Children on a playground with and without pollution

Letter, drawing from 9 year old asking Duke Energy to be a leader in clean air

Bad and good Duke power plants

Those children’s drawings and many more can be found here and here, courtesy of Ohio Citizen Action.  The posts are titled, “Children’s Drawings for Duke Energy.”  And while the images illustrated by the children reflect their awareness about the air quality around them, thanks to a 2008 USA Today multi-part, multi-media series on air quality around school buildings, findings are now coming out that highlight how those industrial pollutants endanger schoolchildren.  The premise of the 2008 articles:

USA Today used an EPA model to track the path of industrial pollution and mapped the location of almost 128,000 schools to determine the levels of toxic chemicals outside. The potential problems that emerged were widespread, insidious and largely unaddressed.

Among many shocking, frightening pieces of information gathered and made available during the series was a list of schools, by state, and a ranking related to the air quality around them each one. You can see Ohio’s schools here.

The exposé convinced the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study air quality around several schools in numerous states. Its program was named the the School Air Toxics Monitoring Initiative.

This week, USA Today reported on what the results of that initiative reveal:

The federal government’s first attempt to assess the dangers from air pollution around schools is nearing completion, and the findings underscore the need for more extensive air monitoring, especially in pollution hot spots, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency says.

Sadly, Ohio is home to some of those hot spots. Thanks to Bowling Green State University’s The Black Swamp Journal, an online blog that tracks environmental news in the northwest section of the state, you can read detailed information about the Ohio sites in “Air Quality Testing in Ohio Schools Continues.”

Why does any of this matter, particular at a time when the authority of the EPA continues to be undeservedly under attack? From The Black Swamp Journal:

All of the schools in Ohio tested by the U.S. EPA ranked in the 1st or 2nd percentile for worst air, except for the Ohio Valley Educational Service Center, which was not part of the series.

Gary Silverman, director of the environmental health program at Bowling Green State University, said children are more susceptible to chemicals.

“Chemicals tend to affect children more, for two reasons, one is that their metabolism is greater compared to their body weight, so they are getting a higher percentage ingested or inhaled,” he said. “Second, if it is really young children, their immune systems aren’t mature yet.”

And, while the USA Today article from this week states that dangerous levels of pollution have not been found via the monitoring,

…the tests showed concentrations of toxic chemicals higher than what the government typically considers to be safe for long-term exposure….

Among the most troubling results:

•Samples taken outside three schools in Ohio and West Virginia showed elevated levels of manganese, a neurotoxin that can cause mental and emotional problems. At East Elementary School in East Liverpool, Ohio, samples collected in 2009 showed average levels well above what the EPA considers safe for long-term exposure. [emphasis added]

Even worse, at least one recent study concludes that pollution can be linked not only to poor health but to poor academic performance:

Air pollution from industrial sources near Michigan public schools jeopardizes children’s health and academic success, according to a new study from University of Michigan researchers.

The researchers found that schools located in areas with the state’s highest industrial air pollution levels had the lowest attendance rates — an indicator of poor health — as well as the highest proportions of students who failed to meet state educational testing standards.

Not to my surprise, the findings indicate that minority students are disproportionately affected. Read the entire article to learn more about the study’s findings and policy recommendations – because yes, there are things we can do to improve the situation.

Please consider joining the Moms Clean Air Force. Help fight for clean air for our kids. Every voice counts and is needed.  If you haven’t already done so, you have through July 5th to email the EPA and show your support for the new Mercury and Air Toxics rule.  Thank you.

It’s no secret that several of MSNBC’s commentators and anchors have espoused some moderately sexist to severely misogynist views over the years. In 2008, we went after Chris Matthews’ derogatory coverage of Hilary Clinton‘s presidential race, resulting in MSNBC’s decision to demote him from the anchor chair of election coverage to become a strictly political commentator. One thing was clear: Matthews crossed the line too many times.

Then, that same year, David Shuster was suspended by the network for comments about Chelsea Clinton being “pimped out” by the Clinton campaign, using a prostitution metaphor.

Yet, the networks’ “progressive” male anchors and commentators aren’t learning their lessons. Just yesterday, Ed Schulz called incindiary right-wing talk show host Laura Ingraham, a “right-wing slut” and a “talk slut” on the air.

While conservative bloggers and watchdog organizations are highlighting Schultz’s remark,  the Women’s Media Center also calls on MSNBC to suspend Schultz for his comments, http://www.mediaite.com/online/cnns-dana-loesch-to-mediaites-frances-martel-on-epic-webcast-you-are-a-btch/ they not only attack Ingraham, but all women. Ms. Ingraham is no friend to the Women’s Media Center, but a sexist and misogynist attack based on her gender and not her political views or comments is harmful to women in media, politics, and beyond.

Ingraham provides enough fodder for progressive criticism that such base attacks have no place in coverage. As a new generation of women enter media and politics, such comments dissuade women from exposing themselves to vile attacks, and perpetuate inequality in newsrooms and in congress. Join us in telling MSNBC that Schultz’s comments are just as worthy of suspension as Shuster’s and to send a message to their on-air personalities that sexism is harmful and unacceptable!

To many of us – men and women – work too hard to make the debate about the issues and not the stereotypes. If you doubt this can succeed, just look at yesterday’s NY-26 race between two veteran women electeds – the media followed their narrative which stuck to the issues.  For those on the left, NY-26 also proves that you don’t need to talk like Ed Schultz to lob good, effective flames at an opponent.

Go to the site, watch the clip, sign the petition, blog it, tweet it, Facebook it. Thank you.

Although she is perpetually, like so many of us, in the midst of several other very time-sensitive situations that demand her attention, we made ourselves find time to sit down together to talk about an issue that is identical to what I believe the Moms Clean Air Force is all about: getting people to care, notice and take action, at whatever level they can muster, in regard to issues we believe are critical to not only our quality of life, but our children’s and our children’s children’s quality of life. For my friend and I, this issue is getting women into public service, politics and positions of leadership.  And equally vital to me is the MCAF end goal of taking action and moving others to take action in order to guarantee no backsliding and only forward motion in protecting our environment, primarily in the MCAF case, clean air.

How do we do this, my friend and I asked – how do we get women to care about politics, let alone consider running for office? As we were trying to brainstorm (in between getting sidetracked onto a number of other topics that excite us), it occurred to me that this question is very similar to the questions we ask ourselves in the MCAF effort: what can we tell you that will compel you?

I find that many kinds of input and exposure to lots of different kinds of information can be a catalyst and this week was no different.  I participated in a webinar about clean air that, with a few different multimedia tools and live people from whom we could hear fuller explanations about problems and solutions, has really stuck with me.

Documentaries work this way too – think about how you felt when you first saw Roger and Me or An Inconvenient Truth, anything about 9/11 or something about the Holocaust.  Or maybe it’s a first-hand nonfiction story you’ve read about an account of something in history, recent or way in the past.

What lately has stuck with you about our air? For me, it has got to be the findings this week about the Massey Energy company’s reckless disregard for the safety of its mines and those who work in them – and by extension all the individuals who rely on those workers.

In this effort to tell and compel (my way of referring to it at least), I see MCAF as hoping that all individuals, but especially parents and in particular moms will take that extra minute, half hour or whatever they can during a day, a week or a month to not only consider what they can do about protecting our clean air, but how can we compel others to tell why they realize it matters.

In regard to the effort with women and politics, I hope that, along with at least one other friend, we will continue to have small, local but regular gatherings to help people evolve in their ideas about public service and about seeking public service themselves. Likewise, we can all evolve what we’re doing in regard to our environment.  Finally being able to open my windows today after so many days of rain and cold weather, felt like an act of recognition about the importance of my environment to me.

Things don’t always have to be grand actions.  What story, what narrative can you tell that would compel you and others to realize how critical it is for us to take care of our air?  For more ideas, please visit the MCAF blog.

Other pieces of evidence (scant themselves) that folks in Ohio would be made aware, during an effort dedicated to awareness, come from the Ohio EPA and Earth Gauge at WKYC (Channel 3).  But that’s all I could Google up – I hope I’ve missed other coverage, because these results are terribly disappointing.

Worse yet, however, is that the scant publicizing of Air Quality Awareness Week is not nearly as disappointing, or upsetting, as how bad our air quality in Ohio actually is (although the number of inhalers I see in my youngest child’s elementary school nurse’s clinic indicates backs up this assertion without the need for much else, if you ask me).

Luckily, Ohio – as with nearly all the other 50 states, have people who are aware and do care.  The 50 States United for Healthy Air group enlisted two Ohioans in their May 2 effort to pump up the volume and air quality for their home state:

On May 2, 2011, doctors, nurses, faith and tribal leaders, social justice advocates and affected citizens from all 50 states are convening in Washington, D.C. to send a powerful message: all Americans have a right to breathe clean, healthy air.

These Clean Air Ambassadors will meet with members of Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Obama administration to speak out for strong protections against pollution that is harmful to our health. Industry lobbyists and their allies in Washington, D.C. want to block these protections from taking effect. But our lives depend on clean air, and these ambassadors will demand that we get it.

You can read about Deborah Lindell of Solon and Rachel Belz of Cincinnati here. (The blog, unEarthed, which is connected to Earth Justice and the clean air awareness effort, looks like a great resource for news on air quality issues.)

This week comes during Asthma Awareness Month and was host to World Asthma Day, on Tuesday, May 3.  Ohio is home to several organizations.  The Ohio Asthma Coalition has even produced statewide plans for combating the illness while the Greater Cleveland area benefits from these organizations.

Don’t have asthma? Don’t know anyone who does? Only read or heard about it – and then turned the page or the radio station? Well then – you’ve come to the right blog post!

First off, the economic impact has long been known to businesses, health care and otherwise. The Partnership for America’s Economic Success says,

While the health impacts of asthma have long been apparent, this report shows that the bulk of costs come in the form of long-term losses in workforce productivity. View the policy brief, or view the full report.

Included in the PAES information is the reality that this disease affects the health and productivity of 34 million Americans and results in “…direct medical costs and indirect costs associated with lost productivity…between $12.7 and $19.7 billion.” (my emphasis) You can read more startling statistic about the prevalence and costs of asthma here, but to think that more than 10% of all Americans live with it, on top of all those who must live with those individuals, and that 8.5% of all children suffer from it – I can barely take a deep sigh that asthma sufferers routinely can’t.

That number pales in comparison to the total amount of economic stress our country experiences from all environmental ills. According to a new report out in Health Affairs,

Poor childhood health caused by environmental factors, such as air pollution and exposure to toxic chemicals, cost the United States $76.6 billion in 2008, according to a new study^[1] in the May issue of Health Affairs. This price tag represents a dramatic increase,  from 2.8 percent of total health care costs in 1997 to 3.5 percent in 2008, report study authors Leonardo Trasande of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Yinghua Liu of National Children’s Study New York-Northern New Jersey Center.

Other papers in that same issue also explore environmental health challenges for children:

Children’s vulnerability to toxic chemicals is covered by Philip Landrigan of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Lynn Goldman of the George Washington University;

Air pollution and its impact on health and academic achievement comes from Perry Sheffield and coauthors at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine; and

Exposure to air pollution during important stages of development gets attention from Paul Mohai, Byong-Suk Kweon, and colleagues at the University of Michigan.

And, lest you think this is some issue that’s from the past that just must be under control now? Think again. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control),

People diagnosed with asthma in the United States grew by 4.3 million between 2001 and 2009, according to a new Vital Signs report released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2009, nearly 1 in 12 Americans were diagnosed with asthma. In addition to increased diagnoses, asthma costs grew from about $53 billion in 2002 to about $56 billion in 2007, about a 6 percent increase. The explanation for the growth in asthma rates is unknown.

No amount of coughing before, during or after ingesting that information will dilute or eliminate it from reality.

On the heels of knowing that Ohio is the least green state in all of the country and that Ohio continues to get nearly all failing grades in air quality, please spread the word about the Environmental Protection Agency’s public hearings – including one in Chicago – that will be held as a result of proposed mercury and air toxics standards being signed on March 16, 2011.  The deets:

April 26, 2011 – EPA will hold three public hearings on the proposed mercury and air toxics standards signed on March 16, 2011. Each hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. and continue until 8:00 p.m. (local time). The public may preregister to speak at the hearings at a specific time. People also may register in person on the day of the hearing, and will be worked in to openings in the schedule of speakers. To preregister to speak at the hearings, please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett, telephone 919-541-7966 or email garrett.pamela@epa.gov.

• Announcment Public hearings (PDF) (2pp, 186k) – Federal Register – April 28, 2011
• May 24: Chicago, Ill.
  Crowne Plaza Chicago Metro
  799 West Madison Street
  Chicago, Ill. 60611
  Preregistration deadline 5 p.m., May 19
• May 24: Philadelphia, Pa.
  Westin Philadelphia
  99 South 17th Street at Liberty Place
  Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
  Preregistration deadline 5 p.m., May 19
• May 26: Atlanta, Ga.
  Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
  61 Forsyth Street SW
  Atlanta, Ga. 30303-8960
  Preregistration deadline 5 p.m., May 23
• EPA also will accept written comments until July 5, 2011. Instructions for submitting written comments (PDF) (1pp, 55k)

(Notice I put the Chicago one in red.) And don’t ignore that very last line!!! You can submit written comments through July 5.  As I’ve written before, what part of our lives is not affected by our air?

Sarah Palin — who in 2008 infamously implied that Barack Obama was “palling around with terrorists” — owes it to our country to use her enormous influence with her devoted base of followers to call for an end to actual terrorism, no matter what its source. Byron Williams, inspired by Beck, endangered the lives of Tides employees and two California cops. Sarah Palin– you have the platform to condemn such calls to violence and you should use it to call Beck on his dangerous extremism that endangers lives.

Visit the latest Matter of Opinion survey, A Peace-Loving Sarah Palin Would “Refudiate” Glenn Beck, to see what others think about this bold move – was it a ploy? Should Beck be asked to chillaxe (chill and relax)? And do you think his rhetoric is in fact dangerous?

Personally, I want to know what on earth ever happened to one of John Boehner’s favorite pieces of legislation in 2007 – Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which he pursued with such vigor when George Bush was president.

Stopping the use of sexism against women in general but political candidates in this particular case has nothing to do with a person’s political ideology. It has to do with being reasonable and being human and being a positive example. It has to do with not raising our sons to be men who will humiliate women over their gender just because they think they can (and then double-down on the sexism when women stand up to it).  And it has to do with not raising our daughters to think that they must accept this kind of bullying. With all the news of bullying out right now, you’d really think that people would finally get it.

Using language that equals a put-down of a political candidate because it relies on voters to see him or her as a gendered stereotype like “whore”  is sexist because it relies on the sex as a tool for putting them down.  And no, it doesn’t work the same way with men – men are then considered to be players and the stereotype of that is rewarded (just ask U.S. Senator Scott Brown who has said repeatedly that his full nude spread in a national magazine helped his political career and pundits all along the spectrum have agree that there is a double standard).

We combat this by 1) confronting it exactly as Krystal Ball has and 2) calling it out no matter who is the object of the attack.  The Name It. Change It. effort is focused on just that.

I left a comment, which you can see below, at the post that prompted me to write about this topic and is just one example of how some conservatives (the same ones who have no problem with Rich Iott’s interest in dressing up as a Waffen soldier) really want to preserve sexism as a way to keep women like Krsytal Ball and Meg Whitman from getting where they want to go.  They still may not get there – but they deserve to be judged by what matters, not by what gender stereotypes opponents hope we’ll apply to them.

Please. Use your voice and do the same. The fear these folks have of women being in places of power is itself frightening and sad.

Nice try at trying to shame women from standing up for themselves – something Meg Whitman very appropriately did just last night against Jerry Brown and his campaign’s use of the word “whore.” But this tactic doesn’t work anymore – it doesn’t work on women who make a difference in the world or who entire politics. It doesn’t make a difference to the voters who are sick of this kind of minimizing which allows those of you have a limited vocabulary and lack of skill at critiquing people on policy. Even Krystal Ball’s GOP opponent demanded that the photos be taken down – perhaps he’s the father of girls whom he hopes will follow him into a happy life where they enjoy being with their spouse at a holiday event AND they hope to run for office. Those things are not mutually exclusive and your attempt to make them that way lacks influence over the people who know what really matters.

Folks: Women politicians can be covered for fashion – in the fashion section and at the same rate that men politicians are covered for fashion. I would never deny that fashion is something no one candidates – male or female – thinks about.

But women politicians should be covered by the media for their issues and character and leadership abilities, based on their experiences, accomplishments and vision for how they’ll fulfill expectations in public office should they win. Exactly as men politicians.

It’s beyond the pale now: there is NO QUESTION that the NYT did this story to get up hackles and in the end, throw serious political reportage of women candidates under the bus. It’s an inexcusable dog and pony show for readers and frankly, if I were that candidate, I would have demanded a different article.

Now – lest I be picked on for saying that a woman politician should be able to choose being portrayed anyway she wants, fine.

BUT I would then ask: WAS SHE GIVEN A CHOICE? Did the Times say to her: we can either do a fashion piece on you and connect shoes to women running for office, or we can do a piece on how you and Maloney differ and what you bring to the table that she doesn’t. Which would you like?

I HIGHLY doubt it. It’s more – if you want media coverage, this is what we can do. Take it or leave it.

Utterly gratuitous:

Those hip heels run the risk of undercutting Ms. Saujani’s credibility with the people she needs to convince of her gravitas (a wedge issue, even?).

They don’t run the risk of undercutting her credibility if YOU THE MEDIA DON’T KEEP SUGGESTING THAT IT MATTERS. LET HER WEAR HEELS AND GOT ON WITH RUNNING HER RACE.  And then cover her actual competition with Maloney.

Ugh.

There women are running to represent PEOPLE, in CONGRESS, for REAL.  This is what the NYT thinks is really going to help voters decide!?!?  With all the moaning about how few pages there are in a paper these days and the short attention span, this is the best they can do for a young political ambition taking on a heavy-duty incumbent?

UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the record, here’s Reshma’s campaign website.

You can think I’m full of it but today’s New York Daily News coverage of this race shows exactly how it’s done as it publishes a FAR more newsworthy take on the rivalry between these two candidates for the Democratic primary (Sept. 14) nod in, “Incumbent Rep. Carolyn Maloney, challenger Reshma Saujani question each other’s mosque support.”

Now if I were a voter, that would have information in it that I’d care about and would be glad the media is publishing.

UPDATE: Also worth reading on this very topic, Jill at Feministe.us’s take on same is here.

What is going on? Please read her post and comment here or there.

And remember, just because there is no intention does not mean that there is no bias.  It should be revealed and filtered out or otherwise acknowledged and/or controlled for.

NB: Today’s PD brings the primary endorsement announcements to a close with the GOP primary in District 11 which was for a woman. The tally stands at:

17 primary endorsements total from the PD

11 in Democratic primaries: 10 men, 1 woman

6 in Republican primaries (no Republican primary in the other five districts): 5 men, 1 woman

For County Executive:

2 endorsements total (one per party)

4 Democratic candidates (2 men, 2 women): PD endorses Ed Fitzgerald

3 Democratic candidates: (3 men): PD endorses Matt Dolan

So, if Cuyahoga County voters went with all of the primary PD’s endorsed candidates, the gender composition of the brand new Cuyahoga County government, with 12 elected officials, would be either 10 men and two women (or less than 20% female composition) or 11 men and one woman – less than 10% female composition.

With less than 25% women even in these races, we’ve not given ourselves very good odds.  But that does not excuse the PD from needing to unpack what’s going on with their endorsements, including the difference in the decisive value between managing tempests with aplomb versus being polished.

Oh – and just for the fun of it? Cuyahoga County, as of the Census data for 2009, was composed of 52.6% women – not less than 20%. Just in case, you know, representative government has you confused.

Guess they’re all worried about the end of men – which certainly doesn’t seem to be in sight here in Cuyahoga County, if these PD endorsements reign.

Last but not least, why having more than one matters so damn much. I cannot say it any better than Swanee Hunt and Kerry Healey earlier this year:

…we share the conviction that a “critical mass’’ of women will lead to better public policies.

What’s a critical mass? Research shows that when about 30 percent of a group is made up women, the discourse, values, and working style of the entire organization changes.

Women collectively bring a broader perspective to the political debate, based on their different social roles and life experiences. That breadth is crucial in order to solve the many challenges society faces, including the current economic crisis, national security issues, and health care reform.

While no stereotype is true for all men or all women, social science research says women tend to be more inclusive, more easily build bridges across ideological divides, and are more in touch with their local communities – all necessary traits for the kind of leadership needed in this deeply divided country.

But it will take a big effort to get women to imagine themselves in the political ring. Unfortunately, women candidates are often held to a different standard by power brokers and opinion-makers, including party leaders, donors, and the media. Sometimes other women are a female candidate’s harshest critics – so the obstacles to women participating in electoral office are not placed there by men alone. When a mother runs, voters of both genders often wonder, “Who will care for the children while she campaigns?’’ – a question for Pauline but not Paul. And typically, those controlling the party’s purse strings demand proof that the candidate has raised a substantial portion of her projected budget before even discussing how they can help her win her race.

This observation about what’s happening with our brand new county government and the media’s role in endorsements for 12 new elected offices is an opportunity to lead, not to be defensive.

The media’s focus has been on the symbolism of saying the words “I’m sorry,” as if that single utterance means everything and is the only thing. In today’s soundbite world that clamors to satisfy the hunger of news consumers, the media pushes the meme that the words “I’m sorry” alone are the end of the story. Some examples:

Lisa Belkin in articles on both her Motherlode blog and in the New York Times Magazine focuses on how to apologize and explores “how well” someone apologizes.

This post by Lauren Frayer is about a BP gaffe that was made during an apology for the oil spill. The BP executive then had to apologize for the blown apology about being sorry … for the oil spill. Again — what was the focus? It was on just spitting out the apology.

And even with sincere, appreciated words of contrition, such as UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s words about Bloody Sunday, the obsession is with how to say an apology and that not enough people give apologies.

I’m going to be a complete contrarian here: we have to stop focusing on who is asking for apologies and who is giving (or not giving) apologies. Instead, we need to focus on what people are doing after they give their apology. Because it is that behavior that matters. Period.

Anyone who has been wronged and desired an apology knows this: we want change. We want people to not do what they did. We didn’t want them to do it in the first place and we don’t want them to do it again. (People who have been in intimate relationships or are parents know this as well.) As Paul Vitello wrote earlier this year in the op-ed, The Art of the Public Apology,

A trenchant analysis of the issue appeared in The New Yorker last year. It was a cartoon: The woman stands over her shoulder-drooped husband. “I don’t want your apology,” she says. “I want you to be sorry.”

So the real issue in being sorry is, do we hold people to the promise of what it means to have been contrite? Do you? What exactly do we expect of people who express contrition, and what actions would show us that they are sorry?

The way in which we demand the utterance of an apology completely overshadows encouraging the wrongdoers to take action that would show how sorry they are. We let it go at “I’m sorry” and pretend that the ballot box or the television ratings or the ticket booth will do the rest when it comes to accountability.

But that’s not enough. We should be expecting more from people who say they are sorry, and we should be teaching more about how to show that we are sorry. The cliché that action speaks louder than words needs to be rescued from clichedom and pressed into use.

Showing your sorry goes beyond BP’s Tony Hayward sitting in Congress and taking it for 90 minutes. It takes more than not getting defensive or making excuses. It takes more than implicitly and explicitly taking responsibility for events that have unfolded, whether or not you were directly in charge simply because you are part of the chain of command.

Even though I believe that apologies do more for the listener, or the one asking for the apology, than they do for the overall healing, in some situations, perhaps, when we insist, “I just want you to say you’re sorry,” that is all there is to it. The Freakonimics folks make this argument when they review Kathryn Schulz’s new book, Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error.

An excerpt from Schultz’s book nails why I want to stop the focus on the words “I’m sorry.” Rather than give the person who is contrite a chance to change, we beat up on them after they say they’re sorry:

Regardless of the issue at hand – whether it’s an oil spill, an economic meltdown, or something far more trivial – when people blow it, we want to hear them say it.

Or so we claim. But how do we really feel when people admit their mistakes? When the person in question is a friend or family member, we all too often choose to rub his or her face in the mistake – while simultaneously exulting in our own rightness. Witness, for instance, the difficulty with which even the well-mannered among us stifle the urge to say “I told you so.” The brilliance of this phrase (or its odiousness, depending on whether you are the one saying it or hearing it) derives from its admirably compact way of pointing out that 1) I was right; 2) you were wrong; and 3) I was right that you were wrong.

So again I ask, what are we supposed to expect from the contrition of those who err? Whether sincere or not, how do we hold them to their word to show whether they are being sincere; that they are, in fact, sorry? (And don’t forget – apply this to yourself – what do you do to show you are sorry, in the long run?)

First, we could value “taking it” a little bit more. How have you felt when you’ve been the one responsible and knew that you could not (and should not) argue against that but rather must own the mistake? It takes a lot, doesn’t it? And yet what encouragement do you — the wrongdoer — receive to admit the mistake, correct it and move on? The saying of “sorry” seems to grab all the attention. And it shouldn’t.

If we want to foster learning from mistakes, shouldn’t we be giving more recognition to what it takes to be in charge, take responsibility and continue forward, than simply getting off with a well-publicized “I’m sorry” in words only?

Back to the Freakonomics column which notes that the usual treatment of someone who says they’re sorry is far from something that would encourage others to do so:

You cannot in good faith insist that people acknowledge their mistakes if you intend to shower them with moral outrage when they do so.

Resigning or being forced out so that you cannot help right a wrong — is that really what we should be doing? What about all the times we talk about learning from our mistakes, including the one responsible? What are we teaching our kids, and future leaders — that you only get to lead if you’re right 100% of the time? Anything less and you should simply apologize and disappear with nothing more to be expected of you, nothing more to accomplish in that arena, no chance to show that you’ve learned a lesson and can implement it?

Why aren’t we (and the media) focusing on defining what actions show that you are sorry.

Tiger Woods — what have you done lately to show that you’re changing? (Not much from what I’ve been watching.)

Joe Barton — you showing anything for that “You lie!” thing you said you’re sorry you spewed?

Eliot Spitzer — should we be checking in with Silda? Probably not, but still, I certainly wonder how reformed he is, especially in terms of shaming his three daughters.

Imus — anyone check in on him lately? I haven’t, and I haven’t seen him in the news at all, other than that he’s still on the air doing his thing. Anyone know if he has actually changed?

While we batter them relentlessly for the wrongs, we let them slink off rather than know to expect that we’ll be checking in.

There’s no better example of how much more important it is what we do after we say we’re sorry than the life of Senator Robert Byrd, who died recently. From Jack and Jill Politics:

Those who always bring up Byrd’s membership in the KKK, yes, it gives me pause. But, the man lived a long enough life to show the arc of it. Unlike a Jesse Helms, who, til the bitter end, acted like he longed for the America of slavery and Jim Crow, Robert Byrd had a long enough legislative life for me to believe that he had evolved. That he had gained wisdom for his previous choices, and to believe that he had come to regret those earlier choices.

We want people to actually be sorry — but we do very little to encourage behavior that would show that. Isn’t the real test of someone’s remorse whether they change their behavior? Do we, the ones asking for the apology, care enough about that, or are we only about the soundbite and the photo op of catching someone doing bad?

I think my answer is pretty obvious. How about yours?

This is cross-posted from this entry at BlogHer where you can read the debate going on about the topic.

According to Think Progress, the tape from Watters’ ambush is to be aired tonight, but here are some links of what others have been saying all day about the outrageous extent to which O’Reilly will go to intimidate critics:

Politico: ThinkProgress’ Terkel: O’Reilly producer ambushed me

PunditMom: Can Bill O’Reilly say “civil assault”?

Feministe: Standing With Amanda Terkel

News Hounds: O’Reilly Sends Stalker Watters After Think Progress’ Terkel Over “Alexa” Foundation Post

black girl blogging: Bill O’Reilley’s Producer is an Unprofessional Hack

Majikthise: Bill O’Reilly sics producer on female blogger who criticized host’s record on rape

Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Shakesville and others have also written about the incident.

For those interested, visit and consider joining  “We Stand With Amanda Terkel” Facebook group.

I’ll update this post as it develops.

UPDATE: Amanda posts about the O’Reilly segment from this evening here.  Honestly, his audience has got to have topped out the same way Rush Limbaugh’s has.  And none of it is news, that’s for sure.