Foreign policy expert Michael Lucas has a column up talking about how much he loves Hosni Mubarak. You see, dictators are bad and anyone who supports them is "brainless," but sometimes a pro-America dictator is needed to keep dirty, stinkin', unreasonable Moozlims in line:
Protesters say President Mubarak (pictured) and his corrupt cronies steal their money and leave the populace poor and miserable. Whoever grabs power next will no doubt do the same, except they will stir some nasty 14th-century-inspired brutal oppression into the stew.
It's all part of the Islamists' master plan to impose the most strict and cruel form of Sharia law on the entire Arab world.
If you were looking for any proof that the revolution will necessarily lead to a fundamentalist Muslim regime, you won't find it in that column. You could join Lucas in his world and imagine it with him; I'm sure he'd love the company.
Those of us who actually care about democracy or intelligent debate, though, might wonder why The Advocate is still printing his columns.
A month ago, when he said no one in the West should ever support a dictator, he was referring to Vladimir Putin (who, frankly, was elected twice and left the post when he reached term limits there and governed with a real legislative branch, which is more than can be said for Mubarak). But that was because he was busy calling Putin a "communist," contrary both to Putin's party affiliation and policy, and here Mubarak is a dictator who everyone knows was willing to let his people get exploited by Western business for some cash. Plus he didn't try to do anything for the people living in the Gaza Strip, which effectively makes Israel's express policy of economic oppression of the Palestinian people possible, so more power to him.
Dictators are awesome so long as they do what you want.
Lucas also insists, for no explainable reason other than that his column ran in The Advocate, that Mubarak was OK for the gays and whoever replaces him will be terrible. Here's Parvez Sharma, just a couple weeks ago in The Advocate, describing Mubarak's anti-gay "pogrom":
The notion of homosexual activity being considered foreign -- and often specifically a Western perversion -- is not new to me. As an out and proud gay man, I have documented the policing of morality and sexuality in repressive Arab regimes, the most notable being the Hosni Mubarak government's pogrom against gay men in 2001, an incident whose victims came to be known as the Cairo 52. Knowing the indignities the 52 men arrested then, on a floating nightclub on the Nile called the Queen Boat, had to face in prison, I shudder to think of the fate of the 13 now in the custody of the notoriously brutal Uttar Pradesh police force.
And it seems gays in Egypt have decided which side they're on:
Pro-democracy demonstrators have called for a massive protest on Friday - a date by which they want President Mubarak out of power. This is a note posted on GayEgypt.com:
"Egypt's gay and lesbian community has had enough of years of police brutality and torture and GayEgypt.com calls on all lesbians and gays to join their brothers and sisters on the street to peacefully express their demand for immediate change."
But Michael Lucas, an expert on all things Egypt, knows that it's going to get worse. Sure, the reason he thinks it will starts with an "I" and rhymes with "homophobia," but why won't these Egyptians listen to an uninformed neocon sitting in NYC?