The massively-photoshopped version of Kelly Clarkson on the cover of next month’s Self magazine has fat girls everywhere in an indignant huff. People Magazine says

Many readers have expressed disappointment and outrage over the digitally slim Clarkson. “Hey, hi, Self ladies: None this changes or explains the fact that YOU ALTERED THE BONE STRUCTURE OF HER FACE,” write one reader on jezebel.com.

Adds another reader: “Taking out red eye and airbrushing a pimple would be making her look her personal best. You completely changed the way her body looked. Why even bother asking Kelly Clarkson to pose in your magazine if you didn’t think her body fit into your idea of what was best?”

But editor-in-chief of Self magazine Lucy Danziger claims they were just “enhancing” Kelly, saying:

“Yes. Of course we do retouching. Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best. [Kelly is] the picture of confidence. I think this photo is the truest we have ever put out there on the newsstand.”

For me, “personal best” means “not waking up at the scene of an accident after crapping my own pants.” For Self magazine, it must mean “sorry, but fat chicks don’t sell print ads.” I guess it’s all subjective, really.

NOT looking her personal best last week:

PHOTO SOURCE: Bauer-Griffin

Everybody has been raving about how unbelievable Jessica Alba’s post-baby body looked in her new Campari swimsuit calendar, and “unbelievable” would be right, because it isn’t fucking real. It’s all the work of digital retouching — a good three inches off her waist and hips and virtual breast implants. Nothing you see is real anymore. Nothing except our love, that is. And maybe the Zionist Agenda. That you can take to the bank, baby.