186. Let's not repeat years 2000-2008

Sometimes I wish we could experience parallel universes. For tough decisions, it would be insightful and interesting to witness the consequences of each possibility as they are played out in front of us. One of the unsettling and intricate parts of our lives is never knowing what "could have happened."

We have all probably done this from time to time. We wonder what if I would have done things differently--would I have gone to a different college, for example. Would I have met different people, leading to a different career, a different job, maybe even a different spouse and family?

A simple example in sports is the decision by a manager to give a player "a day off." One could easily wonder, what would have happened if he or she would have played? Would it have affected the outcome of the game, would the player have had the best game of his or her career--or the worst game, or maybe suffered a career ending injury. We just never know.

In analyzing the performance of President Obama and his quest for reelection, I find myself asking similar questions. Thus, if we could go back to 2008 and change the way everything happened--I wonder how things would have turned out. What if we had elected John McCain, or if Hillary Clinton would have won the Democratic primary? Moving forward, what about the decisions President Obama made--the stimulus package, passing healthcare reform and the bailouts? How has that affected where we are today?

To be fair, and I know Republicans are tired of hearing this, by 2009 the economy had been completely obliterated. We were losing more than 600,000 jobs per month, the auto industry and financial industry had failed, the housing market collapsed, manufacturing was in dire straits, and we were running up an incredible national debt with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personal finances were equally devastated-in addition to job losses, people found themselves with credit card and student loan debt they could not repay, upside down on their houses (which until then had been for many their only real form of savings), and they could not afford healthcare, or worse they had accumulated a significant amount of healthcare debt. Many had no choice but to choose bankruptcy.

We were, in the opinion of many, on the brink of financial collapse and potentially another major depression.

President Obama and Congress enacted a number of financial programs in an attempt to improve the economy. While the economy is ridiculously complex and there is only so much any one entity can do, programs such as the stimulus package, Obama care and downsizing government were embraced and ratified.

While no one can suggest that the economy is not better than it was four years ago, many feel that it has not improved quickly enough-particularly in consideration of President Obama's election. (Of course, for many, no matter what the president did, it would not be enough). Unemployment, though it has leveled off, is still too high, the housing market is only recovering slowly as the inventory of foreclosed houses dries up, and we still maintain considerable national debt. Interestingly, despite the effort to limit the influence of corporations and initiating financial reform, Wall Street and the stock markets are doing just fine.

What we do not have are parallel universes to judge the president's performance in comparison to what John McCain would have done, or even Hillary Clinton. Things might be much better, worse--or, about the same. Maybe President Obama saved the country from a devastating depression; maybe he missed an economic opportunity to improve the country. Nor do we have a crystal ball to see what will happen over the next four years if President Obama is reelected, or if Mitt Romney wins the election.

And this is a big decision; we must decide who we want to lead the next four years. It is not a referendum on President Obama; we cannot simply elect the "other guy" simply because we are not completely satisfied where the economy is today. We have to choose the candidate who we believe will make things better over the next four years. And of course, we must also consider the social values of both candidates-we do not live in silos.

We know where we are going with President Obama, and I expect that if reelected the economy will continue to improve--maybe even significantly as many are waiting on the election to move forward. Romney is an uncertainty. His policies are similar to those of the Bush era--most notably continued tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation. More concerning, he seems to lack social values and his opinion on major issues changes as necessary. Unprincipled people cause me anxiety because they often end up being subservient to the influence of others-such as the interest of major corporations, Wall Street and the wealthy.

Regardless of how anyone decides, I hope that it is an informed decision. We cannot forget to ask which candidate and which party represents our financial and social interest. I hope people do not vote "anyone but Obama," without considering just who that anyone really is. We do not live in parallel universes, we do not get a "do over." And we definitely do not want to do 2000 to 2008 over again.

185. Sports: Faithful Begets Violence

I recently found an "autobiography" that I had written when I was in fifth grade. As part of the assignment, we had to prepare a collage, in which the thing most important to us was placed in the middle.

In the center of my collage was a Super Bowl ring. In the explanation, I offered with complete seriousness, that if I did not win a Super Bowl ring, my life would be a failure. If that was not ambitious enough, I also planned on becoming a world class boxer, and winning a gold medal in the Olympics.

But the dream was not just a grade school whim, made after watching a Browns game or a Sugar Ray Leonard boxing match. It carried into high school and college, where my desire for greatness switched to baseball.

I watched "The Natural" probably over two dozen times, and the Roy Hobbs exchange with Iris Gaines about being the "best there ever was," was forever engrained in my head.

Roy Hobbs: I coulda been better. I coulda broke every record in the book.

Iris Gaines: And then?

Roy Hobbs: And then? And then when I walked down the street people would've looked and they would've said there goes Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was in this game.

Already indoctrinated into the sports world, I was obsessed, like LeBron James, with winning a championship--and being the best. And then? What do you mean "and then" . . . what else is there?

As I have reluctantly given up my dreams of being the best there ever was in sports, I have followed a number of sports as a fan. Unfortunately, the only way I am getting a Super Bowl ring now is to buy an NFL team--and who has a billion dollars laying around for that?

But even my desire to be a fan is waning. As a country, and throughout the world, we have lost all perspective when it comes to sports. We want championships--and we do not care how they are obtained. We do not care what a championship might cost or who the players are.

We will pay twenty dollars for a beer or eight dollars for a hot dog. It is almost offensive in these economic times that fans would be willing to pay those prices so that billion dollar owners can afford million dollar players.

We will root for athletes who have committed deplorable and nearly unconsciousable acts, like Tiger Woods and Michael Vick. The city had its heart torn apart when LeBron James left Cleveland to assure himself of a championship (for how could he be "the best there ever was" without a championship?) But most would welcome him back in an instant.

When teams win (or lose) cities are vandalized by their fans. Fans even attack opposing fans-how dare they express passion for their team in our stadium? Somehow destruction and violence has become synonymous with faithfulness and celebration. It is not just in the United States either; soccer fans around the world are pretty serious about their "football" as well. Fans sometimes simply lose their minds.

I still like sports-there is something about the dedication and sacrifice of an athlete that appeals to me. I enjoy the competitive fire, the heart of persevering in the heat of battle or against the odds. As fans, we can still follow and root for our teams. Sports talk is fun, watching sports can be an engaging social event-there is nothing wrong with tailgating or family outings. But at some point, it needs to be just a game again. I am not a "loser" just because I am from Cleveland and Cleveland cannot win a major championship. While sports may be an escape from our daily life challenges, it might be better balanced with other important social issues and needs.

And the fans need to realize that they control everything about sports. It is a market economy and they are the customer. They control whether there is a salary cap in baseball, an NCAA football playoff system or how much money the players make. If it is unreasonable, or unjust, fans should stop supporting it. At some point, one would think that the growth of sports, and the unconditional support of its fans, is unsustainable.

I remember when Ohio State won the national football championship in 2002. I remember the elation, and celebration with my family and friends. It was one of the best games I had ever watched. But about an hour after the game, I had an "and then" moment. But for me, there was no "and then," I was just a fan. My life did not stop and I had to get up and go to work the next day-just like any other day. Well . . . almost like any other day.

184. Know facts before opposing the plan

Many have seen the Jessica Simpson commercial for a high definition television company where she is talking about the new 1080i. In the commercial she famously says, "I don't know what it is, but I want it."

I thought about her funny line and how it might apply to the healthcare reform law. It seems that many people are saying, "I don't know what is in it, but I hate it."

The law is confusing, but misinformation is rampant. People hate it, all of it-and it is unconstitutional? Do people even hate the part that prohibits the denial of coverage because of preexisting conditions? Which part is unconstitutional? All of it, really? And now it is a tax and people hate it even more. Others hate it simply because it is associated with President Obama and they hate everything he does (even if Romney did nearly the same thing in Massachusetts). They want it repealed--and the vicious debate will continue.

But what do people really know about the law?

A Kaiser Family Foundation quiz highlighted some of the public misinformation about the healthcare reform law--to the extent that less than one percent of the public got all ten basic questions about the law correct. Worse, about one-third failed to answer even half the questions correctly.

More than half the respondents still believe that the healthcare reform law includes Sarah Palin's infamous invention commonly referred to as "death panels," in which a government panel would make end-of-life decision for people on Medicare. The misconception was named PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" in 2009. Only 45 percent answered correctly that death panels do not exist in the healthcare reform law.

The question however that received the lowest percentage of correct answers was whether the healthcare reform law requires all businesses, even the smallest businesses, to provide health insurance for its employees. Only 25 percent of the respondents answered correctly that this is not true (though 65 percent did correctly note that the healthcare reform law will provide tax credits to small businesses that do offer insurance to their employees).

A close second was a question related to the creation of a government run insurance plan to be offered along with private plans. While there was talk of a public option, only 27 percent answered correctly that the law does not create a new government-run plan. This misconception might be related to PolitiFact's 2010 lie of the year, which was the conservative talking point of a "government takeover of healthcare."

The newest healthcare misconception will undoubtedly stem from the overall favorable Supreme Court decision on the healthcare law, but a ruling that calls the individual mandate a "tax." Despite the fact that this penalty will affect only a small few, it is another reason to dislike this law.

Dick Polman of the Philadelphia Inquirer recently wrote,

"Obama's supposedly sweeping tax - his penalty for noncompliance - will be levied on a grand total of 1.2 percent of the American people. So says the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its projections for 2016. This means that 98.8 percent will not pay a cent, because virtually all Americans (a) will already have health coverage, (b) will have obtained coverage for the first time, thanks to federal subsidies and tax credits, or (c) will be exempt from the penalty, because of economic hardship or religious beliefs. The penalized 1.2 percent will be those Americans who can well afford coverage but simply refuse to buy it."

And really, isn't this what people have been asking for? Aren't people tired of paying for the uncompensated care of others?

In its relativity, the opportunity to insure more Americans and decrease the cost of healthcare is a small price to pay. According to The Office of Tax Analysis, even if you included every tax in this bill--such as taxes on medical supplies, tanning salons--it still falls way short of the 1982 tax hike initiated by Ronald Regan.

I've never liked the entirety of this law; I think the healthcare system is broken beyond repair. I have always favored national healthcare and removing profit from the system-particularly those sought by insurance and pharmaceutical companies. I think we need a nutritional revolution that focuses on prevention, which would save the healthcare system billions of dollars in chronic care. However, this law makes a bad system a little better. Many people were dying because they did not have access to medical care and many others were going bankrupt because of the inability to pay medical bills.

I heard a group of small business owners make the valid argument that health insurance was never meant to pay for every checkup or pair of glasses. Like car insurance, it was to pay for major expenses, not every oil change. I agree, but the problem is that we are way past that-people simply do not make enough money to even pay routine healthcare expenses out of pocket. It is too expensive. People would wait until the illness becomes severe enough, or sufficiently chronic, to warrant insurance coverage. Unfortunately, the best way to handle the cost burden of healthcare is to share that cost through an insurance program--or national healthcare system.

I do not love the healthcare reform law, but I certainly do not hate it. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but we all should at least understand the basis of that opinion. Sure, it is cute when Jessica Simpson acts uninformed about the latest television technology--but there is no humor when it is about the healthcare needs of millions of Americans.

183. Call me, just not when driving

Cell phones continue to be the subject of controversy. From safety, etiquette and cultural perspectives, society continues to be at an impasse as to how to handle the mini-computers that take up so much of our focus.

Manny Acta of the Cleveland Indians called this the "head's down" generation, referring of course to consistent attention given to people's phones. Cell phones are an ageless phenomenon, but it is true that it exemplifies that generation.

I freely admit that I like my phone. I enjoy getting emails and texts. It is a convenient way to get a quick response from family and friends. Texts are often the best way to reach people. I imagine that letters would now be a nearly unbearable wait for a response. Many grow impatient even waiting a day for someone to answer their email.

I often check out Facebook from my phone; in fact I rarely do it on my computer. I also like Twitter; I can quickly sort through interesting and relative news stories . . . without all the annoying "coming up" segments on the network news stations. I like being able to check the scores of baseball games and tennis matches; I like being able to look up birds on my Audubon application.

It is convenient to have my calendar available and an endless list of contacts. I expect to have "everything" in my phone.

Thus with the ability to connect to friends and family, access my calendar, look up my contacts, surf the Internet, engage in social networking and download any of thousands of applications-the world is at my fingertips. I get it, I really do.

However, I do have limits. I do not carry it with me at all times; I check it periodically (much to the annoyance of some).

For example, I rarely take my phone into dinner. I do not take it on dog walks or nature walks. I enjoy building the relationship-enjoying the moment-with my dog. I want to hear the birds chirping, the water running. I do not want my phone interrupting my workouts; I can return calls, emails or texts when I am done.

Like many others, these limits are magnified when it comes to safety and consideration. We all probably have a mental list of annoying or dangerous phone experiences.

In a shopping center parking lot, I saw a woman trying to dial her phone as she was pulling out of her space-I wondered if she could not dial before she pulled out, or after she was out of her spot?

We have all probably seen someone sitting at a green light, as they are finishing a text message or email. When we see a car on the road traveling ten miles below the speed limit, chances are they are decelerating in proportion to the focus on their phone. And then there is the gradual drift to the right-thank goodness for rumble strips.

I see people ignoring their dog as they text away on its walk. They are completely oblivious to their environment-potential dangers, like other dogs or cars.

The texting ban recently enacted is a step, at least in awareness if nothing else, that is directed toward the dangers of driving while texting. It is a mental and physical distraction-and very unsafe. It is not just accidents; it affects all areas of driving-consideration of other drivers and watching out for children or animals.

Many people do not put their phones down-ever. Not the minute it takes to pick up their child from daycare, not even on that long trip to the mail box.

My concern is that people are going to miss a portion of their life-really living-by spending so much time on their phones. At sporting events, people are missing the most exciting portions of the games with their heads buried in their phones. At dinner, couples sometimes do not even speak to each other-the attention on their phones and their thumbs flailing away. Sometimes we do not enjoy the moment; we enjoy photographing or sharing the moment through social media.

We all probably know people who live "virtual lives," those who live their lives through their computer or phone experiences-a step away from reality.

I am not going to go "the good old days," I already admitted that I like my phone. I am not against the appreciation of technology. But it is concerning that so many people are addicted to their phones.

In fact, we almost did not renew our phone contract; it can actually be a burden-always being expected to be accessible. It can also be a distraction; surely I can check the scores later or watch the news. When my phone was broken for a few days, I almost enjoyed the peace . . . the focus. And it is expensive; we have seemed to come to accept that cost-the necessary equivalent to our water or gas bills.

Last week a pregnant woman walked right in front of me in a parking lot, not even a glance away from her phone to make sure I had stopped. Sure, she had the right of way and had I hit her it would have been my fault. But being right is of little consolation if you and your unborn baby are lying in a hospital. How did she know that I did not have my head down, equally distracted on my phone?