This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Monday, November 9, 2009

The Weed Patch

Let's try something new, an open thread. Here's your chance to bring up any topic you like (within reason). A few ideas to get you started: The world growing more dangerous while Nero fiddles, the deterioration of America's image that Obama has caused, the economy, 2010, the arrogance of climate change or anything else at all. We've got some deep thinkers (as well as liberals) here at AWC and if this works out we'll try to do it on a semi-regular basis. Have fun!

70 comments:

Sarkazein said...

Frank Lloyd Wright once said "A tree in the wrong place is a weed"

RV said...

One person's weed is another person's wildflower. I don't know who said it.

Honest Debate said...

"You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd" -Roger Miller

Sarkazein said...

Obama said he smoked a lot of weed in school. Clinton said he only ate brownies with weed in them and he didn't inhale. Hillary our Secretary of State made the brownies.

Sarkazein said...

OK, you are right. I can't help being a smart a&$.

How about Nancy Pelosi sneaking a major bill through in the dark of night? Then celebrating her further division of the country like a partisan political hack rather than the Speaker of the House.

Honest Debate said...

"I can't help being a smart a&$." -Sark

It's better to be a "smart a&$" than a dumb a&$.

Sarkazein said...

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/lawmakers-detail-obamas-pitch/

There is so much wrong with Obama, there is not enough time to comment on his divisive behavior.

Now he calls people that protest his version of health-care and the quadrupling the deficit as extremists. He is supposed to be President of the United States, not a political hack.

Sarkazein said...

Israel catches a boat load of offensive missiles originating in Iraq and heading to Hammas or Hezbula. Does the UN kick out Iraq or or not recognize their terrorist government..NO. The UN is an expensive waste of time and money. Israel will have to act on their own. The UN is useless.

Sarkazein said...

Anybody heard from POV? He must still be out looking for Mrs POV after he declared that infidelity was a part of marriage to aspire to. OR Mrs POV whacked him in the head with a frying pan after she read it and he's in a coma.
Mrs POV, his written wishes included pulling the plug ASAP in honor of Michael Shiavo.

guy faulkes said...

Lesser jihad is a religious war pitting Muslims against everyone else. People have to realize not all Muslims agree with this premise. However, as long as statements such as this are being made. Muslims are going to be viewed as potential terrorists. How can one tell those that follow lesser jihad from those that do not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npAvM-VWwhc&videos=OF3wh26H7x4&playnext_from=TL&playnext=1

Sarkazein said...

Correction: The boat load of missiles, I meant to wright IRAN as the original location of origin.
Iran- Iraq
Osama -Obama
all too similar sounding.

BikerBard said...

Sark:

Hmmmm. Sneaking something through in the middle of the night. Hmmmm. Kind of like Bush sending regardless of congressional objections.

Glad Pelosi learned something from W. Talk about weed - how about booze?

BikerBard said...

Kind of like Bush sending Bolton to the United Nations and appointing judges when congress was not in session AND over the objections of congress.

(missing from previous post)

Honest Debate said...

BB,

I'm going from memory so please correct me if I'm wrong. As I recall Bolton's recess appointment was because he couldn't even get an up or down vote. It was stymied in committee.

Sarkazein said...

BB-

Recess appointments compared to major legislation dividing the country, and celebrating with in your face actions by Stretch Pelosi... yeah that's the same. You are weak with your attempts at analogies. Not even the same branch of government.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

You asked about clickable links. You will notice that directly underneath this "leave your comment" box it says, "You can use some HTML tags, such as < b>, < i>, < a>". < b> means bold, < i> means italics and < a> is the tag for links. I have inserted a space between the < and the b,i and a so the tags won't work for this explanation. A tag must be canceled with /. If you want a word bold then precede it with < b> and bold will be used until you use < /b>. I've again added the space, if I didn't you would not see the tag. Same with italics.

Links are trickier. The link must be inserted in quotes into the tag itself. Start with < a (don't use the space) then a space then (don't ask me why, I learned by ruthless trial and error) href=, then put the url in quotes then >. Now you have your url within the tag. Then use whatever text you want to be clicked, for instance: click here. Then close the tag with < /a> (I added the space again).

Honest Debate said...

One other thing, once you've composed your post hit preview. If you passed the first test you will not get an error. Roll over the link and you should see the URL flash at the bottom of the page, if not you've done something wrong.

I think people are more likely to click on a link than to cut and paste but who knows?

Liberal POV said...

HD

Post a Code of eithics that you believe ALL journalist should abid by when informing Viewers and readers so as not to mislead them.
Lets see if we can find common ground on what journalism ethics should be.

Find out what standards your conservative web sites , radio programs and TV personalities follow or at least what you believe would should be follow to keep your trust?

You won't believe anything I post so state the standards you think not only liberal media should follow but what conservative media should also follow.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

I can name that "code of ethics" in one word: truth.

Liberal POV said...

HD

You're not being honest, what makes truth?

Journalist have the job of informing us on what is happening in the world and politics, shouldn't it be factual?
Lets find standards we can both believe is fair and common for both side. This site is Society of Professional Journalists http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.
Do you know of another one?

Do you really want an honest debate?

This is what the SLP has to say about truth.

"Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection."

Liberal POV said...

HD

Is this good journalism to alter an original to negitively a photograph? Is this truth?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002

Liberal POV said...

HD

Would this be good journalism? Does it "-Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity"?


http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907140061

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

I see nothing in your post to suggest anything I've written was dishonest but you're entitled to your opinion. I certainly don't look to you for validation of my integrity. I look to you for belly laughs.

You asked: "what is truth?". I can't answer that for you because the liberal mind doesn't believe truth exist only a continuum of perspective.

Liberal POV said...

HD

Don't cop out or run from the issue of ethics in Journalism.

Do you disagree with any of the stated objectives of the Society of Professional Journalists http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp. ?

Will you try to follow such objectives?

Sarkazein said...

POV- I hate to break this to you, but Doocey and Kilmeade are not journalists, they are hosts are commentators and the altered picture was a joke.
There is no way you don't know that.

Example: Dan Rather, JOURNALIST, presents forged and fake documents, speaks at Democrat fund raisers, to effect the election results...THIS is what you are writing about. It is hard to tell if you are a complete liar, or just completely uninformed.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Thanks to Blogger I'm a blogger. I'm not a journalist. I will say that I am more honest and truthful than NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the AP and the NYT. I'm not bragging, the bar is extremely low.

Sarkazein said...

The Liberals argued that the death panels, jail time, and tax money for abortions were a Right-wing lie and propaganda and were not in Obama/Pelosi care bill.
Now that they see that they are in the bill, they defend those things. Obama can do anything and these leftists will defend it.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Thanks to Blogger I'm a blogger. I'm not a journalist. I will say that I am more honest and truthful than NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the AP and the NYT. I'm not bragging, the bar is extremely low."

Is your goal to provide acurate and truthful information or is to make liberal ideas and and policies look bad?

guy faulkes said...

Is your goal to provide acurate and truthful information or is to make liberal ideas and and policies look bad? - POV

HD does provide accurate and truthful information when he posts threads for discussion. As to making you and your policies look bad, he need do nothing. You accomplish that yourself.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Do you want accurate and truthful information or stories and information that make liberal ideas and policies look bad regardless of truth or accuracy?

Sarkazein said...

Potato potato

Sarkazein said...

Tomato tomato

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Do you want in also?

Can you answer the question?

Do you want accurate and truthful information or stories and information that make liberal ideas and policies look bad regardless of truth or accuracy?

Do you want your myths and opinions supported regardless of truth?

RV said...

Some (Foxx and Palin for starters) have said that the health care reform bill sets up death panels for seniors. How truthful is that?

Sarkazein said...

RV-

It's on the money, only the name has been changed to protect the guilty.
There are death panels aka end of life counseling, aka the budget

Liberal POV said...

GOP

"— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so."

You'll never hear an unpopular story on Fox as it's not good for rating and ad revenue.

Sarkazein said...

POV- No. you'll never hear it.
You are like the native in deepest Africa seeing an airplane flying overhead. You have no idea what it is so you shoot arrows at it or throw your spear at it.

You don't recognize balanced news coverage because you've never seen it before. You fear conservative writings, because you've never seen them before.
All your life you were spoon fed your news by liberals... Chrokite, Rather, Jennings, Prokaw, Daddy, even the few talking head shows on the first cable news were 3 libs and 1 conservative. You fear the new media as the natives feared the silver bird.

RV said...

Sarjazein, have you ever been through the death of a close relative or friend? I have. It is helpful to talk to a doctor about decisions that have to be made. Whether to prolong life artificially. How to make the patient the most comfortable. Whether to bring the patient home from the hospital for the final days. This is end of life counseling.

Do you really think the government wants to kill seniors? The politicians who spout this nonsense just want to win elections and will say whatever it takes. That is not Truth, it is fear mongering.

Liberal POV said...

RV

Death panels are Sark's opinion so that makes them facts as Sark is never wrong in his mind.
Sark had rather be a fool than admit he was wrong.
Notice how happy he appears to be on this blog.
Sark was born with all knowledge necessary to survive in Texas.
Be happy he's not your neighbor.

Honest Debate said...

Thanks Guy.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

So now you're saying Sark appears happy? I thought we were grumpy, which is it? My vote goes for happy.

guy faulkes said...

POV, you really need to take some remedial reading classes. I answered your question. You then asked the same question again. Focus.....Focus....You can do it.

Sarkazein said...

RV-

Liberal pun-dents have been throwing out hints for the past several weeks. Now all the sudden they are talking about holistic medicine, taking pain pills in-lieu of surgery (per Obama), end of life counseling (what else is available to you other than regular health-care. Not for terminal patients as you allude to in your last comment, but to people seeking health-care over a certain age. The government budget is a death panel on it's own because as in all government rules, they are suppose to be equal for all. In other words, not the individual.

No, I am 59 and have never known anyone old, terminal, dying from an accident or heart-attack, stroke, wounds received during war or accidents.
Only liberals know people like that.

Honest Debate said...

RV,

You are either mixing two issues or you are making a huge leap.

You wrote: "It is helpful to talk to a doctor about decisions that have to be made. Whether to prolong life artificially. How to make the patient the most comfortable. Whether to bring the patient home from the hospital for the final days. This is end of life counseling."

I can't speak for Sark but I'd be surprised if he didn't agree with your statement. I do.

It's a leap to assume because one objects to "death panels" in the House bill they are against end of life counseling. You made that leap.

By confusing the two issues you seem to be saying it's a good thing the death panels, that don't exist, are in the bill. It doesn't make sense.

I think the question is: "Is end of life counseling a death panel?" I'll give you the fact that "death panel" is a loaded phrase. It's not meant to be taken literally. However, it is rooted in truth. Think about it. If the end of life counselor is on the payroll of the government and the government is accountable for how it spends limited resources then that puts a dynamic into the equation that isn't in the best interest of the patient.

You may think it's an inefficient use of taxpayer (assuming there is a public option) dollars to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on surgery for a 98 year old. That would be hard to argue with. How would it be possible for the end of life counselor to ignore the practical aspects of spending our money? It puts an extra entity between the doctor and the patient, that's my objection. Rationing of life MUST take place in ANY government funded health care system. There is no way around it. The examples are numerous where national health care exist.

Who makes the decision whether to spend large sums of money to prolong the life of a 98 year old for one year or spend the same money to give a three year old another possible 95 years? If Obama's plan comes to fruition it will be the government. For the 98 year old it's a death panel.

Please don't come back with reasons why it would be better to spend the money on the three year old. Of course it would be a better use of money but that's none of anybody's business but the patient in consultation with their doctor, family and God.

Sarkazein said...

Thank you H.D. your patience is virtuous.

Honest Debate said...

Sark,

I'm faking it.

RV said...

The provision is in the bill because the writers feel the physicians and other medical professionals should be reimbursed for the counseling they provide for the end of life issues I outlined. Of course it doesn't say Death Panel in the bill. Sarah Palin said it though. So did Virginia Foxx.

Sarkazein said...

RV-

So do I.
Would there be this much conversation on the death panel subject (first denied to be in the bill, then taken out of the bill, then put back in the bill) if Palin had not used that term to describe it? Would you rather have gone blindly into the dark? The what we don't know won't hurt us.

RV said...

I would rather it had never been so grossly misrepresented. There are many people who still think that Obama wants to kill old people. They heard the politicians say it, and they believed it.

Sarkazein said...

I don't know anyone that thinks Obama wants to kill old people. I do know people that don't trust him with the option.
He'll be long gone when the program is even in full swing, it is the program that is not trusted by me.

Perhaps your simplification (Obama wants to kill old people) is what's confusing you. There is only one government, and when they can put you in prison as it is clearly stated in the bill, you can't say..."Wheww, I'll never use that government again!" The government has no competitors. They rule with threat of imprisonment and fine. Blue Cross Blue Shied can't do that.

RV said...

She is still talking about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/09/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5591565.shtml

Do you think you can safely fire your private sector insurance company? What about the possibility of not being covered for a preexisting conditions?

Sarkazein said...

RV-

"SHE" is still talking about it because it still exists.
Just as we are still talking about it. In the world of liberals would she not be allowed not be allowed to still be talking about it?


Yes, you can safely fire your insurance company. They cannot incarcerate you for it.
You have to suffer 6 months before the government will pick you up, if you are still alive, and if they accept you, and if your condition has not moved to inoperable or untreatable in that 6 month period of waiting.

BikerBard said...

Wow, Sark. Didn't you hear the 5th District Rep. Vigninia (Wacky Woman) Foxx. She believes the guvmint is out to kill our grannies. Paw-Paw too!

RV said...

And she will keep on saying it as long as she thinks it is a vote getter. When it becomes a liability to say it, she will drop it and move on to another lie. She is a confessed fear mongerer.

Sarkazein said...

Democrat Mayor Daley, political crime boss from one of America's most violent cities, blamed the gun for the Ft Hood terrorist attack. Chicago/Illinois has some of the strongest anti-gun laws in America and is one of the most violent cities in America. Daley is protected 24-7 by armed people.
Daley blames it on the gun, the Lefties here blame it on mental illness, I am waiting for Al Gore to blame it on global warming.

Honest Debate said...

Last night I posted a new thread about the blessed day that "Shyster" left. Yesterday was the one year anniversary. The dude wasn't worth his own thread and I came to my senses this morning and removed it.

RV said...

He is still with you. Otherwise, you would not have noticed the anniversary.

Honest Debate said...

RV you wrote: "When it becomes a liability to say it, she will drop it and move on to another lie."

No, when the subject is disproved on it's merits she will drop it.

I just got done trying to give you a little credit on another thread. You were bring me around. I spent time to take your post seriously and respond civilly. The death panel thing is not a lie. Disagree with the language, fine. Hate Palin, fine. Why don't you respond by giving a compelling reason why the end of life counseling isn't effectively a "death panel"? Can you? Will you? Was it BB's post that triggered the need to hurl insults at Palin instead of tackling the issue? Is it just bigger than you?

Honest Debate said...

The discussions about ad hominem attacks that we have been having is what reminds me of Shyster. I'll give him this much, he and Rich were eloquent with their hate. They were also educated. In the end the dishonest nature of the debate made it fairly easy to defeat their arguments every time but you did have to think a little bit.

Shyster is still here. He's just embarrassed now and post as Nonny (if that's his real name).

Honest Debate said...

Sark,

It doesn't surprise me that Daley blamed the gun. It's just a matter of time until Obama blames Bush. Maybe there is something to that. I have heard that the FBI knew about Hasan's attempt to contact Al Qaeda a year ago. Was it Bush's FBI that ignored the intel? If so, I won't cut him slack. I doubt it for two reasons. One, it doesn't fit with Bush's stand on terrorism, and two, Obama would already be blaming him. It's more likely that Bush passed the new (at the time) info to the Obama administration where it was ignored. We'll see.

RV said...

My idea of a "Death Panel" is a group of government people who make decisions about who will be given treatment to keep them alive and who will not be saved.

End of life counseling is an opportunity for the patient and the family to talk to medical professionals about decisions that THEY (the patient and family) have to make at this difficult time. If you have ever been there, you will understand that it is a confusing, painful, and frightening time. You want very much to make the right choices, and it helps to talk to someone who can give you the information you need to make the right choice.

Honest Debate said...

"My idea of a "Death Panel" is a group of government people who make decisions about who will be given treatment to keep them alive and who will not be saved." -RV

Exactly! That's what must happen when the taxpayers foot the bill.

Sarkazein said...

RV- also called the budget committee.

What doctor does not give counseling (suggestions/options) to their terminal or any of their patients?

Liberal POV said...

HD

Look at the rest of the world, Canada, France, Japan even Cuba.
We in the US gets scored 32nd in Health Care but first in cost. Why?
Greed

We lose thousands each year ( reality not myth or what could be if your fears are true) because of unafordable or refused treatment under current system in the US.
We have wonderful successful plans to pick and choose from around the world. They work!
None are as blind as those that refuse to see.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Speaking of myths, please stop spreading them.

Don't take my word for it, listen to the WHO report's editor-in-chief, Phillip Musgrove PhD:

The attainment values in WHO's World Health Report 20001 are spurious: only 39% are country-level observations. The responsiveness indicators are not comparable across countries; and three values obtained from expert informants were discarded in favour of imputed values. Indices of composite attainment and performance are based on imputations and thus are also meaningless. Member governments were not informed of the methods and sometimes suffered unjust criticism because of the rankings. Judgments about performance should be based on real data, represent methodological consensus, be built from less aggregated levels, and be useful for policy.

RV said...

Sark, the provision is in the bill to ensure that doctors will be reimbursed for the time they spend in this counseling.

Conservatives are the ones who have changed the name of what doctors already do (end of life counseling) to Death Panel. You don't want health care reform to pass, so you are trying to convince people it is somehow evil. That is where the lie is.

RV said...

HD, which post did you give me some credit for? I would like to know where we have common ground.

Honest Debate said...

RV,

"Tea Baggers" thread, November 11, 2009 8:35 AM.

Sarkazein said...

RV-

The answer to your question is the same as the answer to all of the Obama-Pelosi-care, it is government intrusion.
Cities never had these huge budgets, huge debts, financial failures, deficits. It didn't start until they ended up taking federal money and the mandates funded and unfunded that were attached. Obama/Pelosi-care will do the same thing. There are already doctors ducking Medicare patients because of all the strings attached. You are changing the strings to a rope. It never has worked, and it never will.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, There is a thread on Watauga Watch entitled something or other about Foxx and credit card companies. It is somewhat confusing as they appear to have a picture of Nancy Pelosi on it. In this thread, a blogger that calls herself New Mom gives personal testimony of how the stimulus bill has already affected health care for young children. Last night this was substantiated by a report on the Glenn Beck Show. Both of these support your opinion as per health care in your last post.