Scientific stupidity

It's been awhile since the Oklahoman ran a letter pushing its anti-evolution theocratic agenda. But after reading today's letter from James Claflin of Edmond, one can only hope we go a long time before seeing another, for they don't get much dumber than this:

'Scientists rethink universe' (Associated Press, March 24) stated that scientists now calculate the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years. The 'big bang' is listed as a figurative 0-60 mph in thousandths of a second, bringing the universe from nothing to that of what we see in today's world. Many bright individuals are involved — astronomers, planetary physicists, etc. — but another group not mentioned is very much a part of the debate. What about the anthropologists who give no credit to creationism but relate everything to the process of 'evolution'?

Wait. Why on earth would anthropologists weigh in on the age of the universe? And, what debate are we even talking about? After all, the article in question didn't mention any debate! But Mr. Clafin isn't done with his stupidity:

It's been said and 'proven' (how, I don't know) that it would take 26.2 billion years for humans as we know them today to evolve into their current forms. So, the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years and the evolution of humans took 26.2 billion years. My math teachers taught me that 13.8 billion minus 26.2 billion results in a negative number. Something doesn't add up! Would the planetary astronomers pick up the telephone and talk to the anthropologists to resolve a conflict that my third-grade math teacher said wasn't possible?

Holy shit. Yeah. Mr. Clafin, something doesn't add up, but it's not from the scientists: it's from your being utterly stupid. Where on earth did he get this "26.2 billion years" number?!? And given that he freely admits that he has no idea how this number was arrived at, why is he even bringing it up?!?

But let's be clear: that number is a complete fabrication. No "anthropologist" would ever state this. Indeed, no serious scientist of any discipline would think it. It's worthless. Yet, a major state newspaper is running Mr. Clafin's query as though it has serious merit. It's an embarrassment to the state.

One can only hope that any of the many professors teaching in the state will write in to correct this utterly stupid notion.

Making things up

It's been awhile since I've posted, but that doesn't mean that the Oklahoman has stopped publishing letters filled lies, half-truths, and misinformation, all so that it can push a plutocratic, theocratic agenda. And speaking of just making things up to spin far-right talking points, we have today's letter from Laura Moore of Oklahoma City. She begins:

Lots of people are wondering what President Obama has in mind as he spends us into bankruptcy. Ask a liberal who considers himself part of the enlightened 'intelligentsia' how we can pay for all the government spending when the present debt is nearly $50,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Normally he gives you an all-knowing smile and says, 'Oh, there is plenty of money!' End of discussion. What he really means is: 'If we can just spend and squander to a point where there is a current debt crisis that even conservatives can't fix, we can then confiscate bank accounts (like the European Union is doing in Cyprus) and pension funds and institute a 20-25 percent value added tax (VAT) along with any other taxes we think we need.'

Let's start a critique of this letter by again noting the truly juvenile rhetorical tactics used. Instead of saying something straight forward and elegant like "While liberals say X, it is clear that they aim to do Y" Mr. Moore resorts to a much clumsier tactic. Next, what the hell is this "debt crisis that even conservatives can't fix" thing? Even Ms. Moore can't be so stupid as to know America's debt exploded under St. Reagan and then again under the Prodigal Son Bush, can she? Don't answer that.

Also, let's stop with the America-is-going-to-end-up-like-[the latest European country to be in an economic crisis] bit. Due to basic differences, America isn't going to end up like Greece, and it isn't going to end up like Cyprus. And then, where did this VAT thing come from?!? Oh-- here it is:

Obama sycophant and liberal 'economist' Paul Krugman admits we will need a VAT, increased taxes on the middle class and death panels within 10 years. Elite liberals see the total wealth of the country and the gross domestic product as belonging to the government because as we all know, at the very heart of extreme socialism is hatred of every American's constitutional property rights 'because capitalism isn't fair.'

OK, so the quote around economist. I get that it's a simplistic pejorative to use quote makes to call into question the validity of someone or something's credentials-- like saying the Oklahoman is a "newspaper" or that Ms. Moore is... well, you get the point. It's fun, but one wonders if a major newspaper should really run letters that use such childish tactics.

In any event, while Krugman is an actual economist, did he really say that we need a) a VAT, b) increased taxes on the middle class, and c) death panels?!? Some Google searching shoes that she likely found this from conservative "newspaper" (see how fun that is?!?) Newsmax. (Or something similar.) Of course, this was in 2010, but no one assumes that Ms. Moore is actually up to date on anything. (If you're reading this, Laura, brace yourself: Lincoln was shot!!)

So, did Krugman actually say those things? Yes. But of course, he was using the term "death panels" in a mocking way-- and bringing it up to reference what he'd said minutes earlier in the segment. In explaining himself, things make sense:

I said something deliberately provocative on This Week, so I think I’d better clarify what I meant (which I did on the show, but it can’t hurt to say it again.)
So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on 'death panels and sales taxes'. What I meant is that 

(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care
(b) we’ll need more revenue — several percent of GDP — which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax

And if we do those two things, we’re most of the way toward a sustainable budget.
By the way, I’ve said this before.

Now, you may declare that this is politically impossible. But medical costs must be controlled somehow, or nothing works. And is a modest VAT really so much more implausible than ending the mortgage interest deduction?

Before getting to the VAT thing, let's bear in mind that our current system already has "death panels" in place. Insurance companies routinely deny coverage. and people sometimes die because of it. The only difference between that and what Krugman is talking about is that the former is all about the bottom line for share holders and the latter is based at least to some great degree on the efficacy of the treatment, and not its cost.

Anyhow, regarding the VAT thing-- I admit that Krugman's position is somewhat vexing, though he explains that, too.

And then, about that "within 10 years" thing? Note that in the round table discussion he says only "somewhere down the pike" and that in his blog post he concludes "I believe that some day — maybe in the first Chelsea Clinton administration — it will actually happen." So, no. Not in 10 years. But whatever, the Oklahoman isn't much for accuracy.

Ms. Moore finishes her letter in typical fashion: made-up fantasy that kowtows to the plutocratic agenda of the paper:

Drilling for the oil and the gas under public lands/offshore would fix the whole problem, but Obama hates that. He'd rather have bankruptcy for the above reasons than to have prosperity for everybody!

 So... drilling for oil solves our debt problem? Because... last time I checked, oil companies like Exxon don't pay much in income taxes to the US. So maybe Ms. Moore knows something I don't. Actually, no. She probably doesn't. Especially since, as I've noted before, the US isn't going bankrupt.

That ordinary citizens are so ignorant is hardly surprising. That a major newspaper would run a letter with such lies IS surprising. Unless, of course, that paper is the Oklahoman.

Context follow-up

Regarding Tom Locke's letter from the other day and my reply-- everyone should watch this video:

It's mind-blowing. A CEO makes 380 more than the average wage-earner?!? Does anyone think that a CEO is so deserving of such money?

Look, I don't think anyone begrudges Kobe Bryant or Paris Hilton for being fabulously wealthy. But let's be honest: when most Americans look around, they see crumbling infrastructure, unimpressive elementary and secondary education, out-of-control university costs (for even public colleges!), dwindling public services, and worse.

As the video notes: 9 out of 10 Americans think that a more equitable distribution of wealth is desirable. this would come, obviously, from taxes. And with those taxes, Americans would get more of the stuff that they think a first world government should provide: safe cities, quality, affordable education, a strong social safety-net, and so on. Somehow, though, the right-wing noise machine has clouded perceptions so much that idiots like Tom Locke actually think that what the mega-wealthy-- people like Kobe Bryant (I have no animosity towards the guy; he's just an example)-- are paying just enough even while our government scrapes by to provide services like police, food inspection, and education.

It's almost criminal, but the Oklahoman and its plutocrat masters don't care that they're misleading you. As long as they keep their money.

Out of context

The Oklahoman has been pretty banal in its letters of late. Sure, they're run screeds by people making utterly fatuous arguments about gun control, or about immigration. But not much has appeared that's been so egregious.

Today, however, they return to their plutocratic propagandistic ways in a letter from Tom Locke of Ardmore. Parroting lines form the fabulously wealthy who dominate right wing media, Locke writes,

I've heard President Obama say that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share and that their secretaries are paying a higher tax rate. So I decided to check these allegations for accuracy. The IRS website provides the following information based on 2010 data:

The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers pay 2.7 percent of the total taxes with an average tax rate of 2.59 percent of their income. The next 25 percent of taxpayers pay 10.96 percent of the total taxes with an average rate of 6.75 percent. This is what most consider to be middle class. The top 25 percent pay 86.34 percent of total taxes with an average tax rate of 15.68 percent. The really wealthy that the president speaks of — the top 1 percent — pay 38.02 percent with an average rate of 23.27 percent. 

Wow. Sounds really impressive. Indeed, were one so stupid as to look at just this, it would be a compelling argument in favor of the Oklahoman's headline: "Obama's wrong; wealthy pay their fair share." But while Mr. Locke may actually be stupid, the rest of us know that there's more to the story, and that context matters.

One way to contextualize this is to look not just at what people pay in taxes, but how much they have. And the reality is quite clear: income inequality right now is as great as it's ever been in modern American history. Yes, the top 25% pay a lot in taxes-- and the top 1% pays even more. But that's because they're so fucking rich, that stupid people like Tom Lock of Ardmore can't even comprehend it. Seriously. Look at this chart:

That's right. While the typical family in 2010 was pulling in $57,000, the top 1% were pulling in $16,439,000. That's 288 times the median. 288 times. That's bad enough, but compared to the early 80's (and the effects of St. Reagan's tax cuts), it's even worse.

So yes, Mr. Locke, context matters. Too bad you're too stupid to know that, and too bad that you've bought into the right wing media machine's hype. Sadly, the Oklahoman is part of that, and they're all too happy to print these sorts of lies and half-truths in the hope that other stupid Oklahomans will similarly be outraged that the rich might pay more in taxes.

The question of what's "fair" or not is one that should be discussed openly. But my guess is that if people were given the truth-- that achieving the "American Dream" used to be possible and now it's much harder for anyone but the already wealthy because the system's been gamed in their favor-- they might be more willing to tax those people a bit more. But democracy works best when people are informed, and the plutocracy for which the Oklahoman serves does its best to make sure that people are as uninformed as possible.