He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother.
I’ve just stepped off the scale, so I can tell you that right now, at this very moment, I weight 182.6 pounds. At 5’8″, this puts my Body Mass Index in the “overweight” category. By my own assessment, I am 10-15 pounds above ‘fighting trim’, and about 20 pounds above being ripped like Jesus.
My wife weighs 151 pounds, which at 5’9″ puts her BMI in normal range. My daughters, 12 and 6, are about 105lbs. and 45lbs. respective. (Guestimates; we’re not in the habit of weighing them, or encouraging them to monitor their own weights.)
This makes our family’s average about 120 pounds per person, which is an odd way to describe a family, but there’s a reason that I giving you these odd disclosures and strange maths.
Right now the plans for our Mon Tiki charter sailing catamaran are at the USCG Marine Safety Center in Washington DC.
The plans are undergoing a structure and stability review; this is where USCG naval architects review our engineers calculations to be sure our boat meets Coast Guard specs for structural integrity (structure) and capsize resistance (stability.) Like many other government bodies, the MSC has recently set up self-mandated responsiveness goals. The MSC says they will resolve all structure and stability cases within 30 days.
But right now the MSC is having trouble meeting that goal.
The reason they are having trouble is because after a couple of recent capsizes of Inspected Passenger Vessels, the Coast Guard has determined that their old figures for an average passenger weight of 160lbs is no longer representative of the America public, and no longer offers a sufficient margin of safety.
The new figure is 185lbs, a 15% increase, and the entire small inspected passenger vessel fleet is having to go under review, with new stability letters being issued, frequently with a reduction in the legal passenger count. (Under the old figure of 160lbs, Mon Tiki would rate to carry 35 passengers; under the new figures she’ll only rate for 30. Vessels already in operation are experiencing similar reductions in passenger count.)
The net result for us is the normal turn-around of about 2-3 weeks is now 4-6 weeks. (Fortunately, devotee of slack that I am, this should be a big deal, and may even end up playing in our favor.)
—-
I’m writing about this because one of the steps on the path that I took from documenter of developing world tragedy and hope to documenter of pair-bonded bliss to aspiring media commentator to professional sailer and boat builder to avocational blogger at this esteemed venue was that in the Autumn of 2008, after the election of Barack Obama, I decided that my professional/creative/social online world was too parochial and too intellectually homogeneous. I resolved to explore as far a field from my (seemingly) natural environs on the internet, and found myself at Culture11.com.
Where the red-meat issues of the (so called) “culture war” are concerned, I have no trouble labeling myself a liberal, so I found plenty to get agitated about. But what I found compelling about the editorial stance of Culture11 was the assertion that culture matters; that our society is not merely the sum total of marginal economic effects; that we are not merely amebas responding to stimulus; that we are human beings.
In particular I was delighted and antagonized by the writing of James Poulos. James’ writing at Culture11 was effete, but powerful; compelling to read in the extreme, but in my gut I also felt it was misguided. A lot of the thinking I’ve done over the past three years has been devoted to figuring out why I feel that way. With your indulgence, an extended quote from something I wrote in February of 2009, in the wake of the World Financial Crisis:
Except where laws and politics relate to cinema and sexuality, I try to steer clear of politics on this blog. I don’t expect that anyone would have to agree with my views on the alternative minimum tax, or whether or not the F-22 is a good investment in our national security in order to enjoy our films, and I’d hate for any disappointment about my or my wife’s politics on issues unrelated to freedom of expression or sexual liberty to come between someone and the enjoyment of our films. Pardon me this morning if I drift a little.
It should come as no surprise that making and distributing the films we make sometimes make me feel estranged from the society in which we live. I’ve just finished reading my post from last May “Art with a Capital A” and it put me near tears. Our various and ongoing misadventures with the powers that be are a constant reminder that my views on sexuality and cinema is very much a dissident view. What seems natural and normal to me is, at best regarded as offbeat; at worst it’s regarded as criminal.
Even within the world of sexually explicit filmmaking, our approach is considered bizarre. For the sake of my own conscience (and other reasons) we only work with couples in pre-existing relationships, and we don’t ask them to do anything with each other that they are not already happily doing in their personal, off-camera sex life. The reason for this is simple: I’m not interested in asking people to take sexual risks for the sake of my films.
Because of my need for this sort of “moral insurance” we are only able to produce one or two films a year; which means we have to sell a lot more copies of each film; which means we have to make our films to the highest possible production standards; which means things like shooting film and extended post-production schedules; which means the films cost more to make; which means we have to sell that many more copies in order to make enough money to keep making films.
I suppose whether this is a vicious or virtuous cycle is a matter of perspective, but it’s the bargain we’ve struck with ourselves, and it worked for us. Which brings me to the political part of this post.
One of the main reasons that my wife and I were able to enter into this virtuous cycle is that we’re both business-minded, willing to take risks, and financially conservative. I don’t mean financially conservative in a no income tax on capital gains sort of way, I mean financially conservative in a shopping for clothes on 34th street between Seventh and Eight Ave sort of way; we’re financially conservative in a 30 year fixed mortgage sort of way; we’re financial conservative in a save 25% of your income sort of way.
As much as any thing else, that conservatism is what has allowed us to make the films we make. It’s allowed me to follow my conscience about what I will and will not ask people to do on my set, and it’s allow us to say no thanks to distribution “deals” that would have been financially ruinous to Comstock Films, or to PR “opportunities” that would have be entirely at odds with the reason we make the films we make.
That conservatism has allowed us to say “no thanks” to HBO, BBC, CBC, Pulse Distribution, Adam & Eve, Women’s Health, Pacific Media, Tartan Films, ThinkFilms to name a few. In each case we were faced with the same question: Do we give up control of our films, of our brand, our values for the chance of greater recognition, greater reach, greater revenue?
The conclusion I’ve come to (and laying aside my presume cynicism on the part of its leaders) is that the Conservative Cultural Project, their part in our nations benighted and benighting “culture war” fails, not because it goes too far, but because it doesn’t go far enough; that vast swathes of our heritage, our flintier virtues are conspicuous in their absence from the litany of Conservative Cultural Complaints.
—
Meanwhile, over at The Atlantic, Marion Nestle has recently called for the government to regulate the word “natural”. This is part of Professor Nestle’s ongoing campaign to regulated us into Correct eating habits and Good health, but it strikes me as an unbelievably careless thought. I can’t believe there hasn’t been more response; a counter-post from another Atlantic writer, or at least a lively comment thread.
Or maybe it’s just the pace of modern life. So many posts per day, publish or perish, and all the rest. I’m sure I’ve hit SEND or POST on things I’d reconsider if someone brought them to my attention, if only they – or I – had the time.
Meanwhile, I give you The Feasty Boys.
You are the former and/or current Tony Comstock, then.Report
If not, my apologies.Report
I miss the old Poulos. Sorry to say it, but I do.Report
He writes sentences that are comprehensible to the masses now. Sellout.
(This is my way of agreeing with you.)Report
You know, it’s not exactly his writing style, although maybe it is that too. It’s more that his writing used to be challenging to me- I had to stop and wrestle with it, even if I disagreed vehemently, which I often did. I was hoping he would continue with that trend and write challenging books and push into the academy. But most of the stuff I see from him now is More of the Same. It’s very well written More of the Same. But I don’t feel much obligation to wrestle with it. I keep wondering if this is what happens with people who set out to swim against the tidal wave of stultifying and unserious media and culture- do they eventually become another node in the same board?Report
Marion Nestle writes the USDA “has defined what ‘natural’ means for meat and poultry products” and suggests that the FDA should follow suit, arguing that for marketing and labeling foods the FDA should institute a standard to help inform consumers. I don’t understand why her suggestion is unbelievably careless. I don’t know what else Neslte has advocated for, but this particular measure seem aimed at helping consumers make more informed choices, like (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts in the European Union to require front of package nutritional information (Reuters).Report
Does the weight increase affect anything else? Lifejacket size ratios, or anything of that nature?Report
What lifesaving equipment is required on what boats, on what routes and at what time of year is a whole other discussion, but briefly:
So far as I know the change in average passenger weight has not changed PFD design. Among other considerations, PFDs are rated by pound of buoyancy, and boats carrying passengers for hire are required to carry Type I PFDs, rather than the Type II or Type III that are most popular with recreational boater because of cost and comfort respectively. Not surprisingly, Type I PFD are both costly and uncomfortable.Report
Boats carrying passengers for hire are required to carry Type I PFDs, rather than the Type II or Type III that are most popular with recreational boater
That was my uneducated guess. Nice to know I can still uneducated guess correctly.
Someone I know in the restaurant biz told me that the most unfortunately complicated regs are related to the lavatory. Now, that may very well be a joke, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest.
Similarly, it would be no surprise whatsoever if that was the case on a boat.
Also, as long as we’re delving into “what it takes to take people out on the water”: how much do Americans with Disabilities bits affect you and yours?Report
David, I’m trying to get the Bill Bennett connection. Is it the Republicans’ fault you’re fat?Report
TVD:
It comes down to having the discipline to put the fork down. Govt can’t do it for you despite what liberals think.Report
Government can help though. Government can help ensure you have more readily accessible information to make comparisons. For instance requiring traffic light food labeling on the front of product packages is one suggested government intervention, red, yellow, green indicators for things like sugar, salt, and fat. People might have a general sense that a given product is unhealthy, but not clearly understood how unhealthy something is. Also, clearer labeling systems give consumers an opportunity to more easily comparison shop in the grocery store. Another government intervention would be straightforward taxation of unhealthy products like alcohol and junk foods.
Report
CC:
Restaurants give nutritional info and folks ignore it. Just let insurance companies raise rates for smokers and the fat and then we will see a difference. Not to mention that no gov’t program should pay for folks medical care if is smoking or obesity related.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/health/policy/smokers-penalized-with-health-insurance-premiums.html?scp=5&sq=health%20insurance&st=cseReport
Great post, but I may disagree with you about your last point:
I think this is a case where an assumption that liberals want to control your life is coloring your interpretation of why people support these kinds of laws. I live in a pretty “Everyone Be Healthy!” city and so these kinds of regs are popular here. But support of these regs has little or nothing to do with a desire to force people to eat what they don’t want to eat, and more to do with allowing people to eat what they do want.
Consumer pushes to have standards about food that is labelled organic, natural, fat free, etc. exist because food processing companies have historically used these labels in very purposefully dishonest ways. Taking a cow that is raised in an industrial complex using industrial methods is, as far as I’m concerned, all fine and well. Grinding up half of that cow and selling it at Safeway for more money with the label “Organically Grown” isn’t, especially since there are very real health concerns that can enter into the choice to buy organic meat. I’m not sure that I understand the objections of regulations that say that a company that primarily uses artificial chemicals in their processing cannot turn around and sell that food as “All Natural.”
Which is not to say that governmental regulations can’t fish things up; the national standards that control what can and can’t be called organic were practically written by the food processing industry. But I think it’s important to note that the intention behind the regs you’re discussing here isn’t to make buying a hamburger illegal; it’s to make sure that companies are required to be honest with their customers about what is in the food that they process, and how it is processed.Report
Consumer pushes to have standards about food that is labelled organic, natural, fat free, etc. exist because food processing companies have historically used these labels in very purposefully dishonest ways.
IAWRTod!!!Report
Stillwater, can I hire you to just follow me around all the time?Report
As long as you keep saying stuff more clearly, more prosaically, and more persuasively than I can, I’ll just keep agreeing with you for free.Report
I will even admit that I love seeing the required calorie stuff when I am in California restaurants. I know studies show it doesn’t influence most people, but it sure influences me.Report
Oh, it influences me.Report
Ditto. I am dumbfounded by the research that says it has no effect. I mean, I know I am not your “typical” “person”, but this really isn’t one of the ways I thought myself to be a freak.Report
Dude, you’re effed up.
You blog about politics.Report
Yeah. This.
I mean, I despise Nestle. Well, despise isn’t quite the right word since I don’t know her and I am sure that she is a warm and lovely person. I mean, I am familiar with her writing and strongly disapprove with her perspective and question its foundation.
But this? I don’t think she’s wrong on this.Report
Benjamin Franklin, famously, had a checklist of virtues he used to mark himself on each day in an effort to achieve moral perfection. They were: Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity, and Humility. A lot of people tried to follow those virtues. My grandfather, for instance, was a devotee. Is something like this what you mean by a more complete litany of virtues?Report
Another good book would be The Education of Henry Adams.Report
Something like that.
There have some development, positive, on the previously mentioned light air sails quandary. I think the various considerations speak to the limits and necessity of personal virtue in creating workable regimes of regulation.
Also I will shortly be telling the story of Ken, my friend the raw milk pirate.Report
Food used to be a private thing that other people had no business judging and sex was the thing that would have the force of social disapproval if you went outside of a small handful of acceptable behaviors.
They seem to be in the process of switching places.Report
I wonder which one gets more kilobytes in Leviticus.Report
We live under a new covenant now.Report
Yeah, the idea that Christians have dietary laws is a fish story.Report
In my experience, the only food taboos that I encounter among Christians are culturally identical to the food taboos of American Atheists (e.g., don’t eat horses, cats, or dogs).
I’m trying to think of a uniquely Christian food taboo and the only one that comes close is Catholics avoiding red meats on Friday.Report
Jay, as a semi-pro history obsessive, I am legally required to ask in exasperation, “When you say ‘used to be’, exactly what &#^$@ time period are you referring to?!?! And, so help me God, if you answer with ‘the past’, ‘in the mists of time’, or ‘antiquity’, I will give you a failing grade and send you to detention.”
I hope you understand.Report
It seems to me that, when I was a kid, people were disapproving of affairs, homosexuality, and pretty much anything that wasn’t monogamy-with-the-intent-of-finding-a-spouse.
Now one hears the arguments that one’s sexuality is not the business of others. If two folks are gay, it’s none of your business. If two folks are poly, it’s none of your business. If someone is pounding one out with his constituents over the internet, well, we don’t know what kind of relationship that he and his wife have and so we shouldn’t judge.
It also seems to me that food choices were much more private when I was a kid. Disapproving of Crisco vs. Lard vs. Canola Oil was unheard of. Folks might judge you for being *FAT*, but that was because you were fat.
Now we see things such as serious suggestions about the government regulating the use of the word “natural” with regards to food… and we see arguments that this is right and proper.
Maybe my childhood isn’t particularly representative, of course.Report
Cause you’re such a youngsterReport
From what I surmise, your childhood was idyllic, especially if it produced you as an adult. Not that my experience differs greatly and I assume we’re about the same age.
I don’t want to talk for David here, but I get the feeling that he’s talking about something more encompassing than healthy eating and not at all tub-thumping for regulation. What I think he’s getting at is the concept of individual virtue, which has been understood in a fairly encompassing way, covering all sorts of behaviors and attitudes- by which I mean definitely during the 18th and 19th centuries in the US and into the 20th, although arguably not far into the second half of the century. At any rate, that is what William Bennett is talking about. I think David’s suggestion is that many social conservatives pick and choose what virtues are worth practicing or preaching, with temperance in eating coming in pretty low on the list for the American audience, and not lying with another man coming in very high on the list.Report
I’d also imagine that making public professions of virtue into instruments of political ambition was traditionally considered a no-no- at any rate, it was with Jesus.Report
There are a lot of folks out there who make the mistake of thinking that matters of taste are really matters of morality.
At the end of the day, they all sort of blur together for me.Report
And yet, lying TO another man gets a pass every day from both sides of the ideological divide.Report
You must understand, Ward, that these rhetorical campaigns are necessary to convince the little people of a greater truth.
Those guys over there are wrong.Report
The shape of public health concern need change according to the different diseases that afflict the population, as the leading causes of disease change the public health response of the government changes. If smoking is a leading killer, then expect a concerted effort against smoking. Since obesity has emerged as a major problem, heart disease, diabetes, etc., public health measures will be directed at that. Food has been an area of federal level action for quite some time, the FDA and its forebears are more than a century old and labeling legislation is now several decades old. I’d also guess that innovations in the food industry could prompt the need for cordoning off some foodstuffs as “natural” and others as not so much.Report
I’m sure that it will work as well as the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror.Report
Hasn’t the war on poverty significantly reduced poverty amongst the older population? Also, the Labour government in the UK, up until the Great Recession, had made significant inroads in combating child poverty. In the public health domain, smoking is a lot less prevalent than it used to be in the US in decades past. I think a public health approach to drugs would do a great deal of good.Report
High tobacco & alcohol taxes most adversely affect the poor.Report
Shit, I don’t need the Wall Street Journal to tell me that!Report
That’s a good point to put into the mix. But outweighed, to me, by the broader public health consequences of cheap alcohol and tobacco. The Lancet piece describes an intervention that is especially targeted at those abusing alcohol, largely avoiding impacting the general public, mandatory minimum pricing per unit of alcohol. Also, there are non-tax measures, Australia’s proposal to remove branding from cigarette packaging, or other measures from public awareness campaigns to prohibitions on sponsorships and advertising in certain circumstances, and limits on the level of nicotine in cigarettes. Overall, I view both non-communicable disease and communicable diseases as worthy of (proportionate) public health interventions.Report
Sort of in that vein, here’s a delightful depiction of a glutton by Samuel Butler that I found in this book of 17th century character writings:
A GLUTTON eats his Children, as the Poets say Saturn did, and carries his Felicity and all his Concernments in his Paunch. If he had lived when all the Members of the Body rebelled against the Stomach, there had been no Possibility of Accommodation. His Entrails are like the Sarcophagus, that devours dead Bodies in a small Space, or the Indian Zampatan, that consumes Flesh in a Moment. He is a great Dish made on Purpose to carry Meat. He eats out his own Head and his Horses too—He knows no Grace, but Grace before Meat, nor Mortification but in fasting. If the Body be the Tabernacle of the Soul, he lives in a Sutler’s Hut. He celebrates Mass, or rather Mess, to the Idol in his Belly, and, like a Papist, eats his Adoration. A third Course is the third Heaven to him, and he is ravished into it. A Feast is a good Conscience to him; and he is troubled in Mind, when he misses of it. His Teeth are very industrious in their calling; and his Chops like a Bridewell perpetually hatcheling. He depraves his Appetite with Haut-Gousts, as old Fornicators do their Lechery, into Fulsomness and Stinks. He licks himself into the Shape of a Bear, as those Beasts are said to do their Whelps. He new forms himself in his own Belly, and becomes another Thing than God and Nature meant him. His Belly takes Place of the Rest of his Members, and walks before in State. He eats out that which eats all Things else, Time; and is very curious to have all Things in Season at his Meals, but his Hours, which are commonly at Midnight, and so late, that he prays too late for his daily Bread, unless he mean his natural daily Bread. He is admirably learned in the Doctrines of Meats and Sauces, and deserves the Chair in Juris-Prudentia, that is in the Skill of Pottages. At length he eats his Life out of House and Home, and becomes a Treat for Worms, sells his Cloaths to feed his Gluttony, and eats himself naked, as the first of his Family, Adam, did.Report
And after abandoning that, we can pick it back up, repackage it, and make it something more appropriate for the 21st Century.
Hurray.
Progress.Report
Well, obviously that’s not where I was going with that, but I assume you know that and are just commenting on something else or someone else.Report
I’ll restate from the beginnings of my recollections then:
When I was a kid, what one ate was NOYB and sex was something that society in general was allowed to have opinions on.
Now it seems that we’re becoming a society where sex is NOYB and food is something that society in general is allowed to have opinions on.
It’s certainly true that Christians had a deadly sin called Gluttony at one point and it also seems to me that that sin was abandoned at some point prior to my childhood… and it also seems that the old sin is being brought back with new and improved marketing for a modern generation.
I wonder what we do today that is considered NOYB that will obviously be something that we, as a society, will be expected to care about tomorrow?
My own, personal, conclusion is that it will also be a matter of taste.Report
Sex too is the subject of public health concern, it is just a different kind of public health concern – and fraught territory given the culture wars. But safe sex messages abound, and on my college campus free condoms were readily available, from RAs, at the student health center, and the student union. But for the culture wars, I think sex education in America would be a really useful tool in improving sexual health. At high school age I recall seeing some sex education materials from the Netherlands, Americans would have a huge battle on their hands if sexual health were addressed in such an explicit manner.Report
Sex is still everyone’s business, as you may have noticed the last time you tried to have sex in the shower with a ten-year-old boy. We’re just allowed to make public allusions to the fact that there are more kinds of sex than the missionary position.
And people have been getting snorky about other people’s consumption choices since the first distillery was invented. The Temperance Movement has always been with us; it’s just given up on alcohol and moved to butter and carbs.Report
The temperance movement went after stuff that made you feel good. (Hey, feeling good is the reward for being good. It shouldn’t be available in a dang bottle!)
The new movement is now going after stuff that merely tastes good.Report
But eating stuff that tastes good feels so good!Report
Okay, you’re arguing against this new temperance movement. So, is there a widespread movement to ban junk food in the United States analogous to the movement to ban the sale of alcohol? Given that there’s a bit of everything down there, I’d imagine there probably is. How successful have they been? The last time I was in the US (Thursday), I got the impression that junk food is winning.Report
Further to this “progress” thing, you know, I assume, that cultures don’t progress- they just change. One of the biggest misconceptions we got from the Enlightenment was that there’s some sort of similar process analogous to technological change going on with culture. So, if a word processor really is an advance on a typewriter, then the cultural norms of today must be an advance on those of the previous generation in some sort of upward slope. After all, we’re getting wiser each generation, right? Approaching some sort of perfection? The arc of history bending towards justice? No. There is no arc of history- it has no direction. Culture isn’t becoming perfected; nor is it in decline. To believe all of that, you have to believe in teleology and that history has a direction, which means you have to also imagine yourself able to predict the future. Good luck. But the differences between generations are just that- differences. Humans have an endless fascination with novelty. If you hate something in this generation, chances are their kids will reject it. Boredom actually is a historical force.
Doesn’t mean it’s progress or decline. I find that, if you don’t believe in teleologies of cultural progress, it’s hard to see eye to eye with liberals and, if you don’t believe in teleologies of cultural decline, it’s hard to see eye to eye with conservatives.Report
Life expectancy, rates of communicable disease, literacy rates, crime rates, corruption perceptions, frequency of Great Power war, opportunities for minorities and women – isn’t progress shorthand for an overlapping consensus on a set of things we want to prevent or promote. Some are associated with technological change, but some are associated with social/cultural change. Observers should keep in mind the pitfalls of “Music these days, terrible!” thinking, but there are metrics that’re pretty useful in other domains.Report
It’s not a bad metric, but it can easily become a sort of self-satisfied status quo thinking akin to nationalism. I see this all the time with my students. There are plenty of things they’d like to change, but they’re also comfortable in the knowledge that the culture was always a lot less enlightened than we are right now. You’d think the number 1 profession throughout all of human history until their birth was “angry, torch-wielding peasant”.Report
I find that, if you don’t believe in teleologies of cultural progress, it’s hard to see eye to eye with liberals and, if you don’t believe in teleologies of cultural decline, it’s hard to see eye to eye with conservatives.
Libertarianism in a nutshell.
When I look at a thing and see that it’s a matter of taste (and therefore NOYB), it seems that both sides are upset with me for not seeing it as a matter of morality that one side sees that I ought to condemn and the other that I ought to endorse.Report
Yeah, there are some other reasons that I don’t consider myself much of a liberal or a conservative too. There are reasons too that I don’t consider myself much of a libertarian, although I’ll hold my tongue so we don’t end up with another 500+ comment thread. Also, I’m still not sure if my qualms with libertarianism aren’t mostly stylistic.Report
Public health professionals aren’t publishing warnings in JAMA and the like because they’re moved to make a more virtuous society. They are not repackaging mores from earlier eras, they are issuing warnings about the causes of disease in our era. Warnings supported by evidence. The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice for instance grounds its findings in a very different evidentiary base and reasoning than those with the prevention of disease in mind. Were the problem in the US widespread malnutrition due to insufficient caloric intake, then the public health advice would be about supporting ways to eat more. The junk food (or alcohol) itself has no particular valence, moral or otherwise. Were junk food mark two invented tomorrow, tasty with no negative health consequences, the public health minded would move on to other causes of disease. Thus there is no repacking of ideas about gluttony here, merely concern with the causes of serious illness.Report