MSN Money: What if no one were fat?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...neWereFat.aspx

What if no one were fat?
Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.

By Shirley Skeel
Editor's note: This is part of an occasional series on financial what-ifs.

In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost 33% of
adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds
overweight. But . . .

What if nobody in America were fat?

We'd save billions of dollars in gas. Airlines would double their profits.
A dearth of diabetes and other diseases would save billions of dollars more
-- and put thousands of doctors on the street. McDonald's would sell not
Big Macs but little steamed chicken snacks -- or watch its profits melt
away. Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more
jobs or higher wages all around.

Add up the savings up on health, food, clothing and efficiencies, and you
could buy a professional home gym for every U.S. household -- or hand each
$4,270 in cash.

$487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants
Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner, meaner
country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5% of gross
domestic product, no small sum.

Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth. The rest is a radical shift in
resources, away from the needs of our bigger citizens to . . . well,
whatever we and our overlords would spend these extra billions on.

First, let's put the meat on that $487 billion. The estimates below assume
the average American adult is at least 20 pounds overweight, a figure
nutritionists see as fair.

Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top
$5 billion, according to industry studies. Researchers say each overweight
driver burns about 18 additional gallons of gas a year, or just under a
billion gallons altogether. Savings in the air are far greater: The
jet-fuel savings alone could double North American airlines' forecast 2008
profits to $3.8 billion and maybe persuade them to stop stranding
passengers because they can't afford the fuel for flights. As for oil
imports, they'd be dented by less than 1%.

Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10
billion on shirts, pants and dresses. And clothes might fit better too.
Cynthia Istook, an associate professor in textile apparel at North Carolina
State University, says the economies of making fewer sizes would be
tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip
and bust sizes, rather than asking every woman to squeeze into an hourglass
shape.

Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the
way, America's 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too many.
That's 14 billion Big Mac meals, with fries and a soda. Eliminate those and
you wipe out $81 billion, or McDonald's past four years of sales.

If Americans were slim and maintained their weight by eating 150 fewer
calories a day (half a slice of pizza), that could snip roughly 6.5%, or
$20 billion a year, off U.S. farmers' sales (assuming no extra exports).
Bob Young, the American Farm Bureau's chief economist, says farmers would
cope. They'd switch some land from fattening seed oils and sugar beets to
fruits and vegetables. Or they might grow corn for ethanol, or even open a
hunting resort.

The medical costs of obesity-related problems such as diabetes, stroke and
heart disease run near $140 billion, or more than 6% of all health-care
costs. That ballpark figure was calculated by Joel Cohen, an economic
researcher for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, using data
from a 1998 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study. Cohen reckons
that if no one were fat, medical insurance costs would fall -- to
everyone's delight -- and doctors and drug makers could do more preventive
care. That sounds good, but Roland Sturm, a senior economist for Rand in
Santa Monica, Calif., doubts anyone would pay for preventive care. More
likely, he says, some doctors would be on the street. "They could drive
cabs," he suggests.

Productivity in the workplace would jump as people took fewer sick days and
spent less time at work feeling unwell. Ross DeVol, the director of health
economics at the Milken Institute, says the loss of productivity due to
people showing up at work sick is "immense." Using a recent Milken report
on the subject, he calculates that if no one were obese, the added output
from workers and their caregivers would give the country a $257 billion
boost. That's 1.8% of GDP, enough extra output to allow businesses to hire
tens of thousands more workers or to raise wages, economists say. Or at
least, that's the theory. Given bosses' love of expanding their profits and
their own pay, you can count on some of this being spirited away. Just look
at 2000 to 2005, when worker productivity rose 16.6% while median wages
rose less than half that amount.

"Jenny Craig would be very unhappy" if everyone were slim, says Rand's
Sturm. And so she would, along with the rest of the $55 billion weight-loss
industry. Trimmed-down citizens would be swapping their diet pills for
bikinis and their gastric-banding for nose jobs.

What to do with all that money?
On top of these savings would be billions of dollars more. Manufacturers
and builders wouldn't have to make doorways bigger, car seats wider,
furniture stouter. Some even argue that global warming would slow a mite,
as consumption of gas, energy, fertilizer and methane-producing cattle
decreased.

Even without those extras, the $487 billion reshuffle of the economy would
put us on the spot. Exactly how would we spend all this freed-up cash?
Optimists sing about improving education or medical research. Others figure
we'd fritter away the money.

On 29 Apr 2008 00:38:14 -0000, marge@nothing.org (Marge) wrote:

>http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...neWereFat.aspx
>
>What if no one were fat?


Who would idiots like you ridicule?

>Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
>other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.

For charm school?

>
>By Shirley Skeel
>Editor's note: This is part of an occasional series on financial what-ifs.
>
>In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost 33% of
>adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds
>overweight. But . . .

Yes and there is a fat guy under my bed right where Joe McCarthy said
the communists would be.

>
>What if nobody in America were fat?

What would brain stems do to keep themselves entertained with no one
to poke sticks at? How would they spend their day.

>
>We'd save billions of dollars in gas. Airlines would double their profits.

They would make this profit only because there are no fat people.
Never mind the bad management practices, poor financial habits and
waste.

>A dearth of diabetes and other diseases would save billions of dollars more
>-- and put thousands of doctors on the street.

Yes-remember that only fat people get diabetes. I guess a lot of thin
people would die becuase there would be no insulin available for them.
Id there is no diabetes, why have insulin?

> McDonald's would sell not Big Macs but little steamed chicken snacks -- or watch its profits melt
>away.

Yep-that is how they made their money you know. Being just like
everyone else.


> Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more
>jobs or higher wages all around.

Right-that is becuase only fat people are lazy and take advantage of
employer amenities and do it every chance they can, right?

>
>Add up the savings up on health, food, clothing and efficiencies, and you
>could buy a professional home gym for every U.S. household -- or hand each
>$4,270 in cash.

Ad everyone would be so very happy grunting and groaning on a bowflex
and even the women would look like Mr. Universe.

>
>$487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants

Of course everyone knows that only fat people wear stretchy and comfy
clothes. Only fat people waste gas, right?

>Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner, meaner
>country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5% of gross
>domestic product, no small sum.

Come on, how are you gonna make the fat people disappear and put the
brain stems in charge?


>
>Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth. The rest is a radical shift in
>resources, away from the needs of our bigger citizens to . . . well,
>whatever we and our overlords would spend these extra billions on.

Of course, a blighted case of Aryan delusion. You don't want the
"bigger citizen" to even exist, do you?


>
>First, let's put the meat on that $487 billion. The estimates below assume
>the average American adult is at least 20 pounds overweight, a figure
>nutritionists see as fair.

Oh well, lets all make allowances for a fatter boy with titties.
>
>Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top
>$5 billion, according to industry studies. Researchers say each overweight
>driver burns about 18 additional gallons of gas a year, or just under a
>billion gallons altogether.

Blame it all on the fat people.

> Savings in the air are far greater: The
>jet-fuel savings alone could double North American airlines' forecast 2008
>profits to $3.8 billion and maybe persuade them to stop stranding
>passengers because they can't afford the fuel for flights. As for oil
>imports, they'd be dented by less than 1%.
>
>Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10
>billion on shirts, pants and dresses. And clothes might fit better too.
>Cynthia Istook, an associate professor in textile apparel at North Carolina
>State University, says the economies of making fewer sizes would be
>tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip
>and bust sizes, rather than asking every woman to squeeze into an hourglass
>shape.
>
As if the average shopper isn't confused enough as it is.

Fat people don't need clothing-god forbid that they have money to buy
what they want.

This proves that the inmates are trying to run the asylum.

LV

"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."

---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not
change the subject."

---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Marge <marge@nothing.org> wrote

> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...neWereFat.aspx

> What if no one were fat?

We'd be in a famine, and you'd really have something to get excited about.

> Imagine a lean and healthy America:

There would still be plenty with other medical problems even if no one was fat.

Most obviously with the stupid smokers.

> The savings on medical, fuel, food and other costs would
> be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

> By Shirley Skeel
> Editor's note: This is part of an occasional series on financial what-ifs.

> In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight.

Doesnt mean that all of those are unhealthy tho.

> Almost 33% of adults are obese,

Doesnt mean that all of those are unhealthy tho.

> and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds overweight. But . . .

> What if nobody in America were fat?

We'd be in a famine, and you'd really have something to get excited about.

> We'd save billions of dollars in gas.

Wrong.

> Airlines would double their profits.

Wrong.

> A dearth of diabetes and other diseases would save billions of dollars more

Wrong, you'd still have type 1 diabetes that has nothing to do with obesity.

> -- and put thousands of doctors on the street.

Wrong again. They be dealing with the effects of famine.

> McDonald's would sell not Big Macs but little steamed
> chicken snacks -- or watch its profits melt away.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

> Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more jobs

That would REDUCE the number of jobs available, fool.

> or higher wages all around.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

> Add up the savings up on health, food, clothing and
> efficiencies, and you could buy a professional home gym
> for every U.S. household -- or hand each $4,270 in cash.

You've plucked that number out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

> $487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants

You've plucked that number out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

> Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a
> leaner, meaner country add up to a weighty $487 billion.

You've plucked that number out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

> That's almost 3.5% of gross domestic product, no small sum.

Pity you've plucked that number out of your arse.

> Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth. The rest is a radical shift
> in resources, away from the needs of our bigger citizens to . . . well,
> whatever we and our overlords would spend these extra billions on.

Pity you've plucked that number out of your arse.

> First, let's put the meat on that $487 billion.

Not even possible to put meat on a steaming turd.

> The estimates below assume the average American adult is at
> least 20 pounds overweight, a figure nutritionists see as fair.

Pity you've plucked that number out of your arse.

<reams of your mindless silly shit flushed where it belongs>

"Marge" <marge@nothing.org> wrote in message
news:20080429003821.ECC864ED2B@outpost.zedz.net...
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...neWereFat.aspx
>
> What if no one were fat?
> Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
> other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.
>
> By Shirley Skeel
> Editor's note: This is part of an occasional series on financial what-ifs.
>
> In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost 33% of
> adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds
> overweight. But . . .
>
> What if nobody in America were fat?
>
> We'd save billions of dollars in gas. Airlines would double their profits.
> A dearth of diabetes and other diseases would save billions of dollars
> more
> -- and put thousands of doctors on the street. McDonald's would sell not
> Big Macs but little steamed chicken snacks -- or watch its profits melt
> away. Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more
> jobs or higher wages all around.
>
> Add up the savings up on health, food, clothing and efficiencies, and you
> could buy a professional home gym for every U.S. household -- or hand each
> $4,270 in cash.
>
> $487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants
> Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner, meaner
> country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5% of gross
> domestic product, no small sum.
>
> Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth. The rest is a radical shift in
> resources, away from the needs of our bigger citizens to . . . well,
> whatever we and our overlords would spend these extra billions on.
>
> First, let's put the meat on that $487 billion. The estimates below assume
> the average American adult is at least 20 pounds overweight, a figure
> nutritionists see as fair.
>
> Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top
> $5 billion, according to industry studies. Researchers say each overweight
> driver burns about 18 additional gallons of gas a year, or just under a
> billion gallons altogether. Savings in the air are far greater: The
> jet-fuel savings alone could double North American airlines' forecast 2008
> profits to $3.8 billion and maybe persuade them to stop stranding
> passengers because they can't afford the fuel for flights. As for oil
> imports, they'd be dented by less than 1%.
>
> Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10
> billion on shirts, pants and dresses. And clothes might fit better too.
> Cynthia Istook, an associate professor in textile apparel at North
> Carolina
> State University, says the economies of making fewer sizes would be
> tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip
> and bust sizes, rather than asking every woman to squeeze into an
> hourglass
> shape.
>
> Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the
> way, America's 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too
> many.
> That's 14 billion Big Mac meals, with fries and a soda. Eliminate those
> and
> you wipe out $81 billion, or McDonald's past four years of sales.
>
> If Americans were slim and maintained their weight by eating 150 fewer
> calories a day (half a slice of pizza), that could snip roughly 6.5%, or
> $20 billion a year, off U.S. farmers' sales (assuming no extra exports).
> Bob Young, the American Farm Bureau's chief economist, says farmers would
> cope. They'd switch some land from fattening seed oils and sugar beets to
> fruits and vegetables. Or they might grow corn for ethanol, or even open a
> hunting resort.
>
> The medical costs of obesity-related problems such as diabetes, stroke and
> heart disease run near $140 billion, or more than 6% of all health-care
> costs. That ballpark figure was calculated by Joel Cohen, an economic
> researcher for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, using data
> from a 1998 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study. Cohen
> reckons
> that if no one were fat, medical insurance costs would fall -- to
> everyone's delight -- and doctors and drug makers could do more preventive
> care. That sounds good, but Roland Sturm, a senior economist for Rand in
> Santa Monica, Calif., doubts anyone would pay for preventive care. More
> likely, he says, some doctors would be on the street. "They could drive
> cabs," he suggests.
>
> Productivity in the workplace would jump as people took fewer sick days
> and
> spent less time at work feeling unwell. Ross DeVol, the director of health
> economics at the Milken Institute, says the loss of productivity due to
> people showing up at work sick is "immense." Using a recent Milken report
> on the subject, he calculates that if no one were obese, the added output
> from workers and their caregivers would give the country a $257 billion
> boost. That's 1.8% of GDP, enough extra output to allow businesses to hire
> tens of thousands more workers or to raise wages, economists say. Or at
> least, that's the theory. Given bosses' love of expanding their profits
> and
> their own pay, you can count on some of this being spirited away. Just
> look
> at 2000 to 2005, when worker productivity rose 16.6% while median wages
> rose less than half that amount.
>
> "Jenny Craig would be very unhappy" if everyone were slim, says Rand's
> Sturm. And so she would, along with the rest of the $55 billion
> weight-loss
> industry. Trimmed-down citizens would be swapping their diet pills for
> bikinis and their gastric-banding for nose jobs.
>
> What to do with all that money?
> On top of these savings would be billions of dollars more. Manufacturers
> and builders wouldn't have to make doorways bigger, car seats wider,
> furniture stouter. Some even argue that global warming would slow a mite,
> as consumption of gas, energy, fertilizer and methane-producing cattle
> decreased.
>
> Even without those extras, the $487 billion reshuffle of the economy would
> put us on the spot. Exactly how would we spend all this freed-up cash?
> Optimists sing about improving education or medical research. Others
> figure
> we'd fritter away the money.

My stock in MacDonalds wouldn't be worth anything. I support
fat-acceptance, as it helps my investment portfolio.......eat more dammit.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Marge wrote:

> What if no one were fat?
> Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
> other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.

If everyone was skinny, the fat people would buy less food, need to buy
less gas to make their car move, save money on medical costs, things of
that sort. The majority of the savings would go to the fat people. The
only savings that an already skinny person gets would be do to the
lowering of demand. Less gas bought means less demand, means lower
prices. Very misleading story already, and that's only in the synopsys.

> In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost 33% of
> adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds
> overweight. But . . .

33% skinny
33% over
33% obese

Sounds like the normal numbers... Skinny people are outnumbered... We
need to elect a fat president, to protect the rights of fat americans.

> Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more
> jobs or higher wages all around.

I call bull shit on that one.

If I was skinny, my productivity wouldn't be affected. I have a desk job,
I sit on my fat ass all day long. If it was skinny, I'd still be sitting
on it at my desk. Would I some how sit on my ass faster?

Do you mean the productivity of fat people who have manual labor jobs?
How many fat people have manual labor jobs? If they have to be on their
feet walking 8 hours a day, that's a lot of exercise. And since they are
already doing it, I doubt that productivity would rise much, if at all.

No new jobs would be created, nor would wages increase.

Arguably, since food would be more abundant, farmers would go out of
business. People buying less food means that less time at the check stand
at the store, which means less cashiers would be needed. In fact, there
would be more unemployment, not the other way around...

> $487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants
> Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner, meaner
> country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5% of gross
> domestic product, no small sum.

So the economy would actually slow down, while the dollar is already
dropping on the open market. Great idea...

> Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth.

None of it would be new growth. You don't grow demand when it drops.

> Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top
> $5 billion,

Exxon would make less money, and less demand means less workers are
needed, so Exxon would terminate the employment of workers. Most of that
"savings" would be taken away due to the lost income of workers.

> Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10
> billion on shirts, pants and dresses.

Needing less cotton for each shirt means the garment workers need to spend
less time making each shirt, which means less workers are needed. Less
cotton per shirt means the cotton growers have less demand for cotton.
Again, most of that "savings" would be taken

> Cynthia Istook, an associate professor in textile apparel at North Carolina
> State University, says the economies of making fewer sizes would be
> tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip
> and bust sizes,

A lot of women's "plus sized" clothing stores offer that already! They
would all go out of business though.

> Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the
> way, America's 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too many.
> That's 14 billion Big Mac meals, with fries and a soda. Eliminate those and
> you wipe out $81 billion, or McDonald's past four years of sales.

And then where would teenagers get their first job? More "savings" thrown
out the window.

Mind you, I'm not even talking about the lost income due to the stock
market. What would McDonald's share holders do? That's right, dump the
stock.

> If Americans were slim and maintained their weight by eating 150 fewer
> calories a day (half a slice of pizza), that could snip roughly 6.5%, or
> $20 billion a year, off U.S. farmers' sales (assuming no extra exports).

Really shafting US farmers, who wouldn't need to hire as much farm help,
thus negating more "savings" again.

> The medical costs of obesity-related problems such as diabetes, stroke and
> heart disease run near $140 billion, or more than 6% of all health-care
> costs.

Doctors, hospitals, drug companies... More workers out of jobs.

> Productivity in the workplace would jump as people took fewer sick days and
> spent less time at work feeling unwell.

I have taken about 3 or 4 sick says since I started with my current job
back in 2004, and currently have 234.17 hours on the books for vacation.

> What to do with all that money?

Give most of it back in the form of unemployed workers having no money to
spend, except for what they get in unemployment benefits.

> Some even argue that global warming would slow a mite,
> as consumption of gas, energy, fertilizer and methane-producing cattle
> decreased.

And some scientists STILL INSIST that global warming is a 100% natural
cycle. They just aren't given press coverage.

On Apr 29, 8:29 am, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Marge wrote:
> > What if no one were fat?
> > Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
> > other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.
>
> If everyone was skinny, the fat people would buy less food, need to buy
> less gas to make their car move, save money on medical costs, things of
> that sort. The majority of the savings would go to the fat people. The
> only savings that an already skinny person gets would be do to the
> lowering of demand. Less gas bought means less demand, means lower
> prices. Very misleading story already, and that's only in the synopsys.
>
> > In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost 33% of
> > adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds
> > overweight. But . . .
>
> 33% skinny
> 33% over
> 33% obese
>
> Sounds like the normal numbers... Skinny people are outnumbered... We
> need to elect a fat president, to protect the rights of fat americans.
>
> > Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more
> > jobs or higher wages all around.
>
> I call bull shit on that one.
>
> If I was skinny, my productivity wouldn't be affected. I have a desk job,
> I sit on my fat ass all day long. If it was skinny, I'd still be sitting
> on it at my desk. Would I some how sit on my ass faster?
>
> Do you mean the productivity of fat people who have manual labor jobs?
> How many fat people have manual labor jobs? If they have to be on their
> feet walking 8 hours a day, that's a lot of exercise. And since they are
> already doing it, I doubt that productivity would rise much, if at all.
>
> No new jobs would be created, nor would wages increase.
>
> Arguably, since food would be more abundant, farmers would go out of
> business. People buying less food means that less time at the check stand
> at the store, which means less cashiers would be needed. In fact, there
> would be more unemployment, not the other way around...
>
> > $487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants
> > Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner, meaner
> > country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5% of gross
> > domestic product, no small sum.
>
> So the economy would actually slow down, while the dollar is already
> dropping on the open market. Great idea...
>
> > Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth.
>
> None of it would be new growth. You don't grow demand when it drops.
>
> > Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top
> > $5 billion,
>
> Exxon would make less money, and less demand means less workers are
> needed, so Exxon would terminate the employment of workers. Most of that
> "savings" would be taken away due to the lost income of workers.
>
> > Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10
> > billion on shirts, pants and dresses.
>
> Needing less cotton for each shirt means the garment workers need to spend
> less time making each shirt, which means less workers are needed. Less
> cotton per shirt means the cotton growers have less demand for cotton.
> Again, most of that "savings" would be taken
>
> > Cynthia Istook, an associate professor in textile apparel at North Carolina
> > State University, says the economies of making fewer sizes would be
> > tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip
> > and bust sizes,
>
> A lot of women's "plus sized" clothing stores offer that already! They
> would all go out of business though.
>
> > Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the
> > way, America's 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too many.
> > That's 14 billion Big Mac meals, with fries and a soda. Eliminate those and
> > you wipe out $81 billion, or McDonald's past four years of sales.
>
> And then where would teenagers get their first job? More "savings" thrown
> out the window.
>
> Mind you, I'm not even talking about the lost income due to the stock
> market. What would McDonald's share holders do? That's right, dump the
> stock.
>
> > If Americans were slim and maintained their weight by eating 150 fewer
> > calories a day (half a slice of pizza), that could snip roughly 6.5%, or
> > $20 billion a year, off U.S. farmers' sales (assuming no extra exports).
>
> Really shafting US farmers, who wouldn't need to hire as much farm help,
> thus negating more "savings" again.
>
> > The medical costs of obesity-related problems such as diabetes, stroke and
> > heart disease run near $140 billion, or more than 6% of all health-care
> > costs.
>
> Doctors, hospitals, drug companies... More workers out of jobs.
>
> > Productivity in the workplace would jump as people took fewer sick days and
> > spent less time at work feeling unwell.
>
> I have taken about 3 or 4 sick says since I started with my current job
> back in 2004, and currently have 234.17 hours on the books for vacation.
>
> > What to do with all that money?
>
> Give most of it back in the form of unemployed workers having no money to
> spend, except for what they get in unemployment benefits.
>
> > Some even argue that global warming would slow a mite,
> > as consumption of gas, energy, fertilizer and methane-producing cattle
> > decreased.
>
> And some scientists STILL INSIST that global warming is a 100% natural
> cycle. They just aren't given press coverage.

I agree with you Bro!

Somebody should write an article about how much money we would save if
there was no hatred, prejudice, and bigotry in this world. Just think
of how much money would be saved if we didn't have any more wars, and
how much would be saved if we feed all the hungry people in the world,
because hunger, and lack of resources, often lead to violence and war
which exacts heavy costs in the number of deaths, and damage to
civilization.

I grew up knowing about the cost of hatred when I went to school as a
kid, back in the 1960s. I'm 46 years old now.

And yes, I'm a fat person at only 5 ft 6 in and 400 pounds.

When I was 4 years old, I fell out of a car, and busted my left knee
on the road, so as a kid, my left leg was crippled up, and I walked
with a limp, and I could not run, and I was lousy at sports.

My mother taught me how to read and write before I even started
school, and by the time I was only in the 3rd grade, I was already
reading at the high school and adult level. When I was 13, I scored
150 points on a standard IQ test, so going through school should have
been a breeze for me. Science was my favorite subject, especially
Astronomy.

But then, back in 1962 I believe, the President's Council on Physical
Fitness said that Americans were out of shape and that we all needed
to go on 50 mile hikes, and then, our schools became super gung-ho on
Physical Education, while cutting back on academics.

In the 4th grade, I was suspended from school because I failed to
climb a rope in a gymnasium. In the 5th grade I had my first male
teacher who made my life a living Hell in the PE class. He would
humiliate me in front of all the other students, and one day he
punched me in the stomach with a basketball. Then there was another
time when our class went to the school library. There was this one
Astronomy book that I wanted to check out, but the teacher would not
allow me to have that book. When I asked why he let all the other kids
check out any book they wanted, but not me, he dragged me out of the
library, out into the hallway, grabbed me by the shoulders, and bashed
my head up against the corner of a concrete block wall. The following
year, that teacher was fired and could not get a teaching job anywhere
else. But for years after that, from the age of 11 years and through
out my teen ages years, I had dizzy spells and headaches as a result
of my head injuries.

I suffered a lot of mental and emotional problems, and during my teen
age years, I gained a lot of weight, and I got fat, weighing about 280
pounds by the time I was only 17 years old.

In school I was harassed and bullied around by the jocks. I was called
a "fat sissy boy" because I didn't care for sports, and in high
school, I wanted nothing to do with the drug scene. I tried to avoid
anyone who was using drugs, but a couple of pusher keep harassing me,
trying to get me to try some of their stuff. Then I made a stupid
mistake. I turned them in, because they wouldn't leave me alone. After
than, I was harassed even more. In the art class, my oil paintings
were destroyed, I had books stolen from me, and my life was even
threatened, so for my own safety, I had to drop out of school. After
that, I had a total breakdown, mentally and emotionally, and spent
three weeks in a mental hospital, where I was beatened on a regular
bases, and one night, I was raped by an older man. I was 17 years old
at the time, and after I came home from the mental hospital, after the
effects of the drugs wore off, my weight shot up from 220 pounds to
around 280 pounds in less than two months!

When I turned 18, I was in no condition mentally and emotionally to
holed a job, so my mother had to file a claim for disability on my
behalf, and of course, this was back in 1969 during the Viet Nam war,
so I had to register for the draft, but the Army reject me because I
was about 120 pounds overweight. Actually, I was glad for that,
because it meant that I didn't have to go to Viet Nam and die for a
country that treated me like a 4th class citizen.

Since I never graduated High School, I took the GED Test, and I scored
high in it, and got a certificate that is as good as a High School
Diploma, and from 1975 to 1978 I tried going to Collage where I
majored in Physics and Astronomy, but I never completed my degree. I
was under a lot of emotional stress. I made Bs in most of my math
classes, and I love Trigonometry. For me its' fun, but I couldn't hack
being under too much stress. I have become emotionally fragile, unable
to control my emotions, probably due to my head injuries and some
other factors in my life.

And so, I have been a victim of prejudice and hatred, the same kind of
bigotry being spouted off by the likes of people like Shirley Skeel,
who is a slimy green with the lust for money. All she cares about is
money, and she does not care if human lives are put on the Sacrificial
Alter of Capitalism and Greed just to save a few bucks.

I'm more interested in saving human lives than saving money!

As for me, being fat has done me no harm, and has actually protected
me from more serious injuries from beatings I had received in the
past. But the hatred, just for being different, had taken a far
greater tole on me than my weight ever could.

Hey, because I'm fat, I actually save more energy. I don't need to
have my thermostat set so high during the winter months and have my
home heated at tropical temperatures as thin people do. I'm too fat to
drive a car, so I use public transportation, thus saving more energy.
Also, I have a slow metabolism. Normal body temperature is about 98.6
degrees, while mine averages 96.5 degrees. That usually indicated
hypothyroid, but I've been checked for that, and the lab results
always come back negative. I can maintain my weight on fewer calories
than the average size person, thus saving more on food. It's been said
that to maintain a weight of 400 pounds, that it would take about 4000
calories, but I can maintain my weight on just 2500 calories per day.

I know a lot of skinny people, like my younger brother for example:
who is much taller, and only weighs about 160 pounds, and he eats a
Hell of a lot more than I do, but he is not anymore active than I am,
because he is also crippled up and walks with a cane, and he needed to
use a cane about 10 years before I finally needed one myself. He has
had surgery done on one of his feet, and he has incurred far more
medical expenses than I have.

I'm not harming anybody else, but I have been harmed several times
repeatedly, and it has cost me much. I'm unable to hold a job, not
because of my weight, but because I'm far less able to cope with
emotional stress than most people, thanks to all that had happened to
me, so my earning potential is greatly reduced. I plan to go back to
working on my oil paintings again, and perhaps I might be able to
supplement my meager income.

And so, someone should publish an article about the high cost, of
prejudice, hatred, and bigotry!

I say we need more fat people in this world, and we need to get even
fatter!

Most of the fat people I have known were very kind and gentle people.
I only knew a few who were mean or aggressive, but most of us fat
people are gentle and more docile. We are far less pron to committing
violent crimes, and fat men have much lower suicide rates than thin
people.

I hope more and more people become obese, and when every man, woman,
and child is obese, we will all be too soft and weak to want to fight
in anymore bloody wars, and we will have to depend more on human
intelligence to solve our conflicts, and seek more peaceful solutions.

Increasing obesity around the world may one day bring about world
peace, thus saving even more money.

On Apr 29, 8:29 am, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Marge wrote:
> > What if no one were fat?
> > Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
> > other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.
>
> If everyone was skinny, the fat people would buy less food, need to buy
> less gas to make their car move, save money on medical costs, things of
> that sort. The majority of the savings would go to the fat people. The
> only savings that an already skinny person gets would be do to the
> lowering of demand. Less gas bought means less demand, means lower
> prices. Very misleading story already, and that's only in the synopsys.
>
> > In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost 33% of
> > adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds
> > overweight. But . . .
>
> 33% skinny
> 33% over
> 33% obese
>
> Sounds like the normal numbers... Skinny people are outnumbered... We
> need to elect a fat president, to protect the rights of fat americans.
>
> > Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more
> > jobs or higher wages all around.
>
> I call bull shit on that one.
>
> If I was skinny, my productivity wouldn't be affected. I have a desk job,
> I sit on my fat ass all day long. If it was skinny, I'd still be sitting
> on it at my desk. Would I some how sit on my ass faster?
>
> Do you mean the productivity of fat people who have manual labor jobs?
> How many fat people have manual labor jobs? If they have to be on their
> feet walking 8 hours a day, that's a lot of exercise. And since they are
> already doing it, I doubt that productivity would rise much, if at all.
>
> No new jobs would be created, nor would wages increase.
>
> Arguably, since food would be more abundant, farmers would go out of
> business. People buying less food means that less time at the check stand
> at the store, which means less cashiers would be needed. In fact, there
> would be more unemployment, not the other way around...
>
> > $487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants
> > Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner, meaner
> > country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5% of gross
> > domestic product, no small sum.
>
> So the economy would actually slow down, while the dollar is already
> dropping on the open market. Great idea...
>
> > Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth.
>
> None of it would be new growth. You don't grow demand when it drops.
>
> > Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top
> > $5 billion,
>
> Exxon would make less money, and less demand means less workers are
> needed, so Exxon would terminate the employment of workers. Most of that
> "savings" would be taken away due to the lost income of workers.
>
> > Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10
> > billion on shirts, pants and dresses.
>
> Needing less cotton for each shirt means the garment workers need to spend
> less time making each shirt, which means less workers are needed. Less
> cotton per shirt means the cotton growers have less demand for cotton.
> Again, most of that "savings" would be taken
>
> > Cynthia Istook, an associate professor in textile apparel at North Carolina
> > State University, says the economies of making fewer sizes would be
> > tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip
> > and bust sizes,
>
> A lot of women's "plus sized" clothing stores offer that already! They
> would all go out of business though.
>
> > Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the
> > way, America's 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too many.
> > That's 14 billion Big Mac meals, with fries and a soda. Eliminate those and
> > you wipe out $81 billion, or McDonald's past four years of sales.
>
> And then where would teenagers get their first job? More "savings" thrown
> out the window.
>
> Mind you, I'm not even talking about the lost income due to the stock
> market. What would McDonald's share holders do? That's right, dump the
> stock.
>
> > If Americans were slim and maintained their weight by eating 150 fewer
> > calories a day (half a slice of pizza), that could snip roughly 6.5%, or
> > $20 billion a year, off U.S. farmers' sales (assuming no extra exports).
>
> Really shafting US farmers, who wouldn't need to hire as much farm help,
> thus negating more "savings" again.
>
> > The medical costs of obesity-related problems such as diabetes, stroke and
> > heart disease run near $140 billion, or more than 6% of all health-care
> > costs.
>
> Doctors, hospitals, drug companies... More workers out of jobs.
>
> > Productivity in the workplace would jump as people took fewer sick days and
> > spent less time at work feeling unwell.
>
> I have taken about 3 or 4 sick says since I started with my current job
> back in 2004, and currently have 234.17 hours on the books for vacation.
>
> > What to do with all that money?
>
> Give most of it back in the form of unemployed workers having no money to
> spend, except for what they get in unemployment benefits.
>
> > Some even argue that global warming would slow a mite,
> > as consumption of gas, energy, fertilizer and methane-producing cattle
> > decreased.
>
> And some scientists STILL INSIST that global warming is a 100% natural
> cycle. They just aren't given press coverage.

I agree with you Bro!

Somebody should write an article about how much money we would save if
there was no hatred, prejudice, and bigotry in this world. Just think
of how much money would be saved if we didn't have any more wars, and
how much would be saved if we feed all the hungry people in the world,
because hunger, and lack of resources, often lead to violence and war
which exacts heavy costs in the number of deaths, and damage to
civilization.

I grew up knowing about the cost of hatred when I went to school as a
kid, back in the 1960s. I'm 46 years old now.

And yes, I'm a fat person at only 5 ft 6 in and 400 pounds.

When I was 4 years old, I fell out of a car, and busted my left knee
on the road, so as a kid, my left leg was crippled up, and I walked
with a limp, and I could not run, and I was lousy at sports.

My mother taught me how to read and write before I even started
school, and by the time I was only in the 3rd grade, I was already
reading at the high school and adult level. When I was 13, I scored
150 points on a standard IQ test, so going through school should have
been a breeze for me. Science was my favorite subject, especially
Astronomy.

But then, back in 1962 I believe, the President's Council on Physical
Fitness said that Americans were out of shape and that we all needed
to go on 50 mile hikes, and then, our schools became super gung-ho on
Physical Education, while cutting back on academics.

In the 4th grade, I was suspended from school because I failed to
climb a rope in a gymnasium. In the 5th grade I had my first male
teacher who made my life a living Hell in the PE class. He would
humiliate me in front of all the other students, and one day he
punched me in the stomach with a basketball. Then there was another
time when our class went to the school library. There was this one
Astronomy book that I wanted to check out, but the teacher would not
allow me to have that book. When I asked why he let all the other kids
check out any book they wanted, but not me, he dragged me out of the
library, out into the hallway, grabbed me by the shoulders, and bashed
my head up against the corner of a concrete block wall. The following
year, that teacher was fired and could not get a teaching job anywhere
else. But for years after that, from the age of 11 years and through
out my teen ages years, I had dizzy spells and headaches as a result
of my head injuries.

I suffered a lot of mental and emotional problems, and during my teen
age years, I gained a lot of weight, and I got fat, weighing about 280
pounds by the time I was only 17 years old.

In school I was harassed and bullied around by the jocks. I was called
a "fat sissy boy" because I didn't care for sports, and in high
school, I wanted nothing to do with the drug scene. I tried to avoid
anyone who was using drugs, but a couple of pusher keep harassing me,
trying to get me to try some of their stuff. Then I made a stupid
mistake. I turned them in, because they wouldn't leave me alone. After
than, I was harassed even more. In the art class, my oil paintings
were destroyed, I had books stolen from me, and my life was even
threatened, so for my own safety, I had to drop out of school. After
that, I had a total breakdown, mentally and emotionally, and spent
three weeks in a mental hospital, where I was beatened on a regular
bases, and one night, I was raped by an older man. I was 17 years old
at the time, and after I came home from the mental hospital, after the
effects of the drugs wore off, my weight shot up from 220 pounds to
around 280 pounds in less than two months!

When I turned 18, I was in no condition mentally and emotionally to
holed a job, so my mother had to file a claim for disability on my
behalf, and of course, this was back in 1969 during the Viet Nam war,
so I had to register for the draft, but the Army reject me because I
was about 120 pounds overweight. Actually, I was glad for that,
because it meant that I didn't have to go to Viet Nam and die for a
country that treated me like a 4th class citizen.

Since I never graduated High School, I took the GED Test, and I scored
high in it, and got a certificate that is as good as a High School
Diploma, and from 1975 to 1978 I tried going to Collage where I
majored in Physics and Astronomy, but I never completed my degree. I
was under a lot of emotional stress. I made Bs in most of my math
classes, and I love Trigonometry. For me its' fun, but I couldn't hack
being under too much stress. I have become emotionally fragile, unable
to control my emotions, probably due to my head injuries and some
other factors in my life.

And so, I have been a victim of prejudice and hatred, the same kind of
bigotry being spouted off by the likes of people like Shirley Skeel,
who is a slimy green with the lust for money. All she cares about is
money, and she does not care if human lives are put on the Sacrificial
Alter of Capitalism and Greed just to save a few bucks.

I'm more interested in saving human lives than saving money!

As for me, being fat has done me no harm, and has actually protected
me from more serious injuries from beatings I had received in the
past. But the hatred, just for being different, had taken a far
greater tole on me than my weight ever could.

Hey, because I'm fat, I actually save more energy. I don't need to
have my thermostat set so high during the winter months and have my
home heated at tropical temperatures as thin people do. I'm too fat to
drive a car, so I use public transportation, thus saving more energy.
Also, I have a slow metabolism. Normal body temperature is about 98.6
degrees, while mine averages 96.5 degrees. That usually indicated
hypothyroid, but I've been checked for that, and the lab results
always come back negative. I can maintain my weight on fewer calories
than the average size person, thus saving more on food. It's been said
that to maintain a weight of 400 pounds, that it would take about 4000
calories, but I can maintain my weight on just 2500 calories per day.

I know a lot of skinny people, like my younger brother for example:
who is much taller, and only weighs about 160 pounds, and he eats a
Hell of a lot more than I do, but he is not anymore active than I am,
because he is also crippled up and walks with a cane, and he needed to
use a cane about 10 years before I finally needed one myself. He has
had surgery done on one of his feet, and he has incurred far more
medical expenses than I have.

I'm not harming anybody else, but I have been harmed several times
repeatedly, and it has cost me much. I'm unable to hold a job, not
because of my weight, but because I'm far less able to cope with
emotional stress than most people, thanks to all that had happened to
me, so my earning potential is greatly reduced. I plan to go back to
working on my oil paintings again, and perhaps I might be able to
supplement my meager income.

And so, someone should publish an article about the high cost, of
prejudice, hatred, and bigotry!

I say we need more fat people in this world, and we need to get even
fatter!

Most of the fat people I have known were very kind and gentle people.
I only knew a few who were mean or aggressive, but most of us fat
people are gentle and more docile. We are far less pron to committing
violent crimes, and fat men have much lower suicide rates than thin
people.

I hope more and more people become obese, and when every man, woman,
and child is obese, we will all be too soft and weak to want to fight
in anymore bloody wars, and we will have to depend more on human
intelligence to solve our conflicts, and seek more peaceful solutions.

Increasing obesity around the world may one day bring about world
peace, thus saving even more money.

On Apr 29, 8:29 am, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Marge wrote:
> > What if no one were fat?
> > Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
> > other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.
>
> If everyone was skinny, the fat people would buy less food, need to buy
> less gas to make their car move, save money on medical costs, things of
> that sort. The majority of the savings would go to the fat people. The
> only savings that an already skinny person gets would be do to the
> lowering of demand. Less gas bought means less demand, means lower
> prices. Very misleading story already, and that's only in the synopsys.
>
> > In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost 33% of
> > adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds
> > overweight. But . . .
>
> 33% skinny
> 33% over
> 33% obese
>
> Sounds like the normal numbers... Skinny people are outnumbered... We
> need to elect a fat president, to protect the rights of fat americans.
>
> > Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more
> > jobs or higher wages all around.
>
> I call bull shit on that one.
>
> If I was skinny, my productivity wouldn't be affected. I have a desk job,
> I sit on my fat ass all day long. If it was skinny, I'd still be sitting
> on it at my desk. Would I some how sit on my ass faster?
>
> Do you mean the productivity of fat people who have manual labor jobs?
> How many fat people have manual labor jobs? If they have to be on their
> feet walking 8 hours a day, that's a lot of exercise. And since they are
> already doing it, I doubt that productivity would rise much, if at all.
>
> No new jobs would be created, nor would wages increase.
>
> Arguably, since food would be more abundant, farmers would go out of
> business. People buying less food means that less time at the check stand
> at the store, which means less cashiers would be needed. In fact, there
> would be more unemployment, not the other way around...
>
> > $487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants
> > Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner, meaner
> > country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5% of gross
> > domestic product, no small sum.
>
> So the economy would actually slow down, while the dollar is already
> dropping on the open market. Great idea...
>
> > Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth.
>
> None of it would be new growth. You don't grow demand when it drops.
>
> > Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top
> > $5 billion,
>
> Exxon would make less money, and less demand means less workers are
> needed, so Exxon would terminate the employment of workers. Most of that
> "savings" would be taken away due to the lost income of workers.
>
> > Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10
> > billion on shirts, pants and dresses.
>
> Needing less cotton for each shirt means the garment workers need to spend
> less time making each shirt, which means less workers are needed. Less
> cotton per shirt means the cotton growers have less demand for cotton.
> Again, most of that "savings" would be taken
>
> > Cynthia Istook, an associate professor in textile apparel at North Carolina
> > State University, says the economies of making fewer sizes would be
> > tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip
> > and bust sizes,
>
> A lot of women's "plus sized" clothing stores offer that already! They
> would all go out of business though.
>
> > Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the
> > way, America's 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too many.
> > That's 14 billion Big Mac meals, with fries and a soda. Eliminate those and
> > you wipe out $81 billion, or McDonald's past four years of sales.
>
> And then where would teenagers get their first job? More "savings" thrown
> out the window.
>
> Mind you, I'm not even talking about the lost income due to the stock
> market. What would McDonald's share holders do? That's right, dump the
> stock.
>
> > If Americans were slim and maintained their weight by eating 150 fewer
> > calories a day (half a slice of pizza), that could snip roughly 6.5%, or
> > $20 billion a year, off U.S. farmers' sales (assuming no extra exports).
>
> Really shafting US farmers, who wouldn't need to hire as much farm help,
> thus negating more "savings" again.
>
> > The medical costs of obesity-related problems such as diabetes, stroke and
> > heart disease run near $140 billion, or more than 6% of all health-care
> > costs.
>
> Doctors, hospitals, drug companies... More workers out of jobs.
>
> > Productivity in the workplace would jump as people took fewer sick days and
> > spent less time at work feeling unwell.
>
> I have taken about 3 or 4 sick says since I started with my current job
> back in 2004, and currently have 234.17 hours on the books for vacation.
>
> > What to do with all that money?
>
> Give most of it back in the form of unemployed workers having no money to
> spend, except for what they get in unemployment benefits.
>
> > Some even argue that global warming would slow a mite,
> > as consumption of gas, energy, fertilizer and methane-producing cattle
> > decreased.
>
> And some scientists STILL INSIST that global warming is a 100% natural
> cycle. They just aren't given press coverage.

I agree with you Bro!

Somebody should write an article about how much money we would save if
there was no hatred, prejudice, and bigotry in this world. Just think
of how much money would be saved if we didn't have any more wars, and
how much would be saved if we feed all the hungry people in the world,
because hunger, and lack of resources, often lead to violence and war
which exacts heavy costs in the number of deaths, and damage to
civilization.

I grew up knowing about the cost of hatred when I went to school as a
kid, back in the 1960s. I'm 46 years old now.

And yes, I'm a fat person at only 5 ft 6 in and 400 pounds.

When I was 4 years old, I fell out of a car, and busted my left knee
on the road, so as a kid, my left leg was crippled up, and I walked
with a limp, and I could not run, and I was lousy at sports.

My mother taught me how to read and write before I even started
school, and by the time I was only in the 3rd grade, I was already
reading at the high school and adult level. When I was 13, I scored
150 points on a standard IQ test, so going through school should have
been a breeze for me. Science was my favorite subject, especially
Astronomy.

But then, back in 1962 I believe, the President's Council on Physical
Fitness said that Americans were out of shape and that we all needed
to go on 50 mile hikes, and then, our schools became super gung-ho on
Physical Education, while cutting back on academics.

In the 4th grade, I was suspended from school because I failed to
climb a rope in a gymnasium. In the 5th grade I had my first male
teacher who made my life a living Hell in the PE class. He would
humiliate me in front of all the other students, and one day he
punched me in the stomach with a basketball. Then there was another
time when our class went to the school library. There was this one
Astronomy book that I wanted to check out, but the teacher would not
allow me to have that book. When I asked why he let all the other kids
check out any book they wanted, but not me, he dragged me out of the
library, out into the hallway, grabbed me by the shoulders, and bashed
my head up against the corner of a concrete block wall. The following
year, that teacher was fired and could not get a teaching job anywhere
else. But for years after that, from the age of 11 years and through
out my teen ages years, I had dizzy spells and headaches as a result
of my head injuries.

I suffered a lot of mental and emotional problems, and during my teen
age years, I gained a lot of weight, and I got fat, weighing about 280
pounds by the time I was only 17 years old.

In school I was harassed and bullied around by the jocks. I was called
a "fat sissy boy" because I didn't care for sports, and in high
school, I wanted nothing to do with the drug scene. I tried to avoid
anyone who was using drugs, but a couple of pusher keep harassing me,
trying to get me to try some of their stuff. Then I made a stupid
mistake. I turned them in, because they wouldn't leave me alone. After
than, I was harassed even more. In the art class, my oil paintings
were destroyed, I had books stolen from me, and my life was even
threatened, so for my own safety, I had to drop out of school. After
that, I had a total breakdown, mentally and emotionally, and spent
three weeks in a mental hospital, where I was beatened on a regular
bases, and one night, I was raped by an older man. I was 17 years old
at the time, and after I came home from the mental hospital, after the
effects of the drugs wore off, my weight shot up from 220 pounds to
around 280 pounds in less than two months!

When I turned 18, I was in no condition mentally and emotionally to
holed a job, so my mother had to file a claim for disability on my
behalf, and of course, this was back in 1969 during the Viet Nam war,
so I had to register for the draft, but the Army reject me because I
was about 120 pounds overweight. Actually, I was glad for that,
because it meant that I didn't have to go to Viet Nam and die for a
country that treated me like a 4th class citizen.

Since I never graduated High School, I took the GED Test, and I scored
high in it, and got a certificate that is as good as a High School
Diploma, and from 1975 to 1978 I tried going to Collage where I
majored in Physics and Astronomy, but I never completed my degree. I
was under a lot of emotional stress. I made Bs in most of my math
classes, and I love Trigonometry. For me its' fun, but I couldn't hack
being under too much stress. I have become emotionally fragile, unable
to control my emotions, probably due to my head injuries and some
other factors in my life.

And so, I have been a victim of prejudice and hatred, the same kind of
bigotry being spouted off by the likes of people like Shirley Skeel,
who is a slimy green with the lust for money. All she cares about is
money, and she does not care if human lives are put on the Sacrificial
Alter of Capitalism and Greed just to save a few bucks.

I'm more interested in saving human lives than saving money!

As for me, being fat has done me no harm, and has actually protected
me from more serious injuries from beatings I had received in the
past. But the hatred, just for being different, had taken a far
greater tole on me than my weight ever could.

Hey, because I'm fat, I actually save more energy. I don't need to
have my thermostat set so high during the winter months and have my
home heated at tropical temperatures as thin people do. I'm too fat to
drive a car, so I use public transportation, thus saving more energy.
Also, I have a slow metabolism. Normal body temperature is about 98.6
degrees, while mine averages 96.5 degrees. That usually indicated
hypothyroid, but I've been checked for that, and the lab results
always come back negative. I can maintain my weight on fewer calories
than the average size person, thus saving more on food. It's been said
that to maintain a weight of 400 pounds, that it would take about 4000
calories, but I can maintain my weight on just 2500 calories per day.

I know a lot of skinny people, like my younger brother for example:
who is much taller, and only weighs about 160 pounds, and he eats a
Hell of a lot more than I do, but he is not anymore active than I am,
because he is also crippled up and walks with a cane, and he needed to
use a cane about 10 years before I finally needed one myself. He has
had surgery done on one of his feet, and he has incurred far more
medical expenses than I have.

I'm not harming anybody else, but I have been harmed several times
repeatedly, and it has cost me much. I'm unable to hold a job, not
because of my weight, but because I'm far less able to cope with
emotional stress than most people, thanks to all that had happened to
me, so my earning potential is greatly reduced. I plan to go back to
working on my oil paintings again, and perhaps I might be able to
supplement my meager income.

And so, someone should publish an article about the high cost, of
prejudice, hatred, and bigotry!

I say we need more fat people in this world, and we need to get even
fatter!

Most of the fat people I have known were very kind and gentle people.
I only knew a few who were mean or aggressive, but most of us fat
people are gentle and more docile. We are far less pron to committing
violent crimes, and fat men have much lower suicide rates than thin
people.

I hope more and more people become obese, and when every man, woman,
and child is obese, we will all be too soft and weak to want to fight
in anymore bloody wars, and we will have to depend more on human
intelligence to solve our conflicts, and seek more peaceful solutions.

Increasing obesity around the world may one day bring about world
peace, thus saving even more money.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, FatTeddyBear@gmail.com wrote:
>
>I grew up knowing about the cost of hatred when I went to school as a
>kid, back in the 1960s. I'm 46 years old now.

<snip>

>When I turned 18, I was in no condition mentally and emotionally to
>holed a job, so my mother had to file a claim for disability on my
>behalf, and of course, this was back in 1969 during the Viet Nam war,
>so I had to register for the draft, but the Army reject me because I
>was about 120 pounds overweight.

<snip>

I'm calling bullshit!

"Monty" <monty@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:20080501024056.358914E599@outpost.zedz.net...
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, FatTeddyBear@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>I grew up knowing about the cost of hatred when I went to school as a
>>kid, back in the 1960s. I'm 46 years old now.
>
> <snip>
>
>>When I turned 18, I was in no condition mentally and emotionally to
>>holed a job, so my mother had to file a claim for disability on my
>>behalf, and of course, this was back in 1969 during the Viet Nam war,
>>so I had to register for the draft, but the Army reject me because I
>>was about 120 pounds overweight.
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm calling bullshit!
>
>

Because at age 46 he would have been born in 1962 and drafted at age 7?

On Apr 30, 8:40 pm, mo...@nowhere.com (Monty) wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, FatTeddyB...@gmail.com wrote:
>
On Apr 30, 9:02 pm, "jcderkoeing" <jcderkoe...@ibm.com> wrote:
> "Monty" <mo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:20080501024056.358914E599@outpost.zedz.net...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, FatTeddyB...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>I grew up knowing about the cost of hatred when I went to school as a
> >>kid, back in the 1960s. I'm 46 years old now.
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>When I turned 18, I was in no condition mentally and emotionally to
> >>holed a job, so my mother had to file a claim for disability on my
> >>behalf, and of course, this was back in 1969 during the Viet Nam war,
> >>so I had to register for the draft, but the Army reject me because I
> >>was about 120 pounds overweight.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > I'm calling bullshit!
>
> Because at age 46 he would have been born in 1962 and drafted at age 7?

Sorry! That was a typo! I meant to say 56 years old and NOT 46.

It was a typing error.

I have probably misspelled a few word as well, one is bound to make a
few mistakes when typing a long message.

I was born September 30, 1951, so my age of 46 was in error. I'm
actually 56.

It can happen to anybody!

Sorry about that! OK?

On Apr 30, 9:02 pm, "jcderkoeing" <jcderkoe...@ibm.com> wrote:
> "Monty" <mo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:20080501024056.358914E599@outpost.zedz.net...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, FatTeddyB...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>I grew up knowing about the cost of hatred when I went to school as a
> >>kid, back in the 1960s. I'm 46 years old now.
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>When I turned 18, I was in no condition mentally and emotionally to
> >>holed a job, so my mother had to file a claim for disability on my
> >>behalf, and of course, this was back in 1969 during the Viet Nam war,
> >>so I had to register for the draft, but the Army reject me because I
> >>was about 120 pounds overweight.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > I'm calling bullshit!
>
> Because at age 46 he would have been born in 1962 and drafted at age 7?

Sorry! That was a typo! I meant to say 56 years old and NOT 46.

It was a typing error.

I have probably misspelled a few word as well, one is bound to make a
few mistakes when typing a long message.

I was born September 30, 1951, so my age of 46 was in error. I'm
actually 56.

It can happen to anybody!

Sorry about that! OK?

FatTeddyBear@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 30, 9:02 pm, "jcderkoeing" <jcderkoe...@ibm.com> wrote:
>> "Monty" <mo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:20080501024056.358914E599@outpost.zedz.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, FatTeddyB...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> I grew up knowing about the cost of hatred when I went to school
>>>> as a kid, back in the 1960s. I'm 46 years old now.
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>>> When I turned 18, I was in no condition mentally and emotionally to
>>>> holed a job, so my mother had to file a claim for disability on my
>>>> behalf, and of course, this was back in 1969 during the Viet Nam
>>>> war, so I had to register for the draft, but the Army reject me
>>>> because I was about 120 pounds overweight.
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> I'm calling bullshit!
>>
>> Because at age 46 he would have been born in 1962 and drafted at age
>> 7?
>
> Sorry! That was a typo! I meant to say 56 years old and NOT 46.
>
> It was a typing error.
>
> I have probably misspelled a few word as well, one is bound to make a
> few mistakes when typing a long message.
>
> I was born September 30, 1951, so my age of 46 was in error. I'm
> actually 56.
>
> It can happen to anybody!
>
> Sorry about that! OK?

Nope, a Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.

Dont make a mess of the carpet.

FatTeddyBear@gmail.com wrote
> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote
>> Marge wrote

>>> What if no one were fat?
>>> Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel,
>>> food and other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household
>>> more than $4,000.

>> If everyone was skinny, the fat people would buy less food, need to
>> buy less gas to make their car move, save money on medical costs,
>> things of that sort. The majority of the savings would go to the
>> fat people. The only savings that an already skinny person gets
>> would be do to the lowering of demand. Less gas bought means less
>> demand, means lower prices. Very misleading story already, and
>> that's only in the synopsys.

>>> In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost
>>> 33% of adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than
>>> 100 pounds overweight. But . . .

>> 33% skinny
>> 33% over
>> 33% obese

>> Sounds like the normal numbers... Skinny people are outnumbered...
>> We need to elect a fat president, to protect the rights of fat americans.

>>> Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of
>>> thousands more jobs or higher wages all around.

>> I call bull shit on that one.

>> If I was skinny, my productivity wouldn't be affected. I have a desk
>> job, I sit on my fat ass all day long. If it was skinny, I'd still be sitting
>> on it at my desk. Would I some how sit on my ass faster?

>> Do you mean the productivity of fat people who have manual labor
>> jobs? How many fat people have manual labor jobs? If they have to
>> be on their feet walking 8 hours a day, that's a lot of exercise.
>> And since they are already doing it, I doubt that productivity would
>> rise much, if at all.

>> No new jobs would be created, nor would wages increase.

>> Arguably, since food would be more abundant, farmers would go out of
>> business. People buying less food means that less time at the check
>> stand at the store, which means less cashiers would be needed. In
>> fact, there would be more unemployment, not the other way around...

>>> $487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants
>>> Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner,
>>> meaner country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5%
>>> of gross domestic product, no small sum.

>> So the economy would actually slow down, while the dollar is already
>> dropping on the open market. Great idea...

>>> Mind you, only 1.8% of that is new growth.

>> None of it would be new growth. You don't grow demand when it drops