My first reaction was "shit," and now it's just "so sad." Anyway, sigh, I do recommend her books (the second one was a bit long, but good skim material for those who so desire), and hope her spirit lives on in others. As her agent says, Chang wrote in a note to her family that she should be remembered as the person she was before her bouts of depression: "engaged with life, committed to her causes, her writing and her family."
One party rule tends to bring a sore winner sentiment. This might be harder to see by how certain issues are framed, including by a media that tries to be balanced, and politicians who are in power because of their savvy. For instance, we are told that people in eleven states voted for ballot measures against gay marriage. Oh?
Eight of the 11 new state amendments address both gay marriage and civil unions. But several of those states require that ballot initiatives consider a single issue at a time. Amendments that bar both gay marriage and civil unions arguably run afoul of such requirements. ...
The [Ohio] amendment says the state "shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
Another matter addressed by skeptical articles in Slate magazine and the NYT regards those who challenge the vote count. But, listen to The Nation:
Clear away the rhetoric, and what's mainly left are the odd early exit polls (which did show Kerry's lead in Ohio and Florida declining as Election Day went on and which ended up with the current national Bush-Kerry spread), troubling instances of bad electronic voting, and curious--or possibly curious--trends in Florida. This may be the beginning of a case; it is not a case in itself.
The basic concern of many more, including Rep. Holt, are problems with voting that leads to such doubts and rumors. For instance, the issue of no paper trail might not have mattered in the end result (the thousands of votes clearly lost at issue being notable but not enough to matter, except perhaps for a few races), except for those who now distrust (with some merit) government procedures a bit more.
Ditto in the disputed votes at issue in Ohio: enough to decide the election? dubious. Enough to worry about when the fundamental right to vote is at issue? Surely. Since the Republicans won their national majority*, wouldn't this be a really good time to carefully ensure that the votes were counted? Should they if anything, go out of their way to make this a bipartisan effort?
There is also the nomination of Alberto Gonzalez, which I discuss here and here. Should we expect and accept President Bush will appoint a conservative leaning sort friendly to him? Surely. But, there are limitations of what we should stand. Primary support of torture memoranda damned nationally and internationally seems to cross the line. As do other things in his record.
A final matter that might be mentioned regards the death of President Arafat, scorned by key members in the administration, the fact so many Palestinians thought so highly of him notwithstanding:
After the Palestinians' catastrophic defeat of 1948, when some 750,000 were expelled from their homeland and began living in destitution in refugee camps scattered across half a dozen countries, forgotten by the world, abused and cynically exploited by Arab despots and demagogues, it was Arafat who, along with a few comrades, gave birth to the Palestinian liberation movement.
As noted by article, surely some scorn is justified, though part of it arises from signing on to Oslo Accords that didn't give the Palestinians much in return at the end of the day. Also, his support of violence, corruption, and failure to set up clear leadership for the future. But, violence didn't quite stop us from supporting people in the pass. The opposition was just a tad bit particular.
Such line crossing can be used to the loyal opposition's benefit. Given this bunch's penchant at such a policy, we will have a lot to pick from. There is a difference between policies we do not like and just plain crossing the line. We must consistently remember and proclaim it when it occurs.
---
* Not everywhere though. The Democrats won statewide in the Red State of Montana, using a basic strategy that other Dems should pay attention to:
in addition to a winning personality and strong populist convictions, Schweitzer had an innovative, three-part political strategy, one that perfectly fit the current conditions in Montana, but which Democrats across the country could learn from. First, Schweitzer took advantage of public dissatisfaction with two decades of insular one-party rule in the state capital, casting himself as an outsider and a reformer.
Second, he rallied small business, usually a solidly GOP constituency, to his side by opposing the deals Republicans had cut in Washington and Helena to favor large or out-of-state corporations over local entrepreneurs. Third, and most interesting of all, Schweitzer figured out how to win over one of the most important, reliably Republican, and symbolically significant groups of voters: hunters and fishermen.