] What you will see on the ballot
]
] Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that
] this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of
] man and woman?"
]
] ( ) YES
] (X) NO
]
] What you will NOT see on the ballot
]
] 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.

The Gay Marriage issue is not one of my hot button issues, but the corruption evident here; the dishonorable behavior of our representatives cannot be more clear then in this case.

In November the people of the State of Georgia will be presented with a very short amendment and asked to vote on it. However, if they vote yes what they will actually be approving is an entirely different set of language which they have not seen!

What possible honest reason could exist for asking the people of the State of Georgia to sign off on a constitutional amendment that they haven't read?!

The dishonesty of this is beyond doubt! I've searched and searched for a straight forward explanation from the supporters of this thing as to why they feel its not important for the people of the State of Georgia to read what they are signing, and all I've come up with is "Thats not important right now, whats important is (talk about something different)."

Georgians Against Discrimination

] The framers, of course, believed in the absolute
] necessity of limiting power and pitting power against
] power so that no entity could get overweening power. Yet
] Congress is now attempting, with the Act, to deprive the
] federal courts of jurisdiction to check Congress's
] wayward ways -- in an arena where Congress was
] specifically believed by the framers to be dangerous.
] (Recall that phrase from the First Amendment's
] Establishment Clause, "Congress shall make no law.....)
]
] Do the members of Congress genuinely think that 50 state
] supreme courts -- with a host of disparate views -- could
] possibly keep Congress in check? Or do they perhaps,
] believe that as members of Congress, they need no check?
] My money is on the latter, but either way, they are very
] wrong.

Its a good thing that mind boggling FOIST Act got me so pissed off yesterday. I simply don't have the energy for my anger to carry over to this one. Of course, this is a million times more heinous, if thats possible.

CNN.com - Lunacy of Pledge Protection Act - Sep 23, 2004

] How much power Congress has to block judicial
] consideration of the constitutionality of its laws
] remains, somewhat surprisingly, an open question --
] because Congress wisely has chosen not to test the
] question. It has, rather, accepted judicial review -- the
] idea that the courts can strike down legislative
] enactments that offend the Constitution -- as integral to
] the system of checks and balances. So while legislators
] have sometimes been tempted to yank controversial matters
] from the court's jurisdiction, cooler heads have
] prevailed. They should prevail now too. Whether the
] pledge violates the First Amendment's separation of
] church from state is a legal question. Congress has no
] business obstructing the courts from answering it.

Anti-Constitutional Republicans are moving to eliminate the judicial check on the power of the legislature. Removing the court system has been a consistent theme from the Republicans in recent years... Detaining enemy combatants without trial, passing legislation that probits constitutional review of laws, setting manditory sentencing guidlines... Its also a key element of the official 2004 Republican party platform.

Welcome to the tyranny of the majority. You wanna talk about treason Anne? THIS IS TREASON.

Strip This Bill (washingtonpost.com)

There are two sorts of people in the information-age elite, spreadsheet people and paragraph people.

This is cute, but not particularly rigorous. It's really a set-up for the letters that would surely follow -- and they did.

As expected, the spreadsheet people rush in to nitpick the column, pointing out problems with the data, citing counterexamples, and more. By comparison, the paragraph people argue that the framework itself is flawed, or that blue is really red.

Ruling Class War

An online archive of TV commercials from US presidential elections. If you've never seen LBJ's 1964 "Peace little girl" ad its certainly worth looking at. If you want a more recent example of something completely fucked up, I recall watching Clinton's 1996 ad "School" from my college dorm in complete horror, as he promises federally mandated school uniforms, drug testing in school, and other orwellian measures. I spent weeks trying to convince myself that it was just campaign promises and that he wouldn't actually do it...

The Living Room Candidate

] The most dramatic polls were those published immediately
] after the Republican convention. Among likely voters, a
] poll by Gallup for CNN and USA Today found Mr Bush seven
] points ahead; Time put the lead at 11 points; a Newsweek
] poll gives the same lead among registered voters. No
] challenger has overcome a deficit that size after Labour
] Day and come back to win.

Bush's lead is not a temporary "post convention bounce."

Economist.com | Bush is winning

Here is the Dem's platform, which is actually on their freakn' website.

DNC: 2004 Party Platform

Less malpractice liability, less stem cell research, fewer new public parks, no emissions controls, drug testing in schools, more death penalty, ten commandments displayed on government buildings, government funding for radical religious schools, marriage amendment, anti-abortion amendment...

Do you want to live in this country?

2004 Republican Party Platform

] A November win by Democratic presidential candidate John
] Kerry would put the United States at risk of another
] "devastating" terrorist attack, Vice President Dick
] Cheney told supporters Tuesday.

We're not even pretending that we're not playing the fear card anymore.

I was thinking yesterday, the RNC had a basic contradiction that is easy to exploit. The official platform of the republican party was written by, for, and of the fundamentalist Christians. However, Rove did everything in his power to spin things at the RNC so that they would appeal to moderate "swing voters." The platform wasn't discussed. Cheney made scripted comments about his daughter.

All the Dems need to do is make sure that details about the Republican's actual platform gets into the hands of the moderate voters.... "Bush promises to do X if he gets into office." If the Republicans play down the discussion they alienate their base, if they admit it (which is what they'll do) they alienate the center. This tactic is too obvious for the Dems to have missed it. I can't think of a good reason for them not to play it...

CNN.com - Cheney: Kerry win risks terror attack - Sep 7, 2004

] Though the "swift boat" controversy is a convenient foil,
] and can't have helped Kerry, the shift looks to represent
] broader assessments. The Massachusetts senator has lost
] ground on unrelated items ranging from "a vision for the
] future" to trust to handle health care and education.

This is a detailed collection of data about where the public stands right now. The above discussion is a little bit disingenuous. Much like Dean's "YARRR," its clear that "swing voters" are extremely vulnerable to meaningless attack politics, especially when they are carried in the mainstream press, and their perceptions of a candidate on one issue impact their perceptions on totally unrelated issues.

Kerry's attempt to handle the swift boat veterans clearly failed. The press may also have chosen their candidate and may be spinning things in his favor. Monday's USA Today headlined a picture of Cheney getting off of a plane, and trumpeted Bush's strengths. Protestors where mentioned, but their message was heavily spun down. One would think 100,000 people in the streets of New York would be a more newsworth photo then Cheney's daily deplaning.

Our election is a popularity contest; a football game. If the press is really smart they'll steer things back to Kerry next month, and then back to Bush again in October... Keeping you on the edge of your seats until the big event. Gotta sell copy...

ABCNEWS.com : Poll: As Convention Opens, Bush Has Edge