Defending Big Energy

If there were any question that the Oklahoman used its letters section to further its plutocrat-theocrat agenda, there shouldn't be after seeing today's letter from Bart Benning of Oklahoma City. If you'll recall, the New York Times recently ran an article noting that the Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is just a shill for energy companies like Devon and OG&E. The Oklahoman then ran an article about the revelations that was essentially just PR damage control for Scott Pruitt. This was followed by a laughable editorial that came to the defense of the AG. And now, the paper has run a letter-- one-- about these revelations. But naturally, the letter simply takes the Oklahoman's stance on these revelations:

Regarding 'Attorney general denies 'secretive alliance'' (News, Dec. 9): The interesting thing about the New York Times article describing cooperation between Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and the oil industry is that in one short paragraph it was recognized that the environmental lobby has the same relationship with a federal agency. Why are people not investigating this environmental alliance with the U.S. government with the same passion?

 Really? That is the interesting thing? And since both Mr Benning and the Oklahoman's editors seem to have reading comprehension problems, note that Times article several times indicated that the sort of relationships Scott Pruitt has with energy companies is "unprecedented."

Moreover, it's hard to imagine why anyone should be concerned that AGs want companies to adhere to EPA standards-- that helps people have cleaner air and water. This is what AGs do. What good would this sort of "investigation" do? In Pruitt's case, though, he is working to represent major fossil fuel energy companies to lower environmental regulations so they can make more money (and pollute more, too). In other words, instead of representing the people, Pruitt represents Fortune 500 energy companies!! How does Mr Benning-- or this paper, for that matter-- not see that that's a problem?

Editorial interlude

In the wake of the New York Times' revelations that Oklahoma Attorney General is a bought-and-paid-for shill for Oklahoma energy companies, the Oklahoman was quick to rush to his defense. This is entirely unsurprising given that the Oklahoman is a bought-and-paid-for shill for Oklahoma energy companies. 

Their defense, however, is particularly pathetic and it seemed like now was a good time go to through it point by point to demonstrate this:

OKLAHOMA Attorney General Scott Pruitt and other Republican AGs are working together, and with private industry experts, to combat federal overreach in state affairs. Officials at The New York Times apparently think this is shocking, leading to an 'expose' that’s a case study in media bias and unthinking analysis.

We can begin with a comment about the rather childish nature of this editorial, putting "expose" in quotes to try and denigrate it and using sarcasm to mock it. It's really a sign of poor writing skills to resort to such sophomoric tactics. They're an actual newspaper publishing real opinion pieces. Can't the do better?

It is also the first hint that this opinion piece was rushed and not thought out-- probably because it was rushed and not thought out. The Oklahoman was clearly just as surprised as the rest of us when it came to these revelations (perhaps they were a little more secret than the paper care to admit?), but had to quickly come out with some offering of support, no matter how weak. Anyhow, their piece continues:

An article Saturday proclaimed the discovery of an 'unprecedented, secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general have formed with some of the nation’s top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda …' 

That Pruitt and fellow Republicans have joined with the private sector in fighting Obama administration overreach is surprising only to those who haven't read a news article in the past four years or a single press release from Pruitt’s office.

Again with the dismissive tone and sarcasm-- probably covering up and distracting from the fact that they have no real response to the actual claims here. The Oklahoman frames this as some Republicans fighting against the Federal government's "regulatory agenda" omitting they key parts of the story: the how and why!!

They go on:

The Times ominously intones, 'Industries that he (Pruitt) regulates have also joined him as plaintiffs in court challenges, a departure from the usual role of the state attorney general, who traditionally sues companies to force compliance with state law.'

But Pruitt’s office doesn’t regulate anyone. The attorney general’s job is law enforcement, not regulation.

I'll admit that the phrasing here is odd. But right there in the quote the Times clearly states what AGs usually do! So why attack them and stress "they enforce!" when that's exactly what they said? It's a strange tactic. They go on:

The above-noted quote also betrays the Times’ bias. Apparently, it’s fine for attorneys general to sue private companies, but not federal agencies. And here we thought everyone was supposed to obey the law and abide by the Constitution!

So here we begin what is a series of straw men attacks. Now the Oklahoman is claiming "bias" by making an assertion that simply isn't true. The editors are accusing the writers at the Times of assuming one thing is OK but not the other. However, they never say that. Instead, they make a very obvious point: traditionally, state AGs work to force compliance of state laws among private companies operating in the state!

I mean, let's go to the guy's actual web page! When asked "What are the duties of the Attorney General?" the page answers:

The Attorney General and assistant attorneys general have many duties and responsibilities representing state boards and agencies. 

The Attorney Generals' Office is comprised of the following specialized sections: Solicitor General, Public Protection, Criminal Appeals, General Counsel, Litigation, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Multicounty Grand Jury, Workers Compensation and Insurance Fraud Unit, Public Utility Regulation, and Victim Services.

I don't see the "Sure the Federal Government Because CONSTITUTION!" section, but maybe they forgot to include it. However, I do see lots of things like "public protection" and various fraud-detection stuff.

Anyhow:

The Times undermines its claims of 'unprecedented' coordination by noting, 'Democrats for more than a decade have teamed up with environmental groups such as the Sierra Club to use the court system to impose stricter regulation. But never before have attorneys general joined on this scale with corporate interests to challenge Washington and file lawsuits in federal court.'

See what I mean about this sounding like they just shot this out at like 2 AM and no one proof read it for actual merit? The above quote doesn't undermine anything. It acknowledges the point that the left has partnered with environmental groups to force companies into compliance of the law, but says that what's happening with Pruitt goes beyond that. Hence the "unprecedented" part.

So it’s fine to coordinate with private-sector nonprofit entities to advance litigation that benefits those groups’ agendas if the groups are liberal activists, but not if they’re legitimate, for-profit businesses? That’s nonsense.

Yes! It's nonsense because NO ONE IS SAYING IT. It's called a "straw man" and it is continually being employed here. Indeed, Pruitt isn't coordinating with Devon Energy here. Here is an example from the Times:

'Just a note to pass along the electronic version of the draft letter to Lisa Jackson at E.P.A.,' said one September 2011 letter to Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff from Mr. Whitsitt. 'We have no pride of authorship, so whatever you do on this is fine.' 

Mr. Pruitt took the letter and, after changing just 37 words in the 1,016-word draft, copied it onto his state government letterhead and sent it to Ms. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator.

Did you catch that?? Pruitt took a thousand word letter from Devon, put it on state letterhead and sent it to the EPA-- as though he wrote it!! And note the coded language bolded in the quote-- "we have no pride of authorship" is just saying "pretend like you wrote it and send it off tot he EPA"!!! It's totally unethical. Totally.

Moreover, it is absolutely NOT what happens when environmentalists coordinate with politicians to enforce regulation. And finally, note the difference between the two. One the one hand, when environmental groups coordinate with lawmakers to enforce pollution controls and protections, they do so with the aim of helping the citizens of this country have cleaner air and water. When Pruitt shills for Big Energy, he is doing so to help Big Energy companies get rich.

Of the two, who is working for the people as a public servant?

Still not done making themselves look even MORE like shills for fossil fuel energy companies, the Oklahoman continues:

Environmental groups have worked with the federal Environmental Protection Agency to fashion policy. Many Obamacare provisions originated with advocates of socialized medicine. Pruitt is merely employing similar methods to advance conservative goals.

So... "conservative goals" are "making sure megarich energy companies can drill and mine wherever they want"?? I guess. But this shouldn't exactly making anyone sympathetic to what's happening here.

Despite claiming Pruitt’s activity is 'secretive,' Pruitt’s office provided the Times thousands of emails and court documents. True secret alliances don’t leave a paper trail subject to open records requests.

HAHAHAHA! This is almost laughable. Pruitt's office didn't hand these over-- they had to. And if the editors of this paper actually think that "true secret alliances don't leave a paper trail" then they are idiots. What, is Devon Energy just supposed to dictate their thousand word letter over the phone? Jesus Christ. If that's the best defense they have... oh-- no. They have more:

To boost its secrecy claims, the Times highlights a forum on federalism and energy policy held in Oklahoma City in 2013. Yet that event, bringing together business and government officials, was widely publicized by Pruitt’s office. What kind of 'secretive' alliance participates in public meetings and invites the media to record them?

Before addressing this, note how now they are deflecting and really harping on the "secrecy" thing. Like, hey, this is totally sketchy but it really wasn't a secret, so it's fine!! But also, note how they gloss over a few things:

Mr. Miller’s pitch to Mr. Pruitt became a reality early last year at the historic Skirvin Hilton Hotel in Oklahoma City, where he brought together an extraordinary assembly of energy industry power brokers and attorneys general from nine states for what he called the Summit on Federalism and the Future of Fossil Fuels... 

The meeting took place in the shadow of office towers that dominate Oklahoma City’s skyline... 

More liberal attorneys general, such as Douglas F. Gansler, Democrat of Maryland, did not participate. 

'Indeed, General Gansler would in all likelihood try to hijack your summit,' Mr. Miller wrote to Mr. Pruitt in an email. 'At best you would be left to preside over a debate, rather than a call to arms.' ... 

The event was organized by an energy-industry-funded law and economics center at George Mason University of Virginia. The center is part of the brain trust of conservative, pro-industry groups that have worked from the sidelines to help Mr. Pruitt and other attorneys general.

Holy fucking shit. OK, there is a lot to decompress here but let's get to the key elements: yes, the meeting was "widely publicized" but obviously who got to go to the meeting and what was said was strictly limited to a select group of like-minded people. It was a "secret" meeting in any reasonable sense of the word. For the Oklahoman to harp on the fact that it was publicly announced and therefore not technically a secret is just a lame attempt to deflect from the real story.

(Also, as an aside, don't you like that the Times links to things in their on-line edition? It's almost as though they know how to use the Internet!)

Do they have any other defenses here? Oh, sure:

The Times makes much of Pruitt’s office recycling material provided by private industry experts. But the Times doesn’t suggest that information was erroneous or false in any way. Shouldn’t informed analysis shape legal arguments?

I said "holy fucking shit" before, but I should have reserved it for this line. Because holy fucking shit. So... Pruitt "recycles" letters from energy groups by cutting and pasting them onto state letterhead and that'd fine because it's just using "informed analysis"? And fuck. The article isn't a science expose into air pollution estimates. Though-- and let's be clear-- you know that Devon Energy's in-house analysis isn't exactly going to be objective. And that's the point. Pruitt was being deceptive in making his case-- or, rather, Devon Energy's case-- to the EPA. It's unethical. If Pruitt was so convinced by this, why not bring in some scientists from OU and OSU and see what they thought? Wouldn't that help in having "informed analysis"? This defense is laughably pathetic.

But again, these poor guys had just hours to scramble and defend what is obviously undefinable. So what are you going to do? They do finally have to admit to a few things, though:

More seriously, the Times reports that Pruitt’s former chief of staff was involved in fundraising efforts for the Republican Attorneys General Association and may have used state resources to do so. If true, that’s a major mistake. Oklahomans want state employees to do state work. Pruitt should have separate, privately funded staff — working outside his state office — to conduct such campaign activity.

Uh, duh. Too bad it took an out of state newspaper to highlight this sort of thing.

Those allegations are concerning. But the vast majority of the Times article merely suggests that Pruitt takes his conservative stances seriously. That’s an indictment only if you think politicians shouldn’t live up to their publicly issued campaign promises or that conservative Republicans don’t have the same leeway in influencing public policy as do liberal Democrats.

Do the editors actually think this? That it's fine to be in the pocket of Big Energy out of some "conservative stance" issue? If so, it's truly tragic.

More Mike Jones (II)

We've seen this before. Once again, we are going to get a tired letter from Mike Jones saying the exact same sorts of factually-challenged things he always says:

If the past is prologue, we can forecast what will happen in Washington over the next two years. President Obama will veto any legislation that would help the economy, such as lowering taxes, canceling unreasonable regulations on businesses, eliminating waste and inefficiencies in government, decreasing the federal deficit, decreasing the federal debt...

See what I mean about being utterly and completely divorced from reality? Like, taxes are already at historic lows and there is little evidence to suggest that lowering them further would "help the economy." And what "unreasonable regulations on businesses" is he talking about? Maybe it's that baseless "160,000 pages" (scroll down) he whined about? And while we can all talk about "waste and inefficiencies" and no doubt a government the size of ours-- the US has well over 300 million people, and is one of the largest in area in the world-- is going to have inefficiencies and redundancies. But are we really going to imagine that some Republicans are going to offer all this "let's eliminate waste" bills that makes sense?

Yes, Oklahoma's own Tom Coburn annually writes up a list of what he considers waste. And of course, they're phrased to sound as absolutely ridiculous as possible, even when they aren't always as bad as they sound. A great example-- the list mocks the government for spending $10,000 to pay people to "watch grass grow"-- ha-ha, right? Look at the government waste money! Except, well, it's not really so simple. When you're sort of an idiot and can't see the big picture, then it is easy to see why spending on anything that sounds odd to you personally must, by definition be a waste. Remember when anti-science Republican governor Bobby Jindal was made to look sort of like an idiot when he mocked government spending on volcano research?

All of this is to say that just because some bitter, jaded, ideologically-driven politicians call something "waste" doesn't mean it is. There is probably less real waste that you think, and it probably comes in places you don't expect.

A great example comes from Mike Jones' next complaint:

... eliminating waste from welfare programs and eliminating Obamacare.

 Obviously, Jones has fallen victim to right wing media lies and he's convinced that government welfare programs are rife with waste. Unfortunately-- but not surprisingly-- for him, they're actually very efficient. Also, since somehow Mike Jones must have missed this news, the Affordable Care Act has been a huge success.

So far, Mike Jones has been wrong on everything he's listed. Can he keep the streak going? Yup:

He will veto bills that would stop using taxpayers’ money to subsidize “green” businesses that can’t make it on their own.

 Is this even a valid complaint? Like, is this something that's destroying America? Because it's hard to argue that when you are confronted with reality.

So Mike Jones is spectacularly wrong. Is this a surprise? Can he be more wrong? Of course!

The quickest and longest-lasting way to improve an economy is the extraction and refining of minerals, so he will continue using every excuse he can think of to suppress the petroleum and coal-mining industries.

Wait. "The quickest and longest-lasting way"? Like, based on what? How is this clown allowed to make blanket assertions based on absolutely nothing?!? It's insane. What sort of real newspaper would run a letter saying this? Oh-- right. One that loves to shill for OG&E.

And fuck. Didn't fucking T. Boone Pickens just tell people to stop drilling for oil?? Jesus Christ.

A weak military invites aggression, but Obama will continue shrinking the military and replacing strong officers with weak officers.

Now we are treading into the real of absurdity. The US spends more on its military than the next ten nations combined. We've been free of attack from any other nation state since World War 2, and given this country's ridiculous military advantage over the rest of the world, it is hard to imagine someone attacking this country because we don't have enough super carrier groups. Despite this reality, though, people like Mike Jones will continue to parrot the line that Obama (or any Democrat) has a strong desire to "weaken" the military. (And amazingly, these right-wing nut jobs who whine and moan about government spending suddenly stop complaining when it comes to buying more F-35's.)

Citizens who can’t defend themselves are easy pickings for dictators, so he will continue arming the government agencies while working to disarm the citizens.

Tinfoil hat alert!!! (Also, please cite an example of where gun-owning rights have been curtailed under the Obama administration. Can you? No? OK.)

A well-educated citizenry is difficult to control, so he will continue supporting amnesty and supporting national teaching standards instead of local standards.

Wait. So are immigrants stupid? Are they somehow getting in the way of educating American children? I don't understand.

A well-informed population is difficult to suppress, so he will continue belittling and intimidating people and organizations that reveal the truth.

What does this even mean? Mike Jones seriously lives in a fantasy world of delusion and paranoia! Why would any real newspaper continually run these guy's letters?!? It's insane.

Divorced from reality

Sometimes you read some letters in the Oklahoman and you have to marvel at how well the right-wing noise machine has convinced people that certain things are true even when they are directly opposite of reality. Take today's letter from Stan Williamson of Edmond (please). He writes:

Oklahoma elected officials are pleading ignorance with regard to the excess salaries being paid to school superintendents, along with the ridiculous pay raises recently granted to the heads of various state agencies. Perhaps they should take up acting lessons. Appearing angry, while demanding accountability, has worked rather well for Barack Obama. Even though transparency and accountability was the centerpiece of Obama’s administration and every other political candidate in recent years, that conviction only seems to evaporate with time.

So let's begin with that fact that this letter is horribly written. What's his thesis? It sounds like he's going to vent about excessive pay among state workers but then he shifts to some sort of anti-Obama rant. It is amazing to see letter after letter from right-wingers in the Oklahoman who really have no idea how to form an argument and continually fall back on this I-hate-Obama crutch.

Anyhow, so after this stream-of-consciousness rant, Mr Williamson continues:

If the state and federal governments continue to grow at the current pace while ignoring short- and long-term debt, a stagnant economy and record unemployment, there’s a real possibility the system could fail. Placing such a burden on the private sector and future generations, with the fear and uncertainty of Obamacare ... could easily guarantee such an outcome.

See? Like, what the hell is this rant even about? Remember: this started with a discussion about how Oklahoma politicians seem less concerned about certain government employee salaries. And now we get into a huge rant about growing governments and ignoring debt and the economy and unemployment!

Hey-- wait. Government spending continuing to grow? That's not right. I mean, look at this chart:

Do you see how the blue line goes down after the recession? Like, if you were thinking, Man, I want a president who is going to rein in government spending, then the two periods you'd point to as being what you like would be the ones where Clinton and Obama were in office, and the periods you'd point to as being bad were the ones where Reagan and George W. Bush were in office.

Seriously: how divorced from reality could a person be?? This is what happens when you opt to get your news from shitty sources like Fox News and the Oklahoman. And then, seriously: look at these unemployment numbers:

It's hard to talk about Obama not doing anything about "record unemployment" when unemployment numbers are nearing pre-economic crisis levels-- a far cry from the numbers that we saw during the actual economic crisis. To be sure, they are still not ideal and more work needs to be done. But to actually complain that this administration isn't concerned with unemployment is to ignore reality. Well, that, or just spend your time skimming the Oklahoman and listening to Rush on AM radio in the afternoon.

And what's the "fear and uncertainty" about the Affordable Care Act? As Forbes notes, it's not killing jobs-- in fact, the opposite is happening. And things like choice and competition and a slowing of healthcare costs-- all things that the right-wing nut jobs swore wouldn't happen-- are actually happening. By the way, I love that this Forbes headline reads "And You Won't Believe What's Going To Happen" since anyone who hasn't been deluded by right-wing spin already knew this. At least a right-wing news outlet like Forbes can be honest when confronted with reality, though.

In any case, Mr Williamson's letter-- which started out with "Oklahoma politicians should pay more attention to school superintendent salaries" and ended with "Obama's economic policies and healthcare law will destroy America!" is utterly fatuous and no real newspaper would run such an incoherent mess. The fact that this paper bothered to run it tells you what sort of "paper" the Oklahoman is.

Warped history

One has to wonder just how in touch with the world and its history some of the regulat right wing Oklahoman letter-writers are. I mean, we've read letters from plenty of out-of-touch nut jobs, but here we go again with another letter from part-time columnist Tom McNeill of Healdton. He begins:

Our open border policy stinks. What it amounts to is not having a policy. Why are so many people from Central America risking everything to get into the U.S? If you look at tourist websites for those countries, they look like paradise. So, what's the problem?

First off: "open border policy"? When one starts off asserting that the US has an "open border policy" when, in fact, it has nothing of the sort, you know you're going to be in for a letter that doesn't jibe at all with reality. (I feel sort of gross linking to a Heritage Foundation article, but it does demonstrate that there is no "open border policy" in the US.) Next, holy crap. Did he really just openly wonder why someone might want to come to the United States from Central America because tourist websites show pretty pictures?? Like, is he that stupid? Seriously?? So, because the Belize tourism board shows a photo of some Americans lazily floating down a river in a scenic setting, the entire county must have loads of economic prosperity, opportunity for education, safety, and security?? Jesus. What a fucking idiot.


Still, even after this disastrous opening paragraph that no real newspaper would run, the Oklahoman has him continue on:

People are risking life and limb to escape conditions caused by the autocratic, socialistic governments that those very people have elected and tolerated for decades.

Oh! So maybe that last line about lush pictures was sarcastic? Like, it was some sort of rhetorical tool to get to the point? Again: the right-wing nut jobs who continually write into this paper to lecture Oklahomans about politics and history to prove whatever right-wing nut job point they're trying to make suck at writing.


But to the point-- does this guy really imagine that the citizens of Guatemala, El Salvador have spent "decades" just voting in autocrats and "socialistic governments"?? Jesus. Let's just look at the history of Guatemala. There's no need to go point by point, but when you read up on its history you see lots of "coup d'état" and "assassinated" and "CIA" and "military junta" thrown in there. You also see lots of "fraud" and "human rights abuse" there too. Given this, it's hard to imagine that Guatemalans were all just happy and loving their (United States-backed) governments that engaged in massive "scorched earth" warfare to suppress dissent. So when he writes this:

The citizens of those countries are, themselves, responsible for electing and tolerating the dictatorial leaders who’ve made the countries into the hellholes that they are.

You know that he's just a clueless asshole. But it gets worse:

Our Founding Fathers risked their lives and their fortunes to attain the liberty and prosperity that we now enjoy.

Hahahahaha! OK. So let's compare things in 1776 to things in 1976, shall we? Of course, we should all know this so it's not worth going into too much detail, but in 1776, there were some wealthy British colonists in North America who didn't like the British way of doing things-- taxing and some minor abuses of power-- so they wrote to the British government to say they were splitting off and forming their own country. With the technology of the day, it took the Brits months to travel with their armies, and their armies wielded largely inefficient weapons. After several years of fighting, each side face approximately 20,000 in casualties-- most due to disease.


And 1976? Well, in Guatemala you had an elected government that seemed to be improving the quality of life of millions of people only to be overthrown by a CIA-led coup because of threats to US business interests and overblown fears of "socialism" in the region. After that, you had decades of different coups and other attempted overthrows. To keep power, these different rules engaged in massive human rights violations resulting in the death of over 200,000 people, and the displacement of another million. This was easy to do, of course, since governments have access to incredible weapons, tanks, and airpower-- often supplied by the world's largest military power, ever.


In light of this, does it really make sense to compare the "Founding Fathers" to those fighting for their freedoms in Guatemala? Really? But I guess it's real, because he then writes this:

Where are the reformers of Central America? Why don't the citizens there put themselves on the line to reform their terrible governments?

Yes, dude: hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans were kills by the government to suppress resistance to said (US-backed) "terrible governments" so please please please fuck off.

My greatest fear is that, by allowing anyone and everyone to become American citizens, they will vote for candidates who mirror the leaders and the type of governments that they left behind in Central America.

Jesus Christ. So a) we aren't allowing "anyone and everyone" to become American citizens, and b) WHAT A FUCKING MORON. Like, your biggest fear is that... uh, some Central Americans would vote for the people that they didn't want in power in the first place because they were US-backed tyrants who cared more about Chiquita Banana, Inc. than actual Guatemalan citizens? Does that even make sense?


Only for a person who doesn't know jack shit about Central American history would think that this makes sense. You'd think that a real newspaper might hold off on running letters by people who have no idea about anything. But then Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper,  and they love to run letters that feed into various calming notions about brown people (It's their own fault for being poor and oppressed! We can't let their kind in the US!). Sad, but true.

Smell the stupid

We know that the Oklahoman loves to shill for the far right, and its letters section is just another way to do that. Letters written in support of progressive politicians or ideas are rarely seen (and when they are, it is usually just a ploy to run powerful replies against them a few days later), while letters attacking the left or hyping the plutocrat-theocrat right will be run-- no matter how stupid the sentiment, or inelegant the writing.

Thus, today we get some more right-wing shilling (and fear-mongering) from Joe Putnam of Oklahoma City. He begins:

Barack Obama says 'no boots on the ground.' In other words, the president has announced that although the American military exists to protect this country, under his command the military won’t be used to thwart a horrible and growing threat to America. Neither does Obama allow the NSA, FBI or CIA to monitor America's mosques.

Wait. "horrible and growing threat to America"? So he's obviously talking about this whole ISIS thing, which is basically a group of hyper-conservative Sunni Muslims who have taken advantage of the political instability in Iraq and Syria to revolt in order to found their own state. So while these people-- who are quite ruthless-- are a threat to Syrians and Iraqis, it's unclear why anyone thinks they are going to be a threat to the United States. Like, do they have airplanes? Or a navy? Because if not, then it's hard to imagine how they could invade a country that's on the other side of the planet.

Right?

But maybe you're thinking: But, terrorists! And that's a good point. But a) ISIS seems to be a movement centered around forming a new state in the Middle East. Like, that's their plan. So killing Americans (or Western Europeans, or Russians, or Mexicans, etc., etc., etc.) with car bombs or plane hijackings doesn't seem to further that agenda, and b) even if if WERE a part of their agenda, a huge ground invasion of Iraq and Syria wouldn't address the threat of terrorism. Like, they could still have some dude flee into Europe and acquire a Swiss passport and board a plane to the US and give him a big credit card so he could buy explosives or whatever and he could still be a terrorists. Sending troops into Syria won't stop that.

But depute the fact Joe Putnam is too stupid to see this, he continues to write:

He sent 4,000 American soldiers to help fight Ebola in Africa because we had two or three casualties from the virus, but he won't send soldiers to fight evil terminators who have killed more Americans than Ebola has and are adamantly committed to killing us all. Muslim fanatics have announced that they intend to take over this country. Our generals are giving Obama good advice about it, but he ignores them.

Wow. So hold on: this guy is so myopic that he can't see how stopping a pandemic might be a good idea given that we know how pandemics can grow, and somehow imagines that because some of these ISIS people are (admittedly gruesomely) executing some Americans who are IN the Middle East then THAT needs to be addressed by sending troops into Syria.

And again: "Muslim fanatics have announced that they intend to take over this country"?? For real? Again: call me when ISIS has an air and naval capability, OK? Also, let' be clear that deliberation is a good thing. This guy is imagining that if Obama says "no troops" that there will never ever be troops sent in. Situations change. Intelligence can inform an opinion once gathered. It's an odd mentality to believe that someone can't ever change their mind.

But he continues:

Wake up, America, and smell the bacon! In the not-too-distant future, with the continuing encroachment of Islam into our lives, we may not be able to do that much longer. This is what happens when you put a community organizer in the job of commander in chief.

OK, this is actually clever: he made a joke about Islam and pork. Get it? I'll give him credit, because that was a funny like. It's also stunningly pathetic to imagine that ISIS is going to take over America, but the joke was funny.

Also: when do we get to stop with the "community organizer" line? Hasn't it lost its luster? Wasn't he also a university professor? And a US Senator? Does anyone think that trying to zing George Bush because he was a cheerleader is an effective line? Oh well.

Anyhow...

The only arrow the people have left in the quiver is our vote. To checkmate Obama, evangelicals and conservatives absolutely must get out and vote Republican in November. For the future of America, it may be the single most important midterm election in the last century.

So there it is: we get to the real punchline. VOTE REPUBLICAN. My guess is that Mr Putnam could have made his letter be just those last two sentences and it would have been run. Like, just write "Theocrats and plutocrats, please vote Republican in November. It's super important."

Real letters unrun

While we often complain about the miserable letters the Oklahoman runs-- indeed that's the point of this blog-- we also try to contribute to improving the discourse by occasionally writing in on various topics. Unfortunately, our letters are, without exception, never run.


When commenting on another person's letter, our policy is not to blog about it, since the Oklahoman clearly states that they won't run letters "that have been published elsewhere or letters submitted to other publications"-- and while whatever we say in this blog would certainly be different in tone and detail from an actual letter to the editor, no doubt some similar phrasing and arguments would be used. Thus, to minimize the chance of an editor not running one of our letters over a technicality, we've held off commenting on a few of the papers more egregious letters of late.


Not like it's helped: our letters don't seem to run regardless. Anyhow...


Back in September, we got this gem from Mike Meador of Edmond, dredging up a zombie topic that right-wingers love to bring up in election season: voter ID laws. He writes:

Regarding "REAL ID law may complicate travel for Oklahoma driver’s license holders" (News, Sep. 14): I find it amusing that state Rep. Jerry McPeak, D-Warner, is accusing some of being hypocritical because they're against the federal law concerning enhanced driver's licenses and for the voter ID requirement. I won’t say I'm against enhanced identification practices for driver's licenses, as they're an almost universal form of identification. However, it seems hypocritical that those who clamor for more compliance to federal laws to enhance our main form of identification can conversely clamor that we don’t need to protect the sacred right of voting by ensuring the legality of the voter. 

For that matter, it seems ludicrous that the federal government, specifically Attorney General Eric Holder, fights for enhanced driver identification but fights against enhanced voter identification.

In a normal blog reply, I'd go for some usual suspects-- like, a) why can't they just link to the article being referenced? Is it that hard? And b) what's with the bolding there? It's like the editors tried extra hard to help this guy prove his point. Which, since it's a point the editors of course support, is entirely expected. And then c) the fact that this guy is an idiot who is ranting against a non-existent threat.


But instead of my normal blog reply, which would feature lots of sarcasm, insults, and harsh language, I'll instead just run my letter that the Oklahoman didn't see fit to run itself:

Mike Meador (Your Views, Sept. 21) finds hypocrisy where there is none. While the threat of terrorism on airlines remains real, voter fraud is non-existent. In his report titled "The Truth About Voter Fraud" (available on-line), Justin Levitt of NYU's Brennan Center for Justice studied various instances of voter irregularities to find that only the tiniest portion represented actual fraud. More frequently, such irregularities stem from honest mistakes-- e.g. a poll worker checking off the recently deceased Alan J. Mandel, instead of the actual voter, Alan J. Mandell. 

Indeed, voter fraud of the type the right clamors so much about is almost non-existent because it is horribly inefficient. Who is going to stand in line, and knowingly impersonate another person (at the risk of going to jail) all to cast one single vote?!? 

In the end, voter ID laws just serve to limit the voting opportunities of the poor and elderly-- people most likely to vote Democratic. And that seems to be the point, as revealed when Pennsylvania State Senate Majority Leader Mike Turzai bragged about it in a speech during the last presidential election. Listing his accomplishments, he said, "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done." 

The reason the right clamors for voter ID laws is to limit Democratic votes to win elections. Mr. Meador claims that voting is sacred, but he really just means sacred for people who vote the way he does.

It's a straightforward reply to attempt to dispel a myth that is running rampant in some circles. You'd think a newspaper might want to educate its readers about issues, but the Oklahoman isn't a newspaper. It's a propaganda piece for the far right. Thus, while Mr Meador gets to rail against the false threat of voter fraud (and thus push a right-wing agenda point), common sense and basic reality (expressed in our letter) is shunned.


Pathetic.

Disgraceful sentiment

We knew this would happen. A few days ago, the ring wing media echo chamber was up in arms because the President didn't "properly" salute as he was exiting Marine One. The photo of it shows that he's holding a cup of coffee and gives a rather perfunctory salute with coffee in hand:

This outrage obviously prompted Paul Diggs of Oklahoma City to write:

I’ve never been more disappointed in our commander in chief than I am now. I refer to the terrible lack of respect shown by Barack Obama when exiting Marine One and 'saluting' the Marine guard with a coffee cup in his right hand. This is a disgrace! I proudly served this country for 28 years active duty. Obama’s behavior is unacceptable to all veterans. Saluting is an important part of military customs. As the Marine guard renders the salute to his commander in chief, it’s expected that a sharp salute would be given in return.

Really? First off, let's see what the military says here:

Salutes are not required when—
• Indoors, except when reporting to an officer or when on duty as a guard.
• Addressing a prisoner.
• Saluting is obviously inappropriate. In these cases, only greetings are exchanged. (Example 1: A person carrying articles with both hands, or being otherwise so occupied as to make saluting impracticable, is not required to salute a senior person or return the salute to a subordinate.)
• Either the senior or the subordinate is wearing civilian clothes.

So, given that a) Obama had a jacket in one hand (or rather, draped over one arm) and a cup of coffee in the other; and b) he was in civilian clothes, Obama really didn't have to salute. He did anyway, giving an unfortunately lackadaisical-looking effort that set the right wing media (and Mr Diggs) all frothing at the mouth.

Obviously it would have been better if Obama hadn't saluted at all-- but we all know that the right wing media would have exploded if he just didn't salute. And that's the point-- people who hate the President (basically everyone on the right) are going to hate him and find things to complain about no matter what.

Remember the whole tan suit thing? Like, seriously, right wing politicians-- not even just media idiots but actual politicians-- were mad about the color of Obama's suit. Even though:

What's that? St. Reagan is wearing a tan suit while hanging out with Lord Voledemort Scalia? What?!?

Oh. OK, right. So that's a lot of not-gray/navy blue/black suits worn by presidents!

Wait-- WWI Vet and 33rd President Harry S Truman, not you, too! Jesus. And that's not even tan!

See what I mean? If Bush gives some crummy salute, no one cares. When Obama does it, the right wing goes into a frenzy. If Obama wears a tan suit, some nut job is all up in arms even if a tan suit is sort of normal and plenty of people wear tan suits. (Let's agree, it could have been much worse!)

Feet on the desk? If Obama does it, some right-winger whines about respect and complains endlessly. But if Bush does it? No one cares. Hell, if you replaced Reagan with Obama in this photo:

You know that the right wing media would just totally blow up-- and no doubt the right wing thralls who read the Oklahoman would write in complaining about Obama's lack of respect or whatever.

Which brings us to the main point: this whole salute thing is a non-story. It isn't a real issue, and there are obviously things a commander in chief has done that are far more disappointing and disgraceful. But that doesn't matter, because this paper isn't about any of that. Instead, it just serves to disparage Democrats-- and obviously a Democratic President-- no matter what. There's a word for that: propaganda, and this paper is nothing but a right wing propaganda machine.

Theocrat hornet's nest stirred

Remember when I was all "So this is just a trap and we can expect a huge flood of letters (especially in conjunction with tomorrow's "black mass") in the coming days coming to the defense of Christianity" regarding that "No unicorns, no god" letter a few days ago?

Don't say I didn't warn you!

• "Wiser and safer way to live" (Lame Pascal's Wager bit)
• "He conquered the grave and death" (First off, since "the grave" is just a metonym for "death" isn't that phrase redundant? It's like saying "Wall Street and huge finance firms ruined the economy!" Anyhow, this letter is just grade school apologetics-- there has to be a cause = Christian god!)
• "Love can't be measured" (More sophomoric apologetics, somehow saying that since we can't measure emotions (!) but emotions exist, then ipso facto the Christian god is 100% real. Or something. Also, since medicine doesn't always work, we believing in science is flawed. Finally, Pascal's Wager.)
• "We can't know what we don't know" (Again with the can't-measure-love line. But a least a sensible send-off acknowledging that at least in the US someone can actually voice anti-Christian sentiment and not be killed.)
• "God has revealed himself with hundreds of fulfilled prophecies" (Plugs some easily-refuted Christian apologetics books (I mean, Lee Strobel? Really?? Somehow, for Christians, the atheist-turned-Christian thing is compelling proof of god even if the far-more-common Christian-turned-atheist thing is just an example of people rejecting god. So stupid.), and then the Since-I-don't-know-science-it-must-be-god! argument. Including fucking thermodynamics-- grade school arguments.)

So there it is-- fucking five letters as the theocratic pushback. And I'd wager (with Pascal?) that this isn't even it. But that's the point: the Oklahoman didn't run Robert K. Sock's letter because it represented a common voice from Oklahoma (as the letters section claims to do). They ran it for this very reason: to rile up their theocratic base. Hell, we even got to see some of the usual suspects, as the author of the hundreds-of-prophecies letter wrote in earlier to defend Creationism.

It's a cheap ploy that no real newspaper would engage it. But the Oklahoman is just a propaganda machine for the plutocrat/theocrat alliance so this is all par for the course.

Boring insults

Here we go again. At this point, there isn't much to do but mock the stupidity of these writers, and lament that the Oklahoman is such a shitty newspaper. So with an eye roll, we get this piece of crap from Bob Fassio of Choctaw:

Regarding “AG’s speech celebrates Constitution” (News, Sept. 18): Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt spoke to a government and politics class at Southeast High School about the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

Let's start here-- and this isn't Mr Fassio's issue, but holy fucking shit. Try to search the Oklahoman on-line and find the title "AG's speech celebrates Constitution" anywhere. You can't. Just link to the article. Link to it! Even if you hit the paywall, link to it! It's not hard.

Anyhow, so we have the set-up: Oklahoma's Attorney General spoke at some school about the Constitution. That's cool. It was "Constitution Day" or whatever. Then we get this:

It’s regrettable that no one thought to send an invitation to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. If ever anyone needed to be brought up to speed on its contents, they’re certainly the first people to come to mind. They’ve done more than their part to trash the Constitution.

Jesus fucking fuck. Is this for real? Here's my guess, Bob: you know a fraction of what the other four people mentioned in this letter know. AG Pruitt studied constitutional law at Tulsa. Obama graduates magna cum laude from this place called Harvard. Then he taught-- get this-- constitutional law at a place called the University of Chicago. Pelosi got a degree in political science and has been in the House since 1987. Harry Reid got a degree in political science and history and then when to this place call Georgetown where he got a law degree. He's been in Congress since 1983. Both Pelosi and Reid have probably had more discussions about constitutional law last week than Mr Fassio has his entire pathetic life.

So where does Mr Fassio get the idea that these three politicians have gone about to "trash" the Constitution? Well, no doubt from ridiculous, propagandistic news outlets like Fox News and the Oklahoman. We've already dealt with stuff like this, where some willfully ignorant Oklahoman rants about Obama wanting to "pick and choose" whatever parts of a law he wants to enforce-- even if, in fact, his actions are not only legal but totally normal.

So what else? Like, what else is Nancy Pelosi doing that Mr Fassio can point to that truly unconstitutional? And that's the beauty of the Pravda-on-the-North-Canadian-- running letters like that that just throw out accusations that their own thralls already want to be true is all they need. Obama impeachment talk is rampant among right-wing politicians, and this sort of They are trashing the Constitution! talk just feeds the frenzy among the thralls. Mr Fassio can't name a single instance of a Democratic politician who is "trash[ing]" the Constitution. Nevertheless we get this grade-school "zinger" from Bob:  

Perhaps we can get Pruitt to go to Washington and conduct a special class for them.

Yeah. I bet the guy who edited the Harvard Law Review and two politicians who have held national office since the 80's need pointers on the Constitution from a guy who can't even get elected to state office.

What sort of paper runs these sorts of low brow, childishly insulting letters?

Theocrat hornet's nets

Holy shit. That's about the best way to start a post about today's letter from Robert K. Stock of El Reno. When you see the headline "No unicorns, no God" you just know the Oklahoman is stirring up a hornet's nest to rile up its theocratic base.

The letter isn't worth repeating here because it makes some pretty basic atheist arguments about the existence of god, even invoking the classic pink unicorn (technically he's supposed to be invisible, but that might have been too much). One might critique the tone of the letter, as the way it's written the author falls into the stereotype of bring the obnoxious, I'm-smarter-than-you atheist. But otherwise, the letter doesn't add much new to the discussion (for anyone who is familiar with it) and its relationship to a topical event (the much-discussed "black mass" to be held on Sept 21 (that's tomorrow)).

One might ask: if you aren't going to comment on it, why mention it at all? The answer to that is because we know exactly why this letter ran, as the Oklahoman does this all the time. The readership of the paper is slanted far to the right (thanks, in part, to the paper itself!), and the percentage of letters it gets from atheists decrying the ever-growing creep of Christianity into government, etc., is vanishingly small. In fact, the paper even says, "Sometimes letters will heavily favor one side of an issue over another. Those who hold opposing views might not submit letters in the same quantity," implying that you don't see more progressive views printed because they don't get that many letters expressing progressive views.

Thus, the real question is this: why run this letter? And the answer is clear. The paper loves to rile up its theocratic base. When everything is going well, and everyone agrees with you, you get complacent. So to stop people from being complacent, the paper periodically runs letters saying things like "evolution is real" or, in this case, "there is no god." Then, the editors can sit back and wait for the flood of pro-Christian letters to flood in from tons of old white people who get really afraid that someone might be different from them.

So this is just a trap and we can expect a huge flood of letters (especially in conjunction with tomorrow's "black mass") in the coming days coming to the defense of Christianity.

Socialism ad nauseam ad hominem

It's been a few months, so we were certainly due for more Mike Jones. Even without reading it, you know what you're going to get: a history lesson, some pro-Christian cheerleading, and a rant against socialism. This is EVERY FUCKING LETTER he writes.

As our Founding Fathers tried to write a constitution, disagreements were so strong that the convention almost broke up. Members took a break and met to pray for God’s guidance. When they came back, the difference was extraordinary, and they designed a government that acknowledged the Bible’s revelation that man’s basic nature was not good but was self-centered.

I guess I should have put history lesson in scare quotes, because nothing he ever relates is actual history. So, the history of the formation of the Constitution is long and complex, with various political leaders proposing their own ideas for how the government of the new nation should look. But when you read the history, you never find some time where people literally "met to pray for God's guidance" at all. Indeed, as noted, "With the oratory degenerating into threats and accusations, Benjamin Franklin appealed for daily prayers... Franklin's appeal for prayers was never fulfilled; the convention, as Hugh Williamson noted, had no funds to pay a preacher."

There is no record of some sort of revelation moment where everyone just decided to get along thanks to prayer. Unless, perhaps, counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person was part of God's plan? I don't know.

What we do know is that Jones' theology is pretty clear that humans are not inherently good, but are self-centered. He trashed Anne Frank for thinking otherwise, after all, and says so here, too. It's odd that a man who so hates government and regulation in favor of free markets also admits that humans are just selfish assholes. Without regulations, a truly free market allows people to engaged in that selfishness and pursue riches at the expense of everyone else-- polluting, swindling, cheating, and harming others to get to the top. It's an odd set of beliefs to hold onto.

Anyhow...

They therefore inserted 'checks and balances' so none of the three branches could gain control of the people. By limiting the power of government, the Founders provided citizens with freedoms that 95 percent of the world’s peoples had never known.

Odd phrasing-- "so none of the three branches could gain control of the people." Mike Jones truly has a warped sense of what "governance" is. And where is this "95%" thing from? I would bet a good sum of money that he just made it up.

In 1831, French historian Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States and was so impressed with the unity and prosperity of the young country that he began researching for the causes. He immediately noticed two: The people fervently practiced Christianity and they had tremendous freedoms. The government had kept itself out of the affairs of the people except for a few constitutionally defined areas.

This is a pretty shitty summary of de Tocqueville's assessment. Yes, he saw a lot of value in the whole "Puritan" thing, but he also saw that its strength was that it was separated from government. Thus, Jones' whole dream of a giant Christian Theocracy is NOT what de Tocqueville had in mind-- he sort of hated the whole connection of (Catholic) church and state in France. And let's be clear it's 1831. It's not like the government could really do much to insert itself into the affairs of people. Record-keeping was difficult and thus kept to a minimum by nature. The notion that workers might need protections hadn't emerged yet (we know that Jones prefers Sam Seller to Wally Worker), and things like cars, electricity, airplanes, efficacious medicine, indoor plumbing, and the like weren't a regular part of the American experience. So what's there to regular in 1831? Weights and measures, I guess. Currency? Maybe. It's pretty weak to dream about the good ol' days of 1831 and imagine the world is anywhere near the same almost 200 years later.

America continued to increase in prosperity until the 1930s when the economically naive Franklin Roosevelt tried Socialism, which turned a temporary recession into the Great Depression. Who are the culprits today?

HAHAHAHAHA! This has to be the most revisionist history piece of shit Mike Jones has ever written-- and that's saying something!! Jones is clearly following the Friedman "monetarist" school of thought here, even though there are serious arguments against it. To state so frankly a statement that is questionable at best and outright false at worst is totally irresponsible. But that's par for the course with the Oklahoman. And worse still is that Roosevelt's ideas of "Socialism" have nothing to do with the what the Milton Friedman crowd say spurred on the Great Depression.

And, for the record, the Keynesian crowd was right and Roosevelt's biggest problem was not spending enough on public works programs. So Mike Jones and suck it.

Which takes us to his final, very predictable point:

This 1944 quote from Socialist Norman Thomas is pretty plain. "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment … I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."

HAHAHA! So, use a made-up quote, attribute it to a "socialist" and try to paint the Democratic Party as socialists. How totally irresponsible! And how totally Oklahoman! What a shitty newspaper we have.

Fact-free insults for all!

Tom McNeil of Healdton hates President Obama-- he's told us before. So it's not surprise that he'd write yet another anti-Obama screed filled with easily-debunked right wing talking points about him. And because he wrote an anti-Obama screed filled with easily-debunked right wing talking points, it's no surprise that the Oklahoman would run his letter. It begins:

The law, along with public opinion, differentiates between accidental and intentional deeds. Is the Obama administration just inept, or is there malice aforethought in making so many blunders? There is some of both.

Oh, really? "So many blunders"? Obviously no administration is blunder-free-- so how is Mr McNeil quantifying them here to suggest that Obama's are more than George Bush or Ronald Reagan? He doesn't say.

First, we elected as president a man with no experience in running an organization of any kind.

Not this again. It's a tired line, and not really even true. Granted, doing things like setting up job training and education programs for the poor, or running the country's most prestigious law journal isn't the same as setting up an oil exploration company with the help of Daddy's friends, but whatever. You can't say he as "no experience" when, in fact, he does. Well, unless you're an idiot and some newspaper is just a propaganda piece, and then you can say whatever you want.

He had no military experience, no foreign policy knowledge and no managerial skills. That accounts for the inept part such as the VA scandal.

Jesus. There's a lot to decompress from this. Military experience? I guess being assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit in Culver City, CA during WWII counts as "military experience" as does defending Texas and Alabama skies during 'Nam. Clinton didn't serve in the military at all, while George H. W. Bush actually, you know, saw combat in WWII. Given these disparate levels of "military experience" and understanding the various blunders all these administrations had, it's hard to correlate in any way the idea that military experience is truly a factor in limiting blunders of any kind. And give me a break on "foreign policy knowledge" please. I'm pretty sure this guy voted for a presidential ticket that included Sarah Palin. So just stop.

In any case, all of this leads Mr McNeil to conclude that somehow, Obama's "lack" of certain experiences is directly responsible for the VA blunder. Obviously, the VA issue is supremely complex-- we're talking about an organization that's quite large and when you see things like, "An audit from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs said that 'some front-line, middle, and senior managers felt compelled to manipulate' records to meet performance goals," you realize how deep the problem runs. But that also makes one wonder how any of that would have changed had Obama been a five-star general, a past CEO of General Electric, and former governor of California. Obama probably isn't going over the numbers of some VA middle man in Phoenix, AZ and thinking hmmmmm my military experience and organizational skills are telling me that something isn't right here.

Interestingly, when actual experts weighed in, they noted among other things that "the VA poorly designed its performance management system." Now, we all know that Obama didn't go in and radically alter things at the VA once in office. The VA has a long history, and was elevated to cabinet-status under the saint guy who was stationed in Culver City, CA during WWII.

To engage in a bit of rhetoric that I truly loathe: Is the VA scandal a shame? Yes. Should the government have been doing much more for much longer to help people coming back from war? Yes. Were these failures somehow related in any way to Obama's military or organizational experience? Give me a fucking break.

But wait! There's More! Read on:

The intentional efforts are in the decisions that Barack Obama makes in fulfilling his promise to basically change America.

I'm not even sure what this means. Is Mr McNeil imagining that Obama blundered "intentionally" by fulfilling campaign promises? Don't all presidential candidates promise to improve things? What president is like "If elected, I'll just keep things the same!"??? So then, what's a blunder here? Oh-- is he talking healthcare? If Mr McNeil thinks that's a blunder, he's an ill-informed idiot. 'Cause no. So what else? Dow is at historic highs. Inflation is low. It's unclear where the "intentional" blunders are here.

The IRS scandal was an effort to thwart the vote of conservative groups.

Oh, that. Well, if Mr McNeil bothered to pay attention to anything other than Fox News and this shitty newspaper, he'd know that this is a myth. This isn't to say that there was no wrong-doing; there certainly was. But the reality is that A) There were and are "Tea Party" groups who sought non-profit status even though they were engaging in overt political activity, and B) This activity wasn't something that was directed from Obama as some sort of political action. And no, Mr McNeil, no votes of "conservative groups" were thwarted (whatever that means).

The most far reaching, and the most damaging to America, however, are the foreign policy debacles. They’re based upon his worldview that the U.S. should be more equal in power with the other countries of the world.

Oooh! I'd love to have this explained in more detail. Like, where is this actually stated by the administration? Not something like "we should stop being unilateral dicks all the time" but seriously "we should be more equal in power" with, like, China and Brazil. Of course, this doesn't exist. I mean, it's hard to imagine that when he says stuff like this:

BARACK OBAMA: You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else. We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if so many of our political leaders deny that it is taking place. It’s a lot harder to call on China to resolve its maritime disputes under the Law of the Sea Convention when the United States Senate has refused to ratify it – despite the repeated insistence of our top military leaders that the treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership; that’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s weakness. And it would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman; Eisenhower and Kennedy. 

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it’s our willingness to affirm them through our actions.

Got that? This is a perfectly rational, sound, and reasoned approach to anything. It's not "more equal in power" it's "let's not be dicks all the time"-- which is probably a good thing.

Anyhow, Mr. McNiel goes on:

His worldview was formed over a lifetime of association with his primary mentors. 

These include Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, Bill Ayres, an unrepentant terrorist, and Jeremiah Wright, a black supremacist preacher.

Jesus Christ. It's hard to imagine how any of these people related to the previous statement about the US being more equal in power with other countries.

It's also clear that these guys weren't really "primary mentors" in any sense. A real newspaper would have seen all these red flags and tossed this letter. But the Oklahoman sees OBAMA AND BILL AYRES! and thinks FUCKING RUN THIS LETTER! It's pathetic.

More pathetic is this conclusion:

Uninformed voters fell for 'Hope and Change' speeches without even looking at the applicant’s resume. The manager of the local McDonald’s pays more attention to the qualifications in hiring a burger cook.

WOW. So, "uninformed voters" just "fell for" a political slogan and somehow didn't know about Obama's background?!? The assertion is preposterous and no reasonable person could imagine that Obama's "resume" wasn't a constant source of scrutiny for both his campaigns. And please: to dismiss a majority of voters (Obama did win a majority of votes) as paying less attention to the person they are voting in to the office of President as a fast food manager does to a hire is so insulting that it's hard to imagine that any newspaper would run it. Fortunately, the Oklahoman isn't an actual newspaper and so here we are.

Hey you kids!

There's not much to say about the letter written by part-time columnist Richard Day of Nichols Hills. In the past, the Oklahoman's favorite retired OG&E executive has ranted about "liberal elitists," taxes, and government regulation, often peppered with history lessons-- a key feature of most of the Oklahoman's right wing letter-writing contingent.

Honestly, this letter is sort of boring, filled with character assassinations, sarcastic comments, and contempt for things that are different. He concludes:

All political movements mutate over time. Rampant activism has morphed into the infinitely more sophisticated tactic of cultivating divisive issues that feed the dogma of a regulation for every occasion. 

A partial list of domestic issues includes race, the environment, gun possession, health care, water rights, religious expression, fracking, global warming, surveillance, income redistribution, political contributions, taxes, abortion and, most recently, immigration and amnesty. If the new activists are intent on preserving these issues as issues, then prolonged conflict has become an objective unto itself. 

If the only acceptable solution is more government, then it’s about power. Just like always.

Jesus. In the end, after ranting about the 60's, Jane Fonda, and anti-war protesters, it all comes down to an screed against government regulations disguised as a Hey-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn rant. It's sort of embarrassing. The questions is-- as is often with the Oklahoman-- who should be more embarrassed? The bitter old man, or the ridiculous newspaper that runs his letter?

Zero to crazy in no time

Today's letter from Ken Moore of Oklahoma City starts of in pretty typical (for the Oklahoman) fashion: attacking the EPA and shilling for the fossil fuel energy producers (like OG&E).

Incidentally, Mr Moore is yet another of the paper's part-time columnists, regularly writing right-wing screeds about the "liberal" media, the financial burden brown people impose on us whites, fake Republicans who help Obama, more whining about the "liberal" media, more whining about the "liberal" media (did I say that already?), and on and on and on. Seriously: something like half of all letters published in the Oklahoman must come from just a handful of people who write apropos of nothing to whine about the same five or six things (socialist Democrats! Too much spending, not enough tax cuts! Liberal media! We need to be more Christian! Brown people are frightening!). Would any real newspaper do this?

But back to the letter, Mr Moore begins:

The EPA has said that electricity rates would increase by 10.3 percent by 2020 largely due to its forced dismantling of coal generation plants. A 10 percent increase is only 1.5 percent per year, which doesn't even keep up with present inflation. It seems insane to say with confidence that electricity rates will increase by only 10.3 percent in six years.

It would be awesome if the Oklahoman actually linked to the things people are referring to. If they did, then a person could go to that source and read up on it, perhaps then going further back and investigating for themselves what was said and, more importantly, its context. Then again, one of the missions of the Oklahoman is to have an ill-informed public and doing such things runs counter to that mission.

In this case, though, I think the Oklahoman didn't link to anything because it never really happened. You can search the Oklahoman on-line and not find ANYWHERE where the EPA ever says "10.3 percent" (or even "10.3%"!). Moreover, you can go on Google and read scores of articles and not see the EPA saying anything about 10.3 percent of whatever in 2020. Like, I think this guy heard something on Rush, got really mad, and just shot off this screed. It's completely baseless-- but since it attacks the EPA, the editors were just "hey, let's run this guy's letter again!" and that was it.

Given this, it's impossible to comment more about this guy's statement. Is it "insane" to talk about a 10.3% increase in six years? Maybe. But without context it's impossible to know if Mr Moore is even correctly representing the facts. (It's not like we haven't seen it before!)

So where do we go from here? Well, let's see:

I’d bet that the forecasters aren’t even considering how much more demand there will be for natural gas for electricity generation and hugely increased use of natural gas in trucks and cars between now and 2020. Electricity has to really skyrocket at some point after we destroy our coal plants, never to use coal generation again.

Wait. So Ken Moore of Oklahoma City knows more then EPA analysts?! Like, HE thought of this "supply and demand" thing with natural gas but no one working for the EPA did? It's the height of narcissistic delusion to imagine that YOU are out-thinking the experts on something. Also, like read this report from the US Energy Information Administration. It's just a summary, but when talking about energy prices in their forecasts, they state right there:

In the AEO2014 Reference case, electricity prices are higher throughout the projection than they were in the AEO2013 Reference case. Natural gas prices for electricity generators are higher than those in AEO2013 in the first few years but fairly similar in the long term. Reliance on natural gas-fired generation remains strong, as a result of additional near-term retirements of coal-fired and nuclear capacity, and natural gas prices continue to influence electricity prices. In the long term, both natural gas prices and electricity prices rise.

No need to get into the details about this, except to note that the EIA says RIGHT THERE: "Reliance on natural gas-fired generation remains strong, as a result of additional near-term retirements of coal-fired and nuclear capacity." Let's make the bold assumption that SOMEONE in the EPA MAY HAVE CONSULTED THE EIA when it comes to forecasting such things. (And this is making the even BOLDER assumption that EPA analysts couldn't figure this out on their own.)

So, at this point, it's clear that Mr Moore is an idiot. Any real newspaper would have just tossed this letter in the trash right now because it's worthless. But this is the Oklahoman and so instead, we get to read this:

This is obviously all a manufactured, unneeded environmentalist trick that includes pricing hated automobile fuel out of the market. This in turn would gradually make living in a large city too expensive unless you live in cramped high-rise apartments or condos close to downtown. Long term, this would cause the value of mid- to large-sized homes located away from the city center to plummet, perhaps to near worthlessness.

ZOMFG!!! Wait. This is awesome. So in an instant, we have gone from just factually-challenged idiot to tinfoil hat black helicopter conspiracy guy!! Like, an "environmentalist trick" to make gasoline so expensive that everyone will have to move into dense urban areas?!?! For real?!?! And big homes out in the 'burbs will then become worthless?!? What's next? This guy may as well have said AGENDA 21 IS REAL AND AMERICA IS DOOMED!

It's NUTS!!! And yet some editor at the Oklahoman read it and thought Wow, this Ken Moore guy is really onto something-- let's go with this one! Here is your state's biggest newspaper, Oklahomans. Absolutely crazy.

Batting for OG&E

Every once in awhile, the Oklahoman will run a letter that expresses a more progressive viewpoint. This is usually done so they can point-counterpoint where, after the progressive viewpoint is published, they'll run two or three letters ranting about it. This is a pretty standard tactic now and it's not particularly interesting.


What is interesting, though, is when they editorialize on a letter. We've seen this before. Strangely, one the paper did so to correct the writer's premise, which makes one wonder: WHY EVEN RUN THE LETTER IN THE FIRST PLACE? In the case of David Grow of Edmond's letter, however, there is no mystery as to why it ran or why their editorial comment was added.


We have seen letters from Mr Grow before-- it seems to be the paper's resident progressive on issues of science. So them running his letter on climate change is not out of the ordinary. He starts:

A poll cited in "Obama, public at odds over warming" (Our Views, July 7) is a sad testament to the effectiveness of the fossil fuel industry’s misinformation campaign to climate science. Those who have profits to protect are spending millions manipulating the public’s perception of the science of climate change.

Again, why the Oklahoman can't just link to articles cites is baffling. But fine. The important point is that the editorial clearly says: "New national polling by the Pew Research Center finds a substantial majority of citizens don't buy environmental doomsday prophesies." Pew Research Center. For anyone who cares, Pew is obviously a non-partisan organization funded by the Pew family (ironically in this case, the Pew family got rich from Sun Oil). So when Mr Grow is referring to this poll, he's not making any insinuations about its origins.


Nevertheless, the rest of his point is clear: the results of this poll show the power of the fossil fuel industry in pushing anti-science propaganda when it comes to the climate change issue. Indeed, the entire rest of his letter is about this very thing. It's a pretty basic and straightforward point. (It's also very compelling, but that's a different story.)


So what happens at the end of the letter? After signing off, the Oklahoman adds this statement:

The poll by the independent, nonpartisan Pew Research Center found broad skepticism among the public about anthropogenic global warming. The poll was not funded by the fossil fuel industry.

HOLY SHIT. So, the Oklahoman ran a letter expressing a progressive view, and then immediately tried to undermine it by stressing the impartiality of the poll. Obviously the poll was impartial: Mr Grow never said otherwise. Indeed, it strengthens his point that this is the case! But the Oklahoman will do anything it can to help Big Energy (like OG&E) and so it throws this little bit out there-- hey, guys, even though he said there is a lot of misinformation put forward by the fossil fuel industry, that poll we cited was non-partisan. The conclusion it wants you to draw is clear: Obviously Mr Grow is not telling the truth.


It's a wicked little rhetorical trick. Mr Grow wasn't saying that the poll was part of the misinformation campaign, but the Oklahoman responded as though he was doing exactly that. You know you're dealing with a real propaganda machine when you get this from your newspaper. It's disgusting, and the people of Oklahoma deserve a LOT better than this.

Mike Jones wants you to know...

After Mike Jones' last letter (the paper publishes them all the time), I wrote, "at this point the paper should save everyone the time and trouble and just put a notice in the opinion section every six weeks or so saying 'Mike Jones of Oklahoma City wants you to know that he thinks communism is bad, capitalism is good, and liberals are ruining America'."

Well, it's been about six weeks and instead of saving us all a lot of time, the paper has indeed run another Mike Jones letter. It's completely stupid-- so stupid that it's not even worth repeating here. But I will paraphrase it so you can have a general thrust of its ridiculousness:

Let's say you found a lot you'd like to build a house on, but there was already one on it. Because that's how those things work. You're just like "Hey, guys, I just bought this awesome lot I'm going to build a house on wait what the fuck there's already one ON it??" So you go to this lot and check out the house. That you just bought. Or something. So you might want to make some minor improvements to it because what the hell, it's your house, right? OR, if you hate the house, you can always just raze the whole fucking thing and build a new one.

Stay with me here-- I have an important point to make.

So NOW, after wasting your time with that house thing, let's just pretend that you found an ENTIRE LAND MASS. Just like you're out on a fucking boat and are like "Whoa-- is that a gigantic continent?!? Holy shit! How did no one ever see this before?!?" But then-- OF COURSE-- there's already a country on it. A COUNTRY. It's already on the land mass.

You see why I brought up that house thing before? The land mass is like the lot you just purchased, and the country is like the house! Because, you know, a house is a physical construct that people build with raw materials and remodel or expand or raze (depending on zoning rules and what the homeowner's association allows). And a country is.... well, not even close to that. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because I have important things to say.

So anyhow, if you sort of like the country, you can remodel it. Like, it's your country, right? You found it and are all "I claim this in the name of Spain!" and so, Boom! It's yours. And you can begin to remodel. Because THAT IS WHAT YOU DO TO COUNTRIES. But if you HATE the country, you know what you can do? You can just destroy it.

That's right, I said destroy it. And not with some army or something. No, no. You somehow just decide to become the boss of the country-- it's YOURS after all!-- and you're like "Well, what sorts of things have been shown-- I mean SERIOUSLY PROVEN-- to destroy a country, and I'll just do those until it's destroyed. And then, I guess, I'll make a new one? I don't know how that even works, but BEAR WITH ME I AM MIKE JONES.

So what sort of shit would I do? Well, I hate taxes, so I assume that raising those would go and destroy it. And I know what you're thinking-- you're all "Hey, taxes have been way higher before and THAT didn't destroy the US! And there are countries in Europe with much higher tax rates than the US and they haven't been destroyed, so what do you mean?" And to that I say SHUT UP! I don't want to hear that shit from you.

Anyhow, what else? Oh, god. REGULATIONS. I'd add a bunch of those. Because if there's one thing I know helps a country, it's shitty air, unclean water, and people just eating sawdust and thinking it's a hamburger. Sam Seller, folks. It's all about Sam Seller. And did I mention taxes? OK. And obviously people that aren't like me ruin everything-- OBVIOUSLY-- so I'd make sure that we encourage brown people and non-evangelical Christians to, well, sodomize each other and steal high-paying jobs. Because that's what they do, right? RIGHT?

God, this is awesome. I am totally listing things that I'm sure would destroy a country. That I found on a land mass and didn't like. So I will build a new one. So what else? Did I list taxes and regulations? If I did, maybe I'll use some synonyms. So, uh, fees. And rules. Those are bad for a country. And also, we can't have healthy people. So I'd introduce universal health care. And stop with this "Oh, in Europe they spend way less on health care and have much healthier people in general" crap because I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT. Did I mention brown people? I think so. We all know that if you aren't from Western Europe and maybe Poland then you are going to ruin the country. So yeah, we need more of them for my plan to work.

Anyhow, that's about it. I have pretty much shown how to destroy a country. And HAHAHA! The joke is on you because what I am REALLY saying is that this stuff is that I think is happening now and it's all being caused by liberals and I hate liberals because I am pretty fucking sure they are destroying our country! Man, wow, I am the best writer ever. Who can out-think MIKE FUCKING JONES? Answer: nobody. BOOM.

And there it is. Mike fucking Jones. I'm not sure which is the bigger embarrassment: Mike Jones or the Oklahoman. Tough call.