Who would have thought that the battleground for the White House would encompass the movie industry like it has in this election? While some debate their importance in the outcome, the fantasies, excuse me, 'documentaries' and movies by creative leftist Hollywooders have captured the curiosity of some interesting folks. For instance, did you see the Fox News report last month about one of the fifty-four siblings of Osama Bin Laden? Yeslam Bin ladin, who watched Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/ll' said in an interview with a French magazine, VSD, "I even laughed at times," except for the inaccuracies about his family, to which he said of Michael Moore, "knowing perfectly well that he's deceiving the public," referring to the segment in the film where President Bush is depicted as trying to cover up his family's ties to the bin Laden family. One of Moore's main accusations in the movie was that two days after September 11th the Bush administration helped 142 Saudis, which included 12 members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the country, even though commercial flying had stopped. "That's false and can be verified by anyone," Yeslam said. "They benefited from no exceptional authorization to leave American territory." Yeslam, who lives in Geneva, said his family members flew to Geneva on September 20th. There were other errors in the movie as well according to him. Osama and Yeslam are two of the 54 sons and daughters of Mohammed bin Laden and his 22 wives. Their father was the founder of Sico, a Geneva-based financial company. Yeslam said the last time he saw his younger half-brother, Osama, was in1981.
Sharon's Movie Pick of the Week? Not Without My Daughter, starring Sally Fields. Shows the challenges American women face married to Iranian men in that Arab country. It's a very stirring true story.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
Friday, August 27, 2004
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Europe Monitoring U.S. Elections, Part 2
Be sure to read Wednesday's post if you haven't already before you read today's.
Background of US/OSCE relationship:
According to CNN online OSCE is the world's largest regional security organization and exists for the purpose of conflict prevention and postconflict rehabilitation. Based in Vienna, Austria, over the last ten years it has sent 10,000 observers to monitor 150 elections in 30 countries. Next month the international organization will send a team to Washington DC to "assess the size, scope, logistics and cost of the mission" and determine how many observers will be required. Instigated by 13 Democrat congressmen, one of which was Rep. Barbara Lee of California who said, "This represents a step in the right direction toward ensuring that this year's elections are fair and transparent. I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted." Yeah, well, we've heard that mantra over and over, but did you know that in November 2002 OSCE sent 10 observers to monitor the U.S. midterm elections, as well as the California gubernatorial recall election last year? If you don't agree with an international body overseeing our elections then make your voice heard. Comment here and on other blogsites, both conservative and liberal, and get the word out. Write letters to the editor, but most important contact the White House, State Department and Congress.
TAKE ACTION!
Contact the White House and Congress
Contact the U.S. State Department
Quick Links - More Information
CNN - International Team to Monitor Presidential Election
WorldNetDaily - Administration Yields to 13 Democrat Congressmen
American Policy Center - International Election Monitoring Headed by Impeached Judge
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
Background of US/OSCE relationship:
According to CNN online OSCE is the world's largest regional security organization and exists for the purpose of conflict prevention and postconflict rehabilitation. Based in Vienna, Austria, over the last ten years it has sent 10,000 observers to monitor 150 elections in 30 countries. Next month the international organization will send a team to Washington DC to "assess the size, scope, logistics and cost of the mission" and determine how many observers will be required. Instigated by 13 Democrat congressmen, one of which was Rep. Barbara Lee of California who said, "This represents a step in the right direction toward ensuring that this year's elections are fair and transparent. I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted." Yeah, well, we've heard that mantra over and over, but did you know that in November 2002 OSCE sent 10 observers to monitor the U.S. midterm elections, as well as the California gubernatorial recall election last year? If you don't agree with an international body overseeing our elections then make your voice heard. Comment here and on other blogsites, both conservative and liberal, and get the word out. Write letters to the editor, but most important contact the White House, State Department and Congress.
TAKE ACTION!
Contact the White House and Congress
Contact the U.S. State Department
Quick Links - More Information
CNN - International Team to Monitor Presidential Election
WorldNetDaily - Administration Yields to 13 Democrat Congressmen
American Policy Center - International Election Monitoring Headed by Impeached Judge
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Europe Organization to Monitor U.S. Presidential Election
This is a first! And even though it's been a few weeks since we heard that a team of international observers have been approved to monitor this year's presidental election, there seems to be little debate about it...but there should be. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was invited by the State Department because of the efforts of 13 Democrat members of Congress, who cried "possible civil rights violations" like they say took place in Florida in 2000. They actually wrote the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July requesting observers, but he rejected saying the request must come from the administration. So the 13 asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to make the request. Even though the issue was debated in the House, a letter dated July 30 by Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kelly said the invitation to OSCE was made. "The U.S. is obliged to invite us, as all OSCE countries should," said Urdur Gunnarsdottir, spokesperson for the organization. "It's not legally binding, but it's a political commitment. They signed a document 10 years ago to ask OSCE to observe elections. I am pleased that Secretary Powell is as committed as I am to a fair and democratic process. The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their votes and it cares about its standing in the world," she said in a press release. Hmmmmm, 10 years ago. Now let's see, who was President then? More on this tomorrow.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Blending Healthcare and 'Spirituality' - Should a line be Drawn?
I picked up an old copy of Time magazine the other day that had a piece on Tom Cruise and the movie "Minority Report", discussing his advocacy for the Church of Scientology, an organization founded by science-fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard, and the theme of the movie - blending new age 'spirituality' and technology in order to prevent crime. And I thought about another article I had read about two doctors who, as part of the 19 member "CAM" commission, wrote a separate letter from the commission's final report to former President, Bill Clinton because they were not in complete agreement with the report. In 2000 Clinton appointed a White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy "to provide a report to the President on legislative and administrative recommendations for assuring that public policy maximizes the benefits to Americans of complementary and alternative medicine." In their letter, the two doctors claim the most concerning part of the report was the inclusion of spirituality under the banner of "CAM." They wrote, "There is no question that many Americans find comfort in prayer, religion and/or spiritual practices and that more attention should be paid to the role of spirituality in health care. Nonetheless, it is disconcerting that the Report often categorizes spirituality as a "CAM" modality. The Report cites papers that assert that when a patient is diagnosed with cancer and turns to prayer for comfort, he or she is considered to be using 'CAM'...the conflation of spirituality and/or religion with CAM could lead to an abridgement of the free exercise of religion by subjugating its practice to a regulated modality." What do you think - do they have cause for concern?
Weekend movie suggestion: Check out "Minority Report". Tom Cruise is a Precrime Enforcer who uses precogs to find potential future murderers, only to find himself accused of the same. It's a futuristic look at society's willingness to sacrifice privacy for security. Read more at Sharon's Movie Picks.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
Weekend movie suggestion: Check out "Minority Report". Tom Cruise is a Precrime Enforcer who uses precogs to find potential future murderers, only to find himself accused of the same. It's a futuristic look at society's willingness to sacrifice privacy for security. Read more at Sharon's Movie Picks.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
Friday, August 20, 2004
Truth versus Propaganda
Truth, truth, where art thou? John Kerry's Personal War Diary - Part 2
On Wednesday I wrote about the contradiction between John Kerry's war diary and his approved biography, and promised to finish my thoughts in part 2. I remember a speech I gave last winter at a California Eagle Forum education conference where I spoke about the nature of propaganda. The word itself is pretty powerful, but so is the definition. In Latin, propaganda means "propagating." In the broadest sense propaganda is information that serves a particular agenda, which could be true or false. If true, it may be one-sided and fail to paint a complete picture. In the narrower and more common use, the term refers to deliberately false or misleading deceptive information that supports a political cause or the interests of those in power in any institution. A propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or a situation for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the propagandist. It includes censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with false information, but by preventing people from knowing true information.
What sets propaganda apart from other forms of advocacy is the willingness of the propagandist to change people's understanding through deception and confusion, rather than persuasion and understanding. We have to be discerning, and original records help us see through the power of emotional persuasion. John Adams said it best…”Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
On Wednesday I wrote about the contradiction between John Kerry's war diary and his approved biography, and promised to finish my thoughts in part 2. I remember a speech I gave last winter at a California Eagle Forum education conference where I spoke about the nature of propaganda. The word itself is pretty powerful, but so is the definition. In Latin, propaganda means "propagating." In the broadest sense propaganda is information that serves a particular agenda, which could be true or false. If true, it may be one-sided and fail to paint a complete picture. In the narrower and more common use, the term refers to deliberately false or misleading deceptive information that supports a political cause or the interests of those in power in any institution. A propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or a situation for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the propagandist. It includes censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with false information, but by preventing people from knowing true information.
What sets propaganda apart from other forms of advocacy is the willingness of the propagandist to change people's understanding through deception and confusion, rather than persuasion and understanding. We have to be discerning, and original records help us see through the power of emotional persuasion. John Adams said it best…”Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Compulsory Mental Health Screening is Coming...
For Pregnant Women and Children Preschool and Up...
There is a new major U.S. mental health initiative on the docket, based on a report of the New Freedom in Mental Health Commission, which recommends mental health screening for adults and children as young as preschool age in primary care health settings, schools, and correctional facilities. It also includes expanding school based mental health programs requiring specific treatments for specific conditions, including the use of specific medications. Think it won't happen? Last month Illinois bureaucrats began pushing through a plan passed into law by their legislature to screen the mental health of all pregnant women and children up to 18 years of age in their state. The plan also includes discounted psychotropic drugs. As reported in the Illinois Leader, Larry Trainor, a parent of four children and Illinois contact for the Los Angeles based Citizens Commission on Human Rights, said "Since psychiatric involvement in education, SAT scores have gone down for the past few decades. Evaluating mental conditions is not based on scientific evidence, it's subjective." If you think that the government and schools are intruding in an area that should be the responsibility of parents and the family doctor then do something.
TAKE ACTION!
Contact Rep. Hastert (202-225-2976)
Senator Frist (202-224-3344)
House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner at 202-225-6205
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman,
Judd Gregg at 202-224-3324
Alert your State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/public/leglinks.cfm
Oppose school board initiatives to add psychiatric personnel and screening programs.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
There is a new major U.S. mental health initiative on the docket, based on a report of the New Freedom in Mental Health Commission, which recommends mental health screening for adults and children as young as preschool age in primary care health settings, schools, and correctional facilities. It also includes expanding school based mental health programs requiring specific treatments for specific conditions, including the use of specific medications. Think it won't happen? Last month Illinois bureaucrats began pushing through a plan passed into law by their legislature to screen the mental health of all pregnant women and children up to 18 years of age in their state. The plan also includes discounted psychotropic drugs. As reported in the Illinois Leader, Larry Trainor, a parent of four children and Illinois contact for the Los Angeles based Citizens Commission on Human Rights, said "Since psychiatric involvement in education, SAT scores have gone down for the past few decades. Evaluating mental conditions is not based on scientific evidence, it's subjective." If you think that the government and schools are intruding in an area that should be the responsibility of parents and the family doctor then do something.
TAKE ACTION!
Contact Rep. Hastert (202-225-2976)
Senator Frist (202-224-3344)
House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner at 202-225-6205
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman,
Judd Gregg at 202-224-3324
Alert your State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/public/leglinks.cfm
Oppose school board initiatives to add psychiatric personnel and screening programs.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Truth, truth, where art thou? John Kerry's Personal War Diary
Evidently there seems to be a contradiction between John Kerry's personal war diary and his approved war biography by Douglas Brinkley, as reported by Art Moore in WorldNetDaily.com. Nine days after Kerry claims to have received his Purple Heart as a result of enemy fire, he wrote in his diary that he had not "been shot at yet." Brinkley's book, "Tour of Duty", which includes information from Kerry's diary, validates the date contradiction. This also seems to confirm claims made by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth in "Unfit for Command", a book written by John O'Neill who took over the command of Kerry's boat, that the wound was caused by Kerry firing a grenade launcher too close versus from enemy fire. So, is this a big deal? Are conservatives and the Swift Boat Vets for Truth making a mountain out of a mole hill? Do we care? If we do, then how do we sort through all the claims to find the truth? Original records. Sure, we can be gracious and say anyone can forget exact dates, but beyond the dates, are the records of what happened. That's how we (should) judge all candidates. Not by what they say, but by what they do. Voting records, House and Senate floor speeches, what is put in writing, etc, - original records. Read more on Friday.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Comment
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Stem-Cell Wars & the Presidency
4,000 Scientists Sign Anti-Bush Statement
The Associated Press reports that over 4,000 scientists, which includes 48 Nobel Prize winners, have signed a statement "opposing the Bush administration's use of scientific advice." Why? Because of the President's limits on embryonic stem-cell research. This comes on the tail of the 48 Nobel Prize winning scientists endorsing John Kerry for President and criticizing President Bush in a letter which was released by Kerry's campaign in June, stating, "The Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare. John Kerry will change all this." So, what's this really all about? Timing and agenda, of course. The statement by the 4,000 scientists, the letter of endorsement by the 48 Nobel Prize winners, and the public endorsement of lifting the limit on stem cell research by Ron Reagan at the DNC convention are designed to defeat President Bush in the election. It is safe to say Kerry and Bush are on opposite sides of this issue. What do the Bush limits comprise? It's not just about funding. Read more.
Weekend movie suggestion? Check out Gattica. It's about two brothers, one a "love child" the other genetically ordered. Is this 1997 film, about genetic engineering to overcome predispositions to disease, "prophetic" like some say "1984" was? Read more on movie.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
The Associated Press reports that over 4,000 scientists, which includes 48 Nobel Prize winners, have signed a statement "opposing the Bush administration's use of scientific advice." Why? Because of the President's limits on embryonic stem-cell research. This comes on the tail of the 48 Nobel Prize winning scientists endorsing John Kerry for President and criticizing President Bush in a letter which was released by Kerry's campaign in June, stating, "The Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare. John Kerry will change all this." So, what's this really all about? Timing and agenda, of course. The statement by the 4,000 scientists, the letter of endorsement by the 48 Nobel Prize winners, and the public endorsement of lifting the limit on stem cell research by Ron Reagan at the DNC convention are designed to defeat President Bush in the election. It is safe to say Kerry and Bush are on opposite sides of this issue. What do the Bush limits comprise? It's not just about funding. Read more.
Weekend movie suggestion? Check out Gattica. It's about two brothers, one a "love child" the other genetically ordered. Is this 1997 film, about genetic engineering to overcome predispositions to disease, "prophetic" like some say "1984" was? Read more on movie.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
Saturday, August 07, 2004
Cloning Cats - Schwarzenegger's 'Sixth Day' Has Arrived
It may seem like a sequel to one of California Governor Schwarzenegger's movies, but it's not. Genetic Savings and Clone, the first US firm to produce and sell cloned pets has already received orders from five customers at $50,000 a cloned cat. The company which was involved with Texas A & M University in "creating" the world's first cloned cat, named Cc for carbon copy, says they will give a full refund to any client not happy with the results.
CEO Lou Hawthorne says feline cloning is complex. "The issue with cats is not how to do it, the issue is how to do it perfectly with the best quality of results," BBC Online reported. It apparently took over 80 attempts before Cc was produced successfully, and the company has a"buyer beware" warning that it will not produce exact replicas. Certainly a departure from the movie, The Sixth Day, which also poses the question, what's the point then?
But wait, there's more. Some people have also paid to have their pet's tissue preserved for future cloning, for about $900 a year. That's a lot of money...triple the cost of my annual life insurance premium. It's also big business. And we haven't even discussed the ethics involved. Read more.
Saturday night at the movies? Check out "The Sixth Day" staring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's not a fantasy anymore. Read more on movie.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
CEO Lou Hawthorne says feline cloning is complex. "The issue with cats is not how to do it, the issue is how to do it perfectly with the best quality of results," BBC Online reported. It apparently took over 80 attempts before Cc was produced successfully, and the company has a"buyer beware" warning that it will not produce exact replicas. Certainly a departure from the movie, The Sixth Day, which also poses the question, what's the point then?
But wait, there's more. Some people have also paid to have their pet's tissue preserved for future cloning, for about $900 a year. That's a lot of money...triple the cost of my annual life insurance premium. It's also big business. And we haven't even discussed the ethics involved. Read more.
Saturday night at the movies? Check out "The Sixth Day" staring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's not a fantasy anymore. Read more on movie.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
Friday, August 06, 2004
Which Vets Are Telling the Truth?
I really want to know which Swift Boat Vets you think are telling the truth...those with John Kerry or those against him? The video done by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth is pretty convincing. Have you seen it yet? But, then those who stood on the stage at the DNC with Kerry looked genuine. There are clearly two different sides to the story of Kerry's Vietnam war experience. What would be the motivation of the Vets for Truth group? They've all said it's not for partisan reasons. Could it be that they really do feel strongly that John Kerry is unfit for the office of President. Are they patriots doing a service to their country? Or just harboring anger at his congressional accusations of Vietnam Vets? Did the Kerry camp, knowing about this group, attempt to innoculate against their efforts by having the Vets who support him as part of the convention? I know these are the things talked about in op-eds and on talk shows around the country, but what do you think? Here are a few links for more on the story.
Kerry's Re-enacted War Scenes on Video
Kerry's film Director "Bullets in water not from the actual event"
Some of Kerry's Vietnam Comrades Say He Lied
Swift Boat Vets Respond to Boston Globe
Smear Campaign Has McCain on Warpath
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
Kerry's Re-enacted War Scenes on Video
Kerry's film Director "Bullets in water not from the actual event"
Some of Kerry's Vietnam Comrades Say He Lied
Swift Boat Vets Respond to Boston Globe
Smear Campaign Has McCain on Warpath
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
Thursday, August 05, 2004
The John-John Ticket - Richest in History
Included in the display of carefully orchestrated talking points on stage at the DNC was John Kerry's and John Edwards' belief in two Americas. "Plantation" talk as my recent guest, Mason Weaver, would call it. You can hear my interview with him online at Oneplace.
The most shameful articulation of the liberal philosophy of "rich, Republican, corporate America" and "poor, the-rest-of-us America" was by Bill Clinton on opening night as he put one of the cleverest spins I've ever seen on his benefiting from the Bush tax cuts. The essence of it was how nice the Republicans had treated him with the tax break he received as one of the top earners in the country (bringing to mind the $10 million he just received for his new book) at the expense of "your" social security. However, one thing he didn't say was that he didn't refuse to take the tax break!
Another thing we didn't hear said, but should be noted, is that while the John-John nominees talk about "rich them" and "poor you", they just happen to be the richest ticket in history to ever run for President/Vice President, with John Edwards' estimated personal worth of $60 million and John Kerry's, if you include Teresa's wealth, at about $500 million, or half a billion. But, then that probably doesn't matter to the liberals because, as Mason says, "the slaves don't care how rich master is, as long as master takes care of them." Read more.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
The most shameful articulation of the liberal philosophy of "rich, Republican, corporate America" and "poor, the-rest-of-us America" was by Bill Clinton on opening night as he put one of the cleverest spins I've ever seen on his benefiting from the Bush tax cuts. The essence of it was how nice the Republicans had treated him with the tax break he received as one of the top earners in the country (bringing to mind the $10 million he just received for his new book) at the expense of "your" social security. However, one thing he didn't say was that he didn't refuse to take the tax break!
Another thing we didn't hear said, but should be noted, is that while the John-John nominees talk about "rich them" and "poor you", they just happen to be the richest ticket in history to ever run for President/Vice President, with John Edwards' estimated personal worth of $60 million and John Kerry's, if you include Teresa's wealth, at about $500 million, or half a billion. But, then that probably doesn't matter to the liberals because, as Mason says, "the slaves don't care how rich master is, as long as master takes care of them." Read more.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
America Looks at the Wives
Did you catch Bill O'Reilly's interview with Laura Bush last night? How about Teresa Heintz-Kerry's response to Bush supporters chanting "4 more years"? Her response - "4 more years of hell!" Quite a contrast between the two. America is evaluating the choices, not just for President, or Vice President, but for First Lady also. One democrat interviewed on the news said, "Can we have John Kerry for President and Laura Bush for First Lady?" That says a bunch. Laura has class and was very gracious about Teresa's remarks. I'm afraid John Kerry will continue to have to make excuses for his wife's responses. You can only say "she's just outspoken" so many times. Read more.
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
Monday, August 02, 2004
Wooing for America's Top Job
As thousands of hopeful democrats filled the convention halls in Boston, "more united than ever" we were told by party leaders, I wondered, what impact this convention would have on the outcome of the election since the nominees have already been determined? Not since 1952 have party conventions actually nominated their candidate, so what's the point? A party for the faithful? A week of free media coverage?
On "opening night" Hillary Clinton said "Let's join together to do everything we can to convince our fellow Americans to act on our convictions...to send Kerry and Edwards to the White House." We know that the democrats' strategy for this convention is to make sure the speakers tone down the anti-Bush, anti-war rhetoric. This makes sense when you are trying to convince the undecided viewing audience towards your point of view, especially when you have speakers on the program who have displayed unrestrained outbursts, such as Al Gore and Howard Dean.
However, what we, as American voters, need is not a well orchestrated show of what will appeal to us, but just the plain old truth, from both parties, of their real agenda, attitudes and ability to lead this nation. We don't need to be wooed. Just tell us the truth and we'll decide. But, unfortunately, that is not the nature of politics. So, each of us has to take it upon ourselves to discern between the "advertising and selling" of convention campaigning and the quality of the "product."
It's interesting to note that the original Greek for hypocrite is "play-acting". A soft definition would be to pretend; a harsher one would be to deceive. Equally interesting are the three definitions given by FreeSearch online: when someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time; He's a hypocrite, he's always lecturing other people on the environment but he drives around in a huge great car. Their accusations of corruption are hypocritical, they have been just as corrupt themselves.
Just as accurate history is a reliable source to knowing what really happened in an era, so a candidate's record, not what they say or what others say about them, tell us what they really believe and how they've acted on what they believe. We can't lose sight of this in the midst of the "best" foot forward performances and wooing that takes place.
There's too much at stake to settle for anything less than the truth...the real truth about where the candidates stand on the issues. So, don't just take their word for it, look at their record, and look at who supports them and their record, and then compare those to the measuring rod of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the principles upon which this great nation was founded. Any other standard would not be "American."
As my recent radio guest, Mason Weaver, Author if "It's Okay to Leave the Plantation" and founder of the New Underground Railroad, says, "The truth is not as you see it; the truth is as it is..If you do not know the truth when you find it, you will follow the one with the greatest lie."
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
On "opening night" Hillary Clinton said "Let's join together to do everything we can to convince our fellow Americans to act on our convictions...to send Kerry and Edwards to the White House." We know that the democrats' strategy for this convention is to make sure the speakers tone down the anti-Bush, anti-war rhetoric. This makes sense when you are trying to convince the undecided viewing audience towards your point of view, especially when you have speakers on the program who have displayed unrestrained outbursts, such as Al Gore and Howard Dean.
However, what we, as American voters, need is not a well orchestrated show of what will appeal to us, but just the plain old truth, from both parties, of their real agenda, attitudes and ability to lead this nation. We don't need to be wooed. Just tell us the truth and we'll decide. But, unfortunately, that is not the nature of politics. So, each of us has to take it upon ourselves to discern between the "advertising and selling" of convention campaigning and the quality of the "product."
It's interesting to note that the original Greek for hypocrite is "play-acting". A soft definition would be to pretend; a harsher one would be to deceive. Equally interesting are the three definitions given by FreeSearch online: when someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time; He's a hypocrite, he's always lecturing other people on the environment but he drives around in a huge great car. Their accusations of corruption are hypocritical, they have been just as corrupt themselves.
Just as accurate history is a reliable source to knowing what really happened in an era, so a candidate's record, not what they say or what others say about them, tell us what they really believe and how they've acted on what they believe. We can't lose sight of this in the midst of the "best" foot forward performances and wooing that takes place.
There's too much at stake to settle for anything less than the truth...the real truth about where the candidates stand on the issues. So, don't just take their word for it, look at their record, and look at who supports them and their record, and then compare those to the measuring rod of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the principles upon which this great nation was founded. Any other standard would not be "American."
As my recent radio guest, Mason Weaver, Author if "It's Okay to Leave the Plantation" and founder of the New Underground Railroad, says, "The truth is not as you see it; the truth is as it is..If you do not know the truth when you find it, you will follow the one with the greatest lie."
© Sharon Hughes 2004
Send Comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)