Well, I can't say I miss not having any more debacles like the first one. It was really painful to watch, I must admit. Not only for the headache I got trying to listen to what anyone was saying due to Trump's constant mindless overtalk of Biden and even the moderator. (I kept wondering exactly what was going through his mind as he was doing it--if anything.) But the other pain was watching the destruction of yet another American institution as a result of Trump's Midas Touch of contamination. Just amazing. So I won't miss it. But as other's have pointed out, it's a really stupid thing for Trump to do--refuse to debate because it doesn't allow him to control the venue so he can yell in person again--since he really needs the coverage at this point in his sinking ship. Yet, I won't shed a tear for stupidity, of which he has a bottomless supply. Just waiting to see how long he can keep up this charade of outward confidence as he gets more desparate trying to literally buy votes and throw once-supportive officials and congress persons under his bus so he can get some traction out of the muddy swamp in Washington he has made.

Whoa! I see potential for some bad stuff coming. And I don't mean the valid peaceful protesting, but what is accompanying it. There's always someone or some group out there to take advantage of any situation--hence the existence of thieves and scamming politicians-- and turn it into an opportunity to fit their needs or desires. The ever-present control conflict again. One problem is the violent "protesters," or ones who call themselves such, when all they want is to break stuff or steal. Of course, this just aids the current administration's propaganda goals for reelection, as I noted in a July 31, 2020 Letter to the Editor of mine that was published in the Seattle Times. But something new and more ominous is emerging: the militia groups. They are showing up as counter protesters at numerous locations, individually or in groups, which is their right as long as they are peaceful. However, one difference is that they are heavily armed. And that's a big difference. Add to that the mind-set of their reasoning as to why they think they should be there, 2nd amendment rights, a strong view on white supremacy, plus I don't know what else, and you've got a bad mixture. And we can't for get the implicit and stated support of the president, GOP members, and news media like Fox. Besides, people are getting killed. I hope I'm wrong, but trends in history seem to follow patterns. Besides, even if there is a change of administration this Fall, it doesn't take effect until three months later and these guys have been largely unnoticed but still there and growing in number for years, and won't go away overnight.

Now we get to the conventions part of this election. It has been said that this year's were going to be different with the Covid-19 restrictions, and so far they are. I watched some of the Dem's presentations and especially Biden's acceptance speech , and it was interesting to see how they did it. I thought it was well done, given the reliance on video feeds with a few transitions being awkward, but since it was all live and no chance for editing they kept pretty good control of it all. It brought back memories of when all we had was live TV, for those who lived during those times. ;-) I even thought that perhaps it was probably better than all the hoopla of the usual convention, and even brings up the idea that maybe those are, or should be, dead--as numerous commentators have said. I never watched much of them before, but I appreciated the wide variety of and short-and-to-the-point vignettes that were presented in this format. I think it gave the covention a much truer presentation of real people and real issues. In that sense, I think the Dems were able to control what they wanted to do alot better. Not so fakey like the old style. Whadda ya think? Next, the Republicans'!

If you want to read or continue discussion about a Blog Post: a. Click on the post you want and read the comments. b. To make a comment about a post or other comments, click on “Comment.” c. If the blog posting you want isn’t listed, click “Create a New Post” to include it. Don't forget to click on the Publish / Update box at the bottom of the page when you’re done!

With so many of you out there with school age children or grandkids confronting the dilemma of school attendance and the pandemic, I was wondering if anyone wanted to comment on their feelings about this part of their lives. If there ever was a time to emotionally feel your control of your child’s education (and everything else) was needing help, I assume this is it. Suggestions? Stories? Hugs?

Just an observation and something to ponder. In Control, I discuss a section on government, politics, and economy with respect to how people involved in those areas handle control in carrying out their goals. The focus of the politcal realm is to try to get the other two areas to enact the goals of the political parties and people who are trying to get those goals fulfilled. As I emphasize in the book with respect to everything, one has to closely examine who are the individuals involved in order to understand what is happening. To that end, I think it's interesting to compare the present administration and the potential next one. I think it's fair to say that Trump has had some problems getting people to fill positions in his administration that meet expectations of fulfilling his and the Republican goals regarding government and economy. There's been quite a rapid turnover the past 3 1/2 years. You might want to ponder that a bit and try to figure out why, by getting down to the individual level of those involved with the jobs--which would be the president, important party members, and all the people who were appointed. That's where the decisions are made, and we can discuss why they were made in order to assess what happened. The vetting process of selecting candidates is quite key to success in this endeavor and is worth taking a closer look at it, since it basically involves looking at the background of the candidates and determining if they match the president's and the party's goals. I have to think back over the past few years to review to some degree how their vetting was done and the success rate. I personally don't have any other documentation to help, besides extensively digging through years of news articles, which I am definitely not going to do. However, some of you may have some remembrances of that to help you out. Now, we have a new Democratic presidential candidate and his vice president on the election scene. Which raises the question of how well he will be in vetting possible candidates for his administration, should he win. I think it's something valuable to consider as an aid for deciding how to vote. Towards that end, a timely news article just appeared which gives an indepth view of how Biden went about vetting his candidates for the vice president position. Of course, we don't know if this will be standard procedure for all his goverment appointees, but it does at least provide a factual account of this one example. The link to the article is posted below. In terms of the control involved, think about the comparison and comment if you like. Your response certainly doesn't have to be as long as this setup piece! https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bidens-unusual-vp-pick-process-tough-questions-11-finalists-and-many-lawyers/2020/08/11/75511cbc-dc24-11ea-809e-b8be57ba616e_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most