Paul M. Kramer's "Maggie Goes on a Diet"

Elections aside, this is a classic example of finger pointing: I was not surprised when author Paul M. Kramer's picture was displayed and it appeared as though he should go on the diet instead of Maggie. It would also be more age appropriate for him to diet than marketing the dieting industry to young girls.

On the book cover, I was disgusted by the image of what appeared as reverse anorexia: the cover shows Maggie as an overweight girl standing before a mirror with her skinny clothes placed in front of her body--what women usually do in the mirror of department stores to get an idea of how the clothing will look when worn-- and  the reflection (in the mirror) shows the slender version of Maggie. This goes without mentioning the uncanny resemblance of Maggie to Pipi Longstocking

The book is disturbing. If the author's weak argument is to target the obesity epidemic in America, include males too. It is the focus on the superficial exterior that is most bothersome. The visual message is that skinny is ideal, skinny is a goal and that skinny is healthy. What if Maggie fails at her goal, as so many on diets do? Weight loss has been described with metaphors such as "battle" and "struggle"; therefore, this is not what we need girls focusing on. Skinny is not always healthy. Those with eating disorders who appear at normal weights may be going to extremes to be skinny and ruining their health and some sacrifice their lives in the hopes of seeing what the reflection of Maggie in the mirror is seeing.

From what I have heard, after Maggie is skinny, she is the most popular girl and a star on the soccer team. That is even more disheartening because this is the mind set of too many starving artists in the entertainment and beauty industry. Jennifer Hudson's recent comment of being more proud of her weight loss than her Oscar demonstrates how difficult weight loss can be. Kramer's intentions may have been good but this controversy is valid and he should propose a better idea and cease from using an image that similar to Pipi Longstocking.    

You are a star as you are, Maggie, and the exterior may have changed but the interior is where the star quality is and will always remain. Now I sound like a true psycho speaking to a fictional character but I was a fat kid and I know from experience how superficial the world can be. As soon as I lost weight, people would compliment my looks and I was miserable. I lost weight due to very stressful circumstances and people constantly remarked how great I was looking. I went to talk to a shrink (psychologist) and even she didn't understand why I looked great to society but had such a terrible body image. That shows the power of advertising. Advertisers want society to believe that being skinny and attractive will grant you happiness and that is a lie. Hollywood train-wrecks are the best examples of that.

I had dieted since the age of 6. It was the stereotype of dance instructors and ballet teachers labeling kids as fat but I was a chubby kid, fat adolescent, and became an athletic adult. Even to this day, I would rather feel good than look good. We must focus less on looks because some people are willing to die to be skinny. 

Business versus the Presidency

Education is a lie, for the same reason that Donald Trump supposedly decided against running for President in 2012: business is his true aspiration. Even though I believe it was simply a "save" for him when discredited by Obama's birth certificate and the killing of bin Laden,  business--indeed-- is very lucrative.

I once dedicated myself to reading only the business section of the newspaper and the study of success. As consumers, we are encouraged to buy but not to produce. We consume television but do not create our own vlogs. We read books, but do not write. This is what tightens the grip on our wallets.

Note to capitalists everywhere: produce your own materials. As much of it as you can. If you can grow your own food, start a garden. There are so many creative minds that are not using their potential. Find a way to start a business and bypass higher education. The debt of a failed business in a capitalistic society is worth more than the debt of higher education loans.  

Bail out versus corporate welfare, which is most appealing?

Bail sounds very fitting, considering that at last night's Oscars, the winner for the documentary, "Inside Job," questioned why the financial executives were not in jail. The financial executives should be in jail and they should be released in the monetary amount of bail that they received from the bail out funds.  I have a feeling that won't be happening. It is logical, it is consistant with the justice system, but there is always an exception to the rule and corporations are usually the exception. The corporations' indiscretion shows their influence over the government and sometimes makes me question if they are running the government. That previous statement conjures memories of Halliburton and Cheney. . . 

It is all in the language that we use. A corporation receives "bail out funds" but let us instead use the term welfare. Because, in reality, that is what is happening. Corporations file bankruptcy and receive welfare paid by courtesy of the American taxpayers. I have often heard people complain about the welfare recipients being supported by their tax dollars, but I have heard very few complain about the corporations doing it. These corporations fare very well, indeed. So well, in fact, that they make huge profits and fail to repay the money.  Some, such as Bank of America, don't even pay taxes. How is this legal? Corporations are some of the most heavily protected entities under the law. Yes, they function better than being a human being. I have considered becoming incorporated myself and that way, I can receive money and not be stigmatized for being on welfare, but rather, filing bankruptcy in my corporation's name. I would not do that because I have integrity.

The teachers and other social assests to the nation are suffering. Why are they not receiving money? (Does taxation without representation sound familiar? Bingo!) I want them to fare well more than any large company. The most famous social asset, who was a welfare to billions story in the UK, is J.K. Rowling. She was a single mother on welfare and she wrote the Harry Potter series and reversed her social conditions. Rowling got children and people of all ages to read. I would see people of all ages reading thick her books. If the corporations had such a positive impact on society, I would not have an issue with them receiving money, but when it is reported how much their CEO and other top employees are paid, I wonder what is their contribution to society.

The corporations have greedily taken too much of the public's money. It is time to resuscitate the areas in the most need. The people in Wisconsin and other U.S. states are appealing to the government for what they need. The protests in other countries seem to be effective, but do we have people power anymore? Or do we have to be a corporation in order to receive money?