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.

Union-busting

It didn't take too long for the right wingers to write in to attack unions after what's happening in Detroit, and the Oklahoman is all too happy run those letters to further their plutocratic agenda. Thus, we get a letter from David L. Quinn of Pauls Valley, who writes,

On July 18, the city of Detroit, Mich., declared bankruptcy. For the past 50 years, Detroit has been governed exclusively by Democrats with an assist from unions. One can only hope now that the American voter will see the fraud that is the Democratic Party. One can only hope now that businesses and workers will see the fraud of unions. And one can only hope that it's not too late to save America.

As we discussed yesterday, what has happened in Detroit has nothing to do with unions. Quoting a nice summary that appeared recently in Salon.com:

It’s a straightforward conservative formula: the right blames state and municipal budget problems exclusively on public employees’ retirement benefits, often underfunding those public pensions for years. The money raided by those pension funds is then used to enact expensive tax cuts and corporate welfare programs. After years of robbing those pension funds to pay for such giveaways, a crisis inevitably hits, and workers’ pension benefits are blamed — and then slashed. Meanwhile, the massive tax cuts and corporate subsidies are preserved, because we are led to believe they had nothing to do with the crisis. Ultimately, the extra monies taken from retirees are then often plowed into even more tax cuts and more corporate subsidies.

There are plenty of examples of this-- both in Michigan and elsewhere. A great example comes from Rhode Island, where, as usual, pensions are underfunded and funds are raided to pay for tax-cuts:

In Rhode Island, the governor 'deferred' contributions to the state pension fund, 'saving' $111 million applied toward budget deficit relief in both 1991 and 1992. 

'If this practice continues, it will devastate the pension system in Rhode Island,' said Anthony Solomon, the state's general treasurer.

And, indeed, here we are 20 years later and, in fact, Rhode Island's pension system is in trouble. Just like what has happened in Detroit-- and yet this is the fault of unions? Only someone truly blinded by right wing plutocratic propaganda could believe this.

The reality, of course, is that Detroit has been hit by a perfect storm of factors that have little to do with unions. But that narrative doesn't fit the narrative that the plutocracy wants you to hear, do instead, the editors run letters that spew ignorance as fact and hope that the thralls that read their paper follow along.

Comics break (II)

The Oklahoman didn't run any new letters today, but they did run a rather expected agenda-pushing political cartoon that should be addressed. The cartoon is by Gary Varvel* of the Indianapolis Star, whom the Oklahoman frequently features on its far-right opinion page:

 The reference, of course, is to Detriot's recent efforts to declare bankruptcy, and the message is entirely typical: It is all the fault of crooked politicians and-- most importantly-- the UNIONS! 

But is this true? Fortunately, David Sirota sets things straight. Regarding unions and pensions, he rightly summarizes:

It’s a straightforward conservative formula: the right blames state and municipal budget problems exclusively on public employees’ retirement benefits, often underfunding those public pensions for years. The money raided by those pension funds is then used to enact expensive tax cuts and corporate welfare programs. After years of robbing those pension funds to pay for such giveaways, a crisis inevitably hits, and workers’ pension benefits are blamed — and then slashed. Meanwhile, the massive tax cuts and corporate subsidies are preserved, because we are led to believe they had nothing to do with the crisis. Ultimately, the extra monies taken from retirees are then often plowed into even more tax cuts and more corporate subsidies.

Here's a nice example:

At a time when Michigan's public sector employees' retirement plans are underfunded by tens of billions of dollars, the state is tapping those funds to pay the bills of a Michigan movie studio that defaulted on its own bills. 

Michigan Motion Pictures Studios, which is being celebrated in the local media for having made the movie, "Oz: The Great and Powerful," in Pontiac, has missed its last three payments on $18 million in bond obligations... 

Under a deal made in 2010 by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, the State of Michigan Retirement Systems is on the hook for those missing payments.

So, yeah, this happens all the time, and yet it's the fault of the unions-- and people working under the expectation that their employer would pay part of their retirement-- for all of these problems.

Read the Salon article and see for yourself.

Of course, the Oklahoman is free to run whatever editorial cartoons it likes, and obviously for a paper hellbent on pushing the worst sort of plutocratic agenda, cartoons like Mr Varvel's are part for the course: blame organizations that cut into the bottom line of the billionaires, even if cut is exactly what puts hard-working Americans solidly in the middle class.

Tomorrow (we hope) it's back to the real crime: running crappy letters filled with lies and smears to covertly push the editors' shitty agenda.


* Is it any wonder that he draws the crap he draws? His bio reads:

Varvel spends his mornings as a part-time art teacher for Bethesda Christian School High School in Brownsburg, Indiana. He is a member of Bethesda Baptist Church and is a Sunday School Teacher for an adult class.   

Varvel is a frequent speaker at churches, business groups, social clubs, colleges and schools. His motivational talks range from a comical conversation about current events as depicted in his cartoons, to the keys to success in following your dreams, to an historical perspective on America's Godly heritage.

Holy crap. Talented artist, but a decidedly untalented thinker. Oh well....

More about budgets

Once again, the Oklahoman has run a letter spewing ignorance about budgets and the economy. In this case, Dennis Gronquist of Stillwater writes,

I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Republican. Not only that, I'm not a member of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party, although I've gone to city council meetings for several years armed only with a tea bag and words that are always ignored. My conservative feelings are simple: I must balance my budget with limited funds. Governments should do the same. It's as simple as that.

First off, wouldn't it be great if some right-winger actually wrote a coherent letter? I guess he's being clever by saying that his Republican-ness is something innate in his being, and not just some political party that he belongs to? Either way, it's clumsy. It's also pointless. Most real newspapers would avoid running letters with clumsy, pointless statements. But the Oklahoman isn't a normal newspaper.

(By the way, Dennis, in case you're reading this, you sound like you'd be a hoot at city council meetings-- is it any wonder that no one listens to you?)

In any case, after he gets his political affiliations out of the way, Mr Gronquist launches the same tired line about how if he has to balance his budget, then so should the federal government balance its budget.

YAWN.

It's sad that so many people can't see this: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT A HOUSEHOLD.

Informed people should know better, but the readers of the Oklahoman are hardly informed. And when the paper runs letters like this, it does nothing but lead to less-educated voters who support horrible policies for the economy.

Felling sorry for the plutocrats

We know how Mike Jones of Oklahoma City feels about the rich. Back in February, the Oklahoman ran a letter of Mr Jones' where he ineloquently went on about the virtues of capitalism and of "Sam Seller" while decrying how liberals are ruining everything. Well, a few months have gone by, and it seems that Mr Jones must have felt that it was time to dust off the old quill and shoot off another letter.

He writes:

In “The Wizard of Oz,” Miss Gulch is the richest person in town, and she's also the meanest. She even reappears as the Wicked Witch of the West. In “It's a Wonderful Life,” Mr. Potter is the richest man in town and is also the most mean-spirited and unethical. In “Shane,” Rufus Ryker is the richest man in the territory and uses terrorism and murder to drive the farmers off their land.
In “To Kill a Mockingbird,” every member of an all-white jury ignores the evidence and assumes the defendant is guilty because he's black. In “Blazing Saddles,” the railroad owners, through their foremen, treat blacks as subhumans whose lives are worth less than a hand cart. In John Grisham's “The Client,” J. Roy Foltrigg is an arrogant, unethical, power-hungry attorney who's called “Reverend Roy” because of his holier-than-thou posturing in front of juries. Early in the novel, Grisham makes sure you know that Foltrigg is a Republican.

This letter is titled "Americans subjected to misleading propaganda" so we know where this is going. Still, it's pretty pathetic. I mean, Shane? I guess Mr Jones is appealing to the AARP crowd, since no one under sixty-five has seen some 50's western starring Alan Ladd.

More to the point, though, Mr Jones seems to miss the point of these books and movies. In most good popular fiction, you need a strong antagonist. This role is generally best filled by a character that has power, and a lack of good morals. That way, the antagonist can create tension by causing great harm to the protagonists. Usually, at the end of the novel, the protagonist has found a way to defeat the antagonist (often by exploiting the antagonists own moral failings) and wins the day.

Given the above, an obvious choice for a villain is exactly the sort of characters that Mr Jones describes. Having wealth makes a villain powerful. Being greedy is a great plot device-- why is Rufus Ryker trying to drive farmers off their land? Because he wants their land! It's hard to imagine how someone could make an antagonist out of a philanthropist billionaire. 

Moreover, it is often difficult to create a protagonist out of a philanthropist billionaire. After all, there's little tension of the good guy has a great amount of power and wealth. (Though, they exist-- from comic books, iconic characters like Bruce Wayne's Batman, Tony Stark's Iron Man, and Oliver Queen's Green Arrow all fit that mold.) In a similar way, it is often difficult to have an antagonist that's lacking in any sort of power and who has high morals; if you're a poor working class stiff who still helps Mrs. Williams up in 3A with her groceries every week, you probably aren't going to be a compelling bad guy.

In the end, what Mr Jones really thinks is that more novels should read like Atlas Shrugged-- generally regarded as one of the worst novels, ever. Granted, much of the scorn held for Shrugged is how poorly written it is, and how heavy-handed the message (greed is good; wealth is good; poor people suck) is. And that's a point Mr Jones misses as well. Most of the books and films he lists aren't propaganda in any sense of the word. They are works of fiction written to tell a compelling story-- not to shill for some political agenda. 

Obviously To Kill a Mockingbird does address more serious issues about society at the time-- but that's what art often does. I mean, is Mr Jones really suggesting that a novel written in 1960 (with a "plot and characters ... loosely based on the author's observations of her family and neighbors ... , [and] an event that occurred near her hometown in 1936, when she was 10 years old") about race and the legal system a bad thing?!?!? That it's really propaganda?!?

Anyhow, back to Jones' letter. Particularly lame are his closing comments:

I watched a History Channel one-hour "documentary" which chronicled the history of labor unions in America. Not once was anything good said about business owners or managers. Not once was anything bad said about union bosses or union members. At the end, a few seconds were devoted to the story of a business owner who paid his workers severance pay even though he didn't have to. Thus the producer could claim "balance."

From childhood, Americans are subjected to this misleading propaganda. This is how incompetent Democrats get elected.

 First off, it's the History Channel. They have shows about ancient aliens. Obviously, there is a profit motive involved, and they are going to be as sensationalistic as possible. (If only there were some sort of non-profit television network...) But more to the point, uh, it's a documentary about labor unions. Labor unions formed because labor practices used to be pretty shitty. Indeed, Mr Jones' whining about how "not once was anything good said about business owners" kind of misses the point.

And then, what the fuck is that "this is now incompetent Democrats get elected" bit about?? It is almost unbelievable that any real newspaper would run a letter arguing that poor political leadership has come from the messages of John Grisham novels and 50's westerns. But the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper, and people like Mike Jones-- grizzled, bigoted, old men-- are exactly the kind of people the paper caters to, and hence utterly stupid opinions like his are printed.

Ignorance of the law

The Oklahoman has gone to allowing people to comment on letters on-site, and so I haven't posted as frequently as I have in the past since sometimes it is easier to shoot off a "you're totally stupid" remark than it is to go through things point by point.

But since the point of this blog isn't just to point out the stupid things people say-- that's easy when it comes to the Oklahoman-- it is also to show how the paper uses its letters section as yet another arm in its theocrat/plutocrat propaganda machine instead of as a voice for the people, then I thought I should post a little more.

A great example is today's letter from Randy J. Wedel of Stillwater. He writes:

Since when can a president pick and choose which parts of a law to enforce and which parts to ignore, postpone or disregard? Obamacare is the law. It includes a regulation that mandates certain employers buy insurance for their qualifying employees effective Jan. 1, 2014, or face a stiff fine — or as Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts called it, a tax. The Obama administration arbitrarily chose to disregard the employer mandate for the time being. 

So, is it really the case that the Administration is "arbitrarily [choosing] to disregard the employer mandate for the time being"? Not even close. But if you just listen to Fox News and follow right-wing blogs, it is probably what you've been told to think. This is what happens when a person deliberately chooses to be surrounded in a right-wing media cocoon.

So, for a bit of reality, we can just go to what's actually happening. As the Treasury Secretary notes, this move was hardly "arbitrary" and indeed, he explains in a good amount of detail the reason for the delay:

Oh. Wow. So, unless you define "arbitrary" as "there seems to be a great deal of concern from people and business about implementing a certain aspect of this law on time, so we are going to delay it to iron out some wrinkles" then no, this is hardly an arbitrary move.

Moreover, it is not illegal, either. Secretary Mazur writes that:

In the slim chance that Mr. Wedel is reading this, "transition relief" is that whole "arbitrarily chose to disregard for the time being" thing you wrote about earlier. And, of course, you now sort of look like an idiot since, in fact, this "transition relief" is actually the law.

So when you ask questions like:

Can it also choose to disregard certain provisions of the tax code or the criminal code? For instance, can President Obama just decide a government employee making more than $100,000 per year doesn't have to pay tax on that amount?

Just stop.

Of course, the Oklahoman doesn't care that it has thrown you under the bus. That's because most of its readers are similarly ensconced in their little right-wing bubble and will just nod their heads when reading your letter. And that's the point-- reinforcing right wing lies ("Obama just breaks the law when he wants!") to further a plutocratic agenda.

While Mr. Wedel is entitled to have his opinion on something-- even when he is so ill-informed that his opinion is entirely worthless-- a real newspaper should know better than to run letters expressing such stupidity. Unfortunately, in this case, the editors of the Oklahoman are either too stupid-- or too nefarious-- to not run such drivel.