Gilded propaganda

As I've noted in the past, newspapers generally run letters that respond to or comment on recent (usually) local events, or that continue a discussion brought up in an editorial or opinion column. Most newspapers don't run letters that are apropos of absolutely nothing, particularly when those letters are filled with baseless claims or amateurish rhetorical flourishes. The Oklahoman isn't any ordinary paper, however, and thus we're stuck with letters like the one from Mike Jones of Oklahoma City.

Right off the bat we get red flags about where this is going:

Two thousand years ago, Jesus taught the principle of free-market capitalism in the parable of the talents. He saw no need to put any regulations on Sam Seller other than the Ten Commandments, which were already in effect. Since then, no economic system has ever rivaled free-market capitalism for bringing freedom and prosperity to the Sam Sellers of the world and to the people Sam hires.

Wait. What? First off, it's hard to imagine that the guy who said "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" or who gave this lecture:

"Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them. "Whose image is this? And whose inscription?" 

"Caesar's," they replied. 

Then he said to them, "So give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

is really the best example of a pro-free-market, anti-government advocate. But that aside, is the parable of the talents really the a shining example of how we imagine free-market capitalism? For those not familiar with the story, here is the rundown:

A) A rich man goes on a journey, but before doing so he gives his three slaves a bunch of money: five minas (translated "talents" most of the time-- a unit of weight; we aren't told what's being weighed and I don't know the original Greek, but it was almost certainly silver or gold) to one slave, two to another, and one to the last. The verse adds "to each according to his ability," so presumably the more skilled and gifted the slave, the more money he got.

B) The man leaves and the two more skilled and gifted slaves immediately turn around and double their money. The last slave-- worried, obviously, about losing his stash, just buries it and waits for his master's return.

C) When the master returns, he is happy to find out that the two more skilled and gifted slaves have doubled his money and he gives them more responsibility in the household.

D) He is less happy that the poorer slave-- the one who was less able-- just kept his money safe. The slave's reply is quite telling, though:

"Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours."

This is great. He's basically saying: "You're a dick and make money for work you don't even do. But since I'm incompetent I didn't want to fuck up and lose you money, so I just hid it. So here it is, every last penny."

E) To this, the master calls his slave "lazy" and says that he should have at least invested it with bankers to earn interest. He then takes away the mina and gives it to the most able-bodied slave, adding "for to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away."

I guess on some level, modern free-market capitalism in the United States does work like this: we call it income inequality, and it's alive and well. But I'm not sure it's the message Mr. Jones was trying to send.

In any case, after this, Mr. Jones goes into a short discussion about-- and I'm not kidding-- Sam Seller and Wally Worker and explains in the most facile way possible how free-market capitalism is supposed to work. He concludes with a very "Sam Seller"-centric statement:

Free-market capitalism is self-correcting and powerful, but it can be virtually destroyed by two things: overtaxing Sam and over-regulating him.

His letter is inarticulate and quite inelegant, but he more he goes on, the more he sounds wistful for the Social Darwinism of the late 1800's. Indeed:

Proponents of social Darwinism adhered to a 'help those who help themselves' philosophy: government shouldn’t invest in programs for the poor, because the poor had no positive impact on the nation’s financial health. The rich, meanwhile, were strong, hard working citizens who contributed to national progress, and, as such, should not be subject to government regulation. Prominent social Darwinists included Herbert Spencer and Andrew Carnegie, whose essay promoting free market economy, "The Gospel of Wealth," was published in 1889...

By the 1880s, however, it was beginning to become clear that markets were not free. Corporations had grown so big and powerful that they controlled markets entirely. Consumers grew enraged over the high prices that monopolies had set, while small businesses demanded protection from being squeezed out of the market. Railroad monopolies were overcharging small-time customers, especially farmers, while giving rebates to powerful politicians and favored clients.

So, yeah. About that whole "self-correcting" thing? Not so much.

Predictably, Mr. Jones goes on to lament high taxes but he stupidly remarks at one point  that our taxes on "Sam Seller" have "impeded our economy ever since by steadily becoming more 'progressive.'" One wonders if he's ever seen this chart:

You know, the one where median family income did really well in the 1990's during the Clinton administration with its higher taxes, and did less well under the lower taxes of Reagan and Bush?

Anyhow, he then turns out this baffling comment:

Also, liberals have burdened Sam Seller with 160,000 pages of regulations; the cost of over-regulating has jumped from $8 billion under George W. Bush to $46 billion under Barack Obama. This $46 billion primarily goes to lawyers, unions and government employees, which explains why these entities hate the tea party movement.

Where the fuck are these numbers coming from?!? What 160,000 pages of regulations? And while that sounds like a huge number, is it? This country makes all sort of stuff-- cars, jets, and houses. Candy bars, soft drinks, and bubble gum. Millions of Americans provide and receive services ranging from surgery to massages. It's probably good to make sure that all this stuff that we make and all these services that we provide are safe for American consumers, no? For a country with over 300 million people and a GDP of over $14 trillion, is "160,000 pages of regulations" really horrible?

And where on god's green earth did he get this $46 billion number from?!? You can try to find something about it on Google, but there's little there that sheds light on these numbers. Indeed, it's almost certain that this number is a sheer fabrication.

Less damning but just as non-sensical is Mr. Jones' shift to advocating the tea party. Where the fuck did that come from? Weren't we talking about free-market capitalism and how the poor and working class deserve to be poor?!? Fuck. He even concludes: "This movement is the one that most closely resembles the intent of our Founders."

#%YG&$#@CT!!F$F!!! Why the fuck are we talking about "our Founders" all of a sudden? He started off with Jesus for fuck's sake, switches to Sam Seller, and out of the blue we've got George Mason? Why can't nut job letter-writers to the Oklahoman write a focused letter that makes sense?

Anyhow, this whole letter is an embarrassment. Mike Jones is probably too stupid to know that he's advocating a return to a world of The Jungle, and would likely hang himself if he knew that his views were somehow connected to Darwinism. (Albeit, Social Darwinism...) But the editors of the Oklahoman are smarter than that, and in wanting to push their plutocratic agenda (since they really DO want to return to the Gilded Age) they are all too happy to run letters like this.

Facts?

As noted at the outset, the point of this blog is to point out how the Oklahoman uses its letters section to push standard right wing lies. The beauty of this strategy is that while the paper's editorials and syndicated opinion columns all generally adhere to journalistic standards wherein things like lies and smears are frowned upon, there are no such standards when it comes to letters to the editor. Thus, letters that smear progressive politicians and their ideas with baseless claims ("They're socialists!") or make factually challenged assertions ("The only way to balance the budget is to cut taxes on the rich!") are run and actually gain some legitimacy from appearing in print. Yet the editors are absolved of any charges of a lapse in journalistic standards for pushing blatant lies because, of course, these are just the opinions of their readership.

A great example of this comes in this letter from Tim Abram of Norman. The headline (obviously written by the editors) immediate raises red flags: No argument: We have a spending problem.

Anyone who is actually familiar with what's been happening to the US budget for the last 5 years knows that this isn't true. But the plutocrats who own the Oklahoman definitely don't want you to know that, and so they-- like their brethren in AM talk radio-- push lies saying the opposite in the hopes that the dupes who follow them will believe it.

Mr. Abram begins:

I'm thankful that U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., set the record straight stating that the United States doesn't have a spending problem. They both said we have a “budget deficit problem.” Translation: We don't get enough of the taxpayers' money to spend as Congress sees fit. One of Pelosi's comments was, “It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem.” If I recall correctly, four years ago President Barack Obama pledged to cut the federal budget in half by the end of his first term.

It is still amazing that the Oklahoman runs these letters. Sarcasm has its place and is routinely used in casual conversation. However, in a 250 word letter, such rhetorical devices are difficult to pull off with any real effect. Indeed, after initially sarcastically mocking the (actually correct) statements of Pelosi and Hoyer, he launches into a series of unconnected and nonsensical attacks against the them. The point of the sarcasm is lost. Why even use it? And more importantly, why run such an inarticulate letter? Let's break down his attacks point by point:

1) They both said we have a “budget deficit problem.” Translation: We don't get enough of the taxpayers' money to spend as Congress sees fit.

Actually, the process of setting a budget is slightly more complex than that, but such things aside, we might ask: who does Mr. think should be setting the budget? Him? Isn't the point of a representative government that we, you know, elect people to manage the government for us? We can address the merits of Mr. Abram's snark below, but first,

2) One of Pelosi's comments was, “It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem.” If I recall correctly, four years ago President Barack Obama pledged to cut the federal budget in half by the end of his first term.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Abram is challenged when it comes to forming a logical argument. To rebut Pelosi's claim that "It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem," he comes back with a comment that the president made about cutting the budget in half? Bit of a non-sequitur, no? Particularly since Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half. Even if Mr. Abram is too stupid to know the difference, the deficit isn't the same thing as the budget. Cutting the budget in half would be disastrous for the country. Do the editors of the Oklahoman even bother to proofread this shit, or do they just run any letter that attacks Democrats?

In any event, Mr. Abram continues:

Fact: He's incurred more debt than all presidents combined! He also lied about the cost of Obamacare and how it wouldn't affect your current health insurance plan or the doctor you see. Fact: Obamacare is now estimated to cost almost three times the initial estimate. Before Obamacare's passage, Pelosi said Congress would “have to pass it to find out what is in the bill.” I guess we know what's in it now!

Notice the slight of hand in the first "fact" Mr. Abram presents us with. He laments the growing debt, but fails to note how it happens. He implies, based on his earlier comments, that it simply must come from excess spending (note, again, the Oklahoman's propagandistic headline). But the reality is much different. In fact, the bulk of our debt has come from a) ridiculously low taxes (particularly on the wealthy); b) the economic downturn that has led to lower tax revenue; and c) increased spending on our social safety net such as foodstamps and unemployment benefits. As Paul Krugman notes,

The truth is that the budget deficits of the past four years were mainly a temporary consequence of the financial crisis, which sent the economy into a tailspin — and which, therefore, led both to low tax receipts and to a rise in unemployment benefits and other government expenses.

Throw in a few unfunded wars and it's not hard to see where this stuff is coming from. Yet people like Mr. Abram-- people who are completely uninformed and utterly and willfully ignorant-- assume that any deficit must come from massive increases in spending.

Regarding the second "fact" that Mr. Abram makes: it is clear that this just isn't true, either. Indeed:

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA
will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about
$50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.

So, yeah. Even if you want to quibble with the numbers here and there, it is clear that the Affordable Care Act isn't going to "cost almost three times the initial estimate." Such assertions are baseless lies. But the Oklahoman is happy to repeat them since it pushes their own agenda.

Also, aside from things like forcing private insurance companies to cover you regardless of pre-existing conditions, where is the evidence that the ACA is going to affect one's private insurance plan? Or what doctor you see?? He makes it sound quite dire, but he makes no specifics. Indeed, a basic look around suggests that Mr. Abram is just-- as usual-- making things up to spread fear about the ACA. Something the Oklahoman wants to push.

Mr. Abram concludes:

If Congress truly wants to reduce our spending and our deficit — which it doesn't — there are “billions” of opportunities. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, has produced a list of wasteful spending every year, listing millions upon millions of wasteful or duplicative (unnecessary) programs that can be cut. Unfortunately, it would mean that somebody's ox would get gored. So nothing ever gets done.

Note again the logical sleight of hand here. For Mr. Abram our spending and the deficit go hand in hand; revenue is never an issue. This, despite the fact that tax rates are at all time lows. Indeed, contra the Oklahoman, we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem:

It's hard to have a functioning government and a balanced budget when you don't fund the government but still want things like a massive military, viable infrastructure, and an educated population that is reasonably safe from harm.

People like Mr. Abram are deluded into thinking that the government is wasting loads of money-- so much that if Congress would just listen to Tom Coburn, our deficit problems would be solved. Too bad that he is too stupid to see that even if we followed all of Dr. Coburn's wishes and cut every project he deemed "wasteful" (why he gets to judge such things is unclear), it would be but a drop in the budget bucket. Indeed, spending on non-defense discretionary items is nearing all-time lows.

As usual, the Oklahoman is all too happy to run letters filled with lies and half-truths to further its agenda. It is totally unethical, but the editors of the Oklahoman clearly con't care about that.

Blaming idiot

A natural reaction to the housing crisis was the questioning of many in the press and government as to whether our banking and financial sectors were properly regulated. Unfortunately, our banking and financial sectors represent the plutocracy and thus care more about making money than the welfare of ordinary Americans.

It comes as no surprise, then, when a media arm of the plutocracy-- the Oklahoman-- runs a letter sewing as much misinformation it can about the crisis. In it, Robert Bostick of Altus writes:

News that the U.S. Department of Justice is going after Standard & Poor's over pre-crisis mortgages is startling; it shows how far the Obama administration will go to take away focus on those really responsible for the home mortgage crash. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is seeking to prosecute S&P when he ought to be going after the real culprits: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and others involved in encouraging (forcing under pressure) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae executives to provide mortgages to people who weren't eligible for them.

It is sad knowing that people as stupid and willfully uninformed as Mr. Bostick exist in this country. At issue is this: were the actions of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae the culprits of the economic disaster of 2008 and beyond? The short answer is, well, no. The larger answer is that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae accounted for less than a quarter of all "all subprime and alt-A mortgage loans," or "loans to financially fragile homeowners." The bulk of those loans went to private lenders. Indeed, by 2006-- the height of the housing boom-- the market share of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for loans had gone from 54% to 40%.

These are basic facts that anyone could check. However, the Oklahoman wants us to believe that the real culprit wasn't from predatory loans sought out largely by private banks and financial institutions. Rather, they want people to think that A) it was from government-backed agencies that gave out loans to "people who weren't eligible for them" (right wing code language for "brown people"), and B) that these agencies were cajoled by Democrats to do so (obviously pushing their anti-white agenda).

Pushing such lies lets the plutocrats off the hook, and pushes classic hot-button issues ("it's all the fault of do-gooders trying to help the coloreds!") that rally the base. It's pathetic and the editors should be ashamed that they run such drivel.

Whining about the press

One of the major accomplishments of the far-right is convincing a good portion of the country that the mainstream media are liberal. Given the Oklahoman's own right win agenda, then it's no surprise that they ran this letter from Keith Marcum of Mustang:

Imagine a basketball team not having to play by the rules. Both teams are after the same goal but with two different sets of rules. The officials allow one team to walk, double dribble and foul without a whistle. The other team wants to play by the rules, but struggles to compete at the same success rate.

The officials in this scenario represent the liberal press. The team breaking rules would be the Democratic Party that doesn't hesitate to lie and distort the truth without hesitation or fear of consequences. Its members know the press won't call them on it and their lies won't be exposed. The other team would be the Republicans who are trying to follow rules while knowing they'll be exposed if rules are broken. 

Obviously, there's little chance for Republicans to win because of the difference in calls being made by the press. President Obama knows he can say and do whatever he pleases and it won't be called. George W. Bush would've been chastised by the press had he tried to do the same as Obama. Examples include Solyndra and Benghazi — I could go on and on.

To begin: The use of the sports analogy is an embarrassment both to Mr. Marcum and to the Oklahoman. Analogy is obviously an effective rhetorical tool that can be employed to make complex arguments and ideas easier to follow. Sports analogies are somewhat tired, but one can imagine where even they can be useful. Unfortunately for Mr. Marcum, his argument is hardly complex. Indeed, it's quite simplistic. So simplistic, in fact, that one could easily just re-write his letter in a few sentences:

Our liberal mainstream media refuse to challenge President Obama on his socialist agenda, thus allowing him and the Democratic Party to lie and distort the truth. Meanwhile, Republicans seem to be held to a higher standard and every misquote is blown out of proportion. No doubt George W. Bush would haver have gotten away with things like the Solyndra or Benghazi scandals, among the many many others.

Wow. Even if this was just something I jotted down in all of two minutes, it is clear that it is a much stronger letter. The analogy is gone-- it obviously only serves to get in the way and the main points are made in a more concise way. (Note also that I've done away with the tacit implication made in Mr. Marcum's letter that Republicans would "lie and distort the truth" if they could, and it's only our "liberal" press that's holding them in check.)

Unfortunately, the Oklahoman really doesn't care about the quality of the letters it runs. All it wants is to make sure that it runs letters that push right wing talking points. In light if this, it is worth asking if Mr. Marcum's assertion is at all valid. Is it really the case that our mainstream media are failing to call out members of the Democratic Party for their lies, while Republicans are forced to just "follow the rules"?

Anyone who really pays attention to the issues knows that our mainstream media aren't liberal or conservative. Instead, they're largely just lazy and stupid. A great example of this comes from the 2000 election, where our supposedly "liberal" press corps savaged Al Gore while mostly giving George Bush a feee pass. Gore never said he "invented the internet" but our "liberal" press corps were happy to parrot right wing lies because they were too lazy to question a story that fit the narrative they wanted to push.

Again: if the press were truly liberal as Mr. Marcum (and much of the right wing) has asserted, Al Gore would have easily gotten a pass on such a statement. After all, Gore was instrumental in passing legislation in the late 80's that helped fund a "National Research and Education Network" that led, ultimately, to a commercialized internet.

But while our "liberal" media didn't give a Democrat running against George W. Bush much of a free pass, a person like the GOP's candidate for Vice President, Paul Ryan, is considered a "Very Serious Person" about deficits by those same people. And yet his budget plan would have effectively destroyed the government!

For people like Mr. Marcum, the notion that our mainstream media are liberal and biased towards a progressive agenda allows him to find comfort when his favored candidates and conservative ideas are rejected in the polls. As he says in his letter, "Obviously, there's little chance for Republicans to win," against such bias. Unfortunately, this completely baseless attitude means that Mr. Marcum and those who think like him are unwilling to seek other reasons for the failure of such ideas (such as, perhaps, that those ideas are horrible).

Nevertheless, the Oklahoman is happy to run letters that push these sorts of lies, knowing that it allows its failing right wing plutocratic/theocratic agenda to survive a little longer.

Healthcare misinformation

It doesn't get much worse than this. Today, the Oklahoman ran a letter by Nancy Park of Del City filled with incredible amounts of misinformation about the Affordable Care Act, all to help push its right-wing agenda without dirtying its hands.

She begins by writing that "the idea of foisting government health care on everyone is the worst law I've seen so far." Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) doesn't actually do this. It is incredible that this paper runs letters where lies and distortions are presented as fact.

If Ms. Park bothered to get her information from sources not connected with the right wing media machine, she might learn that at its core, the ACA really just does the following:

A) Lets children stay on their parents' (private) health care plan until 26;
B) Forces (private) insurance companies to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, and eliminates life-time limites;
C) Requires that every citizen and legal resident has to have (private) insurance or face a penalty;

D) Offers some financial assistance for middle-class families that need help purchasing (private) insurance; and

E) Slightly raises medicare taxes on the extremely wealthy.

There's more than this, but this is the trust of it-- insurance companies can no longer dick you over with pre-existing conditions and life time limits, and in exchange, every person has to have insurance. Only through the most tortured semantic twists could one claim that this is "foisting government health care on everyone" and yet the Oklahoman prints this crap.

Mr. Park goes on, complaining that "adding the government to the mix will make it much more expensive and limit access to treatment for months on end, as in Canada's system."

Holy crap-- it's the Canada canard!! It's hard to really say the US is doing better than Canada with regards to health care when things like actual facts say that it's not true. To be fair, Ms. Park was, it seems, talking just about limited access to treatment "for months on end" and so some extent that's true-- in the linked article, Canada comes in 7th out of 7 in timeliness of care while the US comes in a whopping 5th-- behind "socialist" countries like the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. And seriously, there are complex reasons for limits to treatment access that are entirely unrelated to having the government make you buy (private) health insurance. 

But wait. It gets worse:

To suddenly make birth control a cost that insurers have to pay is outrageous. Until now, people have paid for their own birth control and have gained many upgrades as a result of free enterprise. What do you think will happen to any potential research when it's now a mandate?

WHAT THE HELL?!?!?! This is fucking nuts. In general, people with health insurance buy birth control pills with a co-pay of something like $10. Now it's true that the ACA now requires that (private) insurance companies pay the entire cost, but let's be honest: given that the pill with no insurance can run you far more than that per month, it hardly seems like having (private) insurance companies pay a bit more is a radical new step.

Moreover, what the fuck is this shit about "gained many upgrades as a result of free enterprise"?!? What does she even mean???? I can get an upgrade when I fly United Airlines. I don't know how someone gets an upgrade with birth control pills? Perhaps she is talking about condoms? And... I don't even follow the logic with the "potential research" thing. Seriously. Does she imagine that pharmaceutical companies are just going to up and stop working on improving their product because... I guess, there's a mandate for people to have (private) health insurance that pays for birth control? She does realize that just because there's some mandate for (private) insurance companies to cover the costs of birth control pills that doesn't mean that pharmaceutical companies now make their pills for free, right? Like, can we expect people to stop improving on, say, improved techniques for brain surgery? Because I'm pretty sure most of that is going to be paid by (private) insurance, too.

And that even if the profit motive were somehow just killed because of this (a totally preposterous position so asinine that it's hard to take seriously), university researchers would undoubtedly continue to find ways to improve on such things even if the more monetarily-focused researchers gave up.

The rest is comical and reminds me of a previous letter:

I'm not speaking just for religious groups who oppose this travesty, but for all of us. What's next? Abortions need to be covered, too? We'll need to import immigrants to fill the loss of population. But they won't be begging to get into a socialist country, since it's likely that's the kind of country they're leaving behind. The Affordable Health Care Act is far from affordable as it is. The nation is drowning in debt and we need a new entitlement that will cost billions more?

What? Abortions??!? Immigrants?!!? ZOMFG!!! SOCIALISM?!?!!!! FESEV%YVYHQ$TW$!!!!! DROWNING IN DEBT@##@$T$CQ#X$XWF!!!11111!!!!!!

Clearly, the best way to get your letter published in the Oklahoman is to write a paragraph or two parroting some factually inaccurate right wing talking point, and the follow it up with a final paragraph that includes 4-5 standard right wing dog-whistle terms all mashed together in some sort of stream-of-consciousness style.

A real newspaper would publish more thoughtful letters from a wide spectrum of views. But the Oklahoman just wants to push its right wing plutocratic/theocratic agenda and so it opts to run the crap like this letter from Ms. Park.

The biases of reality

The Oklahoman isn't shy about running letters that use pejoratives to describe progressives and progressive views-- calling politicians like "socialist" or accusing people on the left of being ignorant of history, and so on.

Thus, it's somewhat humorous to read a letter by Charles Beattie of Midwest City that ran recently. He writes:

Many liberals view any argument from the other side as uninformed, bigoted, backward or evil. Many try to hurt those they disagree with. Think of how Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is asking private banks not to do business with gun manufacturers. Or how he reacted to Chick-fil-A's owner's opinion on gay marriage. As has been said, President Obama and the Democrats have an enemies list; the most recent target is the National Rifle Association. If the left wants a serious debate, it could start by being less condescending and patronizing and look at the legitimate views of its political opponents.

There is something to be said for having honest, civil discussion. However, that can only really happen when both sides dwell in reality and unfortunately, the right wing establishment too often chooses to live in a fantasy world unbound by facts.

Indeed, it isn't hard to view the right wing as "uninformed, bigoted, backward or evil" precisely because the positions they advocate are, well, just that. Take the comments of Mr. Beattie himself. Back in May, he wrote:

Democrats aren't telling the facts on the economy. Fact is, the stimulus was a failure. The real unemployment rate is higher because of those who just left the workforce, most jobs added are part time and 340,000 women have left the workforce. That's not proof of getting better; it's the opposite. President Obama and many Democrats have this extremism against businesses, coal and oil. The same extremism is seen from the Occupy protesters. What they want is the same policies socialist French President-elect Francois Hollande supports. That would be devastating to the U.S.

There couldn't be a clearer example of "uninformed" and "backward" if you looked. Was the stimulus a failure? Hardly. Indeed, it is generally agreed that while it was too small, it did help stave off unemployment and keep the economy from plunging into a depression.

Interestingly, even people like Paul Ryan accept this this-- even if only deep down inside. After all, he wrote to the U.S. Department of Energy in suppost of stimulus money for his district, noting at one point that the money would "stimulate the local and area economy by creating new jobs." Again: this is Paul Ryan-- the guy who ran for Vice President. And, of course, the guy who also said that the stimulus failed.

How is this possible? Well, either he is uninformed, needs to take his meds, or he is just evil-- willing to lie to the American public to further his political career even if it means millions more Americans suffer through this economic crisis.

There are plenty of other examples that highlight how "uninformed" the right is. Take the "debate" surrounding evolution, for example. It is hard to talk about education and science with a segment of the population that is willfully ignorant of basic facts, asking stupid questions like "if evolution is true why are there still monkeys?" as though that's the zinger that proves the whole thing is false.

Unfortunately for people like Mr. Beattie, reality has a well-known liberal bias. And when you opt to reject reality because it doesn't jibe with your theocratically/plutocratically-driven agenda, then you actually are deserving of that condescension you complain about.

Propaganda explosion!

Holy hell. Today, the Oklahoman has outdone itself. That's because they decided to run a letter by Brent Parmer of Apache who, after no doubt going on a three or four day AM talk radio bender, vomited up a ridiculous mishmash of right-wing talking points devoid entirely of historical fact or sound reasoning. It's a true propaganda explosion. It's so shitty that almost every sentence reserves a careful reply:

Every time Republicans lose an election, liberals say Republicans must abandon conservative principles.

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. What mainstream political pundits are suggesting is that a party that has run on a platform of thinly veiled racism, fundamentalist Christianity, and economic policies strongly slanted to the fabulously wealth may want to reconsider some of those aspects given that a) the country is becoming less white, is less enthusiastic about far-right Christianity, and weary of working harder and still falling behind people like the Real Housewives, and the Kardashians.

When Richard Nixon used wage and price controls, did that bit of liberalism work out?

Nixon's response to rising inflation was certainly a bad one. But was it really an example of "liberalism"? Mr. Parmer is obviously making some facile assumption that "wage controls = communism" and thus, Nixon's plan must have been grounded in communist ideals. The reality, of course, is much more complex as economists were dealing with problems wherein that conventional "rules of economics [were] not working the way they used to."

When Jimmy Carter continued with detente the Russians reached out their loving hand of peace and invaded Afghanistan.

What the hell is this even about? Is he suggesting that Carter's policies towards Russia were somehow responsible for the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan?!? That's nuts!!!! Even a basic history shows that this reasoning is false:

In April 1978 Afghanistan’s centrist government ... was overthrown by left-wing military officers ... Power was thereafter shared by two Marxist-Leninist political groups, the People’s (Khalq) Party and the Banner (Parcham) Party—which had earlier emerged from a single organization, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan—and had reunited in an uneasy coalition shortly before the coup. The new government, which had little popular support, forged close ties with the Soviet Union, launched ruthless purges of all domestic opposition, and began extensive land and social reforms that were bitterly resented by the devoutly Muslim and largely anticommunist population. Insurgencies arose against the government among both tribal and urban groups, and all of these—known collectively as the mujahideen (Arabic mujāhidūn, “those who engage in jihad”)—were Islamic in orientation. 

These uprisings, along with internal fighting and coups within the government between the People’s and Banner factions, prompted the Soviets to invade the country on the night of Dec. 24, 1979, sending in some 30,000 troops and toppling the short-lived presidency of People’s leader Hafizullah Amin. The aim of the Soviet operation was to prop up their new but faltering client state, now headed by Banner leader Barak Karmal, but Karmal was unable to attain significant popular support. Backed by the United States, the mujahideen rebellion grew, spreading to all parts of the country. The Soviets initially left the suppression of the rebellion to the Afghan army, but the latter was beset by mass desertions and remained largely ineffective throughout the war.

It is crazy to imagine that Carter's failure to embrace "conservative principles" (whatever that means) was the cause of any of this.

When Bill Clinton changed banking regulations, the banks made more risky loans and George W. Bush took the blame.

Uh... isn't deregulation of financial institutions a conservative principle?

Are those good examples of why Republicans should abandon conservatism?

They're actually shitty examples of anything. Indeed, this whole letter is an example of how shitty the Oklahoman is when it comes to running letters. But it gets worse:

Medicare, Medicaid and tort lawyers have made quality health insurance too expensive.

Wait. What? It's hard to even know why he is including this. How on earth is Medicare making quality health insurance too expensive?!?

If your veterinarian was invaded by the world of government health care, your dog would be unaffordable. The only difference would be that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would never allow the partial-birth abortion of puppies.

What the hell?? Jesus. This is what Ulysses would read like if James Joyce were an uneducated right-wing nut job. But it gets worse:

When socialist programs designed to help the poor destroy the free markets and create more poverty, we haven't helped the poor. Weakening the U.S. military won't end war; liberalizing the Second Amendment won't stop criminals from crossing the Mexican border with machine guns while on the way to get a California driver's license.

Dwa grcht3oiqc4 htgiq!!!! Socialism! Second Amendment!!! MEXICANS!!! CALIFORNIA!!!FAW$@A!!YY%%$G$G!

How can the editors of a major newspaper actually run this shit?? What person read this and thought "wow-- he makes some good points here"??

Truly, it is embarrassing on multiple levels-- not the lease of which is the conservative movement. If this is the best they have to offer, then things are sad for them indeed.

 

Guns. Again.

A few days ago, the Oklahoman ran a letter arguing that we should have guns because, well, the colonists did and that's what won us the Revolutionary War. It is truly one of the dumbest arguments someone could possibly make in favor of gun ownership in the moden world. As I noted then, a fundamental change from 1776 was the introduction of something called the United States Armed Forces, which is probably slightly more effective at repelling invasions than a few middle aged, out of shape guys armed with hunting rifles. 

Still, that didn't stop Eric Miller of Oklahoma City from writing today:

Some people seem to think that only the military should be allowed certain weapons. They forget that the minutemen and other militia (citizens) who fought the war for independence had weapons that were typically superior to those of the British military. Also, cannons were available to the militia; otherwise, our Founders wouldn't have been able to use them against the British.

First off: Holy crap, this guy is writing at the 6th grade level. For real: saying "They had X; otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to use them" betrays some seriously remedial-level logic. Obviously, it's difficult to use something IF THAT SOMETHING IS NOT AVAILABLE TO YOU.

Second: WHAT IS HIS POINT? That because some colonists in 1776 had enough guns we all should now?!? Does he think that ordinary citizens are going to be able to contribute to a military conflict involving the United States?!? That's just asinine.

It's amazing that the Oklahoman continues to run these sorts of letters: not only are the points expressed entirely stupid, letters like Mr. Millers are so clumsy that it is almost embarrassing to read.