple of days about what a tight-knit staff I have and how closely everyone works together, and that is true. And ever since the time I was U.S. attorney, I've engendered the sense and feeling among the people closest to me that we're a family, and we work together and we tell each other truth, we support each other when we need to be supported, and we admonish each other when we need to be admonished. I am heartbroken that someone who I permitted to be in that circle of trust for the last five years betrayed my trust.
I would never have come out here four or five weeks ago and made a joke about these lane closures if I had ever had an inkling that anyone on my staff would have been so stupid but to be involved and then so deceitful as to just -- just to not disclose the information of their involvement to me when directly asked by their superior. And those questions were not asked, by the way, just once; they were asked repeatedly.
So I take this action today because it's my job. I am responsible for what happened. I am sad to report to the people of New Jersey that we fell short.
We fell short of the expectations that we've created over the last four years for the type of excellence in government that they should expect from this office.
But I have repeatedly said to them that while I promise them the best governor's office I could give them, I could never promise them a perfect governor's office. And so when I find those imperfections, those mistakes, those lies, my obligation as the chief executive of this state is to act. And as to Bridget Kelly, I've acted today.
Secondly, I was disturbed by the tone and behavior and attitude of callous indifference that was displayed in the emails by my former campaign manager, Bill Stepien. And reading that, it made me lose my confidence in Bill's judgment. And you cannot have someone at the top of your political operation who you do not have confidence in. As a result, I've instructed Bill Stepien to not place his name in nomination for state party chairman, and he will not be considered for state party chairman, and I've instructed him to withdraw his consultancy with the Republican Governors Association. If I cannot trust someone's judgment, I cannot ask others to do so, and I would not place him at the head of my political operation because of the lack of judgment that was shown in the emails that were revealed yesterday.
That has also been communicated to Mr. Stepien last night. There's no doubt that Bill has been one of my closest advisers over the last five years. And so for that too I am sad today to have to take this action. But I also know that I have a job to do. And it's the job that I've asked the people of New Jersey to entrust me with. And I can never allow personal feelings or long-standing relationships to get in the way of doing my job the way it's appropriate to do it.
But I don't want any of you to confuse what I'm saying this morning. Ultimately I am responsible for what happens under my watch -- the good and the bad. And when mistakes are made, then I have to own up to them and take the action that I believe is necessary in order to remediate them. As I mentioned to you earlier, I spent all day yesterday digging into talking to folks and getting to the bottom of things. I know there was much discussion yesterday about what was I doing.
Well, let me tell you, everybody, I was blindsided yesterday morning. I was done with my workout yesterday morning and got a call from my communications director at about 8:50, 8:55, informing me of this story that had just broken on the Bergen Record website. That was the first time I knew about this. That was the first time I had seen any of the documents that were revealed yesterday.
And so before I came out and spoke to all of you, I wanted to do the best I could to try to get to the bottom on some of this so that when I came out I could answer questions as best I can and take appropriate action if action was necessary.
There was no doubt from reading those emails yesterday, in my mind, that action was necessary. And then I wanted to make sure that I spoke to those people who advise me to make sure if there was any other information they were aware of, that I had it before I acted.
I'm going to continue this process. I couldn't get it all done yesterday. And as I said, if there's more information that I uncover, I'll act accordingly in terms of releasing it to the public and taking whatever action may be necessary, if any is, for any other issues. And also, we'll react to any information that's incoming from anyplace else, given that there's an OIG investigation and a legislative investigation.
Later today I'm going to be going to Fort Lee, asked to meet with the mayor to apologize to him personally, face to face, and also to apologize to the people of Fort Lee in their town. I think they need to see me do that personally, and I intend to do that later on today. People of those communities for four days were impacted in a completely callous and indifferent way, and I'm going to go and apologize for that.
Let me conclude with this. This is not the tone that I've set over the last four years in this building. It's not the environment I've worked so hard to achieve. We saw just a few months ago, and I've seen over the course of the last four years, Republicans and Democrats working together, not without argument -- government's never without argument -- but ultimately coming to resolution on so many different issues in a bipartisan way and running a campaign that was in fact a bipartisan campaign.
And so I am extraordinarily disappointed by this, but this is the exception, it is not the rule, of what's happened over the last four years in this administration.
I've considered it over the last four years to be my job to be the governor of every New Jerseyan -- Republican, Democrat, independent or unaffiliated -- and I've worked with elected officials on both sides of the aisle, ones that I agree with and ones that I disagree with. The political overtones that were exhibited in those documents released yesterday and the conduct by those people is not acceptable.
But people, I think, all across this state understand that human beings are not perfect and mistakes are made. And I believe what they expect of me as the chief executive of this state is when that information comes into my possession, that I consider it and then act as swiftly as possible to remediate whatever ill occurred. That's what I've done today. Actions have consequences, and I'm living up to that right now.
And I'll say one last thing, just so we're really clear. I had no knowledge or involvement in this issue, in its planning or it execution, and I am stunned by the abject stupidity that was shown here. Regardless of what the facts ultimately uncover, this was handled in a callous and indifferent way, and it is not the way this administration has conducted itself over the last four years and not the way it will conduct itself over the next four.
I will do everything within my power to assure the people of New Jersey that. And I thank them for their willingness to consider my apology on behalf of this government. In the end, I have 65,000 people working for me every day. And I cannot know what each one of them is doing at every minute. But that doesn't matter; I'm ultimately responsible for what they do. And that's why I took this action.


(end of statement)

Here is the statement with analysis.  In any "mea culpa" we look for the pronoun "I" to stand strong, and not share guilt ("we"), nor employ passive language.  This is a prepared statement and in part two, we will analyze the press conference. 

Since he was under the accusation of guilty knowledge of the bridge shut down, our expectation is a greeting followed by a reliable denial:

"I did not know that subordinates caused the shut down" is a good example of such. 

It has the subject psychologically in the statement ("I") with a past tense verb and the accusation directly addressed.  

Sometimes new analysts believe that issuing a reliable denial in any setting is enough to settle the question. 

It is not. 

I have a redacted audio and transcript I use to show what framing a reliable denial in an unreliable context sounds like, including both delay and repetition.  Adding or subtracting to a denial weakens it.  

It is the most pressing question and the reason for the presser.  

We also note the form:  it should not take very long to get to this. 

Then, since he is ultimately responsible for his team, we do expect him to take responsibility; not in saying he takes responsibility, but in actually stating a mea culpa.  

Politicians love to talk and this subject is an excellent talented speaker. He kept his audience in Maine riveted as he spoke without notes.  Therefore, besides the denial, we may have to shift our contextual understanding of delay somewhat due to this nature.  However, it should be priority number one to say:

"I did not know..." 

GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE: Good morning.
I come out here to this office where I've been many times before and I've come out here today to apologize to the people of New Jersey. I apologize to the people of Fort Lee and I apologize to the members of the state legislature.

The statement begins with the reason for coming to the office today:  to apologize.  Then, he actually does apologize to:
the people of Fort Lee
the members of the state legislature.  

Did you note the need to reference his own history?  This is to remind his audience of his status; something that is not necessary in the psychological "wall of truth." 

Often times people will report that they have come to apologize, or want to apologize, but actually do not do so.  Here he does so, and he uses the pronoun, "I" appropriately. 
I am embarrassed and humiliated by the conduct of some of the people on my team.

Note "embarrassed" comes before "humiliated" 
Note that he is embarrassed and humiliated by "some of the people" on his team; not himself. They are "people" in this context.  

This is appropriate when the subject is thinking of his people, particularly, that he may have appointed or recommended for hire.  
There's no doubt in my mind that the conduct that they exhibited is completely unacceptable and showed a lack of respect for the appropriate role of government and for the people that were trusted to serve.

Lots of additional and unnecessary words...attempt to persuade.  

Who in the audience needs to be convinced that shutting down traffic is an acceptable form of political warfare?

1.  "There's no doubt in my mind" indicates that there may be doubts in others' minds.  Who might think this is acceptable?
2.  Not only unacceptable but "completely" unacceptable, making "unacceptable" sensitive to him.  This is a slight weakening of condemnation due to context.  If the condemnation was, in deed, something that the average person might consider, perhaps not unacceptable, it would make sense. 

What would cause this sensitivity towards condemnation?

This comes close to "linguistic disposition" towards those responsible where the condemnation of such needs buttressing.  

Question:  Could he be hesitant in condemning someone close to him?

Question:  Could this include the subject, himself?


3.  Not only the role of government but the "appropriate" role; indicating other roles.  
Two pieces to what I want to talk about today. The first is I believe that all of the people who were affected by this conduct deserve this apology and that's why I'm giving it to them. I also need to apologize to them for my failure as the governor of this state to understand the true nature of this problem sooner than I did. But I believe I have an understanding now of the true nature of the problem and I've taken the following action as a result.

He understood the "problem" but just not the "true nature" of it, and "sooner."  This should put to rest any notion that he did not know.  

His "failure" is not simply to "understand" but to "understand the true nature" indicating that he had understanding of the nature of the issue, but not "true" understanding.  This should provoke questions on what he did know.  Note that he makes it a matter of timing:  "sooner."
This morning I've terminated the employment of Bridget Kelly, effective immediately. I've terminated her employment because she lied to me. 

I brought my senior staff together I think about four weeks ago tomorrow. And I put to all of them one simple challenge: If there is any information that you know about the decision to close these lanes in Fort Lee, you have one hour to tell either my chief of staff, Kevin O'Dowd, or my chief counsel, Charlie McKenna.

Note the name "Bridget Kelly" is the first name entering the statement, making it important.  Note that he tells us why he terminated her, anticipating being asked why.  She lied to "me" rather than the obvious:

Assigning blame for the orchestration and knowledge of the shut down.  

He did not say "I terminated" but "I've terminated", indicating that it was spanning some time.  This may have been internal debate, or hesitation, but something spanned time.  It is strong in the sense that he uses the pronoun "I" regarding termination.  
Please note, however, that the others were given a choice to "tell" to "either my chief of staff, Kevin O'Dowd, or my chief counsel, Charlie McKenna" but not himself. 
Note on both of these names there is a proper social introduction which indicates a good relationship, where as "Bridget Kelly" is not given a title or position indicating a lesser relationship.  
And I told them that in an hour I was going to go out in a press conference. And if no one gave me other information to the contrary that I was going to say that no one on my staff was involved in this matter.

This was done rather than ask them directly, "Were you involved?" which is to avoid direct knowledge
Over the course of the next hour, Kevin and Charlie interviewed each member of my senior staff, came back and reported to me that they all reported that there was no information other than what we already knew that had been testified to by Senator Baroni regarding this incident. I then questioned Kevin O'Dowd and Charlie McKenna directly, since they are the only two who report directly to me, and they assured me that they had no information that would change my ability to be able to say that no one, in response in Angie's (sp) question, on my staff was involved in this matter.

After being properly introduced, they are, as expected, "Kevin and Charlie", first names only, personal.  Yet, when it comes to him questioning them, they revert back to full names.  It is the questioning of them that causes the lack of familiarity.  
That was obviously a lie. 

The word "that" indicates distance. 

And the emails that I saw for the first time yesterday morning, when they broken in I believe the Bergen Record story, proved that that was a lie. There's no justification for that behavior. There's no justification for ever lying to a governor or a person in authority in this government. And as a result, I've terminated Bridget's employment immediately this morning.

This is where the spanning of time is referenced.  The need to emphasize that it was "immediate" is sensitive.  
The timing of the emails is very sensitive, hence the emphasis.  "first time" and "yesterday morning" added for emphasis.  Note the word "that" shows distancing language (behavior) 
"Bridget" is now first name, after being introduced without a title.  "Ms. Kelly" or "Mrs. Kelly" would have shown distance.  Using first name shows a connection and closeness. 
Secondly, I have and will continue to, started yesterday, to once again now have personal one-on-one discussions myself with the remaining members of my senior staff to determine if there's any other information that I do not know and need to know in order to take appropriate action.

Often when numbers are given, logic is in play. 

He did not have "personal" discussions, himself, prior, which is to distance himself.  Note that "started yesterday" has no pronoun, reducing commitment to what he is asserting.  
I'm not completed with those interviews yet, but when I am, if there is additional information that needs to be disclosed, I will do so. If there's additional actions that need to be taken with my senior staff, I will do so.

Note that he reports what he has not completed, but when it is completed, he will only disclose that which "needs" to be disclosed.  
I will tell you, though, it's been written a lot over the last couple of days about what a tight-knit staff I have and how closely everyone works together, and that is true. And ever since the time I was U.S. attorney, I've engendered the sense and feeling among the people closest to me that we're a family, and we work together and we tell each other truth, we support each other when we need to be supported, and we admonish each other when we need to be admonished. am heartbroken that someone who permitted to be in that circle of trust for the last five years betrayed my trust.

Note the heavy use of "we" here, regarding working together.  
would never have come out here four or five weeks ago and made a joke about these lane closures if I had ever had an inkling that anyone on my staff would have been so stupid but to be involved and then so deceitful as to just -- just to not disclose the information of their involvement to me when directly asked by their superior. And those questions were not asked, by the way, just once; they were asked repeatedly.

Hence the need to deception detection training or to hire an expert. 

Note being asked by their "superior" and that is "me"

Note the linguistic disposition is now harsh, including "stupid" and "deceitful", as very strong.  With linguistic disposition, we seek subtle information, whereas unnecessarily strong condemnation is sometimes a signal of concealment.  

So I take this action today because it's my job. I am responsible for what happened. I am sad to report to the people of New Jersey that we fell short.
Why would the employer feel it necessary to explain why he took action against wayward employees?

This is very sensitive to him, and it is most unnecessary. 

"I am responsible for what happened" is  strong.  This is better than "I take responsibility..." as we often hear. 

 Pronoun "I", and no qualifiers nor additional language. This is expected.  It is also the perfect place for the denial or even the qualification of the responsibility.   Then, when he is sad to report, it is that "we", not "I" fell short.  This change is concerning.  
We fell short of the expectations that we've created over the last four years for the type of excellence in government that they should expect from this office.
But have repeatedly said to them that while I promise them the best governor's office I could give them, I could never promise them a perfect governor's office. And so when I find those imperfections, those mistakes, those lies, my obligation as the chief executive of this state is to act. And as to Bridget Kelly, I've acted today.

Note the order:

1.  imperfections
2.  those mistakes
3.  lies

Noted that lies is listed third.  Imperfections is first. 

Perfection is not only impossible, but unnecessary to state.  
Secondly, I was disturbed by the tone and behavior and attitude of callous indifference that was displayed in the emails by my former campaign manager, Bill Stepien. And reading that, it made me lose my confidence in Bill's judgment. And you cannot have someone at the top of your political operation who you do not have confidence in. As a result, I've instructed Bill Stepien to not place his name in nomination for state party chairman, and he will not be considered for state party chairman, and I've instructed him to withdraw his consultancy with the Republican Governors Association. If I cannot trust someone's judgment, I cannot ask others to do so, and I would not place him at the head of my political operation because of the lack of judgment that was shown in the emails that were revealed yesterday.

Bill Stepien is introduced with full social introduction, "my former campaign manager, Bill Stepien.

When it comes to judgement, he is "Bill"
When it comes to the Gov instructing him, he is "Bill Stepien"
When it comes to communication from the passive source (unknown), he is "Mr. Stepien"
When it comes to being an adviser, he is back to "Bill"

The subject has taken responsibility in a strong statement. 

What could weaken this?

Repetition.  
That has also been communicated to Mr. Stepien last night. There's no doubt that Bill has been one of my closest advisers over the last five years. And so for that too I am sad today to have to take this action. But I also know that I have a job to do. And it's the job that I've asked the people of New Jersey to entrust me with. And I can never allow personal feelings or long-standing relationships to get in the way of doing my job the way it's appropriate to do it.
But I don't want any of you to confuse what I'm saying this morning. Ultimately I am responsible for what happens under my watch -- the good and the bad. And when mistakes are made, then I have to own up to them and take the action that I believe is necessary in order to remediate them. As I mentioned to you earlier, I spent all day yesterday digging into talking to folks and getting to the bottom of things. I know there was much discussion yesterday about what was I doing.

I have highlighted the above for your consideration.  Please notice the passivity comes after identifying guilt.  This is not strong.  

Note the unnecessary repetition of responsibility.  

Next, he has the need to tell his audience that he did not have knowledge of the scandal while avoiding stating he did not have knowledge of the scandal, by the tool of employing his emotion:  
Well, let me tell you, everybody, I was blindsided yesterday morning. I was done with my workout yesterday morning and got a call from my communications director at about 8:50, 8:55, informing me of this story that had just broken on the Bergen Record website. That was the first time I knew about this. That was the first time I had seen any of the documents that were revealed yesterday.

Note that he gives two "firsts" here:
The "first time he knew about this" and the first time he had "seen any of the documents"
By this, he was "blindsided", which is introduced with "let me tell you", "everybody", which reduces commitment to being blindsided.

"I was blindsided" would have been strong.  But it is not what he says.  He says that he is telling everybody that he was blindsided.  
This is different.  
This is where additional wording is used for a reason. 
And so before I came out and spoke to all of you, I wanted to do the best I could to try to get to the bottom on some of this so that when I came out I could answer questions as best I can and take appropriate action if action was necessary.
There was no doubt from reading those emails yesterday, in my mind, that action was necessary. And then I wanted to make sure that I spoke to those people who advise me to make sure if there was any other information they were aware of, that I had it before I acted.
I'm going to continue this process. I couldn't get it all done yesterday. And as I said, if there's more information that I uncover, I'll act accordingly in terms of releasing it to the public and taking whatever action may be necessary, if any is, for any other issues. And also, we'll react to any information that's incoming from anyplace else, given that there's an OIG investigation and a legislative investigation.
Later today I'm going to be going to Fort Lee, asked to meet with the mayor to apologize to him personally, face to face, and also to apologize to the people of Fort Lee in their town. I think they need to see me do that personally, and I intend to do that later on today. People of those communities for four days were impacted in a completely callous and indifferent way, and I'm going to go and apologize for that.
Let me conclude with this. This is not the tone that I've set over the last four years in this building. It's not the environment I've worked so hard to achieve. We saw just a few months ago, and I've seen over the course of the last four years, Republicans and Democrats working together, not without argument -- government's never without argument -- but ultimately coming to resolution on so many different issues in a bipartisan way and running a campaign that was in fact a bipartisan campaign.
And so I am extraordinarily disappointed by this, but this is the exception, it is not the rule, of what's happened over the last four years in this administration.
I've considered it over the last four years to be my job to be the governor of every New Jerseyan -- Republican, Democrat, independent or unaffiliated -- and I've worked with elected officials on both sides of the aisle, ones that I agree with and ones that I disagree with. The political overtones that were exhibited in those documents released yesterday and the conduct by those people is not acceptable.
But people, I think, all across this state understand that human beings are not perfect and mistakes are made. And I believe what they expect of me as the chief executive of this state is when that information comes into my possession, that I consider it and then act as swiftly as possible to remediate whatever ill occurred. That's what I've done today. Actions have consequences, and I'm living up to that right now.

And I'll say one last thing, just so we're really clear. I had no knowledge or involvement in this issue, in its planning or it executionand I am stunned by the abject stupidity that was shown here. Regardless of what the facts ultimately uncover, this was handled in a callous and indifferent way, and it is not the way this administration has conducted itself over the last four years and not the way it will conduct itself over the next four.

Note the need to use lots of words used to persuade.  It not just being "clear" but being "really clear"

A reliable denial has 3 components, and this introduction adds to the denial.  By itself, it is strong, but the words before it, and after it, weaken the denial. 
I will do everything within my power to assure the people of New Jersey that. And I thank them for their willingness to consider my apology on behalf of this government. In the end, I have 65,000 people working for me every day. And I cannot know what each one of them is doing at every minute. But that doesn't matter; I'm ultimately responsible for what they do. And that's why I took this action.

More unnecessary information including the distancing language from guilt where he went from naming some employees to the number of 65,000.  This is to water down or reduce the responsibility of oversight by telling us both the impossible and unnecessary.  

Hyperbole continues its overall weakness.  

There are many more indicators of guilt within the statement.  If you wish to study deception detection click here

Analysis Conclusion:   Deception Indicated 

The subject knew.  

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would never have come out here four or five weeks ago and made a joke about these lane closures if I had ever had an inkling that anyone on my staff would have been so stupid but to be involved and then so deceitful as to just -- just to not disclose the information of their involvement to me when directly asked by their superior. And those questions were not asked, by the way, just once; they were asked repeatedly.""

He starts the motherlode of lies here.

Anonymous said...

Later today I'm going to be going to Fort Lee, asked to meet with the mayor to apologize to him personally, face to face, and also to apologize to the people of Fort Lee in their town. I think they need to see me do that personally, and I intend to do that later on today. People of those communities for four days were impacted in a completely callous and indifferent way, and I'm going to go and apologize for that.""

Statement here give me the feeling this man is stuck in quick sand: "going to be going". Does this explain "I intend" ? "going to go" close to "that."

A novice SA, it seems to me he wants others to think more highly of himself than he ought. Or, you really can't depend on him as it is at his whim to decide when and where he goes.

Anonymous said...

"I wanted to do the best I could to try to get to the bottom on some of this" ...hmmmm...sounds convincing.

ima.grandma said...

There is a subtle difference between saying "I'm sorry" and "I apologize". An apology is a formal intellectual logical admission of a wrongdoing.  An "apology" has as its secondary meaning "explanation" or "defense".  It may or may not be heartfelt.

 "I apologize" is a way to formally admit that you did something wrong, whether you feel "sorry" about it or not. So while you might admit (apologize) that what you did was wrong; you may apologize without feeling remorseful for your actions. 

 On the other hand, saying "I am sorry" is usually seen as being a truer emotional empathetic admission of regret. Being “sorry” is about how what you did makes you feel; apologizing is about asking for forgiveness: the focus is different. 

After facing harsh criticism, politicians often apologize for their gaffes, but they seldom say they are sorry for their actions because saying so makes them appear weak. Christie was more interested in saving his job than making things right.

A timely appropriate article, great job Peter.

Peter Hyatt said...

He gave a great speech in 2014 and presented ideas logically and emotionally.

It was the private question after the speech, that I could not resist asking, about the analysis.

It is a better lesson in "Reliable Denial" than meets the eye.

some of the Anonymous comments are worth replying: choose a name.

Peter

Bobcat said...

OT: Child Abusing Attention Seeker

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3934423/gender-unknown-baby-registered/

ima.grandma said...

Contempt is a manifestation of superiority. To  act with contempt toward someone shows that you consider yourself to be – almost morally superior to that person. The elite — people who believe they have more intelligence than and superior wisdom to the masses. They believe they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us ordinary Americans.
 
    "The contempt becomes evident over life, as a personality trait. " 
 
A person's personality becomes apparent in mere hours to days. Assessing a person's character, on the other hand, takes months to years. But people remain themselves at every moment.

Once a traitor, always a traitor.
     ~Mexican proverb

I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself. 
     ~Robert E. Lee

Anonymous said...

Thank you Ima for your wisdom. Its always so refreshing.

Paul Flanagan said...

OT:

What do you make of this? Actor Donal Logue's missing kid.

http://gothamist.com/2017/07/03/donal_logue_missing_daughter.php

J.F.T.96 said...

Fuck off

ima.grandma said...

Thank you so much Anonymous @12:41. I appreciate your comment.

Trigger said...

I remember when former Pres. Obama shut down Lincoln's Boyhood home here in Kentucky. It was because he didn't get his budget approved for him from Congress.

This is becoming the new "norm" for those that we elect. Shut down the beaches and parks in vacation areas in the summer.

Try to go to the government owned beaches in California. Government employees get the to go to the front of the list for the reserved spots. Anyone who tries to get on a list for a spot to camp on the beaches that isn't employed by the state, is told that they are booked up ahead of time for years.

I was told that state employees, fire fighters, police, and emergency workers get priority treatment when I enquired about getting a reservation.

I opted to go to the private beaches in Malibu. They are the best beaches in California. No crowds to fight and well groomed.

ima.grandma said...

Prime example of elitism and arrogance:

"We have a residence in Princeton, as well. And that place is a place where people can go and tour, but they can't if the government is closed. Am I supposed to move out and stay in a hotel?'' Christie asked Monday during a phone interview with WTXF-TV of Philadelphia.

Christie defended his use of the beach house, saying: "That's the way it goes. Run for governor, and you can have the residence."

The governor reiterated the sentiment to WTXF, telling those critical of his use of the closed beach: "Well, I'm sorry. ... They're not the governor.''

ima.grandma said...

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/nj/chris-christe-family-beach-new-jersey-government-shutdown-20170703.html

Snip:
During a news conference on Sunday, Christie told reporters he “didn’t get any sun” at the beach. 
End snip.

Snip:
When later shown the photos Mills captured, the governor’s spokesman confirmed that Christie was on the beach “briefly” before heading to Trenton for the press conference.

“He did not get any sun,” Brian Murray, the governor’s spokesman, told the Star-Ledger. “He had a baseball hat on.” 
End snip.

Which form of deception is this CYA statement? Is it an example of sarcastic contempt for ordinary Americans?

ima.grandma said...

I know I'm being a blog hog. This is my last for awhile.

Trigger: As a career state government employee, my state's furlough policy excluded "all essential personnel" determined by the 'powers that be' and their definition of essential.

Anonymous said...

ima.grandmaJuly 4, 2017 at 11:18 PM
Thank you so much Anonymous @12:41. I appreciate your comment.

Reply





But I thought you wanted me to "choose a name." You're always harping on that.

LOL. Aaaaahhh, ego is a funny thing.