Robert's Virtual Soapbox
It's not mean if it's true.
Last updated:
1/7/2006; 9:31:26 AM


December 2005
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Nov   Jan



Subscribe to this blog in Radio:
Subscribe to "Robert's Virtual Soapbox" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

E-mail this blog's author, Robert Crook:
Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
 

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Photo  Photo

AFP photo, left; Reuters photo, right

Former black gang leader Stanley "Tookie" Williams, left, killed four people, and for his crimes he is scheduled to be executed on Tuesday. Current white-collar gang leader George W. Bush, right, has killed thousands of people -- yet he remains at large to kill even more people.

Let Tookie live --

or execute all of the cold-blooded murderers

Should Stanley "Tookie" Williams be executed?

This is an easy one.

Yes, "Tookie," 51, killed four people in cold blood in 1979. For that, he should never be released from prison. He deprived four people of being able to pursue their lives among us; he should not be allowed to pursue his life among us.

California Gov. Ahhhnuld Schwarzenegger is to decide whether or not to grant clemency to "Tookie," who is scheduled to be executed via lethal injection at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday at San Quentin State Prison.

Why this is a struggle for Repugnican Schwarzenegger I'm not sure. If I were guv I'd grant "Tookie" clemency immediately.

Why?

Well, let's talk about fairness and justice:

Why is it that when a black man from a poor background kills one or a handful of people, so many Americans are quick to say that he should be executed because killing people is wrong, but when rich white men from wealthy backgrounds kill thousands of people in cold blood, as the members of the Bush regime have done, very few Americans think that execution is appropriate for them?

I count the more than 2,140 deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq and the more than 27,000 deaths of Iraqi civilians since the Bush regime's illegal, immoral, unprovoked and imperialist invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as murders because the members of the Bush regime lied about their reasons for taking the United States to war against Iraq. That constitutes treason (which itself is grounds for execution), war crimes and murder.

So if we want to execute people like Stanley "Tookie" Williams and if we want to maintain, at the same time, that the United States is a fair and just nation, then we'd better execute all of the murderers in our midst.

So strap down George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, et. al., next to "Tookie" and give all of them a lethal injection for having callously murdered innocent people. Then we'll be closer to having that "...and justice for all" thing that we claim that we have.

If you call yourself a "Christian" and support the death penalty at the same time, I'll share with you a bumper sticker that I saw for the first time just the other day:

Death Penalty

Ask yourself: Whom would Jesus execute?

Um, yeah.

Anyway, my guess is that Schwarzenegger won't grant "Tookie" clemency. Schwarzenegger just named -- I swear to God -- a Democrat who is a lesbian as his new chief of staff, and the Repugnicans here in California are up in arms over that. So I expect Schwarzenegger to use the legalized lynching of a black man to appease his base.

If he allows the legalized lynching, and I give it about a 60 percent chance that he will, I expect Schwarzenegger to hide behind a "This-is-what-the-courts-decided-and-I-won't-interfere-with-the-courts" argument. You know, in order to avoid having to take personal responsibility -- which is what the Repugnicans are all about. 


7:49:15 PM    Comments []

The Repugs think you're really fucking stupid

(and if you support them or their Vietraq War, then you are)

Do you remember how the members of the Bush regime sold Americans on the Vietraq War?

I do:

We were just going to "liberate" the poor Iraqis from Saddam Hussein. That was it. The Iraqis would greet our troops as liberators. And Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the whole thing. No problem. It would be a cakewalk.

That's what the members of the Bush regime told us in 2002 and early 2003.

Now, we have a civil war in Iraq with no end in sight and the United States now has the largest federal budget deficit in U.S. history, thanks in large part to the billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars from the U.S. treasury that are being funneled to Dick Cheney's Halliburton and to other war-profiteering subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp via the Vietraq War.

Iraqi oil isn't paying for the Vietraq War -- American taxpayers are paying for it, billions and billions of dollars for it, while the Repugnicans in Washington continue to slash social spending. Our tax dollars aren't going to health care, education, environmental preservation, job creation and the like -- they're going to the likes of Halliburton.

Iraqis are still blowing shit up -- and each other up -- right and left. Kidnappings, assassinations and murders continue unabated in Iraq. U.S. troops, who are hated and who are seen as occupiers (um, because they are) -- not as "liberators" -- continue to die.

In short, nothing's changing in Iraq (but Halliburton's profits continue to grow; don't worry about them -- they're making a killing).

But the Repugnican Party isn't about to admit that its Vietraq War has been a huge fucking mistake.

So the Repugnicans are putting a new twist on the Bush regime's reprehensible conflation of 9/11 and Iraq: They're acting like Iraq attacked the United States on 9/11, and that's why the U.S. military is in Iraq. Therefore, their "argument" is, those who oppose the Vietraq War want to "cut and run" and "surrender."

It couldn't be that the Vietraq War has been one of the United States' greatest military mistakes ever, if not the greatest U.S. military mistake ever.

I got this e-mail from the Repugnican National Committee yesterday (yes, I'm on the enemy's e-mail list):

 


Dear Robert,

When it comes to leading Democrats and Iraq, we've seen it all. First, they voted for the war; then they claimed it was a lie. Some Democrats have called for immediate withdrawal, others call for a phased withdrawal, and others are saying they won't have a position until it's "the right time". Now, some of the democrat leaders have taken their most extreme and dangerous position yet; predicting the defeat of our troops in Iraq.

Watch the new web video, "Retreat and Defeat," that exposes this cut-and-run strategy for what it is.

Watch Howard Dean saying that we won't win in Iraq, and John Kerry talking about our troops "terrorizing" children in the dead of night. Think about the message this sends to our troops; that we will be intimidated by terrorists and assassins, and that we walk away from their mission.

Our troops are watching. America is watching. Send these Democrats the message that surrender is not an option; and that we stand together with our troops for victory in Iraq.

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman
Chairman, Republican National Committee


To Forward This Email To Your Friends And Family, Please Click Here

Republican National Committee | 310 First Street, SE | Washington, DC 20003
p: 202.863.8500 | f: 202.863.8820 | e: info@gop.com

Paid for by the Republican National Committee
www.gop.com
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee

© 2005 Republican National Committee

 

The Repugs are still trying to rewrite history, a la George Orwell's 1984.

First of all, before their March 2003 invasion of Iraq against the wishes of the United Nations and most of the world, the members of the Bush regime lied through their fangs about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and the threat that Iraq posed to its neighbors and even to the United States. They even ominously warned that "the smoking gun" might manifest itself as "a mushroom cloud." Iraq had or was on the verge of having nukes, they claimed.

You can't fucking lie in order to get someone to go along with your plans -- as the members of the Bush regime lied to the Democratic lawmakers and to the world, before March 2003, about the actual threat that Iraq posed -- and then, when it becomes apparent that you fucking lied and that your plan is going to shit, blame those you to lied for the huge fucking mess that you have created, as the Repugnicans are trying to do to the Democrats. (Well, you can't unless you're a Repugnican, because Repugnicans are fucking cowards -- cowards never admit their mistakes, much more take responsibility for them -- and because Repugnicans have no ethics or sense of decency whatsofuckingever.)

And in the e-mail above from Repugnican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman, who is a big ol' closet case, the Repugs use another tactic that they've been using for some time now: Attempting to morph legitimate criticism of the Bush regime's bungling of the Vietraq War into an attack on our troops: "Think about the message this sends to our troops," whines Mehlman, who is a true faggot.*

That the members of the Bush regime try to hide behind our troops instead of facing valid criticism, that they fucking use our troops, politically, as human shields, shows you who really gives a fuck about our troops -- oh, not to mention the fact that more than 2,140 U.S. troops have died thus far for the Bush regime's bold-faced lies about Iraq and for the war profiteering of the Bush regime's corporate cronies.

Oh, yeah -- the Repugnicans really wuv our troops.

Those Satanic Democrats, however, hate our troops -- because they want our troops out of the clusterfuck that is Iraq. They don't want any more of our troops -- most of whom look like they just graduated from high school -- dying for the Bush regime's fucking pack of lies that have benefited only war profiteers. Those bad Democrats! Bad! Bad! Bad! 

The Repugnicans succeed only because a certain number of Americans are dumbfucks who believe that the Repugnicans really have their (and our troops') best interests at heart. There are plenty of Americans who can't -- or won't -- see the Vietraq War for what it is: A war that was fabricated for the purposes of war profiteering. You can't war profiteer without a war; Dick Cheney's Halliburton and other war-profiteering corporations wanted a war, and the Bush regime delivered to them a war.

Still, while we should never underestimate the stupidity of a huge chunk of the American population, I don't think that the "cut and run," "retreat and defeat" rhetoric on the part of the Repugnicans is going to work very well outside of the Repugnican Party's base of wingnuts who are lost fucking causes anyway.

A good chunk of the American population remember that this never was supposed to be a war against the people of Iraq, but that this was supposed to be about the "liberation" of the people of Iraq.

And these Americans, these true Americans -- true Americans because they have at least a general idea of what's really going on in their nation and what their "leaders" are really doing -- are not so dim as to not have noticed that, more than two years and eight months after the Bush regime's illegal, immoral, unprovoked and imperialist invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Iraq remains a huge fucking mess.

The Repugnicans' attacking the Democrats instead of ackowledging the quagmire that they created in Iraq is not going to solve the quagmire in Iraq.

The majority of Americans want an end to the quagmire in Iraq. So look for the Repugnicans to lose the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2006. (Maybe the U.S. Senate, too, but at least the House of Representatives.)

And, as usual, it will be a Democratic president who will have to clean up George W. Bush's many messes, foreign and domestic, just as Bill Clinton had to clean up the first George Bush's many messes.

I just hope that Americans remember, the next time that they're tempted to elect a Repugnican president (OK, so Gee Dubya was never elected), that as of late it's been the Repugnicans who have created the messes and the Democrats who have cleaned them up.

If enough Americans remember that, perhaps the Repugnican Party will die the death that it deserved to die a long, long time ago -- the death that it might be dying, the death I hope that it is dying, right now.

*A "faggot," in my own personal vocabulary, is a contemptible gay man, a gay man who lies for personal gain and who does things like sell his own people out, such as how Mehlman helped Bush win "re"-election by bashing gay men and lesbians. A faggot is someone whom I'd like to strangle. Ken Mehlman is a faggot.


5:36:42 PM    Comments []

Director Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain" doesn't come to Sacramento until next month, and so I won't be able to review it until then, but Salon.com film reviewer Stephanie Zacharek indicates that "Brokeback" is "closeted" -- that is, too timid because the filmmakers don't want to offend a mainstream, mostly heterosexual audience.

I hope that "Brokeback" isn't another "Philadelphia," in which, if memory serves, Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas play lovers but we don't even see them kiss, not even once. "Philadelphia" is one of the most overrated -- and most "closeted" -- movies of all time, and it promoted the oppressive idea that maybe the mainstream can tolerate gay men -- as long as the mainstream never has to see two men so much as kiss. 

Anyway, Zacharek writes that "Brokeback Mountain" "takes great pains to be a compassionate love story; but the filmmaking itself, self-consciously restrained and desiccated, is inert and inexpressive.... Lee and his actors give us the occasional snapshot of intimacy, but that's not the same as wrapping us in its glow... This is an unconventional love story that's carefully calibrated to offend no one. 'Brokeback Mountain' risks so much less than its characters do -- it's a closeted movie."

I've seen several "closeted" gay-themed movies, and while part of me wants to believe that the filmmakers are just trying to make the audience feel the way that the characters on the screen feel -- smothered by the widespread belief that homosexuality should, at best, be kept as hidden as possible -- the more realistic part of me suspects that the filmmakers are transferring their own hangups with being gay to their films. 


4:16:17 PM    Comments []



© Copyright 2006 Robert Crook. Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
Last update: 1/7/2006; 9:31:26 AM.
Powered by