Wednesday evening roundup

I can understand the humiliation that can accompany unemployment, and I understand that some would opt to keep it on the DL, but keeping your country club membership to keep up appearances??

I can't find it online, but the Times ran a FAQ on health care reform. One question was "what if I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortions." The answer goes on to explain that it's unlikely to happen, but I have a different answer:

F* you.

There are a number of things I don't want my tax dollars going to, like stomach stapling for people who can't get their fat @$$es to the gym. Or high fructose corn syrup. Or overpayments to defense contractors. And actually, I also don't particularly want to fund other people's abortions, either, but you know what? I believe that those people have a right to terminate their pregnancies (and that right takes precedence over your right to gorge yourself with soda), and I don't think that right should hinge on whether or not said person can afford an abortion. And I think your opposition from it stems from the same misogyny that plagued the PA gym shooter: it's too bad that these people are having more sex than you are. Get over it.

***
Now, onto something that pissed me off even more. To the point that I wrote Tom Philpott at Grist and asked him to reassure me that he was working on a rebuttal (he is). Don't just read the Times piece that summarizes it; read the whole, misleading thing.

I'm not going to take it on in its entirety because Mr. Philpott will do just that, professionally, but I will make a few points:
-"those non-farmers just don't get it" is Big Ag's knee-jerk response to any criticism of their system. And indeed, in this argument, there's as much strawman-ing as there is substance.
-He doesn't mention subsidies and how they distort the market, or how much production would actually be needed without the market distortion-- if people paid the full price of their food and made their purchase decisions accordingly.
-Similarly, he apparently takes it upon himself (and other American farmers) to "feed the world." How about they do that by letting local farmers around the world survive by not flooding their markets with cheap or free (albeit not for the American taxpayer) American grain?