Tuesday, January 29, 2013

David Brooks' New Mockery Defense Strategy

David Brooks is making it so easy that mocking him isn't' near as fun as it used to be. In today's column he criticizes the Republican Party for living in a right-wing bubble:
In this reinvention process, Republicans seem to have spent no time talking to people who didn’t already vote for them.
...
Change is hard because people don’t only think on the surface level. Deep down people have mental maps of reality — embedded sets of assumptions, narratives and terms that organize thinking. 
Mental maps of reality? You don't say! Brooks goes on to suggest that the way forward for the Republicans is:
...to build a new division that is different the way the Westin is different than the Sheraton.
See what I mean? I could mock him by saying the Republicans should instead differentiate themselves by being more like a Mercedes instead of a BMW, or more like a Rolex instead of a Tag Heuer, but where's the sport in that? His pre-emptive self-mockery renders me powerless.

Monday, January 7, 2013

How did we win on gay marriage?


I've been thinking a lot about the quick change in public opinion over gay marriage. I think it's fascinating. There is no other hot-button issue in my lifetime that has evolved so quickly. How did it happen?

We had TV shows like Will & Grace, Ellen, and Rosie that may have softened the opposition, but there must be more to it than that. Maybe it was just more and more people coming out of the closet, showing their heterosexual friends, colleagues, and acquaintances that their homosexuality is nothing to fear.

The rapid change was certainly not due to high-profile leadership in support of gay marriage. On the other hand, there was plenty of high-profile leadership voicing opposition. It makes me wonder...is it possible that Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, etc. were not only ineffective messengers, but so repellent that they inadvertently helped the very cause they opposed? I have no data, but I love that hypothesis.

In any case, it seems like a great topic for sociologists to study. Political strategists too. If we can figure out how we won on gay marriage, maybe we can figure out how to win on other issues as well.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Winning on Same Sex Marriage


In 2005, despite being heterosexual, I got married in Vancouver BC instead of my adopted hometown of Vancouver WA--specifically because British Columbia allowed same sex marriages and Washington did not. So, I'm happy that Washington has joined the ranks of the enlightened. I'm also happy that the Supreme Court will be ruling on a couple of same sex marriage cases. I think we're likely to see landmark decisions here, and I don't think we'll see narrow 5-4 rulings.

The number of Americans who approve of same sex marriage has increased greatly over the past decade. More than 50% now approve, and that number will only increase with time. I don't think any rational Supreme Court justice is going to stand in front of that train. Scalia and Thomas, yes, but I said rational. At best, they may get Alito to join them on the wrong side of history, but that's it. Roberts will certainly not thwart the will of the people this early in his reign. Plus, I think he will realize that Republicans might actually benefit by getting this losing issue off the table.

Before I could even post this, thrice-married Newt Gingrich and some current Republican congressmen have come out in favor of repealing DOMA and allowing same sex marriage. This is what I'm talking about. It's over, and we won.


Thursday, November 8, 2012

By the numbers


The recent flap over Nate Silver and his election model that dared to predict Obama the winner got me thinking about the right-wing aversion to math and science. Via Ezra Klein, I liked this synopsis best:
To the surprise of pundits, numbers continue to be the best system for determining which of two things is larger.
In this particular case, the right-wing aversion to Silver's election model just makes them look stupid. No real harm done. However, that's not always the case. Paul Krugman's economic model predicted the housing bubble and the expected slow recovery. Keynesian economic models showed the necessity of a lot more stimulus than we got.  These models were rejected, not because the right-wing had a contrary model, but a contrary mindset. They just do not accept math and science that challenges their beliefs. The result has been a prolonged recession -- real pain for real people. Even worse is the right-wing dismissal of scientific models predicting global warming and climate change. We already see more intense storms and erratic weather, but it's only going to get worse. This is fate of the world stuff. How many times do they have to be wrong before the default approach is to ignore them and to listen to the numbers guys?

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.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

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.