Monthly Archives: October 2010

Posted on by

from sophie b. hawkins’ website

My friend Richard Grenell, the longest serving American spokesman in U.N. history, a true environmental activist (he’s the guy we went to the Gulf with), and important public relations person, invited me to sing the National Anthem at a lunch for Mattie Fein. I didn’t know a thing about her but I always learn from Richard, and I love the challenge of painting a picture with that profoundly relevant song. I walked in with my guitar and saw Ambassador John Bolton in the diverse crowd, including a soldier from Iraq and business people from Syria and many other countries.

It was a very soulful group; they listened intently as I set up the song in 1814 from the point of view of Francis Scott Key looking at Fort McHenry, as Washington burned. They joined in singing with their hands over their hearts, and I felt rather humbled by the moment. My first impression of Mattie Fein was that she was unconventional, and she is. A pro choice, pro Gay republican, focused on keeping business in her district of California, and she’s running against multi millionaire career politician Jane Harman, who can’t be doing much right ‘cause Cali’s in the pits.

John Bolton was as far from what I thought he’d be as I might have been to him. He was measured, humorous, poetic, insightful, unpredictable and at the core, a true humanitarian. I asked him his view on immigration and he said we need to return to the Melting Pot philosophy, meaning to let everyone in as long as everyone can be Americanized. He said we need more people from all over the globe to keep this country great, to keep our edge, but immigrants need to be 100% American AND 100% whatever their heritage is. He said make legalized immigration easier, and focus on integration so we have generations and generations of diverse people who love this country. He is in every sense worldly and he expresses his appreciation of global relationships in every sentence, yet he believes America, the place in the heart, the mind and the soil, is still worth protecting. He talked about mistakes made during the Bush era, not defensively, because he is looking ahead, and he does believe a nuclear Iran is the greatest threat to destabilizing world safety.

I used to cringe at the Ambassador because I was so angry at our pre-emptive attack on Iraq, and before that I protested Clinton and Gore about the WTO. Now I express opposition to the Obama administration over legislation and his do nothing approach to the Gulf. I guess I’m just not a party girl. I like the individual. My nickname in high school was WW for wild woman, I’d come to an apartment full of stoned teen-agers, dance in the strobe light and leave. My favorite part was walking home alone on the granite sidewalks. I don’t want to be liked, (of course I want to be loved madly), but most of all I can’t stand feeling controlled. Having to be a Democrat or a Republican is giving up my freedom of thought. I appreciate being able to meet politicians and ask them questions, like when I met Hillary and was inspired to work like heck for her, and then when I met Bill and “got it”. I loved being open to Ambassador John Bolton and feeling how much he wants to give not just to Americans but to all people, and Mattie Fein, I like how out of the box she is. I like walking away feeling connected but not indebted.

I don’t want any country to be sold out by it’s leaders, and you know where it starts? When the people sell out to a party, mind, body and soul, and then the party sells out to the illete. I believe that’s happened for the last twenty years, at least. Again, I’m not a party girl and I’ve certainly never been a sell out, and I have a feeling the time is getting ripe for, dare I say it, Mr. and Mrs. Smith to go to Washington.

Best and Good Luck! Sophie B.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

new republican congress should stop funding npr

Juan Williams’ firing sends a wake-up call just in time for the mid-term elections.  Voters should demand to know if candidates will continue funding NPR.  It’s time to stop putting government funding into programs that compete with the private sector.  Tax dollars, after all, should be used to fund initiatives that take care of the needy or provide services that the private sector can’t or isn’t willing to provide.  Information radio in the United States is hardly something that our government should think is a top priority, especially when we have budget deficits, sky-rocketing unemployment, falling government revenue and critical public programs being cut.  There is also a healthy and vibrant private sector news radio industry and, therefore, no need to prop up one funded with tax dollars.  Government money given to NPR means government sponsored radio competing with the private sector – a uniquely un-American idea. If private sector citizens want to fund NPR then they should step up and do it with more commitment.  Coercing the rest of us to pay for NPR’s elite radio programming through our taxes is clearly a subsidy for the wealthy. 

NPR and its executives are to blame for the reaction to this alarm bell going off.  NPR’s intolerance of conservative opinions is well-known.  There are very few voices allowed on NPR programs that represent opinions outside the traditional liberal and elite viewpoints.  When NPR does allow a conservative voice air-time, it is limited and usually preceded by a condescending question or commentary.  Juan Williams firing by NPR was only a matter of time because the liberal executives running the shows at NPR never liked the fact that Williams was on Fox News.  It’s clear that NPR would rather play consistently to the left than reach a balanced audience.  And for that, they deserve to be pushed away from the public trough.

As all conservatives already know, NPR consistently frames stories in a slanted way to aid and comfort its overwhelming left listenership.  For instance, the current rising unemployment rate is not portrayed as an Obama Administration problem.  It is usually reported by NPR without an Obama angle and more times than not, as a total spin job.  Conversely, every month the unemployment rate went up during the Bush Administration it was portrayed as an announcement from the Bush White House or Bush Team followed by an evaluation of Bush’s economic policies.  The NPR diatribe was clear: unemployment is rising and Bush’s policies are not working.

This past Labor Day, the traditional start of election season, NPR reported the rising 9.6 unemployment rate as a recovery in the making.  And I’m not joking.  Shockingly, commentators and story selections were spinning that a recovery was happening, just slowly.  NPR even highlighted a story suggesting that more people were traveling for Labor Day and feeling good about the economy.  But in fact, a recovery wasn’t happening and the unemployment rate has risen. 

Conservatives have seethed for years as NPR hosts mock conservative ideas, poke fun at conservative candidates’ mistakes and run stories over several days when there is a negative story to tell about a Republican.  Every conservative scandal receives multiple days of commentary and a thorough analysis, while Democrats caught in mishaps either get little coverage, no mentions at all or one hit. 

My local NPR station in Los Angeles just yesterday ran a LIVE extended interview with one of the most liberal members of the County Board of Supervisors (15 days before the mid-term elections) where he lauded Senator Barbara Boxer’s leadership on public transportation issues.  He praised Boxer for something she hasn’t even taken credit for.  He went on to give additional credit to only Democrats for bringing a new rail line to the people of LA.  The host of the interview never pushed back or asked a question of the Supervisor’s claim that Boxer brought the rail line to LA – it was just assumed that Boxer delivered to the people.  Boxer’s new rail line, by the way, doesn’t even extend to the airport – which happens to be the number one transportation concern for residents – so if she did bring this project to LA it’s a colossal waste of tax dollars.  Sadly, it was an expected and typical interview from NPR.

But thanks to Juan Williams being fired, the rest of us might be able to keep a little more money in our paychecks.  Voters everywhere should ask their congressional candidates to commit to stop publicly funding NPR before they cast their ballots on November 2.  My mom used to take the ball away from us when someone cheated.  She would say, “If you can’t play fair then you can’t play at all”.  It’s time voters took the ball away from NPR.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

wall st. journal editorial page (october 20, 2010)

Bravo, Canada

A U.N. snub is a badge of honor.

Life must be very good in Canada, or at least dull, judging by the domestic reaction to its failed bid last week for a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council. Listen to the yowls in the papers north of the border: “A nation reeling,” “humiliating defeat,” “a rebuke from the global community,” “tarnishes our reputation,” “a slap in the face.”

We say: Way to go. Canada seems to have annoyed a sufficient number of Third World dictators and liberally pious Westerners to come up short in a secret General Assembly ballot. The sins committed by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government include staunch support for Israel, skepticism about cap-and-trade global warming schemes, and long-standing commitment to the Afghan war. Americans would be so lucky to get a leader as steadfast on those issues as the Canadian Prime Minister.

The United Arab Emirates took credit for putting together a group of anti-Canadian Arab and Islamic states to stop the bid for the two-year rotating chair. The UAE also has a beef with Ottawa over landing rights for Emirates Airlines going into Canada.

The U.S. role here is also embarrassing—to the U.S. Richard Grenell, a former senior official at the U.S. Mission to the U.N., reported last week that America’s U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, refused to campaign on Canada’s behalf. Mr. Harper’s politics are not hers, and Liberal opposition leader and Obama political soulmate, Michael Ignatieff, declared last month that Canada under Mr. Harper didn’t deserve to get one of the 10 temporary seats.

The farcical nature of all this was made clear when the Canadians lost to Portugal, which—with all due respect to the memory of Vasco da Gama—is no global titan. This small and economically hobbled Iberian country will now hold one of two temporary spots reserved for Western bloc states. Germany was assured the other.

Canada, on the other hand, is a serious country. Under Mr. Harper’s leadership, Canada has avoided the worst of the global recession and emerged with a vibrant banking system and strong currency (now trading near parity to the U.S. dollar). The courage of its soldiers in Afghanistan, and in other missions, is testament to a nation that honors its commitments. Canadians should wear the U.N. snub as a badge of honor.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

susan rice snubs canada

The United Nations General Assembly elected five new Security Council members this week.  India, South Africa and Colombia ran in uncontested races from the Asian, African and Latin American regional groups and will begin serving on the Security Council in January.  But the remaining races were contested, with Germany, Portugal and Canada competing for two seats from the Western European and Others group.  With the European Union already represented by veto-wielding France and Great Britain on the Security Council, and either Portugal or Germany certain to win another seat for the EU, it was critical that America’s close ally Canada win a two-year term.  The U.S. could use the help in pushing for UN reform and advocating pro-democracy policies.  The current conservative government in Canada had been campaigning for months to sit on the UN’s most powerful committee with no public support from the Obama Administration.  In fact, U.S. State Department insiders say that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice not only didn’t campaign for Canada’s election but instructed American diplomats to not get involved in the weeks leading up to the heated contest.  With no public American support, Canada lost its bid to serve.  That gives the EU more than 25% control of the body and a strong voting block to ensure EU priorities become global priorities.  This was the second time a high profile ally could have used U.S. help yet Rice chose to stay silent. 

Israel was left to defend itself against a full-out assault from the UN after it captured a flotilla aid ship headed to the Gaza Strip on May 31.  Susan Rice never showed up for the marathon emergency UN meeting and left Israel without its most powerful friend.  “It was a crucial moment for Israel and for the top American Ambassador to not even show up to the meeting where Israel was being attacked by hypocritical dictatorships was a powerful sign to others,” one current UN diplomat said. 

While Rice is currently in Africa on an official UN trip and was unable to attend Tuesday’s actual vote, she could have had her team work to Canada’s benefit. Instead she instructed colleagues to steer clear, effectively abandoning Canada.  By contrast, when Venezuela wanted a seat on the Security Council over U.S. objections in 2006, then-US Ambassador John Bolton aggressively campaigned for Guatemala instead.  Bolton met with a plethora of UN diplomats and publicly pushed the UN to vote 48 times over 3 weeks until Venezuela finally gave up its campaign and was denied a seat.  Rice’s actions also differ greatly from the words she used during the 2008 presidential campaign when she promised that the Obama Administration would “lead our friends and allies.” 

Some conservatives in Canada believe that the Obama team worked with Canadian liberals to leave Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s conservative government hanging without vocal U.S. support.  In the past, American ambassadors around the globe were instructed by Washington and led by the US Mission to the UN to work aggressively behind the scenes rallying capitals around the world to support certain countries in crucial Security Council elections.  At other times, vocal American support was needed to highlight a priority U.S. issue.  In Canada’s case, Rice chose to say nothing publicly and declined to lead a global campaign on behalf of our northern neighbor.  Her silence also seemed politically coordinated when Canadian Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff criticized his own country’s policies on climate change and its staunch support for Israel – policies the Obama team disagrees with. 

For Rice, this latest episode highlights her willingness to put partisan liberal policies above representing the American people at the UN.  Ambassador Rice’s consistent silence when faced with difficult issues is exactly what America doesn’t need at the UN and our allies are beginning to take notice of her timidity.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post