Theaters in Kentucky refuse to show movie

I like to point out stupid things, so here's another shiny coin to add to your bank of insanity. Apparently there are a couple of movie theaters in Kentucky that refuse to show the film Monster-in-Law because of the position that Jane Fonda took against the Vietnam War. While I doubt that our country is in need of another dumb, romantic comedy like Monster-in-Law, this whole thing seems to be a tad bit of an overreaction. Ike - seriously - see a counselor and let go of that resentment. The war is over (in Vietnam at least)...

I find it odd that the very people who are so adamant about protecting American freedom and liberty, are usually the very first people to step in and squash it. And with the current administration, it's just getting worse as time goes on because we keep protecting these idiots when we should really be giving them a kick in the pants, sending them back to the sandbox, and teaching them to get along with others who are different from them. I thought that was something we were supposed to learn in kindergarden or first grade, but a lot of people seem to have lost that message somewhere along the way.

On the flip side, I'm sure that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is ecstatic about this guy. They're protesting the movie on the basis that Jennifer Lopez is in it, and her clothing line uses animal fur. I wonder what Ike thinks about that...interesting thing to ponder; two different agendas coming together in one kinda weird way.

In any case, Ike can do whatever he wants - he does own the theaters after all. And if this kind of thing makes him feel better about his own insignificance...well, I say go for it dude and buy yourself a Corvette while you're at it. Life's too short to stop compensating for a small penis and an even smaller brain.

More information on Fonda Film Banned From KY. Theaters.

Womens' rights slipping away

The debate about birth control is starting to heat up in the US. A growing number of pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control, and even some doctors are refusing to discuss birth control with patients under any circumstances.

The reasoning? Because those pharmacists and doctors oppose birth control on moral grounds. As though things in this country aren't ridiculous enough, now we're having to contend with not getting our medical needs met. And some states are working on legislation that would protect these idiots. It's enough to make my blood boil.

A person's religious and moral values are personal. I have my own set of religious and moral values, but I don't jam them down another person's throat. Why? Because I happen to understand that we have a freedom of religion in this country, which means that people can either choose a religion or even choose not to have a religion. Plain and simple.

Here's a good rule of thumb for those who can't figure out the obvious:

• Don't become a stripper if you object to showing your body in public.


• Don't become a cook at a fast food restaurant if you object to cooking meat.


• Don't become a pharmacist if you object to filling prescriptions written by medical doctors.


• Don't become a doctor if you object to considering birth control as a valid treatment for various conditions, in addition to preventing pregnancy.

I realize that in areas where there are a lot of people, the impact of this type of objection is small. However, I'm concerned for women who live in rural areas where it may already be difficult enough for them to get to a doctor or pharmacy without the added issue of being judged by someone else's moral values.

More information in the article Pharmacists 'denying birth control' on the BBC Web site.

House Bill 1515

Recently, our Washington state senators voted on House Bill 1515, which would have made discrimination against gays and lesbians illegal in this state. Unfortunately, the bill failed by 1 vote. We can thank senators Jim Hargrove and Tim Sheldon (both conservative democrats) for joining the republican ranks to defeat the bill.

Hargrove is quoted as saying, "I have nothing against anybody who participates in this behavior...This issue is whether I believe the behavior is right or wrong."

Errrr - wrong Senator Hargrove. Was the bill called "House Bill 1515 - Homosexuality is Okey Dokey by Me"? I don't think so. The issue was not for you to determine whether homosexuality is right or wrong; it was about discriminatory practices aimed at homosexuals who are (among other things) trying to get jobs without being scrutinized for their sexual orientation. I fail to see how that is anything other than a civil rights issue.

While I understand that some people disagree with homosexuality, I don't understand why they think that discrimination against gay and lesbian people is OK. By not supporting such a bill, they are at the very least tacitly agreeing that discriminating against someone for a job, insurance, loans, etc. is OK. And it most definitely is not OK.

More details on the Seattle Times article, Gay-rights bill falls 1 vote short of becoming state law.