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.