KXLY Blogroll
Recent Posts
|
I'm Mike Fitzsimmons with commentary on 920- KXLY
This week, Senate Democrats blocked a bill by John McCain that would have increased college aid for military veterans. They blocked it because, although McCain's bill would increase military stipends by 400-dollars over the current level, Democrats want to guarantee a full scholarship to any public, in-state university after someone serves three years in the military ... a generosity that will cost tens of billions of dollars. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid called McCain's proposal "a direct slap in the face of our nation's finest and bravest." Lest you think that Senate Democrats are being benevolent, consider that they aren't offering this substantial benefit because they genuinely want to honor men and women in uniform. They are making this bombastic gesture because they know it is too expensive, and it will compromise Republicans right before this fall's Congressional elections.
Republicans are trying to convince the voters back home that they realize they lost their way, and that's why they were booted out in 2006. Now, if they support or oppose the clever Democratic GI Bill plan, they are facing a lose/lose situation. Either they continue a pattern of unruly spending for which the Democrats can take them to task, or they oppose a substantial benefit for those who have served in the military, for which the Democrats can take them to task.
The Pentagon says that the large higher education benefit that Democrats want to bestow, will create a troop retention problem. After so short a time in military service, once qualified for the generous GI Bill, the military brass says it become very difficult to retain troops when their enlistment periods expire. Democrats don't care about this issue, they're too busy licking their chops looking to embarrass Senate Republicans. Make no mistake, the political derby called campaign 2008 is in full bloom.
With commentary on 920 - KXLY, I'm Mike Fitzsimmons ...
I'm Mike Fitzsimmons with commentary on 920 - KXLY
On a flight from Austin to Dallas this week, a 50 year old man refused to stop talking on his cell phone after repeated requests by Southwest Airlines flight attendants. The man had received a message that his father's heart had stopped beating. He was trying to reach doctors at a cardiac unit where his father had been taken. The man now faces a class "C" misdemeanor charge for disorderly conduct on board an aircraft.
Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit use of a cell phone except when an aircraft is on the ground. Southwest Airlines says this is a safety regulation they are required to enforce. The airline considered the passenger's refusal so egregious that the pilot actually called ahead to have authorities meet the flight and arrest the offender when the plane landed in Dallas.
The FAA and the airline industry have prolonged and maintained the laughable myth that cell phones pose a danger to flight controls. There isn't a lick of evidence that cell phone interfere with avionics or flight controls. It's a fabrication, and the industry knows it. Remember those pay telephones that were mounted on seat backs on commercial airliners? They were cell phones, and the only difference between those and yours is that the airline realized revenue from those "approved" mobile phones, and they wouldn't get a dime, if you used your own in flight. On 9-11, many pasengers called loved ones for the last time from on board those doomed aircrafts that had been hijacked by terrorists. The calls didn't interfere with the ability to control the plane, and given the circumstances, no one would have dared to be critical of cell phone use by those passengers.
I think it's time that the FAA and the airline industry come clean about cell phones, and knock off the fibbing. That doesn't mean I favor allowing the unrestricted use of call phones aboard commercial flights. The noise would be a tremendous nuisance. Still, in the case of an emergency, I think air passengers should be free to make or receive cell phone calls anytime.
With commentary on 920 - KXLY, I'm Mike Fitzsimmons ...
I'm Mike Fitzsimmons with commentary on 920 - KXLY...
Three eighth graders at a Minneapolis middle school were recently suspended for not standing during the recitation of the pledge of Allegiance. The American Civil Liberties Union sent a sharply-worded rebuke to the principal of that school, because school policy requires that students stand during the recitation of the Pledge, even though they need not actually participate. The ACLU is right of course. There are many U.S. Supreme Court rulings over the last few decades that prohibit punishment of students who refuse to participate in the Pledge. My question isn't about what the law says, it's about why eighth graders wouldn't want to.
Young teens, unless their minds have been poisoned by their parents, rarely give much thought to what it means to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Unless they have been exposed to ungrateful anti-American rhetoric by mom and dad, it's highly unlikely that thirteen year olds have fashioned an opinion about their country. Kids that age don't dwell on notions like freedom and honor very much. In the absence of adult influence, kids have other things on their minds. To be sure, they like to make waves when they can. Kids that age like being defiant, especially if they think their parents would back them up ... but few of that age group have learned enough history, digested enough philosophy, or lived enough life, to have formed any valid core values that might manifest themselves in thoughtful dissent.
Indeed, as one of the three middle schoolers observed, it should be a matter of choice whether anyone participates in the recitation of the Pledge. The question is, how does one, at age thirteen, arrive at such a cynical choice, unless some adult has polluted his view of country? Certainly this child has no quarrel with his nation. Certainly the freedom that defines an American kid is without parallel in all the world. Certainly the privileges that such a kid enjoys would not be possible were it not for sacrifices of generations before him, which he neither understands or values. Certainly he is ignorant of the meaning of the pledge he so foolishly dismisses. Clearly his parents, if they justify his defiance, have taught him by their example that the only concern he need value in his young life, is what's in it for him. Apparently devoid of appreciation of ideals that inspire people the world over, these three kids emulate the deplorable citizenship of the adults who have influence over them. It's a pity that they will not be permitted to become better Americans than the ones who raised them.
With commentary on 920-KXLY, I'm Mike Fitzsimmons
I'm Mike Fitzsimmons with commentary on 920 - KXLY.....
Some weeks ago I suggested in one of my commentaries that in this uncommon election year, it would be impossible to conduct a campaign without involving an element of race. That was before Reverend Jeremiah Wright inflamed the conversation, and it was before primary election results demonstrated that the majority of white Democrats have not cast their ballots for Barack Obama, and it was before Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean claimed Republicans are race baiting. Now it is clear that race is indeed an unavoidable part of this election, especially now that it is beyond likely that the first black candidate nominated by any major American political party, will battle for the White House in November.
It has been impossible from the start to ignore the role of race in this campaign, and it is obvious that voters have not. Not just a majority of blacks have thrown their support behind Senator Obama, but nearly all black voters, especially in the later Democratic primaries. Who can blame them? This kind of opportunity has never surfaced before. The majority of white Democrats, however, appear not to be as enthusiastic about Obama. In many states, up to 75% of them have opposed him. I suspect many will vote for Obama in the general election, but his has been a difficult task to win the support of white voters in his own party. It will no doubt be harder in the months ahead. Hillary Clinton pointed this out a few days ago, and her observation drew immediate cries of racism. That's neither fair nor accurate. She merely pointed out what is obvious, but uncomfortable, given the race of the odds-on nominee.
It wasn't a racial slur, it was valid analysis of voter statistics.
If a majority of voters reject Barack Obama in November, as I believe they will ... many will blindly accuse the electorate of racism. A vote against Senator Obama will be a vote against a black man, whether the voter even cares about what color he is. This won't by itself be evidence of racism, although there may be an element of it in the intentions of some voters. Let us be realistic ... there are many reasons not to want Senator Obama to be president that have nothing to do with his race.
With commentary on 920 - KXLY, I'm Mike Fitzsimmons
I’m Mike Fitzsimmons with commentary on 920 - KXLY….
Al Gore says the disastrous cyclone that devastated Myanmar was caused by global warming. On may 6th in an interview on NPR’s “Fresh Air” broadcast Gore told the host, and I quote:
“….the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated…..last year a catastrophic storm hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China - and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”
Gore shamelessly links this tragedy to global warming without a shred of evidence to substantiate it, and the NPR host, of course, sat there accepting this bogus claim like it was scientifically beyond reproach. Linking natural weather events to advance the agenda of man-caused global warming has been a strategy for many proponents of this unproven theory, and the media lets it slide.
Gore claimed global warming is forcing ocean temperatures to rise, which is causing storms, including cyclones and hurricanes, to intensify. Gore went on to say that there is an emerging consensus among the climate scientists that the trend toward more Category 5 storms, the trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple of hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful. What a crock. There is no such forming consensus. Indeed, there is great dispute about this claim. Much of the opposition is led by scientists who were once included in Gore’s so-called “scientific consensus”. These men and women were contributors to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that forms the basis of Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” Now, nearly half say they were duped, and their work was misrepresented and wrongly politicized. They have disassociated themselves from Al Gore’s dog and phony show.
The media gives this kind propaganda a pass every time, it seems. We had all better wise up, because we’re being scammed.
With commentary on 920 - KXLY….I’m Mike Fitzsimmons
I'm Mike Fitzsimmons with commentary on 920 - KXLY...
Pressure on Hillary Rodham Clinton to bring the nominating race to a close is intensifying. Some prominent Democrats who support Obama suggested in a conference-call with reporters today that it's time for Clinton to bring the race to a close, but they stopped short of directly calling for her to quit.
Obama's efforts to nail-down the nomination were helped by his double-digit win in North Carolina yesterday, and a much stronger than expected showing in Indiana. Had Clinton won, or placed a close second in North Carolina, and had she scored a double-digit win in Indiana, the race might still have been legitimate. It isn't now. Now more than ever, Democrats are asking, "Why is she still hanging around?" They can't see any way that carrying on her campaign benefits her or their party. Dennis Miller correctly observes that if she keeps this up she's going to look like a stalker.
I think Barack Obama will carry heavy baggage into the fall general election ... a razor thin resume, rhetoric that he can't possibly deliver on, serious doubts about his qualification to be president, associations that he can't separate himself from, and an apparent inability to attract white voters. The cumulative impact of these things suggests to me that Senator Obama will never see the Oval Office without an invitation. I think he will lose by a significant margin in November. That means for Hillary Clinton, in 2012 there will be another opportunity to pursue the presidency if she plays her cards right. The longer she carries on this unwinnable campaign in the weeks ahead, the more she may limit her future shot at the White House. Hillary Clinton is no fool. I predict she'll drop out soon.
With commentary on 920-KXLY, I'm Mike Fitzsimmons ...
|
|
