THE list.

You know what I'm talking about. THE. LIST. That mental sheet of celebrity names you keep in the back of your head - the names of people which you would gladly sleep with, despite that awesome relationship with your partner. THE LIST!

One night during my sophomore year of college, I was having an IM session with my friend Jon, who lives in San Francisco. I don't remember most of the details, except that somehow we started claiming female celebrities. I'm sure the conversation began with us bemoaning our lack of girlfriends. He claimed one, and then I claimed one, and after we each had our top 10, and I figured the conversation would change onto something more ... meaningful? we kept going. This turned into a three hour conversation, and each of us with a list of over 100 celebrities that we had "claimed," like gold stakes in the Yukon. Were we serious? Of course not. Was it my proudest moment? Hell no. Was it fun in a crazy, competitive, once-in-a-lifetime kind of way? YOU. BET.

At the time, I was severely depressed - I had just been left (repeatedly) by my first love, who moved from Oregon to Wyoming in an attempt to find Jesus ... again. (remember my "that's a story for another time" comment on my last post? She's who I meant) And while Oregon is apparently a very gay state, Salem is not a very gay town. And my university (at the time) was not a very gay university. So I spent the next 3 years being very celibate and very lonely. Ergo, the cultivation of my list served as sustenance through some very, very dry years.

And I thought I was being all creative ... I thought I was the only one to have list, chiefly because (at the time) I was the only one I knew who needed a list! But it was a lie! Once I left college, I realized that *everyone* has a list, whether they're in relationships or not. Not only that, their partners have their own set of lists, and it's just generally understood that if either person were to have that one in a billion opportunity of having a romantic night with any person on their list, the walls of fidelity would dissipate for that one night. Especially if the same person is on BOTH lists ... talk about a night to remember.

Am I serious about this? Yes, in the sense that lists exists. No, to the extent that anyone would actually fulfill the purpose of the list or even be in the situation where fidelity would need to be broken. It's a game. It's a fun, fun, FUN game. Yet one that can add a certain something for certain people. For example, me. As the passionate, independent, and loyal person that I am, having a list fuels my imagination - but when my partner has a list, I suddenly have something to compete for, in a non-realistic, non-threatening way. And the only thing Aries love more than independence, is competition - but not forced competition. I get more creative, more flirty, more saucy if I know I have something to compete with, though again, not something real. It adds spice and character and invention. Not to mention the fact that The List can help level the playing field. We're all human, we have foibles and weaknesses - how better to express that in a non-actual way, than with a list. The worst is finding out that while your list is active and fun, your partners' is non-existent. You want to talk about kill-joy. The subtext then becomes "I don't look at anyone else but you," (which is almost always a lie, to some degree or other) and boy does one feel like an ass if one's on the other side of this scenario. And I have been.

So with all that in mind, I admit that I totally have a list. It rotates between 5-10 people, for various reasons. Oh ... what's that? You want to know who's on my list?? Oh. You don't.

Well ... I'm going to tell you anyway. (It's really the inspiration for this post, you know...)

Today's list 

(because it totally changes)

1. Sara Ramirez

2. Tilda Swinton

I think this is the biggest surprise for most people, when I say Tilda (she's been on my list for a LONG time), but I find androgyny, TRUE androgyny, incredibly sexy. She is completely transmutable, incredibly interesting, and wonderfully intelligent. I LOVE HER. 

3. Mariska Hargitay

4. Brandi Carlile

Duh.

5. Martha Burns

So Martha Burns is a Canadian actress, who's the female lead in Slings and Arrows, who's also married to Paul Gross (someone who occasionally circulates my list), who's just kind of phenomenal, except that no one below the 48th parallel really knows it. Try doing a google image search for Martha Burns. I dare you.

6. Kim Dickens

I honestly can't tell you why ... perhaps because she's been on two of my favorite shows (Deadwood and Treme), perhaps because she frequently has fairly weird haircuts and sometimes looks like a lesbian - I don't know. But she's wicked talented, and highly underrated, and there's just something!

There are others, but again, they rotate in on different days. I shared mine ...who's on yours? 

Read more

Our Scarlet Letter isn't "A"...

Apparently, October is my "I'm going to talk about gay issues" month. It could be because elections are coming up in two short weeks (Halloween's got nothin' on this fright fest) so DADT and DOMA are at the forefront of the Democrats' failure card; it could also be because I'm looping Grey's Anatomy episodes in the cave of unemployment that is my room, while simultaneously (and frantically) searching for job opportunities ... or, simply because I miss my gorgeous girlfriend A LOT. Either way ... I'm super gay this month.

[You're probably wishing for more entries about the puppies at this point.]

My parents are good liberals. They are not hypocritical, they're open minded, and they watch Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, and Keith Olbermann - every. single. day. And because I'm unemployed, and home in the early evenings, I watch them (or rather, listen to them) too. I like listening to these programs, not just because they're highly entertaining, but strangely, they're highly informative. Keith Olbermann is occasionally supercilious, but I forgive him when he gets to his staple segment, "Worst Person in the World!" (it's usually Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh)

Last night on Rachel Maddow, Meghan McCain was a guest. She's a frequent guest. Oddly, I like Meghan McCain quite a bit. She's what I'm hoping the future of the Republican Party will be. She's smart, she she's an independent thinker, and can be reasonably conservative and still support social issues and civil rights. Pretty awesome. Anyway, here's a clip from last night's show. About 2/3's of the way through the video, Rachel shows an interview with Colorado congressional candidate Ken Buck on Meet the Press.



He's asked by the interviewer if he believes being gay is a choice. Buck says yes. And then compares homosexuality to alcoholism.

The concept that being gay is a "choice" boggles my mind. I realize that I have a very subjective view of this issue, but on a logical, reason-based planet (if one exists?) - I don't understand the notion that anyone would voluntarily choose to be a part of a minority that is poorly treated, marginalized, continually denied basic human rights, and risk physical bodily harm and death in some cases, just because of their "lifestyle choice." That seems fairly ridiculous. And as someone who tried to pray the gay away in secret for the better part of a year, I can safely tell you, Mr. Buck, that it is NOT a choice.

Unsurprisingly, the candidates like Ken Buck (see: Carl Paladino, Sharron Angle) who hate the gays, would also deny the right to choose abortion to women who are the victims of rape and incest, should they be elected. I'm the first liberal to say that Harry Reid (the Nevada incumbent Sharron Angle is running against/Senate majority leader) is one of the least effective Democrats on the Hill. But you know, when it comes down to politicians who do more harm than good, I'd take Harry Reid over Sharron Angle any day of the week. The worst part is that Sharron Angle is a woman ... who believes that women don't have the right to terminate a pregnancy that was created through domestic terrorism! Talk about "abomination."

Abortion sidetrack aside, the notion of homosexuality and choice (and the persecution therein) is becoming an international epidemic. There's a horrifying article on Gay365.com, that sites a Ugandan newspaper that printed photos of the "Top 100 homosexuals" in the Ugandan city, lists their addresses, and with a headline over the photos that reads, "Hang them!" Within the body of the article, there are quotes from a Ugandan minister, calling for an investigation as to "why homosexuality is increasing in the country." 20 of the "homosexuals" printed in that article have been attacked. In South Africa, the ONLY African nation to allow gay marriage, gangs make a point to find out and "correctively" rape lesbians.

Is it a matter of "increasing homosexuality?" Or is it simply that homosexuals are becoming braver? The bottom line, is that it doesn't matter - and it shouldn't matter. These are specific, targeted attacks on a minority of humans because of who they are. Does this sound familiar throughout the annals of history at all?

Thankfully, there's an upside. It seems as one side gets more and more fanatical, the other side gets more and more tolerant. I found this on a friend's facebook page. Strangely, it's an article by the dating website, OKcupid.com. It's a data-based collection of statistics, polled from over 3.2 million OKcupid members. It's kind of hilarious, and hugely interesting.

Gay sex vs. Straight sex

A couple of things I'd like to say, as a real-life lesbian:
1) I HATE the L Word. NOT ALL LESBIANS LOVE THE L WORD!
2) I don't do drugs ... nor do I know any other lesbians who do drugs on a regular basis, unless drugs = alcohol
3) From my knowledge of North America, which is fairly extensive, that map is pretty accurate, except that I think Utah should be slightly more orange than it is. Mormons are pretty gay - intensely closeted - but gay nonetheless.

The last two things I'd like say have to do with the oh-so-mysterious "gay agenda," that Republicans like to scare and excite their constituents with. Now, it will go against my Satan-worshiping coven blood-oath, but I'm going to fill you on what the American "gay agenda" actually is (because I can't speak for the Bulgarian, Chinese, Albanian, Finnish, or Mozambiquan gay agendas). Are you ready? It's going to blow your mind!

The American Gay Agenda is focused on obtaining equality through legislation so that all citizens may be equal under the law; specifically in the sectors of marriage, partnership rights, and domestic living. Other than that, we just want to be left alone.

Consider your minds blown. Notice how nowhere in that "agenda" is there a clause that reads something like this:

Also, we aim to improve our recruitment numbers by planting homosexual teachers in your schools for the sole purpose of indoctrinating your children into a life of homosexuality. The more children we convert, the more prizes we win!

The scary part is that nearly 50% of Americans believe the statement above to be true. THEY BELIEVE IT! There's a myth attached with the acceptance of Gay Marriage as a law, claiming that homosexuality is going to be taught in the schools. Now, being the lesbian liberal who values logic and reason when it comes to my law-making, I don't know exactly what the other side means when they say "homosexuality is going to be taught in schools." I've been trying to figure it out for a few years now, but to no avail. Will it be taught in sex education classes (if any are left) as a clinical option, along side heterosexuality? I'd hope so. Will it be mentioned over and over by your kids' physics teacher as a way to make "new friends" and see the world? Probably not. And if so, I'd totally be in favor of firing that teacher for teaching something other than physics. Also, I'd like to say that as a teacher, I do not make a habit of teaching anything outside of my field. Most of the teachers I know are the same way.

I have not, in my 11 years of being an "out" lesbian recruited, coerced, seduced, or manipulated a "heterosexual" person into homosexuality unwillingly (that's a story for another time).

Oh ... and that chart about how 50% of women are bi-curious? I've found in my "research" that that's usually true. Heck ... even Katy Perry kissed a girl. And apparently, she liked it.

Read more

"Let's all go to the movies!" or, FINALLY! A post that's not about dogs!!

When I was little ... like 3 or 4 ... Annie was my favorite movie. I loved it *so* much, my dad produced the live stage version, just for me! I would sing it, I would quote it, I would while away hours in my room by myself, reenacting it. One of the highlights was that the dog who played Sandie came to live with us, and as we didn't have a dog of our own, it was awesome!

Ahhh ... the halcyon days of my childhood. I identified with that spunky, little orphan. In fact, when I was really young, I thought I was an orphan. I didn't see how I possibly belonged to my mother. Oh, my father I knew - beyond the shadow of a doubt - I was related to. But I figured he just searched for me until he found me. Coincidentally my love for Little Orphan Annie was only replaced (around the age of 6 or 7) by another orphan named Anne ... but this one was Canadian, and didn't sing or dance.

Both orphans ... with red hair ... names begin with A ... smart, spunky, optimistic girls who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, took it on the chin, and never looked back. That must have been the reason why I hated being blonde - by all rights, my hair should have been red. UGH! Stoopid genetics.

I digress.

One of my favorite scenes in Annie (the movie) is when Albert Finney, as Daddy Warbucks, takes Annie and Grace (Ann Reinking) to the movies, simply because Annie had never been to one before ... because she's an orphan. What I loved about that bit, was the bizarre fact that Daddy Warbucks buys every seat in the theater, just for that one show. I guess it isn't really bizarre - if I were a billionaire at the beginning of the depression, and seats were only a nickel a pop, buying all the seats would be chump change in the deep money couch of my life. But when I was little, it seemed so ... extravagant!

I went to the movies tonight. I also went to the movies on Thursday night. And while I understand that it isn't 1933 anymore, I think that $11.50 for one seat in a movie theater is a little much. $11.50!! Last year, it was $10.00. The inflation rate seems a bit steep, doesn't it? But then, I suppose with the competition of television, live performances, and more visual stimulus than anyone in 1933 could possibly imagine, I suppose I understand the need for it ... to a degree. I'm sure that in the '30s, everyone would go to the movies. That was it - that was the entertainment. Besides my two friends and I, there were maybe 20 other people, sitting in a theatre that could probably seat 100-125 people.

On the other hand, we have 30 times the amount of movies playing in one theatre now. Literally - the movie houses had one screen, and one movie. Now, we have AMC 30 - 30 screens, and up to 30 movies (though probably closer to 24, since the newest releases show on multiple screens). But all of this means that I spent $23.00 in two days to see two separate movies.

So my $23.00 is going to what, exactly? The actors on screen? Only partially. The Studios? Most definitely. The movie theatre itself? I'm sure. I don't generally go to the movies a lot. I'm usually either too poor, or too busy. It takes a lot - and I mean, A LOT - to get me to slap down $11.50 to go watch people (who get paid amounts that I can't even quantify), perform on a two-dimensional screen, surrounded by other people who can't turn off their electrical gadgets, for reasons I can only assume are related to life-threatening situations (or ... you know, not), listening to babies cry (seriously? Why are you taking your NEWBORN to the MOVIES?), and/or children running up and down the aisles (When did the concept of parenting vanish??).

And for all of this - I actually like going to see movies. I'm not trying to knock films, or film actors. I don't think it's a stupid medium. I value both the art and entertainment a movie can provide. But more and more, I would rather take my $11.50 and go see some possibly hideous NoHo live theatre. Which I would totally do ... if I lived in NoHo.*

Now ... all of this being said, the movie I saw on Thursday night is called Easy A. This one was WELL worth my money. Why?

1. Emma Stone.
2. Any teen movie that seeks to question and chastise the obsession we have with female sexuality is AWESOME.
3. Any teen movie that does the above by incorporating smart dialogue and the major themes and parallels of the Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne - yes, Yes, YES!

I'm going to buy it when it comes out on DVD, it was that good.

Tonight we saw You Again. I probably could have waited to see this one on Netflix.

1. Kristen Bell is very good - the best thing about the movie, really.
2. Sigourney Weaver - well, who doesn't like Sigourney Weaver? In anything??
3. Script - nice concept, poor delivery.
4. If you go see it, tell me what you think about the dude who plays Kristen Bell's brother. (I wanted to hit him in the face with a baseball bat, just to shut him up)

But the bone that I'll throw to both these movies, is that I found myself in an inner-dialogue questioning my own experience. With Easy A, I was thinking about the creative delivery and brilliant tie-in with the Scarlet Letter, and then how the writers turned it on its head. It made me want to become an English teacher, again. Or ... you know, for the first time. I really want every teenager to see this film - a "what not to do" for both men and women.


You Again had me thinking back to my high school career - being grateful that I was never horrible to anyone, and that no one tormented me. I survived, and got out (relatively) unscathed. No, don't think I'm lucky ... I got mine in Middle School. Although hideously, the movie had Kristen Bell graduating high school in 2002, and supposedly growing up and empowering herself in the long, long years since her teenage version of hell; she plays a public relations executive - a VP at the age of 26?? REALLY?? I have to admit ... that was just a bit much. Especially since I graduated in ... never mind. But it made me feel OLD - and I'm not really in any life position just yet to feel that way. Although, the fact that I'm currently unemployed at the moment didn't make it any easier.

Ah well.

Also, I spend $8.95 a month to watch movies, courtesy of Netflix, on my Wii. Saturday night, I was up till 3:30 a.m., watching Lena Headey (mmmmm) speak with a Scottish accent (*Drool*) in a British film called Aberdeen. Relatively depressing, yet redeeming - Stellan Skarsgard is also in it. In a nutshell: A cocaine addict is sent by her mother, who's dying of cancer, to retrieve her alcoholic father in Norway, and get him back to Aberdeen, before mom dies.

I decided to chase that little gem of happiness with Rachel Getting Married. Everyone I know has been telling me how great this movie is, and how great Anne Hathaway is in it. I don't know what I was expecting; possibly some honest-to-goodness self-deprecating humor, or at least the "funny-'cause-it's-true" variety -the kind I love in movies about family dysfunction. Yeah, it doesn't have any of that. Imagine my shock! It was so painful ... I almost turned it off. I didn't - and I'm glad I didn't. But hot damn. There should be category requirements for dysfunctional family films:

"It puts the FUN in dysFUNctional!" or "It's just going to make you cry." Or, possibly: "Wes Anderson Dysfunctional" or "Mommy Dearest Dysfunctional." I know I'd appreciate the warning. Anyway, Anna Deavere Smith and Bill Irwin are in it, as is Debra Winger. It was all sort of heart-wrenchingly fabulous from an acting point-of-view.

And lastly, having nothing to do with anything I've just talked about, I've decided that I like Glee. Many people thought I already did, just because I happen to be a lesbian, and the show deals with gay themes and musical theatre. But folks, let me tell you - the gay boys are the ones who are stereotyped to like musicals. The lesbians are stereotyped to like sports. See the difference? You can witness this stereotyping right here, on my blog. Just look to see how many musical theatre-related items I've tagged. Now look to see how many sports-related items I've tagged. PLEASE - let's stop confusing this. I feel slightly annoyed whenever someone tries to stereotype me outside of my stereotype.

Also - I'm tired of the "liberal" media linking pedophilia to gay rights and/or sex. [see: anti-gay rights pastors/priests/politicians who are accused and/or actually solicit sex from young boys] This story pissed me off ... though I do find a *great* amount of irony in Ted Haggard coming to his defense ...

And - I bought my first purse/bag/thing on Saturday. I was with my friend Stephanie who said, "It's stylish, but it's also very you!!" I wasn't sure how to take that comment, exactly, but it's true! It's cargo-fabulous, has a long adjustable strap, and lots of pockets. I was getting really tired of carrying my wallet, keys, cell phone and multiple pairs of glasses in my pockets, on my head, or hanging by my shirt. Lara told me today that it was a "bag." Liz told me it was "a satchel." Whatever it is, it's mine, and it boosts my estrogen and femininity in one fell swoop. Just one more element in my ultimate quest for androgyny! BWUAHAHAHAHA! My evil plan is working! Soon, no stereotype will work at all!! Look upon me and tremble!!

......and I'm done.

* While I do support OC theatre, NoHo is the only place I know of where tickets for $11.50 (or less!) actually exist.

Read more

Lilith Fair Part I - THE MUSIC

I submit to you, my readers, one irrefutable fact in life:

There is nothing more lesbian than going to Lilith Fair with your exgirlfriend.

And I did. Which makes me super gay. SUPER. DUPER. GAY. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, one of the first rules (and by rules, I mean stereotypes) of being a lesbian is remaining friends with your exes. Although stereotypes, while based in some form of truth, never sit well with Aries children. Stereotypes?? Who needs stereotypes?? We are original! We are unique! We are pioneers of our own destiny! WATCH US AND BE INSPIRED, YE LESSER MORTALS!!!!

Trust me - this is the Aries subtext. It runs in the background of our programming. All. The. Time.

Anyway, I had never been friends with my exes previously, and was always a little proud of this fact, though it may seem callous. One thing I'm really good at: not going with the crowd - on purpose. It's not a natural trait - I'm not automatically rebellious like James Dean. I am calculatedly contradictory. 12 years ago, when everyone was jumping on the Harry Potter bandwagon, I just refused - on principle. And I still do that - if there's something everyone is raving about, I will purposefully avoid it; my initial reaction is to reject it. But slowly, painfully, over time I'll investigate to really see if it's as great as everyone else says. And then 8 years after the fad, I'll indulge, and usually declare it the best thing ever. Like Harry Potter. (All star Ravenclaw, right here ... I named my dog HAGRID)

It's either that, or I have to be one of the FIRST to like it. This happens a lot with me and bands. I love being the first among my friends to recommend a band and watch them all eat it up like delicious musical candy. GOD! I am such an Aries.

[And while I'm at it...]

GOD! I am such a lesbian!

I went to Lilith Fair - the most lesbian concert of all time - YES - even MORE than Melissa Etheridge or the Indigo Girls (and I've seen both of them live too). How lesbian is Lilith Fair, you ask? It's THIS lesbian:

See?? You can't get more lesbian than that ...

Well, yes you can. Multiply this by a few thousand. An entire crowd of this. In fact, after Brandi Carlile (the neo lesbian song siren of my generation) sang a particularly awesome song, I let forth my version of a Xena battle cry (I'm on season 6!!), and a group of them turned around, laughing and smiling, and gave me some thumbs up.

Are you getting how truly lesbian this is?? I know I'm harping on and on about this ... I just want to make sure we're clear.

And all of this is not to say that I didn't have a great time - I did! And I have a great ex. She's one of my dearest friends, in fact (Hi Lala!). But since I haven't been to Pride in at least 4 years, I figure Lilith Fair counts toward my annual quota. (right?) This was also my first time going to Lilith Fair ... ever. I missed them the first time around ... I wasn't cool enough. The first concert I ever went to was when I was a senior in high school ... I didn't get out much; I was too busy trying to get into college. So really, I think I should get double points.

It was definitely an experience. Highlights include: seeing the Weepies, seeing Brandi Carlile, buying a (small) glass of wine for $8.50 (thanks again, Lala!), having the concert be interrupted by vendors in yellow shirts trying to sell an assortment of different things on the lawn where we were sitting, having dirt kicked on us by a small child, watching men wearing Lilipad shirts and giving out free samples of feminine hygiene products, and seeing two friends of mine who I used to work with at Disneyland! All of this for $10.00. It was probably the most fun night I've had in well over a month.

The best thing about music festivals, hands down, is the people watching. Lara saw some serious DD (dyke drama), in the form of one woman throwing her glass of beer at another woman, and drenching 5 additional women ... in beer. Awesome! We were also privileged in observing one very drunk woman offering and successfully selling a pole's worth of cotton candy on the lawn, as the hapless, laughing vendor toddled behind. There were hippies hoolahooping, lesbians cuddling (in mass amounts), and young punks in faux-hawks standing front and center every time we wanted to take a picture on Lara's super camera.

The sad thing about Lilith Fair this year, is that it's underwhelming. From the publicity to the lineup order to the  crowd attendance - it was just flat. The lineup spots, in particular, were horrendous. This is what it looked like:

2:30 someone we didn't know playing on a small stage
3:20 someone we didn't know playing on a small stage
4:30 The Weepies! playing on an even SMALLER stage
5:00 someone we didn't know singing opera-rock (??) on a small stage
5:50 Brandi Carlile on the Main Stage
6:40 Emmylou Harris on the Main Stage
7:30 Jenni Rivera on the Main Stage
8:40 Miranda Lambert on the Main Stage
10:00 Sarah McLaughlin on the Main Stage
11:00 end of show

"But Alyssa, what's wrong with this lineup?" Oh ... I'll TELL you what's wrong with the lineup.

I know the smaller stages are for unknown bands. I get it. And I realize not a lot of people know who the Weepies are. But trust me when I say, they deserve the main stage. They have the sound, energy, and personality for the Main Stage. The stage they were actually playing on was in such an out-of-the-way, tiny spot where there wasn't more than about 15 yards of actual lawn - and the area was so packed by the time they got done playing, it was standing room only, covering more than about 50 yards.

Now - while Emmylou Harris is a big name, and maybe deserves a main stage, she can't handle it. It was so abundantly clear that she's used to playing small, intimate venues; and she was on this huge, amphitheater stage - she was positively overwhelmed by it all. Lara and I agreed that she was only talking to about half of the orchestra - we couldn't hear her as she was talking about whatever she was talking about - and she had a microphone with mega-watts worth of audio power. Sad. So while it might seem like it's a dis to Emmylou to put her on one of the smaller stages, I think it would better serve her, her fans, and her music to be on one of the smaller stages. I think part of my disappointment lies in the fact that I was SOOOOO excited to see her. Any time I get the chance to see a music legend, of any genre, I'm there. To be able to say, "I saw Emmylou Harris play!" Ideally I'd like to follow that up with, "She was rockin'!" But I can't. I can only say, "Meh."

Next - Brandi Carlile. In case you don't know, Brandi Carlile is phenomenal. She has a great voice, she writes her own stuff, and she has an AWESOME on-stage personality. And they put her in the first main stage slot - which, considering Emmylou's underwhelming follow up, was awful.

Do you know who Miranda Lambert is?? Neither did I. I have since learned that she's an upcoming country star. But you know what, Lilith Fair? You're playing Orange County. We are NOT a country market. She had a decent show, and it was high-energy, but no one knows who the hell she is! There weren't tons of people there to begin with, and then add in the unknown factor of this singer ... and it made for a terrible setup for Queen Sarah.


Solution: Move Emmylou to the Weepies slot. Put the Weepies in Brandi Carlile's slot, move Brandi to Miranda Lambert's spot, and move Miranda Lambert to Emmylou's spot. Bam. Why don't people pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars to make these decisions?!?!

Now - Jenni Rivera is the one thing Lilith got right - timing, market, show - everything. Jenni Rivera is a classic Mariachi singer ... who had an accompanying 10 piece Mariachi band behind her. It was cultural without being obnoxious, it was environmentally appropriate without being showy, it was LA without being LA. She sang classic Mexican/Mariachi songs like "Cielito Lindo" (Ay, yi, yi yi), and then paired them with classic Motown doo-wop, like "Angel Baby." It was fucking rad. She cracked jokes about the Arizona immigration law, talked about her "Laker-pride" dress, and was just oozing charm, humor, and excitement in being asked to play Lilith Fair. It was SO. Rad. Oh ... and her dress looked a little something like this:

Awesome, right?? and part of her Mariachi Band:

Here is a shot of Emmylou. What you don't see are her weird silver space boots [sad fact: the only Emmylou Harris song I know is "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" which she thankfully played]:

The Weepies [they were sooooo adorable and charming! Tracy, Lara said that Deb Talan reminds her of you...]

Queen Sarah, playing the Guitar [I don't know if you know this, but she also plays the piano]:

And last, but NEVER least, my new crush, Brandi Carlile [it's okay ... my girlfriend knows]:

[*sigh*]

It should be noted that none of the above are photos taken by me or Lara, sadly. We were about 5 miles up and away on the Verizon Wireless Amphitheater lawn. But, these photos are courtesy of Meg Strouse and the OC Weekly. So please don't sue me - I think you're pretty swell. 

If you every get the chance to see Brandi Carlile live, GO. GO, GO, GO. It's beyond worth it. She did two Johnny Cash covers ("Jackson" and "Folsom Prison"), and Miranda Lambert called Brandi out during her set to do a duet to Patsy Cline's "Crazy." It was awesome. She's great on stage, her band is awesome, she has an accompanying cello player (what's not to love about rock n' roll cello???), AND she has one hell of an incredible voice. Oh ... and she's ridiculously hot. Notice that tattoo on her shoulder? Well, it's on both of her shoulders ... and it's of this: 

Look familiar? It's the auryn - Atreyu's symbol from "The Neverending Story." HOT.

Brandi Carlile playing live in Boston ... oh ... and two out of her 4 band mates are twins, which is really cool, in a weird way. And I want to steal her wardrobe.

Also - I urge you to get into the Weepies if you haven't already. Here's a little ditty I wooed my girlfriend with:

The claymation is an added bonus. Note: They have a new album coming out in August, which from the songs they played, sounds like a huge bottle of summertime awesomeness. 

Other musical highlights of the night: 

-Queen Sarah sang "Ice Cream" live ... which, while I guess she sings it for an encore a lot, was awesome for me hear, since I had never seen her perform before (I'm not the world's biggest Sarah McLaughlin fan, though I find her general Canadian politeness to be adorable). 

- Emmylou Harris sang backup on Sarah's "Angel." 

- After "Ice Cream" was over, she brought ALL of the ladies out and they sang a great version of "Because the Night," as made popular by Patti Smith (written by one B. Springsteen...)

Sorry, I mean all of the ladies except Deb Talan ... she was, undoubtedly, putting her son, Theo, to bed on the bus. Which was a bummer, but I'll take it anyway, because her bass player (the one on the platform with the bad ass bass) was there being bad ass. (BAD ASS!)

Stay tuned for the next installment of Lilith Fair: The Lesbians!

[Don't get too excited, there's only one other installment, and it's to do with my casual, and in no way scientific anthropological findings on the various sub-groups of the Lesbian species]

Read more

And "best woman in human history" goes to....

Today is July 4th - which, if you're American, means a national holiday involving alcohol and the lighting of explosives. Hooray! If you're not an American - well, it's just a normal Sunday for you, sorry; you have to have your alcohol without explosives, poor souls that you are. Don't feel too bad - at least you'll have all of your limbs intact at the end of the day. Good for you!

Anyway, for the past 2 years, Shakespeare Orange County has had a free and public reading of the Declaration of Independence, and so we did again this year. My favorite section of this little gathering entails the reading of passages written by our fore-fathers and mothers, incorporating Shakespeare. Example? Abigail Adams and John Adams quote a lot from Julius Caesar back and forth to each other during their letters throughout the days leading up to the Revolutionary War. Jefferson uses Shakespeare, Washington uses Shakespeare, I'm sure even Benjamin Franklin quotes some kind of irreverent piece of text at some point. Shakespeare's use of rhetoric - the art of persuasion - is the cornerstone of our country's important documents; straight up. 

This year, my dad couldn't find the Abigail Adams passages, and I became very sad. And I told this to my monkey, and said, "Abigail Adams is in my top 5 women of all time..." And then I started to think about my top 5 women of all time ... who are they? what did they do? how did they change our world? do I always ask myself rhetorical questions? 

In a word, yes. 

Then, I asked my sister last night as we were walking the dogs, who her top 5 women of all history would be. She came up with three, initially. She had trouble thinking of more. "I don't know a lot of great women in history." Excuse me, WHAT?!?! How can you say that and call yourself my sister??? Then, because she was grasping at straws, she picked some weird choices out of thin air ....

"Oh! I know who I'm missing ... Marie Antoinette!"

"Marie Antoinette?!?! Really?? Why??"

"Because I think she was really good."

"Uhm ... really good at what?"

"That's not what I mean - like, everyone thought she was this heartless bitch, and I don't think she really was."

"Oh. You think she was a scapegoat."

"YEAH."

"Okay ... but what did she do?!"

"What do you meant?"

"Well ... I guess when I think about great women of history, they tried - against all male odds - to make the world a better place, when usually they wouldn't have been able to - because they were women, and therefore second rate citizens - if citizens at all. You know? Women who have had an impact to change the course of our lives and the way we live." 

"Oh. Well, I can't think of very many."

Then she asked me about my choices for great men in history, and I let her off the hook. 

So, on this July 4th, in the spirit of my own feminist pride, I give you:

PB's Top 10 Women of World History

1. Boadicea - led an uprising against the occupying Roman Army in Brittain in AD 60, after her husband was captured, and her daughters (and herself) nearly raped. Sure, she was later caught and executed, but I have three words for you: ORIGINAL. BAD. ASS.

2. Abigail Adams - She's the original feminist. People credit Emmeline Pankhurst or other suffragettes ... no no no. She wasn't a wife-as-commodity, she was a partner and an equal to her husband, on her own insistence - though I'm sure she wouldn't have married John Adams if he had been a horse's ass. Here are some of her little gems:

• "Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands. Remember all men would be tyrants if they could."
• "If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice, or representation."
• "If we mean to have heroes, statesmen and philosophers, we should have learned women."
• "Well, knowledge is a fine thing, and mother Eve thought so; but she smarted so severely for hers, that most of her daughters have been afraid of it since."

Abigail did a LOT of background work before, during, and after the revolution, and doesn't get NEARLY as much credit as she should. And considering her ideas on women's rights within a "Free" society were nearly 200 years before her time, I think she's bee's knees.

3. Elizabeth I - One of England's longest reigning monarchs (second only to Victoria), one of the most  enlightened, educated, and powerful women to have lived. Ever. While an obvious choice, certainly a good one, I think.

4. Eleanor Roosevelt - Best first lady since Abigail Adams. HUGE civil and social rights activist. Another great woman who did countless behind-the-scenes work on everything from public policy to international politics. I also think it's a relatively enlightened woman who can allow her husband to have affairs, and then allow herself to have some too.

5. Pope Joan - While the Catholic church firmly, passionately, and contemptuously denies the existence of Pope Joan, there is ancient documented evidence that she existed in the 12th century. The fact that the Catholic church denies it so vehemently ... well. I'll say no more. But according to what was written about her, she studied in Athens and Rome, disguised as a boy, simply because she wanted to learn. And since a good education at the time was only got by the church, she rose through the ranks on the skill of her intelligence and kindness alone. She was later, reportedly, found out as a woman because she gave birth. Firebrand? Yes ma'am!

6. Harriet Tubman - She escaped her own slavery, went back into the South 13 times to save over 70 slaves on the Underground Railroad. When the Civil War started she worked in the Union Army as a cook, a nurse, an armored scout, and a spy. After the war, she was a huge help during the very early stages of the women's suffrage movement. And I'm sure, given half the chance, would have fought for Native rights too.

7. Sacagawea - The interpreter and guide for Lewis & Clark - traveled from North Dakota to the Pacific Ocean with a baby on her back. There should be a quote along the lines of, "Sacagawea did everything Lewis & Clark did, only with a baby on her back, while speaking multiple languages!" Without her, Lewis & Clark would have been a small footnote in the annals of history, about the first two men to try and reach the Pacific Ocean. Because of Sacagawea, they actually did. She's a big deal in the Pacific Northwest, as well she should be.

8. Hatshepsut - Forget Cleopatra. Hatshepsut ruled before Cleopatra, and had the longest and most successful pharoahship of any other woman ruler of Egypt (and they were not strangers to women rulers). She was highly skilled as a tactician, but had a rule of long-standing peace, re-opened trade routes that helped regain Egypt's wealth, and issued in a period of architecture that was unparalleled for thousands of years. Oh. And this was all around 1479 B.C. BAM.

9. Empress Wu Zetian - The first, and ONLY Chinese Empress in History (690), and is also the first to start her own Dynasty (Zhou, which interrupted the Tang Dynasty). She started out as a concubine, like you do, became the Empress Dowager, deposed two of her sons, supposedly killed her daughter to frame another woman of royalty, Empress Wang, as well as her eldest son - but then, that's the price for being an original. She was said to be ruthless and shrewd, but at the same time an attentive ruler and a great judge of character. She was later deposed by one of the sons that SHE deposed, and called herself 'emperor' until the say she died. Her rule lasted almost 30 years. Contemporary scholars are still trying to decide who she really was - yet another case of, "Was she really a bitch? Or is that just how the conquerors made her out to be?"

10. Babe Didrikson Zaharias - Not all great women of history are leaders of nations. Babe Zaharias is, I believe, to this day, the most talented multi-sport female athlete the world's ever seen. Golf, basketball, and a swath of track & field events left Babe with 3 Olympic medals, 10 LPGA major championships wins (including the US Open), 17 amateur women's golf wins (not even Tiger Woods has won as much!), she was also accomplished at pool, and won an Amateur Athlete Team Championship - all by herself. Babe paved the way so that girls like me could play sports too. Without Babe, there would be no Billie Jean King, no Jackie Joyner Kersey (perhaps the only other woman I could name as the most talented multi-sport athlete).

Top 10 Women I wish had been real
1. Xena - Uhm, duh.
2. Penthesilea - Queen of the Amazons, fought at Troy, honored by Achilles for her courage and skill.

3. Hua Mulan - Chinese Female warrior, disguised herself as a man.
4. Lao Ma - Fictional character from Xena - in the Xenaverse, Lao Ma is responsible for Lao Tzu's Taoist book of Wisdom.
5. Rogue - Marvel comics. The ORIGINAL Rogue. Not the Anna Paquin Rogue. Ugh.
6. Morgaine - as written by Marion Zimmer Bradley in the Mists of Avalon.
7. Cassandra - as written by Marion Zimmer Bradley in The Firebrand.
8. The nameless Amazon on the isle of St. Kilda, Scotland - Or, Taigh na Banaghaisgeich. This is a piece of folklore I learned of relatively recently, but I've become fascinated. (the link is Wikipedia, look under "Pre-historic buildings)
9. Atalanta - Greek mythology, abandoned in the wild by her father (who wanted a boy), suckled by a mama-bear to survive, was said to have been one of the best hunters alive, was always happy, had "bear like" ferocity and skill, was one of Jason's argonauts, swore and oath to Artemis, killed rapists.
10. Elphaba Thropp - as written by Gregory Maquire in Wicked, not that silly musical.

The woman to be most excited about right now: 
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf - President of Liberia.

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLL!!

Read more

A plea for women's sports...

I had a huge emotional reaction to yesterday's gold medal hockey game between the US and Canadian women; more than is even shown in my previous post. I cried for the better part of 2 hours. And yes, I'm a passionate bear, prone to great ecstasy and terrible agony - and I've always loved watching the US women's hockey team. I'm definitely a dedicated fan. But I can't say that crying - nay - flat out weeping for 2 hours is a normal response to a loss like that.

And here's what I realized: I wasn't crying for the loss, or the game. I was crying for the plight of women's sports in this country.

The US Women's Hockey team (really, all the women's hockey teams - all over the world) are amateur athletes. They don't have crazy sponsorships like Lindsey Vonn or even Gretchen Bleiler. They all have jobs. And they train. And they go to practice. And they have an uphill battle unknown to most athletes today. Even the "non-pro" athletes that compete in the Olympics (at least from the US), have the financial support to dedicate themselves solely to the training they need. Apolo Ohno, Evan Lysacek, Johnny Weir - if it's a sport that the US has any remote chance of excelling in, we will throw money at them and let them train all day, every day, without having to worry about the every day things like bills and work and mortgages. Don't get me wrong - they're incredible athletes. But what would happen if you took that financial support away? What if they had to work, AND train, AND pay bills, AND endure the day-in, day-out slog that every other regular Joe faces - yet add on top of that, 5 hours a day of practice and training.

What would their success rate be then?

If any of you watched the game, or at least saw a replay of the women's hockey medal ceremony, you would have seen 60+ women, from three different countries, who all know what that training/real life balance is like. They all had to work TWICE as hard as any sponsored athlete in the games. Consequently, all of the curling, bobsledding, nordic skiing, and women's speed skaters are in the same boat.

Unsurprisingly, most of the sponsored athletes are men.

I understand that many of these sports are not made for a commercial market. I get that they just don't sell as well as baseball, football, basketball, or even men's hockey (at least in Canada). But every four years, Americans especially, put an inordinate amount of pressure on these amateur athletes, and expect Gold. We are a society of Gold-hungry Midases, and anything less is insignificant. This is proof positive in the sports we broadcast - I saw one women's speed skating relay race, one nordic event, and one round of women's bobsledding, compared with the umpteen downhill skiing events, snowboarding, and men's speedskating. And as soon as the American team falls behind, the feed is cut and switches to a more result-bearing event, like downhill skiing. Where the sponsored athletes are.

But I'm veering off my rant path.

There needs to be equity. Financially, emotionally, and with equipment and facilities. Title IX may have passed years ago, but it STILL doesn't do a damn thing. We need to invest in young girls, just as we do with young boys. We need more sports available to women in high school and college. We need to make the rules of sports the SAME for men AND women - currently there's no checking in women's hockey. Is there any more insulting and degrading statement to women than that of the no-hit rule?! In essence, we're saying, "Sure ladies, you can play hockey. But don't hit each other - women who hit each other are unseemly." Fuck off!
How dare you! How dare you limit a woman's potential and power! There is no reason for it, except for someone's gross discomfort at the notion of two women pounding each other against boards. My guess? Sarah Palin. But I digress (again).

There have been quite a few studies done over the past few years - as to their validity, I can't say. But these studies seem to be wondering why we're seeing more criminal violence committed by women. And people are confused and dumbfounded! Why? Why would women resort to violence? What reason do they have? Buddy - they have PLENTY of reason. As a majority/minority group, we still remain one of the most abused, underrepresented, and repressed. In history. For the longest amount of time....

You want to fix violence tendencies within women? Give them a voice. Give them empowerment. Let them know it's okay to be as aggressive as men. Let them know that they are just as valued. Put a ball, a stick, a racket in their hand - and teach them. But then - THEN - you must support them. No matter what. No matter the cost. No matter the pain.

But please - don't expect miracles and then treat them like discarded pieces of refuse. That just makes us angry.

And as you've already witnessed, you wouldn't like us when we're angry.
--------------------------
This blog post is brought to you by:

US Women's Hockey Team
Amateur athletes
Girls everywhere

Read more