(Update) WND notes some Gay Friendly discounts on Airline site

Update: Today WND has posted an update to the previous story. The crux of the story has not changed (still hard to believe and of course the question still remains as to "why" - I thought that sexual identity was a private issue). Interestingly enough, this discount effort is being done at various other Airlines (see this site at American Airlines and this site for LGBT vacation deals!). This is just really hard to believe - vacation deals based on Sexual Preference. It doesn't get much stranger than that! Maybe we should start giving deals on height, or whether or not a person wears glasses? This is just too hard to believe but shows how powerful this special group lobby is and how important it is to companies such as these to placate the diversity crowd. Heaven forbid they low their fares for everyone.

WND has a story that I just had to share as I am not sure how long it will remain up. It seems that Alaska Airlines is offering a discount for being Gay and wanting to "for travel between Newark and any city in the US, Canada or Mexico served by Alaska Airlines or Horizon Air" (quoted from Alaska Airline's website).

Now to get to the discounted flight fare page you had to go directly to the URL below as I couldn't find any other way to get there from the front page (including viewing the "Air Deal" page). Direct URL to the Gay discount page is http://www.alaskaair.com/as/alaska/gaytravel/LGBT-NYC-Sale.asp

The website notes that you can use the promo code "EC06607" to get the discount so when I went to the explanation of the promo codes it is referred to as the "LGBT Holiday 07 Destination" code (LGBT would be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (thanks to Wikipedia)). In reading the WND story, it seems that the story broke as a tip from an employee and when asked about the discount, Alaska Airlines renamed the page from "Gay Travel" to "New York City on Sale". See the original site via picture here. What a crock! Can you imagine an airlines giving you a discount based on you being a heterosexual? I also have to ask how are they going to enforce this (you have to bring your partner to check in or make some overtly homosexual action to cut down on fraud?). Why is Alaska Airlines even collecting this sort of data? I thought that we wanted to keep what happens in the bedroom private between consenting adults? Where is the uproar over homosexuals being asked to "out" themselves?

Is this the biggest threat to our country? Not really. It is more light hearted than what we usually tackle here but it makes you wonder about the purpose of a program such as this and why it would pass muster from upper management? If they were so proud of the program why change the title of the web page once WND got wind of the story. Makes you wonder.

So is this the biggest threat to our country right now? Nope - that would be the next potential President with the last name Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich or the rest of the crew or radical Islamic Fundamentalism or the rampant illegal immigration or the blatant breakdown of our cultural and societal standards. But I digress.

Outspoken Roman

Original Story is below:
WorldNetDaily: Airline 'discount' charges heterosexual customers more

Is Obama black enough?

CBS posted a story regarding Obama's "racial identity" (online is here) and I found it interesting the folks that CBS used to make their supposed point.

The story has an interesting note:

"...recent polls show Hillary Clinton is the choice of more black Democrats, and it's clear that Obama's racial identity gives pause to some. He is not the descendant of African slaves, but is the son of a white mother and a Kenyan father, so he alone gets questions about just who he is."

So is CBS trying to make a point that black Democrats should be voting for Obama because of racial identity? Uhh isn't that a little racist itself? Doesn't Obama have any strengths that appeal to black Democrats other than his supposed race? As the story continues Obama notes that he self identifies himself as a "African-American". Man I would have loved for Obama to say that instead of an "African-American" he self indentifies himself as a "American" and put himself about what is usually where these conversations go - to racial identities which is one of the few factors that have little meaning to a potential President (along with gender of course).

CBS of course is not one to avoid playing the "whites are racist" card.

Of course, there are whites who will never vote for Obama because he is black.

"I don't want to sound prejudiced or anything, but for one, I am not going to vote for a colored man to be our president," said one South Carolina voter.

So good for CBS - they got a unidentified South Carolina voter (who is white by the way although the story doesn't say it - NewsBusters has the inside scoop) to showcase the stereotypical white closed minded southern racist. But recall the implied premise of the story - "Is Obama black enough" and why he is not appealing to more black Democrats who seem to be heading toward Hillary. Did CBS find a lone black Democrat who stated that although it might sound prejudiced, he or she would never vote for a non-colored woman to be our president? I missed that in the story if it was there and heaven forbid CBS note the racism in any other race besides whites. Another crackerjack job by CBS!

Outspoken Roman

Why is this an entertainment story?

The UPI story linked here discusses how Ann Coulter has requested that her Palm Beach County address be kept anonymous as the leftist crazies have seen fit to harass her and showcase that open mindedness in public discourse that each liberal professes to have but seems to never really demonstrate (a little sarcasm there). I find it interesting that UPI has seen fit to file this story under the "Entertainment" section as opposed to say the "Politics" or "Crime" section. Note that this story is in the same section as a story entitled "Hillary a fan of 'Dancing with the Stars'" but the Coulter story apparently rates lower than the story "Photographer avoids Diana inquest" which rates as a story that is listed in the "Top News" section.

Interesting.

Original story is below:
Coulter wins right to keep address private - UPI.com

Thou shall not spank?

I am back from the holiday (do I need to discuss the Jets game - arrgh!!) and was looking at the news and saw this story from one of my local news sites.

Lawmakers To Consider Spanking Ban - Boston News Story - WCVB Boston

So I had to read this and see what the hell is going on in Beacon Hill. Do these politicians have nothing better to do than consider passing such a ban. Fox News has a story that California is also considering a spanking ban. In another story on WCVB I saw this very interesting quote which started my considering if this wouldn't be a bad thing.

"But now, lawmakers are considering making "the willfull infliction of physical pain on children under 18," illegal. The measure would prohibit corporal punishment including whipping, spanking and pinching. Also forbidden would be washing a child's mouth out with soap and administering electric shocks."

"Administering electric shocks"? What the hell is that? I think that giving a swat on a kids butt is not abuse and I have a real problem with the Government interfering with how parents decide how to discipline their children and also don't think that having kids put soap in their mouths as punishment is something that needs to be banned. Now I am of course for protecting children from abuse (of course I have to state the obvious since we live in such an overly sensitive society) but certainly see a distinction between swatting for punishment vice and abuse. We are seeing an increasing encroachment on parents rights couched in the language of protecting the children and like all these other attempts should be resisted. There are many in this society that believe parents do now own their children (and actually compare views like that to slavery) and I disagree. Having children is accepting some sort of responsibility to nurture, protect, develop and guide children based on what parents believe, not what the "state" dictates. Anyone who disagrees quotes folks like Doctor Benjamin Spock who says "If we are ever to turn toward a kindlier society and a safer world, a revulsion against the physical punishment of children would be a good place to start." If we are ever to turn toward a kindlier society and safer world, we should instead focus on acknowledging and addressing the evils of this world and parents giving their kids a spanking doesn't rank up there with Islamic fundamentalism, Socialism, Exploitation of children, racial hatred, etc. Full disclosure though - I doubt I would ever strike a child in anger or for punishment. I just don't agree with it. But I also don't support a interventionist governmental approach to dictate to me how I should raise my children and what values I should install in them. That is for me to decide.

I have to do some research to see who is defending the administration of electric shocks as punishment. I think I have a problem with that.

Outspoken Roman

Holiday travelers hit some snarls as they take to skies, roads - CNN.com

I was listening to the news as I was reading a great post on the real meaning of Thanksgiving at http://patriotpost.us/ which is required reading for everyone who thinks that Thanksgiving was thanks for a harvest or to the Native Americans. The posts quotes Colonist Edward Winslow:

"And therefore another solemn day was set apart and appointed for that end; wherein we returned glory, honor, and praise, with all thankfulness, to our good God, which dealt so graciously with us...” This was the original American Thanksgiving Day, centered not on harvest feasting (as in 1621) but on gathering together to publicly recognize the favor and provision of Almighty God.

Thanksgiving was a day dedicated to give thanks to God, or in the words of Abraham Lincoln who invited “the whole American people” to observe “a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father... with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience.”

So Happy Thanksgiving.

Now, to the intent of the post. There are all kinds of stories about how bad travel is this Thanksgiving and Drudge has a headline that states that this year is seeing the biggest Thanksgiving travel yet. So CNN is interviewing someone from Travelocity who stated that folks who are flying should be prepared to wait and to bring something with them to keep them occupied (like a book I guess). Every year the networks do the same story and everyone should know that this holiday is a bear to travel on and this is not news! Do Americans actually need someone from Travelocity to tell them to bring a book or something to keep them occupied? What's next telling travelers to ensure they pack clean underwear if staying overnight somewhere? Arrgh - I love 24 Hour News Channels but they are really stuck at times trying to fill in the time. Story linked below to the CNN take on the travel nightmare that is this Thanksgiving.

Holiday travelers hit some snarls as they take to skies, roads - CNN.com

Happy Thanksgiving again - Outspoken Roman

Boston police plan to search youths' homes for guns - The Boston Globe

I guess the news is really irking me today. The Boston Globe is reporting (story linked below) that the police are trying to implement a program that would allow searches of a child's bedroom without a warrant (as long as the parent consents to the search). The story notes that the program is based on the idea that:

"(P)arents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households."

So basically Police will show up to houses and knock on the doors as ask the parents to search their children's rooms. This scares the crap out of me but more that the Boston Globe makes no mention of the second amendment but rather notes that there are some civil liberties issues raised with this idea. Some civil liberties issues? Basically letting the police into your house without a warrant (regardless of the intent of the police) is more than a little troublesome. What about legally owned firearms? Will we see a day when those are confiscated in the vein of contributing to public safety? Further, what happens when the police are allowed in the home - is their search limited to what they find in the child's room. The Globe story staes "Critics said they worry that some residents will be too intimidated by a police presence on their doorstep to say no to a search." Why not search the entire house? The supposed firearm could be hidden anywhere in the house, not just the room and certainly if informed consent is not understood, I could see this taking on a whole new dimension and infuse an erosion of those liberties that the Constitution is supposed to protect.

I was happy to read a quote from Thomas Nolan, who teaches criminology at Boston University. He states:

"I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution,...The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."

I am not just queasy but downright scared that this program would stand, regardless of the intent. Liberties are not removed quickly but with slow deliberate erosion. This program is a bad idea for that alone.

Outspoken Roman

Boston police plan to search youths' homes for guns - The Boston Globe

Texas Death Row Inmate Wants to Die, But Can't - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

FOXNews.com - Texas Death Row Inmate Wants to Die, But Can't - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

So let's help this guy out Texas! Not only was this guy in jail for trying to arrange a hit on his wife but he along with other inmates escaped prison and killed a police officer while on the run.

To actually serve as a deterrent or at the least the cause of justice, the penalty needs to be applied. But it looks like justice will take a back seat to considering whether or not lethal injection is constitutional.

Dixie Chicks and Dear Mr. President

Anytime I foray into popular culture I am at a disadvantage because I am by choice out of touch with much of what is going on these days as most of it is a cesspool and something that I choose to avoid at all costs. This is not to say I am not aware of what is going on via the news (like I know that Paris Hilton went to jail but have no idea why she is such a part of our culture) but much of what is popular is just not on my radar.

So I am perusing the music videos "On Demand" and I see something called "Dear Mr. President" by the "artist" Pink and since it had some sort of political overtones I watched it. All I can say is where the hell are the folks that had it in for the Dixie Chicks and why did I not hear about anyone having an issue with this song? The lyrics go something like this:

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye
...
What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away
And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay
I can only imagine what the first lady has to say
You've come a long way from whiskey and cocaine

All the Dixie Chicks did was make some statement in a concert in West London about being ashamed that President Bush was from Texas. Note that I am ashamed that the Dixie Chicks are from America but I digress. Pink is singing this song all over Europe (in fact the video that I watched was from her "Live From Wembley" dvd. Where is the outrage over what I would say is a more damning statement that what the Dixie Chicks said (note the Iraq War, hatred of gays and past drug use references). Where was the backlash from this song?

This should say something about what is going on in this country and what the artists that kids are listening to believe and are saying openly at concerts and albums. First off, it should be obvious that anyone who believes that President Bush is cracking down on free speech should see something like this and realize that is a load of crap. Pink as an "artist" gets to say what she wants about the President and I wonder how many supporters of the President buy this crap for their kids? Do we even know what kids are listening to?

Final thought. Joe Rothstein, writing on the website US Politics Today notes:

"I'm traveling in Europe. And everywhere I go I hear Pink's song, "Dear Mr. President."
In France. In Germany. In the Czech Republic. Everywhere.
It's constantly on the radio. You hear it in small shops. People talk about it. Young and old. The song has captured the continent.
...
What does it mean that this song's so popular in Europe? What does it mean?'

Yes - what does it mean? It means that artists like Pink are saying things about the President which play into the preconceived notions of most of the Europeans (or at least fans of hers) - that he hates gays, is lazy, is a war monger and of course is a drunk and an drug user. Why not throw in a reference like "Bush = Hitler" or something like that - really drive the point home. Parents be wary of what you bring into your home.

Maybe I should pen a nice song called "Dear Mrs. Pink"? Or is it "Ms."?

My guess is the fans of Pink are not as patriotic and US loving as the Dixie Chicks' fans are but I wonder if Natalie Maines is sitting in her mansion wondering why Pink got off so easy. I am too.

Outspoken Roman

Barry Bonds Again

In one of my earlier posts I wondered if Barry Bonds' "accomplishment" was worthy of praise. I wrote the following:

With the rampant use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, the ‘record’ that Bonds now has will forever have an asterisk next to it that indicates there is another dimension to this story (i.e. steroid use) and Bond’s record will never be told standalone, instead will have a rider attached to it with the reference to the performance drug issue..

Well I learn today that Bonds has been indicted on charges of 5 counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. Related story via Yahoo News is here. Quoting from the Yahoo article:

"Barry Bonds has more to worry about than an asterisk now...On Thursday...a federal grand jury indicted him on five felony counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, charges that could result in a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison if he's convicted."

So the next question is, if found guilty, should the home run honor be stripped?

Outspoken Roman

Bill Press supports the fairness doctrine

I know that is too obvious as Bill Press is a liberal who has not seen great success compared to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others who (in my opinion) give voice to the thoughts that most Americans have (I believe that most Americans are right of center). Newsbusters has a story that Press supports the Fairness Doctrine because:

"Conservatives have their own powerful television network: the only one, the most powerful in the country, the most watched. Liberals have none. Conservatives rule the op-ed pages of all the newspapers."

First off, what the hell does he mean "the only one" (the only television network?). I assume he is referring to Fox News (I can some of the Liberals on Fox but I am hard pressed to do the same with CNN or MSNBC). Secondly he notes that conservatives rule the op-ed pages? Has he ever read the Boston Globe, NY Times or LA Times or is he spending his time just reading the Washington Times? I guess the liberals need to believe these lies so they can justify the crackdown on free speech which they was supposed to be the guardian.

Well I find it funny reading this and finding the following stories from the Media Research Center and Newsbusters respectively. First of the Media Research Center reports that Amy Sullivan, editor of the "Nation" section for Time magazine stated on MSNBC that Hillary Clinton is a "moral conservative". Yeah right and the Outspoken Roman blog gets as many hits as the Drudge Report. Secondly Newbusters is reporting that

"Markos Moulitsas, the founder and publisher of dailykos.com, will become a Newsweek contributor for the 2008 presidential campaign, offering occasional opinion pieces to the pages of the magazine and to Newsweek.com."

No liberal bias there. Obviously we need to balance off those right wingers on the radio. Maybe NBC and others can give Democratic staffers national shows to get the message out. Oh wait a minute, they have already done that with Tim Russert, Chris Matthews and George Stephanopoulos. Congress can pass the Fairness Doctrine when it is to apply to networks as well I mean wouldn't that be fair?

Outspoken Roman

Spitzer proposal goes down to defeat

I am an ex-NY resident and have never been a fan of NY politics and was happy to see that New York Governor Spitzer is abandoning his plan for driver's licenses for illegal aliens. The New York Times blog has this quote that I wanted to discuss:

“The issue does not disappear,” he (Spitzer) said. “The issue will not be gone tomorrow or next week in the absence of federal legislation. I hope I don’t need to raise it again, because I hope you will see a comprehensive resolution of this issue.” But he added, “You have a polarization on this issue that has defied resolution.”

Let's be clear. There was no polarization on this issue. Fox News reports that "About 70 percent of New Yorkers opposed the plan, according to a Siena College poll of 625 registered voters released Tuesday." As others are reporting such as Rush Limbaugh, this is not polarization (say a 50/50 split between New Yorkers) but a clear issue that residents do not support and the governor is wise to move away from this issue.

I will say that I do agree that the Federal Government has neglected a real national security issue with ignoring the border issues and left the states to fend for themselves. This is a huge failure of the Bush Administration with its refusal to move beyond proposed amnesty and although I disagree with Spitzers proposal, this issue raises real problems with the lack of direction by the President and by the Congress to be fair. The country does not want amnesty with all the costs that come with that and instead support reasoned and supportable legal immigration and a border crackdown to halt the illegal entry into this country. This is a threat and should be addressed by each of the Presidential candidates specifically. I wonder if Wolf Blitzer will have this addressed?

Sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise in the US

Yahoo News has an AP story with a headline that once again gives the US a distinction that is not so praise worthy. The headline is "U.S. sets record in sexual disease cases" and actually has quite a few scary facts (scary if you are on the promiscuous side of human behavior). The story states in part:

More than 1 million cases of chlamydia were reported in the United States last year — the most ever reported for a sexually transmitted disease, federal health officials said Tuesday.

Not only is chlamydia on the rise by Syphilis and Gonorrhea as well. It is interesting that there wasn't any sort of root cause analysis given by the story (that would require AP to make some sort of moral stand - perish the thought!) but no matter, because I will. But before I do that, the story continues with a really frightening note about the strain of Gonorrhea that is being seen which is referred to as a "superbug" version resistant to common antibiotics. Is anyone in Maine reading this?

This country is of course more sexual in its advertising, TV shows, Movies and other aspects of its culture. We have saturated our society with sexual images and in a great bit of marketing convinced women that they actually have to wear less clothes (half shirts, low cut jeans, etc.) but actually pay more for clothes of this type (absolutely brilliant!) and we are finding ourselves in a environment of our own making. We encourage children to have sex or "experiment" with sex and then are surprised when we have unwanted/unplanned pregnancies and a rise in STDs. This is sold as liberation or freedom without the context of actually making very bad choices that could have life altering effects (and not for the better). Where did we lose the ability for authority figures (parents, teachers, etc.) to actually preach/lecture/urge students to commit themselves to being better than the lowest common denominator and of course when did we lose our sense of shame (something I have discussed in this forum before).

Our supposed sexual liberation is being purchased is at the expense of our children and any number of people who have woken up after a one night stand or a string of them finding their world more than a little askew. Instead of resigning ourselves to an attitude of "kids are going to do it anyway - we can't stop them" families need to become re-engaged in this debate and don't turn it over to the school health care officials or other like minded individuals who don't care about your children but rather care about pushing an agenda whatever the cost. And by the way that cost will probably not be borne by those health care officials but by people you actually care about personally. The CDC website reports the following information:

"Compared to older adults, sexually-active adolescents 10 to 19 years of age and young adults 20 to 24 years of age are at higher risk for acquiring STDs for a combination of behavioral, biological, and cultural reasons...Recent estimates suggest that while representing 25% of the ever sexually active population, 15 to 24 years of age acquire nearly half of all new STDs"

Are you paying attention Maine?

Outspoken Roman

Happy Belated Veterans Day

Although many of us had a 3 day weekend (or 4 day in some cases), due to Veterans Day the real holiday was on 11 November and I was away or I would have posted something as not only am I a veteran but come from a family of veterans both brothers, fathers, uncles and godfathers. I was remiss in not acknowledging the debt that this country owes its veterans.

I can't say it any better than Ronald Reagan, quoted on the PatriotPost website.

"We’re gathered today, just as we have gathered before, to remember those who served, those who fought, those still missing, and those who gave their last full measure of devotion for our country... One of those who fell wrote, shortly before his death, these words: ‘Take what they have left and what they have taught you with their dying and keep it with your own. And take one moment to embrace those gentle heroes you left behind."

Regan continues:

"Most of all, we remember the devotion and gallantry with which all of them ennobled their nation as they became champions of a noble cause... Our liberties, our values, all for which America stands is safe today because brave men and women have been ready to face the fire at freedom’s front. And we thank God for them."

I can't improve upon that. Thank you to all our veterans for your service and sacrifice.

Outspoken Roman

Another take on "Economic Fairness"

The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting piece today that basically explodes one of the ongoing themes that John Edwards has made quite a fuss about - yes I am talking about the famous "Two Americas" speech. In an article on the CBS News website, John Edwards' "Rural Liaison" Dave Saunders wrote the following:

"I am already agitated at the thought that this one will mirror the first, with no talk of the "economic inequality" that is threatening to take down this country...Our not-so-far-off future is in grim danger unless "economic fairness" is restored to the American capitalistic system. Yet none of the top-tier candidates, other than John Edwards, seem to want to deal with it in strong fashion."

Well first off I would disagree that our capitalist system actually is consistent with the idea of economic fairness. From what I have read, economic fairness is basically some way for the government to guarantee economic outcomes within our system which doesn't seem to work with the free market. Does John Edwards think that it is the Government's job to put in place some sort of police monitoring of all aspects of economic life in America? What if I don't save - shall I be required to put away a specific percentage of my income so banks can use that equity to make loans to others? This is definitely not the free market or democracy but something more akin to socialism. The solution of course if more Government regulation and higher taxes which always work right?

What I see missing from the Edwards discussion is the need for the Government to decrease its role in our lives, not increase it. I don't debate the fact that there are people who by any number of bad decisions. dumb luck, or some other act of God are not where they feel they should be or where they want to be. I would like to be living in a bigger house for example but it is not the Government's role to put me in one, it is my decision (or past decisions) that dictate to a point where I am now. It is a fact that better educated people have more options (and also having a command of the English language but the I don't hear John Edwards talking about that) and I wonder when Edwards sees his two Americas, which one he puts himself in and why? I would love for John Edwards to discuss why for example, he is worth so much money basically swindling money from sympathetic juries. But I digress.

So is there good news? The Wall Street Journal reports today that there is a new Treasury Department study that exposes claims such as Edwards "as so much populist hokum". To quote from the article:

"...what it does do is show beyond doubt that the U.S. remains a dynamic society marked by rapid and mostly upward income mobility. Much as they always have, Americans on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder continue to climb into the middle and sometimes upper classes in remarkably short periods of time."

Who would have guessed that America today still has people who are graduating to a higher income bracket based on risk taking, hard work, or any number of more positive behaviors that are undertaken by people looking to improve their economic situation and not relying on the Nanny state to take care of them. Again, to quote the study:

"The key point is that the study shows that income mobility in the U.S. works down as well as up--another sign that opportunity and merit continue to drive American success, not accidents of birth. The "rich" are not the same people over time."

This optimistic message should play better with the voters than the doom and gloom of the Edwards campaign who only has one solution, a more powerful government that is intrusive into all details of our lives. If Edwards is so concerned for the economically disadvantaged (I love the way we stop saying words like "poor" and come up with really nifty terms like economically disadvantaged - remember "we shall not judge") how about he stop running for President and work to actually help the folks who need it. Think of all we would save in matching campaign funds as a country and I am sure with his millions, he can provide a lot of "income redistribution".

I just googled "John Edwards Net worth" and I got a story from CNN that reported that "...Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was not hurting. He reported a net worth ranging from $12.8 million to $60 million." I think I am sensing some income inequality right there. How does this guy know anything about unfairness?

Outspoken Roman

Candidate Submission to the Darwin Awards

I was reading the news feeds today and saw this post from Fox News with the interesting title of "Man Dies After Getting Stuck in Girlfriend’s Cat Door". Story can be found here at the Fox News website. The story notes in part:

" A woman in Florida made a startling discovery over the weekend when she found her boyfriend stuck in her house’s cat door. The girlfriend of Charles Tucker Jr.... found the man stuck in the small door and called police. When they arrived four minutes later, the man was dead."

So I humbly submit Charles Tucker Jr as a candidate for the Darwin Awards whose purpose is to focus on those individuals who by their own stupid actions, remove themselves from the human gene pool.

Update - this is too easy. Also at Fox News is this story posted at 6:24 PM. The story has this headline "Man Fleeing Police Killed By Alligator". The man was suspected of breaking into cars and when confronted took off on foot and dove into a retention pool which happened to have a live alligator in it. Oops!

Outspoken Roman

WND reports "Red, green lights to be banned?"

WorldNetDaily: Red, green lights to be banned?

So it is not even Thanksgiving and we have a task force in Colorado making a recommendation to ban red and green Christmas lights as "they fall among the items that are too religious for the city to sponsor". Ok so I guess Christianity now owns the colors red and green or somewhere in the Bible must be some pronouncement on those icicle shaped lights. Was that one of the commandments? Did God say to Moses "go forth and hang those nice little red and green lights from your house to really irk your non-Christian neighbors"? I didn't know the Almighty had such a sense of humor.

The WND story continues with this great quote from one the spokesmen from the task force (yes this is a quote). "Some symbols, even though the Supreme Court has declared that in many contexts they are secular symbols, often still send a message to some members of the community that they and their traditions are not valued and not wanted".

If I read this right, and red and green lights are deemed too religious and since Christmas is a Christian Holiday and this special task force is recommending a ban on these lights - what sort of message is the task force sending to the good Coloradans who want to have red and green lights throughout their community? I would proffer that the stellar task force is sending the message that those folks who think that Christmas is about a little more than consumerism, snowflakes, icicles, ice skates and polar bears are not valued nor are their traditions not valued as they don't want anyone to feel left out. Let me offer up a little advice. This is a holiday that like it or not, has its roots mainly in Christian religions. An attempt to make it about something that it isn't (say polar bears) dilutes what the day is for and if you don't celebrate Christmas, is there really a lot of offense given by red and green lights? In our attempt to placate the "minority" groups that may feel not valued, efforts like this actually work to marginalize the great majority of Americans who are instead told to "get over it" or to "stop pushing your religion or views on everyone else". What do you think the Colorado Task Force is doing? I am sure they do not see it that way but that is what they are doing, ramming their ideological beliefs down the throats of everyone else.

Thank goodness Kwanzaa and Diwali continue unabated.

Outspoken Roman

UK Education or a really interesting present.

I am finding some very interesting stories that make me scratch my head and wonder how come my school experience was so dull when compared to schools these days (see my post here for an example). Well I just read a story from Fox News (which linked to the original story found on the UKs Sky.com) and I had to comment on it. The headline should give the reader all they need to know which is "Stripper Mistakenly Sent to School, Whips Teen". No I am not kidding as the Fox News story reports. This has to be read to be believed.

The sordid story notes in part: “Officials at a U.K. high school were aghast after a stripper visited a student during class and whipped him in front of other students and a horrified teacher”. Note that it was supposed to be a “gorilla gram” from his mother but instead he got a stripper. Oh and note that the child was turning 16. The Sky News story notes that the mixup was due to a “booking error”. I would say so!!!

So what I found interesting (and a little disturbing) is that the gift was okayed by the teacher who was actually on hand to video tape the “surprise”. One witness described the event thusly:

"She asked the lad to stand up, which he did, and told him he had been a very naughty boy because he hadn't been doing his homework.

"Then she put on some Britney Spears music and got out a collar and lead from her bag and told him to put them on."

I know what you are thinking. Where the hell was the teacher? Well he was videotaping the event as previously arranged by the lad’s mom. So this was ok with him or her? But wait it gets better. After the witness noted that the lad had been “spanked” in the class room the stripper “…took off some clothes until she was down to her bra and pants, pulled out some cream, put it on her buttocks and told him to rub it in"

The teacher finally intervened as he or she was “shocked”. It took the teacher that long to be shocked and put an end to the show? I guess the handcuffs, dog collar and spanking was ok. What the hell is wrong with that teacher and why would the teenager allow himself to be humiliated like that? I would sue the ass off of the company and the school for an act like that but then again, I would probably not enjoy publicly humiliating my child like that. I guess the teacher was ok with everything up to and including the striptease but rubbing cream on buttocks – hey there are some standards in this fine UK classroom and school.

I can only imagine that the teacher was afraid to take some stand against decency due a fear that he or she would be sued by the parent and would appear to be not cool or whatever a teacher is concerned about these days. I wonder how much class time was lost due to this stupid prank. I wonder what sort of boundaries are allowed in UK schools (and US schools) and it worries me that something so blatantly inappropriate was allowed to go on for so long. Maybe if the stripper had a toy gun (she was dressed up as a policeman) the teacher could have exercised some moral outrage but instead the class had to wait until the cream made an appearance. I love the UK beer but their schools I wonder about. But who are we to criticize when we have schools like the ones in Maine.

Outspoken Roman

Biofuels in Boston

I was listening to NPR this morning on the way into work and I heard that the People's Republic (Massachusetts) is considering mandating Biofuel usage in place of heating oil. Story and audio can be found here. So I got to thinking that is not all good (nothing ever is) and the story went on to say that of course the price in Biofuel would be higher but eventually when no one can afford oil, there will be no choice but to use biofuel and how smart is Massachusetts for aligining us saps now to eventually switch over to biofuel. Of course if/when oil becomes cheaper again, we will be screwed but hey - it is the thought that counts.

Well Newsbusters has a great story on environmentalists calling the use of biofuels "crimes against humanity". The story (which can be found here) quotes one of Britian's leading environmentalists, George Monbiot as saying the following in an interview with a British paper:

"If the governments promoting biofuels do not reverse their policies, the humanitarian impact will be greater than that of the Iraq war. Millions will be displaced, hundreds of millions more could go hungry."

The issue as Monbiot points out, is that biofuel production (including growing the fuel source and use of nitrogen based fertilizers) is actually more damaging to the environment and contributes more to Global Warming. I wonder what the liberals are going to do with this one. I am surprised (not) that NPR didn't track down someone with an opposing view on this to educate how some of these feel good policies have some serious long term impacts that never seem to make it to the decision makers. Does Deval Patrick up there on Beacon Hill know this? Maybe he should.

Outspoken Roman

What is a fair and progressive tax system?

Another attack on Hillary? Perish the thought gentle readers but I do have a question that I can't seem to get my arms around. I was listening to our great local talk station WTTT and I heard the host discussing the last week's Democrat debate. Hillary was being universally panned for her performance and I have heard the quotes and I still have no idea what the hell she is talking about and what some of her positions are but I digress. Hillary said something really interesting that I thought was worth discussing. She said in response to a question from Tim Russert on her support of a 4 % surtax (after a question on the Rangel Tax plan) the following (in part):

... I didn't say that, Tim. I said that I'm in favor of doing something about the AMT. How we do it and how we put the package together everybody knows is extremely complicated. It's not going to happen while George Bush is president. Everybody knows that. I want to get to a fair and progressive tax system.

So it is this concept of a fair and progressive tax system I would like to address because I don't understand it. A fair system I understand and in fact define it as everyone pays the same % of income to taxes or the same amount (I don't know if Donald Trump and I should pay the same dollar amount in taxes as I probably couldn't but anyway - I am just working on the definition). So that is in a sense how I read a fair tax system. But if we continue with the Hillary quote she says that she also wants a "progressive" tax system. So what is that? Well a progressive tax basically outlines the progression of the % of taxes paid as income increases. In other words someone making $50000 may pay taxes at a 20% tax rate and someone making $200000 would pay taxes at a rate of 30% or something to that effect. So basically if there is a high earner (say an ex-president who is making millions doing speeches while his wife is running for the US Presidency) a progressive tax states in principle he should pay more money (at a higher rate) to taxes than I should.

Why the hell is that fair? But what right should I be taxed at a higher rate than my neighbor who makes less than I do? Where is that in the Constitution? Why does that even appeal to people as part of a platform from one of our political parties. Yes I know Adam Smith notionally supported the rich paying more than the poor (which of course seems obvious given each group's economical means) but also note that Karl Marx also supported a progressive tax system and I am not sure anything Marx proposed deserves to be part of US law and a position that a Presidential Candidate should adopt. But this is how we misuse language and sell class envy and engage in the politics of class warfare. All those people out there who do not have the economic means of a Donald Trump can legislatively support a financial whack upside Trump's head if we move toward some sort of progressive tax system. What kills me is why so many people support paying more taxes. Can't these people donate extra money to the Government and leave me the hell alone?

Why is it OK to play the supposedly disadvantaged against the advantaged? Why are people not accessing the bounty that is this country and instead reverting to blaming and punishing the achievers in this society? It seems that all politics has become is one person promising to outspend, out gift, out tax and out supply then the other and a new wave of people sign up to become additional dependents of the Government. Shouldn't candidates instead be offering how people can help themselves instead of offering nifty little phrases like Fair and Progressive which in fact does little to help out the folks who need it. The Government does not need to grow to become more of a nanny state. It needs to shrink and encourage folks to access their God Given gifts to make their lives better. This progressive tax system actually strikes me as a disincentive to work as part of what I will do with the extra income is to have more of it confiscated by the Government so they can throw more money to cure some real or perceived social ill. That isn't fairness but rather it is servitude. That is what is being sold by policies such as the one proffered by Hillary. People need to wake up and stop looking for the free Government cheese.

Outspoken Roman

Hillary at Wellesley

The NY Times has a story here that chronicles Hillary's visit to Wellesley college. The Times story makes a very interesting point that I thought would be fun to point out.

The story states in part:

"It was Mrs. Clinton’s first visit to the school as a presidential candidate, and she chose it as the place to set out on an ambitious drive to attract more women to what she is underscoring as her historic candidacy. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is increasingly counting on women, who made up 54 percent of the electorate in 2004, to help propel her into the White House."

So basically Hillary is banking on women to vote for her because she is a woman. Isn't that a little discriminatory and just a bit sexist as she is blatantly assuming that women would vote for her just because she is "one of the girls". I get it of course but can't believe that the media basically have lost any sort of critical thought with regards to this woman. How about Obama expecting all the black Americans to vote for him because he is black? Why assume that a group (I can't say minority as the NY Times notes that women made up 54% of the electorate) would vote like a monolithic block? Instead I would think that the candidate would assume that he (or she) need to appeal to the broadest base possible and sell a platform that the electorate can support. Do we really want to elect someone who panders to a specific group and plays "identity politics"?

Can you imagine a Hispanic Republican assuming that Hispanics would support him (or her) for the sole reason that the candidate is Hispanic? Should the Republican candidate (I can only assume it will be a man as no woman has yet entered the field) assume that all men will vote for him? I suppose that would be a little sexist and I am sure the Times would have a conniption of that actually was stated say by Thompson of McCain or Giuliani.

The media are in the bag for her and they should remove themselves from independent reporting and just join the campaign. Hillary is running for President of the United States and basically is playing the gender card. What is going to happen if one of the Middle East countries won't welcome her due to her gender (it is possible given their view of women) bomb them for their anachronistic views of the sexes? Recall also that Hillary is avoiding attending a Fox News debate because (I guess) of the hostile environment. Take a look at Bush's 8 years if you want to see a real hostile environment. My advice to Hillary (unsolicited of course) is to stop showing cleavage, stop trying to be more man than John Edwards and more racially sensitive than Obama. You are not your husband who was an extremely talented politician (whom I disagreed with on most subjects). Finally, no one cares that you are the first woman running for President or rather no one should care. You should not get any votes just because some of the electorate want to break some gender barrier but get votes because people agree with your policies. But my bet is that the name of the game is "whatever it takes". What an ugly sport politics is.

Outspoken Roman

What is the deal with Halloween?

Why is Halloween so popular when some of the other holidays seem to have lost their luster? I think this is the dumbest of holidays yet folks go crazy with it dressing up, carving pumpkins, handing out candy, putting up decorations, almost like Christmas. The schools have Halloween parades and parties but they cannot have a Christmas party or an Easter party (or a Kwanzaa party for that matter). Again, what is it about this day that makes folks go wild?

Well I think I have figured it out. First off, consider that Halloween is big business and of course it is also for the children so how can that be wrong? I think it is insidious how marketing campaigns work either pushing an agenda that is designed to separate me from more of my money and really serves no purpose. I read in an advertising article once that the Ad execs were posturing to make it "acceptable" or even the norm that Easter becomes similar to Christmas in gift giving (that was their goal). Can you get your mind around that? Someone (or some agency or agencies) are plotting how to manipulate the public to consider a day that is set aside to honor the resurrection of Jesus as a day to exchange gifts. What is next an Easter tree? Now of course non-Christians would probably have no problem with this but that is not the issue rather it is the manipulation of the public to serve the all mighty dollar. So back to Halloween. This is the same thing. We have been manipulated and told "it's fun" so go ahead and buy those 5 pumpkins for $50. Hey, it is all about having fun. As far as the schools go, well this "holiday" is about being fun and it is not offensive. Yeah - tell that to the folks who think reading Harry Potter encourages witchcraft or interest in the occult. This day is one that doesn't require anyone to take a stand on their beliefs like Easter, Hanukkah or Christmas. So we blithely slap down $30 for a costume and go along to get along because we don't want to appear as not wanting anyone not to have fun. Well I think it is a crock and all this day is for is for the Mars Company and Hersheys and other stores such as Party Inc to make money off of you and me. Be warned - Madison Avenue is coming up with all kinds of new ways to separate us from our dollars (Sweetest Day, Grandparents Day, the list goes on) and heaven forbid these don't get celebrated appropriately.

Yeah I know - you think I am a stick in the mud (wait till I blog about Christmas) but since when was fun a good excuse? Why is it acceptable for parents to send kids out to strangers and beg for candy. Why don't we just go out and buy them a six pack of Snickers? Wouldn't that be easier?

Finally what are we celebrating with Halloween? Well I checked Wikipedia and it said:

The modern holiday of Halloween has its origins in the ancient Gaelic festival known as Samhain (pronounced /ˈsˠaunʲ/ from the Old Irish samain). The festival of Samhain is a celebration of the end of the harvest season in Gaelic culture, and is sometimes erroneously^[2] regarded as the "Celtic New Year".

So we (supposedly a Judeo-Christian Nation) has a national holiday of pagan ancestry. This is just stupid. All of us Sheeple take our marching orders from tradition or from Madison Ave and never question whether or not this makes sense or is generally good. Well next year no pumpkins!!! The stand starts here.

Outspoken Roman

Red Sox Sweep World Series

FOXNews.com - Red Sox Sweep World Series, Beating Rockies 4-3 - Baseball

I have been busy catching up on my sleep due to the World Series and then Halloween (what the hell kind of holiday is that?) but a quick shout out to the Sox for bringing it home once again. I may be a transplant to Boston from NY but that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy the tradition, sportsmanship and overall greatness that is the Boston Red Sox (note I wasn't really into Baseball that much anyway until I moved). Anyway, Red Sox Nation once again welcomes home their World Champions.

Outspoken Roman

Another Teacher/Student affair?

What the hell is happening in our schools these days? Here is a story of another teacher who is 25, on the run with a 13 yr old boy who she was allegedly having a "relationship" with. If this was an older guy with a young girl everyone would call it what it is (creepy, disturbed, a crime, rape, etc.) but what is wrong with teachers such as this that they jeopardize their career, family, reputation, etc for a relationship with a child basically? What are they searching for that a 13 yr old can fulfill - tips on Xbox games, how to ride a skateboard, or how to combat acne?

We have lost a sense of shame in this country and crimes like this (and others that have been reported in the news in the past) don't get the scrutiny and judgment that they deserve. Somewhere we lost our guardrails that we used to have on society and we are poorer for it.

FOXNews.com - Nebraska Teacher, 13-Year-Old Student, on the Run in Colorado - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News