(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.