RSSJane Fonda; Your Past Actions Do Have Consequences
Jane Fonda’s movie, “Monster-In-Law” may be number one at the box office, but don’t ask Ike Boutwell his opinion. A former Vietnam vet and the owner of two movie theaters in Kentucky refuses to show it in his establishment no matter what the financial cost is to him personally.
The owner of two Kentucky theaters has refused to show the new Jane Fonda film “Monster-in-Law” because of the activist role the actress took during the Vietnam War.
Ike Boutwell, who trained pilots during the Vietnam War, displayed pictures of Fonda clapping with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft crew in 1972 outside the Elizabethtown Movie Palace to show his disapproval. The marquee outside Showtime Cinemas in nearby Radcliff reads: “No Jane Fonda movie in this theater.”
Just proving the theory once again that past actions do have consequences. Or as Ike says,
“I think when people do something, they need to be held responsible for their actions”. “When you give the enemy aid, it makes the war last longer.”
Its Always Funny Until Someone Gets Hurt
Somethings are either just too painful to write about and this may be just one of them. On the good side a woman was found not legally responsible for injuries to her boyfriend suffered while they were having consensual sex.
On the bad side as reported by the AP:
The man, identified only as John Doe in court papers, filed suit against the woman in 1997, claiming she was negligent when she suddenly changed positions, landed awkwardly on him and fractured his penis.
OUCH!!!
After finally getting over the pain and then the laughter and then the bewilderment of how this is possible; I come across this. OK, I guess it is possible.
However, there is nothing like a good attorney comment to make the pain of the story even worse. Upon receiving the ruling from the 3 judge panel, John Doe’s attorney responded:
Greenwood argued that consensual sex doesn’t mean “anything goes. … The fact that some behavior was agreed to by the parties doesn’t mean all behavior was agreed to by the parties.”
The man’s attorney, John Greenwood, said he is likely to appeal Monday’s ruling to the state’s highest court.
Some times you just have to know when to take your toys and go home.
Medicare; What Should be Impotent
Every wonder why Medicare is a system in crisis? The politicians over time have taken what was once a good idea to provide minimal care for seniors and have so bastardized it over time that it barely resembles anything from what it once was.
The Medicare premise: Providing healthcare to elderly and disabled people at a low cost. If one was to look at what was originally considered covered costs back when the program first began and compare that to today we would all cringe. The idea of the plan was to keep elderly people healthy by providing the basic medical services to them. These services although limited sometimes as “medically necessary” for years provided a comprehensive healthcare maintenance program for many seniors.
Until today. Until the political brain surgeons decided to include impotence drugs like Viagra, Cialis and Levitra to the covered list of drugs to the Medicare drug coverage program. This is probably one of the most stupid and costly additions to the Medicare program ever.
The federal government will spend nearly $2 billion in the next decade on male impotence drugs under its Medicare program, according to a new cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office that is fueling some lawmakers’ efforts to end that spending.
The federal body that runs Medicare ruled earlier this year that drugs to treat male impotence such as Viagra, Cialis and Levitra will be covered as of Jan. 1, 2006, when the full drug coverage program created by Congress two years ago takes effect.
Thank God there appears to be some fiscal sanity still left in the Congress.
Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, is sponsoring a bill to prohibit most erectile dysfunction drug sales under Medicare, the government’s insurance program for the elderly and disabled, and released the cost figures yesterday as part of his effort.
Enough is enough folks. Medicare was never intended to cover every little medical need that an individual may have. If the elderly need this so badly then let them buy riders to their policy like we have to. I leave the choice to the elderly on this matter. Would you rather have medical coverage that allows you to deal with acute and chronic illness in your old age without significant increase in premiums or deductible or would you rather have these drugs covered with diminished regular healthcare?
Auto insurance does not cover the replacement of tires or windshield wipers from normal wear an tear. Medicare should never have to cover these services. Let’s remember what Medicare was originally intended to do.
Media not Worried about the Truth, only in Protecting their Own
In the aftermath of the Newsweek debacle one would think that the media would look inward to seal the leaks and make internal corrections so that such a mess would not happen to them. One would think from the apologies and retractions from Newsweek that all the media would be on board and be interested in reporting the truth.
However, in true liberal mainstream media fashion they are only interesting in covering their own asses and protecting one of their own.
The Political Teen has the video
From the Drudge Report:
REVENGE OF THE PRESS: WHITE HOUSE REPORTERS RIP SPOKESMAN OVER NEWSWEEK MESS
Mainline reporters moved into battle-mode today during a White House press briefing — as one of their own outlets continued to hemorrhage over a now retracted story!
Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it’s appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not telling them. I’m saying that we would encourage them to help —
Q You’re pressuring them.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I’m saying that we would encourage them —
Q It’s not pressure?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that’s all I’m saying. But, no, you’re absolutely right, it’s not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report….
Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you’re saying here?
MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military —
Q You’ve already said what you’re — I know what — how it ends.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I’m coming to your question, and you’re not letting me have a chance to respond. But our military goes out of their way to handle the Koran with care and respect. There are policies and practices that are in place. This report was wrong. Newsweek, itself, stated that it was wrong. And so now I think it’s incumbent and — incumbent upon Newsweek to do their part to help repair the damage. And they can do that through ways that they see best, but one way that would be good would be to point out what the policies and practices are in that part of the world, because it’s in that region where this report has been exploited and used to cause lasting damage to the image of the United States of America. It has had serious consequences. And so that’s all I’m saying, is that we would encourage them to take steps to help repair the damage. And I think that they recognize the importance of doing that. That’s all I’m saying.
Q As far as the Newsweek article is concerned, first, how and where the story came from? And do you think somebody can investigate if it really happened at the base, and who told Newsweek? Because somebody wrote a story.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think Newsweek has talked about it. They took it —
So some how the story in the MSM’s eyes is about White House pressure on Newsweek to do the right thing and correct the serious wrong they did that cost people their lives. NOT THE FACT THAT A MEDIA OUTLET GOT A STORY SO WRONG AND CREATED SUCH A REACTION THAT VIOLENCE BROKE OUT AND PEOPLE WERE KILLED?
Is it any wonder why no one takes these people serious anymore, no one trusts what they write or say and that no one reads them as their circulation is down.
I wonder if the White House Press would have taken this same hostile, protectionism approach if it were Fox News that had gone with the Koran story? Some how I just doubt it.
Adoption Laws; Just plain Wrong (The Rule of Six)
WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN?
Obviously law makers in this country of no idea. In a country where we are told by our leaders that all life is precious and should never be aborted; how exactly do we have adoption laws that are so anti-adoption and so impossible to deal with that individuals find it necessary to go overseas to adopt?
Forget the fact that a birth parent can claim custody and win the right to take their child back even after 3-4-5 years after an adopted child has bonded with an adopting family. Now we have the ‘Rule of six’ law preventing a Massachusetts couple from adopting two sisters, 6 and 10, who are presently living in separate foster homes.
Then the state Department of Social Services issued the bad news: The adoption was off, due to a state law that limits the size of a foster family to six children. If they adopted both sisters, the Worthens would have seven.
The couple knew about what DSS calls the ”rule of six,” but believed they could easily get a waiver. But DSS officials concluded they could grant waivers only to parents seeking temporary custody. The Worthens did not qualify, because they wanted to take in the girls as foster children but planned to adopt them right away.
This is the sheer stupidity that our adoption laws would deny parents who wish to open their home to others. Loving parents who wish to adopt sisters who are presently living in separate homes and wish to provide a home for both under one roof is prevented.
WHAT PART ABOUT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN DOES DSS NOT GET?
Instead of a waiver to do the right thing, welcome to DSS red tape & bureaucracy.
Maureen Flatley, a lobbyist and adoption advocate who has been working pro bono on the case, said the law already provides exceptions for siblings and children with medical issues.
”It’s red tape run amok,” Flatley said. ”I’ve been in this work for a long, long time, and this is the craziest thing that I’ve ever seen.”
It is an absolute shame that laws exist in this country that prevent the adoption of children and do not protect the welfare of the children or the adopting individuals. We are supposed to want children in foster care rather than be adopted? How about we do the right thing for the children once and for all.
Adoption is a beautiful and loving act; why anyone would make this a difficult and nearly impossible venture is astounding and unacceptable.
