The top 5 things everyone gets sick of dealing with when it comes to sports

I didn't watch the NBA finals. I didn't care. It isn't that I'm not a fan of basketball--quite the contrary, in fact. So what is it, you ask? Well...there are several reasons, reasons that I guarantee not only drive myself nuts, but send the rest of the world into diatribe the likes of William Wallace would tip his hat to--or in this case, bow his lovely celtic skirt.

Thy words move not only my heart, but also earth and moon my good lad.

1) Announcers, Spokespersons, Analysts.

They all go in the same category because they all say same things that a five year old child would say when cheering on his younger brother or sister. "That was a good play." "Nice job, Timmy." The only difference? Tina isn't wearing a 1500 dollar suit and doesn't do it for a goddamn living. Let me be clear: say something that sounds somewhat intelligent. Don't say, "you know, Tim Duncan is just solid in the post." No shit he's solid in the post: he's been playing in the post since the Dark Ages; I don't need to hear how good he is in the post or how nice of play it was--I can see it was a nice play. Tell me something I missed. Show me a replay of a pick and roll that set someone up or an off-the-ball movement that somehow freed a player--show me things I can see myself. Most of these guys have played professional basketball, played against top, legendary players. Tell us what it's like to guard them, to shoot over them. Tell us how difficult it is. Give us a sense of what it takes to be a shooting guard and having to walk the ball up the court with five seconds left; yeah we know it's tense, but what's going through your mind? 

Do they do that? No. Is that only for basketball? Hell no. I can clearly think of soccer as an example: Alexi fuckin' Lalas. That man has a bigger head than any goldeneye character with big head mode on.

Picture for reference and size comparisons.

The funniest thing about it? Alexi Lalas did absolutely nothing for soccer in the U.S. Sure, he may have influenced some people, but how many kids have posters of him in their room? And that's his problem. He expects them to. They got clobbered at the world cups time and time again,  in a time period that american soccer was looked upon as the worst of the worst. Sure, he had some wins, but who cares: You're getting paid to get on national television to tell me that Spain is excellent at holding the ball--yeah, we know; any idiot with eyes can see that. Genius. Absolute Genius. 

2) Comparisons. 

We here it all the time: MJ and Lebron; Kobe and MJ; Jesus Christ and Lebron (wouldn't be surprised if that has happened already). "Well, Jesus walked on water, but Lebron took his headband off...ya gotta give to Lebron there: he's got two championships; Jesus don't have any." I don't give a shit about comparisons and the rest of the country gets sick of hearing about after the--oh, I don't know-- 1,000,000,000th time you've mentioned it. For the record, no, Lebron will never be as good as Michael Jordan and there are too many goddamn reasons why. End of discussion. I don't want to hear it even if he does get to six championships. Why? Because I"m not watching the game to listen to those comparisons: I'm watching the game because I've had a long day and I want to watch mind numbing basketball where I can get into the game and cheer my favorite team on. That's why we love college so much: it isn't as much about the superstars; it's about the team. It's always about the team. You don't see this in other sports, I don't think. Sure, there are some comparisons in soccer, but I don't know about Hockey and Baseball--I don' t know much about the sports so I can't comment. What I do know is that when I am watching baseball or hockey, I don't ever hear those debates; I hear about trades, burnout, statistics, possible playoff scenarios, and frankly, when I watch those sports, I see something that isn't in basketball right now: the love of the game. You listen to hockey announcers, you can tell they absolutely love it; they love how the game is played; same with baseball. But when you listen to sports announcers and analysts for basketball talk, all they can reference are the players, not how exciting the game is. Jesus Christ, shut up already. 

3) Money

The fact that there was even an NBA lockout with this shit just drives me up the wall. Whatever happened to playing for the fun of the game? Is that what sports have come to? You don't see that in hockey or soccer though (can't speak for baseball). Like I said, those players LOVE to play that game. They would be playing the game if their pay was taken from them and they were homeless. 

Where the fuck is my hockey stick? 

The point? What was the point of the NBA lockout? Hey let's decide how much money players get as compared to the managers. How arrogant are you? You really need that extra million bucks in your pocket? What's worse is some of them came from nothing and have forgotten that. You see some of them walk around with $5000 watches and god knows how expensive their suits are, and to what end? You deprived fans of quality time watching a sport they love because you wanted more money? Do you not get paid enough? Tell that to the goddamn fireman who volunteers and comes home every night to watch a bball game and can't because boohoo Ray Allen wants more money (I have yet to talk about football, but I'm getting there). America should have just stopped watching basketball at that point. It's honestly depressing. In a tumultuous economic season, where shit can hit the fan at any moment, job losses are rampant, education needs reform, and healthcare is so messed up and corrupt that there may not be any hope for it, the last thing we want is to have a little bit of pleasure taken from us because 23 year old basketball phenoms want an extra million. Play the game. You play for us. You play for yourself. Not fuckin' money.

4) Grow the fuck up

And that's another thing: grow the fuck up. You're not Jesus Christ. You're not god's gift to basketball. Here's a news flash: at some point, there WILL be somebody better than you. You see older, more mature players acknowledge this--Kobe and Tim Duncan come to mind. Younger players are so conceited and hotheaded they think they can walk on water. I don't blame them really though. Think about it. You're 22. You just finished your second year in college and you get all this media attention. You're unbelievable at putting a ball in a hoop. Scouts want you. Endorsement deals are on the line. You go to the NBA and get advanced 10 million dollars and all the sudden your face is plastered everywhere you can see it. Would you be arrogant? Yeah. So I blame the system, which I'll talk about next. But for now, you can see the immaturity everywhere, from in-game behavior to the twitter comments they make. It's awful. Who raised you. Were you raised to be like this? Were you raised not to appreciate a single goddamn thing that was given to you? Granted, not all players are like this, but some are--and they are ignorant about it too, as if that's just how it should be. No it isn't. It should never be like that. 

One of my favorite moments in sports is when UC and Xavier got into a huge bball fight and UC's coach goes to the press conference and completely tears his players and the sport apart. He says, "They are not here to play bball; people are here to get an education." That's absolutely right. It's a privilege. Playing Bball at the highest level and for your country is a privilege, not an entitlement, so act like it. 

5) Deification of sports

This has to be the worst. And the best example of it is the Penn State football scandal in which young teenagers were molested and all people could care about at Penn State was how Joe Paterno got sacked for allowing it to happen, not the poor souls who would have to endure that terrible event for the rest of their lives. First, that asshole should have been sacked. Second, football isn't a religion. It isn't God, no matter how much you want it to be. And the fact that we are at the point in this country that we can neglect our morals and childhood teachings just because somebody coaches fucking football is absolutely ridiculous and is possibly the most pathetic thing I have ever heard. So much goddamn shit gets overlooked for the sake of sports. Why? Because they are stars? Because they are more important than other people? That's just ridiculous. 

Want another example? When Lebron took his fuckin' headband off. I mean are we serious? Did sportsnation really just write a whole article about a headband? A HEADBAND? I could understand if it was something important like a chain his wife gave him, but a headband?

One headband to rule them all, one headband to find them; one headband to...okay you get the picture.

I suppose I should admit I'm not immune to this. I do idolize Steven Gerrard, but I would hope that if he came out and said he was racist or made homophobic comments, or touched little boys in the bathroom, I wouldn't love him anymore. And that's the point: we don't take into consideration character anymore. I love MJ, but he cheated on his wife. No one ever mentions that. I hate Duke but I love the coach (his name is too long) because he teaches character. He teaches respect. Have sports lost that? Or has this country lost it and sports become the vehicle with which it is visible to the world? I don't know. In the end, it just makes me want to scream. 

have a good one. 

--Matt

Thoughts about Music--more like a rant really.

Recently I read an article that reported a blog post made by Patrick Stump, the singer/songwriter/guitarist of Fall Out Boy, commenting on how all everyone does is hate/troll anymore over Twitter, YouTube, and whatever other sit-behind-a-safe-chair-and-criticize-people social media website that the world uses. This led me to his blog post. I read it. I liked what he had to say. I do think he's right on one level: people can't seem to really encapsulate why they hate Nickelback, they just do; people can't seem to grasp why they hate Creed, Taylor Swift, Nicki Minaj, Justin Bieber, Rhianna, and any other artist you can think of that gets mass radio airplay over the pop stations. Patrick goes on to say that he never indicated that he himself liked Nickelback or Creed either, but that people should stop trolling and "defining themselves by hate." This is a valid point, and one that I should consider myself. Patrick Stump even went as far as blowing up his tweeter feed to someone who trolled him recently and the insults he threw back were pretty creative. The man knows his stuff..

But you know what...I do know why people extremely dislike those aforementioned artists--well, at least I know why I extremely dislike them.

I'll start with Fall Out Boy. In my opinion, the lyrics and words are just pretentious, fanciful, and self-dramatizing (see what I did there? the irony), but that is me. That isn't the kid sitting alone, depressed, wishing he had someone to talk to and puts a Fall Out boy album on and it speaks to him. That's different. I'm 24. I grew up with different tastes and so maybe I'm giving Patrick Stump too hard of a time on that one. Stump: 1. Matt: 0. But then I see the title of their latest album: Save Rock and Roll.

You google this  and find numerous reporters writing articles asking, "Can Fall Out Boy save rock and roll?" to which Stump has not replied. And I don't expect him to. 1) Fall Out Boy isn't rock and roll; they never have been. At most, the band is the apotheosis of an emo evolved pop/punk band, influencing legions of young teens in their youth that deal with issues at home, at school--whatever. I say emo, but not in a condescending sense of the word. I mean emo as in not rock and roll: rock and roll is a term that has its origins in sex (of course). When people wanted to get it on they would say, "let's rock and roll". Like everything, it has evolved. Music became its medium, where rock and roll could take the form of notes, of harmonies, of earth-shaking guitar riffs. And so, there aren't many rock and roll bands left that fit that criteria that are still touring. There aren't many bands that shake the ground they play on. I'd say the Rolling Stones, Red Hot Chili Peppers to some extent, AC/DC, Oasis (if they'd ever get back together), U2 at some moments in their career (my favorite band), The Black Keys, Foo Fighters, and The White Stripes (when they were together)--Jack White is some mix of all the awesomeness in the world so I don't consider him Rock and Roll to the full extent. There are others that I know I'm forgetting but these are the ones off the top of my head.

 2) Knowing that you aren't a rock and roll band--Patrick acknowledges this in his blog post--what message is he sending, and is the band sending, with this new album titled Save Rock and Roll? Fall Out Boy can't save it, and it's something beyond arrogance if they ever thought they could. Sorry, they just aren't talented enough. They're a good band with good lyrics, but there is a reason bands like RHCP, U2, AC/DC. Jack White, are regarded with such admiration and awe. They got something more. I don't know what it is, but take a look at some of Bono's lyrics sometime, particularly the songs, "The Fly" or "Moment of Surrender", or listen to how unbelievably difficult and creative and long-lasting RHCP has been and how freakin gifted they are. Look at how U2 has changed over the years. Listen to "Mysterious Ways," then "Where the Streets have no name," then "Lemon."--yes that's the same band. And maybe I'm biased--okay, I probably am very biased, but other bands have done this as well: Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones, Radiohead; they know that music--their music must evolve and become more complex, while at the same time still being able to appease the hardcore fans they've had since they were young.

I can forgive all that. That still doesn't make it for me. Though the bands I mentioned have these characteristics in common, they also have another one that is much more important: they created something completely unique and new. Edge. Enough said. He alone has influenced music to the likes of Coldplay, Killers, Muse, and any other freakin' band that uses a delay and echo pedal. RHCP blended punk, funk, and rock for the first time ever; and the Beatles...well..do I even need to say anything? The point is this: Who the hell titles their album Save Rock and Roll when they have never been a rock and roll band and never will be and will never have the talent to save anything except for their respective genre?

Sigh.

Patrick says we shouldn't have people like Nickelback or his own band, but you're asking for it when you title your album that way. Patrick stated that nickelback is working on being the best damn nickelback they can be. Oh yeah. You mean the I-use-the-same-four-chords-but-on-a-different-key-to-get-a-hit-song band? Cause that's what they do? Go listen to photograph, then someday, somehow, then far away.. same chord progression, same goal in mind: let's make a hit song to get popular with younger audiences, particularly teenage girls, so that we can make more money.

That's why we hate those types of people. That's why we troll. We get sick of the music industry in general. We get sick of listening to Taylor Swift write another song with below-mediocre lyrics about a girl in love with a boy she can't have or has broken up with. That's like romance novelists: they have a formula, they stick to it. The plot is the same, the characters different. The song is the same, let's just change the order and melody a bit. No effort really. None. Nobody cares. Sure, teenage girls want to hear it, but let artists who are at that age sing about those experiences. How old is Taylor Swift now? 22? And the best she can come up with in all her life experiences is singing about sitting around a fire gabbing about exes and meeting strangers that you want to have sex with? You know what most people were going through at 22? Life adjustment issues. Moving away from family. Changing Roles. Accumulation of Responsibilities. Some people went through Divorce. Depression. Thoughts of Suicide. Deaths in the family. Deaths in your friendships--real or symbolically. Ask yourself when you were 22 which would you find more relevant, which would connect with you the most: that Taylor Swift song or someone talking about leaving home for the first time, having to do things on their own, etc.? That song isn't a song about someone at 22; it's a song about someone at 15, masquerading like its supposed to be 22-year-olds. It shows the lack of maturity and how Taylor has yet to leave high school.

Why do we hate Justin Bieber? Because he won a goddamn milestone award for his ingenuity and musical innovation at the tender age of 17 when he hasn't done a damn thing (this was voted by fans). His music hasn't created anything new. He isn't Daft Punk. He didn't define Blue-Eyed Soul like Billy Caldwell, Hall and Oates, and Michael McDonald. He isn't Bill Withers, Al Green, Earth, Wind, and Fire; he didn't define Motown like the Spinners and he isn't changing Motown like Fitz and the Tantrums are doing right now. He didn't freakin' define Rock and Roll like Clapton, Cream, Zeppelin, and numerous other bands emerging in the 1960s, and he isn't changing it like Jack White, RHCP, and the Black Keys are doing right now. I don't care if he writes what he writes. He can write stuff like "boyfriend"; it's age appropriate. That's what I would be writing if I was 17. But don't wear your pants below your damn knees and walk around like your god's gift to music. You have nothing to be arrogant about and you should know that.

But I really don't blame him. I blame the industry and I blame the lack of education in homes about music, what's good what's bad. I know that sounds pedantic and austere, but we let our teens listen to crap. And it shouldn't be a big deal. I know it, and I really don't know why I'm so pissed about all this. I guess its because I believe music should be more than what some artists represent it be. It should be more than making money. It should be about Tupac writing about his struggles to get out of the hell he was in; it should be about Billy Guy singing the blues or Stevie Ray Vaughan talking about his struggle with alcoholism. It should be something that opens our mind to new ways of singing or playing guitar (Jimmy Page, Edge). It should be about fighting for a cause, or an anthem for the poor.  It should be about the terrible heartache that individuals go through and about the joys of love, about the mind-numbingness of death in a family or friend, and about the injustices of this world.

Remember the first Black Eyed Peas song that was a hit single? It was about what was wrong with the world and now what are they singing about? Exactly. The same goes with Maroon 5: Adam Levine is so damn talented and yet he writes these sappy pop songs to make money. So do other bands and artists like Taylor Swift. The point? The sad pathetic point? You're wasting your talent. You have the opportunity to do something more with it and here you are caught up in the short-term aspect of things when you could do what U2 does and change the face of music. Okay done ranting. Whew.

A psychological analysis of Sam, Frodo, and Gollum.

I recently submitted a vlog (video blog) submission to geek and sundry as a potential pitch to be one of their video bloggers. Here was the concept: I would do a weekly vlog about characters, themes, tv shows, etc., that were nerdy only I would put my own psychological twist, interpretation, and/or analysis on the subject matter because of my background and passions (not bad, right? I thought it was an OK idea, maybe not the funniest). Anyways, we shall see how it turns out.

What I would like to write about is the actual example I gave in my vlog pitch: the relationships between Sam, Frodo, and Gollum in LOTR and the concept of the ring and what it represents. Here's what I asked: Why do we like Samwise Gamgee? Why do we love him the most as a character? And it isn't as simple as he has qualities that are noble or loyal. To understand Sam, to understand why we like Sam, we have to go back to the original books and the origins of Sam.

Samwise Gamgee was the Baggins' gardener. He was from a lesser class. He was--dare I say--the outcast of the four. No, not outcast, but perhaps, out of the ordinary. Frodo, Merry, and Pippin, dreamed of adventure, dreamed of leaving the Shire and living the stories in which they read in books. Sam enjoyed telling and reading those stories as well, but he didn't care for it: he wanted to stay in the Shire, have kids, raise a family. But what happens? He goes because of Frodo, because he's a loyal friend, despite all the great things that could keep him happy in the Shire. He has no special powers. He is not charged with any quest deemed by fate. He is completely ordinary, while his actions are extraordinary. That is one reason that Sam is so special. He's the underdog in LOTR, the lowest of the low, and he does the most with what he's got.

What develops is one of the most interesting--at least for me--psychological examples of writing that has ever happened in fantasy. It isn't seen much until the company parts ways and Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are left to fend for themselves as they travel toward Mount Doom. We, as viewers and readers, see a major difference between Frodo and Sam: Frodo's behavior/actions are easily manipulated by the situation; people easily influence Frodo--the constant push and pull of Sam and Gollum on him is what I'm talking about here. Frodo's actions are so malleable that he becomes to the reader, completely undependable--which allows us to not be surprised when he fails to throw the ring into Mount Doom. Gollum is able to manipulate Frodo so well that he reaches the point where he abandons his best friend who has been with Frodo since as long as he can remember. Sam, on the other hand, is the complete opposite. He is an anchor in the midst of chaos. We can't cling to Frodo; we can't cling to Gollum; we can't cling to Gandalf (he dies). We can cling to Aragorn, Merry, or Pippin, but they aren't essential--if they died the world will still be saved if Frodo can drop the ring into Mount Doom. Thus, Tolkien presents a beautiful contrast: Frodo is completely undependable, while Sam is completely dependable. He's loyal to a fault. He loves Frodo unconditionally. And no matter what the situation, you know his actions are true and geared towards the greater good.

Besides Sam having the most poignant moments and sayings in the books and movies alike, he also represents something else: moral purity. The ring is used as a vehicle for this. At first glance, the ring represents power--it's the most obvious conclusion to make because of all the shit surrounding it. Evil desires it, while Good desires to destroy it. But the ring itself isn't evil is it? It's a ring. How could it possibly be evil? The ring is an external manifestation of human flaws: For Boromir it was power. Boromir wanted power and that's what drew him to the ring. For Frodo, it's mistrust, its the manifestation of human flaws in physical form. The ring distorts the purity of Frodo. It taints the love between Frodo and Sam (not homosexual love, but I'm sure there is literature on that). A writer mentioned a psychological analysis of these three and said that Frodo and Gollum represented the best and worst qualities of Sam (i.e., Frodo the noble/moral and Gollum the instinctual/addictive need). I disagree. Sam represented the best qualities of Frodo.

As for Gollum, the ring was an external manifestation of instinct. A Jekyl and Hyde phenomenon. Under the ring's spell, he killed his friends/relatives.  The split personality develops, one wanting to do good, the other wanting to do total evil (Jekyl and Hyde); Gollum represents an age old theme: the duality of man. He was addicted to it like Jekyl was to Hyde. He loved himself and he hated himself. He loved the ring and hated the ring. Jekyl loved Hyde...and hated him. "My precious" comes to mind. It was a love of sorts. A love and hate relationship. An addictive love, kinda like Heathcliff and Catherine in Wuthering Heights. Okay that's all I got. Have a good one, guys.

--Matt

Evolution: Sometimes its a pain

I was in a restaurant the other day called Diamond Thai (they obviously specialize in Thai food) here in Sioux City, Iowa, and besides the fact that they make great pad thai, I had the opportunity to eavesdrop on a conversation that was going on at the table next to me. Okay, I don't like to eavesdrop, but when your little chitter chatter is louder and more irritating than the garbage truck I hear every morning at 5am, then I have a right to drop into the conversation.

Anyways, they were talking about men--it was a group of ladies talking, well, not really talking, but venting about the woes of men. The concept in question was an age old thing that women complain about: men don't listen; we want to solve everything. All right, yeah ladies you're right: men want to solve everything; we want to do it because we think that's the best way to make you happy--we are not saying its right, just that that is how we think. Women want someone to listen, just to provide a welcoming ear, and to be able to empathize with the problem. They don't want it solved; they can do it on their own, but what they don't have is someone that shows they truly care about the problem, well, once again, they do (their friends), but sometimes they don't want to talk about it with their friends: they want to talk about it with you because you're her partner; you're her best friend (theoretically).

This blog post isn't intended to complain about women or men for that matter, but as I sat there, I looked across to Euodia (she's a grad student in the same program as me) and I started to laugh: You see, ladies, evolutionarily speaking, men solving problems for women has been the way to A) protect them, B) show they care, and C) get them into bed. Think about it: Men who proved their physical prowess by fighting, protecting, and showing they can produce viable offspring are the ones that get picked. This is still seen today in humans, but only much subtler ways. This has been hundreds upon thousands of years of evolutionary behavior; it is only recently--say, the 1960s or so--that this has really started to change (e.g., women becoming bread winners, fighting for rights of equality, equal pay, sexual liberation, feminism in movies, books, etc). The point: it's going to take us guys awhile to change (sorry, I know its frustrating, be patient).

So, taking a break from the guy bashing at the Diamond Thai place, I'm going take this opportunity to talk about some more disturbing evolutionary behaviors that both ladies and men can be lucky we don't do.

Case 1) Male Redback Spider:

So some species of spiders, the female spider being the more powerful and also being the one that needs to provide for the offspring will forcefully eat the male spider during or after copulation; however, this concept is much more interesting in the male redback spiders. The males in this species during copulation voluntarily place their abdomen over the female's mouth to be devoured. Why? Research has shown that after their first round of copulation, the likelihood that they are able to produce offspring is highly unlikely, and therefore, the first time is their best chance of having kids. Somehow they know this and therefore want to do as much as possible to make that happen, even if that means sacrificing themselves to provide the female with additional nutrients and supplies for food in the coming months--which is what they do.

Case 2) The Argentinian Lake Duck

The Argentinian Lake Duck has the longest penis of any bird species (yeah guys, get excited), but it isn't what you think. There is an evolutionary adaptation for this: women sometimes try and escape during copulation with a male Lake Duck and so what does he do? He "lassos" that's right he "lassos" the female with his penis, throwing it around her neck so she can't escape... in a sense, he's a serial rapist.

Case 3) Honeybee.

The queen bee gets a select few of males to copulate with her. They are the select few amongst many, many men, kinda like the bacholerette--actually, no, more like the hunger games. Male honeybees (the ones chosen) begin copulating and at the end of it their penis breaks off inside the queen, and their testicles explode. Yeah. Think about that guys. The reason has complete evolutionary basis: the snapped-off penis acts as a genital plug from other males, preventing them from copulating, and thus, allow them to have their offspring continue. And obviously, when the male honeybee does this, he dies. So. yay for men.

Case 4) Greylag Geese

Something interesting is happening in the Greylag Geese: Males are choosing other males to mate with. No one knows why, but some theories are that there is no sexual dimorphism in the species--that is, you can't tell, from human observation, the difference between male and females. And so researchers think that they males can't either. However, contrary to this, some scientists are suggesting this isn't the case, citing the fact that when engaging in pre-copulatory rituals, men exhibit significantly different behavioral gestures that women don't exhibit, and thus, theoretically, male geese should know its a male by how they act. How do females compensate for this? They slip in during male to male copulation in order for their eggs to become fertilized--clever little things aren't they?

Okay, I told you for the last time: I didn't know it was a dude. I'm blind as a bat and I'm not that smart.


Okay, so back to this convo I was listening to. As I talked with Euodia about it, I wondered about it all and said, "You know, maybe in a thousand years, women will be around the table gabbing and saying, 'why can't my man just solve a problem for me? Does he always have to listen?'".... This maybe true, but what is probably truer and already starting to happen is what Euodia replied with: "With all the female advancement in women's rights, feminism, etc., I think it will be Men in a thousand years gabbing about how women always want to solve everything." Bahaha how true is that? I could definitely see it. I mean come on. Guys, how awesome would it be to be a stay-at-home Dad? Okay, yeah taking care of the kids would be hard and accepting the fact that your wife is the breadwinner or that you might not have a career until later in life may be hard to accept, but people (men) are already doing this. What is the evolutionary palette going to look like in a hundred years, hell even fifty years? Hopefully, it won't be like the honeybee or the redback spider where we are killing ourselves for our women--we've already done that years ago in many cultures. But perhaps it may look like Euodia said: men sitting around chit chatting about women and how they don't listen. Sounds like something I would see in a Sitcom. So next time if your complaining about the opposite sex just remember that, on both sides, we are fighting years upon years of evolutionary mechanisms. Be patient. =). All the best.

--Matt

Six Mental Health Myths Debunked: A possible Cracked Pitch, but not likely.

There’s a much all-too-common stigma around mental health: In a day and age where men are skydiving from outer space, a pope can just up and quit, and crazy ass scientists from Australia are cloning an extinct species of frog—yeah that’s right, you heard me correctly; Jurassic Park can and will happen—there is still stigma and misconceptions about mental health, what it truly means versus what we, as the general public, believe it to be.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/extinct-frog-cloned-mouth-birth_n_2901152.html)




Back from the dead, bitch!"






 

 




1) Mental Illness is a sign of weakness.

An all-too-common misconception the public and even those suffering from a mental illness believe is that psychological afflictions and disorders are a sign of weakness, and if you were just man enough you’d be able to overcome it.













In your best Arnold Impression: "Depression is for pussies."

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/mr.%20olympia

Here are the facts:

First, there is significant body of literature that strongly suggests a genetic component to every disorder. How do researchers determine this? They examine studies of monozygotic and dizygotic twins—that is, they ask what is the likelihood a twin will have the psychological disorder if the other twin already has it; or they look at the elevated risk an offspring will be subjected to if a parent or parents suffer from the psychological disorder; adoption studies are the last method, which determine ones elevated risk when separated from parent or parents who have the disorder.

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/haimowitz.html

For example, research on schizophrenia has suggested there is a 50-75% probability that, with regards to monozygotic twins, if one sibling had it, the other would, and when both parents had schizophrenia, there was around a 30-40% probability the child would develop the disorder http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/hereditygen.htm

This heritability is similar for other disorders like Bipolar, Major Depressive Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The point? You can’t control your genes. People blame themselves for suffering from something they can’t control, like believing it was your fault they made another transformers movie. It isn’t. And don’t worry: we all have to suffer with that crap.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8956681;

Mental illness isn’t like diabetes, a broken bone, or cancer: there isn’t a test for mental illness, and you can’t see it, which causes individuals to see the psychological difficulties they experience as character flaws rather than symptoms or patterns of behavior that can be treated through therapy and medication. An interesting finding: in attempting to predict what will lead to chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, researchers discovered that individuals who believed their psychological affliction was a sign of weakness had poorer outcomes. Thus, the mere perception that one’s psychological suffering as weakness impedes future well-being (Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2006). Predictors of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder: Trauma memories and appraisals. In B. O. Rothbaum (Ed.), Pathological anxiety: Emotional processing in etiology and treatment (pp. 39– 55). New York: Guilford Press).

Now, many individuals will say there are environmental influences that play a role—and that we can control them. Not likely. In individuals who have developed, say, Borderline Personality Disorder, there was a very good chance that they were physically or sexually abused as a child.


http://www.bpddemystified.com/what-is-bpd/causes

http://www.dbtselfhelp.com/html/borderline_personality_disorde.html
http://www.hakomiinstitute.com/Forum/Issue19-21/4Linda%20Baird,%20Childhood%20Trauma2.pdf


Fun right? Here are a few other nuggets about how much control we have: lead poisoning while in your mother’s womb can lead to an increased risk for schizophrenia; let’s not forget individuals who experience a traumatic event and develop PTSD; and, would you believe it, there are actually theories on the evolutionary imperative for developing depression.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=depressions-evolutionary

What does Darwin have to say about that?




















"That's my shit. Now will you excuse me, I have to shave my beard: I think there is a finch hiding under it."

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

2) People suffering from mental illness are violent in nature.

 

The media destroys the truth, especially when it comes to mental health. The school shooting in Connecticut, the Denver, Colorado movie theater massacre, and Columbine, are all prime examples. Everyone wants to know why. What could make someone do such a thing? And what do they assume? Mental illness. He was deranged. He was schizophrenic. He had Bipolar Disorder or was slightly autistic.

The truth: People suffering from mental illness are more likely to be victims than perpetrators. According to Hiday et al. (1999), “People with severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or psychosis, are 2 ½ times more likely to be attacked, raped, or mugged than the general population. This is reiterated by the Institute of Medicine (2006) when they state that although there appears to be a link between mental illness and violence, “the small contribution of people with mental illnesses to overall rates of violence is small, and further, the magnitude of the relationship is greatly exaggerated in the minds of the general population” (Hiday, V. A. (2006). Putting Community Risk in Perspective: a Look at Correlations, Causes and Controls. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 29, 316-331.

 

Institute of Medicine, Improving the Quality of Health Care for Mental and Substance-Use Conditions. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 2006.

 

Television, movies, and the media love to attribute the crimes committed by individuals to mental illness because it’s an easy explanation; there could be other factors, but the general public doesn’t see this,  and what you’re left with is people believing every schizophrenic is ready to unload on them with a shotgun.

 

3) Psychologists are all old men with long grey beards and a couch.

 

Seems a somewhat trite myth when compared to the aforementioned ones above. But let’s be honest: who doesn’t think of psychologists as some old cooks with big coke bottle glasses and a beard that looks like a baby koala died on their chin?

 

 

 

“…I don’t know what the fuck is wrong with you. And what the hell is on my face?”

 

Coke bottle glasses aside, Gandalf fits the prototype pretty well.

 

This myth developed due probably to Freud and his ostentatious beard. When the general public thinks of psychology, they almost immediately jump to Freud and that classic image of him with his pipe, glasses, and, of course, the dead baby koala beard.

 

The truth: Men are, in fact, the minority in the field of psychology. According to the American Psychological Association, the percentage of men in the field dropped from 70% to 30% from 1975 to 2008, kudos to women for breaking down the gender gap. Developmental, Clinical, Counseling, Family, and Social Psychology are all dominated by women—guys only make up about 30% or less in those fields. Also, psychology, as a whole, is a fairly young profession, which means this Gandalf stereotype has to go.

 

So where are the men? Unfortunately, the women haven’t broken all the way through the glass ceiling yet. With decreased pay still a major issue for the liberation of women and academia being a less “family-friendly” environment, men still dominate much of the faculty positions within the United States. Sad but true.

 

4) People suffering from mental illness will never recover and live a happy life.

 

This may be putting the myth lightly because some people believe that all mentally ill patients should be put in psychiatric institutions. Individuals believe this, in part, because of what they see on television and in the media, but also because—as I’ve mentioned earlier—not realizing that, for the majority of disorders, they are symptoms, not character flaws, not lack of willpower, but symptoms. And symptoms can be treated.

 

The truth…

 

The majority of mental disorders are not chronic: Depression can be alleviated; alcohol dependence can be overcome; phobias can be dealt with and the anxiety accompanying them will fade to a level that makes daily living a breeze. However, this is not to say that all symptoms will disappear: Schizophrenia must be treated with medication and therapy in an endless cycle; individuals suffering from personality disorders struggle but through therapy can learn to improve their lives. Nevertheless, they can cope. There are support groups, specialized programs, medications, and group and individual therapy programs that people can enlist into in order to aid them in their daily lives. The point: people suffering from mental illness are not in a coma; they have wives/husbands, children, and jobs just like everybody else.  I mean, come on, could you lock Carrie Fisher up in a mental institution? Princess Leia? She suffered from Bipolar Disorder ((Stroff Marano, Hara. "Getting Better vs. Staying Well" Psychology Today. May 21, 2007. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200302/getting-better-vs-staying-well).

 

           

…Yeah, I don’t think so.

 

5) Therapy is laying on a couch and just talking…

 

This is another myth that somehow has been perpetuated through the years, probably due to Freud again; to the general public, he’s the most well known figure because of his controversial subconscious theories on motivation and behavior.

 

The lying on the couch and talking phenomenon is synonymous with psychoanalysis: the patient lays on the couch and free associates—meaning, he or she talks about whatever comes to mind, no matter what the topic. Nowadays, it’s hard to find a therapist that will do such a method.

 

The truth…

 

Clients and therapists have a working relationship: the client doesn’t just talk, but together, the therapist and client develop treatment goals they want to accomplish and steps to get there; also, in the majority, if not in all forms of therapy, there involves homework the therapist assigns the client outside of session together. The theory behind this: the therapist only sees the client one hour a week; the other 167 hours out of the week are outside the therapy room. But the most important concept the general public should learn is that therapy is now tailored for specific problems—that is, certain therapies aid individuals better than others, depending on the psychological problem one is experiencing. Cognitive-behavioral therapy does well at treating anxiety and depression; Dialectical-behavior therapy excels at treating Borderline Personality Disorder; and Exposure therapies do wonders for individuals who have experienced traumatic events (Kliem, S., Kröger, C. & Kossfelder, J. (2010). (2010). Dialectical behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder: A meta-analysis using mixed-effects modeling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 936-951.

 

Driessen E, Hollon SD (September 2010). "Cognitive behavioral therapy for mood disorders: efficacy, moderators and mediators". Psychiatr. Clin. North Am. 33 (3): 537–55

 

Hofmann SG, Smits JAJ (2008). "Cognitive-behavioral therapy for adult anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials". Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 69 (4): 621–632

 

Eftekhari, A.; Stines, L.R. & Zoellner, L.A. (2006). Do You Need To Talk About It? Prolonged Exposure for the Treatment of Chronic PTSD. The Behavior Analyst Today, 7(1), 70–83).

 

6) Psychologists and Psychiatrists are synonymous

 

 

Whether your interested in going into psychology, working with a mental health provider, or watching reruns of “Frasier” late at night with a bag of potato chips and a bottle of beer, it’s important to know the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists. The myth behind this one is that the general public believes they do roughly the same thing—they don’t, nor do they have similar backgrounds.

 

The truth…

 

Psychologists and Psychiatrists differ on the type and level of education: Psychiatrists receive their medical degree (M.D.) while psychologists receive their Doctor of Philosophy degree (Ph.D.) or Doctor of Psychology degree (Psy.D.) Oddly enough, the length of schooling between the M.D. and the Doctorate degrees are not much different. For medical students, you go through four years of medical school, a one year internship, and usually three years of residency before you’re a certified M.D. As for psychologists, doctoral programs take at least five to seven years to complete and that doesn’t include a post-doctoral fellowship and obtaining licensure. Psychologists are mainly trained in the assessment, treatment, and therapeutic techniques for psychological disorders, while Psychiatrists receive similar training but focus on it from a medical perspective such as understanding what medications to prescribe for specific psychological disorders. This leads to the major difference between psychiatrists and psychologists: psychologists can’t prescribe medication. Currently, grants are being proposed to change that in a number of states, but there appears to be stringent requirements to allow psychologists to do so.

 

More references about Stigma:

 

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/anxiety_therapy.htm

 

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/go/action/stigma-watch

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc1489832/

 

 

Bucket List

"I can believe things that are true and things that aren't true and I can believe things where nobody knows if they're true or not.

I can believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Beatles and Marilyn Monroe and Elvis and Mister Ed. Listen - I believe that people are perfectable, that knowledge is infinite, that the world is run by secret banking cartels and is visited by aliens on a regular basis, nice ones that look like wrinkled lemurs and bad ones who mutilate cattle and want our water and our women.

I believe that the future sucks and I believe that the future rocks and I believe that one day White Buffalo Woman is going to come back and kick everyone's ass. I believe that all men are just overgrown boys with deep problems communicating and that the decline in good sex in America is coincident with the decline in drive-in movie theaters from state to state.
I believe that all politicians are unprincipled crooks and I still believe that they are better than the alternative. I believe that California is going to sink into the sea when the big one comes, while Florida is going to dissolve into madness and alligators and toxic waste.

I believe that antibacterial soap is destroying our resistance to dirt and disease so that one day we'll all be wiped out by the common cold like martians in War of the Worlds.

I believe that the greatest poets of the last century were Edith Sitwell and Don Marquis, that jade is dried dragon sperm, and that thousands of years ago in a former life I was a one-armed Siberian shaman.

I believe that mankind's destiny lies in the stars. I believe that candy really did taste better when I was a kid, that it's aerodynamically impossible for a bumble bee to fly, that light is a wave and a particle, that there's a cat in a box somewhere who's alive and dead at the same time (although if they don't ever open the box to feed it it'll eventually just be two different kinds of dead), and that there are stars in the universe billions of years older than the universe itself.

I believe in a personal god who cares about me and worries and oversees everything I do. I believe in an impersonal god who set the universe in motion and went off to hang with her girlfriends and doesn't even know that I'm alive. I believe in an empty and godless universe of causal chaos, background noise, and sheer blind luck.

I believe that anyone who says sex is overrated just hasn't done it properly. I believe that anyone who claims to know what's going on will lie about the little things too.

I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies. I believe in a woman's right to choose, a baby's right to live, that while all human life is sacred there's nothing wrong with the death penalty if you can trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system.

I believe that life is a game, that life is a cruel joke, and that life is what happens when you're alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it.”--Neil Gaiman, American Gods.
 

I haven't blogged for quite some time, and the reason is because I couldn't think of anything to write about. Me? Not have anything to write about? How could that be? I mean I write all the time: every day, whether in my office or at home, I'm writing something--freaking anything--to churn the melting pot of my imagination. I'm constantly thinking, constantly throwing things around in my head, and I couldn't think of a damn thing to write about. Ridiculous. If you looked at my office space or in my bedroom, you would see organized chaos, which is exactly what is going on in my head. I pull things from everywhere, throw them to the wind and am on to the next thing while the other is still clinging to the strings of air. So in these past two and a half weeks I thought to myself there has to be something I could write about, something that I thought was worthwhile... Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

And then I thought of something...
 

This past month has been somewhat of an eye opener: My very good friend, as some of you already know, underwent brain surgery for a growing tumor. I won't say anymore for privacy sakes, but seeing your friend basically come back from the dead prioritizes things. And so I have made a bucket list of all the random, "wild" crap that I would like to do before my time is up here. Whelp. Here we go:

1) Publish a novel I have written:

Yes, yes this is an obvious one considering I am currently writing my third novel and have yet to stop and question whether or not it is a waste of time. Writing, initially, started as a way to escape the stressors of school and has now turned into something that I truly enjoy. And I don't want it published for money or any monetary gain such as fame or accolades: writing is about having someone read something meaningful that changes or gets them to think about the world, about life. If you look at any great book, whether its Neil Gaiman's American Gods, Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind, or J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, there are messages there, underlying themes that make even the most imaginative world or complications have verisimilitude. FYI if you haven't read those books I suggest you do. 

2) Write a Final Fantasy video game script.

This one is cheesy, nerdy, and any other word that suggests how lame this would be to anyone besides me. And bear in mind this is contingent upon the fact that I am asked to write a FF script. Whatever. It's a bucket list--anything goes.

Like I've mentioned in earlier blog posts, my grandma first introduced me to video gaming. I remember playing Mario Bros, Zelda, Duck Hunt, Punchout, Dragon Warrior, Gauntlet, and the list goes on and on, with her when I was a little boy. She rocks. All grandmas rock. Anyways, she and I played FF6 together, which is the only FF on any gaming system that allows two people to play at the same time. Ever since then I was hooked. I think this one has more sentimentality than the others, so perhaps that makes up for how nerdy it is--not likely though.

3) See a Liverpool game while Steven Gerrard is still playing.

Soccer was all I did for the first 18 years of my life (next to video gaming). And there was no player or team I idolized more than Steven Gerrard and the Reds. I would spend hours watching youtube videos of him and then go outside in my backyard and try and mimick what he did or figure out how he did it. Also, Liverpool, is the king of comebacks, which, as a kid, was the coolest thing. See 2005 UEFA Champions League Final against AC Milan for reference or the FA cup Final against West Ham.

4) See U2 live--again.

I've seen them twice already, and if I could see them every week for the next however many years until they die on stage I would. I've seen a few bands play live--U2, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Dave Matthews Band, and Fleetwood Mac, but without a doubt I can safely say that going to a U2 concert isn't just a concert; it is an experience. Go see them.

5) Travel everywhere--literally.

This one is cliche, and it is probably on everyone's bucket list, but come on: who doesn't want to travel every corner of the globe if they had the time and the money?

6) Meet the following people: Bono, Felicia Day, Neil Gaiman, Paul Ekman and Conan O'Brien.

Kind of self explanatory there.

7) Have a wife and kids

Sounds a bit romanticized and a bit cliche, but lately, now more than ever, this has been a hard thing for me to still believe in. I think as one gets older there are certain inevitable conclusions one comes to through experience. Something I learned is this: there is a possibility--a very real possibility--that things may not turn out the way you have them set up in your mind, and as much as you want them to work out certain way, they may not. People get divorced; people live alone; people lose their children, lose their husbands/wives/partners. Anyways, yeah... wife and kids. 

8) Live for a time in Port Isaac, London, or a similar type of small port town. 

Google that place. There is a show called Doc Martin that is filmed there. It's a beautiful place and if I'm a famous novelist (another wish), I'd like to retire and live out there for a time.
 
9) Consult with the police on criminal investigations as a psychologist.

This one exemplifies my love for the macabre.

10) Do something meaningful with my life.

I think this last one is the just something that I've always felt I needed to do. I have to look back on my life and be able to do say that. Or perhaps, in light of my friend's recent experience, and as Neil Gaiman bluntly put: maybe you should just lie back and enjoy it.

All the Best,

Matthew

Povel is a boss.

“You don’t look, do you? You don’t look at the world, you just drive straight through it. Stop, and look. …Find someone to sit with you. You’re not strong enough to do it on your own, nobody is. Find someone to sit with you.”--Povel Wallander

This is the most moving quote from the BBC show "Wallander" I have heard so far. It's hard to describe to viewers who have not watched the series but I will do my best: Kurt Wallander is a detective inspector in Sweden who investigates a variety of crimes that illustrate the darker side of human nature. Much like "Luther", "Wallander" is gritty; it's despondent; and it relies as much upon the actual characters and the actors that play them as it does on the plot and storytelling. There are a number of differences between John Luther and Kurt Wallander, but the main difference is this: John Luther is an investigator because his mind is fascinated with understanding the psychology and motivations behind the horrid crimes he gazes upon; he obsesses over it; he's drawn in because he has to know why someone did what they did. Kurt Wallander wants justice; he wants vengeance. And he could give a shit about the psychological aspect of the murder.

Luther's mind is as mercurial and chaotic as the killers he hunts. But more importantly, Luther walks the tight rope between good and evil, between legal and illegal, between righteousness and abomination--and that's why we love to watch Luther. My favorite scenes are with his best friend--a narcissistic/psychopathic killer named Alice, who murdered her parents in cold blood--and the intimacy between them. It's not sexual intimacy per se, but it's the mind. They understand one another. Luther has insight into a killer's mind because he himself thinks that way at times.

Kurt Wallander draws you in because you want him to win. You desperately want something to go right for him--and nothing ever does. He puts himself to the brink of not exhaustion, but destruction, for the victim and their families. His relationship with his daughter is strained; his relationship with his father is strained; his wife and he are separated; people around him die that he cares about; and no matter how hard he tries to escape the things that haunt him, he can't. He makes mistakes. He's human. VERY human. With Luther, you lose that because he is so far gone in his neurotic/borderline psychotic nature (the man poured gasoline on himself for christsakes).

Anyways, to provide some context to this quote: Kurt Wallander spends most of his life neglecting those he loves because of his job--he forgets birthdays, forgets meetings, and misses those opportunities to spend time with family. He neglects visiting his father and mother for two reasons, both of which stem from his father: 1) His father, recently diagnosed with Alzheimer's, becomes a painful sight for Kurt. He can't bear to see the one he loves deteriorate. And 2) His father and he never see eye to eye on anything. His father can never understand why Kurt chose to be a detective. Here is an amazing scene between Kurt and his father (it isnt the one above, but it's a good one). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXRjmsMpaA8 --Kenneth Branagh is a boss.

In regards to the quote above, Kurt's dad is near death--his mind is deteriorating, his health is fading, and he knows it. And every day he sits outside with his wife on this bench, watching the landscape, watching the birds, taking it all in. In the episode where his father dies, Kurt and he get into a fight and this is what Povel Wallander says to his son. And I found that so moving. "Find someone to sit with you."--freaking awesome.

Now, of course, being the psychologist, I ask why did I find it to be such a good quote? I don't know, maybe because it was so simplistic in the literal interpretation of it, but when looking at it symbolically it means something totally different. Povel Wallander is telling his son to find someone to sit with him through it all--through life itself--using the small bench his wife and he sit in every day as a metaphor. It's the essence of what we all want: to not be alone, to find that someone to go through life with, not because we want it, but because we need it. If you're human, you don't want to go through life alone, nobody does. In fact, we rebel against that very idea.

We all want someone to sit with us, because, in the end, it isn't really about sex, but about friendship, about finding someone who you can open yourself up to wholly and not feel a shroud of worry that they will judge you or tarnish the love and trust you have built with that person. It's about handling the challenges of life together and being there for one another that makes it truly special (not to say that sex isn't...). I read an article, a psych article, that pointed out the obvious: marriages don't fail because of lack of sexual intimacy, but because there isn't the friendship behind it to hold it up. They finished with saying, "marry your best friend." Good advice, I'd say.

But he says something else in that quote doesn't he? Stop and look. Stop and appreciate what is around you. And for Kurt, it means stop and appreciate those closest to you--his father and daughter in particular. His father knows he doesn't have much time left and this was his way of letting Kurt know to not go through life on overdrive--slow down, see what it has to offer, and find someone to do it with you.

Alright, I'm tired. See ya.

--Matt