Until everyone is affected by it. There are too many angles to deconstruct the suicide of former NFL All-Pro lineman Junior Seau to write about.

As someone who has battled depression and had suicidal tendencies a decade ago, I feel that I need to address several sub-topics within this story.

• The medical research groups that were calling Seau’s family, hours after his death, requesting to examine his brain for possible concussion damage due to playing football, frankly, was unnerving to me. His family is grieving, and yet researchers were lining up to be the first to examine his brain for any damage.

I understand the importance of science and research, but they couldn’t wait for a few days? That was the most disturbing part of this story to me.

• For those who have already concluded that Seau’s suicide was linked to the concussions he had sustained while playing, stop it. We don’t know if it was brain damage or not…at this point. Not all football players commit suicide because of brain damage. For that matter, how many Americans have suffered concussion-like symptoms and committed suicide?

Kenny McKinley didn’t take his own life because of brain damage. He was depressed. Gregg Doyel reaffirmed, to a point in his column Friday evening, what I wrote after McKinley’s death: you are not less of a man if you seek help. Did Junior Seau seek help? If he did, was it effective? If he didn’t, what was his reasons? We will never know that. Making the assumption that getting whacked in the head too many times led him to kill himself seems to be the easy thing to conclude.

And it shouldn’t. There are too many questions that has no answers to in respects to the death of Junior Seau.

• Which leads me to something that has become very disturbing pattern: committing suicide for the noble cause of medicine. The thought that Seau would end his life so that his brain can be examined is borderline insane, in my opinion. Then I thought of former Chicago Bear Dave Duerson. What would make a person end their life in the name of medical research? It feels, to me, like a selfish act. It’s a harsh way of saying it, but what Duerson did, was selfish.

He’ll never know what the results are. His family will, albeit still suffering over his decision, which made no sense in the first place.

No research group or anyone conducting a study is that desperate for someone to kill themselves, so they can donate a part of their body for research.

No other person, athlete or not, commits suicide to help medical research. They end their lives because they have either given up on life, depressed and can’t find a way to end the mental pain, or worse, to end physical pain, a la, mercy killing, that Dr. Jack Kevorkian became a household name for.

In an Associated Press story on Friday, former New Orleans Saints Kyle Turley was quoted in the following:

“Somewhere, the wires got crossed and he unfortunately decided to end his life. But in his last moment — and I will without a doubt believe this until the day I die — Junior Seau ended his life in a valiant way.”

- Kyle Turley, as reported by AP writer Paul Newberry

Turley could not be so wrong, arrogant, and stupid. No one dies valiantly by suicide. That is sick, and, more importantly, the most selfish statement I have ever heard. Turley doesn’t get it. He will never get it. I know he has had dealt with personal and health issues, but this is a slap in the face to the families and friends of people who have taken their own lives.

And no, Dave Duerson didn’t make it easy to understand the “torture” he was going through. Duerson and Seau made it harder to understand…and painful for those around them.

Hey Kyle, tell the families you have insulted, to their faces, that their loved ones’ suicide was a “valiant” gesture.

Junior Seau, Duerson, and others who have ended their lives are not valiant.

It’s senseless and a waste. If Duerson was concerned about possible brain damage he sustained during his playing days, there were other ways to help with the research.

Putting a gun to your chest shouldn’t be one of them. Ever.

• The ever-increasing lawsuits that former players are filing against the NFL has watered down the authenticity of the concussion issue. Sadly, some of them are in it for a money grab, which makes it difficult for those who may have a legitimate case. For those who do have a legitimate reason, they will have a harder time trying to prove their case.

It’s because they chose to play football. No one forced them to. They knew the risks of playing including sustaining injuries that would linger after their careers were over. That is the cold-blooded truth, even if we choose to deny it.

If I chose to smoke and I read the Surgeon General’s warning on the cigarette pack, and I light up anyway, how hypocritical is it for me to sue the tobacco industry for something I was warned not to do, but I did it anyway?

So, this is as far as I’ll go on this subject for now. I can’t say this enough to men who are contemplating suicide: you are not less of man if you seek help. Stop acting like you can handle this yourself. Call someone, get help. I did 10 years ago.

Why am I still here and not six feet under? Because I didn’t want to miss family event or something a friend did. I didn’t want to miss history take place. I didn’t want to miss something that could give me hope.

That last sentence is what keeps me going each day. Don’t be a selfish valiant hero.

Just exactly, how do you “create” new jobs? 

How do people who have lost jobs end up in these “new” jobs?

Frankly, what are these “new” jobs? 

It feels as though these “new” jobs are basically the same recycled jobs we have always done, but supplanted from one place to another place. Teacher, firefighter, desk job, or any other job we have had in the past are not “new” jobs, despite the goals to increase the number of these positions.

They’re the same old jobs we have done forever:  retread and recycled.

A “new” job is something that is created and has never been heard of before. Social media strategist, new media reporter, are two that come to mind.

I think of startups and entrepreneurs as part of the “new” class of jobs. They are providing a service, niche or general, that is in need today. From creating new apps for phones, or providing a new way to order concert tickets, these “new” jobs are in demand, but need to be created and shaped before they become a functional part of our daily world.

That’s what “new” jobs, to me, is defined. Sure, if you land a new job, it simply means you have changed locations, job title, and company. But, is it a “new” job, or a recycled gig that someone else used to do before they left and you walked in? 

Nevertheless, he we go...

By now, everyone across the state of Iowa knows Bloom and the write-up he penned for The Atlantic Magazine.

A lot of folks here in the land between two rivers are very upset by his “flame-torch” observation of Iowa as the 2012 Caucus approaches on January 3rd. Much like the Iowa Hawkeyes football season, anything bad that happens, we over-react in a frenzied mode. It’s easy for Mike Draper of RAYGUN to print up a shirt mocking Bloom, it’s easy for people to send messages to The Atlantic to voice their displeasure and wanting their recourse towards Bloom.

The problem is, when we don’t read the entire text of he wrote, only reacting to the excerpts and quotes that were highlighted, we miss the entire picture.

This isn’t going to make people happy, but I’ll say it: there is some validity to Bloom’s observations, if you get beyond some of his disparaging remarks, which is his opinion, like it or not.

For everything we romanticize about our fair state, there’s plenty of challenges that we are currently facing, or will face.

I agree with a large part of his observation of the socioeconomic and political culture of Iowa. Iowa is facing plenty of issues that we know all too well. It doesn’t take a professor to figure that out. (Yeah, I wrote that last sentence. Sometimes, I have to be a smartass. I’m too nice.)

There are some things he wrote that is very true:

• Iowa is not flat.
• The once-flourishing river towns of Keokuk, Davenport, to name a few, are reshaping an identity for themselves, now that the Mississippi River is no longer a major mode of transportation.
• The eastern side of the state is mostly Democratic, the western half is Republican.
• We continue to re-elect Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley to the U.S. Senate, and we love incumbents.

Bloom calls the whole thing schizophrenic, I call it unique and an example of how we operate here in Iowa. Partisanship aside, I have long theorized that Iowans will elect people who can do their job and ensure that we get what we want from Washington or from the statehouse in Des Moines. If you can deliver the “goods”, you get re-elected. Plain and simple.

I have been an Iowan all of my life. A black Iowan, mind you, Dr. Bloom. One of about 50,000 in this state. You’ll probably find us in the urban areas. It’s lovely in Davenport, Des Moines, Waterloo, and Sioux City at this time of the year.

The crux of Bloom’s dissertation is this: why does Iowa gets so much attention by this nation and the political world every four years when it comes to the Presidential election? Bloom’s ulterior motive, to me, is to tell America about the “real” Iowa…from his own eyes.

Personally, he barely scratched the surface. There is a lot more to Iowa than “ve-HICK-les”, NASCAR, and the Hawkeyes.

Bloom described Keokuk as a crime-riddled skuzzy town. I wonder why he hasn’t visited my hometown of Waterloo, where the continual lingering effect of racial tension and crime rears its ugly head from time to time. I should know: my grandparents lived down the street from one of the most infamous crimes in Iowa history.

Every town isn’t free of criminal activity, Dr. Bloom. Even in Iowa City, when your students get tagged for underage drinking. Des Moines, for a long time, was referred to as “Little Chicago” because it was a refuge for Chicago criminals to hide out in the 1970′s.

I do disagree with him on his assessment that Iowans are a bunch of gun-toting, isolationist, God-fearing conservative folks. We’re more than that. Look at me, I’ve never lived on a farm, never fired off a shotgun, independent of both political parties, and I attend church when I’m able to, if I’m not visiting family or volunteering.

As far as naivety is concerned, we use it as a facade at times, but for the most part, we let our niceness and politeness give off the sense that we’re dolts and simpletons. That is what Bloom is asserting, in my view. Folks, it’s alright to show a little mean streak if someone insults us. Lord knows how many times I want to tell Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann to shove it up where the sun don’t shine.

After years and years of in-your-face religion, I decided to give what has become an annual lecture, in which I urge my students not to bid strangers “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter,” “Have you gotten all your Christmas shopping done?” or “Are you going to the Easter egg hunt?” Such well-wishes are not appropriate for everyone, I tell my charges gently. A cheery “Happy holidays!” will suffice. Small potatoes, I know, but did everyone have to proclaim their Christianity so loud and clear?

Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea. One gutsy, red-in-the-face student told me in no uncertain terms that for the rest of her life, she would continue offering Merry Christmas and Happy Easter tidings to strangers, no matter what I, or anyone else, said, because, “That’s just who I am and I’m not about to change. Ever!” Score one for sticking it to the ethnic interloper.

-Stephen Bloom, “Observations from 20 years in Iowa” The Atlantic, December 2011

Bloom crossed the line here. Lecturing his students how to address their holiday greetings was more self-groveling and venting his hatred towards “Merry Christmas.” Not all people who say “Merry Christmas” are religious. If someone says “Merry Christmas”, a suffice “You too and Happy Holidays” will do, Dr. Bloom. No one’s trying to force their religion on anyone. If they do, they have a problem…with themselves.

I use both terms. Not by choice, but what comes easily out of my mouth, if I’m not stuttering to spit it out.

Bloom is correct when he says that Iowa is a yesteryear to the past, for good and possibly bad. The good is that there is still a society and a part of the world that value decency, respect, and humility. The bad: the troubling perception from the outside world that Iowa is still a “lily-white” Pangaea that is steadfast in sticking to their beliefs and traditions, that could be seen as politically incorrect.

Stephen Bloom, for the most part, took an elitist position when he wrote about this state. Folks don’t like it when someone writes or talks above their heads and subtly mocks them for their way of life and attitudes. I’m guilty of that myself, so I have to tone down the intellectual guff and make it sensible for everyone to understand what’s being written.

Trust me, it’s hard for us to drop some of those attitudes as well. But denigrating people to prove a point does ooze a sense of personal discontent for him.

Dr. Bloom implied that we’re the ones who are stuck in our ways. Maybe it’s the other way around. I’m starting to think that he’s the one who hasn’t changed with the times, if we’re solely judging his attitude and his snide remarks.

But make no doubt that our challenge, as Iowans, is to keep showing America that we are culturally intuitive, open-minded, willing to take on new endeavors and lifestyles, and still maintain the integrity and respect towards our fellow woman and man. Midwest nice isn’t just a catchphrase.

Fear and the unknown are the driving force and reasons for us not to evolve.

I wonder what Dr. Bloom is really afraid of?

Becoming one of us, or realizing that we’re just as smart as he is?

That may be true, but it shouldn't be a precursor to murder. 

The discussion over the beating death of Marcellus Andrews of Waterloo has brought up a litany of angles and different perspectives over whether or not Andrews was gay (his sister said he wasn't, per the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier) to the ever-ending list of violence among youths, particularly on the east side of Waterloo. 

As a native of Waterloo, I didn't feel comfortable coming out right away and offering any opinion or comment.  Stuff like needs several days to simmer before knowing what the details are and writing an opinion. 

This I can be sure of:  something did happened between Andrews and murderers that provoke the deadly beating.  That is a fact.  Was it a hate crime?  Andrews' family sides with the Waterloo police by saying it wasn't a hate crime.  Others will beg to disagree.  But, to disagree, would imply that others think they know more about Marcellus than Marcellus' family does. 

Is it fair for me, or anyone else, to make an assertion that Andrews was gay and that his family is covering up the fact or are in denial of that notion? 

That's about as reckless of an assertion to make, and a terrible one at that.  His family knows Marcellus more than Des Moines Human Rights commissioner Rudy Simms, One Iowa, and I combined. 

So, what about the words that were used towards Andrews when he was confronted and then was beaten up?  Were they used just as words, or was there an intent to say something about him?  Today, insensitive and derogatory words to describe an individual have become a flashpoint of discussion and debate. 

Do these words define a person is a hate-monger, racist, misogynist?  The easy answer is yes.  But, is it as clear-cut as we want to make it out to be? 

That is what makes the Andrews beating death a confusing situation:  was it a hate crime or another sad case of black-on-black youth crime?   

It all depends on how certain words are used. 

By intention or in the heat of the moment.