Batman vs. Penguin Debate...Sound Familiar?

What's a Conservative?

I'm not being funny but I'm having a hard time determining what, exactly, it means to be "a conservative".  I looked it up in Webster's and it says...

1capitalized a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party b: the Conservative party

2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
So, overall, a conservative wants to keep things as they are?  They want to keep "tradition" even if that tradition is fundamentally unsound or unjust?  We as a nation are addicted to oil, so, rather than devoting billions of dollars to "green technologies" we'd rather "drill baby drill" to feed our addiction?  Or, instead of "live and let live" when it comes to gay marriage, we'd rather try and "legislate" what people can and can't  do?  If a marriage is a union between two people and their God, wouldn't this be a "separation of church and state" issue?  Meaning, if you can find a "church" that will marry you, the "state" shouldn't be able to "de-validate" that union... should they?
Over the years, if we had ALL been conservatives, there would still be enslaved Africans in America, no women could vote and alcohol might not go "legally" with our American sporting events as they do now.  America would Royally Suck!  
Many of "us" are clinging to our "traditions" as an excuse to continue to do what we've always done & thus defer any "responsibility" of our current situation to ourselves.  
Useful Analogy:A man graduates high school and finds a "good job" at a plant in his town.  The plant trains him in what he needs to know and becomes a skilled worker and valuable asset to this company.  He works there for 25 years and finds out that this plant will soon close.  He had a son, that is now 18 and has followed in his father's footsteps and found employment at this same plant just last year.  A man and his son now find themselves unable to find work.  Neither the man nor his son, went to college and are finding that the particular "skill set" they possess isn't in demand at any other employer near by.  
In the above analogy, the "tradition" has been to find work without furthering one's education.  The "tradition" has been to not "create" employment, but to "find" employment.  It's the old, "give a man a fish" parable... isn't it?
As a country we can not continue to do what we've done and expect a different result!  There will be NO good economy unless we can "create" employment.  We can't create employment if all of us are only trying to "find" a job.  Some of us are going to have to "make a way" for others to go to work.  
Employers are NOT conservatives as a rule.  Think about it.  Let's take McDonald's for example.  Remember when you would roll to the drive through years ago and who ever took your order was waiting at the window to take your money?  Now, they "might" not be in the window because they all wear headsets now.  This allows them the mobility to take an order more on the fly and also help "fix" the orders.  So now, McDonald's doesn't need that extra person to fix orders.  Also, at McDonalds, years ago when I used to work there they came out with a "clam shell" grill.  This allowed the person working the grill to cook both sides of the meat at once.  I remember being able to cook 24 hamburger patties in less than a minute.  This also meant that you didn't need as many people working the grill as you used to.
We've all seen those "self check out" registers at Wal-Mart and other stores.  Those are "cashiers" that don't have jobs now.  If the companies were more "conservative" they wouldn't invest in such equipment would they?  
Overall, I think instead of looking at things through a "conservative" or "liberal" lens, we should just try to find the "best" ideas and see how we can make this country better for "all" Americans and not just those that hunt and go to church with us.
I'm Thed Weller and I approve this message.

New Stratagy...

I don't think the McCain Camp is trying to win any more. They do, however, have a "new strategy" they are using. "A strategy to do what?" one might ask. Well, before I go into my "conspiracy theory" on this one...

Useful Analogy:

Well, this isn't so much an analogy as it is an appropriate story that I think will help explain my conspiracy theory. When my sister and brother-in-law lived in Birmingham, they rented a house to some tenants. Well, for what ever reason the tenants couldn't pay their rent any longer and my sister and husband hand to start the eviction process. The tenants eventually left the property but they had all but ransacked the place before they vacated. Holes in the walls, doors detached from hinges and "extra love" left in the toilets. The newly evicted wanted my sister and husband to enjoy their place as little as possible and the former tenants did what they could to ensure that.

New Stategy:
I think that McCain and the republicans, just want the country to be as divided as possible so that the Obama Administration will have a "less effective" term in office. That sucks! I think that John Lewis hit the nail on the head when he siad, "in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."

I'm Thed Weller and I approve this message.

Quit Playing Like You Smart

Ok...I've just about had it with these half-ass pundits!  The proverbial last straw was when I heard Ludacris on Steve Harvey this morning commenting on the 2nd presidential debate.  He was like, "neither candidate impressed me.  I was disappointed with both of their responses."   Are you f__king kidding me?!?!  This from the guy that don't know enough about politics to not make a stupid ass song called "Paint the White House Black" after Obama mentions him in a Rolling Stone article.  If you are as important as you think you are,Luda, you should know that it matters what you say or do to the many "ignorant, uniformed, I'm voting for McCain or Obama because they had a really good TV ad on last night" folks.   At the end of each day, a flock of pundits come on TV and explain to us why we are rejecting John McCain and why we are supporting Barack Obama as if "we" didn't already know.  WTF is a "swing voter" anyway?  And don't even get me started on the polls (I'll be blogging about that later this week;-)!  If you've not made up your mind by now...F_CK YOU FOR REAL!  I'd rather hear somebody say, "I'm voting for McCain because I think Palin is hot!" than to hear somebody say, "I still have by doubts about whether or not Obama is a muslim."  You don't deserve to vote...(unless like, you're just waking up from a coma or something.)  Get on the internet and read something for crying out loud!!!  Find out what each of the candidates are all about on their websites first and then see if you agree with what each of them say they "want" to do.  Fact Check, Fact Check, Fact Check!  Know WHY you are supporting who you're supporting and don't just repeat to me the "talking points" that you've heard the "pundits" spewing the night before.  It just seems like you're trying to "play smart" to the rest of us.

I'm Thed Weller and I approve this message.

VP Debate Results...& The Winner is...

Wow!  First of all, let me say sorry for not "planning ahead".  I waited until about 15 minutes before the debate to print out my "rubric" and found that I was out of ink:-(.  Not to worry though because I just grabbed my handy dandy notebook and pulled up the PDF on the laptop.  After saving the day...I soon found that I wouldn't need it after all.  

Useful Analogy:

Frank and Bob are two "Pop-Warner" Little League Football coaches.  They've both made it to the championship game and have been preparing all week.  This is only Franks second year as a coach but he's found his niche and his team is undefeated.  Bob's been a coach for 10 years.  He's decided to work out a "secret weapon" because he feels that his team only made it to the championship game because the last two teams they played had to forfeit due to injury and angry parent involvement.  It's the day of the game and when Bob yells the secret word..."FAKE-OUT!"...his entire team starts to play by the internationally accepted rules of rugby!  There is such chaos that the referees call the game off and disqualify Bob's team for not adhering to the rules.

Sarah Palin didn't play by the rules...she made up her own.  What a Maverick!  I'm watch this thing and don't even know what to do.  I'm waiting for Gwen Ifill to "referee" and take control.  She, however, found herself under extreme pressure to be "fair" and not appear to "badger the witness" because of her yet released book.  I watch the entire debacle and then I got a phone call from someone asking me what I thought of the debate.   My first thought was..."what debate?"  but I didn't say that because I wanted to know what the person calling thought and I didn't want to "poison the well" with my impression.  She told  that she thought Palin did well.  She said that she was very personable and didn't have any major gaffes.  I instantly thought to myself that I MUST be talking to a person that obviously didn't read "Debate Watching for Dummies."   She did, however, give me her honest opinion and even though she thought Biden "won" the debate, she thought that Palin did well.   Of course, she felt differently after talking to me and hearing what I thought.

What did most of us think was going to happen?  Did we think she was going to do as badly in this debate as she's been doing with Katie Couric?  Did we think we'd get our SNL moment early this week?  Did we think that she would leave the stage in tears after Biden ripped her to pieces?  If that's what you "thought" was going to happen then, she did do well...or maybe I should say she did much better than expected.  If you thought she was going to answer the questions that Gwen Ifill asked and give us all a chance to see "how she thinks" on the fly and under pressure...she was F.U.B.A.R.!  

Now I'm not one for beating a dead horse.  I've been surfing through the "bloggisphere" and reading many opinions of several people that feel that this was a "joke" of a debate.  It feels good to know that many of us can't see "the emperor's new clothes".  I do, however, have a suggestion that I'll be sending in to the Commission on Presidential Debates.  

Debate Suggestion for Future Debates...

I think that there should be at least one question that the candidate themselves get to pose to their opponent.  And also have a chance to ask a follow up to this question.  I think there should be a "team of pundits" to score the response right there at the debate.  If this question is asked first, then the pundits will have the rest of the 90 minutes to mull over the responses and have their verdicts by debate's end and share them with the public.  This way, right there on the spot, a candidate would be "called out" and hopefully somewhat embarrassed for not answering a question or answering a question wrong because  the responses could also be "fact checked" during this time.  The type of question asked would also say something about the candidate.  For example, if Palin had asked Biden how he feels about "hockey mom's getting a special tax credit for buying pucks" we'd all feel a certain way about Palin for asking a question like that, wouldn't we?  Just a suggestion.  If you see something like this used in future debates, know you heard it here first! lol!

Thanks to Natalie for emailing in your rubric and notes;-)  You'll find mine and hers below.

Thedlitical's VP Debate Rubric...

Natalie's VP Debate Rubric & Notes...

Debate Watching for Dummies

Debate Watching for Dummies

Ok folks.   One down and three to go.  I watched the first debate with a couple of friends and we discussed what we saw. Then we talked about what we saw the commentators, and pundits talk about which leads me to believe that “we” don’t really know “how to watch a debate.”  So, here are some helpful hints.

Useful Analogy:  Each year, the NFL drafts dozens of college athletes into the pros.  The head coaches of these pro teams hold a NFL Combine each year for potential “draftees” to show their stuff.  This is when many of the coaches make their final decisions on whether or not they’re going to go with one player or the other.  THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THEY HAVE SEEN THE POTENTIAL DRAFTEES!!!  These players have been under the microscope for some time by the coaching staffs of the prospective pro teams.  The combine plays a part in reassuring a choice but not the sole factor in making the choice.

1. Do your homework. Use all at your disposal to learn as much as possible about each candidate.  You don’t have to become addicted to politics to make an educated choice.  There are several television shows that are dedicated to helping you sort through the “political minutia”.  Try to stay away from shows and networks that are obviously for or against one candidate.  (i.e. don’t watch Fox News at all.  MSNBC has shows that lean democratically.  CNN is overall your best bet in trying to get a “fair” assessment of both sides.)
2. Stay Neutral. Try and have a "reasonably" open mind.  Don’t look for zingers and one liners by the “guy or gal” you’re in the tank for but try and listen to what each will say about themselves and what they want to do and not so much what they say about their opponent.  Each will try to lead you to believe the other guy has been sent by the devil to carry the country to Hell in a hand basket.
3. Your opinion counts. Hey, just because Wulf Blitzer and Campbell Brown make a ton of money to give their opinions doesn’t mean theirs are SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOURS!  Opinions are just like ass-holes…we all have them and most of them stink!  It’s easy to believe what they say when the debates are over if you’ve not formed an opinion.  That’s why it’s a good idea to watch with a few others (not a debate party though) so you can have some discussions about the debate with other thinkers.  This is also where knowing how each stands on the issues prior to watching will prove to be helpful.
4. Body Language. We all deal with people all the time.  We know how it affects our mood depending on how we’re looked at or spoken to.  Watch the facial expressions and movement and gestures of each.  Remember they are people too.  If they look aggravated or bothered to you, they probably are.
5. Don’t be a Fool! If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.  No matter what either candidate says, they can’t do everything.  No one person can.  They both can only offer ideas and offer plans than they hope they can influence congress and the other departments of the government to work together.
6. Know the “Tells” This means that each candidate (most people too) do certain things when they get “in trouble” or start to feel uncomfortable.  If you play poker, you’re familiar with this.  There are certain things people do when they have a “good” hand and there are certain things people do when they don’t.  Likewise, people will do or say certain things when they feel they are answering a “good” question or a “bad” one.   If you’ve “done your homework” than you’ve probably seen each of the candidates somewhat uncomfortable with some questions.  Palin tends to ramble and put several talking points together (whether they go together or not).  Biden tends to start of saying “ladies and gentlemen” before he starts to “wing it.”  John McCain tends to call his audience “my friends” when he starts to “play it by ear.”  Obama will start to smile and seem to “enjoy” whatever is happening even more.  Many feel that him saying “uh” a lot is a “tell” but it probably can be more attributed to him trying to be thoughtful and not “mess-up” and stick his foot in his mouth. He seems to be uncomfortable with “awkward silences”.
7. Who Won? Reguardless what you might think, you shouldn't just go with the "guy" or "gal" you like in the begining and already know "they" won before the debate.  It's best to use some type of Rubric to decide this.  I've inclosed one below.  Just click on it to make it larger and print it out.  Use it as a Score Sheet while watching and then simply add up the points @ the end.  This will be more fun and entertaining if you do this with a friend and average the scores.  This will be even MORE fun if the person(s)  scoring with you is leaning in the opposite direction you are.

I look forward to seeing how you scored the future debates.  i'll include my score sheets as well;-)  If you want to scan you sheets and email them to thed.weezy@gmail.com I'll be sure to post your scores too!