More Ugly...

While I'm railing on Carrie Duncan of The Gringo Gazette, I should rail about her partner in journalistic crime, David Flores. I won't have to say much--I can just let him demonstrate his own stupidity. Here he is talking about the discovery of a new species of fish, which of course means an opportunity to take a swipe at environmentalists and feminists -- all in a mere two paragraphs! Paragraph 1:

New fish! Why don't the eco freaks ever hail a new species, but they carry on like its(sic) the end of Earth as we know it if a little desert mouse goes extinct? A new species of freshwater fish has been found in Mexico and this one is more interesting than most. There are four treacherous and painful looking hooks on the male genitalia. 

Flores treats the discovery of a new species as if it's the equal and opposite of a species going extinct. What a moron. This is not a case where polluting our waterways gave birth to a brand new life form. It's also not like this fish was extinct, but came back to life. Just because we humans just discovered it doesn't mean it hasn't been around for eons, as Flores cites, but apparently can't comprehend, in paragraph 2:

A research paper describing the new species, which lives in a diversity hotspot in east-central Mexico and seemingly branched off from its closest relative more than one million years ago [bold mine :c], appears in the Journal of Fish Biology. Brian Langerhas, assistant professor of biology at NC State and the lead author of the paper, says that its unusual genitalia may play important roles in mating control and success. Well, yeah, if he can keep it in his pants until he's got the lady fish cornered. If not, this might be a distinct disadvantage in dating. You wonder just how many times the lady fish gets caught before she gets wise. And has Gloria Steinem been advised of this? Surely she'll start a protest. 

Flores' focus on the genitalia of the fish may make you think he's 14. His nonsequitur reference to Gloria Steinem might make you think he's 90. From his picture in the Gringo Gazette, prominently featuring his fake shiny white Baja teeth, I'd say he's pushing 70. In any case, his brain is clearly stuck in adolescence--a perfect partner for Carrie Duncan.

By Ugly Americans For Ugly Americans

That should be the tagline for The Gringo Gazette, which bills itself as "Baja's Only English Language Newspaper." The Gringo Gazette is a longtime vanity project of right-winger Carrie Duncan. Her primary focus seems to be pimping real estate and tourism in Cabo, but she never misses an opportunity to attack liberals, environmentalists, regulations, taxes, and government (except when government spends money on projects she supports).

One article about the growth of the middle class in Mexico, written by "Edna Middle", used the example of a prosperous young Mexican living south of Mexico city who had a Spanish translation of Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" on his table -- a book Edna* deemed "essential reading for Mexico's middle class." I'm quite sure that this example was pulled entirely from Edna's fictional ass. It is extremely rare for The Gringo Gazette to cover anything in Baja north of La Paz, but I'm supposed to believe that they sent a reporter to Mexico City? And that intrepid reported just happened to find the perfect example of Duncan's Randian fantasy among 20+ million people? Yeah, right.

Duncan frequently complains about those protesting the planned mega-resort near Cabo Pulmo Marine Park. She calls them eco-freaks. At the same time, she claims that tourists have saved the Cabo Pulmo Reef from destructive fishermen. That is ridiculous. Government regulation and enforcement of no-fishing zones -- policies advocated by the eco-freaks -- saved Cabo Pulmo. The tourists only arrived after the reef started recovering, and their snorkeling really doesn't do anything beneficial for the fish. Of course, like the right winger she is, Duncan can't possibly admit that the eco-freaks were right, and that government regulation has succeeded, so she gives credit to the developers and tourists instead.

In one of her always painful op eds, Duncan says that her next project after The Gringo Gazette will be to partner with an American ag school graduate to become a share cropper in Central America. She thinks buying land and hiring locals to farm it will help them escape poverty. What a big heart she has. That is the typical historical experience of share cropping, right?

Duncan specifically argues that share cropping would be much better for the locals than teaching them to read. What makes this hilariously stupid is Duncan's inspiration for becoming a share cropper in the first place. In the opening paragraph of the very same op ed, she recalled one of her first trips to Central America.

She met a young American college graduate who was very successful growing snow peas as a share cropper. To her surprise, the young American graduated from business school, not ag school. He knew nothing about agriculture, but he had a book on farming, which he translated for the locals.    

Do you follow Duncan's logic? The local people couldn't read, so they had to rely on an American, who himself didn't know how to farm. He taught them how to farm, by reading and translating from a book about farming. Therefore, teaching the locals to read would never help them escape poverty. Instead, what they really need is an American capitalist to buy up the land and tell them what to do.

How thick is Carrie Duncan's skull that it can contain the energy released by the collision of these awesome contradictions? You'd think by now the walls of her office would be coated with a slimy mixture of fake blond hair and botox, but no, she keeps writing.

-----------

*Duncan is such a serious journalist that she frequently writes under not-so-clever pseudonyms. For example, articles about transportation projects are written by "Dusty Rhodes". Always. Every week. Over and over.

What is a Wonk?

A Los Angeles radio host recently referred to Paul Ryan as a "wonk of wonks", but immediately added that "his numbers don't add up". To which I say, how can you be a wonk, let alone a wonk of wonks, if you're numbers don't add up? A wonk is someone who is an expert in their field. Someone who knows the details. Someone who can do the math. Ryan is not a wonk. He pretends to be a wonk, but Ryan is a fraud.

Biden pushed this angle in the debate by asking for details on which tax credits Romney/Ryan would eliminate to offset their 20% across-the-board tax cut...mortgage interest rate deductions? child tax credits? charitable deductions? Ryan responded that those details would have to be worked out with congress. Those are the words of a weasel, not a wonk. Of course, the details will have to be worked out, but Ryan must at least provide an existence proof. Give us some scenarios congress could consider to make the numbers add up.

Scenario 1. Cut A by X%, B by Y%, and C by Z%
Scenario 2. Cut A by I%, B by J%, and C by K%
Scenario 3. Cut A by P%, B by Q%, and C by R%

Ryan doesn't do this because any scenario where the numbers add up would be rejected by voters impacted by cuts to A, B, and/or C. Hand waving on the details is an evasive and fraudulent strategy--exactly what we should expect from Ryan and Romney.

Referees and Regulation

Usually, I hate the use of sports metaphors in politics, but the recent fiasco in the NFL provided a great opportunity to highlight the importance of regulation in a way that the average Joe can understand. To ensure that the best team wins, the NFL has rules. Those rules are supposed to be enforced by the referees (known as job-killing bureaucratic regulators per the Republicans). When the referees don't do their job, or do their job poorly, the wrong people win. The same thing happens when we deregulate businesses or depower the regulators. That shouldn't be hard to understand, but we still have a presidential candidate arguing that business would be booming if we just throw out the rule books.

Clinton's DNC Speech & Media Coverage

I feel dirty after reading the blogs - both left and right - and listening to NPR reporters give Bill Clinton a tongue bath after his speech at the DNC. If the media was wearing a giant blue dress, it would be permanently stained.

I am no fan of Bill Clinton. He makes good speeches, but not good policy. David Frum is correct here:

As Bill Clinton collects his accolades, let's recall: the key decisions that inflated the housing bubble of the 2000s - and that laid waste to the US economy in 2008 -- were taken under Bill Clinton's administration: the decision to leave derivative trading unregulated, the decision to allow deposit-taking institutions to engage in proprietary trading, the pressure on banks to relax mortgage lending standards, the decision to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to grow enormously large thanks to the implicit subsidy of the government guarantee of their bonds and borrowing.

In addition, I'd add that Bill Clinton reappointed, and thus legitimized, Alan Greenspan - in itself a tragedy. However, Frum is wrong in the very next sentence:

If President Obama inherited a mess not of his own making, it should be remembered of whose making the mess was.

If it was Clinton's mess, Bush had 8 years to clean it up, and in 6 of those years, Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. They didn't fix it because they didn't think it was a problem.

Props to Daniel Larison

Because even I am getting sick of my constant complaining, I thought I should document a bright spot. David Frum turned me on to 33-year old Daniel Larison at The American Conservative. Unlike Frum, Larison never publishes someone else's work with a non-commital "hey, this is interesting" introduction. Larison takes a stand and backs it up. Here he is talking about the GOP campaigning as the national security party.

The modern GOP inherited a reserve of public trust on national security and foreign policy that had been built up over decades, and they managed to squander it in the space of three or four years. By all rights, they shouldn’t be entrusted with these responsibilities for at least another decade until they have recognized their failures and worked to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. On these issues, they haven’t regained the public’s trust, because most of them still don’t know that they lost it and have to try to win it back [bold-sturgeonmouth].

Very insightful. His last sentence could be applied to more than just national defense. I hope it takes the GOP a long time to figure that out.

Mother Rucker

Is The Washington Post now doing satire? Suddenly, it seems everyone wants to be Stephen Colbert. David Frum, David Brooks, and now Philip Rucker:

In a campaign organization that has grown exponentially, it's speechwriting in which Romney's inner micro-manager reveals itself. An English major in college, Romney is a voracious reader and is particular about the words he utters, advisers say. He obsesses and fine-tunes, for speeches consequential and trivial, on airplanes and in hotel suites.

Seriously? Mitt Romney is particular about the words he utters? He obsessed about how to describe his love for Michigan trees that are just the right height? About his NASCAR owner friends? His wife's multiple Cadillacs? About how to give a shout out to the birthers by saying no one has ever asked for his birth certificate? OK. I'll give him that one.