Insert Jeopardy Theme Song Here

Oh my. Ohio may decide the outcome of election 2004. Wow. Is this really true democracy at work here? It is so darn close, and the day is almost over (the day is already over in most of the country!). It looks like the GOP is a majority in the Senate again. Bush is likely to win, but Ohio seems to be the iffy case.

I barely got through class because I was so anxious to see who'd win, although I knew that no answer would be available anytime soon. Most of my classmates ran out during break and got updates with the numbers hot off the press (so to speak). I have a gut feeling that Bush will win but again with a small margin -- I don't think we'll have the same fiasco as we did in 2000. But if Ohio is the new Florida, I honestly don't know. But it is a shame that we have to put on another charade for the world to laugh at. The good thing is, I think a lot of people learned a lesson from 2000 -- a definitely higher voter turnout and record number of new registrants. How I wish I were one. This is what the election looks like now (from Yahoo!):

If you count the electoral votes from each swing state that's still swingin' you'd realize that Ohio becomes a crucial state -- it has the highest number of electoral votes among the states that are left in election limbo.

The election comes to me at a time that I am studying Shakespearean history plays, namley, Richard III and Henry V. I have a research paper regarding Shakespeare's Richard III, in which I have to compare him to another person in history with comparable merits and vile cruelty. So far, I've got Brutus (you know, et tu Brute), and Nero, and possibly Bloody Mary. It doesn't have to be a King/Queen/Emperor/Empress, but any sort of person who gained a position of power by doing evil deeds (like Richard III who killed his brothers and nephews to get to the throne). If anyone has a suggestion, I'd appreciate it! But it's also important to note that history repeats itself, and while Shakespeare has dramatized Richard III in his play for obvious reasons, characters like Richard III are abundant in history. Hitler, is an obvious one, as well as Stalin, and Hussein. (I am trying to stay away from the too obvious/popular choices in my own paper.)

Anyone who knows me also knows that I am a sucker for the Romans and Greeks. Their art, their architectures, their gods, their mythology, their history, their generals and wars and empires -- I just love it. Of course, it isn't something I've been studying all my life. It seems as though there's always something new to learn. Last semester, I had the opportunity to take art history and learn all about prehistoric to middle ages art, which included a large chunk of Greek and Roman art. I loved the stuff so much, it felt weird to get a grade for it! I needed no other reward than the actual learning.

I am also learning, with great fascination, English history. I've had the opportunity to learn so much about the monarchs -- I'm almost down to learning who each were and who are children of whom and what family and what order and so on. English courses I've concentrated on so far only go up to the Restoration period, so after that point I am a bit hazy, but I'm pretty well-learned from William the Conqueror to about Charles II. And the history of the English crown is so juicy, you wouldn't believe it. It's better than reading the tabloids (and guilt-free too!). What I really don't like in history are wars and battles. I recall learning the Civil War (US) battle sites in my history classes, and who won which battle, and that was just a bore! Clearly, wars are of no interest to me.

My English professor tonight went waaaaaay off on a tangent from discussing Henry V, and talked on and on about other things. One of them was the story of how he met his wife. My English professor is 62 years of age, and is both a US citizen and a English royal subject. He spent his childhood and youth, it seems, in England and went to college in the states. He met his wife in Paris during the intermission of an opera when he was 18, and she, 17. He told us the lovely and romantic story of how they met and married, and it was just the sweetest story I've heard (in real life)! It would do no justice to yap on and on about it on my blog -- I'd have to take more care to re-tell that story, but it just isn't something you see these days. Maybe I'll incorporate it into the novel. Ha. Some people are living proofs that romance exists. For me, romance, much like the Holy Grail, is something I constantly seek after, but never find. So it seems. I read in The Da Vinci Code that you don't find the Holy Grail; the Holy Grail finds you. Perhaps the same goes for romance. (It better find me soon, cuz I'm losin' my patience here.)