Agricultural Inspection

I drove home from Las Vegas last night. For those who have never driven into California before, there are agriculture inspection points where they, probably ineffectively, check for fruits and vegetables traveling into the state. I suppose they check big trucks and things more closely than small cars, but all they ever do when I stop is ask, "Do you have any fruits or vegetables with you?" I reply "No" and drive on...

So last night, I stop at the check-point, roll down my window, and hear this:

Balding old man with a beer gut: Am I speaking with Venus?

Me: Ummmmm....no...

BOMwaBG: (laughing to himself about his clever line) You mean you're not a goddess? Heh... Do you have any fruits or vegetables with you?

Me: Nope

BOMwaBG: Alright, well, you should really wear shades because those eyes could knock a guy over... (laughing again at his second clever line - please note that it was 8pm and pitch black outside)

Me: (awkward laugh...then drive away fast)

Also, when driving to Las Vegas, I saw a billboard giving me a phone number to call if I suspect human trafficking. I subsequently spent the rest of my time in Vegas suspicious of every windowless van and unmarked truck. What qualifies as "suspecting" trafficking? Cause I'm pretty sure they didn't want phone calls about all the unmarked trucks in Vegas...

Sometimes Pitchfork is right

In this case, they are correct in labeling this news story as "WTF." Susan Sarandon joined of Montreal on stage to spank men dressed as pigs and throw streamers into the audience. I heard she recently broke up with (former) life parter Tim Robbins. Either this is part of a life crisis she is going through, or she is amazing, and it's Tim Robbins's big time loss.

Also on the same Pitchfork news post is Solange (Beyonce's sister) singing with them on a Jackson 5 cover. Supposedly she sings on the new album, too. Sort of an odd mix, to me, but Kevin Barnes is just constantly trying to outdo whatever he did last time. So I guess while it is in fact deservedly tagged "WTF," that's also expected from this band... And most of the time I end up loving them for it.

Finally - Kevin Barnes with beard also throws me. When I think of his glam costumes and rocker-style combover (comb-forward?), the beard doesn't quite fit.

Love/Hate

Reason to love LA: when something happens that warrants charity concerts, they are all over the city. Fiona Apple with Jon Brion and Gillian Welch (and others) on Saturday. Radiohead benefit show on Sunday. Jenny Lewis and Azure Ray (and others) on Tuesday.

Reason to hate LA: Fiona Apple show sold out before I even heard about it. Radiohead is selling tickets auction style to raise the most money. That makes a lot of sense from a charity standpoint, but also means that I can't afford tickets. So while I have the potential to actually go to these shows because of geography, the whole population of LA also has that potential...and apparently doesn't have a low-paying day job that keeps them from affording the tickets and from hearing of the shows in time to even buy them.

Pitchfork is wrong

Pitchfork just reviewed Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros - Up From Below. They are wrong. They gave it a 4.1 and basically said it was boring. It reads mostly as a review/judgement on the lead singer Alex Ebert for changing from a punk band to this. The reviewer didn't like Ima Robot (Ebert's former band) and started the review already hating this album for the basis under which it came about.

Well, boo. This is why my music "reviews" don't give much backstory. I just listen to music and either like it or don't. Cause when you get into the "he used to do poor 'jerk-punk' and now he's a hippy" sorts of things, it taints otherwise great and fun music. Really that's why I love Edward Sharpe. It's music that makes me feel good and happy, and their live sets makes me want to be dancing on stage with them. I don't care what was when it comes to music. I just care what is.

(And yes, this post was basically a review of a review.)

LA Stereotypes - in the flesh

I was at LAX the other day waiting to board my flight, and I sat next to the girl everyone hates about LA. Interestingly, she was actually only in town to visit her boyfriend. She is not from LA. More evidence that people's LA biases are not always accurate.

Anyway, this girl was on the phone with her boyfriend when I sat down. I made it in time for this part of the conversation: "No, I love YOU more. No, I love YOUR family more!"

Then I noticed her hair. It was pulled back into a messy ponytail. Dyed blonde, of course. And then...I saw...hair extensions. Not just the presence of hair extensions, but I could clearly the see the portion of the side of her head where fake hair had been woven in and attached to her real hair. This part.

So she finished her lovey dovey conversation with the boyfriend and immediately makes another phone call. This one to a friend who is also a friend of the boyfriend. Here are a few great quotes from that phone call:

• You and me are good friends, so I value your advice.
• He only treats me right when he's drunk or taking pills...but I shouldn't break up with him, right?
• I came out to visit him, and he stayed on the couch and did nothing the whole time.
• (Re: BF's date to a NYE party that she could not attend) Is she pretty? Is she prettier than me? Tell me the truth...
• Did he lose his job? Cause the whole time I was there he was just on the couch and didn't go to work once.
• (Pleading with friend to stay on the phone) One more question - does he think I'm crazy/psycho because I got his phone and texted that girl not to text him anymore?

So she's in such a good relationship that she's not sure if he has a job or not - and doesn't want to ask him directly. But she shouldn't break up with him, right? And they clearly really really love each other...

Absurd is the Word

And then I read another...

Beyond some of his interesting opinions about adjustment of children raised by homosexual couples, it is noteworthy that Dr. Lamb based his expert testimony solely on research documents completed by others, as he has never completed a single study of his own on the subject. Despite being offered as an expert in this case, he is not actually a clinical psychologist. He has never treated children raised by gay couples. In fact he has never treated a patient at all. He’s never interviewed a single child raised by gay men or lesbians, and his last interview of any child was more than 20 years ago.

This time...being an expert does not mean you have to be a clinical psychologist. He was introduced as a developmental psychologist. Developmental psychologists are experts in, surprise surprise, the development of children. His testimony on the development of children in heterosexual and homosexual households is based on that expertise. Treating children (or patients 'at all') is not required in order to have expertise in development. Additionally, perhaps children of gay couples don't need "treatment." :) I can't speak to this witness's level of expertise because I don't have enough information, but saying he's not an expert because he hasn't treated children and isn't a clinical psychologist is again, absurd.

More Prop 8

I've been trying to stay "balanced" in the information that I get about the Prop 8 trial, so I'm reading blogs on a daily basis summarizing the day - from each side. I'm focusing mostly on the Protect Marriage blog and the Trial Tracker created by the Courage Campaign.

A post today on Protect Marriage's blog frustrated me so much, I wanted to respond. But of course, they have closed comments on the blog. So instead I will just comment here. You can read the full post from the link above, but the part that gets me the most is where they mock the idea that homosexuality deserves to be treated by the courts as a suspect class.

Testimony this afternoon from yet another academician and anti-Prop 8 donor stated homosexuals have a higher rate of mental disorders than the general population due to the stress caused by supposed stigmatization of being gay (though he admitted that his studies of social and minority stress is at odds with several other studies on the issue). This stress, presumably, justifies designating gays and lesbians as a suspect class entitled to special legal protections that make it easier for Judge Walker to issue a ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. By that reasoning, I couldn’t help but think of other groups of people who might feel stress over social stigmatization. Are obese people a special legal class? Stutterers? Exceptionally tall people? If an exceptionally tall, stuttering, obese gay couple was really stressed out over the passage of Prop 8, does that increase the chances that the measure is unconstitutional?

No. The answer to the absurd question is no. How pathetic is this guy that he is stooping to these comments that dumb people will just simply believe. Sorry Counselor, I'm not sure what law school you went to, but since Prop 8 has nothing to do with obesity, height, or speech, then those features would not impact the constitutionality of that measure. But let's use your own example. Let's say there were a measure that denied obese people the right to marry. I mean, come on - let's protect our children from learning poor eating and exercise habits that would make them obese as well. We wouldn't want our children to think that marriage between obese individuals was ok or else they might decide it's ok to become obese themselves, and we know all the negative health and emotional consequences of obesity. Doesn't the bible also condemn gluttony? Would you say that measure was constitutional? Because these are the same arguments being made about gay marriage. Take a step back and just see how absurd it is.