'What he said!' Ignorance

More than once, the Oklahoman has run a letter praising one of the syndicated columns it runs. Such letters are generally quite worthless, since whatever point the columnist was trying to make was already made the first time. Simply writing in to agree with a columnist without somehow augmenting the original argument is a waste of space.

Well, unless your paper's letters section is just a tool to further a plutocratic/theocratic agenda, and then having more and more repetition of "what he said!" is exactly what you want to do over and over again.

Thus, it's hardly surprising to see today's letter from Robert A. Baron of Edmond. He writes:

Reading Cal Thomas' “Exploring income ‘inequality'” (Commentary, Dec. 14) reminded me of advice my parents and teachers gave me when I was a boy: “Work hard, and you'll be a success.” Basically, they were expressing their belief in a strong link between effort and rewards: the harder you work, the more likely you are to achieve your goals. Decades of research indicate that they were right: the link between effort and outcomes is crucial.

(Note to the Oklahoman: there's a thing called "hyperlink" on the web.)

So the aptly-named Baron is talking about this column by Cal Thomas. It is, without question, one of the dumbest things that could be written by a professional opinion writer about income inequality, which is probably why the Oklahoman ran it. Thomas tries to make the case that back in his day, he had it hard, but nevertheless managed to succeed.

He talks about when he was 14 and working as a bellhop he pulled down $8 in tips "on a really good day." Of course, when Thomas was 14, it was 1956, and inflation calculators suggest that nowadays that has the same buying power as almost $70 today-- NOT A BAD DAY AT ALL FOR 14, CAL!

Cal says that "In the early '60s, as a copyboy at NBC News in Washington," his "take-home pay was less than $100 a week." WOW! Life must have been hard, Cal (inflation adjusted, that's ca. $700 a week). He laments that he "made $25,000 a year and took public transportation to and from work" back in 1979 (that's almost $80,000 today).

Cal's point-- even though he fails to actually make it convincingly-- is that he worked hard but somehow managed to succeed and get rich. Amazingly, though, Cal did this back in the 50's and 60's-- you know, when the tax on top income rates was upwards of 70%, and when college was affordable, and when unions made sure that workers had pensions and healthcare. Indeed, NO WONDER CAL SUCCEEDED. Yes, one needs to work hard, but it makes more sense when there is actually such a thing as upward mobility.

Indeed, when Thomas writes "Was it 'fair' that these people were richer than I was? Absolutely, as long as I had the opportunity through education, risk-taking, experience and hard work to eventually make more," he does so imagining that in the present, that there are opportunities for an affordable education (like he had) and that experience and hard work will actually lead to chances to make more money.

This, of course, is exactly the same sentiment that Mr Baron tries to make. Of course, Baron, who was born about the same time Thomas was, benefitted from the same advantages as ol' Cal. Nevertheless, he imagines that somehow trying to deal with income inequality will lead to a world where no one wants to work.

So what's wrong with income inequality? Well, it's not hard. If you imagine an America where working hard means you get ahead, then you're imagining a fictional America. That's because right now, success is far more connected to who your parents were than to how hard you work.

That's why it's so frustrating to read things like this:

Another downside to such a policy is its negative impact on entrepreneurship. As a professor of entrepreneurship, I've known many entrepreneurs. They differ in countless ways, but they all believe that working hard is necessary for success. So when leaders who urge "income equalization" also express support for entrepreneurship, I'm puzzled. How can they hold both views?

Notice the strawmen here? Again, Baron imagines that "working hard" is the only thing that leads to success. And also, no one is talking about "income equalization" here. It's about making opportunity (things like health, education, and experience) more available to Americans, instead of just those at the top of the income ladder.

Could there be a more disingenuous letter than Baron's? Perhaps. Would a real newspaper run such a letter? No. But the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper, and so it is happy to run letters that parrot right wing plutocracy mythology, and so we get crap like this.

More part-time columnists

Here we go again. But this time, it's Ronald Bouwman's turn to step up to the Oklahoman's podium of right-wing letter writers who rant about the same things over and over again, month after month. Before addressing today's letter, let's look back ad Bouwman's hit list:

Democrats are stupid and making us like Nazi Germany (August 25, 2013)
The liberal media are evil and making people stupid (February 13, 2013)
George Washington wanted us to be a Christian theocracy (October 22, 2012)
If we tax the rich too much, we will end up like Nazi Germany (September 7, 2012)
The US should be a Christian theocracy (July 17, 2012)
If we tax the rich, we will end up like Europe (January 20, 2012)
Taxing the rich is no good (February 19, 2011)
Banning bans on fake threats of Muslim theocracy is unconstitutional (December 4, 2010)
Taxing the rich is no good (October 9, 2010)
If we tax the rich, we will end up like Communist Russia (April 14, 2009)
We need to be more respectful of Washington, Lincoln, and Christians (February 16, 2009)
WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!! (December 10, 2007)
Only godless atheists think we should have a freedom from religion in the US (October 28, 2006)
Liberals will make us lose the Iraq war (September 2, 2005)
Not educating people makes them stupid liberals (September 10, 2002)
George Bush is a great man (September 8, 2001)
Did I mention that we need to be a Christian theocracy? (February , 2001)
We aren't electing good leaders (January 23, 2000)

And this is just a sampling of what he's written-- year after year shooting off letter after letter lamenting how we aren't Christian enough, and how the rich just aren't able to be rich enough. And check out this obsession:

"More than 150 years ago, Karl Marx wrote..."; "The 'enlightened' old notion that it's good to covet and steal came from Karl Marx in 1849"; "Referencing the 'new barriers' between the rich and poor is the same old timeworn demagoguery of envy, started by Karl Marx 163 years ago"

Sounds like someone hasn't quite gotten over the end of the Cold War...

Anyhow, today's letter is much of the same:

Judith Williams (Your Views, Oct. 20) writes of 'childishness,' 'king of the mountain,' and 'selfishness' by the president and Congress. Our country is in perhaps the worst state since World War II, and our growing $17 trillion debt is threatening to be our downfall. A few responsible politicians were unsuccessful in taking honorable action to stop it. Politics isn't a silly children's game; the very future existence of the United States is now in jeopardy. National deterioration began to develop with the elections in 2006, when Democrats gained control of the U.S. House and Senate. It escalated after Barack Obama's 2008 election.

Anyone who has an even basic understanding of economics knows that our national debt isn't in any way a major source of this country's woes. Indeed, one main problem with this country is the very obsession by those on the right with our debt. And what is this "national deterioration" about? Is Bouwman saying that things were great in 2005?

He continues:

Now the list of offenses against the American people is still growing, with unemployment, willful failure to protect our borders, anti-Christian bigotry, wasteful spending of billions on worthless 'green' projects, IRS political terrorism, attempts to disarm the people, an unworkable and destructive socialized medicine scheme, a propaganda network and far more. Only a little knowledge of history is needed to see similarities to the 1930s Germany in America's foolhardy and blind behavior.

It is hard to imagine how a real newspaper would allow such a pathetic list of unsubstantiated claims that find their origins only among the right-wing tinfoil hat crowd to be published. I mean, "anti-Christian bigotry"? And "socialized medicine"??? What is "socialized" about people buying private health insurance policies?? And again with the Nazi Germany thing. Soooo tired!!

Bouwman is a witless fool who has no idea what's actually going on in the world, and the Oklahoman should flag every letter he submits as "delete immediately". But the Oklahoman, of course, wants to push the crazy ideas Bouwman peddles and so they run his crap, much to the embarrassment of the state.

Sad sensibility

Finally!! Someone managed to get a letter published by the Oklahoman that actually explains this stupid "exemption to 'Obamacare'" that so many on the right (and their mindless thralls) are talking about. Patrick McKone of Tuttle writes today:

In response to Jerry Bowerman (Your Views, Oct. 21): Members of Congress and their staff are subject to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. When the law was passed, U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, attached language to the bill that mandated all members of Congress and their staffers have to buy health insurance on the newly created health insurance exchanges.

What nobody accounted for was that members of Congress and their staffers have health insurance from their employer — the federal government. No other employer has been legally required to drop its employee health care plan and have them buy coverage on the exchanges. What the administration did is rule that the congressional workers would continue to get the employer contribution to help them buy their insurance on the exchange.

Indeed. This is exactly what has been discussed on this blog several times. There is no special "exemption" for Congress when it comes to the Affordable Care Act. And while I'm pleased that the Oklahoman has run a letter properly explaining the situation, it is somewhat sad that this letter needed to be run in the first place. I posted recently that several major newspapers are taking a stand against running letters that present counterfactual claims. A real newspaper would never have run letters talking about how Congress was exempting itself from "Obamacare" because that's a complete falsehood. But the Oklahoman is no real newspaper and instead, it engages in he said/she said journalism that gives its readers the false impression that the issue is up for debate.

What real newspapers do

I just came across this news about the LA Times:

Numerous readers have written The Times to criticize President Obama and congressional Democrats for championing an unpopular healthcare redorm law while, the writers say, exempting themselves from it. For example, Daniel A. Cowell of Monrovia wrote: 'No one (especially those in Congress) can realistically expect the president to budge on Obamacare. This bill is his lifeblood, his legacy. Yet still, is it asking too much for him to not exempt himself, as well as Congress, from his own health law?'

Regular readers of The Times' Opinion pages will know that, among the few letters published over the last week that have blamed the Democrats for the government shutdown (a preponderance faulted House Republicans), none made the argument about Congress exempting itself from Obamacare.

Why? Simply put, this objection to the president's healthcare law is based on a falsehood, and letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there's no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed.

This is so refreshing. A real newspaper doesn't run letters that spread falsehoods and lies-- even if they push the agenda of an owner or editor. But the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper and so we'll continue to get the sorts of letters like we saw yesterday. Would that this state could enjoy a real paper.

(Update: a few more papers are doing the same.)

Obamacare misinformation

In a short-but-sweet hit job today, the Oklahoman uses its letters section (surprise!) to spread lies and misinformation about the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Jerry Bowerman of Oklahoma City ignorantly writes:

If Obamacare is good enough for the American people, why is it not good enough for President Obama, Congress and their staffs?

We have been over this before, but it's worth repeating. The basics are as follows: Congress and its staff used to get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, like all full time federal government employees. Indeed, in the United States, most people who have health insurance have it through their (full time) employment. (Or that full time employment of a souse or parent.)

Oddly, though, in negotiations for the ACA,

an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The amendment's author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it. 

This doesn't make any sense. The "online exchanges" are for people who don't have health insurance through their employer-- like people who work part-time hourly jobs, or who work for small businesses, and so on-- so why make gainfully, employed people who used to get insurance through their work go onto these exchanges? That is hardly the intent or spirit of the Affordable Care Act, and Grassley's logic is deeply flawed. Indeed, the ACA doesn't tell full time employees at the University of Oklahoma that they are no longer getting health insurance from the university and have to go on open exchanges. It doesn't tell full time employees at Chesapeake Energy that they can no longer get insurance through their company and have to go on open exchanges. It doesn't even tell the employees of the Department of the Interior that they have to give up being on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and go to open market exchanges. In short: it doesn't make sense!!

Worse, since Congressional staff members make a good living, they aren't likely to qualify much for subsidies on the open market exchanges like most people who use them. So they would be forced to pay for their insurance completely out of pocket-- unlike every other full time federal government employee. In short, it amounted to a massive pay-cut for these employees.


To remedy this, Congress passed a law that allowed them subsidies that were equal to the government's contribution to their old Federal Employees Health Benefits Program coverage. This seemed like a viable solution (all things considered) for a rather miserable, unnecessary problem.

Unfortunately, right wing media outlets don't really care about logic, or even reality for that matter. So they've spun a totally different tale-- one that doesn't really even make sense. After all, "Obamacare" isn't itself a plan. Americans aren't being forced onto something called "Obamacare" in any way. So when Mr Bowerman writes "If Obamacare is good enough for the American people," what is he even saying?!? "Obamacare" isn't an insurance plan-- it's a series of laws designed to make it easier for people to get private health insurance. That's all. No one is "exempting" themselves from this.

But the Oklahoman doesn't really care about truth or reality like most papers. All it wants to do is sew misinformation in the aims of supporting its plutocratic agenda-- even if this means harming the health and well-being of its own readers. A real newspaper run but editors with souls would never do such a thing, but the Oklahoman is not a real newspaper, and its editors sold their souls away a long, long time ago. It is a shame.

 

Persecution complex

An important tool in controlling witless masses is fear, and the Oklahoman excels at pushing fear to keep its theocratic base in line. As an example, we only need to read a letter by Larry Phillips of Walters that the paper ran today. It reads:

I've heard it said that the Obama administration is the most anti-religious of any administration ever. I beg to differ. It's the most anti-Christian administration ever. It doesn't seem to be concerned with Islam, Hinduism or any other religion except Christianity.

You have to love that intro, using one of the cheapest rhetorical tricks in the book. Who, exactly, says that this administration is "the most anti-religious" ever? Mr Phillips doesn't tell us, but that's OK because Mr Phillips is here to set the record straight. Or at least, he's here to make a blanket assertion with no evidence whatsoever to back up his claim. Instead, he launches into fear-mongering:

It won't be long before a minister won't be able to preach the word of God from the pulpit without fear of prosecution. It's already happened in Canada; we won't be far behind. Political correctness will be the downfall of America. Stating God's commands will soon be labeled as hate speech, punishable under the law. We're losing our right to free speech in the name of political correctness and our fear of offending someone.

Ok, wait. How is he jumping to these conclusions? He's heard of the First Amendment, no? Because what he's essentially saying is that the First Amendment will soon be repealed-- all based on nothing but one nebulous reference to something that happened in, of all places, Canada. Which, last time I checked, wasn't a part of the United States.

Look, it's easy to find some stupid aspect of the "political correctness" movement and then blame whatever societal ills you like on that. But that's just throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The reality is that it's probably a good thing that our society as a whole frowns upon the use of certain words and phrases that only serve to demean a certain segment of the population. To cry that "political correctness" somehow hampers Christianity because of "our fear of offending someone" only suggests that the main goal of the religion is, in fact, to offend people who are different.

And let's be clear: there is no anti-Christian zealotry in this country. Christianity is and has always been the dominant religion and social force in this country. Of course, when you're at the top of the mountain and everyone else has just started climbing, it's hard to be motivated to do anything. Thus, right-wing leadership and its media outlets have to drum up a fake sense of urgency to make sure the base is properly energized to support the unholy theocrat-plutocrat agenda. This persecution complex is seen in things like Fox News' hilarious "war on Christmas" meme.

Indeed, only through scare tactics like that (atheists are going to take away Christmas!!) can you make sure that easily-duped thralls will continue to watch your shows and, more importantly, donate to your causes. It's a brilliant tactic, and one that the Oklahoman uses time and again.

Uncle Jesse hates Obama, too

The Oklahoman's letters section is an embarrassment to the state. It is heavily slanted towards the right, and the views expressed often parrot easily-debunked lies about progressive views and politicians.  Just as bad, however, is the style that these letters are written in. You often see poor use of sarcasm, tired sports analogies, and, as in the case of today's letter from George E. Sneed of Oklahoma City, the simplistic use of what might politely be called "country witcisms" to get a point across.

Mr Sneed writes:

President Obama must not have attended an elementary school in this country. Otherwise he would've learned the serious consequences of misjudging Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by double-dog daring him not to use chemical weapons against his own people or we'd militarily meet that crime against humanity. Assad hasn't only accepted the challenge but has murdered hundreds of civilians by using poison gas. He, with Russia's support, has triple-dog dared Obama to strike him with an air attack, and has threatened to counterattack with terrorism on a grand scale.

Is this guy for real? "Double-dog daring"? "Triple-dog dared"? Should any serious newspaper publish this?

It is tempting to give Mr Sneed much more credit here. After all, he begins with a dog-whistle line about how Obama "must not have attended an elementary school in this country"--  lest we forget, he spent four years in Indonesia (when he was training to be a secret Muslim Manturian candidate). So let's make sure we remind the old white people in Oklahoma that Obama is a brown person who has had life experiences outside of the United States-- that's bad!!! Xenophobia is a powerful tool...

Anyhow, perhaps Mr Sneed, in embracing his "elementary school" zinger, has decided to write the rest of his letter as though he were actually in elementary school. But that still doesn't exclude the lunacy of this letter. Did Obama "dare" Assad to use chemical weapons? Of course not-- indeed, when you look at the context of the actual quote (this is hard for a lot of Oklahoman readers to do) you see that the meaning was far more complex, and referred more to chemical weapons "falling into the hands of the wrong people" than anything else. In fact, it seems like Obama-- perhaps naively-- was assuming that Assad wouldn't use them, but the rebels would. Either way, this certainly wasn't a "double-dog dare" as Mr Sneed suggests. 

So, uh, nanny nanny boo boo? Or something.

Anyhow, Mr Sneed continues:

At that point, Obama realized that he had let his mouth overload his behind and ran squealing like a pig stuck under a gate for Congress to rescue him from his self-inflicted injury. Congress has declined to do so. Then Russian President Vladimir Putin threw Obama a lifeline by promising that Russia would arrange for Syria to surrender its chemical weapon stocks to the U.N. This from a country that slaughtered millions of its own citizens during the last century. Russia's history of genocide makes Syria look like a piker.

Holy hell. Seriously? He actually wrote "he had let his mouth overload his behind and ran squealing like a pig stuck under a gate"? This sounds less like an elementary school kid and more like Uncle Jesse from the Dukes of Hazzard! This aside, it always makes me laugh when Oklahoman writers assume to actually know what was in the mind of someone else, and then construct a narrative (always negative) relating this mindset.

In any event, it's hard to see what the problem is. Obama clearly stated that the use of chemical weapons would "would change [his] calculus" and "would change [his] equation” in terms of military intervention. When chemical weapons were used, he went to Congress to ask for this, which isn't exactly a crazy thing to do, given how war-weary Americans were. The only reason Congress seemed to go against it was because, well, it was a brown Democrat asking, and they tend to hate anything he does.

Did Putin really "throw Obama a lifeline"? It seems much more likely that they were saving their own skin from international backlash given that they were the ones who had supplied the weapons in the first place!

And someone PLEASE remind Mr Sneed that the Soviet Union dissolved about 20 years ago. Invoking something that Stalin or Lenin did as some sort of "history of genocide" given that there is an entirely new form of government in place just makes you sound like some sort of Oklahoma version of Rip Van Winkle. "The Commies, son! The COMMIES!!!!!!!!"

And what the fuck is a "piker"?? I'm too tired to look up country witicisms like this. It's an embarrassment. Memo to the Oklahoman: some readers are under 70.

Uncle Jesse concludes:

The Obama administration has been the most corrupt and hapless one since Warren G. Harding's presidency. We've now lost all face with our allies and have become a laughingstock to our enemies. I shudder to think what may happen during the remainder of Obama's presidency unless Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court do something to rein in his hubris.

Ha! It's hard to imagine how one can be both so clever as to engage in all sorts of corruption (surpassing Bush, Reagan, and Nixon) but at the same time also be completely hapless. Right wing nut jobs want to have it both ways. Fortunately, they seem to excel at cognitive dissonance and so it's not much of a problem. (There's also a bit of irony in highlighting the Harding administration, given that his economic policies were definitely something the right wing would love-- even though he is regarded as a terrible president.)

And finally, what is Congress and the Supreme Court going to do?? Is this code for impeachment? Whichever. It doesn't matter. While Mr Sneed's letter isn't the worst letter the paper has ever run, it is still an embarrassment to the state. Why not just write "I hate Obama and liberals!" and spare us the juvenile elementary school taunts and lame folksy quips?

Miller's hit parade

As has been established, Tom Miller of Oklahoma City hates Hillary Clinton. We know this, because he's a regular writer to the Oklahoman. Given how much the Oklahoman hates Clinton, this relationship is a match made in heaven, and it explains why today we yet another Miller letter complaining about-- yes-- Hillary Clinton.

The letter itself is a shitty example of writing:

In light of how President Obama constantly blames others for his failures and problems, I'd like to hear him behind closed doors. In the tradition of the old comedy duo of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, I can just hear Obama saying to or about his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, “Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten me into,” ...

This sort of rhetorical writing has its place. But in a 250 word letter, it's clumsy and less effective than just making a more straightforward point.

In the end, he ends up doing this, putting out the tired right-wing list of non-scandals that somehow should be considered scandals:

Resetting our relations with Russia. It now appears that they've turned our relations into “Cool War” days. 

Handling of the Benghazi tragedy of Sept. 11, 2012, and the apparent attempted cover-up.

Clinton's complicity in the “Arab Spring” mess and the resulting gassing of hundreds of innocent women and children in Syria.

 We can already cross off the Benghazi non-scandal since it's been demonstrated that it is, well, a non-scandal. But what's this about Clinton ruining relations with Russia? The reality is-- of course-- far more complex than blaming one person, but if one person were to be blamed, it's hardly Clinton (and much more the former KGB agent who has done everything he can to stay in power in Russia...)

And how is an American Secretary of State "complicit" in a bunch of Middle East uprisings? Again, the "Arab Spring" is and was a very organic series of events that the US has and had very little control over. It's hard to imagine a more stupid assertion than that it's Hillary Clinton's fault that the Syrian government gassed its own citizens.

Would any real newspaper run this rubbish?

Mr Miller closes by saying

When will the mainstream media wake up and hold Obama and his administration accountable for their total incompetence and bungling of international affairs? His leading from behind, indecisiveness and always attempting to blame others will be Obama's legacy.

We need real “Hope and Change” in Washington, not “Another Fine Mess.”

What IS this? Tim Miller constructs a straw man wherein Obama blames Clinton for everything, and concludes by saying that he always blames others? It's completely stupid. Yet, this sort of drivel is exactly the sort of thing the right-wing plutocrats at the Oklahoman want to push on their hapless readers, and so hacks like Tom Miller continue to have their poorly-written, parroted propaganda letters published. It's truly an embarrassment to the state.

Childish insults

Would any real newspaper run a letter like today's letter from Patrick Gentis of Bethany? He writes:

In “Looking for love by bashing Hillary” (Commentary, Aug. 23), Clarence Page reported that NBC and CNN were planning a movie or miniseries depicting the life of Hillary Clinton. Page said that no one in the Hillary camp expects either of the networks to produce a puff piece about her. Really? For starters, how about the report that the beautiful and vivacious Diane Lane was approached to play the lead role? I suggest that the networks look to either Rosie O'Donnell or Roseanne Barr for the lead. They both have Clinton's personality and demeanor.

Holy crap.

Mr. Gentis is talking about this piece from Clarence Page, where, as noted, some proposed made-for-TV movies about Hillary Clinton are discussed. The column itself is a smart piece that uses the proposed Clinton movies as a jumping off point to talk about larger issues of party politics. Mr. Gentis, though, frothing over "media bias"after years of watching Fox News and listening to AM talk radio, and who no doubt has limited reading comprehension skills, latches on to the "puff piece" line and runs with it.

All of this is a set-up, though, for what can only be described as a childish insult. While he disguises this by saying that Clinton has the "personality and demeanor" of Rosie O'Donnell or Roseanne Barr (as though he has any idea), the real comparison is in looks-- no one would consider either of these two women to be attractive, seeing as they are short and overweight. Notice how he describes Diane Lane as "beautiful and vivacious"-- nothing about her "personality and demeanor" is mentioned.

We all know that the Oklahoman likes to run hit-jobs on Clinton-- they've done it for years. But would any real paper run a letter that amounts to "Clinton is fat and ugly"??? That's schoolyard stuff and something that major newspapers would be above running. But the Oklahoman isn't a real paper and any chance they get to attack major Democratic players like Clinton, they'll take it.

It's truly embarrassing.

Healthcare propaganda

One great indicator of how far right the right-wing has shifted in the last 20 years is its approach to the healthcare problem. The current system is woefully inefficient (despite claims from low-information voters to the contrary), and it is all too easy for ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people to fall through the cracks. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is an attempt to address some of those problems and, as has been well documented, the main aspects of the program were drawn up by the right wing Heritage Foundation think tank.

Fast forward a few decades and all of a sudden, "Obamacare" is now more or less socialism in the eyes of right-wingers. Of course, much of this is due to the propaganda from the plutocracy's media machine-- including the Oklahoman. And as today's letter from R.W. Boyer of El Reno shows, the propaganda is still going strong. He writes:

The Obama administration and members of Congress expect citizens of the United States to accept Obamacare while they themselves refuse to have much to do with it. They make a lot more money than most citizens do and they say that they can't afford the cost of Obamacare? What makes them think that everyday “Joe Plumber” can afford it?

As usual, we have someone talking about an issue that they are clearly ignorant of. Mr Boyer is talking about how

U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.

This sounds fishy, but it's not. Previously, these people were covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-- the insurance that covers millions of Americans employed by the federal government. And indeed, getting insurance through an employer is how it works for most Americans.

Strangely, though, as the ACA was being drawn up,

an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The amendment's author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it.

This doesn't make any sense and it is mind-boggling that Congress would do this. Forcing people off of their employed- provided insurance isn't the point of "Obamacare" so claiming otherwise is, well, a mistake.

Realizing this, Congress has now allowed the federal government to pay for 75% of the premiums for these individual plans that they shouldn't have to get in the first place.

Mr. Boyer totally doesn't get it. Indeed, he writes that

This administration and Congress are trying to pass off a dangerous and inferior product as something good for us yet bad for them. Their refusal to have anything to do with Obamacare for themselves and their families should be a huge red flag of concern for everybody!

Again: "Obamacare" isn't a product. It's a series of regulations that do some basic things to improve the healthcare industry. Unfortunately, Mr Boyer-- like many Americans-- is clueless about what "Obamacare" is and rails against it only because he's been told lies by right-wing media outlets like the Oklahoman. A real newspaper would try to inform its readers. But for the plutocracy, they can only survive by spreading propaganda, and so we get newspapers like the Oklahoman. It's a disgrace.

What he said: The Democrat hate edition

The letters to the editor of late at the Oklahoman have been particularly bad, and today's letter from Ronald Bouwman of Oklahoma City continues that trend. He starts:

Jack D. Cypert (Your Views, Aug 18) blames several conditions that have led America to its present state of peril, but principally the Democratic Party. I'm proud to be one of an Oklahoma majority who would agree.

So... he's citing a particularly horrible letter from a few days ago and adding a "what he said!" to it. It hardly seems worthy of publishing at this point of all he's doing is echoing another letter. But then again, given that the contents are exactly the message that the Oklahoman wants to drive home, it is really exactly the sort of letter the Oklahoman would run.

Mr Bouwman continues,

There are still many in our country who will defile the messenger and ignore the message; most either weren't even watching the 2012 Democratic National Convention, or agreed, when a large number of Democratic delegates stood to loudly and openly boo God and Israel.

Ha! Here's what I'm guessing: That Mr Bouwman didn't actually watch the 2012 Democratic National Convention. If so, he might have seen this:

So, yeah. So much for that bit of propaganda. (Note to the editors: when you hear something that sounds preposterous you may want to check it out. This took about 10 seconds to find.)

Anyhow, we get more:

A great share of our “news” media has become a propaganda outlet that could be the envy of Josef Goebbels; but our “ignorantia” — those who just don't and won't understand — don't even know how they've been suckered into supporting pure anti-Americanism.

Like Mr Cypert, I suppose Mr Bouwman is a mind-reader. Notice the same tired memes about the press-- if only the media were fair, right wing candidates would prevail! This isn't to say that some news media aren't shilling propaganda (*cough* Oklahoman *cough*). But it hardly comes from the "mainstream" media, who are largely incompetent and spend most of their time sensationalizing everything in the hopes of driving up ratings.

And given the he's already been suckered by right-wing media, I don't know how he thinks he has special powers to spot propaganda.

We have an elite “intelligentsia” who lead the “ignorantia,” doing so with condescending claims of credence by virtue of their academic accomplishments. This "intelligentsia" is more a part of the "ignorantia" and an even greater threat to this great country of ours.

It's hard to know where to go here, except that the right has for a generation or two been staunchly anti-intellectual (I guess as a nod to the theocratic base and its love of creationism?) so I suppose he had to touch all of his bases and throw that in. too.

Overall, it's a shitty letter that adds virtually nothing new to the "discussion" began by Mr Cypert. No real newspaper would have run such rubbish. But because hits all the right talking points of the plutocrat/theocrat agenda, the Oklahoman decided to run it.

Theocracy break

The Oklahoman doesn't just shill for the plutocracy. It appeals to the theocrats, too. This is part of a an unholy alliance formed a generation ago (or more) wherein the plutocrats (many of whom couldn't care less about Christianity and the Bible) enlisted the theocrats (many leaders of which were fabulously wealthy) to create a united front.

After all, plutocrats alone represent a small fragment of the population and aren't going to win many votes. But toss in a bunch of dull-witted, slightly racist Bible-believers and you have a lot of votes. So as long as the theocrats shill for lower taxes and less regulation (here is an example, apropos of today), then the plutocrats will be sure to shill for Jesus.

Thins brings us to today, where Mike Jones of Oklahoma City (yes, that Mike Jones) writes a mini-sermon that the state's paper of record decided to publish. He writes:

When archaeologists study ancient civilizations, they find one thing in common in virtually all of them. The people worshipped something. It might have been an idol or an unseen spirit, but they recognized the existence of a supernatural being with power over them. And yet many of these civilizations never had contact with each other. Where did they get this information? Where did they get this resolve — a resolve so strong that battles were fought in support of their god?

This is a valid question. An obvious (to some) answer is to posit that invoking the supernatural to explain the natural is a quick and dirty way to explain things that otherwise are difficult to understand. And a cynic might add that unscrupulous people may claim a special relationship with the supernatural to gain fame, power, and wealth.

(And by the way, it's not just archaeologists who study ancient civilizations. And they find plenty of other things "in common" too, like slavery, patriarchy, a general lack of scientific knowledge... but that's another matter altogether.)

In any event, a major city's main newspaper hardly seems to place to engage in such matters. But this is the Oklahoman, and they have to appeal to their theocratic base, too.

Simple. The answer is given in the first chapter of Romans. God put the knowledge of Himself inside every person. And He says why He did it — so no one would have an excuse. Elsewhere, He gives another reason: He wants no one to perish. In other words, there are only two kinds of people, those who believe in God and admit it and those who believe in God and don't admit it. To put it another way, people who believe in God and accept him and people who believe in God and reject him. We each have a free will and can choose to reject Him.

These arguments are so easily refuted that it's hardly worth the effort. But more importantly: why is a major newspaper running this sort of thing??? Does the Wall Street Journal or the Dallas Morning News run letters telling people how right Christianity is?!? It's embarrassing.

Jones concludes:

Anne Frank said she believed the basic nature of people was good. The Bible reveals that the basic nature of people is to be self-centered. We can overcome this flaw in our nature, but the urge to be accepted by one's peers is so strong that many people don't have the courage to be honest when making this very important decision.

 Yeah, way to diss on Anne Frank. You're a hero, Mike Jones.

And also, there is no more arrogant and insulting argument than "I'm right and you disagree only because you aren't honest with yourself." Like, go fuck yourself Mike Jones.

While there is plenty more to say, the main point is this: why is the Oklahoman running these letters? Well, that answer, as I noted above, is obvious. So we should ask: should they?

The DOK editors in a nutshell

Today's letter from Thomas Pierce of Norman is truly cringeworthy. No real newspaper would run such a pathetic lamentation. The Oklahoman, though, isn't a real newspaper and the sentiments expressed in Mr Pierce's letter pretty-well sum up the opinions of the editors:

Regarding “U.S. judge permanently blocks Oklahoma's vote on Sharia Law” (Associated Press, Aug. 16): America was enhanced by the great migration of people from around the world seeking freedom and liberty, fully assimilating as Americans. That was then. The recent decades-long migration to our land hasn't followed that same path, nor does it reach the same destination. The vast majority of millions crossing wide-open southern borders, and from the Middle East, legally and illegally, fail to assimilate into the uniquely American culture. They fail to learn our history, our founding, our founding documents and why we became the greatest nation and republic the world has ever known. They fail at this, yet they vote.

It's sort of sad that the prompt for this letter was the "Sharia law" issue. For those not in the know, voters in Oklahoma approved an amendment to the state's constitution that would ban the phantom menace of someone sneaking in Islamic religious laws into the courtroom. Because the law was, well, unconstitutional, it was struck down. But sadly, Mr Pierce, too brainwashed from his years of only watching Fox News, laments all of this.

Indeed-- and this is, perhaps, the most pathetic part-- the Oklahoman itself editorialized as to how silly this law was. So why run a letter that is so obviously grounded in delusion? Well, because the rest of it sums up perfectly the editors' views. A short version of the above might read:

We liked it when white people came here, but then brown people came and we didn't like it. Especially brown Muslims. And some of these brown people vote, which is something that has to stop.

Boom. There it is, more or less.

Mr. Piece continues his lament:

The erosion of America continues as the votes of Oklahoma citizens are declared invalid. The erosion of America continues by the judicial corruption of constitutional law. The erosion of America continues by the corruption of the oath of office by the head of the executive branch of the federal government. We didn't begin this war of erosion, but by the virtue of our inheritance we're assuredly charged with the responsibility to end it. Or, was our home built on a sand bar in the River of Cowards?

Ugh. The shorter version:

I'm pretty sure I heard on Fox News that this Sharia law thing was legit. Unlike our brown, Kenya-born Muslim president. We need to return the U.S. to the childishly romanticized Pre-industrial country it never was!

Note again: Mr. Pierce is lamenting that "the votes of Oklahoma citizens are declared invalid" EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE ACTUALLY INVALID. And yet he pretends to be some sort of informed American Patriot. Worse, this paper-- which understands full well that Mr. Pierce is factually wrong-- is all too happy to publish his letter!! After all, it parrots the "Obama Sucks!" meme that has shown up of late in the paper, and gets some dog whistle racism and xenophobia in there, too, for good measure.

Real newspapers would consider this letter an embarrassment and its editors might reflect on how their public readership is so poorly informed. But the Oklahoman has an agenda to push, and so it runs these utterly pathetic letters.

Pure propaganda

Today, the Oklahoman went pure propaganda with a straightforward "Obama sucks!" letter from Jack D. Cypert of Edmond. As I've noted before, most real newspapers run letters that are somehow topical-- a response to an important local, national, or international event. But when it comes to spewing hate against Democrats and progressive policies, that's a letter for all occasions.

To be sure, there are plenty of reasons to dislike the president, but a letter to the editor should ideally be grounded rational fact-- and it is best if they focus on a single issue. Unfortunately (but entirely typically for the Oklahoman), Me. Cypert's letter does neither. He begins:

Never have I seen and felt my country to be in such a state of confusion, doubt, insecurity, divisiveness and anger. Through 2008 the United States was still a vibrant, enthusiastic, powerful, economically and militarily proud and godly nation!

Wait. So things were fine until 2008? Can we really be "militarily proud" when we invaded a country in a pre-emptive war based on non-existent threats? Was the economy really doing that well before 2008? And let's not kid ourselves-- the "godly nation" line is a thinly veiled nod to the right-wing notion that Obama is a crypto-Muslim.

Anyhow, Mr. Cypert is already not doing well. A real newspaper would have passed on this letter already. But the Oklahoman is out to spread lies and misinformation, so we press on...

Then Barack Obama was elected to office by a misleading and dishonest major news media. Many people believed the lies and misrepresentations of the media and passed those beliefs on to others.

Ah yes, the old "liberal media" line. We've discussed that before, and it's not surprising to hear a right-wing thrall whine about it now. Indeed, when your candidate looks like a buffoon, it's not that your candidate is actually a buffoon, it's just that the media have portrayed him that way.

Millions of people living on entitlements and government welfare — about half the population — were willing to vote Democrats back into power.

This is so tired. Presumably this is just a re-stating of Romney's statement about the "47%" (thanks, liberal media!!!). Amazingly, thanks to the right wing media, there are actually people who imagine that literally half the country is sitting around doing nothing and collecting a welfare check from the country. It's a preposterous notion, but people who lack critical reasoning skills clearly believe it.

He continues:

Millions of white people voted for Obama because they were tired of being called racist. They thought electing a black man for president would put all those charges to rest. Instead, thanks largely to Obama, racism is worse than ever in America. Few who voted for Obama will admit their shame and guilt for putting him in office.

Holy shit! So now this guy is a mind-reader?!? And yes: racism is worse because of Obama. Awesome. And then:

Anyone who continues to support Obama out of blind loyalty — meaning the Democratic Party — is as guilty as Obama himself for his failed presidency. I ask the Democratic Party and its supporters to regain their honesty and denounce Obama as the disaster he is. America can't stand three more years under Obama.

Got that? The entire Democratic Party is supporting the president out of blind loyalty. No, Democrats can't possibly ever be upset with Obama, right? And again, note the buzz words-- "failed presidency"; "disaster"-- as the old adage goes, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually come to believe it. And this is EXACTLY why the Oklahoman runs these sorts of letters. Is there any evidence that this presidency has been a "disaster" and "failed" as Mr. Cypert (and the editors) would have us believe? As I noted already, if you campaign on a set of policy ideas, and those policy ideas actually come to pass, that's called a 'success.'

But the Oklahoman doesn't want you to hear that, so instead, they push letters like this that say the exact opposite and hope you'll buy into it.

Minimum wage, maximum stupidity

Occasionally, the Oklahoman will run a syndicated column that actually espouses a non-right-wing view. Such is the case a few days ago, when Leonard Pitts wrote about the now-infamous infographic put out by McDonald's explaining to its workers how they might be able to save money.

Pitts thoughtfully concludes his piece by saying

Look, there are many reasons people wind up in poverty. Sometimes they make bad life choices-- they drop out of school without salable skills, or they become teen parents. Often, it falls on them from the sky in the form of illness, injury, addiction or financial reversal. 

However they got into poverty they all need-- and deserve-- the same things: a way to work their way out and to be accorded a little dignity while they do so. The former comes with paying a living wage, the latter by treating people with respect and not presuming to teach them what they could teach you. McDonald's fails on both counts.

 There is hardly anything controversial or radical here. And yet Sarah Mulkey of Yukon-- clearly someone who has put no real thought into the issues and remains willfully ignorant of facts-- felt compelled to chime in on Mr Pitts' column. In her letter, she writes,

In “Living on pennies at the Golden Arches” (Commentary, July 28), Leonard Pitts writes about working at McDonald's. What's a “living wage” besides words? It's an illusion, because as people are paid more in some jobs, everything else goes up in cost.

Wait. What? It's hard to imagine a more nonsensical statement than this. A "living wage" isn't just words. It's a real concept: a wage that makes possible for a wage earner or an individual and his or her family to live at least according to minimum customary standards.

As the people at MIT make clear, a living wage isn't the same thing as a minimum wage. And they shouldn't necessarily be. However, "given that almost two-thirds of minimum wage workers are adults, and four in ten are the sole bread winner of their family," it may be worth considering some sort of raising of the minimum wage. (Indeed, according to MIT, to have a reasonable living wage, a single adult in Oklahoma City needs to bring in ca. $8.19 an hour-- almost a dollar more than the minimum wage of $7.25. And if you're the primary bread-winner for a family, that number goes up considerably.)

For Ms. Mulkey, this is all an "illusion" because once you start paying minimum wage earners more, the price of "everything" goes up in cost. Indeed, one imagines that Ms. Mulkey sees a living wage as the first step towards the US becoming the next Weimar Republic. (Note: it can't.)

So what's the evidence for this idiocy? Well...

Compare the minimum wage to the price of a good hamburger as far as you want to go, even before minimum wage. When the government got involved in mandating what companies have to provide employees working 40 hours per week, businesses had to push back and try to contain costs.

Uh. No. The reality is that this is not the case. Indeed, assuming that all costs associated with raising the minimum wage were passed on to the customer, we'd see almost no change in price-- under 1%.

Amazingly, Ms. Mulkey has more advice for those advocating for a living wage:

We still have choices. If McDonald's isn't for you, start your own business. The more control over your life, generally the happier you are. Also, a course or two in business accounting would help to understand the wages paid.

Holy shit. So-- if you are trying to get out of poverty by working hard and find that two jobs at $7.25 an hour isn't cutting it, then start your own business??? That's her advice? WHAT A GREAT IDEA!! I'm sure a bank will happily loan a minimum-wage guy at McDonald's some case to start a new business. And then-- don't forget those college courses. Last time I heard, college courses were free. Oh, wait.

Finally, Ms. Mulkey gets in a line every plutocrat must love:

How much the head of McDonald's earns has no place in the discussion. It only creates dissension when brought up.

HAHAHAHA! I've already noted that executive pay has far out-paced the pay of the rest of us since Saint Reagan came to office. So if we are talking about raising worker pay, then yes, the pay of the CEO should come into discussion. Right now, the McDonald's CEO Don Thompson makes almost $14 million a year. While cutting his salary-- even by a lot-- won't help the over 700,000 Americans who work at a McDonald's by much, it is important to note how quickly that salary has risen over time when compared to ordinary low-wage earners. The CEO whom Thompson replaced, Jim Skinner, made $8.8 million in his last year working for the company. Thompson, as noted above, began his tenure making $13.8 million. McDonald's is paying the new guy $5 million more than the old guy! (And note, most of this compensation comes in the form of stock options, meaning that the tax for most of these millions of dollars will be far less than if it were just base salary...)

Anyhow, as should be clear, this letter is fraught with problems and no serious newspaper would consider running it. But the Oklahoman wants to push its plutocratic agenda-- an agenda that includes reminding the plebeians not to question how the rich keep getting richer while the rest of us struggle to get ahead. Indeed, pay no attention to the plutocrat behind the curtain!

Defending the common man?

Given the Oklahoman's stance on big business, it's surprising to see today's letter from Jon Womastek of Oklahoma City, writing

Funding for school storm shelters? No way! Health care for the poor? In your dreams! Protect wealthy corporate interests? Let's hurry and call an expensive special session!

In “State can't afford not to hold special session” (Point of View, July 24), former state Sen. Glenn Coffee refutes his own case. Without the Legislature going into special session, he writes that the business community will be injured because plaintiffs in lawsuits that had been gutted will now have a chance to speak with juries. He claims part of Oklahoma's softer recession was due to a favorable business climate, implying that shackling people's legal rights is good for business.

Indeed, this is a major argument put forward by the plutocracy: things like quality healthcare, a living wage, and, yes, legal protections, are all bad for business-- and business is the most important thing.

This totally falls apart when he writes, “Our state constitution was based on keeping the seats of power closest to the people.” The most powerful equalizer most people will ever need to resort to requires access to the courthouse through a lawsuit. Coffee is writing on behalf of the insurance, medical and business community, not ordinary people. Those institutions already have fine representation in Gov. Mary Fallin, Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman and House Speaker T.W. Shannon, without having to also take away your legal rights.

I am not familiar enough with the issues to know how valid Mr. Womastek's concerns are. But given that he is clearly advocating for non-elites over business and industry (and their wealthy owners), one suspects that a classic Oklahoman point/counter-point will quickly come about. Perhaps the paper's favorite champion of Sam Seller will chime in... again.

More evolution

While the Oklahoman has run plenty of letters appealing to the plutocratic arm of the right wing, it hasn't done much for the theocratic side. Thus, it's hardly surprising that we get a new letter stirring up the evolution/creationism "debate" today. Dean Cave of Antlers writes

David Grow (Your Views, July 22) wrote that 'Frans de Waal, in The Atheist and the Bonobo, tracks the development of human morality back through our primate ancestors. The full title of the book is The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism among the Primates. Since Grow didn't get the title correct, I'm not sure how familiar he is with the book's contents. However, it's an overstatement to say that it 'tracks the development of human morality back through our primate ancestors.' What it does is provide us with the author's opinions based on his observations of animal behavior. Not even all evolutionists agree with those opinions.

I admit that I didn't pay much attention to Mr Grow's letter, which was itself a response to another letter by C. Dale German of Bethany that was itself a response to the Oklahoman's feature on atheists in Oklahoma.

Mr German's letter is pathetic, noting that:

But atheism doesn't explain intricate balances of nature, the cosmos, billions of cells in the human brain. Nor does it explain the genesis of morality, love or the concept of a nonexistent God.

This is all obvious and hardly noteworthy (and even non-sensical: what does it mean to explain the concept of a nonexistent anything?). Atheism doesn't "explain" anything, and it's not supposed to. It simply says that a person doesn't believe in a god or gods. There's nothing in there about the cosmos, biology, or anything else. That's what science is for.

Indeed, as Mr Grow notes,

claiming atheism doesn't explain certain things observed in the universe is a non sequitur. Atheism simply disregards religion's explanation that the origin of the universe and morality are derived from a deity. Atheists turn to empirical science to understand what we observe in the natural world.

To talk about the origins of morality, Mr. Grow refers to a book by Frans de Waal. He titles it The Atheist and the Bonobo, but it's really The Bonobo and the Atheist, as Mr Cave observes. Let's start here and say that how lazy are the editors at the Oklahoman to get this wrong? Seriously, the paper claims that it may edit letters for clarity, but they can't just fact check basic facts like this? Totally lazy.

Anyhow, Mr Cave makes the shitty remark that since Mr Grow got the book title wrong, then perhaps he isn't very familiar with the book. He continues,

it's an overstatement to say that it 'tracks the development of human morality back through our primate ancestors.' What it does is provide us with the author's opinions based on his observations of animal behavior. Not even all evolutionists agree with those opinions.

For crying out loud. Can someone be more pedantic?? I suppose we say that the Gospel of Mark doesn't tell us the story of Jesus, but that it tells what an author with the pseudonym of Mark thinks happened in the life of Jesus, then.

He continues-- and tell me if you've heard this before:

The subtitle of the book, 'In Search of Humanism among the Primates,' suggests that the author at least thought he found what he was looking for. This is no surprise, since evolutionists almost always find what they're looking for. The one thing they haven't found is any real evidence that their theory is true. Since 'The Beginning' was a one-time event that can't be duplicated in a science lab, both evolution and creationism rest on faith.

For real?!? Are we back to the evolution-is-faith argument? Ugh.

Science has never been able to demonstrate that one kind of animal evolved into a different kind, or that abiogenesis is scientifically possible. Nor can it explain the “apparent” design in nature — except by resorting to a series of fortunate accidents, the probability of which is impossible to calculate.

Actually, there is compelling evidence that animals evolved. He can disagree, but to do so, you're left to resorting to things like "satan did it" and the like. And then, what's this:

Saying that 'Nobody made it, it just happened' isn't a suitable explanation.

Except this is a straw man!! No one says this. Now, people do say "nobody made it, and we're not sure how it happened" all the time.  But that's the point. Someone doesn't understand something, then studies it, and, after some research and some experiments, figures it out.

No serious newspaper should run a letter like this one fro Mr Cave. He is clueless and regurgitating long-ago-refuted creationist talking points. But the Oklahoman isn't a serious newspaper. They have to feed the theocrats and so they run stupid letters like this. It's sad.

Apology

I bag on the Oklahoman-- and it is a horrible newspaper-- but at least their editorials aren't THIS bad! Granted, no one is going to mistake Chattanooga for being a major city, and one can forgive some small-town paper for being stupid enough to write things like:

your jobs creation plans so far have included a ridiculous government spending spree and punitive tax increase on job creators that were passed, as well as a minimum wage increase that, thankfully, was not. Economists — and regular folks with a basic understanding of math — understand that these are three of the most damaging policies imaginable when a country is mired in unemployment and starving for job growth.

Even though actual economists would tell you quite clearly that government spending and minimum wages increases are a good idea (and taxes on the super rich-- "job creators" in right-wing nut job speak-- aren't all that horrible). Nevertheless, I apologize to the Oklahoman for thinking that their editorials are the worst. Obviously, they're just second-worst.

Edit:

Looks like at least SOME papers have serious editorial oversight. From USA Today:

A Chattanooga newspaper has fired an editor for a headline that told President Obama to take his jobs plan and "shove it."

Unfortunately, the editors add that, "the newspaper's decision to terminate Johnson had nothing to do with the content of the editorial, which criticized the president's job creation ideas and Chattanooga's Smart Grid." While no one objects to critiquing the president, they should do so based on reality, and not fabrications and irrational hatred-- which is what this editorial boiled down to.

Either way, it's nice to see that some papers have some class. Too bad we can't say that about the Oklahoman.

Anti-EPA zealotry

As I've noted before, the Oklahoman is nothing but a big propaganda machine for the far-right. Yesterday, we took a break from critiquing the letters it runs to actually going point-by-point through a childish editorial which decries the Sierra Club and its cries to have better enforcement of EPA regulations on coal-fired power plants.

Predictably, now we have a letter doing the same thing. In it, Derald Suffridge of Duncan laments

'Officials should continue fight against EPA decision' (Our Views, July 23), regarding the Environmental Protection Agency forcing regulations upon electric utilities, resulting in a 15 percent increase in electricity costs, is a reminder that such decisions should be reserved for lawmakers. Giving this much power to the EPA, the Sierra Club and other groups allowed to intervene in this case was a mistake.

Where do we begin? Mr Suffridge is referring to this editorial which, as the title implies, encourages a major power company to fight the EPA. Like most Oklahoman editorials, it has its share of sophomoric insults and flawed logic. It laments that forcing OG&E to improve its equipment to do stuff like not  pollute the water will raise energy prices, adding that "one analysis has placed the projected increase in electricity rates for OG&E at 15 percent." A real newspaper at this point would actually link to the analysis so that interested readers could consult it. But since the analysis is probably put forward by OG&E's public relations office, it probably isn't worth it.

ANYHOW...

Mr Suffridge, lamenting the prospect of higher energy bills (I guess he doesn't care about clean air or water?), wants to reserve the powers to regulate power plants to elected officials. It's an interesting argument, but we might want to ask: how do these regulations come to pass anyhow? After all, the EPA isn't some private organization devoted to protecting the environment. (Oddly, Mr Suffridge's linking the EPA and the Sierra Club makes me think that they're just two different versions of the same thing.)

Indeed, the EPA was formed by President Nixon to be "as an independent regulatory agency responsible for the implementation of federal laws designed to protect the environment," and after going through "hearings in the Senate and House of Representatives" it was formed at the end of 1970. (Remember when Republicans weren't just total nut job shills for plutocrats and evangelical Christians?)

So the EPA was grrrehwaitaminute. What did that just say? I think it said "an independent regulatory agency responsible for the implementation of federal laws designed to protect the environment." What the hell??? So the EPA is supposed to enforce the laws set up by lawmakers? Christ on his cross.

When looking at clean water issues, we read that "Congress requires EPA to regulate contaminants which may be health risks and which may be present in public drinking water supplies." Gosh. It sounds like lawmakers made a decision here, and they said something like "let's have an independent agency with PhDs in various fields of science and with lots of lab equipment and access to the latest research on harmful chemicals figure out what's best." And isn't that the point? After all, lawmakers come from all walks of life. Do we really want a former real estate developer making decisions about my drinking water? This is particularly true since so many members of Congress are tied to donations from major industry groups.

But back to the point at hand: Mr Suffridge is an idiot. The EPA was approved by Congress and is designed to enforce the laws that Congress already made. Any real newspaper would have thought for a few minutes (it took me about that long to collect the above) and decided that a letter suggesting that lawmakers do things instead of the EPA is utterly stupid, given that lawmakers approved the EPA to enforce its own laws! But the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper. Its editors are lazy and stupid and, worst of all, shills for plutocrats. So they'll run these utterly stupid letters-- letters that happily go hand in hand with their own editorials-- to further their plutocratic agenda.

Two final notes: 1) Why throw the Sierra Club in there? The Sierra Club has no real power. They can, of course, sue people if they think there is injustice, but that's not illegal. Trying to curtail their rights gets in the way of things like the First Amendment-- a real newspaper that wasn't intent on smearing someone would have left that out; and 2) At least it was a short and well-written letter!

Editorial break

This blog is about the horrible practice the Oklahoman uses in running letters that relate decidedly false information all to push its own right wing plutocratic agenda. That said, sometimes it is worth looking at the sort of editorials the paper pushes to see just how over-the-top the editors are. Thus, today I'd like to engage in a point-by-point breakdown of an editorial about the Sierra Club versus OG&E coal.

This isn't the first time the Oklahoman has gone on a hit job against the Sierra Club, and it won't be the last. The only question is if it will be a lazier, less compelling hit job that this one....

THE Sierra Club, ever the unyielding opponent of modern life, has released a new report on coal-fired plants. Surprise, surprise: The report views power plants as a threat to humanity!

First, the snarky insults do nothing but make the editors look petty and juvenile. This is a common tactic that the editors use-- one suspects that they were picked on in journalism school or something.

The report reviewed water permits for 386 coal plants and claims that 274 of them, including six in Oklahoma, discharge coal ash and scrubber wastewater into waterways. The Sierra Club ominously warns that there are no limits 'on the amounts of toxic metals like arsenic, boron, cadmium, mercury and selenium' that power plants 'are allowed to dump into public waters.'

One would like for a newspaper to be a little more savvy in the digital age. For instance, in the New York Times, when they talk about a bill in the House, they actually link to the bill. This way, a reader can, you know, be a little more informed. 

The Oklahoman's whole aim is to propagandize, though, and so linking to things runs the risk of revealing how deceptive they're being. And so there ARE no links, and we are left to fend for ourselves to see what report they're talking about.

Fortunately, it's not hard to find.

The editors continue:

Whitney Pearson, who heads the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign in Oklahoma, says 'dumping poisons into our water without rigorous monitoring and reporting threatens the health, drinking water and recreation opportunities in Oklahoma.' Her comment suggests there's no problem with dumping poisons into water so long as the government monitors it and companies report the practice, but never mind.

HA! Only an idiot would think this. She's hardly suggesting that "there's no problem with dumping poisons into water" as long as it's reported-- she's being realistic. Yes, when you deal with things like coal, there is going to be an environmental impact. Everyone recognizes this. The position of the Sierra Club is simply that this should be monitors so that those levels remain as safe as possible.

Already, we see the truly juvenile nature of the editors. (And the lack of serious writing skills: ending in "but never mind" is sooooo lazy.)

The report is clearly designed to foster fear. After all, who wants to drink arsenic? But local power producers' rebuttals make clear the Sierra Club is engaged in rank propaganda, not serious, data-driven analysis.

Here we get real spin. Is the report designed to "foster fear" as our lazy editors want their even lazier readers to think? Or, is it designed to bring awareness to a potential problem? And then, what on earth do the editors know about "data-driven analysis"?

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. spokesman Brian Alford noted the company's wastewater permits are renewed every five years by both the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Two OG&E plants have been checked in the past two years. Regulators' inspections found the metals listed in the Sierra Club report were 'below detection.' In addition, Alford said OG&E doesn't dispose of coal ash on site at either power plant.

Here is where things get confusing. Because the Sierra Club report seems to say otherwise:

You see here a section of the chart (I'm too lazy to photoshop the headings in). After the expiration date of the license (in the middle) you see a column that's headed "pollutants monitored" and you'll see that for both OG&E plants, the answer is "none".

You can actually see the report for the Sooner plant here. They have been fined for violations recently. Indeed, out of the last 12 quarters, the Sooner plant has been judged "non-compliant" for the Clean Air Act in all 12, and similarly in 2 of 12 for the Clean Water Act:

So it's not exactly running a clean (ha!) record here. (Indeed...)

The Sierra Club stressed that three of Oklahoma's six coal plants are operating with expired Clean Water Act permits. But a Western Farmers Electric Cooperative official noted those plants are still in compliance with federal law. The existing permit remains in force until a new permit is issued if an application is made at least six months prior to expiration.

Genius! Everything is fine because of a legal technicality. Excellent defense.

According to worldlifeexpectancy.com, the top 15 causes of death in Oklahoma are heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, accidents, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer's, influenza and pneumonia, Nephritis/kidney disease, suicide, liver disease, blood poisoning, Parkinson's Disease, homicide and hypertension.

 Note: 'Drinking the water' didn't make the list. Neither did 'arsenic poisoning' or 'mercury poisoning.'

If you needed any more proof of a) willing the editors are to lie to you, and/or b) how stupid they are, here you go.

No, stupid editors, "drinking the water" isn't on the list. But given that excessive levels of things like arsenic and mercury can cause cancer and impared neurological development in infants and you can see how someone might want to make sure that those levels aren't very high. Right? Like, Sorry-- your infant has permanent development problems because of mercury. But he's not dead, so no worries! And hell, we have cheap coal, too!

WHAT IDIOTS!

But if the Club for Ungrowth gets its way and forces power plant closures, another category may shoot up the cause-of-mortality rankings: death from heat stroke. Without the air conditioning provided by affordable electricity, people suffer in the scorching Oklahoma summer, particularly the poor and elderly. Big Green would make power so expensive that the poor and elderly would suffer.

This is so embarrassing. First of: "Club for Ungrowth"? For real? Jesus. These people are high school sophomores. And then, as if to drive home how simple-minded they are, the editors go with the basic logical fallacy called the false dichotomy. It's where you try to make your position look better by saying that there is only one far worse alternative. Like, If you get rid of coal, then energy will be so expensive that old people will die. 

Note, of course, that no one is calling for "power plant closures" as the Oklahoman claims. Really, what they want is better enforcement. From the Sierra Club's conclusions:

We can eliminate most, if not all coal plant water pollution for pennies a day. The strongest of the EPA's proposed options will get us to that future.

This isn't a call to close all our coal plants. It's a call to make them cleaner. And right now, it seems like they aren't so clean.

If the Sierra Club's report is to be taken seriously, citizens must believe that federal and state environmental regulators are turning a blind eye to the dumping of poisons into our water. We're not fans of the EPA, but that's because the agency is notorious for regulatory overkill, not for ignoring egregious pollution practices. 

The editors, of course, have no idea if the EPA is turning a blind eye, but they will make the assumption that they aren't because it fits with their narrative. And note, the very monitoring that the Sierra Club wants is exactly the kind of "regulatory overkill" that the editors here whine about. 

A U.S. Supreme Court case recently focused on the EPA's efforts to declare an Idaho couple's property a “wetlands” and force implementation of an expensive compliance order — even though the property had no water on it.

Again, links would be great. Of course, then again, the issue is never as simplistic (and obviously stupid) as the editors want.

Now the Sierra Club would have us believe that same EPA is merrily handing out permits to industrial polluters slopping arsenic into bodies of water.

Clearly, if the Sooner power plant can be in non-compliance for 12 out of 12 quarters-- and indeed, do so poorly that the EPA is suing them-- then it is possible to break rules for extended periods of time. But note the-- again-- lazy rhetorical flourish ("slopping arsenic into bodies of water"-- as though anyone imagines power plan workers just shoveling stuff into lakes and streams).

Given that the Sierra Club supports increased EPA regulation, it's clear that even it doesn't believe everything implied by its report's conclusions.

Uh, what? THIS is their parting shot? Jesus. OK, so let me get this straight: Drunk driving is bad. I'm concerned because I think cops are letting people drive even though their BAC is way over 0.08., and put out a report saying as much. Moreover, I am in favor of lowering the limit to 0.05. And this means that I don't think that cops are letting people drive even though their BAC is over 0.08? Or what?

THESE EDITORS ARE STUPID. Seriously: if you're going to write editorials for a major newspaper you need to put together a coherent, compelling argument (with less sophomoric snark). It is totally embarrassing that these guys can't even come close.

More part-time columnists

A few days ago, I discussed a pathetic letter by Mike Jones of Oklahoma City. I noted that he'd written before to the Oklahoman. Turns out, I just haven't been paying attention, because Mr Jones is yet another part-time columnist for the state's finest paper. Indeed, his hits list is sort of pathetic:

Obama is just a big jerk, more or less. (June 13, 2013)
Taxes are bad when used for stuff I don't like! (May 8, 2013)
In favor of Oklahoma businesses! (March 22, 2013)
Jesus loves Sam Seller!! (February 18, 2013)
CSA Forever!!!! (January 20, 2013)
Why Democrats suck and Republicans are great, according to Mike Jones! (October 20, 2012)
Regulations, unions, lawyers, and Hollywood are BAD FOR BUSINESS! (September 14, 2012)
Free Enterprise is better than government! And Hollywood, public schools and the media are bad!! (August 10, 2012)

So there you go-- in not even one year, this paper has run nine letters from the same guy. Now, even if Mike Jones is an idiot, there's nothing wrong with him writing letters to the editor. Hell, how different is that from blogging? Not much. But what is truly sad is that the Oklahoman sees fit to run his utterly fatuous, error-filled, poorly-written, and repetitive letters.

Great, we get it, Mike-- you hate taxes and unions. Stop writing us.

While the paper does occasionally run letters that address actual issues of relevance to the city, all too often they feel compelled to run the sort of "I hate liberals" screeds from the likes of Mike Jones. A real newspaper would have stopped with that gimmick a long time ago. But the Oklahoman has an agenda to push, and thus we get the sort of drivel from Mike Jones that most papers would have taken a pass on after the first three or four letters.