Cheese Flavored Coke

I've returned from a business trip and brief vacation in Europe. I'm struck by how people in Europe gather in common spaces such as parks for conversation or walks, rather than in shopping malls for consumption. There are more bicycles than people in the Netherlands. People in Europe don't seem to be out to prove something. In the song, What About Everything? the group Carbon Leaf sings about being "in search of some rest, in search of a break. From a life of tests where something's always at stake." Granted, it took Europe a long time to reach this point, and there's quite a bit of damage to others in their history, but even throughout their heyday, there was always the need to learn another language, observe another culture, and experience someone else's food. Someone else's real food.

The US is beginning to actively engage in reflection and conversation about food. Michael Pollan has written The Omnivore's Dilemma, which examines the "lineage" of four meals. It's disturbing, but not surprising, that it's almost impossible to determine the natural history of a happy meal from McDonald's. I'm sure the cows processed in the industrial production chain of McDonald's aren't too happy about those meals. The single point of failure with industrial food production has also resulted in a vulnerability or dependency that can affect large numbers of people or our furry friends. Think of the fast food restaurant problems with vegetables, or the pet food recall that's taking place right now.

Pollan recently wrote an article in the New York Times Magazine ("Unhappy Meals"). He describes an interesting journey in the US of the fascination, even obsession, with micro-nutrients. This view has culminated in the belief that if one can manage to eat the ideal combination and proportion of vitamins, minerals, and avoid the bad stuff like saturated fat, then, voila, one can become healthy. He offers a persuasive argument to eat real food, focusing on natural ingredients because, well, perhaps nature does know best. Or perhaps our adaption to nature over time has resulted in cuisines that actually acknowledge the best balance of local ingredients and our nutritional needs. Pollan begins his article with the following advice: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Our (and I include myself in this) reluctance to follow this simple, yet powerful, advice has been fueled by the industrialization of food. As we have moved away from real food, we have correspondingly missed the taste of real food. There's an entire industry associated with artificial flavors. I find it disconcerting that I can close my eyes, smell something from a test tube, and imagine a bacon cheeseburger. Artificial flavors seem to found their true calling with sodas (or soft drinks or pop if you prefer). Just think about the number of variants of Coke. What started out as "new Coke" has now resulted in so many varieties of Coke that perhaps we've overwhelmed ourselves with choices (why is it that there are so many close associations of the words "choice" and "dilemma"?).

My wife has also noted that cheesification of food. There seems to be cheese generously applied to all types of food. Perhaps this happened during the Atkins Diet craze, or perhaps it's an attempt to surpass corn-based derivatives as the "natural" food flavoring additive. I'm sure if cheese can be added to enough food products, the dairy industry will be very happy. So it's occurred to me that there's an obvious conclusion: the happy convergence of high fructose corn syrup and cheese.

Cheese flavored Coke.

Ask for it the next time you supersize your meal at McDonalds.

John Tierney Weighs In on The World Cup

In his op-ed piece in today's New York Times, John Tierney talks about "kicking the soccer habit." Tierney mentions that he lived in Chile as a child, during which time he played soccer and watched Brazil electrify the soccer world during the 1962 World Cup. So this is someone who had found--and has apparently lost--religion. He makes some very good points about the difficulty of watching soccer on TV. It's hard to see much of the field, to note the runs off the ball, the way in which defenses align themselves, and the great vision of the gifted passers in the game. Hockey also suffers some of these problems on TV. Watching soccer and hockey on HD makes a big difference. How many of us are putting up with ESPN/ABC's coverage because of HD?

Tierney asserts that "American couch potatoes" enjoy the breaks in baseball, basketball or football because it allows them to watch instant replays, or evaluate (i.e., second guess) the coach's decisions or strategies, and that the actions of individuals (e.g., "the pitcher dueling the batter") are more clearly pronounced and enjoyed. When speaking about the rest of the world's fascination with soccer, he states: "maybe they love soccer because they haven't been given better alternatives."

I think he's right that many folks in the US, including me, prefer sitting on a couch, living vicariously through athletes, and second guessing the coaches. Once upon a time, I used to actually participate in athletics. And I can tell you it's infinitely preferable. As I move slovenly and inevitably toward becoming overweight and unhealthy, I realize maybe I should participate in sports, rather than passively consume them. If you've ever kicked around a soccer ball, and tried to play on any reasonably sized field for any length of time, you get a deep appreciation for the skill and stamina of soccer players.

I don't doubt for a moment that sports fans in the US marvel at individual athletic accomplishments. The US canonizes the individual, sometimes at the cost of the community. The superstar athlete can act any way he wishes as long as he can make the great play. Manchester United and England defender Rio Ferdinand was suspended for eight months when he missed a drug test. Would a US-based athlete face such a suspension for his first offense? Ferdinand didn't get to play for a team in Toronto during his suspension either (and I say this as someone who cheers for the Miami Dolphins while sitting on my couch).

As for not having any alternatives to soccer, quite frankly, I don't know what Tierney is talking about. There are several other sports with fairly widespread interest such as rugby, ice hockey, field hockey and handball. I don't appreciate a sport that has "numerous intervals for lunch and tea", but even cricket has widespread appeal. If you've ever watched TV coverage of the Olympics or read the sports pages of a newspaper in Europe or Asia, you will quickly realize that they actually enjoy athletics, even when their national teams are not competitive. Imagine actually being able to watch Olympic sporting events in their entirety, instead of only the portions that are "relevant" to the US. There are so many cases of individual nations that revere other sports with local appeal. The Aussies have shown a real appreciation for soccer, but Australian rules football and swimming are almost certainly more popular sports down under.

As a global community, there are many, many things we can and should do that are much more important than soccer. But maybe the rest of the world enjoys soccer because it's a chance for the entire planet to share an experience, express themselves, and celebrate regardless of whether their team wins or not.

Tierney admits that part of his frustration stems from the referee's penalty decision during the US-Ghana match. In my opinion, that was a really bad call. Deal with it. It's time to admit that the US World Cup basically ended when Czech Republic beat them soundly in the first game, and that Bruce Arena probably over-analzyed and under-inspired this team in critical ways.

I think it's hard enough for people in the US to watch a sport without dominating it, but it seems even harder to watch a sport in which we can't overturn results or decisions through replays, appeals and legal actions.

David Brooks Weighs in on The World Cup

In his New York Times Op-Ed piece today, David Brooks lets us know that he's keeping an eye on The World Cup. He states:

"Going into today's World Cup match against Ghana, no American player has managed to put a ball into the back of the net, but the U.S. team does lead the world in one vital category: college degrees."

Brooks points out that most (not all?) of the US team's players have attended college whereas most of the elite players in the rest of the world are sent to soccer clubs when they are kids. This is true, and I'm sure that there are many kids who showed promise as youngsters, but didn't make it into the elite clubs or national teams. Without an education, it's disconcerting to imagine what happens to these kids. Brooks goes on to point out the prowess of the US educational systems, and how US college sports bring together communities, provide a nexus for social and intellectual activities, and act as engines of productivity for the economy. Implicitly, no explicitly, he asserts that the US has consciously chosen to accentuate the educational system which, therefore, means that our brightest soccer talent remains unfulfilled (and, as he points out, unable to find the back of the net in The World Cup).

Hard to argue with his line of reasoning, right? Of course, Brooks doesn't ask the question of how would our college educated national team players react if they had a chance to join the elite club team academies? Would they choose college over the (slim) chance of being a soccer superstar? I mean, the US would never compromise a child's education in an effort to bolster his or her soccer prospects. Oh, you might want to check out DC United's page on Freddie Adu, bragging about how young he was when he started for them. To his, and his parents', credit, he plays for DC United because it's the closest team to home, and he continues to participate in the US educational system. But I wonder what would have happened if DC United had a professional soccer academy.

Brooks also provides a utopian picture of collegiate athletics, mentioning that love of a college athletics breaks down social barriers and builds a sense of community. I'm sure the poor and disenfranchised tailgate with the rich and powerful. My aunt lived a university college town for a few years. She told me about a conversation with an ardent (US college) football fan who said that when she saw a black person, she assumed he was a football player or "just passing through." Heartwarming. Brooks conveniently forgets the dark side of college athletics, including corruption and violence.

While soccer may be an obsession, even religion, for much of the world, this is certainly not the case in the US. Brooks' piece provides evidence of an obsession in the US: money. It is sad that he believes one of the successful metrics for education is contribution to the economy. How about creating critical, independent thinkers? The reality of the situation is that soccer is a secondary consideration in the US for two reasons: the US team is not very good, and there isn't big money in the sport. This is a chicken and egg situation in that the US team won't be very good until there's more money, and there won't be more money until the US team is very good. But I can assure you this: if the US poured money into soccer the way it does for baseball, US football, and basketball, the US would have a damn good team. This might happen if the US tires of being defensive about having a good, but far from dominant, team. And college soccer world would become as competitive as the college football and basketball world, with all the unfortunate influences that the relentless pursuit of profit maximation brings.

Like when a prominent newspaper of record charges people for access to "select" online articles.