Democrats: Stand by your woman

By Bob Gaydos

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
 ... ready to lead the way?

So I wrote a column saying that Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has been beautifully positioned -- by a combination of Donald Trump’s fear of self-confident women, the rapid emergence of sexual misconduct by prominent men as a social issue, the newly demonstrated political power of women of color, and her own intelligence, commitment and ambition -- to run for president in 2020.

Here’s a sampling of comments I received:

-- “She’'s done, as far as I'm concerned, and I voted for her. What she did to Al Franken for her own benefit is a disgrace. She needs to be primaried, and voted out.”

-- “Never vote for her.”

-- “Horsefeathers.”

-- “Another Democratic hypocrite just like the rest of the party.”

-- “Just another Schumer loser and certainly a disgrace for NY.”

-- “I think almost every single politicians in New York is corrupt. For example, was she part of Hillary Clinton's 100 member leadership team? If so, that kills it for me right there. … I mean Bernie Sanders ended up supporting Hillary, but he had to, I think. He has my vote in 2020, and my undying allegiance.”

Of course there were the usual trolls who can’t spell or comment without being vulgar -- the world the Internet has legitimized. There were also some positive comments about Gillibrand, but that response was markedly muted, with Democrats in my and Gillibrand’s home state of New York apparently sharing the uncertainty of Democrats nationally as to what to make of this outspoken junior senator who had just called on the groper-in-chief to resign.

The reaction of David Axelrod, one of Barack Obama’s chief advisers, was typical: “There should be rigorous pursuit of these kinds of charges, but right now there are no rules. She’s been a leader on the issue [of sexual assault]. But the danger for her is looking so craven and opportunistic it actually hurts her.”

Someone identified as a top Democratic operative was quoted thusly: “If you cared about the Democrats and 2018, you would be calling for hearings [for Trump]. When you call for resignation, you’re jumping the gun. I’d rather have congressional candidates being asked, ‘Do you support hearings?’ Calling for resignation is not really what’s best for the party, but it’s good for her.”

So, bad for her or good for her? Gillibrand isn’t waiting for Democratic “operatives” to decide.

In an interview with Vanity Fair, the senator provided some insight into her thinking: “I take calculated risks. I measure. I assess risk very intensely. And then I make a judgment. When you play tennis as a kid, you’re going to win sometimes and lose sometimes, and you learn how to behave well under both circumstances. Such a great life lesson because if you’re not afraid of losing, you’ll take a risk -- like running for office.”

Including president.

My impression is that Democrats typically have difficulty recognizing opportunities that offer themselves and even more difficulty uniting behind a candidate, whether they agree with all her views or not. It’s almost as if winning elections is not that important. Republicans, of course, have demonstrated that they are capable to a fault of standing behind a candidate regardless of his lack of character, intelligence, knowledge of government, or emotional stability, perhaps even to the eventual demise of their own party.

But that’s the Republicans’ problem. Many Democrats seem to be inclined to try to make a problem of Gillibrand’s synchronistic moment. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that she’s a woman and she’s talking about a subject many people find difficult to talk about frankly and publicly -- sexual harassment in all its forms, from subtle to blatant.

That the numerous allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump did not prevent him from becoming the Republican presidential candidate, never mind winning the campaign for the White House over a clearly more-qualified female opponent, may well be due in large part to unspoken attitudes about gender and sex and politics and how to behave when they all come together.

Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 popular vote among white women, running against a card-carrying misogynist. The usual complaints voiced about her were that she was too ambitious or not trustworthy. But Trump was all ambition and a congenital liar. He was also an admitted sexual predator. But so was Bill Clinton, although it took some time and an impeachment for his admissions to come forth. And through it all, Hillary stood by her man. You could almost hear Tammy Wynette singing it: “You’ll have bad times; he’ll have good times; Doin' things that you don't understand …”

As a man occasionally guilty of sexist remarks, I nonetheless venture to say that I have noticed that women have a way of remembering things. “She attacked all those women who were used by Bill and now she wants to be president? I don’t think so.” The women voters stood by their man, just like the song says, “ ‘Cause after all he's just a man” ... allowed to be ambitious and untrustworthy.

That time is no more. #MeToo and the Women’s March and generations of women who have grown up liberated beneficiaries of other women’s struggles -- women not trying to behave like men or needing to be silent about sexual abuse in order to succeed -- have changed the political landscape. Gillibrand, 51, is one of them and she understands the changing dynamic.

One of the trickier challenges in talking or writing about the recent flood of sexual misconduct allegations is how to differentiate among the various behaviors -- Harassment? Groping? Unwanted touching? Suggestive talk? Sex for a promotion? Assault? Rape?

Gillibrand makes it simple: “Let’s say the line is here, and it’s all bad,” she said at a women’s conference, to cheers. She is someone willing and able to lead the much-needed discussion. Indeed, she has led a bipartisan effort to rewrite the rules in Congress on dealing with sexual harassment charges. The current system relies heavily on delay and legal hush money.

Democrats need to take Gillibrand and women’s issues -- including Bernie Sanders’ key issue, economic equality -- seriously. They are all connected to the issue of men in power using and abusing their positions to get sex in exchange for “helping” a woman’s career or at least not hurting it. In essence, of using power to “keep women in their place.”

I understand that a lot of Democrats feel that Sanders was robbed of the Democratic nomination and that he would have beaten Trump. I agree. But Bernie in 2020? Look, I think he would be a good president. Heck, with all modesty, I think I would be a better president than Trump. But I’m four months older than the Vermont senator, who will be 80 in 2020. I hate ageism, but I’m also a realist. If Sanders runs, I’ll vote for him, but I think being president of the United States is a younger person’s game. In today’s world, perhaps a younger woman’s game.

(The author has been a registered independent voter for more than 50 years.)

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Addiction and recovery

30+ years of meetings and sobriety

By Bob Gaydos

Among the things many people don’t understand about alcoholism/addiction is the concept of recovery, starting with the fact that it is possible. The news media, TV, movies -- even local gossip -- are full of stories about people doing foolish, harmful, criminal things while under the influence of alcohol or some other drug. There is not nearly as much time or space devoted to people living in recovery. Maybe it’s because we don’t find those stories as compelling. Or maybe it’s because we don’t know what recovery -- long-term recovery -- looks like.

Yes,”rehab” is now part of our vocabulary. Also, “in-patient,” “out-patient,” “day at a time,” “clean and sober.” But they usually refer to the early -- difficult, often dramatic -- days of recovery. Also today, there is a growing movement within the recovery community for people with long-term sobriety to go public with their stories in an effort to remove the stigma associated with addiction.

Still, there are thousands of other stories walking around mostly untold because that’s the way the people who live them want it. I talked with three members of Alcoholics Anonymous, each of whom respects the organization’s tradition of anonymity, has more than 30 years of recovery (no alcohol or other mood-altering substances) and still attends meetings regularly. Their stories are different, yet remarkably similar. They all live in upstate New York. Their identities are slightly changed.

* * *

“It’s not that you take it for granted (not drinking),” says Joe, a semi-retired septuagenarian from Orange County, who’s been sober 39 years, more than half his life. “You just don’t think about it because you’re living sober.”

“Every once in awhile I might feel like a drink to escape, but I know I can’t. When I feel like it, I talk to another alcoholic. At first, I hated it (AA). I didn’t want to be an alcoholic, I was going to show them.”

Another septuagenarian, Paul, from Sullivan County, has a similar tale. “For six years, I was in and out of AA. I lost hope.” Today, also semi-retired, he has 38 years of sobriety and says, when he has the occasional thought of a drink -- maybe while watching a TV commercial for a new brand of beer -- “I call my sponsor and he laughs.”

“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it,” he says. “I don’t obsess. After a few years of sobriety, I was so involved in AA I would allow myself to think about it.”

Maryann, 55, from Ulster County, has been sober 34 years. She says she “never” feels like drinking. “I hated it. Every time I drank, I got sick.Yet from the age of 13 to 21 I continued to drink the poison. I may have the occasional thought, ‘Wouldn’t it be good to have a cool glass of wine or one of those new drinks?’ I have had drunk dreams (dreams of drinking).’”

A programmer, Maryann says, “It was important to stay connected in AA” to realize long-term recovery. “My family was in recovery. I had a sober parent and a parent who kept slipping. I decided I wanted to follow the sober parent. He introduced me to sober people. I knew I wasn’t going to do it by myself. How do you do it for 30 years? That’s a book’s worth question.”

She goes to four meetings a week “because I know what will happen if I stop. My attitude will get crappy. I’ll start to get scared or miserable and, I may not pick up a drink, but I won’t be fun to be around. I’ll be alone and miserable. Meetings give me an opportunity to talk to newcomers. It reminds me of what I could be like.”

“That’s why I go to meetings,” says Joe, “to deal with the human condition. It’s not just about not drinking, but living sober. Meetings help keep me balanced. Hearing other alcoholics is a constant reminder of who I am. I live by the the slogan, ‘Progress, not perfection.’ The longer I’m in recovery, the more I realize how selfish I was when I drank.”

Paul, who worked in law enforcement, also attends meetings regularly, yet says, “I don’t believe everybody who comes to AA gets sober. It’s not for everybody.

“You have to enjoy the fellowship you join. There’s a lot of fun to be had. Also, I’m 75. I have a purpose in my life, a responsibility. When you get to my age, a lot of people don’t know what to do with themselves. They’re bored. Going to meetings, I can give back. I’m glad I can do it.

‘I actually enjoy the meetings. I used to go to the bar every night. Read a newspaper, talk to the guys. AA is the same without the newspaper. I go at least once a week, maybe more.’

As for the anonymity, Maryann says, “I agree with the tradition, but I share with people who need to know. Most people don’t need to know. I’ve shared with complete strangers. I don’t need my ego stroked.”
Joe says, “At first, I didn’t want anyone to know. So many  people don’t understand -- if I’m an alcoholic, I’m dirty. I can only say I’m an alcoholic because I’m sober. When I was drinking, I denied it.

“After five or six years, I didn’t care. I wonder if some of us with a lot of years could share it … it would be good. I’m a teacher. I’ve shared it four or five times with a class. But I believe in the wisdom of the founders. I’m happy sober. I also accept my sobriety as a gift from my Higher Power. Today, I handle my problems, some well, some not so well, but I handle them.”

Paul echoes Joe and Maryann: “It’s easy to be prideful and bragging after 38 years, but it’s a gift from my Higher Power.” Also, “If I go out in public, get drunk, do something stupid, kill somebody, all of that reflects on AA.”

And it is the opposite of recovery. As Joe put it, in recovery, “I can be the person I want to be.”

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Tom Wolfe, LSD, Orange Hair and Me

By Bob Gaydos

I have been in a funk since Nov. 9. That’s the day I woke up with the realization that millions of Americans had lost their minds, if not their souls, and elected a man who is morally, psychologically, intellectually and spiritually unfit to be their president. The dumbest thing that has happened in my lifetime.

I stopped writing.

Finally, in desperation for inspiration, I turned to sports and that great philosopher, Reggie Miller (older Knicks fans can boo now.) For younger fans of the National Basketball Association, think Steph Curry. Shooters. Scorers. What do great shooters do when they are in a shooting funk, when everything seems to clang off the back rim or fall inches short of the basket? They keep shooting. They don’t pass the ball to someone else. They shoot themselves out of the funk.

Swish!

Now, I am not saying I am in the same class as a writer as Reggie and Steph are as shooters, but I have been writing for a long time and I think I have some skills so I figured the instincts would kick in once I started.

So instead of writing, I started reading. Tom Wolfe. Purely happenstance. I picked up some used books at the library because my son, Max, was looking for reading material. Short stories. He wasn’t interested in Wolfe’s “Hooking Up” and I had never read it, but had really enjoyed his “Bonfire of the Vanities.” So I ventured in. I quickly remembered why I liked him.

Then happenstance melded into serendipity. My partner and I watched “The Right Stuff,” the movie based on Wolfe’s book. Enjoyed it. There’s more. The last essay in “Hooking Up” detailed Wolfe’s assignment, with Jimmy Breslin, as the first writers/reporters for the Herald Tribune’s Sunday magazine, New York.

My favorite newspaper as a teenager and my favorite magazine. I grew up reading Breslin and, as it turns out, Wolfe. After a brief, there’s-no-way-in-the-world-I-want-to-do-this-the-rest-of-my-life flirtation with engineering, I started writing. In more than 50 years, I have only stopped for brief intervals. Going with the universal flow, I went back to the library and picked up a couple more used Wolfe books, “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test” and “A Man in Full.”

By the way, this is by way of answering those sympathetic friends who have asked me what I’ve been doing since The Dumb Event. For one thing, I’m trying to do things that make me feel better, things I can control.

… But let me digress.

To all those who pooh-pooh the Russian election connection, who doubt the Kremlin hacked into Democrats’ e-mails and released them in an organized effort to elect You Know Who and who further doubt that Vladimir Putin had anything to do with it, I turn again to sports and the biggest story that got lost in the election -- Russia’s decades-long government-sponsored program to cover up the use of performance-enhancing drugs by virtually all its Olympic athletes.

A report recently released by a Canadian lawyer, Richard H. McClaren, who works for the World Anti-Doping Agency, confirmed it all. McClaren and his team made short shrift of Russian denials. Medals were repossessed. Athletes were banned. A Russian official involved in the program said the direction came from the top. In Russia, there is only one top. This is the Russian way, or at least the Putin way. Of course he knew about the steroids. Of course he knew about the hacking. No Russian would dare do either without his approval. Not if he didn't want to wind up with poison in his vodka.

… So where was I? Right, reading.

I’m learning much more about Ken Kesey and the acid/pot/speed hippie freaks of the ‘60s than I ever intended to. The meaning of life on LSD.  It’s a good read. I found it especially interesting how Kesey came to write “One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.” Nothing like first-hand experience. I just started the book, so there will likely be more on this later.

What else? I started looking for local issues I might be able to help out with since I believe change starts close to home. I’ve also recommitted to my off-and-on interest in photography. Living in an especially scenic area of the Hudson Valley, it works well with my inclination to report on what’s going on around me. On my travels the other day, a farmer walked his cow across the road right in front of me, casual as could be. Nonchalantly, I missed the shot. But I know where he lives. Gotta keep shooting.

… Speaking of nukes, Putin recently said he wanted to beef up Russia’s nuclear weapons capability. Our soon-to-be Twitter-in-chief knee-jerkedly responded that he planned to do the same with the United States’ nuclear armaments and that no one would be able to keep up with the U.S. in a nuclear arms race. Be still my patriotic, tax-paying heart. Robert Reich, a voice of sanity on social media, reported the above and asked, “What do you think?”

Robert, I think Putin is playing his puppet for the fool he knows him to be. I think all the Republican officials who applaud every time their “king” says something insane are shameless toadies. I think Putin is setting Orange Hair up to act like a big hero at a summit conference in which Russia and the U.S. decide to stop the war of nuclear words and de-escalate, rather than escalate, the nuclear arms race. In exchange, of course, for U.S. concessions. Drop those sanctions for grabbing Crimea. Hold back support for NATO countries that don’t pull their own weight. Let Russia handle things in Syria. Buy some Russian goods (whatever that might be). Don’t retaliate for Russia’s hacking. Stop criticizing Putin’s treatment of dissidents. Give him the respect, he deserves. “Da da, you understand that, my presidential friend, I’m sure.”

I think Putin wants to increase Russian influence over the world, not destroy it. He knows he can do that by pushing buttons and pulling strings.

I also think it would be beneficial to Americans if Ivanka revoked Daddy’s Twitter privileges and read some history to him every day and tested him on it the next day.

And finally, I think maybe I’m feeling a tad better, but the funk is not defunct. Sorry, Reggie, I may have scored a couple of points, but I think I have to keep on shooting.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

The hidden disease: Addictive gambling

Addiction and Recovery

The hidden disease: Addictive gambling

By Bob Gaydos

It is estimated that about 9 million adults
 in the U.S. have a serious gambling problem.

Mary (not her real name) discovered gambling about 40 years ago when she started going to casinos with her husband. Last January, now a widow, she self-excluded herself from the Monticello Casino and Raceway (also known as the racino), near where she lives. She can be arrested if she tries to get in. She did this because, despite her Social Security check, her pension and half of her deceased husband’s pension, “I had no more money to write a check.”

Mary is a compulsive gambler.

Her story is not unique. Seniors, especially senior women, are major players at racinos. “It’s a social outlet,” she says. And a convenient way to gamble. Of course, her gambling addiction didn’t just materialize overnight after 40 years. There was bingo in addition to the casinos. And lots of lottery tickets. It finally became obvious. When her husband was alive, she explained, “He controlled the money.” Lonely, and without any restrictions, her gambling progressed.
“What really killed me,” she says, “is that I lost more than I won and still had to pay income tax.”

Joyce, who doesn’t mind using her real name, has been addicted to drugs for 35 years. “I didn’t realize I had a gambling problem,” she says. “I kept buying Lottery scratch-offs, hoping to get enough money to get more drugs. I stopped using drugs January 15. I realized in talking to Carol that I had a gambling problem, too.”

Carol Ingrassia is coordinator of the Bettor Choice program at the Catholic Charities Monticello Campus (formerly the Recovery Center). She is the only counselor with Catholic Charities, at all its campuses, currently credentialed to deal with addictive grambling.

Jeff Skaar, director of operations at the Monticello campus, says five staff members are enrolled in credentialing classes at SUNY Orange, with five more to follow, so there will be trained gambling counselors at each Catholic Charities location. The state requires credentials as an Alcohol and Substance Abuse Counselor (CASAC) to add a G for gambling to the title.

This effort to add trained gambling counselors to the staff is a response to the much-anticipated opening of a casino in Sullivan County. But the Bettor Choice program, which Mary and Joyce utilize, has been around for 10 years. In that time, the state has added more Lottery games (the number one problem with problem gamblers), Quickdraw has become a staple in bars and diners and sports gambling has become increasingly popular. OTB has had its heyday.

With all that enticement to gamble, one might think there would already be a good supply of gambling counselors, but Skaar says, “Gambling counseling didn’t take off like the state anticipated, so it cut the funding.” But it kept adding Lottery games and now has approved five new casinos. “We’re hoping,” Skaar says, “that the state will recognize its role in providing local services near local gambling sites,” That’s key, he said, because, while people will travel to casinos from everywhere, services for problem gamblers won’t be available everywhere.

The Bettor Choice program currently has 10 clients. They have weekly individual meetings and one group meeting, as well as lectures. Mary heard about the program in a talk at a local health fair, part of Catholic Charities’ public outreach to let people know what help is available. She said the program worked for a while, then she went on vacation and gambled again. That prompted her to ban herself from the Racino and reacquaint herself with Bettor Choice.

Joyce, 55, is from Newburgh. She is in residential treatment in Monticello for her drug addiction, a three-to-six-month program. “Gambling is a trigger for my drug addiction,” she says. Such co-existing addictions are not uncommon. In addition to learning the triggers for their gambling, participants learn tools to help them adjust their behavior. For example, Joyce says, “Don’t carry money. Or, walk with friends to go past stores selling lottery tickets.” These are especially key at the beginning of recovery. Mary has had to find other activities with friends and at church to fill her time.

Catholic Charities gives a gambling screening test to all persons who come to its residential treatment center. “Lots of people who come to rehab are reluctant to admit to a gambling addiction,” Ingrassia says. “There’s a hierarchy of addictions. The legal ones -- alcohol and gambling -- are at the bottom. Addicts are less likely to admit to them.”

In fact, gambling is referred to as the “hidden addiction.” It’s legal. People like it. No one wants to admit he or she can’t handle their money. Compulsive gamblers tend to look down on people with other addictions, even though the damage they cause can be catastrophic to those close to them.

“It’s an immediate rush,” Skaar says. Even when they lose, “they feel there is one thing that will save them and the one thing is money. In gambling, there’s the belief that I’m going to get even and my troubles will be gone.”

The reality is that, too often, money doesn’t save them and, instead of their problems being gone, their family and their family’s money are.

Unfortunately, the “hidden addiction” also has a not-so-easy-to-find solution. Skaar says he has met with the people who run the Racino to let them know the Bettor Choice program exists. The state has a hotline that appears on every lottery ticket (Look hard; you’ll find it) and is included in every Lottery commercial. It’s also on every machine at the Racino. Still, Skaar hopes the state will do more, notably make facilities available statewide to help problem gamblers.

“People suffer in silence,” Ingrassia says. “Their bottom is lack of money.” She adds, “There’s a very high suicide rate among problem gamblers.”

Bob Gaydos is a freelance writer and editor. rjgaydos@gmail.com

FYI

-- Definition. Those who study and classify such behavior use the terms: Problem gambling; Compulsive gambling; Pathological gambling; Gambling disorder; and Gambling addiction. It’s all a matter of degree and whom you ask.

-- The National Council on Problem Gambling estimates that 2 to 3 percent of adults in the United States (about 9 million people) have serious problems with gambling. Another 3 million meet the criteria for “pathological” or “compulsive” gambling.

-- 48 states have some form of legalized gambling; 43 states have lotteries.

-- Catholic Charities (Recovery Center): 845-794-8080.

-- Gamblers Anonymous: Ingrassia says the 12-Step group has had difficulty keeping a meeting going in Sullivan County. The only meeting in the immediate area is at Vails Gate 4 Corners (next to the Firehouse). Mondays, from 7 to 9 p.m.

-- Gamblers Anonymous info: www.newyorkga.org;

or (855) 222-5542

-- New York State Hopeline: 1-877-8-HOPENY; for help with gambling and substance abuse problems. Under the auspices of the State Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Services: https://www.oasas.ny.gov/Gambling/index.cfm

-- New York Council on Problem Gambling: http://nyproblemgambling.org/.

Gamblers Anonymous 20 questions

---

1.	Did you ever lose time from work or school due to gambling?	Yes	No
2.	Has gambling ever made your home life unhappy?	Yes	No
3.	Did gambling affect your reputation?	Yes	No
4.	Have you ever felt remorse after gambling?	Yes	No
5.	Did you ever gamble to get money with which to pay debts or otherwise solve financial difficulties?	Yes	No
6.	Did gambling cause a decrease in your ambition or efficiency?	Yes	No
7.	After losing did you feel you must return as soon as possible and win back your losses?	Yes	No
8.	After a win did you have a strong urge to return and win more?	Yes	No
9.	Did you often gamble until your last dollar was gone?	Yes	No
10.	Did you ever borrow to finance your gambling?	Yes	No
11.	Have you ever sold anything to finance gambling?	Yes	No
12.	Were you reluctant to use "gambling money" for normal expenditures?	Yes	No
13.	Did gambling make you careless of the welfare of yourself or your family?	Yes	No
14.	Did you ever gamble longer than you had planned?	Yes	No
15.	Have you ever gambled to escape worry, trouble, boredom, loneliness, grief or loss?	Yes	No
16.	Have you ever committed, or considered committing, an illegal act to finance gambling?	Yes	No
17.	Did gambling cause you to have difficulty in sleeping?	Yes	No
18.	Do arguments, disappointments or frustrations create within you an urge to gamble?	Yes	No
19.	Did you ever have an urge to celebrate any good fortune by a few hours of gambling?	Yes	No
20.	Have you ever considered self-destruction or suicide as a result of your gambling?	Yes	No

According to GA, most compulsive gamblers will answer 'yes' to at least 7 of these questions.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com