There’s a quake — still going on as I write this.
UPDATE: Initial tremor was sudden, followed by gentler shaking. It lasted long enough for me to start and publish the above post — probably 10-15 seconds in all. I will post USGS information as it becomes available.
Anyone else local feel it?
UPDATE x2: According to USGS, the quake was quite small. A 2.9 magnitude quake, centered 1 mile SE of Encino. I was guessing it was small, but I figured it was closer.
The L.A. Times runs two corrections today on its editorial page. My favorite is this one:
World Bank leadership — A Friday editorial urging that U2 singer Bono be named head of the World Bank mistakenly said the Live Aid benefit took place in 1984. The concert was staged in 1985.
I swear I am not making this up. If you read the editorial itself, titled Bono for the World Bank, you will see that this is no tongue-in-cheek suggestion. With no apparent irony, the editors say things like this:
Bono, the U2 rock star, has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and he is a credible candidate.
Bono is the most eloquent and passionate spokesman for African aid in the Western world.
But the above correction was not the only Bono-related correction on this morning’s editorial page. There is also this one:
FCC — An editorial Wednesday on actions by the Federal Communications Commission stated that the commissioners in 2003 reversed their own staff, which had ruled that an expletive used by rock star Bono at an awards ceremony wasn’t indecent. Bono’s utterance occurred in 2003, but the reversal occurred in 2004.
Hey, you can’t be “the most eloquent and passionate spokesman for African aid in the Western world” without uttering a few expletives.
So what is it with the editorial board’s obsession with Bono?
The editors at the L.A. Times published an editorial yesterday praising the Supreme Court’s decision applying strict scrutiny to segregation of prisoners by race in California. I haven’t read the Supreme Court’s decision, and I don’t comment on court decisions that I haven’t read. But, looking at the policy alone, I am appalled (though not surprised) by the editors’ naive view of prisoners, and the editors’ failure of logical thinking.