Archive for July, 2013

Des and Brooks – Typical Doomed Relationship

I swore I’d never speak of The Bachelor(ette) again in writing, but I can’t resist. Someone drag my soapbox over here because I need to put all this poop in one generalized group and tell you what’s wrong with people in the dating pool.

  • People like Des want what they can’t have. The person they like doesn’t like them back, so to make up for it, they love harder. This makes them feel like they’re in love. What’s really happening is over-compensating. In Des’s case, this is compounded by feeling like she’s in a position of power. Don’t get me wrong, falling in love in like seven or nine weeks (or whatever the other sucker whose unrequited love for Des will send him on a spiral next week, and probably in real life as he watched how little she really cared said) is totally unrealistic. But I do think it’s possible in seven or nine weeks to know if you’re not the right fit. Hell, I think it’s possible to know in tow or three dates, honestly. If you don’t feel it you don’t feel it. Anyway, Brooks has always been unsure and distant, less emotionally attached than the others. And Des has always been drawn to this. Why? Who the hell knows, but I see it all the time.
  • Continue reading

    Advertisements

    Boston Police Sergeant Sean Murphy Should Be Reprimanded – It’s Not OK To Level The Playing Field

    Oh my God. Most Americans. So extreme. So short-sighted. So stupid.

    Alright, that’s not fair. I’m basing my stereotype on the shit people write in the comments section of an article. But for real, what’s wrong with people?

    They don’t want a police officer reprimanded for breaking one of their internal policies? Do they understand what policies are for? Do they want policies broken “because it was OK this time” when their family member is in jail? Do they want policies disregarded when it’s their child’s case? Do they want little policies thrown out now, and then in five years, those policies forgotten, it’s not such a big deal to break bigger policies?

    Plus, in my opinion I think proved nothing.

    Continue reading

    In A World Of Extremes – Are People All Good Or All Bad?

    In an upper-level psychology class I took AFTER getting both my undergrad and graduate degree in business, I learned when a person sees other people as all good or all bad, it’s a type of psychological disorder. Seeing any situation as black or white, and ignoring the gray, isn’t healthy. For the record, and to go off on a tangent before even starting this post, I think everyone should take far more psychology classes. Endlessly interesting and educational, assuming you want to learn and grow from it. As a person who tried to get into management, then decided I wasn’t ready, my biggest weakness was understanding others’ motivations (or lack thereof). So my intention wasn’t to understand myself so much as to understand others.

    Anyway, in that class, there was a discussion of people seeing others as all good or all bad, and failing to see the gray area. This is an issue because it’s rarely ever true. There aren’t generally people who always do the right thing, or never slip up morally or emotionally or physically or whatever. For example, I think my parents are genuinely good people. They set a standard for doing the right thing because it’s the right thing. That said, they’ve both said mean things to me. My mom especially. Things that seem mean spirited and don’t have any purpose. Things that probably hurt a lot because it’s so rare. And I think my brain has a hard time wrapping around that they aren’t all good. But I remind myself of that, and feel like that helps me be less critical or harsh.

    The same thing can be said for people who do bad things. Really bad things. For example, serial killers. BTK specifically. He was obviously a bad person. He killed people across decades, and was able to cover it up. He had a psyche he hid from his family and friends. So, was he a bad person? Yes. Was he all bad? I’m not sure. I’m not sure how you know. It sounds like he was a good father and husband, even being a stickler for details. I know lots of fathers and husbands who are very anal. And I think they’re good people. So was he motivated to be that person on the exterior to cover up the evil? Or was there actually good and evil in him? Was at one point he an all good person, and he devolved into these evil characteristics? Were there layers? How do you know? When someone like this is arrested, they’re vilified, and it seems we never get a real understanding of the person. He volunteered at his church. Was that all a cover-up? Or was he trying to make up for the bad things he had done by going above the standards for a general parishioner? I don’t know that we’ll ever know. But it’s popular to turn these people in to all bad. To take away any redeeming qualities. And maybe they have none. I’m not sure. I’m just trying to explore that from the perspective this teacher gave.

    And specifically when talking about Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. We want to believe they’re all evil. We don’t want to see any human or sensitive qualities. We don’t want to make excuses for them because we fear those excuses will be used for future bombers and terrorists. But should we understand? Or try to understand? Why are we so scared? Are we scared of passing off blame? Because despite understanding, I feel these two are 100% accountable for their actions. They’re adults. And while Dzhokhar probably doesn’t have a fully developed brain, he didn’t act in a moment of impulse. He acted in a methodical, thought-out, slowly progressing manner. He’s responsible for his actions, and no precursor makes it OK to kill strangers.

    But I do want to explore and understand. I do want to have some perspective of how this all started. I do want to consider not only what led up to, but what warning signs there were, if any. What could be done, if anything. Maybe nothing. There will never be a way to rid the world totally of evil. I realize and respect that. But you take someone like the Tsarnaev brothers and wonder if it could have gone another way.

    This is why I was interested in the Rolling Stone article.

    I don’t think Dzhokhar is glamorized. I don’t think he’s raised to rock star status, whatever that means. Hell, I don’t even know why there is such a thing as “rock star status.” Maybe Americans should consider why it’s OK to idolize rock stars or movie stars or sports stars at all. No, seriously. These are just regular people. Also shades of gray as far as good and bad goes. Many are indulge in lives of drugs and alcohol, or cheating, or deception or scandal. They’re no better than the guy in the cubicle next to you, aside from an artistic or performance talent. Maybe the guy next to you has a different talent. One that popular culture doesn’t garner the same media attention, or the same over-inflated paycheck. But I bet he’s a good dude. Smart, motivated, interesting. Or maybe he’s as boring as he seems. I don’t know who you sit next to. But I sit among some smart people with a variety of talents. Some smarter than I could be, even if I stopped writing drivel and started trying to be smarter. And I don’t idolize them. But I also don’t idolize fame. Or even money. I’d like to have money so I can get out of the corporate world hamster wheel, but that’s all. And what would I do then? Who knows. But working is a part of life, so I do it. What did I take away from the Rolling Stone article?

    1. First and foremost, it saddens me that Tamerlan came to his mother, the person who should always protect him, with fears of a second person inside him. Instead of seeking medical help, she pushed him toward religion. And when that became obsessive, she didn’t step in. She encouraged it. At fault here, if blame falls anyone aside from the brothers, is the mother. It’s harsh, but as a parent you take on certain responsibilities. She failed. And I hate to think how this would have turned out with proper concern and care.
    2. Second, the article lays out a life where the brother was worshiped. A life where the family was disconnected in seeking happiness or fulfillment for any of the children. A life where daughters were sold off in arranged marriages when they started doing things that weren’t acceptable. As a woman, I am sickened that this happened (luckily both daughters got out of those marriages, unfortunately, it resulted in severing ties with the family). So the structure of the family wasn’t traditional. A lot of pressure was put on Tamerlan, as well as a lot of probably unsought pressure through hero-worship. Do people like to be looked up to? Sure, but I know I’d prefer to be me. Not me as a role model. Again, this fault falls on the parents.
    3. Third, Dzhokhar was left seemingly alone to figure out some of the most complicated parts of life. When he should have been developing friendships and had the guidance of his family, he was at a college he didn’t love and wasn’t challenged by. When you’re the smartest guy in the room, it’s tough. I’m not saying he was smarter than everyone, but he definitely wasn’t challenged. And he was looking for somewhere to fit in in the world. Cue his brother, who is obviously suffering from a mental disorder.

    The article didn’t state specifically when Tamerlan’s worry about another person inside him started. So it’s hard to tie how that might relate to Dzhokhar. Many mental diseases are genetic, and often time these things show up in young men in their late teens and early twenties. Maybe Dzhokhar had some of the same issues, and he went to his brother, who helped him the same way he was helped.

    Maybe not.

    Maybe Dzhokhar simply was involved in the same her0-worship discussed above, and put his brother’s opinions above logic.

    Maybe not.

    Maybe Dzhokhar was just a bored, entitled kid who was looking for something selfish to do.

    Maybe not.

    I don’t get religious extremism. And I’m talking any religion. I don’t understand throwing logic and empathy out the window with the purpose of seeing only one way. And often that way is jaded and foggy and, well, wrong. But even through the murk, that’s all these people see. And it comes from worship. Many people believe religious worship is the only kind of worship that’s OK. And in America, where worship of all kinds of shades of gray people are worshiped, I suppose it should be OK. But much like how we need to see that sports stars aren’t infallible, we need to see religion isn’t always perfectly right. And extreme religion is a way of helping people belong, giving them a purpose and allowing them not to think. In a time when Dzhokhar was claiming to want to think, he was allowing someone else to think for him. In a time he felt alone, he was making companionship out of manipulators. This isn’t unlike any other religion or group of extremists. But it’s still sad.

    Was there good inside Dzhokhar or Tamerlan? I bet there was. Was there any left in their darkest moments, it’s hard to see it. But after all of the darkness is washed away, is there any good left? I don’t know. That’s what I’m trying to understand. For someone who was good at one point, is it all lost and gone forever? Is it all drown out by anger and hate? Or does that good still dwell inside? And does it ever swell up again? I have to hope so. Because Dzhokhar is young. And even though his life will probably be spent in prison, I hope he finds peace. And I hope the prison system has some way to help him deal with any mental disease he has, assuming he has one.

    And we keep getting richer but we can’t get our picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone!

    I think, as usual, Americans are over-sensitive, and over-reacting to the media. I’ve been watching a lot of West Wing lately, and have determined that media, no matter how profit-driven or egotistical, is one of the greatest things about America. The media is allowed, and encouraged, to uncover, expose, tear apart and report on anything they’d like. If the media gets a hold of a scandal, they’ll do the right thing – write about it. This is the reason I wanted to go into journalism in high school. (Ultimately, I was talked out of it by a guidance counselor who said there’s not much money, a lot of hours, and a lot of grinding to maybe never get where you want to be.)

    That said, I have absolutely no problem with Rolling Stone putting Dzhokar Tsarnaev on their cover. And writing about him. Who he was, what parts he hid, when he started to change (if he did), and what family and friends knew and/or ignored. Ultimately, I find this stuff fascinating. As much as I get angry with people in general (mostly for being lazy, stupid and incapable), I have never desired to blow anyone up. So it intrigues me what pushes someone to do such a thing. And during the stages of planning and carrying out, how do they act? Are there signs? Are there things we can learn? And above all, I find it fascinating that it’s generally young men. Are there take aways for parents of young boys? Are there things to be aware of? The hard part is, these changes seem to happen just as these boys are moving into college, and away from home. For awhile I thought maybe it was the freedom that allowed them to do these things. But the more I read, it sounds like it’s not necessarily the freedom. But maybe an age range where mental disorders are triggered, despite the social circumstance. For example, what about the person who never left home? I believe the kid who shot that congresswoman, didn’t he live at home? And in this case, Tsarnev had been on his own far longer than most young people, so why did he suddenly turn a corner during his college years?

    There is so much to learn about the human brain. Rather than being scared of it, embrace it, approach it, understand it, be sensitive to it, be aware of it. Mental diseases aren’t going anywhere. And, much like body shaming, the more you shame mental diseases, the more people are ashamed of them and try to hide them or hide from them.

    I feel like the public has earned the right to understand. I feel like once a person commits one of these acts, they owe the state their mind. And the results that come from discussions with doctors should be public knowledge. Scientists should be able to do brain scans, pull microbiome from the gut, and observe those who commit these acts. If, ultimately, they’re found not guilty by reason of insanity, part of that discernment should be more public awareness and data on these diseases.

    Does this mean it excuses Tsarnev or Loughner or Holmes. But I can’t help trying to read everything I can to understand more. It is so strange to me that others are so blind with outrage that they don’t want to understand. Anger isn’t going to stop this from happening. Only knowledge, understanding and prevention will. And even in that case, there will never be a world free of seemingly meaningless violence.

    Beyond that, I think it’s important for people in general to realize the way someone looks doesn’t depict who they are. I follow local murder, rape, domestic violence court cases when I can. And I’m always appalled that people look at someone and say, “No way he did that. He looks so nice. He’s so good looking!” We need to help each other see that a person isn’t defined by what they look like. This reaches far beyond violence (into things like choosing a partner, hiring people, determining ability, etc.). But for the moment, focusing just on violent crimes, I think it’s important to address. You look at Tsarnev, and he’s good looking up until he becomes violent. Hell, even now people probably think he is. Same thing for Scott Peterson, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson. Sometimes putting a face with a crime is important. People need to find a way to close the disconnect with stereotypes (which are simply shortcuts the brain takes). Our stereotype says good looking people are nice, more capable, more motivated, more trustworthy. This isn’t the case. And for that reason, I don’t have a problem with Rolling Stone, or any other media outlet, putting a face with these offenders. Especially when society in general looks at them and says, “Look at him. No way he did that. The government must be behind this.”

    tumblr_lfwuuxZP6E1qgb85ao1_400Charles Manson Rolling Stone Cover – 1970

    164224_10151725869739539_1435805511_nDzhokar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Cover – 2013

    Edited 7/19: I didn’t realize the whole article was posted online. I assumed RS would keep the article to only those who bought the magazine. Hell yes! Anyway, read the article here, then form an opinion. Don’t base your reaction on a picture alone. Use your brain to decide whether you think the magazine is glamorizing mass-murder or terrorism.