Did He Really Apologize?
Rob Arkey's apology, finally having been released to the media, is good enough for me but apparently not for Larry Glass.
I'm hoping the issue will be dropped, as it should have earlier on but, looking at the Times- Standard's coverage of the story today, I get the impression we haven't heard the last of this.
Let's just hope this situation doesn't become reminiscent of the old Clinton "Zippergate" apology of years ago.
I remember back then he was found out fooling around in the Oval Office. He finally had to issue a public apology. I don't know that I really wanted an apology from him myself. I was of the Let's drop it and move on... mindset.
But he had to apologize, for whatever reason. Predictably, as is kinda happening a bit now in the Arkley/ Glass case, the pundits began going back and forth over whether Clinton's apology seemed heartfelt and sincere. To paraphrase Clinton's first apology:
Clinton: I'm really sorry....
Then the T.V. pundits started in:
P1: I just don't feel like his apology was sincere...
P2: Me neither. He's going to have to sound more sincere if he expects people to accept his apology....
So a day or so later:
Clinton: I'm really, really sorry....
P1: He still doesn't sound like he really means it.
P2: I agree. Doesn't seem like a heartfelt apology to me...
A day or so later:
Clinton: I'm really, REALLY sorry...
P1: It seems like he's trying but he needs to try harder...
P2: Yep. He's almost there....
Finally:
Clinton: I'm really, REALLY, REALLY sorry...
I don't recall if Clinton ever satisfied some of those guys. I got sick of the whole thing that evolved over that.
Hey, Clinton gave an apology. Take it or leave it.
Same with this Arkley/ Glass thing. I hope this doesn't evolve into something like the Clinton thing with Arkley going on and on trying to satisfy Larry Glass. We need to just drop it. The apology has been made. Take it or leave it.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:08 AM
69 comments
69 Comments:
I apologize for calling you an intellectually dishonest authoritarian freak on your blog, Fred. But you have to understand that authoritarian freaks such as yourself get my civil liberty loving side all worked up.
Do you like that apology, Fred?
Glass won’t let it drop because Salzman doesn’t want it to drop. Larry really impressed me at first when he was elected, but now I see it was all bullshit. Glass has no credibility with me anymore over this. I agree with you Fred - this ought to be dropped completely. I see it as a total waste of time and resources.
Big Mr. Arkley, hiding behind his wife and daughters to justify his behavior. What a guy.
It's not an apology, it's a revision of events.
Let's remember the climate at the time, heraldo - the blog comments about his wife and daughters, calling them drunks and whores, calling him a molester - he may not read the blogs, but you can be sure he had those comments passed to him, and they all had to hunker down and take it. No matter who you are, those kinds of things hurt - and they don't go away.
He apologized. You can nitpick, but this now just makes Glass look bad.
Larry is not responsible for what people write on blogs, and Arkley makes no reference to blogs. You are putting words in Arkley's mouth.
Glass looks like a champ. Arkley looks like he can't take responsibility for himself and so hides behind his wife and daughters.
Anonymous said...
Oswald, he's just a patsy.
Now if Kevin Hoover actually apologized for stomping on another journalists' foot during the Arcata City Council debate, THAT would be an apology truly worthy of hell freezing over!
Wed Sep 26, 07:53:00 AM
I think Hoover would sooner eat glass than actually admit to letting his grudges get the better of rational thought.
Talk about lazy posters. LOL
How many blogs are you going to post that same exact statement on 11:04?
I guess we have to define the terms here, don’tcha think?
Larry whines it was not a “real” apology. What he did not hear in the e-mail was an expression that Arkley was “sorry.” Well, Larry, that is because Arkley was not, and is not, “sorry.”
Let’s start with the word “apology,” versions of which Arkley used 3 times in his e-mail to Larry. Here’s one set of definitions:
“Noun
1. apology - an expression of regret at having caused trouble for someone; “he wrote a letter of apology to the hostess”
2.apology - a formal written defense of something you believe in strongly
3.apology - a poor example; “it was an apology for a meal”; “a poor excuse for an automobile”
It is apparent that the Arkley apology letter incorporates both the first and second definitions. He apologized in the form of a “regret” apology by starting off the e-mail with “I owe you an apology.” That tone is clearly regretful. It is not defensive or justifying.
Clearly, later in the e-mail the second definition is in play as Arkley was defending and justifying his actions. He was not sorry to have been defending his family’s name and his wife and daughters’ honor. This fits the second definition of apology, “a formal written defense of something you believe in strongly.”
Finally, in closing, Arkley returned to the regret form of the definition. “Again, my apologies for last night.” This is regret, not defense or justification.
I agree with Ed Denson and Eric Kirk, as expressed in the parallel thread at SoHum Parlance. This e-mail is not exculpatory in any fashion. But it is what it is. Arkley clearly knew what he did was regretful and within 20+ hours of the event he was honorable enough to directly express to Larry his sincere regret; at the same time he used the e-mail to remind Larry that Arkley was formally stating his defense of his wife and daughters. That is not “hiding behind” them, it is defending his family name, clearly something that matters to he and his family. You can mock that sentiment, but he clearly states that is what animated him at the event.
The regret portion of the e-mail includes, as Ed noted, an indication that Arkley wishes he had done it at a different time and place, and that he regrets his manner that evening and hopes to do better in the future.
Yes, by both cited references, it is an apology letter.
What is Larry’s public response? “He didn’t say he was sorry!”
Well, Larry, hell will freeze over before Arkley says he was sorry. He was not sorry, if by that you mean Arkley should forsake his defense of his wife, daughters and family name. I would frankly think less of him if he did express sorrow for having defended his name. And it is silly for Larry to whine about a lack of expressed sorrow in the apology.
Larry comes off as rather precious. By that I mean “precious” as in “Artificially genteel or extremely sophisticated and picky.” Get over it.
Maybe Larry would be satisfied if Arkley said, "I'm really, REALLY sorry...".
this "apology" is just evidence in the investigation of arkley. now, no one can dispute that some sort of altercation happened at the avalon that night. arkley himself admits it in the email....
Please Mr. Glazer. We all already read that lame attempt to justify intimidation of an elected official at SoHum.
I smell Sterling-Nichols here - what do you say 11:38?
No, Fred - I agree with you on this. Glass ought to drop it. Now he really looks lame.
From Hoover to Ornelas to Arkley: Arcata sure does produce more than its share of bullies. Didn't the trucker serial killer carry that severed breast into arcata city hall a few years back too?
Arkley didn't apologize for what HE DID. He apologized only for his choice of the place and time.
So that leaves the question: what would be the "right" place and time for Arkley? I suspect it would be in a dark alley when Larry's back is turned or driving by Larry's house at 3AM. That's what Larry is concerned about and that's why he is so correct in reporting and pursuing this as a threat on a public official.
Let the investigation play out from here,regardless of what one views as an apology or not.
Hilarious, as I predicted: it was all about the lack of an apology, until it was printed in the paper. For 18 days all we saw was blog post after newspaper story wondering when Arkley would finally apologize. Then, predictably, when the apology was disclosed to have been made on the 7th of September, Larry said it was not good enough because Rob had not said he was "sorry."
Larry then crafted in the T/S an apology letter he wished he could have received. It was pathetic. Nobody on the planet would have penned such a whiney apology.
The English language defines apology in 3 ways and Arkley's e-mail encompassed 2 of those ways: an expression of regret and defense of one's position. He is not sorry, Larry knows it and knows he will never hear "sorry" from Arkley; it follows, of course, that Larry can remain Arkley's victim until hell freezes over because, he is not sorry.
Any person who expresses sorrow after speaking out in defense of his family name is a wimp; Arkley is no wimp.
The apology e-mail shows that Glass is working all of us for his political needs, "re-victimizing" himself. Come on, Larry, get over it.
Arkley is the one who "made it" about his family. His daughters are adults. The Arkleyville thing went away over a year ago.
This is about power. And Thank God, most people seem to know that.
Larry does not need to get over anything. Loser.
Arkley revises history by cowering behind his wife and daughters.
Loser.
As is Glass.
How so?He's said from the get go that he was harassed and threatened and shoved,and if he received an apology for that he's consider dropping charges.He felt that the apology sent to him wasn't,well,an apology,as it didn't address his concern.Whatever,it's his deal.Is their an apology police in town who can help settle this matter?
Let the investigation run its course from here,that's it.
He apologized. You can nitpick, but this now just makes Glass look bad.
Unfortunately little makes Glass look bad right now. Making no attempt to address the accusations in the apology, RA wants to deflect our attention to the fact that he only was thinking of his daughters. Well, it is obvious that being in denial of the alleged events of that night is not making it go away,
-boy
And I still have a hard time believing that a self proclaimed near billionaire didn't at least have access to a cell phone when the stickers were being distributed.
Funny thing, Mark. the rich are different. They have more money. Aside from that they are no different than you or I. They have up and down days, they have problems with their kids, they get flat tires, they have the same weaknesses and strengths that any people from any walk of life have. Some are articulate, some are not, some are weak, some are not, just like any segment of society.
But in one way they have it worse - when the Arkley stickers were being distributed, they had to keep a stiff upper lip, could not speak out to defend themselves. And when their family was brought into the (blog) debate, vilified unlike anyone else in the county, you can bet that hurt, and you can bet it rankled, and you can bet it simmered underneath the surface, and found its vent that night in the Avalon.
Whatever happened, it was not one simple factor, and Larry is not blameless in the thing.
His situation is not simple either. Each brings its own complexity. Larry sounded good on the radio, he sounded sincere, he sounded reasonable, and he intended only to file a report for the record.
What happened after that is where it gets really interesting, and a little bit sickening. Larry lost the high road in seek of - what? and more importantly - why? The cheerleaders are on here crowing him on - he threatened a public official! You must act, Larry. You are now a very valuable pawn in a bigger game.
What's lost is the humanity. Two men who could have talked. Who may actually have liked each other, given a chance, differences or not.
Whole thing is stupid and sad.
Whole thing is stupid and sad.
Very True. Yes, they could have talked. Only if...
"What's lost is the humanity. Two men who could have talked."
And it could've happened a year and a half ago when the stickers were floating around.
And it could've happened a year and a half ago when the stickers were floating around.
Also very true!
Instead, RA's daughters made the trip to see LG, and discuss the stickers. I want to believe that they were acting on their own, but with the PR people hired to "look into" the Marin Center Project, it could very well be that the "kids" were used. (only a thought, I am not inclined to believe the daughters were used as tools)
-boy
The pot calling the kettle black:
Rose saying: "Whole thing is stupid and sad."
Pretty much her bio.
Perhaps he doesn't remember what it was about or what he did or said. I've known guys that get to drinking and really get aggressive and abusive but when they apologize the next day they really don't know what they did that deserves an apology.
11:02 - go back an have another bourbon Richard. Then punch another hole in your wall you woman hater.
Man Rose, you evidently have really gotten under little dicky's skin.
Despite what nutcase Rose may say, the advice that decent rich people observe is that "To whom much is given, much is expected".
Since society rewards rich people with exceptional wealth, I think society has some reasonable expectations that the rich will use that wealth not to harm society and to act in a considerate manner to us "lessers". And when some rich people don't, they deserve social critisism.
"To whom much is given, much is expected"...,
By your definition, Arkley has certainly delivered. Not just with the visible evidence of vitality and restored buildings in the decrepit downtown area, the zoo, the waterfront, but in helping many causes over the years.
His wife was on the City Council, and though many watched to see if she misstepped, she did not. She did a good job.
What does he or she ask in return for all they have done? I don't see it. To be treated fairly? To be allowed to proceed with their project without demonization and vilification?
If I were them, I would cancel all projects here, and would not donate another dime to any cause in Humboldt County. Let the balloon track sit for all eternity as a monument to the mentality here.
Cherie also raised the ante for council races, spending sixty grand to get elected to part-time town council. Was that charity...or was it an investment?
C'mon Rose. Investment. You know it, too.
She upped that ante? Nothing like Salzman.
And there's the root. Until his break with Salzman, this hostility did not exist. What was Arkley's statement? I see how you play the game? Something like that.
4:06 wrote, "Cherie also raised the ante for council races, spending sixty grand to get elected to part-time town council. Was that charity...or was it an investment?"
Yep, and she also lost her bid for Mayor, by a very slim margin.
She didn't contest it, and conceded to Pete Levallee.
Fred
Fred,
You are the most irrelevant blogger in Humboldt.
Sorry 'bout that-
Respectable and honorable rich people treat their "lessers" with consideraton and respect. Giving some money to public causes isn't enough because those causes are personal to the rich person's interest. Being considerate and magnamimous sets a tone of tolerance and cooperation that says more about a rich person's character than all the monuments they create.
And being rude and arrogant says something too... After the smoke blows over, the rich people will still be rich but the "lessers" will have lost their dignity and trust in the fairness of the social order.
Please Rose... I think most everyone agrees that Salzman is very old and tiring news.
And don't bother trying to say I am him. I am just a regular old Eureka resident.
Please Rose... I think most everyone agrees that Salzman is very old and tiring news.
And don't bother trying to say I am him. I am just a regular old Eureka resident.
Nevertheless, he is linked to this saga. Do you doubt he is still actively stirring the pot?
I do. Besides, if you actually believe I have nothing to do with him why should those of us who support Larry have to be associated with Salzman?
I just don't get it. I personally think Salzman is repulsive. But that doesn't mean I can't find value in someone or some thing that he too might support.
You might be a very nice person Rose. But personally I think you do more harm to your own image than Salzman's by eternally trying to link him to everything you disagree with.
Apparently you are unaware of the links in this case. You find Salzman repulsive? I don't.
Apparently you are unaware most of us don't care.
Except ever since Cherie spent the bank getting a city council seat, everyone ELSE has to pony up to that level, too. So regular people - like YOU Fred - cannot afford to even run for Eureka City Council anymore. That's progress in the wrong direction, when only rich people can run for office.
Who were the rich people running for council last election?
Larry Glass, maybe? He owns a business.
Owning a business doesn't necessarily mean you're rich. Many business owners in Arcata constantly remind us through the Chamber of their thin margins and how hard it is for them to keep their doors open.
However, being on welfare, like Fred is, does mean you're poor. For folks like Fred, who are indigent, can't gainfully work, and jealous, almost everyone else appears to be rich.
Who's lying? Arkely or Glass? Did RA push and threaten LG or not?
If Salzman was involved,It would have already been put into the newspapers radio,whatever.I'd imagine that Arkley's P.I.'s went after him first,again intercepting e-mails,doing whatever they could to invade his privacy.If he was involved,we would be hearing much,much less about the impact stickers had on Alison and Elizabeth Arkley,and much,much more about Richard Salzman,coming from the mouth and pen of the PR guy.
But maybe he is involved,and like has apparently happened with witnesses coming forward,it's being kept away from the media,and is part of the investigation.
Mark - I hate to break this to you, but Salzman is involved...up to his eyeballs in this. Irrefutable proof, like being seen strategizing with him. And by a lot of different people.
And what the hell are you talking about “intercepted e-mails?” Are you ok today Mark? You seem not to be making a lot of rational sense here man.
It is funny how one side here has to resort to using the name Salzman to defect from any particular issue.The Salzman Conspiracies can be great.
I might be missing something. Is this that Robin Arkley that helped Eureka finish the Boardwalk?
And helped fix the zoo?
Rebuilt the Daly's into an Entertainment Center?
Redone some of the ugly Eureka 5th Street corridor?
Bought a useless piece of land (Balloon track) and wants it to be cleaned up and used by the public? (And offered in the past to buy this same land and give it to the city and they said "no"?)
Hires many people paying living wages and paying for their children’s education? Helping our economy through tax revenues and supplying workers who buy locally?
Built the new CO-Op for all to enjoy? (And gives us great Flatmo art?)
Must be some other Rob I am guessing. Robin Arkley is a local boy from Arcata High.
Rose is right. Why should the Arkley family spend another dime on this area?
And just what has Larry brought to the table locally? Oh yes, Larry is from Los Angeles area.
1:09 So you're bought and paid for. We all kow what that makes you. You should spend time on 3rd street waiting for additional benevolences from men who have money to give you.
Let Arkley keep his money or donate it anonymously. Anything else is an investment. He makes a profit on the Co-op building, Marina Center, and drive through Starbucks. The other expenditures are personal investments, that while riskier have a fair chance of positive return.
Remember thatr Arkley's business is "turning around" poorly performing assets. Ever wonder EXACTLY how he makes money? Through threats of forclosures, shutdowns, and layoffs, he gets concessions from workers, cities and minority investors. I say the town is uglier because Arkley has created general ill will through his boorish imperious, and arrogant behavior.
How did he make his money re-opening the Eureka High swimming pool?
9:59 He's making his money by getting people such as you to like him for throwing (relative)pennies at the pool and subsequently support his big balloon tract project(and others) without asking any questions. Rubber stamp approval of that project will result in alot more money for Arkley than if he has to develop it with close public scrutiny. That's called INVESTING, which people who have retained their money can and choose to do.
By the way 9:59, public corporations have a method of accounting for things like expenditures on the pool. It's called "good will" on their balance sheets and listed as an asset which increases the book value of the corporation. Arkley's corporation is not public, so we don't see his books.
Green eyed envy is ugly.
From what I can see, the only thing about Arkley to envy IS his money. Poor guy broke down and threatened an elected official. Maybe after he deals with this he can get his act together.
Yep, Arkely should go into rehab and attend weekly meetings of an anger management support group. Only problem with that is if everyone in Humboldt who needed it actually did it, there'd be no one left to run the government, hospitals, schools, shops, farms, mills, and ranches.
11:10 I have no problem with investment or someone turning their talents to acquiring wealth. I do that too. I think capitalism is great. Just don't confuse investing with philanthophy and public service. The only way to be certain that money is given without any strings is when it is given anonymously. Otherwise, the contribution has to pass a smell test.
I don't think there is anything the City of Eureka, or the County of Humboldt could give him in return - other than thanks.
He doesn't need the Marina Center project, so saying that he expects a green light in return doesn't make sense. Pretty much any other community in the nation would welcome someone like him.
Whatever's in the water here... I just don't know. I still think it is interesting to look at WHEN the criticism of him started here locally.
Rose, you say he "doesn't need" the Marina Project. Since when do you know what HE thinks HE needs? I think you see everything from your personal perspective and assume everyone else sees things exactly like you do. To be blunt, you're small-minded and self absorbed.
Arkley WANTS the Marina Project and we know that he's a person who devotes a lot of effort to making money AND we know the Arkleys changed the design to include a "big box" despite Cheri's earlier promise it wouldn't. The reason she gave is because without a "big box" the project wouldn't "pencil out". That means it wouldn't make money. So, its proved that Arkley wants to make money from the Marina Center project. And I don't fault him for that. I fault you and the amen chorusers who say he's not doing it for money. Thats just not true. And I think its interesting to look at why you insist on asserting something that is false, and when did you start doing it?
Of course if he is going to do it, he wants it to pencil out. That's just smart business.
But NEED it? No. Want to do it? Sure? Is it life or death make or break? No.
He can walk away and not miss it, He doesn't need the money, 3:54.
That doesn't mean he wants to put together a project that is can't stand on its own.
Geez!
Rose how do YOU know what Arkley thinks he needs? YOU just don't get it that different people often have needs that don't revolve around "life or death" and are different from the ones you might have. You sound like your economics are so marginal that all your needs are about basic survival. That's so sad.
But the point we now agree on is that Arkley wants to make money from the Marina Center. Its an investment whose value is increased by "good will" from the pool and zoo contributions. And its likely that Larry Glass, in his official capacity, might reduce the money Arkley can make. Which is a motive for Arkley to intimidate Glass.
Some people give because they can. Some people see a need and say - you know, I can do that, and do it for you. With no expectation of anything in return. I guess you, 2:29, cannot conceive of that. But if you expect something reciprocal for every gift you give, that's so sad.
When it comes to gifts the size of a boardwalk, a zoo building and the like, I doubt anyone can expect a like gift in return. The City of Eureka cannot afford it.
Since other projects have capped the ground with no screams from the mob, one can only conclude that this is about hating a man, maybe just because he has the money you do not, and can do things that you cannot.
"Since other projects have capped the ground with no screams from the mob, one can only conclude that this is about hating a man,"
I hope you're familiar with the term"enough is enough"
I give money anonymously to causes I like all the time. But when I give political contributions, I have to identify myself. That's the law, and for good reason. People who give often expect somethings back. For most charities its doesn't matter publically who gave, but when it involves Governmental powers, it matters a lot. It seems Arkley's motto is: "From whom much is given, more is expected to be received"
Post a Comment
<< Home