By Bob Gaydos

Steve Bannon and Elon Musk … not friends

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’m rooting for Steve Bannon in his food fight with Elon Musk over who’s the bigger racist in the MAGA tent. Not because I agree with either man’s views on immigration or anything else, but rather because Musk’s money has the potential to do a lot more harm than Bannon’s pure bile and, frankly, anything that exposes the hypocrisy of the Trump cult is good for America, especially if it’s self-inflicted.

     Bannon has called Musk “pure  evil” and pledged to get gim out of the guest rooms in Mar-a-Lago and the White House. In fact, Bannon said, “I will have Elon Musk run out of here by Inauguration Day.” 

    That appears to be unlikely, but that’s what Bannon told the Italian newspaper Corrientes Della Serra last week. He also said the billionaire won’t have full access to the White House. Trump says he’s giving Musk the building next door to try to figure out how to steal from the poor to give to the rich.

      The crux of the fight between Trump’s old sidekick/strategist and his new, much richer one, is which immigrants are acceptable to MAGA and which are not. Old school Bannon took Trump at his word when he said he’s going to round up millions of undocumented immigrants, (mostly brown or black) and ship them back wherever they came from. No more immigrants. More jobs for real Americans.

      But Musk and other big tech billionaires say real Americans are too dumb (they actually say untrained, but  that’s what they think) to fill the jobs in their companies. They say they need more better-trained immigrants, mostly from Asian countries, here on H-1B visas as “skilled workers,” to fill all those good jobs at the tech companies.

    Musk says they are vital and Trump agreed and Bannon blew up, basically saying an immigrant is an immigrant. He also wasn’t thrilled with Musk’s opinion of real Americans’ intelligence, which actually is the same as (“I love the uneducated”) Trump’s. 

   In response to Bannon’s comments, Musk said he would go to “war” to preserve and defend the program for foreign workers at tech companies. 

    Bannon replied, “He should go back to South Africa. Why do we have South Africans, the most racist people on earth, white South Africans … making any comments at all on what goes on in the United States?”

      Clearly, irony is lost on Bannon.

       Now, Musk may be right about that lack of skilled American workers for tech companies, but no one ever talks about more training programs for Americans. The real reason Musk and the other tech bigwigs want immigrants from Asian countries on their payrolls is that they are willing to work for less money and are happy just to be in America for all the advantages it provides. Just like all those immigrants Trump and Bannon want to round up and deport. Hypocrisy.

      The good news in terms of reducing Musk’s influence is that Bannon has the voice and support of the hard-core far-right Trump base. The ones who vote for candidates he endorses. Musk, who seems to live in a high-rent area of the spectrum, basically is just in this for his own enrichment and gratification. Like Trump. But Trump is going to be president and his ego typically wins out over his affection for other people’s money and sycophancy. He has no real agenda other than enriching himself and staying out of prison, which he thus far has managed to accomplish.

      Bottom line is that promising all things to all supporters only works when all supporters are in it for the same reason. Bannon just wants to get rid of all non-white immigrants. Musk apparently just wants to be emperor of the world, with lots of non-tran children. Maybe they should check with the suddenly much poorer Rudy Giuliani to find out what went wrong with his love affair with Donald Trump.

 rjgaydos@gmail.com

By Bob Gaydos

The cap of a proud Notre Dame alumnus.
RJ Photography

   Ok, I’ve dithered long enough. The holidays came and went and he’s obviously not going to do the same. The first four presidents of my lifetime were FDR, HST, Ike and JFK. Dotard felon doesn’t have quite the same ring, so I guess I have to stick around until America realizes it needs a woman  president. Therefore, with a bow to the late, great Jimmy Cannon, I persist.

   — Maybe it’s just me, but: All that Canada, Greenland, Panama BS spewing out of his increasingly distracted “brain” is just that, a distraction out of the Putin playbook And an embarrassing one, at that. Only true MAGAS and the sold-out mainstream media treat it seriously. Which is, of course, sad.

    — Maybe it’s just me, but: Having his hands tied by the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity nonsense, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan made the best of it by making sure Trump gets sworn in as a convicted felon. The first ever, America. Be proud. Merchan made sure everyone knew that if it had been anyone else there would’ve been more serious consequences for the 34 felony convictions than a blow to the huge Trump ego.

   — Maybe it’s just me, but: The fact that the Supreme Court allowed the sentencing in New York to go on before the inauguration suggests that the court is not necessarily 100 percent in Trump’s pocket. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in rejecting Trump’s bid to avoid sentencing before the inauguration. The four stooges objected without any comment.

   — Maybe it’s just me, but: I hope Merrick Garland fades into the woodwork as quickly as did that other faux prosecutor, Robert Mueller. A major disappointment.

   — Maybe it’s just me, but: Watching the Dow, NASDAQ, etc. tank on the heels of yet another report showing a healthy increase in jobs on Joe Biden’s watch is a worthwhile reminder that Wall Street has little to do with Main Street. More like the Vegas Strip.

   — Maybe it’s just me, but: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg can all _______. Fill in the blank.

   — Maybe it’s just me, but: I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what all the New Jersey drone stuff was about. Remember newspapers?

   — Maybe it’s just me, but: Jimmy Carter was a wonderful human being and a better than average president. Not a bad epitaph.

  — Maybe it’s just me, but: Welcome back to nightly reports, Rachel Maddow; turn off the lights, Morning Joe.

   — Maybe it’s just me, but: Having given up following college football when they started mixing and moving colleges willy-nilly to conferences across the country based on big bucks and big ratings, it came as a pleasant surprise to me to see that the two schools who will be playing for the college football championship are Notre Dame and Ohio State. Of course. Who else? It was as if I had escaped from a time warp. Their names are synonymous with success and championships. Then I learned that Notre Dame, the university in South Bend, Indiana, had undergone a renaissance much like the other Notre Dame, the cathedral in Paris, France, which has been rebuilt and reborn and recently returned to its position of prominence after a devastating fire. No, I don’t believe in coincidences.    

rjgaydos@gmail.com

By Bob Gaydos

  There are a couple of books strategically placed around the house that are challenging me to read them. Never mind read them, finish them. By strategically placed, I mean located so that they’re not staring me in the face, but can’t be ignored either. A perfect way to breed guilt. 

    For some unexplained reason, I just stopped reading books a couple years ago. Cold turkey. As a result, I think I’ve been going through a slow, somewhat irritable withdrawal. They say the first step is recognizing and admitting the problem. So here it is: When I’m reading — books, not news articles or research for columns — my life is simply more manageable. Less irritable. More enjoyable.

    That’s my New Year’s resolution — start reading again and start by finishing those two books.

     About those books — “The Paper … The Life and Death of the New York Herald Tribune” and “Satchel: The Life and Times of an American Legend.” They’re both in my wheelhouse (newspapers and sports) and, I noticed in writing this, both biographies. Coincidence? I think not.

      The Trib was my favorite newspaper from the time I started paying attention to them in my teens. It was The New York Times with personality. Lots. The book was written by Richard Kruger, who worked at The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and was the last literary editor of the Herald Tribune.

    Also of note, the book was a gift from a good friend, now departed, Chris Farlekas. Chris was a legend in Middletown, N.Y., as a columnist for The Times Herald-Record, where we both worked, and as a producer and performer in scores of musical performances across the years. He also was a great gift-giver.

  This book actually got packed away in some box for one or another move from one place to another and didn’t reappear until a couple years ago. I sincerely apologize for that, Chris. And thanks again for everything.

      “Satchel” was lifted off the shelf of an open to perusal, old, private library, which shall remain anonymous. Basically, the books were there to be taken, so I took one. Actually a couple, but let’s stick to “Satchel.”

     It was written by author and former Boston Globe reporter, Larry Tye, a self-described avid baseball fan. It got terrific reviews and was a best-seller. Can’t wait to restart it.

   I’ll post something on the two books when I’m done. That will give me impetus to actually read them, never mind the fact I was actually enjoying both when I went cold turkey.

     In the meantime, I’m also reaching out for a little social media help. If you’ve got a favorite book, of any genre, you’d like to recommend, please do so in the comments section. New, old, classic, fiction, non-fiction, whatever. I’m eclectic. I’ve got a couple on a list, but I trust you guys. And I can use Kindle.

     And please don’t be shy. After all, you’ll be helping a codger regenerate some dormant brain cells he’s going to need to get through the next four years. Count it as your New Year’s resolution. Thanks in advance.

rjgaydos@gmail.com

Addiction and Recovery
By Bob Gaydos

(A favorite from last year that still applies.)

    For those looking for a New Year’s resolution that can actually be challenging to keep and potentially beneficial if done the right way, I offer some thoughts I shared when I first heard about Dry January and some new ones.

    You hang around with an experienced group of people for any amount of time, with any luck, you learn a few things. 

     I’ve been writing a column on addiction and recovery for more than 15 years. In that time, I have been fortunate to have many conversations with members of Alcoholics Anonymous who have decades of sobriety. They have freely shared some of their experience and wisdom with me.

      One bit of AA wisdom goes like this: “People who don’t have a drinking problem don’t have to control their drinking.”

       Hmmm. So why are social media and news feeds filled daily with stories on “Dry January”? Why the sudden interest in non-alcoholic beer and no-booze cocktails? What’s the big rush all of a sudden for, reportedly, thousands of people to decide to see if they can not partake of alcohol for the month of January? Last year, one poll said 41 percent of respondents planned to partake of Dry January. I couldn’t find a report on how well they did, but clearly, not drinking alcohol for one month at least is suddenly chic. 

  For what it’s worth, alcoholics, or rather, those who insist they are not alcoholics, have been taking the post-holiday challenge forever in valiant efforts to prove to themselves and (mainly) others that they can control their drinking. Often, they’ve failed. Rehab February. Others have attempted to give up drinking for Lent, for the same reason and often with the same results.

     But this is different. This is people, many apparently younger people, supposedly deciding that it might be in their best interest to abstain from or at least reduce their alcohol intake, at least for the month.

     Given recent reports on an upsurge in alcohol consumption (particularly by women) during the pandemic, an increase in alcohol-related deaths and a myth-busting report which concludes that “no amount of alcohol” is ever good for your health, going dry or easing up on alcohol for a month sounds like a reasonable idea for anyone.

      But there are risks involved and if you’re intrigued by the idea of stopping or controlling your drinking there ought to be rules. For starters, what is your purpose? Is it, as previously mentioned, to prove you don’t have a drinking problem? If so, you need to tell other people what you’re doing so there is accountability and, crucially, protection, in case a serious alcohol problem does exist. 

  Going through withdrawal symptoms from avoiding alcohol on one’s own can be painful and dangerous. Be aware of the symptoms and get professional help if they begin. Your effort may have failed, but it might have saved your life.

     If, on the other hand, the purpose is truly to see if life can be just as interesting and fun without alcohol always being involved, again, don’t do it alone. Get some friends involved. Plan alcohol-free activities. Try some of those fancy new alcohol-free “mocktails” the Dry January movement has spawned. If you’re really serious, maybe focus more on exercise. Try to get more sleep. See if you start to feel better physically and emotionally.

     Drawing again on some AA wisdom, the key to succeeding, whatever your goal, is to be honest and realistic. Whether you’re trying to not drink for a specific month or just cut back, if you find yourself drinking or thinking you’d really like to be drinking in spite of your stated goal, by all means start over again. But be aware of any recurring pattern. There may be a problem.

      On a positive note, if Dry January results in a more responsible general approach to alcohol consumption (as brewers and distillers are obliged to promote), it has to be good for society’s overall health. Excessive alcohol consumption contributes to a multitude of societal and health problems as well as highway and other accidents.

    Fad or not, the movement would also go along with the effort by health agencies and providers to remove the stigma and shame often attached to alcoholism by getting rid of the word “alcoholic,” which still conjures up negative images for many people. Today, people are diagnosed with alcohol abuse disorder, mild, moderate or severe. (Sober members of AA still call themselves alcoholics with no shame attached.)

   According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, alcohol use disorder “is a medical condition characterized by an impaired ability to stop or control alcohol use despite adverse social, occupational, or health consequences.”  That’s the “drinking and trouble” connection members of AA often talk about.

      On the basic issue of stopping drinking and trying to keep things simple, AA’s Third Tradition states that “the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking.”

     Adding that touch of reality necessary to recovery, an AA friend asked, “Who would have a desire to stop drinking other than someone who drank too much and got in trouble over it?”

     With sincere hope for the success and good intentions of anyone participating in this year’s Dry January, that’s a question to keep in mind for anyone planning on a just plain February.

rjgaydos@gmail.com

Bob Gaydos is writer-in-residence at zestoforange.com.