FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION,

We are a Corporate Financial Service Provider in Europe. We had a customer who deposited some money with us and eventually died without any reference to a next of kin.

In accordance with the EU Trust and Federal Laws, at the expiration of 6 (six) years, his investments with our Financial Trust shall revert to ownership of the government of the country of the said investments if nobody applies as the next of kin to claim the investments.

Since you share the same surname with my client. I want to present you to stand in as the next of kin so that you and I can benefit from this investment equally. I guarantee that this will be executed under legitimate arrangement that will protect us from any breach of the law.

If this proposal is acceptable to you, kindly indicate your telephone, fax numbers and location where the money will be remitted.

I will instruct you on the next step to take.

With friendly greetings,
James Ransome

-found in my gmail inbox this morning

love.
ove.
ve.
e.
.

law school continues to mess with my natural tendency to write concisely.
my once five-liner plain language emails are turning into ten+ paragraph letters filled with extensions, illustrations, and paragraph headings.

gah!

i need to settle on a blog title that doesn’t make me jump out of bed at 3 am and immediately change it to something less vomit-inducing.

suggestions are welcome. pleaseandthanks.

in the meantime, the qua-thing will do.

please let me know if you find the new layout completely annoying.

i was going for something simple and light. and i’ve always been fond of typing in gray.

the answer to where i’ve been all this time is here.

i’ve been (b)lurking and sulking (for no real reason), but that doesn’t explain the privitisation of all posts old. i’m not sure the answer i just thought up is convincing enough: i didn’t want that stuff up anymore.

i haven’t dismissed the possibility of bringing back some of the old stuff, though, if someone wants to see it. i also haven’t yet apologised for disappearing. z pointed out a couple of months ago that some reader(s) might be offended by an unexplained disappearance. while i don’t think it’s such a terrible thing to have one less blog to read, i do apologise for leaving without notice. it won’t happen again, sir or madam.

anyhoo, back to the point at issue: writing good blog posts requires much effort. while i gave up on the idea of being “useful” (thank you, socrates) a long time ago, i didn’t always have it in me to produce interesting stuff. i have a lot of respect for bloggers who consistently write awesome posts and, er, post more often than twice a year.

hey! i just realised that bbb is also an acronym for brown, bumbling buffoon. and i didn’t even have to change the comma placement.

anyhoo, here’s hoping and sorta promising (to self) the effort will be sufficient this time.

all my old posts have been privatised because i suck.

i will return presently with new public posts, hopefully.
in the meantime, i’m thinking.

these are the words of hazrat miah muhammad buksh (ra), which i’ve translated as:

rejoice not at the death of the enemy because [a] friend [or beloved], too, will die

“pakistanooN aj ik barrhi pehrrhi khabar ayi eh,” said my mother.
there’s terrible news from pakistan.

these were the words i awoke to this morning. benazir bhutto, the leader of the opposition party, pakistan peoples party (ppp), was killed in an assassination-suicide-bombing at a political rally in rawalpindi for the 8 jan national elections.

—

the bhuttos are the kennedys of pakistan. benazir’s assassination marks her as the fourth member of her immediate family to be killed in the name of politics. the first was her father, zulfikar ali bhutto, pakistan’s first popularly elected prime minister, who was executed in 1979 after being deposed in a military coup. both of her brothers died in “mysterious circumstances.” there is a remaining sibling, a sister of benazir, who is not involved in politics.

the daughter of a trudeauesque father, benazir was both lifted and burdened by the legacy of a man who was the most multifaceted leader of pakistan. zulfikar bhutto was a clever politician and a feudal lord. he was also the first leader to teach the public the value of their voice and vote. he taught us what the power of citizens meant and what this power could accomplish. he was the man who said, “we will eat grass if we must,” but we must defend ourselves against india any way we can. it’s quite easy for me, and others like myself, who live out their lives snugly wrapped in blankets of security and comfort, to dismiss bhutto’s nuclear ambitions as misguided attempts to save a floundering nation. the political tension between india and pakistan is essentially non-existent today – kept alive mostly in the realm of cricket and the occasional bollywood and lollywood filum. (our generation does not see the relevance in holding on to a deep sense of vengeance in a world that is already choked by violence, political, social, ethnic, religious.) of course, we remember – as we should – the crimes against humanity we individually and collectively committed against each other sixty years ago, yet the atmosphere of the 50s, 60s, and 70s channeled the national attention to protection and defense against a powerful neighbouring state.

—

rumoured to be a popular lesbian at oxford university, studying around the same time as imran khan, benazir was a wild one, under the eye of pakistani tradition. yet her father must have seen the seed of leadership in her, which her other three siblings lacked. that was probably why he groomed her for politics. benazir would return to pakistan, marry a man, have children, and become the first female leader of the state.

her mispronounciation of basic urdu words became the butt of many household and editorial jokes. substituting “iyaaN” and “uvaaN” for “yahaaN” (here) and “wahaaN” (there), her speeches provide a new kind of levity to pakistani politics. she was probably more popular outside pakistan than she was inside it. my mother once mentioned to me that she is considered the best public speaker in the world (even though i always thought of her speeches as rehearsed and her demeanor robotic), second only to former u.s. president, bill clinton.

in all, benazir was a tragic figure, never quite able to sustain herself as a political figure outside the shadow of her father. allegedly supporting democratic values while holding the leadership of the PPP as a self-appointed leader-for-life, she was a worse hypocrite than her father. technically, the party no longer exists now that she is dead because as bbc’s barbara plett best put it during today’s correspondence from pakistan: “she is the party.”

—

here are some people and institutions who, individually and collectively, would benefit from her death:

1) her own party. it’s old news that there’s been serious dissension in her party. members of her party want in on the leadership.

2) her own neice, fatima bhutto, following in the footsteps of benazir’s late-brother, is a potential politician most ideologically opposed to her aunt.

3) nawaz sharif’s pakistan muslim league (N) (pml-n)

4) feudal opponents and personal enemies out for a vandetta

5) al qaeda

6) the taliban

7) the cia and the u.s. government double-crossed her in that little power-sharing deal between her and musharraf. and she wasn’t staying quiet about it.

—

the one person who wouldn’t gain much from killing her is musharraf. with hatred piled high against him already, it makes no sense for him to be a creator of a “political martyr.” (note the way he deported nawaz sharif directly from the airport when he first returned to pakistan after 8 years of exile.) however, this event may easily lead the country to another state of emergency ruled by a never-before-seen martial law.

the news reports now say – as i type this – that people are setting fires to private property and wreaking general havoc on the streets.

these are sad times for a nation.