The economy really is getting better - a brand new job has been created.
The City Council in Los Angeles last week tentatively approved an ordinance requiring porn actors to wear condoms while filming.
The news reports of this development also mentioned that porn producers will have to pay some sort of fee to pay for enforcement of this new regulation.
What the news reports didn't say is the logical extension of this: someone gets a job watching live porn to make sure those condoms are in place.
That's going to be one happy bureaucrat.
Since I'm in the wondering business, I can't help but wonder how one qualifies for such a position. What should Los Angeles be looking for in its first official porn wrapping inspector?
I have a few suggestions. The ideal candidate should have excellent eyesight, have good concentration and attention to detail, and own some rubber clothing (although I suppose the city could supply that if the licensing fees cover it).
Now imagine the required civil service exam.
The other thing I wonder about is what happens if the happy inspector spots a violation? Is she or he empowered to pull the actors apart or is this a ticketing scenario? Will a flashing red light be involved?
Or will the effect of this be to drive the porn industry to, say, neighboring Long Beach? Pro-business Republicans in Los Angeles should be warning us about this.
While we're on the subject, I also have an artistic or, perhaps, philosophic question: how much porn does the world need? Is there such a shortage of film of naked people doing things to each other that we must keep making more?
Are there that many plots left to cover?
Will the endings ever not be happy?
If no more sex movies were made, would we feel deprived?
Maybe I'm not enough of a connoisseur.
CATCH-40. You know it's tough to be too old and it's tough to be too young. But what if you're both?
Think about it. Try to get your mind around this concept. It is indeed possible.
An actress has sued IMDb.com, Inc., a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc., in federal court in Seattle for being truthful.
It seems she paid to have her profile on the entertainment industry website and IMDb then added more information to the profile - including her real name and her birth date.
So what's the problem?
This is from the amended complaint: "(B)ecause lesser-known forty-year-old actresses are not in demand in the entertainment business, plaintiff has suffered a substantial decrease in acting credits, employment opportunities and earnings.... Second, because plaintiff looks so much younger that her actual age indicates, plaintiff has experienced rejection in the industry for each 'forty-year-old' role for which she has interviewed because she does not and cannot physically portray the role of a forty-year-old woman."
Someone should tell this woman about photo portfolios and makeup.
INSANITY OFFENSE. Can you be sued for legal malpractice for giving a client an honest opinion?
Before you say no, consider the following from a legal malpractice suit filed last week in Los Angeles:
"Defendants were negligent in that they among other things ... informing (sic) plaintiff that she needed psychiatric help."
Apparently the client didn't think this was helpful.
By the way, this was filed on behalf of this client by a law firm. The client was suing her former lawyers for legal malpractice in handling her legal malpractice claims against another lawyer.
Yes, a law firm took the case of a woman wanting to sue another lawyer for thinking she was crazy to sue yet another lawyer (who, I bet, thought she was crazy).
There are many people who will require psychiatric help before this is over.
Read the Top 8
Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day's top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.