Defense Loses Championships

So a guy walks into a bar........

Okay that guy was me last early winter. One night I missed my first bus home from work. I was on time. The bus driver left early. I'm against the death penalty---with the sole exception of bus drivers who leave early so they can finish their route early and light up a Marlboro red while I wait at a cold and dark bus stop for the next bus after missing theirs. We need to get medieval on their asses.

But I digress. To ease the stress of having had to wait outside my building for another half hour in the cold drizzle, I rewarded myself by grabbing a Guiness before taking my second bus home. I live five miles from my job but it takes me an hour to get to and from work. Yes, I want you to feel bad for me. Super bad.

But I digress again. Let me try to stay focused. As I walked into Vaughn's Public House on Pratt Street in beautiful, historic Hartford, CT I heard a gentleman loudly asserting, "Defense wins championships".  I knew right away he was uttering a tried and true adage from football. A first cousin of this statement is, "Pitching and defense wins in baseball". You always sound wise and insightful when you say this. There's only one problem. 

It's wrong. 

Or, at best, vastly overrated.  For example, as I eavesdropped further, I discovered this pigskin pontificator was specifically referring to the Baltimore Ravens--a team with perennially great defenses and his pick to win the 2012 Super Bowl. Hindsight is 20/20 but.......the Ravens lost in the AFC Championship Game to the Patriots--a team with a great offense and shaky defense. Patriots backup cornerback Sterling Moore tipped away a would-be winning touchdown pass in the final minute. So one could argue that offense wins championships--as long as you get JUST enough defense at the right time.

But that's only one game. But consider a fact I just unearthed thanks to my off the hook Googling skillz: over the past 45 years there's been 427 NFL playoff games. The better defensive team has won 58 percent of the time. The better offensive team has won 62 percent of the time. Ronnie Lott was a great safety for those great 49ers teams in the '80's, but would he have won all those rings without Joe Montana? A few years ago Peyton Manning's Indianapolis Colts won the Super Bowl with the 19th ranked defense in the NFL. Granted, they were aided by facing Rex Grossman and the Bears in the Super Bowl. In the rain of Miami. Rex always provides both his own offense and his own defense. 

But I say the verdict is in: offense wins championships. 

I know what you might be thinking, "This blog sucks! I hate sports!". Hey, thanks for stopping by. Try the veal. But the "defense wins championships" mentality seems to transcend sports--and I believe it's a harmful philosophy in many real and at times even tragic ways. 

Dieting. I say ban all diets! They are defensive to the core. That's probably why so many dieters can't stick with them: playing defense requires more energy than playing offense and it just gets too exhausting. The fault lies not so much with the dieter as the with the concept of dieting in the first place. No one should worry about subtracting calories---which actually aren't all evil---but adding nutrients. "How many points is this?". Who cares? A lot of low calorie processed food has the calories sucked out of it--right along with the nutrients. Not a trade-off that's really worth it. You can be unhealthy by consuming too many calories but you can just as easily be unhealthy by consuming too few nutrients. A lot of full calories are better than a little empty calories. You don't tend to a plant by lopping off leaves, you tend to it by watering it. Dieters are always trying to remove leaves at the expense of water!

Or let's take health care in general. It's an issue so many economists say is a looming crisis in this country. Medicare and medicaid costs are astronomical and growing all the time. People say if we don't do something, we're going to bankrupt the country worse than Paris Hilton chairing the Federal Reserve. But what is our solution? Insuring everyone and forcing them to go to the doctor even when they feel fine. "Preventative care". I am personally all for universal health care, but I have this one problem: I do disability claims for social security, so I've read pages and pages and pages and pages of medical records on patients who are chronically sick even though they go to the doctor daily. Hourly even. And  I don't just mean those salt of the earth folks who go to the ER each time they get stabbed in the neck by their baby mama or are found wandering the streets "naked and disoriented"; I'm also including people with good insurance, a primary care doctor, and at least 22 different specialists. Yet they too often remain sick despite their helicopter care. It may be due to the severity of their illness which could be due to genetics or infections or a million other things, but for many it might have more to do with their insistence on maintaining poor diet and exercise habits while hoping the doctor will take care of it for them! They believe defense wins championships--in the form of an army of defensive medicine practicing doctors. A defensive white coated human shield providing safety and security from sickness and death better than the Great Wall Of China provided security from the Mongols. And the doctors often seem to believe roughly the same thing too.

But I have the answer! I hope you're sitting down for this. Let's stop practicing Ronnie Lott style care and launch Joe Montana-to-Jerry Rice West Coast Offense care! We could never eliminate sickness, but we could greatly reduce it if people ate better--especially poorer people. We already have food stamps. Some say food stamps are evil, let's get rid of them, my tax dollars getting thrown down the drain on these bums, why don't they get a jobby job?, blah, blah, blah. This writer is all for them--but let's change the rules. Apparently you can't buy alcohol, tobacco, or hot food at the deli with food stamps, but that's it. Want a huge bag of Skittles? Go nuts! Five packages of Steak Umms? This one is on Uncle Sam! And we're shocked we have a health care problem. We're basically subsidizing sickness. How about this radical thought: if you want Skittles, Triple Chocolate Chip Fudge Caramel Swirl Ice Cream, or Beef Jerky, you're on your own. If you want to snap into a Slim Jim, show the cashier the money. "Healthy Choice"? Don't even think about it. But if you want items like blueberries, broccoli, or salmon, they will be fully covered by food stamps. In fact, with these restrictions in place, I would be all for making even more people eligible for food stamps. It doesn't force anyone to eat healthy, but it steers them that way. And it would probably save money in the long run because healthier eaters will require less care--which will reduce the amount of times doctors bill Medicare or Medicaid--i.e., bill taxpayers. This idea is genius! I would also strongly favor any government program which funds gym memberships. Don't look at me like that. I've never been more serious. To me, that is preventative, offensive thinking care which might accomplish infinitely more than just forcing people to get physical exams and 38 different screenings for potential diseases before they stop by for a Triple Whopper With Cheese, fries, and a large Coke on their way home after enduring 48 minutes of teeth gnashing misery in the waiting room. 

But........it might makes too much sense to happen. Our government thinks defense wins championships! 

So does private business. Defensive minded businessmen always think cheap labor is the path to wealth. It seems that history contradicts them. Workers are also customers. Henry Ford once said he wanted to pay his workers at the Ford plant good salaries so they could buy Fords. Modern businessmen seem to have lost this farsighted view. If all businesses are racing to the bottom of the pay scale, who will have the money to buy their products or services? American business blossomed in the 20th Century with an offensive strategy: pay the middle class good salaries and benefits so sales of products and services will skyrocket. We fed the economy nutrients and good economic health was the result, today we just want to strip it of calories and a leaner but more emaciated economy is upon us. 

My fellow Americans, I'm afraid our foreign policy provides yet another sad example of the futility of defensive minded strategery. What was the lesson of the first Gulf War? Apparently it was to keep troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to box in Saddam in case that jerk got the bright idea of trying to get at those oil mines in Kuwait ever again. Mission accomplished. But it was defensive thinking which caused Bin Laden to feel like we were on his turf. He himself had been banished from his homeland, the land of Mohammed himself, but GI Joe could walk through the streets of Medina any time he pleased! (Does anyone want to open a bar with me there called Funky Cold Medina's? Come on. It's even a beach town!). But what should have been the lesson of the Gulf War? I say to move forward yesterday on development of clean energy so we wouldn't have to care about an Iraqi leader invading a neighboring country any more than we cared about it before they discovered oil there or any more than we care about an African leader invading a neighboring African country. Embassies and troops? That's a Baltimore Ravens mindset and last January in Foxboro the men in black and purple were lew-zers. But clean energy is all Tom Brady---who, again, helped the Patriots defeat the Ravens last January before going home for a post-game massage from his Brazilian supermodel wife. But.....to go full steam ahead with clean energy means upsetting oil companies currently making a king's ransom off dirty energy. And it means those Daniel Plainviews, those milkshake drinkers possibly deciding to take away their political donations, which means risking losing the next election. Defense, defense, defense. But defense only loses milkshakes.

But of course this deluded defensive doctrine exists well beyond sports and politics. I'm in absolutely NO position to comment on dating. Instead of spending quality time with my adoring wife and children right now, I'm sitting home at my PC rambling incoherently on Blogger. CLEARY I am not a romantic guru. But whenever I dare browse girls' online profiles (at my age should I be saying "women's profiles"?) I'm often amazed by how many write things like, "If you're just here to play games, do NOT CONTACT ME!!!!! I am tired of two-faced men who lie!! I deserve nothing but the best and I will not settle for anything less!". And sometimes---without a shred of irony, they add: "Please do me a favor and leave your baggage at home!". 

(backs away from the computer). 

Okay, I know dating is tough---especially online dating. And especially for girls (or women) because there's always the slight chance you could run into a date raping,  serial killing American psycho, so you have to be on your guard. But how is hyper-defensiveness not going to scare guys? Even honest guys with impeccable integrity like your humble narrator? Defense loses championships!

Which is why I'm single. 

Do as I blog, not as I do. 

Who wants to get a milkshake?





 

Bread And Circuses

Have you ever wondered whom or what is running your life? Is it the government? You conscience? Your significant other? Your children? Your parents?  Apple Inc.?

Close. 

It's bread. 

Or, if we want to get technical: grain.

I live within a mile of about a billion restaurants. For convenience sake, let's skip the five-star sit-down places with guys in golf shirts discussing NASDAQ prices. (D-Baggers and Sand Baggers--a reality show before its time?) Let's just look at the fast food places. Dunkin Donuts: doughnuts and bagels---made from bread. Bruegger's Bagels: made from bread. Ah but I have a ma and pop diner and a breakfast serving deli where you can get an omelet with home fries or bacon and eggs----with a side of toast. But what about lunch and dinner? There's a Cosi--sandwiches (with bread) but you can get Big Salads! With......rustic or whole grain bread no one can refuse. There's about 5 pizza places---made with dough from bread. There's two taco and burrito joints---made from corn. There are three high end burger places: using buns made from bread. Or what about Chinese? No bread! But.......there's rice.....another cereal grain like wheat and corn. 

All the headlines say meat eating is the devil's handiwork and fruits and vegetables are God's ambrosia. But which food group is the most deeply ingrained? (Pun intended). Think of it this way: could a person swear off fruits and vegetables? Half of America already seems to have perfected that feat. Could a person swear off meat? Relatively easily. Get anchovies on your pizza instead. Have a turkey burger! Sell veggie burritos out of you tie-dyed van to stoned hippies outside Phish shows!  But who eats pizza without the crust? Who eats a burrito without the, you know, burrito wrapping. Who eats a burger without the bun? 

That's right: no one. 

"But that's because everyone eat unhealthy", some would say. "Eat better and it's easy! Try some oatmeal, maybe a little brown rice, or how about some barley soup on a cold rainy day like this?

Grains, grains, grains.

Oh well. Who needs food anyway when you have beer? Cheers!

What? Really? Oh.......yeah. Beer is made from barley. (Or if it's a watery American beer: corn or rice). If you swore off all bread you would have to give up beer and become a yuppie equity insurance managing wine tasting guy named Gary!

See what I mean when I say grains run our lives?

But folks, it runs even deeper than that. Why aren't we all out hunting wild boars to bring back to the campfire for our clan's nightly dinner instead of gathering around our mobile devices to read this incredible blog? Why do we have this thing called civilization? Hint: Miss Manners and bow ties have nothing to do with it. Our prehistoric ancestors figured out how to grow edible grain. Whether it was corn in the Americas, wheat in the Middle East, or rice in Asia, the story was the same: grain agriculture created civilizations. It became a more stable means of obtaining a reliable source of food which allowed people to settle down in farming villages to lead a quieter life so they could invent alphabets, religion, and the slinky. Then they got bored and banned dancing. I mean all roads lead back to grain fields!

Now here is the debate among nutritionists--of which I am obviously not: was the dawn of agriculture a slam dunk success or a mixed blessing? In many ways, agriculture was humankind's first great stroke of genius. (Okay, fans of 2001: A Space Odyssey would say it was our 2nd great stroke of genius). Life had always been the struggle for food, but now it wasn't just a struggle to find food but an opportunity to create food even when none could otherwise be found. Wild cereals are not edible. People had to figure out a complicated process through trial and error before they could convert wild grains into edible wheat, barley, corn, rice, etc. But when the experiments paid off, humans took control of their own destiny for the first time. From the raw materials of nature, they created a food not found in nature that was cheaper and easier than finding edible fruits and vegetables or scary animals to shoot who just might eat you before you could roast them over a fire. Processed foods didn't start with TV Dinners and Skittles, they started about 10,000 years before the birth of Jesus with edible grains. 

BUT, like fast food and TV dinners years later, did we sacrifice nutrition for convenience? Grain stabilized human life, but was the human body happier? Does the body really crave man-made edible grains or does it only tolerate them? Are our bodies naturally best tuned to naturally pre-made, ready to eat foods like apples, broccoli, and chicken breasts?  

If you listen to many food experts, absolutely not. If anything, meat is the problem. There's this cranky preventative medicine doctor on my local public access station. In between discussions about the latest new wonder drug from your friends in the pharmaceutical industry and the importance of going to the doctor 87 times per year for 88 different tests (with preventative medicine like that, who needs Dr. Frankenstein?) he likes to say meat is going to kill you dead. Tomorrow. So knock it off! Human biology is built for plant eating. I've never heard him say a bad thing about Wonder Bread!

But here's where a funny thought occurs to me: maybe grain farmers just have a better union than swine?

Okay, but what about the butchers? Don't they have a union? Sure, but aren't those boys pretty expendable? I mean couldn't you get any ex-con with a cobra tattoo to wack them over the head with a mallet? But farming takes some skill and patience. They depend on rain at the right time and sunshine at the right time--which makes them pray to God, which makes them civilized. Farming created civilization and the psychology of farming stabilized it. (And may have also created religion. And religious leaders may have done a little PR work right back at grain farmers: "Give us this day our daily bread". Who are they fooling!?). But bow and arrow toting hunters or hammer wielding pig slaughterers are instruments of fate, not servants of it. They depend on no one. They are dangerous! A threat to tranquil village life everywhere. So let's favor the farmers.

Is it possible this is (indirectly) why grains are rarely vilified? It's always the burger's fault, never the bun! Me? I don't know. I'm not a doctor. And no two doctors seem in agreement on this. But conspiracy theory lover that I am, it's at least an interesting question to ask whether job protection has influenced our perceptions of foods throughout history.  Again, grain farmers, not Gods or kings, are the creators of civilization, so is painting them as the enemy biting the hand that feeds us---no pun intended this time. As farmers have always represented a vital segment of every society's workforce, has there always been an attempt to protect them by protecting the idea of bread as a healthy staple food? And isn't harvesting grain in the cool autumn breeze so much more tender and bucolic than some jerk beating animals to death in a dark, dirty slaughterhouse? Who cares about those psychos??

And does job protection skew our modern perceptions of food and health in other ways? These days the mad scientists aren't the converters of wild grains into bread, but those who convert chemical debris into Coca-Cola and Fruit Roll Ups. Doesn't our government protect them too? The words "organic" is regulated by the government but the word "natural" is not. You can say a Twix bar is made from pure, all natural coca leaves and no one can stop you. Basically, if it says "natural" on the box. it's unnatural. But if no one notices or cares and buys it anyway.....

So while farmers and food chemists are skilled workmen who need protection, why protect comparatively unskilled hunters or planters? 

All of this is probably BS. But you have to admit: it would make a pretty good Dan Brown novel. Unhealthy food takes skill to make, healthy food requires less skill. So unhealthy food is promoted or protected even at the cost of your life!

Or maybe not. Ah forget it! Are pancakes and beer a good choice for dinner?