Forming a Q: PM Edition

As we're all well aware, Alex Rodriguez has gotten himself in hot water over using no-no substances between 2001 and 2003. He's spoken on it and is attempting to move on. Others, from defenders to persecutors, are not. That got The Buzz wondering...


A-Rod has admitted his guilt and The Buzz is willing to accept that and move on. Why? Because The Buzz: A) Isn't in need of an apology B) Has spent enough time in the grey to be understanding about certain things and c) Generally doesn't care to break out the old soap box for this (Bud Selig's culpability is an entirely different matter). But maybe that's not the right approach. Maybe there should be more outrage. So The Buzz wants to know:

What is the difference between being an apologist and just not being judgmental?