~ we have been noticeably and intentionally absent over the past couple of weeks. this doubtlessly has rattled the nerves and instilled despair in the hearts of our readers, many of whom come here not for the sparse commentary on urbanity and domesticity, but for the lashes and cuts poured upon political eventualities. part of our absence has been for personal reasons, namely the conclusion of the second atlanta experiment, about which you shall learn at a later date, and part is because we figure that most of our readers are too occupied with various GOTV endeavours to spend time reading our random diatribes. we assume that most people know by now that our president is a criminal and any administration that refers to a threatening tape from osama bin laden as a ‘gift’ on the same day that eight (8) of our marines are killed deserves to be replaced. furthermore, we have accepted bitterly the doctrine of ‘anybody but bush’ which stipulates that any mention of kerry’s shortcomings will fail to benefit the parallel goals – similar but not identical – of the left and the democrats. due to this forced, necessary unity, we have shelved such essays as the nakedly titled ‘why we always lose’ and ‘the left does not know how to speak’ and ‘we wish dean was here’ and ‘do we really need to be friends with fucks like eminem and robert byrd just because we all happen to hate bush?’ and ‘are the goals of ralph nader less appealing just because his book was published by a republican?’ and ‘we can’t wait for this forced, necessary unity bullshit to end’. in other words, with regards to the democrats, if you can’t post anything nice, don’t post anything at all.

we are close now; what once seemed a depressingly forgone conclusion – a second term – during lonely rides through the rainy nights in the no-man’s-lands along dekalb and breathless climbs up the windswept peaks of north avenue has become a tantalizing improbability. we are not adept at motivational pep talk at the angry red planet, as we work mostly in deliberate misanthropy, so as you spend your last hours affecting the process in whatever measure you are able – phone banking, visibility, canvassing, election protection, rides to the polls, monitoring – we must look to others for words of inspiration and perspective, such as a couple of lines swiped from frederick douglass on the work ahead, “Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must pay for all they get”, or, as ashley williams puts it to his troops massed against the army of the deadites, “by god let’s give ’em what for!” go forth, friends, girded with the fearlessness of knowledgability, and we will see you sometime on the moons and rings and seas of titan.

ps. if the election is so close that legal hijinks ensue, and the united states supreme court again oversteps its boundaries, precipitating a bloody solution in the streets and fields and malls of america, try to keep in mind that the battle is between ideas, not men. as crass teaches us, ‘destroy power, not people’.

~ 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

~ 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.

~ 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?

~ 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]

~ the vice presidential debate makes our brains hurt. it seems contradictory that cheney says that marriage is an issue for the states, then immediately criticizes massachusetts, a state, for advancing marriage in that state. anyway, cheney did not say much that we agreed with, but there was one thing in which we can’t find fault:

CHENEY: They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com, an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.

we agree that you should peep out the site he recommends. trust us: http://www.factcheck.com

also, we hope that ms. ifill is forced to forfeit what they paid her for moderating; whatever it was, it was too much.

~ we hain’t even heard the vice presidential debates yet, but the bush campaign expects its followers to run around the internet and talk radio tonight , giving a positive assessment of whatever they haven’t heard, as evidenced by a letter [w] they have just sent. it should be expected that the kerry campaign is doing the same thing; if not, their followers are getting ready to do it on their own. in fact, the mere mention of this strategy and of a link [w] to a list of sites, could lead one to believe that the angry red planet encourages the petty involvement in exchanges on online forums and flooding of online polls.

~ could georgia be getting ready to bring it? it’s unlikely, as this is the home of newt gingrich and bob barr, where even our democrats give speeches at the republican national convention. nonetheless, we have atlanta’s large gay community pouring out to vote against the proposed anti-marriage amendment, and many blacks are turning out, excited to support denise majette, inhabitant of our native stone mountain and georgia’s first chance for a black woman in the senate. fortunately, georgia’s registration forms do not have affiliation indicators, and so they can not be easily trashed based on the party of the voter like they are in states such as florida.

“If you walk into our mail room, we have stacks and stacks of new forms coming in,” said Kara Sinkule, spokeswoman for Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox, who oversees elections. “It”s a great problem to have.”

Her state is on pace to see a 50 percent increase in new voters for this presidential election compared to 2000. In the past year, 371,376 new voters registered, with 87,110 new voters in September alone. And the surge grew even bigger in the first few days of October.
–msnbc

regardless of what happens next, the anecdotal evidence collected by the angry red planet during our forays into metro atlanta neighborhoods for the sake of registering voters includes many thrilling conversations concerning issues such as free trade, immigration, and the overextension of our military, which leads us to believe that folks out there are really listening in numbers great enough to allay our fears. thankfully, it seems that they haven’t fallen victim to the proven falsehoods on fox [w].

~ red state or pink state, we learned during the above mentioned forays that jehovah’s witnesses do not vote in earthly elections.