Metblogs LA stumbled across this geographically inaccurate ad from MSN. "Los Angeles without Santa Monica Pier"?! Santa Monica Pier isn't in Los Angeles -- it's in Santa Monica (hence, um, the name).
Was this a deliberate joke? If a PC without Microsoft Office 2007 is like L.A. without Santa Monica Pier, what's the analogy? Just as Santa Monica Pier isn't really in L.A., is Microsoft Office 2007 not really in a PC? Huh?
Metblogs wonders whether we're all being too rigid in our definition of L.A. Writes the site:
The ad seemed to bring up an constant debate among Metblogs readers and writers: should any area outside of the City of Los Angeles be referred to as L.A.?
When I think Los Angeles, my mind is on anything within county limits. The Los Angeles of popular fiction and of the national mindset never bothers to take into account the borders of the 88 different cities of Los Angeles County, including Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica.
Street sign colors may change, certain parking restrictions may be different, real estate taxes may fluctuate, but there’s little practical reason to distinguish between what is the City of Los Angeles and what happens to be another city, or incorporated part of, Los Angeles. As in County.
Except for the City of Long Beach, which really should be annexed into Orange County. Really, please, take it. But I digress…
Your thoughts? Does an "L.A. state of mind" trump whether you actually live in Los Angeles?