More part-time columnists

Here we go again. But this time, it's Ronald Bouwman's turn to step up to the Oklahoman's podium of right-wing letter writers who rant about the same things over and over again, month after month. Before addressing today's letter, let's look back ad Bouwman's hit list:

Democrats are stupid and making us like Nazi Germany (August 25, 2013)
The liberal media are evil and making people stupid (February 13, 2013)
George Washington wanted us to be a Christian theocracy (October 22, 2012)
If we tax the rich too much, we will end up like Nazi Germany (September 7, 2012)
The US should be a Christian theocracy (July 17, 2012)
If we tax the rich, we will end up like Europe (January 20, 2012)
Taxing the rich is no good (February 19, 2011)
Banning bans on fake threats of Muslim theocracy is unconstitutional (December 4, 2010)
Taxing the rich is no good (October 9, 2010)
If we tax the rich, we will end up like Communist Russia (April 14, 2009)
We need to be more respectful of Washington, Lincoln, and Christians (February 16, 2009)
WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!! (December 10, 2007)
Only godless atheists think we should have a freedom from religion in the US (October 28, 2006)
Liberals will make us lose the Iraq war (September 2, 2005)
Not educating people makes them stupid liberals (September 10, 2002)
George Bush is a great man (September 8, 2001)
Did I mention that we need to be a Christian theocracy? (February , 2001)
We aren't electing good leaders (January 23, 2000)

And this is just a sampling of what he's written-- year after year shooting off letter after letter lamenting how we aren't Christian enough, and how the rich just aren't able to be rich enough. And check out this obsession:

"More than 150 years ago, Karl Marx wrote..."; "The 'enlightened' old notion that it's good to covet and steal came from Karl Marx in 1849"; "Referencing the 'new barriers' between the rich and poor is the same old timeworn demagoguery of envy, started by Karl Marx 163 years ago"

Sounds like someone hasn't quite gotten over the end of the Cold War...

Anyhow, today's letter is much of the same:

Judith Williams (Your Views, Oct. 20) writes of 'childishness,' 'king of the mountain,' and 'selfishness' by the president and Congress. Our country is in perhaps the worst state since World War II, and our growing $17 trillion debt is threatening to be our downfall. A few responsible politicians were unsuccessful in taking honorable action to stop it. Politics isn't a silly children's game; the very future existence of the United States is now in jeopardy. National deterioration began to develop with the elections in 2006, when Democrats gained control of the U.S. House and Senate. It escalated after Barack Obama's 2008 election.

Anyone who has an even basic understanding of economics knows that our national debt isn't in any way a major source of this country's woes. Indeed, one main problem with this country is the very obsession by those on the right with our debt. And what is this "national deterioration" about? Is Bouwman saying that things were great in 2005?

He continues:

Now the list of offenses against the American people is still growing, with unemployment, willful failure to protect our borders, anti-Christian bigotry, wasteful spending of billions on worthless 'green' projects, IRS political terrorism, attempts to disarm the people, an unworkable and destructive socialized medicine scheme, a propaganda network and far more. Only a little knowledge of history is needed to see similarities to the 1930s Germany in America's foolhardy and blind behavior.

It is hard to imagine how a real newspaper would allow such a pathetic list of unsubstantiated claims that find their origins only among the right-wing tinfoil hat crowd to be published. I mean, "anti-Christian bigotry"? And "socialized medicine"??? What is "socialized" about people buying private health insurance policies?? And again with the Nazi Germany thing. Soooo tired!!

Bouwman is a witless fool who has no idea what's actually going on in the world, and the Oklahoman should flag every letter he submits as "delete immediately". But the Oklahoman, of course, wants to push the crazy ideas Bouwman peddles and so they run his crap, much to the embarrassment of the state.

Sad sensibility

Finally!! Someone managed to get a letter published by the Oklahoman that actually explains this stupid "exemption to 'Obamacare'" that so many on the right (and their mindless thralls) are talking about. Patrick McKone of Tuttle writes today:

In response to Jerry Bowerman (Your Views, Oct. 21): Members of Congress and their staff are subject to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. When the law was passed, U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, attached language to the bill that mandated all members of Congress and their staffers have to buy health insurance on the newly created health insurance exchanges.

What nobody accounted for was that members of Congress and their staffers have health insurance from their employer — the federal government. No other employer has been legally required to drop its employee health care plan and have them buy coverage on the exchanges. What the administration did is rule that the congressional workers would continue to get the employer contribution to help them buy their insurance on the exchange.

Indeed. This is exactly what has been discussed on this blog several times. There is no special "exemption" for Congress when it comes to the Affordable Care Act. And while I'm pleased that the Oklahoman has run a letter properly explaining the situation, it is somewhat sad that this letter needed to be run in the first place. I posted recently that several major newspapers are taking a stand against running letters that present counterfactual claims. A real newspaper would never have run letters talking about how Congress was exempting itself from "Obamacare" because that's a complete falsehood. But the Oklahoman is no real newspaper and instead, it engages in he said/she said journalism that gives its readers the false impression that the issue is up for debate.

What real newspapers do

I just came across this news about the LA Times:

Numerous readers have written The Times to criticize President Obama and congressional Democrats for championing an unpopular healthcare redorm law while, the writers say, exempting themselves from it. For example, Daniel A. Cowell of Monrovia wrote: 'No one (especially those in Congress) can realistically expect the president to budge on Obamacare. This bill is his lifeblood, his legacy. Yet still, is it asking too much for him to not exempt himself, as well as Congress, from his own health law?'

Regular readers of The Times' Opinion pages will know that, among the few letters published over the last week that have blamed the Democrats for the government shutdown (a preponderance faulted House Republicans), none made the argument about Congress exempting itself from Obamacare.

Why? Simply put, this objection to the president's healthcare law is based on a falsehood, and letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there's no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed.

This is so refreshing. A real newspaper doesn't run letters that spread falsehoods and lies-- even if they push the agenda of an owner or editor. But the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper and so we'll continue to get the sorts of letters like we saw yesterday. Would that this state could enjoy a real paper.

(Update: a few more papers are doing the same.)

Obamacare misinformation

In a short-but-sweet hit job today, the Oklahoman uses its letters section (surprise!) to spread lies and misinformation about the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Jerry Bowerman of Oklahoma City ignorantly writes:

If Obamacare is good enough for the American people, why is it not good enough for President Obama, Congress and their staffs?

We have been over this before, but it's worth repeating. The basics are as follows: Congress and its staff used to get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, like all full time federal government employees. Indeed, in the United States, most people who have health insurance have it through their (full time) employment. (Or that full time employment of a souse or parent.)

Oddly, though, in negotiations for the ACA,

an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The amendment's author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it. 

This doesn't make any sense. The "online exchanges" are for people who don't have health insurance through their employer-- like people who work part-time hourly jobs, or who work for small businesses, and so on-- so why make gainfully, employed people who used to get insurance through their work go onto these exchanges? That is hardly the intent or spirit of the Affordable Care Act, and Grassley's logic is deeply flawed. Indeed, the ACA doesn't tell full time employees at the University of Oklahoma that they are no longer getting health insurance from the university and have to go on open exchanges. It doesn't tell full time employees at Chesapeake Energy that they can no longer get insurance through their company and have to go on open exchanges. It doesn't even tell the employees of the Department of the Interior that they have to give up being on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and go to open market exchanges. In short: it doesn't make sense!!

Worse, since Congressional staff members make a good living, they aren't likely to qualify much for subsidies on the open market exchanges like most people who use them. So they would be forced to pay for their insurance completely out of pocket-- unlike every other full time federal government employee. In short, it amounted to a massive pay-cut for these employees.


To remedy this, Congress passed a law that allowed them subsidies that were equal to the government's contribution to their old Federal Employees Health Benefits Program coverage. This seemed like a viable solution (all things considered) for a rather miserable, unnecessary problem.

Unfortunately, right wing media outlets don't really care about logic, or even reality for that matter. So they've spun a totally different tale-- one that doesn't really even make sense. After all, "Obamacare" isn't itself a plan. Americans aren't being forced onto something called "Obamacare" in any way. So when Mr Bowerman writes "If Obamacare is good enough for the American people," what is he even saying?!? "Obamacare" isn't an insurance plan-- it's a series of laws designed to make it easier for people to get private health insurance. That's all. No one is "exempting" themselves from this.

But the Oklahoman doesn't really care about truth or reality like most papers. All it wants to do is sew misinformation in the aims of supporting its plutocratic agenda-- even if this means harming the health and well-being of its own readers. A real newspaper run but editors with souls would never do such a thing, but the Oklahoman is not a real newspaper, and its editors sold their souls away a long, long time ago. It is a shame.

 

Persecution complex

An important tool in controlling witless masses is fear, and the Oklahoman excels at pushing fear to keep its theocratic base in line. As an example, we only need to read a letter by Larry Phillips of Walters that the paper ran today. It reads:

I've heard it said that the Obama administration is the most anti-religious of any administration ever. I beg to differ. It's the most anti-Christian administration ever. It doesn't seem to be concerned with Islam, Hinduism or any other religion except Christianity.

You have to love that intro, using one of the cheapest rhetorical tricks in the book. Who, exactly, says that this administration is "the most anti-religious" ever? Mr Phillips doesn't tell us, but that's OK because Mr Phillips is here to set the record straight. Or at least, he's here to make a blanket assertion with no evidence whatsoever to back up his claim. Instead, he launches into fear-mongering:

It won't be long before a minister won't be able to preach the word of God from the pulpit without fear of prosecution. It's already happened in Canada; we won't be far behind. Political correctness will be the downfall of America. Stating God's commands will soon be labeled as hate speech, punishable under the law. We're losing our right to free speech in the name of political correctness and our fear of offending someone.

Ok, wait. How is he jumping to these conclusions? He's heard of the First Amendment, no? Because what he's essentially saying is that the First Amendment will soon be repealed-- all based on nothing but one nebulous reference to something that happened in, of all places, Canada. Which, last time I checked, wasn't a part of the United States.

Look, it's easy to find some stupid aspect of the "political correctness" movement and then blame whatever societal ills you like on that. But that's just throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The reality is that it's probably a good thing that our society as a whole frowns upon the use of certain words and phrases that only serve to demean a certain segment of the population. To cry that "political correctness" somehow hampers Christianity because of "our fear of offending someone" only suggests that the main goal of the religion is, in fact, to offend people who are different.

And let's be clear: there is no anti-Christian zealotry in this country. Christianity is and has always been the dominant religion and social force in this country. Of course, when you're at the top of the mountain and everyone else has just started climbing, it's hard to be motivated to do anything. Thus, right-wing leadership and its media outlets have to drum up a fake sense of urgency to make sure the base is properly energized to support the unholy theocrat-plutocrat agenda. This persecution complex is seen in things like Fox News' hilarious "war on Christmas" meme.

Indeed, only through scare tactics like that (atheists are going to take away Christmas!!) can you make sure that easily-duped thralls will continue to watch your shows and, more importantly, donate to your causes. It's a brilliant tactic, and one that the Oklahoman uses time and again.