Without Comment Friday

I am finding the daily ranting rather draining these days, and I don't have cats to blog, so I am hereby inaugurating Without Comment Fridays, a new series in which I shall point you to the articles I would rant about, were I not committed to remaining in a relatively pleasant mood at least one day a week. (You, however, are encouraged to wax outraged in comments to your heart's content.)

So. Without comment, more or less:

  • Obesity causes fucking birth defects now. Just for shits and giggles, why don't y'all go ahead and see if you can identify the particular things I would rant about in that article, if I were ranting today.
  • If you haven't yet seen the Times article about putting leptin in baby formula to keep the kiddos from catching teh fat, go now. (Never mind, as we've discussed previously, that breastfed babies -- i.e., those already receiving leptin in their very first food -- still get fat, for fuck's sake.)
And wait, I've been avoiding that story all week, but now that I'm acknowledging it, it actually does demand a comment. Here's the article's conclusion:
Oceans of soda, mountains of baked goods and sparkling glaciers of ice cream are now a permanent part of our landscape, and it may be easier to change us than them.

If that doesn't sum up the ass-backward thinking about fat and health in this country, I don't know what does. Since we can't expect people to eat healthfully, we need to focus on making sure nobody gets fat! Because of course it's the fat, not the fucking eating habits, causing the health problems. Skinny people who live on soda, baked goods and ice cream couldn't possibly get sick, so if we make sure everyone stays skinny, we're all set!

Hello, desk, my forehead's old friend.

See also: Zuzu, Rachel, and Jill on that topic.

And okay, fine, call it "Minimal Commentary Friday," then. Shutting up doesn't come naturally to me, all right?

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

I Married Dora



Interracial relationships are so zany!

Open Wide...

Shot through the heart

Hi!

I don't post here very often. Lots of reasons, no use getting into any of them right now, but I do feel relatively comfortable in the knowledge that most of the people who read this site will notice my by-line, realize it's not coming from the majors, and skip over to the other, actually important entries. So, hi! again to the few people who decided to soldier through, and I'll try not to take up too much of your time.

Every so often, I'm gripped with an urge to enter into the public debate, drunk on the illusion that not only does my opinion matter, but that I'm somehow unique in my ideas—so unique, in fact, that the only real thing to do is to blast out what I'm feeling as loud as possible. Normally, I just avoid the Internet till this feeling passes (booze doesn't help, although if I drink enough, there's always the chance I'll forget how to type), but not today. I asked Melissa if I could re-up as a contributor, and by the god I don't believe in, I'm not going to let a silly review of an even sillier movie be my only entry in months. I have thoughts, you know. Important thoughts. Putting things in italics thoughts.

So here I am. Three (well, four, sort of) paragraphs in, and I'm still avoiding the point.

I hate guns. That's the point. But maybe we should do a bit of set-up first.

I watch a lot of movies. Reading's really at the heart of me, as I'm never truly comfortable unless I've got a book in easy reach, but movies run a close second. And if you watch a lot of movies, you start to notice certain trends; nothing rigid, of course, but there are patterns that pop up. I'm sure most of you have noticed them yourselves—how in horror and action movies, black guys tend to die first, how suspense flicks will always get quiet … then throw you a fake scare (CAT!!!), and just when you're calmed down a bit, the real nastiness happens (THERE IS SOMEONE RIGHT BEHIND YOU).

Some trends are more annoying than others (the suspense thing I can live with, because knowing it's coming can actually make things scarier; I do wish monsters would ease up on the African American population, though), but there's this one that drives me up the wall, the one I've complained about endlessly to my friends, the one that turns me into Ahab, cursing the heavens and stabbing waves just in case a white whale swims by. This particular cliché, this all time champeen crummy classic, can be summed up as: "Listen to your heart, not your head!"

Grrr. Just—fucking—grrr.

Let's unpack it, shall we? Because on some level, there's a bit truth to the idea. It certainly is possible to overthink your life; if nothing else, years of therapy have taught me that sometimes it's better to just shut up and go with the flow. But that's hardly ever what the worst movies tell us. The worst movies tell us over and over that being smart is nothing—that thinking, assessing a situation, the freedom to add 2 and 2 and always know it's 4—all these are worth shit, because it's really about what you feel. That what makes a human being a human is the ability to love and care and hug and, y'know, fuck some dude because you just adored the way he sounded on the radio.

Bullshit, okay? Just bullshit, through and through. Emotions aren't what set humans apart from animals (and do we really need to keep on telling ourselves that we're set apart from the animals? Relax. Please. When the squirrel armies come, you can all blame me.). Consciousness is; it's the ability to choose your reaction to a given series of stimulants that makes us special, the power to not always do what instinct dictates. Yes, if you're trying to decide between becoming a soulless businessman and a world class dancer, following your heart might make more sense than working out the finances; but then again, if three months down the road you're realizing you're built entirely out of left feet, and you go to bed dreaming of Excel spreadsheets, maybe following your heart wasn't such a great idea.

What really bugs me about this is that you don't need to champion emotion. People are naturally inclined to let their hormones run the show. It's like celebrating how cool it is to have sex—that's nice and all, but you're not telling me shit I don't already know. My "heart" is a wonderful thing. I'm passionate, loving, and I can be kind. But I can also be a miserably greedy little asswipe, and there are days when I want to punch walls and tell everyone I meet how fucking stupid they are. It's okay that there's that side of me; we all have that side. What's wonderful about us is that, those of us lucky enough to be privileged with a comfortable life and access to good literature, we can actually decide not to do what our heart tells us. We can say, "This feeling is strong, but it will pass. I'm going to wait till it passes, because if I don't, I might do something I'll regret."

And this is why I hate guns. Although I'm not sure that "hate" is the right word; when I see a gun, I don't go red, and I have at least one friend who likes to go target shooting, and I have no issues with that. But I'll never own a gun, and I won't go out of my way to use one. The thing that gets buried under all the controversy, all the debates about the Bill of Rights, the adoration of firepower here in the US and the political gimmickry, is that a gun is a machine for killing things in the easiest way possible. You point it, you pull the trigger, and something gets fucked up.

This takes about, what, a couple seconds? Less? A gun in hand is an instant gratification delivery system of the most deadly variety. I worship the human race because we can make choices, because we have a free will; but that free will is never easy to come by, and there are a hundreds of ways to bury it. A gun is the simplest. You hold it, you feel the trigger, and you think "Pull," and you're reduced to just another machine. And anyone around you, they lose their right to make decisions as well.

I'm not saying we should be coddled—I actually believe that the more choices we have, the more potential we have to be great. Not right now though. Not how things currently are. In a culture that worships the unthinking response, that makes the monumental mistake of valuing impulse over consideration, guns are never going to be a simple tool. Our lives are much too fragile for such easy answers. It would be nice if more people would remember that; remember not the polemics or the punchlines, but the simple truth of physics and human physiology.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What'd I miss?

Open Wide...

Net Neutrality: Why It Matters

Here's a new concrete example for you to digest, courtesy of the band Pearl Jam:

After concluding our Sunday night show at Lollapalooza, fans informed us that portions of that performance were missing and may have been censored by AT&T during the "Blue Room" Live Lollapalooza Webcast.

When asked about the missing performance, AT&T informed Lollapalooza that portions of the show were in fact missing from the webcast, and that their content monitor had made a mistake in cutting them.

During the performance of "Daughter" the following lyrics were sung to the tune of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" but were cut from the webcast:

- "George Bush, leave this world alone." (the second time it was sung); and

- "George Bush find yourself another home."
Sorry, but I'm not buying the content monitor making a coincidental mistake during the airing of these specific lyrics. Disagree all you want, but it's not conspiracy. It's fact. And it's right there in front of you. What kills me is that this song clip would've easily made it past the censors on regular network television, without any audio editing of the performance.

AT&T has shown, as clear as day, how they can manipulate content at their own discretion without any fear of consequence. Providers simply have no right to censor content for any reason whatsoever, not to mention come up with some dumbass excuse when they do. As SaveTheInternet points out, AT&T has an established PR problem:
AT&T’s history of breaking trust with their customers includes handing over private phone records to the government, promising to deliver services to underserved communities and then skipping town, pledging never to interfere with the free flow of information online while hatching plans with the likes of Cisco, Viacom, RIAA and MPA to build and deploy technology that will spy on user traffic.
This really is a no-brainer bi-partisan issue that everyone could agree upon. Provider-manipulated (or censored) content is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll need to be the huge squeaky wheel once again after our beloved Congress returns from their break.

For more info, head to SaveTheInternet.

[H/T to ThinkProgress]

Open Wide...

Oh, You Lucky People

As if the Republican candidates didn't have enough trouble with lackluster fund raising and a high unfavorable rating from their own kind ("none of the above" was leading in the polls among Republican voters in July), Fred Thompson has emerged as the Godot-style candidate. First he was going to announce on the Fourth of July, then in August. Now it looks like it will be September (that's September 2007, we presume, but who really knows), and he's on his third campaign manager without even having a campaign yet.

But wait! Don't despair! There's a savior on the horizon in the person of Alan Keyes, who is sure that there's a groundswell of support for him to be drafted into the GOP primary race. Well, according to him, that is.

This won't be the first try for Mr. Keyes. He ran in 1996 and 2000, causing quite a stir as the candidate from the far-right wingnut side of the GOP with his theocratic pronouncements and booming voice. His last attempt at running for office was in 2004 when he basically invited himself to run for the Senate in Illinois against Barack Obama when the previous candidate was forced out of the race when the details of his divorce from Jeri (Seven of Nine) Ryan were made public. Mr. Keyes lost in a landslide, and showing his nastier side, he refused to congratulate Mr. Obama, saying "I'm supposed to make a call that represents the congratulations toward the triumph of that which I believe ultimately stands for ... a culture evil enough to destroy the very soul and heart of my country? I can't do this. And I will not make a false gesture." He's also the one who said that Mary Cheney, the daughter of the Vice President, is a "selfish hedonist" by the virtue of being a lesbian. What Mr. Keyes lacks in tact he makes up for in pure entertainment value.

And don't forget that Newt Gingrich is waiting in the wings until he is summoned forth to humbly accept the nomination when the Republicans finally come to their senses and realize that he is the only man who can rescue them from the wilderness. Yes, this thrice-married, admitted adulterer who -- according to him -- smote the ground and brought forth the Contract With America and singlehandedly engineered the Republican takeover of the Congress and Senate in 1994 and became Speaker of the House; who all by himself shut down the government in 1995 over a hissy-fit about his seat on Air Force One; who brought Bill Clinton to his knees (*snort*) by impeaching him for a blow job and told his colleagues never to say a sentence with the name of Bill or Hillary Clinton without using the word "criminal" in it; who bungled the 1998 mid-terms elections so badly that he lost both his Speakership and was forced to resign his House seat.... Yes, America, this pompous ass is waiting for us to beg him to run. Can you believe our great good fortune?

And oh, do we want him to run, both him and Alan Keyes. They're just what the GOP needs; a couple of more right-wing nut jobs. The Republican field is so predictably dull that the only entertainment they provide with any regularity is when they let Rep. Ron Paul, their current gadfly and glorious soundbite provider, have his say. And he spoils it by actually making sense on some of his points, as compared to the theocratic babblings of Sen. Sam Brownback, the xenophobic Eichmann-channeling rumblings of Rep. Tom Tancredo, and the diet tips from Gov. Mike Huckabee. So bring it on, Newt and Alan, and break out the popcorn.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Open Wide...

Believe It Or Not

BBC:

Medical firm Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is suing the American Red Cross, alleging the charity has misused the famous red cross symbol for commercial purposes.

J&J said a deal with the charity's founder in 1895 gave it the "exclusive use" of the symbol as a trademark for drug, chemical and surgical products.

It said American Red Cross had violated this agreement by licensing the symbol to other firms to sell certain goods.
According to the J&J press release, the disputed items include "baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes and humidifiers."

I can't see how either company is going to come out of this smelling particularly rosy.

Open Wide...

WTP: Bush is Out of His Ever-Loving Mind Edition

Bush May Try to Cut Corporate Tax Rates:

President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.

…"Our tax structure makes us less competitive, and if we want to be a competitive nation, we've got to analyze a lot of things, including taxes, dependence on oil or good education policy," Bush said. "And so we will work through possible suggestions for Congress."
Here's a suggestion: Let's stop spending enormous amounts of money on that misadventure in Iraq before the phrase tax cut passes your bloody lips one more single stinking time!

Consider my gob well and truly smacked. Just when I think nothing else emanating from the White House could possibly shock me—pow! Corporate tax cut proposal. Right in the kisser.

Open Wide...

Okay, Now I'm Mad

Because this bullshit is evidently gaining traction.

Carrying a spare tire or two around the waist has become socially acceptable in the United States as the population's waistlines have expanded, according to a study released on Tuesday.

Yeah. I'm not even kidding. They really fucking published that.

What are they basing this on?
In 1994 the average woman tipped the scales at 147 pounds but she wanted to weigh only 132 pounds -- but less than a decade later the average woman weighed 153 pounds but said her desired weight was 135 pounds
Because the average woman's desired weight has gone up three pounds, there is obviously "less social pressure" to lose weight!

Um, except for one thing. In 1994, the average woman wanted to lose 15 pounds. Today, the average woman wants to lose 18.

Can you see the headlines if you spun the numbers that way?

STUDY: AMERICAN WOMEN UNHAPPIER WITH THEIR BODIES THAN EVER BEFORE

STUDY: AVERAGE WOMAN WANTS TO LOSE MORE THAN 10% OF BODY WEIGHT

STUDY: AS WAISTLINES EXPAND, DIETERS BECOME DESPERATE TO LOSE MORE

But no, we get this fucking bullshit about fat suddenly being "socially acceptable" instead.

The other basis for that outrageous conclusion is "a previous study in which 87 percent of Americans, including 48 percent of obese Americans, believed their body weight fell in the 'socially acceptable' range."

Once again, that tells us exactly jack shit. What it tells us is that 48% of people in the obese BMI category believe their body weight falls in the "socially acceptable" range. We've already discussed that being in the "obese" BMI category and looking like the headless people they illustrate these articles with are two very different things.




See the difference?

Edit, because this may not have been clear before: Please note that there is absolutely no difference between me and the woman in the other photo in terms of our humanity or the respect we deserve. There may very well be no difference in our overall health, either. There is, however, a vast difference in our social acceptability -- and yet we are both clinically obese. By implying that a majority of "obese" people A) look more like her than me and B ) believe their bodies are socially acceptable, the researchers and reporter here are propagating the myth that fat people are ignorant and/or delusional.

And believing you fall into a "socially acceptable" weight range is not the same thing as believing you are not fat, or not hated for it. I believe I fall into a "socially acceptable" weight range, insofar as I'm not harassed by strangers about my weight very often (though it's happened), I can fit into airplane seats (barely), and I'm still small enough that people talk shit about "real" fatties in front of me.

But do I believe most people look at me and think I'm a "healthy" weight? No. Do I believe I could get into a club that only lets the Beautiful People past the rope? No. Do I believe the average straight man in this culture would look at me and think, "Yeah, I'd love to have her on my arm?" No. Do I believe I could walk into any doctor's office and not be harangued about my BMI before I've had my blood pressure taken or cholesterol checked? No. Do I believe that if I have ice cream in my grocery cart, some asshole won't look at that and go home and blog about how fatties are killing themselves by overeating? No.

Do I believe fat is socially acceptable? FUCK NO. And I am fat. But I would still say I fall into the "socially acceptable" range if asked, because 20 years past the 7th grade, I am no longer directly bullied for being fat on a regular basis. I can walk into an interview for the average office job and not be judged unfit to do that job before I ever open my mouth. I can walk into most stores and not be ignored by the salespeople. I can sit next to a stranger on a plane without him asking the flight attendant why I wasn't forced to buy two seats. Some fat people don't have any of those privileges, and I am very aware of mine.

I'm also totally willing to believe that 87% of Americans do fall into the socially acceptable range, if you define it like that. People built like the woman who unwittingly became the illustration for this article are a tiny percentage of the population. And believe me, those people know goddamned well how socially unacceptable they are.

I am so FUCKING SICK of these articles that all purport to scientifically demonstrate the same basic thing: fat people are stupid, deluded, and living light years away from reality. We don't know we're fat. We don't know how fat we are. We don't know that being fat is supposedly unhealthy. We don't know that apples have more vitamins than Twinkies. We don't know that people in this culture don't like our bodies. We don't know that Dane Cook doesn't want to fuck us. We don't know that most people think burning more calories than you consume will guarantee long-term weight loss. We don't know that if we say we eat a normal amount of food and exercise regularly yet remain fat, the "scientific" response will be that we are big, fat liars.

Dear Universe,

WE FUCKING KNOW.

Love,

Teh Fatties

For Christ's sake. Have these people ever spoken to a fat person? A claim like "Carrying a spare tire or two around the waist has become socially acceptable in the United States" is so PATENTLY FUCKING ABSURD, the only conclusion I can draw is that some thin scientists and reporters are stupid, deluded, and living light years away from reality.

And this particular piece of bullshit doesn't just infuriate me; it terrifies me. Because once they've established that fat is "socially acceptable," the next step is ramping up the organized campaign to "teach us" that it's not.

I don't even want to imagine how they'll do that.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

Lymey

So I'm reading in the WaPo that President Bush was treated for Lyme disease last year, which I'm guessing was kept secret for reasons of national security, and I see that the article notes possible effects of untreated Lyme disease include "arthritis, an abnormal heart rhythm and problems with the nervous system." What it doesn't note is that "problems with the nervous system" can mean anything from Bell's palsy (from which, it was speculated after the first 2004 presidential debates, Bush is suffering) to balance disorder (which one might expect someone who, say, falls off his bike a lot to have), both of which are associated with untreated Lyme disease. As are neuropsychiatric disturbances such as fogginess, hallucinations, and memory loss.

It also doesn't note when, exactly, Bush was supposed to have contracted Lyme disease. A week before treatment? A month? Six years?

Under normal circumstances, I would blow off this article like it was nothing. But we haven't been under normal circumstances for a long time. I don't even know what to think about it, really—but I don't believe that Bush was just treated for Lyme disease last year and that was that. I guess maybe I suspect there's something up with his health that might be quite serious, and this is the bullshit we're being fed instead of the truth.

Open Wide...

Paging Dr. Freud

Misogynist wankstain Dan Riehl, wondering if radical feminist childrearing constitutes abuse, manages not only to wrongly attribute this post written by Heart to Biting Beaver, but also gets the name of the post wrong. The post—which, by the way, was about all-too-familiar virtual attacks by a bunch of misogynist fuckwits—was titled The Way Men Hate Us.


Riehl made a slight slip, however, with the reference in his post:


I always love a little unintentional honesty to get the day started with a bang.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Booker



21 Jump Street spin-off with Richard Grieco.

Hot.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Nicked from Mannion, who clipped it from Jaquandor, and revised a titch: If you could go back in time to give your younger self one piece of advice, would you? If so, what time would you choose, and what piece of advice would you offer?

Open Wide...

Because What the Shakers Want, the Shakers Receive



Ka-pow, bitchez.

Open Wide...

At the Post-Dispatch, Drudge equals social networking

You may have noted the recent LA Times piece on how news organizations scramble for notice by über-gossipmeister Matt Drudge.

Every day, journalists and media executives in newsrooms across the land hope they'll have something that catches Drudge's fancy — or, as he has put it, "raises my whiskers." Most keep their fingers crossed that he'll discover their articles on his own and link to them. Others are more proactive, sending anonymous e-mails or placing calls to him or his behind-the-scenes assistant.

As Greg Sargent comments at TPM Election Central, it's a reminder of the pathetic state of journalism in these United States - though not a surprise. That story that came to mind today as I skimmed a piece at the website of my hometown paper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I saw that the P-D had jumped on the social networking bandwagon, providing "Save & Share" links at the end of its stories. "Save & Share" is old news for such online papers as the Washington Post; the usual options for sharing stories include such venues as del.icio.us, Digg, reddit, Facebook, and the like.

All well and good, and all fairly innocuous, except that one of the "social networking" options provided by the P-D is, ah, "Drudge." That is, it's your standard "Send News Tips to Drudge" webform.

Now perhaps the term "social networking" is flexible enough that it can be stretched to include begging for notice on Drudge - or more specifically, encouraging your readers to beg for such notice on your behalf - but if so, this is the first I've heard of it. I have no idea how many newspapers engage in this practice, but even one is too many. It's a clear example - not that we needed another one - of Drudge's influence.

An observation by Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism and quoted in the LA Times piece, comes to mind:

"The dirty little secret about Drudge," Rosenstiel says, "is that he's a gateway for conventional journalism."

The Post-Dispatch makes that point clear enough.

(Cross-posted...though not at Drudge. Hey, maybe it should be.)

Open Wide...

Interactive Timeline Of Bullshit


Click on the above photo to access the timeline.


The Center for American Progress has come up with a really cool utility to chronologically scroll through all of the times we've only needed a few more months to see things turn around in Iraq.

Note: The colors are a little dark, but there is a scroll bar on the bottom of the timeline that you can drag to view the various points of time.

[H/T to ThinkProgress]

Open Wide...

Bad Kitties and Despicable Things

I wasn't going to blog this story, but a bunch of people have now emailed it to me, so I figured I'd better say something about it. The gist is that Thai police officers face a new punishment for minor offenses like littering or tardiness: Wearing hot pink armbands emblazoned with "Hello Kitty." Police Col. Pongpat Chayaphan explains, "Simple warnings no longer work. This new twist is expected to make them feel guilt and shame and prevent them from repeating the offense, no matter how minor. Kitty is a cute icon for young girls. It's not something macho police officers want covering their biceps." But no worries—they won't be forced to endure the heinous humiliation of being associated with something girly in public; they only have to wear the armbands in the privacy of the police station.

As I've noted before, there's a real irony in punishing with pink the very macho wankers whose misogyny and homophobia give pink its power to degrade them in the first place. If pink is the color of girls and gays, only straight men who have problems with girls and gays will have a problem with pink. Funny how that works.

So, in some way, I quite revel in idiotic straight men who get their very manly boxers in a very manly bunch over being forced to wear an icon of girlhood on their arms; it's really that they imbue it with the power to shame them, not that girlhood is inherently shameful. But, in another way, I know all too well that men who are so easily shamed by being associated with the feminine inevitably try to reclaim their very manly manliness by treating girls and women and feminine men like shit—and that sort of ends my revelry.

At which point, I'm back to feeling the steep incline of the Sisyphean task of undermining sexism, bit by infinitesimally incremental bit, and the crushing weight of the madness that sees so many straight men casting the objects of their most fervent desire as despicable things.

Open Wide...

Wednesday Conchords

Foux Da Fa Fa



The full episode is below.


* * *





Open Wide...

Dueling Quotes of the Day

#1: "My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."—Mitt Romney, who also noted that his 36-year-old son Josh was touring all 99 Iowa counties in an RV.

#2: "Of course [I'm not satisfied with his answer]. He told me the way his son shows support for our military and our nation is to buy a Winnebago and ride across Iowa and help him get elected."—Rachel Griffiths of Milan, Illinois, sister of an Iraq War Army major and member of Quad City Progressive Action for the Common Good, who asked Romney why his sons had decided not to enlist.

Open Wide...

13-Year-Old Follows up Lipo and Tummy Tuck with Lap-Band

Big Fat Blog has a post today about Brooke Bates, a 13-year-old girl who underwent liposuction and a tummy tuck at 12, gained back most of the weight, and has now been fitted with a Mexican Lap-Band. Her parents had trouble finding a doctor to do it in the States, stunningly enough -- for starters, Brooke's BMI was well under the usual cut-off of 35, and it's just so much more expensive to go through all the screening required to make sure the surgery will be, you know, safe.

“It's so much paperwork that you have to go through -- so much red tape is what I call it. They want you to get psychological testing, they want you to get sleep apnea testing and all those things I'm sure are very important, but it's money,” said [mother Cindy] Bates.
Yes, god forbid you spend the money on psychological testing for a child whom you said in the previous breath is a "compulsive overeater." Those greedy American bastards might have actually wanted to treat your child's eating disorder before performing another surgery on her. The nerve!

It all becomes even more heartbreaking when you learn this, from a People article published during Brooke's post-lipo honeymoon phase (emphasis mine):
She tried to lose the weight; in fact she had dieted most of her childhood. There was the $1,400 low–carb plan her parents enrolled her in during third grade. Then Richard Simmons's Deal–a–Meal in fourth grade and Weight Watchers in the fifth.

Her parents tried to help at home by "getting rid of all the chips, crackers and cookies," her father, Joey, says. But regardless of any success she had, the pounds always came back. "Brooke seemed to be the kind of kid who gained weight from just looking at food," says her mother, Cindy.
Later in the article, Cindy is quoted as saying her daughter has "basically been on a diet from the age of three."

So wait, does she gain weight just by looking at food, or is she a compulsive overeater? And if it's the latter, do you suppose your having starved her from the age of three on might have anything to do with that compulsion?

The articles say Brooke had high blood pressure by age 11 and was declared a "ticking time bomb" by a doctor, though they don't say how high it was, or whether the stress of being ridiculed for her body at school, having her parents obsess about her weight, and learning that her father had cancer thought to be terminal might have driven her blood pressure up. Regardless of those question marks, it's clear that her health had very little to do with the surgery decisions. I mean, from stuff besides the fact that her parents saw all that pesky health screening as a waste of money.
It wasn't easy. Even Dr. Robert Ersek, a local plastic surgeon and the self–proclaimed "biggest fat–sucker in Texas," initially said no. But because [Brooke's father] Joey had that winter been diagnosed with bladder cancer (thought by the Bateses to be terminal), Ersek agreed to take Brooke as his patient. The girl had told him, "I want my dad to see me looking slim and pretty in a dress before he dies."
Jesus, this poor kid. Her father's cancer was in remission by the time of the article, thankfully, but how unbelievably fucked up is it that at 11 or 12 years old, she wasn't only worried about her dad dying, but about him dying with a fat daughter?

And of course, that was on top of the pain of being a fat kid at school:
Brooke says her physical pain was nothing compared with the psychological anguish she endured. One day in junior high, boys harassed her until she fled in tears. "I wanted to die," she says. In class no one wanted to sit next to her. "Kids would say, 'You stink,' because people tend to think fat people smell bad, even though I didn't."
It's all too familiar to anyone who was ever a fat kid. And yet, we insist on framing the problem as having to do with her weight, not this culture's perverse obsession with thinness. Of course Brooke's self-esteem improved after weight loss, but not because her psychological problems had actually been addressed; because she was less of a target both for other children and her own goddamned parents. The problem was never about her weight. It was other people treating her like shit for her weight. So when she gained the weight back, it was business as usual.

And the solution was another surgery.

As much as I'd like to wring her parents' necks on the one hand, on the other, I can't even blame them that much. They're products of this culture, too. They want their child not to be tortured in school. They might even have been worried, not without cause, about the state taking their daughter away when she continued to gain weight despite all the diets.

But it makes me furious that this poor girl, dealing with so much, has never had a safe space to be in her own body without shame, guilt, and fear. The tragedy here is not that she cracked 200 lbs. before high school; it's that she's never known what it's like to be accepted unconditionally, even by her own family.

This is what a fat-hating culture does to people. It makes them spend thousands of dollars on weight loss programs for growing children. It makes parents believe that putting their child through three elective surgeries before she starts high school -- one of those by a doctor chosen precisely because he wouldn't require all that "red tape" of pre-surgery health screening -- is reasonable and responsible, even loving. It makes a child believe that going under the knife is preferable to walking into one more classroom with her fat body.

And then, when this shit makes the news, we all gasp and say, "How could they? 12 years old! That's unconscionable!"

But we don't ask ourselves, Well, what if she'd been 16? 21? Would it make sense then to follow up an entire lifetime of dieting with multiple elective surgeries? Or to follow-up one failed surgery with a different one aiming at the same goal?

And most of all, we don't ask ourselves, What made Brooke Bates's life so fucking miserable that she wanted to do this at such a young age? We believe we already know the answer to that: fat made her miserable! Question answered! No need to think about anything else!

Like the fact that other children treating her like a pariah made her miserable.

Or that chronic dieting made her miserable.

Or not being fully accepted by her own parents made her miserable.

Or hearing that her father was going to die made her miserable.

Or going through adolescence made her miserable.

No, it was just the fat. It's always just the fat. Remove the fat by any means necessary, and all the other problems go away.

Except when they don't.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...