If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Hidden Benefits of Body Size" (whoops, kind of long)
Sorry if this posts twice, but it is not appearing for me -- it showed up
for a minute and then said it was no longer available on the server. So I am trying again! I was intrigued with the idea when I first heard it a few years ago (from Dr. Phil, I think) -- that we remain overweight for some "payoff" reason that is usually unconscious. I had a hard time with that one, feeling as though I would do anything to be thin, and hated being fat. Yet despite *22 years* of trying to get below 200, making more effort toward losing weight than anyone else I knew, I couldn't do it. Now that I'm reading "The Solution" by Laurel Mellin, I'm reminded of this concept because there's a section in there called "The Hidden Benefits of Body Size." I found it intriguing enough to quote here and hope it will spark some thought and conversation: "Maintaining a body size larger than our biologic comfort zone is how we send wordless messages to others. Even if we spend years dieting and sweating off pounds, this voice will express itself through a relentless sabotage that results in weight staying rock solid. "Little or none of this is conscious. We don't *purposely* sabotage our healthy eating and scuttle our exercise plans to keep our weight high, *but it may still be happening.* We seem to spontaneously regain the weight without really knowing why. "What is our challenge? To give that voice words and sound so that it can speak directly and stop expressing itself through extra weight." Then it goes on and gives examples of case studies of people who used their weight to say, "I don't want you to know me. Stay away." or "I feel powerless. Taking up space gives me power." or "Don't expect too much from me." None of these reasons was realized consciously, and some of the people were "aghast" to find out what they were using their weight to say. There's also a box with many common messages people use: "What does your weight say for you? "Don't notice me. I am not important. I am powerful. I feel powerless. I am a good mother. Feel sorry for me. I don't want sex. I am stable and dependable. Don't mess with me. Don't expect too much of me. I am not perfect. Stay away from me. I feel angry. I am afraid to be all I can be. I am not worthy. I have given up. I am loyal to my family. I don't want to grow up. I don't want you to judge me. I reject you. I need space. I need love." I immediately recognized, "I don't want to grow up," and perhaps "I need space," as well as "I need love" and a few more. I want to examine more of these and see which apply -- indeed that's what the author suggests: "Obviously, our weight speaks to the world in paragraphs, not just sentences. If you maintain a slight distance ... saying to yourself, "I wonder what my weight says for me now?" you'll probably come back to this question over and over again, and come up with a different answer each time. All the sentiments that your weight communicates for you can be brought to your awareness and expressed verbally. Each time you use words, not your weight, to express yourself, you'll *need* the extra weight less. Then it becomes easier and easier to attain the weight you've determined is best for your health and happiness." If this rings a bell for any of you, I highly recommend borrowing this book from the library. Again, it's "The Solution" by Laurel Mellin. Mary M 325-163-145 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I quickly read through people's responses and am on my way out the door soon
so I can't write right now -- but I am looking forward to responding to those posts because they have given me a lot to think about. I can relate so much to the concept of still thinking of myself as fat -- "ghost fat" that I still see and I expect others to see it too -- am still a bit dumbfounded by it all ... Mary |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mary M/Ohio
wrote: Sorry if this posts twice, but it is not appearing for me -- it showed up for a minute and then said it was no longer available on the server. So I am trying again! I was intrigued with the idea when I first heard it a few years ago (from Dr. Phil, I think) -- that we remain overweight for some "payoff" reason that is usually unconscious. Just as Dr, Phil maintains his fascination with weight issues because for him it's a big pay off. -- Diva ***** Hostile cooperation is at the core of passive-aggression, |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Carol Frilegh" wrote in message ... In article , Mary M/Ohio wrote: Sorry if this posts twice, but it is not appearing for me -- it showed up for a minute and then said it was no longer available on the server. So I am trying again! I was intrigued with the idea when I first heard it a few years ago (from Dr. Phil, I think) -- that we remain overweight for some "payoff" reason that is usually unconscious. Just as Dr, Phil maintains his fascination with weight issues because for him it's a big pay off. Yes, I'm not enamored with him, but I've learned to "take what you like and leave the rest" in regard to many things in life, including Dr. Phil! Mary |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Carol Frilegh" wrote in message ... In article , Mary M/Ohio wrote: Sorry if this posts twice, but it is not appearing for me -- it showed up for a minute and then said it was no longer available on the server. So I am trying again! I was intrigued with the idea when I first heard it a few years ago (from Dr. Phil, I think) -- that we remain overweight for some "payoff" reason that is usually unconscious. Just as Dr, Phil maintains his fascination with weight issues because for him it's a big pay off. Yes, I'm not enamored with him, but I've learned to "take what you like and leave the rest" in regard to many things in life, including Dr. Phil! Mary |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
numerous other pro-Israeli Neo-Cons inhabiting the Bush
Jr. administration. These pro-Israeli Neo-Cons had been schooled in the Machiavellian/Nietzschean theories of Professor Leo Strauss who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago in its Department of Political Science. The best exposé of Strauss's pernicious theories on law, politics, government, for elitism, and against democracy can be found in two scholarly books by the Canadian Professor of Political Philosophy Shadia B. Drury.2 I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was trained in Chicago's Political Science Department by Strauss's foremost protégé, co-author, and later literary executor Joseph Cropsey. Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago's Political Science Department (A.B., 1971, in Political Science), I concur completely with Professor Drury's devastating critique of Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process that has been inflicted by Chicago's Straussian Neo-Con cabal.3 The University of Chicago routinely trained me and innumerable other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is precisely why so many neophyte Neo-Con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago or towards Chicago Alumni at other universities. Years later, the University of Chicago b |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
-Garrison. As
has been shown by Summers, Davis, and David Scheim, being anti- Garrison is always a plus for media exposure. 2) If they found a conspiracy, Ewing's history would guarantee it would be mob- oriented. Another plus for media exposure. 3) As Anson reveals, Ewing has now broadened his character assassination talents from Garrison to the Kennedys (p. 110). Like John Davis, and against the record, Ewing believes RFK was not only in on the Castro plots but controlled them to the point of choosing which mobsters to use. His source on this? A "senior CIA official" (Anson p. 115). Did Ewing follow the Davis example and lunch with Richard Helms? Not since Gerald Posner has a book on the JFK case been as touted as Hersh's. It started in Esquire with a teaser article in its September 1996 issue. In July and September of this year, Liz Smith kept up the barrage of pro-Hersh blurbs in her column. The September 23rd notice stated that Hersh's book would focus on the Kennedys and Monroe and how RFK had Monroe killed. As everyone knows by now, the whole Monroe angle blew up in Hersh's face. When Hersh had to reluctantly admit on ABC that he had been had, he did it on |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
date of Collier's work
approximates the time when the Kennedy book idea was originated. Ignoring the shoddy approach and scholarly standards of the work, the New York Times, Washington Post, and New Republic all gave the book prominent and glowing reviews. In the latter case, Martin Peretz placed the book on the August 27, 1984 New Republic cover under the title "Dissolute Dynasty." He then got longtime Kennedy basher Midge Decter to write a long review that branded the saga "a sordid story." Right after this ecstatic reception, in 1985, Horowitz and Collier landed a feature story in the Washington Post as "Lefties for Reagan." Two years later, the pair went on a USIA-State Department sponsored tour of Nicaragua. This was at a time when the CIA was dumping millions into that country in a huge psychological and propaganda war effort. That same year, with lots of foundation money, the pair arranged a "Second Thoughts" conference in Washington. This was basically a meeting of "reformed" sixties liberals bent on attacking that decade and anyone who wished to hold it up as an era of excitement and/or progressive achievement. Peretz attended that conference. Later, they sponsored another conference entitled "Second Thoughts on Race in America." This might have been called the Washington Post take on race in the eighties since it featured such Kay Graham-Ben Bradlee employees as Richard Cohen, Juan Williams, and Joe Klein. Today, these two see themselves as armed guards protecting America from any renaissance of sixties activism after Reagan. They are quite open about this and Kennedy's role in it in Destructive Generation: "Just as Eisenhower's holding action in the Fifties led to JFK's New Frontier liberalism in the Sixties...so the clamped-down Reaganism of the Eighties has precipitated the current radical resurgence...." Is one to conclude that Clinton |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
the "second assassination" from the right - i.e. the use of
scandal to stamp out Kennedy's reputation and legacy. That something was the Church Committee. Belated revelations about the CIA's role in Watergate, and later of the CIA's illegal domestic operations created a critical firestorm demanding a full-scale investigation of the CIA. The fallout from Watergate had produced large Democratic majorities in both houses of congress via the 1974 elections. This majority, combined with some of the moderate Republicans, managed to form special congressional committees. The committee in the Senate was headed by Idaho's Frank Church. Other leading lights on that committee were Minnesota's Walter Mondale, Colorado's Gary Hart, Tennessee's Howard Baker, and Pennsylvania's Richard Schweiker. As writers Kate Olmsted and Loch Johnson have shown, the Church Committee was obstructed by two of the CIA's most potent allies: the major media and friendly public figures. In the latter category, Olmsted especially highlights the deadly role of Henry Kissinger. But as Victor Marchetti revealed to me, there was also something else at work behind the scenes. In an interview in his son's office in 1993, Marchetti told me that he never really thought |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
that Monroe had conversations with the Kennedy brothers on top
secret matters like the examination of captured outer space creatures, bases inside of Cuba, and of President Kennedy's plans to kill Castro. He also said that she was talking about a "diary of secrets" (quotes in original) that she had threatened RFK with if he brushed her off. When I got this memo, I was struck by its singular format. I have seen hundreds of CIA documents, maybe thousands, and I never saw one that looked like this. (We can't reproduce it because the copy sent to us is so poor). I forwarded it to Washington researcher Peter Vea. He agreed it was highly unusual. To play it safe, I then sent a copy to former intelligence analyst John Newman. He said that he had seen such reports. What he thought was wrong with it was that there were things in it that should have been redacted that weren't and things exposed that should have been blacked out. For instance, there is a phrase as follows, "a secret air base for the purpose of inspecting [things] from outer space." Newman notes that the brackets around the word "things" denote that it had been previously redacted. It should not have. The words "outer space" should have been redacted and they never were. On the basis of this and other inconsistencies, he decided it was a "good" forgery from someone who knew what they were doing. He told PBS this four years ago when they showed it to him. The fact that this doc |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Behavioral and body size correlates of energy intake underreporting by obese | NR | General Discussion | 0 | June 17th, 2004 02:25 AM |
Article: The TRUTH About Low Carb Diets by Keith Klein | Steve | General Discussion | 24 | June 7th, 2004 09:05 PM |
Behavioral and body size correlates of energy intake underreporting by obese | NR | General Discussion | 14 | May 25th, 2004 03:06 AM |
Your Metabolism | John | General Discussion | 2 | May 2nd, 2004 02:10 AM |
help needed on where to start | Diane Nelson | General Discussion | 13 | April 21st, 2004 06:11 PM |