When police act like an occupying army

By Bob Gaydos

Heavily armed police confront protesters in Ferguson, Mo.

A white cop shoots and kills an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., and police respond to the ensuing peaceful demonstration with a massive display of manpower in riot gear. They are supported by armored vehicles mounted with heavy weaponry, lots of rifles and automatic weapons, tear gas, rubber bullets, and verbal threats to shoot anyone who dares resist. They arrest anyone with a camera, including journalists.

Suddenly, Americans notice that many of their police departments resemble occupying armies more than agencies charged with protecting and preserving the peace in their communities.

Where have you been, America? This has been going on -- gaining momentum, in fact -- for several years. Indeed, the militarization of domestic police forces and the use of modern military equipment and tactics played a major role in quelling the Occupy movement demonstrations a couple of years ago.

The Occupiers were unarmed private citizens, who gathered across the country, protesting the power and privilege large corporations and banks were given by Congress to use and abuse the economy to their benefit at the expense of individuals. The citizen protesters were treated by police as if they were terrorists. They were tear-gassed, Maced, had rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades fired at them. They were roughed up and arrested, all by local police armed with military grade weapons and supported by armored vehicles.

The military hardware came free, courtesy of a Congress looking to do something with surplus military equipment. (The idea of maybe spending less money on military equipment in the first place apparently has not occurred to the members.) Today, dozens of police departments across the country have such military gear at their disposal. What they apparently don’t have is the proper training to use such equipment appropriately and judiciously.

That is, like a police force dealing with private citizens exercising their constitutional rights to assemble, to speak, to report on the goings on, rather than like an army moving in with intimidating force, intent on quashing resistance in any and all ways. Those weapons, remember, are not intended just to scare. They are designed to kill.

But deadly force, or the threat of it, should not be the first option for a police force dealing with unarmed citizens and peaceful demonstrations. Yes, troublemakers need to be dealt with, but again, police should be trained to do that without automatically resorting to threats and aggressive actions against everyone. When protests are handled properly by police at the outset, there is less likelihood or opportunity for troublemakers to join in. The longer confrontations last and the more aggressive police action becomes, the more likely it is that things will get worse because of outside agitation.

But it’s almost as if, in putting on the new military gear and marching alongside armored vehicles, the mindset of the police changes from preserving the peace and protecting their fellow citizens to overpowering anyone who stands in their way.

In Ferguson, the obvious racism of the local police only increased the us-versus-them mentality. But even during the Occupy sit-ins, police seemed to forget that they were -- are -- us, and that the protesters were speaking on their behalf, too. The mission has been clouded.

There’s talk in Congress now of, not only stopping the giveaway of military hardware to police, but taking some of it back. Good luck with that. Some agencies might be able to admit they don’t really need it, but a lot of others are not going to want to give it up. And cops vote.

The Ferguson shooting and the abysmal handling of it by local authorities has led to a movement called “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” The Occupy community has been part of the coordination. This movement has been fueled by incidents elsewhere similar to that in Ferguson. It speaks to the breakdown of trust between blacks and police, something that was already badly strained.

And not all the incidents involved weapons. An unarmed black man died on Staten Island recently, apparently the result of a chokehold applied by a police officer. The hold has been banned for years by New York police. The man was selling loose cigarettes. Michael Brown, the youth shot in Ferguson, had shoplifted a box of cigars.

There’s obviously something more going on here. Taking the military hardware away from police may be a good start on reminding them of their mission, but massive retraining and serious recruiting of minorities would seem to be even more critical.

A caveat: Not all police departments behave the same way. It would behoove community groups, politicians, concerned citizens to identify those agencies that understand their role as police, not an occupying army, and that demonstrate the proper way to fulfill it. Use them as models to teach those that don’t. They can start in Ferguson.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Hillary and a bunch of GOP wanna-be's

By Bob Gaydos

Hillary Clinton

In recent months, thanks mainly to the Republican Party’s simple-minded policy of anything President Obama does or says we don’t like, I have been lulled into a state of who-gives-a-rat’s-patootie about politics. Really. What’s the point? He says shoot; they say war-monger. He says don’t shoot; they say coward. Hot? Cold. Higher minimum wage? Lower taxes on the rich.

Leave it to the Associated Press, apparently committed to the mission of tracking the stuff no one else cares about, to remind me that Americans have another presidential election coming up soon. Well, not really soon. It’s actually nearly two-and-a-half years from now, but, the AP tells me, there’s no time like the present to catch up on the “movements and machinations of more than a dozen prospective presidential candidates.”

More than a dozen? I was flabbergasted. I could think of two Democrats:

• Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, former senator from New York and former first lady is the odds-on favorite this far in advance of the vote to become the nation’s first woman president. She has the money, the machine, the name, etc. Although some people do hate her.
• Vice President Joe Biden, who may make a token run against Clinton, but is more likely to step aside as, say, president of the University of Delaware or assume an advisory role in a new Clinton administration.

But the AP tells me there are two other Democratic possibilities:

• Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York. No way. First of all, there is a Cuomo family tradition of not running for president. Second of all, Cuomo served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development in Bill Clinton’s presidency and so is unlikely to challenge the Clintons. Plus, he’s got time on his side and is a shoo-in for re-election as governor.
• Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland. O’Malley? Who? Maryland? Get real.

Why not Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who at least have national name recognition and ardent supporters? Next!

It’s on the Republican side, though, that I had real trouble grappling with what the AP tells me is reality. My political sensibilities were shocked into a state of numbness as I read the list of possible GOP presidential candidates. Could this possibly be the best the party of Lincoln had to offer? Would any of these men be competent to carry Ike’s golf clubs? I went through the list:

• New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The supposed “moderate” Republican. His staff shut down the George Washington Bridge to get even with a Democratic politician who wouldn’t support Christie. Everywhere he goes, he has to defend himself against charges of being a bully. Tries to act like a reasonable politician, until you disagree with him. Two-faced. “I Am Not a Bully” does not resonate the same way as “I Like Ike.”
• Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. It’s between him and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (see below) for dumbest on the list. Renounced his Canadian citizenship to make sure he could run for president, even though he didn’t have to. Canadian citizenship may have been the best thing about him. Led the campaign to shut down the federal government. He doesn’t believe in science or education or government, etc. Thus, a tea party darling. Some Republicans hate him.
• Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Again? Didn’t he demonstrate his intellectual shortcomings in the last campaign? Not big on science, education, health care. He likes to create lots of low-paying (minimum wage or less) jobs to brag about his state’s employment rate and visits other states to poach businesses. What is wrong with Texas?
• Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Another flameout from last time around. A president named “Bobby?” I don’t think so. Louisianans are among poorest, least educated, unhealthy people in country. He loves the oil industry (hello, Gulf of Mexico residents).
• Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. Actually supported immigration reform until tea party robots attacked him. Now he doesn’t talk about it. Gutsy. Like Jindal, he messed up a big opportunity to respond to President Obama’s State of the Union. Coming up small in big moments is not a desirable trait in a president.
• Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Again? Another loser from the GOP’s 2012 primary circus. He’s making Christmas movies. He criticized his own party. He’s a religious super-conservative. Why is he even on this list?
• Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. Okay, daddy was a Libertarian and son says he’s not. But he is. Which means there is no consistency. You will love him on some issues, hate him on others. Thinks employers have right to do pretty much anything with employees; opposes use of drones by government. He’s a favorite among tea partiers, for now. Wait until they ask him about penalizing people for smoking marijuana. Plagiarized other people’s words for his newspaper column. Unbending views are not a useful philosophy for governing, especially for the less-fortunate.
• Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. Mitt Romney’s losing running mate for the GOP in 2012. Authored draconian budget cuts in House of Representatives that hurt, yes, the poorest and least fortunate, but did negotiate compromise deal. A favorite of the Wall Street crowd that wrecked the economy. Sometimes irritates tea partiers, but that doesn’t take much. Presidential timber? Plywood.
• Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Hates unions. Is in midst of a scandal about government staff doing campaign work for him. In the Mitt Romney mode of good-looking and seemingly articulate, but had to survive a recall vote.
• Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. He’s a Bush. Two is enough. He believes in a sensible immigration policy, which means most Republicans will hate him. He’s on the list because he’s a Bush. We made that mistake already.

So that’s my take on the list of possible presidents, for now. You’ll notice no women on the Republican side. Some of the GOP names will, one hopes drop by the wayside between now and 2015. My even more fervent hope is that some more credible GOP candidates of substance will appear to challenge Clinton.

Maybe the AP can compile a list of those possibilities instead of following all these losers for two years.

 bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Give me a "D" for 'dumb,' Pat

By Bob Gaydos

Pat Sajak ... scientist?

It’s Pat Sajak’s fault.

For the past few years, I’ve been writing one opinion piece a week for a blog. It’s a way to keep doing in retirement what I did for more than 40 years for newspapers.

But I have been unable to form an opinion for three weeks -- ever since I read about Sajak tweeting about “global warming alarmists being unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends.”

This made no sense to me, starting with why the ever-smiling host of “Wheel of Fortune” had any reason to think his thoughts on global warming were worth sharing on Twitter in the first place.

But as I tried to set aside the Sajak incident, I found myself unable to find anything else that made sense to me. What the heck is wrong with this country? I wondered. What could I write about when what is supposedly the most technologically advanced society in history seems to be paralyzed by a combination of willful ignorance and abject laziness. Sajak Syndrome, if you will.

When did dumb become fashionable?

Pick a topic. Global warming? Pictures of the Arctic ice pack melting? Nearly 100 percent agreement among scientists that humans are destroying the planet’s atmosphere through extravagant, ignorant use of fossil fuels and cutting down of rain forests? That’s nonsense, the pundits on Fox News say. Wasn’t it cold this winter? Didn’t it snow? What the heck do scientists know?

If it were true, the Fox News folks would tell us, the Fox flock say. Really? When they’re being paid to lie? This is abject laziness on the part of the viewers and willful ignorance on the part of the bosses and staff and big money backers at Fox News. And sadly today, most of the Republican Party.

How do you reach people who don’t want to be reached, I wondered, people who are too lazy to question, who are so set in their own prejudices that they eagerly accept the drumbeat message that the man living in the White House is to blame for all that scientific foolishness and everything else that is wrong with this country?

Please, tell me again how racism is dead in America since we elected Barack Obama, a black man, to be president. Tell that to people whose voting rights are being stripped (by Republicans). Tell that to people of color in “Stand Your Ground” states. Check the arrest and imprisonment statistics on drug crimes.

Forgive me for jumping around here, but, as I said, I can’t figure out what to write about because there is so much insanity going on in this country. The bankers drove this country into a recession through shady deals and didn’t go to jail. Today, people who still can’t find jobs because of the recession are called lazy and Congress -- again, led by Republicans -- cuts money for food stamps for the poor and refuses to extend unemployment benefits to the unemployed or raise the minimum wage or expand benefits to veterans.

It also refuses to cut college students -- the future of this country -- a break on the interest rates on their back-breaking loans. The corporations, of course, still get their tax breaks and CEOs who drive companies into the red still get rewarded with lavish golden parachutes. And the boss of McDonald’s tells his employees to get another job to make ends meet because he can’t afford to pay them a living wage. To Fox News, this makes sense.

Did I mention guns? There is a shooting at a school or mall or other public place virtually every day now, but it’s not because guns are too easy to get, the willfully ignorant insist. No, the leaders of the NRA tell us that if we armed teachers and let everyone carry weapons openly there would be fewer shootings. Bring your guns to Chili’s and Target. More guns mean fewer shootings. Oh, and if you don’t feel like paying your share of income tax, hole up on your ranch with an arsenal and defy the federal government. Because you’re a patriot. Fox News will defend your “right.’’ This is insane.

Look at the food we eat. Well, actually, most of us apparently would rather not. Monsanto, a chemical company that controls the food supply, changes the genetic structure of basic foods. This allows companies to sell food cheaper because more crops grow in less space and the “food” lasts longer on shelves. That food is usually full of salt and sugar and chemicals, in addition to having its genetic structure changed.

No one knows the possible effects of genetically modified food, but Congress (Republicans, again) allows it -- won’t even require labeling of foods with GMOs -- because Monsanto is a very generous donor to political campaigns. Europe has banned GMOs. China, too, and other countries. But Fox closes its eyes and ears and shuts off its brain to the obvious questions -- willful ignorance -- and its sheep munch away on cheap, addictive food, raising health insurance costs as diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and weight-related illnesses increase. All the while, of course -- again at the instigation of Fox -- they are criticizing the president for trying to make health insurance more affordable for everyone.

There’s plenty more. We are a nation of immigrants that can’t come up with a reasonable immigration policy. We espouse freedom of religion, but in some areas of America it’s probably not wise to admit being Muslim. There is still some question among some conservatives as to who is responsible when a woman is raped. Evolution is considered by the willfully ignorant and abjectly lazy as a theory to be debated. But Noah and the Flood -- an undeniable fact.

The Internet gets blamed for a lot of the misinformation that is spread today. But the Internet is just a tool. People spread ignorance, out of fear, greed, selfishness, prejudice, envy, laziness. I think many of the commentators at Fox News are laughing all the way to the bank. They are getting rich by criticizing the poor. Others are simply willing to say whatever they are told to say to get a paycheck. Some are just nasty and don’t like people who are different from them. I think at times they all say stuff that they have to know can’t be true, but they do it anyway because that’s their job. There is really no excuse for people like this -- the willfully ignorant.

Why the Republican Party has allowed itself to be dragged down to this level, kowtowing to the frenzied anti-government, anti-Obama cries of the tea partiers, I don’t know. I suspect it has to do with race (the president’s) and with money -- who is providing how much of it to whom. Integrity is clearly not held in high regard in the GOP these days, at least not since it offered Sarah Palin as a person to be trusted a heartbeat away from the presidency.

That leaves the climate-change deniers (who also doubted the president’s birth certificate) who think anything they read on the Internet is true, except if it’s on an actual mainstream news site or one run by liberals. These are the abjectly lazy who wouldn’t check a fact put forth by Fox News even if their life depended on it. And sometimes it does.

So there’s my dilemma. I know what I have described here doesn’t apply to everyone in this country. My belief -- indeed, my fervent hope -- is that it doesn’t apply to a majority or even large minority of us. But Sajak Syndrome exists. So I will continue to write with that in mind and encourage others of like mind to do so as well. Far too many Americans have bought into the idea that dumb is good, up is down, black is white and what some politician said yesterday doesn’t have to make sense with what he or she says today.

Far too many, in other words, would rather think of renowned scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of “Cosmos” (on Fox TV no less) as a charlatan and liar when he describes the “Big Bang” theory and tells us that global warming is an issue that needs to be addressed seriously and immediately. On this issue, they’d rather trust the judgment of game show host Pat Sajak.

That’s where I came in.

Bob Gaydos can be reached at rjgaydos@gmail.com.

There's more to recovery than just not drinking

By Bob Gaydos

       

       You’ve heard it plenty of times. Maybe you’ve even said it yourself: “He/she stopped drinking (weeks/months/years) ago, yet he/she is still (pick your own adjective) an angry, irresponsible, lazy, careless, argumentative, moody, selfish, unpleasant person. Sometimes I wish he’d just drink again.”

No you don’t. 

The truth is, although significant advances have been made in understanding the physical and psychological characteristics of alcoholism and drug addiction and considerable improvement has been made in educating the general public about addiction, there remains plenty of confusion about the word “recovery.”

As the first paragraph suggests, it is not simply putting down the drink or the drug. Drinking or drug use are merely symptoms of a complex disease. Simply stopping the use of alcohol or drugs may result in some improvements in a person’s life, but abstinence is not recovery. It’s merely the necessary first step. 

        It’s true that some people can recognize a problem with their drinking, stop before it gets worse and go on to lead what might be considered “normal” lives. But some can’t. These are the ones who may have stopped because of pressure from loved ones, but who continue to behave as they did when they were drinking. They’re referred to as “dry drunks” by people who work in the field, meaning the only thing missing is the drink. 

        That’s what the various recovery programs and 12-step groups are all about -- giving alcoholics or drug addicts a way to live life without the substance and without feeling sorry for themselves. Recovery is not about trying not to drink or drug; it’s about changing the way you live your life.

         It isn’t surprising that the general public might be unclear about what recovery is. Until recently, there wasn’t a generally recognized definition for people who work in the field of substance abuse. In 2007, a panel formed by the Betty Ford Institute to suggest a definition of recovery came up with this: “Recovery from substance dependence is a voluntarily maintained lifestyle characterized by sobriety, personal health and citizenship.” Note the word “voluntarily.”

         A more detailed “working definition” of recovery was presented in May of 2011 by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which had been working on the question with others in the behavioral health field for several years. SAMSHA’s definition: “Recovery is a process of change whereby individuals work to improve their own health and wellness and to live a meaningful life in a community of their choice while striving to achieve their full potential.”

          Key words: “work;’’ “wellness;” “change;” “choice.”

SAMSHA also issued what it calls guiding principles of recovery. Again, for anyone who suspects he may have a drinking or drug problem, or for anyone who suspects a loved one may have a substance abuse problem, this is a suggested path beyond mere abstinence.

   

SAMSHA’S Principles of Recovery

• Person-driven
• Occurs via many pathways
• Is holistic
• Is supported by peers
• Is supported through relationships
• Is culturally based and influenced
• Is supported by addressing trauma
• Involves individual, family, and community strengths and responsibility
• Is based on respect
• Emerges from hope

SAMSHA also offers four “domains” that support recovery:

• Health: Overcoming or managing one’s disease(s) as well as living in a physically and emotionally healthy way.
• Home: A stable and safe place to live that supports recovery.
• Purpose: Meaningful daily activities, such as a job, school, volunteerism, family caretaking, or creative endeavors and the independence, income and resources to participate in society.
• Community relationships and social networks that provide support, friendship, love and hope.

       That’s a lot more than, “Hey, I put down the booze, so get off my back.” The professionals agree that recovery is an ongoing process, not a destination. While the journey is different for each individual, it shares common traits: The person has to want to change, not out of resignation to a miserable life without drink, but rather with hope for a more rewarding life, with the support and respect of others.

       Recovery is something to enjoy, not endure.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

  

  

A husband/father/ballplayer gets it

By Bob Gaydos

Victoria and Daniel Murphy
... proud new parents

        Witnessing the births of my two sons were moving experiences for me. I was a grab bag of emotions, equipped with a camera. Anxiety, impatience, excitement, irritability, awe, relief, exhilaration and happiness played tag at different times in my head. In the end, gratitude won out.
        It still does. I like being a father. I love my two sons and I am proud of them. Witnessing their entrances into the world was, for me, the right way to begin our lifelong relationships. I think being there is  important. Sure, their mother did the hard work, but I never felt my presence at their births was pro forma. You know, show up, look concerned, puff your chest out, then go hand out cigars and leave mother and child alone. Old-school fathering.
        It's not me.
        Daniel Murphy apparently isn't an old-school father either. Murphy plays second base for the New York Mets. He's an average second baseman, but one of the best hitters on the team. Instead of being with the team for Opening Day, Murphy, 29, took three days of paternity leave allowed major league ballplayers to be with his wife, Victoria, when she gave birth to their first child, Noah.
          For this, he was assaulted with a flood of criticism from -- not teammates, not fans, not baseball officials -- but by three egomaniacs on WFAN Radio and one on Fox News. They said Murphy should have checked in to see his first child born, then rushed to be back with his team. One day off tops, they said. None of this three-day paternity leave nonsense.
        Because, of course, missing a couple of games out of 162 is an act of disloyalty or lack of work ethic. Unmanly even. C'mon, Murph, hire a nanny, they said. Where are your priorities? You should be fielding ground balls, never mind being by your wife's side for the first three days of this exciting new chapter of your lives. This  is stupid personified.
       For the record, Murphy appears to be doing just fine in the stereotypical, outdated, macho, male-providing-for-the-family role that seems to underlie much of this criticism. He's getting paid $5.7 million this year by the Mets, which means, as one of his critics suggested, he could hire 20 nannies if he wanted to. The thing is, he apparently doesn't want to. He preferred to be at the hospital when his son woke up crying.
        "We had our first panic session," Murphy recalls. "It was dark. She tried to change a diaper, couldn't do it. I came in. It was just the three of us, 3 o'clock in the morning, all freaking out. He was the only one screaming. I wanted to."
        That's a memory he and his wife will always have and someday share with Noah. Nothing unmanly about it.
        But here's what Mike Francesa, the big name in WFAN Radio's lineup of sports personalities, had to say about Murphy's decision:  "I don't know why you need three days off, I'm going to be honest. You see the birth and you get back. What do you do in the first couple days? Maybe you take care of the other kids. Well, you gotta have someone to do that if you're a Major League Baseball player. I'm sorry, but you do " Your wife doesn't need your help the first couple days, you know that."
         There's more: "One day, I understand. Go see the baby be born and come back. You're a Major League Baseball player, you can hire a nurse to take care of the baby if your wife needs help ... What are you gonna do? Are you gonna sit there and look at your wife in the hospital bed for two days?"
        Well, at least we know what Francesa did when his son was born. Wonder what his wife thought about that.
        Boomer Esiason, who also hosts a show on WFAN, went so far as to suggest that Murphy should have told his wife to have a Caesarean section before the season started so he wouldn't have to miss Opening Day. After all, the former pro football quarterback said, baseball pays Murphy well, so he should make baseball his priority. (Note: Victoria Murphy, in fact, gave birth via Caesarean section and Esiason apologized a day later.)  
        Esiason's partner on the morning radio talk show, Craig Carton, was his usual crass self: "You get your ass back to your team and you play baseball " there's nothing you can do; you're not breastfeeding the kid."
        I stopped listening to WFAN's morning show years ago when Carton was teamed with Esiason because I thought Carton was the most misogynistic, immature excuse for a radio sports host I had ever heard. He was insulting, crude, sexist, arrogant and not especially knowledgeable about sports either. This incident only solidifies my opinion and I think he continues to be an embarrassment for WFAN, but maybe his bosses don't care.
         Let's not let Fox News host Gregg Jarrett of the hook. Here's what he had to say about Murphy's paternity leave. "He's rich. He could have like 20 nannies taking care of his tired wife, and he's got to take off two days? It's absurd. It's preposterous."
          No, Gregg, it's about being a father first, not a baseball player. Talk about priorities. Imagine this scenario: It's Noah's 20th birthday. Mom is recalling that second day in the hospital when, all of a sudden, the infant's temperature started rising. Nurses were rushing around and calling for a doctor. She was trying to stay calm, she says, but was really scared to death. "What about you, Dad?" asks Noah. "I was grounding into a double play in Queens," he replies.
          Fortunately, that didn't happen. Instead, Murphy was there to share the first diaper-changing "emergency" with Victoria.
         Not everyone thought Murphy did the wrong thing. Mets fans, his manager and teammates all supported Murphy's decision to take the full paternity leave. Major League Baseball, in fact, is among the few employers in the United States that allow paid paternity leave -- a situation that begs changing -- and about 100 ballplayers have reportedly taken advantage of it since their union got it written into their contract three years ago.
         It makes sense. Baseball players are undeniably well paid. But they are also away from their families for much of the time for eight months in the year. Half of their games are played away from home. Three days out of a 162-game season is a pittance. And for Murphy to be criticized for missing games is absurd since he played in 161 of the Mets' 162 games last year, often with injuries. He's what they call a "gamer."
         (In my case, paternity leave was not available, but I had an understanding boss who let me spend as much time as needed with my sons and their mother. Besides, my work was a 10-minute drive from home; Murphy's son was born in Florida and the Mets were playing in New York. A tough commute.)
        Taken aback by the harsh criticism, Murphy described his decision simply: "We felt the best thing for our family was for me to stay." That says it all.
         In fact, the Murphys made the best choice possible. When my sons were born, they were handed to me soon after the umbilical cord was cut and tied. In the days that followed, there was a lot of holding, humming and touching. There are scientific studies connecting that early skin-to-skin contact of father and child with the production of oxytocin, a hormone that enhance the bonding process for both.
       Other studies show positive psychological benefits for the mother, knowing she is supported at this critical time and, in turn, for the health of the newborn. Even more studies suggest that having a nurturing father/child relationship from birth has positive results on the child's future emotional development as well as the relationship between father and mother.
       In sum, science and much of society have for some time  abandoned the old-school fathering of Francesa et al in favor of a more involved, more nurturing role for Dad because the whole family benefits from it.
      Meanwhile, while Murphy was being criticized for wanting to be with his wife in the first three days of their son's life, other ballplayers who had taken performance enhancing drugs -- cheated -- were being greeted back from their 50-game suspensions. Pro football and basketball players continue to be arrested for assaulting their wives or girlfriends. The New York Jets recently signed quarterback Michael Vick, who served time in prison for running a dog-fighting enterprise.
          These are the role models professional sports have offered to today's youth for much too long. Rich, macho, spoiled, selfish, arrogant, self-centered, young men.
          Murphy returned to the Mets after three days with his wife and son, was cheered by fans and singled in his first at bat. He'll be able to tell Noah that story some day.
          Way to go, Murph.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Socety is still out of touch with the reality of addiction

(My latest Addiction and Recovery column.)

By Bob Gaydos

Philip Seymour Hoffman
 ... on the cover of Rolling Stone

        The congenital disconnect between much of society and the reality of addiction reappeared recently with the death of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, apparently due to an overdose of heroin.
The Oscar-winning actor was found dead in his Manhattan apartment with a needle in his arm and bags of what was believed to be heroin nearby, according to police. Almost immediately, the familiar reactions were heard: How could he? He was so talented, so  admired, so wealthy, had so much to live for. He had been to rehab and he was sober more than 20 years. How could he risk it all for a fleeting high? And with heroin no less. Who does heroin today?
Apparently, aside from Hoffman and the late Amy Winehouse, a lot of people. And not just the down-and-out addicts who were once the stereotype for what some considered to be “serious” addiction, as opposed to what, one presumes, were considered less serious forms, like addiction to alcohol or cocaine. Addiction pecking order aside, today’s heroin user is just as likely to be your neighbor’s teen-aged son or daughter as a famous actor or singer.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which tracks drug use in this country, says a recent survey showed a more than 100 percent increase in the use of heroin in the United States between 2002 and 2012. Slightly less than half a million people were regarded as heroin dependent. How pervasive is it? The states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont (so much for stereotypes) report serious problems with heroin addiction and overdoses and deaths as a result of heroin use. Heroin use is up in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, name a state.
          Much of this increase is tied to the abuse of prescription pain killers, such as Oxycodone, Oxycontin, Vicodin and Percocet, which are opiates, like heroin. Concern over the over-prescription of such drugs and the growing use of them by teenagers who simply took them from their parents’ medicine cabinet, has made it more difficult to get the pills and to crush them for snorting. This makes them more expensive. In comparison, heroin on the street is much cheaper.
        And, quite possibly, much deadlier. Police are examining the many bags of heroin they found in Hoffman’s apartment, among other reasons, to learn if the heroin had been cut with another substance -- a dangerous synthetic heroin” that has emerged -- or if it were too pure. Heroin is not only one of the most addictive drugs, it reacts quickly on the brain, sometimes giving the user insufficient time to react to a bad batch.
Does any of this explain why Hoffman -- famous and sober -- decided to try heroin? No. Relapse, as professionals in the substance abuse field explain, starts in the addict’s brain, with changes in attitudes, behavior, a relaxing of diligence. Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in commenting on Hoffman’s death, said, “You need continued awareness of the possibility of relapse. No matter how long you’ve been clean, if you take the drug, you’re at high, high risk of relapse.” Meaning, if you think you can take “just one more hit,” you’re probably delusional and definitely risking your life.
Addiction is considered a chronic, incurable disease because once the brain is reintroduced to the addictive substance -- alcohol, heroin, cocaine -- it can quickly return to its old ways. Addicts often say that when they started using their drug of choice after a period of abstinence, they were right back where they left off, or worse. This is why abstinence and continued treatment, be it therapy or a 12-step program, is recommended for recovery. A change in lifestyle and constant awareness are the keys, the experts say. Over time, the approach may gradually change, but as Volkow reminds, an addict can never forget what he is. And society would do well to remember as well.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

The new 'breakfast of champions'

By Bob Gaydos

The breakfast of champions
                                              IR photography

“Here it is,” she said with a smile, “the breakfast of champions.”

No, it wasn’t a bowl of Wheaties with a banana sliced on top. It was, check it out: A bowl of coconut/vanilla Greek yogurt, two sliced bananas, a big bunch of halved, red globe grapes with seeds, a mound of whole ground flaxseed meal, a healthy serving of blended trail mix (almonds, cranberries, cherries, raisins and pistachios), and a generous topping of chocolate granola (ingredients to come later).

Breakfast was sweet, rich, juicy, crunchy, delicious and filling. My breakfast partner does not skimp on the portions. And, by the way, it was incredibly good for my health.

When I decided for health reasons to move away from a diet centered on meat and fried foods to one focused more on plants, my major concerns were that I would be able to eat enough to feel full and energetic and that I would find enough food that I actually liked.

No problem, thanks again in large measure to my breakfast partner. And it hasn’t been a problem since I made the decision. What it has been is a gradual process of becoming accustomed to, not necessarily foods that are new to me, but a new way of looking at some familiar foods and a new way of making them part of my regular diet.

I now eat lots of rice and beans and greens and baked potatoes and sweet potatoes and fruits and vegetables. Also some pasta. Pizza is still on the menu. I also eat vegetarian versions of meatballs, bacon, sausage, turkey with all the vegetables, etc. No portion control. Again, the tastes are a bit different, but delicious. It’s all in the way the food is prepared. That, to me, is mind over matter. I think we are conditioned from earliest days to think about certain foods in a certain way and, after a while it becomes automatic -- so, lots of red meat is good, vegetables are wussy.

I’ve said it before, but I will repeat myself: I’m not crusading here. I don’t begrudge anybody eating whatever they choose (not entirely true -- horses are not for eating). However, since my dietary changes, I’ve become increasingly aware of the strong contradiction in what many people say about their desire to be healthier (to lose weight, to have more energy, to feel stronger) and the food they actually eat. So I write about what I’m going through to maintain my own awareness and, maybe, let someone who’s contemplating a similar change know that it’s possible and not necessarily painful.

There’s a slowly growing awareness among Americans for the need to eat more healthful foods, foods free of chemicals and so-called “natural” added ingredients. You can see this in expanded organic food sections at supermarkets and half-hearted attempts by some fast-food chains to offer what they regard as healthier choices. When the monied interests -- the corporations that control our food supply -- start offering more choices, even though they may exaggerate their health benefits, I think it’s a good first step. They're starting to pay attention..

It’s also a signal for consumers to start insisting on more such choices and at more reasonable prices. It seems to me that companies should not get rich by offering lots of cheap food that isn’t good for our health (and may actually be bad for our health) while pricing nutritious, tasty food out of the reach of far too many people. History tells us that, greed being what it is, this corporate mindset won’t change unless enough customers insist on it by spending their food money differently. By putting our money where our mouths are and by insisting that elected officials do more to protect the food supply rather than the food suppliers, we might actually be able to help ourselves become healthier.

Back to the breakfast of champions. It satisfies the various food pyramids’ daily recommendations on fruits, nuts, seeds and dairy in one sitting. It is full of super foods:

• Greek yogurt: Loaded with protein, Vitamin B12 and calcium. Also has potassium, B-6 and magnesium.
• Bananas: Good for Vitamin B-6, Vitamin C and potassium. Also magnesium and dietary fiber.
• Red grapes: Source of resveratrol, which helps dilate blood vessels, which can lower blood pressure. Also may help weight loss by reducing cells’ ability to store fat.
• Flaxseed meal: Soluble and insoluble fiber. Studies suggest flaxseed as regular part of a diet lowers bad cholesterol and increases good cholesterol. Has lignans, natural anti-oxidants that protect against unchecked cell growth. Source of alpha-linolenic acid, or omega-3, which can help provide healthy cholesterol levels, reduce cell inflammation (by supporting the integrity of cell membranes of vital organs, thereby protecting the body against disease). Also may lower blood pressure. Studies suggest flaxseed may help protect against some forms of cancer, decrease menopausal symptoms and reduce blood sugar.
• Trail mix: Good source of Vitamin E, manganese, copper and magnesium (important minerals often neglected in many diets). Also a source of potassium and dietary fiber.
• Chocolate granola: Among other things, it contains whole grain oats, ground flax seeds, rice and soy lecithin, an emulsifier that keeps the blood slippery.

Full disclosure, the chocolate granola, being a commercial product, contains sugar and cane juice. But people are free to mix their own granola. Like I said, I’m no purist, just a guy trying to live a longer, healthier life. One spectacular breakfast at a time.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com