"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

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

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,

"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

"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

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

-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

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

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

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