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!"

109. His only regret is in the timing

Many people will claim to have lived their lives without regret. Maybe it is true, maybe they have lived without regret. It seems difficult to me, that is, to think that someone has lived life so perfectly that there is little or nothing that he or she would have changed. Typically, the argument is that it is those experiences which have made me what I am today (assuming that's a good thing). Or, perhaps it is a self-justifying defense mechanism directed at inner peace. Regardless, that is not for me to decide.

I prefer what my good friend referred to, over dinner one evening, as "re-evaluation." He suggested that over time he has made re-evaluations of his life, and based on those evaluations or assessments, he has made changes. I like the way he worded it, and the point is obvious. Much of our lives are spent in ruts, whereas we continue to do and believe what we have always done or believed. It takes considerable effort to reassess our values, beliefs and assumptions. It is not easy admitting to oneself that we have done things that we might now find as immoral, unethical, or compromising.

Often, when our beliefs are challenged, by either ourselves or others, we become defensive and look for justifications. Or if questioned by another, people will often say, "How dare you judge me!" Our justifications are often like the scientific corrections that were made to expiring equations, or like the addendums that are made to religious beliefs. We look for the gaps in the arguments of others rather than make a complete, objective, open-minded free inquiry into our own beliefs.

For example, one of my biggest regrets in life is not becoming a vegetarian earlier. I had all the beliefs consistent with vegetarians, as well as the opinion that vegetarian diets are healthier. Moreover, I was familiar with the horrors associated with slaughterhouses, and the other forms of animal mistreatment that supported our American life and human diets. I had moral, ethical and biological reasons for becoming a vegetarian- yet I resisted. I held on to the argument that we evolved to eat meat, and that I actually needed meat to get my protein. I held on to the silly premise that I cannot make a difference, that I am just one person.

But I knew better, and when I was being honest with myself, I knew it was about change and sacrifice. I did not want the inconvenience of looking for and choosing vegetarian options. And I did not want to give up all the food I loved- such as, hamburger, hot dogs, pepperoni, ribs and chicken wings. I enjoyed barbequing on the grill with friends and feasting on "man-food" during football games.

I used these justifications, excuses and false reasons in order to look the other way. While I knew that farm animals lived horrific lives, I, as Albert Schweitzer puts it, "saved myself the sight." I ignored the suffering. I would rather not know what was really going on, that, for example, cows in order to lactate had to have calves- and spent days crying out for them when they were taken from them. To me, it was just milk- what I had always drank, what my mom had fed me, and what the commercials had told me was so good for me. I would not rather know that the chicken that I thought was so healthy in my diet was genetically selected, raised in tiny cages, had their beaks cut off without anesthesia and killed in assembly-line fashion by slitting their throats. I would rather not read that Professor John Webster of the University of Bristol's school of Veterinary Science referred to chicken production as, "in both magnitude and severity, the single most severe, systematic example of man's inhumanity to another sentient animal." I would rather not know that my Thanksgiving turkey was thrown around like a bag of potatoes, shackled, transported upside down, dipped in an electrified water bath and similarly killed.

Change is difficult, especially when it comes at the personal acknowledgement that we may have lived mistakenly for many of years. That perhaps what we stood up for and defended in the past, at least now in our minds, is immoral or unethical. In many ways, it takes what is often referred to as a "big person" to admit that. It is about humility, change, and the ability to objectively self-assess.

There are a number of issues that we must consider and reconsider on a regular basis. Besides vegetarianism, there is, for example, global warming, the diamond industry, materialism, poverty, corporate greed, religion, war, and politics. The world is not as it was twenty years ago; it changes and we must be willing to re-evaluate our values and beliefs. We must continue to inquire into, and educate ourselves in, all aspects of our lives. Ignorance is no longer an excuse, nor is laziness. Finally, we must be willing to make the personal sacrifices based on those beliefs. I can admit, for example, that it was falsehearted to say that I was an animal lover, yet allow them to suffer as they did to satisfy my appetite. In this case, the transformation that I made might inspire (perhaps "financially mandate" is the more appropriate wording) changes in the farming industry.

The world, in all aspects, is exactly how we allowed it to happen. If we do not anything about it, those that enrich themselves through exploitation will continue to do so- whether it is the mistreatment and abuse of the animals, children, elderly, poor or environment.

This month I have lived one year as a vegetarian. I am both excited and embarrassed to admit this. I am excited that I made the change, but I am embarrassed that it took so long. In the latter respect, I am not afraid to admit my most sincere regret.

108. Candidates leave him in a quandary

The Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama race for the Democratic nomination is proving to be an interesting one. Although I have not yet made a decision, and, in general, I am frustrated with the entire process, I think both candidates offer remarkable backgrounds, perspective and appeal.

I have a lot of respect for Hillary, and the quest to be the first female president cannot be easy. She is very intelligent, graduating from Yale Law School and subsequently spent some time leaching law. In addition to a solid academic background, she served twelve years as Arkansas' first lady, before serving eight years in the same role in the White House. She then followed that with her time as a New York senator- the first woman elected to a statewide position in New York. The one thing she is not lacking is political experience.

To run as a female candidate brings forth a number of factors that other male candidates need not consider. Not only does she have to assimilate into the old, white, wealthy male world of American politics, she has to repudiate the common female stereotypes. Thus, her campaign leads a constant battle over her appearance...making her appear to be tough enough to be president, but not too tough as to appear abrasive. And when her appearance grows too tough, she cries, when she seems too soft, she speaks authoritatively.

There are two things that bother me about Hillary. The first is that her last name is Clinton, and if elected, our country will have had successive terms of Bush, Clinton, Bush and Clinton. Already into two decades of American rule, I just do not think it is good for the country to have a limited number of families serving as commander in chief. Granted this is not Hillary's fault, but, nonetheless, it limits the political power of this country. As evident in the second Bush presidency, the relationships that served the first Bush withstand, and there is a lack of political influence from outsiders.

My second criticism is her political-ness. She is well engaged in the political nature of this country. As a friend of mine noted, she is tied to political polls, venturing only as far as is necessary to remain popular. She was burned as first lady, and one might conclude that she learned her lesson. Her attempt to introduce national healthcare, was harshly received, and she was introduced to what happens when you threaten the wealth of the wealthy (insurance companies, etc.). Subsequently, she seems overly cautious in appeasing those who make the largest campaign contributions. Furthermore, it is sometimes difficult to get a straight answer from her. A question is often answered with a diatribe about an only somewhat related topic.

Barack Obama, likewise, is very intelligent, graduating from Columbia University and then Harvard Law School. He also taught law, teaching at the University of Chicago Law School. He is young, well spoken, appealingly sincere, and, of course, black. In his case, the lack of experience is actually refreshing. His membership in the old, white, wealthy male political area is equally compromised, and the hope is that he might not know better in attempting to follow through with political promises.

As the first black candidate that actually has a chance to secure the presidency, he faces the same challenges over race that Hillary experiences over gender. Author Shelby Steele writes poetically on this issue in his book, "A Bound Man." One reviewer notes:

"Steele writes of how Obama is caught between the two classic postures that blacks have always used to make their way in the white American mainstream: bargaining and challenging. Bargainers strike a "bargain" with white America in which they say, I will not rub America's ugly history of racism in your face if you will not hold my race against me. Challengers do the opposite of bargainers. They charge whites with inherent racism and then demand that they prove themselves innocent by supporting black-friendly policies like affirmative action and diversity.

Steele maintains that Senator Obama is too constrained by these elaborate politics to find his own true political voice. Obama has the temperament, intelligence, and background -- an interracial family, a sterling education -- to guide America beyond the exhausted racial politics that now prevail. And yet he is a Promethean figure, a bound man."

Furthermore, in addition to Steele's comments, Obama must strike a difficult balance, where to white America, he is not simply a "black candidate" and to black America, he is not regarded as a "sellout" or "Uncle Tom." Racism is still an issue, exemplified about once a week in the chain emails I receive which are quick to note black stereotypes and to question his American allegiance- mostly because his middle name is Hussein.

My only concern with Obama is his lack of experience. While the lack of it might be refreshing, there is, unfortunately, a real element to political experience, influence and compromise. It does not provide any benefit to anyone if political change cannot be negotiated politically throughout Congress and with foreign leadership. It might take him some time in developing relationships, working with Republicans and balancing the influence of political money with political favors.

The quest for the Democratic is a dynamic one, in several respects. Despite the in-fighting, and the nature of politics in general, I am enjoying the diversity of candidates seeking America's highest position. The outcome, which should be settled in the near future, will undoubtedly precede an equally interesting presidential race. The Republican candidate, whoever it will be, will be much more in line with our typical presidential candidate- old, white, wealthy and male.