Definitions:
Healthy: in good health
Health: the state of being free from illness or injury
Heavy: of great weight; difficult to lift or move
Fat: (of a person or animal) having a large amount of excess flesh
Obese: grossly fat or overweight
CDC Definitions (Body Mass Index = Weight / Height^2 * 705):
Underweight: BMI under 18.5
Overweight: BMI 25 - 29.9
Obese: BMI 30 or above
(and where does the seemingly arbitrary constant of 705 in the calculation come from?)
Most years around the end of the year I get a health screening at work. Things often slow down between Christmas and New Years so it is a good time to do this. I knew I had bulked up a bit since the last screening; a stressful year means that food choices often contained some less healthy options. Also, my hunting had been less than stellar this year so the low fat wild game I tend to eat a lot off was not as available as it usually is (this did mean I ate a lot more baby-back ribs this year, mmmmmmmm.)
My weight was put just into the overweight category. I'm not surprised by this although my activity level has remained pretty constant. I still walk between three and five miles most days and in general, my food choices tend to be healthy. I have almost unmeasureably low LDL (bad) cholesterol, and high HDL (good) cholesterol. Outside of weight, all other numbers are near the ideal limits.
This prompted me to look into what the CDC considers healthy (defined above). If we look at the median height man in the US of 5'10" we see that a BMI of 25 splits healthy from overweight and this equates to about 173 pounds. At the lower end of the healthy range is a weight of about 123 pounds. Being about this median height, I don't know what it would take to get at the lower end of healthy, but it would probably require a good long methamphetamine run to achieve that drugs over food emaciated look. Simply put, I don't think the CDC guidelines represent reality. Reinforcing this, based on the %body-fat my health screening gave me, I would have to lose well over 100% of my body fat to reach the lower limit of the CDC's health guidelines - and I'm already short on upper body strength.
The health screening came on the heels of reading Dara-Lynn Weiss' book The Heavy. Spoiler alert, while the book is about Ms. Weiss and her overweight daughter, "The Heavy" in the book is actually Ms. Weiss, as in pushing for changes in her daughter.
I'm not sure how this book ended up on my read-list but I resisted for quite some time. I was expecting this book to be by some self-righteous preachy bitch pushing the latest health trend de jour of raw milk and kale (or something). I picked up the book in the library many months ago and flipped open the book to see how it was written. The part I happen to flip through did make Ms. Weiss seem like a psycho (if you've read the book, I happened to open it to the hot chocolate episode). With not much else to read around Christmas, I finally read The Heavy.
I was wrong about the book. What is described in the book is a frank and honest journey about weight loss. I appreciated that the approach used was a sensical math - calories in vs. out approach. Far from a tale about how well a health craze worked, the author admits that processed foods (in moderation) are sometimes a realistically good choice figuring in the time commitments most people face. After reading the book, I followed that up to see what the reaction to it and Ms. Weiss' Vogue article was. While the reviews of both were mixed, I believe the vilification of her is off-base. Much of the criticism revolves around pushing weight loss on a young child. Part of a parent's job is to teach good habits in childhood so the bad don't need to be unlearned in (young) adulthood. Kids are taught at a very early age that hitting and lying are wrong, even though the ramifications of both are minimal in kindergarten. I don't understand how it is less appropriate to teach healthy eating habits.
I think her methods are open for discussion and she is potentially overzealous, but with no shortage of fat people (apparently myself included), it is a goal that should be shared, not maligned.
The book was well written and tells the complete story well. I think there are a couple fair criticisms of the story. Writing about the situation in Vogue was really, really dumb. The same story (told in brief as opposed to the book) in a different magazine which doesn't pray to the god of heroin chic would likely have been better received.
The other criticism is believing the CDC guidelines as some kind of gospel. Ms. Weiss and her daughter's picture in Vogue do not show two people on the verge of being overweight (she addresses this picture in the book, but her explanation falls flat). Extending this argument, if two people were shown - and both were at the lower end of the CDC healthy scale, it would probably be hard to suggest that there wasn't some horrible eating disorder causing severe malnutrition.
So the CDC says I'm overweight. I'm just going to say I'm corpulent and will continue to eat relatively healthy, and walk my dogs almost every day. But, maybe I'll also lay off the bags of extra thick flavored chips.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Sunday, December 29, 2013
The Average American (Part 2)
A couple weeks ago I wrote a sort-of book review about Kevin O'Keefe's The Average American. Reading this book was prompted by my continuing interest in what the average American is and isn't and how people actually live. While most people think they are fairly average (and by definition many will be), I wonder how many know what average is. I'm quite sure that politicians - especially on the national league - are so out of touch as to have very little idea what average is, and isn't. Again by definition, just getting into the club of Congress means that they are in such a small select group that a politician is no longer normal.
But, this isn't a post about anything political. Taking a different tactic on what Mr. O'Keefe did, I was curious about statistics about what is actually average in the US. Not what makes us so obliquely normal that only one person in the country can finally be average, but what are the norms.
Most of the information came from the Census Bureau's web site, which is a wealth of information, easily searchable and sensibly displayed. Other sources were from online news articles and sadly, some from Wikipedia. Most of the latter was backed up by verification (in overall scope) from other sources.
So what is an American? I've broken this down in four groups identified as: Fundamentals, Characteristics, Life, Financials. What makes life interesting are the differences, sometimes big - others small. These are merely soulless statistics about the bulk of people living in the United States. As an aside (and only an aside), some of the most interesting people I have met have fallen pretty far out of these norms.
Fundamentals
Citizen of the United States - 93% of the population
Born in the United States - 87% of the population.
Characteristics
Height (male) 5'5" to 6'1" - 80% of the population (median is 5'10")
Height (female) 5'0" to 5'7" - 80% of the population (median is 5'4")
Weight (male) 146 to 252 lbs - 80% of the population (median is 195 lbs)
Weight (female) 118 to 225 lbs - 80% of the population (median is 165 lbs)
Life
Graduated from High School - 75% of the population
Can read English fluently - 85% of the population
Family is important - 87% of the population (stolen form Kevin O'Keefe and the most nebulous statistic)
Can legally drive a car - 68% of the population
Uses a telephone - 98% of the population (likely in a few years this will be changed specifically to a mobile)
Uses the internet - 85% of the population
Eats meat - 95% of the population (while vegetarians are in theory greater than 5%, the vast majority cheat on occasion)
Financials
Own a home - 68% of the population
Annual family income between $13k and $145k - 80% of the population
Net household worth between $5k and $660k - 80% of the population
I wanted to include "Have Children" in the mix, but while accurate rates of childbearing are available for women, the same cannot be said of men. Data point to a consistent rate of 79% regardless of sex, but I didn't find this number compelling enough to include.
If all of these characteristics were randomly distributed in the population, that would mean about 6.7% of the 317 million Americans (from the Census Bureau's Population Clock as of this writing) would be average - or about 21.2 million. In reality, there is going to be significant overlap which is beyond what I can find hidden in the statistics easily available. For example, I suspect there will be overlap in the populations of people not born in the United States and those that can't fluently read English. In other words, I have no idea how many people are average but that isn't the point. As Mr. O'Keefe's book was a personal narrative about finding the Average American, perhaps this is a good excuse to continue to travel to discover how many of us are average - and how interesting the combination of average and bizarre can be.
Just as important, the list includes many things that would be common across the population of any developed country, suggesting that in most cases, these characteristics define what it means to live on the planet in a developed country?
Regardless of any of this, I'll continue to be fascinated by the norms of what it means to live in the United States and what it is to be different.
As the saying goes:
Remember that you are unique, just like everybody else.
But, this isn't a post about anything political. Taking a different tactic on what Mr. O'Keefe did, I was curious about statistics about what is actually average in the US. Not what makes us so obliquely normal that only one person in the country can finally be average, but what are the norms.
Most of the information came from the Census Bureau's web site, which is a wealth of information, easily searchable and sensibly displayed. Other sources were from online news articles and sadly, some from Wikipedia. Most of the latter was backed up by verification (in overall scope) from other sources.
So what is an American? I've broken this down in four groups identified as: Fundamentals, Characteristics, Life, Financials. What makes life interesting are the differences, sometimes big - others small. These are merely soulless statistics about the bulk of people living in the United States. As an aside (and only an aside), some of the most interesting people I have met have fallen pretty far out of these norms.
Fundamentals
Citizen of the United States - 93% of the population
Born in the United States - 87% of the population.
Characteristics
Height (male) 5'5" to 6'1" - 80% of the population (median is 5'10")
Height (female) 5'0" to 5'7" - 80% of the population (median is 5'4")
Weight (male) 146 to 252 lbs - 80% of the population (median is 195 lbs)
Weight (female) 118 to 225 lbs - 80% of the population (median is 165 lbs)
Life
Graduated from High School - 75% of the population
Can read English fluently - 85% of the population
Family is important - 87% of the population (stolen form Kevin O'Keefe and the most nebulous statistic)
Can legally drive a car - 68% of the population
Uses a telephone - 98% of the population (likely in a few years this will be changed specifically to a mobile)
Uses the internet - 85% of the population
Eats meat - 95% of the population (while vegetarians are in theory greater than 5%, the vast majority cheat on occasion)
Financials
Own a home - 68% of the population
Annual family income between $13k and $145k - 80% of the population
Net household worth between $5k and $660k - 80% of the population
I wanted to include "Have Children" in the mix, but while accurate rates of childbearing are available for women, the same cannot be said of men. Data point to a consistent rate of 79% regardless of sex, but I didn't find this number compelling enough to include.
If all of these characteristics were randomly distributed in the population, that would mean about 6.7% of the 317 million Americans (from the Census Bureau's Population Clock as of this writing) would be average - or about 21.2 million. In reality, there is going to be significant overlap which is beyond what I can find hidden in the statistics easily available. For example, I suspect there will be overlap in the populations of people not born in the United States and those that can't fluently read English. In other words, I have no idea how many people are average but that isn't the point. As Mr. O'Keefe's book was a personal narrative about finding the Average American, perhaps this is a good excuse to continue to travel to discover how many of us are average - and how interesting the combination of average and bizarre can be.
Just as important, the list includes many things that would be common across the population of any developed country, suggesting that in most cases, these characteristics define what it means to live on the planet in a developed country?
Regardless of any of this, I'll continue to be fascinated by the norms of what it means to live in the United States and what it is to be different.
As the saying goes:
Remember that you are unique, just like everybody else.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Christmas Cards
It is "The Christmas Season." Given that there is not one Christmas decoration up in the house, it is more appropriate to call it "Christmas Card Season." I have Christmas Trees up all year round in the back yard. One is dead and I'm hoping for the Christmas Wind to come by and knock it over so I can get rid of it. My trees never get to wear lights; they like it that way.
For a bit of an antisocial curmudgeon, I actually like the Christmas cards. I like writing an annual Christmas letter. There are rules for these things though. The letter needs to be short, no more than one page in reasonable font. Bragging must be minimized but retelling a few interesting events is OK. I try to mention a few tidbits of the year along with enough self-deprecation so as to avoid making things sound too much better than they really are. The letter does contain a bit of Facebook Reality though (the ongoing description of events to be better than, or worse than, they are in reality). A couple years ago I got a Christmas letter from an acquaintance which was the most depressing thing I had ever read (dog died, job lost, kid divorced and pregnant, etc.). I guess that does demonstrate a refreshing sort of honesty though.
I know many people do not read the Christmas Letter. Three years ago I included the move and new address information in the letter and since that day I receive less than half of the Christmas Cards that I used to. I would have thought that by this time the return address labels would have rectified, but perhaps the cards are never even opened, ending up in the dustbin with nary a glance.
I also enjoy getting the letters - much more than I used to. Some of the letters from relatives can feel a bit abstract. I come from a very large extended family and the updates from relatives about cousins I vaguely remember now having children I'll never meet almost seems like a Christmas Card from a near stranger. Last year NPR had a story on sending Christmas Cards to complete strangers. I had wanted to do that for years, but never had. Perhaps in addition to being a curmudgeon, I'm also yaller, worried that such an act could bring on a Christmas Ass-Kicking.
The cards that I find the funniest are from the businesses I interact with. I'm baffled with the motivation behind these as business wouldn't do anything like this if they didn't think it helped the bottom line in some manner.
I suppose my insurance agent does appreciate my business, but in addition to Christmas, I get Thanksgiving, New Years, birthdays, and possibly other cards I don't recall right now.
My vet sends a card. They probably don't want to be forgotten, although the dogs probably wish the vet wouldn't send reminders. I guess it was a cute card though. I appreciate their use of Christmas in place of the more generic "Holidays" or similar.
The most touching greeting came from the credit card company. I value their warm wishes and the frugality of not using any additional paper for salutation - just a bit of ink.
No doubt, these three businesses do get a phenomenal amount of money from me. The IRS also has a significant hand in reducing my financial liquidity, but I hope they don't start sending me holiday greetings.
There are only two more post office deliveries before Christmas.
Our warmest holiday wishes...
For a bit of an antisocial curmudgeon, I actually like the Christmas cards. I like writing an annual Christmas letter. There are rules for these things though. The letter needs to be short, no more than one page in reasonable font. Bragging must be minimized but retelling a few interesting events is OK. I try to mention a few tidbits of the year along with enough self-deprecation so as to avoid making things sound too much better than they really are. The letter does contain a bit of Facebook Reality though (the ongoing description of events to be better than, or worse than, they are in reality). A couple years ago I got a Christmas letter from an acquaintance which was the most depressing thing I had ever read (dog died, job lost, kid divorced and pregnant, etc.). I guess that does demonstrate a refreshing sort of honesty though.
I know many people do not read the Christmas Letter. Three years ago I included the move and new address information in the letter and since that day I receive less than half of the Christmas Cards that I used to. I would have thought that by this time the return address labels would have rectified, but perhaps the cards are never even opened, ending up in the dustbin with nary a glance.
I also enjoy getting the letters - much more than I used to. Some of the letters from relatives can feel a bit abstract. I come from a very large extended family and the updates from relatives about cousins I vaguely remember now having children I'll never meet almost seems like a Christmas Card from a near stranger. Last year NPR had a story on sending Christmas Cards to complete strangers. I had wanted to do that for years, but never had. Perhaps in addition to being a curmudgeon, I'm also yaller, worried that such an act could bring on a Christmas Ass-Kicking.
The cards that I find the funniest are from the businesses I interact with. I'm baffled with the motivation behind these as business wouldn't do anything like this if they didn't think it helped the bottom line in some manner.
I suppose my insurance agent does appreciate my business, but in addition to Christmas, I get Thanksgiving, New Years, birthdays, and possibly other cards I don't recall right now.
My vet sends a card. They probably don't want to be forgotten, although the dogs probably wish the vet wouldn't send reminders. I guess it was a cute card though. I appreciate their use of Christmas in place of the more generic "Holidays" or similar.
The most touching greeting came from the credit card company. I value their warm wishes and the frugality of not using any additional paper for salutation - just a bit of ink.
There are only two more post office deliveries before Christmas.
Our warmest holiday wishes...
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Hunting Pornography
No, this isn't about looking very hard for porn, this is about the direction that much of the media in the hunting industry is going and has been for quite some time.
This year's hunting season is pretty much over for me. I still have a tag and there is time left for muzzle-loader or late gun season, but I happily took a doe a few weeks ago and between that and my antelope I'm set for meat. It was a tougher season than most as for whatever reason I just wasn't seeing as many deer as I often have.
I get several hunting magazines. Some I subscribe to or get through other memberships, and I've recently started to get a few more that I assume are showing up gratas in the hopes I will love them and pay money to continue in the future (I won't).
I enjoy reading magazines early in the morning with my coffee, but I am finding myself reading less and less of the material in the hunting periodicals. There are always a few articles I find compelling or stories of hunts that are interesting, but much of what is written approaches fiction.
Hunting magazines have become analogous to what porn is to real personal relationships.
Too many writers (or hunting personalities/celebrities -ugh), will espouse an ethos that if just xx is done, big bucks will come rolling out of the hills and walk into the crosshairs. Or, if you buy yy product and use zz tactic, the biggest baddest bear in the area will gleefully appear ready to take a bullet.
Pure fiction.
To be fair, I do believe almost every area, no matter how heavily hunted will hold a few impressive animals. But most of us mere mortals are hunting public land or if lucky enough to be on private land, it will still be hunted hard enough that having a decent shot at a decent animal can be an awesome experience. With hard work, time put in, and a lot of luck, most of us mere mortals will have rare opportunities to see animals like the porn stars that grace the glossy pages of the hunting magazines.
I would also like to see more screw-ups admitted, bringing more reality to hunting fiction. Every hunter I know has more moments that end in expletives, than blood.
I don't pay for TV at home, but do occasionally find myself watching the rare hunting show while somewhere else. These are an even more exploitative form of hunting porn. While on a guided hunt several years ago, I found myself talking to a minor hunting celebrity (he was actually a really nice guy). He freely admitted that much of the footage used in the industry is restaged for effect or combined from completely unrelated time lines. I have seen examples of this where lighting changes dramatically from scene to scene, making it appear what happened in a brief period was actually done at much different times and different places (in one example, the hunter must have changed clothes and sponsors mid-hunt).
To industry insiders, hunting is an industry, a job. They have a product to sell, whether it is a do-dad from a sponsor or the porn itself.
I'll continue to get magazines for the interesting bits in them and skim the rest; the cost is relatively small. More importantly, I'll continue to enjoy real hunting, with the long wonderful days with little animal movement, the screw-ups and missed opportunities and the times it all comes together to put meat in the freezer.
This year's hunting season is pretty much over for me. I still have a tag and there is time left for muzzle-loader or late gun season, but I happily took a doe a few weeks ago and between that and my antelope I'm set for meat. It was a tougher season than most as for whatever reason I just wasn't seeing as many deer as I often have.
I get several hunting magazines. Some I subscribe to or get through other memberships, and I've recently started to get a few more that I assume are showing up gratas in the hopes I will love them and pay money to continue in the future (I won't).
I enjoy reading magazines early in the morning with my coffee, but I am finding myself reading less and less of the material in the hunting periodicals. There are always a few articles I find compelling or stories of hunts that are interesting, but much of what is written approaches fiction.
Hunting magazines have become analogous to what porn is to real personal relationships.
Too many writers (or hunting personalities/celebrities -ugh), will espouse an ethos that if just xx is done, big bucks will come rolling out of the hills and walk into the crosshairs. Or, if you buy yy product and use zz tactic, the biggest baddest bear in the area will gleefully appear ready to take a bullet.
Pure fiction.
To be fair, I do believe almost every area, no matter how heavily hunted will hold a few impressive animals. But most of us mere mortals are hunting public land or if lucky enough to be on private land, it will still be hunted hard enough that having a decent shot at a decent animal can be an awesome experience. With hard work, time put in, and a lot of luck, most of us mere mortals will have rare opportunities to see animals like the porn stars that grace the glossy pages of the hunting magazines.
I would also like to see more screw-ups admitted, bringing more reality to hunting fiction. Every hunter I know has more moments that end in expletives, than blood.
I don't pay for TV at home, but do occasionally find myself watching the rare hunting show while somewhere else. These are an even more exploitative form of hunting porn. While on a guided hunt several years ago, I found myself talking to a minor hunting celebrity (he was actually a really nice guy). He freely admitted that much of the footage used in the industry is restaged for effect or combined from completely unrelated time lines. I have seen examples of this where lighting changes dramatically from scene to scene, making it appear what happened in a brief period was actually done at much different times and different places (in one example, the hunter must have changed clothes and sponsors mid-hunt).
To industry insiders, hunting is an industry, a job. They have a product to sell, whether it is a do-dad from a sponsor or the porn itself.
I'll continue to get magazines for the interesting bits in them and skim the rest; the cost is relatively small. More importantly, I'll continue to enjoy real hunting, with the long wonderful days with little animal movement, the screw-ups and missed opportunities and the times it all comes together to put meat in the freezer.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
1980-something Ford F150
Ohio got snow yesterday.
It was a fairly significant snow by SW Ohio standards, with the immediate area getting somewhere around 6 inches; there is always drifting which makes determining how much a little inexact.
Where I grew up in Michigan, we got real snow - lake effect snow caused by the air blowing over Lake Michigan and picking up moisture, then dumping it on us. My "real" cars were typically MG's and although I did have a 74&1/2 MGB I drove for several winters, I mostly had junky rear-wheel drive cars to attempt to make it through the frequent deep snows of Michigan winters. Open differential coupled with questionable tires and no engine management meant it wasn't always easy, but still somewhat fun.
While still in college, I bought an older Datsun 620 Truck that I drove for several months. It was a blast to drive but was worse than most vehicles in even moderate snow. Getting started on slippery conditions made things difficult, stopping with questionable drum brakes on all four corners made it scary. I really, really wanted a 4wd truck.
While browsing the classifieds in the newspaper (it was around 1992 so there were no online ads), I saw a dealership that had a four wheel drive F150 for a crazy low price. I drove by it on a Sunday and saw it was pretty rusty, but on par with many of my "winter Vehicles."
Returning the next day I talked to the owner/salesman. He told me that it had a "tick" in the engine. Once started, the tick turned out to be a knock. But the oil pressure was good and the oil didn't look like tar so I wasn't too concerned. I was working at the time as a mechanic and wasn't intimidated by dropping the pan to replace engine bearings.
I told the salesman that I would give him my Datsun and $300. The salesman bawled foul and I said, "OK, thanks. Bye." I wasn't really trying to negotiate, $300 was about all that I had. As I started to leave, he quickly suggested my Datsun and $500. No, $300 and I started to leave - again, not really trying to play hardball. As I got in my truck the salesman came over and said, "OK, $300."
We shook on it and I was to come back the next day with the title and cash. As I left, I realized I didn't have $300 and payday was still a few days away. I was able to scrounge around and come up with the cash. $300 was a lot more then, than it is now...
After buying the truck, I was on top of the world driving home. The bed was totally rusted out, but Duke of 'Brother Love Towing' across the street from work gave me a very heavy steel plate that he had sitting in his property. The front gas tank leaked a little so I nervously tack-welded the steel place down the middle of the bed with several people around me holding fire extinguishers. And, I did put a fire blanket between the fuel tank and the bed. Also, the rear fuel tank was askew from some previous incident and the filling of it was glacially slow.
Turning to the "tick" in the engine, I isolated the noise to the #2 cylinder. Dropping the oil pan (had to remove the oil pump in place and drop it in the pan to get the pan off, replacement is the reverse, but not quite as easy as the drive mechanism is a looong rod that also drives the distributor), I replaced the rod bearings assuming that was the cause of the noise. Knowing I was in trouble when all the bearings looked good, I wasn't too surprised when the noise was unchanged.
I bought a used bedliner and truck box from a guy who turned out to be a former SO of my sister. There was no tailgate, so I fashioned one out of hardware store chain with a welder.
At the end of that first winter, I pulled the heads and found a bad wrist pin on further investigation. Only later did I learn this was a common flaw with the 351 Windsor engine. After reassembly the "tick" was gone, but I must not have got the oil pan on right since it leaked quite a bit of oil. The exhaust had been removed in a questionable manner, and there was only a small attempt to minimize the leaking. While not the intended reason, it did make it sound pretty good.
I loved driving that truck. As my first four wheel drive vehicle, I thought I was indestructible. I would find reasons to go out in the worst snow storms just because it was fun. I used it to hop the curb down the one-way road by my house to save a few seconds of my driving time. In my defense, a street has since been put in the curb-hopping spot so I was just a trend setter.
There are two very memorable events in that truck.
In one, while driving near home on one of those snowy days, I was approaching an intersection with a long line of cars in the cross street. After stopping at the stop sign, I started to pull across the intersection, only to have the woman in the cross street think I was turning in front of her as she quickly pulled forward, blocking my path across the street. I stopped, thought about it for a few seconds, and gunned it. She desperately tried to gain traction in reverse with a look of sheer horror on her face as this ass in a crappy Ford F150 was ready to take her out. However rude she was, I wouldn't do that now.
The second incidence was between college and a nearby town where I was going to buy something. On one long stretch of very snowy road, I blew past a long line of cars going too slow. Cresting a hill, I saw the recycling truck skidding out of a side street on the slippery road. There was no way this was going to end well. I had a glancing blow off of the recycling truck, taking out my mirror and putting a few dents and scratches in my truck. As the impact happened, I looked out the window and saw this large sign on the recycling truck that said 'How's my driving, call...' I ended up in someone's yard. No doubt all the "slow" cars I had passed rightfully had smug feelings as they continued safely on by. I told the Recycler, "I'll forget this happened if you will?" He readily agreed. The dents were new character marks and a little welding put the mirror back on, if in a non-adjustable manner. There are many lessons in life, that wreck taught me slower can sometimes be good. And driving in two-wheel drive, while holding on to four-wheel drive for when stupid happens can be a good tactic.
The picture above is likely the only picture I have of the truck. I don't even remember what year it was, but 1982 sticks in my mind. Nostalgia isn't always painted with a factual brush, but I do sometimes miss that truck, or maybe I just miss my early 20s. I traded in that truck when graduation was in sight as a present to myself on a very nice 1994 F150 - likely my most favorite four-wheeled vehicle I've ever owned.
Where I grew up in Michigan, we got real snow - lake effect snow caused by the air blowing over Lake Michigan and picking up moisture, then dumping it on us. My "real" cars were typically MG's and although I did have a 74&1/2 MGB I drove for several winters, I mostly had junky rear-wheel drive cars to attempt to make it through the frequent deep snows of Michigan winters. Open differential coupled with questionable tires and no engine management meant it wasn't always easy, but still somewhat fun.
While still in college, I bought an older Datsun 620 Truck that I drove for several months. It was a blast to drive but was worse than most vehicles in even moderate snow. Getting started on slippery conditions made things difficult, stopping with questionable drum brakes on all four corners made it scary. I really, really wanted a 4wd truck.
While browsing the classifieds in the newspaper (it was around 1992 so there were no online ads), I saw a dealership that had a four wheel drive F150 for a crazy low price. I drove by it on a Sunday and saw it was pretty rusty, but on par with many of my "winter Vehicles."
Returning the next day I talked to the owner/salesman. He told me that it had a "tick" in the engine. Once started, the tick turned out to be a knock. But the oil pressure was good and the oil didn't look like tar so I wasn't too concerned. I was working at the time as a mechanic and wasn't intimidated by dropping the pan to replace engine bearings.
I told the salesman that I would give him my Datsun and $300. The salesman bawled foul and I said, "OK, thanks. Bye." I wasn't really trying to negotiate, $300 was about all that I had. As I started to leave, he quickly suggested my Datsun and $500. No, $300 and I started to leave - again, not really trying to play hardball. As I got in my truck the salesman came over and said, "OK, $300."
We shook on it and I was to come back the next day with the title and cash. As I left, I realized I didn't have $300 and payday was still a few days away. I was able to scrounge around and come up with the cash. $300 was a lot more then, than it is now...
After buying the truck, I was on top of the world driving home. The bed was totally rusted out, but Duke of 'Brother Love Towing' across the street from work gave me a very heavy steel plate that he had sitting in his property. The front gas tank leaked a little so I nervously tack-welded the steel place down the middle of the bed with several people around me holding fire extinguishers. And, I did put a fire blanket between the fuel tank and the bed. Also, the rear fuel tank was askew from some previous incident and the filling of it was glacially slow.
Turning to the "tick" in the engine, I isolated the noise to the #2 cylinder. Dropping the oil pan (had to remove the oil pump in place and drop it in the pan to get the pan off, replacement is the reverse, but not quite as easy as the drive mechanism is a looong rod that also drives the distributor), I replaced the rod bearings assuming that was the cause of the noise. Knowing I was in trouble when all the bearings looked good, I wasn't too surprised when the noise was unchanged.
I bought a used bedliner and truck box from a guy who turned out to be a former SO of my sister. There was no tailgate, so I fashioned one out of hardware store chain with a welder.
At the end of that first winter, I pulled the heads and found a bad wrist pin on further investigation. Only later did I learn this was a common flaw with the 351 Windsor engine. After reassembly the "tick" was gone, but I must not have got the oil pan on right since it leaked quite a bit of oil. The exhaust had been removed in a questionable manner, and there was only a small attempt to minimize the leaking. While not the intended reason, it did make it sound pretty good.
I loved driving that truck. As my first four wheel drive vehicle, I thought I was indestructible. I would find reasons to go out in the worst snow storms just because it was fun. I used it to hop the curb down the one-way road by my house to save a few seconds of my driving time. In my defense, a street has since been put in the curb-hopping spot so I was just a trend setter.
There are two very memorable events in that truck.
In one, while driving near home on one of those snowy days, I was approaching an intersection with a long line of cars in the cross street. After stopping at the stop sign, I started to pull across the intersection, only to have the woman in the cross street think I was turning in front of her as she quickly pulled forward, blocking my path across the street. I stopped, thought about it for a few seconds, and gunned it. She desperately tried to gain traction in reverse with a look of sheer horror on her face as this ass in a crappy Ford F150 was ready to take her out. However rude she was, I wouldn't do that now.
The second incidence was between college and a nearby town where I was going to buy something. On one long stretch of very snowy road, I blew past a long line of cars going too slow. Cresting a hill, I saw the recycling truck skidding out of a side street on the slippery road. There was no way this was going to end well. I had a glancing blow off of the recycling truck, taking out my mirror and putting a few dents and scratches in my truck. As the impact happened, I looked out the window and saw this large sign on the recycling truck that said 'How's my driving, call...' I ended up in someone's yard. No doubt all the "slow" cars I had passed rightfully had smug feelings as they continued safely on by. I told the Recycler, "I'll forget this happened if you will?" He readily agreed. The dents were new character marks and a little welding put the mirror back on, if in a non-adjustable manner. There are many lessons in life, that wreck taught me slower can sometimes be good. And driving in two-wheel drive, while holding on to four-wheel drive for when stupid happens can be a good tactic.
The picture above is likely the only picture I have of the truck. I don't even remember what year it was, but 1982 sticks in my mind. Nostalgia isn't always painted with a factual brush, but I do sometimes miss that truck, or maybe I just miss my early 20s. I traded in that truck when graduation was in sight as a present to myself on a very nice 1994 F150 - likely my most favorite four-wheeled vehicle I've ever owned.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
The Average American - and kind of a book review
I'm occasionally obsessed by the ordinary and statistics. I am intrigued by the accepted norms and the real norms. This especially comes to light on financial matters and/or when a news report comes out with some statistic that doesn't pass the rapid approximation test.
At various times I'll pour over statistics available online as to wealth, income, poverty, etc. I'm very surprised at what the median household income is in the US (~$51k, I thought it would be higher). I'm also surprised at statistics on poverty in the US. Compared to all of recorded history, the poor in the US are doing pretty well - at least physically. (note: I'm NOT suggesting poverty is good or easy or that income inequality isn't a major issue in the US)
Mostly, I find what is normal (defined as one of the statistical averages) to be fascinating. After pondering this, I found Kevin O'Keefe's book The Average American. As with a lot of books that I read, this was part narrative and part non-fiction informative. The book chronicles Mr. O'Keefe's journey to define and find what and who the average American is.
Many of the tidbits on what is normal in the book are very interesting. At middle-age, I would have believed I eat a lot of peanut butter, but I'm nowhere near the national average (peanut butter has an overly prominent role in the book).
The book is definitely worth reading. His writing style is easy to follow and while it doesn't have the same narrative quality of, say, Bill Bryson his personal journey - both physical and mental - is very interesting. Part of my interest in the subject is due to the fear that being, or becoming, normal is equal with becoming boring. I think I'm wrong on that. However, I do believe there is significant overlap between the subset of the population that is normal and the subset that is boring. I will still say that being boring equates with a life not lived to its potential - at least.
In the book, Mr. O'Keefe defines a set of questions to qualify who is the average American. Some of the questions appear to be overly trivial, but it is his list. I do think there is one fatal flaw in his list in that some questions taken in combination are terribly exclusive. As example, the average American must live in the state they were born in and live within 100 miles of the ocean. Out of the stated 140 questions used, these two are very exclusive as 60% of the population lives within the state born in and 40% live by the ocean (source: NOAA). Taken randomly, these two questions out of the 140 remove ~76% of the population. Additionally, these two taken together mean that anyone born in Illinois, would not be normal despite the Illinois borders Lake Michigan, a large navigable waterway (the coasts are heavily populated due to historic reasons of trade and reliance on water which are less relevant now). He doesn't address what would happen if an individual was born in Connecticut, spent all but the last few years in Iowa, then moved back to Connecticut not to be close to "home" but because that was where the job was.
At one point in the book, he ascribes that perhaps the most ordinary American should not meet every criteria to remain normal as being too normal is not normal. But, this appears to be a passing idea that is not ultimately used.
In the end, the author must whittle down to his version of the average American somehow and the way he gets there is terribly interesting despite the flaws. I can't help but wonder what would happen if Mr. O'Keefe were to bump into Sarah Vowell on the road and the two would have become a traveling American Reese's Peanut Butter Cups (hmmmm, peanut butter again).
One very interesting bit of information from the book was a vignette about a NY Times magazine written by Camille Sweeney that found on interviewing people who made around the median income, all had recently bought a new car, a boat, a widescreen TV, a vacation cottage, a pool, or had a pricey family vacation. Additionally, even most of the poor had some "fun money." No matter where someone is in the income spectrum, there appears to be something left over for what is beyond the needs. Said another way, everyone seems to live near their means. Or, more money doesn't buy more happiness (but I bet it makes being miserable more fun).
In the end, the personal narrative makes any flaw in methodology an academic exercise. After finishing the book, I excitedly went to the web site listed in the book only to find it a thin site of praise for the book. I was hoping for more in depth statistics on his questions. This lead me to the web site for the Census Bureau which is endlessly filled with easily available information on Americans! Many of these data are easy to browse on subsequent pages on the Bureau's Web Site. How could I have not known this was there?
What I was most missing from the book and web site, was a discrete and complete list of all 140 questions he used for his search. I would have loved if his web site would have these in quiz format to define the users "averageness" based on the questions. I found other sites that do this based on a different set of questions, but after investing time in the book, it wasn't what I was looking for.
Below is a set of questions I was able to glean from the book. Since this is my interpretation of his list, I don't know if this is plagerism or not. Very few people ever read this blog, so I won't worry about such things... Besides, even with this, how the author got to the questions is worth the read.
Despite the exclusivity of some of the questions, assign one point for each question that agrees with the norm. The O'Keefe Average Quotient (OAQ) can then be calculated by dividing the number of points by the total number I could define from the list (139). The closer the value is to one, the more normal the tester is:
My OAQ is 0.762. I am not sure if that makes me normal. I hope it doesn't make me boring.
At various times I'll pour over statistics available online as to wealth, income, poverty, etc. I'm very surprised at what the median household income is in the US (~$51k, I thought it would be higher). I'm also surprised at statistics on poverty in the US. Compared to all of recorded history, the poor in the US are doing pretty well - at least physically. (note: I'm NOT suggesting poverty is good or easy or that income inequality isn't a major issue in the US)
Mostly, I find what is normal (defined as one of the statistical averages) to be fascinating. After pondering this, I found Kevin O'Keefe's book The Average American. As with a lot of books that I read, this was part narrative and part non-fiction informative. The book chronicles Mr. O'Keefe's journey to define and find what and who the average American is.
Many of the tidbits on what is normal in the book are very interesting. At middle-age, I would have believed I eat a lot of peanut butter, but I'm nowhere near the national average (peanut butter has an overly prominent role in the book).
The book is definitely worth reading. His writing style is easy to follow and while it doesn't have the same narrative quality of, say, Bill Bryson his personal journey - both physical and mental - is very interesting. Part of my interest in the subject is due to the fear that being, or becoming, normal is equal with becoming boring. I think I'm wrong on that. However, I do believe there is significant overlap between the subset of the population that is normal and the subset that is boring. I will still say that being boring equates with a life not lived to its potential - at least.
In the book, Mr. O'Keefe defines a set of questions to qualify who is the average American. Some of the questions appear to be overly trivial, but it is his list. I do think there is one fatal flaw in his list in that some questions taken in combination are terribly exclusive. As example, the average American must live in the state they were born in and live within 100 miles of the ocean. Out of the stated 140 questions used, these two are very exclusive as 60% of the population lives within the state born in and 40% live by the ocean (source: NOAA). Taken randomly, these two questions out of the 140 remove ~76% of the population. Additionally, these two taken together mean that anyone born in Illinois, would not be normal despite the Illinois borders Lake Michigan, a large navigable waterway (the coasts are heavily populated due to historic reasons of trade and reliance on water which are less relevant now). He doesn't address what would happen if an individual was born in Connecticut, spent all but the last few years in Iowa, then moved back to Connecticut not to be close to "home" but because that was where the job was.
At one point in the book, he ascribes that perhaps the most ordinary American should not meet every criteria to remain normal as being too normal is not normal. But, this appears to be a passing idea that is not ultimately used.
In the end, the author must whittle down to his version of the average American somehow and the way he gets there is terribly interesting despite the flaws. I can't help but wonder what would happen if Mr. O'Keefe were to bump into Sarah Vowell on the road and the two would have become a traveling American Reese's Peanut Butter Cups (hmmmm, peanut butter again).
One very interesting bit of information from the book was a vignette about a NY Times magazine written by Camille Sweeney that found on interviewing people who made around the median income, all had recently bought a new car, a boat, a widescreen TV, a vacation cottage, a pool, or had a pricey family vacation. Additionally, even most of the poor had some "fun money." No matter where someone is in the income spectrum, there appears to be something left over for what is beyond the needs. Said another way, everyone seems to live near their means. Or, more money doesn't buy more happiness (but I bet it makes being miserable more fun).
In the end, the personal narrative makes any flaw in methodology an academic exercise. After finishing the book, I excitedly went to the web site listed in the book only to find it a thin site of praise for the book. I was hoping for more in depth statistics on his questions. This lead me to the web site for the Census Bureau which is endlessly filled with easily available information on Americans! Many of these data are easy to browse on subsequent pages on the Bureau's Web Site. How could I have not known this was there?
What I was most missing from the book and web site, was a discrete and complete list of all 140 questions he used for his search. I would have loved if his web site would have these in quiz format to define the users "averageness" based on the questions. I found other sites that do this based on a different set of questions, but after investing time in the book, it wasn't what I was looking for.
Below is a set of questions I was able to glean from the book. Since this is my interpretation of his list, I don't know if this is plagerism or not. Very few people ever read this blog, so I won't worry about such things... Besides, even with this, how the author got to the questions is worth the read.
Despite the exclusivity of some of the questions, assign one point for each question that agrees with the norm. The O'Keefe Average Quotient (OAQ) can then be calculated by dividing the number of points by the total number I could define from the list (139). The closer the value is to one, the more normal the tester is:
- US or DC citizen
- Lived in the same home for five years
- Resident of native state
- Resides in nation's average community (ambiguous)
- Family is extremely or very important
- High school graduate
- In paid labor force or working towards it
- At least one married couple in the home
- Has offspring
- Regularly in bed before midnight
- Believes in God
- Is Christian
- Is respectful of others religions
- Attends church at least once a month
- Religion is very important in own life
- Is respectful of all races
- Annual movie-goer
- Lives in owner-occupied home
- Resides in one house (one unit - detached)
- Has direct access to one or two motor vehicles
- Home has garage or carport
- Has a driver's license
- Has two to four people residing in the home
- Regularly wears seat belt
- Household has discretionary income
- Is in full-time labor force or retired from it
- Has at least one pet
- Is not trying to be nationally known
- Is satisfied with the way things are going in personal life
- Supports current abortion laws
- Believes abortion is wrong
- Supports stricter enforcement of environmental laws
- Describes self as very or fairly happy
- Believes money can't buy happiness
- Has home valued between $100k and $300k
- Participates in recycling
- Has fired a gun
- Believes in the right to bear arms
- Is against the public use of semi-automatic weapons
- Is in favor of registration or waiting lists for gun owners
- Believes gambling is an acceptable entertainment choice
- Has gambled money on at least one game of chance in the last year
- Household has craft or hobby
- Donates money to charity
- Gives time to charity annually
- Has net worth between $30k and $300k
- Lives where there is at least 0.1" of snow annually
- Lives where average annual temperature is between 45 and 65 degrees F
- Is between 18 and 53 years old
- Spends most time indoors
- Gets moderate exercise weekly
- Has health insurance
- Walks under own power
- Weighs 135 to 205 pounds
- Lives in urbanized or suburban area
- Resides on zero to 2 acres
- Has a private lawn
- Supports US troops
- Drinks soda
- Drinks coffee (regularly or occasionally)
- Has an electric coffee maker
- Eats bread weekly
- Believes music can bring family closer together (ambiguous)
- Has a stereo in the home
- Wears glasses and/or contacts to correct vision
- Has all five senses
- Can read English
- Can speak English fluently
- Community mirrors racial/ethnic make-up of the nation (ambiguous)
- Life impacted by drugs or alcohol
- Opposes legalization of marijuana for recreational use
- Supports use of pot for medicine
- Has visited the ocean
- Lives within 100 miles of the ocean
- Lives in the Eastern Time Zone (guess this means some people are sometimes normal)
- Has consumed alcohol
- Considers homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle
- Has a color TV (do they make black and white anymore?)
- Has cable (presumably this means satellite as well?)
- Has DVD and/or VCR
- Commonly watches TV daily
- Household's per capita income is between $15k and $75k
- Primary weekday destination is within 5 miles of home (coming from the midwest, I'm not sure I believe this)
- Primary mode of transportation is the privately owned motor vehicle
- Home has a porch/deck/patio/etc.
- Has outdoor grill at home
- Eats meat (red and white)
- Has one to three registered voters in the household
- Lives on a local road
- Household files federal income taxes
- Household files state income taxes
- Pays a sales tax
- Eats ice cream at least once a month
- Lives within two miles of a public park
- Uses recreational facilities annually
- Chief local politician is a Democrat
- Local governing council is mostly Democratic
- Reads local newspaper daily
- Has read or started to read one book within the last year
- Uses a landline phone
- Uses mobile phone on a regular basis
- Home is within range of cell service
- Believes friends are extremely or very important
- Home has a paved parking area to his garage or carport
- Favorite way to spend the evening is in the home
- Home is between 10 and 50 years old
- Home has between 4 and 6 living purpose rooms
- Grew up within 50 miles of current home
- Has a kitchen
- Has a clothes washer
- Has a clothes dryer
- Has an automatic dishwasher
- Has at least one full bathroom
- Brushes teeth daily
- Visits the dentist annually
- Showers daily
- Has a Christmas tree every year
- Has a credit card
- Has an ATM card
- Has household credit card debt
- Uses the internet
- Has played computer or video games in the last year
- Is a football fan
- Is a baseball fan
- Political viewpoints are a 3, 4 or 5 on a 7-point scale
- Owns jeans
- Has done financially better than parents
- Has at least one living parent
- Has at least one living sibling
- Represented by at least one Democratic US Senator
- Represented by a Republican House member
- Takes annual vacation time
- Has a listed phone number
- Eats at McDonald's annually
- Lives within three miles of a McDonald's
- Lives within 20 minutes of a Wal-Mart
- Shops at Walmart annually
- Is between 5'3" and 5'10.5"
- Lives in the middle majority of the nation's populated areas (ambiguous)
- Note: There is supposed to be 140, but something was lost in Kansas...read the book and that will make sense.
My OAQ is 0.762. I am not sure if that makes me normal. I hope it doesn't make me boring.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Forced Through the Cracks
Lets start with what this is not. This is not a rant against the Obama or any Presidential Administration. This is also not a rant against poverty. There are others who already do too much of that. This is an opinion after watching the current mayhem over the new health care law go into effect.
While I think that politics made the current health care law hopeless complicated, this is also not a whine about the new law. It is the current law. As an aside, for all the problems the health care website has had I do find it somewhere between hilarious and comforting to know that three guys created The Health Sherpa to do what a whole government bureaucracy could not do (interviewed on the news yesterday, they said it "was a little tough..."). I used The Health Sherpa to look up rates in my area and they were surprisingly low. I'm still not sure that makes me a believer, but if those numbers are correct then maybe there is hope!
The news media has surprisingly not shied away from reporting that many people who have perfectly acceptable plans will be losing them. The response has varied over time, but one of the responses was along the lines of, it is only 5% of the people. That statement is what will always be wrong with the Federal Government. The government plays in numbers, big numbers. The government will do what it thinks it can within those numbers to change, maybe to help. In effect, the government defines what the average person is (or more realistically, a few average people) and then targets towards that average. If anyone falls outside of that average, they must first conform. Ever tried to get help for a special situation in any bureaucracy?
This can be seen in the long-term federal response to poverty. Using realistic statistics and definitions, the federal government spends about $500 billion per year on poverty - this is a pretty easy number to come by using web searches and throwing away the skewed numbers used by the nutjobs on both the far left and right.
That is enough cash to lift every one of the 45 million Americans in poverty out of poverty. There are real and political reasons why that would never be sustainable, but the numbers in this case don't lie.
Part of the reason this money will never change the status quo is because the enormity of the federal government is so horribly inefficient. That much money can't be sent to Washington and doled out again without some loss at every transaction. Additionally, that money is spread throughout many departments all with their own fiefdoms and inefficiencies. It is good politics though.
The other reason this will never make real change is it is targeted at a predefined population. That money goes to help the "average" poor person. The people that don't fit that predefined mold are on their own. The farther a group or individual is away from the predefined target, the less likely help will be real. It is part of the reason that so many government programs target the cities, with more people, the average looks like it is there. Poverty in rural America is an afterthought.
The solution to this isn't the states, as too many of them work in the same way. The solution isn't large charitable organizations, they are targeting the same subgroups based on the same numbers (and read through the financials of the United Way). The solution is local. Unfortunately, local government is too strapped and at risk of political whim.
This leaves local charitable organizations to pick up all the pieces left over; all the "only 5%" out there.
There but for the grace of God go I - and those admirable organizations deserve as much help as they can get.
While I think that politics made the current health care law hopeless complicated, this is also not a whine about the new law. It is the current law. As an aside, for all the problems the health care website has had I do find it somewhere between hilarious and comforting to know that three guys created The Health Sherpa to do what a whole government bureaucracy could not do (interviewed on the news yesterday, they said it "was a little tough..."). I used The Health Sherpa to look up rates in my area and they were surprisingly low. I'm still not sure that makes me a believer, but if those numbers are correct then maybe there is hope!
The news media has surprisingly not shied away from reporting that many people who have perfectly acceptable plans will be losing them. The response has varied over time, but one of the responses was along the lines of, it is only 5% of the people. That statement is what will always be wrong with the Federal Government. The government plays in numbers, big numbers. The government will do what it thinks it can within those numbers to change, maybe to help. In effect, the government defines what the average person is (or more realistically, a few average people) and then targets towards that average. If anyone falls outside of that average, they must first conform. Ever tried to get help for a special situation in any bureaucracy?
This can be seen in the long-term federal response to poverty. Using realistic statistics and definitions, the federal government spends about $500 billion per year on poverty - this is a pretty easy number to come by using web searches and throwing away the skewed numbers used by the nutjobs on both the far left and right.
That is enough cash to lift every one of the 45 million Americans in poverty out of poverty. There are real and political reasons why that would never be sustainable, but the numbers in this case don't lie.
Part of the reason this money will never change the status quo is because the enormity of the federal government is so horribly inefficient. That much money can't be sent to Washington and doled out again without some loss at every transaction. Additionally, that money is spread throughout many departments all with their own fiefdoms and inefficiencies. It is good politics though.
The other reason this will never make real change is it is targeted at a predefined population. That money goes to help the "average" poor person. The people that don't fit that predefined mold are on their own. The farther a group or individual is away from the predefined target, the less likely help will be real. It is part of the reason that so many government programs target the cities, with more people, the average looks like it is there. Poverty in rural America is an afterthought.
The solution to this isn't the states, as too many of them work in the same way. The solution isn't large charitable organizations, they are targeting the same subgroups based on the same numbers (and read through the financials of the United Way). The solution is local. Unfortunately, local government is too strapped and at risk of political whim.
This leaves local charitable organizations to pick up all the pieces left over; all the "only 5%" out there.
There but for the grace of God go I - and those admirable organizations deserve as much help as they can get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)