Just watched the US get eliminated from the World Cup by the Netherlands. It wasn't an absolutely terrible performance, but it certainly wasn't a good performance. The problem with our country when it comes to men's soccer is that we aren't as good at it as other nations. That's very understandable when you consider that soccer is the most popular men's sport in most other countries by a huge margin, and here it probably doesn't even crack the top five. It's definitely behind football, baseball, and basketball, which are dominated by the US on the international stage, but also likely behind other big-money sports like hockey, golf, MMA, and even (somehow) NASCAR. Then if you toss in all the niche sports the US is good at -- swimming, track and field, lacrosse, skiing, snowboarding, skateboarding, etc. -- the resources/interest/attention in sports are spread very thin, so it's going to be tough to be really good at such an internationally competitive sport as soccer. (Australia, the only country in the world who rivals the US in terms of athletic depth and breadth, also isn't great at soccer.)
But I do think that the US is on the ascension as far as men's soccer is concerned. MLS is reasonably popular, and a lot of younger people are getting into English Premier League since access to its games are now readily available. Also, the women's team is the best in the world and becoming increasingly popular. So, all that indicates the arrow is pointing in the right direction. On the other hand, we've been hearing about soccer's American takeover for the past 40 years, and it still hasn't happened. On the other other hand, sometimes we write things off because they haven't happened on the timeline we initially foresaw, but then they actually do come to fruition. I'm thinking of the electric car which was right around the corner at the turn of the millennium, except it wasn't, and so everybody was like, it's dead now, but 15 years later and it's very much alive and thriving and has been for the better part of a decade.
Along similar lines, I think (hope) renewable energy is following this same trajectory. Green energy has long been touted as a climate change solution by environmentalists, but we are currently in a "we can't get by on renewable energy alone" phase. However, it seems to me like we might actually be relatively close to doing just this. The reason I say this is because we have solar panels on our house right now that generate about 5 MWh per year. The annual average for a family is around 10 MWh. So, we generate roughly half of what the average family uses, and we only have panels on half our house (the other half is behind trees), and we live in an area where the sun doesn't shine brightly all year round (although it does shine more than in other parts of the country). If you take into consideration that technology is only going to get better and that this is just solar (not wind). It seems like we should be able to, at the very least, make a giant dent in fossil fuel consumption and be well on our way to phasing it out completely.
I mean, I visit my in-laws in Florida, a place where the sun in blazing like ten hours a day all year round, and I rarely see solar panels on roofs. How much energy could you produce by having a massive campaign to get everybody in Florida solar panels? Why don't they do this? I mean, I know why -- Republicans are in charge and only seem interested in fighting pointless "culture war" battles (solar power is probably seen as "woke" energy or some other such nonsense), but you'd think at some point pure pragmatism would win out over politics, and maybe it will -- or maybe I'm hopelessly naive. It could go either way.
In other news, I'm back on my 16-8 diet. I stopped at the end of the summer because we went to Iceland, and it was too hard to maintain while traveling, which is fine, but then instead of getting right back to it when we returned, I was like nah... I already messed it all up, which is a totally ridiculous rationalization that we all do for some reason. I call it the all-or-nothing fallacy. I almost did it again this time. After eating copious amounts of food over Thanksgiving break, I was thinking I should start intermittent fasting again, and then I thought yeah, but I don't want to do that over Christmas, might as well just wait until next year. But there's, like, a month between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Even if I want to pig out for a day or even a few days, I could still do my diet the other 25 days. But we all play these little games with ourselves to justify doing what we want to do in the moment, even though we know it's not what we want to do in the long run.
I got on the scale the other day, and I was the heaviest I can ever remember. To be clear, I'm definitely not a slave to the scale. I don't think it's an accurate measure of how healthy you are. I mostly subscribe to the healthy at every size philosophy. Some people are just fatter than others, and it doesn't necessarily mean they're less healthy.* With that said, gaining weight is an indication for some people (like me) that they should make some changes to be more healthy. A lot of times it's the symptom of the issue, not the issue itself. For me, it was proof I was eating too much crap -- housing entire sleeves of Ritz in one sitting, raiding my kids' Halloween candy for the mini Twix bars, downing spoonfuls of ice cream before I go to bed, cleaning up all the kids' leftovers at restaurants, etc. So, no more. Now, I'm back to only eating two big meals a day, which, for me, is the most effective and sustainable way to cut the crap.
*Within reason -- if you get to be too fat obviously it will adversely affect you health. Like, if you get to be so heavy you struggle with day-to-day movement then that's a problem. But that's well beyond what we typically classify as "fat." So, "healthy at every size" is a pithy way to convey a more complex idea, not an absolute truism. It's like "honest is the best policy." Sure, but we've all been in scenarios in which it's actually more ethical to lie.
To be honest, the main reason I want to lose weight is because I don't like looking at my big belly in the mirror. That's somehow where all my excess weight goes. My belly isn't fat in the normal sense where it's soft and flabby and hangs over my pants. It's just massively distended. It's like I have a literal food baby. I've been hitting the weights pretty good, so I'm in decent shape and looking alright, but for this basketball I have stuck to my abdomen. There are other problems with having an oversize stomach -- for example, clothes that used to fit are now too snug -- but vanity is number one on my list.
What can I say, looks do matter. Often associated with the "healthy at every size" movement is the "redefining the beauty standard" movement, and I'm less bullish on that concept. It strikes me as seeing the world as you wish it was, not the way it is. Yes, people of all different shapes and sizes can be beautiful, and many people are into those who aren't conventionally attractive, but... there's a reason your best-looking friend gets more attention than you and hot people get all the best acting roles. Most people would rather gaze at Sofia Vergara and Joe Manganiello than the schlubby couple in the condiment aisle at Costco. It's like, go ahead and "redefine" things however you want -- my loins aren't going to get the memo.
That's the other thing: People can't help who they're attracted to. I thought this was well-established by now, especially among the type of people who would push back against traditional norms of beauty and attraction. I mean, all my life, a pillar of the gay rights movement has been the "born this way" argument -- the idea that sexual attraction is not a choice. And it's absolutely true. But it's true for boring normies too. Women who like tall men with chiseled muscles, and dudes who like slender women with big boobs, can't help that that's what they prefer, and nobody should be made to feel ashamed for being attracted to the "wrong" type of person.
What's more, there's no reason to make anybody feel this way because no matter what you look like or what you weigh, there is somebody out there who would really like to have sex with you, and the internet makes it possible for you to easily find them. So, let's not worry that most people would rather get with the person in the "after" photo of the Jenny Craig advertisement. There are more than enough lids for every pot.
Until next time...
PS -- The title of this entry is my second favorite palindrome of all time. My first favorite: Tulsa nightlife -- filth, gin, a slut.
No comments:
Post a Comment