Pollyanna has a bad day - part I

Pollyanna has a bad day!!

https://www.success.com/5-ways-to-avoid-staying-too-long-at-your-own-pity-party/

Oh no, the title says it all - Pollyanna has a bad day.

If you check out this blog on a somewhat regular basis, you know that I can be a “Pollyanna” - everything is going to work out - playing the “Good Game” - that everything that happens has some good in it.  In the Biblical concept, “In Everything Give Thanks for this is the Will of God” (1 Thessalonians 5:19). Hey - I am giving thanks for my transmission going out a month ago, for some other things - in EVERYTHING (that means everything - right?)!!!

So, what if you have a bad day? It can happen.  In an article I recently read, there was this point: “But also biological elements, such as hormones and genes that might be "on" or "off" at any given time.”  (Hey - I’m on enough hormones and medications that even I question if I am “on” or “off” at any point in time!!)

So, yes, I got called “Sir” too many times yesterday!!  From those coming to vote as they left and I opened the exit door for them, they said: “Thank you, sir”.  HEY - look at me, do my clothes say “sir?” Does my hair say “sir”? (Okay, being six foot two inches does scream “sir”.)  Do I need to adjust my lipstick and makeup to appear more feminine?  

Yes, I had a bad day.  I am NOT ALLOWED to complain!!!  (Back to “in everything” give thanks) - so I’m not really complaining that my sinus was draining and I was coughing and not feeling 100%.  Hey - we all get a cold some days. I think God that I had a cold and wasn’t functioning at full speed!!  

It was from my friend who taught sociology at Dakota State that I first heard the term “Pity Party”.  Yes, there are times that people like to say “Oh woe is me”. But, pity parties are not a good way to go.  

I found the link (above) for how to stop pity parties.

Let’s look at it:

-1 Allow yourself time.

I mopped around my apartment after working the early voting yesterday.  I took TWO naps - and even then I was listless and finally forced myself to go to the gym and get a nice walk (and even to the store and got tissues and light bulbs - hey I really am a big-time shopper!!!)

Comment - listless is being described as “ lacking energy or enthusiasm.”.  If you have been around me, you know my life mantra is “Nothing great was ever achieved with enthusiasm” (by Ralph Waldo Emerson).  

Second comment - in doing these blogs, you find that I rarely am “list-less”!!  I love lists!!! (Okay, a poor “play-on-words”.)!!

-2 Talk about it!!

I live alone.  There is no one I can talk too in my apartment - except me.

The article says: “Don’t try to bottle up your feelings, no matter how embarrassed you might feel. Talk it over with patient friends who will really listen. If need be, seek out a little one-on-one time with a life coach or therapist. I don’t know how or why, but non-physical things—such as negative thoughts and reliving horrid memories—can manifest in very physical ways. How about those tension headaches? How about that lack of sleep that makes our skin sallow? You must talk this time through, as often as you feel the urge to.”

Yes, we do live in a world of many communication channels.  Back four months ago, when I was down, and I took my four-day “vacation” in the mental hospital, one of my great friends (AP) after my time there insisted the next time I was down like that to call her.  Her phone number is only one of a few that I have memorized - 512-623-XXXX. This time, I used her phone number - but in texting mode to say “woe is me”. And, she got back to me with words I needed to hear and the encouragement I needed.  

-3 Do something

As the evening went on, I opted to go to the gym and walk.  I am listening to an audiobook by Debbie Macomber “Blossom Street Brides”.  With my walking at the polling place, I already had three miles of steps, so listening to this book and making thirty laps at the Georgetown Recreation Center, I got to five-and-one-half miles, let this nice innocent book wash over me and brighten my mood.

The article puts it this way: “Do something. When you don’t even want to get out of bed, make that your one achievement for the day. Get up, take a quick shower and do something, anything. Sit in a café instead of on your sofa behind drawn curtains. Go to a movie by yourself. Grocery shop, picking up a few of your favorite treats (so long as you don’t eat them all in one night). Make plans with a friend when socializing is the last thing you want to do. Make it your personal goal for just that one day out of the week. Pat yourself on the back for achieving it.”

I did something - and even got the tissues that my nose demanded and the light bulb for that lamp that has been burned out for about two weeks!!!

(I see that I need to stop this for today and I will continue tomorrow!!!)

*****

In everything give thanks - nothing great was achieved without enthusiasm - and (hey) even Pollyanna can have a down day on rare occasions!!!

Hugs!!

Karen

Egotism - and public office

Ego (leading to running for office)

Today really more than just voting - but what motivates a person to run for a political office?

We all have some ego in ourselves.  Ego is defined as: “a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.”

We need to have some ego - we need to think we have some importance to the world, to those around us, that we are important - to ourselves and to others.

Even the best have to have some ego.  Mother Teresa in serving the “poorest of the poor” had to feel that her work was benefiting mankind and that her work had value.  Yes, seemingly even she wondered if she was of value but “kept on keeping on”.  

As you might know, after my retirement I felt I had no value.  I think many seniors fall into that trap - “I have no value, I am taking up space on this world, I am breathing air that could be used by a child, I am eating food that could be given to the hungry, I am sleeping in a bed that could be used by a homeless person.  I have no reason to keep living.” Some in our culture have taken this step farther - therefore, if you have no value in the world, you should kill yourself - with assisted suicide or legalized death. 

Others have said, “life until natural death” is the proper way to live.  Even if you think you have no value, you do have value - at least to God.  If you take the Judeo-Christian viewpoint that I am “made in the image of God” from Genesis 1:27’ or Psalm 139:14 “ I am fearfully and wonderfully made”, the logical conclusion is that to kill myself (or really to kill any person) is destroy the person made in God’s image.  

Can we allow that ego - self-importance - to overtake us?  

This article (https://www.inc.com/wanda-thibodeaux/science-finally-explained-what-all-toxic-people-have-in-common-heres-what-it-means-for-your-team.html) talks about toxic people frequently have traits where ego (and other factors).  The article (which I am not going to fully explore today) calls these factors the “D factor” (for DARK factor) with elements of “on nine common negative traits (egoism, Machiavellianism, moral disengagement, narcissism, psychological entitlement, psychopathy, sadism, self-interest, and spitefulness).

So, putting some reasoning into this discussion, we all need some ego, we all need to feel that we have value in our lives (and we will live the discussion of until natural death or until we have little value to the world out of the discussion today).  

The article suggests that some of these dark factors can be good for leadership.  To be a good leader, the person should have some ego - believing in themselves; but loving one’s self to an extreme (like narcissism, entitlement, sadism, and self-interest) can be negative.

In talking with a friend at the early voting the other day, we both wondered why people run for public office?  If somebody is such a natural leader shouldn’t he or she work in a corporate (or academic) setting leading the company (or school) in profit and goodwill?  

But, does a person have to have sufficient ego to believe in themself - to lead and guide a country?  

And, when you are considering politicians - especially those running for the highest office in our country - are they statesmen - seeking to pilot the ‘ship of state’ through the rocks and reefs - or egotistical politicians - seeking to make themselves look good? (And writing themselves into the history books).

Who knows?  Maybe there is a fine line 

See you tomorrow!!

Karen

Wining at any cost - part II

Winning at any cost - part II

Yesterday we looked at the concept of winning at any cost.  

The concept says “This team / this company / this person - will do ANYTHING to win.”  This is not a new concept. It is built on the foundation of overt competitiveness, greed, extreme ego and more.  

In sports, over the years some athletes did ‘anything’ to win.  Take professional cycling, where some athletes went to great lengths to win the Tour de France with performance-enhancing drugs, even blood transfusions. In other sports, athletes are given steroids to build their strength or endurance.  

We see this in other areas other than sports.  In the past year, there were those who paid college recruiters in lessor sports to get ‘scholarships’ to prestigious universities.  So, I want my child to attend Yale? I would bride the water polo coach from Yale to get my son on the team and bypass the normal admission process.  I have heard in the academic world of cheating on tests in various ways. With technology, cheating can happen in many ways (after all Google ‘knows’ everything doesn’t it?)

College endowments can also be a factor in ‘fairness’.  Some of the major schools (like Harvard and Yale) have huge endowments and can recruit the top students from around the country and world to enter their universities.  Success breeds success there - as top students from prestigious universities go on to top jobs - and as these top students making top money donate more funds back to their alma maters, allowing those universities to attract additional top students (and top professors).  

Money talks - and the adage “the rich get rich and the poor get poorer” seems to work in almost all fields.  

Even in farming, the farmers with the best land can buy the best equipment, can install the best sprinkling systems, and pay the water bills.  

Life isn’t fair.  Should we handicap the best to provide opportunities for others?  

Many years ago, I read Ayn Rand’s major books - The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  Particularly Atlas Shrugged suggested handicapping the successful to pay for the others.  While it has been years since I read the book, there was legislation about “anti-dog-eat-dog” - where the competition was toned down in order to help the underdogs compete (of which Ayn Rand opposed this).  The concept says that success causes the opposition to improve. A few years back, the University of Connecticut Women’s basketball team was always number 1.  

Wikipedia notes: “The UConn Huskies are the most successful women's basketball program in the nation, having won a record 11 NCAA Division I National Championships and a women's record four in a row, from 2013 through 2016, plus over 40 conference regular season and tournament championships.”

This year at this time, the UConn women’s basketball team is ranked sixth.  Other teams and other coaches have studied UConn’s success and built strong teams.  And, in the big scheme of things, it has caused American Women’s basketball to be stronger.  

Following yesterday’s thought:  Does competition build a stronger product across the field?  (Provided that the competition is fair and is not cheating). Or (again), should successful teams, programs, companies, be handicapped to achieve more balance?

Still an interesting discussion!!!

What do you think?

Karen

Winning - at any cost.

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2020/2/21/21145913/sports-cheating-houston-astros-manchester-city-saracens

The article looks at recent ‘cheating’ scandals in professional sports.

The article notes: “Breaking the rules isn’t a new phenomenon in sports, but the level at which it’s happening—both in cadence and severity—is alarming and reflective of society”

First, the Houston Astros of Major League BAseball stole signs from the catcher to the pitcher.  The catcher flashes a ‘sign’ to the pitcher - possibly for a fastball, a change-up, a slider, a curve and then a suggested location - inside or outside - up high or down low.  

To ‘steal a sign’ lets the opposing team (probably with a camera in the center-field seats) see what the pitcher is going to throw and when somehow communicated to the batter says “Hey - be ready, he is going to throw a fastball up high”.  The concept gives the batter the opportunity to be ready for the pitch.

Two other recent scandals involve money.  Generally speaking, rich-teams can hire (and pay) for the best players.  So, a team that has lots of money can buy the best players in the world.

In the past, in American baseball, the New York Yankees had deep pockets and could hire the best players (and win the World Series).  In order to be fair to smaller cities, Major League Baseball (and similar sports) put in salary caps. By this, a team like the Yankees could only pay a maximum of $X dollars for players, and if they paid over that, they paid a penalty that was shared to small cities.  This is kind of a Robin Hood concept - take from the rich and give to the poor.  

If the Yankees can buy the best players and the Brewers can’t afford to pay that much, year-after-year, the Yankees will win more games and attract more fans while fewer fans will go to the Brewers will win fewer games and attract fewer fans.  In other words, “the rich get rich and the poor get poorer”.

By putting salary caps on teams, when they have spent their money, they can’t go over that.  So, instead of 20 super-high-paid players, they might only afford (say) 8 high paid players and then have 12 average or lesser paid players.  The players they couldn’t afford would be available to the less successful teams - and in theory, they could hire some of them and get better results.  

In the English scandals, two teams were paying for the high priced payments with payments “under the table” (or cheating the compensation rules).  That is, that maybe the team hired their eight highly paid players with their salary money, but hired the additional twelve players at “average salaries”, but supplemented them with alternative payments.  The additional players are getting paid top salaries but on paper, it looks like they are getting average salaries. (Does that make sense - the team gets twenty top players and are playing hundreds of millions of dollars for the players, but on the accounting books it looks like they are only paying for eight top players and for twelve average players - who are really top players and should have been playing on other teams - but by slush funds are playing on the same team.)

It becomes a type of monopoly.  Taking baseball as an example, the top four teams with the most money pay the best salaries and the poor Brewers (or Kansas City Royals) can’t compete for the top players.  

I am somewhat ambivalent about this!!  In the business field, a company that puts out the best product can charge a little more for that product.  If (say) Honda year-after-year puts out the best cars in the world, then Chevy (or really General Motors) should work on improving the quality of their products.  

But, while that works in the business world, maybe that doesn’t work in the competitive world of professional sports.  By handicapping successful teams so less successful teams can complete seems to be attempting to ‘level the playing field’. 

With the Honda / General Motors example, if that continued for many years, General Motors would be forced out of business for putting out less valuable cars (or cars of lesser quality).  

With baseball, if that continued for many years, the Milwaukee Brewers would cease to exist - and then the Kansas City Royals would disband - and then the Colorado Rockies would also fold.

What do you think?  Can an association (or a “league”) handicap a successful team that is too successful in order to help struggling teams succeed?  

The survival of the fittest is thrown out in favor of making more equal competition.

What do you think?

Karen

Early voting

Early Voting - part II

(Let’s see if I can stay on topic today!!!)

Early voting is a fairly recent concept.  I found a link that suggested it started in Texas almost 30 years ago (so, about 1991?).

The concept suggests that more voters can make it to the polling place by allowing voting for a period of time prior to the regular election.  

I remember elections in the past where I had a night class in Sioux Falls and had to drive from Madison.  My day was full and even though I wanted to vote, I didn’t get the job done.

My experience with early voting is that our polling place is open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. from Tuesday, February 18th until Friday, February 28th and does include the same hours on Saturday (7 to 7) and even 1:00 to 6:00 on Sunday (February 23rd).  My thoughts are that even the busiest person should be able to get to vote - even if unable to vote in the regular election day on March 3rd.  

As far as the analysis of early voting, I found this:

“While early voting may seem more convenient, it appears to have the opposite effect of what its proponents sought: It actually decreases turnout. A number of studies, including one by American University and another by professors from the University of Wisconsin, conclude that states that have adopted early voting have lower voter turnout than states without early voting.

“The 2013 University of Wisconsin study found that “early voting lowers the likelihood of turnout by three to four percentage points.” In fact, the longer the window of early voting, the greater the effect on lowering turnout. This may seem counterintuitive, but that is what the studies show.”

Texas still allows absentee ballots.  I view this as a truck driver being able to vote, a military person, or a person on a long cruise.  

*****

In the past few years, elections have had some controversies.  In the 2000 election, “hanging chads” were the issue in Florida.  Spoiled ballots occurred because of incorrect marking - marks that were made and then changed and not completely erased.  

The voting center where I have been working is equipped with new technology.  There are no markers, pencils, pens or even punches to be made.  

As the person arrives, a clerk greets them, verifies their address and picture Identification and prints a sticky label that is placed on a record sheet.  A specialized jet ink printer prints a coded heading on a longer paper ballot. There is nothing on the ballot to indicate the individual, but the encryption that could be mapped to the record sheet.  A person from any place in the county can vote at any location in the county.  

The voter takes the long paper ballot to a voting machine and inserts the ballot into a slot.  The machine interprets the encrypted code and brings the appropriate electronic display to the screen.  The voter can use his or her finger to select a candidate for a particular office (or the eraser from a pencil)).  

There were many issues on the ballot this time and it took about 10 minutes to fully go through the full ballot.  When finished voting (or skipping some questions), the voting machines asked the voter to confirm their selections and then spit out the ballot updated with the selections for the various races (partially encrypted) which were deposited into a ballot counter at the exit door.  While I have not been involved with the analysis of the voting, I assume that at the appropriate time with the appropriate people, the ballot counter will yield the totals (electronically) and also send the totals to a central processing center.  

The state of Texas has also attempted to help voters even farther.  In our voting location, we have a specialized voting machine that can be rolled out to the curb where a handicapped person can use to vote without leaving the car.  

A person could vote and before depositing the ballot in the ballot counter decided that they wanted to change their votes - could use up to three ballots.  

Even a person who had moved recently could vote a provisional ballot.  A person in Williamson county could vote for state-wide contests from say Amarillo County!

Could there be a chance of fraud?  Possibly. The company that created the voting machines and ballot counter could have allowed backdoor access to the software.  It could be that a foreign power might be able to find and access such backdoor access. Probable? Not really. Possibly? Only extremely slightly!!

In summary, I believe that this system is very secure and the early voting system is fair and solid!!

How about you?  Can you vote early?  Will you?

Hugs!!

Karen

Running for Office

Running for office and Early Voting

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/16/early-voting-disadvantages-outweigh-benefits/

I’ve been working as an Election Clerk for Early Voting for the Primary for my county (Williamson County) in Central Texas.  Thus, much of the material comes from my viewpoint:

But, from the article (linked above):

“Early voting — opening a limited number of locations where people can cast their ballots prior to Election Day — is a “reform” that states should reconsider. Its disadvantages seem to outweigh its benefits.

“Until the 1980s, states offered Americans only two ways to vote: in person on Election Day, or with absentee ballots intended for those unable to vote in person because of disability or illness. But proponents pushed early voting as a way of increasing turnout by making voting more convenient.

“Texas became the first state — almost 30 years ago — to implement the policy, which has now spread to 37 states and the District of Columbia (including three states that mail ballots to all voters).”

*****

But, a long time prior to voting comes the candidating part.  

Voting is an American right.  We are a representative democracy - where we select our leaders (that is our ‘representatives’) through a series of voting.  That obviously doesn’t mean we have the best leaders - as every person who thinks he or she might be a good leader has to put his or her name in for possible selection.  Or, (as has happened in the past), some group thinks you can push their agenda (like a labor union, organized crime, religious group) and talked you into running for a position.  

Putting your name in for possible selection can mean that good leaders are actually NOT running for political office.  Those potential good governmental leaders already are working at their ideal jobs (say in leadership in companies, education, or other endeavors) and the choice of leaving a job they love and do well at to become a candidate for an elected governmental position can be a tough choice.  

Let’s say you (my readers) are an excellent person (I’m thinking LMG) - solid, great background and skills, able to solve problems and display good judgment and critical thinking.  AND - you have a great job as (say) a professor. Why would you want to quit your job (or take unpaid leave) to run for a political office? [If you would consider taking unpaid leave or quitting a great job, I might question your good judgment!!!]

You would be faced with a tough choice.  Say yes to those that think you would be a good governmental leader - which might mean saying ‘no’ to your family and current livelihood.  

So, a potential candidate must make himself available to be elected.  If you consider a state like Texas, a candidate for a state-wide position (like governor or senator) would have to campaign already the state to get their name known.  That is hard to do when your family (or whoever) depends on you to bring home a paycheck.  

Campaigns (especially state-wide campaigns) can be very expensive.  If I (for example), thought my skills, background, temperament, values, and ambition would be good for the State of Texas, I would have to travel to El Paso (for example), Amarillo, Beaumont, Dallas, Texarkana and around the state.  I would need funds to stay overnight other than at home, eat out daily, be up at dawn to speak to people going to work at 7:00 a.m., to be around for a rally at 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. and to be on the go almost 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  

So, a person has convinced him or herself that they would be a great person to lead some aspect of government.  If it was a job, they would apply and be screened and possibly hired, but for an elected position, you have to convince people to vote for you.  (which is campaigning). And, even if you are the best possible person for a position, in government, you have to appeal to the people to go out and vote for you.  Meanwhile, if you were applying for a job at a company, all you would have to do is go through the screening process and demonstrate to a selection committee that you had the skills and ability to move the company forward.  

*****

So, you (or those around you), have convinced you to run for office.  You make a public statement, you fill out a petition with sufficient signatures to run.  But, how can you be elected by people in all parts of a state (or in all locations within a city, town, county, district?)  

My personal bias is that a person who runs for elected office must have a sufficiently large ego to believe that they could be the kind of leader the position needs.  

And, then you get thrown into campaigning against others in your same political party.  That leads to a primary where the person with the most votes wins and goes to the next level - campaigning against a person from the other major political party - who like you, probably has a large enough ego to think they would be the kind of leader the position needs.

Oh my!!!

More tomorrow!!!

Karen

(I rambled a little today - I started out thinking early voting, but went to finding candidates!)

Staying in Love - CONNECTIONS!!!

Staying in Love - Part II

https://kateborsato.com/2018/09/how-to-stay-in-love-with-your-partner/

Whew!!!  I got through two days of writing about sex!!  

I think the article has so much to suggest about Staying in Love with your partner, that I want to pass on. The article has sections on Connection, Pragmatic, Gratitude, Self-Care, Gifts, Quality Time, and Conflict.  

Some sections are (at least to me) more significant for Staying in Love.  Let’s look at Connections today!!!

CONNECTION

24. Smile at them, just because
25. Write a “why I like you” list and leave it out for them to see
*****
For quite a while, I wrote post-it notes and attached them to the bathroom mirror and other places - where she would get a surprise - like when she opened a book and there would be a note - or on her favorite coffee cup in the morning.

I also write her several emails a week (even now that we are separated and she (seemingly) has filed for a divorce).  And, every one of those notes says “I Love You” at the bottom.
*****
26. Reflect your understanding of how they feel, particularly when they have a hard day
27. Show empathy for their challenges (even if you wouldn’t react the same way)
*****
Empathy - really true empathy goes farther and deeper than just ‘concerns'.  I married my wife “for better, for worse, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, until death parts us”.  Do you REALLY care about your spouse? Listen to them - use active listening - turn off the TV to listen, out your phone away to listen, look at them to listen, let your body language show them that you are listening and that you DO REALLY CARE!!!
*****

28. Show interest in their hobbies (even if you don’t really care for them)
*****
My wife loved quilting and was extremely good at it.  We went to a lot of quilt shows and even more quilt shops.  When we lived in Connecticut, we drove to New Jersey and to Massachusetts to get fabric at wholesale prices. 

When we were on longer trips (like central Texas to Nebraska), I relished stopped at quilt shops - mostly because I could get a cat-nap!!!

Eventually, I learned about quilts, quilting patterns, fabric, styles (from simple log-cabin designs to intricate double-wedding ring designs). 
*****

29. Ask questions about their past
30. Show respect for their friends and family members (even if you wouldn’t have chosen them yourself)
*****
She had a big family - so when we married, I had ‘instant’ sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law, nieces, nephews, etc.  I do really like them
*****

31. Have an ongoing bucket list for the two of you
32. Dream about life’s possibilities
33. Try new activities together
*****
For 44 years we were always together.  We went to the grocery store together, out to lunch together, shopping and almost everything together.  That is one thing I miss about our separation.
*****

34. Plan date nights at home
35. Choose to stay committed + loyal to one another
*****
There are probably very few individuals who haven’t questioned their choice in a spouse.  The grass is not necessarily greener on the other side of the fence. But, we stayed the course!!!
*****

36. Set goals together and talk about them annually
37. Review your year together during anniversaries or birthdays

*****

One of the main emphasis of this article is COMMUNICATION!!!   

To make a marriage (or relationship) work you need communication - and that is both good and bad.  I can’t think of any (major) think that I hid from my spouse.  

I even communicated about my gender issues at the first opportunity.  Alas, that hurt her!!!

Hugs!!

Karen