A Day in the Life

This is an easy post for me to write as all it is really is a self-congratulatory pat on the back for this being my 100 th posting on the blogging network. But wait, I here you say, "Dave's Progress" has only reached chapter 92. Aha, I say, I wrote 8 posts previous to the development of the idea of calling my posts "Dave's Progress", hence the magic figure of 100. So, how did this all begin? Well, I started blogging due to my involvement with the Media Action Group for Mental Health, who, in around 2007, began a project called " Mindbloggling ". The aim was to get volunteers to blog about their experience of mental ill health, hoping that this would produce a firm anti-stigma message. Unfortunately the project came to an end and many discontinued writing their blogs. Now, I think, although you can still access the list of blogs that were written for the project via the MAGMH web-site, there are only two bloggers remaining- one being yours truly,

I have noticed a recent trend in the movies, particularly those from the States, in which the eternaly losing, downtrodden, alienated, lonely male, also known as the "geek", has begun to be seen not just in the odd cameo appearance, but as the major character. Indeed, actors like Jesse Eisenberg and Michael Cera seem to have cornered the market in playing geeks who appear, at last, to come out on top. These actors, themselves a little geeky-looking, have taken lead roles in many movies which actively seem to celebrate geekdom. There are many examples of films which have recently shown this trend, most of them starring either Cera or Eisenberg. "Superbad", "Youth in Revolt", "Fanboys", "Zombieland", "Adventureland", "Kick-Ass" and "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" all seem to have geeks as their main protagonists and, unlike before in the movies where the geek was often seen being ritually humiliated, he has no

I'm sorry to bang on about this, as it is a point I have probably mentioned in previous posts. It is just that this particular misunderstanding about mental ill health is so prevalent that I think it probably deserves one last, hopefully exhaustive explanation. I am, of course, referring to the seemingly ubiquitous mistake made, particularly in the media and (mostly American) films, where the terms "psychotic" and "psychopathic" become confused. To make it clear, and as far as I know, "psychosis" or being "psychotic" simply refers to a set of symptoms, such as delusions, hallucinations, illusions, becoming withdrawn and flattening of affect. In psychosis, there is no inherent link to violent or criminal behaviour, but more of a break from "reality". Psychosis can occur in illnesses as wide-ranging as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression. "Psychopathic", however, refers to a particular type of personality disorder

The above title is taken from Luis Bunuel's 1977 film of the same name, in which a wealthy, middle-class Frenchman, Mathieu , is continually frustrated in his romantic and sexual advances towards a beautiful, poor Spanish dancer from Seville named Conchita. In their relationship, Conchita avoids sexual contact with Mathieu , bringing him to the point of such frustration that he eventually beats her. Things wouldn't be so bad had he not first witnessed her dancing naked in a bar and then having sex with another man. She tries to explain these things away as innocently as she can, but Mathieu remains a teased and frustrated figure. The film, then, comes across as a surreal comedy (two different actresses play the role of Conchita , seeming to underline Mathieu's confusion), but as always with Bunuel there is an element of political subversion to the film, with the romance, if it can be called that, taking place against a backdrop of left-wing terrorist insurgence, and at th

In response to the recent Tory conference, I would just like to say that it appears to me that history is being somewhat rewritten. Like other Tory governments (oh, I forgot, this is a coalition , but who can blame me as the Liberals seem to have retracted every bloody meaningful policy they had in pursuit of power) propaganda does not seem beneath them, and it seems to me that we are being fed an historical narrative by Cameron and his ilk that is simply untrue, particularly in terms of our recent economic hardships. The line being fed to us by Cameron and his sickly side-kick George Osbourne (indeed, every time my Mum sees Osbourne on the telly it has an almost physical, emetic effect on her) is that "the state we're in" has been caused by an over-spending and capricious Labour Party, who did little to curb the extravagances of the bankers who seem to have been at the root of all this mess. The Conservative Party, in some quarters, have even gone to the lengths of brin