Fever Pitch

I spent yesterday afternoon in the sun. It left my face bright red with a burn, because I am a pale and sun-avoiding sort. Usually when I'm getting crispy, I move into the shade, but yesterday, I didn't even notice my sizzling skin, because yesterday, I was sitting in the first row at Soldier Field, directly behind what was Brazil's goal in the first half, and USA's in the second.

Yesterday, with Mr. Shakes and my girlfriend Miller (who organized the day) and her Portuguese teacher and two dozen other people, including Brazilians, Americans, Europeans, and one Argentine, I watched, from twenty yards away, Ronaldinho launch a corner kick just inside the far post.

OMFG: Ronaldinho!
The USA-Brazil exhibition game—dubbed "Clash of the Champions" despite Brazil's #1 world ranking and USA's #17—was won by Brazil, 4-2, which was unexpected only insomuch as USA managed to score two goals off the dominating Brazilians. But Team USA didn't embarrass themselves in the least; they did extremely well going up against the titans of jogo bonito. As Mr. Shakes said when Team USA scored the first goal of the match, "Woo! The Yanks shooed oop to fookin' play!"


USA goalkeeper Tim Howard, who sustained a dislocated finger
going after a Ronaldinho free kick, but stayed in the game.
Football is still a young sport in America, where it's still called soccer to the chagrin of its fans from just about everywhere else. The American team is still in its infancy compared to Brazil, whose Ronaldhino, Kaka, Robinho, and Afonso move the ball up and down the pitch with fluid perfection, knowing so flawlessly at every moment where the ball is and where it will be in the next moment that it seems coded into their very DNA. They are light years ahead; Team Brazil are the aliens from a distant galaxy who have already perfected travel among the stars, come to share their advanced knowledge with the Earthlings. It was a thing to behold. It took my breath away. We were close enough to see Ronaldhino's warm, crooked grin.

Someone from our group didn't show up; I don't know who. We ended up with an empty seat in our row, and we all shoved over one, leaving an empty seat between me and the aisle. Halfway through the first half, there was a small voice beside me asking if anyone was sitting there. It was a boy of maybe 10, holding to his chest a Ronaldhino banner. "I can't see from where I'm sitting," he said. I told him to take the seat. "It was mine," I told him, "so you'll be fine there." Slowly, his younger brother and three more little boys—cousins, I think—joined him, four of them in yellow Brasil jerseys and one in a red Team America t-shirt. They all squeezed into the single seat, and unfurled their banner and yelled for their hero. "Is he your favorite?" I asked them. They looked at me with wide, solemn eyes and nodded. I was told he was the best in the world, and I didn't disagree.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Left-Wing Brains v. Right-Wing Brains

Liberalism and conservatism start in the brain:

In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The experiment is one that will be familiar to many people as one similar that was floating around teh internetz not long ago to measure internalized racism, in which images are presented for quick response on the keyboard. In this case, the letters M and W were presented, and participants were instructed to tap the keyboard only when one or the other appeared. The one that required tapping was presented more frequently, to dispose the participants toward tapping.

Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.

…Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Interesting. Of course the real question—and always the best question and hardest to answer—is why. Are these differences wholly biological, wholly socialized, a combination thereof? My guess would be a biological predisposition that is either reinforced or undermined by individual socialization and will—which would also explain why there are diehard conservatives, diehard liberals, and lots of people in between.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Final Thoughts on the Dieting Matter (This Round, Anyway)

1. Every dieter (including the me of yesteryear) who hears the "95% of diets don't work" statistic,* thinks, "Well, I'll just have to be in the 5%, then!"

And what they really mean by that is, "I will be in the 100% of people who take it seriously and try hard and never give up." Because they assume 95% of dieters were not also in that category, were not that dedicated and vigilant, did not try hard enough.

That's a bad assumption.

2. Bodies change as they age. They become creakier, achier, and less tolerant of our whims. I can already see it happening at 32; my 46-year-old sister assures me I have no idea; and our 72-year-old father would love for his body to work as well as either of ours. All three of us are healthy, but bodies change as they age.

The older you get as a fat person, the more you might think you'd feel better if you weren't so fat. You also might think you'd feel better if you weren't so old. But you can't wish either one away. Permanent weight loss does not magically become possible because your priorities shift from being conventionally attractive to feeling better. Your body is not just biding its time until you have a really good reason to lose weight. Your body is just fat. The real you is fat. Fat can come to seem like a frustrating limitation as you age, but that doesn't make it a skin you can decide to shed because you'd really prefer to live without it, thanks. It's still you. And dieting still doesn't work.

Look for an upcoming post by Sweet Machine to explore that topic with more nuance.

3. There are exceptions to every rule. A lot of the arguments against my blanket anti-dieting stance have amounted to, "But I have a really good reason for dieting and still want to be a fat acceptance activist!" Generally, my response to that is A) see point 2, and B) go right ahead; I have no authority to stop you. But I still don't personally think dieting and fat acceptance are philosophically compatible -- and if I'm going to be involved in any organized fat acceptance movement, I'm going to push for that group to have an official anti-dieting statement and No Diet Talk policy. Nobody has to join that particular branch of the movement if they believe their right to lose weight must be validated by anyone they work with.

But there have been a couple of stories I've found really compelling, even if they don't change my general position on dieting. A general position is just that: it covers a lot of territory, but not every square inch of the whole world. I don't believe exceptions necessarily disprove rules; I believe they are exceptional situations. But some of them are worth taking a closer look at.

I've received a lot of criticism over the last few days, but the majority of it has been based on false premises (most often, that permanent weight loss is a choice) and/or on personal experiences that may or may not be genuine exceptions to the rule, but in any case, do not disprove it. Since I said in my very first post that I was not talking about my personal reaction to individuals who are dieting, and since I believe there is currently no compelling evidence whatsoever that deliberate long-term weight loss is possible for most people, that kind of criticism didn't bother me much.

The criticism that got under my skin, because it was accurate and meaningful, is that this discussion -- among others on my blog -- excludes the extremely fat. As in, those who have serious health problems and physical limitations directly related to their fat (and without wanting to diminish the seriousness of chronic pain, I'm not just talking about aching joints here).

When I specifically mention extremely fat people in my writing, it's most often in passing and as a counterpoint to the majority of fat people, whose fat does not preclude the possibility of being healthy and active. This is the consequence of my having two primary agendas when writing about fat acceptance: 1) to spread the word that fat does not automatically equal unhealthy, and 2) to advocate for the rights of ALL fat people, regardless of size, age, health, disability, etc. The two overlap substantially, but sometimes, a focus on one can eclipse the other. One of the most frequent arguments against "Fat does not automatically equal unhealthy" is "BUT WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WEIGH 500/700/900/ELEVENTY BILLION POUNDS?" To which I usually respond by pointing out that people whose fat constitutes an actual disability are a very small percentage of the population, and once again, exceptions do not disprove the general rule.

But there is a difference between acknowledging that a certain group of people is too small to change what I say about a larger group of people, and actively marginalizing that smaller group. And I'm not sure I work hard enough to keep those two things distinct. I am not only interested in the rights of smaller fat people, healthy fat people, or fat people who eat their veggies and work out. I am interested in the rights of ALL fat people. And that means I can't continually keep some fat people in a box called "exceptions to the rule," while giving lipservice to fully including them in the conversation.

So I want to be more inclusive of extremely fat people, without muddying the point that they are a small percentage of the population -- a fact that goes overlooked in too many discussions of fat and health. That's an awfully tricky tightrope to walk, but there's really no alternative to working harder on my balance here, because the last fucking thing I want to do as a fat acceptance advocate is exclude people for being too fat.

Someday soon, you'll see at least one guest post on Shapely Prose from a woman who weighs over 500 lbs., has severe physical limitations because of it, and has made the agonizing decision to have weight loss surgery. As a rule, I still hate the whole concept of WLS. (So does she, as I understand it.) But this woman's story is frustrating, maddening, heartbreaking; I can't say the rule applies to her, because I've heard that story, and what it comes down to is, fuck if I've got a better idea. Fuck if anyone does.

I think it's incredibly important to hear stories like that. For one thing, no matter how small a percentage of the population the extremely fat may be, that's still a whole lot of individuals struggling with fat-related issues many of us rarely think about. A whole lot of people who are more than an easily ignored statistic; people I'd like to see participating more in the conversations at this blog, other blogs, and in the movement in general.

For another thing, the extremes do often have much to teach us about the middle. But that still doesn't mean they disprove general rules that apply to the middle. I haven't relaxed my general position on WLS -- much less weight-loss dieting -- because of this woman's story, or any similar ones. But it's one reason why I made a distinction between my political stance and my personal response to individuals in the original anti-dieting screed. Individuals are always more complicated and interesting than general rules; but I think general rules are absolutely necessary when you're thinking about getting out a basic message that contradicts the one coming from a zillion other sources.

My blogging has always dealt with both individual experiences and more general stuff. I'm a big fan of extrapolating larger truths from relatively narrow experiences. But sometimes, that's a trap. Sometimes, an anecdote is just an anecdote. And sometimes, the larger truths that can be extrapolated from an anecdote are not the ones the person telling it thinks they are.

And there's no general rule for figuring out what's what, except to think critically and do your best.

Yesterday, a person I really respect accused me of being "cagey." I guess I can see how one could arrive at that conclusion, but it's certainly not as if I'm deliberately trying to obfuscate my own message. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's just that the message I'm trying to get out here is complicated, manifold, thorny. It deals with individuals and it deals with faceless statistics. It deals with facts and feelings. It deals with political activism and self-acceptance. It deals with people.

I'm thinking critically and doing my best. And I'm still anti-dieting, as a rule. That's all I can tell you.

*Some dispute the 95% statistic, but no one has yet shown that anything less than the vast majority of diets result in regain of all weight lost within five years.

(Cross-posted. And for more on what the hell I'm talking about, see my original anti-dieting post; Fillyjonk's Corollary 1 and Corollary 2; the last several posts The Rotund has made; and Zuzu.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Then Again, Maybe He Won't

Sen. Larry Craig is having another bout of indecision about whether or not he's really going to resign from the Senate over his tea room bust in Minneapolis.

Sen. Larry Craig will file court documents Monday asking to withdraw his guilty plea in a sex sting that seems likely to end his career, his attorney said.

Craig, an Idaho Republican, pleaded guilty in August to disorderly conduct following a sting operation in a men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport.

He has said he regrets that decision, which he said he made hastily and without talking to an attorney. He said he was under stress and pleaded guilty only to put the matter behind him.

Attorney William Martin said Sunday night that a request to withdraw that plea would be filed Monday. Such requests are rarely granted. Martin would not discuss the argument he planned to make in court.

Martin said he was not involved in discussions about Craig's future in the Senate. Craig originally announced he would resign at the end of the month, then said he was reconsidering that decision. His chief spokesman later said Craig had dropped virtually all notions of trying to finish his third term.

"My job is to get him back to where he was before his rights were taken away," Martin said.

Craig's congressional spokesman has said the only way that Craig is likely to remain in the Senate is if a court moves quickly to overturn the conviction, something that is unlikely to happen before the end of the month.

Not being a lawyer I can't say for certain whether or not Mr. Craig has a case, but common sense -- not something often associated with some in the legal profession -- dictates that if you plead guilty to a charge and didn't do it under duress, the only person who took away your rights was you, and that makes it pretty hard for you or anyone else to say that you didn't get your day in court. You had your chance. You made your choice. Game over.

In theory, people who are innocent don't plead guilty just because the press has been asking questions. (Once again, blame the media. This from a stalwart of the Party of Personal Responsibility.) If it is truly a bogus charge and you are convinced of your innocence, you will fight like hell to preserve your good name and record. You don't plead it out and then ask for a Mulligan when the news gets out. That tells the world that you do have something to hide, and all it does is call into question both your judgment and your innocence.

Of course, the more Sen. Craig dithers about like this, the longer the story stays in the news, the more he provides fodder for jokes and drollery (vide today's Doonesbury) and the more the Republicans have to deal with him and the more uncomfortable they are with him...he's like a wet dog at a wedding.

For the most part the Democrats have -- for once wisely -- chosen to keep their mouths shut and just watch, letting Arlen Specter and Tom DeLay be the ones to make fools of themselves...not much of a stretch for Mr. DeLay.

If there's an upside to any of this for anybody, it's that at least men now know how to behave in a public restroom. Tap once if you agree, twice if you don't understand, and three times if you'll meet me at the Starbucks on the D Concourse.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

The Bugaloos



More Sid & Marty Krofft madness...

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Scene from a Saturday

Scene: A register at a corner shop, being manned by a bored-looking brunette in her early twenties. A couple, comprised of a Scottish man and his American wife, put their purchases on the counter in the midst of some random exchange.

Shopgirl: [to the Scotsman] Where are you from? Ireland?

The Scotsman: Noo, Scootland.

Shopgirl: Oh, yeah? My uncle went there once.

She looks at the Scotsman, who knits his brow and does a fake yawn, which his wife recognizes as his standard time-stalling maneuver, forcing her to stifle a chuckle.

The Scotsman: Oh.

There is an awkward silence. The Scotsman and his wife are used to this awkward silence. It is as familiar to them as the unsolicited invocation of the distant relations of perfect strangers who trod Scottish shores once upon a time. There is, they have learned, no proper answer to such randomly proffered information, only responses which betray their perplexity as to why it has been presented to them or reveal the depth of their unavoidable, but somehow not expected, apathy. The silence begins to linger.

The American Woman: How much do we owe you then?

It is her attempt to rescue them all, but mostly the shopgirl, who seems stunned by wonderment, though it is anyone's guess whether she is wondering why the information about her peripatetic uncle didn't begin a lovely conversation with these strangers before her, wondering what on earth compelled her to say such a thing in the first place, or wondering, perhaps, about something completely unrelated altogether.

Shopgirl: Five forty-two.

Money is exchanged, followed by an exchange of thank-yous, have a nice days, you toos. Later, at a restaurant, the Scottish man and his wife discuss the event with a jaded exasperation but also a strange affection—it has happened so often, and familiarity does indeed breed contempt, but also, less spoken about, the ritual that creates a sense of self and place and home.

The Scotsman: Ooften, if they've been themselves, they'll tell me aboot terrible experiences they had in Scootland—'this was disappointing, that was bad, I cooldn't oonderstand anyoone, the weather was shite.'

The American Women: They want you to apologize on behalf of Scotland.

The Scotsman: [laughing] Aye! And they always want tae knoo why I'm here, and demand tae knoo hoo mooch I loove it.

The American Woman: Always keen to hear good things about America. Americans are very insecure that way. They need constant reassuring.

The Scotsman: Aye.

He looks down into his pint, and she knows he is feeling homesick. He loves America, but he misses home. She doesn't blame him. She misses it, too; she misses the little flat in Leith in which they lived for awhile, and the improbable number of times they heard the distant sound of bagpipes coming on the breeze as they walked down Princes Street, as if Edinburgh was conspiring to convince the American that the sound was merely the city's own breath.

The American Woman: Aside from people, tell me what you miss most about Edinburgh.

The Scotsman: What doon't I miss?

The American Woman: Tell me everything.

The Scotsman: I miss Princes Street. I miss the castle…

He went on, and she held his gimlet green eyes with hers as he spoke. She thought fleetingly of the brown-haired girl from the corner shop, and hoped that she might one day see Scotland, too. Just like her uncle.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Virtual Pub Is Open

TFIF, Shakers! What's your poison?

Belly up to the bar and settle in, bitchez.

It's gonna be a long night!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Quote of the Day

"Both sides of Iraq debate may be tempted to use bin Laden's words to some perverse advantage. Bush Administration supporters (and, in fairness, no one has exploited bin Laden's statements quite like the Bush Administration) will try to extract some measure of satisfaction that if bin Laden is against us, we must be doing the right thing. Iraq War opponents might be tempted to note that bin Laden is calling out the Democrats for not stopping the war. Whatever. Bin Laden is a crazy, evil man. No one should take any pleasure in trying to exploit his rantings for their own partisan purposes. The only legitimate political point to be made is why is this guy still free to spout such noxious rhetoric six years after the September 11 attacks."—TPM's David Kurtz, commenting on Osama bin Laden's latest public statement, in which (as Kurtz describes it) the al-Qaeda leader "wades pretty deep into U.S. domestic politics."

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

On This Date

September 7, 1969: The first episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus was taped, and the world hasn't been quite the same since.

Back: Terry Gilliam, John Cleese, Graham Chapman
Front row: Terry Jones, Michael Palin, Eric Idle

"That dog has no nose."

"How does it smell?"

"Awful."

Feel free to list or tell your favorite Monty Python sketch. Mine's the Dead Parrot.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Special Friday Conchords

Finally, the twelfth and final episode of the season has been uploaded. Watch it while you can, because I suspect it will be taken down rather quickly...

As always, first a short clip, followed by the entire episode in three parts below. Enjoy!

"Stop it…"

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

George Bush: Propheteer

Iraq has, of course, never been about the monstrous failure in the here and now, but about how Bush will totally be judged a supergenius in the future. It's all about the legacy, and history will prove him right, bitchez.

In 1993, Major League Baseball decided to realign its leagues and introduce a wild-card playoff format. Team owners voted 27-1 in favor of the change. The lone dissenter was Texas Rangers co-owner George W. Bush. His comment after the vote: "I made my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right."

The result? The realignment and revised playoff format has been wildly successful and almost universally accepted, even by the sport's hidebound purists (including me).

Or not.

[H/T Blogenfreude.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

More Fun From Opec

For a change of pace, Prez Fumblenutz decides to piss off South Korea:

We were all so focused on trying to get Bush out of Iraq that no one noticed he's still fighting the Korean War. Who knew?!

In a related matter, Bush announced that he's unwilling to declare an end to the War of 1812 until the British agree to take back David and Victoria Beckham.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The loss of Great Voices

"Our truest responsibility to the irrationality of the world is to paint or sing or write, for only in such response do we find the truth." ~Madeleine L'Engle


Madeleine L'Engle passed away yesterday, at the age of eighty-eight.

Luciano Pavarotti also passed away yesterday, at the age of seventy-one.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Boobophobia!

Part wev in yet another ongoing series that began here…

Facebook doesn't care what those breasts are for, ladies. They give teh straight boyz tumescence in their trousers; ergo, they must be obscene:

Facebook has taken down pictures of users breast feeding, and has even gone as far as banning users completely on the basis that the pictures constitute "obscene content."

…Facebook spokeswoman Meredith Chin said Facebook does not prevent lactivists from uploading photos of themselves breastfeeding, but went on to say "Photos containing an exposed breast do violate our Terms and are removed". Now I might be male so I have no recent first hand experience but I’m confused as to how breast feeding cannot include breasts?

Allow me to explain. Naturally, the only pictures of breastfeeding allowed are ones taken from an angle in which the baby's head obscures the actual breast from which it's feeding. Or a baby blanket has been carefully arranged to cover the breast right up to baby's lips.

The reason I know this, in spite of also having no recent first-hand experience with breastfeeding, is because I am an American woman, and thusly I have been trained since birth to know all the ways in which I am meant to be ashamed of my body and how best to cover its sinful shame. Comes with the territory.

Snark (with a twist of truth) aside, I remember being fascinated, when I was a wee little kid in the late 70s, by breastfeeding women. It seems I saw women breastfeeding in public much more frequently then, and they didn't feel compelled to bury their babies' faces (along with the real target—their breasts) under blankets. They didn't seem nervous or hurried, but relaxed; they would chat with my mum (who would have been breastfeeding my sister), and if I strolled over and stood on tiptoe to peer at the tiny baby doing its thing, they moved so that I had a better view. It was neither prurient nor prudish; just very matter-of-fact. Innocent and natural.

We've lost that somewhere along the line, and it's a real shame.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

iPwn3d

For a lot of people, it was well worth standing for hours and hours on line and shelling out 600 beans for the prestige and ultra coolness of being among the first people in this solar system to have the iPhone.

Too bad they shelled out 200 more beans than the current price:

A day after it cut the price of its top-of-the-line iPhone, Apple said today that it would offer a $100 store credit to customers who had bought one at the full price of $599.

The announcement came after early adopters of the cellphone complained of the $200 cut in the price of the 8-gigabyte iPhone, only two months after it first went on sale.

So, if you're an iPhone owner and you're pissed at still being $100 down on the deal, you won't get much sympathy from Steve Jobs:

There is always change and improvement, and there is always someone who bought a product before a particular cutoff date and misses the new price or the new operating system or the new whatever. This is life in the technology lane.

Suck it up.

[H/T to Zuzu]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Elephant (So to Speak) in the Room

I meant to cross-post this yesterday, but as soon as I got it up on Shapely Prose, I had to run out and have a wisdom tooth yanked; I literally didn't have five minutes left to copy it. But today I can suggest that you go read Natalie's counterpoint to this at Not a Pretty Girl for another perspective. I don't agree with everything she says there (for reasons that will become obvious), but I think she makes some really valuable points.

Anyway.

I'm still new enough to Fat Acceptance that I don't know about all of the internecine conflicts within the movement, but there's one you can hardly miss if you read a few different fat blogs: the pro-dieting (or at least dieting-neutral) crowd vs. the anti-dieting crowd.

So far, my position has been that personally, I am staunchly anti-dieting -- and will swiftly stamp out any dieting propaganda on this blog -- but I am not going to get into a fight with those who disagree. I'd rather focus on things we can agree on. Opening this can of worms would not be worth it.

Now, I'm starting to think that maybe it's worth it. I've read enough conversations on enough different blogs lately to feel like I'm taking crazy pills: all over the fatosphere, I'm suddenly seeing diet talk. And I understand a lot better now where BStu was coming from when he wrote this post, back when I was just a baby fat blogger wondering why we can't all get along. You know, in May. (Was I ever so young?)

The Rotund already hit a lot of great points on this topic today. As she ably demonstrates, it is rather difficult to reconcile a deep belief in personal autonomy with a blanket anti-dieting stance. But in her comments, I just clarified the core of this issue for me:

I take the position that no one should pursue weight loss as a goal in and of itself. That is not the same as believing any individual who pursues weight loss is automatically, stupid, misguided, or incapable of supporting some elements of fat acceptance. It is my political stance on the matter, not a reflection of my personal feelings about any given person's choices. There are too many different people and too many different reasons for that choice for me to say I have a problem with people who diet. But I have a problem with the practice of dieting, in the abstract. Big one.

Put it this way: I also take the position that no one should vote for a Republican president. That's because, in the abstract, I believe there are solid, logical, demonstrable reasons not to vote for a Republican president. But I had dinner the other night with someone who voted for fucking Bush, and we had fun. I have no personal opinion whatsoever on the vast majority of Republican voters, whom I don't know and never will. I could probably have dinner with plenty of them, and I wouldn't feel any pressing need to fight with every one of them about their choices, because this is (at least nominally) a democracy, and that's how it works. People do what they think is best, and as long as it's legal and not violent, I'll support their right to do that. But in the abstract, based on the best information I have, I still believe voting Republican is a bad choice, and I have no problem saying so publicly. That's where I come down on the issue, not on the individuals who do it.


And that's exactly how I feel about dieting.

Still with me? Here's where it gets controversial. I do not believe you can truly be a fat acceptance activist and support dieting any more than you can be a liberal activist and support Bush. I believe the two are simply irreconcilable.

Having thrown down that gauntlet, let me clarify a few things.

1.Making changes in your eating and exercise habits with an eye to improving your health is not dieting. It is practicing Health at Every Size, which I advocate every chance I get.

2.Making changes in your eating and exercise habits with an eye to losing weight is dieting. Even if you claim you're doing it for your health. And yes, I think the distinction there is incredibly important,which I'll elaborate on in a minute.

3. There are some pro-dieting/dieting-neutral people whom I generally admire and who have done some really terrific, fat-positive things. But as long as they remain unwilling to take the position that the deliberate pursuit of weight loss is antithetical to fat acceptance, I cannot call them fat acceptance activists.

Here's why.

1. Deliberately trying to lose weight is, by definition, not accepting your own fat.

I realize that at the individual level, this gets really murky. Hell, I mentioned in comments yesterday that I'm thinking of switching from Lexapro to a different antidepressant, because I've gained a lot of weight since I've been on it, and I'm now right on the border of going beyond what history has shown to be my natural weight range. Furthermore, frankly, my boobs are totally fucking out of control these days, and it makes both buying bras and doing some yoga poses a lot harder. I don't believe those are good reasons to diet; I do think they're good reasons to try another drug that might not have the same effect. So it has nothing to do with whether I think I can be attractive and healthy as a fat person, and everything to do with having gained like 25 or 30 lbs. in a relatively short amount of time, for no apparent reason other than medication, and with no sign of it slowing down; that's not normal for my body, and if a different drug can bring the happy without forcing me to buy new clothes every few months (don't get me wrong: I LOVE buying new clothes, just not being forced), then I want to try it. If a different drug can't bring the happy, mind you, then I'll start having bras custom made and figure out new yoga modifications and keep on buying new clothes, because I have no fear of being fat, and a huge fear of being depressed again.

But then, I realize I'm splitting hairs there. And I also realize people who make arguments like, "But I don't want to be thin, I just want to lose a little weight for my health!" believe they're splitting basically the same hairs. Like I said, it gets murky. But saying you want to lose just a little weight, or that you only want to lose weight for your health, ignores one of the principal points fat acceptance activists keep trying to make:

2. Diets don't work.

Here's where the "solid, logical, demonstrable reasons" I mentioned before come in. There is no good reason in the world to believe that dieting will make you any thinner in the long run. There is ample reason to believe dieting will, in fact, make you fatter in the long run. There is also ample reason to believe that eating a balanced diet and exercising are good for your health regardless of whether you lose weight. But there is still not one good reason to believe dieting will make you thinner.

So when I see people saying they just want to lose a little weight, or they're just trying to lose weight for their health, or they're just trying to lose weight for personal reasons, I think, well, fine. Whatever. Knock yourself out. But if you can't grok that long-term deliberate weight loss is virtually impossible, you're missing a really big point of the fat acceptance movement.

And if it's really about your health, and you've read anything about Health at Every Size -- which, if you've participated in the fat acceptance community for fifteen minutes, you have -- why are you still including weight loss as a goal? The only logical conclusion is that you don't actually accept your own fat, which is, fortunately or unfortunately, a key component of general fat acceptance.

3. This is the biggie: We live in a pro-dieting culture, and it hurts people.

As The Rotund puts it, fat acceptance activists aren't trying to eliminate dieting (though it might be nice) so much as "unprivilege" it. In this culture, wanting to lose weight is the norm for all but the already very thin, despite the evidence that diets don't work and weight loss, in and of itself, does not improve health. The primacy of dieting is perpetuated by lies, distortions, bigotry, and bad science, with only the occasional dash of truth or logic dropped in, but it's incredibly effective. And that contributes not only to eating disorders, body image problems, and health problems, but to a culture that, as a whole, agrees fat is always unacceptable. Which, last time I checked, is what fat acceptance activists are trying to change.


So I guess what I'm saying is, you can't dismantle the master's house using the master's tools. I mean, I don't even necessarily believe in that axiom across the board, but when it comes to dieting, I sure do. I believe -- based on science and logic -- that there is no such thing as a "healthy" weight loss plan. I definitely believe there is no such thing as a "proven" weight loss plan. Most importantly, I believe that the myths of those things hurt people.

And I believe that the logical alternative to those myths is fat acceptance and Health at Every Size. I don't believe the pursuit of deliberate weight loss can ever be folded into fat acceptance.

It's not about judging people, or telling them what to do with their bodies, or trying to kick some people off of Team Fat. It's about the reality of dieting as an abstract concept, as I see it, based on the best information I can find. It's about the culture we live in, and the culture I want to live in. It's about standing for something in particular, because I believe it's right, not about condemning people who disagree with me.

I think dieting is bullshit. And I think it's antithetical to fat acceptance.

There, I said it.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Prezident Fumblenutz Strikes Again

International embarrassment:

President Bush's trademark struggles with the finer points of public speaking were on full display Friday, when he thanked his "Austrian" hosts for inviting him to this year's "OPEC" summit.

I'll just give you a minute to drink that in. Our dumboid of a president, currently in Australia attending the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) summit, thanked his Austrian hosts for inviting him to the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) summit, despite neither the US nor Australia being members of OPEC.

Bush's struggles from the lectern didn't end when he stopped talking either. Press reports indicate he tried to leave the stage through the wrong door, and the Australian prime minister had to point him toward the proper exit, according to the Herald Sun newspaper.

No video of that, so I'll just replay the video of when the same fucking thing happened in China:


Flashback to International Booberies Past:

~ Bush spends a truly disastrous few days touring Europe, repeatedly embarassing German Chancellor Angela Merkel, most famously with an unsolicited backrub:


~ Bush fixates on food as he tours Latin America and describes hauling some lettuce onto a truck "one of the great experiences of my presidency."

~ Bush grabs Chinese President Hu Jintao like an errant toddler.

~ Bush accuses all of Europe of forgetting 9/11.

~ Bush calls Chancellor Merkel "Angela" and calls Austrian Chancellor Schüssel "Wolfgang" and President of the European Commission José Manuel Durão Barroso "José."

Etc. I'm sure I remember stories about how he refuses to sample local cuisine while abroad, too, instead preferring to dine at an Outback Steakhouse on at least one occasion. Oy.



Yeah, that's pretty much how we feel.
Truly an international disgrace. Jan. 2009 can't come soon enough.

[Thanks to Constant Comment for the heads-up.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Impossibly Beautiful

Part Wev in an ongoing and going series…

Kathy from Birmingham Blues emailed me about another Glamour cover this month (how many issues do those bitchez put out?!—I guess it takes a lot of work to keep American women constantly feeling shitty about themselves): "There’s a new issue out, with a cover story about 'looking great in your 20s, 30s, and 40s' featuring Claire Danes (20s), Queen Latifah (30s), and Mariska Hargitay (40s). Need I mention that they all look the same age? … I'm not sure the picture at the link is big enough to see the detail, but the actual magazine made me want to throw something."

Well, here's said picture, enlarged slightly—and it's big enough for one to discern that, yeah, the whole point seems to be implying that women in their 40s should still look like women in their 20s.

The thing is, Mariska Hargitay doesn't look like she's in her 20s anymore—but that doesn't mean she's not stunningly gorgeous. She is. So why airbrush away all the character in her face? Just to give the ridiculous impression that it's possible for the average woman to look like she's 20 years younger than she actually is. You don't sell $70-an-ounce eye cream by reassuring women that crows' feet are not only natural, but beautiful—the marks of a woman who has smiled and laughed and squinted into the sun on lovely days for many years.


Actual Mariska Hargitay
You'll notice that Mariska's face has also been slimmed for the cover shot. A wider smile, but slimmer face, with a pointy chin that isn't even hers. Those of us who have been watching the determined set of her jaw on Law & Order for many years can spot the computer-enhanced delicacy from a mile away. One of the most interestingly exquisite faces ever to grace the small screen has been robbed of the breadth of its charm in favor of a still, smooth, and emotionless gaze set in a reshaped face with a vague resemblance to Mariska Hargitay.

All of the women, in fact, have been slimmed. Once again, I am bitterly amused by the decision to include a plus-size woman, only to reduce her size. There are few women who I find sexier than Queen Latifah—though she hardly looks like herself here. The just-blossoming lines of a woman in her 30s (all too familiar to this author) have been eradicated, and the roundness of her face has been stolen from her completely.


Actual Queen Latifah
All of us who adore her know she has a double-chin, and it does not deter in the slightest her radiance or our capacity to see it. What I see when I look at her Glamour shot is not Queen Latifah, but some fucked up version of the Queen created by a magazine too ashamed to really honor the plus-size woman they put on their cover.

It's hardly a surprise, however, when the already-thin Claire Danes is made even thinner for her cover shot—except, naturally, for her bust, which was enhanced. A recent shot of her reveals a completely flat chest and a figure far slimmer than it used to be, but a face still with girlish roundness in its cheeks.


Actual Claire Danes
This is not the same face on the cover of Glamour, which is drawn and thinned and pointed, having also been given the digital equivalent of a rhinoplasty to thin out the bridge of the nose. (I'm not sure I would have even recognized the cover shot as Claire Danes.) Even her smile has been stretched thin into a grimacing death mask of a grin that looks nothing like the casual, elegant smile that lights her face in the candid shot.

These are beautiful women—naturally beautiful and aging splendidly. They don't need to be turned into plastic versions of themselves to be lovely. And you know what? They know it.

Queen Latifah in the cover article: "I don't listen to what the world tells me is beautiful."

Mariska in the cover article: "I'm aging like a fine wine and showing young women, look at what you can grow into."

She is. Unfortunately, Glamour isn't.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Shocking!

Oh, Minerva! Get me to the fainting couch tout de suite! I do declare I'm all in a-dither and quickly developing a case of the vapors after hearing the alarming and scandalous news that the Justice Department opposes net neutrality!

The Justice Department said today that Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.

The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

Several phone and cable companies, such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., have previously said they want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.

Oh, my stars and garters! The unmitigated shock of it all! Who could have foreseen the Bush administration's Justice Department coming down on the side of more corporate welfare?!

And Cernig is suggesting the whole thing is quid pro quo for all those wiretaps! Heavens to Mergatroid—what cynicism! It can't be true!

My word, Francine, if we actually had a real opposition party that wasn't also snugly in the pockets of corporate America, the fight over net neutrality might come to fisticuffs!


Good thing we've got the Democrats, so we can avoid that nasty business, eh, Myrtle?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Boogedy Boogedy

He's baaaaack:

Osama bin Laden will release a new video in the coming days ahead of the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in what would be the first new images of the terror mastermind in nearly three years, al-Qaida's media arm announced Thursday.

Analysts noted that al-Qaida tends to mark the Sept. 11 anniversary with a slew of messages, and the Department of Homeland Security said it had no credible information warning of an imminent threat to the United States.

Still, bin Laden's appearance would be significant. The al-Qaida leader has not appeared in new video footage since October 2004, and he has not put out a new audiotape in more than a year, his longest period without a message.

What, was Leno already booked up with would-be presidential contenders?

Al-Qaeda always releases some overwritten and grainy video with OBL around the anniversary of September 11, 2001, which drives the righties nuts. Sometimes I think al-Qaeda does it just to get a giggle out of how easily Homeland Security gets all twitterpated; it's like playing with a cat with a laser pointer. And since the Bush administration has lost all interest in hunting down the guy who masterminded the attacks, they have every reason to to think they can get away with it.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!