Update:

My brother's a fucking retard.

Okay, so, I guess he rolled down the windows to see while parking and forgot to roll them back up. That makes more sense, but you could scream STEAL MY CAR any louder?

And they were crashed in one of those apartments, with some friend of a friend, or something, so that's why we didn't recognize any of his friends as living there. He called this morning all flabbergasted, because he woke up to numerous WTF JASON CALL ME messages from various people.

Dad about took his head off, too. It'll be fun to harass him later about it, now that my heart's not beating so hard.

----

I woke up at 3:00 a.m. when my dad came into the kitchen, the light turned on, and he scrambled for a set of extra keys he thought he had hanging up by the phone.

Groggy, sore (couch-sleeping is not exactly great on my back, I miss my bed with my boyfriend to cuddle against in it, dammit), and confused... I sat up and asked him what he was doing.

"Something's wrong. The police called."

Apparently, the police called here looking for Jason, because they drove by a car they thought was stolen earlier on Roosevelt Street in Chula Vista. It was parked with its windows rolled down, and it being a rainy night, they thought it might be stolen and abandoned. Upon further investigation, it didn't appear to be the case... there was no sign of forced entry, and Jason's briefcase was still in the back seat.

So, the thing is, he's probably shacking up with some girl he met tonight. Drunk, maybe. His phone's off. 90% chance he's fine.

But on the other hand, it is extremely unlike Jason to drink and drive, which is what I think the windows rolled down on a rainy night would mean... because it's extremely unlike him to leave his windows down. He locks the door to the house even if it's daytime and we're home, something we honestly don't have to worry about in this neighborhood if it really came down to it. He flipped out when I bought the doggie door and he thought it meant that the sliding glass door wouldn't lock now.

So it's weird. His cell goes straight to voicemail. All we know is that he was supposed to be downtown at Sushi Deli with his friend Albert, and Albert's sister who's in town for Thanksgiving (and therefore not the tenant of an apartment on Roosevelt near his car). He was supposed to call Dad if he wasn't going to be home tonight -- Dad said he took that up with him because he worries and Jay's been real good about it lately. As far as we know, Albert lives in IB, not Chula Vista.

So it's weird. We're probably being paranoid, but things aren't adding up. The likelihood that he got drunk and went against the "norm" is probably far more likely than the alternative that something funky is up, but you hear horror stories, so you never know...

I'll update as I get it, I guess.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Why I love dooce.com and Dooce's commenters:

"Listen, everyone who's been bashing comments #11, 28 and 32, obviously you haven't considered the extreme consequences of supporting gay marriage. A conservative commentator made the following excellent argument against gay marriage:

"So if we allow gay marriage, what's to prevent a gay guy from sneaking into my house while I'm asleep and just gay marrying me?"
-Stephen Colbert-

Would you want that to happen to YOU? HMM?"

---

Okay, but seriously, I don't really need to urge y'all to vote NO on Prop 8, right?

I mean, let's strip it down.

From what I understand (though this is admittedly not what is on the NO on Prop 8 website... though if their site is true it's even more of a no-brainer), if Prop 8 passes, not much will have changed in California, on the surface. The GLBT population will be losing the right to call their domestic partnerships a "marriage". Prop 8 does not challenge or change the civil rights afforded to gay domestic partnerships. Yup, all this uproar over semantics, it's true.

The Prop 8 supporters -- or at least the ones who are misinformed and think that by voting yes on Prop 8, they will be somehow setting everything right in God's almighty eyes and keeping them damn gays from gaining any civil rights that support an obvious mental disorder -- argue about slippery slopes. We've all heard and mocked it. "Hell, next they'll be wanting to marry dogs!" They argue that gay marriage will now be taught in classrooms, and they won't be able to keep their kids home from school on those days so as not to let them catch teh ghey by being informed about the world around them and the realities of its laws. Do I really need to point out again that it is simply semantics? That their children are going to be taught about domestic partnerships anyway? They just don't want their kids to be confusing what "marriage" means... even though "marriage" and "domestic partnership" are one and the same, but with different labels. So... why the need for a distinction? Because of God? 

Every argument for a Yes on Prop 8 vote comes down to religion when you strip everything else away. And when you strip religion away from the argument? There is no issue. A marriage is a domestic partnership, and vice versa. And assigning two different words for the same exact thing... there is no reason for it. There is none, unless you bring religion back into the picture. Which goes to separation of church and state.

So... why does it matter, having two separate words for the same thing, then? Right? It caters to the religious fundamentalists, and the gays aren't harmed one little bit because they still have their rights! It matters because of "separate but equal". By the very nature of assigning two words for one thing, you are implying some sort of inherent difference lurking beneath the surface. That's not a far cry off from when we were trying to legislate racial bigotry with the "separate but equal" clause. Talk about a slippery slope!

I believe that the fair and truly equal thing for our country, and more specifically for California, is to stick to legislating the law based on the equal rights that we are all supposed to have regardless of color, race, sexuality, or creed, and to keep legislature based solely on religious beliefs far, far away from our federal or state constitutions.

Let the flamewar begin? (I'm really bad at writing about politics, as you can see.)