Back of the Bus III

Yeah, I'm back on this again! Guess what? I'm gonna BE on this until people start realizing that they are not talking about some nebulously abstract, obesity epipanic problem, they can hammer at until it's fixed. My job here is to remind you that WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, IS PEOPLE. Fat People who are, quite possibly enjoying their flight experience EVEN LESS THAN YOU ARE. Yes it is possible. It's even possible to realize this on your own if you have more empathy than your average sociopath. 

In any case this has turned into something fairly big [Yeah, ok haters. Get your LULz in now...] but it needs to go bigger [...'Cause you might not be laughing for long]. In that vain- 

• First Responders:

Kevin Smith Kicked Off Southwest Flight For Being Fat via Big Fat Deal

So, a fat guy gets on an airplane; Kevin Smith vs. Southwest Airlines via The Rotund

• For a pretty concise transcript of what went down: 

On Kevin Smith and Flying Fat and More Kevin Smith Flying Fat Fallout via Big Liberty

• Kevin Smith's own words on what Fly while Fat can be like:

SMODCAST #106: Go Fuck Yourself, Southwest Airlines via SMODCAST

  

The articles under the above links need to be read. The COMMENTS after all of those articles need to be read. Read, thought through, and understood. 

However if your not really interested, or too frightened to go that far, then feel free to go back to your regularly scheduled fat hate. 

We weren't going to convince you anyway.  

Muzak Therapy:

Poppa Chubby / Hey Joe

Back of the Bus II

This wasn't, quite, as inevitable as the last. After all one would expect a major transportation concern to realize that publicly embarrassing a media personality with a major fan base and internet access might not be a good idea. 

I'm a fan of Kevin Smith's comic book writings. Of the innumerable cross-title match ups of Spider-Man and Daredevil his featured some of the best writing and story arcs I've ever read. Haven't been one much for his directorial work but I respect the Slacker / Stoner / SciFi Nerd / Fanboy in him. Unfortunately, from what I've heard & read about him recently, it sounds like he's on the same Hate Yourself Treadmill most of the people who have anything to DO with Hollywierd end up on. Little advice Kev, riding that dieting Yo-Yo just 'cause somebody else has a problem with your weight will only end up dumping your health down the crapper faster than staying fat and stable. Dude, it's far better to feel good about yourself while throwing a Big fat Bird to the Haters than let them mind-frak you into screwing yourself up just to look like them.

As for Southwest? This little demonstration makes it patently obvious that they have no respect or even sympathy for fat people in general. At least as little as their passengers who, are more than willing to jump all over people they consider different because they've been made uncomfortable. Like we WANT to pack ourselves into seats that are too, damn, small. Like we LIKE having them touch US in any way. Like we ENJOY the muscle cramps from balling ourselves up into the smallest space possible. LIKE WE WOULD BE DOING ANY OF THIS IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO BECAUSE, LIKE THEM, WE NEED TO GET WHERE WE ARE GOING.

News Flash folks; except for the very well off, traveling sucks for everybody. Get over it or get ON the people who are supposed to make it better. 

  

Muzak Therapy:

Keith Richards / You Don't Move Me

The Myth of History

Ah, the power of propaganda. Recently there's been this increased focus on children within the rabid, hyper-stimulated, world of the Obesity Epipanic. It's been building for some time now. And, with the First Ladies apparent inability to separate health from fatness, It would seem that now is the perfect time to ramp-up the intensity.    

What I, and many others, find so unusual about these theories of postnatal calorie restriction [Certainly, more fanatic elements of the Anti-fat Brigade see no reason to stop at merely postnatal dieting] is the obvious disconnect regarding, yah know; Growth and what one needs to accomplish said Growth. Well, one would THINK this disconnect to be obvious but. . . . 

Humans are mammals, I think most biologist and medical people would agree to that. Now, one of the fundamental processes of mammalian reproduction, one might call it essential amongst offspring baring creatures is. . . Wait for it, wait for it. . . Ready?. . .  Calorie Stockpiling. 

Animals (those without the intellect to make them believe and do stupid things) instinctively calorie load during pregnancy for several reasons including:

• Normal / increased development of fetal offspring before birth.  
• Increased energy reserves enabling mother / host to carry offspring to term.
• Energy reserves for mother AND offspring for the birthing process itself.
• Better survival prospects of postnatal young.
• Normal / increased development of vulnerable preadolescent offspring.       

In species that exhibit pair bonding or mate-for-life tendencies, males will often starve themselves in order to make sure, offspring carrying, mates get as much nutrition as can be made available. But, of course, one could argue that we're not animals and therefore don't need to concern ourselves with matters as dire as survival. Well, in deference to my non-meat-eating friends, this argument would be very similar to those who argue against the need for human meat consumption. My views on the subject? As long as humans continue to produce flesh taring canine teeth and meat processing intestinal gut flora, humans will need to eat meat. As long as human offspring are being carried to term by their mothers, as long as normal preadolescent growth is handled outside of a some kind of pod or child growing factory, calorie overloading will ALWAYS be safer than calorie depravation. Even IF there IS an increased possibility of obesity. Even if ALL the TERRIFYING things they are trying so desperately to convince us WILL HAPPEN (for sure... Mostly) in that far-flung future fantasy of the Fat Apocalypse. Who knows what pandora's box of new physio/psychological deficiencies and illnesses restricting the calorie intake of 3 MONTH OLD CHILDREN will open. Or maybe they do know. I mean, those, whatchamacallum, 3rd world children survive, right? Well, most of them do anyway. . .  And their pretty healthy. . . Kinda.   

This is Your Obesity Panic. It tells us that 2000 years of child rearing experience is wrong and that fat babies ≠ healthy babies. It drives people to unreasoned heights of fear and makes outrageous ideas like depriving your children of the basic materials they need to be actually healthy, prosperous, and whole, sound logical.

But then that's what good propaganda does. 

Muzak Therapy:

Jane's Addiction / Been Caught Stealing

Stepping Forward Looking Back

Over the past year the Fatospohere and F/A has seen some movement (I think mostly constructive) in regards to intersectionallity and gender issues. There is, however, one contentious issue that seems to have been passed right over and has kind of faded into the background. That would be socially acceptable, social causes. 

Out in the wilds of the interwebs the suggestion that it might possible to be both fit and fat or fat and happy will either get you out-of-hand rejection or the kind of disregard one usually reserves for annoying children. But, unbelievable as it may seem, there are two other suggestions that can often generate flaming vitriol on contact. The suggestion that fat discrimination might bare some similarity to racial discrimination. Or the suggestion that societal disdain that fat people experience might, in some ways, be comparable to that with which the LGBT community has long been subjected. 

Suggesting that there are ANY similarities between F/A and either of these social justice movements will often get you a lot of combustible dissent regarding the 'changeability' of body size or observations that there is a lack of physical violence in the history of fat hate. I usually end up thinking three things whenever I hear these arguments 1) it might be changeable for some (and this is far from PROVEN) but what about those for whom it isn't? 2) As for the physical violence issue? Let me fix that statement for you; '. .  -SO FAR- there is a lack of physical violence in the history of fat hate'. Don't think this is, at all,  possible? I think someone needs to brush up on their human history. Invariably the last thing that comes to my mind when confronted with a denial of the similarities between fat hate, race hate, and sexual orientation hate is; 3) Why are you fighting this analogy so hard? Hate is hate. Is ANY of it better than the others. Is ANY of it more worthy of attention? Or do you, the denier, think that perhaps some kinds of hate might be Ok? 

Often we'll hear that the comparison of fat discrimination to other struggles for social justice and equality diminishes those struggles. Somehow diluting the importance of groups who are fighting for equality and for the right to be seen as human beings. People struggling for the right to live there lives without abuse, harassment, or discriminatory regulation. But is fat discrimination really trivial? Or is it just young. 

After all this is a brand new phenomena and, if history is any guide, as the general economic situation gets worse, it's not likely that the prevalence and kinds of fat hate / discrimination are going to get any better. Unless the people who are subject to it or the people involved with them do something to blunt or halt it now. One of the most effective tools against any kind of hate, is to gain an understanding OF it. Well, if we want to understand New Hate, make it easier for others to comprehend what it is or even that it exists, one of the best ways to do that, is to look back at the Hate that Came Before. 

Obviously, those of us struggling against New Hate should treat the struggles of the past with respect and the acknowledgment that they deserve, but all such struggles deserve the same. Including new ones. Respect is a two way street. To get some, you gotta give some.   

Muzak Therapy:

Smashing Pumpkins / Siva

The Kids are All Right?

Last week, President Obama announced during the State of the Union Address that his wife would be taking up an initiative to address childhood obesity in the U.S. We now have, what we might assume, is a rough outline of where the First Lady will be taking this initiative. Like most things there is good and there is bad. First the good- 

"Many parents tell me that they want 

to prepare healthy food for their kids, 

but there aren't any supermarkets 

where they live that sell fresh produce. 

Or they're tight on money, and healthy 

foods seem too expensive. Or they're 

tight on time - working longer hours, working 

two jobs - so they can't pull off those 

homecooked meals around the dinner table."     

-As good as it is to see that the First Lady is aware of the fact that most people don't have the time, money, or energy to pursue the acceptable body size / shape that the fashion industry, Hollywierd, media,  and puritanical fatophobes insist everyone should have, I'm going to have to hold my applause. Why? This-

"Obesity is also one of the biggest threats 

to the American economy. If we continue 

on our current path, in ten years, nearly 

50 percent of all Americans will be 

obese - not just overweight, but obese. 

So think about how much we'll be spending 

on health care to treat obesity-related 

conditions like heart disease, cancer, and 

diabetes. Think about all the missed days 

of work and decreased productivity 

we may see as a result." 

Never mind that the very same, media driven, circus of terror that has fanned and stoked the flames of this obesity panic are now telling us that it might not be so bad. In fact, there are those who would suggest that all this fear-mongering and hysteria are being generated over an 'epidemic' that never even existed in the first place. We have been saturation bombed for so long by doom-saying messages from the media and a medical community so befuddled they can't even agree on what the problem might be, that we may well have begun to believe in what really isn't there. It's happened before in far less time and with far less effort. The problem is in trying to keep people from grabbing their torches, pick-axes, and rope, then running out to join the mob and do the same old things, the same old way. Ways that have never worked before, won't work now, and will ultimately end up doing more harm than good. Mrs. Obama does seem to get this- 

" And there are some people who might 

ask you: How can you go and spend money 

on something like healthy school lunches when 

we've got overcrowded classrooms and 

outdated textbooks to worry about? Or, 

how can you build parks, or sidewalks, or 

bike paths when we can barely afford 

to keep the community health center open?

These are fair questions. But when you

 step back and think about it, you realize 

that in the end, they're really false choices. 

We've all heard from teachers and principals 

that if kids don't have the nutrition they need 

to stay alert and focused in class, even the 

best textbooks in the world aren't going to 

help them learn. And we've heard from doctors 

and public health officials that if they don't 

have safe places to play right now, then a 

few years from now, that community health 

center will be even more crowded and even 

more of a strain on your budget."  

-America likes progress it can see. Complex status markers like, Blood pressure, cholesterol counts, heart and respiration rates, don't hold much interest for us. But weight loss you can see. It's something you can hold up to show yourself and others while saying 'I did this'. And the BMI is a simple number made even simpler by the medical industry. If your under X it's 'good'. If your over it's 'bad'. Yet we are actively discouraged from asking how healthy either one of these simple markers, body weight and BMI, really are. Which is why the diet industry is so fond of both. Until recently 'Before and After' pictures and testimonials have long been a staple of the industry for this reason. From the 2002 Federal Trade Commissions Analysis of Trends in the Weight Loss Industry- 

" Consumer Testimonials; Before/After 

Photos. The headline proclaimed: 

“I lost 46 lbs in 30 days.” Another blared, 

“How I lost 54 pounds without dieting or 

medication in less than 6 weeks!” The use 

of consumer testimonials is pervasive in 

weight-loss advertising. One hundred and 

ninety-five (65%) of the advertisements in the 

sample used consumer testimonials and 

42% contained before-and-after pictures. 

These testimonials and photos rarely 

portrayed realistic weight loss. The average 

for the largest amount of weight loss reported 

in each of the 195 advertisements was 

71 pounds. Fifty-seven ads reported weight 

loss exceeding 70 pounds, and 38 ads reported 

weight loss exceeding 100 pounds. The 

advertised weight loss ranges are, in all 

likelihood, simply not achievable for the 

products being promoted. Thirty-six ads used 71 

different testimonials claiming weight loss of 

nearly a pound a day for time periods of 13 

days or more."

-It even became necessary for the Federal Trade Commission to revise the use of the safe harbor disclaimer 'Results not typical'. Specifically to reign in the Diet industries rampant and deceptive use of the phrase to make false claims and generate business. So powerful is America's need to 'see the results' that we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that getting healthy is, not only directly proportional to losing weight, but that losing weight is equal to being healthy. Just as we allowed Diet companies to make money from us even while telling us that the results we are seeing, aren't real. This goes deep. Deep enough so that even the First Lady of the United States is susceptible to the conventional wisdom- 

"Mayor Mick Cornett challenged the 

people of Oklahoma City to lose a 

million pounds, and he created a 

website - thiscityisgoingonadiet.com - 

where people can learn how to lose 

weight and track their weight loss, and 

can share personal stories and tips with 

others. So far, 40,000 people have 

signed up - and together, they've 

lost more than half a million pounds. "  

- But can they maintain that loss? What does it mean if they end up weighing even more down the line? And are they any healthier? Rarely do these questions ever get asked. 

Mrs. Obama, if by some random chance the stars align and you happen to be reading this, the one thing I would hope that you take from it is this; improved health is a valid, worthwhile, and feasible goal for everyone. Especially Children. However a continued, obsessive, focus on weight loss will, most likely only end up making our kids less healthy and / or fatter.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing 

over and over again and expecting different results”

-Albert Einstein  

Muzak Therapy:

Depeche Mode / Stripped

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?

via; Living400  Big Liberty & Unapologetically Fat

Muzak Therapy:

B-52's / Private Idaho

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

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.

*WARNING*

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.

*WARNING*

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?

Why?

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

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