Hey all, I just voted. I took great pleasure in voting down Prop 60, the condom measure here in California. I took my time with the ballot, as it is unusually long, and I voted on every measure. Thank you, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Ever heard of them? They're a bunch of flatulent, lemon-sucking menopausal types who are always bitching about their taxes. If they're against something, I'm automatically for it. They didn't take a stand on Prop 60, however. Pretty much nobody has. There's been no mass scale organized movement against this mandatory condom-in-porn measure, but there hasn't been much discussion in its favor, either. It's as if everybody's too embarrassed to have an opinion one way or the other.
But I did read the voter's pamphlet, with arguments pro and con, and it has dawned on me that this proposal might be personal. Personal, as in out to get Paul Morris. The reasons why I've made this conclusion is that Cal-OSHA, our state organization in California established to maintain workplace safety, already mandates condoms. Furthermore, voters in Los Angeles county voted in 2012 to require condoms in porn. The target would have been all the studios based in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles. The 'Valley' was the capital of porn. Ah, I used to take great pride in driving the Ventura Freeway past the Vivid Videos building with its neon purple sign in everybody's face. I've done porn, so I'm more than prejudiced, I'll admit. I'm also in favor of free trade and I'm pro business, to a certain extent.
Los Angeles wasn't enough for the AIDS mafia, because they are well aware that production would just relocate to Palm Springs (about 100 miles east and in another county, Riverside) or Las Vegas. Now, porn was a big business in Los Angeles, which is 5 times the size of San Francisco. So...I think these guys had their evil focused on San Francisco and that would have to mean Treasure Island Media and Paul Morris. There's no other good reason. They'd already done all they could to L.A., and that wasn't enough for them, evidently.
The Aids Healthcare Foundation (AHF) was listed prominently (in the voter's pamphlet) among those arguing in favor Prop. 60's passage. Their opponents have argued that the proposal is poorly written and would open the door to a culture of endless litigation and they are correct. Workplace safety? Well, then, let's ban kissing in all film production since disease is widely spread through oral communication, probably the most common way of transmitting disease. Should we shut down California's film industry because of kissing's way of spreading disease? Alas, Prop. 60 is probably going to pass because it is logical for people to conclude that we need to protect the health of porn actors. Keep in mind that these people believe that porn performers are victims, exploited by pornographers. I know. For all its hipness, California can be just as obtuse as Kansas when it comes to sex. We porn performers know what we're doing. My buddy, the late Bill Gardner of Hot Desert Knights, was asked how he found his actors. His reply, of course, was, 'hell, they find us!'
The Aids Healthcare Foundation is also involved in Prop. 61, a measure that deals with the price of certain medications and an issue on which I have no business voting. Anybody who's not a healthcare professional has no business voting on Prop. 61. But the pharmaceutical companies with their megabucks are going to kill Prop. 61. They enlisted the cooperation of veterans groups, and this Prop. 61 will fail. Now their mailer has a very unflattering image of this Michael Weinstein character, the face of the Aids Healthcare Foundation, and it's not pretty. So, maybe, Prop. 61's slide into the toilet, might help flush Prop. 60, but only maybe.
And oh yeah, I took great pleasure in voting against Prop. 61, too. So for those Californians out there who haven't voted yet...please vote...NO...on Proposition 60 and 61.