thinning the venus

After practically free writing the quantum obesity post, there is a realization that I should clarify my writing as theoretical and philosophical rather than giving the impression that even I believe that my opinions are "correct". In simply using the word correct, I must also point out that even I realize in a system of infinite possibilities all needing different outcomes, there may not be such a thing as "correct" at all.

It has been pointed out to me by my "idea reflector" that some of my musings and conversation can sometimes appear to be that coming from an individual who suffers from the modern afflictions of intolerance and bigotry. I have to point out the way in which I can only try to understand another individual's opinion by first trying to see with the individual's perception itself. Because of this, I have to point out "early" (lol) in this blog's development that my opinions are just that, opinions.

I am self-taught in the age of instant information retrieval, so I do not hold any single degree (just computer certification), but instead, I study new information from as many available outside individual perceptions as possible (balance is difficult to find at times). There are some times when I might ponder a possibility that seems irrational, nonsensical, fantastical, bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist, or even "revolutionary". My writing is the act of sharing this perception, not acting upon it. I maintain that I remain "neutral" and for whatever reason, I am compelled to share "what I know" (or what I think I know) because I believe that the more individuals who ponder the theory of everything, the higher the probability of actually figuring it out some day, probably just after my lifetime has ended! :(

In a reality where it is even merely a possibility that we already hold the knowledge of enlightenment within us, it is almost disappointing to exist in a time before that knowledge has been shared. Simultaneously, someone(s) had to exist in the time-line where we had to be ignorant to the truth in order to discover it in the way that we (eventually) do.

Whew! When talking about the thinning of the venus with another individual, it was immediately assumed that I would offend a group or multiple specific groups of individuals because I was making overly broad generalizations. By basing some opinions on mere stereotype without extensive research in an area, I am guilty of ambiguity myself!

I will say that it is simply inevitable that I will occasionally tip-toe into subjects such as race or sexual orientation, because those things are directly connected to size preference and orientation. Rather than being stuck in the position of the size acceptance advocate, I can look at the phenomenon of size, and isolate it within the big picture.

I believe that others are fully capable of this and, in fact, already have started to apply obesity to everything in the context of obesity's relevance to "everything". If I look at an article that complains about people who complain about the anti-obesity initiative, this guy is complaining just to complain because he's pointing out that nobody significant is complaining! (roflmao)

That's all left vs right, red vs blue stuff that I am entertained by rather than attempting to participate in! :0 As smart as this guy is, he is still trapped within "the left" because he refuses to see the "future potentiometer" that bringing any government into your kitchen creates.

It is "ludicrous" (that word's been here before:) to attack the anti-obesity task force philosophy and link it with a "nanny state" because, honestly, that makes too much sense. The "right" should never be allowed to give such an opinion while supporting "smaller government" by pointing out how how many individuals have been contracted by said government at a cost that is not mentioned within that article, but brought up here.

Wow! Red vs Blue is big business!

I have to point out that simply observing what's going on from the perspective of "tax-payer" is massively different from seeing what's going on from the perspective of "size acceptance activist". When I start at one blog that complains about another blog, I am forced to use google to even attempt to be enlightened about the cost of this government initiative. In both fighting blogs nobody says anything about cost, which I find ironic simply because of the state of the economy we are in "in the present, in this reality".

Obesity perspective is probably a lot differently from the point of view of anyone currently making a six-digit salary from the insurance industry. It's also different from the perspective of the individual working for the food lobby. It's different from the perspective of the mother who just caught her teen daughter inducing vomiting after a meal for the first time. It's different from the perspective of the doctor, of the health researcher, of the very entity (a presidential taskforce made up of four Cabinet-level secretaries as well as the director of the OMB and several senior White House policy staffers) that has been charged with the task of creating "a report due to the president in 90 days with recommendations on how to solve the obesity issue".

Wow! 90 days to figure out a 35,000 year old problem! No wonder somebody might complain about how much this is costing!

Looking back, it's easy to recognize how irrelevant the first two articles really are when you get down to the "nitty-gritty". The first two articles really are not irrelevant though, because I was compelled to dig where they did not want to go in order to be enlightened to the much larger, ominous problem.

How can one begin to work out the problem of obesity if there are so many arguments going on between left vs right that any "solution" will be tainted, and therefore have a negative affect on the future potential outcome?

By merely suggesting a tax on any type of food, it is suggested that hunger is not an issue, the economy is not an issue, that it is acceptable to make bad foods higher in cost to match good foods instead of making good foods lower in cost to match bad foods (which is so crazy it could actually work so it's probably far left or right). Carrot vs. stick, at the cost of the entire farming industry as we know it? Financial incentive works, but making trash as expensive as good food instead of making good food as inexpensive as trash is almost inhumane.

Making bad food costlier makes more hunger (potential for poverty induced starvation, different from famine), making good food cheaper makes more healthier, less dreaded "obesity". Except, of course, for those who somehow choose to make an obese spectacle of themselves out of respect to the upper paleolithic hold-backs like myself who are visually stimulated by them! (explanation for the "fat lady" phenomenon?) :)

BTW let's see how quickly this would be deleted! :)

Sometimes observation provides inspiration, which leads to enlightenment. When attempting to see a complex subject from any one perspective, the nagging constant of status quo and the reality of our race's response to the industrial revolution is quite a quandary indeed! It has long been this writer's hope that at some point, the struggle with obesity will be resolved along with the struggle of everything. There is a very distinct possibility that it might be necessary to fix other things before any kind of solution based in this reality will ever have any affect.

I have already suggested that obesity is a mere side affect of a much larger and harder to solve dilemma. It's ironic in our present reality of "disaster preparedness" we do not recognize how dangerous it is to even toy with the idea of making food more expensive during a bad economy, or using the annual cost of any one health problem as an excuse to eliminate (pessimistic) or reduce (optimistic) a specific group from our population. While one side (size acceptance) is fighting an argument it can't win, the other side (anti-obesity) is making huge, expensive, potentially societal punishing decisions based on partial knowledge with a willingness to make these decisions based upon acceptance of the unknown!

What alarms this author is the way in which it is so obvious that certain entities need money and they are willing to use inaccurate information as an excuse to squeeze more money (we all know you want it) out of every one of us. The additional costs of obesity are nothing compared to rampant spending, big irony in how much is being spent to solve the problem that is costing so much! The costs of obesity that are being fed to the public have been altered to suit an obvious money grabbing agenda. It's hard to stay on track of simple size acceptance when one starts to figure out the larger issue. It's tragic that the obese are so obviously marginalized and ignored, even within the very argument that they are the cause of.

If the medical industry was truly concerned with the welfare of the obese individual, why are so many doctor's offices scales limited to 400lbs or less? Why aren't most health clinics equipped with blood pressure cuffs designed to fit an arm over 17 inches? If a majority of our population has been "predicted obese" by a certain date, then shouldn't more efforts be made to match this eventual need while trying to correct the problem? Are we so confident that obesity will be figured out by a certain time that we don't need to accommodate the obese, or does our society fail to accommodate the obese because of a refusal to acknowledge that they exist and will continue to exist? By simply observing the anti-obesity sentiment in our current society, is it "ludicrous" to imagine that some day people will be shoved onto a train to be brought to "the (fat) camps"? Why would they be willing to go? Why would anyone be willing to go? What if you were made to want to go? I grew up in a society that made sure to enlighten me about a certain behavior that could lead to sociological catastrophe. I sometimes have to ask myself as a present day obesity observer if such strong harsh language and obvious mistreatment is a marker for even the tiniest probability of such a historical repeat.

Instead of merely complaining about fat prejudice and attempting to force an unrealistic (and socially unacceptable) acceptance argument, I am compelled to express my fear and insecurity. I exist in the paradox where it is wrong to discriminate, except...

This causes all of those anti-discrimination messages to become instantly tainted with hypocrisy and the realization of an obvious system of unfair preferential treatment. The paradox of obesity mirrors the paradox of religion in the way that homosexuals have "equal rights" as individuals to express their sexual preference, but religious institutions already have a definition of a term that trumps any attempt to "amend" that definition. Obesity is related simply because the obese are the last safe prejudice. The modern day struggle of the obese makes me ponder how the authors of our constitution were thinking so ahead of time and outside of their own experience, they wrote that all men are created equal at a time when they owned other people.

Omg I skimmed the article I just referenced because of it's google rank in "last safe prejudice" and low and behold, "Because this is a feminist issue, NOW should take a public stance against size discrimination. An anti-size discrimination resolution, first passed by California NOW at our 1988 Conference, will be considered at the 1990 National NOW Conference in San Francisco." I was laughing with an associate about how some members in this very group might be tempted to water board me if they were able to access my total collective of work! lol It's unfair for me to assign a stereotype to feminists, because on some level of the multiverse, I am a feminist. (take a deep breath and a deep thought simultaneously:).

I could have just as easily looked further through the results to find this article by PBS, which I appreciate the mere existence of in itself as a broadcast medium of excellence surrounded by mediocrity.

Thinking exercise! Take a few deep breaths and ponder this!

Upon doing one of my first of many google searches, I was reminded that it is Pi Day as well. In the definition of Pi I find a relevance to humanity in itself. "Pi is an irrational and transcendental number meaning it will continue infinitely without repeating." Not any possible hint at how the complexity of DNA was meant to create a variation of physicality in an attempt to insure survival, and the more opportunities provided, the more this variation would be compounded.

While there is little hope of ever getting to the end of Pi, there exists a possibility that we may someday develop a mathematical representation of what Pi, in it's infinity, represents in some other physical or ethereal manifestation (oh, I forgot, our planet is involved in this one). When there exist such wonderful possibilities, how can humanity choose to mire itself in attention grabbing issues rather than figuring out how to create the perfectly balanced societal standard.

Is it ludicrous to imagine that in such a positive environment, the end result of any individual's experience is positive? If weight wasn't the thing that an individual was so worried about, would weight be the issue that plagues, haunts, and eventually damages that individual and results in further weight gain?

When contemplating and learning more about Pi, and the constant of the expansion of matter in the known universe, I was fascinated to wonder what the mathematical expression for the natural expansion of matter would be for the "BMI" of just one human form. Big note! The human BMI, no matter how "ginormous" a person is, would still only reflect a tiny tiny tiny amount of mass expansion in physics!

I have to wonder if there is even the possibility that since our early evolution, there was some inner compulsion to expand in such a way to provide harmony with the state of our environment and our given planetary size. Yes, gravity itself, in relevance to our evolution, may be telling our cells to expand and eventually our body to expand. Maybe it's a primitive attempt to expand the physical manifestation we inhabit in such a way to keep up with the rate of expansion of our very consciousness.

All of this thought about obesity and the universe! Whew again! :)

Just a thought, due to the physics problems with a recycling expansion and contraction of our universe, I had a theory myself. Because our universe is following the rules of constant expansion, and because multiverse is even a theory itself, I have to wonder about the universal limit of expansion and the probability of new universes being spawned by one "unstoppable" expanding source universe. This universe would be so filled with "some entity" that it occasionally breaks said rules of universal expansion by attempting to keep growing even though it is met with resistance to that expansion.

Instead of a "big bang" it would be a "big belch". The fact that our invention of religion has already given our God the property of being "omnipresent", it would make sense that everything in our universe is made from the stuff that is continually ejected from that source "Godverse". Because we continue to follow the same rules as the universe we were derived from, it is important for me to recognize the purity of humanity and all life itself, and how precious it is that we have even been granted with existence, consciousness, intelligence, and purpose to ponder such amazing things. In that way, our intelligence in itself is evidence of the existence of "something" that favors life over death because of the nearly infinite creation that life brings about.

All of this would appear to have nothing to do with the subject at hand, except to illustrate real problems we have been given to figure out instead of inventing new problems that suit our convenience or preference. This is an exercise in thinking bigger, thinking outside of the first person perspective. If we were encouraged to use our brains more, maybe we could uncover ways in which we could tell the brain what we want instead of it being the other way around. Isn't the cure for obesity assumed to be within each obese person? Come on y'all, you can't have it both ways!

It's my opinion that we exist in a kind of over-legislated reality where one of the few things that are left for us to indulge in is eating. We have to eat to survive, we have to eat a certain amount every day, so people are pretty assured that they won't be pushed around when it comes to what they want to eat and how much of it they will eat. It's no surprise that this obese reality has a mantra of take the drugs we want you to take and not the ones we don't. We also live in a time when more food than ever is coming from sources we are not even aware of, so the potential for metabolism destroying contaminates entering our food supply is real.

In the left vs right war of words in obesity, I see this article where a guy is calling another author a "professional denialist" instead of offering his own advice about finding the obesity source and discouraging obesity hate. The article he is linking to in an unflattering manner is much more informative and eye-opening to the reality that I have spent my adult lifetime experiencing myself as an individual who is literally obese by proxy.

In his article, Mr. Mitchell says "the problem is dire enough that concerns over body image and politeness might have to take a back seat for a while". Wow, is there a clearer sentiment of intolerance and disregard for all things "eating disorder" than that!

Apparently, as thorough of a reporter as he is, he fails to realize that obesity can be a downward spiral, and when someone encourages "fat hate", they are causing even more pain and suffering and yes, obesity... This statement defends ridicule and hate in favor of public pressure and permission to tax us for making bad decisions. The denial I see in that statement is that all obese people want to be that way, and they could change if only they really wanted to. We should have permission, even encouragement to mentally abuse them to help them. I've never seen any other appearance related health issue bring about such disregard for the mental/physical well being connection.

By being overly concerned with weight, an individual is potentially setting themselves up for an eating disorder. We discourage people with OCD from having to count all the tiles in every room they go in, or have to wash their hands 200 times a day, but we will tell people it's OK to puke after eating if they don't get all gross and "death fat".

The moral panic article and the allegedly radical views of Paul Campos are more enlightening to the universal truth that obesity can't be "cured", and we must realize the damage being done if we don't address the source as a society as a whole. In that article, Campos says "As for where the increased risks associated with being heavy come from (such as they are), many of them come from weight cycling, which is clearly bad for people, and which is the outcome of 98% of diets. Others come from the stress and social discrimination generated by having what's considered an inapproprirate body in this culture. Others come from diet drugs, eating disordered behavior, poverty -- all things strongly associated with higher than avberage weight."

When taking the two quotes side by side (almost unfair kind of), it's easy to see who has to defend a position that most of us realize is kind of sh*tty. Mr. Campos wants to illustrate what's really going on, what has been really going on, and in my opinion, how it's unfair to stigmatize the obese when there is no known "solution" or even research to prove without a doubt that every obese person would be in hypothetical better health if they were smaller. It seems as if the research itself is favoring the idea that smaller is automatically healthier in order to prepare us for some other package of b.s. I guess it's a "no duh" to say that healthcare is kind of a hot topic, the obese are used to being picked on, let's use this to sell that.

I know that when/if the day comes when someone is calling me a "nut job", I will be happy to accept said label in favor of getting past personal differences and get to the bottom of what that person really wants to express, or what they think should be "done". So many people these days are being armed with "obesity bad" without any clear facts about exactly what percentage of all those diabetes costs really are associated with a real life obese person!

All that %10 of health costs being pinned on obesity seems kinda high to me. I'm willing to bet that they are counting all diabetes and all high blood pressure and all this and that even though all those patients are not obese.

I will not attempt to defend any argument that obesity is "ok" or that it is not damaging to one's health, but I will defend the position that no matter what someone's size is, they should not be denied respect and dignity and freedom from the pressure to conform to anyone's standards but their own. The article by Dan Mitchell complaining about backlash about the obesity initiative further provides evidence that mainstream opinion about obesity favor an attitude of intolerance in order to avoid having to address the simple truth that there is no cure for obesity itself.

"concerns over body image and politeness might have to take a back seat for a while". I had to read that again and imagine the banner at the train station where the fatties are being rounded up for the camps... It's ironic he would choose to link to the interview with Campos, because Campos is the humanitarian in this self-created conflict, and therefore, if he can topple the good guy, he must be the good guy. Maybe it was just another food theme to write about, this guy loves this subject for some reason! He's writing about the business of food, and thanks to the obese, business is good! :)

I wanted to add to this gigantic 3500+word monstrosity the fact that I actually look forward to the report that comes out. I, like many people, would be curious to know how their theory of obesity differs from my own.