Wholly unsubstantiated complaints

It's been awhile since we've posted here, but that doesn't mean that the Oklahoman isn't running stupid letters. A great example comes from Ethan Thomas of Edmond. He writes:

According to Rodney Bivens, executive director of the Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma (Your Views, Feb. 11), 'one in four Oklahoma children is uncertain where their next meal will come from.' Says who? This appears to be one of those often quoted and widely believed but wholly unsubstantiated statistics that never get challenged, because 'everyone knows it’s true.'

OK. So at this point, any reasonably competent person would use this thing called "Google" (it's a search engine for this thing called the "Internet") and try to get to the bottom of how this Regional Food Bank arrives at its numbers. But is Mr Thomas a reasonably competent person? Of course not. So instead, he writes:

This type of statistic is usually based on the number of people below the poverty line, or the number of people using food stamps. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has disavowed the practice of correlating food stamp statistics with hunger statistics or 'food insecurity' statistics. They have nothing to do with each other.

To be clear, at this point Mr Thomas is just sure that he knows how these numbers are arrived at, and then he mentions that the USDA has disavowed something or other. Like, that's it for him. He read a statistic, thought "says who?" because he doesn't really want to believe things are as bad as they are, he then dreams up some reason why the statistic is not true, and he's done.

How arrogantly stupid do you have to be to think that you, sitting there for like 3 or 4 minutes, know more than these huge organizations that put incredible resources towards better understanding their cause? Seriously. What newspaper would run a letter like this??

Again, if you just use Google, you will find out how they arrive at these statistics. Finding this took literally one minute. In their technical brief, Feeding America spells out everything. They begin:

Full Population of Counties (and Congressional Districts) 

We proceed in two steps to estimate the extent of food insecurity in each county. In what follows, the descriptions are for counties but, except where otherwise noted, they also apply to congressional districts. Because congressional districts were redrawn in 2012 and the most current data from the ACS reflects the former district boundaries, the current MMG estimates do not correspond with the current congressional districts. Due to this limited relevancy, congressional district data were not included in the discussion but are available on request, email research@feedingamerica.org Step 1: Using state-level data from 2001-2011, we estimate a model where the food insecurity rate for individuals at the state level is determined by the following equation: 

FI_st = α + β_UNUN_st + β_POVPOV_st + β_MIMI_st + β_HISPHISP_st + β_BLACKBLACK_st + β_ownOWN_st + μ_t + υ_s + ε_st 

where s is a state, t is year, UN is the unemployment rate, POV is the poverty rate, MI is median income, HISP is the percent Hispanic, BLACK is the percent African-American, OWN is the percent of individuals who are homeowners, μ_t is a year fixed effect, υ_s is a state fixed effect, and ε_st is an error term. The inclusion of OWN is new this year—in previous years, we only used the other variables. This model is estimated using weights defined as the state population. The set of questions used to identify whether someone is food insecure, i.e., living in a food insecure household, are defined at the household level.

Holy shit! This looks a little more complex than the shit Mr Thomas was sitting around pretending to know about. And that's the point. The organizations that are trying to help with hunger aren't out there just making shit up and winging it. And just because Mr Thomas, living in posh Edomond, can't imagine that hunger statistics are real, doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of data behind them that demonstrates that they are.

Any real newspaper wouldn't bother with some armchair quarterback crying bah-humbug about the plight of the poor, but the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper and instead works hard to push its own agenda.

Defending Big Energy

If there were any question that the Oklahoman used its letters section to further its plutocrat-theocrat agenda, there shouldn't be after seeing today's letter from Bart Benning of Oklahoma City. If you'll recall, the New York Times recently ran an article noting that the Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is just a shill for energy companies like Devon and OG&E. The Oklahoman then ran an article about the revelations that was essentially just PR damage control for Scott Pruitt. This was followed by a laughable editorial that came to the defense of the AG. And now, the paper has run a letter-- one-- about these revelations. But naturally, the letter simply takes the Oklahoman's stance on these revelations:

Regarding 'Attorney general denies 'secretive alliance'' (News, Dec. 9): The interesting thing about the New York Times article describing cooperation between Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and the oil industry is that in one short paragraph it was recognized that the environmental lobby has the same relationship with a federal agency. Why are people not investigating this environmental alliance with the U.S. government with the same passion?

 Really? That is the interesting thing? And since both Mr Benning and the Oklahoman's editors seem to have reading comprehension problems, note that Times article several times indicated that the sort of relationships Scott Pruitt has with energy companies is "unprecedented."

Moreover, it's hard to imagine why anyone should be concerned that AGs want companies to adhere to EPA standards-- that helps people have cleaner air and water. This is what AGs do. What good would this sort of "investigation" do? In Pruitt's case, though, he is working to represent major fossil fuel energy companies to lower environmental regulations so they can make more money (and pollute more, too). In other words, instead of representing the people, Pruitt represents Fortune 500 energy companies!! How does Mr Benning-- or this paper, for that matter-- not see that that's a problem?

Editorial interlude

In the wake of the New York Times' revelations that Oklahoma Attorney General is a bought-and-paid-for shill for Oklahoma energy companies, the Oklahoman was quick to rush to his defense. This is entirely unsurprising given that the Oklahoman is a bought-and-paid-for shill for Oklahoma energy companies. 

Their defense, however, is particularly pathetic and it seemed like now was a good time go to through it point by point to demonstrate this:

OKLAHOMA Attorney General Scott Pruitt and other Republican AGs are working together, and with private industry experts, to combat federal overreach in state affairs. Officials at The New York Times apparently think this is shocking, leading to an 'expose' that’s a case study in media bias and unthinking analysis.

We can begin with a comment about the rather childish nature of this editorial, putting "expose" in quotes to try and denigrate it and using sarcasm to mock it. It's really a sign of poor writing skills to resort to such sophomoric tactics. They're an actual newspaper publishing real opinion pieces. Can't the do better?

It is also the first hint that this opinion piece was rushed and not thought out-- probably because it was rushed and not thought out. The Oklahoman was clearly just as surprised as the rest of us when it came to these revelations (perhaps they were a little more secret than the paper care to admit?), but had to quickly come out with some offering of support, no matter how weak. Anyhow, their piece continues:

An article Saturday proclaimed the discovery of an 'unprecedented, secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general have formed with some of the nation’s top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda …' 

That Pruitt and fellow Republicans have joined with the private sector in fighting Obama administration overreach is surprising only to those who haven't read a news article in the past four years or a single press release from Pruitt’s office.

Again with the dismissive tone and sarcasm-- probably covering up and distracting from the fact that they have no real response to the actual claims here. The Oklahoman frames this as some Republicans fighting against the Federal government's "regulatory agenda" omitting they key parts of the story: the how and why!!

They go on:

The Times ominously intones, 'Industries that he (Pruitt) regulates have also joined him as plaintiffs in court challenges, a departure from the usual role of the state attorney general, who traditionally sues companies to force compliance with state law.'

But Pruitt’s office doesn’t regulate anyone. The attorney general’s job is law enforcement, not regulation.

I'll admit that the phrasing here is odd. But right there in the quote the Times clearly states what AGs usually do! So why attack them and stress "they enforce!" when that's exactly what they said? It's a strange tactic. They go on:

The above-noted quote also betrays the Times’ bias. Apparently, it’s fine for attorneys general to sue private companies, but not federal agencies. And here we thought everyone was supposed to obey the law and abide by the Constitution!

So here we begin what is a series of straw men attacks. Now the Oklahoman is claiming "bias" by making an assertion that simply isn't true. The editors are accusing the writers at the Times of assuming one thing is OK but not the other. However, they never say that. Instead, they make a very obvious point: traditionally, state AGs work to force compliance of state laws among private companies operating in the state!

I mean, let's go to the guy's actual web page! When asked "What are the duties of the Attorney General?" the page answers:

The Attorney General and assistant attorneys general have many duties and responsibilities representing state boards and agencies. 

The Attorney Generals' Office is comprised of the following specialized sections: Solicitor General, Public Protection, Criminal Appeals, General Counsel, Litigation, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Multicounty Grand Jury, Workers Compensation and Insurance Fraud Unit, Public Utility Regulation, and Victim Services.

I don't see the "Sure the Federal Government Because CONSTITUTION!" section, but maybe they forgot to include it. However, I do see lots of things like "public protection" and various fraud-detection stuff.

Anyhow:

The Times undermines its claims of 'unprecedented' coordination by noting, 'Democrats for more than a decade have teamed up with environmental groups such as the Sierra Club to use the court system to impose stricter regulation. But never before have attorneys general joined on this scale with corporate interests to challenge Washington and file lawsuits in federal court.'

See what I mean about this sounding like they just shot this out at like 2 AM and no one proof read it for actual merit? The above quote doesn't undermine anything. It acknowledges the point that the left has partnered with environmental groups to force companies into compliance of the law, but says that what's happening with Pruitt goes beyond that. Hence the "unprecedented" part.

So it’s fine to coordinate with private-sector nonprofit entities to advance litigation that benefits those groups’ agendas if the groups are liberal activists, but not if they’re legitimate, for-profit businesses? That’s nonsense.

Yes! It's nonsense because NO ONE IS SAYING IT. It's called a "straw man" and it is continually being employed here. Indeed, Pruitt isn't coordinating with Devon Energy here. Here is an example from the Times:

'Just a note to pass along the electronic version of the draft letter to Lisa Jackson at E.P.A.,' said one September 2011 letter to Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff from Mr. Whitsitt. 'We have no pride of authorship, so whatever you do on this is fine.' 

Mr. Pruitt took the letter and, after changing just 37 words in the 1,016-word draft, copied it onto his state government letterhead and sent it to Ms. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator.

Did you catch that?? Pruitt took a thousand word letter from Devon, put it on state letterhead and sent it to the EPA-- as though he wrote it!! And note the coded language bolded in the quote-- "we have no pride of authorship" is just saying "pretend like you wrote it and send it off tot he EPA"!!! It's totally unethical. Totally.

Moreover, it is absolutely NOT what happens when environmentalists coordinate with politicians to enforce regulation. And finally, note the difference between the two. One the one hand, when environmental groups coordinate with lawmakers to enforce pollution controls and protections, they do so with the aim of helping the citizens of this country have cleaner air and water. When Pruitt shills for Big Energy, he is doing so to help Big Energy companies get rich.

Of the two, who is working for the people as a public servant?

Still not done making themselves look even MORE like shills for fossil fuel energy companies, the Oklahoman continues:

Environmental groups have worked with the federal Environmental Protection Agency to fashion policy. Many Obamacare provisions originated with advocates of socialized medicine. Pruitt is merely employing similar methods to advance conservative goals.

So... "conservative goals" are "making sure megarich energy companies can drill and mine wherever they want"?? I guess. But this shouldn't exactly making anyone sympathetic to what's happening here.

Despite claiming Pruitt’s activity is 'secretive,' Pruitt’s office provided the Times thousands of emails and court documents. True secret alliances don’t leave a paper trail subject to open records requests.

HAHAHAHA! This is almost laughable. Pruitt's office didn't hand these over-- they had to. And if the editors of this paper actually think that "true secret alliances don't leave a paper trail" then they are idiots. What, is Devon Energy just supposed to dictate their thousand word letter over the phone? Jesus Christ. If that's the best defense they have... oh-- no. They have more:

To boost its secrecy claims, the Times highlights a forum on federalism and energy policy held in Oklahoma City in 2013. Yet that event, bringing together business and government officials, was widely publicized by Pruitt’s office. What kind of 'secretive' alliance participates in public meetings and invites the media to record them?

Before addressing this, note how now they are deflecting and really harping on the "secrecy" thing. Like, hey, this is totally sketchy but it really wasn't a secret, so it's fine!! But also, note how they gloss over a few things:

Mr. Miller’s pitch to Mr. Pruitt became a reality early last year at the historic Skirvin Hilton Hotel in Oklahoma City, where he brought together an extraordinary assembly of energy industry power brokers and attorneys general from nine states for what he called the Summit on Federalism and the Future of Fossil Fuels... 

The meeting took place in the shadow of office towers that dominate Oklahoma City’s skyline... 

More liberal attorneys general, such as Douglas F. Gansler, Democrat of Maryland, did not participate. 

'Indeed, General Gansler would in all likelihood try to hijack your summit,' Mr. Miller wrote to Mr. Pruitt in an email. 'At best you would be left to preside over a debate, rather than a call to arms.' ... 

The event was organized by an energy-industry-funded law and economics center at George Mason University of Virginia. The center is part of the brain trust of conservative, pro-industry groups that have worked from the sidelines to help Mr. Pruitt and other attorneys general.

Holy fucking shit. OK, there is a lot to decompress here but let's get to the key elements: yes, the meeting was "widely publicized" but obviously who got to go to the meeting and what was said was strictly limited to a select group of like-minded people. It was a "secret" meeting in any reasonable sense of the word. For the Oklahoman to harp on the fact that it was publicly announced and therefore not technically a secret is just a lame attempt to deflect from the real story.

(Also, as an aside, don't you like that the Times links to things in their on-line edition? It's almost as though they know how to use the Internet!)

Do they have any other defenses here? Oh, sure:

The Times makes much of Pruitt’s office recycling material provided by private industry experts. But the Times doesn’t suggest that information was erroneous or false in any way. Shouldn’t informed analysis shape legal arguments?

I said "holy fucking shit" before, but I should have reserved it for this line. Because holy fucking shit. So... Pruitt "recycles" letters from energy groups by cutting and pasting them onto state letterhead and that'd fine because it's just using "informed analysis"? And fuck. The article isn't a science expose into air pollution estimates. Though-- and let's be clear-- you know that Devon Energy's in-house analysis isn't exactly going to be objective. And that's the point. Pruitt was being deceptive in making his case-- or, rather, Devon Energy's case-- to the EPA. It's unethical. If Pruitt was so convinced by this, why not bring in some scientists from OU and OSU and see what they thought? Wouldn't that help in having "informed analysis"? This defense is laughably pathetic.

But again, these poor guys had just hours to scramble and defend what is obviously undefinable. So what are you going to do? They do finally have to admit to a few things, though:

More seriously, the Times reports that Pruitt’s former chief of staff was involved in fundraising efforts for the Republican Attorneys General Association and may have used state resources to do so. If true, that’s a major mistake. Oklahomans want state employees to do state work. Pruitt should have separate, privately funded staff — working outside his state office — to conduct such campaign activity.

Uh, duh. Too bad it took an out of state newspaper to highlight this sort of thing.

Those allegations are concerning. But the vast majority of the Times article merely suggests that Pruitt takes his conservative stances seriously. That’s an indictment only if you think politicians shouldn’t live up to their publicly issued campaign promises or that conservative Republicans don’t have the same leeway in influencing public policy as do liberal Democrats.

Do the editors actually think this? That it's fine to be in the pocket of Big Energy out of some "conservative stance" issue? If so, it's truly tragic.

More Mike Jones (II)

We've seen this before. Once again, we are going to get a tired letter from Mike Jones saying the exact same sorts of factually-challenged things he always says:

If the past is prologue, we can forecast what will happen in Washington over the next two years. President Obama will veto any legislation that would help the economy, such as lowering taxes, canceling unreasonable regulations on businesses, eliminating waste and inefficiencies in government, decreasing the federal deficit, decreasing the federal debt...

See what I mean about being utterly and completely divorced from reality? Like, taxes are already at historic lows and there is little evidence to suggest that lowering them further would "help the economy." And what "unreasonable regulations on businesses" is he talking about? Maybe it's that baseless "160,000 pages" (scroll down) he whined about? And while we can all talk about "waste and inefficiencies" and no doubt a government the size of ours-- the US has well over 300 million people, and is one of the largest in area in the world-- is going to have inefficiencies and redundancies. But are we really going to imagine that some Republicans are going to offer all this "let's eliminate waste" bills that makes sense?

Yes, Oklahoma's own Tom Coburn annually writes up a list of what he considers waste. And of course, they're phrased to sound as absolutely ridiculous as possible, even when they aren't always as bad as they sound. A great example-- the list mocks the government for spending $10,000 to pay people to "watch grass grow"-- ha-ha, right? Look at the government waste money! Except, well, it's not really so simple. When you're sort of an idiot and can't see the big picture, then it is easy to see why spending on anything that sounds odd to you personally must, by definition be a waste. Remember when anti-science Republican governor Bobby Jindal was made to look sort of like an idiot when he mocked government spending on volcano research?

All of this is to say that just because some bitter, jaded, ideologically-driven politicians call something "waste" doesn't mean it is. There is probably less real waste that you think, and it probably comes in places you don't expect.

A great example comes from Mike Jones' next complaint:

... eliminating waste from welfare programs and eliminating Obamacare.

 Obviously, Jones has fallen victim to right wing media lies and he's convinced that government welfare programs are rife with waste. Unfortunately-- but not surprisingly-- for him, they're actually very efficient. Also, since somehow Mike Jones must have missed this news, the Affordable Care Act has been a huge success.

So far, Mike Jones has been wrong on everything he's listed. Can he keep the streak going? Yup:

He will veto bills that would stop using taxpayers’ money to subsidize “green” businesses that can’t make it on their own.

 Is this even a valid complaint? Like, is this something that's destroying America? Because it's hard to argue that when you are confronted with reality.

So Mike Jones is spectacularly wrong. Is this a surprise? Can he be more wrong? Of course!

The quickest and longest-lasting way to improve an economy is the extraction and refining of minerals, so he will continue using every excuse he can think of to suppress the petroleum and coal-mining industries.

Wait. "The quickest and longest-lasting way"? Like, based on what? How is this clown allowed to make blanket assertions based on absolutely nothing?!? It's insane. What sort of real newspaper would run a letter saying this? Oh-- right. One that loves to shill for OG&E.

And fuck. Didn't fucking T. Boone Pickens just tell people to stop drilling for oil?? Jesus Christ.

A weak military invites aggression, but Obama will continue shrinking the military and replacing strong officers with weak officers.

Now we are treading into the real of absurdity. The US spends more on its military than the next ten nations combined. We've been free of attack from any other nation state since World War 2, and given this country's ridiculous military advantage over the rest of the world, it is hard to imagine someone attacking this country because we don't have enough super carrier groups. Despite this reality, though, people like Mike Jones will continue to parrot the line that Obama (or any Democrat) has a strong desire to "weaken" the military. (And amazingly, these right-wing nut jobs who whine and moan about government spending suddenly stop complaining when it comes to buying more F-35's.)

Citizens who can’t defend themselves are easy pickings for dictators, so he will continue arming the government agencies while working to disarm the citizens.

Tinfoil hat alert!!! (Also, please cite an example of where gun-owning rights have been curtailed under the Obama administration. Can you? No? OK.)

A well-educated citizenry is difficult to control, so he will continue supporting amnesty and supporting national teaching standards instead of local standards.

Wait. So are immigrants stupid? Are they somehow getting in the way of educating American children? I don't understand.

A well-informed population is difficult to suppress, so he will continue belittling and intimidating people and organizations that reveal the truth.

What does this even mean? Mike Jones seriously lives in a fantasy world of delusion and paranoia! Why would any real newspaper continually run these guy's letters?!? It's insane.

Divorced from reality

Sometimes you read some letters in the Oklahoman and you have to marvel at how well the right-wing noise machine has convinced people that certain things are true even when they are directly opposite of reality. Take today's letter from Stan Williamson of Edmond (please). He writes:

Oklahoma elected officials are pleading ignorance with regard to the excess salaries being paid to school superintendents, along with the ridiculous pay raises recently granted to the heads of various state agencies. Perhaps they should take up acting lessons. Appearing angry, while demanding accountability, has worked rather well for Barack Obama. Even though transparency and accountability was the centerpiece of Obama’s administration and every other political candidate in recent years, that conviction only seems to evaporate with time.

So let's begin with that fact that this letter is horribly written. What's his thesis? It sounds like he's going to vent about excessive pay among state workers but then he shifts to some sort of anti-Obama rant. It is amazing to see letter after letter from right-wingers in the Oklahoman who really have no idea how to form an argument and continually fall back on this I-hate-Obama crutch.

Anyhow, so after this stream-of-consciousness rant, Mr Williamson continues:

If the state and federal governments continue to grow at the current pace while ignoring short- and long-term debt, a stagnant economy and record unemployment, there’s a real possibility the system could fail. Placing such a burden on the private sector and future generations, with the fear and uncertainty of Obamacare ... could easily guarantee such an outcome.

See? Like, what the hell is this rant even about? Remember: this started with a discussion about how Oklahoma politicians seem less concerned about certain government employee salaries. And now we get into a huge rant about growing governments and ignoring debt and the economy and unemployment!

Hey-- wait. Government spending continuing to grow? That's not right. I mean, look at this chart:

Do you see how the blue line goes down after the recession? Like, if you were thinking, Man, I want a president who is going to rein in government spending, then the two periods you'd point to as being what you like would be the ones where Clinton and Obama were in office, and the periods you'd point to as being bad were the ones where Reagan and George W. Bush were in office.

Seriously: how divorced from reality could a person be?? This is what happens when you opt to get your news from shitty sources like Fox News and the Oklahoman. And then, seriously: look at these unemployment numbers:

It's hard to talk about Obama not doing anything about "record unemployment" when unemployment numbers are nearing pre-economic crisis levels-- a far cry from the numbers that we saw during the actual economic crisis. To be sure, they are still not ideal and more work needs to be done. But to actually complain that this administration isn't concerned with unemployment is to ignore reality. Well, that, or just spend your time skimming the Oklahoman and listening to Rush on AM radio in the afternoon.

And what's the "fear and uncertainty" about the Affordable Care Act? As Forbes notes, it's not killing jobs-- in fact, the opposite is happening. And things like choice and competition and a slowing of healthcare costs-- all things that the right-wing nut jobs swore wouldn't happen-- are actually happening. By the way, I love that this Forbes headline reads "And You Won't Believe What's Going To Happen" since anyone who hasn't been deluded by right-wing spin already knew this. At least a right-wing news outlet like Forbes can be honest when confronted with reality, though.

In any case, Mr Williamson's letter-- which started out with "Oklahoma politicians should pay more attention to school superintendent salaries" and ended with "Obama's economic policies and healthcare law will destroy America!" is utterly fatuous and no real newspaper would run such an incoherent mess. The fact that this paper bothered to run it tells you what sort of "paper" the Oklahoman is.

Warped history

One has to wonder just how in touch with the world and its history some of the regulat right wing Oklahoman letter-writers are. I mean, we've read letters from plenty of out-of-touch nut jobs, but here we go again with another letter from part-time columnist Tom McNeill of Healdton. He begins:

Our open border policy stinks. What it amounts to is not having a policy. Why are so many people from Central America risking everything to get into the U.S? If you look at tourist websites for those countries, they look like paradise. So, what's the problem?

First off: "open border policy"? When one starts off asserting that the US has an "open border policy" when, in fact, it has nothing of the sort, you know you're going to be in for a letter that doesn't jibe at all with reality. (I feel sort of gross linking to a Heritage Foundation article, but it does demonstrate that there is no "open border policy" in the US.) Next, holy crap. Did he really just openly wonder why someone might want to come to the United States from Central America because tourist websites show pretty pictures?? Like, is he that stupid? Seriously?? So, because the Belize tourism board shows a photo of some Americans lazily floating down a river in a scenic setting, the entire county must have loads of economic prosperity, opportunity for education, safety, and security?? Jesus. What a fucking idiot.


Still, even after this disastrous opening paragraph that no real newspaper would run, the Oklahoman has him continue on:

People are risking life and limb to escape conditions caused by the autocratic, socialistic governments that those very people have elected and tolerated for decades.

Oh! So maybe that last line about lush pictures was sarcastic? Like, it was some sort of rhetorical tool to get to the point? Again: the right-wing nut jobs who continually write into this paper to lecture Oklahomans about politics and history to prove whatever right-wing nut job point they're trying to make suck at writing.


But to the point-- does this guy really imagine that the citizens of Guatemala, El Salvador have spent "decades" just voting in autocrats and "socialistic governments"?? Jesus. Let's just look at the history of Guatemala. There's no need to go point by point, but when you read up on its history you see lots of "coup d'état" and "assassinated" and "CIA" and "military junta" thrown in there. You also see lots of "fraud" and "human rights abuse" there too. Given this, it's hard to imagine that Guatemalans were all just happy and loving their (United States-backed) governments that engaged in massive "scorched earth" warfare to suppress dissent. So when he writes this:

The citizens of those countries are, themselves, responsible for electing and tolerating the dictatorial leaders who’ve made the countries into the hellholes that they are.

You know that he's just a clueless asshole. But it gets worse:

Our Founding Fathers risked their lives and their fortunes to attain the liberty and prosperity that we now enjoy.

Hahahahaha! OK. So let's compare things in 1776 to things in 1976, shall we? Of course, we should all know this so it's not worth going into too much detail, but in 1776, there were some wealthy British colonists in North America who didn't like the British way of doing things-- taxing and some minor abuses of power-- so they wrote to the British government to say they were splitting off and forming their own country. With the technology of the day, it took the Brits months to travel with their armies, and their armies wielded largely inefficient weapons. After several years of fighting, each side face approximately 20,000 in casualties-- most due to disease.


And 1976? Well, in Guatemala you had an elected government that seemed to be improving the quality of life of millions of people only to be overthrown by a CIA-led coup because of threats to US business interests and overblown fears of "socialism" in the region. After that, you had decades of different coups and other attempted overthrows. To keep power, these different rules engaged in massive human rights violations resulting in the death of over 200,000 people, and the displacement of another million. This was easy to do, of course, since governments have access to incredible weapons, tanks, and airpower-- often supplied by the world's largest military power, ever.


In light of this, does it really make sense to compare the "Founding Fathers" to those fighting for their freedoms in Guatemala? Really? But I guess it's real, because he then writes this:

Where are the reformers of Central America? Why don't the citizens there put themselves on the line to reform their terrible governments?

Yes, dude: hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans were kills by the government to suppress resistance to said (US-backed) "terrible governments" so please please please fuck off.

My greatest fear is that, by allowing anyone and everyone to become American citizens, they will vote for candidates who mirror the leaders and the type of governments that they left behind in Central America.

Jesus Christ. So a) we aren't allowing "anyone and everyone" to become American citizens, and b) WHAT A FUCKING MORON. Like, your biggest fear is that... uh, some Central Americans would vote for the people that they didn't want in power in the first place because they were US-backed tyrants who cared more about Chiquita Banana, Inc. than actual Guatemalan citizens? Does that even make sense?


Only for a person who doesn't know jack shit about Central American history would think that this makes sense. You'd think that a real newspaper might hold off on running letters by people who have no idea about anything. But then Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper,  and they love to run letters that feed into various calming notions about brown people (It's their own fault for being poor and oppressed! We can't let their kind in the US!). Sad, but true.

Smell the stupid

We know that the Oklahoman loves to shill for the far right, and its letters section is just another way to do that. Letters written in support of progressive politicians or ideas are rarely seen (and when they are, it is usually just a ploy to run powerful replies against them a few days later), while letters attacking the left or hyping the plutocrat-theocrat right will be run-- no matter how stupid the sentiment, or inelegant the writing.

Thus, today we get some more right-wing shilling (and fear-mongering) from Joe Putnam of Oklahoma City. He begins:

Barack Obama says 'no boots on the ground.' In other words, the president has announced that although the American military exists to protect this country, under his command the military won’t be used to thwart a horrible and growing threat to America. Neither does Obama allow the NSA, FBI or CIA to monitor America's mosques.

Wait. "horrible and growing threat to America"? So he's obviously talking about this whole ISIS thing, which is basically a group of hyper-conservative Sunni Muslims who have taken advantage of the political instability in Iraq and Syria to revolt in order to found their own state. So while these people-- who are quite ruthless-- are a threat to Syrians and Iraqis, it's unclear why anyone thinks they are going to be a threat to the United States. Like, do they have airplanes? Or a navy? Because if not, then it's hard to imagine how they could invade a country that's on the other side of the planet.

Right?

But maybe you're thinking: But, terrorists! And that's a good point. But a) ISIS seems to be a movement centered around forming a new state in the Middle East. Like, that's their plan. So killing Americans (or Western Europeans, or Russians, or Mexicans, etc., etc., etc.) with car bombs or plane hijackings doesn't seem to further that agenda, and b) even if if WERE a part of their agenda, a huge ground invasion of Iraq and Syria wouldn't address the threat of terrorism. Like, they could still have some dude flee into Europe and acquire a Swiss passport and board a plane to the US and give him a big credit card so he could buy explosives or whatever and he could still be a terrorists. Sending troops into Syria won't stop that.

But depute the fact Joe Putnam is too stupid to see this, he continues to write:

He sent 4,000 American soldiers to help fight Ebola in Africa because we had two or three casualties from the virus, but he won't send soldiers to fight evil terminators who have killed more Americans than Ebola has and are adamantly committed to killing us all. Muslim fanatics have announced that they intend to take over this country. Our generals are giving Obama good advice about it, but he ignores them.

Wow. So hold on: this guy is so myopic that he can't see how stopping a pandemic might be a good idea given that we know how pandemics can grow, and somehow imagines that because some of these ISIS people are (admittedly gruesomely) executing some Americans who are IN the Middle East then THAT needs to be addressed by sending troops into Syria.

And again: "Muslim fanatics have announced that they intend to take over this country"?? For real? Again: call me when ISIS has an air and naval capability, OK? Also, let' be clear that deliberation is a good thing. This guy is imagining that if Obama says "no troops" that there will never ever be troops sent in. Situations change. Intelligence can inform an opinion once gathered. It's an odd mentality to believe that someone can't ever change their mind.

But he continues:

Wake up, America, and smell the bacon! In the not-too-distant future, with the continuing encroachment of Islam into our lives, we may not be able to do that much longer. This is what happens when you put a community organizer in the job of commander in chief.

OK, this is actually clever: he made a joke about Islam and pork. Get it? I'll give him credit, because that was a funny like. It's also stunningly pathetic to imagine that ISIS is going to take over America, but the joke was funny.

Also: when do we get to stop with the "community organizer" line? Hasn't it lost its luster? Wasn't he also a university professor? And a US Senator? Does anyone think that trying to zing George Bush because he was a cheerleader is an effective line? Oh well.

Anyhow...

The only arrow the people have left in the quiver is our vote. To checkmate Obama, evangelicals and conservatives absolutely must get out and vote Republican in November. For the future of America, it may be the single most important midterm election in the last century.

So there it is: we get to the real punchline. VOTE REPUBLICAN. My guess is that Mr Putnam could have made his letter be just those last two sentences and it would have been run. Like, just write "Theocrats and plutocrats, please vote Republican in November. It's super important."