Italo Calvino on abortion

From Italo Calvino: Letters, 1941-1985:

Bringing a child into the world makes sense only if this child is wanted consciously and freely by its two parents. If it is not, then it is simply animal and criminal behavior. A human being becomes human not through the casual convergence of certain biological conditions, but through an act of will and love on the part of other people...

Only those people … who are a hundred percent convinced that they possess the moral and physical possibility not only of rearing a child but of welcoming it as a welcome and beloved presence, have the right to procreate. If this is not the case, they must first of all do everything not to conceive, and if they do conceive (given that the margin for unpredictability continues to be high) abortion is not only a sad necessity, but a highly moral decision to be taken with full freedom of conscience. I do not understand how you can associate abortion with an idea of hedonism or the good life. Abortion is a terrifying thing… 

In abortion the person who is massacred, physically and morally, is the woman. Also for any man with a conscience every abortion is a moral ordeal that leaves a mark, but certainly here the fate of the woman is in such a disproportionate condition of unfairness compared with the man’s, that every male should bite his tongue three times before speaking about such things...

Hall of Fame: Adlai Stevenson

Adlai Stevenson was governor of Illinois and the US Ambassador to the United Nations. But he was also a man who had a way with words. A good way. Here's a couple of my favorites:

"Whenever the Republicans talk of cutting taxes first ... they remind me of a very tired rich man who said to his chauffeur, 'Drive off that cliff, James, I want to commit suicide.'" 

"Richard Nixon is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump for a speech about conservation." 

Stephen Fincher is the Small Mind of the Day

As you may have heard, Republicans in the House of Representatives eliminated food stamps from the recent farm bill.

Why? Representative Stephen Fincher (Republican, Tennessee) explained by quoting Thessalonians: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

The assumption here is that anyone on food stamps is unwilling to work, and thus, should not get a government subsidy.

What’s interesting is that Fincher is listed as one of the most corrupt politicians in Washington, DC. For example, over the years, Fincher himself has received $3.5 million in federal agricultural subsidies. See, he’s a cotton grower, and so stands to benefit from passing the farm bill.

But still, there’s got to be massive fraud in the food stamp program, right?

Wrong. The New York Times reports that error and fraud in the agricultural crop insurance program is significantly higher than in the food stamp program.

Another important thing—food stamps go to poor people. Farm aid goes to corporations. The smallest farms will get $5,000 of aid, on average. The biggest farms (which comprise the top 20%)? One million dollars and up.

Here’s Fincher again: “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity, is to take care of each other. But not for Washington to steal money from those in the country and give to others in the country.”

Hypocrisy, thy name is Fincher!

Oh, Texas. *facepalm*

Via.

Via Huffington Post: 

“Texas state troopers are confiscating tampons, maxi pads and other potential projectiles from those who are entering the Texas capitol to watch the debate and vote on a controversial anti-abortion bill. Guns, however, which are typically permitted in the state capitol, are still being allowed.” 

Google has the aggregate Small Mind of the Day

Why should I single out a company whose motto is "Don't Be Evil"? This should explain it:

Google says that it's not endorsing James Inhofe's views on climate change. (He's repeatedly called it a "hoax.") But the Republican senator is from Oklahoma, so clearly Google's kissing up so it won't be opposed when it builds Midwestern data centers. Even so—ick.

How to improve America: Encourage families to have girls.

And if people insist on having sons, they have to be only children.

Here’s why. There’s a new study out titled “Childhood Socialization and Political Attitudes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” And it finds:

Having sisters makes males more politically conservative in terms of their gender role attitudes and their partisanship. Particularly for gender role attitudes, we find that these political socialization effects persist until respondents are well into adulthood.

So, all we have to do is eliminate boys with sisters ... and we’re in business!

Remember that time Barack Obama got reelected?

That was so awesome.

I especially enjoyed the thoughtful commentary we saw from the losing side. (Via.)
One Big Ass Misteak America 2012 Death of America

I laughed.

Via.