I must say that I rarely read this problem, but because this post dealt with mental illness I decided to take a look and Cary's answer, not to mention the amateur's, remind me why I don't read it. You have more piss poor advice than you can shake a stick at.

First, you mention "therapist." Have you see a psychiatrist? If not, that should be your first stop. Depression, disassociative disorders, self mutilation, excessive rumination, etc. -- these things are not trivial and you may well benefit from drug therapy.

Next, the advice to just do half-assed work at you job strikes me as poor advice. I have suffered from depression in the past and am something of a perfectionist and workaholic (albeit with some unusual kinks), and doing less than my best or slaking off on a job would substantially aggravate my depression, not help it. Your husband's part-time suggestion sounds reasonable, but again, I'd discuss that with a doctor and a therapist before committing.

Don't face this alone, and don't rely on jake-leg advice columnists or their readers for answers to serious medical conditions that can seriously alter your life. Go get real professional help.

Do it and do it now!! Before someone has time to talk you out of it. I wish my job was portable. I greatly miss traveling and living abroad. You kids should eat it up, too.

I'm a Democrat too, but that doesn't mean that we can turn a blind eye when a Democrat screws up. The item that caught my attention was a five year freeze on mortgage interest rates. I assume that is a freeze on rates of existing adjustable rate mortgages (ARM)? If so, I have serious questions concerning whether that violates the Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment, provides, in relevant part:

"No person shall . . .be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And corporations are persons under the Constitution. Assume that a corporation has an ARM that is due to go up. If the government freezes the interest on an ARM, they have taken the additional interest that the mortgage holder would have earned. This seems to be a classic taking and would entitle the holder to compensation from the government. Am I missing something here?

I see how Blaisdell could be a problem, although I certainly see ways around it. (See argument below). But I don't see how the Contracts clause of the Constitution being applicable to States makes any difference. I presume, not having seen a detailed proposal, that HRC is suggesting a five year freeze by mandate of Federal law, not State law.

But just as Blaisedell may be a problem for any solution -- though I would argue, not a big one -- I think that Contracts Clause jurisprudence is a bigger hurdle. Look at Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light 459 U.S. 400 (1983). Three part test. One, State must significantly impair the contract. Two, State must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem. And three, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose. Rather similar to the equal protection rational basis test. Sounds kind of like a weak argument to me.

As to the Blaisedell problem, two points. First, it could be invoked against a Contracts claim just as easily as against a Takings claim. In fact, Blaisedell was a contracts claim, wasn't it? You could well argue that suspending the contract was a necessary step to keeping public order, but the government compensating the victim of the taking would in no way undermine the peacekeeping effect of the suspension.

Second, you would simply have to point to the underlying fact that this is a very different climate then the depression. There are not masses unemployed and starving. There truly may have been an argument for keeping the peace at the time of Blaisedell, but there is none now. Plus, as much as I'm not a fan of the make up of today's Court, I think that they would 1) be more favorably inclined toward the takings argument, and less favorably inclined to the Blaisedell argument.

Let's put it this way. I'd take the Fifth Amendment takings case of a large mortgage holder on a contingent fee!!

You remind me of the knuckleheads who said that there was no difference between George Bush and Al Gore. Do you think Al Gore would have appointed John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court?

I'm not fan of HRC, but appointing judges is the single most important function of a President, and no appointees are more important that appointees to the Supreme Court. I can assure you that Hillary's appointee and McCain's appointees will not be at all similar. With five nut jobs on the Court, and our justices the ones who are next in line (by age, at least) to retire or die, we cannot afford any Republican, no matter how moderate.