There's no need to lie, because there's no need to disclose. The gap in your resume is a black mark. You worry that a generic answer won't explain away that gap. So your immediate, natural reaction is to explain exactly what happened, in varying levels of gory detail.

Don't. Resist the urge. It isn't getting you anywhere -- the explanation just takes the interviewer from "hmm, gap in the resume -- wonder what that's about" to "Holy shit! Dude just got out of rehab." Perhaps more importantly, it tells the interviewer that you're going to take some hand-holding, and that you tend to over-share about personal issues from outside of work. It tells them that you still think of yourself as a person just putting their life back together, and therefore a wild card who may not be reliable. That's not what you want.

The generic answer lets them know that it was personal -- which it was. It could have been a dying parent, a medical emergency, etc. For them, all they need to know is that for a time you weren't able to work for personal reasons -- but now you are. The only reason they would need to know more is if you really aren't back -- if you're going to be relapsing, or if you can't really give the job 100%. But assuming that you're really ready to get back in the saddle, then that's all they need to know.

Now, that's not to say that the generic answer solves everything -- some employers will still have doubts, and won't hire you because of them. But by over-sharing, you're not relieving those employers' fears -- you're confirming them! And, in the process, you're also turning off employers who would have hired you.

Oh, and one final point -- I agree with the idea of apologizing to your former employer. I disagree with the idea of treating it like a confrontation where you threaten lawsuits if they don't give you a good, bland recommendation -- industries tend to be small, and your reputation (if you have one) is already in bad enough shape. Instead, just say that you're sorry for how you behaved, and that you appreciate the head-start towards treatment. Then leave it at that -- it may open doors, it may not, but either way you leave with a clean conscience and with your reputation somewhat repaired.

Good luck.

Well, sure, this isn't damning by any means -- she's saying that the reason certain groups look for people with appellate court experience is that those people have been involved in making policy. If you believe (as Republicans claim) that appellate courts are too activist, then you believe that her statement is correct -- those who have worked with appellate courts have been involved in making policy.

What she doesn't say -- and indeed what she disclaims -- is that this is in any way "good" or "appropriate." Instead it's just a fact, and she's pragmatically telling the truth.

Ah, but that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what she actually said. It doesn't matter the context. It doesn't matter that her statement reveals no position other than a basic, pragmatist understanding that policy IS made at the appellate level -- like it or not.

What matters is that it's a soundbite. "She said courts make policy! Boooo!" For people who will never watch the video, and who never even pretend that they're trying to be objective and pick the best candidate, rather than "win" for their "side"...for them, who cares about the truth? A soundbite is truthy enough for them.

We already almost live in the movie Idiocracy. We just need to start watering the plants with Brawndo.

Quick quiz -- which of the following is conservative:

1. Spending money on programs that fit with a pre-determined, never-tested theory, and continuing to spend it even when the programs are proven to be failures. Making "does it fit the ideology?" the determining factor for spending.

2. Spending money on programs that succeed. Making "does it work?" the determining factor.

If you said 1...you're a modern Republican. If you said 2, you're conservative and, well...Barack Obama, apparently.

Here, Obama has sensibly said that if, by some stroke, abstinence programs can be shown to work...great, we'll fund them. If not, then we're not going to engage in the nonsense of funding a program for "optics" or "politics." We're going to take that money and do things that make sense, things that history and experience tell us will work.

How very conservative.

"The Republicans just ran the most moderate candidate they ever have."

Yeah, and if he had run as a moderate, I'd have voted for him. Instead he ran as a hardline right-winger, on a platform of lies and "look -- a terrorist!" He then nominated an even more extremist (and unqualified) right-winger as his running mate and possible replacement. I'm a conservative, but I wasn't going to touch that with a ten foot voting stylus.

What introspection? Similarly, another Republican said that the time for apologizing was over...what apologizing? Did I miss the apologizing?

Instead of responding to the American people's very real criticism, the party is spending its time doing more of what the American people said they didn't want -- mindless talk-show drivel, meaningless political stunts, and radical partisanship. The American people are basically intelligent and moderately conservative -- since the election the Republican Party has only become even more anti-intelligence and pro-radicalism. They haven't turned a corner, they've dug a grave.