Monday, January 25, 2010

Well, THAT Didn't Work.

ATTENTION, Alabama Legislature! The Obesity Epidemic information you've based your discriminatory 'health initiatives' on, is false / faulty. No I'm not talking about the BMI. Although that, too, is pretty useless. I'm talking about the shining example of success you based your 'Fat people Fighting' healthcare 'Fat Tax' on. The ONE incidence where financially punishing people for the size of their bodies seemed to work, is based on a lie. A pretty, [perhaps for you] statistically pleasing, conventionally logical, lie but a lie none the less.

Perhaps you should have consulted with Gov. Joseph Manchin of W. Virginia before rushing ahead with an iffy program that's had ONE example of 'success' [Well, used  to have one anyway].

We know, it's scary. With all the big, bold, headlines in the non-biased media. All those 'experts', scientific sounding people, and infallible Doctors that are out there screaming about the End of Days Health. Good Folk who must have some reason for not liking fat people. And all those terrifying prophesies of the impending Fat Apocalypse? Something had to be done. Right?
Yeah, No. It's never a good idea to persecute or punish people for their own good. Doesn't work, isn't helpful, and makes you look, something of a, self-righteous, prig. Or was that more of a 'make them pay because their costing us money' kind of thing? Despite the fact that fat people are already paying their own way just like everybody else paying into healthcare at work? Oh. Right. They say Fat Offenders actually cost more than they pay in. And by 'they', you would mean those same 'experts' and statistically pleasing reports again. They sure do say a lot, them and those infallible medical people.
Wonder what ELSE they might have glossed over missed?

Muzak Therapy:
B-52's / Private Idaho

Friday, January 22, 2010

Spin, Spin Doctor

Ah, so now that CNN has discovered [uncovered / decided to get around to] weight discrimination in medicine, we should get a bold, slant free, investigation of The Truth [<--Note Caps], right? Actually, no. What we get is yet another spin job from the press.

What 'spin job' you ask? Well, we get details on studies that have shown overweight patients are more likely to be misdiagnosed, under dosed when being prescribed meds, and have a harder time even GETTING healthcare coverage [Hmmm, this wouldn't have any effect on all those 'Fat People Die Sooner/More Frequently' studies would it? Naah]. It tells us how fat people are ignored, dismissed and even refused necessary medical treatment because that treatment might be more difficult or more risky and Dr's don't want to take the chance to treat us or just couldn't be bothered with the extra work [Wonder how many employers would be happy with this attitude in their office/plant/business? Oh, wait! Different context. We're only talking about peoples lives. Fat peoples lives. Nevermind].

What's the underlying message we're getting here? Where is this article going as far as pointing in the direction of a possible solution to this mess? 'Lets work toward ending discriminatory practices'? Ummm, not quite. What we get is More of the Same; Lose the weight Fatty.

"There's an even bigger problem, though: when heavy women are ignored, the obesity epidemic is ignored, too -- and that has to stop, experts say. "Being mistreated or dismissed by your doctor because of your weight is unacceptable. But what's just as important is that doctors are missing an opportunity to help their patients lose weight and improve their health," says Huizinga of Johns Hopkins.
"Doctors and patients need to be able to speak openly about weight-related issues, whether it's the diseases caused by excess weight or the reasons why a patient overeats. That level of conversation requires a certain degree of comfort, and the basis for that is mutual respect, plain and simple," she says. "That's how we can help all women get healthier."
[emphasis mine]

There's that Spin again. The classic Obesity Catch-22 -You can Win but only if you lose weight. If you can't lose weight [Read; Don't want to lose weight. Because it's impossible to NOT lose if you just try] then, guess what? No Cookie for you. 'But why? Why is this SO important?' you might ask. Because Health is Weight. Losing weight is The Answer to being healthy. It's the ONLY answer. If your not trying to lose weight then your not trying to be Healthy and that isn't, morally, ok. This would be The Morality of Being Fat. One more turn on the Obesity [Panic] Epidemic Merry Go-round. 

But what if you ARE trying to lose weight? What if you've been trying your entire life
Well, if your not thin by now then your not doing it right. Or your lying to us & yourself, a LOT! 
Either way, your fat and that's not, morally, ok. What's more, it's also your fault. 

All of it. 

Even how the Dr's treat you.

Because, if you would just stop being fat, people would treat you better. 

Of course, if one is foolish enough to ask how that might be done [stop being fat], the Answers one tends to get range from flat out folk lore [I have a friend, who has a cousin, who has a dog that lost weight by...], to 'science' as interpreted by cargo-cultists [Calories in = Calories out, full stop. Metabolism doesn't exist. Genetic inheritance doesn't count. Physics trumps Microbiology because we know everything there is to know about both. . . . And that's that, Fatty!], with a little political conspiracy thrown in for good measure [Can you say 'High Fructose Corn Syrup'? I knew you could]. It's enough to make one start thinking that NOBODY has any idea what, the fuck, their talking about. Except, of course, that it's all our fault. That they know.

Whoop! Here comes that brass ring again. Do I try for it One More Time or just decide to get off this stupid, pointless, ridiculous ride and go see what the unpopular kids are up to? Hmmmm. . . .    

Muzak Therapy:
Vangelis / Other Side of Antarctica

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Not Having to Justifying Our Existence? Also Not an Option.

In relation to my last post; This, and this. More peripherally, as an illustration of what being part of a community means as opposed to just hanging around one, this

Happiness is NOT an Option

Lesley Kinzel of Fashionista just did an interview for an upbeat article on what acceptance of herself and her body means to her over at The Boston Globe. Apparently this was unacceptable to the general mob in comments.

Comments in any fat-realted article tend to be unreasonable at best. If viewing comments
contained within this article, a surplus of Sanity Watchers Points or a strong stomach is advised.

We've seen this. . . Well, so many times, it's starting to feel like some kind of twisted cliche.
People who are certain that Lesley cannot be happy. Obviously, because she's fat and fat people are incapable of being happy. This they know because, well, they know so much about being fat. And since they know what being fat is like, of course it would follow that she must be lying when she says that she's happy. 'But why would she lie about something like that?' you might ask, 'What would be the point?' *Whispers* The Fat Acceptance Conspiracy, of course!

See, because, in the eyes of some, we here in the Fatosphere are analogous to terrorist led by some kind of ethereally slippery-

-bearded fanatic. We are out to ruin the environment, waste resources, destroy the economy [via healthcare depletion. Diabolical indeed.], and make the future just, suck, with our mass non-bystander-involved suicide/martyrdom tactics. And that's before we finish shutting down world travel by blocking all forms of public transportation and air travel with our fat.  Is it any wonder why they hate us so virulently? Fat people like Lesley Kinzel are obviously a menace to society.

Oddly enough, the tactics they seem so eager to use in order to. . . Change (Pursued? Outlaw? Eliminate?) us are more reminiscent of the Taliban than anyone else I can think of.  
Goes towards my current theory (Which I'm sure has already been better conceived, thoroughly examined, and completely dissected by wiser heads elsewhere) that unreasoned, fanatical, righteousness conforms to reoccurring patterns. As does the fanatics desire to completely control all things in and outside their cultural confines or even the realms of their existence.

Lesley, like anyone over the agreed conceivable limit of human fatness (that would be 300lbs) is simply wrong. At over 300 pounds her refusal to be disabled is wrong, her experiences are wrong, everything she says is wrong, her life is wrong, her beliefs concerning how she should live her own life are wrong, so obviously her entire existence must be wrong. Because these things would be in direct contravention of everything they believe. She is living in denial of the prevailing dogma and must be chastised soundly. But the most heinous, the most depraved and evil, crime that she and fat people like her have committed. The infidel atrocity that those who speak of this 'Fat Acceptance' are guilty of, is the irresponsible example they set for those who would, should, MUST diet or they will, surely, die themselves. Fat Acceptance people who refuse to keep trying to become un-fat are forcing their ideals on those pathetic creatures who keep trying. . . And failing, but only because they haven't tried hard enough yet. Or their not doing it right. Or whatever. The important thing is that these scholars of conventional wisdom are aware of what really is. They know these things because the knowledge has been handed down to them, personally, by higher authorities. And like any good Teacher of unquestionable faith, they will make us learn what we obviously do not know by rote and cane.

The ignorance of it is almost as staggering as the assumption of it's righteous superiority. But that would be the point, wouldn't it? Why else go out of your way to categorically deny what someone else has conveyed as their own experience? Because it's dangerous?
To whom?
Because it's unbelievable?
Because it makes you feel better?
Hmm. . . Well, that kinda makes it seem like Lesley isn't really the one with a problem.
Doesn't it.    

Muzak Therapy:
Art of Noise / Peter Gunn

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Of Fat Surveillance and Profiling St. Nick

It's been a while since my last rant. Sometimes it seems as if Life is out to make sure that the things we want to do get back-burnered for the rest of eternity. Well, I'm not willing to wait that long. HA! [This is me, laughing in Life's face. Then hitting the deck. Fast.]

Some interesting things have been happening since I was last able to get in here. Apparently we have, yet another self-obsorbed well, nobody really, who has managed to get his name plastered all over the news for dissing Santa Claus about his weight. Ah, self-righteousness. It's amazing how, every year, some neurotic, health obsessed, asshat feels he or she MUST proclaim to the world how dangerous Santa Claus is. As if he were real (But he isn't. That's why he's so dangerous). As if he represents some kind of evil agenda (Ethnocentric, Non-PC, Theocentric, and commercially exploitive. That would be; Christmas), and as if they where the first ones to think of it. Why, we've even had a Surgeon General comment on the dangers of a fat St Nick. 'Cause, yah know, the Surgeon General really didn't have anything better to do that year.

This year, however, there seems to be a certain amount of push-back for this facile waste of time. A good thing considering the horrific levels to which fat-hate has gone in past years. It's enough to make a person wonder; How obsessed with Obesity Epipanic rhetoric / overcome with the need to admonish the 'wicked' does someone have to be to actively try and edit or delete an enduring icon of human good-will? An intervention may be required.

Wait a minute. Why are those people over there following us? Why do I feel like we're being watched? Perhaps because we are. I've been noticing a certain trend in and around the Fatosphere. A slogan becomes popular in the 'sphere, 'Diets don't work' for example, and suddenly a major diet concern is using it as a tag line. A ridiculous and offensive hypothesis like 'There weren't any fat people in concentration camps' gets called-out as the stupidity it actually is and the ridiculous argument seems to pop up a little less.
Well, now it seems there's suddenly a campaign against HAES or exercise practices that emphasizes health rather than virtually unsustainable weight loss. Obviously, since it's absolutely unacceptable impossible for fat people to be both fat and healthy. Some argument had to be found that would refute a non-weight loss philosophy. After all weight loss is the ONLY way to perfect health. Any hint to the contrary would be little more than heresy of the most blasphemous kind. 

So it would seem there are a few pertinent questions that might present themselves here; Is this Paris study a legitimate study that just happened to come along at precisely the right time after thirty years of observation? Or is it just another data dredge of some passingly related work who's numbers seem close enough to massage into a reasonable interpretation? I guess we'll just have to wait and see about that. However, if it does turn out to be the latter, then the next most obvious questions would be; Who could invest the most resources and has the greatest interest in having such a report published? Well, who might benefit most from keeping watchful eye on Fat Acceptance itself? Heard any good diet tag lines lately?
Muzak Therapy:
Wang Chung / Black-Blue-White