In “Part 1: Why mental health matters to us,” I explained that Menninger has recently ”adopted standards of behavior that are intended to guide our actions and promote a culture of excellence. This month the Psychology discipline was charged with bringing attention to one standard: ‘We are linked to one another by a common purpose: serving our patients and our community.’”

In that post, four Menninger psychologists shared their views on why mental health matters. Now, I’m pleased to introduce you to some other psychologists from Menninger who have weighed in on this topic. After you’ve read their views, please take a moment to share yours with us and comment on the post. We all welcome the chance to discuss the importance of mental health and how best to fight the stigma of mental illness.

When it comes to matters of mental health – such as our capacity for adaptation, managing stress, finding purpose, or relating to others – we deal with what is personal and universal. Recognizing we are all in this together can reduce the stigma surrounding matters central to us all. Michael Groat, PhD, director, Professionals in Crisis Program

Wake up and brush your teeth. Shower. Drive in traffic and show up on time for a meeting. Eat lunch. Finish your work. Wind down at home. Talk to your family and friends. Sleep restfully. Without mental health, these seemingly mundane tasks seem like insurmountable obstacles or unattainable luxuries. We are linked to our patients and to each other by a universal wish to be content with our lives and free from emotional pain. Mental health matters because it allows us to experience life as an opportunity to enjoy, versus a burden to be suffered. Vanessa Salazar, PhD, Compass Program for Young Adults

How someone experiences himself or herself as a person – as valuable or not, as broken or not, as competent or not, as lovable or not – these things are at the heart of mental health. The self must be nurtured and protected and repaired if necessary in order for someone to truly live fully in the world. Flynn O’Malley, PhD, director, Compass Program for Young Adults

Children and adults need to play. They need space in their minds for the kind of play that allows dreams and stories to unfold naturally. By promoting positive mental health, we create a protected “space,” a place where we can feel silly and laugh. Play brings joy and when we play with others, we are reminded that we are not alone in this world. Jennifer Crawford, PhD, Adolescent Treatment Program

I’m reminded of our humanity, how each one of us has hopes and dreams, fears and struggles, serious and playful sides. When a teenager sits with me and shares these things, I’m sometimes awestruck by how much courage it takes to really allow oneself to be vulnerable and human. Sandy Soenning, PhD, Adolescent Treatment Program

Menninger recently adopted standards of behavior that are intended to guide our actions and promote a culture of excellence. This month the Psychology discipline was charged with bringing attention to one standard: “We are linked to one another by a common purpose: serving our patients and our community.”

We had differing thoughts about what this statement means, but we agreed that we are linked in our battle to fight mental illness and the stigma associated with it. We believe that mental health matters, not only for the people we treat at The Menninger Clinic, but for our families and community as well.

We wanted to share our views about why “Mental Health Matters” in hopes that it will create a discussion with others about why mental health matters to them. Ultimately, we are all linked together by mental illness, and despite differences in opinions, we can stand next to each other and fight to reduce the stigma.

Here’s what some of our psychologists have to say about why mental health matters (stay tuned for more of our views in an upcoming blog post):

It’s not just my job but how I live my life. If I encourage my patients to take risks and be vulnerable, then I hold myself to the same standard. It’s the only way our culture can begin to change:  the belief that mental health matters. Patricia Daza, PhD, Hope Program for Adults

To be ill means that you cannot recover by a mere act of will. If you’re mentally ill, you can’t just change your mind—think positively if you’re depressed or stop worrying if you’re anxious. We increasingly understand the complex psychological, social and biological bases of mental illness. We have increasingly diverse treatments. But the foundation of treatment for all illness is caring and compassion, along with hope—which must be founded on realistic expectations that respect the often daunting challenges of recovery. Jon Allen, PhD, senior staff psychologist

Mental illness affects everyone, regardless if we are the one who is diagnosed. As a society we are linked together and constantly influencing each other. If one person is ill, then the effect will be experienced widespread. “Mental health matters” because we have a responsibility to take care of ourselves and our society. Rebecca Wagner, PhD, coordinator, Eating Disorders Services

Nothing convinces me that “mental health matters” more than the wealth of scientific evidence on the unity of mind and body. Examples include the strong relationships between stress and immune system function, depression and heart disease, smoking and suicide risk, exercise and depression – the list goes on and on. It behooves all of us to remember that mind and body are one – when we treat one, we treat the other. Tom Ellis, PsyD, ABPP, director, Psychology

As avid sports fans, we easily get caught up in the spectacle of sports. We geek out about statistics. We get fanatical about our favorite teams. We glorify the most outlandish feats of athleticism. And like a number of the younger members of our generation are wont to do, we revere these figures, almost as if they were role models.

In that exaltation, however, most sports fans forget that these athletes exist as individuals outside of the SportsCenter highlights and the numbers in the ‘win’ column. We forget that behind their larger-than-life personas, these athletes are real human beings whose unique gifts put them at considerable risk for mental illness.

Athletes as examples

An earlier post by Cody Dolan talked about Ron Artest and the fantastic publicity he was bringing to mental health treatment. That he raffled his championship ring to benefit programs that place more mental health professionals into schools goes quite a ways in furthering the ideal this blog seeks to promote. And while we should applaud and promote efforts like Artest’s, we must also keep the gravity of stories like Dave Duerson’s and Robert Enke’s in mind.

Dave Duerson

Born in Muncie, Indiana, Duerson was a hard-hitting safety who received numerous accolades (including two Super Bowl rings) throughout his career with the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame, the Chicago Bears, the New York Giants and the Arizona Cardinals. After retiring from the NFL, Duerson was named NFL Man of the Year for his involvement in various charities and became a proponent in the effort to help retired players receive disability benefits for injuries sustained while playing.

On February 17, 2011, Dave Duerson, 50, died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest. Before doing so, he sent a text message to loved ones asking that his brain be donated to the “NFL Brain Bank.” The “bank” he was referring to is an ongoing study about chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) being conducted by the Boston University School of Medicine.

A progressive degenerative disease caused by multiple concussions and head injuries, CTE is most commonly found in athletes who participate in contact sports like football, soccer and wrestling. Symptoms include dementia, depression, memory loss, aggression and confusion, and can appear within months or even years of the last trauma.

As of this posting, it is still unclear if Duerson’s fate was linked to CTE or a confluence of family losses and financial struggles. What is important, however, is the light his last words shed on what is becoming a growing concern in professional sports: the perception of mental health.

Robert Enke

An animal rights activist and loving father, Robert Enke was also one of Germany’s top-ranked goal keepers. Expected to anchor his country’s team in the 2010 FIFA World Cup, Enke tragically took his own life in 2009 after a six-year bout with depression. While he was receiving treatment for his depression, many believed he never got over the sudden death of his two year-old daughter. And while we cannot draw a direct line between what Enke did for a living and how his life ended, his story illuminates the fact that talent, fame and success don’t mitigate athletes’ exposure to the pervasive nature of mental illness.

Mental illness is pervasive

In an industry (regardless of sport) where bravado and machismo drive each play, an athlete’s admission of any mental health problem could be just as damaging to a career as a torn ACL. It comes as no surprise, then, that cases of athletes suffering from a mental illness are under-reported (if reported at all). And the instances where depression and mental illness do become a topic of conversation among major news outlets usually follow a tragic event like Duerson’s death.

What Duerson touched on (and must continue to be explored) is the dearth of public understanding of the pervasiveness of mental illness. Whether the onset of mental illness is a product of brain injury or not, the fact remains that awareness—from both a professional and fan perspective—is not where it needs to be. Owners, advertisers, general managers, coaches and the athletes themselves believe that mental illness either doesn’t qualify as a real injury, or is too abstract a problem to deal with.

But while it is easy to criticize some sports teams for ignorance on the matter (Philadelphia Eagles’ lineman Shawn Andrews was fined $15,000 a day for missing training camp due to depressive symptoms), some entities are adopting a more progressive attitude. For example, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) should not be overlooked for the concern shown for their athletes. Following a double murder suicide by Chris Benoit (an act many believe to be related to dementia by way of CTE), the WWE has made improvements to its wellness program, even adopting concussion provisions shared with Olympic training centers.

The truth of the matter is that as fans and consumers, we rarely get to see into the private lives and experiences of these athletes, and as such, are rarely concerned with what happens there as long as it doesn’t affect the product we see on our screens and from the stands. Learning from these tragedies is a way to respect the lives of these men and expand our collective understanding of the role mental health plays in all walks of life.

If the Internet has been good for one thing, it’s the warping or tarnishing of childhood icons. Sadly, you don’t have to look far to find images of your favorite cartoon character that wouldn’t be out of place in an R-rated movie.

It’s also not difficult to find interpretations of classic cartoon figures that are just depressing. On the Internet, you’ll learn that Mickey Mouse is really a symbol of American imperialism. You’ll read detailed breakdowns of how the Scooby Doo gang was either doing or selling drugs. Or you’ll find “evidence” that characters designed for children suffered from mental illness.

Winnie the Pooh and friends

Because I know you might not believe me, allow me to share with you a few GIFs (GIF stands for graphics interchange format, which is basically a low-resolution way to animate images online) that make it look like characters from Winnie the Pooh are in need of treatment. These were all created by Matthew Wilkinson for his Tumblr page, and they’ve since spread to every corner of the Internet.

Thinking it through

I’m of two minds when it comes to these images: on one hand, they’re a bit brilliant. A sullen stuffed grey donkey sitting on a lonely rock in a rainstorm would seem to accurately and astutely embody what we popularly think of as depression. The continual, compulsive rearranging of objects on a table (in this case performed by a rabbit) plays to the accepted idea of what it means to have obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Watching Piglet cover his ears and shake his head makes me feel quite anxious, and I bet if you looked at the image long enough you’d feel the same way.

On the other hand, these GIFs trivialize and undermine what it means to have serious mental illness. People with schizophrenia are in real pain; they’re not simply rocking back and forth and talking to themselves. Their thinking process disintegrates, as does their emotional responsiveness. They hallucinate or have delusions.

My wife has taught more than a few children with ADHD, and if all they had done was wiggle their eyebrows excessively her life would’ve been a lot easier. Instead, her students were easily distracted, disrupted class by asking questions that had already been answered, couldn’t sit still no matter what and behaved in ways that interfered with not just their learning, but the education of every other kid in the class.

A different kind of psychology

These GIFs represent “movie psychology,” and that’s hardly a good thing. I’m sure Mr. Wilkinson has seen As Good As It Gets, and so that’s what he thinks someone with OCD does all the time. I’m sure he thinks anxiety is a legitimate diagnosis, when in reality it’s more of a catch-all term that could mean any number of disorders.

How do these animations make you feel? Are you upset because Piglet is so unhappy? Are you amused by the Tigger’s dopey smile? How much attention do these deserve?  Let us know in the comments.

Editor’s note: if you enjoyed this post, you might want to check out some of Cody’s other posts:

• Giffords shooting calls for measured, rational response
• Ron Artest 2, stigma 0
• Are people with mental illness superheroes?

Photo by D. Sharon Pruitt via Flickr

An age-old debate continues to thrive in science and in society about the cause of mental illness. In some circles this is known as the nature-nurture debate. Nature refers to the biological makeup of an individual. Today the focus is on the genetic, cellular and molecular levels of the person. Nurture refers to the environmental and interpersonal factors that influence human biology and behavior.

Bridging the gap between nature and nurture

A recent article in the New York Times called attention to epigenetic research. Epigenetics refers to the expression of the genome that does not cause a change in the DNA. It is believed that the study of epigentics bridges the gap between nature and nurture. This area of research has much to offer the field of mental health, as those of us who are dedicated to the care of persons with mental illness strive to identify more effective interventions to improve the lives of those who suffer with mental disorders.

When we consider the role of the environment on gene expression, it seems consideration would be given not only to the family and social environment in which patients live but also to the healing capacity of the environment in which patients receive care.

Creating healing environments

Nurses at The Menninger Clinic have been promoting the idea of an optimal healing environment in which nurses and other clinicians create an atmosphere of healing places and spaces that:

• promote awareness and positive intentions;
• personal wholeness;
• collaborative medicine;
• healthy lifestyles; and
• healing relationships.

The idea of an optimal healing environment was first developed by the Samueli Institute as a framework for all of healthcare. An optimal healing environment is one in which the physical environment that promotes the biological, psychological and social experiences of calm, comfort, and support is experienced by all people within the environment. Such an environment calls for strong relationship-centered care in patient: clinician and clinician: clinician relationships that are built on respect and appreciation.

What would happen if there was an ethical mandate to promote an optimal healing environment in mental healthcare? Is it possible that such an environment would maximize biological and psychological interventions and ultimately improve the quality of care for the mentally ill?

At the beginning of each year, it seems only natural to look forward and think about our concerns for the world around us and about what exciting new developments the world has in store for us. So I posed a couple of questions about such things to a few of our bloggers, some of whom are participating here for the first time, and I thought you might find their responses interesting. I did.

What is one of your primary concerns about the mental health field for 2011?

Martha McCrory, MS, CPRP, director, Rehabilitation Services & Wellness, The Menninger Clinic: One of my primary concerns about the mental health field in 2011 is the cutting and/or lack of funding for mental health services. Funding for mental health is being reduced in many states, which reduces the number and quality of services being offered. It also reduces the number of individuals who can receive services. Another consequence of the lack of mental health funding is due to the reduction of hospital space and community-based services, which can lead to individuals with a mental illness being incarcerated instead of receiving appropriate and adequate services. The lack of funding also affects environments such as institutions of higher education providing adequate mental health services to young adults. This is a grave concern, especially in light of recent events.

Dee G. Henderson, RN-BC, MSN, Comprehensive Psychiatric Assessment & Stabilization Program, The Menninger Clinic: There is a continuing problem with access to adequate, complete mental health care for the uninsured outpatient. The current county system in Houston allows patients to see a psychiatrist for medication updates infrequently, and the lucky ones get to see a psychotherapist once a week. The medications are handled through an overloaded pharmacy system, causing patients to have to use an entire day to be seen and get their medications. The formulary is limited, causing patients to either use medications that are not as effective for them or have more side effects, or they have to find a way to pay for preferred meds out of pocket, which can cost hundreds of dollars a month. Expanding the formulary would be a great first step.

Denise Kagan, PhD, staff psychologist, Professionals in Crisis Program, The Menninger Clinic: The downturn in the economy seems to have resulted in people approaching mental healthcare as essentially a luxury rather than as a necessity – as they are also doing with their physical healthcare. This leads to people putting off seeking help until they are in urgent need, which makes their difficulties more difficult to address and results in greater negative consequences (decreased ability to function, manage self-care, etc.).

Thomas E. Ellis, PsyD, ABPP, director, Psychology, The Menninger Clinic: High on my list of concerns is direct marketing of psychoactive medications to patients. It wasn’t so long ago that advertising on TV and in non-professional publications was not permitted, the belief being that it was the role of the physician to assess whether a drug might relieve a given condition. The “ask your doctor” movement has resulted in patients believing that the drug with the most compelling advertising must be safe and effective, and proceeding to make enthusiastic requests of their (usually non-psychiatric) physicians. Lost in this process are the “talking cures,” psychotherapies that repeatedly have been proven safe, effective and less costly (in the long run), with fewer side-effects. Seen a glossy ad in People magazine lately for psychotherapy? Of course not. Competing with corporations with billions of dollars to invest in advertising is virtually impossible; the result is that suffering patients are often deprived of an effective alternate path to healing.

Jon G. Allen, PhD, senior staff psychologist, The Menninger Clinic: Enthusiasm for neuroscience is entirely justified in light of the demonstrable biological basis of major psychiatric disorders. But I am concerned that we are losing sight of the psychological contributions to biological dysregulation (e.g., the “chemical imbalance”) and that we are underutilizing psychotherapy in comparison with psychiatric medications. Both medication and psychotherapy can be effective for different reasons, and both can be complementary when used in combination. Yet psychotherapy has the unique potential to result in enduring benefit related to new learning, and the same benefit cannot be achieved with medication alone. I have dubbed my concern about excessive enthusiasm for biological psychiatry to the exclusion of psychological treatments “biomania.”

What current development in the field of mental health is most exciting to you?

McCrory: One recent development in the mental health field that is exciting to me is the fact that Permanent Supported Housing is now recognized as an evidence-based practice (EBP) through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. In my opinion, all humans deserve the right to safe and affordable housing. However, many times individuals with a mental illness are stripped of this opportunity. Because this practice is considered an EBP, it provides concrete guidelines in which to implement this practice. This can better ensure that individuals with a mental illness are provided opportunities to procure safe, affordable housing with the supports they need. This practice promotes full community reintegration, which I strongly support as a psychiatric rehabilitation practitioner.

Henderson: It is exciting that Menninger is a part of The Gathering Place as it serves as a model program implementing the concept of Assertive Community Treatment (Lehman, Goldman, Dixon, Churchill, 2004). It is providing the desperately needed outreach of holistic mental health services to the community, providing a wide range of supportive services that I hope will serve as the paradigm for other communities. The need to have access to mental health services is being recognized as far broader than the current systems of hospital-based care can accommodate, both from the standpoint of available beds and available funding.

Dr. Ellis: The most exciting current development by far, in my view, is the growing body of research showing that cultivating awareness and acceptance of thoughts and feelings provides an effective complement to more conventional psychotherapeutic approaches more focused on change. Although the desire on the part of both patient and therapist understandably tends toward reducing or eliminating unpleasant thoughts and feelings, experience (and research) tells us that trying to modify “private experience” is often ineffective and sometimes counterproductive. Consider the effort to get rid of a song in your head or force yourself to fall asleep: The harder you try, the less you succeed. Acceptance-oriented approaches such as mindfulness meditation, a centuries-old practice, teach us that some unpleasant states are simply part of being alive, and that by accepting the reality of our pain rather than struggling with it, we can actually reduce our suffering. Now that’s exciting!

Dr. Allen: Over the past few decades, enormous progress has been made in attachment theory and research. The prototype of attachment relationships is the mother-infant emotional bond; yet we all need secure attachments throughout life to flourish. The essence of psychological trauma, as I think about it, is being alone in the midst of unbearable emotional pain without any prospect of solace in a relationship with a person who can empathize with that pain. Thousands of research studies have yielded a wealth of knowledge about secure and insecure attachment relationships throughout life, from infancy to adulthood. I am excited by the fact that this knowledge is beginning to inform not only the practice of psychotherapy with adults but also the fields of parent-infant and parent-child psychotherapy.

Congresswoman Giffords

Like most people, I had an intense reaction to this weekend’s shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others in Arizona. I was angry and sad and confused and then angry again and then heartbroken when I learned that a 9-year-old girl had been killed. As we learned more about the gunman, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, many began speculating on his mental state. Reporters and law enforcement officials said things like he “reportedly suffers from mental illness” (a phrase that adds nothing to the story and doesn’t have much meaning) and used words like “insane” (a legal term not used in any form of diagnosis) to talk about him.

Loughner is clearly a troubled young man who did a horrible, horrible thing. We overuse the word “tragedy” today, but it clearly fits here. Still, any rush to slap a label on whatever brand of mental illness he may or may not be suffering from is rash and thoughtless. If you asked any of the doctors on staff at Menninger to diagnose Loughner from afar, they’d tell you that it was impossible to do and irresponsible to try. Diagnosing mental illness can be exceedingly difficult, especially when many patients receive a variety of diagnoses (sometimes conflicting) over the course of their treatment.

But even if it turns out that Loughner has been living with a mental illness, we as a nation need to be careful about how we characterize him and, by extension, those suffering from a similar disorder. And now we’ve finally come to the point of this blog post.

John Scalzi is one of my favorite authors, in part because his blog, Whatever, is incredibly entertaining. It’s well written, of course, but it’s also insightful, informative and very, very funny. This past Saturday he posted some of his brief, preliminary thoughts on the shooting, and then encouraged his thousands of daily readers to share their own.

On Sunday he posted a follow up in which he discussed various reactions to the incident, including the emerging mental health aspect of story. Please read the following quote, and then let us know what you think in the comments. (And drop by Mr. Scalzi’s site to join the discussion there if you’re so inclined; I can vouch that the commenters there are, for the most part, an intelligent, thoughtful, and decent bunch.)

A friend of mine who suffers from a mental disorder wrote me a letter to suggest to me that the comments in the previous thread about the possible mental illness of Loughner run the risk of carelessly painting everyone who suffers from a mental illness or a disorder with the same behaviors — i.e., they’re all bad/violent/nasty/evil/dangerous, etc.

This is a fair concern on my friend’s part, and so I think it’s worth noting that a) a layman diagnosis of mental illness via the very limited information available online is worth exactly nothing, b) any general equivalence between mental illness or disorder and one being bad/violent/nasty/evil/dangerous, etc. is uninformed and pretty stupid. Loughner may or may not suffer from mental illness, but it’s going to take professional and in-person observation by trained folks to determine that. I imagine that will be happening soon if it’s not already happening. But even if he does, his individual manifestation of his illness is just that — individual, and not representative of anyone else’s.

Or as my friend puts it: “Maybe you could remind folks that the people with mental disorders are around them, right now, being mentally disordered? Also, being lawyers, parents, farmers, soldiers, nurses, truck-drivers, teachers, college students, judges, 5th graders, fishermen, mechanics, martial arts instructors, writers, and general good folks. Just like them.”

For more information, check out this piece from Slate.com, which adds some scientific credence to the argument made by Mr. Scalzi’s anonymous friend.

Editor’s note: For more on the tragedy in Arizona, check out:

• Thoughts on a tragedy, with help from Jon Stewart and Dr. Walt Menninger
• To stop violence, we must start with ourselves
• Forensic psychiatrist praises judge’s letter to the New York Times
  

When last we left Ron Artest, he was thanking his psychiatrist for helping him relax enough to play basketball at a high level. He was so excited to have won an NBA Championship that he seemingly thanked everyone he’d met during his career, and nonchalantly slipped his therapist’s name in there for good measure. The psychiatric community grabbed hold of this passing reference and used it to illustrate just how far we’ve come in the fight against stigma. Here’s the video in case you missed it last time:

Now Artest is going one step further. On December 8, the Los Angeles Lakers forward announced that he’ll be donating “either all or some” of his 2011-2012 salary to mental health awareness charities. You can read the full ESPN.com article, but allow me to nutshell it for you.

THIS IS BIG NEWS! And I’m not the only one who thinks so!

You probably want more analysis than that, don’t you? No problem.

The man is scheduled to make $6.79 million in salary this season, and has made more than $50 million over the course of his NBA career. I know that some people will say something like “Well, he can afford to give so this isn’t a big deal.” Of course, anyone who says that more than likely hasn’t thought through just what this kind of donation can mean. I don’t care how much money you make, donating a significant portion of your yearly income represents an enormous commitment to a cause.

The possibilities

$6.79 million is a lot of money. In the right hands, it’s world- or life-changing money. I once asked Dr. Tom Ellis, the man in charge of Menninger’s Suicide Prevention Research Project, what it would mean if we in the Development Office were able to raise $100,000 for him this year. Dr. Ellis paused for a moment, and I could tell he wasn’t sure how to best illustrate how much he could do with that money. He settled on saying,

“It’d be night and day. I just thought of everything $100,000 would allow us to do, the amount of data we’d be able to collect that could help people struggling with suicidal thoughts and urges, and I think night and day is the best analogy. At the risk of sounding cliché, we’d be able to shine an enormously powerful light on some pretty dark thoughts.”

Mental illness isn’t like cancer or hospitals that treat sick children. There aren’t a lot of donors lining up to give institutions like Menninger the eight-figure gifts you see M. D. Anderson Cancer Center or Texas Children’s Hospital receiving every year. When patients leave Menninger they’re often focused on staying well and taking it one day at a time. Menninger has a patient alumni group, but it’s focused on helping former patients stay on their wellness programs, and not on funneling donations back to The Clinic.

Celebrities and causes

There aren’t a lot of celebrity spokespeople out there willing to film commercials about giving to mental health like there are for St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital, which annually garners the likes of Robin Williams and Jennifer Aniston. Their most recent national commercial features Morgan Freeman, who, I believe, has played God and the President more than anyone else alive, talking to and about sick children during prime time television.

Mental health has Joe Pantoliano giving in interview to the A.V. Club about his foundation. Now Pantoliano is a fantastic actor who played key roles in pop culture touchstones like The Sopranos and The Matrix, but he’s hardly a household name. And an interview with a website, no matter how widely read, will obviously garner much less attention than a commercial that shows both a famous actor and the adorable children the hospital treats.

I know you’re thinking that there are obvious flaws here. Artest is waiting until July 1, 2011, to announce the details of his giving. He’s vague about what “either all or some” of his salary means, and clearly “some” could mean as little as $1. Ron Artest is, shall we say, mercurial, and so I could easily see him changing his mind in the next seven months.

But read that ESPN.com article again, and focus on Artest’s words at the end. The man has clearly found his passion, and the mental health community stands to benefit. Isn’t that worth celebrating?