In an obscure way, these topics are somewhat related ...
I’m going to write about one topic from each of the last two programs (Thursday and Friday), mainly because the other segments didn’t really keep my attention. Not that they weren’t important, of course ...
When I heard earlier in the day about the attempted assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, I knew that it would be the lead story of the night. At that point, there were 124 killed and 200 injured. Bhutto was not injured, but rushed to a secure location. With the obvious threats that she was facing upon her return from 8 years of self-imposed exile, I’m not sure if it shows good judgment, from a safety perspective, to appear in such an open forum. It was reported that she was riding in an open bus, greeting large crowds of supporters, when both suicide bombings happened. And that whatever security there was – turned out to be very lax. Dan Rivers, reporting from Karachi and having been present for the procession, said that people could walk right up to the bus carrying Bhutto without being screened, or stopped, in any way. It’s one thing to want to demonstrate bravery, it’s another to do so while you’re putting others in danger.
Anderson had a panel discussion with Peter Bergen, Nic Robertson and Reza Aslan – discussing the political ramifications of the bombings, and why Benazir Bhutto isn’t supported by al Qaeda or the Taliban. If the bombings signal a rise in instability within Pakistan, current Prime Minster Musharraf could postpone or even cancel the upcoming elections, which are expected to result in a power-sharing agreement between himself and Bhutto, as supported by the US.
Peter Bergen also had report on Benazir Bhutto, summarizing her history in Pakistan. His piece reminded us that even though there were corruption charges brought against her, she was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing. And even though she has spent a significant amount of time either under house arrest or in exile, she remains the most popular politician in Pakistan. (text continued after the screen caps)
Here’s the catch – Pakistan has nuclear weapons. That’s a scary enough thought as it is. But with Musharraf in power, the country’s terrorists know that in order to maintain his authority, Musharraf will, at the very least, turn a blind eye to their activities. But if there is a power shift, their “free ride” status more than likely will change. And they (i.e. – al Qaeda and the Taliban) may believe that they need to undertake more “aggressive” plans to secure their position and interests. Now – are we (the US) suppose to trust that George W. Bush has the capacity (define that word as you wish) to maneuver through this “minefield” and have all parties exit through the other side without significant damage? And what about his successor? Does Fred Thompson have “it”? What about Barack Obama? How much do Americans really consider these types of questions when they’re standing in a voting booth?
Which leads me into:
It seemed that the majority of the program was devoted, in some way, to the topic of “faith and politics”. There was an excellent report from Gary Tuchman about Mitt Romney – a detailed look at his history of missionary work with the Mormon Church and how devoted he was to that activity. And how successful he was, while in France, with making inroads into different communities by spreading the teachings of the Mormon faith during his time there. Gary interviewed Elder Russell Ballard, a leading Church official. While he stated that the Mormon Church does not ‘support’ political candidates, he did give a disconcerting answer to the question of whether or not Mitt Romney would, by virtue of the teachings of his faith, be obligated to follow divine revelations from the current Mormon Church President, Thomas Monson, who is considered a prophet. The answer, though Elder Ballard tried to skirt around it, was “yes”. Something else to keep in mind in the voting booth.
As a quick side note, I don’t understand the conservative Christian embrace of a Mormon candidate. Especially one who, until rather recently, and while Massachusetts governor, supported abortion rights. But putting that aside for a moment – fundamentally, Mormons are not Christians, at least when using ‘conservative’ Christian criteria as measurement. So even their ‘potential’ support of Romney has me baffled.
Anderson had an interview with Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention. He asked about the Baptist support for Romney and other Republican candidates. Pastor Page stated that he felt Governor Romney was “pro-family on every level”, and that Rudy Giuliani (basically) had a snowball’s chance in h**l of getting any Christian conservative support. (That last part was a paraphrase, of course!!) When pressed about a third party candidate, he was non-committal, but didn’t rule it out. When also pressed about whether there is an “electable” candidate that Christian conservatives could support, he did say that Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter most closely reflect his church’s social and family values.
Here are my problems with the entire notion of “Christian conservative” support:
(1) I know I wasn’t hearing things when George Bush proclaimed himself to be a “compassionate conservative”. Remember that? What happened to that? Can we find it in the same place where “ethics” and “accountability” and “integrity” ended up? Did it lose some momentum after the election? It certainly did after the re-election, when “W” was punch-drunk about his newfound “political capital” that he was going to spend. Seems like he should have budgeted a little better. My point is – true to his character – George said what he had to say to get the support he needed to get elected – and re-elected. If either time he had failed to properly pander to this extreme right-wing coalition, we’d be either closing out President Gore’s second term, or gearing up for a re-election bid by President Kerry. Among a very lengthy list of other activities (like
not invading Iraq) that would get me started on a
MAJOR rant ...
(2) The second point is that when you talk with Christian conservative representatives, such as Frank Page, their first and main priority is always, and I mean
ALWAYS, the “preservation of the sanctity of life.” This is the ‘umbrella’ statement that’s used to cover anti-abortion beliefs, and somehow got ‘stretched’ to also cover anti-gay marriage beliefs, since a ‘family’ shouldn’t be allowed to exist, according to the Bible, without opposite sex parents to raise children, right?
(sarcasm alert!) There are several points of this belief system that are blatantly hypocritical, but I want to focus on the danger of this myopic vision, and I was reminded of it while listening to Frank Page. All he could talk about was “preserving life and family” – and how faith must be an integral part of a candidate’s character in order to be “acceptable” to Christian conservatives. But is that really all it takes?? Not to steal lines from Bill Maher, but what happened to being
smart? What happened to being a
collaborator? What happened to
strength through diplomacy? What happened to
security through mutual respect? I could go on and on (and on) – but the bottom line is -
WHAT HAPPENED TO LEADERSHIP??? According to the Christian conservative platform, my
grandmother should be the next US President.
And we can’t afford that – now more than ever. We must have leadership that is capable and willing to deal with the issues facing this country - from a global perspective - and with an open mind. When there is the level of instability in a nuclear country like Pakistan that there is presently, and has been for several years, the US
must have something more to offer than the standard "cowboy diplomacy" that the world has gotten used to seeing.
OK – well – these topics are certainly ripe for further discussion – and as we inch closer to election day, the heat will get turned up and I know that this will be a pivotal time in our history.
Other News & Notes:Anderson will have his first 60 Minutes segment aired this coming Sunday – you can watch a video clip on the 60 Minutes
homepage – I’m sure that the full video will be available after airing tomorrow. A summary of the segment follows:
Science has struck a devastating blow against malnutrition. CNN anchor Anderson Cooper reports for 60 Minutes on a miracle product that’s cheap, nutritious, needs no refrigeration or preparation, and is saving thousands of children in developing countries. It’s called "Plumpynut," and it has even brought infants and toddlers who are close to death back to health in a few days. But if the U.S and European countries would devote more of their food aid budgets to Plumpynut, more companies would make similar products and more lives could be saved. Says Doctors Without Borders nutritionist Dr. Milton Tectonidis, “Now we have something. It is like an essential medicine. In three weeks, we can cure a kid that ... looked like they’re half dead. We can cure them just like an antibiotic." When asked if Plumpynut was like penicillin, the doctor replies, "For these kids, yes."
Thanks for visiting - updates posted as needed - hope everyone is having a terrific weekend!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
