Zombie creationism

Just when you think it's safe, the Oklahoman goes and runs yet another letter pushing theocrat talking points about creationism and evolution. It's like a zombie that you just can't kill. This time it's Terry Reeves of Yukon, who writes:

Victor Hutchison (Your Views, March 3) dismissed the potential of teaching creationism in schools. His letter is overladen with errors. 

Wow. It's a bold accusation to accuse the George Lynn Cross Research Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biology at the University of Oklahoma of writing a letter that is "overladen with errors" concerning evolution. I mean, it's almost insulting. Seriously: what the fuck does Terry Reeves of Yukon know?

Here is what Dr. Hutchison said: "Evolution is verified by scientific facts that are observable, repeatable, predictive and verifiable." Mr  Reeves' objection is that:

'Change-in-kind' (change from one species to another) isn’t verifiable by scientific facts. I implore Hutchison to show me one example he’s observed of 'change-in-kind' evolution. He can’t.

We already know we are dealing with a Biblical idiot when we start using the "kind" word-- a nod to Genesis, which talks about animals being made each "according to its kind." This is total biblical dog whistle stuff that tells us all we need to know about Mr Reeves' education. Importantly is the obvious fact that he is terrifyingly wrong. To begin, of course, we have observed "change-in-kind" evolution. As SciAm notes:

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that on one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occir, it's also not true.

Uh, wow. It must be embarrassing to be THIS amazingly wrong!! SciAm cites the famous (to anyone who has bothered to look) example of the goatsbeard wildflower introduced into the US from Europe ca. 150 years ago. By the 1950's, scientists observed that there were several new varieties that were not sterile and could reproduce-- but not with the original species of the plant!! Boom. That's it. Question answered.

SO YES, WE CAN SHOW YOU AN EXAMPLE OF CHANGE-IN-KIND. But obviously, this won't satisfy people like Mr Reeves:

The evolution scientific community says it would take eons for a 'change-in-kind' to blossom and no modern day scientist would live so long.

See above. Not quite "eons" and while it IS true that most speciation does take a long time to occur, we have witnessed it.

However, there are gaps in the theory without any scientific explanation. The scientists fill these gaps using reasonable assumptions, something for which non-evolutionists are often criticized.

Uh, what? I suppose-- obviously there are gaps in our understanding of some aspects of evolution, but none of these are a fundamental aspect of the theory. And please stop with non-evlutionists using "reasonable assumptions"-- seriously. Invoking magic isn't a reasonable assumption.

There are many examples of adaptation (such as natural selection) in nature but none of 'change-in-kind.'

Uh, yes there is. See above for but one example.

Since 'change-in-kind' evolution isn’t observable, it’s not predictive or repeatable in the lab and therefore not verifiable.

This is where Mr Reeves is horrifyingly wrong. Even without observation, evolution does make predictions which have been borne out via scientific study. We have talked about this already. Indeed, the example of HERVs in the DNA of primates is also an excellent example of how evolution is also falsifiable: if primates didn't share the retroviral sequences as they did, it would be a crushing blow to the theory. But, in fact, everything holds up just as the theory predicted.

Real newspapers wouldn't concern themselves with these sorts of debates, and certainly wouldn't bother running a factually-challenged letter like this. It's one thing to spout some ill-thought-out view. But to run a letter by some un-credentialed non-name who attacks an emeritus professor with a named chair at the state's flagship university? Truly amateurish of the editors.

A joke?

It's hard to know where to begin with today's letter from Tom McNeil of Healdton. He writes:

Barack Obama has disproved the widespread belief that he’s not a religious man. He recently expanded his self-worship to include a Wednesday night praise service and a Sunday pot-luck luncheon.

That's it. That's the letter. Was this, like, a joke he heard at a local Healdton GOP gathering? He starts with a premise that shows you that he's in the echo chamber with the "widespread belief" bit-- only someone who listens solely to Fox News and reads the Oklahoman would imagine that there's a "widespread belief" that Obama isn't religious.

But then-- trying to play off os some notion that Obama imagines himself to be some sort of deity, I guess?-- he uses some standard white, evangelical Christian motifs as some sort of punch line?

And Mr McNiel thought THIS was funny enough to actually write it down and send it in?!? And this paper decided to run it? Would any real newspaper image that THIS sentiment-- presented in such a sophomoric/pathetic way-- is worth publishing? ANY?

More debtphobia

We have talked about this before, but clearly not enough people are reading. Thus, we get yet another letter lamenting our national debt. Tom Moore from Newcastle writes:

Democracy has a major fallacy: It assumes that a responsible electorate — one that chooses leaders by qualifications instead of 'what they can do for me at the expense of others.' It assumes an electorate that goes beyond sound bites and considers the full ramifications of a topic. For instance, not someone who’s lulled into complacency by the sound bite that the federal deficit is going down.

You can see right away why this letter got picked up. Note the subtle "makers vs. takers" jab that he makes at the start.  Mr Moore does have a point, though-- some people ARE voting irresponsibly: those poor or middle class voters who, through propaganda, crazed religious conviction, subtle (or overt) racism, still imagine that a party bent on making the rich much richer at the expense of everyone else is still the best one to support. Mr Moore has missed this, though, and plays the morality card. He also, sadly has bought into the fear-mongering over the national debt. He continues:

This can be compared to a 450-pound man who gains 50 pounds annually, only gaining 40 pounds this year. He will now tip the scales at 490 pounds, yet he can claim an improvement.

OH GREAT. AN ANALOGY. These people are truly so ineloquent that the ONLY WAY THE CAN MAKE A POINT IS THROUGH TIRED, LAME ANALOGIES. It's like if Tom Moore of Newcastle was... no, no. I can just say: he's a bad, lazy, crappy writer. And yet the Oklahoman publishes this stuff because of the message it presents. (It's the plutocracy, stupid!) Can we get more idiocy? Of course:

A $14 trillion national debt that’s increasing annually at $400 plus billion to $1 trillion annually over the next 10 years is out of control. Yet the American people seem to elect leaders (with some exceptions) who won’t face facts and deal with the problem. Since we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, interest will be unmanageable in the near future. Can we survive?

Wait. Why is Mr Moore the judge of what is "out of control" and what isn't?? Let me guess, though: the big numbers scare him, and that plus a bit of right-wing media propaganda has him shaking in his boots. Because the reality is that it's not out of control. Indeed, the US has been running deficits almost since the beginning, and YET WE HAVE SURVIVED. Moreover, the biggest debt-bringers have been things like the Louisiana Purchase, World War II, and a bunch of tax cuts. Not really the "takers" that Mr Moore and right-wing plutocrats imagine (or want YOU to imagine).

It is sad that a major state newspaper is running letters filled with falsehoods making claims based on myth and right-wing propaganda. Sad-- but in the Oklahoman's case, entirely unexpected.

Clearly stupid

The Oklahoman loves to run letters that purport to give vast sweeping historical narratives explaining how the US has turned into some quasi-socialist, atheist nation. And while it is true that the country is no longer the homogenous white, Christian nation that it was in the 1950's, it's still largely white, and largely Christian. Nevertheless, this doesn't stop people like Richard Day of Nichols Hills to write in to give us his view of what's wrong with this country:

It seems clear that we’ve been socially, politically and economically divided into two hostile and competing camps — the receivers of government support and the contributors who fuel the process through taxation. Because the receivers outnumber contributors, government’s role as 'the gatherer of wealth' is affirmed. The process is held to be the essence of social justice and creates a class of elitists who function as 'wealth distributors,' always in the name of fairness and equality.

Well, first things first: while it may be true that there are real "hostile and competing camps" trying to describe them into pejorative "makers" and "takers" terms is a bit propagandistic. I mean, why not just say "good guys" and "bad guys" can be done with it?

What he is clearly observing, though, is that the US has seen upward mobility decline along with its income inequality. People are finding that no matter how hard they work, they can't seem to get ahead. Indeed, some are finding that even after having done all the right things-- staying out of trouble, getting an education, and working hard, they are falling behind. This is the opposite of what Americans have been told for generations.

Mr Day also seems to be confused about what the function of government is. For him and those like him-- selfish, wealthy old white men-- there is a lot of anger in the fact that a government actually requites money to operate and so in describing it, he reduces it to what he cares about most: taxes. A more level-headed, less wealth-obsessed individual might have thought of a government as  something that provides things like roads, schools and running water. Its police keep him and his property safe. It's military defends him from invasion. But no. When you're mad because you pay taxes (even though they are at near historic lows), the government is just a "gatherer of wealth" and that's all.

What's vexing, though, is the leap of logic in his next sentence-- that due to the government's role as a money-taker there is a "class of elitists" who distribute it in the name of "fairness and equality"?? What the fuck is he talking about? A "class" is usually some group that is distinguished from others due to (often perceived) social or economic status. So what "class" is out there doling out the cash from rich, white men to poor brown people? Last time I checked, budgets were hammered out by elected officials like members of the US House of Representatives. And while yeah, they're sort of rich, and there isn't always a lot of turn-over, they are elected officials who come from all walks of life and represent a range of political views.

So who does Mr Day think is doling out his money?!?

At this point, a real newspaper would have stopped with this letter. Mr Day is mad about taxes and doesn't want to pay them. Instead of just saying that, he rants on with this crazed narrative wherein mysterious "elitists" are stealing his money and doling it out to undeserving poor people.

Anyhow, what's next in our history lesson?

Perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad if individual wealth was the only thing involved. Then it becomes just another chapter in the insidious history of taxation. But the elitists’ agenda has been expanded into the most personal elements of our lives. Marriage and abortion are prime examples.

Yeah, OK. So the "insidious history of taxation" line tells us almost all we need to know. This guy lives in a world where he somehow achieved success only through his own hard work (perhaps in spite of the government) and now sees that his being taxed is some "insidious" act perpetrated against him.

DELUSIONAL.

And then he goes on-- these "elitists" (who are they again?) are intruding on "our" lives (OUR LIVES!) like marriage. So again, he's mad because two gay guys that he doesn't know and never interacts with want to get married. And even though these things were banned and are now being allowed through normal legal channels, it is still the fault of these mysterious "elitists"?!? This is bordering on paranoia!!

Christianity and the Ten Commandments pose a problem for this brave new order because they present a code for moral behavior that can’t be repositioned, regulated or referred to a committee. The elitists’ response has been to conjure the hoary chant of bigotry, together with the admonition that our personal and religious values would be better served by a newly minted creed: multiculturalism.

"Brave new order"?!? No, no. It's Brave New World, and then just New World Order. Er, New World Order. Don't combine them. And then-- surprise!-- he's mad because some people aren't Christian. But, since he can't possibly imagine how anyone wouldn't be Christian, he blames the phantom elitists and gets a bureaucracy jab thrown in for good measure. And please stop with crying about the "multiculturalism" thing. Just say: I like white Christians and don't want to see non-white, non-Christians anywhere in my life. Unless they are cleaning my corner office, or entertaining me on TV.

But then get this:

The problem is that nobody believes in everything and everyone’s religious conviction is no one’s religious conviction. The result is to systematically create a divisive social and political vacuum that elevates the elitist to a deity, always in the name of tolerance.

Truly try to make sense of this paragraph. For Mr Day, it's a "problem" is that "nobody believes in everything" and thus "religious conviction" doesn't exist. Or something. So is he upset that we should all believe in everything? That can't be right-- one can't support X and not-X at the same time. So what does this mean?!? Is this just a stupidly-phrased way of lamenting that not everybody is a white fundamentalist Christian? And then WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS CONCLUSION-- that the "elitist" (WHO IS THIS?!?) is a "deity"?? Now, while Americans have elevated some beings to god-like status in the past, I don't think that is happening now. Is it?

I mean, perhaps this is all code for Obama? Is he the mysterious "elitist" who is now a god? A god with a 48% approval rating? If so, it's an even dumber letter than I gave it credit for.

In any event, no real newspaper would bother with this rambling manifesto talking about mysterious "elitists" who dole out money to the poor, let gay people get married, and try to minimize bigotry against non-whites. It's an ineloquent letter with a non-sensical conclusion written by a some old white fundamentalist Christian who is bitter about how other people are upset at the gradual fading of the American Dream.

Big stick stupidity

I was thinking back on this stupid letter from Mary Lou Bates of Bethany, where she offered a bunch of stupid "questions" that one might ask the President and Secretary of Defense. After doing some searching, I discovered that this isn't the first time that she's gone down this path. Writing back in September of 2012, she observed:

Ronald Reagan once said that in the history of the world, no country had ever been attacked because they were too strong. Can we afford the military budget cuts? After eight years of such cuts (accompanied by higher taxes on the rich and everyone else, beginning in 1993), we were rewarded by the horrible 9/11 attacks.

WOW. This is bogglingly stupid, and it is difficult to imagine that a reasonably intelligent human being could arrive at this conclusion. In her mind, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were a direct result of cuts to the military under the Clinton administration.


Think about that for a minute. Does it make any sense? I mean, the perpetrators of those attacks were from Al-Qaeda, "a global militant Islamist and takfiri organization founded by Osama bin Laden in Peshawar, Pakistan, at  some point between August 1988 and late 1989,with its origins being traceable to the Soviet War in Afghanistan. It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army and a radical Sunni Muslim movement." Given that this organization is, by definition, stateless, does anyone see how the strength of the US military matters? Al-Qaeda isn't a nation with a leader and an army that can wage conventional warfare and can, when things get bad, surrender.


It is unimaginable that Al-Qaeda operatives were thinking of tanks, stealth fighters, and troop readiness when they were plotting their attacks. Indeed, the people who care about such things are leaders of nation-states who have armies and territory and natural resources and civilians. THEY care about the size of a rival's military. People who DON'T care are stateless militant organizations that engage in terrorism. Like Al-Qaeda.


It is mind-boggling that the Oklahoman would ever run letters like this. Ms Bates has to be one of the dumbest people on the planet, and yet her ill-informed, unintelligent opinion gets spaces in a major state newspaper because, well, it supports some sort of jingoistic fetish that right-wingers have. Spending money on infrastructure or the social safety net is wrong and bad for the country. But spending more than the next 10 nations combined on weapons systems that no one needs? THAT is a good way to spend money.

Thought experiment morass

The Oklahoman publishes the worst letter of any major newspaper in the nation. And I'm not talking about content: it's a given that the vast majority of the letters they run are standard, factually-challenged screeds against liberals, Obama, the media, and anything else that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have decided to target. (Often replete with "history" lessons about Nazi Germany and Karl Marx!)

A great example of the horribleness is from today's letter by Wayne Hull of Yukon. He begins:

So Obamacare is to be delayed — again. Here’s an idea: Let’s replace 'Obamacare' with 'gun control.' The president successfully maneuvers a massive overhaul of gun licensing, which gets the process out of state control and creates a federal program. This affects even those who carry weapons as part of their jobs. He tours the nation to assuage concerned gun owners that law won’t impact current gun license holders: 'If you have a state gun license, you can keep it.'

No, no-- HERE is an idea: DON'T WRITE A SHITTY LETTER!!!! Seriously. It's hard to know were to start, even. The whole "let's replace one thing with another" idea to somehow prove a bit of hypocrisy or whatever is tired and rarely all that effective. After all, gun control isn't health care. Indeed, it's hard to imagine any similarities at all. Trying to replace the Affordable Care Act with some made-up federal gun licensing act is pointless and stupid. And yes the Oklahoman runs this letter? It's pathetic.

Anyhow, Mr Hull continues:

A few scattered voices assert that it would be impossible for all state standards to mesh with the new federal ones, but their vocal concerns are dismissed as 'scare tactics.' Then the law kicks in. Chaos ensues. People start getting notified by various state agencies that their guns will be illegal after a certain date if not re-registered according to new federal licensing law.

I love this narrative.  In this made-up story about gun control and federal licensing, "a few scattered voices" complain because they just know that the entire thing "would be impossible" to work out. And I love that with this new federal gun control law, "chaos ensues" once it goes into effect. CHAOS. Because gun ownership is a fundamental aspect of America and hundreds of millions of Americans are now concerned about whether they can keep their AK-47s or not. CHAOS!

The president looks bad. He announces that certain aspects of the law won’t be implemented immediately. He starts making exemptions for individuals and then finally announces the delay of the gun law’s full implementation for a set number of years. Would people be admiring his political savvy?

Jesus fucking fuck. We have been over the "exemption" thing already. WHY IS THE OKLAHOMAN STILL RUNNING LETTERS LIKE THIS? Ugh. And, as has been talked about already, delays on implementing complex laws happen ALL THE TIME. Why get all broken up about it? This is what happens when you live in a media echo chamber.

In a world of Sandy Hooks, would the president’s gun licensing delays be passively accepted as what is necessary to save Democrats in upcoming elections? Does anyone think we wouldn’t see massive protests and outrage? And yet nothing the president would be doing with that hypothetical law differs from his real life delays for Obamacare.

Wait. What?!? So the assertion is that delaying certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act is no purely political? And when he asks "Does anyone think we wouldn’t see massive protests and outrage?" is he an idiot?? Like, YES, IF THERE WERE A FEDERAL GUN LAW THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROTESTS AND OUTRAGE BEFORE IT EVER BECAME LAW. But if we want to live in Mr Hull's pretend world, uh, no. There would probably not be massive protests and outrage. Are there now? Even though we are in a "world of Sandy Hooks"? (Great writing!) And what about that closing sentence: "And yet nothing the president would be doing with that hypothetical law differs from his real life delays for Obamacare."

What the fuck does that even mean?? That... what? This is all just a long-winded "I hate Obama and the Affordable Care Act For Reasons I Cannot Even Articulate" letter, except that it sucks because it's written by someone who is trying to be smart but clearly isn't. Why would the Oklahoman run a letter like this?!?

More Bouwman!

And the hits just keep coming from the Oklahoman's resident Nazi/Soviet historian. Yes, Ronald Bouwman has again written in and gotten a letter published. Not surprisingly, it's a critique of President Obama. He writes:

History is indeed repetitious. Many events illustrate appeasement's bitter fruits, most notably the Munich Agreement of Sept. 29, 1938, which disgraced Great Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain forever. After Munich, the USSR, based on a nonaggression pact with Nazi Germany, attacked Poland; Germany responded with her own attack on Poland, and World War II was under way. For her safety and convenience, the USSR would change its alliance to one with Great Britain, the USA, and others. Events leading to the agreement are traceable to World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution and the formation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in March of 1919.

So... a history lesson of sorts for the readers of the Oklahoman. Naturally, Bouwman gets his facts wrong. For instance, Germany invaded Poland first, then the USSR. And the USSR didn't so much change its alliance "for her safety and convenience" as though it were some willy-nilly choice made on a whim-- it did so because the Germans invaded them!! And how on earth was the pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany traceable to the Bolshevik Revolution in 1919?? Shouldn't editors check these things before publishing them?!?

Of course, we see where Bouwman is going with the line about "the formation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" but how is any of this connected? Is the formation of the Soviet Ukrainian state really the catalyst for World War II?!?

He goes on:

The Soviet participation on the Allies' side in World War II encouraged leftist apologists and deniers in the U.S. to dismiss the Bolshevik reign of terror throughout the earlier decades of the 20th century. Among these were the “Holodomor” of 1932-1933, when the USSR seized most of the grain production of the Ukraine, causing the starvation of 7 million.

Uh, what? Is there really a connection between the USSR's alliance with the US and Great Britain in World War II and some sort of "dismissal" of Soviet atrocities?? And again with the Ukraine thing.

And then:

Today, the USSR appears to be under reconstruction and we have our own Chamberlains. Russian warships are again appearing in the Crimean. Yes, when ignored by fools, history repeats.

Wait. So now this is the USSR all over again? And are we now supposed to imagine that Obama is Neville Chamberlain?!? WHY NOT JUST SAY "I DON'T LIKE HOW OBAMA IS HANDLING THE SITUATION IN THE CRIMEAN" and be DOEN WITH IT?? What's with the factually-challenged history lesson?!? Would any real newspaper run a letter like this? From the SAME GUY who writes in EVERY MONTH to complain about Nazis and soviets?!?!?

Logical questions?!?

This letter nearly defies explanation. But let's try and make sense of what Mary Lou Bates of Bethany is trying to say, nonetheless. She begins:

Some logical questions for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and President Barack Obama might include these:

OK, so first off: why are we now all of a sudden asking questions of these two? She isn't referencing a news article or some event, so it seems sort of out of the blue. This is, of course, typical for the Oklahoman when someone wants to rail against a Democrat or some progressive position. Real newspapers tend to keep their letters topical, but for the Oklahoman-- hardly a real newspaper-- any time someone gets the urge to scribble out "I hate Obama!" it gets printed.

In any case, what "logical" questions would Ms Bates ask?

• Does the school bully attack Mr. Tough Guy?

Uh. Did she really just use "Mr. Tough Guy" in a letter? And I suppose this is rhetorical, suggesting that the President and his Secretary of Defense aren't being, uh, "Mr. Tough Guy" enough? And thus vulnerable to a bully? Or something?? And this is a "logical" question? Can't wait for what's next!

• In the history of the world, how many nations have been attacked because of being too strong? 

Oooh! Good question. I CAN THINK OF ONE. Because sometimes, what one person thinks of as "too strong" comes across as "school bully" and then they get mad and fight back they best way they know how. GOOD QUESTION!!! And logical. WHAT COULD BE NEXT???

• How about eliminating the $75 wastebaskets?

AEF34ct4c#CWarcrt!!!! IS THAT EVEN A REAL QUESTION?!?! Jesus fuck. Obviously, Ms Bates-- who, it is clear, must be like 75 years old, is referring to the well-documents waste in the Pentagon (though much of that is a myth). But if she's asking that the Pentagon stop wasting money, GOOD LUCK!! But yes, great question. AND LOGICAL!!!!! What's next??

• How about rationing the trips made on Air Force One?

Uh.... OK. Nothing says "power" like "I'd love to come to your summit but I've already used my plane for the allotted number of days this month so I can't attend. Sorry." THIS IS A GREAT IDEA.

I guess it's some attempt to talk about cutting costs? Or something? But then why not just say that? How is this a "logical" question??!? Maybe the next one will be...

• How about rationing tax-paid First Family vacation trips?

IS THIS A QUESTION?!? It's three times she's started with "how about" which is more of a rhetorical tool that politely means "I think you should..." and is NOT A REAL QUESTION. But that's fine. And in any case, back then the President wasn't a black crypto-Muslim, I'm sure Ms Bates was still super upset about government spending and Presidential vacations, RIGHT??? Oh, wait. I guess not.

So then, after asking these truly trenchant, brilliant, insightful, and LOGICAL questions, we get this:

But I guess we need to signal to the enemy to come and attack us because we can't hurt them.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?!?! Like, for real. How does THIS follow from "logical" questions about FAMILY VACATIONS?!?!?!??!??!

This newspaper is the shittiest paper on earth and people like Mary Lou Bates are morons. Why something like this gets published is truly a mystery.

Gun fight!

Usually, in a letters section, you get one chance to make your point and then that's it. Well, the Oklahoman does have its part-time columnists who write on the same stupid thing over and over again.... but you get my point.

Anyhow, after having his "Letter of the Month" run on guns, you figured that was it for Joe Moore of Oklahoma City. But no-- since someone actually went out and totally destroyed his letter, Mr Moore wrote back. And, perhaps not surprisingly, the Oklahoman ran that, too. It's point/counter-point on steroids.

Anyhow, Mr Moore writes:

In response to Mike Barnett (Your Views, Feb. 19), the FBI’s "justifiable homicide" data is incomplete. A number of cities (and the entire state of Illinois) flatly refuse to report crime statistics to the FBI. Additionally, the FBI's compiled numbers are based only on initial police reports and aren't updated by any subsequent information. They don't include prosecution results, grand jury or district attorney decisions, etc. Other data sources confirm the roughly 4,000 justifiable homicides in the U.S. in 2011.

Wait. This is a lot of information here. I realize it's a letter limited to 250 words so it's not like this guy can source everything, but did the Oklahoman just run this without checking if it's-- you know-- true? Like, is it true that the entire state of Illinois refuses to report crime statistics to the FBI??!? You can read through their website. You'd think that somewhere they'd say "hey, our stats for the entire state of Illinois are out of whack because the bastards won't give us information" if this were true. But I can't find it.

And given how hard we know that the Oklahoman's editors work to check facts, we can be sure they didn't lift a finger to delve into this more.

So, I guess we should just trust that Mr Moore-- a guy who is OK not counting a black teen-ager getting shot because, you know, he was in a gang-- has checked "other data sources" and of course his opinion is right.

And on it goes:

The University of Sydney’s 'study' ignored arrest reports and compiled its worldwide raw data only from court records, which — under strict Australian government mandate — were massaged to include only the least serious charge within each indictment. For instance, conviction of a defendant on the multiple charges of homicide, illegal firearm ownership and simple burglary was recorded only as burglary. In fact, several governments (including England and Wales) actually performed that 'massaging' before making the data publicly available.

Wait, wait. So how does this guy know this? I assume he's talking about this site, but I can't find anything about an Australian government mandate to massage statistics. And his objections don't make sense regardless. Like, we are talking about worldwide raw data. If it is all treated the same through this odd "mandate" then it should be a wash regardless.

And where is there evidence that England is also "massaging" gun statistics before making them available?? You can search, but the results tend to lead you to crazy conspiracy sites. It's a pretty bold statement to say that an entire country is fudging its crime statistics. Of course, since the editors probably live in the same right-wing echo chamber that Mr Moore lives in, they no doubt read this and thought "obv!" and assumed it was true because, well, some lunatic on Fox News said it was!

Anyhow, Mr Moore concludes:

Switzerland actually has more gun ownership rights than America. Adult Swiss citizens are required to keep firearms and ammunition in every household. The Swiss have the (verified) lowest crime rate in Europe. The Department of Justice verifies that the U.S. per-capita rate of total firearm deaths is indeed only eight per 100,000, which does rank 26th in the world. That’s not a 'contrived number.'

Jesus. As a clever commenter on the on-line Oklahoman letters page found, this is actually-- get this-- totally made up. Regarding Switzerland and its gun laws, a recent article in Time noted:

The law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons, which are banned.

Are you kidding me?!? Right-wing nut job gun people would FLIP if this were the law of the land in the US. And yet Mr Moore cites this as a shining example?? What an idiot. Truly. An idiot.

As for the "contrived number" bit and the seemingly low ranking of the US in total firearm deaths: uh, look who has us beat. It's not like we are sitting behind Western countries like Germany or Spain. No, we are proud to have fewer gun-related deaths than places like Honduras, Columbia, and Mexico. So, good stat, Joe. Take out the drug lords and crime bosses in lawless places like Nicaragua and the US is right where it always is: #1.

In all, there is no way that a respectable newspaper would run a letter spouting off unverifiable fact after unverifiable fact. And then, when they are verifiable, they're just shown to be wrong. But the Oklahoman is not a real newspaper and will run anything--anything-- if it supports the crazed right-wing agenda of the editors.