A leading health academic claims we need to use “social pressure” to combat obesity.
‘The obvious target would be the large number of people who are unaware that they are overweight,’ he writes in the paper printed in the center’s first periodical volume of the year.
‘They need, to use an old phrase, a shock of recognition. Only a carefully calibrated effort of public social pressure is likely to awaken them to the reality of their condition.
Hat tip to Ann Althouse who earned two mentions at Alexandria today.
The Mail used “Shaming Fat People” in their headline for the story. Personally, I don’t like the idea of shaming, taunting, mocking, ridiculing, etc. (I’m tempted to use derogatory terms for supposed comedic affect, but have willfully resisted.) My feelings regarding this come not from being obese, but from having been painfully skinny as a youth.
How skinny? Entering the 8th grade I measured 5′ 11″ and weight 128 pounds. By the end of the school year, I weighed a hefty 135 but had grown to 6′ 1″ Yeah, I had to walk around in the shower to get wet. If I turned sideways and stuck out my tongue I looked like a zipper. I could look through a key hole with both eyes at the same time. My father tied an anchor to me when we flew kites. Yada, yada, yada.
For your viewing pleasure, here’s a couple of photos of me playing basketball in high school. The picture on the left with the stick arms shooting the basketball is my junior year. The picture on the left is my senior year and the last game I played in high school. At least my legs were solid.
 |
 |
The other part of this story that piqued my interest was the “leading health academic.” A commenter at Althouse pointed out that he is Daniel Callahan, who has been a member of the American Eugenics Society. I suppose that someone with these views doesn’t care much about making fun of some fat people. Plus, reading through some of his articles, he makes the argument, at times, that we shouldn’t have to pay the cost to care for people who are too fat or too old. I hate those arguments. To me that’s the cost you pay for living in a caring society. He is an accomplished academic though.
When I was younger, I wasn’t so charitable towards the overweight. But, having been married to a mean spirited, psycho woman for ten years, I, somehow, became more compassionate. (Not sure how this worked, but I’ve even had siblings mention it.) I’m not up for social pressure. They can be fat. I’ll treat them respectfully. None of us know the burdens other people carry or the sufferings they’ve been through. Many times we like to think we do, but we don’t.
BTW – the little guy on the left side of the right hand picture is Rick Byrd, now head coach at Belmont Univesity, seventh among all active NCAA Division-I head coaches in wins. We considered him a nerdy kid back then. You never know.
Dr. Callahan has a public e-mail address to which I’ve sent the following:
I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets a lot of that.
Heh, no doubt you are correct!
Perhaps I should feel ashamed that some people want to orchestrate shaming campaigns in order to shame fat people.
It’s a collective shame spiral!
A non-lethal circular firing squad.
Should we also stop referring to the unemployed as people who have chosen to not work? Do you oppose shame as a tool in general, or just ones that have a personal resonance?
” Plus, reading through some of his articles, he makes the argument, at times, that we shouldn’t have to pay the cost to care for people who are too fat or too old. I hate those arguments. To me that’s the cost you pay for living in a caring society.”
Do you oppose cutting Medicare?
Steve
It’s all about personal resonance. I only care about things that personally resonate within me. Although I don’t know why you chose to single out the unemployed. I’m sure some choose not to work and some can’t find work that provides adequate remuneration to support themselves and/or families. In which case, it’s not worth the effort working. Are you referring to all unemployed persons as “people who have chosen not to work?” Shame on you.
I hate the argument that we should outlaw/limit/fine/tax/etc certain activities/consuming certain items/etc because it costs ALL of us money. It’s just another argument to justify totalitarianism. Existing costs all of us money. On some level, someones existence costs the rest of us money – roads, law enforcement, sewage treatment, public health services, etc. Since you’re a doctor, you probably pay your share and then some. As do I although my “then some” probably isn’t as great as your. But, others don’t.
Are we going to some how harass and try to make their lives miserable or
impoverish them because their existence costs us something? If someone isn’t productive enough, should we just let them die? My opposition to this argument has nothing to do with Medicare. I’m simply not so greedy and selfish that I feel the need, nor want to be associated with efforts to shame or otherwise harm people because they don’t live an optimal lifestyle.
“FIRST TERM OBAMAFACT: The number of Americans age 16 or older who decided not to work or even to seek a job increased by 8,332,000 to a record 88,839,000 in President Barack Obama’s first term”
This is a quote from our own blog. This kind of stuff is pretty common from writers and commenters on the right. While I suspect that some have really chosen to not work, I know, and I suspect you know people who would like to work but have not found jobs. Insulting and shaming those who cant find work but want to work, remember that when jobs were available our UE was under 5%, seems pretty cruel.
“I hate the argument that we should outlaw/limit/fine/tax/etc certain activities/consuming certain items/etc because it costs ALL of us money. It’s just another argument to justify totalitarianism. Existing costs all of us money.”
Yet it is conservatives who want to eliminate programs to support the sick, dying (Ok, I think maybe Jindal did decide to reinstitute hospice care payments) and old. To be fair, they have a bit of a point. If we want to support old people in nursing homes, we need to find a way to pay for it.
Steve
You have a strong need to put people into neat, little groups, conservatives, liberals, Bokononist, etc. None of that lends to any understanding of what I’m saying or much of any thing else.
A “caring society” is FIRST and FOREMOST a “cost-sensitive” one. That is, it DOES NOT allow some people to voluntarily take on costly risk at the expense of others. For, as the old dictum goes, “First take care of YOURSELF (your own purse) because absent that, you can do no good at all to anyone else.”
Ironically enough, ONE area that BOTH socialists and Libertarians agree on is that ALL collective risk be tightly controlled, even eliminated wherever possible. Libertarians would do that via eliminating government (collective) assistance for high-risk behaviors from sky-diving & mountain climbing to drug/alcohol abuse & smoking, while Socialists (basic socialist theory) proposes government sanctions against any and all such risks. “The individual must never dare to place himself above the state, nor put his/her needs ahead of the needs of the volk (community).”
Bicycle helmet laws, seat belt laws, DUI check points and the cutting of additional aid to welfare families for additional children (proposed by Gingrich and readily signed onto, PRIMARILY by liberal Democrats…pro-life Republicans were the lone opposition on some of the Gingrich/Clinton welfare reforms) are all examples of that.
With an increasing amount of our healthcare being covered by government, we all HAVE TO accept a little more government intrusion into our lives. Yes, fatties, alcoholics and extreme sport types beware….those high-risk activities WILL (as they SHOULD) be reined in by a caring, compassionate government. No individual has any right to burden his/her neighbors with his/her own reckless costs.
I’ve strongly supported cutting welfare aid linked to additional children. In FACT I strongly support mandated contraception and when necessary abortion for dependent people who have children while on welfare. Just as I’ve supported and donated to ZPG worldwide. IF it weren’t for Carl Bosch and Fritz Haber, the earth wouldn’t be able to feed more than 4 million people…probably less, given the lessening yields with traditional fertilizer use, even given crop rotations.
I also take a dim view of some physicians (such as yourself) greedily supporting Medicare & Medicaid spending. Virtually ALL lawyers provide a good amount of care to the poor pro bono, without looking to Bill government nor hike their fees on their paying clients, physicians SHOULD do the same WITHOUT seeking remuneration from the government OR looking to hike costs on those who are better insured or better able to pay. You can understand why I and many others feel that way, don’t you?
The individual liberty that is compatible with a fend-for-yourself free market are incompatible within any form of welfare state. There’s a trade off there and it’s a necessary one.
“First take care of YOURSELF (your own purse) because absent that, you can do no good at all to anyone else.”
Amen. So true and so simple. Take care of yourself and your family, if you have one. Becoming dependent on others, government included, leads to loss of control over you own life, amongst other things. While we may never have full control over our lives, the more we focus on having control and responsibility, the more we’ll have a life we enjoy and find worth living.
I’m also against ridicule, shaming, and humiliation, be it “carefully calibrated” or not. For what it’s worth, I’ve previously heard this sort of thing suggested as a response to “social pathologies” such as unwed mothers (sluts giving birth to bastards) and people on welfare and food stamps (moochers, takers, parasites). It’s been called “restoring stigma” or “regaining a sense of shame,” and it always makes perfect sense to people who won’t be subjected to it.
I agree that it’s not necessary to “shame” people into responsible choices…many people are simply shameless anyway. The correct way to inveigle people to act responsibly is to “make it hurt” to do things that impact their neighbors negatively.
Mary is a welfare Mom, who is a 4th generation welfare recipient, raised without much of a work ethic and as one who did not develop many marketable skills. Mary doesn’t realize she’s being a scumbag and feels it’s her “right” to choose not to work/produce. She doesn’t mean to harm you, Steve DaD and I, but she is doing just that by being so heartless and self-centered.
DO you think it’s even possible to shame Mary?
As Seinfeld might well say, “Not bloody likely!”
No, so better to make her life as miserable as possible…make her spend endless hours ground up in the welfare bureaucracy, shunted from office to office, constantly doing and redoing her “paperwork.” In effect, taking up a HUGE amount of her time just to try and squeeze some sustenance out of a cold-hearted and very skeptical bureaucracy. Then she should be forced to do some menial work to “earn” her recompense AND (if she has the abilities) get some more education and training. In short, make it harder for her to stay on welfare then to get off.
What about chronic over-eaters and people who drink in excess or smoke?
SAME idea, keep tacking the costs of these vices up so high that it impacts their lives in very negative fiscal ways. The cost for a basic first time DUI is already $10K to $15K (the cost of alcohol-related products has escalated as well) and that’s GOOD….smokes can cost upwards of $10/pack! Ratchett up the costs of “bad behaviors” as we slash overall tax rates for all. That way “good behaviors” are rewarded as “bad choices” are punished via higher costs.
How about campers who go out and get trapped on remote mountain tops?
If the recuse is successful, send them the Bill and put a lien on all their property (barring them from simply selling a house, or any property without the proceeds going to the lien) and a garnishment on their income…a certain percentage of their pay comes right off the top..
Through an adept combination of positive AND negative reinforcements we can get beyond what B. F. Skinner famously alluded to as “Our foolish fetishes with freedom & dignity.” (Skinner’s landmark work was indeed called Beyond Freedom & Dignity)
With the right set of incentives and punishments, we can mold people into being the kinds of responsible beings that deep down inside they WANT to be…and, of course, that the rest of us expect them to be.