~ in the interest of informing georgians of the content and meaning of the proposed amendments to the state constitution, we have swiped the following blockquote in entirety from the atlanta journal and constitution. we have done so to make amendment 2 less baffling for the voter and to point out the discrepancy between the question on the ballot for amendment 1 and the language in section B in the actual amendment – more to the point, the question on the ballot is about marriage, while in truth section b prohibits all types of union between two people (not limited to marriage):

No. 1

This is the wording that will appear on the ballot:
“To define marriage as the union of man and woman. (Senate Resolution No. 595): Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?”

If voters say yes, here’s what will be added to the constitution:
“MARRIAGE
“Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage.
“(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
“(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.”

No. 2

This is the wording that will appear on the ballot:
“To provide the Supreme Court jurisdiction to answer questions of law from federal courts. (House Resolution No. 68): Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction and authority to answer questions of law from any state appellate or federal district or appellate court?”

What it means:
The proposed amendment is aimed at improving efficiency in the federal court system.
The Georgia Constitution already allows the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to ask the Georgia Supreme Court to answer an unsettled question about state law that could have an important bearing on the outcome of a federal lawsuit. The proposed amendment expands that authority to the federal court judges in Georgia who sit one level below the federal appeals court.
The proposed amendment, backed by the State Bar of Georgia, would allow litigants in U.S. District Courts the opportunity to find the answer to an important state-law question long before their case is appealed to the 11th Circuit.

–ajc.com

~ more on amendment 1: georgiansagainstdiscrimination.com

~ In a further demonstration that the Kerry campaign is keeping its ear to the angry red planet for cues concerning the language and salience of its arguments, we have one of our points, posted on an external website:

“Here’s something [Karen Hughes] said post-debate that bugged me on the bike ride home: I heard her say that Kerry didn’t have any plans, he just had a “litany of complaints”. Wow, it is reassuring to know that the Bushes just consider those of us who don’t have jobs are health care are just a bunch of complainers.”
-ashleyGA, 14 October 2004

We compare this with comments made by Senator Kerry whilst he spoke in Tampa today:

“And what does the President of the United States have to say about these out-of-control health care costs that are killing job creation and hurting middle-class families? In the debate the other night, he called these problems “a litany of complaints.”

There you have it folks. George Bush’s answer to our health care problems is to tell the American people: stop whining.”
-John Kerry, 18 October 2004

we would have taken it to the point of using the term ‘whining’ as well, but we did not think that the vast majority of our readers would have appreciated a Coy Howard/George W Bush double entrendre.

~ we have dropped the service provider for this site in favour of the umbrella which hosts sisyphean, from the ground, and a couple of other great sites. we are not about to publicly damn our old host by name, but if you ever thought ‘damn, the service at the angry red planet is crummy; i wonder why?’, and you are about to move into a new host, feel free to ask us, lest you get caught in the same mess. if you want to join the sisyphean [w] umbrella, and you have reason that would compel the work.group to host you, go ahead and petition them for a site; it would help your case immeasurably if you have ever been hosted by the godless red/born 2 lose house.

~ cnn.com wants to know what internet users have to say to “Do you think sexual preference is a choice?“. does cnn understand tautology? more to the point, do they know that the word ‘preference’ implies a choice being made? if not, then they must also find that gays ‘prefer’ to eat food and ‘prefer’ to breathe clean air. a question about choice is useful is drawing out the president’s prejudice, but in the abstract, this question is a stupid one.
the question is not stupid because ignorant people at cnn and across america do not understand why some people are different than they are; it is stupid because its construction both reveals the opinions of the questioner and directs a certain answer from the listener. why doesn’t cnn ask “are most blacks are uneducated because they are poor, or poor because they are uneducated?” that is about as sensitive and sensible as ‘is preference a choice?’.
we have read the news quite a bit, and we have spoken to a number of our fellow americans; not one of them has the politics of anyone’s sexuality foremost in his or her mind as we approach what many consider to be an election of paramount importance. where does cnn find the notion that americans are frozen in their thoughts until they discover the foundation for the sexual desires and emotions of heteros and homos?
clearly they are trying to milk a few more days out of the kerry/cheney family controversy, in order to futher the meme that kerry is ‘not a good man’, but we don’t think the underlying reason for this controversy is worth a tinker’s damn. getting sidetracked by this bullshit is exactly what the republicans, who want poor and uneducated people to put aside their economic concerns and rely on bigotry to decide their vote. congratulations cnn, on your steadfast position as a political tool.

~ debate three is all about the moderator. let’s thank him for the great questions he conjured. thank you for not wasting time with questions about the environment, cutting of funds for national parks, failing infrastructure, superfunds, poverty in our cities and rural suburbs, the social detachment of the suburbs and exurbs, fuel prices, energy deficiency, voting fraud, corporate power and influence of the gov’t, and the fucked up electoral college. thanks instead of asking about prayer and abortion and about who loves their wife and kids more.

~ in the past we have stated our skepticism of the usefulness of the electoral process in our representative democracy. we give one of the corporations a chance that it can overcome a more dangerous corporation. if there is any doubt that the corrupt thugs in the republican party will relinquish power honourably, quietly, or peacefully, take a look at voter fraud, silver state style:

Clark County Election Dept.

(Oct. 12) — Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.

Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected.

The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats. Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.

“We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assistant to get those from me,” said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee. klas-tv.com

the ‘Voters Outreach of America’ is currently working in oregon, so any of our readers there should find their voter drives and encourage people to find someplace more trustworthy to register to vote and to watch ‘Voters Outreach’ to make sure that their windows aren’t smashed and their vans do not somehow burst into flames.

~ similar bullshit in minnesota: “Hundreds of completed voter registration cards found stashed in car”[w]

~ a couple of more terms to add to the list of those that annoy us:

• ‘game on’ – this might have been cute once, at the beginning of the cycle, but it becomes senseless after arbitrary reuse, mainly because ‘game on’ can only occur once. examples: “kerry owned the first debate…game on!”; “act has $125 million to spend on getting out the vote…game on!”; “bush has been busted wearing a wire during the debates…game on!”
• ‘cycle’ – this is too vaguely used in reference to random scenarios that either are already represented by descriptions of length, such as ‘month’, or are so open-ended that they do not cycle. examples: “election cycle”; “contribution cycle”; “news cycle”
• ‘meme’ – we are very interested in the concept of the meme, but we are tired of the enthusiasm with which people repeat the word as a demonstration of the fact that they are keeping up with election tactics. example: “push bush’s impetuousness at the debates to plant the meme that he is an angry jackass.”

~ for those who were unable to peep out the finale of the vote for change tour finale last night, read the following then follow it with a blistering rendition of ‘born to run’

“We remain a land of great promise, but I think we need to move America towards the fulfillment of promises she has made to her citizens; economic justice, civil rights, protection of the environment, a living wage, respect for others and humility in exercising our power at home and around the world.

These are not impossible ideals, they are achievable goals, with strong leadership and the will of a vigilant and informed American people. These core issues of America’s identity are what’s at stake when we vote on November 2nd . And I believe, that Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards understand these important issues and are prepared to help our country move forward. I think they understand America is not always right, that’s a fairy tale for children. As John Edwards said, struggle and heartbreak will always be with us.

But one thing America should be is true, and it’s in seeking her truth, both the good and the bad that we find a deeper patriotism, that we find a more authentic experience as citizens. And we find the power that is embedded only in the truth to change our world for the better. And that’s how our soul as a nation as a people will be revealed and it is what we are fighting for on November 2nd.

The country we carry in our hearts is waiting” – bruce springsteen

~ bush flop [w]

~ we all like to talk about how stupid bush is, but is it really fair? what if the man is suffering from a degenerative disease? obviously, his drug use and alcoholism might be to blame for his mental decline. regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that he is not qualified to serve as president or drive a car, but we wouldn’t want to make fun one someone whose incompetence arises from a disease or handicap, would we? see his acuity disappear in quicktime [mov]!

~ is it really necessary to petition the new york times to confess that its obituary of derrida [w] is unkind? firstly, we all know that the paper has lost its credibility in the past couple of years. secondly, if you are getting a 2200 word obituary in a dandy paper like the new york times, can you really complain? if we get that much press when we are killed, it ain’t likely that we’ll bitch about the particulars of being called ‘frauds’ or ‘talentless hacks’. that’s better than a 3 word epitaph, such as ‘they lived here’.
update: if you want a lesson in the best way to be disrespectfully deferential, see the london times [w] “is derrida dead?…We know only two things. We do not know. And M Derrida is in no position to enlighten us.”

~ on the topic of our declaration that ‘liberal doesn’t mean anything’, one can look at the particular point that bush was trying to make that kerry is the most liberal senator, as determined by the ‘national journal’ [w]. the journal itself mentioned that this repeated point is inaccurate; they wrote that the theme is “…Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading — or just plain wrong.” the rating is based on the percentage of ‘liberal votes’ that are cast by the senators; as kerry has been campaigning and therefore has missed some votes, his rating is unfairly skewed. regardless of this fine point, our overall contention that the generalization is meaningless is also backed with regards to how one determines which is a ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ vote, as the national journal declares that within its methodology “..identifying ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ votes is subjective. National Journal has never claimed otherwise.” furthermore, in the big picture, the reversal of excessive spenders from the reagans to the clintons to the bushes exhibits the topsy turvy world in which we live; the proposed spending of the ‘conservative’ candidate is $3 trillion, while the ‘liberal’ is only $2 trillion. maybe the fact that kerry’s spending, though less, includes health care is what earns it the damning label ‘liberal’. we presume everyone knows about bush’s squandering of the $5.6 trillion surplus that left. how did these republican dudes run corporations?

~ when debates equal comedy gold, who knows what dipshit comment from bush will be a website next week?

• youforgotpoland.com
• offroaddieselengineemissions.com
• needsumwood.com

~ the discussion over the debates is overwhelming; something can always be added, but we find that interest is already saturated. so, avoiding the post-debate debates on policy and style, we will mention a couple of personal points/grievances here, so that one might get a sense of what made us grin and/or hammer the arm rest with a clenched fist:

1. how can bush fail to see the contradiction in his claim that he will only appoint supreme court justices who will interpret the constitution without any personal prejudice, and then demand that they follow his personal belief that the pledge to the flag should contain the clause ‘under god’?
2. when kerry was answering question #12, concerning the environment, he referred to the lady who had asked question #4, which concerned international opinion of the u.s., by her name.
3. bush doesn’t understand the dred scott case
4. are we expected to believe that that weepy eyed question about federal funding for abortion was coming from an ‘undecided voter’? for fuck’s sake are we even still talking about abortion? the plane is about to crash into the goddamn mountain here; can’t we put off this parlour room musing about christ and ethics until we don’t have any real problems? maybe when one out of eight of our fellow americans isn’t fucking living in poverty we can argue about when a fetus is a life and whether it even matters anymore. right now, if you are basing your vote on someone’s opinion about abortion – for or against- then your priorities are sociopathic.
5. to the woman in the red jacket who finished off the questioning, we raise our tea in salute. we noticed that bush did not shake your hand, for that you are toasted a second time.
6. ‘liberal’ doesn’t mean anything, anymore
7. just look at kerry’s response to the supreme court appointment question, and tell us if that does not clinch the decision for you.

here is the aforementioned quote concerning the supreme court, to save you the trouble of rereading the transcript.

john kerry: A few years ago, when he came to office, the president said, these are his words: What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts. And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. So you get a pretty good sense of where he’s heading if he were to appoint somebody.

Now, here’s what I believe. I don’t believe we need a good conservative judge and I don’t believe we need a good liberal judge. I don’t believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side. I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, a good justice, is that when you’re reading their decision, their opinion, you can’t tell if it’s written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you’re reading a good judicial decision.

What I want to find if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen, the future of things that matter to you in terms of civil rights: what kind of Justice Department you’ll have, whether we’ll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women’s rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman’s right to choose be protected? These are our constitutional rights.

And I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.

for the sake of equal time, we have included bush’s quote regarding the supreme court and personal opinion. the fact that that the Pledge of Allegiance is not mentioned in the constitution, and is therefore not above being destroyed by the supreme court, not withstanding, it is baffling to us how bush is able to state that he is opposed to personal opinion entering judicial decisions then give his personal opinion on the pledge as a test for who may be a justice, without actually having the lobes of his brain move in opposite directions. in any event, as stated, you can not strictly interpret the constitution concerning the pledge, because the pledge ain’t in there! the issue is about the trappings of a state religion, not about the pledge. as bush might say when someone says they will spend responsibly: ‘it doesn’t make any sense’.

george w bush: I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Uh, let me give you a couple of examples I guess of the kind of person I wouldn’t pick. I wouldn’t pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn’t be said in a school because it had the words ‘under God’ in it. I think that’s an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution.

~ brilliant:

The Pentagon said yesterday it was investigating cockpit video footage that shows American pilots attacking and killing a group of apparently unarmed Iraqi civilians. – independent

~ we are skeptical about the feasibility of the ‘boycott for equality’ [w] plan and about the reliability of amercians when it comes to remembering not to purchase things, but we do like gays and we do like reduction of consumption, so we figure we”ll take part. all you have to do is refrain from buying crap and/or take all your money from an atm (deposit it the next day). there are more particulars at the site.
our skepticism arises when we acknowledge that we will still be buying the same amount of goods for our debate-party vegan dip; we will just have to do so on thursday night.

~ we also acknowledge that it is lame and otherwise disappointing that john barrow has declared his support for federal jurisdiction over marriage. again georgia has a choice between a piece of shit republican and a piece of shit democrat. yet people still wonder why the angry red planet votes for nader.

~ let’s not shit ourselves, but more on the aforementioned possibility that georgia might bring it, backed up with numbers, is written up in creative loafing [w]