113. Skirting evolution doesn't change it

Our latest healthcare statements included an insert on antibiotics, entitled, "Know When to Say No to Antibiotics." This proclamation is two-fold. First, there is an overuse problem in the prescription of antibiotics- often for inappropriate illnesses, those which our bodies can handle naturally. Secondly, they are often described for illnesses in which they are ineffective, such as viruses. However, the motive is as much financial as it is good medicine, and, inevitably the health insurance company can save itself a considerable amount of money if these prescriptions are dispensed less often (some estimates are as high as $18.5 million per year for antibiotics).

But that is not what attracted my attention, rather it was the proceeding explanation, which reads, "Bacteria continue to change and grow into ‘superbugs' that do not respond to antibiotics, leading to a growing antibiotic resistance problem." Bacteria do change, but they do not "grow into superbugs." They genetically change over time in response to the selective pressure placed on their environment. They do not change into extraordinary microorganisms capable of leaping small buildings in a single bound, they change into a genetically different, or "variant" bacteria. In short, they "evolve." And I thought it was interesting that the insurance company avoided that word like the plaque.

More specifically, as the bacteria are attacked by the antibiotics, most are killed- which is fortunate, because it leads to our recovery. However, in the course of rapid reproduction, mutant bacteria, some of which may be resistant to the bacteria, are born (or replicated), and survives to reproduce and pass on its genetic makeup (other mutants die or offer no resistance to the antibiotics). Subsequently, these resistant bacteria, those that survive, are passed on to other individuals. In scientific terms, they are selected. And, obviously, since the mutant bacteria are resistant to the original antibiotic, the prescription is ineffective and scientists must now develop another antibiotic. Again, there is nothing "super" about them, except they are more resistant to our current antibiotics. There are more complicated methods in the resistive undertaking by the bacteria, such as transformation and plasmid exchange, but the effect is the same- its genetic makeup has changed. PBS has adeptly referred this process as the "evolutionary arm race."

The process I described is, granted, a bit simplified, as the entire endeavor is complicated by the intricacies of science, such as the debate to what extent the bacteria suffers a "cost of resistance." In other words, to what extent are the resistant bacteria less fit in the absence of antibiotics in the adaptation of their genotyopes? The entire exercise is a wonderful exploration into science- including our immune system, microorganisms, population genetics, mutations, and yes, that nasty word- evolution.

The religious perspective on the subject is a bit interesting, as this is of considerable importance in addressing and refuting the theory of evolution. The explanation from such groups as Apologetics Press, Answer in Genesis and The Discovery Institute, differ in how they attend to the idea. While most do not debate that the bacteria evolve, they dispute the mechanism and the significance of the change. For example, here is the conclusion drawn in answersingenesis.com:

"The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.

Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man-functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.

Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world."

This explanation clearly focuses on the debate I referred to previously on the "cost of the resistance." It is a "gap argument," in which one aspect of science is used by non-scientists to justify their religious conclusions. It is obvious that science has it right otherwise antibiotics and other treatments would not be as effective as they are. And even if there is debate on the exact mechanism of mutation (scientific studies indicate that microorganisms are able to overcome the harmful side-effects of resistance), I cannot help but to wonder the outcome if they would apply the same scrutiny to their own beliefs and principles.

In the 2006 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) study, American students ranked 29th in science in comparison with 57 other countries. As exemplified by my medically-based insurance company avoiding and sugar-coating the science that affects our own bodies, perhaps part of the problem is that we are even afraid to admit that science exists. Maybe it could be better understood in a comic book, or video game- "Superman versus the Superbugs!" The point is that you can only "dumb it down" for only so long before people become...well, you know.

112. But we've always done it this way

Nothing seems as ridiculous as the Democratic Primary accounting of delegates, super delegates, and caucuses- not to mention Super Tuesday and the unapproved elections in Michigan and Florida. In fact it is so ridiculous that if I knew of a word more ridiculous than ridiculous, I would use it.

I appreciate history and tradition, as much, maybe even more so, than the next guy. Thus I respect that much of our political history dates not only back to the earliest formation of this country, but also into the history of democracy itself.

However, there is no purpose of holding a Democratic nomination other than to decide whom the Democratic voters want to represent them and their party in the national election. Ask the voters their choice and record their selection- it is as simple as that. Why do we need delegates and super delegates? Why do some states vote in February and others in May? Why do some states have primaries and other host caucuses?

The current situation in the Democratic Party exemplifies the absurdity, as it appears somewhat likely that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barrack Obama will have enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination. We are then left to leave it to the super delegates, whatever they really are. And all of the campaigning, debating and voting will put into the hands of a few- just as the founding fathers envisioned it- leaving the "real" voting to the privileged and educated, not the "general public."

The easiest answer would be to hold the primaries in the same manner that one would host the national election. The current process which has lasts several months is time consuming, exhausting and wastes millions of dollars. Just hold the primary as a semi-final event, and score it similarly to the general election, or by using some other scoring system that would ensure that the best candidate, with the best chance of winning in November, is selected. The states can be winner take-all, by proportion, or the entire country can be scored with a popular vote. One day, one nation-wide primary, one candidate. But it is not the system that matters, for there are many other fair systems that could be considered. It is about changing the current, seriously flawed, system.

At this point, I could go on and describe how we got to this position, and describe in detail (based on an Internet review) how the thing actually works. But that is not the real question and the process is so obviously illogical that it would be a waste of time and effort to describe a system that needs to be changed.

The real question is why do people just accept it, why do people not reject the system and fire those that do not fix it? Granted this year is a bit of anomaly, for most elections carry on the way the Republican Primary played out, with a candidate emerging long before now (although, it makes the system no less absurd, as, for example, every Republican Primary from this point forward is meaningless, and these voters have had absolutely no say in who represents them).

Tradition often outlives usefulness or fairness, and nowhere is this more evident than in the process in which the Democrats select their presidential nominee for president. It is amazing how long stupid systems, which are confusing, unfair, and inefficient, survive in American politics- among other places. At some point, someone needs to stand up and proclaim the obvious, "this is ludicrous- there must be a better way."

The problem that occurs, even when such a proclamation is agreed upon, is that "the fight has just begun." The arguments from across fifty states, each battling their interest, securing their tradition and stroking their ego, quickly become an irreconcilable mess of ideas, theories and postulations. Add to that mix those that actually benefit from the current system- whose only goal is to divide and conquer any reasonable idea so that none are ever realized.

A common misconception is that any change that takes place needs to be the absolute best solution to the problem- one that is completely considered through every hypothetical and every sense of justice. While certainly any change should proceed with due diligence, the truth is that the new system needs to simply be better than the previous system. It does not need to be the perfect system; additional changes can be made throughout time. The best systems are those that evolve, not those that hold on with white-knuckles to the ropes of our pasts. Tradition becomes transparent when it becomes unjust and meaningless. Just because it is "the way we have always done it," is not a good enough reason. In the case of the Democratic Primaries, it would be hard to present a worse system- one that is actually less fair, less understood, or less efficient. This is stupid; it is time to move on. Why do we make everything so difficult?

111. Rich don't know we're in recession

Many economists will tell us that a recession looms. Technically, a recession is defined as two quarters of decline in the Gross National Product (GNP) or negative real economic growth. However, in Northeast Ohio, I would argue that we have long been in a recession. People in this area have, for years now, felt the effect of the thousands of jobs that have been lost, the slow influx of new business and, of course, most tragically, the numerous home foreclosures that continue to plaque the area.

It does not mean, however, that companies have not been successful. Although the recent federal interest rates cuts have affected the stock market, some companies have done very well the last few years. The problem, because of the depressed job market and availability of cheap labor, is that this success has not been passed along to their employees. This selfishness, one can argue, has led to their own slowdowns, as employees have less money to spend to support the market.

Refer to the latest figures from the Congressional Budget Office. The wealthy keep getting wealthier and the rest of us seem powerless to stop it. The average increase in income for the median American family, of about $50,000, was a measly $400. How much of that survives higher gas costs, increasing food costs and the rising cost of just about everything else? Inexplicably, the poorest fifth of Americans only earn, after taxes, $15,300 per year. Meanwhile, on the other side of the tracks, the take-home pay of those in the top one percent, after taxes, is about $1.07 million. The average after-tax increase in income was $180,000. They have corporate America and President Bush to thank for that.

Consider the real experience of my friend. Unfortunately, the fear of repercussion leads to the anonymity of my friend and the company he works for. He works for a company that last fiscal year celebrated 10 billion dollars in sales, and a share price of $100. The company was so proud of this accomplishment that they rewarded each employee with a commemorative medal. That's right, a medal.

For all extensive purposes, you cannot eat a medal. You cannot pay your electric bill with it either, or put gas in your car. For the employee, it is like the t-shirt that says, "I went to Florida, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

This employee is a first-class performer. He has consistently scored high ratings in his reviews, in what he guesses is the top five percent of all employees. His raise last year was almost negligible, barely maintaining the cost of living. Doesn't it seem like successful companies would reward their best employees with a better standard of living? Or is that asking too much?

The truth is that if this company, which has hardly hired anyone the last half decade, were to announce plant openings, at even 80 percent of what this employee is making, there would be a line of candidates two miles long. The foreign car competition and outsourcing of American jobs has created a surplus of employees, to the point that companies can do however they please in managing their workforce. In this case, the use of un-benefitted temporary employees and college students is the method of exploitation.

The employees of this company, amidst a slew of promises, voted out a union many years ago; however, most of the promises have fallen away. No longer do the employees enjoy such luxuries as a summer picnic or Christmas party. It's all business. We are doing well; you have a job- there will be no negotiating.

In fact, the mere suggestion of collective bargaining would likely cue dusting off the plans to move the plant to Mexico, or some third world country, where not only could they find poverty-level labor, but also lax environmental standards. No employee would dare risk it, most realize that they are just lucky to have a job.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the tracks, the CEO at this company made over $14 million dollars last year. The company also donates millions to non-profit organizations. The salaries paid to this and many other CEOs are ridiculous and unconsciousable. It is an American embarrassment. And while I appreciate the philanthropic contributions, probably more than others, would it not be worthwhile and morally congruent to give some money back to the employees- those people who made the company successful?

Of course, there is no political recourse either. Large campaign contributions frequently protect the interest of businesses. That's no secret. In addition, the interest in the negative effects of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on Ohio by both Democratic candidates seems a bit insincere. Though, unbelievably, this insincerity is a progressive step in comparison to John McCain's absurd assertion that the renegotiation of NAFTA will hurt anti-terror efforts. It is obvious that this is going nowhere fast.

The script for many middle class Americans is now written something like this: Their $400 annual raises are not enough to keep up with the rising costs of living. While trying to make ends meet, maybe their car breaks, or someone in their family gets sick. To cope with such expenses, either credit cards are used or second mortgages are obtained. Then, under the pressure to compete with other companies that can make soccer balls for 12 cents per ball in Pakistan, their company either downsizes or moves its factory to a competing third world country (and for making that decision, the CEO earns a million dollar bonus). Now, without a job, and few prospects of further employment, middle class Americans begin to fall behind in their house and credit card payments. Desperate, either their house is foreclosed on or they raid their 401K to survive. Either way, at the end of the day, they are out either a place to live, or money to retire on.

For those attempting to live the American dream, it is not much of a ride- even with the commemorative medal.

110. Like, he doesn't like the word 'like'

My wife recently made a business-related trip to Indiana. Upon her arrival, she called with a quick question regarding her whereabouts. In pulling up a map, I noticed that she was near the University of Notre Dame. I made a quick mention to her proximity and lightheartedly said that I would like a Notre Dame sweatshirt. After a short debate about my interest in Notre Dame, in which I noted that growing up I enjoyed Notre Dame football and that I was a fan of Joe Montana (I recall running around the house with wristbands proclaiming to be Joe Montana), the issue seemingly passed. The conversation was more reminiscent that substantive, because I have not really been a fan of Notre Dame since Lou Holtz left.

Well I should have known better, because when she returned on Valentine's Day, I was warmly greeted with a quick bit of affection and a bag of stuff from the Notre Dame bookstore. I received two hats, a sweatshirt and three books. Gina noted with a bit of awe the size of the bookstore, and relayed the fact that the books were from an obscure dollar section. All three of the books seemed interesting; one was on dogs and the other two dealt with language, including a book by Richard Lederer entitled "A Man of My Words: Reflections on the English Language."

In heading to the office to shelve the books, where they would likely remain for some time, I took a quick flip through the Lederer book and noticed a short chapter on a subject that I had been meaning to comment on, entitled, "Like, Where is our Language Going?"

As the chapter suggests, it details the ghastly, and apparently addictive, use of the word "like" by teens and younger adults (although its use is by no means restricted to those groups). The use of the word has become almost painful to listen to, and worse, once you hear it spoken in a conversation, its addictive nature is such that others will start using it. It is on the top of my list of "unpleasurables," along with phone conversations that begin with "Where you at?" and the boring uncreative use of clichés, such as "game on," and the worn-out sports proclamation that "we shocked the world."

His chapter on the subject recalls an amusing story in which a woman asked a clerk in a bookstore who authored the book "Like Water for Chocolate." The clerk spent a few unsuccessful minutes inquiring into the question, only to realize that the title of the famous book is not "Like Water for Chocolate" but rather, "Water for Chocolate." He aptly describes the use of the word "like" as one of three young speech patterns that "squeak like chalk across the blackboard of adult sensibilities."

When I coached baseball at Lake Ridge Academy, the bus ride conversation was consumed with, "I like went to the mall and, I like, bought, like, a new pair of shoes." I would follow up with, "You like went to the mall, or you went to the mall, and "you bought like a new pair of shoes, or you bought a new pair of shoes." Other conversations used the word "like" in substitution for "similar to"- "The teacher was acting like my Dad." I jokingly challenged my players to use "similar to" instead of "like" to help break this annoying habit, even if this particular use was correct. The challenge stimulated some awkwardly funny and entertaining conversations- "I similar to bought similar to a new pair of shoes."

In the book, Lederer is more amused than critical, and notes the word may be an "oral place holder," that is, an indication that important information is ahead. He also attributes it as a modern verbal tic, such as "um" and "you know."

In general, verbal tics are annoying, regardless of the particular choice of pause used to allow the speaker a brief moment to collect his or her thoughts. I am as guilty as anyone of using these verbal tics, and for a while attended Toastmaster meetings to help work through this. The challenge is getting comfortable with the brief moments of silence and relaxing when speaking publicly. I recently attended a training session in which the instructor said "you know" repeatedly, after almost every sentence- to the point that it was difficult to concentrate on the material.

So whether the use of the word "like" is a verbal tick, or a poor use of the English language, it is safe to say that it will be around for a long time. For those of us for which its use is "similar to" the screeching of a chalkboard, we will have to endure the nearly unbearable conversations until the word loses its popularity. And whether we regard the English language in a state of evolution or disarray, we can all appreciate and ponder our reflections of it. Because for some of us, and to rephrase, "it is like, so cool!"