Today is International Women's Day, and in honor of the more than half the population who still don't earn equal pay, who often don't feel safe in the simple act of walking down the street at night, who face stigma and blame for every sexual decision they make from saying no to saying yes, from wanting a child when their boss wishes they wouldn't to not wanting one when politicians think they should: This post is just about outright feminist anger.
Because most of the time, I'm not really motivated by anger. Mostly, I feel lucky. As recently as my mother's generation, my choices would have either been much more constrained or I would have had to fight for them tooth and nail. Sexism is real, and present, but I don't experience it as a constraining factor in my day to day life in meaningful ways.
But that sense - that perceived experience - is wrong. We still live in a world where our leaders can think it might be a smart political strategy at the earliest opportunity to:
Redefine rape to exclude the kind that isn't, ya know, REALLY rape. (charming)
Strip all funding from Planned Parenthood, to ensure women don't get access to frivolous luxuries like cancer screaning, birth control, STD treatment and pregnancy tests
And, of course, ensure that women who have been systematically discriminated against don't get any uppity notions about acheiving justice.
Equality is still something we have to fight for, and even us raging feminists are sometimes guilty of unwittingly perpetuating the assumptions that make us unequal.
So, today I'd like to raise a glass to the heroic women of the past and of the here and now who have been willing to face being laughed at, yelled at, abused, insulted and injured just because they aren't willing to lie back and take it.
And speaking of not taking things lying down - here's a video, shared widely and mentioned with approval by lots of folks who work with me in the world of social media. They think it's fabulous.
I hated it. Why? Simple:
I like beer. I like hugs. I like Facebook. Indeed, most Facebook users and huggers are female, and I suspect a pretty hefty constituency of the beer drinkers are too. But we are not being thanked here. Are all of Heineken's 1 million Facebook fans male?
I realise this is petty. But I decided to grant myself permission to be petty today. Don't worry, tomorrow will be one of the 363 International Days of Men, so we can go back to complacently accepting that physical contact with attractive women is the currency with which brands bribe men to drink beer, but for today, let me be the humourless shrew who points out that sexism is so ingrained that on most days, in most circumstance... most people don't see it.
Attorney General Holder yesterday announced that the Obama administration would no longer defend the so-called Defence of Marriage act in Federal Court.
This is great news. But it's a little complicated - so I've been reading up on the matter trying to figure out exactly what the Justice Department's new policy now means, and what the implications will be. Lawyers who read this blog (I know you're out there!) please feel free to chime in with further info as I'm just figuring this out as I go along.
The big news here is that the Obama administration believes gays and lesbians DO meet the standard of requiring heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the constitution. Previous court cases have been raised in jurisdications where the courts had previously ruled that this standard should not be applied to sexual minorities - but no such precedent exists in the 2nd Circuit Court, where two new cases are to be tried. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on this specific question.
The Obama administration therefore had no precendent to be bound or guided by in this instance, and the Justice Department therefore had to fashion its legal reasoning from scratch.
Under those circumstances, the position that they take is that section 3 of the Defence of Marriage act - the portion that specifically prevents the Federal government from recognising same sex marriage that are legal within a particular state - is unconstitutional. They will not defend it. But that doesn't mean that it is no longer law.
Until either 1) Congress repeals the law or 2) a Federal court rules the law unconstitutional, the provision will stay on the books.
So there's no immediate effect to this decision. But the government's position does make it far more likely that the law will be struck down by the courts, because it is difficult for anyone other than the federal government to claim that they have legal standing to defend the law.
This is a narrow, legalistic decision on the part of the Obama Justice Department, but the thinking that underlies it is boldly clear:
“It’s a lawyer’s decision based on a careful consideration of the law,” said Paul Smith, head of the Supreme Court and appellate practice at Jenner & Block, and counsel with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in a DOMA challenge now pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.
“There was only one right answer,” he said. “When you examine the law and which groups need heightened protection under the equal protection clause, you realize that sexual orientation is one of those kinds of discrimination that is suspect. There really was no way for them to defend Section 3 of DOMA because the law doesn’t serve any purpose other than to stigmatize persons.”
If a court eventually does decide that Section 3 is unconstitutional, as the Obama administration believes, that would greatly complicate the work of the US Government because suddenly we would have a patchwork system in place for federal benefits. Gay couples would have immigration rights in Massachusetts, but not in Ohio. They could have social security survivor benefits in Iowa, but not in Kansas.
But I say - bring on the mess. Because the more people are forced to confront the reality of gay men and woman and their "unreasonable demands" to be treated just like everybody else, the more hollow and pointless the arguments of the opponents seem.
UPDATE: I was right - Facebook (a client of my employer) have now removed the Lou Sarah Facebook account stating that it did in fact violate their terms ofservice: “The account was found to run afoul of our terms and it was disabled,” wrote Facebook official Andrew Noyes.
I wonder if Wonkette journalist Jack Stueff started pursuing this angle before or after I pointed it out to him by e-mail?
Yesterday I came across this intriguing tidbit from Wonkette, in which they used info from the recently leaked manuscript from a former Palin staffer to identify Sarah Palin's gmail account, and by conducting a simple search they were able to identify that Palin has a Facebook account under a different name, "Lou Sarah" that she has been using to "Like" content on her own and on Bristol's Facebook pages, and to comment positively ("amen!") on both pages. The profile still exists, but has now been scrubbed of its activity record - when I looked at it last night, though, it still looked the way it did in the Wonkette story:
So here's the thing. I do a lot of work on Facebook. I work for an agency that has Facebook as a client. I manage Facebook pages, I advise clients on use of Facebook. I've royally screwed things up on Facebook from time to time as well. Hey - it's how you learn!
So I think it's probably important to clarify a couple of things quickly (don't worry, you may commence your respective "Sarah Palin is the Devil" and "How dare you attack this woman who will SAVE this COUNTRY!" diatribes momentarily).
Firstly, Wonkette says the Lou Sarah account is Palin's "second" Facebook account. If it were true that Palin had two Facebook Profiles, that would be a violation of Facebook's terms of service, which specify:
1.You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
2.You will not create more than one personal profile.
But it's not immediately clear whether Palin has done this or not.
The famous Sarah Palin page with 2.75 million fans is a page - not a profile. A Facebook page is sort of like a website set up on Facebook. There is no limit to the number of people who can "Like" a page, and pages can be managed by multiple users. Pages that represent a brand or famous person are asked to confirm that they do in fact represent that brand or person.
Facebook profiles, on the other hand, represent individual people, not brands. They have "Friends" rather than being "Liked", and are limited to a maximum of 5,000 "Friends". The important thing to note here is that Facebook pages can only be managed by people with a Facebook profile of their own.
So, if "Sarah Palin" the individual person and politician would like to directly edit and manage "Sarah Palin" the Facebook page, she needs to have a Facebook account of her own. And, as a famous person, she may well want to avoid using her actual name for that, since people that she doesn't know personally shouldn't interact with her via her profile, but rather via her page.
So, in short, it wouldn't be so odd if "Sarah Palin" the person (hmmm... getting tired of the scare quotes, will drop them from now on) had created an account under a disguised version of her real name - Louise is her middle name, so Lou Sarah isn't a million miles from representing her - and that personal profile might well be something she would want to use to interact with people she really knows such as... her daughter. An occassional comment on Bristol's page from this account therefore doesn't strike me as terrible, especially since Bristol will presumably know the secret of "Lou Sarah's" real identity. Moms are allowed to gush over thier kids, so we'll let that go.
BUT - consider for a moment Lou Sarah's comments on the Sarah Palin page. Firstly, liking and commenting positively on your own content is a bit sad and pathetic (and in this case, pretty pointless - it's not like she needs to drive traffic to the page!) but not against the rules. But the fact that she was able to post at all as Lou Sarah on the Sarah Palin page shows that the Lou Sarah account is not an admin on that page.
If Lou Sarah had been one of the profiles permitted to post to the Sarah Palin page, then any comments she made on that page would not appear under her profile. Page admins appear under the identity of the page whenever they post on their page.
Thereby, QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM we arrive at a great big circle. There are only two possibilities here. Either Sarah Palin herself is not an administrator on the Sarah Palin page (which seems unlikely) or she does indeed have two separate Facebook profiles.
I do feel obliged to note that President Obama is coming to London on a State Visit this Spring. He and Michelle be holidaying with the Queen (like you do) May 24-26th, when no doubt the world's press will be looking for a repeat of the "mutual and spontaneous" touching between Michelle and Queen Elizabeth that caused such a tizzy last time around.
Stories from my life: last Thursday when the visit was announced the woman who handles press relations for Democrats Abroad called me in a panic to ask if I was free to go on BBC news to talk about the visit. Which at that point I had not yet heard about. I said I was happy to go on and talk, but really: "what is there to say? Obama's coming! Yay! We like Obama. We like it when he comes here. Go Barack! Go Michelle!"
Not the most insightful reporting the BBC's ever done, you know?
About half an hour later the BBC producer called me back to say that on reflection they decided to cover the Bahrain protests in more detail instead. I said I thought that was good news judgement on their part.
On Thursday night, Democrats Abroad here in London were given the chance to DNC Political Director Clyde Williams and his wife, Mona Sutphen who until very recently was a Deputy Chief of Staff for President Obama. And their two adorable children.
Clyde and Mona were both impressive, impassioned and positive in speaking about the challenge ahead for Democrats. The kids ran around a lot and were amazingly comfortable and confident while mom and dad did their thing. I liked them all a lot.
Mona in particular, though, is a brilliant, eloquent, appealing, down to earth and inspiring woman.
Having served as a foreign policy advisor to then-Senator Obama during his campaign and as a highly respected Deputy since then, Mona has been very close to the President and a key advisor within the White house. Which, for me is the definition of mixed feelings - because having met her I'm incredibly pleased to see the calibre and quality of advice that the President has clearly been getting over the past couple of years. But I'm now saddened to know that Mona's last day at the White House was last Tuesday.
I asked her if she had considered running for office herself - and she suggested that she wasn't interested in that, but that Clyde was seriously considering it. I wish him all the best - I think he'll be great.
But I'll be very disappointed if I don't see and hear a lot more from Mona herself in the coming years.
Either way, hats off to the definitive Washington "power couple".
I recently had a useful dialog with my friend (and Democrats Abroad running mate) Rob Carolina about the Egyptian protesters, and the mystery of how victims of oppressive regimes are able to overcome justifiable fears in order to generate mass support from the populations. My oversimplified summary of this technique was, essentially:
1) Don't be afraid.
2) Show people you are not afraid.
3) Be unafraid in large numbers, consistently.
4) Survive your public display of fearlessness, so that others can see you have avoided the worst case scenario.
Problem is, if you fail to achieve 4, the whole effort can be set back generations.
Thus, under autocratic regimes it is often possible to tip a large number of people over the precipice into openly stating the opposition that they secretly feel if you can get together enough people to enact a visible display of fearlessness at the same time such that any individual member of that crowd feels comparatively safe. But this is also an opportunity for the regime itself, because if they are able to successfully put down the open opposition they send the opposite message to the one the protesters tried for - that there is good reason to be afraid.
So all credit and respect to the organisers in Egypt, and Tunisia, and Bahrain and in many other parts of the Mideast who have shown exceptional bravery and skill. In the dark hours of the night, I sometimes ask myself if I would be brave enough to stand up for the politics I support if I knew the possible result wasn't electoral defeats, but clubbings, torture and execution. I can't honestly be sure that I would. So I'm glad that the collective action effect exists.
It sounds melodramatic to say that this is the same type of thing that's at stake in Wisconsin - where the newly elected Republican Governor is currently working overtime to try and eliminate collective bargaining by public sector unions there. But actually, unions grew out of a very similar set of fears that workers of the past had about their physical and financial security, at the hands of their bosses, when they attempted to improve their working conditions.
Now, Union membership in America has declined significantly in recent years, for a whole host of reasons: decline of the manufacturing sector and the rise of the less-unionised service sectors, perceived corruption by the unions themselves, infighting and disorganisation among and by the unions, a shift away from traditional democratic politics by many blue collar workers, etc. etc. And I would go further and say that personally, I think in recent decades American unions on the while have done a poor job of representing their constituents - in particular, I think that the willingness in negotiations to sacrifice actual wage increases in favour of ever higher levels of health insurance and retirement benefits has been a lose-lose proposition for both workers and business - and has led to almost no increase in the wages of the bottom FOUR FIFTHS of Americans over the past several decades.
So Unions could do better a better job, in my opinion, of standing up for the rights of workers. Here in the UK, we have 25 days minimum vacation allowance, generous maternity and paternity policies, strong policies to prevent firing without cause and much more. Germany's worker protections are even stronger (and by the way, the German economy is currently outperformingours by some margin, so clearly these policies are not an inevitable death knell for GDP growth).
But that doesn't mean we should allow any threat to the principle of collective negotiation to stand - quite the opposite.
Let's remember what workers had to endure back in the day the Unionisation was illegal:
Women working under sweat shop conditions organized the first union in the early 19th century. According to the book American Labor, in 1834-1836 women worked 16–17 hours a day to earn $1.25 to $2.00 a week. A girl weaver in a non-union mill would receive $4.20 a week versus $12.00 for the same work in a union mill. The workers had to buy their own needles and thread from the proprietor. They were fined for being a few minutes late for work. Women carried their own foot treadle machines or were held in the shops until the entire shop had completed an immediate delivery order. Their pay was often shorted, but a protest might result in immediate dismissal. Sometimes whole families worked from sun up to midnight. Pulmonary ailments were common due to dust accumulation on the floors and tables. Some shops had leaks or openings in the roofs, and workers worked in inclement weather.
To this day, there are employers who explicitly or implicitly threaten their workers with losing their jobs if they demand better wages, benefits or conditions. And if any individual worker refuses to cave in to this bullying, their dismissal can serve as an example to the others.
At a time of high unemployment, workers are especially vulnerable. And the decline in public sector employment has been a significant drain on our economic recovery.
So public sector unions are vital, their collective negotiation rights have historically been an important enabler for some of the most essential and basic protections, and at a time when workers have more cause than ever to be afraid individually, we shouldn't obliterate one of the important forces that makes them brave and strong collectiely.
There's lots happening in the world upon which I will very shortly be commenting (Tunisia! And Egypt! And Sudan! Oh my...) but for today I just want to say this:
If you are a US citizen living in the UK, and if you support the work of President Obama, the Democratic Party, or you just are certain that you are not a Republican - then I urge you to sign up online to Democrats Abroad, the State party organisation for Americans overseas.
In March, the UK branch of Democrats Abroad will be having an election to chose its Officers (I am the current Vice Chair). But only voters who are members of Democrats Abroad by midnight tonight are eligible voters. So if you want your say in our local elections, or you want to make sure you get voter alerts and updates about US national elections, join today.
Because it's Friday... I just did an automated gender analysis of my most recent long blog post, and the blog codes as being weakly male.
Although it does add the caveat that my, "Weak emphasis could indicate European."
Oh. Right, then.
But then I noted that the site says you should remove any quotes from the sample content, as they will obviously be gendered according to their original author. "Aha," I thought - and stripped out the quoted comments from Obama's Facebook page.
With this, largely male-written, content removed my gender score was adjusted. To be slightly more male. And, apparently, a bit less European.
I am woman. Hear me blog.
Lots of media commentators who wrote about my blog recently assumed that I was male. I ascribed the assumption to cultural bias (anyone whose gender you don't know is assumed to be male). But perhaps they were just subconsciously absorbing the science of gendered language use.
Having spent some time a couple weeks ago taking a close look at Sarah Palin's Facebook page, I thought it was only fair, for the record, to go through the same exercise with President Obama's page. After all, I had been working on the assumption that his page was in fact not being edited to remove negative comments based on my impression that I had seen a pretty wide range of comments there from various perspectives. But on reflection I realised that it wasn't sure how the mechanics of his page moderation were operating. So, here's what I found, based on a sample that was taken last week. [Note, I wasn't able to write up this post last week because I was running late for a film - note the Curzon cinemas tab in the background. We saw The King's Speech. Yes, it was great, thanks for asking!]
When I first went to the page I was struck by the much higher ratio of positive to negative comments. Still I didn't have to look hard to find some criticism -
Here's the aptly named Betsy Bitter demanding 4 times in sequence that we "Repeal Obamacare!"
You can see that these comments have been on the page for over an hour by this point.
Next up, we have a couple of posts that seem to be straightforward spam - one selling some sort of weight loss product and one inviting people to click his link so that he can earn money for each click. Please, dear readers, do me a favour and don't do this. Thank you.
Although these are not negative comments or criticism, I'm pointing them out because these are exactly the sort of comments that a reputable page owner might well moderate to remove - after all, the page does not exist to allow others to market commercial products under the President's name. If I were advising a client on the moderation policy for this page, I might have suggested the routine removal of such spam, not least for the protection of page users. But that clearly isn't the policy here.
Here's a post from a user claiming to be Tunisian and making prodigious use of ALL CAPS: "USA... WE DON'T NEED YOUR GREETINGS TO THE TUNISIAN PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST EVIL COUNTRY AND YOU WERE SUPPORTING ALL THE DICTATORIAL IN MIDDLE EAST .. JUST LEAVE US ALONE AND EVERYTHING WILL BE OK."
Hmm... can't help but think that with their shared enthusiasm for being "left alone" by the US Government, perhaps this person might find unlikely common ground with the Tea Party...
But in any case - this comment was posted 7 hours before.
Here's a man in a cowboy hat posting two sequential criticisms saying, respectively:
"SEE YOU STARTED YOUR CAMPAIGN A TRIVIAL EARLY... BUT THAT WAS TO BE EXPECTED...GLAD THE OTHER TWO MORONS KEPT THEIR STINKIN MOUTHS SHUT ..HAD A LOT OF BALLS BRINGING THEM HERE TO MY TOWN."
And:
"YOU SHOULD READ THE DRIBBLE HERE.. YOU ALL DISGUST ME..... ALL HAIL THE KING................."
I'm not completely sure what this gentleman is on about, but I don't think he's a fan.
In any case, it seems clear that there are criticisms of President Obama on the page, but not many. In fact, there aren't many posts at all - when I first looked at the page the most recent post had been published 15 minutes before.
At this point, though, I started to notice how frequently I was seeing multiple identical versions of the same post - both those that were critical of the President, and those that praised him seem frequently to have been posted repeatedly.
Putting these factors together, I started to wonder if possibly the Obama team was pre-moderating comments. Pre-moderation, means reviewing comments before they are posted so that you make an active decision to make them live, as compared to post-moderation, in which you review content after it has been posted to remove objectionable posts. That could explain the duplicate posts, as if people don't see their content go live immediately sometimes they keep trying.
So I decided to post a comment - a relatively neutral one - just to see if it would go live immediately. It did.
So there it is. Far from finding heavy-handed moderation, I couldn't actually discover any evidence that Barack's page was being moderated at all.
This is not necessarily a good thing. There is content that should - even must - be removed in compliance with Facebook's own policies. There is content that contains violent and offensive language that a page owner may well decide goes too far for his or her comfort. And as discussed, it is often a useful service for your readers to remove spam.
But the thing that disturbed me the most about the President's page is its comparative quietness. When I conducted the same exercise for Sarah Palin's page, it was virtually impossible to even keep track of the speed with which new posts were added (and, of course, often removed). But she's responsible to no constituents, holds no elected office, she is the formulator of no policies, achiever of no legislative accomplishments... at the moment, she's a TV star.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is President of the United States, had just given one of the most widely praised speeches of his career, is preparing for his forthcoming State of the Union address, and recently signed a raft of high-impact legislation - from repealling Don't Ask Don't Tell to ratifying the START treaty. But on his Facebook page? Crickets are chirping.
Is it possible we enjoy the sensation of being angry and polarised more than the prospect of unity and accomplishment? And if so, is that the fault of our leaders for not engaging us... or us for being too easily distracted?
So the one and only post on this blog to ever focus on former half term governor Sarah Palin has generated orders of magnitude more attention than anything else I've ever written - with extensive mainstream media coverage (now including this think piece from today's Evening Standard), and nearly half a million views of the page. I've written a short follow up that I prepared last week, but put on hold following President Obama's extraordinary and moving speech in Tucson last week. The speech, and the events in Tucson overall, just seem so much bigger and more important than anything the former Governor's Facebook team is or isn't doing. If you haven't yet seen or read the speech, I'd urge you to take a moment and do so now.
I'll be posting my follow up post later tonight, including a matching look at Barack Obama's page and some thoughts on the insight this whole experience has given into the pathology of mainstream media coverage (and even blogger bandwagonism).
But before I do that I wanted to welcome my new readers from The Evening Standard, those who sought us out based on coverage in The Telegraph, and of course those who found me through MSNBC's The Last Word, or the Atlantic, or through Dan Savage, or from one of the many, many bloggers or forums that wrote about the story.
I'm proud of the work that I did in that post, and I worked hard to make it as fact-based and objective as I possibly could.
UPDATE: Michelle has written an open letter to Tucson parents, which I am posting below without comment. Except that, whether in moments of sorrow or in celebration, you've got to love Michelle.
An Open Letter to Parents Following the Tragedy in Tucson
January 13, 2011 at 06:07 PM EST
Dear parents,
Like so many Americans all across the country, Barack and I were shocked and heartbroken by the horrific act of violence committed in Arizona this past weekend. Yesterday, we had the chance to attend a memorial service and meet with some of the families of those who lost their lives, and both of us were deeply moved by their strength and resilience in the face of such unspeakable tragedy.
As parents, an event like this hits home especially hard. It makes our hearts ache for those who lost loved ones. It makes us want to hug our own families a little tighter. And it makes us think about what an event like this says about the world we live in – and the world in which our children will grow up.
In the days and weeks ahead, as we struggle with these issues ourselves, many of us will find that our children are struggling with them as well. The questions my daughters have asked are the same ones that many of your children will have – and they don’t lend themselves to easy answers. But they will provide an opportunity for us as parents to teach some valuable lessons – about the character of our country, about the values we hold dear, and about finding hope at a time when it seems far away.
We can teach our children that here in America, we embrace each other, and support each other, in times of crisis. And we can help them do that in their own small way – whether it’s by sending a letter, or saying a prayer, or just keeping the victims and their families in their thoughts.
We can teach them the value of tolerance – the practice of assuming the best, rather than the worst, about those around us. We can teach them to give others the benefit of the doubt, particularly those with whom they disagree.
We can also teach our children about the tremendous sacrifices made by the men and women who serve our country and by their families. We can explain to them that although we might not always agree with those who represent us, anyone who enters public life does so because they love their country and want to serve it.
Christina Green felt that call. She was just nine years old when she lost her life. But she was at that store that day because she was passionate about serving others. She had just been elected to her school’s student council, and she wanted to meet her Congresswoman and learn more about politics and public life.
And that’s something else we can do for our children – we can tell them about Christina and about how much she wanted to give back. We can tell them about John Roll, a judge with a reputation for fairness; about Dorothy Morris, a devoted wife to her husband, her high school sweetheart, to whom she’d been married for 55 years; about Phyllis Schneck, a great-grandmother who sewed aprons for church fundraisers; about Dorwan Stoddard, a retired construction worker who helped neighbors down on their luck; and about Gabe Zimmerman, who did community outreach for Congresswoman Giffords, working tirelessly to help folks who were struggling, and was engaged to be married next year. We can tell them about the brave men and women who risked their lives that day to save others. And we can work together to honor their legacy by following their example – by embracing our fellow citizens; by standing up for what we believe is right; and by doing our part, however we can, to serve our communities and our country.
Sincerely,
In the wake of the tragedy, Clear Channel Outdoor management in Tucson quickly elected to take down this ad - believing that discussion of its interpretation would not contribute to the desire for healing in the Tucson community
I commend Clear Channel for taking this clearly sensible action out of sensitivity to the very raw and painful emotions that the people of Tucson must be feeling. But I don't think it's really the "discussion of its interpretation" that is really injuring the desire for healing, but rather the rather ad itself and it's pretty direct correlation between political commentary and actual gunfire.
President Obama spoke yesterday at a memorial service for those slain in Arizona. I haven't been able yet to watch video of the speech, but I've just looked up the text to at least quickly read through the gist of what he had to say.
Tears are welling in my eyes. This is awkward, as I am at work. It's a good thing I have a slight cold and thus an excuse for sniffling.
Fully half of the speech seems to just be telling the stories of the victims... one by one...
George and Dorothy Morris -– “Dot” to her friends -– were high school sweethearts who got married and had two daughters. They did everything together -- traveling the open road in their RV, enjoying what their friends called a 50-year honeymoon. Saturday morning, they went by the Safeway to hear what their congresswoman had to say. When gunfire rang out, George, a former Marine, instinctively tried to shield his wife. (Applause.) Both were shot. Dot passed away.
And then there is nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green. Christina was an A student; she was a dancer; she was a gymnast; she was a swimmer. She decided that she wanted to be the first woman to play in the Major Leagues, and as the only girl on her Little League team, no one put it past her. (Applause.)
She showed an appreciation for life uncommon for a girl her age. She’d remind her mother, “We are so blessed. We have the best life.” And she’d pay those blessings back by participating in a charity that helped children who were less fortunate.
Almost impossible to read.
But there is also hope in the world.
Gabby opened her eyes. Gabby opened her eyes, so I can tell you she knows we are here. She knows we love her. And she knows that we are rooting for her through what is undoubtedly going to be a difficult journey. We are there for her.
And, turning to the broader discussion of how to learn and move on from this tragegy:
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.
...
And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.
That seems to me exactly right. We can't govern our every action and word according to how it might be seen by the most disturbed person among us. But we can aspire in all of our actions and words to live up to the example of the best among us.
We can have a politics that is vigorous, lively and full of energy while at the same time recognising that our opponents are human beings, that they have families and loved ones and lives outside of their politics. That they may be as sincere and as thoughtful about their beliefs as we are about ours.
It's too easy to transfer anger ABOUT ISSUES to anger AT PEOPLE. And my experience has been that in politics what is easiest is usually also what is least valuable.
