There’s a haunting account in the psychoanalytic literature of a child who asked for apologies. A 1955 Psychoanalytic Study of the Child article tells of a four-and-a-half-year-old admitted to the New York Neurological Institute. Gaunt and pale, a few weeks earlier she had stopped eating and speaking. She refused to be in bed, huddling in a corner with her face to the wall. “[S]oon she began to wet and soil as she lay mute and unresponsive.”

At the Institute her behavior was similar. Sometimes she muttered or hummed rhythmically.

A few days after admission, she was the subject of a case conference attended by many staff. She was rolled into the room in a crib. She sat staring. She made no response when the examiner put an arm around her or asked her name. After a few minutes, she began muttering. The examiner asked a nurse if she had ever been able to make out any words. The nurse said she’d once thought the child was chanting, “Say you’re sorry.”

Child’s hospital cot, Great Ormand Street & Bristol.

When she said this, the child looked at the nurse, then stared at the examiner. He took her hand, and seriously said, “I am sorry. I am very very sorry.” The child looked at the staff member standing next to him and spoke. Clearly. “Say you’re sorry.”

“I am sorry, too,” he said. She turned to each doctor in the front row and said, “Say you’re sorry.” Each one did. She started asking them their names, told them hers, and happily accepted a piece of candy.

She improved rapidly, and went home.

She was brought to the Institute for weekly therapy sessions. Her initial reaction was “excellent; but she then went successively through a long series of reactivated earlier phobias about contacts and smells, with related compulsive avoidance rituals.” Her mother was also pressured to come for weekly therapy.

The article says that the child’s “crisis” had come after a day when her father, tired and annoyed, lost his temper and spanked her.

The article “does not pretend to tap deep layers of analytical data or insights.” The saying sorry is referred to as a “verbal symbol” from an “unconscious constellation,” whose effect was “instantaneous and almost magical.” They describe the incident as a “demonstration of the appearance and disappearance of a psychotic state in childhood out of a neglected pre-existing neurosis. …that this malignant process was caught in time to be reversible was the happy outcome of a moment of exceptional clinical good fortune…”

Well, then.

New York Neurological Institute. Pretty sure this is the place.

Ten years later, a follow-up article in the American Journal of Psychotherapy, by different authors, offered more explanation. Six years on, the child was hospitalized again. She was violent, set fires, insisted she be called a boy’s name, said she might cut herself, eavesdropped on phone calls, and generally appalled and frightened the family.

After months of therapy, it was at last learned that when the child was very small, shortly after she began to walk, her parents decided the child was too constipated. They didn’t consult a doctor, but began giving her enemas every few days, which the child fought savagely. It took both parents to overpower her. This went on for three years – which seems to take us up to the time the child was first locked up after her “psychotic” crisis. Somehow, the parents never mentioned it to clinicians when asked about toilet training.

The second hospitalization seems to have been set off by an incident when the child’s day camp was scheduled to have a sleepover. Half an hour after arrival, the kid became hysterical and uncontrollable and had to be taken away. Much later, it turned out she’d spotted an enema bag in a counselor’s suitcase.

When the therapists finally learned about what they termed “the battle of the enemas,” they initiated sessions with child and mother and then the whole family over a month’s time. “The patient was allowed to introduce the topic of the enemas at her own time, and did so….” By the end of the month “all of the intense feelings surrounding it had disappeared.”

The authors of the second article go more directly to the subject of the apologies demanded. “Being ‘sorry’ can… be understood to have multiple meanings.” They say she felt sorry for her own behavior. “Moreover, she demanded that her parents should be sorry for deceiving her, surprising her, bribing her, and repeatedly invading the privacy of her body. By extension, she was unable to trust anyone…”

That was a hell of a way to treat a tiny kid. Today it’s called abusive. The articles aren’t fun reading, and the psychoanalytic interpretations might also be… dated. But the opening scene of the story touches the heart. The angry, despairing child was freed from self-destructive misery by a room full of strangers apologizing to her. There is a fleeting magic there.

Hard-fought tennis game at the Open de Rouen. French player Loïs Boisson dominating. British player Harriet Dart struggling. As they changed ends, Dart spoke to the umpire. “Can you tell her to use deodorant because she smells really bad?”

This was picked up by a microphone so lots of people got to hear it, though probably not Boisson, who continued to trounce Dart. 6-0, 6-3. Game over.

Later, Dart posted on Instagram, “Hey everyone, I want to apologise for what I said on court today, it was a heat-of-the-moment comment that I truly regret. That’s not how I want to carry myself, and I take full responsibility. I have a lot of respect for Lois and how she competed today. I’ll learn from this and move forward.”

Harriet Dart, Transylvania Open, 2024. (c) Nuta Lucian

Good or bad apology?

It’s probably true that it was heat-of-the-moment stupidity, rather than some kind of diabolical middle-school strategy. Umpires don’t pass messages between players. Opposing tennis players aren’t in sniffing range of each other.

But if Dart genuinely wants to take responsibility, she should apologize directly to Boisson, and not only to the public “everyone” who heard this silliness. And then, as she said, learn from this. And only then, “move forward.”

Boisson did hear about it, after all, and posted a photo of herself into which a container of deodorant had been Photoshopped, captioned “@dove apparently need a collab”

Amusing, and de-escalating. Well played.

Another deodorant brand hopped into the conversation, saying their product is better than Dove’s.

Battle of the brands? That’s where things could get underhanded.

Hat tip to our Tennis Correspondent, Wendy G.

Sorrywatch fam! We have an excellent corporate apology to share! And it’s from a brand Sumac and Snarly both love!

Nooworks is a small, woman-owned company in California that manufactures wildly patterned, delightful textiles. (The company name is derived from the owner’s dog, The Noo-Noo, which pleases us Teletubbies fans.) Nooworks collaborates with independent artists whose limited-edition designs are printed on plant-based fabrics at an industrial rotary plant in Los Angeles and turned into clothing at a factory in Oakland. Snarly’s husband is on his way to Burning Man as we speak with two of the three Nooworks jumpsuits for which they share custody.

If you see a 50something man on the playa wearing this, say hi!

The company has rabid fans who await new patterns while salivating. (It also has non-fans who point out that pieces can fit inconsistently, that sizing is weird and skews small, and that some of the fabrics pill too easily. And Nooworks isn’t cheap – but ethically made clothing shouldn’t be. Snarly often buys hers on resale sites.)

If you’re ever in San Francisco or Los Angeles, where the two physical stores are: SAMPLE SALES!

Anyhoo. The apology story. Last Friday on Instagram, Nooworks teased the drop of a bright yellow fabric covered in folk-arty leopards and snakes, called Serpentine, created by a blonde California surfer-food stylist-designer of Swedish heritage. Within moments of the post’s appearance, customers began pointing out that the design was super-duper … reminiscent of the work of Brazilian designer João Incerti.

Nooworks: Look at the snakes.

Incerti: Now look at THIS snake. (Look at the snake, then back at me. Now at the snake, now me.)

The size and shape of the snake, the coils, the placement of the eyes, the orientation and spacing of the jagged triangle border around the snake are identical. One savvy Instagram detective noted that the black and white stars and moons in the new Nooworks print were exactly the same as the stars and moons in a different older Incerti work, and the leaves around the cheetahs matched precisely to the leaves in that same Incerti work. Commenters also went to the California artist’s site and found multiple works that mapped unnervingly to the works of artists on the site Artfully Walls.

Nooworks replied in comments that they were looking into the situation. The artist who’d done the print for Nooworks took her store’s site down and made all her social media accounts private. Nooworks told commenters it had reached out to Incerti but hadn’t yet heard back, and that it “certainly won’t be profiting off of this and are looking to put the financial funds towards the best use. Artist compensation included.” Commenters bayed for blood. What exactly did “financial funds” mean? Why was Nooworks posting anything before hearing from Incenti? How dare they sell this work at all? Eventually, Incerti himself commented:

Hey! Thanks for sharing my work ❤️ Unfortunately copy is very common nowadays with the internet, but I’m happy that you didn’t do it on purpose, different then many others brands, big and small ones! It’s unbelievable sometimes 😢 I didn’t know your brand before, wish you success on your journey :)❤️

Within a few hours, Nooworks shared a Notes App statement saying they were postponing the release.

The text reads: We want to start with our sincerest apologies. We are so grateful for our community for bringing this to our attention. We were made aware yesterday that some artwork in our newest print has been heavily influenced by another artist. We were just made aware of this artist yesterday and have since reached out to them in hopes of finding a positive resolution. We’ve yet to hear back but also understand that they really have no liability to get back to us since this is truly not their problem to fix. We’re uncomfortable releasing this print under any artists name and have made the decision to donate 100% of the profits to the following two organizations: @rainforestus and @yeahart_ . We plan to release all product we have on the site Monday 8/21 at 5am. In addition we’ve brought back the 20% off sale which will apply to all full priced products because we cannot stand behind this product 100%. Sale is active now and applicable to all full priced NW. We understand a larger company would likely put these in landfill but we work really hard to be environmentally conscious in our business practices so that didn’t feel right either. We’ve unfortunately completed production on this print and all goods are already in our warehouse. It is one of our main company values to work with and support original artists. Jen and I are so sorry we missed this sooner and truly hope we can find a positive outcome to a horrible situation.

(Some text is missing from the screenshot, but it appears in the body of the post, above.)

Soon there was an addition to the image: “UPDATE: the drop will be on Monday with the real artists, @o_incerti ‘s permission. We’re so sorry and have been working as fast and diligently as we can to supply you with some answer.”

Nooworks also sent an email to customers:

On Instagram, yelling continued. Some commenters applauded Nooworks’s transparency and attempts to do the right thing. Others felt that until there was complete resolution, Nooworks shouldn’t be making statements at all. Some weren’t sure from the wording of Nooworks’s statements whether Incerti was being paid; some wanted the fabric not to be sold at all; some wanted Incerti to pick the charities the sale would support.

The next day, Saturday, there was an update: “The drop will be on Monday with the real artist, @o_incerti‘s permission. We’re so sorry and have been working as fast and diligently as we can to supply you with some answer.”

The artist who made the yellow Nooworks print remained silent. But her site reappeared, without the works that commenters had noted were wildly similar to ones on Artfully Walls. (She’s still selling items that feel derivative of Commes des Garcons’ hearts with eyes, but they’re not direct copies.) Some of her friends braved Nooworks’s Instagram to point out that snakes and leopards are common in art right now, that their friend was an ethical person, that going private and remaining silent were necessary responses to avoid being bullied by an angry mob, and that a lot of artists’ work is similar because that’s the nature of art. All points worthy of discussion … though they don’t address the fact that such EXACT copying is never OK. We’ll update this post if she makes a statement.

SorryWatch is willing to entertain the idea that this artist genuinely didn’t understand that what she did was wrong. She changed the snake’s colors. She put elements from different Incenti works into the same work. Perhaps she thought remixing constituted fair use. Perhaps she thought “everyone does it.” Here’s a parallel: Many people don’t believe that pasting text from Wikipedia, with slight rephrasing, is plagiarism. Many people don’t understand that rewriting ChatGPT a bit isn’t creating new work. Not all artists or consumers agree on the placement of the border between influence and full-on copying.

Yesterday, the yellow print — its name no longer Serpentine — appeared on Nooworks’ site. On Instagram, an announcement:

It’s here: DESERT DISASTER is officially out! All profits from this print will be donated to the Rainforest Foundation to help Indigenous and traditional peoples of the world’s rainforests in their efforts to protect their environment and uphold their rights and Yeah Arts, funding art education making arts education more inclusive, accessible and relevant. You can shop this print in store as well! We originally planned to drop this over 3 weeks so there are still a few styles that are in various stages of production which we listed in our stories with dates!

They also noted that Incerti would be paid. And extended the offer of 20% off everything on the site as a kind of apology to customers.

We think Nooworks handled this really well. Let’s look at our 6.5-part rubric, shall we?

1. Say you’re sorry.
2. For what you did.
3. Show you understand why it was bad.
4. Only explain if you need to; don’t make excuses.
5. Say why it won’t happen again.
6. Offer to make up for it.

Six and a half. Listen.

Nooworks crushed five and a half of the steps! We’re really impressed by the company’s efforts to keep the community posted, in spite of customers’ strong emotions and conflicting demands. Not making a profit on this was the right thing to do; not selling it at all (the clothes were already in production) is too much to ask.

What could the company have handled better? Only step 5: How will they insure this won’t happen again? In future, Nooworks will have to do image searches, or more EXTENSIVE image searches than they’ve been doing, to ensure that the designers they collaborate with are submitting original work. (We’re sure the artists have to sign something saying their prints are original. The problem is that some folks may not understand what that means, and others may lie.) And as one Instagram commenter noted, “Generative AI is only going to make this situation more common.” Passing off other people’s work as your own is only getting easier. Some companies even welcome computer-generated work, because it’s cheaper (hello, movie and TV studios!). Fun with capitalism!

Nooworks also might take this opportunity to think harder about contracting with white artists who play with indigenous visual themes. So many companies produce art that invokes motifs and stories from marginalized communities but isn’t made by people from those communities, the folks whose history is being referenced (and profited from). Even when the intention is purportedly positive — to honor a tradition — or the artist doesn’t completely comprehend that they’re ripping off a heritage and visual language that isn’t theirs, it’s the wrong thing to do.

Ironically, it’s not clear that Incerti (who has created prints for the Brazilian fashion label FARM Rio, for Anthropologie, and for Bombay Sapphire) is an indigenous artist himself. The complexity! Snarly has a ton of Brazilian family — Mr. Snarly’s grandfather, fleeing Heidelberg shortly before Kristallnacht in 1938, wound up in Indiana, but his great-grandmother, great-aunt, and great-uncle all wound up in Brazil, and generations later, there’s a wide array of Sao Paulo cousins. They’re native Portuguese speakers and don’t look like stereotypical Eastern European or German Jews. But does that give them the authority to deploy imagery from indigenous South American art in their work? (You tell us.) Then again, the history of our own American art forms, Broadway musicals and jazz, are rife with appropriation from African and African American culture (and in Broadway’s case, also Eastern European Jewish melodies) – the line between appropriation and adaptation, between acculturation and abscondence, can be mighty hard to discern.

One thing is certain. Snarly’s niece Lucy (in Nooworks leggings) and Lucy’s cat Alex are incredibly cute.

Snarly’s fave Nooworks prints feature glorious midcentury-vibe-y flowers, psychedelic lobsters, and purple leopard print. She stalks Poshmark for a dress in a discontinued pink-and-black print by cartoonist Jay Howell, depicting witches hats, squiggles, hearts, mice and lumpy skulls — it reminds her of weird 1970s French comic books. Oh, and then there’s that banana print! A nifty thing about Nooworks is how stylistically wide-ranging these patterns are, with good representation of artists from a variety of backgrounds and cultures. There’s just no need for “ethnic” designs that don’t represent the actual background of the artist. Hire folks from the cultures being referenced.

Snarly in her #1 fave Nooworks dress.

(Snarly’s culture is mushrooms.)

The upshot is that Nooworks handled a rotten situation beautifully, under a ton of pressure. Bigger companies could learn a lot from them about good apologies and about making things right.

Snarly and Sumac very much enjoyed appearing on A Bintel Brief: The Jewish Advice Podcast. A Bintel Brief (Yiddish for “a bundle of letters”) began in 1906 as an advice column in The Forward, the venerable old Jewish newspaper. It answered readers’ questions about romance, life as a greenhorn, adapting to the quirks of America, finding a job. Then came a Bintel Brief book that compiled 60 years of all kinds of letters, and then a delightful illustrated version by the great cartoonist Liana Finck. And now, a podcast! Hosted by the delightful Ginna Green, a movement builder on the boards of progressive Jewish orgs like Bend the Arc and the Jews of Color Initiative, and Lynn Harris, a writer-comedian-activist who founded Gold Comedy and co-created the superhero known as Breakup Girl, it asked us to come on and answer a letter writer’s Dungeons and Dragons-related apology question and to talk about apology in general.

Snarly (in her alter ego as Marjorie) also did a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything) about apologies, Jewish children’s literature, and her hatred of borscht. (It is called “Ask Me Anything,” after all.) Snarly is no longer taking questions but you can read the entertaining conversation here.

In other news, SORRYWATCH HAS BEEN CENSORED IN CHINA! Lots of books are printed in China these days, and ours was supposed to be one of them. But after receiving the manuscript, the people in charge refused to print it. They would not tell us why. We have a suspicion, though: In the book, there is an apology-related story that involves the Dalai Lama. We suspect that there are a number of words that get one banned in China. We suspect that “Dalai Lama” are two of them. Never fear, the book is being printed in America and will, God willing, be on shelves on January 10^th. You can pre-order it (please do! Pre-orders are apparently helpful things!) through any of the links here. Or just ask the nice folks at your local bookstore or library to order a copy. (Did we mention we love libraries?)

ANYHOO. We are truly living large, what with all these MEDIA DOINGS (Snarly also did a segment on the evening news in San Francisco about Will Smith’s pretty-good, B+-rated recent apology), and our lovely publisher, Gallery Books, even made us some SNAZZY NOTECARDS.

Lest you think this has all gone to our head, however, Snarly found one of the snazzy notecards lying on the kitchen counter with a corner ripped out of it. Someone in her household was at that very moment using it to make a FILTER for a JOINT, aka a hand-rolled cigarette of the marijuana, the devil’s lettuce.

EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE of MALFEASANCE.

We are delighted to announce that our book, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry: The Case for Good Apologies, will be published by Gallery Books, a division of Simon & Schuster, on January 10, 2023. Woot! Check out that gorgeous cover! Absorb those snazzy blurbs on the S&S web site!

Hahahahaha, let’s all pose in coolie hats and do ching-chong eye-stretchy karate-y things! Let’s encourage this small child to participate merrily and racistly in our racist merriment!

Eater explains that as part of an event in which chefs from around the world swap recipes, Chef Gianluca Gorini of daGorini restaurant in Bagno di Romagna, Italy, tackled the recipes of Victor Liong of Lee Ho Fook restaurant in Melbourne, Australia. And posted this photo. Which is now deleted. But several people got screenshots.

Yikes. Who does Gianluca Gorini think he is, Jesse Watters?

When people on the Internet expressed dismay, Gorini took down the photo and put up an apology. It was…not good.

This is not a good lede: “JEEZ, who could ever guess that a photo could cause so much hullaballoo!” Gianluca, you should have been able to guess. And using a head-clutching GARSH photo, like a confused Dad confronted with a Diaper Genie in a commercial, is way minimizing of the offense committed.

Gianluca goes on to fail to say what he’s apologizing for. (And remember, the photo is gone. Unless you know the backstory, you have no clue what this apology is for.) Those gestures he and his staff and the little boy are making were “dictated by the excitement and enthusiasm that the confrontation with a new culture has generated in our daily work”! See? They we were simply filled with zesty high spirits when faced with upscale Chinese-Australian recipes! But now Giancarlo realizes he doesn’t “know the subject of the question well enough” — no one has ever taught him that it’s bad to mock Asian people —  so he has “underestimated its meaning.” The meaning of racism? The meaning of coolie hats? The meaning of making wacky-pretend “Asian eyes” with your fingers?

Gianluca gives the tired, inadequate “to all those I have offended” apology (nope, apologize to EVERYONE, unreservedly); tells us about his intentions (not relevant; actions are what matter); and asks Victor Liong, the chef at Lee Ho Fook, to forgive him (do not ask for forgiveness; earn it).

In addition to the, y’know, racism of presenting Lee Ho Fook as a caricature of Chinese-ness, Gianluca and his team have demeaned Victor Liong as a chef, as a creator. The restaurant specializes in new-wave food reflecting a wide variety of cultural influences. Its name is from the opening lyrics of Warren Zevon’s perfect “Werewolves of London” (I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand/Walking through the streets of Soho in the rain/He was looking for a place called Lee Ho Fook’s/Gonna get a big dish of beef chow mein”). Zevon’s werewolves are sophisticates, sporting exquisitely tailored clothes and perfect hair, hobnobbing with the Queen and having cocktails at Trader Vic’s. And in that spirit, Lee Ho Fook is clearly playful and sophisticated; a recent Instagram post featured a shot of Chow Yun Fat in John Woo’s breakout action movie A Better Tomorrow, lighting a cigarette with a hundred-dollar bill, to showcase a special dinner made by young breakout-talented Chinese-Aussie chefs. It’s a generous gesture, to use your successful restaurant to spotlight new talent.

In an interview, Liong said, “You spend all of your youth rejecting – well, I did anyway – Chinese culture and not trying to be too Chinese and not seeing any value in it. I went through a bit of a self-discovery process and part of that [has been] opening Lee Ho Fook and cooking Chinese. If anything [it’s] something that I’m quite passionate now – going on a journey to rediscover that culture.” Reducing that journey to a racist caricature, as Gianluca and his staff did, is pretty sickening. We hope Giancarlo has reached out personally to Liong, not just waved at him on social media.

SorryWatch must remain hopeful that Gianluca can learn and grow from this experience. (If we didn’t think people could do better, we wouldn’t do this site.) Years ago, the Italian company Barilla turned its homophobic debacle into an opportunity to become much, much better. Maybe Gianluca can do the same.

I found your apology for calling me two-faced to be insincere.
(“Doublefaced Nr. 23” by Sebastian Bieniek.)

Seeing the defense statement, the angry plaintiff sued for defamation, and won. In 2015, the court ordered the lawyer to apologize, so he sent the court a written apology. SorryWatch are sad that we don’t know what it said.

In 2016, the lawyer traveled for work. When he got online to buy a plane ticket home, he was refused. The system said he had been blacklisted by the courts. He was 1,200 miles from home. Tough.

Eventually he managed to buy a ticket by going in person and using his passport as ID.

But what was this about a blacklist? The judicial website had him on a list of “untrustworthy people” because he allegedly hadn’t followed the court order. But he had!

No, it seems the court said that apology was “insincere.” (Now we really wish we knew what it said.)

It took 3 weeks for the court to get back to the lawyer. We don’t know why the court detected insincerity, although possibly the fact that it was dated April 1^st was a factor. They said he should apologize again, so he did. He was taken off the no-fly list. Yay!

Whoops. Soon it turned out that he was on another blacklist, and this one prevented him from applying for a credit card. But don’t worry, it’ll probably all work out after he writes a third apology the court has requested.

SorryWatch has seen cases where crappy apologies enraged courts before. Where they had to be rewritten. (Hello, Pennsylvania!) But the actions taken were judicial, and didn’t bleed into no-fly lists.

How can this happen in our great country? Actually, it happened in the great country of China, where they are installing a “social credit” system. It’s called Sesame Credit. It’s an affiliate of the Alibaba Group. In addition to doing what US credit bureaus do, such as looking at whether you’ve paid your bills or your taxes, it looks at other things. Do you honor your father and mother? Do you follow traffic rules? Do you volunteer for stuff? What are your shopping habits? How reliable – according to the government – is that stuff you post online?

We are not sure why the Two-faced Neusticurus (Neusticurus bicarinatus) is so called, but we are certainly not letting it buy a plane ticket.

Sesame Credit looks at factors in five categories – Credit History, Fulfillment Capacity, Personal Characteristics, Behavior and Preferences [online], Interpersonal Relationships [your online friends] – and assigns individuals a “citizen score,” a single number.

A score is between 350 for “lowest trustworthiness” and 950 for “highest trustworthiness.”

Wikipedia says, “From 600 up, one can gain privileges, while lower scorers will revoke them. According to current plans, the final score and ranking will be publicly available.” The Chinese government says it will “make trustworthy people benefit everywhere and untrustworthy people restricted everywhere.” What could be bad? Why, if your score is good enough, you’ll be able to fly, apply for loans, make reservations at fancy hotels, compete for scholarships, purchase insurance, get social services, enroll your kids in good schools, work for the government….

If your score’s not good enough, too bad. Should’ve thought of that before you made those unwise purchases and reposted that stupid meme. Don’t come crying to the algorithm.

We are told that the Chinese Supreme Court described Sesame Credit’s ratings as “once untrustworthy, always restricted.”

The lawyer forbidden to fly was Li Xiaolan, hometown Beijing. He’s one of millions harmed in this system. For example, journalist Liu Hu, often in trouble with authorities for blogging about government corruption, has found that he’s not allowed to buy property, fly, take fast trains, or get a loan. What if he apologized? What if he apologized again? And again, and again? So far that hasn’t worked so well for Li Xiaolan.

Sincere? Insincere? Opinion seems divided.

SorryWatch hates to see apology misused and turned into a tool of ideological suppression. We haven’t seen any of Li Xiaolan’s apologies, but even if they’re two-faced, snide, and rotten to the core, he should still be able to get on a plane. Even if he said “sorry IF the stupid plaintiff thinks they were defamed,” any remedy should be in the judicial system. It should not affect his ability to enroll his kids in school. Why, these measures could create a hereditary low social credit score.

Any system that defines groups of people as untrustworthy/bad (especially if it tags them as permanently untrustworthy/bad), is contrary to the spirit of apology. The ideal of apology is to make things right again. To make amends.

We’re also especially creeped out by the “shopping habits” category. It’s part of an appalling trend for governments to think of people as consumers rather than citizens. (Talking to you, Shrub.) Our jobs? Shut up, buy things, and be sure to pay for them promptly.

We hope it can’t happen here, and we hope it stops happening in China.

Thank you to Wendy Grossman, who brought this to SorryWatch’s notice.

“I say what I think! You know where you stand with me!”

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

I was contentedly composing a post about poetry and plums. Suddenly Twitter exploded and there was slime flying everywhere.

A tape from 2005 had just been released by The Washington Post. In it, radio/TV host Billy Bush was buttering up Donald Trump on the way to the set of the soap opera “Days of Our Lives.” There was loathsome sex talk. Rapey sex talk. With Trump doing most of the talking, and Bush obsequiously encouraging him.

Just ugh.

Here’s what Trump said in the course of an idle disgusting conversation with Bush. I have edited out Bush and any other lickspittles saying “Yeah” and “Whoa” and “Whatever you want!”

Trump begins by talking about a failed seduction. “I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it…. I did try and fuck her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look….”

They spot Arianne Zucker at this point, the actress whose unfortunate job is to escort them onto the set. They discuss her legs.

Trump resumes speaking his short-fingered vulgar mind: “I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful – I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

“Grab them by the pussy.” That’s assault. As in against the law.

Asked about this today, Trump said, “This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course – not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended.”

Trump’s not known for apologizing. But that’s okay, because this shouldn’t count as an apology.

Just ugh.

It’s an example of the cowardly Sorry-If. He says he apologizes if anyone was offended. Notice he doesn’t admit that it’s actually offensive. Which it is. And evil. “When you’re a star… you can do anything”? No no no no no. Though it’s probably true that he’s gotten away with a lot of nastiness committed against people who were afraid to call him on it.

Trump tries to change the subject to Bill Clinton. That bullshit won’t work.

If anyone was offended. He knows people were offended.

As for me, I’m not sure offended is the right word. Revolted? Horrified? Nauseated?

Not to mention appalled – he considers himself a “star” who can do anything to women. Anything, no matter how gross, unwelcome, illegal. Never mind that I have a different definition of star.

What does he think a president can do?

SATURDAY UPDATE FROM SNARLY:

You’ve probably seen the videotaped apology by now. If not, watch it here. The text:

“I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong and I apologize.

I have traveled the country talking about change for America, but my travels have also changed me. I’ve spent time with grieving mothers who’ve lost their children, laid-off workers whose jobs have gone to other countries, and people from all walks of life who just want a better future. I have gotten to know the great people of our country and I’ve been humbled by the faith they’ve placed in me. I pledge to be a better man tomorrow, and will never, ever let you down.

Let’s be honest, we’re living in the real world. This is nothing more than a distraction from the important issues we’re facing today.

We are losing our jobs, we are less safe than we were eight years ago and Washington is totally broken. Hillary Clinton and her kind have run our country into the ground. I’ve said some foolish things, but there’s a big difference between the words and actions of other people. Bill Clinton has actually abused women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims. We will discuss this more in the coming days. See you at the debate on Sunday.”

This would do awesomely on Bad Apology Bingo!

As many folks on Twitter pointed out, there’s a lie in the first sentence. He did indeed pretend to be someone he wasn’t, several times masquerading as his own (fake) publicist.

“I’ve never said I’m a perfect person” is a way to say both “you knew what you were getting with me” and “c’mon, this isn’t so bad.” The “more-than-a-decade-ago” comment conveys “someone dragged out this ancient artifact to hurt me.” Sticking the words “I apologize” at the end of a compound sentence — to say nothing of at the end of a paragraph — diminishes it. The “anyone who knows me” and “these words do not reflect who I am” are both right out of the Bad Apology Playbook — you said the things, therefore, they do reflect who you are.

Billy Bush, 2006.

When Trump says “my travels have changed me,” I thought he was going to say he’d gained more understanding of the issues women face and become the kind of person who wouldn’t grab women by their pussies. (I expected that last part to remain subtext.) But no, he offers general platitudes about both men and women, and then says he pledges to be a better man. But if the words he spoke don’t reflect who he is, why does he need to be a better man?

“Let’s be honest, we’re living in the real world” then negates any half-assed apology that came before. “Let’s be honest” implies that the need to respond to the tape is bullshit, politics, entrapment…and it’s a strange choice of word, because hasn’t his whole shtick been that he’s ALWAYS honest, when no one else is? The “real world” phrase implies what he said earlier: Everyone talks like this. Only hothouse flowers think everyone DOESN’T talk like this. And of course, “this is nothing more than a distraction” again negates any notion of remorse or soul-searching. Talking about assaulting women isn’t worth paying attention to, so let’s move on.

In the last paragraph, we start with boilerplate campaign rhetoric. Then he states that Bill Clinton (who is not running for president, and whose conduct Hillary is not responsible for, no more than Melania and Marla and Ivana are responsible for Donald’s) actually assaulted women (not proven, no more than the rape charges against Trump have been proven, and again, Bill is not running for president), and Hillary bullied them (again, an unproven allegation). Again he stomps out his own “apology” by saying BUT LOOK WHAT THEY DID; IT’S WAY WORSE. An apology owns the offense and does not blame others and does not say (as Lance Armstrong did in his terrible apologies, or Ray Rice did by blaming his wife for her own assault): BUT LOOK ELSEWHERE. And I’m not the only one who views “we’ll discuss this more in the coming days” as an implied threat.

Not apologized to: Trump’s own wife and children, Arianne Zucker, the married fake-titted woman.

Maybe headline writers are starting to catch on to the difference between apologies and hand-waving about “regrets.” With Donald Trump’s help.

No comment. Politically correct words fail me.

Just starting to. Trump’s recent remarks about unspecified regrets for unspecified remarks were not headlined an apology by the New York Times, which titled a story on the speech, “Trump Steps Out of Character to Voice Unexplained Regrets.” Although the story did refer to it as a “display of contrition,” which – not really. No.

A Washington Post headline ran “Trump voices regret for causing ‘personal pain’.”

But ABC News stupidly went with “Trump Apologizes for Words on Campaign Trail, Says ‘I Will Never Lie to You.’”

And silly Fox News chose “The art of the apology: Trump issues uncharacteristic mea culpa.”

Newsweek still gets it wrong: “Donald Trump says he’s sorry.”

He did not say he’s sorry. He did not apologize. And most people weren’t fooled by the apology-scented air freshener.

Here’s what he said:

As you know, I’m not a politician.. [bragging about alleged business success omitted here] I’ve never wanted to learn the language of the insiders, and I’ve never wanted to be politically correct. It takes too much time. Truthfully, it takes far too much time and can often make it more difficult to achieve total victory!

Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that. [Laughter. Trump smirks, raises eyebrows, smirks more.] And believe it or not, I regret it. [Smirks.]

Regrettable personal pain.

And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.

But one thing I can promise you is this: I will always tell you the truth.

That’s it.

Running down our apology checklist, we can see just how bad this is. He fails on the first count: He never says “sorry” or “apologize.” Just that old dodge “regret.” We have pointed out the emptiness of regret many times. You “regret” a thing? That doesn’t mean shit.

Sure enough, the next day reporter Tom Llamas asked him if that “was an apology,” and Trump replied, “They have to take it as they see it.” You know, sometimes folks will swallow a lie, sometimes they won’t.

Please! Use your insider language!

He fails on the second count – naming what you did. He never says what he “regrets.” Does he regret attacking a judge as biased on the grounds of a Spanish surname? Maybe, maybe not. Does he regret saying Obama founded Isis? Maybe, maybe not. Does he regret mocking a disabled reporter’s movements, saying he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers, saying Mexican immigrants are rapists, hinting that a bereaved mother didn’t address the Democratic convention was because she wasn’t allowed to? Maybe. Maybe not.

Since he doesn’t say what he allegedly “regrets,” he can’t go to part three, acknowledging the effect, except for the mysterious allusion to “personal pain.” Whose pain? Pain over what? What are we supposed to make of that? It also fits into our bad apology checklist, in minimizing the offense (whatever it was). Oh, personal pain, boohoo. Nothing about degrading public discourse, racism, sexism, or slander.

The part about always telling the truth is a HUGE lie. The hugest!

Part four is explanation, in cases where it’s needed. That’s where he shines! He just couldn’t help saying whatever it was he regrets, because he was in SUCH A HURRY FOR TOTAL VICTORY. You’ll notice he prefaced all this with boasts about not being politically correct, and not speaking the “language of insiders.”

No. Wrong. “I’m sorry” is not the language of insiders. “I apologize” is not inside-the-Beltway code jargon. “I was wrong to speak about you that way” is not secret wonky egghead boffin talk. Snobs don’t own apology. ANYONE CAN SAY THOSE WORDS.

If they have a conscience.