~ we aren’t about to pull that ‘going green’ shit that some of y’all might remember from four years ago, for reasons not least of which is that ralph nader [w] has not been nominated by the green party [w], but if any of you question whether we are any less smitten by the man, your answer will be given by this bit of wordsmithery:

Plunging our nation into war on what is now a very well-documented platform of fabrications, deceptions and prevarications, to me, rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor, and warrants impeachment proceedings to be initiated in the House of Representatives. It’s hard to conceive of a more capable candidate for the invocation of the impeachment authority reposited in Congress by our Founding Fathers. -ralph nader

~ at the time of our latest inventory, we have noted eight (8) empty salsa jars in the office refrigerator.

~ we were pretty excited to hear that the leading candidate in south dakota’s u.s. representative election is a 33-year old woman from the democratic party, as we thought it might be interesting to have some fresh ideas from a congressperson who isn’t an old fuck. however, she has stated her support for the war in iraq and the patriot act. it was fun while it lasted.

~ the new myebay layout is candyassed and quite lame. we just want to quickly reload the list of flea remedies that we are monitoring, not wait for nu-icons of flags and soccer balls.

~ we posted this set of questions in the forums at comic book resources [w]. we place it here, with a few changes, so our non-comic book collecting readers can ponder these possibilities:

What do y’all think the effect on the election will be when/if there is an incident of terrorism – minor or significant – in the united states within 2 or 3 weeks of the election?

I have heard many conservatives say that Spain was cowed by the terrorists, because they voted out the prime minister, Aznar, who had thrown in his lot with Bush’s agenda and replaced him with someone who had promised to pull the troops from Iraq. I find this to be unfair, for two reasons: first, that many in Spain did not see their troops in Iraq and the war on terrorism as the same issue, and second, fear of terror notwithstanding, a lot of the backlash against Aznar was due to the fact that his government publicly lied and tried to blame the Basque for the attack.

I am not too interested in a conversation about Spain’s election; I just bring it up as part of the context in which our election will be held. Although there are differences, it could be thought of as a test case. If there is an incident here in late October, there will clearly be some rallying around the status quo and fear of change (ie, support for Bush), just as there will be some folks who point out that Bush has not kept us safe after all (ie, support for Kerry), but what do you think will be the majority opinion? Will huge amounts of people change their votes? Will more people think that ‘Bush got us into this’/’We need help from the UN’ and move to Kerry? Will there be a repeat of the post-9/11-unquestioning-support of the Bush administration? As the war in Iraq goes poorly, Kerry does better, but at the end of the campaign, when the war is still going terribly, are people are going to think they need a ‘war president’? Will they keep Bush, even though he caused the problems, because of the belief that Kerry will be too weak to take over? Will the election be called off if there is a dirty bomb in port Newark? If the election is postponed indefinitely, will people sit tight and wait obediently, or will they riot in the streets? I guess the question is, if there is an attack, how much power will fear have over the voters’ decisions?

~ we’ve pointed out a few times that howard dean is no dennis kucinich [w], but watching dean stand there and advise us all to turn over to john kerry was enough to cause us to drop our heads and avert our eyes, lest our stomachs be turned instead. it’s one thing to be practical and to avoid showing any lack of division before the competition, but it is no less disheartening to see someone who held some of your respect eating his words and acting like a company mule. the democrats are apparently asking ‘deaniacs’ to sign a pledge of loyalty to the party, promising that they will routinely devote their support to whoever becomes the nominee, which reminds me of the childish notes we used to sign that promised we would have the front seat on the next car ride – when we were children. meanwhile, ralph nader [w] does not seem to be on any ballots yet.

~ back in january, we thought some people in iowa were fools for not having made a decision less than a day before their caucus. this ‘super’ tuesday, it is clear that we won’t vote for kerry; it is not clear what will be the most effective move against him. we had been pulling for dean, even sending out all those handwritten letters, so our original intention was to vote for him as an ‘i told you so’ to the naysayers and morons who used the term ‘dot-com’ when referring to his candidacy. it is conceivable that our state could go for edwards, so should we vote for him just to spite kerry and to add some tumult to the season? kucinich is the only person in the running who comes close to the ideological persuasion of the angry red planet, so perhaps we should ‘vote our conscience’, despite the likelihood that he might not get the nomination; this is what we have always done in the past. the result is that we are stuck in the position against which it is our policy to rail: having a vote be part of some byzantine chess match instead of having it be some declaration of hope and optimism.

of course, this is all idle chatter, because when november arrives, we will be casting our votes for an independent candidate.

~ well, the postwoman delivered to our mailbox evidence as to why dr. dean did not get enough votes in wisconsin to carry on his campaign for the nomination/presidency. maybe if this ‘letter for dean’ had reached the recipient, the election would have gone another way. as it is, we will now have to scratch out ‘dean’ and replace it with ‘nader’ before sending it out again.

~ if any of our readers know Fresnel Lucien from port-au-prince, haiti, please get in touch; we would like to send him a copy of ‘the red dragon’, as well as a few other texts that he may find more rewarding to read.

~ eric alterman’s latest corporate blog [w] makes it clearer than ever to us why we hate the democrats. although we don’t know if he considers himself a democrat, alterman’s love note to john kerry is evidence enough that he is at least partial to them. in atlerman’s entry, there are two (2) allusions to the notion that ralph nader cost al gore the 2000 election, proving that democrats still can not face up to the ineptitude of their own candidates, despite being outfoxed by the handlers of imbeciles like g.w.bush in florida and a.schwarzenegger in california (and possibly the killers of p.wellstone in minnesota).

even when one of their own, dean, of course, is trouncing them in the primary related polls, because he was calling out george w bush two years ago, while they were shaking bush’s hand and smiling for pictures with him in the rose garden, their argument is that dean is somehow too ‘angry’ at bush to run against him successfully. rather than be ready to support the one from their team that ends up coming out on top, the democratic candidates make excuses for themselves instead of addressing the fact that they are not desirable. these guys and this lady seem to want to achieve nothing by their own merit; they seem to think that they somehow deserve to be picked and that we should overlook their shortcomings out of our own kindness. if coy howard were alive today, he would call them all ‘whiiiiners’. it is clear that the republicans are craftier, bolder, and smarter than the democrats. Instead of finding the determination to fight back against the republican advances, the democrats cry foul and ask for some non-existent referee to step in and give them a free pass. who respects that?

notes:
1) this was intended to be posted before al gore gave his endorsement to howard dean; however that does not make the democrats any less sniveling, so perhaps this post is best noted in light of this latest development.

2) our readers should not construe that the angry red planet is, yet, supporting h.dean. he is not even a vegan! besides, we are still awaiting word from r.nader [w].

~ the angry red planet has received the following message to our inbox. we asked the sender to provide a source for the text, but they have neglected to do so. we have tracked down a remarkably similar passage at the end of an article at alternet.org [w]; we wonder what the white house number for reporting plagiarism might be? anyway, please note that you can call in your position either “for” or “against” the war in – and around – iraq that will regardless take place; who is to say that democracy is at risk?

Below is the number to the White House where you can actually call & say yes or no to the potential “war on Iraq”. G.W. claims to want to hear it directly from the American People. All calls need to be between the hours of 9-5 eastern time monday through friday I just called the White House at 202-456-1111. A machine detains you for only a moment and then a pleasant live operator will thank you for saying “I oppose” (or “I approve of”) of the proposed war against Iraq. It will only take minutes! The president is asking to know what the American people are thinking. Tell him. Please forward this if you want.

~ after careful consideration, we at the angry red planet have decided: if there is an unprovoked military strike iraq before november, we will cast our votes in the upcoming election against any incumbent candidate in any office regardless of their position on the action. if they support it, then the vote against them is for obvious reasons; if they oppose the action, then the vote is against their empirically evident torpidity and complacency. if the strike comes after november, then we will be sure to remember to vote against incumbents in the following election.

however, since our standard policy is to vote against all incumbents regardless of circumstances, we wonder how much the revelation of our decision will affect the industrial military strategy.

~ whoever has been knocking on the office door all day should know that it is not going to be opened.

~ we retooled and updated the ‘usa’ scene report.

~ our middle east peace plan:
1) deposit all israelis and palestinians on mars, and tell them to build a colony or die.
2) see how long they bicker and murder over each other’s crap.

~ why would the u.n. be surprised that the northern alliance rushed into kabul at the first chance they saw? they’ve only been lusting after that city for five years. the northern alliance no doubt has its own political plan, which amazingly may not be to adhere to the plans of a western nation who would feel safer by manipulating them in a proxy war after not acknowledging them for the past few years. anyway, everyone there seems happy enough with their arrival; there is plenty of music playing and few burqas being lifted. it seems that the only people who might complain would be the arabs, pakistanis, and chechens, who are bound to be exterminated if they do not shave their beards and get their turbans buried quickly enough.

~”ahmed shah said as he felt his newly shaven face, i hated the beard. it was always itchy.’

wtf does this guy mean by that?!