Friday, September 24, 2010
It's a thin line...
...between steroids and prescription drugs like Ritalin.
...between comedy and tragedy.
...between losing or retaining control of both houses of congress.
...between misery and company.
...between the Tea party and the Republican party.
...between success and failure.
...between State control and State hospital.
...between sadness and glee.
...between a tax cut expiring and a tax hike.
...between a rock and a hard place.
...between dying in Iraq and dying in Afghanistan.
...between heaven and hell.
...between a Democrat and a Republican.
...between fact and opinion...on this page!
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Luckiest Man in America
That's right...Bill Clinton, during an interview with The Huffington Post, offered his analysis on how the administration has "done a better job than what they've got credit for, " but, "they shouldn't ask for credit because people can't give credit if they don't feel better." Sure, many are saying he's simply trying to create divisiveness and open the door for a 2014 Hillary run, but I think the Obama administration should heed the former president's advice.
I'd like to take it a step further however. I say, take Clinton's advice, but don't stop there. Since taking office, the Obama administration has "mostly gotten 'their' way." Sure, you can say the Republicans were being obstructionists, but for the most part, they have simply not had the power to stop anything. Use THAT to your advantage.
Explain how your policies WILL work. Use people like Robert Reich (former Labor Secretary) and Paul Krugman (noted Nobel Prize winning economist) to help voters really, really, REALLY understand your vision of demand side economics. Do not stoop to the old reliable "last eight years," or "previous administration," or worse still, that the fault lies with Mr. Sunlamp, John Boehner (the mostly ineffectual minority leader in the House). The folks will get it...
But, haven't I myself said I didn't feel those demand side/Euro-lite socialism tactics will ever work? Well sure, but what do I know...however, I'm definitely NOT being contradictory as the advice I'm giving is exactly the same as I gave to the other side...the right wingers, the tea party folk, etc. I directed them to make their case directly to the people and not to allow folks like moveon.org and their ilk to frame the debate.
So, listen to the man...even though he's only the second luckiest, he managed to keep the ship upright during the 90's, even with the government shut downs (which helped actually) and the numerous Republican manufactured scandals. "But, still only second luckiest?" Yep, until Kobe Bryant retires from the Lakers, that is. But then, Phil Jackson could always become head coach of Lebron James and the Miami Heat, in order to buy another NBA (basketball) championship, and continue to be the luckiest man in America!!!
Friday, September 10, 2010
I'm Bipolar, you're Bipolar, we're ALL Bipolar!!!!
The main question, though, is which phase is at the forefront at which particular time? Does a Democratic leadership equate to a hypomanic (a less severe form of mania) phase...or would the Republicans create that type of pseudo-euphoria? What about a full blown mania, like for instance during the Reagan years (and the massive military spending)...or perhaps, a Dysthmic period (a mild depression or recession) like during "W's" second term...or, as many are starting to assert, a full blown depressive episode, much like what we are currently experiencing?
Does the executive branch hold the dominant "Bipolar" gene? Not necessarily, however when they DO possess the dominant gene, and President Obama's administration surely does (though he himself probably does not), the disease would rise to the level of Bipolar I disorder, with full-blown manic episodes and only occasional depressed or dysthymic states. A Bipolar I Disorder would differ from a Bipolar II Disorder in that a "II" would have fewer and less severe hypomanic phases, however would be cycled with severe depressive episodes (think Jimmy Carter).
How about the legislative branch? The government shutdowns in the 90's, while part of the Clinton years, would be more indicative of a full-blown depressive state, would it not? In other words, the happy-go-lucky, head-in-the-sand 90's would probably have to be classified, Bipolar Disorder, NOS (not otherwise specified). What about the judicial branch? Although their make-up is dependent on the other two branches (i.e. nomination and confirmation), I would imagine the judicial branch is afflicted with Cyclothymia, a milder form of manic-depression whereby the moods swings are less often and less severe (much like the 5-4 nature of the court).
What is the prescribed treatment? Well, the good news is that medication is crucial to treatment of Bipolar Disorder. Lithium is the most commonly prescribed pharmacological treatment and is very effective. Anticonvulsant medications, mood stabilizers, and anti-depressants are also utilized, of course in conjunction with psychotherapy and medication monitoring. The bad news? It's not covered under Obamacare...
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Post #100...ANOTHER answer!!
This answer does NOT seek to bolster either side's argument. I'll save that for another day. As I've previously mentioned, we are a chronically Bipolar society. I will document the numerous reasons for my opinion at a later date; however, at this time, I firmly believe a much more acute diagnosis and treatment are necessary.
We, as a country, have tried bailouts...bailouts of the banking industry, auto industry, mortgage and/or lending (Wall Street) institutions, and bailouts for individuals who became financially insolvent due to the quote-unquote housing crisis...and yes, ALL should receive credit or blame, depending on ideology, for these bailouts. Yes, for my "answer," partisans need not apply.
However, since we've bailed out the bankers, lenders, Wall Street-types, AND the homeowners, who bought houses from those lenders...well...it stands to reason that we also bailed out the irresponsible bankers, who preyed upon many innocent potential homeowners (EVEN ABOVE any government mandate)...AND yes, it stands to reason that we also bailed out the irresponsible homeowner who had neither the money nor the credentials to qualify for a home loan...without the aforementioned government coercion or lender greed.
So, we've either directly or indirectly (again, depending on your ideology) bailed out the irresponsible lender AND the irresponsible homeowner. My ANSWER is that we should NOW bail out the RESPONSIBLE homeowner. My answer involves lowering, by government mandate, the interest rates of ALL current homeowners who have NEVER missed a payment, NEVER been late on a payment, nor declared bankruptcy, or sought foreclosure, etc. It's just that simple.
Imagine what RESPONSIBLE people could do with ALL THAT EXTRA $$$ in their pockets each and every month...and for those of you on the other side, imagine all that extra money coming into the government coffers from taxpayers not being able to deduct as much mortgage interest. It's a win-win...AND another answer...courtesy of mediacopp.blogspot.com .
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]