Ridiculous writing

A common feature in the letters of right-wing nut jobs published in the Oklahoman is that they engage in the worst sorts of rhetorical tools to express the points they want to make. Thus, we have clowns likening the interaction of politics and the press to a basketball game with slanted officials. And another idiot whines that Republicans are too often portrayed negatively in books and film.

And now we get an even worse letter, where B. A. Bauer of Oklahoma City begins:

Sadly, the state of our nation can be described by three fiction novels and a movie

No, no, Mr Bauer. What's sad is that you've opted to spin a narrative using a few fiction novels and a movie.

Seriously: THIS IS PATHETIC.

Wait-- no, what is really pathetic is the choice of novels and a movie he uses to get his point across:

•“1984” (George Orwell, 1949): Big Brother is watching; think NSA and drones.

Wow! Using 1984-- a novel about the dangers of a totalitarian society in an age of hyper-advanced technology-- to complain that you think our country has become a totalitarian society in an age of hyper-advanced technology! How thought provoking!! I'm so happy this guy was able to express such keen and insightful views!!

•“Atlas Shrugged” (Ayn Rand, 1957): What happens to global society when the 'takers' outnumber the 'makers' and social engineering prevails; think political correctness and the increasing number on food stamps and unemployment and/or welfare, 'free' health care.

Oooh! Citing one of the worst novels ever written-- with trite, childish, and one-dimensional characters acting in a world that bears no resemblance to reality at all. But it allows Mr Bauer-- who clearly hasn't bothered to think for himself for years-- to parrot lines like "takers and makers" as though there is any sense to such mantras in the real world. And seriously: you have to be utterly stupid to imagine that the "increasing number on food stamps..." is an example of anything but a consequence of a major economic downturn. Here is the chart:

 

 

It may be too small to read, but if you look, you see 1969, and then 200, and then 2008. You'll see that the numbers go up during hard economic times (like the early 80's and then the early 90's) and then go down as the economy improves. Note, for instance, how towards the end of the Clinton years as things were humming along, the need for Foodstamps dropped. And then, see again that shortly after Bush took over-- after the 9/11 disaster, and then the collapse of the housing market-- those numbers rise.

 

This has nothing to do with some truly idiotic Randian notion of "takers" emerging because everyone became lazy and decided that not working and getting $125 a month for food is way better than just working and getting many times that.

But wait!

•“Captains and the Kings” (Taylor Caldwell, 1972) features a cabal of faceless ultra-rich individuals who owe no allegiance to any country but get together to manipulate world events to acquire more wealth for themselves. Think George Soros and like individuals. 

If there were any wonder about the age of Mr Bauer, there shouldn't be now. To be sure: Captains and the Kings, while a popular book in 1972-- popular enough to have been made into a miniseries in 1976 (back when people 4 TV channels to watch, and no VCRs, let alone DVRs or Netflix)-- has absolutely no resonance or cultural significance to anyone under 65. None. Zero.

Of course, the point it makes is clear enough and does resonate: we should be worried about the fabulously wealthy as they try harder and harder to get more and more wealth. Indeed! But... his example is George Soros? Ah yes-- George Soros spends his money on supporting a progressive agenda. And that's bad. So... somehow he is the best example of wanting to acquire more wealth for themselves?? Wait. I'm confused. Because as a progressive, hasn't Soros said he should pay more in taxes? In an interview, didn't he say "if you have better distribution of income, the average American will be better off"??? BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE SOMEONE WANTING TO ACQUIRE MORE WEALTH.

No, super rich people who want to get richer tend to be-- tend to be-- from the right. People like the Koch brothers think that lowering taxes and getting rid of the minimum wage are good things. (For them.) Or people like that billionaire who think that talking about income inequality is just like the Germans attacking the Jews in Nazi Germany.

No allegiance to any country? You mean like the countless megacorporations that pay no US taxes because they are technically headquartered on some Caribbean island?!? Yes, but our problem is really George Soros.

Anyhow, so after three lame attempts to somehow show how America is heading towards "socialism" via book titles, he turns to movies. And, boy, does he:

•“Demolition Man” (starring Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes, 1993): A criminal and renegade cop, who were thawed after being cryogenically frozen (incarcerated), wake to a society that controls what individuals can eat, say and do (because “that's what's good for you”). Think former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's edicts and controls of soft drinks sizes, salt and fat consumption.

 HOLY CRAP. So, he is turning to a so-so film loosely based on Brave New World to complain about what he imagines is America's dystopian future? And his best example is a guy who is no longer mayor of a US city and his ideas to improve health in and increasingly unhealthy world by trying to limit in some ways the amount of sugar and salt people consume?

Seriously. And let's not forget that Bloomberg's rules were struck down by the courts and thus a non-issue. Sure, one could say "well he tried, and that's proof of whatever nefarious conspiracy that I want to hype in my stupid letter..." but we could say that about anything, then, couldn't we?

And what harm is there in an elected official trying to enact rules to make us healthier? We already have laws in the books prohibiting companies from using lead in various products, no? Like, there is a reason that we don't use lead pipes to carry water. Is this, too, some sort of "Demolition Man" future??

Point is, Mr Bauer's letter is one of the worst this paper could run. It uses a cheap and ineffective rhetorical tool to say something quite banal: the author hates things like (his reactionary, caricatured idea of) liberals, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg and imagines that people like them are ruining the country. Boom. That's all. That is his letter.

Would a real newspaper run such a totally lame letter expression such a slanted view of society past and present? No. But the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper and so as a propaganda machine is all too happy to run such drivel as noteworthy opinion. Nothing could be more pathetic-- or expected.