Economics lesson

Today, Stu Young of Edmond betrays a significant lack of understanding about government and economics. In his letter, he makes the tired analogy that the government is like a family. (Curiously, conservatives like to make this analogy only when it comes to spending; one wonders how they would react if an analogy were made to noting that just as the Bible demands that children should listen to and obey their parents, so, too, should uninformed Americans listen to and obey the government...)

In any event, Mr. Young composes a completely unimaginative narrative:

My uncle has a great income but he's flat broke. He's maxed out on his credit cards but somehow when he needs another one they approve him. He's generous to a fault, always picking up the tab for dinner, even though he's probably in the worst financial shape of anyone at the table. He has no spending discipline; if he wants something, he just whips out the credit card and buys it! His “friends” are constantly taking advantage of him. Even if he stopped his crazy spending right now, it would take decades to pay off all of his debt. He's on the fast track to bankruptcy but doesn't seem to care; it's like he doesn't think it can happen to him.

My uncle's name is Sam. By the way, he has about 315 million other nieces and nephews. But like I said, he has plenty of income; his is just a spending problem.

As I've noted before, one thing the Oklahoman likes to do is run letters that parrot major right-wing plutocrat/theocrat talking points. The advantage for them is that they can run things without having to substantiate them, and without any sort of responsibility for what's said. After all, these letters don't necessarily reflect the views of the paper! In this case, they want to push the notion that the country is "flat broke" even though it has "great income." Neither statement is true, but that doesn't stop Stu-- no doubt brainwashed on a heavy dose of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News-- from thinking it, and it certainly is something the Oklahoman wants to repeat time and time again.

How to we know we aren't "flat broke"?? Well, one great way to tell is to look at how hard it is for the US to borrow money. In general, when people think you're a risk, they either a) won't give you a loan, or b) will only do so at a rather high interest rate. So are either of these the case with the US government?? Not even close. Right now, it is universally agreed that the safest investment in the world is the US government. Indeed, the US can borrow with an interest rate of virtually zero. Virtually zero!! Does that sound like a country that is "on [the] fast track to bankruptcy" (as the headline to Mr. Young's letter reads)?

Also, how great is that income now? Actually, tax rates are historically low. It's hard to argue that the government is flush with money when, actually, is isn't. Well, it's hard to do that in the real world. But when it comes to the Oklahoman, they're happy to publish anything-- no matter how fraudulent (or plagiarized!!) as long as it parrots their plutocrat/theocrat agenda.

And finally, what about all that spending? My. Young complains that the government "has no spending discipline." But is that true? Actually non-defense discretionary spending (you know, spending on things like education, infrastructure, and even Sesame Street!), is at its lowest (as a share of GDP) in 40 years!

To sum up: The US isn't broke, it isn't getting much (in historial terms) in tax returns, and it is spending little (again, in historical terms) on things not related to defense or care for the elderly. To state it another way, My. Young's entire premise from top to bottom is 100% wrong. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the Oklahoman from running such letters, aiding in their propaganda-driven effort to brainwash the masses into believing in their plutocrat/theocrat agenda.

Busted!!!

Wow. The Oklahoman is pretty bad, but I didn't know that they could stoop to this level. Today, in one of their random hit-jobs (this time on climate change), they ran a letter by Jim Nieman of Oklahoma City who writes "Regarding “Reality puts international climate group in a pickle” (Washington Times, Dec. 21): From the first time I heard of global warming, I've contended that man hasn't caused it"

We can ignore for a moment a) why he's bothering to comment on a story that ran in the Washington Times (does the Oklahoman run stories from other papers?), and b) why anyone would care that some random citizen has doubts about global warming (perhaps Mr. Nieman can voice his opinion on treatment options for lung cancer, or the best ways to improve stealth technology on F-22s!). What's important here is what he says later on:

In a statement, The IPCC confirmed the authenticity of a leaked draft of the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report on climate. the mercury refused to cooperate with the warming hypothesis that year; in 2012, the temperatures also were frostier than assumptions in each of the groups' four previous reports.

A sensible explanation is that Mother Nature has been playing a more powerful role in determining the weather than some would care to admit. One organization says improper placement of weather stations resulted in the temperature increase being overstated by 92 percent, and the last thing government officials want to hear is that the planet isn't actually warming.

This is all pretty tame (and lame) stuff. Tame, that is, until you read this:

The scientific models of 1990’s First Assessment Report forecast temperatures would rise fast, reaching alarming levels by 2010. The mercury refused to cooperate with the warming hypothesis that year. In 2012, temperatures also were frostier than the generous assumptions in each of the group’s four previous reports.  

A sensible explanation is that Mother Nature has been playing a more powerful role in determining the weather than some would care to admit. “Natural events created the biggest peaks and dips in the observations portion of the IPCC chart, and the observations run cooler than the models,” meteorologist Anthony Watts told The Washington Times. The biggest recent drop in global temperatures in 1992 was due to the lingering effects of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. The highest temperature in 1998 coincided with El Nino. 

Even though the official charts show no significant warming trend in the past 15 years, the planet may be even cooler than the IPCC figures suggest. Mr. Watts, who runs the Watts Up With That website, points out that IPCC is using adjusted data. In a forthcoming scientific paper, he demonstrates that improper placement of weather stations has resulted in the temperature increase being overstated by 92 percent. The last thing government officials want to hear is that the planet isn’t actually warming.

The above is from an editorial that appeared in the Washington Times just a few days ago.

Got that? The Oklahoman ran a letter by Mr. Nieman (if he even exists) that is, in fact, almost completely plagiarized from another newspaper's editorial!! If that's doesn't show how pathetic this paper is when it comes to its letters section, nothing will.

Evolution continued

[My apologies for a delay in posting; I've been traveling a bit. However, things are a bit more stable and regular posting should resume...]

A few days ago, the editors of the Oklahoman surprised me. You see, back at the beginning of the month, the paper ran a rather random letter discussing the scientific validity of evolution. At the time, I thought this was odd, even if refreshing to see. Predictably, though, the paper came back with several anti-evolution rants filled with the most typical (and uneducated) critiques of modern evolutionary theory.

With those letters published, I figured that this was it for the "debate"-- the editors had successfully riled up their theocratic base, and it was time to move on. However, I discovered that I was wrong when the paper ran a few more letters shortly thereafter supporting evolution. I was shocked! After all, the Oklahoman never allows a discussion to end with the progressive view getting the final word. Never! I was worried that perhaps my whole understanding of the editors was wrong. Maybe they did embrace an opinion policy that was grounded in reality!

Bahahaha! Of course they don't! Because now, we get what is almost certainly the final salvo in the Oklahoman's December episode of How Evolution Is Wrong. In this letter (titled-- with brilliant propagandistic flair-- "Where is the evidence?"), Dean Cave from Antlers (!) complains that "[j]ust once, [he]'d like for evolutionists to cite specific evidence in support of their theory, instead of statements such as 'There is a lot of evidence to support evolution.'"

He writes this as though no scientist ever has put forward any sort of popular writing that spells out evidence for evolution. It is truly embarrassing for Mr. Cave that he composed this letter for publication, and simply appalling that the Oklahoman would run such a letter.

As I wrote earlier, the talkorigins.org website has loads of discussion about the proof of evolution-- all available for free on their website. If one doesn't trust that, one could read some very excellent books on the topic-- I always liked Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, though this may be too theoretical and less grounded in the sort of real-world examples that someone like Mr. Cave is looking for. So perhaps he could look at Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne.

Either way, contrary to the opinion expressed by Mr. Cave, there is lots of material out there to read-- if only he weren't too lazy (or, really, uninterested) to find it. Worse, though, is the Oklahoman's strategy of running such letters. The editors-- as driven as they are by their theocratic/plutocratic agenda-- must know that an entire field of science hasn't existed for over a hundred years in the academy without some actual evidence. Yet, by running true rubbish like Mr. Cave's letter, they are tacitly agreeing with his sentiment. It's embarrassing.

Predictable reply

A few days ago, I commented on a letter by Edward V. Harris of Hugo, who argued that Republican arguments about the "47%" who are "takers" and "lazy" veiled racist remarks. At the time, I remarked:

I am pretty sure that the Oklahoman didn't publish this to simply let a concerned citizen of the state express his views. Instead, I'd wager that this is a classic Oklahoman Point/Counterpoint move. In the coming days we can expect a few letters from right-wingers explaining how they're so not racist, have actual black friends, and just hate the poor because they really are lazy.

Once again, I'm 100% right. Well, not 100% since Tom Miller of Oklahoma City didn't actually claim to like black people. Instead, we got some standard right-wing hit jobs: 

To say that racial bias and hatred are at the root of our citizens' attitudes toward President Obama's socialist, Marxist policies is “total malarkey” (to use Joe Biden's words). Obama has instituted class warfare to justify raising taxes and a government takeover of our great health care system. To say that people who are displeased with Obama resent the poor people of color is ridiculous....

Obama thinks he's been elected king of America with barely more than half of the people's vote. His definition of bipartisanship is “do it my way!” When he's made an agreement with the opposition, he moves the goal post and kills the deal. I hope and pray America can survive the next four years with these radical “progressives” in charge of our country.

It's not really worth parsing this letter very much: once you delve into the "socialist, Marxist" thing, you've proven yourself to be off the deep end.

One point is comical: a government takeover of our great health care system?!?! This is so stupid for so many reasons, it's almost sickening that people believe this. Point on: requiring all citizens to buy health insurance is not a "government takeover" no matter how many times you whine that it is. And also: "great healthcare system"?!? Has this guy dealt with his health insurance company lately? You know, when they tell you they won't cover you because of a pre-existing condition? Or refuse to pay for something because their experts have decided it's not needed, when then the doctor says it is? Yeah, great healthcare.

Ignorance is bliss (for the Oklahoman)

Today, Bob Kellogg of Edmond betrays a total lack of understanding of the basics of how our tax code works. In his letter, he asks "Why should wealthy people pay a higher rate of taxes than me? Why should poor people pay a lesser rate of taxes than me?"

Uh, actually, everyone pays the same rates on the same dollar amounts. When you hear someone talk about the rich paying more in taxes, what they mean is "pay more on the highest parts of their salary." For 2012 here is the breakdown for a single person:

10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus
33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus
35% on taxable income over $388,350.

As should be clear, a person making $500,000 a year doesn't pay 35% on ALL of that $500,000. So it's not that the rich pay a higher rate than anyone else; a person making $500,000 pays the same on his first $100,000 as a person making just $100,000. It's not hard to understand, but the Oklahoman likes to peddle ignorance so as to better serve their plutocratic agenda. 

To be sure, a system that Mr. Kellogg envisions would be dramatically unfair and would create a rather complex system where someone would be hesitant to take a pay raise to, say, $179,000 if it meant their taxes on all income went from 28% to 33%! But again, that's what the Oklahoman wants you to think: the current system is unfair to the rich and much be changed to make it fairer for them.

Sadly, their propaganda seems to be working.

Devolution

This is entirely unsurprising. A few days ago, the editors ran a rather random letter arguing that attempts to "teach the controversy" regarding evolution (a fake controversy driven entirely by religious fundamentalists) are misguided "attempt[s] to undermine sound science because of religious beliefs." Given that there seems to have been no reason to run the letter-- the topic of evolution had hardly been a topic in and among US politics, let alone Oklahoma politics-- I surmised that this was just an attempt by the editors to agitate its readership to gin up lots of anti-evolution replies.

I wasn't wrong. Indeed, it's nice to be right. For today, we get not one but two letters countering the earlier submission from Mr. Doane. In the first, Craig Hampton, Oklahoma City notes that he "[has] a bachelor's degree in a recognized field of science," and is therefore qualified to judge the truth of "sound science and religion masquerading as science." For anyone who is familiar with the evolution debate, these are classic lines-- first, the claim to have some professional scientific knowledge (though, admittedly, this one is pretty meager-- a bachelor of science earned some time ago is a fairly weak claim to authority), and second, the implication that evolution os just a "religion."

Mr. Hampton goes on to other classic bits of misinformation-- that "macroevolution" hasn't been "proven" and therefore, it must be religion. Unfortunately-- but nor surprisingly-- Mr. Hampton is uninformed and quite wrong.

Perhaps the best argument for "macroevolution" comes from genetic evidence in the form of HERVs, or human endogenous retroviruses. From talkorigins.org:

Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

Imagine if scars on one's skin were inheritable-- if your parent had a scar, you would, too, in the exact same spot. If that were the case, you could look at a picture of painting of someone from the past and, if you saw the exact same scare on the exact same spot as you, be reasonably sure that that person was a relative.

This is essentially what we are talking about with HERVs. But it's even more compelling because we are talking about specific scars along very long and complex genome sequences. And when we look at one particular HERV, namely HERV-K, in primate genomes, we see something that looks like this:






















The writing at the top is hard to read, but they simply indicate the insertion points of viral DNA into the genome. All primates share the viral "scars" to the far left, but only "old world" primates share the viral DNA to the right of that, and so on.

It is hard to explain this other than to talk about common ancestry. Note, though, that there is potential falsification-- a hallmark of a good scientific idea. For instance, it would be a blow to the whole thing if the same retrovirus DNA were inserted at the same point in humans, chimps, and New World moneys, but not in gorillas or gibbons. Likewise, if we saw them in gorillas and dogs but not humans and chimps, the whole notion of what's going on with these HERVs would be wrong.

Of course, none of that has been shown to be true, but perhaps people like Mr. Hampton can hope...

Cartoon break

The Oklahoman hasn't run any letters the last few days (at least, not in their on-line edition), so I thought I'd take a moment to address another rather annoying aspect of the paper's opinion page: its editorial cartoons.

In its long history, the Oklahoman has one only one Pulitzer Prize: In 1939, it won for Editorial Cartooning. Since then, it's been down hill for the paper. Their long-time cartoonist Jim Lange was, well, awful. This isn't to say that he didn't have talent. He just has no business doing modern editorial cartoons. They featured lots of dead white space, and generally depicted his "everyman"-- an older, balding gentleman with a mustache, bow tie, slacks, and black loafers-- in some state of shock over progressive ideas and politicians. Here's an example:

First off, what is he even saying? That the economy is going down, and so are oil prices? Or, if oil prices go down, then so will the economy? Is he in favor of this? Or just making some sort of economic statement? And why is the "everyman" there?  And then, lots and lots of white space. To make it slightly less white, he puts some minor shading.

I want to stress: technically, this is more than sound. The economy of line is great, the composition is good, and the diagonal line gives a bit of action to the image. But compared to modern political cartoons, it's sort of lame. There's no real wit, and it's hard to gauge what the point is.



Here's another. It's titled "Thanksgiving 2002" and the little label says "OUR POST 9-11 'Unity'" next two clasped hands. In the background is part of a waving American flag. To fill all the extra white space, he put some shading and, uh, clouds? Or something.

So what is he getting at? Is "unity" in quotes because he's being sarcastic? Or is he really just trying to say that we're all unified after 9-11 (and, ostensibly, we shouldn't question anything our government does?!?) And what's the giant star on the jacked of the left arm for?

Anyhow, his conservative-leaning cartoons aside, I never thought much of him as an editorial cartoonist. Yet, he and his 1950's style of drawing remained with the paper for something like 58 years.

When he retired, the Oklahoman just started getting random syndicated editorial cartoons, often from Gary Varvel of the Indianapolis Star. Varvel's style is more in line with modern political cartooning:



First, of course, these are in color. I don't know if the physical Oklahoman prints these in color, but that certainly helps the artist deal with white space a bit more. (For instance, he's put a yellow gradient in the door opening. Without color, he'd no doubt want to have put something back there, even if a bit of shading.) But note that he contrasts the computer-shopping husband with nice, simple lines with the haggard mall-shopping wife, who looks frazzled not just via her messed up hair, the broken glasses, missing shoe and missing tooth (!), but even the use of line on her jacket suggests it.

I bring this up just to note that while the Oklahoman has grown up a bit with its cartoons (though one might like them to hire an in-house artist), they're still pushing their ridiculous right-wing propaganda with each cartoon they publish. Moreover, since they have access to syndicated cartoons, they can pick and choose what issues they want to push and have it jibe nicely with their editorials, columns, and, yes, letters, to have a uniform message. Nice, right?

Consider this cartoon:



The meaning is obvious enough: Republicans are trying to compromise on the whole "fiscal cliff" issue, but Obama isn't willing to do the same. Of course, the fact that this isn't true doesn't matter to the Oklahoman. They just want to push their right-wing agenda in as many ways as possible. Note, for instance, that this cartoon ran on December 30, and mirrors exactly the editorial from just a few days prior, where the editors argued

The give and take that's supposed to be part of any negotiation appears, publicly at least, to be mostly a one-way affair in the talks about avoiding the pending “fiscal cliff.”

Republicans who've long held firm against raising taxes on any Americans are showing a willingness to allow some increases. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, said the GOP should agree now to extend the Bush-era tax rates for the middle class and fight later over rates for the wealthy. Few in the House caucus agreed, but you can't fault a guy for trying.

This is comical: so one Oklahoma Congressman suggests that raising taxes may be acceptable, few Republicans agree with him-- including all of the GOP House leadership-- and that is a sign that there is compromise?

Unprompted sanity?

In general, a newspaper's published letters to the editor concern things like a recent editorial stance, an opinion about some current event-- usually political matter, or some news item. The Oklahoman, though, doesn't always work like that. Consider a recently-published letter by Elliott Doane of Oklahoma City. Everything Mr. Doane says is spot on:

The theories of evolution of living things and of the universe have been refined and questioned for more than 150 years, while evidence supporting them has accumulated steadily. Any scientist disproving either would be famous. None has, so now every competent scientist accepts the validity of both. This hasn't stopped religious zealots from attacking them. Their latest ploy: Teach students to “think critically” and make up their own minds. Sounds good, right? Wrong!

Like, holy crap. It's refreshing to see this in print from the Oklahoman-- you just don't get this sort of thing every day. Of course, it's also a bit pathetic. I mean, would the New York Times feel the need to waste ink critiquing theocrat attacks on science? Not unless there were a large news-worthy event that put the whole creationism intelligent design vs. evolution "debate" on the front burner.

I admit that I don't read the Oklahoman cover to cover (as it were) so I may have missed some recent story about a local high school trying to "teach the controversy" about evolution. However, I fell like such a story, though, would be something I'd have come across, so I'm assuming this is an out-of-the-blue letter by Mr. Doane-- perhaps a frustrated high school teacher himself. If so, though, why run it? Oh, right. We should expect quite a bit of push-back from the Oklahoman's more theocratically (and not scientifically) inclined readership asking trenchant questions like "if evolution is real, then why are there still monkeys?" and so on. It's almost as if the editors thought "how to we agitate our readership a bit and gin up some controversy?" and then pulled this letter our of their reserve bin.

On an unrelated note, I wanted to comment on the final part of Mr. Doane's letter. Read it and see what stands out:

Today the evidence for both evolutionary theories is so extensive and complex that it takes many years of study to master either one. Virtually no high school student can accomplish it, so they're incapable of sensibly making up their minds on either. When you hear “teach critical thinking and let students decide for themselves,” don't be fooled. It's another attempt to undermine sound science because of religious beliefs.

What is this "both evolutionary theories" bit? No doubt Mr. Doane's letter was much longer and edited down-- something the paper expressly reserves the right to do. If so, however, they really botched things up. Admittedly, Mr. Doane says at the outset "theories of evolution" referring, no doubt, to the many tweaks and improvements science has made in biology and chemistry since Darwin. (Darwin didn't have a clue about things like DNA and was unaware of Mendel's work on genetics, for instance.) And while I'm hardly an evolutionary biologist, I am unaware of two competing theories of evolution in the same way that cosmologists debated between the Big Bang and Steady State theories of the origins of the universe back in the 40's and 50's.

My guess-- totally born out of cynicism towards the editors of the Oklahoman-- is that they deliberately kept this out-of-context remark in the letter to suggest that there is some serious debate about evolution. As a dog-whistle to the theocratically inclined, it suggests that the field is unsure about evolution and allows one hope that "intelligent design" can still win out over more "atheistic" models. Let's see in the coming days what happens with all of this.

Ambush!

While I appreciate the sentiment in the letter by Edward V. Harris of Hugo, I'm afraid that the editors of the Oklahoman have simply set him up for an ambush. Mr. Harris argues that disparaging remarks about the poor-- that they are simply too lazy, they want "gifts," and so on-- are oftentimes simply veiled racial remarks. 

Mr. Harris concludes his letter by writing, "[m]ost of this anger and resentment is a manifestation of a deeper racial bias and hatred," and there is certainly some truth to that idea. The so-called "southern strategy"-- a plan by the right to win over southern Democrats-- was grounded in racist appeals to southern white men.

In a now-famous interview, Reagan advisor Lee Atwater confessed as much:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced bussing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

So, yes, Mr. Harris' claims are at least to some extent grounded in truth. That said, I am pretty sure that the Oklahoman didn't publish this to simply let a concerned citizen of the state express his views. Instead, I'd wager that this is a classic Oklahoman Point/Counterpoint move. In the coming days we can expect a few letters from right-wingers explaining how they're so not racist, have actual black friends, and just hate the poor because they really are lazy. And to that, one might say the Oklahoman doth proest too much, methinks.

Pushing misinformation

A quote often (falsely) attributed to Joseph Goebbels goes something like "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually come to believe it." This strategy is a key aspect of right-wing propaganda, with a big help from the main-stream media, who seem happy to never challenge anything the right says. 

This seems to be one of the main uses of the Oklahoman's letters section, and thus we find letters like the one from Jesse Pond of Oklahoma City. It is filled with numerous falsehoods and lies, but they are all presented as fact. Let's break them all down:

Gov. Mary Fallin's decision to reject federal funds for Medicaid expansion is a highly principled decision... People need to stop interpreting the phrase “federal funding” to mean “free money from outer space.”

This is a wonderful straw-man. No one has ever imagined that federal money comes from "outer space" in any way. Indeed, everyone is well aware that money comes from taxes. Yet, amazingly, people still want to fund things like Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act!

Every nickel the federal government gets to fling around in this manner came from a taxpayer somewhere. To continue to blow trillions of dollars beyond what they can extract from the overburdened taxpayer will surely lead to catastrophe, not only for the poorest of the poor but for those of us who comprise the vanishing middle class. 

Are taxpayers really overburdened? Certainly not the rich! Indeed, life has been good for the rich since St. Reagan came into office. But don't tell that to the Oklahoman! They want to keep the plutocracy going!

Let tax money stay within state borders and let the bloated federal bureaucracy go on a starvation diet. Then maybe our grandchildren might enjoy the life our grandparents did.

What the hell is this about? This is a total non-sequitur. Just a moment ago, he was complaining that people are overburdened with taxes. Now, it seems that he is upset just that said taxes don't go to the state (which, of course, they do in Oklahoma's case). And stop-- please-- with the canard that somehow our grandchildren are going to suffer thanks to Obama. As Krugman notes, our debt is largely money we owe ourselves! He explains:

People think of debt’s role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: there’s a lot of money you have to pay to someone else. But that’s all wrong; the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources. 

That’s not to say that high debt can’t cause problems — it certainly can. But these are problems of distribution and incentives, not the burden of debt as is commonly understood. And as Dean says, talking about leaving a burden to our children is especially nonsensical; what we are leaving behind is promises that some of our children will pay money to other children, which is a very different kettle of fish.

So, yes, please stop. Not like the Oklahoman will, of course. But one can hope.

Predicatble

A few days ago, I noted that the Oklahoman had published a rather sensible letter regarding Fallin's rejecting federal money for health care. At the time, I wrote:

It's curious that the Oklahoman would publish Mr. Womastek's letter, and one wonders if this is a classic Point/Counterpoint set-up by the editors.

Indeed. Don't say I didn't tell you, because today, we see a letter from Rich MacMillan of Shawnee, who predictably writes a rant straight from right-wing media outlets:

The federal government has no money. It's $16 trillion in debt. If Washington wants more money, it'll have to come out of our pockets or it will have to be printed or it will have to be borrowed from China. All of these alternatives hurt this country now and later.

We don't need to borrow. We don't need inflation. We need to eliminate a bunch of useless government. Government, in and of itself, produces nothing. It only tells us what we can and can't do. And, it's paid very well for doing that! The big question is this: How do you tell government to fire itself?

This is nuts. This guy has no idea how macroeconomics works and has totally bought into crazy scare-tactics about China. And what the hell is this that the government produces nothing? Is he stupid? Like, I'm pretty sure that an aircraft carrier is something. I'm sure that the high school that he likely dropped out of was actually something. The roads he drives on are something. It's delusional-- truly delusional to think otherwise.

As for the complaints about being told what one can and can't do-- holy hell. Perhaps he'd be fine if the government didn't tell the local fast food place what it had to put in its hamburgers and he could eat grilled sawdust and spoiled ketchup. Or if his anti-depressants were just Mike & Ikes.

People like Mr. MacMillan are truly stupid and it is insulting that a major newspaper would run such a letter. (And even bother to bold the "very"!) The Oklahoman should be ashamed. But unfortunately, they're probably all too happy to run this sort of drivel.

Mandate madness

Jim Dixon of Oklahoma City puts forward some standard right-wing spin in a letter today, arguing that there is no Democratic mandate because

Obama won the popular vote by only 2 percentage points. In the Congress, the Democrats have a majority in the Senate and the Republicans have the majority in the House. Percentage-wise, the majority for each party is the same.

Let's look at these claims more closely and see if they are at all compelling.

1) The President won the popular vote by only 2 percentage points. First off, the tally is really 3.5 percentage points (50.9% vs. 47.4%) but that's only a minor quibble (though, does the Oklahoman ever fact-check letters before they run them?). The real question is what that number means. After all, it doesn't sound like much. But without some context, it's meaningless.

So what about context? Here are the last few elections:

2008: Obama by 7.3 (52.9% v. 45.6%)
2004: Bush by 2.4 (50.7% v. 48.3%)
2000: Gore by 0.5 (48.4% v. 47.9%)
1996: Clinton by 8.5* (49.2% v. 40.7% v. 8.4%) *Ross Perot's popularity skews this number considerably
1992: Clinton by 5.5* (43% v. 37.5% v. 18.9%) *Ross Perot's popularity skews this number
1988: Bush by 7.7 (53.4% v. 45.7%)
1984: Reagan by 18.3 (59.1% v. 40.8%)
1982: Reagan by 9.7* (50.7% v. 41% v. 6.6%) *Anderson's popularity skews this number
1976: Carter by 2.1 (50.1% v. 48.0%)
1972: Nixon by 23.2 (60.7% v. 37.5%)
1968: Nixon by 0.7* (43.4% v. 42.7% v. 13.5%) *Wallace's popularity skews this number
1964: Johnson by 22.6 (61.1% v. 38.5%)
1960: Kennedy by 0.2% (49.7% v. 49.5%)
1956: Eisenhower by 15.4 (57.4% v. 42%)
1952: Eisenhower by 10.9 (55.2% v. 44.3%)
1948: Truman by 4.5* (49.6% v. 45.1% v. 2.4%) *Thurmon's popularity skews this number
1944: Roosevelt by 7.5 (53.4% v. 45.9%)
1940: Roosevelt by 9.9 (54.7% v. 44.8%)

OK, we can stop here and have some idea of what's going on. We have wide range of victory margins here. Some are quite large (Reagan in '84, Nixon in '72, Johnson in '64), and some are quite small (Kennedy in '60, and Bush's non-victory in '00). There are also some skewed results where a third-party candidate was able to nab votes from the two main parties, making it unclear how big the winner's real margin would have been in a more conventional race.

It's also interesting how many times someone has won without a majority. Both of Clinton's elections were marked by a large anti-establishment sentiment, and there were others. (I had no idea Kennedy scraped by so closely!)

Obama's victory is somewhat small by historical standards (at least through "moden" history), but certainly not the smallest. And it is perhaps noteworthy that he won a majority-- something has has not been so common of late.

All of this is moot, though, since we haven't established what a mandate really is. Some searching on-line doesn't provide a clear picture. Left-leaning sites say that of course Obama does, while right-leaning sites claim he doesn't. And some sites don't know and ask people to vote on what they think!

If that's unclear, what about the rest of Mr. Dixon's argument? He notes that the Republicans control the House while Democrats control the Senate. Of course, since the GOP has gerrymandered numerous districts, the actual popular vote for House seats is in favor of the Democrats. It's also important to remember that the Senate gives each state two Senators regardless of population. So ultra-red states like Oklahoma are going to be giving the same number of Senators as is California or New York. Yet, the Democrats have a clear majority there (and even gained seats this election).

In all, it's hard to make a convincing case that the right's positions on the economy and social issues are ones that a majority of Americans want. Given that, Mr. Dixon goes out in left field and argues that since there are more Republican Governors than Democratic ones, the idea of a mandate belongs to the right. This is a particularly weak argument, unless he's willing to concede that places like Arkansas or Kentucky are really left-leaning.

The Oklahoman publishes letters that are factually inaccurate but that push an agenda all so they can keep their hands clean and stay out of the fray. It's pretty weak, but nevertheless par for the course.

Union Jack

The right-wing anti-union ferver is on at the Oklahoman, where they chose to run three (!!) letters condemning unions as the cause of Hostess' problems and, now, bankruptcy.

Consider the maddening letter from Dennis Miller (not, clearly, the comedian) of Edmond, who sarcastically writes:

Way to go, union workers at Hostess! You showed that terrible company who's boss! Of course, you're out of a job. No problem. Another company will buy up the rights to produce Hostess products and they must hire you. Wait, they already have bakeries and employees and your reputation of putting a company out of business won't put you at the top of their hiring lists. 

Again, no problem. You're a union and you got Barack Obama re-elected so he'll extend your unemployment benefits as long as you want them. Wait, he can't do that. Congress could but the country is broke. Once again, no problem. You can just retire. Wait, there's no pension since there's no Hostess. No problem! The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will take over your pension. Wait, they're technically broke, too — with more liabilities than assets.

What the hell is that about?!? I emphasized a few crazy lines, but I might as well have bolded the whole  thing, because it's all nuts. To understand, let's just look at some realities.

In 2004, Hostess filed for bankruptcy due to poor management with lots of debt-- most of it to a hedge fund. In order to keep things afloat, labor agreed to massive concessions in salary and benefits amounting to over $110 million a year. A worker who was making ca. $48,000 in 2003 was making ca. $36,000 after the concessions, not including cuts to benefits.

Then:

a private equity company called Ripplewood Holdings brought the company out of bankruptcy in 2009 for $130 million and rechristened it Hostess Brands. The hedge funds and other lenders forgave some old debt and extended some new debt. Ripplewood convinced the other stakeholders that it could turn the company around and, apparently, convinced them so completely that only Hostess Management and Ripplewood had seats on the board. Neither the unions nor the hedge funds acquired voting seats as part of the deals struck to keep the company afloat. They just trusted Ripplewood to turn things around, implement new technologies, introduce new products, and rebuild aging infrastructure.

That obviously didn't happen. Instead, by 2011 the company had lower sales and greater debt than before Ripplewood bought it. Still, when the CEO-- Brian Driscoll-- resigned, he was still able to walk away with his $1.5 milllion in salary.

Once the next round of negotiations came, workers were looking at taking cuts so that they could make something like $25,000 a year. Remember, just a few years ago, they were making almost twice that. As one employee said, "[i]t will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me." And that about sums it up. At $25,000 a year, you're looking at ca. $12 an hour. This is supposed to be the annual wage for a household's breadwinner (no pun intended), and the anti-union people think that that is OK?

As Jake Blumgart notes,

Pegging a horrendously managed company’s fate to labor’s larger troubles provides an exceedingly limited understanding of the wider context. The Hostess debacle is only half the story of labor’s decline: Manufacturing companies that are still organized from the glory days of the mid-20th century are seen as representative of the union movement because current American labor law makes it almost impossible to organize workers in, say, the growing service sector.

Back to Mr. Miller's letter, though. Would any serious letter include a gratuitous jab at President Obama here? And about those pensions...

In July of 2011 we received a letter from the company. It said that the $3+ per hour that we as a Union contribute to the pension was going to be 'borrowed' by the company until they could be profitable again. Then they would pay it all back. The Union was notified of this the same time and method as the individual members. No contact from the company to the Union on a national level. 

This money will never be paid back. The company filed for bankruptcy and the judge ruled that the $3+ per hour was a debt the company couldn't repay. The Union continued to work despite this theft of our self-funded pension contributions for over a year. I consider this money stolen. No other word in the English language describes what they have done to this money.

Somehow, though, this is all the fault of unions. Not management, but unions. This is the message the plutocrats at the Oklahoman want to push, and so they let their brainwashed readers do the dirty work. Ironically, this sentiment has left many Oklahomans struggling to lead a middle-class lifestyle as they, too, are forced to work for low wages and few benefits. But hey, at least they aren't in a union!

Bizzaro Oklahoman?

Today was an odd day for the Oklahoman-- perhaps the right-wing editors we normally find were still on Thanksgiving vacation. Of the four letters that the paper ran, fully half represented progressive views! One, by Steven B. Goldman of The Village critiques Gov. Fallin's actions regarding various 'Obamacare' provisions-- something we talked about yesterday. It is absolutely astounding to see the Oklahoman publish two letters in a row critiquing the governor acting in a way that is in complete accords with right-wing ideology regarding the Affordable Care Act.

Perhaps more astounding is the letter by Ernie and Teddy Schultz of Edmond. In it, they offer a pretty spot-on critique of posting the Ten Commandments on public grounds. In response to State Rep. Ritze's argument that the Decalogue "is a historical presentation of where we get our laws," they write:

Really? The first four commandments are about the real God, false images and sabbath observance. All are clearly religious admonitions. The fifth concerns honoring our parents and doesn't appear in any legal code I know of. The prohibitions against murder, theft and lying under oath are a part of just about every set of laws drafted anywhere, anytime, not just in this country. The prohibition against adultery may still be on the books, but when was the last time you heard about someone sent to jail for violating that commandment? And the last commandment about covetousness is violated in the very premise of the advertising industry and marketing in all its forms. The economy would collapse otherwise.

While one might quibble with some of their interpretations of the Commandments, their analysis is ultimately quite correct. Moreover, it is hard to really trace our legal traditions in a linear way back to ancient Israel. (And if it were, one could easily then keep going back to ancient Mesopotamia, and I doubt Rep. Ritze's family is going to pay for a fancy Code of Hammurapi to be put up!)

To reiterate: the Oklahoman almost never publishes letters that attack right-wing ideology, and letters that critique the Christian theocratic ideology that dominates much of the state are even more. To see such letters-- on a Sunday, no less!-- is a day to remember.

Of course, it's not like that was all we got; someone still managed to work in a letter pushing a typical right-wing lie: the poor are just lazy, and things like welfare facilitate the laziness. In her letter ("Government conditions people to stay on welfare"), Donna Symes of Oklahoma City cleverly (?) argues that just as birds in Alaska don't fly south for the winter because people feed them, poor people do not actually seek out work because they get welfare. 

The assumption, of course, is that living on welfare is a pretty good thing. No doubt thanks to spin from Fox News, AM talk radio, and, yes, the Oklahoman, the image that most conservatives have about those on welfare one of people driving nice cars, eating good food, and having a comfortable life. But is this true?

From the system's own webpage:

However, a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific. 

Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.

Wait. What? So a single person living the high life on welfare is going to get about $200 for food, and an additional cash allowance of $300? So... that's $500 a month. One wonders what Ms. Symes is doing such that $500 a month is enough to kill the incentive to find an actual job.

Unfortunately, right-wing media are driven by the ultra-rich who selfishly hate the idea of paying more in taxes (even if it's a paltry sum compared to their vast fortunes), especially if it is in some large measure to help poor people (read: non-whites). To drum up support for this anti-tax sentiment, these media outlets push certain memes that play on religious Southern whites: namely that the poor are lazy, and that welfare is a great deal that only serves to help lazy people. Thus, it must be curtailed (or, abolished).

The Oklahoman loves to push this sort of thing, given the largely racist, plutocratic stance of its ownership (past and present). So a letter like Ms. Symes'-- complete with facile comparisons-- is entirely expected. Unfortunately, while we should await angry replies to the letters about 'Obamacare' and the Ten Commandments, it is quite unlikely that Ms. Symes will receive a similar reproach.

Shocking Sensibility!

Today's letters section includes a true rarity for the Oklahoman. Jon Womastek's letter, "Gov. Mary Fallin pandering with health care decision," actually makes a sensible and impassioned critique of one of the far-right's major anti-'Obamacare' ploys: rejecting federal aid for Medicare and refusing to participate in insurance exchanges.

Rejecting Medicare funding is done because, according to the Governor's spokesperson,

no matter how much money the federal government contributed for an expansion the state ultimately would not be able to afford its share of a larger Medicaid program without cutting funding for other essential services, such as education and highways.

Because, of course, trying to raise revenue is out of the question. And it's better to have a swath of uninsured poor at the mercy of fate rather than have a healthy and productive (and tax-paying) workforce.

As for refusing to participate in insurance exchanges, this is less about financial implications and more based in ideology. The governor argues that:

It does not benefit Oklahoma taxpayers to actively support or fund a new government program that will ultimately be under the control of the federal government, that is opposed by a clear majority of Oklahomans, and that will further the implementation of a law that threatens to erode both the quality of the American health care system and the fiscal stability of the nation.

Note the "control of the federal government" line, nothing but a dog whistle to the AM talk radio-listening crowd. And why do "a clear majority of Oklahomans" reject 'Obamacare'? Mostly because they live in a right-wing media bubble that has told them that the Affordable Care Act is akin to socialism. (The editors of the Oklahoman can take a bow for their role in that!) And finally, it is clear that the quality of the American healthcare system at present is horrible, and that 'Obamacare' will only improve the fiscal stability of the nation. That she is allowed to make such statements unchallenged is a telling indicator of how bad our press corps is.

In any case, back to Mr. Womastek's letter. In it, he argues-- correctly-- that

[f]ar from being the conservative she claims, Fallin wants to score points with the party's right wing rather than doing the right thing for all her constituents. How is it conservative to turn down federal money for health care exchanges and instead continue to shove the cost of caring for the poor and indigent onto hospitals and insurance companies?

Indeed. But in general, this has been the mantra of the right for decades. Providing superior healthcare options for citizens of the United States is nothing but a march towards socialism, and helping the poor (while fine if provided by a church), is just facilitating their own laziness. All so we can make sure some billionaire is able to purchase a ninth Malibu home.

It's curious that the Oklahoman would publish Mr. Womastek's letter, and one wonders if this is a classic Point/Counterpoint set-up by the editors.

Disconnect on 'Obamacare'

I found this letter to be somewhat amusing. Raoul Carubelli of Oklahoma City writes that, among other things, "Obamacare can't be repealed but needs fixing. Romney was able to pass, with bipartisan support, a successful health plan in Massachusetts. His input is essential."

If he got real news from a real newspaper, Mr. Carubelli might know that Obamacare IS ESSENTIALLY ROMNEY'S PLAN FROM MASSACHESETTS. It is unclear what sort of "fixing" Mr. Carubelli thinks that Obamacare needs, given that he characterized Romney's plan as "successful" and further given that Obamacare is largely borrowed from Romney's plan.

Unfortunately, Mr. Carubelli obviously gets most of his information from the Oklahoman.

Point/Counterpoint, Oklahoman Style

As I noted at the outset, the Oklahoman rarely publishes letters expressing left-leaning or progressive sentiments. When they do, however, they almost always follow it up with a letter that directly references and attacks the author's left-leaning points (but never the author, of course). The end result, then, is a sort of Point/Counterpoint where the right-wing opinion always gets the final say.

A great example comes from just a few weeks ago, when Colleen Walker of Edmond wrote a leader headlined "Oklahoma should adopt path of progressiveness," that makes a valid point regarding the 2012 elections:

Many Oklahomans voted for a party that doesn't have their best interests at heart. A large number of Oklahomans have contributed time, money and lots of effort to a group of special, powerful interests that don't provide a platform beneficial to most Oklahomans. Too many Oklahomans have been manipulated to be pawns in forces that aren't friendly to their values. The initiatives in health care reform, financial institution reform, tax revisions and economy improvement that have been under way during the last four years will prove to benefit Oklahomans in the long run.

And indeed, it is easy to argue that on issues of the economy and environment, she is right.

This is the Oklahoman, however, so they won't just leave it at that. Instead, a few days later we see a letter from Stephen Butler of Yukon. The headline, "Oklahoma voted against Marxist principles," is classic in that it allows the paper to push a crazy right-wing idea ("We're all headed for socialism!!") without having to take ownership if it.

Mr. Butler rants that "Walker can't see the destruction these progressive principles have caused in Europe, where they've had the liberal utopia for years — countries buried in debt, high unemployment and a tyrannical government that controls your every move," when the actual data show that Europe's debt and high unemployment are a direct result of the austerity measures he is in favor of! (Or, to be fair, that he was told by right-wing media outlets that he should be in favor of.)

He goes on to say, "I'm self-employed. I've built my business for 18 years. Yes, I did build that! This is why Oklahomans voted against Marxist principles." But while Mr. Butler no doubt did build his business, it is certain that having roads, police, educated employees, clean air, safe food, and so on, helped him along the way. So yes, the President's point that business success happens in part because there is a functioning government to provide services and protections is entirely true. Yet Mr Butler, egged on by the various right-wing media outlets he surrounds himself with, believes in a sheer fantasy where "rugged individualism" is all it takes to succeed in the modern world.

In a parting shot, he concludes "[a]s for Obamacare, I hope Walker never needs a knee replacement or a pacemaker. She might be told to just take a pill." It's hard to imagine a more distorted understanding of the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Yet, his letter is nevertheless published because the editors know it pushes their agenda in a compelling way-- 'Obamacare' will rob you of proper healthcare!-- and without having to be responsible for the fact that such accusations are completely groundless.

But back to the point: Ms. Walker wrote a perfectly unoffensive letter expressing her views and wishes. The Oklahoman publishes several such letters every day. However, when those letters support a right-wing position (and often include statements reflecting a worldview that is counter to reality), they are never followed-up with a direct counter. Conversely, when those letters support a progressive opinion they are always swiftly followed by one (or more) attacking it-- usually with more inflammatory rhetoric, arguments based on faulty data, and so-on.

"California proof that taxing the wealthy doesn't work"

Let's look at a letter published today by Craig Blankenship in Edmond with the headline "California proof that taxing the wealthy doesn't work." It is easy to see why this letter was published. First, it pushes the plutocratic agenda of the ownership of the Oklahoman: don't tax the rich! Second-- and this seems to be a new angle for the paper-- it singles out California as some horrible example for how to do things. (Examples include here, and a crazy letter here.)

Mr. Blankenship's argument is this: Oklahoma's middle class pay higher state incomes taxes than California's, but California's wealthy pay higher taxes than Oklahoma's. Despite this, Oklahoma isn't "in the process of going bankrupt" like California is. Thus, President Obama shouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy, because that is a recipe for going bankrupt.

Mr. Blankenship is hardly original in making this argument. A quick search on Google shows plenty of right-wing on-line publications pushing the same thing.

The question is, however: are these people right? Unfortunately the answer is a resounding no. In Mr. Blankenship's (and the Oklahoman's) case, however, the answer is an embarrassingly resounding no. Before getting to that, though, one wonders why Mr. Blankenship (and the editors of the Oklahoman) didn't take that next step and come to the conclusion that higher taxes on the middle class is the way to go! Indeed, one could easily use Mr. Blankenship's logic to produce a headline reading "California proof that taxes must be raised on the middle class" if one wanted to.

But back to the problem. Mr. Blankenship writes, "In California, those with taxable incomes of $55,000 pay only 1 percent state income tax." Wait. What? That is actually just a made-up lie. When you look at the actual tax table for 2011 (pdf), the tax on a taxable income of $55,000 is $2,763. That's 5%!!!

Think about that. At this point, Blankenship is just making things up. Worse, the editors haven't even bothered to check his point. They just publish it because it supports the agenda they're trying to push! Looking at the rest of his numbers shows similar flaws. It is impossible to know where Blankenship got his numbers, but that is the beauty of the letter.

Ironically, California's financial problems are due in some great measure to the very fact that it is quite difficult to raise tax revenue there. Its famous Proposition 13 severely limited property taxes. (Essentially, it capped the maximum increase at 1% and allowed reassessment of base value only upon sale of the house-- if you've had your mansion since 1990, you're paying taxes with only meager increases on its 1990 value.) And raising state taxes requires a 2/3 majority in both houses-- often difficult to do.

So, no, California's problems aren't that people like Kobe Bryant, Kim Kardashian, these people, and these people, are paying too much. If anything, it's the opposite. But that's not what the Oklahoman wants you to hear, so they'll happily use Mr. Blankenship as a surrogate to peddle their lies.

The Daily Disappointment

Welcome to "Letters from Oklahoma"-- a blog dedicated to discussing the Letters to the Editor section of the Oklahoman, Oklahoma's largest daily newspaper. The reason for this blog stems from the fact that the editors of the Oklahoman-- dubbed in 1999 as "the worst newspaper in America" by the Columbia Journalism Review (for some reason, older articles from that publication are not available on-line; if you can find a hard copy, though, it's worth the read)-- generally use their Letters section to promote their own far-right agenda without having to worry about accountability or credibility (even if the Oklahoman has little of the latter).

In general, a newspaper editorial is written with a bit of decorum and statements like "Obama was born in Kenya and wants to turn America into an Islamo-fascist state!" have no real place there. Similarly, syndicated columnists typically write toned-down pieces devoid of hate-filled language and where right-wing lies and deceptions are more subtle.

With letters, however, all bets are off. When "Jim Smith" from rural Oklahoma-- a man who lives in a right-wing media bubble fed by AM talk radio, Fox News, and, yes, the Oklahoman-- writes a letter to the paper, he is free to talk about socialism all he wants. After all, those crazed, fact-free attacks are the opinions of an ordinary citizen and not of a respected newspaper, right? Right.

Yet, of course, the message put forward by the very selection of these letters is exactly the message the paper's editors want to impart. You almost never see left-leaning sentiment expressed in the letters page, and there is no real mechanism to respond to the lies and half-truths that appear in these letters. (Indeed, it is often difficult to do so given the 250 word limit of their letters.) You similarly almost never see published counters to the letters advocating some far-right myth, and when you do, the paper cleverly publishes responses to those counter-points before ending the argument altogether. Moreover, the on-line version of the paper allows for reader comment in all of its opinion section save one. I'll let you guess which one that is.

It is an incredibly frustrating experience. And while I have no illusions as to the impact of this blog (if I can even maintain the energy to keep it going!), I hope that over time, some will come to stop here and find refreshing counters to the right-wing hate that the Oklahoman promotes with its letters.

Thanks for visiting.