Gun misinformation

As I've noted plenty of times, the Oklahoman will often run letters that include blatant lies when the letter supports a position that is in accords with the far-right agenda of its editors. This includes the current debate about guns and gun control, as evidenced by today's letter from Michael Shults of Oklahoma [City?]. He writes:

No assault weapon was used in the Sandy Hook shooting. The shooter, Adam Lanza, tried to purchase weapons and the laws we have in place stopped him. Lanza killed his mother to get a rifle but only handguns were used, not "assault weapons." Lanza had an assault weapon, but it was left in the car and never used. The Obama administration has shown a lack of responsibility in basing policy on a personal agenda and not on facts.

 For real? "Only handguns were used"? From CNN:

Adam Lanza brought three weapons inside Sandy Hook Elementary school on December 14 and left a fourth in his car, police said. Those weapons were a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm. 

In the car he left a shotgun, about which police have offered no details. Lanza used one of the handguns to take his own life... 

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers.

Uh, that doesn't sound like a handgun to me! Here's a picture, so we're clear:

 So, no. NOT a handgun.

To be fair, this weapon was a semiautomatic. That is, with each pull of the trigger, it fires a bullet, ejects the spent shell, cocks the hammer, and loads another bullet-- but it only fires one bullet per pull of the trigger. Most pistols available today are like this so it is not as though Lanza was able to squeeze off more rounds than had he used a pistol.

Nevertheless, these assault rifles have high capacity magazines (in this case, 30 rounds) meaning that he can go quite some time before having to eject the spend magazine and insert a new one-- much longer than with a pistol, that typically has magazines with one half to one third the capacity.

So was this Bushmaster an "assault weapon"? The term is somewhat ambiguous, but by conventional definitions, yes it was. (Note the distinction between this an an assault rifle, which allows for multiple round to be fired with a single pull of the trigger.) Thus, once again, the Oklahoman runs a letter filled with blatant falsehoods and misinformation, all to push their own right-wing agenda. And yet, ironically, they have the gall to run a letter that accuses the President of pushing "policy [based on] on a personal agenda and not on facts."

Sad.

Debt myths

Today, the Oklahoman ran a letter that echoes a talking point that-- sadly-- is not just a right-wing meme, but one that is common throughout the the mainstream media. (That said, the Oklahoman makes a point to bring it up quite a bit.) In it, Bruce Smallwood of Edmond writes,

Reports say the national debt can't be sustained, yet there's no action. Comparisons with personal debt are made, but when personal debt reaches limits, painful things happen — canceled credit, bill collector calls, lawsuits. Bankruptcy can be demeaning. Conversely, no one suffers or feels the pain of national debt, so why complain or force a stop? Does anyone think they'll face a bill? Is there a Chinese bill collector at your door? Children will have to pay? Ha! That was said when the current spenders were children. Unless the pain of cuts is felt, there'll be no fix.

The potential of the country going into chaos a la Greece, riots, shutdowns and fear in the streets isn't unthinkable. On the debt limit debate, now's the time for some pain. At the very least, let's stop the real growth in the debt. A line drawn today, while difficult, is preferable to the potential of a national calamity.

There is quite a bit wrong with this-- both in the factual accuracy of what he says, but also because of the apparent cognitive dissonance Mr. Smallwood displays in his letter. Let's begin with some basics:

1) Federal debt is not the same thing as personal debt.
L. Randall Wray makes a number of astute observations on this topic:

The US federal government is 221 years old ... I don’t know any head of household with such an apparently indefinitely long lifespan. This might appear irrelevant, but it is not. When you die, your debts and assets need to be assumed and resolved. There is no “day of reckoning”, no final piper-paying date for the sovereign government. Nor do I know any household with the power to levy taxes, to give a name to — and issue — the currency we use, and to demand that those taxes are paid in the currency it issues.

Moreover, as Paul Krugman notes, federal debt is money that we largely owe to ourselves. The end result is that our federal debt doesn't make the country poorer as a whole. From Prof. Krugman:

Well, let’s do a thought experiment that doesn’t, at least initially, seem to have anything to do with debt. Suppose that instead of gifting seniors with debt, President Santorum passes a constitutional amendment requiring that from now on, each American whose name begins with the letters A through K will receive $5,000 a year from the federal government, with the money to be raised through extra taxes. Does this make America as a whole poorer? 

The obvious answer is not, at least not in any direct sense. We’re just making a transfer from one group (the L through Zs) to another; total income isn’t changed.

Put slightly differently, the US isn't giving money to some other nation so that IT can build new roads, educate its children, and care for its elderly. It is doing that for its own citizens by borrowing from its own citizens.

2) China doesn't own the US
A big meme-- echoed here-- is that the United States is in massive debt to China, and one day they're going to come knocking to collect. This is just wrong. As I noted above, most of our debt is to ourselves. China only has about 8% of that.

3) We aren't Greece
You hear this quite a bit nowadays-- that our debt is going to make us like Greece. The only problem with that notion is that it isn't true. Put simply, A) the Fed can do things that the European Central Bank can't (like purchase government debt), and B) the US can devalue its currency to increase exports, while Greece cannot. So, in fact, a Greece-like situation is quite unthinkable.

So there you have it. All of the boogeymen Mr. Smallwood invokes-- boogeymen touted even in the mainstream media-- are just that: scary "facts" used to frighten people into complicit behavior.

Amazingly, Mr. Smallwood makes an observation about these myths:

Does anyone think they'll face a bill? Is there a Chinese bill collector at your door? Children will have to pay? Ha! That was said when the current spenders were children. 

Holy crap! Mr. Smallwood is actually acknowledging reality. No, Fox News, a Chinese bill collector isn't going to be knocking at your door. No, Mr. Presidential Candidate, we aren't saddling our children with debt.

Indeed, going back to the Krugman piece:

The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation. ... Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger, as a percentage of G.D.P., than debt today; but that debt was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn’t prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation’s history.

Unfortunately, while the reality of these debt boogeymen stare Mr. Smallwood in the face, he cannot accept that they aren't real. After all, as he says, "Reports say the national debt can't be sustained." But despite the fact that the phantom menaces of our debt-- our children having to pay, or China coming to collect-- haven't materialized, he is convinced that something must be done and, to that end, he advocates "pain" for America.

And that, of course, is the point of the right-wing propaganda machine. After all, the lamentations over our debt are a fabrication of the plutocracy. Their goal is to convince America that our debt is unsustainable and that spending-- particularly in things like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security (even though by law Social Security doesn't contribute to our debt), and programs to the poor-- gets cut. Lower spending means lower taxes (mostly for the rich). But while they fly around on chartered flights to second homes in the Hamptons, the rest of us drive on shitty roads to jobs that don't pay benefits trying to support children who won't be able to afford a college education.

All of this, because media outlets like the Oklahoman-- but sadly, mainstream "liberal" outlets, too-- peddle these sorts of fears.

Insanity!

The Oklahoman has spent the past few weeks running pro-gun letters. Some have been bad, while others have been really bad. I recently thought I'd seen the dumbest letter yet, when Doug Tate argued that Americans should have guns to protect ourselves from Islamic fundamentalists.

But then comes today's letter from J. R. Burton of The Village. It's short, so we can read it in its entirety:

If the federal government denies some people the right to own firearms because they're deemed mentally unstable, isn't the government then creating a class status? Those who are entitled to all the rights guaranteed under the Constitution are first-class citizens; those who are entitled to some of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution are deemed second-class citizens.

I haven't doctored this letter at all. Mr. Burton is suggesting that denying the right of the mentally unstable to own firearms is akin to creating a stratified society of first-class and second-class citizens. (Where class, of course, is defined by one's ability to own a gun.)

Mentally unstable. For real. Burton thinks that this guy should be able to walk into Bubba's Gun Emporium and buy an uzi.

Here's the reality: No one is taking away your guns, J. R. Yes, President Obama recently announced that he wanted some things to happen-- but the list he released is a) not law, and b) hardly oppressive to anyone. It includes things like "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system" and "Nominate an ATF director"-- hardly frightening.

But what's absolutely bonkers is for the Oklahoman to run a letter complaining that it's unfair that the mentally unstable might have greater restrictions on gun ownership. Is there really NO BETTER ARGUMENT against gun control than pleas for the MENTALLY UNSTABLE to be able to have guns, too? If that's the best you can do, then just drop the topic altogether.

What he said!

Yesterday, I noted that the Oklahoman ran yet another letter from Charlie Taylor of Norman. In general, Taylor's letters engage in tired attacks against President Obama and against progressives and progressive policies. (And in general, they are quite stupid.)

But his most recent letter goes beyond being just stupid. It starts off with-- and I'm serious-- a mini book review:

Leonard Pitts Jr. (Commentary, Jan. 16) always writes an interesting column. I recently read his first novel, “Freeman,” and recommend it. “Freeman” doesn't read like most first novels — amateurish. Yes, it may be called a message book, the message being that “slavery was wrong, egregiously,” but it's a good novel. I'd give Pitts an A for his book...

This actually appeared in a major newspaper's letters section. And I love that Mr. Taylor gives this knowing critique about how most first novels read. As though he's an expert on such things. And seriously, is Freeman a "message book"? Compare Mr. Taylor's simplistic summary to a recent book review by someone who actually knows something about books:

Like much of American history, “Freeman” is a heart-rending tragedy of what, at our very worst, human beings are capable of doing to one another. Still, Sam and Tilda, and Prudence and Bonnie, as well, show us how, through the dignity of their own humanity, fresh hope can sometimes rise from despair. “Freeman” is an important addition to the literature of slavery and the Civil War, by a knowledgeable, compassionate and relentlessly truthful writer determined to explore both enslavement in all its malignancy and also what it truly means to be free.

Sure, the WaPo review was able to devote much more space to the book than a short letter to the editor, but that's the point: why even run a letter that includes such things?

Of course, Mr. Taylor's little review is just a rhetorical ploy to get to his larger point, one that echoes what Leonard Pitts said in a column that ran in the Oklahoman earlier this month. The Pitts column was thoughtful on the surface, but beneath that his real point was clear: it's OK for black people to be Republicans. That's fine as far as it goes, of course. But one wonders why a black person would support a political party that opposes many of the social programs that are so important for so many minorities-- all in the name of lower taxes for the fabulously wealthy (virtually all of whom are white). (Not to mention a party that has used the "southern strategy" to maintain its prominence for decades!)

In any event, what is amazing about Mr. Taylor's letter is that it adds nothing new to the discussion. Nothing at all. He simply distills what the Pitts column says to its main point-- in a way, I might add, that is quite amateurish.

In general, if a letter is going to respond to a columnist, it should do so in a way that isn't just "what he said!" in a less artful way. But this is the Oklahoman, and it often uses its letters to reinforce the messages put forward in propagandistic opinions pieces (and art!). The not infrequent appearance of banal and facile letters from Charlie Taylor is a testament to that.

Part-time columnist

A minor observation before delving into Charlie Taylor of Norman's bafflingly stupid letter is this: Charlie Taylor of Norman has had a lot of letters published in the Oklahoman! Here is a sample:

"Food U.S. twice, shame on us" (November 12, 2012)
"Proponents of Obamacare omit relevant facts" (July 15, 2012)
"President Obama doesn't lead" (March 14, 2012)
"Selling snake oil" (July 25, 2009)
"Slow recovery" (November 1, 2008)
"Warming activists won't debate" (June 7, 2008)
"Gag reflex" (August 24, 2007)

No doubt there are others I've missed, but it seems like several times a year one of his letters runs.

It is hard to imagine major newspapers from other metropolitan areas running so many letters from one person. Mr. Taylor isn't some sort of local celebrity, after all, and the observations he makes in his letters are hardly original or noteworthy.

Indeed, is it really the case that the best letters spouting standard right-wing positions on various topics come from this guy? If so, what does that say about the abilities of Oklahomans to write even marginally coherent thoughts-- thoughts that are largely cribbed from other right-wing media outlets? (Sometimes, they're just plagiarized!) And if not, then why do we keep seeing his letters?

Only the editors of the Oklahoman know, but regardless of the answer it certainly doesn't reflect well on the paper.

Gun "logic"

The gun debate has heated up in light of the events in Newton, CT. Predictably, people on the extreme right have decried any attempt to limit or regulate guns using a host of typically lame and uninspired arguments. But the one we get today from Douglas C. Tate of Elk City is mind-bogglingly stupid. About the Second Amendment, he writes that, "The Founders intended [it] to ensure citizens could overthrow a tyrannical government and for self-defense — unalienable rights," adding that "A co-author of the amendment, George Mason, said, “I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

To clarify, Mr. Tate is regurgitating a common argument espoused from many on the right that the "Founders" wanted us to have guns just in case we needed to rise up against our own government in the event that it became too "tyrannical" (whatever that means).

Before addressing the specifics of this point, let's think about it purely from a logical point of view. Does it make sense-- does it really makes sense-- to imagine a government would include provisions to make sure that people could rise up against it? Were a bunch of wealthy aristocrats and land-owners thinking "Man-- what if the hoi polloi hate us? We should make sure they can kill us and reform the government as they see fit!" Probably not.

Also, as an aside: nothing is worse than the use of out-of-context, unreferenced quotes with elipses from some "Founder" or other to try to prove a point. Obviously, Mr. Tate has some bookmarked web paged filled with such things, and he found one he liked to cut-and-paste into his letter. It's lazy and loathsome. (Also, trying to find the actual quote when it's not referenced can take hours!) So what does George Mason really say? Let's see. To begin, these are quotes taken from the Virginia delegation's  debated on whether to ratify the Constitution or not. And Mason goes on about the militia:

I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and {426} rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered.

Jesus Christ. First off, note how Mr. Tate (well, whomever he cut-and-pasted from) altered the quote. Mason was talking about the system as it existed in 1788. He was speaking about potential future changes that worried him. Moreover, he was clearly talking about militias as state-run organizations, and worried that under a federal system, the rich and powerful maybe have become "exempt from duty." Again, context matters. Some lazy gun-toting right-winger takes a half-quote and thinks Mason is talking about "the whole people" as some armed group ready to take on any threat. But the reality is much different.

Indeed, reading through the entire transcript (the Convention lasted for several weeks-- it's a lot of reading), you get the sense that the assembled group had varying opinions of what a militia was, but that in general it had to do a lot with putting down insurrections. To wit, at one point during the debates, James Madison said:

The way to do this is to organize and discipline our militia, so as to render them capable of defending the country against external invasions and internal insurrections.

So... the point of a militia-- in Madison's eyes, anyhow-- was in part to defend against "internal insurrections." This hardly jibes with Mr. Tate's idea that the "Founders" were all about arming people to cause insurrections (you know-- in case they became tyrannical)!!!

But what about the second part of Mr. Tate's quote? Sadly, it, too, is taken out of context. To begin, the quote is written to look like it was part of a single coherent thought. But the reality is that it was spoken three days before the first part of the quote. This is the laziest form of quote-mining, but is entirely expected here.

In any case, let's look at the quote in context:

No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence, -- yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed, -- what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

What the hell?!? This is just mind-blowing. Forget for a moment that the quote Mr. Tate gave was altered-- Mason was talking about a past-tense event, while Tate makes it look like Mason was peaking generally. But more to the point, here's the deal: you can't say "Oh, look, a 'Founding Father' says that disarming the people is the best way to enslave them, so we need to have armed people!" and fail to acknowledge that just moments before, he railed against a country having a standing army!!!! Again: George Mason was NOT in favor of the United States having a standing army.

To be fair, Mason was a product of his time. But times change, and in general I think it's WORTHLESS to cite with authority the opinions of people who owned slaves, didn't think women (or men without land) should vote, and figured it was cool to use leeches to cure illness. Seriously.

Anyhow, as I noted, these were just guys debating stuff before it was ratified. What does the actual Constitution say about the matter. Of course, the Second Amendment is incredibly vague about it. But what about the rest of the document? Fortunately, it's more clear. For instance, Article 3, Section 3 says:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them , or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Note the lack of any clause "unless things get super tyrannical in your opinion." Indeed, it sounds like the US government isn't all in favor of people rebelling at all. In fact, it's TREASON. Note also Article 4 Section 4 says that the government "shall protect ... against domestic violence" for all states. I think it's safe here to assume that they're talking about rebellion and insurrection, and not an abusive spouse.

So there it is. In all, Mr. Tate is a lazy thinker, putting out tired, lame ideas to support his cause. A real newspaper might try harder to further the debate in a meaningful way. But the editors of the Oklahoman are as lazy in their thinking as Tate. 

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

In general, it seems, a newspaper should run letters to the editor that are a) grounded in or supported by fact, and b) provide a reasonable and sound (even if unusual) point of view to whatever topic the writer is commenting on. Unfortunately for readers of the Oklahoman, those sorts of letters are rarely run. Instead, the paper often runs letters from laypeople questioning prevailing scientific opinion, or from ill-informed voters decrying an elected leader's stance on economic policy even though said stance is a sheer fabrication. Yesterday, we were told that the government should arm MORE ordinary citizens to protect the country from mysterious and unnamed Islamic fundamentalists who are on the verge of taking away all of our freedoms.

These sorts of things just don't appear in legitimate major newspapers, and it is an embarrassment to the state that its largest paper continues to run truly stupid letters like the one appearing today from Mike Jones of Oklahoma City. We need only read the headline and the first two sentences:

States have right to secede

Washington and the liberal states say secession is a bad idea. That should make us suspicious that it would be bad for them. ...

Holy crap. While Mr. Jones does not explicitly state it, the subtext is there: Oklahoma (and other states dominated by the far right) should secede from the Union. So, before addressing the rest of the letter, let's take a moment to see if this is actually a good idea. Let's ask ourselves what would happen if Oklahoma left the US-- and were allowed to do so without a fight. What would be the result?

The two major and immediate impacts would be a dramatic cut in revenues for the fledgling nation, and a dramatic loss in jobs. After all, as has been well documented, Oklahoma is among those states that receives more in federal money than its citizens pay. Indeed, between 2000-2005, the state received about $1.40 for each $1.00 it paid. That's a tremendous gap to try and make up. However, given the state's conservative anti-tax stance, though, it seems more likely that the government would make up for that gap by cutting spending rather than raising taxes-- or worse, a combination of spending cuts coupled with the institution of highly regressive taxes such as a sales tax.

The cut in spending would create huge problems for the new country. For instance, public works and infrastructure would crumble as the money to maintain them is slashed. Worse, huge numbers of government employees would lose their jobs as, in the face of massive budget cuts, schools and protective services (e.g. police and fire) would have to let hundreds of employees go.

These job losses would be compounded by the fact that the thousands of Oklahomans who are employed by the federal government would be out of work. Of course, some would be replaced by the new government (e.g. an Oklahoma Postal Service replacing the US Postal Service). However, is impossible to imagine that even close to 100% of them would. For example, while the new Nation of Oklahoma would no doubt want to have a military, it simply could not support enough of a force to populate, say, Tinker Air Force Base, or Fort Sill.

Within just a few years, the new Nation of Oklahoma would have dramatic unemployment. State leaders, embracing the ridiculous policies espoused by right wing news organizations, would continue to cut spending and lower taxes in the hopes of somehow generating more revenue. But hey-- at least all these conservative-loving people would be "free", right?

Or would they? Numerous state officials have advocated for an implicit Christian theocracy to run government and it is not hard to see how-- freed from the bonds of the United States Constitution-- those implicit aims would be made explicit. Public prayer would be mandatory in schools, before sporting events, in courtroom, and in legislative sessions. Similarly, public displays of Christian iconography (crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc.) would be common. Public office would be limited to those who practiced certain brands of Christianity. Indeed, attending church (of the evangelical variety) would, perhaps, be mandatory. In schools and universities, the instruction of science and mainstream humanities would be replaced with more biblically-focused courses.

I could go on, but there really isn't much need. An independent Nation of Oklahoma would be a disaster for most as within a generation it would turn into a "Petroleum Republic"-- a highly socially and economically stratified theocracy that survives only because it can export a desirable commodity (in this case, natural gas). I'm trying to think about what country that sounds like, but it just isn't coming to me.

Anyhow, it is obvious that a secession of Oklahoma is a horrible idea. But the Oklahoman runs a letter advocating it-- no doubt because it concludes with this gem:

Today, if conservative states exercise their right to secede, liberal states will continue their unconstitutional agenda, which history has repeatedly shown will lead to a police state and a wrecked economy. Meanwhile, the conservative states will continue their constitutional agenda, which history has repeatedly shown will lead to individual freedoms and a healthy economy.

What planet is this guy living on? Was he awake during the last 20 years? It is completely divorced from reality-- which is perhaps why the Oklahoman chose to run it.

Jingo-tastic!

Gun control has been a hot topic of late, and the Oklahoman has run loads of letters that parrot standard far-right talking points. These typically say things like 'We must be vigilant lest liberal take away our guns!'-- a talking point designed to generate support (and often donations) out of fear-- or 'Guns don't kill people-- godless liberals do!' and so on.

But in terms of truly mind-boggling epic defenses of gun freedom, it's hard to beat the letter from Dick Webber of Edmond. First, we get a history lesson: The colonists only won the Revolutionary War because we had armed citizens (who happened to have better guns than the British). So, we get it: Hooray for armed citizens! And then, we get this line:

Today, America faces an enemy that vows to impose its own culture and control, an enemy with an Islamic fundamentalist and terrorist character. This enemy is training around the world to attack America and its interests. The histories of this nation and the world teach us that we have a choice: Surrender or fight to preserve our freedom.

Um. OK. This is the sort of propagandistic line we have been fed for the last decade or so, and it makes less and less sense as time goes on. One can see how little sense it makes if we simply follow up on Mr. Webber's two options: supposing we picked the first option, who would we surrender to?

No, really. If you are going to talk about this "enemy" that is threatening us, who is it? Saying "Islamic fundamentalists" is hardly an answer. Who are they? Where are they? Who is their leader? What is their army like? If you can't answer these questions, then talk of an "enemy" really just makes you sound, well, paranoid. Which, I guess, is the point.

It's hardly surprising that Mr. Webber is brainwashed, and we can bet good money that most of his information about the world comes from Fox News, AM talk radio, and the Oklahoman. But even with all that misinformation, it's difficult to imagine this sort of logical leap:

The Minutemen give us the example of how a free people, personally armed and expert with their own weapons, can prevail. National policy should be to encourage citizens to own weapons for self-defense. Countries such as Switzerland already do this. America is no longer immune or safe from internal or external attacks. Those who attempt to inhibit or discourage the right of a private citizen to own guns should cause us to ask this: “On whose side are you?”

Wow. So he is advocating greater gun ownership because of Islamic fundamentalists?? Think about that for a minute. Earlier, he lamented that "colonial militia units were provided neither arms nor uniforms. They had to equip themselves." Assuming that's true, then one can see where having armed citizens would be a bonus. However, I'm sure Mr. Webber is aware that we currently have a very well-funded (and thus armed) army. Right? So well-funded, in fact, that it is reasonable to say that in both absolute and relative terms, it's the most powerful military the world has ever seen. If this is the case, then it is hard to argue that we also need to have a slew of armed ordinary citizens. Especially when there is no real enemy to speak of.

Normal newspapers would never run letters like Mr. Webber's. It is jingoistc, filled with right-wing paranoia, and has an illogical conclusion. But because it puts forward a pro-Second Amendment message, the Oklahoman saw fit to run it. Pathetic.

Integrity Lite

I have to admit that I am totally flummoxed by the Oklahoman's publication of a post-"fiscal cliff" letter wherein Scott K. Brush of Oklahoma City complains that his his paycheck has shrunk. He writes that he normally takes his sons out for burgers one night a week. However,

being down about the new tax hikes, the ones that President Obama promised wouldn't happen, we stayed home. I made a pizza for them. Not as good, but it turned out OK.

Where do we even start? Perhaps it is best if we simply look at the editorial comment the Oklahoman put after the letter. You read that correctly. The Oklahoman ran this letter where a man complained that Obama raised his taxes-- even though the President promised he wouldn't-- and then saw fit to clarify the situation:

A temporary cut in payroll taxes was not renewed by Congress and reverted to the previous level. Income tax cuts for most taxpayers were not affected.

Holy crap. Here in one sentence, the editors correctly note what actually happened. Actually, they get it half right. Yes, the payroll cuts were temporary. But so were the Bush income tax cuts. In any case, it seems baffling to run a letter like Mr. Brush's when his complaints aren't grounded in reality. Of course, the Oklahoman does that all the time. So then, why now decide to run a slight correction noting that the writer's complaints are off-base? 

Editor vacation??

Holy crap. After weeks of run-of-the-mill letters ('Hate the federal government!', 'Global warming is a hoax!', and this total joke), the Oklahoman has run a whopping three letters expressing progressive views! Someone must have gone on vacation.

In a thoughtful reply to one of the paper's typical anti-Obama editorial, Greg Owings of Norman rightly notes that the President

imposed provisions of the Dream Act and postponed the deportation of Latinos, repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell, supported marriage equality, expanded student loans and reduced their interest rates, enabled young people to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26, guaranteed coverage for contraceptives and family planning.

These are all things he campaigned on, so it is, as Owings says, "humorous to hear that the Obama presidency has been a dismal failure." (Note to the editors: if you campaign on a set of policy ideas, and those policy ideas actually come to pass, that's called a 'success.')

Similarly, Jon Womastek of Oklahoma City rightly critiques the right-wing talking point that the country needs to cut taxes even more. And finally, Tim Walker of Piedmont presents a rational critique of an op-ed (from the Washington Examiner-- I get that the plutocrat who owns the Oklahoman also owns the Examiner, but are the editors so lazy that they run the same editorials in both papers??) that discusses the court's role in deciding religious "freedom."

As we've seen plenty of times before, the Oklahoman loves to run letters expressing progressive views largely so that it can run harsh responses to them later in the week (or later). Let's see if it happens this time around.