RANGER AGAINST WAR: What Na' Kill, Fatten <

Saturday, October 07, 2006

What Na' Kill, Fatten

In Jamaica, they have a wonderful saying: What na' kill, fatten, meaning, what doesn't kill you, will fatten you (strengthen you)--Nietzsche, island-style. I would like to take the phrase literally, however, for a moment.

The Gitmo diet is reported to be packing the pounds on the detainees ("Gitmo Diet Fattens Up Terrorist Detainees", Michael Melia, AP, 10/04/06), and people are up in arms about this seemingly posh situation. But methinks there is a method to their madness.

The meals, totaling 4,200 calories per day--"well above the 2,000 to 3,000 calories recommended for weight maintenance"--have even allowed one inmate to double his weight, to 410 pounds. "Most are now normal to mildly overweight or mildly obese", a state, I presume, correlating to being a "little bit pregnant". Can there be a purpose in allowing inmates to achieve Hurley-like heft?

Yes, I think, and the purpose of this dietary special-ops is simple:

  1. They will make bigger targets if they attempt to run away.
  2. Fat people are jollier.
  3. They are less mobile and therefore, more sedate. Ergo, less likely to run away.
  4. It will be harder for them to hide.
  5. They are less likely to miss meal call.
  6. More work for fast food vendors.

Though we are told they are given indigenous food choices like yogurt and fruit, along with other foods "for variety", I think I perceive a sixth reason. I imagine the unspecified
other category includes that most nefarious of American exports--fast food. If we can get them hooked on the deep-fried, salty and sugary stuff that has made two-thirds of us obese, then we've got them, well, eating out of our hands.




Blogger Lurch said...

This is a very interesting post. A cynical man, however, would think the chow is just about like any other prison: high in carbs, starches, fats and sugars, because a diet like that tends to make prisoners lethargic.

Sunday, October 8, 2006 at 7:58:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Roger that, Lurch...Just considering all eventualities.

It's Jim's belief that when they're released, if they're released, all we'll have to do is surveil supermarkets(!) This one was just food for thought; wanted to give you something to chew on.--Lisa

Sunday, October 8, 2006 at 8:59:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lurch said...

Thanks, Lisa, but I'm currently a non-participant in the American eat-yourself-to-death sweepstakes.

Monday, October 9, 2006 at 12:19:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Right on, Lurch. Neither of us will be feeding the health care behemoth any time soon.

Not usually a conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but wonder how profitable a health care industry based on wellness and true preventative medicine would be. Where's the incentive?

Monday, October 9, 2006 at 12:50:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lurch said...

I believe the "wellness" theme was first created by HMOs who saw the obvious benefits for corporate profits if their clients/patients didn't need expensive medical care.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 5:43:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

You're probably right. Those who could benefit with some truly preventative advice often get the short shrift, though, in favor of those who can be patholigized, and therefore medicalized.

The hot phrase "wellness clinic" is applied to children's clinics, but they have always been the site of innoculations, etc. But once they've grown into taxpaying adults, I do not see the same care for their
continued nonappearance in the health care sphere.

After all, when you're grown, you don't need the inoculation series, etc. So upon reflection, the medical establishment is just as happy for their younger captive audience; just that they're not an independently paying crowd.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 8:05:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home