Who Was Really Responsible for Bhutto's Murder?

For the life of me, I do not even to presume to know at this point. However, the true answer will have huge ramifications as to where events in Pakistan and the Middle East may head. The Chimperator and Musharraf are quite naturally pointing to Islamic extremists, which is of course a distinct possibility, but also plays right in with the other motives of both of them. Bush needs to maintain the terror bogeyman to continue his unlawful actions and Musharraf wants to keep the US money spigot turned to a full on position. My worry is that if we get this answer wrong or go forward based on bad or false intelligence (gee, I cannot imagine what would make me worry about that), the outcome could be disastrous for the entire world.

As David Ignatius said in a column yesterday, his former classmate was indeed NOT someone the Islamic fundamentalists liked for obvious reasons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701479.html):

Bhutto was fearless, from her college years in America to her cruel assassination yesterday. She had an unshakable belief that Pakistan should embrace the modern world with the same confidence and courage that she had. She believed in democracy, freedom and openness -- not as slogans but as a way of life. She wasn't perfect; the corruption charges that enveloped her second term as prime minister were all too real. But she remained the most potent Pakistani voice for liberalism, tolerance and change.

Yet Islamic fundamentalists were not her only opponents. In fact others are speculating that others might have had more to gain from her death than the Islamic Fundamentalists, including Musharraf (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/bin_laden_killed_bhutto_how_bl.html#more):

The shorthand being bandied about in the news that al-Qaeda is responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is so sloppy, so lacking in nuance or understanding of the dynamics of Pakistan, and so self-centered in its reference to America's enemy as to be almost laughable. Several U.S. defense and intelligence experts are quoted today dismissing even the possibility that President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani government forces, or other domestic elements could be involved, a conclusion that flies in the face of the country's history and ignores the obvious beneficiaries.

To say that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for Bhutto's assassination -- suggesting Osama bin Laden and an external force -- is to ignore all those political and religious factions inside the country that had the motives and resources to kill the former prime minister. Some of those factions in the government, the military or the intelligence services were likely privy to Bhutto's movements, and they could have actively schemed, if not played a direct role, in getting the suicide attacker to the right place at the right time.

Given Pakistan's history, it is unlikely that the true perpetrators will ever be brought to justice. For the United States though, the al-Qaeda bogey-man has the negative effect of affirming support for Musharraf and his martial law, while ignoring the various extremists who represent the true existential threat to the country. We should not let our al-Qaeda fixation blind us, just as the Soviet threat did in Iran in the 1970s, to the realities that Pakistan could implode of its own accord.

And as the Washington Post is reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122802622.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007122801300), the US seems all too ready to run down the path that the Taliban and/or al-Qaeda bear responsibility before anyone knows for certain who was really responsible for Bhutto's murder. Equally scary is the fact that the intelligence officer quoted in the story is still maintaining the false myth that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. If the Chimperator and company cannot even get known facts correct, I have no confidence that they will not blindly run down the path that they want rather than make sure it is indeed the correct path. If that happens, we all need to be very afraid. The Iraq debacle has shown what happens when the Chimperator and Cheney act based on delusions/desires instead of real facts. Here are some Post story highlights:

"The Taliban . . . are indeed a growing element of the domestic political stew" in Pakistan, said John Blackton, who served as a U.S. official in Afghanistan in the 1970s and again 20 years later. He noted that Pakistani military intelligence created the Taliban in Afghanistan. How the United States responds will hinge largely on the actions of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, in whom U.S. officials have mixed confidence. If there is indeed a new challenge by Islamic militants emerging in Pakistan, then the United States will have to do whatever it can to support Musharraf, the U.S. Army officer in Afghanistan said.

"Pakistan must take drastic action against the Taliban in its midst or we will face the prospect of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of al-Qaeda -- a threat far more dangerous and real than Hussein's arsenal ever was," he said, referring to the deposed Saddam Hussein.

This rush to blame al-Qaeda is particularly suspect when Bhutto's own organization is disputing the involvement of al-Qaeda and accusing the Musharraf regime of a cover up (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PAKISTAN?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT):

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- An Islamic militant group said Saturday it had no link to Benazir Bhutto's killing and the opposition leader's aides accused the government of a cover-up, disputing the official account of her death. The government stood firmly by its account of Thursday's assassination and insisted it needed no foreign help in any investigation. "This is not an ordinary criminal matter in which we require assistance of the international community. I think we are capable of handling it," said Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema.

Bhutto's aides said they doubted militant commander Baitullah Mehsud was behind the attack on the opposition leader and said the government's claim that she died when she hit her head on the sunroof of her vehicle was "dangerous nonsense."

Saturday Male Beauty

Is it Possible? Evangelicals gather to Brainstorm

This Boston Globe article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/29/evangelicals_gather_to_brainstorm/) caught my attention since it uses the term "evangelical intelligentsia." From my experience with evangelicals and certainly when the anti-science position of the creationist Christianists is reviewed, the term "evangelical" and "intelligentsia" seems mutually exclusive. How much influence the group described in this article will come to possess remains to be seen. It would certainly be nice to have some level of intelligence come into sway since so far the trend seems to be in the opposite direction. By most standards, evangelicals seem to be seeking to dumb down education and science through their demands that "intelligent design" or some other form of creationism be taught in the public schools and their refusals to accept advances in medical and mental health research that indicate that sexual orientation is not a choice. Here are some story highlights:

Peter Berger concedes that the term "evangelical intelligentsia" will sound oxymoronic to many. And since the esteemed Boston University sociologist is a self-described "theologically very liberal Lutheran," you would be within your rights to expect that he dismisses all evangelicals as yahoos. You would also be wrong.

Spurred by scattered contacts with evangelical scholars, he has launched a two-year research project on the "Emerging Evangelical Intelligentsia," recruiting Timothy Shah, a Washington foreign policy maven and evangelical, as principal researcher. The second weekend in December, evangelicals from across the country and various academic disciplines - law, history, philosophy - flocked to BU's law school for a conference kicking off the project.

While fundamentalist theology was first constructed by Princeton Theological Seminary professors - "They were not ditch-diggers," noted Berger - today, biblical literalism is disdained by evangelical intellectuals, he said, because "no person with any degree of education can believe that." The rise of fundamentalism as a rejection of evolution and other modern ideas at the turn of the 20th century sent evangelicals careering away from intellectualism, according to Shah. The exemplar in his view was the wildly popular preacher Billy Sunday, "notorious for his hostility to learning and scholarship."

If fundamentalism is not part of the new intellectuals' theology, what is? The BU researchers spot several essential beliefs: the Bible as God's word and the sole authority for Christian belief; Jesus' redemptive death on the cross and the need for a personal relationship with him; public witnessing to one's faith; and a generally conservative moral code. In other areas, Shah sees a diversity in the intellectuals' thinking similar to other Americans. They differ, for example, over whether non-Christians can make it to heaven. "What unifies the class is their intellectual seriousness, not the content of their theology," he said by phone.

Gay Suicide

I have mentioned at times in passing my own bouts with depression and suicidal thoughts – which I fully put into action once and which very nearly succeeded. The gay media and to a lesser extent the MSM will mention the problem of gay teen suicide. Admittedly it is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. A less discussed or even acknowledged problem is that of older closeted gay suicides. Having seen several therapist along the path of my journey, as well as two different psychiatrists (mostly for anti-depression medication while working with my therapists), all indicated that a significant percentage – perhaps as many as 50% - of older men trying to deal with being in the closet and/or come out as I did end up taking their own lives. Many go unknown to the gay community much less their families since these individuals never come out and merely take their own lives via single vehicle accidents and other methods that look accidental or are explained as such. Yes, the vehicle went out of control, but was it deliberate?

I am sure that some readers are thinking “what in the world would get individuals to such a point?” Depression is a very real condition and one surely does not think straight when in its depths. Everything is gloomy and there seems to be no light on the horizon. Combined with this outlook is a very real sense of utter and total exhaustion. Just trying to go through the motions of life is such a labor that you just want it all to stop. In desperation and due to unclear thinking, there seems only one way to maker it all stop. When I took the bottle of pills (which would have finished me off but for the ex b/f forcing me to go to the hospital) after an all day hearing in the divorce case where opposing counsel happily badgered, gay bashed and worked to humiliated me, my only thoughts were that I just could not do it all any more and that I had to make the pain stop. I would do ANYTHING just to make the pain stop. I truly was not thinking beyond that.

To make my point that I was not an isolated instance, here are some quotes from various entries on a fellow blogger’s blog who is in the coming out process and feeling at times that his entire world is crashing and he becomes disheartened and depressed. I will not identify him, but I consider him a friend and we have talked a number of times on the phone about the difficulties of making the journey to self-acceptance and a new life as a gay man:

“last couple of days have been thinking a lot and contemplating a lot of things, like what if one morning I just didn't wake up........”

“its becoming more of an effort just to do what I used to enjoy and that is singing, singing means happiness and while I go through the motions its hard to stand in front of a congregation of about 900 people and sing all about the praises and how wonderful our God is..............I have broken down in tears several times at work this past week...........think I am loosing my mind.”

“sat the other night with a bottle of Jack [Daniels] and sleeping pills for about 2 hours contemplating,”

I can identify completely. Before I came out to my wife, I seriously thought of possible outwardly “accidental” means of ending it all. I would be driving down the Interstate and contemplate undoing my seat belt and wrecking the car. I know that the only thing that stopped me was the fear that I might not succeed and would end up paralyzed or worse. A more attractive method I thought about was a “surfing accident” where I merely went surfing and appeared to drown. Winter surfing where hypothermia would take care of what drowning might not succeed in doing seemed the best bet of all. A “broken” leash and lost board would set the process into play easily. I in fact did paddle out a couple times thinking it would be the end, but each time somehow found the strength or clear headed thinking not to follow through.

What is the answer? I am not sure. A society where one’s sexual orientation is a non-issue would obviously do wonders in reducing the problem I would think. Until that day arrives, however, reducing homophobia and the internalized self-hate it fuels is one part of the solution. Churches that do not constantly condemn gays or do little more than give lip service to being welcoming and supportive of gay members would help as well. Another part of the solution may be simply increasing awareness of the problem and helping closeted gays and lesbians to know that (1) they are not alone and (2) it is possible to survive the coming out process even though it may be a difficult path. Certainly the Internet has made this far more possible than in decades past. Yet another part of the answer is perhaps fostering an atmosphere where individuals will at least be truthful with their doctors and seek professional help. Among men, there still seems to be a significant stigma that seeking the help of a therapist or psychiatrist is not “macho” or “manly” - just one more aspect of the f**ked up nature of American society.

I would like to hear the thoughts and/or experiences of others on this issue.

Friday Evening Thoughts

Another work week is over, albeit a short one. Thank God! The last three days have been CRAZY at the office. I have somewhat shaken off the pre-Christmas depression – my trip to Charlottesville was very nice and some much needed cash came into the firm. Also, this weekend should afford some fun – taste testing tomorrow for the next “hrbortini” for the January 4th HRBOR happy hour at Mixers, followed by the movie premier tomorrow insanity.

Meanwhile, I have been thinking about a comment that was posted on one of my posts that laid out some of my random thoughts about my desire for a committed relationship:

“I just hope you don't overlook him, whoever he is, by creating too many "must have" qualities. Every man has his baggage and his faults. It's not about having everything perfect, but rather finding that one truly special someone for whom you don't mind making a few exceptions and overlooking a thing or two.”

While it is true that I am not willing to settle for just anyone – I doubt any of us would willingly – I do not think I have unrealistic requirements for “Mr. Right.” Besides the obvious requirement that he desire true commitment and have a decent level of intelligence (I would never be able to survive with a mindless “boy toy” type), one "must have" quality is the ability to trust. Another is sufficient self-confidence that he does not always needlessly feel insecure and worry about me "finding someone better" or looking for “someone better.” The two are inter-related, but without these two qualities, a relationship is doomed. The lack of these qualities certainly doomed my last relationship. Other than these qualities, I am open to whoever might come along where the attraction and overall chemistry works.

Given the right guy, I can see myself settling into a relationship for the rest of my life. I think my history demonstrates that I am not one to readily leave my partner at the first glimpse of someone new or the first sign of difficulties. It also shows that I have the ability to make a few exceptions and “overlooking a thing or two” to make a relationship work. I stayed married for 24 years before I could not play the role any longer and finally came out. It is true that part of it was due to fear. But most of it was due to my enjoying a committed relationship (despite the sexual orientation issue) with common goals, caring about the ex-wife, and valuing the trusting relationship we had together. Similarly, I stayed with my ex b/f even after it was obvious that it was not working for us. Why? For many of the same reasons: I am the committed type by nature and also because I loved him. Still do in many ways.

When and where prince charming will appear from to sweep me off my feet remains to be seen. This area is not exactly teeming with eligible guys who are looking for a guy my age. Most of the “good ones” seem settled in relationships. If I was in a different line of work or could figure out a career change that made sense, I’d move in a heart beat to a more progressive area with a larger gay population. Time will tell, I suppose.

Final Friday Male Beauty

Pastors Urged To Caucus By Huckabee Supporters

Meanwhile, we have Mike "Let Lock Up Gays" Huckabee using the same tactics used by the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in Virginia to get out the Christianist vote - i.e., Have the churches act as virtual arms of the GOP (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/pastors_urged_to_caucus_by_huc.php). I have seen it time and time again and often wonder how/why the IRS does not step in. The pastors do everything short of giving an endorsement speech for the pulpit and including candidate campaign materials in the church bulletins. As for Mike Farris, he is from Virginia and a certifiable religious lunatic. Here are a couple relevant highlights:

Here's an explicit example of how Mike Huckabee is relying on an outsourced Get-Out-The-Caucusers effort and on the implied support of pastors -- under the radar. Pastor Rick Scarborough is hosting a conference call with Iowa pastors to discuss the caucus... joining him are Dr. Tim "Left Behind" LaHaye and Dr. Michael "Home School" Farris.

All three are committed supporters of Mike Huckabee. An e-mail sent to Iowa pastors advertising the call doesn't mention Huckabee -- that wouldn't be legal -- but does say that pastors "have a duty" to keep their congregants "informed" and to lead them to "participate" in the caucuses. Farris has been a senior unpaid adviser to Huckabee from day one and was key in helping to organize the families of home schoolers to attend the Republican straw poll in Ames last summer.

This is all, again, legal, provided the pastors stay within certain guidelines. But it's very easy to see that a mobilization of pastors and their congregants helps a single candidate. And given how successfully evangelicals have knocked and dragged their voters in the past, their might -- even uncoordinated -- could overwhelm the most established of Iowa organizations on caucus night.

Obama vs. Hillary

It is a bit frightening to find myself agreeing with an editorial in the Washington Times, but this opinion piece (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071226/EDITORIAL/295816016) does a good job at explaining what I fear if Hillary is the Democrat nominee based on my former years in the GOP. Rational or not, she ignites huge negative reactions and will motivate some to vote who might otherwise stay home. The piece also comments on some of Hillary's dirty trick tactics that I believe only come back to hurt her. Who the Hell is advising her on this? If the Democrats do not understand the opportunity before them, then the party is hopeless. Here are some. highlights:

What part of "anyone but Hillary" Clinton do Democrats not understand? The surest and best path for Democrats to defeat conservatives in 2008 is to elect Sen. Barack Obama as their nominee. Mr. Obama is leading in Iowa, and the race is now a dead heat in New Hampshire and South Carolina. In response, the Clinton camp has insisted that Mr. Obama is not electable by the general population. They maintain that his opinions are too liberal, that Republicans will use the issue of his past drug use against him and that he has insufficient experience. Yet this negative approach has thus far failed to resonate with Democratic voters.

Moreover, it is Mrs. Clinton, not Mr. Obama, who cannot be elected. In last week's Fox 5-The Washington Times-Rasmussen Reports poll, 40 percent of Americans state they will vote to prevent Mrs. Clinton from becoming president. She gets the largest "anti-vote" of any candidate in both parties: 64 percent of Republicans, 42 percent of third-party or independent voters, and 17 percent of Democrats insist they will vote against her. Hence, the Clinton camp's recent attempt to malign Mr. Obama as unelectable is pure farce. It is like telling Democrats to be afraid of a toy pistol while ignoring a bazooka which is being aimed at them. In a general campaign, Republicans will go nuclear against Mrs. Clinton.

Barring the nomination of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic Party is poised to capture the White House in 2008. This is mostly because there is no Republican candidate on the horizon who can unite the right. Thus, any Democrat but Mrs. Clinton, can peel away enough conservative, Republican and independent voters to win the next election.

Once Mr. Obama secures the Democratic nomination, he will enter the general election with the liberal base highly mobilized. With a running mate who has good foreign-policy credentials, he can convince moderates that he will be effective in international affairs. Also, Democrats generally attract 88 percent of the black vote: Mr. Obama may make even greater inroads as these voters embrace the prospect of electing America's first black president. Finally, he will capture the two vital swing-voter groups: women and Hispanics.

The secret among conservatives is that many are rooting for Mr. Obama — and many will even vote for him in a general election no matter how liberal he is. Why? He will be heroic for defeating Hillary; he is authentic, and he is likeable even in disagreement. In essence, all the stars are aligned in favor of a remarkable American story: Barack Obama's historic march from Iowa straight into the White House in Washington, D.C. If only Democrats had enough sense to get Hillary Clinton out of his way.

More Friday Male Beauty

The 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2007

This list was too good to pass up (http://www.buffalobeast.com/122/50mostloathsome2007.html). I figured I would highlight a few of the folks I have taken to task during the last eight months of serious blogging. I hope you enjoy it.

1. George W. Bush

Charges: Is it a civil rights milestone to have a retarded president? Maybe it would be, if he were ever legitimately elected. You can practically hear the whole nation holding its breath, hoping this guy will just fucking leave come January '09 and not declare martial law. Only supporters left are the ones who would worship a fucking turnip if it promised to kill foreigners. Is so clearly not in charge of his own White House that his feeble attempts to define himself as "decider" or "commander guy" are the equivalent of a five-year-old kid sitting on his dad's Harley and saying "vroom vroom!" Has lost so many disgusted staffers that all he's left with are the kids from Jesus Camp. The first president who is so visibly stupid he can say "I didn't know what was in the National Intelligence Estimate until last week" and sound plausible. Inarguably a major criminal and a much greater threat to the future of America than any Muslim terrorist.

Exhibit A: "And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."

Sentence: Dismembered, limbs donated to injured veterans.

7. Erik Prince

Charges: Priming Baghdad's streets for American imperialism by making them pristinely wog-free. Prince's Iraq is one massive free-fire zone for his bullet-sweating mercenaries, a Hogan's Alley in which everyone dusky is blithely expendable, rape is a mischievous dalliance, and accountability an inside joke. Remarkably, enabling the US occupation and simultaneously fomenting destabilizing enmity. Bringing the privatization of warfare to full fruition -- next time, Exxon can just invade a country directly.

Exhibit A: Blackwater Vice Chairman Cofer Black is Mitt Romney's campaign counterterrorism policy adviser. The company's website also hawks infant onesies.

Sentence: Tanned and tethered outside Baghdad's Green Zone after curfew. Whatever happens, happens.

20. Larry Craig

Charges: This year's eminent toe-tappin' conservative queen of hypocrisy. Thought the Defense of Marriage Act was FABULOUS! -- because he personally needs legislation to keep him straight. Didn't work. Brought unwanted knowledge of the intricate culture of anonymous gay public restroom sex into America's living rooms. Embodies both the cause and result of faith-based sexual repression. Insists on dragging out the least plausible public denial of buggery since Liberace's, presumably for the benefit of his frozen-smiled, slowly maddening wife.

Exhibit A: "I am not gay. I never have been gay."

Sentence: Stoned to death.

21. David Vitter
Charges: And yet another family values Republican and Clinton-basher gets his glass house blown in. A staunch marriage defender and abstinence promoter who paid $300 an hour for his favorite hooker? The only surprise there is that he's still hanging around the Senate, but then again, he did say he was sorry. Denies evolution, yet was still compelled by his primate DNA to spread his seed far and wide.
Exhibit A: According to some, Vitter was nicknamed "the shitter" by Canal Street whores for his predilection for diaper play. Wholesome!
Sentence: Wife follows through on that Lorena Bobbitt comment she made during the Lewinski scandal.

47. Mike Huckabee

Charges: What's worse, a calculating politician pretending to be a devout Christian, or a genuine heartland preacher who didn't come from no monkey? Huckabee is both -- a Southern Baptist who rejects Darwin, wants to give everyone a gun and thinks people with AIDS should be quarantined, and a seedy, corrupt politician who's never seen a payoff so low he won't stoop to pick it up. Democrats see Huckabee as easily defeated in a general election, but they shouldn't be so sure -- Smooth talking preachers tend to do well in this country. Huckabee is well-spoken, kind-faced, and the opposite of wordly -- he's Obama for hicks.
Exhibit A: "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives... I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
Sentence: Just as he's about to win the GOP nomination, a freak gust of wind catches Huckabee's excess skin and carries him out over the Atlantic, where he drifts for hours before God appears to him, tells him He's a Unitarian, and sends him to hell.