To Deb

Lily,

I just sent you a PM test message to see if it goes through. Let me know if you get it.

I couldn't find any kind of button that would accidently put you on "ignore" -- so I can't imagine why I didn't get your messages.

--Debutante

Lily,

What are you talking about? I'm confused.

--Debutante

Lily,

Okay...I see what you meant. You're not from Chicago -- so you wouldn't know.


Mike Royko was a famous Chicago columnist who nicknamed Jerry Brown "Governor Moonbeam" way back in 1976. Out here, nobody refers to him as anything else. To tell you the truth -- I actually had to Google his real name because I've been calling him "Moonbeam" just like everyone else in Chicago so long I couldn't even remember his real name. Truthfully, I doubt most Chicagoans probably couldn't either. It goes along with the "Land of Fruits and Nuts".


www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07mckinley.html


But I stand by my opinion of him in regard to that stupid law he put in effect. It is moronic that an HIV positive person does not have to inform a potential partner of his/her status.

I don't care if it is "treatable" or not. It's still a disease that must be dealt with in terms of expense and physical toll on the body. Nobody has a "right" to expose anyone else to potential infection despite what"Moonbeam" believes. It's one thing if a person has this disease and isn't aware of it and unknowingly infects someone else -- quite another if they knowingly and deliberately infect others without their knowledge and consent. The latter should be considered a criminal act.

I don't think "Moonbeam" and his ilk have any business making a law justifying selfish behaviors that affect the health of other people.

If I lived in California and had children of dating age -- I'd be picketing outside "Moonbeam's" home 24/7 with like-minded people and following him everywhere he went until that was repealed.

I am shocked that the medical professionals in California let "political correctness" take precedence over the well-being and health of the people. They should have been the ones to protest this even if it meant going on strike.

It's a BAD piece of legislation and should never have been passed. I feel sorry for the young people in California even if I do think they are mostly nuts.

--Debutante

Lily,

No. But things were different in my day. We were pressured, but the fellows usually didn't start pressuring until they knew us for a long time. It's my understanding that now young men expect sex by the third date (in a pig's ass!)

I don't know what the heck went wrong. I have actually heard some of Alison's friends say that unless they give in they will never get asked out on dates AT ALL. What kind of a world is it out there?

But I wouldn't put it past people to lie. Alison tells this story about two girls she knows who were BEST FRIENDS mind you -- and both of them were sleeping with the same guy and neither of them knew it because the jerk made them swear the so-called "relationship" to secrecy. I forgot how she said they finally found out about one another. She said they went to the guy's apartment together and beat the hell out of him. One of them stole his TV. I don't quite "get" what that was supposed to do -- but I suppose the girl felt "revenged".

But you've got to wonder what the heck the young people in California were thinking to let that law get through legislation. Now there is nothing to stop someone with HIV from going around willy-nilly spreading the disease to whomever he can lie himself/herself into bed with.

And where are the parents of these young people? Where are the mothers? Aren't they worried about their sons and daughters? Is everybody in California out of their mind?

HIV can be treated and yes, it is not as "fatal" as it used to be -- but people still get very, very sick. So why would the government pass a law allowing people to spread it at will?

--Debutante