Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Welcome back! To me!! :)

Firstly, allow me to apologize for being away for so very very long! :(
My last blog post was October 2nd!! 
It has been a whole month! Plus...
Geeminy!! 
The good news is...I AM BACK!! :)
And the even BETTER NEWS is 
that I have been released from "work hell" 
and have a different job, as of October 24th. 
What. A. Relief! Really! A. Huge. RELIEF!!
And, what's really interesting is that 
this job is actually my "old" job!! 
Hah! This has been a very interesting journey! 
I am back working with the best group of people 
I have ever had the pleasure 
of working with in this lifetime! 
And...I only work 40 hours per week! Whoo! Whoo!
No more overwhelming workload 
and responsibility requiring me 
to work 60-hour weeks!

Courage does not always roar. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying,       ‘I will try again tomorrow.’

Maryanne Radanbacher – Author

The above quote described how I would feel at the end of each workday 
in my previous position...
determined to force myself to return again...for another day...of work hell. :)

I am slowly but surely returning to a 'normal' lifestyle with personal time to fill! 

I get to have dates again! 
Not only with my husband, but also with friends!

I get to do what I love to do all through the workday: help people!

I am the front desk person for the department...
and that is what I love to do!


I really do think that any deep crisis 
is an opportunity to make 
your life extraordinary in some way.
Martha Beck - Author

That job was a 'crisis' for me!
I have never before been so appreciative 
of my job and coworkers as I am now!
And that is how my life is now extraordinary!
My appreciation is so much more intense 
than it was before!


Speaking of crisis...
I had decided I wouldn't mention yesterday's election,
but...how can we not be petrified of the next four years.
I certainly am...and that is why I intend to laugh as much as possible
and remain just as positive as possible.
Thank goodness we don't have TV in our house. 
At least I don't have to be reminded... 

Though I admit I do agree with DT on ONE thing...
THIS ELECTION WAS RIGGED!!
Actually, why the hell do we still have an electoral college?
I fail to see it's value. 
The POTUS should be selected in the same way as any other elected official--
whoever gets the most votes. 
And I would feel the same if HC and DT's roles were reversed.
We need to change that!


Meantime, I want a "do over"
of Tuesday, November 8th!




I hope to post at least two reviews yet this week!

Anxious to get back in the swing of blogging and reading!

Any changes in your life lately?

Happy reading
--Lynn

6 comments:

  1. Welcome back, Lynn! And congrats on your new "old" job!
    I love your positive attitude. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Naomi! Thanks for stopping by! Negative vs. Positive. It is a choice! I try to "take the high road" and remain positive, if at all possible...some days are more challenging in that regard than others!

      Delete
  2. The EC is a strange thing but it makes sense. The Founders didn't want a democratic rule bc it is equal to mob rule. If candidates had to get the popular vote, the would only campaign in the big cities and they'd neglect the rest of the country. It forces the candidate to go all over, instead of concentrate on one region; it gets tricky when swing states change each election year, too. The EC means smaller, less popular states won't be ignored by candidates and won't be overshadowed by larger, more popular states.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for stopping by, Ruth! Interestingly, I just had this same discussion with someone else. I'm glad we can have a discussion. If I understand correctly what I've read of the EC historical significance, the "founding fathers" instituted the EC due to the fact that not all citizens could travel to vote, therefore, not each voting citizen had the same opportunity to submit their vote. That perhaps was valid reasoning in their world and at that time. However, this is today and our world is immensely different. With few exceptions, virtually all of the voting US citizenry can indeed travel to submit their vote, and if not, there is always voting by mail and/or early voting possibilities, eliminating any such challenge. Regarding candidates' campaigning, how many people actually attend political candidates' "rallies" or events? I've not attended one in my 60 years. And frankly, I have no personal friends who have ever attended one. That leaves advertising. How much of the advertising is actually valid? How much of it is simply character assassination? My reasoning is that overall, most of us tend to get all the information we want (it is a personal choice) via "modern technology." Although I do not have a TV in my house, I get all the information I need or desire (and more!) online. My argument: the EC is obsolete and unnecessary and frankly, provides yet another layer of possibility for manipulation of election results. I do understand that there is one modern political party which keeps benefiting from this system, as borne out by the statistical data, and that is even more worrisome. No one party should consistently benefit from a skewed system that is no longer necessary. That is my reasoning...and opinion. I have been an opponent of the EC for at least 25-30 years. I cannot justify its existence in our world.

      Delete
    2. Good points. Good points!

      But for some reason, when a candidate loses a state, he/she is blamed for not campaigning there enough, whether it is a physical appearance, TV/radio ads, or even sending others in his/her place. There must be some connection.

      But the other concern is that less populated states would rarely or never have a voice. Basically my state of California and New York would almost always decide an election. For example, the entire upper state of New York voted for Trump, but the tiny little boroughs of NYC elected Clinton, and she won the state's 29 electors. So the issues that people care about in NY state are not the issues that NYC cares about; and those concerns may be over looked again and again if NYC's candidate is always the winner.

      I also read that less people voted this year - which is crazy - but I digress. I think a lot of people were disgusted by both candidates.
      I almost did not vote myself. : (

      Delete
    3. But this is not a regional election, it is a FEDERAL election, covering the whole country. I fail to see why rural voters' opinions/votes should be given any more priority or weight than that of urban dwellers. This person will rule over the whole country, urban and rural. And that is from me who has ALWAYS lived in rural locations, but I still believe one person should equal one vote, regardless of their locale. I believe this is especially true now that virtually everyone has access to electronic devices and can get all the information they want. I would NEVER not vote. That's just me. I figure I am lucky enough to live in a country where I can at least feel as if I have a voice, and I intend to use it, no matter who the candidates are, I will at least vote my preference. I, for one, believed in one of the candidates and was horrified by one, and was determined not to throw my vote away on a third-party candidate, though I have done so in the past. :) With the Republicans entrenched and since they have benefited from the Electoral College system, I doubt we need worry about the EC going away any time soon, but I believe it should... :)

      Delete