Leave Arizona Alone!

I'm so confused by the reaction to this immigration status law that passed in Arizona that I really don't know what to think anymore. I have been completely surprised at the majority of the reactions that I've been hearing. I've even had at least one really close friend join some dumbass anti-racism group on freaking Facebook protesting this law. And this is a person who is extremely educated and extremely sane. I'm completely blown away. Let's review a couple of things, shall we?

If you're in this country illegally, you're breaking the law. Period. There's no way around this fact. To say that "most" of the illegals are law-abiding individuals is completely false. They're breaking the law by being here illegally. That's not law-abiding.

From New American, we learn that Phoenix has averaged a kidnapping a day in recent years, the AP reports, with some resulting in torture and death. A kidnapping per day? Really? Yep. Many of these kidnappings are fueled by the illegal drug trade which has wandered its way across the border and into Phoenix. And that makes Phoenix the kidnapping capital of the United States. U-S-A! U-S-A!!

Now, if you just listen to East Cost media, you'll think that there is no one in the country, sans Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who is in favor of this new law. Not quite. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey showed that "...70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it." Seventy percent of the people IN the state where the law is are just fine and dandy with it. (I'd really like to know what is up with the other 7% that weren't represented by a yes or a no answer. Who can't answer yes or no to a simple question like that?) Why is that figure not reported more often? Because that wouldn't fit the narrative of what the media wants you to believe.

Granted, that's just the voters in Arizona. What about the rest of the country? Well, again, according to a Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, when people were asked "Do you favor or oppose legislation that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant?" 60% of them said that they were in FAVOR of it. Only 31% said that they opposed it and the rest said that they weren't sure. Even with the sampling error of +/- 3%, that's still a majority of 57% in favor of it at the very least. And that's nationwide.

The next person who is within an arm's length of me that says "We're a nation of immigrants" is going to get punched. I'm going to point out again that when this great nation was being built, it's not like just anyone was allowed to come in. At the whole Ellis Island checkpoint thing, they checked to make sure you had either money, a job, or relatives over here. THEN they asked you a series of 29 questions. I'm pretty sure that there was some sort of health screening involved. The point here is that they did not let people just wander on over simply because they wanted to!

Next in line of people that I'd like to punch would be anyone suggesting any sort of a boycott of anything having to do with Arizona. I've mentioned this before, but because of the number of softheads that have crawled out of the woodwork (as they so often do when needed legislation is passed) I'm going to mention it again. Boycotts rarely work. I can cite the Montgomery bus boycott as an effective boycott that took place in this country. I am hard pressed to come up with another one, probably because there aren't any. Getting a boycott to actually accomplish something is extremely difficult. The main problem is having enough people all on the same page. Do you think that you can get anyone in the year 2010 to be on the same page as someone else? Highly unlikely. While you're explaining which page to go to, they're updating their Facebook. It's a lost cause.

But here's the most ridiculous idea for a boycott against Arizona that I have heard so far. According to the huffy folks over at the Huffington Post, "An initiative apparently started on the Internet asks people to boycott the AriZona Beverage Co. because of claims the law will unfairly target Hispanics." Wait. What now?

They want people to stop buying AriZona Iced Tea products? Look, the stuff isn't that great to begin with, but that's not the point. The point is that it's only A NAME! You nimrods! AriZona Beverage Co. is based in Woodbury, 20 miles east of New York City! According to the article "Chairman Don Vultaggio says it was started by "two hardworking guys from Brooklyn" in 1992 and has always been in New York." Good Lord....

This is how some people are choosing to make a statement? By not buying cold beverages from a company that has nothing to do with the law OR the state? Are you the type of people who tell people not to ever buy sheets from bedding manufacturers because you're against the Ku Klux Klan? (They still use the sheets, right? That's still a Klan staple? I'm really not sure. I've never been real up on my Klan references. And these days, when you're looking to make a racist analogy, everyone automatically reaches for Hitler, so I'm a little fuzzy on the Klan. But I'm sure you understand my point.) Are you people going to boycott the NFL's Arizona Cardinals? What about the Arizona Diamondbacks? Are the Phoenix Suns out as well? Seriously, what is wrong with you?

This law wasn't something that was just thought up and passed overnight. No, it was passed because there was a need for it. It was a need that the Federal government refused to address. Governor Brewer had written at least FIVE letters over the past two years (so those of you that want to blame Bush for everything, make sure that you realize that President Barry ignored her letters, too) to the White House explaining that they needed some help to combat the illegal immigration problem that was occurring in Arizona. She never received a reply. Not ONE. Just completely ignored. If the Federal government wasn't going to do the job that it is supposed to do, then Arizona was going to take care of itself. And I'm glad that it did. Come on, California. Stop being such a wuss and do the same thing.

They're Not Immigrants; They're Illegals!

A whole bunch of people have their shorts in a wad over a new law that was just recently passed and signed into law in Arizona. See, the law makes it illegal to be in this country illegally. And that makes some people (I'm guessing the softheaded ones AND the ones who ARE here illegally) angry. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to CBS, "...country civil rights advocates are protesting the immigration law with rallies and boycotts" because "They fear the new law will lead to harassment and racial profiling." Uhh, really? Have they read the law and what it entails? Or are they whining? I'm guessing whining. Let's take a look.

The law makes it "...a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally." Now, the fact that a law like this is even necessary is what should be drawing protesters. But, no. No, instead people are protesting. Go figure. The law also says that "Police will also now be able to ask anyone to prove their legal status by demanding to see a valid I.D. Violators could be arrested and sent to jail for up to 6 months." Oh, no! Are they kidding?! People will be made to produce a valid ID?? To prove that they are legally allowed to be in this country? Who came up with such madness?!

One of those who is against this is a one Julie Gonzales who with with something called Reform Immigration for America. (How ironic. This law seems to aim to do just that. Yet she's against it. Shocking.) She said, "Immigrant communities and Chicano communities across the state of Arizona are in a state of terror." Hmm. I don't think that they are. I really don't. Now, I would be more inclined to believe her if she had said that illegal immigrant communities were afraid. Sure, because THAT would make SENSE. But the thought that those who have immigrated here legally would be afraid? That's kooky talk, right there.

Ms. Gonzales claims that "Along with planning a May 1 rally they are preparing for Arizona families to flee and seek refuge in Colorado." Really? They think that folks that are in Arizona illegally are going to flee to Colorado? Huh. Good news for the legal residents of Arizona. And even better news for the legal residents of California, as we have our own illegal immigration issues here. We don't need any refugees from...Arizona? (I can't believe I just wrote that.)

Ms. Gonzales also said that, "We know that at least one family has come to Colorado, brought their families, dropped everything and left because there is such a state of panic." OK, that sentence doesn't even really make sense to me. But I find it highly amusing that because she knows of ONE family that bailed, that means that EVERYONE is going to be doing it. Sure. That's going to happen. Way to go, Arizona. I wish California had your guts.

Now, I realize that protesting this sort of law sounds ridiculous. That's because it IS ridiculous. But I didn't realize that not only were the softheads (and illegals) going to be out there saying how unfair it it, that one of the people who would be joining them, in essence, would be President Barry. What the what?! That's right. According to another one of the alphabet networks, ABC is reporting that President Barry said that he "...instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation." Really? Has he not been briefed on what illegal immigration is and why it's a bad thing? Did he miss that part? I mean, he's really busy and all. I get that. But I was unaware that the civil rights that are afforded to citizens were now being afforded to people who are not only not citizens, but who are breaking the law as well. When did that start happening?

Perhaps President Barry should come out and live in some of these communities for a little while so that he can get a better idea of exactly how illegal immigration affects the lifestyles of those who are legal residents. California has almost three million illegal residents. With a statewide population of about 33,000,000, that's ten percent. Are you freaking kidding me?! Ten percent?! Do you know how much money is spent on this ten percent? A ridiculous amount. Oh, but that's OK because California has plenty of money just oozing all over the place, right? Uh, not exactly. The state is damn near broke. Yeah, that's right. It's a problem.

We are the only country in the world that deals with people who do not have a legal right to be in this country the way that we do. You might recall that those two American journalists who were allegedly on the wrong side of the border in North Korea were arrested, put on "trial" and ultimately sentenced to twelve years in a North Korean prison before ol' Willie Jeff Clinton went over and secured their release. They weren't living in North Korea. At the most, they were walking in North Korea. And they were looking at twelve years in jail! This country has people LIVING here without permission and we're supposed to be cool with that? I'm sorry, but I'm not. This law doesn't go too far. This law doesn't go far enough.

Childhood Obesity Is Fueled By Toys

We're doomed. Doomed. Once again, leave it to a county in California to be introduced a bill that "If it is passed, this would be the first such legislation in the nation." California: Leading the way to making sure that no one is responsible for themselves anymore. And we're going to be pushed further down that path by making sure that there is not, of all things, a toy in a child's fast food meal. Of course. No, wait. What now?

Correct. According to the fine folks over there at KGO-TV, "A Santa Clara County lawmaker will introduce legislation to stop restaurants from handing out toys with fast food menu items geared toward children." OK, then. Almost all I have to say is that this guy had better not be a SCC lawmaker for very much longer. Are you freaking kidding me?!

Let's hear the lame ass justification for this waste of time and money effort, shall we? According to a one Ken Yeager, the apparent dip ass behind this measure, "One in three kids are overweight or are obese, and we're finding out more and more that if you're obese as a child, you're going to have health problems your entire life." Hmm. I don't disagree with that statement, but I kind of doubt that we're "just finding out" that a fat kid is going to make for an unhealthy adult. That seems to be a stretch. I also highly doubt that the one in three kids that is overweight is in that condition because they received a little plastic R2D2 with their burger. I highly doubt that.

Yeager claims that "Ten out of 12 meals that are associated with the promotional toys are the high-caloric, high-fat, high-sodium meals." First of all, which 12 meals are we talking about here? There aren't 12 meals with toys that are available at just one chain, so what is he talking about? Sadly, due to extremely poor reporting, this question isn't answered.

Also, how many meals that are not associated with a promotional toy (ie, the ones that aren't "for children") are "high-caloric, high-fat, high-sodium" meals? At a fast food place? I'm guessing most of them or at the very least, half of them. It's fast food, for cryin' out loud. But again, sadly, due to poor reporting, this aspect is not further explored.

Supervisor Yeager wants his proposed ordinance to regulate "...fast food restaurants' ability to offer toys or other incentives with kids' meals." Um..."other incentives"? What are "other incentives" when you're buying a sack of toy-laden fast food? What other incentives would their be? NOT being hungry when you're done? That's an incentive, all right, but regulating "an end to hunger" seems odd. What other incentives could he be referring to? Hookers? Can they give out hookers? That'd be an incentive, but probably not for children. Hmm. This is a head scratcher, all right.

Wait! I just came up with one! When I buy Coca-Cola products, there is a little code inside of the 12-pack that will give me My Coke Rewards Points when I enter the codes online. If I save up enough points, I can buy a Coke logo emblazoned yacht or something similar from the Coca-Cola store. I guess those points would be considered an "incentive" to buy Coca-Cola products (that and a really strong desire for the unattainable goal of purchasing a Coke yacht). And since regular sodas are filled with at least one five pound bag of sugar per 12 ounce can (so I've heard from the anti-soda groups), those points are making kids who drink those products obese. Is Mr. Yeager proposing not allowing the sale of any products from various carbonated beverage manufacturers who use promotional gimmicks to sell us their "liquid death"? Of course he isn't. Has he suggested such a measure? Of course he hasn't. You know why? Because it would be idiotic, that is correct. (My words, not his. Given that he wants the "no toy" ban to be in effect, he'll probably consider this scenario next.)

Of course, this must make sense to Mr. Yeager because, as we all know, if a child wants something, it is the duty of the parent to immediately purchase that which the child wants immediately. Thus, if the child wants the high calorie, high fat, high sodium, very tasty meal with a toy in it, well, the parent will have to buy that child the meal, no questions asked! And we also all know that you must take your children to have fast food all of the time when they are little. That must be the case because, if kids are as fat as Mr. Yeager says that they are and that the meals with toys are to blame, then those kids must be eating that stuff morning, noon and night. It's a shame, really. (God, what a moron.)

Let me just briefly summarize what this Yeager fellow thinks is a good idea, OK? He thinks that it's a good idea for the government to tell companies that they cannot put a toy in with a kid's meal. That's right. A toy. He believes this to be the solution to childhood obesity, for some reason. So rather than let parents regulate the food intake of their own children, Mr. Yeager believes it is best if the government takes AWAY choices from people in order to get them to make what the government believes to be the right choice. Sure, that sounds like the America I know.

Mr. Yeager, I'm going to present you with an alternative. How about, instead of taking out the toy, you let the fast food companies leave the toy in. But instead of just handing the food to the child (or the parent, wherever they are in this scenario. From what I can tell, these fast food places are in some sort of Lord of the Flies scenario, as good parenting versus bad parenting doesn't seem to be a factor), how about you have the kid run around the restaurant three times before he can get his food? The parent places the order at the drive-thru speaker, pulls up to the first window and then lets the kids out of the car. The kids then sprint around some sort of Olympic sized track and when they finally make it to the finish line (assuming that they do), they get their meal AND their toy handed to them for them to enjoy. It seems reasonable. They'll have gotten some exercise (which we all know they don't get enough of) and they'll still get fed. It'll balance out. The yin and the yang. I can support installing Olympic sized running tracks around all of the McDonald's in the county. THAT I could support. Banning companies from putting a toy in the meals for kids? You've gotta be dry shavin' me.

Now We Know What's In The Bill. Or Do We?

Here are four words I never thought I'd think, much less type: Nancy Pelosi was right.

On March 9, 2010, Speaker Pelosi (who I'm pretty sure is missing a human soul and warms her body by sunning herself on a rock) gave a little speech to the Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties and during said speech, she actually said what I thought might have been the most ridiculous thing to ever come out of her mouth. She said, in reference to the then-pending health care bill, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". Um, what now?

That's what she said. I swear. The text of the entire speech is over at her website. That particular little gem is about six paragraphs up from the bottom. But it turns out, she was right. How did I determine that? I came to that conclusion after reading an article by the extremely talented reporter William La Jeunesse of Fox News. The article outlined a provision of the bill, which is now law, called the Class Act, "...otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act" which "...is the federal government's first long-term care insurance program."

Now, why we didn't hear about this beforehand is beyond me. No, wait. No, it's not. We didn't hear about it because people out there in the media are simply not doing their jobs. It's not like this bill wasn't available for review beforehand. (Right? It was available, right?) Granted, the thing clocked in at over 2,000 pages long. Am I supposed to read all of those 2,000 pages? Technically, I think that I should want to. And don't get me wrong, I DO want to want to. I DON'T want to, though. But again, technically, I don't think that I should have to. (Don't get me started on how I don't think that ANYTHING should be 2,000 pages long, unless it's a document telling me how great I am, and even then that would be pushing it. My greatness can easily be summed up in a thousand pages or so.) It's not my JOB to read the damn thing. That's the job of the media. Their job is to report. They can't report unless they know what they're reporting on. The only way to know that is to do their damn job and read all 2,000 freaking pages. But no one did, otherwise we would have heard about this before now.

Ready for this? I hope you're either sitting down or sharpening your pitchfork tines. "...The program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care." Wait. What now? How much? A month?!

Now, call me silly, but can't you get long term care from the insurance that you're already supposed to be mandated to be purchasing thanks to the passage of the health care bill? I'm thinking that something along those lines would make the most sense. Ohh. That's why they didn't do it that way. It would have made sense. Carry on.

Now, this is a policy where you are automatically opted into unless you opt out. That is the complete opposite of what I thought that things were supposed to be being done. I thought it was supposed to be that you were automatically opted out of something unless you wanted to opt in. Oh, right. That's for things that the federal government isn't trying to siphon money from you for. Got it.

According to William's article, here are some of the more pressing details that you need to know about:

The deduction will work on a sliding scale based on age. Younger workers will be charged less, older workers more. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the average monthly deduction at $146. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put it higher, at $240. Wait. The CBO and the Medicare/Medicaid folks have figures that differ in cost of around a hundred bucks? Shocking, I know. Who am I going to believe? I'm going to go with the Medicare/Medicaid folks, as they are already ridiculously underpaid, thus the CBO's low estimate would seem to be wrong, all things considered. I'm also going to with with how that seems like an awful lot of money to be deducted monthly from folks. (And just remember, those figures are an "average". That means that some people will pay more than that and some people will pay less than that. My guess is that some people will pay much, much less.)

After a five-year vesting period, enrollees who need help bathing, eating or dressing will be eligible to take out benefits, estimated to be around $75 a day for in-home care. Only a five year vesting period? And then you're good? How do they figure that? By my calculations (and I'll go with the higher figure just to give them the benefit of the doubt), if you're paying in $240 a month, after five years, you'll have contributed $14,400. At benefits of $75 a day that you can tap if you need to after those five years, you'll have yourself a whopping 192 days of care. That's not a full year. That's barely over six months. Now, I don't know what your definition of "long term care" is, but mine is definitely more than six months. Six months isn't what I'd call "long term". Six months is "just gettin' started".

Here's the other frightening part of this: The money that is put into this fund (generously and likely erroneously estimated to be $109 billion in collected premiums by 2019 after being implemented as early as 2012) will not be in a "lockbox" sort of situation. No, it's going to be more of a general fund sort of situation. You know how Social Security money is supposed to be just for Social Security? You know how the Social Security funds have been tapped by everything else AND how it will give out more than it takes in next year? You know how that works? Sure you do. Now, do you expect that this thing will work any differently? Of course you don't. Thus, it's going to end up being what? A mitigated disaster, that is correct.

Of course "The statute says the program is designed to be self-sustaining, with an advisory board to assure the fund remains solvent. But opponents say the fine print already tells another story. Unless modifications are made, according to a CBO analysis of the bill, "the program will add to future federal budget deficits in a large and growing fashion." Sounds great. Good thing that this was passed into law so that we could find out that this was in it!

Since I enjoy math and numbers, let's look at a few more, shall we? If this thing starts in 2012, $109 billion in premiums by 2019 equals out to be $15.57 billion a year. If folks are paying $240 a month, that's 5,228,125 people needed to sustain that figure. If folks are paying $146 a year, that's 8,594,178 people needed to sustain that figure. That's a difference of 3,366,053 people. Um, that's kind of a lot. How do they figure this is going to work? AT ALL! And let's not forget, those are the figures to make it all work out without money being drawn out of the fund. Those are just the numbers for money being theoretically deposited into the fund.

But let's say you participate in this charade starting from the time you're 20. And let's say that you're paying the low, low rate of $146 a month. Fast forward forty five years. You're now sixty five and you're going to retire. You'll have amassed for yourself, after forty five years of paying premiums and at the flex-rate of $75 per day allotted to you for long term care, a whopping three years of long term care. Three. Forty five years, $146 a month for a total of $78,840. That gets you three years of in-home long term care. That doesn't seem like a lot to me. Wouldn't you be better off taking that $146 and investing it somewhere or even setting up a 401k type of dealio so that you can take care of your own expenses? Wouldn't that $146 amount to a hell of a lot more than the $78,840 after 45 years? I'm kind of thinking that it would.

This is ridiculous. And it's now law. Congratulations, Nancy Pelosi. Thanks for saddling the country with another obligation that it cannot afford. What in the hell happened to people taking care of themselves when they retire anyway? (Has she not noticed the high unemployment rate which is still besieging the country? Perhaps she has overlooked the still sagging economy? The perpetually high foreclosure rate? And she's thinking that folks in "times like these" are going to be OK with forking over another $200 a month? Not to be unjustifiably disrespectful to the soulless snake, but she's high.)

I don't say things like this very often, but please read William's article and pass it along to your friends. I guarantee that the majority of them, if not all of them, have never heard a single word about this. I guarantee that the majority of them have no idea that they've already been opted into a plan that is going to cost them a minimum of $146 a month unless they opt out. And again, the reason that people don't know this is because people in the media are not doing their job. Well, except for William. William rocks at his job. But everyone else just sucks. I can't wait to find out what else is in the bill now that it's passed into law. How exciting!

That's A Wrap!

Since I was just going on about one of the very many ridiculous bills that California legislators attempt to get passed into law, I might as well keep going and address an article which appeared in the LA Times and informs us that state regulators will be creating an advisory committee because they want to consider increasing the regulation of the porn industry in California. That's right. They want to mandate "....the use of condoms and testing for sexually transmitted diseases." Uh-huh. Wait. Condoms?

That's right. Condoms. They want porn stars to wear condoms. Wow. How hot. Or not. What is wrong with people?!!? Leave porn alone!

Now, the state regulators want to hear from the porn industry on what they think about all of this regulation. According to a one Jonathan Frisch, principal risk manager at PG&E (Wait. PG&E? The utility company?! Why is the risk manager of the power company weighing in on the porn regulation issue? What in the heck is going on over there at PG&E anyway?!), "It's going to be very, very important that we do have them at the table." At the table. In the shower. On the hood of a convertible. In a stable. All very, very important. Yeah, we know.

According to a one former porn participant Darren James, "...who tested HIV-positive during a 2004 outbreak in the San Fernando Valley's porn community (if you picked up on the key phrase there being "porn community" then I think you're a bit more understanding of how there could be an HIV outbreak in 2004) "You think you're safe, but you're not. In between scenes, you don't know what other actors are doing." Do I think about what the other actors are doing between scenes? I never have before. Is he saying that in between all of the filmed fornication that there is more fornication going on? Freelance fornication?! I've heard of taking your work home with you and stuff, but I guess I didn't figure that it included porn folks as well. Huh. Learn something new...

Mr. James was speaking before the board a crowd of about 40 at Costa Mesa City Hall. I'm not sure what the crowd was doing there. Then again, I'm not sure that 40 constitutes a crowd. Whatever it is, at one point, he turned to the 40 folks and said, "I'm living your nightmare every day." He is? My nightmare changes from day to day and I don't think that he's living any of them. It's a nightmare if I don't get my trash cans to the curb on trash day. Is that what he means? It seems awfully different, so I don't think it is. How is an ex-porn star who contracted HIV during the Great Breakout of 2004 living my nightmare?

But here's the apex of all of this insanity. A one Dr. Robert Kim-Farley, of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (and someone who has clearly never had much of an interest in watching porn), recommended "...the board mandate condom use and require the adult film industry to pay for testing." Condom use. In porn. Mandated. Great. Does he not know that people are not a big fan of the condom in general? They're certainly not a fan of the condom in porn. No one wants their porn to have a responsible feel to it. If that was going to be the case, then everyone would finally be able to come out of their darkened basements (or sex dens, dungeons, whatever) and not feel their current shame. Actually, strike that. They should be more ashamed if they're watching porn with condoms. Back to the basements, weirdos!

Dr. Kim-Farley (no relation to Chris Farley from what I can tell) also stated the obvious by saying that "Infection rates for chlamydia and gonorrhea...are seven times higher in the porn industry than in the general population, and as many as a quarter of porn performers are diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease in any given year." Hmmm. I wonder if all of the wild sex that they're having in front of cameras and for a pittance has anything to do with it. OK, the pittance is irrelevant, as is the cameras. Let's just try and focus on the ridiculous amount of sex that they have and why they're having it, shall we? Yeah, it's a wonder some of the guys don't insert Tab A into Slot B and just spontaneously combust.

After the vote, Mr. James voiced his opinion saying that "...he wished more hard-core porn actors had come forward to tell their stories." Trust me. So do some people on that board. He also derided the board for taking so long (something that I thought was a boon in the porn industry) by saying, "They need to do more. They should have done this years ago." Dude, I don't mean to judge (or maybe I do; you don't know), but no one forced you to do porn. You say that they should have done more, but in reality, couldn't you have done less? As in less porn?!

I don't know how much money California already makes from the porn industry, but I'll tell you this much: The state needs every freaking penny that it can scrounge up from wherever it can. However much money the state makes from porn, it needs it. And what will happen if this advisory board makes porn actors in California start wearing condoms? That's right. The porn industry will pack up their unmentionables and go film the unwatchable with all of their unsheathed penises (penii?) in another state. And they'll take the state's revenue with them. A brilliant idea, California. Simply brilliant. As if it isn't hard enough to start or run a business in this state, please, go ahead and make it more difficult for an industry that fueled the development of the Internet! The porn industry makes money hand over fist (pun totally intended) and California needs that money. Please don't make it harder (pun intended again) and force them to pull out early (can't stop myself).