# MeMe Roth's NAAOA-the antiNAAFA!



## Ned Sonntag (May 30, 2007)

Be aware of the evil machinations of this CoulterBarbie- she's just worried about your health, dear! 
http://www.actionagainstobesity.com...tObesity/National Action Against Obesity.html
http://weddinggownchallenge.blogspot.com/
http://gawker.com/news/redbook/redbook-makes-you-fat-158912.php
http://www.wbir.com/cs/blogs/the_pop_culturephile/archive/2006/03/08/1689.aspx
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/


----------



## Zoom (May 30, 2007)

NAAO Website (first link) said:


> NAAO Mission
> Through education, legislation, and most importantlyparental actionNational Action Against Obesity works independently and as a consultancy to reverse the obesity epidemic by eliminating fake foods from the food supply, barring junk food from schools and eradicating Secondhand Obesity (obesity handed down from one generation to the next, as well as from citizen to citizen), while encouraging exercise across all ages. Success relies upon wholly re-imagining what the U.S. population considers normal food consumption and normal exercise. When the majority is overweight, America cannot be normal.


My Response Letter:

To Whom it May Concern,

I don't represent anyone but myself. However I am offended by your organization.

Not for the healthfulness that you wish to accomplish, but for the rights you will trample in order to accomplish them, and the discrimination that will be increased beyond all measure of human tolerance because of your accomplishments.

Here are my points that refute your mission statement:

1. The "education" that you describe is anti-fat propaganda and not entirely true.
2. Will you legislate what other people eat? This is a basic freedom we enjoy and will not give up. Other than that, what else could you legislate? Fatness itself? The right to be fat is also a basic freedom. Those whom God has ordained to be of differing size would object to this discrimination. And you should never fight what the Living God has decided.
3. There is no such thing as an "obesity epidemic". It is not a disease that spreads, despite what the medical-dietary industrial complex claims. Fat is a naturally occuring thing in the human body.
4. If a person can eat it and digest it, it is a food. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "fake food".
5. I am not throwing it away; therefore it cannot be called JUNK food. I prefer "TASTY" food, or entertainment food. As to the lack of health benefits of it, so what? I eat healthy meals too.
6. You are not allowed to bar "junk" food from schools. You DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT. Kids have the right to eat what they want if their parents allow. I know I did. If I had a child, I'd let him or her eat what he/she wants.
7. I see you have trademarked "Secondhand Obesity". How about I trademark something? How about Secondhand Brainwashing? Secondhand Medical Opinions Shoved Down Our Throats? I don't think they have the same ring to them, except the ring of truth.
8. How dare you decide for us what constitutes NORMAL!

As I said before, I am all for healthiness. But not a narrow-minded view of healthiness that means changing a majority of the populace which ARE NOT SICK.

The Hippocratic Oath starts, "FIRST, DO NO HARM." I wish it continued, "DO NOT POLITICIZE EITHER."

This open letter is posted on the forums at Dimensions Magazine, which is part of the Size Acceptance movement.

I wish you good day and to be more accepting of other people's size.

ERIC DRAVES

CEO, Destructosoft

[email protected]


----------



## saucywench (May 30, 2007)

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23568
(Easy to overlook, though, as her name wasn't in the title)


----------



## Mathias (May 30, 2007)

This is making me very very VERY mad!


----------



## Jon Blaze (May 31, 2007)

MemeRoth is going to look good on my wall!!! Kidding! Though she will be part of the topic of my next blogs. Plus I'm sending a letter too. 
Zoom is going to look good as an ally.. oh wait.. he is an ally! He kicks ass too!


----------



## T_Devil (May 31, 2007)

*Shrugs*
Same shit as in grade school. But now the assholes have all grown up. Some things never change. And people wonder why I gleefully welcome the end of humanity.


----------



## Jon Blaze (May 31, 2007)

T_Devil said:


> *Shrugs*
> Same shit as in grade school. But now the assholes have all grown up. Some things never change. And people wonder why I gleefully welcome the end of humanity.



Oohhh.. I love that smiley.  
It goes well with this thread. *Sinister Laugh* Hehehhheheheheehheheh....


----------



## Zoom (May 31, 2007)

MeMe emailed me back this morning. She rambled on and on about American Idol, as if that had something to do with anything I wrote.

I will spare you much of her email, but here's a quote which shows some of the illogic gracing my monitor screen:


> For the record... I was invited onto news shows to discuss child obesity and the American Idol show. I have only ever used the words "tragedy" or "nightmare" to describe America's child obesity epidemic, not a person, and not a performer on American Idol. Nor have I used the word "obese" to describe Jordin Sparks. Nor have I said her size should prevent her from winning. I stand 100% behind only the statements I made, nothing scripted to introduce any interview.


So now she is changing her position to just be about child "obesity"?

My response:

Thank you for the reply, which I was surprised to receive from someone already famous (or infamous... I noticed on YouTube a lot of people are saying bad things about you).

I didn't mention American Idol in my "complaint" email. In fact, I don't care what size anyone is who wins it. The show has always failed to get across the music aspect of music, and consistently pushed the beauty aspect. The problem is that good music itself is all the beauty I need of it.

Your usual defense, that fatness automatically means an increase in the risks of diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. is of course well-intentioned, but you are following the results of studies commissioned by the medical-dietary industrial complex. None of them has been consistent and anything more than circumstantial evidence.

Diabetes is simply caused by too much sugar consumption creating an imbalance which the body cannot fight properly. The solution would be to cut down on foods with too much sugar (especially processed sugar). However, prevention of diabetes does not, and should NEVER mean destruction of one's freedom of choice to eat something that has sugar in it! Especially in school where there is a lot of stress and other difficulties.

Fatness (I never use the medical term "obesity") is being lumped in as part of the problem, when in fact the true culprit is much more complicated. Simple, easy steps to eliminate diabetes, heart disease, etc. simply do not exist.

It's like this: Suppose there was an increased amount of sickle-cell anemia going around in the African-American schoolkids. Would you label blackness an epidemic?

Anyway, you probably have a lot of other detractors to deal with, so I'll end this email now even though I wasn't finished taking your response apart.

Eric Draves

CEO. Destructosoft


----------



## LJ Rock (May 31, 2007)

I'm not anti-war, I am *pro-peace*. 

My question is: why do we need an *anti-obesity* committee? Wouldn't it much more useful to and effective to have a *pro-health* committee? If that's the goal that you're really looking for: people eating healthier foods and excersising more, living healthier lifestyles and such, why not just promote that? Focus on the _positive_ aspects of what you hope to achieve, rather than the _negative_. 

Coming out and saying that you are anti-*anything *immediately alienates certain people and creates conflict and animosity, which is usually not a good way to get your point across (especially when those people whom you are alienating are the people you are really trying to reach out to.) I checked out the NAAO web site breifly (it's not a very well put together site) and some of what I read does make sense: encouraging young people to eat healthier and be more physically active; there was one article that caught my eye about making women more aware about the benefits of breastfeeding their children... all good stuff, in my opinion. I just think they are really going about it all the wrong way. 

Seems like they're really trying to go for the in-your-face, shock-value approach to informing people about these issues. This will inevitably backfire, I believe, because even though they are getting lots of air-time and exposure, they are really rubbing people the wrong way and I don't think that anyone (including people in the media) are taking them very seriously (particularly this MeMe character.) 

When it comes right down to it, you really can't tell people how to live their lives. All you can do is provide information, give them the facts, and let them make up their own minds. I honestly think that most intelligent and reasonably thinking individuals will make the right choices for themselves and their families when educated properly. You don't need to bash people over the head or insult them in order to get your point across.

I am pro-*fat*, pro-*health*, and *pro-people*.


----------



## Jon Blaze (May 31, 2007)

LJ Rock said:


> I'm not anti-war, I am *pro-peace*.
> 
> My question is: why do we need an *anti-obesity* committee? Wouldn't it much more useful to and effective to have a *pro-health* committee? If that's the goal that you're really looking for: people eating healthier foods and excersising more, living healthier lifestyles and such, why not just promote that? Focus on the _positive_ aspects of what you hope to achieve, rather than the _negative_.
> 
> ...



I think we should still let her know we aren't falling for her gimmick. I'm sure she'll love to hear for someone whose half her age (Whose also thin [GASP BATMAN!!! He's not on my side?!?!?!?!?!  ]) that isn't buying it.  

Ann Coulter should take a shit on her for using her expression approach on a different topic.  

No... but I actually agree that they should really rethink their startegy before doing anything major. I'm sure they think (Much like the rest of society) that the Fat Acceptance movement is totally about people not exercising and eating unhealthy... 'cuz that's what it somehow advocates.


----------



## LJ Rock (May 31, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> I think we should still let her know we aren't falling for her gimmick. I'm sure she'll love to hear for someone whose half her age (Whose also thin [GASP BATMAN!!! He's not on my side?!?!?!?!?!  ]) that isn't buying it.
> 
> Ann Coulter should take a shit on her for using her expression approach on a different topic.
> 
> No... but I actually agree that they should really rethink their startegy before doing anything major. I'm sure they think (Much like the rest of society) that the Fat Acceptance movement is totally about people not exercising and eating unhealthy... 'cuz that's what it somehow advocates.


 
I agree, Jon. We _should_ let them know. If these folks really are any kind of advocates, claiming to be looking out for people's best interest, then they should be interested in hearing what folks have to say about these issues. They should know that folks aren't just going to blindly buy into some propaganda campaign, and that if they want to meet any of their objectives they are going to have to step up their game a bit. This means actually listening to the views and needs of the people you are trying to "help" and not just preaching and patronizing. 

Call me crazy, but it seems like *ideally* an organization like this should work in *conjunction* with the fat acceptance movement. This is to say that we should all accept the fact that we all as people come in different shapes and sizes, but that we all also have a common interest in living our lives to the fullest and making sound decisions in regards to our health and well being. 

America never has been nor will it ever be a nation of super-fit hardbodies. It just ain't gonna happen! Can we get people to eat less junk food and more natural foods? Yes. Can we encourage people to be less sedentary and more physically active? Yes. Can we reduce the number of people suffering from ailments often associated with obesity such as stroke, high-blood pressure and diabetes? Absolutely. But it is preposterous to think that a group or organization is going to make all people conform to some standard of physical fitness or appearance (just the very sound of that sentence makes me think of Nazism! **shudders**) 

The conduct of these people thus far is foolhardy at best. Coming on TV and attacking pop-culture figures like American Idol and Shrek is just pointless and futile. Once again, a case of good intentions placed in misguided efforts. I think these people need to be told what time it is and start being real about it.


----------



## T_Devil (May 31, 2007)

I think it'll be interesting to watch these _people_ rub Americans the wrong way. It'll be interesting to see the cases of eating disorders and food related phobias go up in the next 10 years because of this colossal mistake. It's like watching a train wreck, You know it's awful and it's horrible, but you can't stop watching it.

People who go about doing things the wrong way are often oblivious to the long term fallout that is to come. People will reject it so much that they won't pay attention to it (such as me) or they will support the shock of it all and let it scare them into insanity. Now, I'm not saying my reaction is the best reaction, but I'm being honest about it.

I know the benefits of good health. I'll haul my mass down to the gym and lift some weights and swim a few laps. It's not to lose weight though. I LIKE THE WEIGHT!!! No, I exercise so I can keep a decent running cardiovascular system and develop stronger muscles to haul my mass around with.

I'm fat, but I WILL NOT be immobile.


----------



## Mathias (May 31, 2007)

Why doesnt she wake up and realize that its all of these stick thin models that making America resent that lifestyle? This shit will only backfire and blow up in there faces.


----------



## saucywench (May 31, 2007)

T_Devil said:


> *Shrugs*
> Same shit as in grade school. But now the assholes have all grown up. Some things never change. And people wonder why I gleefully welcome the end of humanity.


Correction: The assholes have all gotten OLDer, not grown up--big difference.


----------



## T_Devil (May 31, 2007)

saucywench said:


> Correction: The assholes have all gotten OLDer, not grown up--big difference.


Thank you. :bow:


----------



## Santaclear (May 31, 2007)

MattS19 said:


> This shit will only backfire and blow up in there faces.



Man, now they're even boycotting Girl Scout cookies!  It's a jungle in there!


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jun 1, 2007)

I can't wait to read them. I'm certain they will be very thoughtful and well-written as are all of your writings.



Jon Blaze said:


> MemeRoth is going to look good on my wall!!! Kidding! Though she will be part of the topic of my next blogs. Plus I'm sending a letter too.
> Zoom is going to look good as an ally.. oh wait.. he is an ally! He kicks ass too!


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 1, 2007)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> I can't wait to read them. I'm certain they will be very thoughtful and well-written as are all of your writings.



Thanks... I have her in line with the church of thin for Six Star Part 2.


----------



## pani (Jun 1, 2007)

This creature has a PR firm. Why do we think she is getting media attention? Because someone there is some backing, either big diet or big Pharma. T Devil is right. She is beginning to rub Americans the wrong way. It could easily backfire.


----------



## Breakfiend (Jun 3, 2007)

One of the things they are complaining about is how showing fat people as ok is encourageing kids to be fat. WRONG! How many thousands of teenage girls (and some boys) dieing of anorexia will it take for these people to get the dam message!


----------



## gangstadawg (Jun 8, 2007)

she is like fred phelps and his church except she is after fat people.

edit: she is also like jack thompson except not after video games.

also did you guys see that ssbbw that was a on so you think you can dance?


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 8, 2007)

gangstadawg said:


> she is like fred phelps and his church except she is after fat people.
> 
> edit: she is also like jack thompson except not after video games.
> 
> also did you guys see that ssbbw that was a on so you think you can dance?



I'm boycotting that show per a myspace site about boycotting it because they seem to be biased against larger people (I haven't watched it, and I wasn't going to watch it anyway  ), but comparing Fred Phelps and MemeRoth is kinda funny...but somewhat correct.


----------



## gangstadawg (Jun 8, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> I'm boycotting that show per a myspace site about boycotting it because they seem to be biased against larger people (I haven't watched it, and I wasn't going to watch it anyway  ), but comparing Fred Phelps and MemeRoth is kinda funny...but somewhat correct.



thanks. yo check your pms. and her is the clip of the ssbbw on the show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5osW7OsJwhk it was the best i could find. ill search for the full clip of only her later on dailymotion or somewhere else.


----------



## gangstadawg (Jun 8, 2007)

gangstadawg said:


> thanks. yo check your pms. and her is the clip of the ssbbw on the show
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5osW7OsJwhk it was the best i could find. ill search for the full clip of only her later on dailymotion or somewhere else.


to late to edit my post.
here is the clip
http://www.gofish.com/player.gfp?gfid=30-1121594 her name is kippery rigsby


----------



## Friday (Jun 8, 2007)

Zoom said:


> Diabetes is simply caused by too much sugar consumption creating an imbalance which the body cannot fight properly. The solution would be to cut down on foods with too much sugar (especially processed sugar).



If you are going to expect correct info from others, you should get yours right too. Diabetes is caused by insulin resistance, not sugar consumption. The reason a diabetic cuts back on sugar is because that lessens the need for insulin. It does not increase the effectiveness of insulin. You could cut sugar entirely out of a person's diet and it would neither cure nor prevent diabetes although it might temporarily delay onset.


----------



## Zoom (Jun 8, 2007)

Friday said:


> If you are going to expect correct info from others, you should get yours right too. Diabetes is caused by insulin resistance, not sugar consumption. The reason a diabetic cuts back on sugar is because that lessens the need for insulin. It does not increase the effectiveness of insulin. You could cut sugar entirely out of a person's diet and it would neither cure nor prevent diabetes although it might temporarily delay onset.


I didn't want to waste time when arguing with an undeclared fatphobe like MeMe with a lot of details regarding insulin so I just jumped to the root cause (many people believe the insulin resistance is brought upon oneself from the sugar imbalance).

BTW, I didn't expect correct info from MeMe either. I'd lie to her if it brought results.


----------



## Friday (Jun 8, 2007)

Well, you do diabetics like myself no favors by perpetuating the myth that we are diabetic because we stuff ourselves with sugar. For someone like myself that even as a child didn't eat syrup or drink regular soda because I didn'tlike all that sugar, it's an especially aggravating bit of misinformation.


----------



## Zoom (Jun 9, 2007)

Friday said:


> Well, you do diabetics like myself no favors by perpetuating the myth that we are diabetic because we stuff ourselves with sugar. For someone like myself that even as a child didn't eat syrup or drink regular soda because I didn'tlike all that sugar, it's an especially aggravating bit of misinformation.


OK, I'm no expert at it. I should never have brought it up when replying to MeMe. She stopped writing back anyway.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jun 9, 2007)

Here's what that web site says about MeMe Roth. Underlining emphasis is mine:



> *About MeMe Roth*
> 
> MeMe Roth, president and founder of National Action Against Obesity, is host and organizer of the Wedding Gown Challenge, where women enter into marriage at a healthy weight and maintain it for a lifetime. As an anti-obesity advocate, Ms. Roth's efforts to eliminate junk food from schools, eradicate 2nd-Hand Obesity and to celebrate women committed to remaining fit have been featured on FOXNews' The O'Reilly Factor w/ Bill O'Reilly, Your World with Neil Cavuto, CBS's The Early Show, The New York Times, New York Magazine, The New York Post, Playboy Magazine, The New Jersey Star-Ledger, TimeOut New York, Big Apple Parent, WABCRadio, 106.7 LiteFM, Q104.3, Parents Magazine, Vicinity Magazine, Suburban Essex Magazine, School Administrator, American School Board Journal, The Winnipeg Sun, UPN Channel 9 News, News Target, Baristanet.com, The Item, WCRN Boston, BigFatBlog, Nippon TV, The Associated Press and Health Magazine. Ms. Roth's agenda: "Let's finally recognize obesity as abuse--abuse of our children, abuse of ourselves--and together take action against it."
> 
> http://www.prweb.com//releases/obesity/trans-fat/prweb491541.htm



And let's all recognize MeMe Roth as a fat-phobe who is out to inflict even more abuse on larger Americans.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jun 9, 2007)

Hey - ya know how every once in a while someone posts a weight gain story in teh Library involving a celebrity? Why doesn't someone write a weight-gain story about MeMe Roth?????


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 9, 2007)

Seriously the scariest thing in that bio is the Wedding Gown Challenge. What the hell kind of cackling squealing Lifetime channel nightmare is that? 

This woman is obviously a beast and a nutcase. 

The only thing that I wholeheartedly agree with is getting junk food out of schools. But that's an obvious thing. Nobody would argue that we should be feeding kids doritos and coke. But it's too bad that it seems so inextricably linked from a rabid anti-fat position. That frustrates me to no end because they are Not The Same Thing. 

Why can't someone start an anti-junk food for kids/ pro-healthy thing that DOESN'T discriminate based on size but encourages and preaches health and well-being at ANY size? Why is that so damned hard for people to grasp? 

And what the crap kind of a name is "MeMe"??


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Jun 9, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> And what the crap kind of a name is "MeMe"??


Perhaps it's an indication that she's a self-centered attention whore.....


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 9, 2007)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Perhaps it's an indication that she's a self-centered attention whore.....



Man, no kidding. And for some reason I have so little patience for, well, everything, but specifically stupid and obviously false first names on snotty conservative bitchy women who want everyone to be clones.

Now excuse me while I go starve myself to fit into this wedding dress.


----------



## Lady at Large (Jun 10, 2007)

I always find it odd when the word Advocate is used in the same sentence as ANTI. 

In all fairness I suppose I should mention that I am an anti-advocate of anti-obesity advocates.


----------



## gangstadawg (Jun 10, 2007)

well at least she isnt trying to go after the black community and the thick women thing we have like that woman from salon was doing.


----------



## gangstadawg (Jun 10, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> I'm boycotting that show per a myspace site about boycotting it because they seem to be biased against larger people (I haven't watched it, and I wasn't going to watch it anyway  ), but comparing Fred Phelps and MemeRoth is kinda funny...but somewhat correct.


just thought about it she is more like Shirley Phelps.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 10, 2007)

gangstadawg said:


> just thought about it she is more like Shirley Phelps.



Lately I've been hearing this lovely term to describe what most weight bigots are using against us:
"OMG OBESITY EPIDEMIC!! OMG! ONOZ!!! LOLZZZZZZZZ"


----------



## gangstadawg (Jun 10, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> Lately I've been hearing this lovely term to describe what most weight bigots are using against us:
> "OMG OBESITY EPIDEMIC!! OMG! ONOZ!!! LOLZZZZZZZZ"


i may post this thread at fullfiggas later on. or ill post the one about buffy the body.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 10, 2007)

Hmmm. i have a different outlook about all of these things. i wonder why people who are fat and like it get all worked up over these insipid arguments. why do you really care what these people think about you? especially since none of the things proposed can really be imposed on anyone. 

some aspects of the prohealth thing is pretty good actually. fat and healthy is good. there should not be any junk food sold in schools because it has no nutrients and growing children need those. food supplied by schools should enhance and not inhibit learning. kids shouldn't end up with their heads on desks sleeping after they crash from a bad lunch. if the children still refuse to eat healthier food they are very capable of finding ways to bring it with them. where were these people when P.E. was taken out of many of the schools? where were they when monsanto was adding hormones to milk? i also feel that it should be easier for adults to exercise. maybe we need to be building more parks. a picnic lunch and a leisurely walk during our lunch hour--heaven! we'd have a healthier mind and body. but thats a guns versus butter question and that money pit called iraq has to be resolved first. 

as for the rest, most of it is against the law and also requires americans to cooperate. after a few parents get arrested for having fat kids, for being fat themselves etc...well you know the rest lol. one reason i love my country is because i adore seeing how my people react when we feel our personal rights are being violated. it seems as though no one has thought about the fact that americans are not cooperating even though they are bombarded every day with a list of what is considered healthy to eat. guess what we aren't eating it ! lol. and can you imagine the black market?! instead of meth we would see people selling "bad fat twinkies" by the roadside.

as for normalcy, americans are NOT the norm by any standard. its okay darn it. we are fat! whats the big deal. travel to any country. i doubt you'll find anyone fatter as a group. we eat a lot and we don't exercise very much and we adore it. when other people move to this country it happens to them as well. they seem to like it too. 


as for wedding dresses and people stressing over cosmetic issues--so what? all of these women cackling over their wedding dress have lost the entire focus of what marriage is about anyway--or life for that matter. no wonder we have a 70 % divorce rate. they should just grow up. a dress does not a marriage make. 

what really bothers me about all of this is why we care. aren't you ever tired of looking at yourself through the eyes of the other? through a glass darkly? you should know you are beautiful/handsome by now. if you don't yet hopefully you are on that road. you are a unique creation. you should be at peace with the fact that you probably eat too much? most of us do. we may have a slow metabolism but more than likely we made it that way. inactivity will slow it. and, americans practically drive to the bathroom in their own house. however, you can't get fat if you don't eat. who ever said we had to fit anyone's idea of perfect to be wonderful? and if it is important to you to fit someone elses ideals then have at it. but stop complaining. life is short enjoy what you have.

there are lots of different reasons for us being the way that we are. maybe people should just get out of each others business and take care of their own. its easy to point and say "fat" when your life is in shambles. thats what the media does now. it provides scapegoats and we all participate. we love dishing on how terrible paris hilton is. anna-nicole smith was a favorite pounding girl too, even though she is dead. it doesn't feel too good when it happens to us does it? i say the same thing to all of us that i'd say to them. give them the finger and if they impact you too much call a lawyer--and maybe a private detective to see how they stack up when it comes to being normal.


----------



## PamelaLois (Jun 10, 2007)

Friday said:


> Well, you do diabetics like myself no favors by perpetuating the myth that we are diabetic because we stuff ourselves with sugar. For someone like myself that even as a child didn't eat syrup or drink regular soda because I didn'tlike all that sugar, it's an especially aggravating bit of misinformation.




I totally agree, it makes me crazy sometimes that people don't understand the disease. I have PCOS and I am a diabetic. My diabetes is not from eating too much sugar, it is a hormonal imbalance and insulin resistance from the PCOS. I try to follow a low-carb diet, and yet my blood sugar can still be high. It is especially frustrating to try to get my parents to understand that my diabetes and weight have nothing to do with how much I eat, I probably eat less than they do. Your liver makes glucose, so even if you aren't eating a large amount of carbs, you can still have high blood sugars.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 10, 2007)

Now it seems she's created quite an name for herself. She's been getting death threats from angry Jordin Sparks fans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18537945/


----------



## gangstadawg (Jun 10, 2007)

LillyBBBW said:


> Now it seems she's created quite an name for herself. She's been getting death threats from angry Jordin Sparks fans.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18537945/


wait a minute they called her an obesity expert? thats like calling jack thompson a videogame expert.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 10, 2007)

superodalisque said:


> Hmmm. i have a different outlook about all of these things. i wonder why people who are fat and like it get all worked up over these insipid arguments. why do you really care what these people think about you? especially since none of the things proposed can really be imposed on anyone.
> 
> some aspects of the prohealth thing is pretty good actually. fat and healthy is good. there should not be any junk food sold in schools because it has no nutrients and growing children need those. food supplied by schools should enhance and not inhibit learning. kids shouldn't end up with their heads on desks sleeping after they crash from a bad lunch. if the children still refuse to eat healthier food they are very capable of finding ways to bring it with them. where were these people when P.E. was taken out of many of the schools? where were they when monsanto was adding hormones to milk? i also feel that it should be easier for adults to exercise. maybe we need to be building more parks. a picnic lunch and a leisurely walk during our lunch hour--heaven! we'd have a healthier mind and body. but thats a guns versus butter question and that money pit called iraq has to be resolved first.
> 
> ...




It seems that MeMe had the right idea on paper, but she didn't excute it well. Her messages that were akin to advocating a healthy lifestyle are blinded by her cleverly coded fat stigmatization and bias against fat people.

I think junk food shouldn't be allowed in schools, but I also think the whole weight report card is asshattery. She's picking both though.  

I think she needs to be more balanced. If she didn't hate fat people, and if that weren't the tone of her messages: She might have had a chance, and for all I know she might be a new piece to the Size Acceptance movement. But she didn't....


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 10, 2007)

gangstadawg said:


> wait a minute they called her an obesity expert? thats like calling jack thompson a videogame expert.



I heard that. "Weight Bigot Extrodinaire" is a more accurate title.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jul 16, 2007)

http://www.nafbr.org/story.html

Looks like we have another organization. It doesn't seem to be gaining much ground though. I would think it's much weaker than MeMe's NAAOA, but they still did a wordplay on the NAAFA acronym. 

Again, however, we have the sad story of the once morbidly obese person losing weight, and becoming you guessed it: A weight bigot. An endless cycle of one not being able to accept themselves... such a shame.  Welllll... that's as long as I can be empathic: I mean he's only doing the same thing to fat people.  

PS- I'm still waiting to hear of MeMe Roth's college degree in public health. WHERE IS IT??!?!!??!?!


----------



## LJ Rock (Jul 16, 2007)

LillyBBBW said:


> Now it seems she's created quite an name for herself. She's been getting death threats from angry Jordin Sparks fans.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18537945/




You know, it just seems to me that of all the people to target, of all the people to make an example of... why Jordin? Well, I know why really: because she is highly visible young celebrity on the rise. But the fact remains: *Jordin Sparks is not - repeat - NOT fat!* If you think about it, in an era of Hollywood not all too long ago, she would have been considered to have the perfect figure! Meme is saying that Jordin's celebrity is "a reflection of todays society and a culture where many of our children have compromised health due to unhealthful food choices and inactivity..." But the reality is that it is Miss Roth's comments and opinions that are the product of societies sick and distorted views towards health and body image, which only seem to get increasingly worse as time goes on. 

It seems like with so many other things in this country, we are being forced to choose one extreme over the other: it's not enough to just have sensible middle of the road political views anymore. You must be either ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal in order for anyone to listen to you and take you seriously in the ultra-sensationalized media driven climate we are living in. Likewise, it is not good enough to just have a healthy body with a decent amount of body fat and be happy with who you are. No, you're either thin as a rail or massively obese! And in either case, you can NOT possibly be happy with yourself and just live a normal productive life... no no, you've always got to be striving for something else, something "better." That's the real epidemic in this nation of ours, not obesity! 

I did skim through that People magazine article though, and I agree that it did seem a bit hypocritical for the cover to have Jordin saying "I'm Happy With My Body" and then giving tips on how to "dress thin" inside. Something tells me though that those weren't really her words (maybe try "dressing classy" instead of "thin." She really doesn't seem like she tries to hide her curves much at all.) In spite of such, I still thought it was a good article, and let's hope that the messages of positive body image and self love/acceptance will hit home with some young people out there.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jul 16, 2007)

LJ Rock said:


> You know, it just seems to me that of all the people to target, of all the people to make an example of... why Jordin? Well, I know why really: because she is highly visible young celebrity on the rise. But the fact remains: *Jordin Sparks is not - repeat - NOT fat!* If you think about it, in an era of Hollywood not all too long ago, she would have been considered to have the perfect figure! Meme is saying that Jordin's celebrity is "a reflection of todays society and a culture where many of our children have compromised health due to unhealthful food choices and inactivity..." But the reality is that it is Miss Roth's comments and opinions that are the product of societies sick and distorted views towards health and body image, which only seem to get increasingly worse as time goes on.
> 
> It seems like with so many other things in this country, we are being forced to choose one extreme over the other: it's not enough to just have sensible middle of the road political views anymore. You must be either ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal in order for anyone to listen to you and take you seriously in the ultra-sensationalized media driven climate we are living in. Likewise, it is not good enough to just have a healthy body with a decent amount of body fat and be happy with who you are. No, you're either thin as a rail or massively obese! And in either case, you can NOT possibly be happy with yourself and just live a normal productive life... no no, you've always got to be striving for something else, something "better." That's the real epidemic in this nation of ours, not obesity!
> 
> I did skim through that People magazine article though, and I agree that it did seem a bit hypocritical for the cover to have Jordin saying "I'm Happy With My Body" and then giving tips on how to "dress thin" inside. Something tells me though that those weren't really her words (maybe try "dressing classy" instead of "thin." She really doesn't seem like she tries to hide her curves much at all.) In spite of such, I still thought it was a good article, and let's hope that the messages of positive body image and self love/acceptance will hit home with some young people out there.



+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sheesh.... It's like you have to have an alter ego in order to be somewhere in the middle. If you believe in equality: You're a hippy. If you don't: You're a prejudice conservative.


----------



## LJ Rock (Jul 16, 2007)

Something I was thinking earlier but did not articulate: I can't help but feel that part of the reason why this so-called "organization" under Miss Roth's direction is targeting Sparks is because she is a woman of color. Maybe I am being hyper-sensitive about this... but it seems to me that a big part of the media's perpetuation of anti-fat propaganda has to do with the "programming" of America. We're repeatedly told that the only people (women especially, but not exclusively) who are of any value in this world are those who adhere to a classically western-European standard of beauty, which includes among other things, a thin waist and hips. 

I am well aware that fat people of all colors and ethnicities are subject to the same kind of discrimination and that weight-related prejudices are by no means relegated to just people of color, which is why I was hesitant to play the race card to begin with. However, I don't see these people publicly going after the girl from the new 'Hairspray' remake with the same kind of viciousness and tenacity as they are going after Sparks. It just seems so unfair to me that they should single out this one individual as the focus of their campaign, as they have seemingly done. What do they hope to accomplish by doing so if not to further stigmatize and damage the self esteem of young African American and Latino women? 

As I said before, my beef with this "organization" is not their intent, but rather their blatantly negative tactics... Why be so negative? Why contribute more negativity to a world that is already overripe with it? Why be _anti-fat_ when you can be pro-health, pro-beauty, _pro-humanity?_ 

I am only afraid I know the answer. Am I being paranoid or could this really be part of the problem?


----------



## Zoom (Jul 16, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> http://www.nafbr.org/story.html
> Looks like we have another organization. It doesn't seem to be gaining much ground though.


My response which was given on YouTube, because that was the only contact information given apart from MySpace:

"Size discrimination is nothing more than bigotry. I will not tolerate it in society or on the internet. People have a right to be fat if they want."

I think that sums it up. I wouldn't bother going full-out against them unless they start developing political clout.


----------



## squurp (Jul 16, 2007)

Zoom said:


> MeMe emailed me back this morning. She rambled on and on about American Idol, as if that had something to do with anything I wrote.
> 
> I will spare you much of her email, but here's a quote which shows some of the illogic gracing my monitor screen:
> So now she is changing her position to just be about child "obesity"?
> ...



While I wholeheartedly agree with your intentions here - you've missed the mark with some of your own research. Here is a response I made to another anti-fat article. Please notice research is cited (as must be the case, when debating with anyone):
First off, some common misconceptions: Pigs, like most animals as a rule, have an appetite shutoff. Basically, they stop eating when they are full. Now, pigs do eat alot because they happen to have an extremely fast growth rate from birth to adulthood. Some other mammals do too, such as whales, chickens, etc. Humans have a slower maturity rate, so we generally eat less, yes even the fat ones.

Appetite shutoff is controlled genetically, in a pretty strong way. We know this, because disorders such as Prader-Willi syndrome exist. In cases of these disorders, sufferers never feel full, even if their stomachs are full to the point of bursting. Clearly, this is not at all environmental, and, it is not eating like pigs, and it is not the fault of poor parenting.

All in all, appetite, though, has only a small part in the obesity complex. How do some people stay thin all their lives, eating the worst junk, while others eat decent, and end up obese? It's not all self control. Scientists know now that obesity is a complex genetic issue, including genetic traits, and environmental triggers. From Discover Magazine (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/mendel2019s-mouse):Recently Churchill and his Jackson Laboratory colleagues decided to go after some big genetic game, the gene network that controls body weight. "With 300 million people now suffering from obesity worldwide, fat has become a global epidemic.. . .The map they came up with looks like a flowchart from hell. Churchill’s group identified a dozen sites in the mouse genome where genes are influencing the body weight of mice. But the genes have different effects. Some make mice large-bodied, and being big makes mice more likely to get fat. But they also found genes that had separate effects on both body size and fat levels. In some cases, the same gene could make a mouse both big and lean. Other genes influenced only how fat the mice were, with no effect on their body size. Still other genes determined the size of different fat pads. One region of mouse DNA appears to make mice fat overall while actually making the fat pads on their haunches smaller."

This research shows that obesity is indeed very complex. And that while environmental interaction plays a role, its role is tightly bound to genetics. One could argue, the best thing a person can do to ensure reasonable weight, is to choose the right parents.

Further research is presented in the book "Rethinking Thin", By Gina Kolata(link)
This book presented peer reviewed research linking obesity to exposure to cigarette smoking during gestation, and also presented large government funded research interventions which show massive expensive efforts at dietary change in communities has no effect whatsoever on obesity within a community.

So, while the diet industry doesn't like people to know this, the truth is, obesity is not a simple formula in any way. It is a complex interaction based strongly in genetics. And, No, it doesn't begin in a child's home. By that point, much of the genetics are decided, and a large amount of the environmental triggers have already happened (in the womb).

This article also cites CDC figures on obesity, which the CDC has admitted to flawed research practices. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8902-2004Nov23.html)

Furthermore, there is little evidence about exact costs to the healthcare system. At best, there is speculation and extrapolation. To profess this as fact if fallible.

From all of this, we can conclude that this article is uninformed, at least. It is also highly possible the author of this article is biased, since society considers fat to be evil. This bias will continue to hold back any fruitful research and reduction in obesity for anyone. It is a shame good reporting on this is not possible.


In particular, I bristle at the idea that the cure and cause of diabetes is diet related. Research, on many many levels has shown a very strong genetic component. In fact, they are able to "breed" diabetic mice pretty consistently. This is not to mention research which shows smoking while pregnant predisposes a a woman's child to diabetes and obesity (Rethinking Thin, cited earlier) A full understanding of the diabetes epidemic is a long ways off, and much research must be done.


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Jul 16, 2007)

Any credibility she may possess or sting her campaign may have is offset by the very real fact that she's named "Meme Roth".

XD


----------



## Friday (Jul 17, 2007)

> Diabetes is simply caused by too much sugar consumption creating an imbalance which the body cannot fight properly.



I sure wish that this myth would die and otherwise intelligent people would quit repeating it. Diabetes is a genetically caused disease. Sugar consumption does not change your genes.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jul 17, 2007)

LJ Rock said:


> Something I was thinking earlier but did not articulate: I can't help but feel that part of the reason why this so-called "organization" under Miss Roth's direction is targeting Sparks is because she is a woman of color. Maybe I am being hyper-sensitive about this... but it seems to me that a big part of the media's perpetuation of anti-fat propaganda has to do with the "programming" of America. We're repeatedly told that the only people (women especially, but not exclusively) who are of any value in this world are those who adhere to a classically western-European standard of beauty, which includes among other things, a thin waist and hips.
> 
> I am well aware that fat people of all colors and ethnicities are subject to the same kind of discrimination and that weight-related prejudices are by no means relegated to just people of color, which is why I was hesitant to play the race card to begin with. However, I don't see these people publicly going after the girl from the new 'Hairspray' remake with the same kind of viciousness and tenacity as they are going after Sparks. It just seems so unfair to me that they should single out this one individual as the focus of their campaign, as they have seemingly done. What do they hope to accomplish by doing so if not to further stigmatize and damage the self esteem of young African American and Latino women?
> 
> ...




I can't say I agree with the racial concept (Not that I disagree, but I don't know if I can say that), but the rest of your interpretation of NAAOA is spot on in my opinion.

MeMeRoth (And the former obese person who is now the leader of NAFBR) have somewhat of the right attiude. Sedentary living, and unhealthy eating kills everyone regardless of size. Obviously in our realm we advocate healthy living (Though the law is that it's ultimately down to choice), but these people don't understand that. They make the assumption that NAAFA (And similar organzations) advocates unhealthy living, and that's one of the many reasons why these groups shouldn't get members.

The main reason why these groups are wrong is because rather than being Pro-health, pro-humanity, and pro-beauty: They are led by weight bigots. PERIOD. That's what weighs them down, in my opinion.
MeMeRoth did the video about Jordin Sparks. After that, she went on Fox to state that "Fat people don't deserve to succeed." Screwy isn't it?

When she was on TV with Joy Nash and another larger woman (Whose name has slipped my mind :doh: ), she began stating that it's wrong for people to see someone who is 10-20 pounds overweight, and see them as normal. Then after that, however, she stated that she thinks we should all strive for some place in between "Anorexia and Obesity." More screws....

I'm not going to post the youtube video from NAFBR, but I'm considering posting some comments. The zealots are already rolling in. 
"UR Not supposed to accept yourself fat." 
True. You're supposed to accept yourself at ALL TIMES...

They both make claims that what they are doing is right, when all that needs to be done is a balancing act on the concept of "Acceptance." Everyone should be accepted, and while some people need help with certain things: No rule book stated treating them immoral was going to help. If I'm not mistaken, psychology outlines this as one of the many areas where negative feedback doesn't help as much as positive feedback.


----------



## Tina (Jul 17, 2007)

You know, I looked at the comments on MeMe's YouTube video of that (MeMe seems an appropriate name), and she looks just as uptight as she seems. She also has many, many people against her. The way she speaks and carries herself reminds me of a Roseanne quote from the "Roseanne" show: "You couldn't pull a needle out of her ass with a tractor." That about sums it up to me.


----------



## gangstadawg (Jul 17, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> http://www.nafbr.org/story.html
> 
> Looks like we have another organization. It doesn't seem to be gaining much ground though. I would think it's much weaker than MeMe's NAAOA, but they still did a wordplay on the NAAFA acronym.
> 
> ...


the site even says its against NAAFA. i dont think ms roths site will openly say they are against/doesnt like NAAFA at least not yet.


----------



## Keb (Jul 17, 2007)

These two people make me angry...and no doubt they'd be pleased that they do. But what they don't seem to see is that fat people face negativity about who they are every day. It doesn't change us. We don't magically wake up and say "OMG, I'm fat! I need to be thin!" and then become thin overnight. It doesn't work like that. 

NAFBR has an interesting definition of responsibility, too. Responsibility is making choices and accepting the consequences of those choices, whatever they are. Someone can choose other priorities for their lives. 

And pulling out the child abuse argument...everything is child abuse these days. Teaching your kid what you believe religiously is child abuse (ask Dawkins). Disciplining your child is child abuse (ask anyone who is in the same room...doesn't matter what method you use, from spanking to time out, if they disagree then your method is child abuse). Not telling your child they're worthless because they happen to tip the scales above a certain weight? Apparently that's child abuse too. I feel sorry for parents today, trying to navigate a world where everyone else thinks they have more right to raise their kids than the parents do.

Kids should be taught healthy eating and exercise habits, no question there. They should be given the best chance possible at a healthy, happy life. But they should also be shown unconditional love that doesn't depend on weight anymore than on grades, misbehavior, beliefs... Anything less than that is abusive in its own way. (Look what I did there. Oops.) 

My point was, we already hear every day how early we're going to die, how much our weight is costing society, how stupid we are, how ugly we are, how worthless we are. Saying it louder isn't going to make us change anymore than shouting at a man who doesn't speak English will help him understand you. It doesn't work like that!


----------



## LJ Rock (Jul 17, 2007)

Keb said:


> These two people make me angry...and no doubt they'd be pleased that they do. But what they don't seem to see is that fat people face negativity about who they are every day. It doesn't change us. We don't magically wake up and say "OMG, I'm fat! I need to be thin!" and then become thin overnight. It doesn't work like that.
> 
> NAFBR has an interesting definition of responsibility, too. Responsibility is making choices and accepting the consequences of those choices, whatever they are. Someone can choose other priorities for their lives.
> 
> ...



"You must spread some rep around before giving it to Keb again..."


----------



## Keb (Jul 17, 2007)

Now you're making me blush...


----------

