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.