And now Vermont has legalized same-sex marriage.  (!)  This one is important because it's the first one that happened because the legislature voted it through (overriding a gubernatorial veto) and not because the courts ruled it so.  It's a kick in the teeth to the Nazi, intolerant conservatives who like to howl that the judiciary has hijacked the legislative process.

Well, yeah--I voted.

One of my students asked me who I was going to vote for.  I raised an eyebrow and said, "You should M.Y. O. Bama."

Schools are closed all over Michigan.  The buildings are used as polling places, and they don't want crowds of adults wandering in and out of elementary schools all day long.  The teachers have staff development.  On my way in this morning, I saw a long line of people forming outside one of the elementary schools in Wherever.  An enormous crowd of them were also inside the cafeteria of Nameless High School, way more than I've ever seen before.

My own voting went painlessly because I was able to get there before the post-work rush.  I arrived at my own local elementary school and found two lines--a long one and a short one.  The long one was for Precinct 4, the short one for Precinct 2.  I didn't know which precinct I was in, so I did a line-jump into the gymnasium to ask an election worker.  Turned out I was in 2.  Yay!  Got in the short line, voted, and left.

Just for fun:

For President, I voted for Obama.
For Michigan Supreme Court, I voted Diane Hathaway (hoping to unseat conservative Clifford Taylor and tip the court back toward progressive)
On Proprosal One (to legalize use of medical marijuana) I voted yes.
On Proposal Two (to legalize government support of stem cell research) I voted yes.
On a proposal to keep the millage for county parks at its current level rather than let it expire, I voted yes.
On a proposal to fund a community college, I voted yes.

Sarah Palin's baby son has Down's Syndrom.  As a result, Sarah Palin touts herself as someone who understands what parents of special needs children are going through.  John McCain also touts her as someone who understands such.  Vote for them, and they'll ensure funding for research and programs to help special needs parents because, goldangit, Sarah Palin knows your fear and pain, and she'll fight for you.

It's bullshit.

Speaking as someone who's been raising a special needs kid (autistic) for eleven and a half years now, I can authoritatively say Sarah Palin knows only a tiny bit about raising a special needs kid. She's probably been told about and researched a great deal about Down's Syndrome, and she's no doubt done the usual "Why is this happening to me and my child?" wondering.

However, as a woman of wealth, Sarah Palin doesn't have anything like the normal parental worries and difficulties about raising a special needs child. She has the money to ensure her baby will have the absolute best care and schooling available. She has the money to ensure her baby will never have to worry about supporting himself when he grows up. She has the money to ensure his future, something the vast majority of parents of special needs children don't have. So Sarah Palin doesn't know, and never will know, exactly what it means to raise a special needs child.

Bush has entered his final 100 days in office.

Let the celebration begin!

Every time Pallin says "Alaska" or "maverick," take a drink.  You'll pass out in less than ten minutes.

(Oh!  Just as I was posting this, Biden finally had enough, jumped in, and blasted the whole "McCain is a maverick" thing.)

The woman mentions Alaska in every other sentence.  It becomes, after a while, a chorus, and it makes Pallin sound like all her experience comes from Alaska.

Oh wait . . .

I'm watching the Biden/Pallin debate, and Pallin keeps saying "Eye-Rak," "Eye-Ran," and "Nook-you-lure."  Blarg!  It's driving me crazy!

On the other hand, why am I complaining that she's coming across as an idiot?

Last night I decided to watch The Debate.

I rarely watch Presidential debates anymore because I'm not an undecided voter.  (I don't understand how anyone can be undecided at this point--it's not as if there isn't any information out there about both candidates and it doesn't take much intelligence or work to ferret it out and decide which candidate has a platform that makes the most sense to you, but I suppose that's a different rant.)  The debate isn't going to change my mind any, so there isn't much point in watching except on the miniscule chance that the candidate I dislike will do something incredibly stupid, wiping out his chances.  And how likely is that?

However, this time around I wanted to see how McCain would stack up against Obama, and I had a stack of mythology papers to grade--two birds, one rock, etc.

First off, I found the choice of venue interesting, if purposeful.  I would be great fun to tell the dickwads who made life miserable for James Meredith back in 1962 that they would live to see Ole Miss be the site of a presidential debate with a black man.  Ironically, neither candidate could mention this aspect of the debate.  McCain couldn't say a word because no matter how he phrased the idea, it would come across as racist.  Obama had to keep his mouth shut because it would sound like he was playing the race card against McCain.

Anyway, I have to say I was annoyed with Jim Lehrer.  He said the debate was supposed to center around foreign policy, then said that "by definition" this would include the US economy, and jumped into several questions about that very topic, none of which had anything to =do= with foreign policy.  Lehrer was reaching, pandering to an audience who wanted to hear about the economy.  It came across to me as crass, and both Obama and McCain should be commended for responding to all the economic questions with apparent ease, since they couldn't have known Lehrer would toss this at them.

On a pure presentation level, Obama was the better speaker.  He was smoother, more articulate, and more focused.  I only caught once when he continued speaking when he should have concluded.  McCain tended to stammer and stutter, go off on strange tangents, and continue speaking about not much when he had already made his point.  Obama also wisely talked to the camera quite a lot, speaking to the viewers, while McCain talked mainly to Lehrer.

On a content level, I tried to stay objective.  I support Obama and was trying to look at him as if I didn't, necessarily.  For content, I think I'd call the debate a tie.

And I got all my mythology papers graded, too.  This is how teachers spend Friday nights.

Got this in my e-mail today:

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'  Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.

If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic  Muslim.  Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a  maverick.

Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.  Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well-grounded.

If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second-highest-ranking executive.

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising two beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

If you teach responsible, age-appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.  If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible. 

If your wife is a Harvard graduate laywer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner-city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.  If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

Taking a break from Ireland posts to say he's dead, and since I've never had a problem with the "speak no ill" thing, I'll just say I wish it had happened sooner.  That man caused more rifts, more damage, and more hatred than many Klansmen.

I didn't bother to vote in the Michigan primary.  When the Michigan DemocraticParty decided to move the primary to an earlier date, the national party took umbrage and barred the Michigan delegates from attending the national primary.  As it stands now, Michigan has no voice in choosing the Democratic candidate. Hence my lack of vote casting.

However, I do support Hillary Clinton's campaign over Barack Obama's (since it's clearly going to be one of those two), and there are clear reasons for it.

I realized at one point that I really knew very little about their actual platforms and what they were proposing, so I did some serious net-surfing.  I read lots written by other people, but that was confusing and difficult to wade through.  Finally, I visited both their web sites.

Obama's web site, annoyingly, requires you to give a name, ZIP code, and e-mail address in order to enter the site.  I made up fake ones and got through, but this didn't endear him to me.  Once there, I read Obama's claim that, unlike Clinton, all his campaign funding comes from individual donations and not from organizations, leaving him free from influence of special interest groups.  (I thought this was interesting, but I had to wonder who some of the private donors are and how "free" Obama might be of =them.=)

I read his platform information, where he (or his speech-writers) stated what his goals were with various issues.  Then I went to Hillary Clinton's web site and looked for the same informatiion.

Clinton's web site is more user-friendly, which isn't necessarily a reason to vote for her.  However, I did find there severals reasons to do so.

--She supports repealing the idiotic No Child Left Behind Act.  Obama advocates modifying it.  If NCLB sticks around, it must be changed, but getting rid of it is the best option of all for the simple reason that it can't be changed enough.  Obama maintains he wants to fully fund it, but that won't solve the many problems NCLB creates.

--Obama's plans are largely lacking in detail.  He doesn't give specifics on how he plans to do much of what he says he wants to accomplish.  Clinton's plans are more carefully laid out.  She doesn't detail everything, but she gives far more detail than Obama.  Apparently she (or her staff) have given running the country much more practical thought.

--Clinton supports an enormous, careful system for funding autism research and helping children and adults with autism: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4342  Obama mentions autism on his web site, but only cursorily.  I'm not a single-issue voter, but this stark difference between her and him tipped it for me.

On an overall note, Obama's web site was full of hope--and of light and air. There is a definite lack of clear planning compared to Clinton.  They're both selling themselves, they both have agendas, but Clinton's seems to have more thought, more planning, more practicality behind it.

Vote Clinton.

Gaaaahhhh!  The media are at it =again!=  Clinton took New Hampshire, and they're all clamoring about "the upset."  What freakin' upset?  There was no upset!  But nooooo . . . Obama took Iowa, a single state, and suddenly that means he's an automatic win for the party, and it's an UPSET when it doesn't happen.  And oh yes, let's not forget that the first two towns--two teeny, flyshit villages--who reported their results in NH had Obama as the winner, so there you have it!  Obama has the nomination sewn up.  How could Clinton have won after Iowa and two shitkicker New Hampshire towns predicted she
would lose?  How how how how?  Oh my goooooooddddd!!!!

Can't they get their heads out of their shaved, perfumed, made-up asses and get into the real world they claim to report about?

Pre-voting polls AREN'T AN INDICATOR.  Exit polls AREN'T AN INDICATOR. Street polls AREN'T AN INDICATOR.

Remember Bill Clinton?  He didn't win =anything= until late.  No one thought he was a serious contender at all.  The polls and the pundits all but ignored him early on.

I get so sick of this.