Required reading: New food labels

The healthy shopper - 1

By Bob Gaydos

In a bow to reality, the Food and Drug Administration has proposed new requirements for nutrition labels on prepared foods and beverages. The changes are the first since the FDA began requiring the labels more than two decades ago. The proposals would give more prominence to total calorie content, rather than how many calories come from what kind of fat, and require companies to list how much sugar has been added to the product. The FDA also would require listing how much Vitamin D, dietary fiber, potassium, calcium and iron the product contains.

The agency is also proposing lowering the recommended daily sodium intake to 2300 milligrams from 2400, but is asking for comment on lowering it to 1500 milligrams, a level encouraged by many medical and health groups.

Finally, the proposed new labels would also have revised serving sizes for some products in the hope of more accurately reflecting the way people consume it. For example, a 12 -or-20 ounce bottle of soda would be considered one serving, not two, since most people typically consume the whole bottle. A pint of ice cream would be two servings, not four. This should make it easier to calculate how many calories people are actually consuming.

Some look at this action by the FDA as a recognition -- somewhat belatedly -- of Americans’ changing eating habits and a desire to provide more useful information for an increasingly label-reading population. Others see it as ignoring more important labeling issues, for example, clearly labeling what ingredients are good for consumers and which ones they should try to avoid.

Health advocates say that emphasizing specific ingredients on the label, as the FDA proposes, allows food companies to make front-of-the-product claims that suggest the product is healthful -- low in fat, high in fiber, rich in Vitamin C, for example -- when other ingredients -- salt and sugar for example -- may be present in less than healthful percentages.

Advocates for more healthful foods also suggest that instead of listing every different type of sugar on the label -- a practice that effectively hides the overall sugar content of many products -- it would be better to just list the total sugar content and for the FDA to issue a recommended daily amount for sugar intake. Clear front-of-the-package labels have also been urged as a way to help pressed-for-time shoppers make quicker, healthier choices.   

Some health advocates go so far as to suggest that the FDA require labels that classify the nutrients in a product in two easy-to- understand categories -- “get enough” and “avoid too much.” The FDA has actually offered that option in its proposed labeling changes.

In any case, whatever changes eventually come about on food labels, the challenging issue right now for many shoppers is the seemingly endless array of new information and products greeting them as they graze supermarket aisles. Never mind figuring out which brand gives you more for your money, today it can be tough trying to figure out exactly what you’re getting for your money and whether it’s as good for you as the label says.

In a series of occasional articles, I will try to take some of the mystery and confusion out of the new food shopping by answering such questions as: What’s gluten and do I need to be free of it? What’s a GMO? Is ‘’natural’’ always natural? What makes it “organic”? And what’s the controversy about palm oil?

*  *  *

For starters, since the FDA is recommending listing how much “added sugar” is in any product, but there’s no way to know when or if it will actually do so, it would be useful to be able to recognize the different names under which sugar travels on labels. Anyone concerned about how much sugar he or she consumes (which should be everyone), should know these aliases: sucrose, dextrose, maltose, lactose, high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, maple syrup, brown rice syrup, in fact, most words ending in “ose” or “syrup,” cane sugar, cane juice, honey, caramel, palm sugar, molasses, brown sugar, invert sugar, fruit juice concentrates, dextrin, malt, agave and other nectars, sorghum and treacle.

These are the most common aliases, but there are dozens of variations of sugar listed on labels. Any of these near the top of the list, means there’s a lot of sugar in the product. Several of these listed on the labels suggests the same thing. Be aware.

Next: What is gluten and should I be free of it?

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

So, you think you’re just a ‘heavy drinker’? Try this

My latest Addiction and Recovery column

By Bob Gaydos

“I’m not an alcoholic. Alcoholics have to go to those meetings. I’m just a heavy drinker.”
Maybe yes; maybe no. Either way, if you’re having this conversation with someone else, or just with yourself, it’s likely there are issues lurking that are related to your consumption of alcohol. As rules of thumb go, the one that says: “If drinking is causing problems in your life, it’s a problem,” is as reliable as it gets.
For those who describe themselves as “heavy drinkers,” it would probably be useful to know what health experts mean when they use the term, as well as possible risks involved in that pattern of behavior.
The Centers for Disease Control recently issued a report on heavy drinking which defined it as 15 or more drinks per week for men or eight or more drinks per week for women. That raised the limit by one drink per week in each case from standards issued by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. But, as some professionals in the field would say, if you’re counting drinks, there’s already a problem.
Of course, it’s important to know what is meant by a drink. A standard drink, according to the NIAAA is 1.5 ounces of hard liquor or brandy, 12 ounces of beer and five ounces of table wine. All alcohol has the same effect, regardless of the form. If your “standard” drink is larger, the total drink count will be higher. And, possibly, the risks.
It’s true, some people can drink more than others and not have problems as a result. It’s also true that at least 40 percent of Americans drink little or no alcohol at all. But for anyone describing himself or herself as a “heavy drinker,’’ the NIAAA says it matters how much you drink on any one day and how often you have heavy drinking days.
        Among those who have one heavy drinking day per month, the agency says one in five, or 20 percent, already have alcoholism or alcohol abuse. One heavy drinking day per week raises the odds to one in three. Two or more heavy drinking days per week, makes it 50 percent, according to the NIAAA.
        And so what? says the “heavy drinker.” I have a job. My family loves me. I’m young. Alcohol is good for the heart. I get good grades. I don’t drink any more than my friends do. If it becomes a problem, I’ll cut back.
        Again, maybe so. But also again, it’s good to know the risks involved with heavy drinking. There’s nothing new here. Heavy drinking increases the chances of being injured or killed in auto accidents, fires, drownings, or being the victim of an assault or suicide. It poses greater risk of liver disease, heart disease, depression, stroke, sexually transmitted diseases and more. It can pose a risk to the baby if a woman drinks during pregnancy and, just as with alcoholism, alcohol abuse -- or heavy drinking -- can cause legal problems, trouble in relationships and failure to meet responsibilities at work, school, home, etc.
        If you’re serious about wanting to know if you’re just a heavy drinker -- someone who can successfully manage his or her alcohol intake and even curtail it -- rather than someone who “needs to go to those meetings,” the NIAAA offers a test, as it were.
       For one week, with dinner, have one standard drink of wine or beer. Or if you prefer, one standard drink of hard liquor or brandy before dinner. That’s it. Nothing else. No changing drinks from day to day. The NIAAA says people who can take it or leave will have no problem. Alcoholics flunk.
       As always, the idea is not to judge or condemn, but rather to take an honest look at one’s drinking in the hope of avoiding or eliminating problems that can arise from the abuse of alcohol. A heavy dose of honesty can be the best medicine when substance abuse is in question.

rjgaydos@gmail.com
 

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