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.