Wheeee!

I'm not sure how reported this will be outside of California (since it was only a 5.6) but we had a good ol' quake this evening.

This was easily the biggest one I've felt. Even though it was based out of the San Jose area (roughly 30 minutes south) it shook the building for a good 10/15 noticeable seconds.

California: If The Fires Don't Get You, The Vibrations Will.

How 'Bout a Little Fire, Scarecrow?

UPDATE 8/23: Seriously on fire again. And no relief expected until Thursday? I don't know too many folks down in the SD these days, but I hope those that continue to live there are doing okay. And not losing their houses.

---

Apparently, my old town is ablaze again.

Longtime readers of this blog, and its previous incarnation, may remember that the same thing happened in 2003 or 2004. Big huge wildfire, school shut down for almost an entire week, and the skies were extraordinary.

If you were expecting the Rapture, that was the time to get down on your knees.

But, it all cleared up. Nobody ascended to heaven and roving bands of demonic hellhounds appeared at levels significantly less than expected. As a burgeoning member of the California legal community, I was pleased with these results, as membership in the California Bar is like having a FasTrak to the inferno.

Still, I can't help but think that the ominous threat of seismic shifting is (maybe) a bit more dangerous than wildfires. The Bay Area's natural catastrophes come with much less warning and, in the worst cases, far more damage.

Knock on wood.

See?

From some random article I saw on the web:

[With regard to Ashlee Simpson's birthday] ...And because he's Pete Wentz, Simpson's boyfriend Pete Wentz eschewed the usual flowers or thoughtful card, and gave her a particularly Wentz-ian gift for her birthday: Common courtesy. From People:

As A gift to Simpson, Wentz vowed to ignore his cell phone for the entire day. "It's a big deal!" Wentz told PEOPLE the next night. "I'm really attached to it."

Except it's not a big deal, you're a douchebag, and people who think this way are pathetic blobs of uselessness.

Time for a Break?

Washingtonpost.com had a headline this morning:

"Clinton Cites Her Resilience"

The first thing I thought was, "Maybe she'll be crit-immune during the general election..."

Then I became sad because not only is that a dorky Warcraft-related thought, it's even dorky compared to other casual Warcraft players.

Methinks I may be embarking on another self-imposed hiatus.

This Makes Up For It

Last year at this time, I was proud that the Tigers even made it to the playoffs. Sadly, their September meltdown was insurmountable this time, and they have to sit October out.

It does not bother me because I'm not a crazy person, like, say, Yankees fans. Yankees fans seem to think it is their birthright to have a team in the post-season.

And that is why I was particularly thrilled last night.

Not only because the Yanks are done--though that is about 75% of the reason--but because it was, again, an AL Central team that took them out. You all DO remember last year's Yankee-destroying AL Central team, right? Right?

Now, I return to my default position: hoping the Red Sox win so that my good friend Adam does not have a stroke.

Dear Chelsey [sic],

Some spam I got today (Gmail caught it, but I check anyway just in case):

My name is chelsey. I found your email on that dating site.
I also love sex on the side. I have a loving partner but he is working 16 hours a day and we have sex only once a week.
If you are interested and wanna see my pictures just email me at (whocares).
Don`t reply, use the email above (my boyfriend doesn't know about that email!)

And now, a critical analysis of "Letter from Chelsey, 10/7/07".

First of all, nobody spells "Chelsea" like that, do they? But maybe that's to get around the aforementioned spam filter.

Two: "that dating site". The odds are fairly good that the recipient of spam is registered, either now or in the past, at some dating site. Wouldn't it be more convincing to put "Match.com" or "eHarmony", even if you end up missing the mark in some cases?

If you have a loving boyfriend working 16 hour days, I bet he is doing that because he wants to be financially stable. For you! It's pretty bitchy of you to seek out "sex on the side" (and yikes, what a terrible way to phrase it) in this particular instance. Your come-on would be more tempting if you were less of a jerk.

So, in the interests of receiving more entertaining spam email, I propose the following changes:

Hi! My name is Chelsea, and I found your profile on Match.com but couldn't send you a message through their system.
Here's the thing: your picture was very cute, and I am currently trapped in a loveless marriage with a husband that is cheating on me.
I want revenge, and I want some physical interaction with someone who doesn't smell like cheap perfume from "working late at the office".
Let me know if you're up for it. My email is (whatever).

Isn't that slightly better? If I were on Match.com, and active, this would have at least a marginal shot at convincing me to "click further". Better than chelsey's bordeline-illiterate missive, anyway.

Crazy Old Man Rant

You know what bugs me?

Cell phones.

Haha! But seriously, not just their existence (which I tend to appreciate) but the way they've altered how we "do things."

Going out used to be more fun. You get people together, you call them beforehand and tell them where you'll be at, and then once you go, that's it. You're now into the doing stage, and out of the planning stage.

Here's the setting: you and a bunch of friends meet up at some bar on Friday night. You're all sitting around the table, or standing by the bar, chatting it up. Invariably, at least half of those people (nowadays) are texting other people at the same time.

This bugs me. When I go out, I go out and I commit to the occasion. I certainly don't sit around waiting for a better offer to arrive via electronic communication, and in almost every case I do not have back-and-forth text message conversations with persons not present.

Now, I'm not an ogre. I like that people can find out where you are, or get directions, or even send you a funny cell phone picture from where they are. Hooray technology! But it doesn't mean we should all mentally check out from where we're physically present.

Too often I see this. Is it a constant need for attention that just hanging out doesn't fill? Is it a dissatisfaction with the people present? Some combination of the two, plus other factors?

This is probably a very personal pet peeve of mine, and unnoticed in the general population. It may be related to my dislike of bar-hopping--I never see a bar as "dead" because I'm usually not looking for life outside of what I brought into the place. It's almost certainly related to the diminished sense of self-worth that becomes implied when somebody you're hanging out with is devoting a substantial amount of time trying to figure out how to improve the social interaction.

Or I'm just a crank at the young age of 29. Yeah, that may be it.