What he said: The Democrat hate edition

The letters to the editor of late at the Oklahoman have been particularly bad, and today's letter from Ronald Bouwman of Oklahoma City continues that trend. He starts:

Jack D. Cypert (Your Views, Aug 18) blames several conditions that have led America to its present state of peril, but principally the Democratic Party. I'm proud to be one of an Oklahoma majority who would agree.

So... he's citing a particularly horrible letter from a few days ago and adding a "what he said!" to it. It hardly seems worthy of publishing at this point of all he's doing is echoing another letter. But then again, given that the contents are exactly the message that the Oklahoman wants to drive home, it is really exactly the sort of letter the Oklahoman would run.

Mr Bouwman continues,

There are still many in our country who will defile the messenger and ignore the message; most either weren't even watching the 2012 Democratic National Convention, or agreed, when a large number of Democratic delegates stood to loudly and openly boo God and Israel.

Ha! Here's what I'm guessing: That Mr Bouwman didn't actually watch the 2012 Democratic National Convention. If so, he might have seen this:

So, yeah. So much for that bit of propaganda. (Note to the editors: when you hear something that sounds preposterous you may want to check it out. This took about 10 seconds to find.)

Anyhow, we get more:

A great share of our “news” media has become a propaganda outlet that could be the envy of Josef Goebbels; but our “ignorantia” — those who just don't and won't understand — don't even know how they've been suckered into supporting pure anti-Americanism.

Like Mr Cypert, I suppose Mr Bouwman is a mind-reader. Notice the same tired memes about the press-- if only the media were fair, right wing candidates would prevail! This isn't to say that some news media aren't shilling propaganda (*cough* Oklahoman *cough*). But it hardly comes from the "mainstream" media, who are largely incompetent and spend most of their time sensationalizing everything in the hopes of driving up ratings.

And given the he's already been suckered by right-wing media, I don't know how he thinks he has special powers to spot propaganda.

We have an elite “intelligentsia” who lead the “ignorantia,” doing so with condescending claims of credence by virtue of their academic accomplishments. This "intelligentsia" is more a part of the "ignorantia" and an even greater threat to this great country of ours.

It's hard to know where to go here, except that the right has for a generation or two been staunchly anti-intellectual (I guess as a nod to the theocratic base and its love of creationism?) so I suppose he had to touch all of his bases and throw that in. too.

Overall, it's a shitty letter that adds virtually nothing new to the "discussion" began by Mr Cypert. No real newspaper would have run such rubbish. But because hits all the right talking points of the plutocrat/theocrat agenda, the Oklahoman decided to run it.

Theocracy break

The Oklahoman doesn't just shill for the plutocracy. It appeals to the theocrats, too. This is part of a an unholy alliance formed a generation ago (or more) wherein the plutocrats (many of whom couldn't care less about Christianity and the Bible) enlisted the theocrats (many leaders of which were fabulously wealthy) to create a united front.

After all, plutocrats alone represent a small fragment of the population and aren't going to win many votes. But toss in a bunch of dull-witted, slightly racist Bible-believers and you have a lot of votes. So as long as the theocrats shill for lower taxes and less regulation (here is an example, apropos of today), then the plutocrats will be sure to shill for Jesus.

Thins brings us to today, where Mike Jones of Oklahoma City (yes, that Mike Jones) writes a mini-sermon that the state's paper of record decided to publish. He writes:

When archaeologists study ancient civilizations, they find one thing in common in virtually all of them. The people worshipped something. It might have been an idol or an unseen spirit, but they recognized the existence of a supernatural being with power over them. And yet many of these civilizations never had contact with each other. Where did they get this information? Where did they get this resolve — a resolve so strong that battles were fought in support of their god?

This is a valid question. An obvious (to some) answer is to posit that invoking the supernatural to explain the natural is a quick and dirty way to explain things that otherwise are difficult to understand. And a cynic might add that unscrupulous people may claim a special relationship with the supernatural to gain fame, power, and wealth.

(And by the way, it's not just archaeologists who study ancient civilizations. And they find plenty of other things "in common" too, like slavery, patriarchy, a general lack of scientific knowledge... but that's another matter altogether.)

In any event, a major city's main newspaper hardly seems to place to engage in such matters. But this is the Oklahoman, and they have to appeal to their theocratic base, too.

Simple. The answer is given in the first chapter of Romans. God put the knowledge of Himself inside every person. And He says why He did it — so no one would have an excuse. Elsewhere, He gives another reason: He wants no one to perish. In other words, there are only two kinds of people, those who believe in God and admit it and those who believe in God and don't admit it. To put it another way, people who believe in God and accept him and people who believe in God and reject him. We each have a free will and can choose to reject Him.

These arguments are so easily refuted that it's hardly worth the effort. But more importantly: why is a major newspaper running this sort of thing??? Does the Wall Street Journal or the Dallas Morning News run letters telling people how right Christianity is?!? It's embarrassing.

Jones concludes:

Anne Frank said she believed the basic nature of people was good. The Bible reveals that the basic nature of people is to be self-centered. We can overcome this flaw in our nature, but the urge to be accepted by one's peers is so strong that many people don't have the courage to be honest when making this very important decision.

 Yeah, way to diss on Anne Frank. You're a hero, Mike Jones.

And also, there is no more arrogant and insulting argument than "I'm right and you disagree only because you aren't honest with yourself." Like, go fuck yourself Mike Jones.

While there is plenty more to say, the main point is this: why is the Oklahoman running these letters? Well, that answer, as I noted above, is obvious. So we should ask: should they?

The DOK editors in a nutshell

Today's letter from Thomas Pierce of Norman is truly cringeworthy. No real newspaper would run such a pathetic lamentation. The Oklahoman, though, isn't a real newspaper and the sentiments expressed in Mr Pierce's letter pretty-well sum up the opinions of the editors:

Regarding “U.S. judge permanently blocks Oklahoma's vote on Sharia Law” (Associated Press, Aug. 16): America was enhanced by the great migration of people from around the world seeking freedom and liberty, fully assimilating as Americans. That was then. The recent decades-long migration to our land hasn't followed that same path, nor does it reach the same destination. The vast majority of millions crossing wide-open southern borders, and from the Middle East, legally and illegally, fail to assimilate into the uniquely American culture. They fail to learn our history, our founding, our founding documents and why we became the greatest nation and republic the world has ever known. They fail at this, yet they vote.

It's sort of sad that the prompt for this letter was the "Sharia law" issue. For those not in the know, voters in Oklahoma approved an amendment to the state's constitution that would ban the phantom menace of someone sneaking in Islamic religious laws into the courtroom. Because the law was, well, unconstitutional, it was struck down. But sadly, Mr Pierce, too brainwashed from his years of only watching Fox News, laments all of this.

Indeed-- and this is, perhaps, the most pathetic part-- the Oklahoman itself editorialized as to how silly this law was. So why run a letter that is so obviously grounded in delusion? Well, because the rest of it sums up perfectly the editors' views. A short version of the above might read:

We liked it when white people came here, but then brown people came and we didn't like it. Especially brown Muslims. And some of these brown people vote, which is something that has to stop.

Boom. There it is, more or less.

Mr. Piece continues his lament:

The erosion of America continues as the votes of Oklahoma citizens are declared invalid. The erosion of America continues by the judicial corruption of constitutional law. The erosion of America continues by the corruption of the oath of office by the head of the executive branch of the federal government. We didn't begin this war of erosion, but by the virtue of our inheritance we're assuredly charged with the responsibility to end it. Or, was our home built on a sand bar in the River of Cowards?

Ugh. The shorter version:

I'm pretty sure I heard on Fox News that this Sharia law thing was legit. Unlike our brown, Kenya-born Muslim president. We need to return the U.S. to the childishly romanticized Pre-industrial country it never was!

Note again: Mr. Pierce is lamenting that "the votes of Oklahoma citizens are declared invalid" EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE ACTUALLY INVALID. And yet he pretends to be some sort of informed American Patriot. Worse, this paper-- which understands full well that Mr. Pierce is factually wrong-- is all too happy to publish his letter!! After all, it parrots the "Obama Sucks!" meme that has shown up of late in the paper, and gets some dog whistle racism and xenophobia in there, too, for good measure.

Real newspapers would consider this letter an embarrassment and its editors might reflect on how their public readership is so poorly informed. But the Oklahoman has an agenda to push, and so it runs these utterly pathetic letters.

Pure propaganda

Today, the Oklahoman went pure propaganda with a straightforward "Obama sucks!" letter from Jack D. Cypert of Edmond. As I've noted before, most real newspapers run letters that are somehow topical-- a response to an important local, national, or international event. But when it comes to spewing hate against Democrats and progressive policies, that's a letter for all occasions.

To be sure, there are plenty of reasons to dislike the president, but a letter to the editor should ideally be grounded rational fact-- and it is best if they focus on a single issue. Unfortunately (but entirely typically for the Oklahoman), Me. Cypert's letter does neither. He begins:

Never have I seen and felt my country to be in such a state of confusion, doubt, insecurity, divisiveness and anger. Through 2008 the United States was still a vibrant, enthusiastic, powerful, economically and militarily proud and godly nation!

Wait. So things were fine until 2008? Can we really be "militarily proud" when we invaded a country in a pre-emptive war based on non-existent threats? Was the economy really doing that well before 2008? And let's not kid ourselves-- the "godly nation" line is a thinly veiled nod to the right-wing notion that Obama is a crypto-Muslim.

Anyhow, Mr. Cypert is already not doing well. A real newspaper would have passed on this letter already. But the Oklahoman is out to spread lies and misinformation, so we press on...

Then Barack Obama was elected to office by a misleading and dishonest major news media. Many people believed the lies and misrepresentations of the media and passed those beliefs on to others.

Ah yes, the old "liberal media" line. We've discussed that before, and it's not surprising to hear a right-wing thrall whine about it now. Indeed, when your candidate looks like a buffoon, it's not that your candidate is actually a buffoon, it's just that the media have portrayed him that way.

Millions of people living on entitlements and government welfare — about half the population — were willing to vote Democrats back into power.

This is so tired. Presumably this is just a re-stating of Romney's statement about the "47%" (thanks, liberal media!!!). Amazingly, thanks to the right wing media, there are actually people who imagine that literally half the country is sitting around doing nothing and collecting a welfare check from the country. It's a preposterous notion, but people who lack critical reasoning skills clearly believe it.

He continues:

Millions of white people voted for Obama because they were tired of being called racist. They thought electing a black man for president would put all those charges to rest. Instead, thanks largely to Obama, racism is worse than ever in America. Few who voted for Obama will admit their shame and guilt for putting him in office.

Holy shit! So now this guy is a mind-reader?!? And yes: racism is worse because of Obama. Awesome. And then:

Anyone who continues to support Obama out of blind loyalty — meaning the Democratic Party — is as guilty as Obama himself for his failed presidency. I ask the Democratic Party and its supporters to regain their honesty and denounce Obama as the disaster he is. America can't stand three more years under Obama.

Got that? The entire Democratic Party is supporting the president out of blind loyalty. No, Democrats can't possibly ever be upset with Obama, right? And again, note the buzz words-- "failed presidency"; "disaster"-- as the old adage goes, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually come to believe it. And this is EXACTLY why the Oklahoman runs these sorts of letters. Is there any evidence that this presidency has been a "disaster" and "failed" as Mr. Cypert (and the editors) would have us believe? As I noted already, if you campaign on a set of policy ideas, and those policy ideas actually come to pass, that's called a 'success.'

But the Oklahoman doesn't want you to hear that, so instead, they push letters like this that say the exact opposite and hope you'll buy into it.

Minimum wage, maximum stupidity

Occasionally, the Oklahoman will run a syndicated column that actually espouses a non-right-wing view. Such is the case a few days ago, when Leonard Pitts wrote about the now-infamous infographic put out by McDonald's explaining to its workers how they might be able to save money.

Pitts thoughtfully concludes his piece by saying

Look, there are many reasons people wind up in poverty. Sometimes they make bad life choices-- they drop out of school without salable skills, or they become teen parents. Often, it falls on them from the sky in the form of illness, injury, addiction or financial reversal. 

However they got into poverty they all need-- and deserve-- the same things: a way to work their way out and to be accorded a little dignity while they do so. The former comes with paying a living wage, the latter by treating people with respect and not presuming to teach them what they could teach you. McDonald's fails on both counts.

 There is hardly anything controversial or radical here. And yet Sarah Mulkey of Yukon-- clearly someone who has put no real thought into the issues and remains willfully ignorant of facts-- felt compelled to chime in on Mr Pitts' column. In her letter, she writes,

In “Living on pennies at the Golden Arches” (Commentary, July 28), Leonard Pitts writes about working at McDonald's. What's a “living wage” besides words? It's an illusion, because as people are paid more in some jobs, everything else goes up in cost.

Wait. What? It's hard to imagine a more nonsensical statement than this. A "living wage" isn't just words. It's a real concept: a wage that makes possible for a wage earner or an individual and his or her family to live at least according to minimum customary standards.

As the people at MIT make clear, a living wage isn't the same thing as a minimum wage. And they shouldn't necessarily be. However, "given that almost two-thirds of minimum wage workers are adults, and four in ten are the sole bread winner of their family," it may be worth considering some sort of raising of the minimum wage. (Indeed, according to MIT, to have a reasonable living wage, a single adult in Oklahoma City needs to bring in ca. $8.19 an hour-- almost a dollar more than the minimum wage of $7.25. And if you're the primary bread-winner for a family, that number goes up considerably.)

For Ms. Mulkey, this is all an "illusion" because once you start paying minimum wage earners more, the price of "everything" goes up in cost. Indeed, one imagines that Ms. Mulkey sees a living wage as the first step towards the US becoming the next Weimar Republic. (Note: it can't.)

So what's the evidence for this idiocy? Well...

Compare the minimum wage to the price of a good hamburger as far as you want to go, even before minimum wage. When the government got involved in mandating what companies have to provide employees working 40 hours per week, businesses had to push back and try to contain costs.

Uh. No. The reality is that this is not the case. Indeed, assuming that all costs associated with raising the minimum wage were passed on to the customer, we'd see almost no change in price-- under 1%.

Amazingly, Ms. Mulkey has more advice for those advocating for a living wage:

We still have choices. If McDonald's isn't for you, start your own business. The more control over your life, generally the happier you are. Also, a course or two in business accounting would help to understand the wages paid.

Holy shit. So-- if you are trying to get out of poverty by working hard and find that two jobs at $7.25 an hour isn't cutting it, then start your own business??? That's her advice? WHAT A GREAT IDEA!! I'm sure a bank will happily loan a minimum-wage guy at McDonald's some case to start a new business. And then-- don't forget those college courses. Last time I heard, college courses were free. Oh, wait.

Finally, Ms. Mulkey gets in a line every plutocrat must love:

How much the head of McDonald's earns has no place in the discussion. It only creates dissension when brought up.

HAHAHAHA! I've already noted that executive pay has far out-paced the pay of the rest of us since Saint Reagan came to office. So if we are talking about raising worker pay, then yes, the pay of the CEO should come into discussion. Right now, the McDonald's CEO Don Thompson makes almost $14 million a year. While cutting his salary-- even by a lot-- won't help the over 700,000 Americans who work at a McDonald's by much, it is important to note how quickly that salary has risen over time when compared to ordinary low-wage earners. The CEO whom Thompson replaced, Jim Skinner, made $8.8 million in his last year working for the company. Thompson, as noted above, began his tenure making $13.8 million. McDonald's is paying the new guy $5 million more than the old guy! (And note, most of this compensation comes in the form of stock options, meaning that the tax for most of these millions of dollars will be far less than if it were just base salary...)

Anyhow, as should be clear, this letter is fraught with problems and no serious newspaper would consider running it. But the Oklahoman wants to push its plutocratic agenda-- an agenda that includes reminding the plebeians not to question how the rich keep getting richer while the rest of us struggle to get ahead. Indeed, pay no attention to the plutocrat behind the curtain!

Defending the common man?

Given the Oklahoman's stance on big business, it's surprising to see today's letter from Jon Womastek of Oklahoma City, writing

Funding for school storm shelters? No way! Health care for the poor? In your dreams! Protect wealthy corporate interests? Let's hurry and call an expensive special session!

In “State can't afford not to hold special session” (Point of View, July 24), former state Sen. Glenn Coffee refutes his own case. Without the Legislature going into special session, he writes that the business community will be injured because plaintiffs in lawsuits that had been gutted will now have a chance to speak with juries. He claims part of Oklahoma's softer recession was due to a favorable business climate, implying that shackling people's legal rights is good for business.

Indeed, this is a major argument put forward by the plutocracy: things like quality healthcare, a living wage, and, yes, legal protections, are all bad for business-- and business is the most important thing.

This totally falls apart when he writes, “Our state constitution was based on keeping the seats of power closest to the people.” The most powerful equalizer most people will ever need to resort to requires access to the courthouse through a lawsuit. Coffee is writing on behalf of the insurance, medical and business community, not ordinary people. Those institutions already have fine representation in Gov. Mary Fallin, Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman and House Speaker T.W. Shannon, without having to also take away your legal rights.

I am not familiar enough with the issues to know how valid Mr. Womastek's concerns are. But given that he is clearly advocating for non-elites over business and industry (and their wealthy owners), one suspects that a classic Oklahoman point/counter-point will quickly come about. Perhaps the paper's favorite champion of Sam Seller will chime in... again.

More evolution

While the Oklahoman has run plenty of letters appealing to the plutocratic arm of the right wing, it hasn't done much for the theocratic side. Thus, it's hardly surprising that we get a new letter stirring up the evolution/creationism "debate" today. Dean Cave of Antlers writes

David Grow (Your Views, July 22) wrote that 'Frans de Waal, in The Atheist and the Bonobo, tracks the development of human morality back through our primate ancestors. The full title of the book is The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism among the Primates. Since Grow didn't get the title correct, I'm not sure how familiar he is with the book's contents. However, it's an overstatement to say that it 'tracks the development of human morality back through our primate ancestors.' What it does is provide us with the author's opinions based on his observations of animal behavior. Not even all evolutionists agree with those opinions.

I admit that I didn't pay much attention to Mr Grow's letter, which was itself a response to another letter by C. Dale German of Bethany that was itself a response to the Oklahoman's feature on atheists in Oklahoma.

Mr German's letter is pathetic, noting that:

But atheism doesn't explain intricate balances of nature, the cosmos, billions of cells in the human brain. Nor does it explain the genesis of morality, love or the concept of a nonexistent God.

This is all obvious and hardly noteworthy (and even non-sensical: what does it mean to explain the concept of a nonexistent anything?). Atheism doesn't "explain" anything, and it's not supposed to. It simply says that a person doesn't believe in a god or gods. There's nothing in there about the cosmos, biology, or anything else. That's what science is for.

Indeed, as Mr Grow notes,

claiming atheism doesn't explain certain things observed in the universe is a non sequitur. Atheism simply disregards religion's explanation that the origin of the universe and morality are derived from a deity. Atheists turn to empirical science to understand what we observe in the natural world.

To talk about the origins of morality, Mr. Grow refers to a book by Frans de Waal. He titles it The Atheist and the Bonobo, but it's really The Bonobo and the Atheist, as Mr Cave observes. Let's start here and say that how lazy are the editors at the Oklahoman to get this wrong? Seriously, the paper claims that it may edit letters for clarity, but they can't just fact check basic facts like this? Totally lazy.

Anyhow, Mr Cave makes the shitty remark that since Mr Grow got the book title wrong, then perhaps he isn't very familiar with the book. He continues,

it's an overstatement to say that it 'tracks the development of human morality back through our primate ancestors.' What it does is provide us with the author's opinions based on his observations of animal behavior. Not even all evolutionists agree with those opinions.

For crying out loud. Can someone be more pedantic?? I suppose we say that the Gospel of Mark doesn't tell us the story of Jesus, but that it tells what an author with the pseudonym of Mark thinks happened in the life of Jesus, then.

He continues-- and tell me if you've heard this before:

The subtitle of the book, 'In Search of Humanism among the Primates,' suggests that the author at least thought he found what he was looking for. This is no surprise, since evolutionists almost always find what they're looking for. The one thing they haven't found is any real evidence that their theory is true. Since 'The Beginning' was a one-time event that can't be duplicated in a science lab, both evolution and creationism rest on faith.

For real?!? Are we back to the evolution-is-faith argument? Ugh.

Science has never been able to demonstrate that one kind of animal evolved into a different kind, or that abiogenesis is scientifically possible. Nor can it explain the “apparent” design in nature — except by resorting to a series of fortunate accidents, the probability of which is impossible to calculate.

Actually, there is compelling evidence that animals evolved. He can disagree, but to do so, you're left to resorting to things like "satan did it" and the like. And then, what's this:

Saying that 'Nobody made it, it just happened' isn't a suitable explanation.

Except this is a straw man!! No one says this. Now, people do say "nobody made it, and we're not sure how it happened" all the time.  But that's the point. Someone doesn't understand something, then studies it, and, after some research and some experiments, figures it out.

No serious newspaper should run a letter like this one fro Mr Cave. He is clueless and regurgitating long-ago-refuted creationist talking points. But the Oklahoman isn't a serious newspaper. They have to feed the theocrats and so they run stupid letters like this. It's sad.