Fear of a Fat Planet

Ezra Klein called attention earlier today to some alarming predictions about the future of the American waistline. Often when people contemplate the unsound eating habits of the average American they suggest that the typical diet of Mediterranean countries would be a better model to emulate. Unfortunately John Boonstra notes that the reverse seems to be happening and Mediterranean people are shifting to American-style larger portions, more meat, and worse health outcomes.

The proximate cause is that these traditionally middle income countries are getting rich, and thus adopting the bad eating habits of richer countries. All of which points to a fairly profound challenge. Everyone understands that GDP is not the be-all and end-all of human flourishing. But still, typically as countries get richer you see an amelioration of conditions across the board. Beyond a certain point, however, this badly breaks down with regard to certain aspects of diet and public health. Our bodies are programmed to strongly desire certain kinds of foodstuffs that are assumed to be objectively scarce. Wealth undermines that assumption of scarcity in ways that are extremely deleterious to human well-being.

The good news, such as it is, is that we have a very robust tradition of government intervention in the agricultural sector. No free marketeers on the farm, no laissez faire in the refrigerator. Meaning that instead of our current policies, which are designed to do God-knows-what, we could have policies that discouraged the production and consumption of delicious French Fries, Combos, and steak and encouraged the production and consumption of not-so-delicious vegetables and quinoa.

Photo by Flickr user Jimmy MacDonald used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

One of the most unsound eating habits of many Americans is that they eat TOO MUCH of everything. The average American consumes about 3,770 calories a day, whereas the average Japanese person takes in about 2,770 calories a day. There are many reasons for this (it's a complex issue) but the fundamental fact is that Americans eat too many calories.

Posted by blah | July 29, 2008 7:18 PM

Don't wealthier Americans tend to be thinner than poorer Americans? McDonald's is cheap and Whole Foods is expensive. And wouldn't this contradict the argument that a higher GDP translates into a fatter population?

Posted by bobbo | July 29, 2008 7:35 PM

It's all about the carbs. Read Gary Taube's "Good Calrories, Bad Calories" for the full story on how physicians, researchers and nutritionists have been getting it wrong for about 30 years. Taubes is an award-winning science author; he wrote "What If It's All A Big Fat Lie" for the NY Times Magazine.

Here's a lecture that presents it all in about an hour, and another:

Stevens Institute of Technology:

http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2008/02/gary-taubes.html

Berkely:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/stream.php?type=real&webcastid=21216

Posted by vorkosigan1 | July 29, 2008 8:05 PM

We give growth hormone to cattle. The purpose is to make them eat more, to be more hungry all the time, to fatten up as quickly as possible.
Then we eat them and the residues of the hormones. It's illegal in Europe where most persons are much less fat. Just look at some e.g. flickr pictures of people in Europe and the US. People in Europe can afford as much food as we. As somebody pointed out, the Whole Food crowd is slimmer - I wonder why!

Europe is getting fatter to, maybe they buy uncontrolled meats due to globalization.

Posted by Larry | July 29, 2008 8:33 PM

It really isn't all about the carbs. That's a rather simplistic way to look at it. Carbs are part of the story, but it's more about certain types of carbs (sugar and simple carbohydrates).

In reality, the percentage of calories that Americans have obtained from carbs, fat, and protein has remained relatively constant over the past 50 years. What has changed is the number of calories consumed per day.

http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2007/02/21/the_foods_that_made_america_fat.php

Posted by blah | July 29, 2008 8:34 PM

"Don't wealthier Americans tend to be thinner than poorer Americans? McDonald's is cheap and Whole Foods is expensive. And wouldn't this contradict the argument that a higher GDP translates into a fatter population?"

Your argument is flawed in that you start out comparing countries and end up comparing people.

Wealthier countries tend to be countries where a large portion of the population no longer raises their own food, but instead buys it. And things are easier to buy when they are soaked in preservatives, pre-packaged, and/or already made for you (ideally in a fast manner). All this processing and speeding up of things comes at the cost of foods being much higher in calorie content (specifically sodium, fats, and carbohydrates).

Also, wealthier countries can devote more time to leisure, which unfortunately isn't time that is devoted to active leisure (basketball, soccer, hiking, running, etc.) but instead things like movies, video games, and television.

The wealthiest in the wealthy societies are more typically better educated and more aware of the impact of poor nutrition. They also have a higher percentage of their disposable income that they can dedicate towards staying in shape.

It's a bit of a paradox but not all that hard to understand.

Posted by socctty | July 29, 2008 8:36 PM

Yeah, because gosh knows, I want the government telling me how to live. Government has as much right telling me what I can eat as it has telling women whether they can or cannot have an abortion.

Posted by James Robertson | July 29, 2008 9:01 PM

We give growth hormone to cattle. The purpose is to make them eat more, to be more hungry all the time, to fatten up as quickly as possible.

Actually, bovine growth hormone is used primarily to increase milk production from lactating cows.

Posted by blah | July 29, 2008 9:03 PM

Re: McDonald's is cheap and Whole Foods is expensive.

It's not so much thef ood as it ist he lack of physical activity. And wealthy people have more lesiure time hence can devote more time to exercize. The rest of us are stuck at desks ten hours a day, and then stuck in traffic before and after. The American diet would be quite harmless if we were engaging in brute labor but combined with a sedentary working world that works people too many hours it's a disaster.

Posted by JonF | July 29, 2008 9:21 PM

Health care providers will tell you to get into the adult diabetes field. There is a very rich demographic now and in the future for those treating high blood presure, diabetes related complications, obesity related problems, amputations and wound care, etc. A fat America spells profit for many if you're will to feed on the carrion our society is devolving into.

Posted by steve duncan | July 29, 2008 9:41 PM

Matt,

What makes you think policies that subsidize vegetable and fruit production wouldn't be subject to the same manipulation by industry groups as we currently experience? Sure we could have policies that promote healthier foods, but isn't it pretty foolish to think that these policies wouldn't quickly morph into much the same corporate and special-interest giveaways that our current farm policies are?

I'll take the free marketeers and a side of fruit salad, please.

Posted by Jeff | July 29, 2008 9:42 PM

JonF, you regurgitate the same old excuses we all hear for not exercising. I work 9-10 hours a day and spend the requisite 20-30 minutes each direction getting there and back. Afterwards it's 90 minutes at the gym. Every day. The house, the car care, the shopping and reading and chores all still get done. And healthy meals get prepared from scratch with nutritional ingredients. What are you wasting your time on?

Posted by steve duncan | July 29, 2008 9:52 PM

"What are you wasting your time on?"

When posted on the comments section of a blog, a question testing the limits of irony.

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 10:00 PM

"Yeah, because gosh knows, I want the government telling me how to live. Government has as much right telling me what I can eat as it has telling women whether they can or cannot have an abortion.

Posted by James Robertson | July 29, 2008 9:01 PM"

While MY is being ambiguous on his proposal (he could be saying simply to cut farm subsidies or to just subsidize the right things), you're jumping to conclusions here. Our large waistlines aren't purely the results of individual choice, but instead doing things like subsidizing corn that is made into high-fructose corn syrup that makes Americans fat (which is why it's better for the body to drink Mexican Coke than American Coke).

steve duncan, I don't mean this to be snarky, but do you have kids? I'm guessing that someone working the same hours who does have kids has more of a chance to work out than someone who doesn't. If you do and still remain fit, then kudos.

Posted by Reality Man | July 29, 2008 10:04 PM

"What are you wasting your time on?"

When posted on the comments section of a blog, a question testing the limits of irony.

Posted by scythia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes scythia, such a pity I have time in my life to attend to matters important to my business and my health and still engage in discourse with the likes of you. Fortunately my days have 24 hours, unlike many others that apparently have but 21 or 22 in theirs.

Posted by steve duncan | July 29, 2008 10:08 PM

Yes scythia, such a pity I have time in my life to attend to matters important to my business and my health and still engage in discourse with the likes of you.

Seriously, dude? It was a joke. And not one aimed at you. I admire your stamina, but maybe it's time to ease off the ginseng.

Fortunately my days have 24 hours, unlike many others that apparently have but 21 or 22 in theirs.

"When do you sleep?"
"Sunday."

Posted by scythia | July 29, 2008 10:15 PM

I thought I was arrogant, and then I ran across comments from Steve Duncan.

Yeesh.

Posted by James Robertson | July 29, 2008 10:16 PM

Yeah, because gosh knows, I want the government telling me how to live. Government has as much right telling me what I can eat as it has telling women whether they can or cannot have an abortion.

Fail.

Instead, I think we should stick with the current solution where we heavily subsidize high fructose corn syrup so that it's far less expensive to stuff yourself with a simple sugar that is virtually certain to expand your waistline instead of healthier alternatives.

Posted by mpowell | July 29, 2008 10:21 PM

I'm all in favor of eliminating all agricultural subsidies. I just don't want or need the Feds telling me what I can and can't eat.

I just love the left's version of liberty though. Puritanism has become unhinged from religion and landed on the left - food, cigarettes, alcohol - it's all about controlling behavior.

Posted by James Robertson | July 29, 2008 10:35 PM

James, a compromise. Let the AMA and a consortium of medical authorities establish methods and guidelines for judging whether an illness, disease or disability is the result of gross negligence on the part of the sufferer. If your adult onset diabetes is the result of obesity and compelled testimony of those knowing you attests to your exceedingly high caloric intake you're denied any medical insurance or assistance for your malady. You're a drunk and acquire cirrhosis? Same insurance denial. Smoke 2 packs a day and get lung cancer or emphysema? Denied, get out your checkbook, it's all on you. Athletes have clauses denying them the right to drive a motorcycle, skydive and other dangerous activities. They're needed for the team and unnecessary injuries can't be tolerated. Society is a team and similarly unnecessary maladies damage the team. No one is saying you can't do or eat or enjoy whatever you want. But if you suffer harm through engaging in dangerous or unhealthy behavior the team isn't taking care of you. Nor is your insurance company or government services. You fucked up, you resort to your own means to fix it.

Posted by steve duncan | July 29, 2008 10:58 PM

I suspect that if we ran most health insurance the way we run car insurance, things would be a lot better. We shouldn't cover normal visits and checks any more than we cover oil changes and tune ups

Posted by James Robertson | July 29, 2008 11:05 PM

Steve, I remember your unhinged tirade on smokers and just let me say I wish you were famous enough for me to be aware if it happened if you weren't using a spotter and got your larnyx crushed or you keeled over and had a heart attack spinning.

I don't really wish you ill, but you are *such* a self-righteous dick that I want to outlive you very badly.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2008 11:10 PM

Actually James it's the minor charges some people can't afford that lead to greater ills. Preventative medicine gets short shrift in the U.S. Many people skip a physician visit to look into that lump or cough or persistent pain for lack of the $50 to spare. Then that lump becomes a big issue the oncologist confides should have been inspected months earlier.

Posted by steve duncan | July 29, 2008 11:15 PM

Ed, if I wanted to watch your mother fall down a flight of stairs I'd employ the good taste and decorum to keep such thoughts to myself. Not so you, evidently.

Posted by steve duncan | July 29, 2008 11:21 PM

Steve, I've got nothing to work with here but your own mortality. It's the subject you harp on and preach at. The only way your preachy, healthy, superiority trip could have a punchline would be to have a fat guy, smoking a cigarette push you with toe tag attached out of a gym.

You just spent a whole bunch of energy telling everyone who disobeyed your fitness standards to fork out a check or die. That makes you pretty fair game to wish bad upon, and *I* tried not to wish bad on you. Just to point out how ludicrous and petty you sound.

I bike five miles to work back and forth. I work out. The difference between me and you is you are an asshole about it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2008 11:33 PM

Does a timely abortion help prevent a bulging waistline? Find out after the break!

Posted by Jaybird | July 29, 2008 11:43 PM

Many people skip a physician visit to look into that lump or cough or persistent pain for lack of the $50 to spare. Then that lump becomes a big issue the oncologist confides should have been inspected months earlier.

Really? How many? Out of the 300,000,000 people in this country, how many people over the course of, say, a year forgo a physician visit, for reasons of cost, to look into a symptom that later turns out to be cancer, or some other serious, time-sensitive disease?

Are we talking hundreds of people? Thousands? Millions? And how do you know? You're not just guessing, are you?

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 11:49 PM

Are we talking hundreds of people? Thousands? Millions? And how do you know? You're not just guessing, are you?

Cervical cancer will kill around 6,000 Americans this year because they didn't have a doctor and never got an HPV screening.

That's just a stat that I happened to catch today. I don't know what the rest is and frankly I don't care. I really wonder what motivates a human to get pissy about the things that you do.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 30, 2008 12:25 AM

Thank god we can use the government to make everyone worse off. Nothing better than asserting our values and discount rates on the helpless peasants. It may piss them off to be told what's in their best interests, but that's just their primitive monkey-brain fooling them. Matt Yglesias knows what's best.

Posted by Wilson | July 30, 2008 12:56 AM

Cervical cancer will kill around 6,000 Americans this year because they didn't have a doctor and never got an HPV screening. That's just a stat that I happened to catch today.

Where did you "catch" it from? Do you mean you read it on some blog, and just uncritically accepted it as accurate?

Posted by Mixner | July 30, 2008 1:09 AM

No, that's my job. The Mayo Clinic is a client and that was their data I forwarded back today.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 30, 2008 1:28 AM

Ed, where's your link to this "data"?

Posted by Mixner | July 30, 2008 1:33 AM

Whine. Make asymmetric demand for evidence. Dream of uploading whining self into robot for travel to far galazies. Masturbate into a gymsock. Cry self to sleep.

Posted by Metamixner | July 30, 2008 3:09 AM

Jesus, Mixner, God forbid you ever make a factual claim and fail to provide a primary source for it.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 30, 2008 4:02 AM

Re: Afterwards it's 90 minutes at the gym.

Apparently you have no other responsibilities in your life beyond your job. I sure the hell have no time for gyms after work! By the time I finish with my necessary tasks and errands it's often nine o'clock at night-- and I try to get at least eight hours sleep-- sleep being an important factor of one's health too. And while I could afford a gym, many people can't. Fortunately I now live two miles from my job, so I can ride my bike to work and get my exercize that way. And living in a three story house, up-and-down stairs is now a regular feature of my life.

Re: We shouldn't cover normal visits and checks any more than we cover oil changes and tune ups

False analogy. Oil changes and tune ups are the equivalent of haircuts, baths and massages.

Posted by JonF | July 30, 2008 6:42 AM

JonF, if you needed kidney dialysis you'd find the time for it or die. If you had cancer you'd make the time for chemo and radiation or die. A virtual gun is to your head in those two scenarios and you respond accordingly, making the other items in your life's agenda secondary. Until you assign optimum physical conditioning a similar level of urgency you'll make convenient excuses as to why you can't (or won't) find or make the time for it. Convince yourself you will literally die unless you do it. Who knows, it may very well be true. Resting 51 beats per. 110/78. 11% body fat. Damn it feels good just getting up in the morning!!

Posted by steve duncan | July 30, 2008 7:31 AM

Umm, oil changes and tuneups are mostly equivalents of checkups - at least if you have an honest mechanic. I've had plenty of other problems diagnosed while having those things done.

I've also had cars die 50,000 miles early by not having those sorts of things done.

The point? It's not the job of the Feds to ensure that people get checkups. I really don't even care if preventitive medicine helps; expense isn't the primary thing that stops people from going. The $15 co-pay certainly doesn't stop people in my area, and for those w/o insurance, Wal-Mart, Target, and Walgreens are all opening clinics that offer that kind of service for $69.00.

People don't get checkups for the same reason they don't change their oil - they decide, for good or ill, to spend the time it would take doing something else. I don't have numbers handy (and I'm not sure they would be easy to find, anyway) - but I rather suspect that a fair number of people in Canada, France, the UK (etc) don't avail themselves of the "free" (i.e., pre-paid via higher taxes) services either - because human nature being what it is, there's always "something better to do".

Posted by James Robertson | July 30, 2008 7:49 AM

I now live two miles from my job, so I can ride my bike to work and get my exercize that way.

I say this only intending to be helpful -- riding your bike four miles a day five days a week isn't much exercise. You'll probably burn an extra 100 calories a day -- so about 40% of a candy bar.

Walking briskly there and back would be much better. You'd be talking about 350 calories or so. And two miles is only about 30 minutes if you don't dawdle.

Off for my ten mile run! Early morning weather is great in Colorado.

Posted by Joe | July 30, 2008 8:13 AM

Go Joe, go Joe, go Joe!! (I bet you have clean hands!)

Posted by steve duncan | July 30, 2008 8:29 AM

More imaginative food preparation can make a huge difference. We tend toward the lazy way of making things taste good by filling them with butterfat, sugar, and salt. The chefs I truly admire are those who can make a delicious and mamorable meal without taking those shortcuts.

Posted by Virginia | July 30, 2008 8:31 AM

What I love is watching the puritanical left ramble on about how regulating abortion is bad, because it removes the ability of a woman to control her own body.

Meanwhile, the same people want to disallow cigrarettes, trans-fats, and now, seemingly, any food they happen to disapprove of. What's next - mandatory national exercise time?

The hypocrisy in motion here is simply amazing. How about we let people do what they want with food, cigarettes, narcotics (etc), and have them pay for the consequences of those actions themselves? I truly don't care if someone wants to smoke their way into an early grave - it's not any more of my business than it is whether my neighbor decides between abortion and adoption.

Posted by James Robertson | July 30, 2008 8:39 AM

Matt,
I was curious about the child in your photo, so I went to the Flickr user's photostream and saw that she is someone's (dear) grandchild, and she was born 9 weeks premature. Do you take these kinds of things into consideration before posting a child under the headline "Fear of a Fat Planet" on your very highly trafficked blog?

Posted by Leah | July 30, 2008 9:01 AM

Concern troll is concerned of where Matt gets his pictures from.

Meanwhile, I wonder if it might be easier just to have Greasemonkey replace any Mixner post with 'Fuck you, I've got mine.'

(Not that I'd do the same to James R, he's actually on to something here. Of course, I say this as a cigar-chomping beer-swilling steak-eating liberal.)

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | July 30, 2008 9:17 AM

While on one hand it might be nice to reduce agricultural subsidies, on the other hand those subsidies primarily benefit conservative Republicans in the corn belt. So I'd say there is fat chance (pun intended) of Republicans and conservatives actually being in favor of the free market. I think it is a lie meant to distract the conversation away from the topic at hand, which is the paradox of obesity. Guys like James Robertson are intellectually dishonest. They don't really believe in the free market, they just say they do. They don't really believe in economics, I mean just read their posts. They don't believe that people are rational actors. Isn't that a rather "elitist" position to take? I'd say so.

Posted by freddiemac | July 30, 2008 9:32 AM

But vegetables are delicious!

Posted by Greg | July 30, 2008 9:39 AM

Anecdotally, I often read some piece from, say, Japan or China about someone who grew up on a farm eating piles of vegetables, moved to the city and found economic success, and now eats just meat, sauce, and starch. I think it's not just the external symbolism that the wealthy can afford meat but the personal "I ate vegetables for 20 years and I'm sick of them."

Not sure how to counteract that--I like vegetables, but my mother certainly didn't excel at preparing them; I still eat a lot more veggies at home than when I visit my parents, to the extent that I now often just buy some extra fruit and veg for every visit. (Red Delicious apples are not an edible fruit; after a month in the crisper drawer they're even worse.) My mother-in-law gardens intensively and yet, presented with fresh new local asparagus, her approach is to boil it for 45 minutes.

As to it being all about the carbs or not, I think it's much more all about the exercise. Industrialized jobs demand less movement than agricultural jobs, while giving you more money to spend on a satisfying hamburger rather than cooked-to-death asparagus with bitter greens. Just thought of this: is it fair to say that basic meat--a hamburger, fried chicken, sliced ham--done poorly is more edible than vegetables done poorly?

Posted by Deborah | July 30, 2008 9:56 AM

On topic: Anyone who says quinoa isn't delicious hasn't tasted it.

Posted by athena | July 30, 2008 9:56 AM

Ed, where's your link to this "data"?

Like I said, that's my job. Pay me and I'll mail you the clip and if you pay me more I'll scan it and turn it into a .pdf for you. Otherwise hire another research service and get your own data.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 30, 2008 10:03 AM

freddiemac - where do you get off calling me dishonest? You can dislike my opinions all you want, but do me the small favor of not dismissing them out of hand. I would like to see farm subsidies - and energy subsidies (etc, etc) eliminated. IMHO, they distort the market in unpredictable ways, and leave a raft of unintended consequences behind.

Also, it's hardly Republicans alone who prop farm subsidies. It's been a bipartisan game for a long, long time. One of the worst farm bills ever was passed by a Democratic Congress last year, and signed by a Republican President.

Posted by James Robertson | July 30, 2008 10:50 AM

Go Joe, go Joe, go Joe!! (I bet you have clean hands!)

I don't know about the hands, but thanks for the encouragement.

And I covered the 10 miles in slightly over 67 minutes -- right at my 2:55 marathon pace. Which will be hard to push out for another 16+ miles. Though I won't be doing it at 5500 feet.

As to it being all about the carbs or not, I think it's much more all about the exercise.

Virtually every study has concluded that exercise alone is a fairly poor way to lose weight. When you are active you tend to eat more, you see. Now, exercise DOES tend to correlate with positive lifestyle changes (meaning the person who is doing moderate exercise for 45 minutes a day 5 days a week probably also has a pretty decent diet).

And it is possible to use exercise alone to lose weight -- ask any decent marathoner who loses 10 pounds despite eating constantly during peak training -- but the amounts of exercise we are talking about here are unrealistic, unless you are already in fantastic shape. To use the above example, I only reach a eat-nonstop-and-still-lose-weight when my mileage creeps above 65-70 miles/week. For most people, that would require two hours of strenuous exercise every day of the week, and they probably would come up lame with a stress fracture after the first week.

Posted by Joe | July 30, 2008 10:58 AM

To those of you who have free time to exercise after work, more power to you, but in Houston, a considerable amount of time is spent commuting. The rest of that time is spent recuperating from work stress, attending meetups, visiting family, talking to friends, watching an occasional movie. I would love to be able to bike to work. Really, I would just love it. Also, as an intellectual you need to strike a balance between physical fitness and mental productivity. How much time do i devote to blogging? How many books ought I to read? Sometimes I spend more time exercising than reading a book (but I'm a writer! and a litblogger!).

External circumstances play a role in whether you can maintain an active lifestyle. By the way, meal planning also requires time. (It's much faster to stop at KFC). I have to wonder whether the trend away from stay-at-home moms (who can plan and prepare meals better) had something to do with the recent obesity explosion.

further thoughts about this matter I made a week ago

Posted by Robert Nagle | July 30, 2008 11:12 AM

I would imagine Steve that you burn off a large amount of body fat from the frequent masturbating to your own reflection.

Posted by James | July 30, 2008 11:13 AM

Well James, since you asked:

You replied to Mr. Yglesias' statment that the government should replace subsidies for high calorie food like Combos and replace it with subsidies for vegetables, to which you equated that this was the government "telling me what I can eat ". Obviously this is not true, and you know that this is not true, but you said it anyways because you are dishonest. I see this pattern all the time with conservatives. They say things that they know aren't true. It is intellectual dishonesty, and it was true of Rush Limbaugh, Newt, W. Bush, Dr. Ron Paul, and just about every other conservative out there. I will call a spade a spade. Funny how you don't like me dismissing your opinions out of hand, even though that is EXACTLY what you did to Yglesias. See, your intellectual dishonesty seemingly knows no bounds.

Posted by freddiemac | July 30, 2008 11:19 AM

I'm not asking for subsidies for anything. You have me mixed up with someone else posting as "James".

Try reading the tag lines on comments with comprehension next time.

Posted by James Robertson | July 30, 2008 11:38 AM

I wasn't asking for Steve to get a self-love subsidy, and I'm the only other James on this post.

Posted by James | July 30, 2008 11:47 AM

"What are you wasting your time on?"

When posted on the comments section of a blog, a question testing the limits of irony.

This is one of the funniest things I've read in a comment section.

~

I was just going to point out that I've recently discovered quinoa, and I find it quite delicious. Damn high in protein, too.

Posted by McKingford | July 30, 2008 5:54 PM

Re: Convince yourself you will literally die unless you do it.

I have sad news for you: I am going to die. So are you, no matter what you do. So is everyone. That's part of the package deal in these parts.
Now you can take your body fascism and go hang out with the racists and homophobes and assorted other elitists who have convinced themselves they are part of the true chosen, far above the rest of us mean mortals.
Maybe you'll make a better looking corpse than me in the end, but the worms won't care.

Posted by JonF | July 30, 2008 6:12 PM