I Have Taken Some Photos!; Had a Gun Pointed at My Head; Annoying QR Code Requirement; Las Vegas Democratic Debate; Why Political Debates Are Annoying; How I Propose to Make Debates Useful;

• I have taken some photos of what is happening (or isn't happening) during this Virus Crisis. You can see them here in my photo blog.

• I walked into a convenience store and immediately had a gun pointed at my head – a temperature gun from one of the clerks. Perhaps there is a sign on the doors telling entering customer to expect this, but I never noticed it and wouldn't have been able to read it.

• The grocery stores now have this requirement that I find very annoying.  Here is a photo of it. At first, I had to fill out an online form, but then I had to scan a QR code and fill out some online forms asking for all sorts of information.

• And speaking of draconian, I am watching video of the Las Vegas Democratic Debate. I don't want any of these people to be the President of the the USA. Four of six candidates at the debate were freaks. Two, Bloomberg and Klobuchar, seemed normal but said stupid things or, in the case of Bloomberg, had opportunities to point out the insanity but didn't. (There is an intelligent defense of NDAs but Bloomberg didn't make it.)

• Watching these debates one has to wonder how an intelligent person could make a voting decision based on what is said and debated about by the candidates. The candidates never answer questions satisfactorily. (Sanders' answer to the question about how he could put together a coalition to defeat Trump was mere sloganeering.) The candidates engage in the stupid game of "gotcha!" (Mayor Pete attacking Klobuchar because she didn't remember the name of the Mexican President was a head-scratcher of a thing for a normal person to get in arms about. But Mayor Pete is a freak.) And then there is what is not said or is not asked. Now, I suppose, this debate is really aimed at Democrat Party primary voters, and so the assumptions of it, which I find objectionable, cannot be questioned; but it means that these debates are not the place for great issues of first principles to be discussed. Instead, what we are watching is a "beauty" contest. That is, the candidates are trying to defeat the others on some superficial level, and the substance of the question being dealt with is not explored at any depth.

• So what can be done to make the debate process better? Maybe, don't have them at all is the first way. The presidential process had gone many years without the need for debates until this idea got into people's heads that debates would improve the process. But no one can say that debates have made the process better. Most intelligent political observers don't see the need to watch the debates. But if debates can't be done away with, I would propose this to make it better. Firstly, we have to recognize that two things have to be determined by the debate process: one, the candidate's competence to actually do the job he is being elected to; two, the candidate's beliefs on political issues and policy. For the first thing, I would have the candidates asked job interview type questions. Once the answers are in, the candidates can then debate each other about their answers. For the second thing, I would do something along the lines of the yes-no game with the candidates. (In the yes-no game, the participants show how they feel about a thing by answering yes or no when asked about it. Example: Andis, Pizza? Yes! Fish Pizza? No! Catholicism? YES! Second Amendment? Yes! Plastic Straw bans? No! White boots? NOO!) Having asked these yes-no questions and gotten the candidates' answers, the candidates can then debate each other as to why they answered as they did. Secondly, the debates should be one-on-one. With either as many as possible being held on a continuous basis or none. Three or more candidates and you have a pointless screaming match.