Didn't have the greatest start to the day, as at about 4:00 this morning, got a recorded phone call from Somerville telling me that there was a multiple-alarm fire in the neighborhood and that I needed to call them to confirm receipt (something like that). Called the number cited and just barely made out from the guy who answered that the fire was on Walnut Street and that the call was a mistake. He then asked me if I lived with Paul (huh?).
Had a really difficult time falling back to sleep I was so creeped out. Turns out, Pavel heard the call from downstairs and was kind of weirded out as well.
Since we were still up at around six, decided to get ready and go to the polling station first thing in order to avoid the lines. (snort) As it turned out, when we got there at 6:55 am, there was already a long line twisting through the parking lot of the Dante Club and starting its way up Craigie Street.
I'd say that it took probably about an hour to get through the line. Voting took maybe two minutes. (Pays to do your research beforehand). Though we both voted similarly on the candidate portion, on the ballot questions, we sort of cancelled each other out:
1: He voted yes, I voted no. I understand his point of view, as, having worked for a horrendously wasteful government-funded organization for years, I'd love to see them starved of funds. However, this isn't how stuff works out. Most likely what would happen is that, as a punitive measure, schools, fire, police, etc - really necessary, public face stuff would be cut out.
2: He voted yes, I voted no. His maintenance is that, if marijuana is decriminalized, that would mean that college students would stay home stoned rather than vote, and we need to keep dumb kids out of the polls (he also thinks we should raise the voting age to 40 and only allow property owners the vote, as well.) My thoughts on the subject are that it's a slippery slope (How's that decriminalization of cocaine and statutory rape working out, London?).
3: He voted no, I voted yes. It's not that I hate dogs, far from it. It's the wording of the question that bothered me. Seemed more like MA trying to regulate betting and couching it in animal rights more than anything else.
Questions 4 and 5 (only valid in our part of Somerville): We both voted no, as, as I'd mentioned before, they are supported by a very noxious pressure group that will not take no for an answer.
Afterwards, went over to Starbucks to get coffee, but couldn't stand another line. Wasn't worth it, even for free good stuff.