Vice President
Vice President isn’t a bad gig. You get full run of the White House bowling alley and movie theatre. You get to travel on the public dime. You attend some mediocre conferences. You can say things to reporters that the President wishes he could say. If you want to feel like you got some juice in DC then you can preside as President Pro Tem of the Senate to soothe your ego as playing second fiddle to The Most Powerful Man in the World. If things really get bad you can always polish off a pint of Wild Turkey and shoot someone you pretend is your friend in the face. That last one is a gas, we should all be able to do that at least once in our life.
It is becoming increasingly clear to gut level voters such as myself that Fred Thompson is the Heir Apparent for the nomination, anybody else is either VP material of just fodder to stir up the base. The best part is that Fred’s wife is almost cuter than Kucinich’s, but not as nutty.
So what are these Foolios doing in New Hampshire on Tuesday night? They are interviewing for VP on the Republican national ticket for President, that’s what.
The following are some crib notes for Fred and Michael Deaver from an Average American who doesn’t try to think too much about the issues, but rather a candidates ‘Electiveness.’ This Average American’s gut level reactions before and after to the candidates if you will. To assist Fred and Mike while considering who to bestow the honor of Fred’s running mate to. It’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make for my country.
Rudy Giuliani
Before: Name one former president whose name ended in a vowel sound? (and don’t give me that sometimes ‘y’ crap from the Kennedy fans, have another drink all ready). There is only one, Monroe, of the Monroe Doctrine. Rudy’s bald and wears glasses. The only feather in his cap is that he looked presidential briefly ‘after’ the 911 attack, but that is all he talks about, he needs to come up with something new tonight or continue to lose ground to candidates who aren’t even running yet.
After: I have to give Rudy a little credit here, he talked about something else other than himself and how presidential he looked managing from a bunker after 911. Then again they weren’t broadcasting from the Fox ‘Let’s just Scare the Hell out of Everybody’ News Network. Instead of promoting himself, he got the focus off of him by telling you what a bunch of fruitcakes the Democrats were the other night, didn’t ya know? Like John Edwards he hates bumper stickers, me too, just how many frakking honor students can there be at one elementary?? Rudy went on to claim that he had read every word of the 400 page Immigration Bill. On that I’m going to have to call, “BULLSHIT.” Notice how every time he tried to invoke God or religion he looked just about as uncomfortable as a Prostitute in Church on Sunday? Overall Rudy succeeded in breaking away from being the 911 mayor but didn’t look presidential, would make a nice running mate for Fred though.
John McCain
Before: A once proud and respected politician has lost his ‘mojo.’ Nowadays he just seems too desperate to be president. Its his last chance, he knows it, and it shows.
After: For a while it looked like McCain was stuck on that “They are going to follow us home, steal chickens out of our coops and date our White daughters” motif that works so well with Fox viewers. He also said that Nuclear power was fun and sexy, so where do we put the waste John? How about Arizona? Ya, that’s what I thought.
He did score some major kudos in my book when he stood and directly addressed the sister of a soldier slain in Iraq. It almost brought me to tears and you could engender the sincerity in his poise. What pissed me off thought was that after that every candidate thought they were supposed to walk to the end of the stage to make a point, what a bunch of piss-ants. As far as I’m concerned the rest of this field of candidates wouldn’t make a pimple on John’s ass when it comes to sincerity for our troops and their families. Overall John will probably tell Fred to just GoFrakHimself and slink into book tours and obscurity.
Mitt Romney
Before: GQ poster child for the Mormon New World Order. The fundamentalists who have hijacked the values and platform of the Republican Party fear this member of a shadowy cult with magic underwear and dominion over you own personal planet should you tithe well. One has to wonder why the Osmond Family has been so strangely silent about one of their own.
After: Mitt was whoever you wanted him to be on an issue. He didn’t back down from his faith, but didn’t tell you that if your not a member of his faith that you’re gonna burn baby. After every response from his peers he seemed like he was jumping out of his skin to be the next one called on by Wolfie, it was sad in a weird sort of way. When asked about his bilingual adds he dodged the answer. Overall would make a great addition to the ticket if you think that a Mormon won’t be as much as an electoral handicap as putting a minority on the ticket, i.e., Jew or a Woman.
Mike Huckabee
Before: Upon first meeting him I found him to be folksy and reasonable on social justice issues. But he raised his hand when asked if he didn’t believe in evolution. Now he just reminds me of Lamar Alexander and I don’t think a plaid shirt tour would hurt or hinder his meager chances.
After: Played the God card well but felt that he needed to explain his ‘evolution only’ answer in the previous debate. Pleaded with people to give Hope, Ark. another chance, I didn’t know they needed one. Overall he is cutesy and well spoken, but he may just be too cutesy and well spoken. Fred and Mike think that he will make a great Secretary of Education.
Sam Brownback
Before: Darling of the Christo Fascists and one of the Famous Three who don’t believe in evolution. Then he wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times were he waffled about it. He’s weak, weird, and waning. But hey, Pat Boone donated $300 to his campaign, so that should help.
After: Your doing a heck of a job Brownie, oops, wrong Brownie. He wants us to enforce the immigration laws we have, and on that I agree. But with all that squinting he just creeps me out. Sorry Squinty but Fred don’t want no Freaks.
Jim Gilmore
Before: Really works the Reaganesque angle tirelessly. Lastest slogan is ‘Why wait for Fred or Newt when you’ve got Jim?’ Uh, maybe because he’s Jim and not Fred or Newt, duh.
After: I really can’t remember who he was, was he Tancredo, Hunter, or that guy in JFK who thought that Oswald had help. Sorry ‘footnote,’ I got nothing for you.
Tom Tancredo
Before: Quick name the last Italian American President or a president whose name ends in a vowel other than a silent e or Monroe?? Can’t do it, want to know why? Americans voters are a paranoid lot and will always vote the safe vote. After: Now I remember this guy. He used to Bob Dornan, B1Bob, from Orange County. He stated that bilingual countries don’t work, has anyone told Canada?
Ron Paul
Before: The whole two first names thing always freaks me out a little, just don’t know what to call him. He has rallied a large Internet base and has not let up on calling the Republican Party to task for straying from its core values. But that is his problem, he is too honest and big business is scared of some of his economic initiatives. My prediction is that Wolfie will marginalize him much like Dennis and Mike were Sunday. Which is kind of sad really, we need someone with his passion for his country in the front light.
After: Did you notice that they gave him the Kucinich spot? I guess they put the most unpredictable guy closest to Wolf in case he needs to taser them or something. Question for the rabid Ron Paul Internet crowd. Just why did it take Wolf nearly 15 minutes to ask the best thing since sliced bread a question??? Cause he scares the crap out of just about everyone with his honesty. Ron is the only candidate with a verifiable, clear, and concise vision for America. Its called the Constitution, some of you youngsters might want to look it up before is got a bad rap for being a suicide pact or something. Fred won’t consider Ron as a running mate because Ron will be running a third party campaign. If Ron is as smart as I hope he is he will work something out with Bloomberg and finally tell the status quo to go suck eggs.
Tommy Thompson
Before: He’s got that weird name thing going like Pokey Pokemon something. Freaks me out. Oh ya and he waffled about hating gays, do you hate them or not Tommy???
After: Quite frankly the best answer I have heard yet about getting us out of Iraq. LET THEM VOTE ON IT. Duh!!!! Fred and Hillary think that he will do well at the State Department.
Duncan Hunter
Before: There is a small following for this candidate amongst my MySpace friends so I will try to listen and see if he has anything new to say. However, I don’t expect him to get much airtime as Wolfie prefers star magic and as I recall from the last debate Hunter isn’t as entertaining as Paul or Gravel.
After: Mildly impressed I was. He wants to Nuke Iran, good. Admitted that once illegals are run off Americans were lined up for the jobs the next day, good. Seemed to make the most sense, for a republican, on affordable health care for all Americans. Fred’s gonna like this guy, he’s a gamer. He just might provide the ability to do the things that a President can’t.
To conclude I would like to add a few observations. Wolf let the front-runners hog all the airtime once again. If it’s a level playing field then someone needs to send CNN a new level. The candidates didn’t seem to rely as much on the legacy of Reagan as they did during the previous debate. It was refreshing to see the candidates stand on their own merits, not how those merits compared to “The Great Communicator.”
Wolf didn’t use his “You didn’t answer the question” as much tonight as he had to with the Democrats. Did the Republicans stay on topic much better, or did Wolf simply give up on getting a straight answer from a politician? I know I did a long time ago.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Friday, June 1, 2007
Poor ol' Fred Thompson
Poor ol' Fred Thompson
Poor guy, looks like he just might have to run for president. His party is so bereft of quality leadership that they are begging him to save the day against the tide of dissent.
Poor ol' Fred is just gonna have to do it.
He is so Reaganesque it just hurts. There is a whole website devoted to how Fred and Ron match up.
This is where I start to get that unclean feeling. It appears that ol' Fred was Republican counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee during the Nixon Administration.
He is part of the Cabal of Conservatives who just seem to pop up again and again in American Politics. People like Dick Cheney, James Baker, etc., and now ol' Fred.
Now I know that its not unusual for people who have been a member of the party for a long time to be recycled through various posts in different administrations but he is part of that coterie of republicans who just never seem to go away. And whenever the party is in dire straights they seem to be pulled forward into the fray to bring calm and reassurance, Daddy's here, he'll take care of it.
Then again Nixon is on tape saying, "Oh shit, he's dumb as hell." Which gives credence to the theory that W is just a shill for those who are really running things. Like W and Ronnie before him ol' Fred will stick to the script.
The Cabal of Conservatives has come to the conclusion that a Cross Dresser, POW, and/or a Mormon are too independent and may 'go off the reservation.'
So enter ol' Fred to save the day.
Poor guy, looks like he just might have to run for president. His party is so bereft of quality leadership that they are begging him to save the day against the tide of dissent.
Poor ol' Fred is just gonna have to do it.
He is so Reaganesque it just hurts. There is a whole website devoted to how Fred and Ron match up.
This is where I start to get that unclean feeling. It appears that ol' Fred was Republican counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee during the Nixon Administration.
He is part of the Cabal of Conservatives who just seem to pop up again and again in American Politics. People like Dick Cheney, James Baker, etc., and now ol' Fred.
Now I know that its not unusual for people who have been a member of the party for a long time to be recycled through various posts in different administrations but he is part of that coterie of republicans who just never seem to go away. And whenever the party is in dire straights they seem to be pulled forward into the fray to bring calm and reassurance, Daddy's here, he'll take care of it.
Then again Nixon is on tape saying, "Oh shit, he's dumb as hell." Which gives credence to the theory that W is just a shill for those who are really running things. Like W and Ronnie before him ol' Fred will stick to the script.
The Cabal of Conservatives has come to the conclusion that a Cross Dresser, POW, and/or a Mormon are too independent and may 'go off the reservation.'
So enter ol' Fred to save the day.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Crazy Dems??. . .Like a Fox!!
Last week, like many sane people in America I was saddened by the apparent collapse in the resolve of the Democratic Party in its elected mandate to end this war.
Much like Keith Olbermann's scathing screed I was deeply upset.
(I love the way he ends this with "Good Night, and Good Luck," a la Murrow during the Red Scare of the '50s.)
Ah, but then I heard the calm voice of my bff and Friend Of The Show, Doctor Baby, who had this to say:
If the Democrats force the President (i.e. Republicans) to pull out of Iraq they will own the defeat. Whatever it turns out to be. It will be the Jimmy Carter Effect all over again. Short term gain and long term consequences.Meaning the Dems were unrealistically penalized because they were in power at a bad time. "It's the economy stupid" is the premise.
I was in agreement and added:
That is true, if the Democrats force his hand they will be blamed for the defeat and history will repeat itself.
Today I read that they are mulling troop reductions because troops levels aren't sustainable due to attrition. Basically we can no longer field an army without bringing back the draft. This will be how the war ends.
What I was referring to was this article that states:
"It stems from a recognition that the current level of forces aren't sustainable in Iraq, they aren't sustainable in the region, and they will be increasingly unsustainable here at home,"
Why aren't forces sustainable at this level you may ask? Simple, because recruitment rates are at an all time low. And those getting out aren't opting back into the military.
Doctor Baby concluded the conversation with these wise words for us all:
It was only a matter of time before our military began to show real strain. We pull out or the draft gets resurrected plain and simple. People got greedy in the late 80's and 90's looking at all that prime real estate and money wasted on the military. They cut too deep foolishly thinking technology was the cure all. Technology might have actually been capable of doing what they wanted however. But you have to be willing to kill lots of people and the consequences be damned. We aren't willing to give the world the Finger and so we fail. Perhaps the people should have read up on General Sherman's doctrine of war before we decided to invade. That was a man who understood the nature of war.
Indeed.
The end of this war won't be with a bang, it will be with a whimper, simply because we can not field an army to complete our objective. The Democrats have given the Presidentator his blood money; they will allow him to fail.
Have no fear Conbeciles, the Bushies will find a scapegoat, they always do.
One has to wonder if General David Petraeus will see it coming. Another Great American thrown upon the Vanity of American Politics.
Good Night, and Good Luck.
Much like Keith Olbermann's scathing screed I was deeply upset.
(I love the way he ends this with "Good Night, and Good Luck," a la Murrow during the Red Scare of the '50s.)
Ah, but then I heard the calm voice of my bff and Friend Of The Show, Doctor Baby, who had this to say:
If the Democrats force the President (i.e. Republicans) to pull out of Iraq they will own the defeat. Whatever it turns out to be. It will be the Jimmy Carter Effect all over again. Short term gain and long term consequences.Meaning the Dems were unrealistically penalized because they were in power at a bad time. "It's the economy stupid" is the premise.
I was in agreement and added:
That is true, if the Democrats force his hand they will be blamed for the defeat and history will repeat itself.
Today I read that they are mulling troop reductions because troops levels aren't sustainable due to attrition. Basically we can no longer field an army without bringing back the draft. This will be how the war ends.
What I was referring to was this article that states:
"It stems from a recognition that the current level of forces aren't sustainable in Iraq, they aren't sustainable in the region, and they will be increasingly unsustainable here at home,"
Why aren't forces sustainable at this level you may ask? Simple, because recruitment rates are at an all time low. And those getting out aren't opting back into the military.
Doctor Baby concluded the conversation with these wise words for us all:
It was only a matter of time before our military began to show real strain. We pull out or the draft gets resurrected plain and simple. People got greedy in the late 80's and 90's looking at all that prime real estate and money wasted on the military. They cut too deep foolishly thinking technology was the cure all. Technology might have actually been capable of doing what they wanted however. But you have to be willing to kill lots of people and the consequences be damned. We aren't willing to give the world the Finger and so we fail. Perhaps the people should have read up on General Sherman's doctrine of war before we decided to invade. That was a man who understood the nature of war.
Indeed.
The end of this war won't be with a bang, it will be with a whimper, simply because we can not field an army to complete our objective. The Democrats have given the Presidentator his blood money; they will allow him to fail.
Have no fear Conbeciles, the Bushies will find a scapegoat, they always do.
One has to wonder if General David Petraeus will see it coming. Another Great American thrown upon the Vanity of American Politics.
Good Night, and Good Luck.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Joe Biden has no Chance!!!
Doctor Baby~
What do you think of Biden?
PhatShady~
He doesn't have a chance in hell, too wordy; he's like Kerry, without the good hair. Obama fever, catch it!!!
Doctor Baby~
Oh how trendy. Where's your well defended animosity towards black people now? Biden forever!
PhatShady~
He's not really black you know, doesn't have the 'my grandpapi was a slave attitude' even Jesse and Al aren't on board, how hateful is that? Besides who said I was still in animosis? Aren't I allowed to evolve and redefine myself as I see fit?
Why Obama? He was against the war, before it was cool to be against the war. And I think the lack of DC TAINT is quite refreshing to this old Curmudgeon.
Doctor Baby~
I see, not black. Interesting. I would say not American Black which may be the same thing. True his father is off the boat African, Kenyan I think, so he doesn't have that entitlement thing going. But wasn't Biden one of the sole voices of reason way back when? Biden says what he thinks regardless of how it is received. Also he has a proven track record of less than standard on the corruptibility index. One of few.
PhatShady~
What about the plagiarism charges in college?
Doctor Baby~
Oooh, he bought a term paper. Heaven forbid!
Phatshady~
He got Caught, there's a difference. Aren't you American?
Doctor Baby~
He got caught doing something stupid when he was in college. That's a far cry from Duke Cunningham. You have to have some perspective. Should he be forever judged by a mistake of youth? That would be far too inflexible.
PhatShady~
I'm not the one doing the judging, I'm just commenting on how the herd will perceive him. I like Joe, and I like John, but they are not Alpha. Unfortunately, if you want to be Alpha in this Society then you must Alpha-explain your mistakes. Biden doesn't do this, he just offers more warmed over sameness that Kerry did, and Edwards while we are on the topic. Hillary, gods love her, brings nothing new to the party. Obama has the freshness and the underdog value that America begs for.
Doctor Baby~
Form over substance is all that matters anymore. We are such a juvenile society.
PhatShady~
In the end, it’s not the election you want, it’s the election you deserve.
What do you think of Biden?
PhatShady~
He doesn't have a chance in hell, too wordy; he's like Kerry, without the good hair. Obama fever, catch it!!!
Doctor Baby~
Oh how trendy. Where's your well defended animosity towards black people now? Biden forever!
PhatShady~
He's not really black you know, doesn't have the 'my grandpapi was a slave attitude' even Jesse and Al aren't on board, how hateful is that? Besides who said I was still in animosis? Aren't I allowed to evolve and redefine myself as I see fit?
Why Obama? He was against the war, before it was cool to be against the war. And I think the lack of DC TAINT is quite refreshing to this old Curmudgeon.
Doctor Baby~
I see, not black. Interesting. I would say not American Black which may be the same thing. True his father is off the boat African, Kenyan I think, so he doesn't have that entitlement thing going. But wasn't Biden one of the sole voices of reason way back when? Biden says what he thinks regardless of how it is received. Also he has a proven track record of less than standard on the corruptibility index. One of few.
PhatShady~
What about the plagiarism charges in college?
Doctor Baby~
Oooh, he bought a term paper. Heaven forbid!
Phatshady~
He got Caught, there's a difference. Aren't you American?
Doctor Baby~
He got caught doing something stupid when he was in college. That's a far cry from Duke Cunningham. You have to have some perspective. Should he be forever judged by a mistake of youth? That would be far too inflexible.
PhatShady~
I'm not the one doing the judging, I'm just commenting on how the herd will perceive him. I like Joe, and I like John, but they are not Alpha. Unfortunately, if you want to be Alpha in this Society then you must Alpha-explain your mistakes. Biden doesn't do this, he just offers more warmed over sameness that Kerry did, and Edwards while we are on the topic. Hillary, gods love her, brings nothing new to the party. Obama has the freshness and the underdog value that America begs for.
Doctor Baby~
Form over substance is all that matters anymore. We are such a juvenile society.
PhatShady~
In the end, it’s not the election you want, it’s the election you deserve.
Mental health bill moves forward in Congress
A recent discussion on mental health after reading this article:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2007-02-15T135333Z_01_N14417499_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-MENTAL.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Doctor Baby~
I'm not terribly happy with this 'indulgence' bill. Few people are nuts and they are typically too nuts to have jobs or insurance. This is for the Cindys of the country and we get to pay for it. Perhaps they just get a grip instead. I have real issues with 'diseases' with no biomarkers. "We made the diagnosis by talking to them." Real scientific.
I'm glad I have my tiger-repelling computer in front of me. I know it works, I don't see any tigers.
PhatShady~
But people do need someone who is not so judgmental when faced with overwhelming stress. You can make a mental health diagnosis 'by talking to them,' I do it everyday. You don't just talk to the person; you watch their body language and the context that they bring the problem forth. PTSD has no'bio marker' but it is a very real mental illness that can only be understood and treated by 'talking' along with the proper med support.
Doctor Baby~
I agree that people do need a sympathetic shoulder in times of crises. We all have a threshold. However I see a number of glaring problems with the current approach to mental health. While I understand that it is more than just listening to their words, I find it entirely subjective. Itis based on too much on the Standard Model approach. The medical establishment defines what's normal via the DSM. Anything outside this agreed upon range is then by definition not normal. Unfortunately this is predicated upon the beliefs that humans are generally rational creatures and that certain behaviors are defects as opposed to simply variation in type. Both, in general, are ludicrously incorrect assumptions. How rational is the belief in an invisible friend, like God? Why not Zeus?
Too many people know how to 'act' crazy or eccentric. They know exactly what they need to say or do. Some learn to do so intentionally to work the system. Others do it instinctively because that's how they make their way in life (i.e. Cindy). Any attention is good attention so to speak. Additionally the accepted method of diagnosis is based too much on the 'we think the brain works thusly' methodology. But we don't know how it works with ANY scientific accuracy. Without demonstrable proof how do you know your right? What scientific proof can be offered and how can it be independently verified? "Well, we believe......" That is not proof.
Remember there was a time in the early 20th century when women went to the doctor to be masturbated. I cannot remember the exact aliment nor what they called the treatment but it was considered a medical condition.The medical establishment had similar assertions of medical validity then also. Have you forgotten that the DSM (III) listed homosexuality as a mentalillness until 1989? Never mind that there was, and continues to be, not a shed of scientific proof to support this conclusion. And let's not forgetone of my personal favorites either, bloodletting. "I have your diagnosismiss, you have too much blood." Where are these 'treatments' and conclusions now?
True madness unquestionably exists. I would never make the case that
it does not. But it is difficult to accurately assess without real world observation. The kind that seldom occurs in reality due to the poor cost benefit analysis. A better approach to diagnosis might be: A) Does the behavior manifest when it isn't convenient? Is it physically detrimental? Even that is still less than exact. But psychology today has given us such foolishness as Social Anxiety Disorder. What we once used to call being shy is now a condition. Now, instead of having a shot of booze to loosen up we have this nice little pill. Possible side effects are loss of scalp and penis. As long as psychology continues to tell us it's not our fault this problem will fester.
Psychology is good at assessing large groups of people. It becomes increasingly unreliable when applied to smaller groups and particularly individuals. And exacerbating the situation is the fact that there is a small percentage of people in your profession like you. People that have the ability to accurately assess others. I bet you rely more on your empirically gained experience than your training. Regardless, too many of the remainder of your colleagues are quacks with deep seated issues of their own. And they are the ones writing the DSM.
PhatShady~
Wow, I think you just about nailed it, and here I was ready for a 'Battle Royal' (with cheese!). The DSM like many things is a work in progress, just as our understanding of humanity is a work in progress. The DSM-IV is an imperfect object, but it is the best tool we have to be consistent in our documentation of mental illness. Insurance companies that don't want to pay unless a person meets DSM-IV criteria have hijacked the purpose of the DSM-IV. The most important criteria, and sadly most overlooked, is the impact the illness has on the person's ability to function in their environment. Functionality is key in our approach here in the Cow Counties. While you may be shy or depressed, does this feeling have a significant impact on your ability for self care, employment, and/or education.
Social anxiety can be very real if it keeps you locked in your home, afraid to answer the door when the pizza guy comes (and most likely indicative of something greater than social anxiety). However, if your anxiety just means that you are often dateless on Fridays, then maybe a support group would be more appropriate. But social anxiety is a real phenomenon, just like shyness. Where can a person turn if they feel that their shyness is getting in the way of living a fulfilling life? We used to be surrounded by families and friends in a community we grew up in. Now we often find ourselves removed from the familiar and all alone in the crowd. With no one else to turn to shouldn't the mental health professional be available to assist, replacing traditional modes of personal resolution? Again, yes, social anxiety is a condition, but it is its impact on functionality that needs to be assessed before a treatment intervention can be formulated. If you choose to call it shyness that is fine, but as a professional, if you want to be reimbursed by the insurance company then its 300.23 Social Phobia with a GAF of 55 or lower.
Just because our past understanding of mental illness was flawed is no litmus that our current understanding is as flawed or worse. I admit that we have a long way to go to understanding how and why our brain and body work the way they do. We have advanced, albeit slowly. Just as our understanding of homosexuality continues to evolve so will our understanding of heterosexuality. Much of this depends on the social pressures and focus. Malingering is another matter and readily ferreted out by the trained professional. But, alas, as you commented few professionals don't take the time or are overburdened and just passed the person through. I have been somewhat guilty of this in respects to Southeast Asians. I give them the benefit of the doubt because I feel a collective guilt in over how our country disrupted and abandoned our allies during the conflict. Often inmates are medicated for mental illness while incarcerated. This is done so the 'system' can manage their behavior, not for the benefit of the individual. This is a jacket that they use and wear proudly post release to further their victimization of the community.
Psychology does not tell people that it's not their fault; this is a huge fallacy and misinterpretation of the craft. Often a client will utilize a label like 'social phobia' to avoid taking responsibility. But if they are active in their treatment then they are learning to assume responsibility for their emotions. All of the major intervention therapies (i.e., CBT, DBT, and ACT) emphasize that while we can't change the past we can change the way we think and feel about it today. We have a saying; if you are not at treatment then you are not in treatment. Next time you hear a person say they can't because they are Bipolar (my favorite) or something else ask what their treatment plan is, what's the goal? If they respond that they are taking a rectal bleeding pill then their treatment provider is not serving them. All mental illness is manageable with the appropriate level of care. (Unfortunately not many of the severe chronics can afford this; hence you get the basket people.) Challenge them to advocate for better care if they are serious about getting better. Consumer Reports did and exhaustive study that indicated that the best treatment for mental illness was therapy with med support.
I agree that many people get into this profession to fix or better understand themselves rather than assist our population. This is sad. Also you find a great many narcissists in this field. What kind of gall is it that you think you can fix another person? (Myself included ;)
Yes I do rely on empirical evidence. But it is evidence gained by seeing symptoms on a continuous basis, consulting with colleagues, and measuring that information against the criteria set forth in the practitioner's bible, the DSM-IV.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2007-02-15T135333Z_01_N14417499_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-MENTAL.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Doctor Baby~
I'm not terribly happy with this 'indulgence' bill. Few people are nuts and they are typically too nuts to have jobs or insurance. This is for the Cindys of the country and we get to pay for it. Perhaps they just get a grip instead. I have real issues with 'diseases' with no biomarkers. "We made the diagnosis by talking to them." Real scientific.
I'm glad I have my tiger-repelling computer in front of me. I know it works, I don't see any tigers.
PhatShady~
But people do need someone who is not so judgmental when faced with overwhelming stress. You can make a mental health diagnosis 'by talking to them,' I do it everyday. You don't just talk to the person; you watch their body language and the context that they bring the problem forth. PTSD has no'bio marker' but it is a very real mental illness that can only be understood and treated by 'talking' along with the proper med support.
Doctor Baby~
I agree that people do need a sympathetic shoulder in times of crises. We all have a threshold. However I see a number of glaring problems with the current approach to mental health. While I understand that it is more than just listening to their words, I find it entirely subjective. Itis based on too much on the Standard Model approach. The medical establishment defines what's normal via the DSM. Anything outside this agreed upon range is then by definition not normal. Unfortunately this is predicated upon the beliefs that humans are generally rational creatures and that certain behaviors are defects as opposed to simply variation in type. Both, in general, are ludicrously incorrect assumptions. How rational is the belief in an invisible friend, like God? Why not Zeus?
Too many people know how to 'act' crazy or eccentric. They know exactly what they need to say or do. Some learn to do so intentionally to work the system. Others do it instinctively because that's how they make their way in life (i.e. Cindy). Any attention is good attention so to speak. Additionally the accepted method of diagnosis is based too much on the 'we think the brain works thusly' methodology. But we don't know how it works with ANY scientific accuracy. Without demonstrable proof how do you know your right? What scientific proof can be offered and how can it be independently verified? "Well, we believe......" That is not proof.
Remember there was a time in the early 20th century when women went to the doctor to be masturbated. I cannot remember the exact aliment nor what they called the treatment but it was considered a medical condition.The medical establishment had similar assertions of medical validity then also. Have you forgotten that the DSM (III) listed homosexuality as a mentalillness until 1989? Never mind that there was, and continues to be, not a shed of scientific proof to support this conclusion. And let's not forgetone of my personal favorites either, bloodletting. "I have your diagnosismiss, you have too much blood." Where are these 'treatments' and conclusions now?
True madness unquestionably exists. I would never make the case that
it does not. But it is difficult to accurately assess without real world observation. The kind that seldom occurs in reality due to the poor cost benefit analysis. A better approach to diagnosis might be: A) Does the behavior manifest when it isn't convenient? Is it physically detrimental? Even that is still less than exact. But psychology today has given us such foolishness as Social Anxiety Disorder. What we once used to call being shy is now a condition. Now, instead of having a shot of booze to loosen up we have this nice little pill. Possible side effects are loss of scalp and penis. As long as psychology continues to tell us it's not our fault this problem will fester.
Psychology is good at assessing large groups of people. It becomes increasingly unreliable when applied to smaller groups and particularly individuals. And exacerbating the situation is the fact that there is a small percentage of people in your profession like you. People that have the ability to accurately assess others. I bet you rely more on your empirically gained experience than your training. Regardless, too many of the remainder of your colleagues are quacks with deep seated issues of their own. And they are the ones writing the DSM.
PhatShady~
Wow, I think you just about nailed it, and here I was ready for a 'Battle Royal' (with cheese!). The DSM like many things is a work in progress, just as our understanding of humanity is a work in progress. The DSM-IV is an imperfect object, but it is the best tool we have to be consistent in our documentation of mental illness. Insurance companies that don't want to pay unless a person meets DSM-IV criteria have hijacked the purpose of the DSM-IV. The most important criteria, and sadly most overlooked, is the impact the illness has on the person's ability to function in their environment. Functionality is key in our approach here in the Cow Counties. While you may be shy or depressed, does this feeling have a significant impact on your ability for self care, employment, and/or education.
Social anxiety can be very real if it keeps you locked in your home, afraid to answer the door when the pizza guy comes (and most likely indicative of something greater than social anxiety). However, if your anxiety just means that you are often dateless on Fridays, then maybe a support group would be more appropriate. But social anxiety is a real phenomenon, just like shyness. Where can a person turn if they feel that their shyness is getting in the way of living a fulfilling life? We used to be surrounded by families and friends in a community we grew up in. Now we often find ourselves removed from the familiar and all alone in the crowd. With no one else to turn to shouldn't the mental health professional be available to assist, replacing traditional modes of personal resolution? Again, yes, social anxiety is a condition, but it is its impact on functionality that needs to be assessed before a treatment intervention can be formulated. If you choose to call it shyness that is fine, but as a professional, if you want to be reimbursed by the insurance company then its 300.23 Social Phobia with a GAF of 55 or lower.
Just because our past understanding of mental illness was flawed is no litmus that our current understanding is as flawed or worse. I admit that we have a long way to go to understanding how and why our brain and body work the way they do. We have advanced, albeit slowly. Just as our understanding of homosexuality continues to evolve so will our understanding of heterosexuality. Much of this depends on the social pressures and focus. Malingering is another matter and readily ferreted out by the trained professional. But, alas, as you commented few professionals don't take the time or are overburdened and just passed the person through. I have been somewhat guilty of this in respects to Southeast Asians. I give them the benefit of the doubt because I feel a collective guilt in over how our country disrupted and abandoned our allies during the conflict. Often inmates are medicated for mental illness while incarcerated. This is done so the 'system' can manage their behavior, not for the benefit of the individual. This is a jacket that they use and wear proudly post release to further their victimization of the community.
Psychology does not tell people that it's not their fault; this is a huge fallacy and misinterpretation of the craft. Often a client will utilize a label like 'social phobia' to avoid taking responsibility. But if they are active in their treatment then they are learning to assume responsibility for their emotions. All of the major intervention therapies (i.e., CBT, DBT, and ACT) emphasize that while we can't change the past we can change the way we think and feel about it today. We have a saying; if you are not at treatment then you are not in treatment. Next time you hear a person say they can't because they are Bipolar (my favorite) or something else ask what their treatment plan is, what's the goal? If they respond that they are taking a rectal bleeding pill then their treatment provider is not serving them. All mental illness is manageable with the appropriate level of care. (Unfortunately not many of the severe chronics can afford this; hence you get the basket people.) Challenge them to advocate for better care if they are serious about getting better. Consumer Reports did and exhaustive study that indicated that the best treatment for mental illness was therapy with med support.
I agree that many people get into this profession to fix or better understand themselves rather than assist our population. This is sad. Also you find a great many narcissists in this field. What kind of gall is it that you think you can fix another person? (Myself included ;)
Yes I do rely on empirical evidence. But it is evidence gained by seeing symptoms on a continuous basis, consulting with colleagues, and measuring that information against the criteria set forth in the practitioner's bible, the DSM-IV.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
A Recent Conversation On Racism after viewing the following article:
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/long-beach-hate-crime-verdict/15545/
Sad on so many levels.
~Doctor Baby
Did you get a chance to read my paper on racism on our blog?
~PhatShady
Yep, sure did. Unfortunately I found it somewhat standard whitemale. The analysis overlooks preconceptions and is too simplistic. The biasis readily apparent at the outset. When events occur, either positive ornegative, they are held up in comparison to a 'standard' negative model.They aren't evaluated on their own merits but simply for how they reinforceor dispel the expectation.It is a text book example of how the reasoning part of our mindsjustify the primitive passions of our lower brain. I can make similarassertions for brunettes as a group. You know how those darkies are. Alwaystrying to make blondes look like airheads by actin' all smart. When a blackperson plays on whities stereotypes to get over it's called the Race Card.When whitie plays their card to get over we call them assholes, sycophantsor irresponsible. Think frivolous lawsuits. Hot coffee is hot. Regardlessit's more a societal issue than a person specific one. However if a memberof the group that is stigmatized displays the same behavior a very personaldislike ensues.If it isn't skin color it's always some difference, real orimagined. When you isolate whitie, or any other species of humon, by itselfit will find a group to stigmatize within itself. It will make it up ifnecessary. Most terrestrial creatures require a group at the bottom to stepon for some reason I don't fully understand. Humons try to act as if theyhave risen above this but we still share this trait with all the otherspecies here. Welcome to Earth, every creature will try to eat you. If youneed proof I can supply a plethora of examples. Wolf packs are perfect humananalogy.If we are to truly become rational creatures we need to rise aboveour nature, not try to ignore it. Perhaps we could evaluate each person ontheir own actions rather than the standard for the assigned group. Itrequires effort to engage our higher brain to override the primitive andmeans that things might not adhere to one's desire. You might get a headachetoo.Tell me. What do you first see when you look at a person or group?
~Doctor Baby
Its true that I was anti black at the time I wrote the article, but it isall true. I wasn't anti black until that moment at the ballpark. When I seea group of people I notice in this order, race, age, socioeconomic status.
~PhatShady
That's unfortunate. I understand the circumstance but why not applythis standard to other groups? Whitie, brunettes, vegetarians and lefthanders for example. Why the narrow view when skin color is involved? Wouldyou hate all red haired whities if you were treated badly by one? If notthen shouldn't your ire be directed at the person responsible and not thegroup they share traits with. Anything seems would seem indefensible.
~Doctor Baby
Well to quote a good friend of mine (namely you), 'its not the Buddhistextremists that are causing the problems.'It all boils down to the fact that hatred is earned, not given freely by theilluminati. Sure lots of people have slighted me in many ways, but one grouphas been consistent, so shouldn't my awareness level rise when encounteringmembers of this group? Why should put myself in the situation of beingvictimized again?
~PhatShady
Hatred is 'not' freely given? Afraid I can't agree with that one.I've seen too many instances of unreasoned and undeserved hate inflicted onpeople. Why do girls hate each other when they aren't in competition? Butregardless I still see no valid justification. Whitie has picked on youplenty but you don't judge all of the by the same standard. Where is theawareness in this regard? You've decided all black people are worthy ofscorn even if they haven't done anything in particular. Are there any 'good'darkies or does the one size fits all approach preclude that?Personally I can't condemn anyone for that which they are notresponsible. Otherwise I'd hate whitie. As for putting yourself in aposition to be victimized. How does being racist protect you from the guy atthe ballpark? Will it make him shut up? Probably not.On a funny note. Next time something like that happens say thefollowing: "Oh, is it racist day? I had no idea. In that case, back of theline Nigger." Won't that be fun?
~Doctor Baby
I get the feeling that you really didn't read the paper, just kind of skimmed it and drew your own conclusions.I don't mean to imply that hatred isn't freely given, but earned in this respect. What is wrong with reasoned internal dialogue to come to the conclusion that you shouldn't play with snakes, shouldn't be around snakes, and as a rule avoid snakes?
~PhatShady
Of course I drew my own conclusions silly. I read every word of it.I paid close attention in fact. I find it fascinating how differing humansview interacting. I just see it differently and you asked. I can understandbeing wary of a group that has done injury in the past. I tend to distrusthip hoppers as most of them are losers regardless of their physicalcharacteristics. But that's just a generalization. I give each one the sameopportunity to prove themselves as I would others.Some groups are worthy of disdain and marginalization. The KKK,Crips and pedophiles are all excellent examples. I have no problem withdisliking people due to their willing allegiance to such groups. But skincolor, hair color, stature and the like aren't choices. To disdain peoplefor the circumstances of birth is not logically supportable in my view. Ifone's skin color is enough to make a person culpable for the transgressionsof others of similar complexion a fundamental question must be answered.What about whitie, or brunettes? How about Jews?I personally have been jerked around by white people far morefrequently than any other type of people. Should I therefore take a similarview then? After all, if the threat comes from that quarter........... AndI've found Mexicans the friendliest. Does that mean Mexicans are better?Maybe culture has more to do with it than minor genetic differences.There's nothing wrong with reasoned internal dialogue regardingsnakes. I just think the criteria for snakes is too broadly cast. Why shouldit go beyond the offending individual to include those that look like theoffender? Isn't it the same as saying "I don't like how you look and that'sall the reason I need?" But don't worry. I still love you. :)
~Doctor Baby
I think it all boils down to the usage of ‘Race.’ Whitey, Blondes, Redheads, Mexicans, sure they have all done me wrong, but they didn’t use race to do it. They did it because they were assholes or thought I was an asshole, not because I was White. And I think that’s the difference.
~PhatShady
Sad on so many levels.
~Doctor Baby
Did you get a chance to read my paper on racism on our blog?
~PhatShady
Yep, sure did. Unfortunately I found it somewhat standard whitemale. The analysis overlooks preconceptions and is too simplistic. The biasis readily apparent at the outset. When events occur, either positive ornegative, they are held up in comparison to a 'standard' negative model.They aren't evaluated on their own merits but simply for how they reinforceor dispel the expectation.It is a text book example of how the reasoning part of our mindsjustify the primitive passions of our lower brain. I can make similarassertions for brunettes as a group. You know how those darkies are. Alwaystrying to make blondes look like airheads by actin' all smart. When a blackperson plays on whities stereotypes to get over it's called the Race Card.When whitie plays their card to get over we call them assholes, sycophantsor irresponsible. Think frivolous lawsuits. Hot coffee is hot. Regardlessit's more a societal issue than a person specific one. However if a memberof the group that is stigmatized displays the same behavior a very personaldislike ensues.If it isn't skin color it's always some difference, real orimagined. When you isolate whitie, or any other species of humon, by itselfit will find a group to stigmatize within itself. It will make it up ifnecessary. Most terrestrial creatures require a group at the bottom to stepon for some reason I don't fully understand. Humons try to act as if theyhave risen above this but we still share this trait with all the otherspecies here. Welcome to Earth, every creature will try to eat you. If youneed proof I can supply a plethora of examples. Wolf packs are perfect humananalogy.If we are to truly become rational creatures we need to rise aboveour nature, not try to ignore it. Perhaps we could evaluate each person ontheir own actions rather than the standard for the assigned group. Itrequires effort to engage our higher brain to override the primitive andmeans that things might not adhere to one's desire. You might get a headachetoo.Tell me. What do you first see when you look at a person or group?
~Doctor Baby
Its true that I was anti black at the time I wrote the article, but it isall true. I wasn't anti black until that moment at the ballpark. When I seea group of people I notice in this order, race, age, socioeconomic status.
~PhatShady
That's unfortunate. I understand the circumstance but why not applythis standard to other groups? Whitie, brunettes, vegetarians and lefthanders for example. Why the narrow view when skin color is involved? Wouldyou hate all red haired whities if you were treated badly by one? If notthen shouldn't your ire be directed at the person responsible and not thegroup they share traits with. Anything seems would seem indefensible.
~Doctor Baby
Well to quote a good friend of mine (namely you), 'its not the Buddhistextremists that are causing the problems.'It all boils down to the fact that hatred is earned, not given freely by theilluminati. Sure lots of people have slighted me in many ways, but one grouphas been consistent, so shouldn't my awareness level rise when encounteringmembers of this group? Why should put myself in the situation of beingvictimized again?
~PhatShady
Hatred is 'not' freely given? Afraid I can't agree with that one.I've seen too many instances of unreasoned and undeserved hate inflicted onpeople. Why do girls hate each other when they aren't in competition? Butregardless I still see no valid justification. Whitie has picked on youplenty but you don't judge all of the by the same standard. Where is theawareness in this regard? You've decided all black people are worthy ofscorn even if they haven't done anything in particular. Are there any 'good'darkies or does the one size fits all approach preclude that?Personally I can't condemn anyone for that which they are notresponsible. Otherwise I'd hate whitie. As for putting yourself in aposition to be victimized. How does being racist protect you from the guy atthe ballpark? Will it make him shut up? Probably not.On a funny note. Next time something like that happens say thefollowing: "Oh, is it racist day? I had no idea. In that case, back of theline Nigger." Won't that be fun?
~Doctor Baby
I get the feeling that you really didn't read the paper, just kind of skimmed it and drew your own conclusions.I don't mean to imply that hatred isn't freely given, but earned in this respect. What is wrong with reasoned internal dialogue to come to the conclusion that you shouldn't play with snakes, shouldn't be around snakes, and as a rule avoid snakes?
~PhatShady
Of course I drew my own conclusions silly. I read every word of it.I paid close attention in fact. I find it fascinating how differing humansview interacting. I just see it differently and you asked. I can understandbeing wary of a group that has done injury in the past. I tend to distrusthip hoppers as most of them are losers regardless of their physicalcharacteristics. But that's just a generalization. I give each one the sameopportunity to prove themselves as I would others.Some groups are worthy of disdain and marginalization. The KKK,Crips and pedophiles are all excellent examples. I have no problem withdisliking people due to their willing allegiance to such groups. But skincolor, hair color, stature and the like aren't choices. To disdain peoplefor the circumstances of birth is not logically supportable in my view. Ifone's skin color is enough to make a person culpable for the transgressionsof others of similar complexion a fundamental question must be answered.What about whitie, or brunettes? How about Jews?I personally have been jerked around by white people far morefrequently than any other type of people. Should I therefore take a similarview then? After all, if the threat comes from that quarter........... AndI've found Mexicans the friendliest. Does that mean Mexicans are better?Maybe culture has more to do with it than minor genetic differences.There's nothing wrong with reasoned internal dialogue regardingsnakes. I just think the criteria for snakes is too broadly cast. Why shouldit go beyond the offending individual to include those that look like theoffender? Isn't it the same as saying "I don't like how you look and that'sall the reason I need?" But don't worry. I still love you. :)
~Doctor Baby
I think it all boils down to the usage of ‘Race.’ Whitey, Blondes, Redheads, Mexicans, sure they have all done me wrong, but they didn’t use race to do it. They did it because they were assholes or thought I was an asshole, not because I was White. And I think that’s the difference.
~PhatShady
Brain Scan That Can Read People's Intentions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2009229,00.html
They won't be asking for your papers. The sheep are going to clamor for this to be used at airports and it will spread from there. Your mind will no longer be private and chaos will ensue. Or we will be a police state worse than our most horrible nightmares. The future is looking so bright I gotta wear shades, brain shades.
~Doctor Baby
Oh man, I'm going to have to walk around with one of those black bars over my head, like censored images. My thoughts are ugly and wrong.
~Ronnie
There is a theory out there that Freud destroyed much of his most important work because it revealed that the elite of Vienna were little more than incestuous sex crazed perverts. Every new technology has been modified to satisfy the prurient interest. If they start using this on a larger scale we will learn just what a bunch of sex-obsessed deviants the world really is made of. Like Lex Luther said, "People are no damn good," or was it John Cougar Mellencamp?
Tin Foil Helmets for everyone!!
~PhatShady
They won't be asking for your papers. The sheep are going to clamor for this to be used at airports and it will spread from there. Your mind will no longer be private and chaos will ensue. Or we will be a police state worse than our most horrible nightmares. The future is looking so bright I gotta wear shades, brain shades.
~Doctor Baby
Oh man, I'm going to have to walk around with one of those black bars over my head, like censored images. My thoughts are ugly and wrong.
~Ronnie
There is a theory out there that Freud destroyed much of his most important work because it revealed that the elite of Vienna were little more than incestuous sex crazed perverts. Every new technology has been modified to satisfy the prurient interest. If they start using this on a larger scale we will learn just what a bunch of sex-obsessed deviants the world really is made of. Like Lex Luther said, "People are no damn good," or was it John Cougar Mellencamp?
Tin Foil Helmets for everyone!!
~PhatShady
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
