Late Breaking News.
WMAL, 630 on your radio dial in DC, has apparently gotten rid of Fred Grandy, again.
We all know four term US Representative Fred Grandy, don't we? Harvard graduate, conversant in French and Arabic. Washington, DC, morning drive radio personality? Hint: Gopher from the "Love Boat". The Mother of my Father's third wife, Neena, wrote some of the scripts for "Love Boat".
The culprit in this time's firing is CAIR, according to rumors from Pajama Media.
This is not the first time Fred has been let go. This happened a while ago, dumping the "Grandy and Andy" show (Andy Parks, whose Father at one time worked for the station).
Apparently WMAL also sacked Michael Graham due to pressure from CAIR. Look where he ended up.
The local angle is that when WCAP changed hands WMAL tried to buy the call letters to go with their location in the Nation's Capital.
Regards — Cliff
8 comments:
Wasn't Neena your father's fourth wife?
I dunno. I can't find anything on Grandy's firing on anything other than right-side rants. On Graham, however, it seems like a pretty legitimate free market move if this Washington Post article is accurate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201255.html
"According to WMAL, Graham said 'Islam is a terrorist organization' 23 times on his July 25 program. On the same show, he also said repeatedly that 'moderate Muslims are those who only want to kill Jews' and that 'the problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam.'
The comments drew complaints and prompted an organized letter-writing campaign against WMAL and its advertisers by a Muslim group, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) of Washington. The protests led several advertisers to ask WMAL to stop airing their ads during Graham's weekday show, although the station says it didn't lose any advertisers amid the controversy.
In a statement yesterday, Graham blamed CAIR for his firing and defended his comments: 'As a fan of talk radio, I find it absolutely outrageous that pressure from a special interest group like CAIR can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk radio show.'"
That last quote is, of course, wrong. The station has plenty of free speech and elected to utilize it by declining Graham a seat at the microphone that they own. Why do so many people get it wrong on the nature of free speech?
To the first comment, I have it on good authority the number is three—I checked with an authority out on the Coast.
Regarding the second, I think the problem is that we have trouble with the difference between rights and privileges. And, the writer is right, the station is free to fire Mr Graham as it sees fit. On the other hand, if all comments on Islam were being shut down by protests from CAIR, then that might represent another issue, but one for the culture as a whole, and not the Government, to deal with. Only if it was a criminal conspiracy would it move to be a Government problem, IMHO.
In a separate venue someone questions if Mr Grandy was really a Harvard grad, based, I would assume, on Mr Grandy's politics and his sense of proportion about most things. I am still going with Harvard.
Regards — Cliff
Here is the very bland statement from WMAL.
One of my Daughters-in-Law send me some information someone sent her from VAST, the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force, which wants to have WMAL listeners call in on Monday and Tuesday of next week and tell WMAL they have stopped listening until Grandy is back..
The VAST Anti-WMAL statement said that: "On March 2, 2011, WMAL’s management told Grandy he needed to “tone down” any stories on radical Islam. They also told him his wife, an outspoken critic of Islamist infiltration, could not be included in future programs. Fred Grandy refused to accept those conditions and that was his last day on WMAL radio."
Lets be straight here. The vast (that word again) US Muslim population is here because they were attracted to what makes America great and should be treated the way we should treat all of our fellow Americans. This nation has grown in strength because it has accepted people of different backgrounds, beliefs and ideas and let them help us grow. Let us not turn that off.
On the other hand, if there are those who want to replace our Constitution with Sharia, they are, I would think, political opponents of most of us and should be called out as such. Just like those who wish to give us Communism or some other form of Fascism.
We don't need a new KKK trying to police these United States, but, at the same time, we don't need to accept unchallenged the ideas of every group that wishes to change our economic system, our Constitution or our systems of laws. Open debate is good for all of us. Free and open debate.
I don't see Mr Grandy as a threat to free and open debate. However, if WMAL comes out and says he was now losing them money, I fully understand a desire on their part for a new team.
Regards — Cliff
From what I understand, he was commanding a $300,000 salary, but was at or near the bottom for ratings in his timeslot. I understand why the radio station let him go, I don't understand why everyone thinks it's because WMAL was caving to CAIR. It's not like they're taking down Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine or the vigilant Plante.
Eddie may well be right that it is those darned "Capitalist" tendencies at WMAL. Gee, $300K would be a cool salary. And a burden on advertising revenue.
Thanks, Eddie.
Regards — Cliff
I don't blame WMAL for caving into Islam, Muslims scare the hell outta me too!
The Supreme Courtroom of Canada has opened the door to allowing foreign multinational firms to dodge their Canadian tax liabilities by siding with British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline in its 20-year tax battle along with the federal authorities.
The significant court endorsed an appeals courtroom ruling about "transfer pricing," which will allow [url=http://headachetreatment.net/]fioricet pharmacy[/url] multinationals to cost their subsidiaries substantial selling prices for ingredient costs to scale down Canadian gains.
The Section of National Earnings experienced challenged Glaxo Canada's use of a licence agreement that authorized it to pay Glaxo Swiss subsidiary Adechsa amongst $1,512 and $1,651 per kilogram for the invest in of ranitidine, the lively ingredient during the anti-ulcer drug Zantac.
Glaxo also paid out dad or mum specialist Glaxo Team a six for every cent royalty on net sales and profits of Zantac.
The cost of ranitidine exceeded the $194 to $304 for each kilogram billed to Canadian generic pharmaceutical firms Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Inc. by arm's-length suppliers.
The government productively argued in Tax Court that implementing the "reasonable" fees to Glaxo Canada might have increased the subsidiary's net cash for 1990 to 1993 by $51 million. http://headachetreatment.net Nevertheless the Federal Courtroom of Attraction in July 2010 overturned the Tax Court's resolution and rejected the department's argument that reasonable marketplace value compensated by generics was the related measure. It sent the calculation again for the Tax Court for any redetermination.
Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Marshall Rothstein explained in a ruling produced Thursday the Tax Courtroom "erred in refusing to consider account in the licence agreement."
"The generic comparators tend not to reflect the economic system and home business actuality of Glaxo Canada and, not less than without adjustment, do no indicate the price that might be decent with the circumstance, had Glaxo Canada and Adechsa been dealing at arm's length."
Queen's University tax regulation expert Art Cockfield claimed the ruling really is a get for Glaxo and [url=http://headachetreatment.net/]fioricet[/url] could prompt others to adopt complex cross-border tax structures to shift revenue to low-tax jurisdictions.
"There's massive flows planning back and forth and businesses have an incentive to recreation the product by shifting profits typically towards the lowest-tax region," he says. "It's damaging for Canada given that it supports intense intercontinental tax planning that sends revenues outside the house of the place."
Canada's reduce corporate tax charge as opposed to U.S. could, at the same time, insulate it from such revenue shifts involving businesses with functions on both sides on the border, Cockfield additional.
Post a Comment