When Did Fat People Turn Into Sith Lords?

I was reading an article on Newsweek http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/09/16/cleveland-clinic-ceo-apologizes-to-overweight-staffers.aspx and apparently a CEO in Cleveland said that if he could legally avoid hiring fat people he would. He sounded shocked in his apology that any of his fat employees were offended and stated that he didn’t mean to hurt their feelings. Apparently he made it clear that he hates obesity but not obese people.

We’ve had a long and illustrious history of “hate the sin, love the sinner” in this country. In the early 20th century we thoughtfully told ethnicities that we didn’t hate them because they were Black, Asian, or Hispanic, we just couldn’t love them because they weren’t white. In the latter part of the 20th century we told homosexuals that if they would just stop being what they are, or at the very least have the decency to be celibate their whole lives, we could all get along happily. Now we tell fat people we don’t hate them because their fat, but we have to hate them for their own good until their skinny.

I just feel like everyone in this world loves the skinny girl inside me so much they can’t help but do their best to support her.

So when did obesity become a headline? When did being fat become akin to killing a baby or two? Have I massacred the Jedi while I was sleeping?

Let’s think about this logically for a second; even if we accept some of the stereotypes as true, fat people are lazy, fat people are dirty, fat people are worthless--we still haven’t touched on a great many problems that (I feel at least) could use our attention. Pedophilia, not tied to weight. Rape, not tied to weight. Murder, not tied to weight. Torture (and/or invading other countries on false pretences) not tied to weight. But let’s really focus on diabetes and obesity because that is OBVIOUSLY the world’s biggest problem.

And it isn’t that I don’t see the point of educating people about the health risks of eating cookies (and cake and ice cream) or smoking, but charging those members of society that have “avoidable” problems has yet to lead us down a good path. First of all, our definition of avoidable has included everything from homosexuality to bi-racial marriage. Glad no one’s ruining society with those anymore. Secondly, when people are forced or punished for their failure to live as they will within reason the part where we’re supposed to be living in a republic gets iffy. Now, we could argue over the “within reason”; what is within reason? It’s a good question.

Perhaps within reason would include your basic behaviors like non-violence, non-thievery, not committing genocide, and basic considerations like not spitting on each other, cleaning up after pets, and not running down pedestrians who cross when they aren’t supposed to. Let’s consider adding on to this now: every member of society should contribute as much as their potential allows; they should be healthy; they should create as little of a stir as possible in the economy while serving as the perfect consumer. Wow, that really does sound like a utopia doesn’t it? To never be annoyed be a fat person next to you on a plane; to never have to consider why someone on welfare should or should not receive it. To never have to accept that a lifestyle you abhor could make someone happy. It would so simple; it would so perfect. We would be a society of perfect beings each making each other perfectly happy. Wait a minute...didn’t they try that once before? In Germany? Say, oh, about 1930’s or so?

Maybe you think I’m being too extreme. After all, fat people DO cost society money. And what right do the obese have to health care? If no one needed health care then all of our premiums would go down and our preventative costs would be so low. And it’s a good argument; why should we pay out for health care costs that could be avoided? Why should we allow people to exist in a state that is unbeneficial to society? Why should we consider health care a right instead of a business?

Then again, why don’t we carry this argument to its logical conclusion: if we are upset that particular groups cost the health care industry unnecessary money that in turn drives up the cost for everyone else, then all specific groups that are known money drains should be terminated from the health care plan. This includes but is not limited to:
1) The elderly--come on, once you hit seventy you’re health is only going to get worse. It only makes sense to deny them health care as their days of productivity are long gone and there is no economical gain for keeping them alive.
2) The premature--sure there’s a chance a premature baby will survive, but the more premature it is the lesser that chance and the greater amount it will cost. Healthcare should not be afforded until the child has proven itself viable and not a drain on society’s resources.
3) The mentally disabled--why should counseling, Special Olympics, or any other myriad of programs be supported? And why should any mentally disabled person be provided healthcare? They drain society’s resources, even when supported by family.
4) Anyone who has ever attended a rehab facility of any sort--whatever you did to land yourself in that rehab facility could have been avoided. You now, therefore, have a pre-existing condition that should disqualify you from affordable health care. Perhaps, given enough time if you can prove yourself a healthy, stable individual who will not take out more than you pay in, you could be granted health care sometime in the future. Unless of course your years of abuse have caused chronic health issues. Then you’re on your own.

What’s wrong with this plan? Why wouldn’t people like this? It’s a plan based solely on economic growth that completely and totally reduces people to numbers: how much they put in versus how much they take out. There is no “right to life” or “freedom” in the economy. You don’t have a right to live poorly or waste your life or (heaven forbid) be unattractive. This plan is feasible through methods like public shaming and not so subtle hints that particular groups are hated not, exactly, for what they are, but certainly for what they’re not.

Arguing that all obesity isn’t controllable isn’t the way to get things done either; that is a kinder, gentler way of saying “You can’t help but be the fat slob that you are and while I never want to have sex with you, I wish you all the best.” No, the only solution here is to force gastric by-pass surgery on the obese; a one time cost that would thoughtfully and considerately mutilate their body into something more economically viable.

Because this is a SERIOUS issue in the world today. Your role as a citizen and an American depends on your ability to be healthy, attractive, and productive. Our economy is failing not because CEO’s ran their companies into the ground, or banks engaged in predatory lending, but because YOU, Mr. And Mrs. Fat Person, have type 2 diabetes. Our world is a mess not because various nuclear warheads are unaccounted for or terrorists like to blow people up, but because YOU, you big fat slob, dared to have joint trouble. The size of YOUR ASS is directly related to the war in Iraq.

It’s not funny cause it’s true. That last sentence was logic actually used by an eighteen-year-old.

How does our news shape our perception of morality?