16 years ... still waiting for Hillary

By Bob Gaydos

Hillary Clinton

Back in 2000, I was writing editorials for The Times Herald-Record, a daily newspaper based in Middletown, N.Y., Daniel Patrick Moynihan was getting ready to retire from an illustrious career in the United States Senate and Hillary Clinton was packing her bags to move out of the White House.

My activity was part of a well-established routine. Moynihan’s was the logical culmination of a long career in public service to the state of New York. Clinton's, in a way, was both. Her bag-packing was part of a well-established career plan and the culmination of eight adventurous  years as First Lady. And, the story goes, it had nothing to do with any questionable behavior on her husband’s part. 

It turned out the Clintons, in looking for a place to live when Bill’s final term as president ended, had found a cozy, little 11-room château in Westchester County, in New York. It was perfect for the ex-prez and the soon-to-be-junior senator from the state of New York. That was the next step in the well-established plan. Fulfilling the residency requirement.

The fact that neither Clinton had ever lived in New York was never a major problem in Hillary’s senate campaign since New Yorkers had famously welcomed that carpetbagger Bobby Kennedy when he decided he would like to be United States senator from New York before running for president. Now, I saw and heard Bobby Kennedy and trust me, Hillary Clinton never was and never will be a Bobby Kennedy.

Nevertheless, the Clintons were warmly welcomed in New York and Hillary was accepted as a candidate for the United States Senate. Her credentials as soon-to-be-former First Lady were enough.

Funny, in many ways that hasn't changed in 16 years. Her campaign for president today relies to a large extent on a hurry-up resume that sounds a whole lot better than it really is. It's not for nothing that the words “entitled” and “inevitability” are frequently attached to Clinton’s name.

In any event, there I was, pounding out editorials on a daily basis, there went Pat, as he was called, holding farewell audiences with newspaper editorial boards, and here came Hillary. Except that she never came. If you think elephants have long memories, beware of editorial writers who feel snubbed.

As part of her introduction to New York, Clinton conducted what was called a listening tour. She would travel across the state, she said, to find out what was important to people in the state she knew next-to-nothing about, but which she longed to represent in the United States Senate. 

A routine element of most political campaigns is meeting with editorial boards of newspapers, to hear what’s on their minds, to get out the candidate’s message and maybe get an endorsement. In 2000, I had numerous telephone conversations with a woman in Clinton’s campaign who politely assured me, every single time, that “Mrs. Clinton definitely wants to meet with The Record. We’re just figuring out the scheduling.” Or words to that effect.

They’re apparently still figuring it out.

In a major break from the paper’s liberal tradition, The Record wound up endorsing Clinton’s Republican opponent, Rick Lazio, whom she soundly trounced in the election. (Lazio replaced Rudy Giuliani, who withdrew because of marital problems and prostate cancer.) The editorial board’s thinking was that: 1.) Lazio took the time show up; 2.) he answered all our questions apparently as honestly as possible and; 3.) as a member of Congress already, he knew he state’s issues and was capable of handling the job.

Then there was 4.) If Hillary was too important to meet with The Record, how could we be sure she would have the best interests of the residents of the Hudson Valley and Catskills in her consciousness. After all, we were the largest circulation newspaper in the region.

I can already hear the cries of “sour grapes” and that’s OK, because this is not about 2000. It’s about 2016 and the still overwhelming impression in much of the news media that Hillary Clinton regards having to answer questions and explain herself as a major insult, never mind inconvenience. You can be sure her meeting with our editorial board, had it occurred, would have been respectful, but not fawning. Indeed, if her crack staff was as good as advertised in doing its homework, I would not be surprised if they discovered a piece in the New York Post in 1990, in which a former gubernatorial candidate, Pierre Rinfret, called us the “most rude, obnoxious” group he had ever encountered. Or words to that effect.

That’s because Rinfret had no idea what he was talking about and was constantly asked to explain or clarify his remarks.

Hillary Clinton, in my experience, does not like being asked to explain herself. She appears to want to be accepted as is simply because she is. Has she changed sides on an issue? Don’t ask.

A major talking point among her supporters in this presidential campaign is that she knows how to get things done. (The implication being that Bernie Sanders, with a lifetime in government and public service, does not.)

Well, as First Lady, she totally blew Bill’s attempt at universal health care. She supported his tough anti-crime bill, which she now take pains to point out was signed by him, not her. Welfare reform? Same thing. As secretary of state, she helped Barack Obama make Libya a mess, but again, he made the decisions, she reminds us, not she. That Pacific trade bill, Madame Secretary? Barack’s baby.

Which brings me back to New York state, where I still live and write, though not on a daily basis any more. Hillary Clinton served one six-year-term as senator and two years of a second term. Then she quit to run for president because, well, there was a timetable to honor. (Obama messed it up. Now Bernie’s trying to do the same.) But, unless I was in a blackout for eight years, I cannot think of a single major “thing” she “got done” for New Yorkers in that time.

And to this date, I’m not aware that she has ever set foot in Middletown.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

In a fog of fiction, Sanders offers truth

By Bob Gaydos

Bernie Sanders

Thank god for Bernie Sanders.

You can make that an uppercase God if you prefer. Or keep it lowercase. You can take that sentiment ecumenically, evangelically, spiritually, atheistically, or any manner of religiously. But know this, wherever you place your faith, you must take that sentiment seriously.

Bernie Sanders is the saving grace in what has to be the most embarrassing, humiliating, disheartening and frightening presidential campaign, possibly in our nation's history.

Quite simply, Sanders is the only candidate in either party who is genuine. When he speaks, I believe him. Millions believe him, because he has no hidden agenda, he is beholden to no one, he has a long history of caring and working for people to whom life has not been kind and for challenging those who have always wanted more than their fair share. A mensch.

In comparison, the Republican campaign has featured a collection of liars, misfits, religious zealots, bigots, charlatans, incompetents and people who cannot spell, much less demonstrate, compassion. It has culminated in Donald Trump, one of the most dangerous, embarrassing figures to emerge in American politics. He is a fascist, racist, misogynist, bully, lawyer, buffoon, and con man. A reality TV show star with no idea how government works, but plenty of experience in driving businesses into bankruptcy. He is probably a certifiable narcissist. And apparently, there is no one in his life who has the guts to say any of this to his face.

His candidacy has allowed all the ugly elements in American society, many of whom reside in the Republican Party, to feel free to voice their hate publicly, to assault and threaten those they fear or those who disagree with them, and, incredibly, to believe that their candidate has any respect for them and their needs. Trump, who makes it up as he goes along, has admitted his supporters come from the least-informed element of society. His campaign, in fact, represents the culmination of decades of cynical posturing by and catering to this element, and now appears to be the demise of, the Republican Party as a responsible political party. It is long overdue.

Not one of the Republican candidates -- still standing or fallen by the wayside -- can hold a candle to Sanders and not one of them deserves a vote to be president of the United States of America. They are, in toto, a disgrace.

However, the real challenge to Sanders comes not from the Republicans, but from within his own party. The Democratic establishment long ago decided that Hillary Clinton should be its candidate for president this time and has done everything within its power to try to make that happen. This includes setting up a ridiculously limited and unattainable schedule of debates and lining up hundreds of superdelegates to announce their support for her even before a primary was held. 

This was undoubtedly done to try to overcome Clinton's well-known handicaps: 1) The fact that she is a lousy campaigner; 2) The reality that a lot of people don't trust her; and 3) The Clinton history of being very cozy with the people responsible for nearly ruining the nation’s economy.

Forget that, her supporters say. She gets things done. What it is she's gotten done is never mentioned.

Still, the fact is she leads Sanders in delegates won in the primaries so far and, even with her faults, she is still head and shoulders above any of the Republicans in the race.  This means, however much I respect and prefer Sanders as a presidential candidate, if Clinton is the Democratic Party nominee, I personally have to vote for her against any Republican. It also means I cannot write in a vote for Sanders or anyone else as a protest, because I honestly fear that taking votes away from a Democratic candidate could lead to something as disastrous as a Trump presidency or a Ted Cruz presidency or anyone-else-the-Republican-Party-settles-on presidency. I fear what will happen to this country if a Republican wins the presidency this year and I think the only way to get that message across to a party that has been in denial for decades is to thoroughly defeat it in November. Then let it figure out where to go from there.

It’s not a total sellout. Mitigating my vote for Clinton would be the fact that she actually knows how government works and, as president, she would have a working, viable, responsible political party behind her, a party still on working terms with compassion and science and equality and still dedicated to governing, not merely winning. And that party would have a Bernie Sanders and an Elizabeth Warren and plenty of others in Congress reminding a President Clinton of the promises she made during her campaign to convince all those young, disaffected voters that she could deliver what Bernie Sanders was promising.

Thankfully, though, this campaign is far from over. There are many primaries in northern and western and big states where Sanders has considerable support and could easily win enough delegates to capture the nomination. Bill Clinton did it. Barack Obama did it. Bernie Sanders can do it.

But he’s got another major challenge to overcome in addition to that from within his own party. That is the disrespect shown him by much of the major news media. Despite the tens of thousands who have attended his rallies and donated to his no-Pacs campaign, many news organizations have treated him as an afterthought and a Clinton campaign for president as a foregone conclusion.

That same media also gave Trump free rein to spew his vile hatred and nonsense for months before finally wising up to him. (And it’s not just Fox News that was guilty of this.) The media will have some soul-searching to do after this campaign as well.

So, I look forward to Sanders winning some big states (Hello, California!). And I expect Trump to continue to behave as Frank Bruni put it in the New York Times recently -- like an addict who only wants more and more and more attention and will do or say anything to get it. That was my impression of Trump a while back, but Bruni beat me to it in putting it in writing. I agree wholeheartedly with him.

Indeed, I think of Trump as the guy sitting next to you in a bar who turns to you and says, "Hold my beer. Watch this." He then proceeds to wreck the joint and bloody every person in the place. He exits with a triumphant grin, claiming it was the other guy's fault.

Clinton, of course, wouldn't be caught dead in a bar, much less drinking beer. She would be found sipping wine or martinis in an Upper East Side penthouse with some Wall Street types who are funding her campaign. They're talking about how to get the vote of the common folk.

Sanders? He walks into a bar and says, "Hey, let me buy you a beer. Let's sit down. What can I do for you?"

If I were a drinking man, that's the guy I would want in the White House.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

GMOs: Food fight becomes war of words

The Savvy Shopper

By Bob Gaydos

The non-GMO label is showing up
 on more food products.

The most contentious food-fight on the planet has been transformed into a war of words. Actually, letters. Three of them: GMO. They stand for genetically modified organism.

The battle is being waged in Congress, state legislatures and via social media. The question -- whether food producers should be required to put those three letters on labels of products that have been genetically modified.

Boiled down, the argument goes like this:

• Producers of genetically modified seeds and companies that use GMOs in the foods they produce say extensive scientific research has shown the food to be as nutritious as non-GMO foods and safe for human and non-human consumption, so there is no need to label them.
• A diverse coalition, which includes organic farmers, scientists, doctors, Consumers Union, community organizations, and a host of internet sites devoted to nutrition, healthful eating, food safety, and the public’s right to know, say GMO science is still too new to be decreed safe in the long term. Besides, they ask, if it’s safe, why not give consumers a conscious choice in what they eat by labeling genetically modified food?

A lot of money has been spent lobbying members of Congress to  

oppose mandatory labeling of GMOS, and even to prohibit farmers from suing Monsanto, the largest producer of GMO seeds, over its requirement that farmers buy new GMO seeds from the company every year. Last year, the House of Representatives passed what labeling proponents dubbed the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know Act). Local Reps. Sean Maloney, D-18th District, and Chris Gibson, R-19th District, both opposed the bill, which would have preempted a state’s right to require labeling of GMOs. However, under pressure in December to get a budget bill passed to avoid another government shutdown, the House did not include the GMO measure in its final omnibus budget bill. With the Senate also approving the budget bill and President Obama signing it into law, advocates of GMO labeling took this as a victory in the ongoing battle.

In yet another victory for the advocates of mandatory labeling, Campbell Soups, a major food company, recently announced it would no longer oppose such labeling, It said it has withdrawn from the food industry campaign for voluntary labeling and is urging a national standard, to avoid confusion for consumers. CEO Denise Morrison said the company is not “disputing the science of GMOs or their safety.” But, she added, GMOS have become a major issue with consumers and, “We have always believed that consumers have the right to know what’s in their food.” She said if a federal standard isn’t established “in a reasonable amount of time,” Campbell’s would begin labeling its own products, which include Pepperidge Farm, Prego, Swanson and SpaghettiOs.

Meanwhile, the legal status quo remains and states are free to pass laws requiring labeling of GMO foods. Vermont is the only state to have enacted such a law. Maine and Connecticut have passed similar laws that go into effect when enough neighboring states do likewise. Vermont’s law is scheduled to go into effect in July. Labeling laws are currently being considered in many other states and the issue is also far from dead in Congress.

So, what’s a health-conscious, label-reading shopper to do in the meantime when the label may be no help on GMOs? For one thing, get enough information about the subject. That can help make for more-informed choices at the supermarket or farmer’s market, no matter what the politicians do. The following may help.

• What are GMOS? GMOs are seeds whose genes have been altered in a laboratory to change certain properties. Generally, proponents of GMOs say they are more resistant to extreme weather and pesticides, are able to produce a higher yield in smaller acreage and have a longer shelf life. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a GMO apple that supposedly won’t turn brown when sliced and a potato that resists bruising. These are not in wide use. (The FDA also recently approved a GMO salmon. See sidebar.) Opponents say they are concerned about GMOs contaminating nearby conventional crops or posing serious health problems since they contain the chemical pesticide to which they have been made resistant. They also say GMOs allow for wider use of pesticide spraying of crops.
• How much of our food is genetically modified? Lots. Maybe 90 percent of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States are genetically modified. Other major GMO crops are cotton, squash, canola, papaya and sugar beets. Since several of these crops are common ingredients in packaged foods, it’s estimated that 75 percent or more of processed food products in the U.S. contain GMOs. More food companies have begun to voluntarily include “Non-GMO” or other similar information on their labels.
• Do other countries require labeling of GMO foods? Yes. Australia, Russia, most of Europe, Iceland, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have stringent labeling laws, according to the Center for Food Safety. Others that have labeling requirements include  Brazil, China, Japan, South Africa and South Korea.
• How do I tell what’s true about GMOs and what’s not if I check on the Internet? Good luck. This debate changes every day, with major corporations spending millions of dollars in advertising, lobbying and research grants to scientists to bolster their arguments and organic food organizations and consumer groups spending considerably less money, but no less energy, in an effort to counter them. This is why labeling has become the focal point of the controversy.  

Maire Ullrich is the go-to GMO person at Cornell Cooperative Extension in Middletown, N.Y. As agriculture program leader, she offers interested groups a 40-60 minute talk on GMOs. She says the agency takes no position on GMOs. “There’s no good data that says it’s not safe,” she says, “but you still have a choice to be an educated consumer. People need to be really wise to the back of the package, not just read the labels on the front” if they want to know what they’re eating,

For example, she cited a product label boasting of non-GMO oil. But that oil was only 5 percent of the oil in the can. The other 95 percent was canola, which was modified.

Ullrich says most of the produce at local stores and farmers markets is non-GMO (“there are no GMO onions”) because of “the pushback from consumers.” She says farmers are more reluctant to grow GM crops. “Of course, if it’s labeled organic, you know it’s not GMO.”

“Part of what I teach is that if you want to use labels, you have to be scientific in your argument,” she says. “Is it your right to know growing practices and ingredients? Argue for consumer knowledge and transparency. If you don’t like the economics behind GMOs, it’s OK to say so.”

As for that GMO potato, “It’s been an abject failure,” she says. “McDonald’s wouldn’t buy it.” The non-bruising GMO apple? Ullrich says, “If McDonald’s won’t buy a GMO potato, do you think they’ll buy a GMO apple for a kiddie meal?” Both will wind up being processed for other, less obvious, uses.

Meanwhile, the food fight continues.

Bob Gaydos is a freelance writer. He can be reached at rjgaydos@gmail.com

Is it really a salmon?

The $1.1 trillion budget bill passed by Congress in December also contained another significant victory for proponents of GMO labeling. In it, Congress instructed the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the sale of GMO salmon until the agency creates labeling guidelines and a program to disclose to consumers whether a fish has been genetically altered. The FDA in November approved salmon as the first genetically modified animal safe for human consumption. It required no labeling of the Atlantic salmon produced by AquAdvantage.

The salmon contains a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon and a gene from the ocean pout. The modification reduces the time required for the fish to grow large enough for consumption to 18 months instead of the usual three years. The fish is also considerably larger than the average salmon.

Critics of the product and commercial fisherman raise the same questions posed about GMO vegetables and fruits: Is the fish safe to eat and what might happen if the fish escapes from its breeding tanks into the environment and mates with wild salmon?

AquAdvantage says the fish are safe to eat, are all sterile females and its land-based breeding areas are secure.

While it is unclear when the fish might be ready for sale, some food chains, including Whole Foods, Target, Trader Joe’s and Aldi, have said they will not sell it. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who fought for the labeling language, said, "There's a question as to whether this fish should even be called a salmon. The FDA made no mandatory labeling requirement. Instead, they said it could be labeled voluntarily. But no manufacturer of a 'Frankenfish' is going to label it as such. ... At least now people will have the opportunity, the chance, to know what it is that they are purchasing."

More info

To schedule a talk on GMOs, Maire Ullrich, agriculture program leader at Cornell Cooperative Extension, Orange County, can be reached at:

-- mru2@cornell.edu

-- (845) 344-1234

Speaking out in support of recovery

Addiction and Recovery column

By Bob Gaydos

One of the rituals of the state Legislature is Advocacy Day, when groups from around the state descend on Albany to try to convince legislators to pass laws or allocate funds to aid the group’s particular cause. On such days, when time with legislators or their aides is at a premium, it pays to have a clear voice and a distinct mission.

But that’s not enough. On a recent trip to Albany, a new local group was told by one of the region’s legislators, “You don’t have a constituency.”

Cold, hard fact: A good cause isn’t enough to pry money or legislation out of the Legislature. You need a large enough group of citizens -- voters -- who support your cause.

For addicts, families and friends of addicts, people in the addiction treatment field, this constituency has been hard to come by. By and large, addiction (which includes alcoholism) has been looked upon as a behavioral issue or a crime issue, rather than a mental health issue. It is easy enough to get laws passed regulating the use of drugs, but extremely difficult to get laws passed and money dedicated to promoting treatment and recovery programs for those who become addicted to them.

It’s the stigma attached to the disease. Because of much of the harmful behavior associated with it -- symptoms of the disease -- addiction has until recently been treated in the shadows, something to be hidden, not talked about, cloaked in shame. Recovery, especially long-term recovery, has not even been part of the conversation. Many people not familiar with addiction don’t even know it is possible.   

The group that visited Albany recently is part of a movement that is trying to change all that. It’s called Friends of Recovery Orange. There are similar groups in nearby counties and a statewide Friends of Recovery New York. They are made up of people affected by addiction in one way or another who want to give voice to the idea that recovery is real and possible and, indeed, something to be celebrated in society.

At a recent meeting, some members discussed why they decided to join the movement. Elizabeth, from Port Jervis, said, “I have a child who is an addict. It started with pain killers. There’s been jail, drugs, a vicious cycle. I believe he was denied proper treatment in the beginning because insurance wouldn’t pay for it.”

Rob, a treatment professional, said people seeking treatment are often turned down because their insurance company won’t cover the cost.

Eliminating barriers to getting help -- including not letting insurance companies decide what level of treatment is appropriate -- is one of the goals of the group.

Lisa and Joe were there for a different reason. “We lost our son to an overdose a little over a year ago,” Lisa said. “We didn’t know what to do. He died within three months of us finding out about his addiction.”

The stated mission of Friends of Recovery Orange is: “To promote a positive view of recovery from addictions and to educate communities about the effective outcomes associated with receiving appropriate information, treatment and recovery support.”

It’s basic: The more people know about addiction and recovery, the fewer young people are likely to die of it.

Another cold, hard fact: The growing constituency for supporting recovery from addiction coincides with the sharp increase in deaths due to opiods and heroin. James Conklin, director of the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Council of Orange County, is helping the group coordinate its efforts. He says an attempt to start such a movement was made six years ago, but went nowhere.

“I think the big difference today is what’s going on with opiates and heroin,” he said. “People are outraged; more people are dying.” And, the heroin epidemic “hit new neighborhoods, new families,” he said. Suddenly, everyone’s son or daughter was possibly at risk. And suddenly, politicians are more likely to listen to calls for treating addiction as a public health issue, eliminating barriers to getting help, creating a recovery system that engages and supports people to reclaim a meaningful life -- all part of FOR-NY’s mission

Going to Albany to advocate for money or legislation to help addicts recover is not an easy task. FOR-Orange members all have different stories to explain why they are doing it: Those who have a family member in long-term recovery; friends, employers or neighbors of people in recovery; family members whose loved one has not found recovery; persons in long-term recovery; and family members whose loved ones have died as a result of their addiction. They learn how to share their stories so that people in a position to help the cause of recovery do more than just empathize or sympathize with them.

FOR-NY believes that “everyone achieves recovery in his or her own way” and that “adequate resources and support are necessary for sustained recovery.” To this aim, among the things members encouraged legislators to support are:

• Recovery community centers in each county, to help persons new to recovery to take the next steps. Often, people leave rehab with no plan on what to do next.
• Recovery coaches in each county, to help those new to recovery make sober decisions.
• Family recovery navigators in each county to help families on their new journey.
• Expanded access to treatment paid by health insurance for anyone who wants treatment, when they want it.
• Physician education on addiction and recovery.
• Addiction counseling for patients on suboxone.

Conklin and all those associated with this movement recognize that achieving these goals will require reducing the stigma attached to addiction by educating and informing those not directly impacted by it. The belief is this will increase the visibility of recovery, thereby increasing the constituency for change.

Lori, another FOR-Orange member, said, “My family was impacted by the alcoholism of my great-grandfather. Everyone grew up with the results of his alcoholism. I have many family members in recovery today. A lot of people don’t know their families were involved in addiction. I want people who don’t have families in addiction to know that recovery can have positive outcomes.”

Those outcomes can add up to a sizable benefit for society.

To get  involved …

• Friends of Recovery Orange meets at the offices of the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Council of Orange County on the first Wednesday of every month at 6 p.m. 224A Main Street, Goshen, NY
• (845) 294-9000 ext. 225
• friendsofrecoveryorange@gmail.com
• website: friendsofrecovery-orange.org
• www.for-ny.org
• (518) 487-4395

Bob Gaydos is a freelance writer. He may be reached at rjgaydos@gmail.com.

My love/hate relationship with squats

By Bob Gaydos

       A while back I started writing about lifestyle changes I’ve made since I retired from daily newspapering.  A new diet, low on sugar and salt, no red meat, high in vegetables, fruits, fish, nuts and Greek yogurt (frozen and not). A regular (more or less) exercise/workout regimen. Vitamin supplements. I feel, look and am a lot healthier than when I embarked on the changes.

I’ve also discovered something about life: There is no statute of limitations on it offering stuff for which I have no love. For example, I used to hate trigonometry. I could do it, but who decided we needed it? Also, I was not a fan of creamed spinach. Whose idea was that?

I don’t hate either anymore because I don’t have anything to do with them anymore. In college, I decided (with the strong suggestion of a faculty adviser) to pursue writing as a career instead of engineering. So I retired my slide rule (remember them?), abandoned sines, cosines and tangents, and plugged in my electric typewriter (remember them?) to focus on spelling, punctuation and good grammar (please remember them).

   Creamed spinach was a non-starter at our first encounter. I hated it. Today, however, raw or sauteed spinach is welcome in my diet.

Today, I have something else to hate: Squats.

For the uninformed (or possibly out-of-shape), that’s a physical exercise, not a vegetable. If you can only do one exercise, it’s the one to do because it works so many different muscles. At least that’s what my fitness coach keeps telling me.

Yes, I have a fitness coach, another step in my evolution from layabout slug to septaugenarian with his eye on 100. She’s also my partner. Once a week, my partner/coach and I do an hour-and-half weight-training regimen -- dumbbells, weight machines, rollouts and squats. (I’m not overly fond of rollouts either, but let’s stick to squats for now.) The dumbbells have slowly increased in weight with time and with my development of some actual muscle.

Honestly, the workout is not yet what I would call fun. Maybe that’s why they call it a workout. Still, with increased strength overall has come increased self-confidence and I do like the results.

But squats are a killer. And, not to make excuses, I came to the exercise with a couple of physical issues. My right ankle is fused as a result of being shattered in a game of touch football many years ago and my left foot and lower leg experience varying degrees of numbness due to diabetic neuropathy. Bottom line: My squats won’t look like your squats because of necessary adjustments.

Whether my leg issues make my squats any harder to do than they are for someone without such physical issues, I don’t know. It’s not important. I do know I couldn’t manage even one squat the first time I was asked to do so. I kept losing my balance and falling over. This was embarrassing and frustrating and the root of several arguments between me and my partner/coach.

Gradually (and with considerable difficulty and complaining), I managed to do a couple of squats without falling over. It has been a slow go since then, with considerable adjustment. When we started working with a bodybuilding trainer in a well-equipped gym a year ago, I used the solid, metal legs of a chinning bar to help keep my balance as I went up and down with grunts and groans. There was also a full-length mirror that I could look at and remind myself to keep my head up and not bend over. Most of the time, I used it to check and make sure I was still breathing.  

Recently, I groaned my way through 20 squats without using anything to keep my balance, took a break, and did 20 more. Wiped out. But not done. The trainer -- whose job is to always think you can do one or two more reps of whatever the exercise is -- has added a new torture. I do squats while holding a metal bar over my head while he and my partner hold the ends to make sure I don’t fall over and injure myself.

I did 20 of these the last time and could barely walk when I was done. As I write this, my legs have still not fully recovered and my glutes are periodically achey. My partner/coach says it’s all good and she likes the new muscle tone in my legs, as do I. I also confess to a feeling of accomplishment for having survived, if not conquered, the challenge of squats.

Don’t get me wrong. I still hate them. It’s hard to believe I will ever feel otherwise. But I’ve learned (late in life, as with all my lessons), that I can survive and even benefit from something I hate. Besides, for now at least, no one can say of me, “He can’t do squat.” 

bobgaydos.blogspot.com                          

Iowa eccentricities: Heads I win, Bernie, tails you lose

By Bob Gaydos

Bernie Sanders

Three questions in the wake of whatever it was that just happened in Iowa:

• Can anyone -- preferably a Democrat -- tell me what Hillary Clinton stands for? In other words, what is her message?
• Why do mainstream media assume there's no way Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination, never mind the presidency?
• Since when does winning an election, or caucus or whatever else you may call it depend on the flip of a coin?

Let's start with Hillary. As far as I can tell, after 16 years (at least) of running for president, the only message I still hear is that Hillary should be president because she's been around, she wants it and it's her turn. She's been patient through Bill's years in the White House and she's been running ever since they had to vacate (penniless, I believe she initially claimed).

Yes, she took time to serve as senator from New York, but that really was necessary to fill out the resume for a presidential run. Being secretary of state was a bittersweet consolation prize for losing the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, who apparently never got the memo that it was Hillary's turn to run. It certainly topped off her resume.

Yet all I hear is that she's really smart, has a lot of experience, knows a lot of stuff and will do a good job of running things. Now, that's clearly more than can be said of pretty much all of the Republican presidential candidates, but she's not running against any of them yet.What is she going to do as president? What is she going to change about a system with which Americans of all political persuasions are disenchanted, to say the least? Maybe it's me, but all I hear is that she'll do a good job, even a better job, of managing what Obama leaves behind.

A lot of the major media seem to have bought into this message. That was pretty much the essence of the New York Times editorial endorsing Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the Iowa primary. Hillary has the experience to carry on the way we have been carrying on.

Unfortunately for Clinton, the New York Times, and other establishment media that support her candidacy, a lot of Americans don't seem to want to carry on the way we've been carrying on. That's undoubtedly why a lot of young people, not thrilled with the future being crafted for them, have flocked to the Sanders candidacy.

In fact, it seems to be why a lot of people have flocked to a host of Republican candidates who are anything but establishment figures. The fact that virtually all of them aren't qualified to be president is another matter.

For what it's worth, I think Obama has done a pretty good job cleaning up the mess left by Bush/Cheney. He's done this in the face of non-stop resistance from Republicans from his first day in office. There's no reason to believe that Clinton, no favorite of congressional Republicans, will have any easier time of it in that regard. Furthermore, her ties to the banking industry and corporate America (through Bill and the Clinton Foundation), cast serious doubt on any claim she might make that she is different from Republicans. (Her claim the other night that she is not part of the Democratic Establishment is laughable.)

And, as I recall, she couldn't get her healthcare plan through a Democratic Congress in Bill's first term. How does that make her a manager who "gets things done"? It's a claim that much of major media have apparently accepted as fact because she and her supporters keep saying it: 

Why Hillary? Because she's a manager.

Sanders, by contrast, is an "eccentric" senator with "unruly" hair, as he was characterized in an Associated Press story the morning after the Iowa caucus. This was supposedly a straight news story reporting on the outcome of the caucus. There were no adjectives attached to Clinton's name implying some not-so-subtle judgment. Where were the editors?

Again, maybe it's just me, but when someone writing in Iowa describes Sanders, with a lifetime in public service, as "eccentric," I can't help but wonder if it's code for 74-year-old Jew who still speaks with the accent of his native Brooklyn. New Yorkers are pretty good at cracking codes.

As for that Iowa vote, what a joke. Clinton claimed victory after edging Sanders by less than three-tenths of a point. Democrats don't even vote privately in Iowa. They stand in opposite corners and try to convince others to join them. The biggest group gets the delegates from that district. When there's a tie, they split the delegates -- two for you, two for you. But when there's an odd number of delegate at stake, the odd vote is awarded by flipping a coin. Clinton won six out of six flips -- go figure -- so she got a couple more delegates than Sanders. That is no smashing victory!

Even here, major media (NPR even) felt it necessary to weigh in after the fact to educate us that Clinton didn't win Iowa on coin flips. Rather, they spelled out the entire ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated system by which Iowa Democrats award convention delegates. Seems there's county delegates and state delegates and who-the-heck cares delegates and formulas for calculating percentage of delegates. It's a system set up by the establishment to try to control the votes, so that candidates like Bernie Sanders, from Brooklyn via Vermont, can't win.

But he did. The "virtual tie" was a statement for Sanders against the establishment -- Democratic Party and major media.

My humble recommendations:

• For Clinton: Figure out what you really stand for and tell us. If you think you have to be a shill for banks and corporations in order to be effective as president, tell us why. At least it would be honest.
• For the major media: Listen and report the facts. Ask questions about real issues. Stop with the horse-race reporting based on polls. Do your job.
• Iowa Democrats: Have a simple vote, privately, for convention delegates. No coin flips. In case of ties, split the baby, as Solomon said. In this case, it works.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com