The Oklahoman Editorial Watch

I Think Swinton is a Chamberbot. I Agree.

2011-04-03T09:32:00.000-07:00

If you ever get really depressed and want to get even more depressed, go over to the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce Website and have a look around. One thing you will find, is that one chap deeply involved in what goes into the Oklahoman Editorial Pages happens to be the "CHAMBER CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD" and his name is David Thompson.

David and his buddies at the Chamber like Charlie Swinton a lot. A whole lot. They have "covertly" been funding Swinton and other Pro-Chamber, anti-working people candidates via the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum (I use quote unquote becuase anyone with a functioning brain know's it's them who have been doing all of this crap) I pointed out 3 years ago that the Chamber and the Mayor were "Citizens for a Big League City", and provided documents that it was not a grassroots movement of working people who wanted to give their tax money to billionaires so that a NBA team that was coming to town regardless, would come to town. Here is one of those documents:

As you can kind of see (click the image to view in full size please) this ad buy is by "Citizens for a Big League City" but the Chamber of Commerce's phone number is on this - item 9, as well as next to item number 7, "name of authorized committee" is none other than the Greater OKC Chamber. And item number 10, executive members of the propaganda campaign - Mayor Mick Cornett!

Anyway, I have tons of documents like this and the reason I show this one here and talk about it, is that this go 'round, they're being a little more careful, one because they know were onto them, and second, there is a ton at stake. So anyway, to the funny editorial in which David and the Chamber, I mean, the Oklahoman Editorial Staff give their endorsement to Charlie "Bank Lobbyist" Swinton.

The article, "Swinton our choice for Ward 2 seat" is really one of the funnier things I have seen since this "Wilkinson's Family Restaurant" video:

There are a couple of reasons that I say this. First, David and the Chamber, I mean, the Oklahoman Editorial Staff start the column off by saying that "...Charlie Swinton is no stranger to politics. He ran for two county offices in the 1980s and '90s, has assisted in statewide campaigns for others and is a regular at the Capitol in his role as a lobbyist and senior officer for BancFirst. Now he hopes to become a regular at City Hall."

So basically, we should vote for him because he has a career in politics and bank lobbying. That is funny. I will say no more on this funny item that David and the Chamber, I mean, the Oklahoman Editorial Staff have written for us in our City's excellent newspaper.

Ok, so I will move to the other funny thing. It is real funny so don't have any soda pop in your mouth when you read it - promise me, ok? Our friends at The Oklahoman, after saying some decent things about Ed Shadid (the guy everyone should vote for!!!) they write: "...Shadid, 42, has mostly self-funded his campaign while suggesting that because Swinton has accepted money from PACS and numerous other sources, he will be beholden to those donors. Our sense is those donors simply want Oklahoma City to continue on its current course and feel he's the best candidate to help that cause. We agree."

Ok wait. Did I just read that right?!?!??!?! Did David and the Chamber, I mean, the Oklahoman Editorial Staff write:

"Our sense is those donors simply want Oklahoma City to continue on its current course and feel he's the best candidate to help that cause."

And then follow it with:

"We agree."

So they agree with themselves? Are you kidding me? Or is it that the Chamber of Commerce and The Oklahoman Editorial page have become so intertwined that sometimes they forget they are one and the same and have conversations with each other within a column? Ha! That could be it. Geez this paper sucks. I hate it.

Facts Once Again Get In Way Of A Swell Story

2011-03-23T19:46:00.000-07:00

In it's who-knows-how-manyth anti-union article, Charter school teachers not bound by union the Editorial Staff writes that "...Educators hired to teach in Oklahoma's charter schools can choose to join a union or remain independent." Implying that this is not the case in the Oklahoma public school systems.

Oklahoma is a "Right to Work" State, and therefore teachers are free both to join unions and to refrain from joining unions (see Okla. Const. art. 23, § 1A). Once again, they state something that can easily be refuted because it simply is not true.

If you want to read a really good article on Charter Schools, I HIGHLY recommend Sarah Knopp's fine article Charter schools and the attack on public education.

Oklahoman Piece Wrong On So Many Levels

2011-03-21T08:47:00.000-07:00

I left town last week for a little vacation, but really wanted to comment on Friday's "opinion" piece. I use the old quote unquote, because the so called opinion in this case was really nothing more than a Heritage Foundation talking point. I can't verify this and don't really feel the need to, but the fact that there were so many propaganda outlets talking about how there has been "no looting in Japan" (see the article reference in the Fox News blog here, note that they actually might be referring us to a source that isn't owned by news corp! -I could be wrong though-) makes it pretty obvious.
Friday's piece, entitled "Japanese response a model for the world" was wrong on so many levels, that it is difficult to know even where to begin. I've taken a few seconds to think it over, and I believe the best place to start is here - by pointing out that the article was just plain wrong, literally. As a few days have passed, there are a number of articles, but this one entitled "Japan earthquake: Looting reported by desperate survivors" discusses how there has been looting in Japan, quite a difference from the statement in The Oklahoman and other sick outlets that there has not.
So to what the article said specifically, and why they jumped the gun as they did on this situation. To begin, they state that "...What didn't happen, among other things of note, is an outbreak of widespread lawlessness such as looting or an epidemic of entitlement mentality as manifested by complaints among the populace about fuel, food or water shortages." Using phrases like "entitlement mentality" and "widespread lawlessness" are used for pretty obvious reasons, and that is to get the faithful reader of this disgusting rag to form an image of fat black Cadillac driving mammas who love to vote for Democrats and eat Cheetoes at taxpayer expense, and then loot like hell whenever there is a tragedy in their neighborhood. I think that is pretty safe to say.

The next statement is a lot more interesting, and takes some knowledge of Oklahoma City to know just how gross The Oklahoman really is. The statement "...After the Oklahoma City bombing, outside observers applauded the people here for pitching in and not taking advantage of a situation through lawlessness. Such an event tends to focus the attention of police and emergency personnel on the disaster, thereby leaving the rest of the city vulnerable. But the bombing isn't remembered for peripheral lawlessness."
Now, lets step back and think about this statement. The Oklahoman's David Thompson (President of the OPUBCO Publishing Group) has been a part of a viscous campaign against Oklahoma City's Police and Fire via his position at The OKC Chamber of Commerce and in the Editorial pages of The Oklahoman (I'll provide links soon). Something worth noting here might be that as a result of this, OKC had more Police and Fire in the days of The Murrah Bombing than they do now, despite the fact that the City is quite wealthier and has significantly more inhabitants. It would have been a good idea to point this out, but it would be too harmful to the stupid op ed pieces validity, on many levels. Since the Murrah Bombing can no longer be used as an ideological weapon for OKC's elites to get whatever they want (darn you 9-11!), it is best to sweep a lot of the realities of what happened back then under the rug, along with the heroes of that day.
The BBC quoted Christopher Beam as saying "...His other theories why there isn't any looting in Japan include the police presence and organised crime. "Police aren't the only ones on patrol since the earthquake hit," he says. "Members of Yakuza, Japan's organised crime syndicate, have been enforcing order." This suggests that not only does Japan have ample police (unlike most of us in the States who no longer do, as money to pay them has been given to hedge fund hoodlums and other nice guys) but that their groups similar to The OKC Chamber of Commerce can co-exist with them in keeping the society running smoothly.
The piece concludes with "...So why isn't this happening in Japan? Analysts say the main reason is a culture that discourages individual entitlement and instead pushes group and family responsibility. " As always, it would be interesting to know just who these "analysts" are. The Oklahoman always does this. Comes up with some wacky idea, or borrows one from some Grover Norquist group, and then uses the old "people are saying" or "experts agree" or one of those old tricks. But if one were to really do a serious analysis of why perhaps looting is less in Japan, pushing away things like in many parts of the Country there is nothing to loot as entire areas have been obliterated, and if you are outside you get exposed to high amounts of radiation - there are a lot of things you can find out about The Oklahoman and a functioning society in general. What you might find with regards to this in Japan involve things like years of protectionism of their economy, taxes, things like that...too controversial to mention...I could go on and on about this hellish op ed piece but wont.

Oklahoman Editorial Staff Tries To Make Some Points - Fail Miserably

2011-03-14T13:28:00.000-07:00

In Today's opinion column piece "Lawmaker labeling a badge of honor?" the editorial staff poses this statement: "The quickest way to empower the most conservative politicians is to have a liberal group play the extremist card against them."
This statement comes from the Editorial folks once again reaching deep into their bag of rascally liberal non-profit groups to pull out something useful from the Southern Poverty Law Center (a group who no doubt has a greater influence over our town than The Chamber of Commerce I am sure...).
The SPLC in a recent opinion column on their site under the sub-heading State Legislators for Legal Immigration & the Anti-Immigrant Movement entitled "The Legislators: The Dirty Dozen" (The Oklahoman didn't mention the name or location of the article, just asked us to have faith that it was out there somewhere) list Oklahoma reps Sally Kern, Charles Key and Randy Terrill. The Oklahoman states that they suspect these three will wear this labeling as a badge of honor.
Ok fine. Whatever. What is the point? I spoke with Rep Kern on this and she was pretty much dismissive, as she probably should be, and said to me:

"...well thats what the Oklahoman does (paint me in a negative light) they are liberal paper, and they take a shot at me any time the get a chance to...they'll go after you any chance they get"

So basically, this is just a really terrible article. We do find SOME insight into what they are trying to get at here, when they write the following to show how biased the SPLC is, unlike the fine publication The Oklahoma which always gives us all sides!:

"...The SPLC tracks hate groups and speaks out against 'extremist' positions. It mentions the bombing of abortion clinics but not the terrorist attack on the Pentagon. Recent utterings from SPLC spokesmen hint that conservatives such as Glenn Beck and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachman contribute to an atmosphere of hate but somehow leave out the Rev. Louis Farrakhan's contribution."

The writers at The Oklahoman would have a fine point here, however, there is quite a problem. The SPLC actually DOES speak out against Farrakhan, as you can see here

And in articles such as this recent one "Anti-Semitism Goes to School" they do mention the Pentagon attacks and how, yes, they were a bad thing!
When you read on, you can tell that perhaps the editorial writers were concerned that they might be just typing stuff without doing any research or trying to make any real points, they bring teachers into the mix. In the spirit of my favorite Oklahoman/American Brandon Dutcher who makes $100k/yr to tweet about how Teachers make too much money, they tell us just how rotten these rascally folks can be when they c0nclude the article with "...And if opposition to a policy defines the policy's supporters as 'extremists,' does this apply to the thousands of public school teachers who supported a school funding measure last year that was opposed by 81 percent of the people?"
I can only assume that the unbiased, non-extremist Editorial Staff at the alleged newspaper "The Oklahoman" will answer that question with a resounding YES!

Wow what a terrible article! What a terrible paper!!!! A big league City deserves a big league paper, lets do something about this trashy rag!!!! -Steve H

Liberals liberals liberal Liberals

2009-07-30T23:18:00.000-07:00

July 31 Editorials

In a piece Today entitled "Jim bags: Inhofe statements drive some to shame" tells us that Jim Inhofe does some wacky things sometimes. This is ok, the writers rationalize, because we voted for him. In making their case, the words "liberal" or "liberals" appear 1.6% of the time amongst their 252 word essay. This is something Ann Coulter likes to do to fill space and rile-up her reader-folk.

This might not seem like a lot, until you read another one of Today's essays, once again the staff is ranting and raving about a new form of "socialized medicine" (note the current one socializes much of the research in State-Funded Universities and in foundations, and then hands the findings to big business who generates dazzling profits off of this research...a scenario where people should benefit from their tax-money, and not just big-business, is far too frightening.)

In this rant, they state "...While concessions announced this week are a step in the right direction, the overall bill is still an invitation to major deficit spending and a larger health care role for government. Trimming $100 billion from a $1.3 trillion proposal isn’t much of a haircut." But as Dean Baker recently noted (hey Oklahoman Editorial Staff, see how easy it is to say who said what!) the "huge" trillion-dollar price tag is equal to about 0.5% of projected GDP over the next decade. The Iraq War (which The Oklahoman overwhelmingly supported) at its peak cost more than 1% of GDP.

So, note that the HUGE figure to fix our disgraceful, embarrasing health care system is only one-third in size the number GDP-wise (over a decade) as is the percentage of times the Editorial staff said "liberal" or "liberals" in their piece explaining that Inhofe says funny things but we voted for him.

Yes, I know this is apples and roti, but what do we get from being told Inhofe can do as he pleases, and it is ok because we voted for him? What sense does that make? Isn't this the newspaper that constantly rants and raves about us being a Republic, not a Democracy? And therefore, shouldn't the fact that we voted for this man, and he is doing these zany things be something that should cause at least some alarm?

That is far too much to ask if first we can not even think to contemplate the massive costs of war compared to fixing our health care system.

Updates Coming Soon, New Address

2009-07-07T19:59:00.000-07:00

July 7

The Oklahoman Editorial Watch is about to move to a new site, and I will be doing some more things along with the commentaries. Stay tuned.

The Reality Is Even Funnier!

2009-06-26T10:13:00.000-07:00

June 26 Cartoon

I suggest the editors read this fine piece: As Smash-and-Grab Capitalism Collapses, the French Economy Shines

Lying Is Where The Money Is, Now More Than Ever

2009-06-25T09:20:00.000-07:00

June 25 Editorial

Today the Editors have finally decided to be quiet on the Iran issue, not unlike their friend George W. Bush (and themselves) during Tehran's crackdown on student protesters in 2003 or about the crackdown on reformist candidates in 2004 that led to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Instead they've chosen to, brace yourself, rant and rave about Government spending (the kind that does not directly benefit rich guys, of course).

In today's piece Soft landing: Economic pain unequally shared they start off with the statement "...The U.S. House has approved an 8 percent increase in the budget for office expenses. Members will get an average of $1.5 million for the fiscal year that starts in October. The increase comes at a time when businesses and households are cutting budgets by 8 percent or more."

The article as you can probably guess continues with no mention of Goldman Sachs hot-shots being, as Reuters reports here, on pace this year for record bonuses, or perhaps bringing into question the salaries of Red-Prime Steakhouse frequenting Chesapeake execs in these rough-times, especially when they've destroyed $16b in shareholders wealth the prior year.

Mentioning such things would have been nice, but one thing that I think no question should have been brought up, if the editors for once could possibly sway from their constant "Blame the government" rhetoric, is that the Public Relations Industry is flourishing. And in a similar fashion as it was in the heyday of Edward Bernay's in the run-up to the great depression.

It makes perfect sense that the PR industry is doing so well (anyone who gets on Twitter sees the place flooded with PR folks promoting fancy lifestyles and whatnot), as these are no doubt times when disgraceful, unjustifiable things (like Goldman Sach's bonuses, or nice guys like Aubrey McClendon making over $100m for his part in erasing $16b of shareholders wealth) need to be justified by any means necessary.

But do not take my word for it regarding the propaganda industry, read this sickening piece from July '08 by The Oklahoman's good friend Renzi Stone , (note 2-12-10 page archived....actual story link on his site redirects to new page) head of local Public Relations group Saxum Communications. In it he discusses how well the industry is doing, and how it is important for them to do their best lying to ensure the status-quo is preserved. He states:

"According to a March 2008 report by M&A experts StevensGouldPincus, PR firms stand to gain ground this year. Highlights included 75 percent of firms under $3 million predict higher revenues and 83 percent say client budgets will increase. If the first two quarters of this year are any indication, we are in line with the industry, if not exceeding predictions. In a declining economy, PR will play an important role in helping businesses and issues...continue to move forward."

Pretty terrifying that our nations future is in the hands of these people who lie for a living, and it is especially troubling that our City's paper wont even discuss this stuff, primarily because they are a big part of such non-sensical, harmful things.

So again, these are the types of things we would hear about if we had a newspaper in our town with an editorial staff that pays attention in the many bible classes they attend, and therefore would at least attempt to tell the whole truth from time to time.

Her Name is Neda Agha-Soltan You Lunatics

2009-06-23T21:56:00.000-07:00

June 24 Commentary

In the June 23 Editorial "Iran, North Korea putting Obama’s strategy to test" The editors write "...a young woman bleeding to death after being shot...graphically and intimately assigning a face to the uprising and deepening Obama’s dilemma..." Now, I am just one person with a not so remarkable income, rather than an entire news department with the backing of the Gaylord Empire...yet I am able to discover quite quickly that the woman's name is Neda Agha-Soltan.

The Editorial staff does not care about Neda. They do not care about Iran. They only care about partisanship, power, and control.

Early on in his presidency, when America was siding with the Iraqis, George Bush Sr. was questioned about the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes (also known as "Robo-cruiser" because of the extremely aggressive behavior of her commanding officer - Read Robert Fisk's increadible book "The Great War For Civilization" for more). It had recently fired missiles at Iran Air’s Flight 65, which was on a routine flight scheduled from Bandar-Abbas to Dubai. All 290 civilians on board died. “I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are.” was Bush’s reply.

Now that all the facts have come out, it was nothing short of an act of terrorism on the part of the Vincennes, and Bush and The Oklahoman just laughed it off.

How many Neda's were on that flight and what the hell did this sick newspaper, let alone what did their partisan buddy Bush care about these people? And now they think they can lecture us about what Obama should be doing, and even worse subtly blame him and everyone else who supports the way he is handling Iran for Neda's death? Why are people not out protesting in front of this sick, perverted newspaper? It is not as if it has zero influence over anything.

Consider more facts: As Stephen Kinzer notes "in the 1980s, the U.S. sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, providing him with military equipment and intelligence that helped make it possible for his army to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians...Given this history, the moral credibility of the U.S. to pose as a promoter of democracy in Iran is close to nil."

And of course, the overthrow of the parliamentary elected Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 which started this entire hell-disaster for the people of Iran. Why can The Oklahoman not acknowledge these things? It is pretty obvious that a paper that can not even say the name of Neda Agha-Soltan would never have the decency to acknowledge any of our disgraceful history in the region, especially the history of their party.

My good friend Arash Manzori helped put on a huge rally in Dallas today. Have a look at this column in the Star-Telegram about the rally. Also pay attention to the quote at the bottom from Charlie Bates II, 35, of Garland who was complaining to police inside city hall "..."I think it’s a pity," he said. "These people want to protest what’s going on in their country. If they don’t like it, they should move back over there and fight it." Sounds a lot like something The Oklahoman Editorial Staff would say, and perhaps they were down there trying to find one Iranian who could agree with their deeply perverted views after finding none here.

These Guys Are Getting Worse By The Day

2009-06-23T05:26:00.000-07:00

June 23 Editorial

Today is one of those days where you have to wonder just how bad this paper can get. Have we reached the bottom, or is there worse things to come? No question reading things like Today's piece "Iran, North Korea putting Obama’s strategy to test" is one of those editorials where you really just wonder about these people. I certainly worry that my Mother reads this crap, it makes me sick knowing she's is exposed to this disgraceful garbage, it really just makes me sick.

The writer's state "The president’s defenders said criticizing Iran’s regime or even reaffirming democratic principles, such as the rights to self-determination and public assembly, would worsen things for the people in the streets. Besides, Iranians already know where America stands, they said." and fail to mention who the defenders are. It would not be good for them to mention some of them, people like Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Lugar, George Will , Peggy Noonan, Pat Buchanan, the list goes on and on and on.

There can be little doubt The Oklahoman Editorial writers do not join these list of supporters for simple hard-core partisan reasons. And these are the games of children. In a barbaric fashion, they write "...Video of a young woman bleeding to death after being shot, allegedly by state authorities, is circulating on the Internet — graphically and intimately assigning a face to the uprising and deepening Obama’s dilemma..." pretending that this is his fault. This is the same editorial staff that never mentioned, amongst a countless number of things, that 14 year old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi was never brutally raped and set ablaze, along with her family by Pfc. Steven D. Green and friends. Mentioning such a thing might suggest that their hero George W. Bush and his crazed war in Iraq which played a hand in bringing about mahmoud ahmadinejad was something less than spectacular.

I will have more on The Oklahoman's sick coverage of the Iran issue in a couple of days....

Nevadas's Citadel, Texas' Clear Channel Promoting Anti Free-Market Legislation, Why No Oklahoman Commentary?

2009-06-21T16:22:00.000-07:00

June 22 Commentary

Friday I was listening to San Antonio, TX based Clear Channel radio's 1340 AM KEBC - Sports Radio, and sandwiched in-between Ad Council spots were back-to-back ads on the so called "Local Radio Freedom Act" (S. Con. Res. 14, H. Con. Res. 49.)

I have been told the far right leaning, allegedly "pro free-markets" KTOK is running the ads as well, and an internet search verifies that Nevada run Citadel (The Sports Animal, The KATT, KQOB, KYIS, WKY) are running these ads as well.

This legislation was written in the last Congress, but did not come to a vote. However, it will this time. Essentially what it is, is that labels are showing an interest in charging a small fee for stations who play their music. The stations are against this, because in the interest of their shareholders (note that Citadel has gone down from around $15 a share in 2004 to 4.5 cents a share as of Friday, so no question they have reason to be upset!) do not want additional costs.

Oklahoma Reps who support regulation to prohibit labels rights to charge fees include a group that quite often claim interests in free markets, and they are: House Reps Mary Fallin, Dan Boren, Tom Cole, Frank Lucas, and John Sullivan. Inhofe and Coburn are not included in the 16 co-sponsers of S.Con.Res 14, however it is clear that Inhofe does as I obtained a letter he wrote to San Antonio based Clear Channel saying he supports the bill.

Inhofe specifically says he "Supports local broadcasters such as (Clear Channel)", not taking into consideration that San Antonio is in Texas, not Oklahoma therefore not a local station. Such details are irrelevant when trying to prop up folks who say nice things about you, I imagine was his justification but that is just speculation. I do not want to be cruel and say he is stupid and can not deduct these things, although most 2nd graders can tell you San Antonio is not in Oklahoma.

Now, my thing with this legislation is pretty simple. If labels want to charge fees, let them! Stations can simply say "no thanks" to their awful music, and go to other labels that choose not to charge a fee. These labels will surely across the board be independant labels who more often that not have good music, and many times have actual LOCAL music.

The Oklahoman Editorial Staff has yet to offer any comment on this matter, however I would be quite interested in their opinion on the matter.

Here is a very detailed (updated) video I put out last time this bill was proposed, and I highly recommend watching it, and considering what I lay out next time you hear one of these ads on so-called local radio, telling you that you need to call you Congressman to support this stupid legislation. I believe it is a no-brainer to not support it, especially if you claim to be a supporter of "letting the markets decide".

I welcome anyone who has any legitimate arguments supporting this bill. I also want to point out that a lot of the discussions put forward last year by Free Press last year about the coming non-sensical campaigns about the coming "Fairness Doctrine" (which Obama, FCC head Michael Copps, FCC Chair Jonathon Adelstein, and all the rest strongly oppose) where only out there to try and support things like the so-called "Local Radio Freedom Act" which huxsters are already ranting and raving about being a "Fairness Doctrine Lite" which makes no sense, whatsoever.

I could say much more, but here is the video:

Mark Green Didn't Say What???

2009-06-17T22:35:00.000-07:00

Mark Green's June 10 "Scissor Tales" blog

I've been meaning to point this piece out, it is another very fine example of how disgracefully one-sided this alleged newspaper is, and on a ridiculously consistent basis.

Mark Green, The Oklahoman’s national editorial writer gave us a blog last Wednesday entitled "He Said What?" (best to read the title aloud in a angry Rikki Lake guest-voice) that points out how the new Chairman of GM knows nothing about cars. Here is the blog in full:

“I don’t know anything about cars.” Uh, not exactly what you want to hear from the guy who’s going to lead General Motors when it emerges from bankruptcy protection later this summer. Former AT&T chief Edward E. Whitacre Jr. admits he’s not a car guy, but the man known as “Big Ed” figures business is business, and he was pretty good at it over a 43-year career. The White House is confident Whitacre will do fine, noting that Ford’s current CEO, Alan Mulally, came from Boeing. Still, taxpayers jumpy over the public investment in GM — $20 billion already and another $30 billion to come — must hope Whitacre studies up a bit before he officially takes over. GM can’t afford any more missteps.

I do not have a big problem with Green pointing these things out. I just wish he would point these things out when people his paper support do the same kind of things.

Note that Green does point out Whitacre was good at what he did in the business world, and those who support the appointment of Whitacre say the same things. Here are a couple of those supporter's quotes from a recent article on the matter in The Huffingon Post:

A bachelor's degree in industrial engineering and record in shaping a "monolithic" AT&T into a diversified enterprise make Whitacre "a good choice," said Jim Hall, principal of 2953 Analytics auto-consulting firm in Birmingham, Michigan.

"He was one of the guys who helped create a new AT&T that wasn't so dependent on land-line phone service," said Hall, a former GM engineer. "There's a parallel with General Motors. GM is not now about just making cars. It's about re-creating itself as a 21st-century car company. They have to have somebody at the top that understands they have to make a new GM."

Now let me point out someone Green and the entire Oklahoman Editorial Staff completley ignored during the Bush years. And this is one of countless examples.

This is a brief excerpt from Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism". In this excerpt she is discussing the countless non-sensical contracts and appointments given to people as a part of the invasion and occupation of Iraq:

John Agresto also saw a silver lining as he watched the looting of Baghdad on TV. He envisioned his job - "a never-to-be-repeated adventure" - as the remaking of Iraq's system of higher education from scratch. In that context, the stripping of the universities and the education ministry was, he explained, "the opportunity for a clean start," a chance to give Iraq's schools "the best modern equipment". If the mission was "nation creating," as so many clearly believed it to be, then everything that remained of the old country was only going to get in the way. Agresto was the former president of St John's College in New Mexico, which specialises in a Great Books curriculum [which emphasises an education based on broad reading]. He explained that although he knew nothing of Iraq, he had refrained from reading books about the country before making the trip so that he would arrive "with as open a mind as I could have". Like Iraq's colleges, Agresto would be a blank slate.

If Agresto had read a book or two, he might have thought twice about the need to erase everything and start all over again. He could have learned, for instance, that before the sanctions strangled the country, Iraq had the best education system in the region, with the highest literacy rates in the Arab world - in 1985, 89% of Iraqis were literate. By contrast, in Agresto's home state of New Mexico, 46% of the population is functionally illiterate, and 20% are unable do "basic math[s] to determine the total on a sales receipt". Yet Agresto was so convinced of the superiority of American systems that he seemed unable to entertain the possibility that Iraqis might want to salvage and protect their own culture and that they might feel its destruction as a wrenching loss.

*(footnote) When agresto failed miserably at his job of rebuilding Iraq's university system, leaving the country with the job undone, he revised his early enthusiasm for looting, describing himself as "a neoconservative who's been mugged by reality."

It was not until September 18, 2007 that The Oklahoman even mentioned Agresto's name. Three years and three months after he left Iraq. They did so by giving a blurb from this column by Thomas Sowell.

Oh yah, if you get bored..look up a guy named Gary Heldreth!

More Looney Views Defending Our "Health Care System"

2009-06-17T07:36:00.000-07:00

June 17 Editorial

Today, believe it or not The Editors are presenting another piece defending our disgraceful health care system and the wealthy worthless insurance corporations. In "President Barack Obama rolls out health care ‘Trojan horse’ " they find some fancy far-right AMA member hip surgeon by the name of Norman Dunitz, who essentially spews the radical-right generated talking points on "socialized medicine" and what The trash at The Oklahoman say "...Experts talk of a slippery slope toward government dominance of health care."

Please read "The secret Right-Wing Strategy on Health Care Reform" which I posted several weeks ago. It is interesting to see how all these things are playing out, and how folks like the Oklahoman Editors are playing their part to ensure nothing changes, and that all kinds of lies are told to ensure they get just what they want, and the population continues to suffer.

Now, this Dunitz hoodlum they found is ranting and raving about how a public health option will be a trojan horse for socialized medicine. This is THE talking point the radical-right wants repeated over and over and is why in his talk to the AMA folks, Obama stated very clearly "a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.”

Dunitz states that Obama has said some things and done others. What he does not clarify is that literally everything Obama has backtracked on has greatly benefited people like himself. What kind of progressive President hires people like Summers, Rubin, Pritzker etc...? Dunitz seems to have missed out on this stuff as he is so busy memorizing radical-right propaganda talking-points. If he could give one thing where Obama backtracked on something and it was for the good of the people, not the elites, I would be very surprised.

To hear a decent view on these matters, here is an exerpt from a piece from DemocracyNow! yesterday entitled Dr. Chris McCoy: “Dear AMA: I Quit!”

This exerpt is Dr. Quentin Young speaking, National coordinator for Physicians for a National Health Program. He has been a member of the American Medical Association since 1952. He was Reverend Martin Luther King’s doctor when King was organizing in Chicago and was a close ally of Barack Obama in Chicago:

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Quentin Young, you, too, are a member of the AMA. You haven’t quit yet. You’ve been a member for more than half a century. What was your reaction to President Obama’s speech right there in your hometown of Chicago, where he was addressing the AMA?

DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Well, I was deeply disappointed, because Obama, as we all know, is a brilliant politician and a student of America’s problems, and he has abandoned earlier commitment to single payer for expediency reasons, as far as I can tell.

I am a member of the AMA. But let me explain. I’ve agreed with their policies in the last half-century about a minute and a half. I’m a very severe critic of what AMA has done. And it’s worth noting that AMA membership has dropped from some 90 percent of doctors when I started out a half-century ago, and now about a third of America’s doctors do belong.

The problem is the diagnosis here. America’s difficulties, indeed the crisis in healthcare, is due to one big thing: the multi-payer and private insurance companies. Everybody knows that. Obama knows that. He said he was for single payer not that many years ago, and if he was starting from scratch, was the way he put it, he would go with it. Well, he is starting from scratch, and the failure to grasp the nettle and really give America the kind of healthcare reform system it deserves is very painful and very dangerous.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama said what are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming “a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.” He said, “When you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run healthcare, know this: they’re not telling the truth.” Dr. Young?

DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Well, to that extent, he’s accurate. This public option is not a slide toward single payer, unfortunately. This is a bugbear that has haunted American medicine debate, and we have to bring it to an end, because it’s too costly, the whole idea that this is socialized medicine, government medicine. We have magnificent examples of government medicine; reactionaries would never dream of calling them back. I speak of the VA system for veterans; the public hospitals, the safety net for the very poor. We have a variety of public systems. Medicare. Is anybody here advocating an end of Medicare? And that’s the government medicine that they’re making a fuss about.

We haven’t got much time left. The system, as Obama aptly notes, is running amuck, and it’s up to $2.5 trillion and, as we all know, rising at a rate two or three times the rate of inflation. And he’s right in saying the economy can’t tolerate it.

Where he’s wrong is his unwillingness to do the serious job of getting the multi-payer insurance companies out of the mix. They add nothing; they subtract a great, great deal. Public experience with this system is horrible. We have a million people having personal bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills, and that just went up from 50 percent of personal bankruptcies to 60 percent—62, to be accurate. And this country, rich as it is, in this economic downturn cannot tolerate it.

Mr. Obama would be wisest to challenge the American people to support single payer, which, I might point out, America’s doctors, in a poll in the University of Indiana last year, April, showed 60 percent of our doctors now support a tax system that provides for healthcare. Doctors have learned there’s something worse than government; it’s called corporations. And we must trade on that insight. And the American public wants it. So, why is there this hesitancy and this currying favor with the reactionaries who talk about socialized medicine? It’s nonsense. It’s American medicine, and it can only grow and serve the people if we have a single-payer system.

Full interview here

Why are we forbidden to hear from people like this in The Oklahoman? Why do they hate giving both sides opinions so much? What are they afraid of?

A Few Days Have Passed, Safe To Bring Up Ex-President Clinton Again

2009-06-16T20:17:00.000-07:00

June 16 Editorial

Six days ago The Editorial Staff wrote a piece "Blame game: Just leave former president out of it" discussing how George W. Bush is no longer President, so therefore we should not hold him accountable for anything or complain about him anymore. I didn't even bother critiquing the piece.

Sure, I could have easily gone into the 2001-2008 archives and pulled out hundreds of editorials where they knock Clinton (I am NOT a fan of the man by the way) but one can only do so much and preserve their sanity.

I did consider briefly mentioning the bit I included in my "Empathy in the Bush Years" where I pointed out how they were ranting and raving about the Lewinsky scandal Ten Years later, but figured I would pass.

So today, The Editorial Staff figures their victims (readers) have such short memories that they can rant and rave about Clinton, and not recall how they were saying it isn't good to do so with past Presidents. Had one member of The Editorial staff ever paid attention in just one of the enumerable bible classes they attend, their is no way they would try and pull this garbage off.

Sadly, it is quite obvious that none have so Today we are blessed with a disgusting piece entitled "Mediscare II: Obama health plan evokes ’96 campaign". There are too many things to point out in this piece, and I will do my best to keep this short.

First, they state "..In some of the most shameless fear-mongering ever seen in Washington, Clinton drubbed the GOP for its plan to save $270 billion over seven years by holding Medicare growth to 6 percent instead of the projected 10 percent."

It is fairly safe to say the editors recall "Harry and Louise", the disgraceful ad campagn that ran during the Clinton years when he was trying to pass reforms. Note that Harry and Louise are back again to fight Obama's reforms, along with a cast of other characters, including the firm that ran The Swift Boat Campaign against John Kerry.

Now, putting aside the disgraceful partisanship of this newspaper, lets look at how things are in the real world. The Editors are screaming unfair that Obama is discussing cutting back on Medicare expenses. Their gripe is that when Gingrich proposed them, Clinton went bonkers and won the next election based on his gripes about what the Republicans wanted to do, backed by Gingrich. Ignore all other factors, this surely had to be the reason!

What the incompetent staff is incapable of understanding, is that it surely is a conditional thing he is proposing. Note the recent article on the Foxnews website, "Obama Praises 'Historic' $2 Trillion Health Care Savings Plan" that Health Care Industry hot-shots have promised him and the people a massive savings over the next ten years. Putting whether we believe they'll pull it off (I can't imagine shareholders will like them doing this very much), those of us who are interested in the real world can deduct that Obama "...who said Saturday that he wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid spending by $200 billion over the next 10 years..." will probably do so conditionally. And those conditions will be based on what is probably a delusion that the Health Care companies are not filthy, disgusting liars and will deliver on the $2trillion in cost-cuts.

Man I can not stand The Oklahoman editorial page/staff. What the hell is wrong with these people?

Hey Fellas! This Seems Like A Fun Day To Provoke a Race Riot!

2009-06-12T22:54:00.001-07:00

June 13th Editorial

I can just see the Editorial Writers conjuring this one up, regarding Today's "How far we have come : POINT OF VIEW Sonia Sotomayor nomination, by Amy Raymond"

I can just see them sitting around their little Editorial Staff table, laughing and giggling. Not even stopping for half-a-second to think that maybe their actions, the silly games they play, might have some consequences. (Have a look at the column before proceeding.)

meeeeeeeeee!

Please forgive me for perhaps a bit too much humor on this post. I just can not take these people seriously when they try and pull these sorts of things.

Sure, the piece is nice and I am very happy for Amy Raymond. She has done nothing wrong with the column she has written for the paper. The problem is that I don't think she knows how she is being used here by the disgraceful people at the worst newspaper in America, The Oklahoman.

Rather than doing the right thing and letting people with other views come on a few times a week, and write articles that present facts, history and arguments to the regurgitated propaganda in the pages of the Editorial page, they give us an occasional fluff piece like this that is unquestionably selected to make their readers have no hope of ever hearing anything other than what the specific ideological garbage they want them to hear.

And much worse in this instance, they intend to make their loyal readers furious at an easy target, a minority, for saying the things that can easily be interpreted by fools as "reverse racism". Interpreted as "the radicals taking over!" by a person who listens to a lot of garbage that the radical-right presents. It is all absolutely disgraceful.

My hope is that one of their loyal readers does not read this editorial, and take it as a queue to go to The Little Flower Church on the South-Side with a machine-gun, firing away at all those folks "out to destroy our nation!" But the way things have been going as of late, it is certainly possible. And I don't think The Oklahoman really cares.

It Was Fine When Reagan Played Games

2009-06-12T22:20:00.000-07:00

June 13 Cartoon

From Chris Hedges 04.06.09 Column "Resist or Become Serfs"

"...The lies employed to camouflage the economic decline are legion. President Ronald Reagan included 1.5 million U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine service personnel with the civilian work force to magically reduce the nation’s unemployment rate by 2 percent."

Loot Loot Loot For The Home Team!

2009-06-11T11:19:00.000-07:00

June 11 Editorial

In one of the more sane days the editorial staff has had in some time, one thing stood out that I would like to discuss. In one of the editorials today, entitled "Public-private: Legislative meddling is last thing needed" (Imagine that! Another let the market decide tuned column!) the writers discuss the situation of private schools and their classifications (and possible re-classifications) in Oklahoma High School sports.

A statement in the article stood out, showing once again how the Oklahoman Editors know so damn little about so damn much. They write "...Apparently some of our state lawmakers are bitten with the same bug that has infected members of Congress, who believe it’s their duty to deal with such issues as ...the use of performance enhancers by major league baseball players."

Two things guys. One, all Major League baseball teams receive massive subsidies from the tax-payers. Some accountability therefore is needed, and from the representatives of the people and not the representatives of the millionaire owners and players. Also, Major League Baseball is exempt from anti-trust laws. That is a pretty good deal for these guys, and ensures them massive profits as you can't just start up a team and work your way up the ranks as is the case in European soccer leagues (where they use a system of relegation and promotion based on how well you do, for example if a similar system were in play here, and the Redhawks won their AAA division, they'd be an MLB team next year, and if say the Mariners came in last, they'd be AAA next year).

Given these great deals they get from tax-payers and from lawmakers, anyone with a functioning brain should be able to deduct that some accountability should be offered up. And not another one of those fantastic "Hey we will just watch over these things ourselves!" like the banksters got with securitization.

I understand that the editors would never want to say anything to offend the fancy MLB guys, regardless of the disgracefully unfair advantages they have in running their businesses. Heaven forbid one day we have a chance at a franchise and an owner might look back at an old editorial where controversial things like facts and history were discussed and throw a Lou Pinella style tantrum all over the place.

Oh, and how this relates to state lawmakers and the situation discussed in the editorial... I think I will just sit back and see how it all plays out.

David Cay Johnson discussing this kind of stuff:

Alba's Unintentional Commentary On The Not For Profit Industrial Complex Goes Unnoticed

2009-06-10T18:51:00.000-07:00

June 10 Commentary

(Image courtesy of the morons @ The Lost Ogle)

Everyone who has no interest about the types of things I discuss in this blog can not stop talking about the Jessica Alba Shark preservation poster "controversy". As is to be expected, the story on this matter "Actress Jessica Alba regrets shark signs in Oklahoma City" is the most discussed on The Oklahoman website, as it is easier to worry about this non-sense rather than things of any importance.

What could have given the discussion some merit, I believe, would be to point out the irony of Alba putting a picture of a shark on the heroes of the $1.7 trillion not-for-profit Industrial complex, The United Way. Sure some not-for-profits, NGOs, et. al do some good work, but things have gotten way too far out of control.

The Central Oklahoma chapter director Bob Spinks issued an angry statement in the piece, saying "We find it unfortunate that Ms. Alba chose to vandalize a United Way billboard”.

I find it unfortunate that in 2007 (last available figures available) Mr. Spinks received a ridiculous salary of $145,127. No doubt he was angry, not nice to mess with fancy guys like that!

There is an excellent book I pointed out awhile back entitled "The Revolution Will Not Be Funded" which accurately presents the realities of how far overboard the not-for-profit's have become, and I highly recommend picking up a copy and doing some thinking on the matter.

Some worthwhile charities Alba (She's being pressured into donating for her "crimes") and others (Wealthy Mr. Spinks too!) can donate to, instead of The United Way: Turquoise Mountain, Results International.

Celebrate Diversity, Oklahoman Style!

2009-06-09T20:29:00.000-07:00

June 9 Editorials

While reading today's editorials, I was reminded of a scene in The Blues Brothers. Jake and Elwood are asking a nice bartender lady what kinds of music they play at their bar, and she promptly replies "Oh! We got both kinds! Country, and Western!"

Today's editorials remind me of that. Only if one were to ask the writers what types of diversity they have in their writing, they might reply "ohh all kinds! We got endorsement of Pinochet' style neo-liberalism kind, we got the suppress the working class kind, and we got the whadda you gonna believe, us our your lyin' eyes kind!"

I will not go in any particular order, and start off with their "suppress the working class" kind, an editorial entitled "Despite GM restructuring, taxpayers should be uneasy: Is a better GM ahead?" In this piece, the writers are quick to point out the "notorious job banks". The story with these, is that laid-off GM workers (idle workforce that would fill-in from time to time for workers on vacation actually....) were paid 95% of their salaries to "sit around and do crossword puzzles".

The reality is much more complex. Ignoring that reality for now, I think what is most offensive to the writers is that these cost the company upwards of $300m, and that went to "only!" 7,000 employees.

If one does the math, the offensive part is that 1,750 reserve force/laid-off workers received the equivalent of what the editorial staff's friend Aubrey McClendon was rewarded in a bonus last year ($75million! Was this even discussed in the editorial pages?) for his part in helping erase $30billion of the Chesapeake shareholders wealth.

That it should take such a small amount of hard-working American's to receive the equivalent of McClendon did is simply unacceptable, especially if you consider all the good propaganda out there about job banks and crossword puzzles and whatnot (at least they didn't say seek 'n find puzzles.)

But as I have stated before, the most controversial thing in the past Presidential Election, in my opinion, was not Health Care, Iraqistan, Gay Marriage, etc...rather it was the not so serious suggestion that working people, the folks who create the bulk of our countries wealth have some right to share in that wealth.

Before I go on (without getting into things ignored by the staff like bonuses to Goldman Sachs workers and all the rest, folks who played a huge part in what we are now facing) I want to admit that I do not think stock market prices are the be all and end all of how you judge a company, and thus maybe I was a bit hard on Aubrey.

However when it is convenient, I assume the editors do assume share-prices are everything. So let us note that on the day this editorial was written, GM stock went up almost fifty-percent, and today it went up another twenty-percent. Traders might note this and consider how they buy and sell based upon what the brilliant Oklahoman editorial staff rant and rave about. More than doubling your money is not a bad couple days "work". We also might note that this was no question ignored by the writers.

Next, and editorial entitled "Walk balk: Oklahoma City discourages pedestrian traffic" discusses how our city "...Of 500 American urban places, ranks last in 'walkability.' Not only is walking not encouraged, it’s actually discouraged with public policy, an urban design consultant says."

The article does not discuss the "300 miles of sidewalks we're building!" Cornett discussed during his appearance on the Ellen Degeneres Show so I do not know whatever became of all that business. But one thing that did kind of jump off the page is that once again, the city has hired a super-fancy consultant to solve all of our problems. Here is a picture of the consultant Jeff Speck's fancy three-story house in D.C, which makes me wonder about just how much the city is throwing at this problem:

View more of the fancy
home we're helping pay
for here!

So this is more of the "We got endorsement of Pinochet' style neo-liberalism kind!" rant-and-rave about "wasted money thrown at problems" when the money might more often than not benefit the people, not the hot-shot developers. The Oklahoman never has problems with stuff like this, or millions of dollars subsidizing stupid Outlet Malls on I-40, or what is now upwards of $250m going to subsidize wealthy Basketball Team owners. If people want a piece of the action, they need to stop working at jobs and attend more elegant dinner parties at the Red Prime Steak House. They should know this!

The last piece, "Weak or strong: Management styles help shape cities" is pretty simple. It discusses the Oklahoma City vs. Tulsa city management differences, and how Tulsa does not have a city manager. The Editors go on to, brace yourself, state that "...Cornett is a presence and has done a terrific job." Anyone with a functiong brain knows the story. Cornett is NOT a Conservative, as he constantly likes to say (as does his mayor buddy up in Charlotte.) The "gains" our City has made have all come on the backs of the tax-payers, and the real costs of ignoring everything outside of Bricktown in most cases is something that will be felt by many in the near future.

People who know how to look will no doubt realize that the stance taken by "America's Most Conservative Newspaper!" is that hopefully people will believe them, and not their lying eyes regarding the things they write about Mayor Cornett and other nice guys like him they support. Pretty sad I think, as is The Oklahoman's form of diversity they practice in their editorials.

HISPANIC GOP LEADER CONDEMNS RACIST SOTOMAYOR CARTOON

2009-06-09T11:36:00.000-07:00

One Last Thing On The Sotomayor Cartoon

I just received this from Mike Collins, of Mike Collins Public Relations in DC. Collins is a former national spokesperson for the Republican Party and one of the principal operatives involved in the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress.

HISPANIC GOP LEADER CONDEMNS RACIST SOTOMAYOR CARTOON

Leading GOP Activist Who Helped Secure Sotomayor Nomination to District Court Demands Apologies from Creators’ Syndicate and Oklahoman;“A depth of ignorance and insensitivity … that is truly appalling,” says Niño

WASHINGTON (June 6) – A prominent Hispanic Republican activist and fundraiser has demanded a formal apology from Creators’ Syndicate and The Oklahoman newspaper in Oklahoma City, OK, for an editorial cartoon circulated by Creators’ Syndicate that appeared in The Oklahoman’s Tuesday editions. The cartoon depicted Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a human piñata and President Obama wearing a sombrero with a caption that read, “Fiesta time at the confirmation hearing.”

“This grotesque insult requires a formal editorial apology from both Creators’ Syndicate and The Oklahoman,” said Jose Niño, a former President of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce who, besides co-Chairing the conservative Hispanic Alliance for Prosperity Institute, has been a major fundraiser for the campaigns of President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain and other Republican candidates and conservative causes.

Niño, who heads an international business development and financial services company, is a board member of the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce and previously served on the Small Business Advisory Board of the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago.

In 1992, he was tapped by then-President George H.W. Bush to secure Congressional support for the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. “In each of my meetings with her, in 1992 and ever since, I have consistently found her to be intelligent, focused and persuasive,” Niño wrote in a letter to Creators’ Syndicate President Richard S. Newcombe and Oklahoman publisher David Thompson. “She and President Obama do not deserve to be portrayed in such an offensive way – nobody does.”

“Having grown up, as I did, in the 1950s and ‘60s, Judge Sotomayor is no stranger to the sting of ethnic and racial hostility. From her earliest days in elementary school, she and millions of other Hispanic Americans faced challenges that, even now, all persons of color must overcome. As a woman she also faced sexism, but as a Latina, she confronted a particularly virulent strain known as machismo. That she nevertheless persevered to be nominated to ever-more influential positions on the federal bench by three different Presidents of both political Parties is an inspiring example to all Americans, and a credit to her courage and determination. Your Syndicate and newspaper should be ashamed for playing to these awful stereotypes in your portrayal of this highly capable woman.”

Noting that Judge Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, not Mexican, Niño wrote that “your depiction of the stereotypical Mexican piñata and sombrero, and your use of the phrase ‘fiesta time’ clearly show a depth of ignorance and insensitivity on your part that is truly appalling.”

The full text of Mr. Nino’s letter to Creators’ Syndicate President Richard S. Newcombe and The Oklahoman’s publisher, David Thompson, follows:

“Dear Mr. Newcombe and Mr. Thompson:

“As a proud Hispanic American of Mexican descent and a lifelong Republican, I am deeply offended by the insulting cartoon that was circulated by Creators’ Syndicate and reprinted by The Oklahoman on Tuesday depicting Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a human piñata, President Obama wearing a Mexican sombrero and the caption, ‘Fiesta Time at the Confirmation Hearing.’

“Since Judge Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, not Mexican, your depiction of the stereotypical Mexican piñata, sombrero and use of the phrase ‘fiesta time’ clearly show a depth of ignorance and insensitivity on your part that is truly appalling. Judge Sotomayor and President Obama do not deserve to be portrayed in such an offensive way – nobody does.

“I have been privileged to know Judge Sotomayor since 1992, when I was asked by President George H.W. Bush to urge my friends in Congress to support her confirmation as U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York. In each of my meetings with her, in 1992 and ever since, I have consistently found her to be intelligent, focused and persuasive.

“Having grown up, as I did, in the 1950s and ‘60s, Judge Sotomayor is no stranger to the sting of ethnic and racial hostility. From her earliest days in elementary school, she and millions of other Hispanic Americans faced challenges that, even now, all persons of color must overcome. As a woman she also faced sexism, but as a Latina, she confronted a particularly virulent strain known as machismo. That she nevertheless persevered to be nominated to ever-more influential positions on the federal bench by three different Presidents of both political Parties is an inspiring example to all Americans, and a credit to her courage and determination. Your Syndicate and newspaper should be ashamed for playing to these awful stereotypes in your portrayal of this highly capable woman.

“This grotesque insult requires a formal editorial apology from both Creators’ Syndicate and The Oklahoman, at once. I await your reply.”

What Would The Oklahoman Write If Bush Did This?

2009-06-08T22:55:00.001-07:00

June 9 Commentary

What if Bush gave a speech in Cairo, and a few days later the March 14 movement pulled of a miraculous victory in Lebanon. I can see him on the carrier again out front Beirut with the proverbial "Mission Accomplished!" banner flying high!

I think Bloomberg actually puts it quite well:

(Note that Josh Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at OU is quoted in the article! Yes folks, I know some of the things I write seem far-fetched, but there is more than just a football team there!)

(Bloomberg) — Lebanon’s pro-Western coalition defeated the Iran-backed Hezbollah bloc to win re-election in a vote that may help President Barack Obama reinvigorate peace efforts in the Middle East.

The governing alliance headed by Saad Hariri gained 71 seats in yesterday’s election to the 128-member parliament, according to official results announced by Interior Minister Ziad Baroud at a press conference in Beirut today. The Hezbollah-led grouping won 57 seats, he said.

Victory for Hariri’s coalition comes days after Obama’s June 4 visit to Cairo and his call for a “new beginning” between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Hezbollah has opposed American policy in the region, mocked Arab allies of the U.S. for failing to help the Palestinians, and resisted international efforts to disband its militia, which fought a monthlong war with Israel in 2006.

...also it would be interesting to see what our pal Ronald Bouwman would write! I'd also like to point out that I am glad Bush did the "Mission Accomplished!" thing. Had he not, I think it is safe to say we'd soon be seeing Hillary on a carrier in front of Beirut....imagine what fun (and rightly so, for once) the editorial staff would have with that!

Update 6-10 : Obama wins an election in the Middle East : Lebanon's voters gave the White House the victory it wanted -- with a lot of help from Hezbollah. By Juan Cole

We Don't Know History, But We know We Like Cheap Tacos

2009-06-07T22:57:00.000-07:00

June 8 Editorial

In today's bizarre piece "Raw deal: Obama ditches trade for health", the writers start off with "It appears the Obama administration is sacrificing free trade for health care."

Before I go into this initial statement, let me bring out my friend Ulysses S. Grant. Ulysses was upset about how England was such a protectionist society for so long (rivaled only by The United States and a few other now well-off countries in the 19th and 20th centuries) and all the sudden was forcing free trade upon it's neighbors. He said:

"...For centuries England has relied on protection, has carried it to extremes, and has obtained satisfactory results from it. There is no doubt that it is to this system that it owes its present strength. After two centuries, England has found it convenient to adopt free trade because it thinks that protection can no longer offer it anything. Very well then, gentlemen, my knowledge of our country leads me to believe that within two hundred years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade."

And to support my statement of "rivaled only by The United States and a few other now well-off countries in the 19th and 20th centuries", here is a chart "Average tariff rates on manufactured products for selected developed countries in their early stages of development". That shows how countries who use subsidies and tariffs, and are not forced into free-trade until they are ready are the ones that succeed.

So back to the bizarre introductory statement. At first, I was hopeful that the editors for some reason were going to say something useful. Instead, their statement reads more like "tooth-brushers sacrificing toothpaste for clean healthy teeth".

Dean Baker writes about Free Trade and Healthcare often, and in his piece We Spend Twice as Much on Health Care as Other Rich Countries -- and What Do We Get for It? he points out:

"If the self-proclaimed 'free traders,' who dominate the economics profession and policy debates, actually were free traders, they would be pushing hard to allow people in the United States to benefit from international trade in medical services in the same way that US consumers have benefited from low cost imports of cars and clothes.

There are several obvious paths through which the United States could gain by freer trade in health care. First, we could construct trade deals that simplify the process through which foreigners can train to meet US standards for becoming doctors, dentists, and other highly paid medical specialists.

The point would be to set up procedures through which students in countries like Mexico, China, and India could train to meet our standards, and then would have the same ability to practice in the United States as US trained doctors...

An even simpler route for gaining from trade would be to allow Medicare beneficiaries in the United States to buy into the much cheaper health care systems in other countries. The government could split the savings with the beneficiaries, allowing them to pocket thousands of dollars a year, while saving the government the same amount. The receiving country could even get a premium over its costs in order to give it an incentive to take part in the program.

Finally, the government could try to standardize rules around the rapidly growing industry of medical tourism. Every year, tens of thousands of patients travel to Thailand, India, and other countries to have major medical procedures performed at prices that are often less than one-tenth as much as those in the United States. The savings can easily offset the cost of travel for the patient and several family members. If facilities were regulated and clear rules established for legal liability, then more patients would be able to take advantage of the potential cost saving.

However, the free traders are not interested in promoting free trade in health care. They would rather just tell us that there is nothing that can be done about exploding health care costs in the United States. This might have something to do with the fact that the primary beneficiaries of protectionism in health care are doctors and dentists, not autoworkers and steel workers (and the drug and medical supply industry)."

For a second there, I thought the brilliant Oklahoman editorial guys were going to say something sensible like this, instead they are trying to prove Ulysses S. Grant correct that we are nothing but the disgraceful hypocrites that the British were in his days.

The Editorial staff rants and raves about Democrats suppressing "Free Trade" agreements with Panama and Colombia (something that will only upset a handful of Americans) and quote a foolish statement from "The Hill" newspaper "Now the administration is backing away (from free trade policies), fearing a messy intramural fight over trade could spoil efforts to pass health care by summer’s end."

My guess is that they found this quote after browsing their scholarly piece "50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill 2008".

The Oklahoman writers go on to discuss some things Ron Kirk says about the matter, and it isn't surprising. Kirk's appointment by Obama as Trade Representative was almost as disgraceful as the appointments of Penny Pritzker, Larry Summers, and Robert Rubin. Folks the editors can get along with since their interests are only in the wealthy and not the working class who make the country great, and are victimized by things like so-called "Free Trade Agreements". And no, it isn't just "Big Labor" who is against these things, as they say in this idiotic piece.

But the bottom line on so-called Free Trade is that almost everyone outside of millionaires and billionaires in our country are against it, and it is disgraceful to tell countries that they can't grow in the same fashion as we did, and as did other successful countries. There are almost none that have prospered free from strong tariffs and subsidies, watch the Ha-Joon Chang video on the right to learn more about this stuff, things like Alexander Hamilton's "Infant Industry" theories (that we practiced countless times) on bringing up your countries industry through tariffs and subsides until it can operate on it's own, something the editors at The Oklahoman want to deny struggling countries like Colombia and Panama so that Ed Kelley and J.E McReynolds can continue to get cheap taco salads at Taco Bell.

Acknowledge Some Bad Things, Ignore Others

2009-06-07T00:59:00.000-07:00

June 7 Editorial

This past week, The People's Republic of China celebrated the 20th anniversary of brutally suppressing a movement of the people by purchasing Hummer.

Danny Schechter ran an interesting letter from an individual by the name of Ann Lau a few days ago on the Tiananmen Square anniversary topic, and I think it is interesting:

The blood of Tiananmen became a salvation for the people in Eastern Europe. For on July 7, 1989, in the Romanian capital of Bucharest, Gorbachev signaled to the Eastern bloc leaders that the Soviet Union would not use force to interfere with reform. Aware of worldwide condemnation of the PRC, Gorbachev did not want another Tiananmen massacre.

Just as the Tiananmen students began by asking for an end to corruption, the demonstrators in East Germany asked for the freedom to travel. The Tiananmen students showed the world the power of peaceful demonstration and the citizens of the Eastern bloc took notice. By November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell.

We remember the dream, we remember the hope, we remember that time in the Spring of 1989 when the Chinese people, led by the students gave each other a gift, the gift of freedom, the freedom from fear.

May the memories of Tiananmen Spring live and will one day flourish.

- - -

Would The Oklahoman ever concede that it was anything beyond Ronald Reagan blinking an eyelash that could have been a factor in something like this? I doubt it quite sincerely.

So anyway, today the lovers of human rights also known as The Editorial Staff of The Oklahoman are talking about how "...Pretending Tiananmen Square didn’t occur is a reminder that true freedom — the freedom for people to disagree with their government — still is withheld from billions of Chinese by leaders accountable only to themselves."

As I wrote yesterday, people in Israel are standing up to Avigdor Lieberman and the other small handful of radicals in Israel proposing laws to criminalize people who commemorate the Nakba. It is serious business, and exactly the kind of thing the Editorial staff discusses in this piece. However to this date they haven't mentioned this subject. I can only assume that either they agree with the racist Lieberman and his small circle of friends, or that they are too stupid to even know this is going on over there.

There are other things like this, for example Turkey's refusal to admit to the genocide of the Armenian's in WWI. They pretend it didn't happen which is certainly ironic in that the man who coined the term "Genocide", Raphael Lemkin initially took interest in these things and became an amazing lifetime activist because of what Turkey did (read Samantha Power's excellent book "Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" for more). The Oklahoman Editorial staff from a quick search does not talk about that either.

The Editors also write, ignoring things they've supported in recent years (The invasion and occupation of Iraq, the re-writing of their perfectly servicable constitution so their industries could be handed over to multi-nationals comes immediatley to mind) "...The (PRC) government says the violence was necessary to maintain social order, which paved the way for market-oriented policies that turned China into an economic dynamo." When we do it, it's no big deal. When they do, big problems.

But it shouldn't surprise anyone that they are willing to discuss China's disgraceful response to their crimes while ignoring many others. Remember, this is a paper that wont publish anyone left of Sally Kern's letter to the editor all the while publishing hundreds from Ronald Bouwman.

Today's Cartoon

Media Matters has a good commentary on the
Fox-manufactured Obama "apology tour"

Can The Oklahoman write or run anything that is an original idea, even if it is a bunch of crap?

What Wouldn't Brandon Dutcher Do?

2009-06-05T13:54:00.000-07:00

June 5 Commentary

I have discussed this chap Brandon Dutcher a few times in previous blogs. He is a nice fellow who works at the local Heritage Foundation spin-off "The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs". He is always ranting and raving about school's here being overly-funded and teachers being paid too much, all the while for drawing a $82,500 salary (more than Amy Goodman makes at DemocracyNow!) for doing little more than "tweeting" and attending a few elegant dinner parties.

The Oklahoman turns to him frequently, when they need to prove that schools here need to be handed over to Wal-Mart and Jerry Falwell, as every opinion he gives is so fantastic and while not backed by facts, well, we all know what his hero said about those things... "Facts are stupid....I mean...stubborn things.."

I have been known to rant and rave about the "Paid to think by the makers of tanks" 501c(3) crowd, and to be honest I probably am a bit jealous of them . It must be nice to get paid to get paid big bucks to do this stuff that really is about 1/100th as hard as working at the store, fixing cars, waiting tables and so on, positions that are paid a fraction and with no benefits. And although the not for profit industrial complex (critiuqed quite nicely in the book "The Revolution Will Not Be Funded") is way too large and in many ways is there to preserve the status-quo, some good things are being done.

I would like to point out this article in Ha'aretz today, and encourage you to read some of the responses from Israeli's and American Jews, which are almost all positive. I post this because The Oklahoman Editorial staff pretends to know things about Israel, yet I am quite convinced that is was people like them who led Israel into it's first defeat in a couple thousand years in '06 (read about the massive lobbies from radical-right "Christian groups" who demanded their reps support an Israeli attack on Lebanon...stuff from Hagee et al if you like).

The piece "Are teachers introducing Nakba to students against state's wishes?" By Or Kashti discusses the good work of "... Zochrot, a non-government organization, and is meant to serve the Jewish educational system for pupils aged 15 and above, and includes history plus literary and personal views on the Nakba, as well as discussion of the ways the issue has been sidelined in public discourse."

This is very important stuff. You might have heard of a bill proposed by the radical Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that bans commemorating the Nakba, and will jail those who participate in events commemorating it up to three years. It has passed the initial stages and will be decided quite soon, luckily though good people like Zochrot are fighting the good fight.

I don't think anyone here would argue that The Trail of Tears should not be discussed in American schools, and this is no different. These are the things a good paper should occasionally discuss. And these are the things monied, influential people like Dutcher should look into if they really care about Israel, and if they really care about good education. We need a good paper. Maybe some day we will have one.

You Can't Just Make This Stuff Up, Guys!

2009-06-05T07:31:00.000-07:00

June 5 Editorial

In Today's editorial, "Obama opens the dialogue; Muslim world must answer" the typical "We hate this guy, and wouldn't mind if someone knocked him off..." (kind of like this guy I saw at the Tea Party at the Oklahoma State Capitol)

...attitude is presented. However, the writers do establish that Obama's speech (which they mentioned of course in yesterday's editorial "...was formatted for his teleprompter weeks ago". Important to note the teleprompter! Big points from the dear leaders on the far right that want you to reiterate that as often as possible!) was not really all that terrible.

One thing though that they point out was quite wrong for him to say was that "...Obama touted democracy but added 'no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other' — a straw-man argument since that was never U.S. policy."

Are you kidding me?

Whoever wrote this either does not know their history, or is giving us straight propaganda to try and make it appear if Obama is some kind of rotten liar. And there are countless examples out there of The U.S intervening in other countries, in numerous ways to try and impose systems of governance.

A recent example would no doubt be Iraq. Why did we force them to re-write their perfectly servicable constitution, especially at a time of war (We weren't even able to get ours out for ten years after we declared our independance)?

Naomi Klein points out on this issue:

The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The coalition provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq’s constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.

On September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized ; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories ; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream".

There are countless other examples (Russia, Chile', Iran etc...), and a good place to look to understand these things would be her excellent book "The Shock Doctrine". I don't expect the writers at The Oklahoman to look into the facts on this issue, but I think people who read this paper should.

We're a Big League City Finally! We've Made National News!

2009-06-05T00:32:00.000-07:00

June 4 commentary

The running of the Sotomayor cartoon has gotten the editorial page folks some attention. Sadly, there are much more serious wrong-doings on their part that go unnoticed.

CNN

MSNBC

Update: Gawker has a feature Today: New York Falling Behind in Racist Cartoon Race

The Oklahoman, a newspaper in, we think, Wyoming, published this bizarre racist cartoon about Sonia Sotomayor. We can't believe they beat Sean Delonas!

The New York Post's resident bigot funnyman has not drawn even one amusing caricature of Sotomayor. She is Hispanic, Sean! This should be a no-brainer! Is he at his desk staring at one depiction of her serving Swine Flu-laden tacos and another of her in a maid's uniform, paralyzed with indecision? Is he unable to draw a sombrero? Is he just upset that Obama didn't pick a homosexual? Who knows! But we are disappointed.

Also, an AP article is out and appears on the NY Times website.
Dallas Morning News Blog
Hispanic Business Press
Washington Post
Daily Kos
Editor and Publisher
The Daily Voice
Celebrity News Examiner
The Huffington Post
etc...

Empathy In The Bush Years

2009-06-02T22:47:00.000-07:00

June 3 Commentary

It should be obvious to the casual observer the past few days, regarding Sotomayor coverage, that The Oklahoman editorial staff has been paying attention to the dear leaders of the far right (Rove, Armey, Limbaugh et. al.) more than usual.

In a fine piece entitled "Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy", George Lakoff explains quite clearly why the individuals from whom The Oklahoman Editorial staff get "their ideas" are saying what they are saying, and doing the things they are doing.

Before I get into the things Lakoff discusses in the article, I would like to share a blurb from an Oklahoma Editorial written right after the Iowa Primaries, when Mike Huckabee and President Obama won.

See change: Obama, Huckabee ride possibility politics
Published: January 6, 2008

"...Huckabee also defeated a better-funded opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Huckabee's message of change was based on empathy for the concerns of real Americans — economic and cultural — which he communicated artfully. Voters liked Huck." and then the writers conclude, quite interestingly "Huckabee found a formula for big victories that others ignore at their own expense. They connected with voters on a different level, sensing something not satisfied by conventional themes or policy proposals."

Now to the Lakoff article. In the piece he states a number of things that make it quite clear why we are seeing this attack on the issue of "empathy" from the far right. Here are a few I will point out, and if you would like to read the whole article I have included a link up top.

"(the form of empathy Obama tries to embrace gives) ...a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works...Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of 'justice.' It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation."

Lakoff goes on to write, agreeing with what The Oklahoman editors claimed was the reasons Iowan's chose Mike Huckabee "...President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful?" It is interesting that the editors spoke of Huckabee and his empathy, and how those he defeated "...ignore at their own expense". Now they are treating Obama in a manner that placing importance on empathy should be something that will cost him.

Before I go on, I want to address something that is quite an issue to The Oklahoman. I have pointed out they quite often play the "We are a Republic! Not a Democracy!" card many times, and always when it favors them (however they point to popular polls when it is an issue they side with quite regularly). The CIA World Factbook notes that our type of Government is: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition. For those who might cringe when they read that Obama discusses things like the "basis of our democracy", they might consider whether or not they want to be like Pelosi and assume the CIA is giving us bad information.

Lakoff continues laying out his case that the far right is creating myths by portraying Obama's selection by reframing empathy to make it attackable by portraying it as "emotion and personal feeling" rather than his preferred "real empathy" which is the basis for what we should be as a functioning Republic (with a strong democratic tradition).

A case for empathy based on emotion and personal feeling, in my opinion, is one that the editors wanted France to embrace during the run-up to wars in Afghanastan and Iraq. War is a very serious thing, and not to be decided by people who rely on feelings. Pretty much anyone can tell you that, however, one would not know it by reading this December 17, 2001 piece:

Those Fickle French: Aid to Accused Terrorist Not Surprising
(article only available in archives)

In this editorial, the staff writes about "....France’s announcement that it would offer legal help to accused terrorist (French citizen of Moroccan birth) Zacarias Moussaoui (as we did with Timothy McVeigh)" and go on to explain how this action makes them feel how "... Frankly, we expect nothing less from France."

Continuing, the writers put themselves in a bind by saying "... Now, with the gesture toward Moussaoui and whispered concerns about the use of military tribunals in limited cases, France is showing once again that its empathy for America is somewhat fickle."

Now, we all know what has happened in the seven-plus years since this was written. Decisions to go into two wars (we will not win), and assuming that we will do well and others will back us based on emotion and personal feeling, is not a good thing. It is now perfectly clear that France made proper decisions, putting aside an immature form of empathy (the one the right so much wants to convince us Obama is after) and doing the right things.

Furthermore, an interesting article by William Pfaff entitled "As Smash-and-Grab Capitalism Collapses, the French Economy Shines" shows why the far right wants to make it appear as if Obama/Sotomayor are individuals who will make poor decisions, and bring about bad things for us:

“French household debt is half that in America, no bank has failed, none has been nationalized, executive pay is reasonable, and “the income gap between the top 10 percent and the bottom 10 percent is far smaller than in Britain or America.” The country is crisscrossed by 230-mph TGV trains, 80 percent of the power is nuclear (and more is exported), its auto producers are in reasonably good shape, Air France is the most profitable airline in the world, and French-dominated Airbus sells more planes than Boeing.”

Lakoff makes an interesting statement regarding another reason the far-right is playing this game. He writes "...In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the 'liberal elite' as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need." He brings up how dear leaders like Newt Gingrich are playing the race card with Sotomayor and explains this is because the charge "...has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics. "

Politics are complex things, however if we embrace the reality that we are the freest country in the world, and that part of the freedom includes increadible access to facts and history, not just access to delicious taco salads 24/7, we can understand these things quite well. In a January 21, 2008 editorial, we read:

Public affair : 10 years later, Lewinsky scandal echoes

The writers confirm that things can be complicated by starting off their piece with "...The reverberations are still felt, a number of questions it raised (are) still unanswered." The piece is centered on Hillary and her campaign for the Presidency, and the write that she is where she is at that time due to the fact that "...The scandal arguably launched Hillary Clinton's solo political career, the wronged wife winning a Senate seat in 2000. Her fortunes can still see-saw on the Lewinsky scandal — empathy for the betrayal she suffered; suspicion that she, blaming the 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' was an enabler."

Note how they believe the dear leaders of the far-right and their ways, parlayed with empathy were the foundation for her rise. For the first time they tell us irrational empathy is bad, but fail to explain that perhaps a real "vast right-wing conspiracy" did exist, one that kept Bill in office despite his heinous crime, lying under oath (obviously a crime worse than the brutal Iraq sanctions, doing away with Glass-Stegal, pardoning Rich without blinking an eyelash in the general direction of Peltier, etc...), for had they Gore would more than likely have an easier go at it in 2000. But that is just a side-note here, what is important to note that psuedo-empathy brought someone like Hillary to power. Someone The Oklahoman likes less than Huckabee and this fancy CEO:

Finding empathy the hard way, By Rick Hudson
Published August 27, 2004

In this piece written by The CEO of R.L. Hudson & Co., a Tulsa-based supplier of seals and molded goods, Hudson tells his story of how his company "..recently built our new headquarters in Broken Arrow..." and during the course of the building they "...learned that all of the restrooms in the building had to accommodate people with disabilities. The washbasins could not be installed in cabinets; they had to be open and wheelchair accessible. And there were other considerations, such as a required elevator if we added upper floors. It involved a lot of extra cost."

This is relevant because Hudson was once a man who was a "...conservative businessman, and normally like as little government interference in my life as possible. I was suspicious about the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), not because I’m against people with disabilities but because I’m afraid of the frivolous lawsuits and outright fraud that accompany far-reaching government programs."

He goes on to discuss having an accident, and seeing what it is like to be disabled for some time. Hudson essentially states that he is pleased the Supreme Court has shown sensible empathy to disabled folks (not irrational empathy that allows a man with a limp to bomb Afghani wedding parties to take out his anger at his plight), as is evident in the cases listed here. It is hard to imagine a piece like this being run in The Oklahoman at this time.

Concluding, Lakoff states that "...the attacks on Sotomayor work as attacks on Obama and progressive thought. They are also attacks on "moderate" conservatives, who think with progressives on many issues. The attacks activate radical conservative ideas in the brains of those who voted for Bush and the 47 percent of the voters who voted for McCain." and continue "...They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country (Folks like Dick Armey who spent increadible amounts of money, and explained this by saying "to the victor goes the spoils"). Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again." and he states what people who think this is wrong should do about all of this.

I will conclude with one more Bush era, pro "emotion and personal feeling" empathy pieces. And it is one many of the readers The Oklahoman preys upon consider important, and that is our relationship with Israel.

Shoulder to Shoulder: A Wounded Israel Needs U.S. Help

(article only available in archives 12.17.01)

I have written a few things about The Oklahoman's foolish opinions regarding this topic. If we assess their self-proclaimed "Friend of Israel" status, and see what results have come from people like these guys having a voice, we can learn something. One of which is quite obvious that like the dear leaders on the far-right, the gospels are something they know very little about.

In the late '01 editorial, the typical things are stated. They mention 9-11 a few times and truly awful things like a "..new terrorist suicide bombing attacks that left at least 26 Israelis dead in Jerusalem and Haifa over the weekend..." and conclude with "...Yes, how well we understand now. With new empathy, the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with its friend Israel against terrorism — while demanding that Yasser Arafat declare his final loyalty. "

The Editor's cheered for emotional based empathy in dealing with Israel and it's issues and they got it. For those of us who know our recent history, in 2004 we decided the UN was not such a bad thing, and authored Resolution 1559 that required the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon. Two years later this gave Israel strong encouragement to go into the only war they have lost in a couple thousand years. The emotional, feeling-based empathy embraced by the Bush Administration and nice guys like John Hagee, Joel "Shining a light on the thief in the night" Rosenberg and all of the dear leaders was no doubt something, if embraced by Obama and Sotomayor, that would not a good thing.

It would be good if The Oklahoman could present more evidence on the subject of their rants, however all we have is a game from these people that says Obama and Sotomayor possess a harmful type of empathy rather than the real type needed for good governance. The evidence is quite clear that everything they accuse Obama and Sotomeyer of possibly being, they embraced during the Bush years. I do not think that I need to point out to you that this is wrong.

Just When You Thought They Couldn't Get Any Worse

2009-06-02T01:05:00.001-07:00

June 2 Editorial Cartoon

Amazing. The Oklahoman is such a lovely, Christian paper isn't it? I could make some pretty good cartoons about this slob, but I wont.

Oklahoman Editorial Writer J.E McReynolds (405) 475-3469 jmcreynolds@oklahoman.com

Surprise! The Oklahoman Is Not Being Fair/Balanced With Sotomayor!

2009-06-01T18:06:00.000-07:00

June 1 Cartoon

The Oklahoman has started it's war on Sotomayor today with this infantile cartoon. It is no mystery that they are doing this, as it is no mystery that they will offer totally unbalanced coverage of the coming conformation.

For fun, lets look back at their coverage of Alito last go 'round. The paper ran five staff editorials during the run up, and all the typical elements of Oklahoman editorials are there. Hypocrisy, plagiarism, little detail to truth, etc.... :

1.8.06 Asking Alito : Qualifications should be hearings’ focus

WHEN U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr. appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, it will launch perhaps the most contentious confirmation battle on Capitol Hill since Robert Bork’s in 1987.
For those who don’t remember, the Bork confirmation became a donnybrook. Nominated by President Reagan, the former solicitor general’s outspoken conservatism was savaged by liberal special interest groups, and ultimately he was rejected by the Senate.
Conservatives have since been spoiling for a high-stakes showdown over judicial philosophy, and
they may get it with Sam Alito.
Since President Bush nominated Alito to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in October, much has been made of Alito’s rulings as a federal appellate court judge and his positions as a young member of the Reagan administration.
Unlike new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Alito has an extensive judicial paper trail from 15 years on the bench (compared with Roberts’ three). During the past two months, that record has been mined by some of the same groups that torpedoed Bork. Unlike the Roberts confirmation, opponents of judicial conservatism are planning a spirited fight against Alito.
Part of it is Alito’s length of judicial service, part of it is the politics of succeeding O’Connor. Whereas Roberts was seen as a conservative replacing another conservative (late Chief Justice William Rehnquist), Alito is seen as more conservative than O’Connor, who frequently was the high court’s swing vote in key cases. As a result, liberal groups have been saying that Alito would turn back the clock on women’s rights and civil rights. They’ve claimed he would endanger civil liberties because he has written about the need for a strong executive branch in our system of government.
Our sense is Judge Alito is a brilliant but careful jurist — in the sense he respects the Constitution’s original intent and is disinclined to turn it inside out looking for new rights. Last week he received the American Bar Association’s highest recommendation, “well-qualified,” the same as Chief Justice Roberts.
Alito has had a distinguished career and has demonstrated he would professionally interpret the law. Starting with Monday’s hearings, the Senate should examine his qualifications and judicial temperament, not positions on litmus-test issues.
That way the process, however tough, will remain fair.

1.12.06 Nothing personal : Alito displays deft touch in exchange

ASHORT exchange on the first day of questioning for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito by the Senate Judiciary Committee highlighted a key philosophical divide over the proper role of judges in America.
Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., tried Tuesday to shake the nominee from his position that judges should be neutral arbiters of the law. Kohl was present last fall during confirmation hearings for new Chief Justice John Roberts, when Roberts likened judges to baseball umpires calling balls and strikes.
Kohl suggested to Alito that judicial interpreters of the Constitution can’t always be as neutral or detached as Roberts said. He said a number of landmark decisions by the court to protect civil liberties resulted because judges would “look beyond rigid legal doctrines that prevailed at the times of those rulings.”
The senator said the cases wouldn’t have come out the way they did if judges remained neutral, and he asked Alito to agree with him that certain pivotal cases require judges who will apply a “more expansive, imaginative view of the Constitution.”
One reason we think Judge Alito will be a good Supreme Court justice is that he rejects the view judges may use their imaginations to divine one thing or another from the Constitution. That’s judicial activism, pure and simple, usually seen in judges acting as legislators at the state and federal level.
Alito politely batted away Kohl’s argument, saying judges must be wary of substituting their views and policy judgments for the Constitution’s. While judges may identify principles under the Constitution’s broader provisions, he said that’s not the same thing as judges injecting their personal opinions on the “direction in which society should be moving into the decisionmaking process.”
The task of legislating is the realm of elected representatives. Judges should stick to the job of measuring legislation against the Constitution. If confirmed, Alito would help keep the two branches of government working in their appropriate roles.

1.13.6 Unruffled : Smear efforts don’t faze Alito

SENATE Judiciary Committee Democrats may yet manage to seriously rough up U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. But if the petty, smearing stuff they tried during his confirmation hearings is the worst they can do, then Alito is well on his way to joining the high court.
Alito proved himself intellectually sharp and personally humble while sparring with some of the committee’s Democrats during questioning, which ended Thursday. The nominee, rightfully so, consistently refused to be lured into discussing his views on key issues that might come before him as a justice, such as abortion.
On Wednesday this drew Democrats’ ire — even though Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated by President Clinton, set the modern standard for unresponsiveness to questions about potential cases.
So some tried sliming Alito, suggesting his nominal membership in an oddball Princeton alumni group from 20 years ago makes him a racist and a misogynist. They accused Alito of always ruling against “the little guy” as an appellate court judge, even though several cases suggest otherwise.
The grilling and smearing eventually got to the judge’s wife, Martha. At one point she left the hearing room in tears — a vivid illustration of the toll the modern, no-holds-barred confirmation process can take on nominees and their families.
Alito remained unruffled. As apparently is his nature, the bookish judge calmly disavowed association with the Princeton group and its views and said he would keep an open mind.
Although the hearings were both nasty and dull, what emerged was that Samuel Alito has the brains, legal experience and judicial temperament to be a fine Supreme Court justice. That he can weather political assaults on his character is just more evidence he’s the right man for the court.

1.14.06 Foolish risk : Alito deserves up-or-down vote

IT’S GOOD to hear California Democrat Dianne Feinstein discounting the likelihood Samuel Alito’s U.S. Supreme Court nomination will be filibustered on the Senate floor. Still, after confirmation hearings last week established Alito’s intellect, legal expertise, judicial temperament and overall suitability for the highest court in the land, some Democrats weren’t ready to give up the fight.
Over the weekend New York’s Charles Schumer still talked as if there were more to learn about someone with a 15-year record as a federal appellate judge who’d just undergone a weeklong grilling. Schumer wouldn’t rule out a filibuster to block Alito’s nomination indefinitely.
We realize Schumer and others are being pressured by liberal interest groups to fight tooth and nail to defeat Alito. But enough is enough. Judge Alito’s mainstream conservatism isn’t cause for denying him an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
Democratic moderates sense this, as does Feinstein. Although she disagrees with Alito on a number of issues, Feinstein said Sunday such disagreement isn’t a reason to keep him off the court by any means available, including a filibuster.
Filibustering Alito would go well beyond the Senate’s constitutional role of advising and consenting on judicial nominations. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was right when he said a filibuster would be an attempt to hijack the last presidential election — won by President Bush after campaign promises to nominate conservatives to the judiciary.
If they filibuster a nominee with Alito’s credentials, Senate Democrats will trigger a backlash, with Americans seeing a well-qualified candidate blocked by a partisan gimmick. They also would invite Republicans to use the same tactics with the next Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president.
The message Sunday from Feinstein is that it would be foolish for Democrats to risk both by trying to block someone as qualified as Samuel Alito.

1.27.06 Bloc party : Alito deserves better from Democrats

THE WAY some Democrats have behaved toward U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, we suppose Alito should feel lucky his nomination probably won’t be filibustered on the Senate floor. Thank goodness for small favors!
Seriously, it’s to the Senate’s shame this well-qualified jurist and good man probably will be confirmed with not much better than a party-line vote.
There was a time when the Senate rose above a nominee’s perceived liberalism or conservatism and based its consent on his or her legal intellect, judicial temperament and general capacity to serve as a justice on the highest court in the land. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated by President Clinton in 1993, won confirmation with 96 votes and no hint of a filibuster. Same thing the following year, when Clinton put forward Stephen Breyer and he was confirmed with 89 votes.
Alito’s thanks — for a distinguished career as a judge, federal prosecutor and government attorney — was a scrawny 10-8 party-line vote this week in the Judiciary Committee. Observers think he’ll be fortunate to get 60 votes from the full Senate. That’s more than enough for confirmation, but Alito deserves better.
The start of floor debate suggested party talking points and not clear, independent thinking are guiding too many senators. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said Alito “has voted to narrow (abortion rights), to restrict the rights that Americans hold dear.” Maryland Democrat Barbara Mikulski said Alito favors big business and the executive branch of government more than everyday Americans.
How unfortunate that opponents smear and distort trying to turn an honorable man into a caricature they can attack.
Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said Alito has a “respect for judicial restraint, an aversion to political agendas on the bench and a commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.” That used to be more than enough to win broad, bipartisan support from the Senate. Sadly, no more.

Troops Fight And Die For Our Right To Have Our Chicken Done Right And Nothing More, Claims The Oklahoman

2009-05-31T21:59:00.000-07:00

May 31 Editorial

In their multiple short blurb Sunday opinion section today, two things stand out to me. First, in a short piece "States frown at smiles" the Editors once again show their disapproval on the fact that the Voter ID proposals were vetoed by Governor Henry. They conclude the piece with "...we wonder why there was such a fuss about presenting a simple ID when exercising the privilege of voting."

In another piece, "Victim upgrades" as is to be expected the Editors show their rage at the fact that even the idea of hate crimes exists. They conclude with the statement "...legislation pending in Congress would allow victimhood upgrades for victims based on sexual status in addition to race, religion and national origin — despite a lack of evidence that "hate crime” laws prevent violence."

I want to say a couple things about these editorials. For the first, once again The Oklahoman as they always do are refusing to look to the massive data on voter rights bills, most importantly that there are no cases of voter fraud in our state (primarily because the penalties are so high for committing fraud at the voting booth) and rely solely on ideological reasoning. They do this on a daily basis, and I think it is pretty disgusting. We are the freest country in the world, and have access to so much information, and when we sweep all the facts about issues to the side, and rely on what we want for the things we write about, we are telling the people who fought and died for our rights to these freedoms that what they did was for little more than to give us 24/7 access to the Fresco Menu at Taco Bell. It couldn't possibly be for anything important like having access to information that would create a just society for all, right?

And regarding the second piece, I do not know a lot about studies on hate crimes, but could easily find them if I took some time to look. And I know the Editors do and I know they didn't take that time. But I do have one thing to contribute to this discussion. A few years ago, I was at a party and this punk was there. He was a guy who'd been in and out of jail, a couple times for violent crimes. I don't know how this came up, but someone started talking about hate crimes, and this guy said and I quote "Man! Don't ever be hittin' no gay person...I would never do that man....I know this guy, he beat up a gay #$%^$# and he got way more time than if he'd beaten up a normal dude..man, I swear I would never..."

The reason I heard this conversation, and know that there probably is likely studies that show hate crimes laws do prevent crimes, is that I have life experience, I've been all over the country, I've seen enough to know some things. The Oklahoman preys on people who haven't seen much, don't know much, and put faith in "leaders" (yes, some people see these people who write this garbage as leaders, and people they should trust).

I think I've made it obvious that this newspaper is a disgrace, and as Columbia Journalism has said, the worst newspaper in America. Thank goodness. If there was a worse one, who knows what shape our country would be in.

Today The Oklahoman Wants Affirmative Action!

2009-05-29T01:47:00.000-07:00

May 29 Editorial

Once again, The Oklahoman has changed it's ideological views to fit their needs. In an shockingly foolish editorial entitled "The new GM: Bankruptcy deal signals new era", the editorial staff concludes a pointless column with "...There’s also the potential for partisan mischief, detailed in a Washington Examiner report suggesting Chrysler dealers who contributed to Republicans are inordinately represented on the list of dealerships targeted for closing under its reorganization. GM also is paring dealerships, so stay tuned."

And once again, The Oklahoman is turning to a Heritage Foundation alum (Mark Tapsc ott) to spread disgraceful propaganda.

Nate Silver has already torn this non-sense apart, and it says a lot that The Oklahoman and their paid to think by the makers of tanks friends believe they can get away with this something this outlandish.

Silver did the research via the numerous campaign contribution tracker sites, and determined that 88% of people who own car dealerships donate to Republican campaigns. It is bizarre that The Oklahoman would get upset that just 4% more than this amount were shut down (92% of Chrysler dealers, apparently per the folks propagating this silliness) especially in that they are always so upset when minorites suggest that they should be equally represented in things. Here is what he says about all this:

"It shouldn't be any surprise, by the way, that car dealers tend to vote -- and donate -- Republican. They are usually male, they are usually older (you don't own an auto dealership in your 20s), and they have obvious reasons to be pro-business, pro-tax cut, anti-green energy and anti-labor. Car dealerships need quite a bit of space and will tend to be located in suburban or rural areas. I can't think of too many other occupations that are more natural fits for the Republican Party. Unfortunately, while we are still a nation of drivers, we are not a nation of dealers."

View Silver's analysis here

One more thing. Let's play a game, and pretend that this non-sense is true. Playing games is fun! Ok here goes. Not long ago I shared an article on Freedomworks' (a close ally to The Oklahoman) website that stated: "...In 1995, Democratic districts received an average of $35 million more in federal largesse than Republican districts, which seems roughly fair given that Democratic districts have more people in need of government aid. By 2001, the gap had not only reversed, it had increased nearly twentyfold, with GOP districts receiving an average of $612 million more than Democratic ones. Justifying this shift, then- Majority Leader Dick Armey said, 'To the victor goes the spoils'..." So, if Obama and friends truly did what they are accused of, they could just play the old game of "well, they did the same kind of thing!"

But reality is much different. Former Republican majority leader Dick Armey ADMITS to doing the kind of thing that these hoodlums are pretending Obama is doing! What on earth is wrong with these people? Has it really all gotten this bad?

The Oklahoman Hates Journalism Almost As Much As They Hate Teachers

2009-05-27T22:41:00.000-07:00

May 28 Editorial

This fall, Freshman Journalism Students will be given a lesson early on regarding "Who, What, When, Where, Why and How" which are the very basics of Journalism. In Thursday's editorial "Bright idea: Urban schools seek curriculum reform" the fine folks at The Oklahoman start out by telling us people working in education are currently focusing on innovation, as that is what will get them stimulus money.

They go on to state their opinions on what would be good for children, sort of a peer suggestion thing, and then go on to forget about the basics of Journalism, as always. They tell us of "Administrators in Tulsa and Oklahoma City" who were "..talking about curriculum reform before the stimulus money became a conversation." Then they go on to state "...They’ve described a partnership with two well-known education groups to keep what’s working and change what’s not."

Who, What, When, Where, Why and How?!?!? Can you give us ANY details on these super top secret Administrators and extra-super top secret education groups? I doubt this would be a problem for national security if they told us, however it might be a problem for people like Brandon Dutcher. Or better yet as Sarah Knopp writes in her fine essay Charter Sch ools and the Attack on Public Education "...The tendrils of Corporate America reach deep into our schools via nepotistic contracts--from the $3 billion testing industry accelerated under No Child Left Behind, to McGraw-Hill and its Reading First program pushed through by the Bush administration..." So, disclosure will be a big problem for those guys as well.

In short, do not trust The Oklahoma with your children.

Heaven Forbid We Should Start Producing Goods!

2009-05-27T02:14:00.000-07:00

May 27 Editorial Cartoon

It is no surprise that The Oklahoman Editorial folks are concerned that the dollar might lose some value. Recall during the Clinton years, it skyrocketed and the inflated dollar destroyed a number of manufacturing jobs in the States, as imports became very cheap.

Anyone who's brain works knows that China prefers our dollar to be inflated, so that we can afford to buy all of their crap. And if the dollar loses value, heaven forbid other countries will be able to afford our goods, and then people will be working in manufacturing jobs again making decent wages! That is something that elitists like The Oklahoman Editorial folks are horrified of, and for reasons that would take significant time to list.

Benham (MO) Clear Channel (TX) hello??!?!?!

2009-05-26T13:27:00.000-07:00

May 26 Editorial

In "Boomer bus: Stimulus cash rolls onto Edmond streets "The Editorial writer states, regarding a new transit system being implemented in Edmond using stimulus money "...The new operator will be Texas-based McDonald Transit...Those who believe Americans shouldn’t buy Japanese autos because the profits go to Tokyo should take note that Edmond will be sending its transit dollars to north Fort Worth instead of downtown Oklahoma City."

I don't have a problem with this, however I wish The Oklahoman would have advocated for local businesses to benefit from the NBA situation, which we paid for to the tune of now $1/4b (Sales Tax, Quality Jobs $$$, Use tax...). Benham, who is doing the upgrades to the stadium is out of Missouri, and Clear Channel who got the radio broadcast rights (after I pleaded with city council to try and advocate for locally owned Perry to get the rights**) is out of Texas.

Sadly, the Editors will only stand up for something when it is convenient. Saying anything negative about something Clay Bennett, Aubrey McClendon and friends are doing would just be too much for these cowards.

Stating Facts Is Important

2009-05-24T12:06:00.001-07:00

May 24th Editorial

In Sunday's editorial "Tie that binds: U.S. putting Israel in a difficult spot" gives vague opinions on how Obama is being too hard on Israel, stating things like "...Obama signaled that his administration believes peace would result if Israel would stop building Jewish settlements on the frontier and work harder for a two-state solution."

This is all good and fine, if this weren't just rhetoric. The Oklahoman seems to have an opinion that that Obama is a rhetoric kind of guy, when it is convenient for them, specifically at the end of the editorial when they state "..The new American administration appears unlikely to do anything beyond the usual diplomatic carrots and sticks to impede Tehran’s nuclear march..."

One way of knowing that Obama's "Tough Talk" (it wasn't) towards Netanyahu was just talk, one could start by looking at the latest budget in which Obama is giving more than a 10% raise in aid to Israel. Imagine what The Oklahoman would say if he cut it??? I imagine the front page of the paper would have a huge picture of Anne Frank and Elie Wiesel crying with a mushroom cloud behind them with a man-lands-on-moon font up top reading "OBAMA: WORSE THAN HITLER!!!"

But when he significantly raises their aide, which he just did it gets no mention. This is how irresponsible people like the Oklahoma Editorial staff operate.

Oh, also I think it is worth noting that like so many anti-semitic, "pro-Israel" entities, The Oklahoman hates the fact that over 75% of Jews went for Obama:

Image and Reality of Netanyahu & Obama

2009-05-22T01:20:00.001-07:00

May 22 Editorial Cartoon

The Oklahoman's disgraceful image of Netanyahu and Obama

and the reality

CJR on Gaza

-And don't forget peaceloving Avigdor Lieberman

Gaza cartoons by Carlos Latuff

RIP Paul Strasbaugh

2009-05-21T18:45:00.000-07:00

From The Oklahoman May 21

"Longtime Oklahoma City civic and business leader, Paul B. Strasbaugh, died May 20, 2009. He was 91. Paul loved Oklahoma City and the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce. For over six decades, Paul worked with other civic and business leaders to build a bigger and better Oklahoma City. Even though his fingerprints can be seen on the development of almost every major economic success for over a half century, he preferred to work behind the scenes. In fact, one of his favorite sayings was, "It is amazing how much you can accomplish when it doesn't matter who gets the credit." Paul began his distinguished career with the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce in 1946....

...In 1933, a new Eagle Scout, 16 year old Paul Strasbaugh, was selected by his fellow Eagle Scouts to make a presentation in the Oval Office to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Paul approached the President and said, "Mr. President, on the behalf of 1,500 scouts of the York Adams Area Council, I have the honor and privilege to present to you five dozen white roses symbolizing York County, Pennsylvania." President Roosevelt responded, "Isn't that marvelous." He took to heart the Scout Oath, which begins, "On my honor, I will do my duty, to God and my country?." As a member of what Tom Brokaw has called the "Greatest Generation," Paul did his duty in World War II as a combat participant in the Battle of the Bulge in Europe. His accomplishments are too numerous to list..."

Read the rest here

Oklahoman Sleight of Hand Masks Reality, History, The Scriptures, etc...

2009-05-21T00:07:00.000-07:00

May 21 Editorial

Thursday's editorial "Jobbed? Stat sleight of hand masks reality" quotes two neutral observers (he said jokingly), Libertarian in a corporate way* Cato Institute adjunct scholar and Reason Magazine contributor Veronique de Rugy, and Greg "Watch me flaunt my Harvard pedigree, and watch The Oklahoman buy into it all, even if they usually don't like elitist East Coast professor folks!!" Mankiw. Mankiw has been referencing de Rugy a lately and her strange CATO Foundation video commentaries, so to find them here together makes me think the editorial staff is getting lazy again.

Today's editorial reminds me of a picture I took while observing Oklahoma City's Tea Party at the State Capitol April 15th.

I will explain why in a bit....

The Oklahoman editorial staff today writes "...government doesn’t create economic growth... Government can facilitate growth by keeping spending and taxes low so the private sector can create real jobs, not just imaginary ones."

Now, I hate to constantly bring up the March 4 "Big League City!" issue, where the hard working people were coerced by a multi-million dollar propaganda campaign to give $125m to wealthy basketball team owners. But that moment in time was so relevant to so much that is going on now, especially this editorial.

The reason I say this, is that The Oklahoman strongly supported the tax (which later became taxes, and now exceeds $1/4b via the State Quality Jobs Act amendment giving it upwards of $80m, a "use tax" giving them $25m more, and I think something else I think...hard to keep up with it all!) and their arguments were consistently that the increase in taxes would create economic growth, as well as jobs (examples to come).

For all the information you need on this matter, listen to my Tuesday 3-25-08 appearance on The Touch, 1140 am in Oklahoma City

Noting that The Oklahoman chooses it's positions based on what benefits them is important, but it is also worth looking back at our Country's history. Such an exercise can show how The Oklahoman chooses to revise things in this and so many of their other editorials.

Ok, so this requires a bit of work, and I think The Oklahoman knows that. Therefore, these hoodlums can easily get away with spewing ridiculous ideologies all the while accusing others of doing just the same. I say this with regards to their statement in today's piece "...the 'jobs saved' statistic (is) basically pulled from thin air." Here they are accusing President Obama of playing games with regards to how well the stimulus is and will be working.

If you have an interest in uncovering the disgraceful lies of this paper, have a look at Ha-Joon Chang's 2003 piece, "Kicking Away The Ladder: The Real History of Free Trade". While this is a lengthy article, it is well worth reading, but if you are short on time go to page 5 and read some of the information on Alexander Hamilton. You will discover that The Oklahoman is accusing him of never existing, something not particularly nice to do to someone like Mr. Hamilton.

But a founding father who worked so hard in the Government to create economic growth and jobs is quite a threat to a paper that argues against such things. Especially a paper who is constantly ranting and raving about what swell fellas the founding fathers were.

Oh, with regards to the picture, in the 1999 Columbia Journalism Review's article "The Worst Newspaper in America." kidded about the fact that the recipiant of this prestigous award, The Oklahoman "..runs a front-page prayer every day". While I don't have as much of a problem with that as CJR appears to, I do have major problems with this paper's "We're the greatest christians since the apostles!" attitude parlayed with their desire to try and outsmart their God via a never ending "Why should we condone rendering unto Caesar, when we can just drown his ass in the bathtub, like Grover Norquist has instructed us to!" ideologies. To me, it is simply disgusting.

* "Libertarian"In A Corporate Way, Norman Solomon

Addendum: Here is a new video from "neutral observer" Veronique de Rugy. It is funny to watch! Especially if you read William Pfaff's column "As Smash-and-Grab Capitalism Collapses, the French Economy Shines" before you watch it! Also consider that it is assumed she knows everything about France since she is from there. I assume therefore The Oklahoman and their ideologically like-minded friends will be calling Jane Fonda soon for her domestic policy ideas, since she is from America.

Kill Kill kill !!!! Oh, wait....

2009-05-19T23:40:00.000-07:00

May 19 Editorial Cartoon

At some point, I will do the academic endeavor of comparing the editorial cartoons of the early W Bush days to those of the early Obama days. The results will be no mystery, but still it will have some value.

I want to share something regarding the Tuesday cartoon, and let me make it perfectly clear I have no problem with folks at Notre Dame being upset over Obama's views on abortion (although it is worth noting they are similar to Clinton's, and abortion rates went down at a higher percentage under Clinton than under W Bush. And once again, I am no apologist for Clinton.)

This comes from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's website today, and is kind of interesting. They pointed out something Mark Howard had written, about how neither the protesters at Notre Dame nor the media had any problems when George W. Bush spoke there in '01 after receiving an honorary degree. Here is what he wrote, and thanks to FAIR for pointing this out:

Every good Catholic knows that the church is strictly opposed to capital punishment. Since Bush set records for carrying out death sentences when he was governor of Texas, you would think that the same guardians of virtue that are protesting Obama, who has never personally signed an abortion certificate, would have been out in force for a man who presided over 152 executions. But there was nary a peep. There were no bishops signing petitions opposing Bush's appearance. There were no protests on campus. There were no students refusing to participate in graduation ceremonies. And there were no cameras from national news networks circling like buzzards.

If these Catholic Crusaders are truly interested in demonstrating their piety without prejudice, they should immediately call for Notre Dame to revoke Bush's honorary degree. If the press is honestly endeavoring to be objective, they should pose this question to the protesters.

FAIR goes on to point out a poll showing a majority of Catholics supported Obama's invite to Notre Dame. Sadly for Obama, apparently Today is one of the days when their constant flip-flop between us being a Democracy not a Republic, or being a Republic not a Democracy does not come out in his favor.

Editorial Staff uses SOME Kaiser Foundation Research Again

2009-05-19T05:57:00.000-07:00

May 19 Editorial

In today's editorial, "Washington should take time on health care reform" more Frank Luntz and big business health-care talking points with no documentation on their statements are made. It is essentially the same piece that was written last Monday, which I broke down as not just straight propaganda, but plagiarized straight propaganda.

The only difference this go 'round, is that the paper is saying Congress should take extra time to figure things out regarding this issue. Now, I am no apologist for Bill Clinton that is for sure, but this certainly brings to mind this editorial written a little more than eleven years ago:

There are numerous examples (the war on Iraq is a fine example). Many more recent ones where the fine writers at The Oklahoman show incredible bias on issues regarding whether we should act right away, or take time to figure things out (or stall) but I thought this example was kind of funny. Especially when you recall that the lying under oath incident didn't occur until four days after this was written!

But back to the issue at hand, The Oklahoma ONCE AGAIN quotes The Kaiser Family Foundation study that stated "...about 80 percent of insured Americans say is excellent or good, according to a study last year" but ONCE AGAIN leave out The Kaiser Family Foundation study that stated:

" ....poll says 80 percent are dissatisfied with the cost of health care."

And once again, they leave out a study done with residents of 30 rich countries polled by Gallup. Americans came in 18th in terms of satisfaction with their care, despite the fact that we out-spend everyone else on the list by an incredibly significant amount. Ireland, Switzerland, and Belgium topped the list.

Another statement in the article was interesting. "...'Our goal is to have a healthier America,' Pelosi said last week after a meeting with President Barack Obama. No House Republicans were present." While this apparently is true, what is more important to note are things like zero representation in any important discussions with the Obama-Pelosi crew with single-payer advocates. This is worth noting because this is the main thing The Oklahoman is ranting and raving about! Note this excerpt from a recent column by Amy Goodman:

"Barack Obama appeared this week with health-industry bigwigs, proclaiming light at the end of the health-care tunnel. Among those gathered were executives from HMO giants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Health Net Inc., and the health-insurance lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans; from the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association; from medical-device companies; and from the pharmaceutical industry, including the president and CEO of Merck and former Rep. Billy Tauzin, now president and CEO of PhRMA....Still absent from the debate are advocates for single-payer, often referred to as the “Canadian-style” health care. Single-payer health care is not “socialized medicine.” According to Physicians for a National Health Program, single-payer means “the government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector.” read the rest of the column here.

The Oklahoman continues to be nothing short of a complete disgrace.

Brandon Dutcher Contradicts Himself AGAIN, Yet Still Makes $82,500+/year

2009-05-18T02:49:00.000-07:00

May 18 Editorial Column
By The OCPA's Brandon Dutcher!

Thus far I have only discussed Staff Editorials, but I have planned on swaying from doing just that from time to time. Occasionally I will post articles and things that have been written by contributors and myself, and every now and then critique a non staff editorial.

I will unquestionably do so whenever someone like Brandon Dutcher is featured. I have very little tolerance for people who rant and rave about teachers being overpayed, all the while making close to $100k/yr (see Dutcher's '07 salary, taken from The OCPA's IRS filing..it shows a strategy of "throw piles of money at think-tank employees, that will solve all our problems!") for doing little more than "tweeting" all day, writing an occasional opinion column, supporting $1/4b in taxpayer money going to Billionaires for their basketball team (shhh! Don't say that too loud while I'm at a tea party rally deal says Brandon!), and participating occasionally in elegant dinner parties with fancy guests.

Today The Oklahoman features a rant written by Dutcher (in between important "tweets" no doubt!), entitled "‘HOPE’ is irresponsible public policy."

Dutcher sounds the alarm early in the column, stating "...the state’s most powerful labor union, the Oklahoma Education Association, are asking taxpayers for an additional $850 million annual bailout." and it is no mystery what he is doing here. Increased taxes AND a powerful union behind it? Yipes! That is enough to get people pretty darn riled up around here!

He then goes on to show us how EVERYONE is on his side, even "radicals" like David Blatt of the left-of-center Oklahoma Policy Institute who he quotes as saying on this issue:

"...state policymakers will need to display a great deal of flexibility and willingness to utilize all the policy options at their disposal to keep the state budget afloat during the upcoming years.”

This here should no doubt be the proverbial nail in the coffin for teachers and folks who want public education in Oklahoma to be funded on a level equal to other states in the region (which is what HOPE is, a mandate that Oklahoma schools receive funding on average equal to other states around us)... But wait!

Luckily for those of us who do not approve of people like Dutcher, this is the bible-belt and those who take the bible and it's lessons seriously, do not appreciate liars and charlitans.

Dutcher proves to be such - quite clumsily three paragraphs down by quoting Ed Allen "...unless the state receives a windfall in additional revenue, 12 percent across-the-board budget cuts for every agency will need to occur.”

Am I missing something, or did Dutcher just tell us via Mr. Allen that the revenues the teachers are asking for will come from other agencies, not from additional taxes? That is exactly what it looks like to me. And note the phrase "..unless the state receives a windfall in additional revenue" and note why Dutcher refers to Stimulus money as "Stimulus" in the column. Dutcher knows quite well that it is impotant to write-off this windfall in additional revenue early on so as to support his arguments later in the column.

And regarding the quote from Blatt, I asked him about what Dutcher wrote and he replied:"I of course meant using the Rainy Day Fund and considering new revenue sources. At least he didn't pretend we agree.Thanks for the heads up." Yet Dutcher pretends he is talking about this matter and how rotten a thing it is. I would like to ask Brandon what they have been teaching him at the innumerable bible classes he attends, but I am pretty sure that he does not listen when he attends so why bother.

Also, wasn't Dutcher one of the big guys behind TABOR a few years ago, and the real goal of TABOR was to take funding away from these agencies so that their tasks could be then taken on by the glorious private sector? It would seem to me that those agencies losing some of their funding would partially fulfill Dutchers dream scenario he has been fantasizing over for some time.

But anyone who knows anything about this fellow, his number one goal is to destroy public schools. All fantasies must be pushed aside until this is done so all children can grow up and be nice think-tank employees and play on Twitter all day instead of contribute to society by working for a living.

(to be continued...)

Some Consistancy With Leaders Would Be Nice!

2009-05-17T23:13:00.001-07:00

May 17th Editorial

A few years back I did a study, looking at the sixty days before and after the start of the current war in Iraq and what The Oklahoman had to say about the situation. Of all the editorials I looked at, not a single one had anything negative to say about the prospects or the actuality of the war (once it started), and some of the editorials said disgraceful things about individuals who were not for the war.

In the Sunday editorial "Guantanamo, other issues show leadership dilemma" the author points out that Obama has "flip-flopped" on the issues of closing Guantanamo and releasing torture photos (true), and asked "Why weren’t things more thoroughly thought out before policy declarations were made?"

The editorial goes on to quote Debra Burlingame, sister of 9-11 victim Charles "Chic” Burlingame III who stated "We’d been had,” when Binyam Mohamed was released and repatriated to Britain. This suggested that she'd been lied to by Obama who said he wouldn't let any "potential Jihadists" go.

While I do not disagree with The Oklahoman at all that we should hold Obama to his promises, and demand that he be the person he claims to be (appointing Summers, Rubin, Pritzker etc..??? What is this man thinking?!??!) I do think it would have been good if they'd held the previous administration to similar standards. I mentioned the Iraq War at the beginning, because I think "Why weren’t things more thoroughly thought out before policy declarations were made?" is something they could have asked in at least one of those radically pro-war 120 days I looked at, but weren't because the paper refused to be critical of Bush.

I also mention Debra Burlingame and The papers synthetic compassion for her, because I think if you compare it to what they write about people like Cindy Sheehan or Andrew Rice, you will discover that their sympathy for people who have lost loved ones is quite conditional.

Brad Henry Plays Funny Prank on Ideological Oklahoman Editorial Writers

2009-05-15T01:23:00.000-07:00

May 15th Editorial

A February CBS News poll found that 59 percent in the U.S. say the government should provide national health insurance. The Oklahoman ignored that, and many other things (like the other Kaiser poll showing 80% of Americans polled are upset with health care costs) in the 5-12 editorial. They wanted to ensure that the ignorant masses do not get what they want.

But every time a couple of days pass, The Oklahoman editorial folks forget they are the world-leader in "We are a Republic! Not a Democracy!!" rants. Today's piece, "Split decision: Voters like Henry, but not his leanings " does a not so subtle job in telling the readers to think twice next time about voting for someone with any similarities to Brad Henry. And their main problem is that he is not always doing the will of the people, or at least doing what "Sooner Poll" claims to be the will of the people.

Amazingly, they are willing to push their beliefs aside for the day to try and encourage folks to consider someone with a stunningly flawless record of doing the will of the people, and loving democracy like Mary Fallin next go 'round.

All I can say is that if people here like Henry, and so many are Republicans, it is because he is doing what they want. They want to live in a Republic, not a Democracy. And by doing what he is doing, they seem to be enjoying him and his time in office.

If you are concerned about The Oklahoman and what they've done here, moving away from their love of being a Republic, not a darned Democracy, wait a day or two they'll be back to their good ol' ideological ways.

If you are interested in what I think of Henry, I say he's ok. Nothing too fantastic. I will say though Largent would have handled the disgraceful NBA issue better though, however I am still glad I did this in '02:

Sixth Graders Have it Way Too Tough

2009-05-12T23:05:00.000-07:00

May 12 Editorial

In Tuesday's article "The Obama Plan: ObamaCare plan worth a national donnybrook", the Editors stated that “...120 million Americans with private insurance could be shifted to the public option under Obama's plan...” and went on “...Most Americans like their current health care insurance setup."

There were a handful of reactions from readers who had questions about these claims and even belittled them in the comments section, ("Mombocat" stated: “Most Americans like their health care setup? ... the conservative media is whipping up hysteria out of lies.”) however I believe this fellow and others are being too harsh on The Oklahoman Editorial writers, and let me explain why.

A column in The Weekly Standard written a couple of days ago by DC Lobbyists/Employees of The Ethics and Public Policy Center, James C. Capretta and Yuval Levin, and shortly after the Luntz memo was released stated:

“... the Obama plan would involve a profound displacement of currently insured Americans, who for the most part are happy with their coverage and will not appreciate being dumped into a program that could end up resembling Medicaid. A recent study by the Lewin Group estimates that almost 120 million Americans could be forced from employer-based coverage into government-run insurance by the kind of two-step strategy the Democrats envision.”

If former School teacher Sally Kern were ever handed a paper by a 6^th grader directly copied from Darwin's theories on evolution, it is safe to assume she would first reprimand the child for plagiarism. Later, she maybe say some things about the subject at hand, but probably not before it was understood it is not good to copy from others.

I don't think we need to attack The Oklahoman as harshly as a Teacher would Jimmy or Billy, as The Editors were merely copying the talking points given to The Weekly Standard which were Given to Frank Luntz by the nice folks at The Kaiser Foundation, and a host of other folks paid to think by the makers of tanks. These are tactics children are either too naive or innocent to engage in, plus, even if they are friends with the school's biggest bully, no way is said bully as big and mean as the friends of The Oklahoman who will defend them.

Before I go on, I would like to mention something about The Kaiser Foundation. the ones who provided the “people enjoy their plans!” via a study they conducted that found “well over 80 percent of insured Americans rated their health insurance as excellent or good!”. If these numbers are true, health care in other countries is absolutely amazing and we might be well served to find out why.

I say it must be absolutely amazing, and base this statement on a study done with residents of 30 rich countries polled by Gallup. Americans came in 18th in terms of satisfaction with their care, despite the fact that we out-spend everyone else on the list by an incredibly significant amount. Ireland, Switzerland, and Belgium topped the list. We trailed Iceland, Denmark and Finland and some others too depressing to name.

This Gallup study, put together with The Kaiser Study makes me believe another study mentioned in an article on Politico.com on 08/01/07 which stated:

"...74 percent in a recent Democracy Corps poll say they are dissatisfied with the cost of health care, a number matched in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll from 2006 (80 percent)."

Putting aside the “People are quite happy with things, no need for change we can believe in or any of that!” talking point and any questions as to why the other kaiser study was ignored, I would like to briefly touch on the “ ...120 million Americans with private insurance could be shifted to the public option under Obama's plan...” point The Oklahoman Editorial writers took from The Weekly Standard piece, who took it from others and eventually end up at a group by the name of The Lewin Group.

On this, I would like to defer to Jacob Hacker, author of “The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream”. Note this commentary is from early June and he accuratly predicts that “fear mongers will seize on these false numbers”. Have a look:

So as you see I was able to find sources on the “120 million” and “things are fine!” references from multiple sources, however there is another statement in The Oklahoman's piece that I only found in one place. In “their” editorial, they go on to state “Concerns appear across the board. Federal subsides could cost $150 billion a year and more than $1 trillion over 10 years, analysts say.”

The place I found information on these number was ...brace yourself... in The Weekly Standard column! Here is what they write:

“Most analysts expect the subsidies for expanded coverage to cost at least $150 billion per year. Even if phased in over several years, the ten-year price tag will easily exceed $1 trillion.”

Once again, 6th Graders Billy or Jimmy would no question be in deep trouble for copying something directly for someone else's writing, but to hold The Oklahoman to such standards would be way out of line. Therefore, I will just point this out and let the readers decide what to think on this matter.

I must wrap things up, even though there is a ton more to say. But I will go ahead and conclude with this. I have a friend who is in DC for awhile, and I asked him to attend A talk at The Heritage Foundation given today on these issues. It has been scheduled for awhile now, and I figured they wouldn't have time to alter their discussion away from the leaked Luntz memo. I was correct on that. Read what my friend Kevin has to say about what he witnessed there:

The Lack of Conservative Principles of Health Care Reform - Kevin Bogle

This morning I attended a lecture given by The Honorable Mike Enzi (R-WY) at The Heritage Foundation. The talk was brief and titled “Conservative Principles of Health Care Reform: The Road Ahead.”

What I learned about the republicans plan is not shocking, incendiary, or even that radical—because I had read the speech the day before. I’m speaking, of course, of the leaked Luntz memo called The Language of Healthcare 2009.

Rep. Enzi spoke at times directly from the talking points memo calling for a “search for common ground” with Obama, yet deriding the Washington “bureaucrat or healthcare lobbyist” who would stand between the patient and his doctor. He blamed the White House for not talking when he and Coburn, Burr, Cochran et all have been working for two and a half years on a bill and claimed that the “Democratic plan would deny Americans” the access to the help they need. This language is all directly from the talking points memo—a memo that was the basis for the Oklahoman Editorial this morning.

Beyond the memo, Enzi said that the Republicans have no cohesive plan. He claims that between the 40 Republican senators, there are at least 20 different plans (Coburn, Burr, Cochran have one, Limbaugh another, his office a third) and they have no solid plan to oppose the Democrat’s bill. His solution to this is easy—don’t fight the democrat bill. Instead, he claims that there has never been a health care bill this complicated and is confident that the Republican minority can befriend moderate Democrats and slip in their bill as amendments and additions instead of having to directly confront them.

This is exactly where we need to step up and hound them—ask them for their alternative, ask them to show a plan that is better than Obama’s, and force them to put forward a real alternative package. This is something that Mike Enzi could not do today, and, to be honest with you, he didn’t seem that worried.

Never Mind What People Want

2009-05-11T21:00:00.000-07:00

May 10 Editorial

Sunday's editorial "Government programs can’t trump bad behavior" was not about millions given to Bass Pro, "Quality Jobs Act" adjustments made specifically for Billionaire basketball team owners, funds abused by TIFF district folks, rather it was about (brace yourself!) health care reform.

The editorial which references HB 2026 (.rtf file - not an exciting read, save for a part of the bill that gives a better deal to 501(c)(3) groups, which suggests that the bill was probably written by one) basically suggests that people should just do the right thing and keep things as they are with minimal changes, all the while pulling themselves up by their boot-straps and all of that typical business.

But wait, hold the presses! Earlier last week, Bernie Horn wrote a piece entitled "The Secret Right-Wing Strategy on Health Care—Exposed!". In the article, he details a memo put together by the famous pollster Frank Luntz (the man who helped Gingrich piece together the Republican Contract with America in 1994), aimed at defeating Obama's coming health care reform proposals. It is apparent that the memo was so appalling, that a high-ranking Republican that received the memo leaked it to the press.

I can not recommend that you read Horn's article enough, and if you have time look at Luntz's leaked memo here. After doing so, it is worth going back and reading what the editorial staff has written, and deciding for yourself what is going on here.

Oklahoma City: Big League Neoliberalism!

2009-05-10T20:48:00.000-07:00

May 9 Editorial

Friday's editorial "Oklahoma City is doing more with less" is yet another very misleading addition to the paper's long history of misleading editorials. Some general information is given on how the city's population has grown in the past 16 years, yet the city government workforce has not grown (they use the phrase "roughly the same"). Then, it is mentioned that city departments other than Police and Fire are going to have to cut budgets by one percent.

It is quite true that OKC is doing better than many cities, and this has been pointed out in poorly researched articles and "studies" in publications like Bloomberg (Oklahoma City Penn Square Lessons Give It 5.6% Jobless Rate) and Forbes (In Depth: America's Most Livable Cities) as of late. But what they, and the Oklahoman Editorial board completley miss out on is just how we have done "so well".

Like yesterday's analysis of The Oklahoman's piece on Israel and the Middle East, I can not go in depth enough with the many problems I have with this article. However I will give you the word for the economic ideology that has brought us our success, and offer some history and a frightening analogy. First the word you need to know about OKC's economic system is:

Neoliberalism

Mick Cornett, the Chamber of Commerce, and the other powerful people/entities in this town are NOT Conservatives. Ask anyone you respect on the topic, and they'll tell you the same. These people are Neoliberals. To simply state, this economic ideology is used to ensure powerful elites outside of the Government have control of the society.

This is done by a number of ways such as preaching the wonders of small government, all the while giving tax-payer funds to unaccountable groups like The Chamber of Commerce, Pro Basketball LLC., Outlet Malls that will "create jobs" (read: put money into the hands of developers and the like, for more on this read Greg Leroy's excellent book The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation).

Also, it is very important in a successful Neoliberal environment to do things such as implement very unfriendly conditions for workers, namely "Right to Work" which essentially creates a culture where Jimmy's Egg Waitresses are held to significantly higher standards than Executives of fancy companies.

These things, along with other wonderful ideas like selling off the city's most important assets like it's TV and Radio stations to the highest outside bidder (I hosted a panel featuring Mark Shannon, Ron Black, GOP Head Gary Jones when Channel 4 and 43 were purchased by Oak Hill Capitol Partners in Ft Worth, all agreed it was not a good thing) create an environment where only elites have control over the affairs of the city, and growth is merely addition by subtraction. By that I mean, we do well but at costs to people in other Cities more often than not, Cities in other States.

Decisions made by working people are restricted to what is called "Market Democracy", and occasionally called that with a straight face, usually by folks in the "We are a Republic!" crowd. Recall Mayor Cornett last year teamed up with Yum! Brands, Inc's company Taco Bell to offer new choices to consumers wishing to lose weight. I jokingly said he chose YUM as a real stand up company regarding Market Democracy, as their sister company KFC once offered patrons "A Right to have your chicken done right!". That individuals who are a part of a Republic because they are viewed as unfit to govern their own affairs could possibly make the best decisions in markets when bombarded 24/7 with propaganda on products, seems a little dishonest. But I am afraid that is the point.

The state capital, Guthrie, was moved to Oklahoma City in 1910. I think it will soon be safe to say that the Nation's capital for Neoliberalism will soon be moved from Chicago (Milton Friedman created the basis for this brutal economic system and implemented it first in Chile' under the Dictator Augusto Pinochet') to Oklahoma City. To find out why I believe this, please read:

Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

and

David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism"

Here is a good audio discussion with Harvey on his book:
http://www.listeningtowords.com/lecture.php?id=717

and

A lecture by Klein on The Shock Doctrine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3Pb_StJn4

Not their place to even think about this stuff

2009-05-09T01:32:00.000-07:00

May 8 Editorial (2)

To critique The Oklahoman's piece "Leaning on Israel won’t bring Middle East peace" would take far too much time and space. I would like to defer to a couple of interesting individuals, first Robert Fisk who has covered the Algerian Civil War, the Iranian Revolution, the American hostage crisis in Beirut , the Iran-Iraq War, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, Israel’s invasions of Lebanon, the Gulf War, and the invasion and ongoing war in Iraq. He states quite simply "I don't think we Westerner's care about the Middle East."

Secondly, I showed the article to Norman Finkelstien who is an Author, Activist, and Son of a Mother who survived the Warsaw Ghetto, the Majdanek concentration camp as well as two slave labor camps, and a Father who lived through Auschwitz. Upon reading the Oklahoman's opinion, he merely replied in obvious disgust:

"Hamas has repeatedly stated that it's willing to
settle the conflict on the June 1967 border, which
is a lot more than ANY Israel government has agreed to."

Finkelstein in his work often points out that New York Times columnist Isabel Kershner refers to the illegal settlements as "developments", and it is worth noting that The Oklahoman doesn't even stoop to that level here. I mention this, becauase I feel it says a lot about the insanity of the whole situation.

But everything is not terrible and miserable with everyone hating eachother. Finkelstein runs an excellent piece by Professor David Shulman, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem showing Palestinains and Israeli's working together for positive things. As he says, it is worth reading.

More foot-stomping on vouchers

2009-05-08T07:54:00.000-07:00

May 8 Editorial

It is no mystery that The Oklahoman's philosophy is quite aligned with Grover Norquist and his "..drown it in the bathtub" ideologies towards Government. Therefore, complete backing of a voucher system is not a surprise. This was shown in Friday's editorial "Rescue plan: Obama should bail out D.C. vouchers". The article is timely in that it comes out at a time when Governor Henry is set to decide on the contraversial SB834, a bill written by individuals who have moved on from voucher arguments to what they see as the next best thing.

Sarah Knopp wrote an excellent piece on the topic of how elites with strong neo-liberal economic tendenices have essentially given up on the voucher movement for now, and are focusing on Charter Schools. Read the article here, it is lengthy, but quite good with excellent annotations. Knopp details groups like The Montgomery Securities Group, Green Dot, and other players in the Educational Management Organization for-profit school operation fields. "Philanthroprenuers" such as Wal-Mart who give $50m+ per year to promote the end of public schools as we know them are detailed as well. Parlay these things with the $3b/year testing industry which one can only imagine would flourish in a for-profit school system, which is mentioned in the article, and one should question The Oklahoman's positions on the matter.

One of The Oklahoman's favorite go-to guys on the matter of vouchers, Brandon Dutcher of The OPEA is worth looking into on this topic. Dutcher is a radical neo-liberal who participated in the tea-parties, however oddly enough, was a big proponent of the NBA tax which has now given close to $1/4b to the wealthiest Okahomans at the expense of working Oklahomans. It is also worth noting that Dutcher, like so many in the for-profit educational field who constantly rant and rave about GM auto workers making $53k/yr, made $82,500 in '07 for doing little more than writing blogs and organizing one elegant dinner party.

Update: Brad Henry has vetoed SB 834

The Oklahoman has decided we aren't a Republic for the day.

2009-05-07T14:07:00.000-07:00

May 7 Editorial

In Thursday's editorial: "Hay makers: More posturing by Congress over tribes" the authors quickly leave behind Wednesday's "...We’re not defending (Republicans)" fairy-tale, and take a more open and honest approach, which I appreciate and am sure others will on both sides.

The piece is reminicent of their 1-21-03 piece that tore apart Iraq War Protesters. A claim is made in today's editorial that Barney Frank "..never met a grandstanding opportunity he didn’t like", compare that to the anti-protesters-we-don't-like piece where they write about "..Misinformed and misguided" individuals taking place in an event that appeared "... in large part to be a reunion of interests that live for protesting — something, anything."
The article goes on to state that "..the tribe’s members, not the tribal government — voted to remove the descendants, called freedmen." and continue, knocking a California Congresswoman who "...wants to see federal funds withheld from the Cherokees if freedmen aren’t placed back on the rolls."

This is an interesting flip on The Oklahoman's philosophy of frequently running letters to the editor and op-ed pieces that solely discuss the topic of how our country is "A Republic, not a Democracy!" It no doubt brings up the obvious question: Why the sudden interest in Democracy?

Also, The Oklahoman forgets the lessons learned in Bible Club on hypocrisy when they write "...six members of (Boren's -D) party, who have written the Justice Department seeking an investigation...(although) the case is now in federal court, not that Frank or the others care about that." and go on to get an opinion from Cherokee spokesman Mike Miller on the matter without talking to the other side. It would serve the reader well to look up similar cases where issues are in the courts, and Reps act similarly, i.e Terri Schiavo, the Elian Gonzales situation, the innumerable issues regarding The war in Iraq, and see what the editorial staff has to say on those matters. My guess is that the "good guys!" won't be referred to as blowhards.

Assuming no one ever reads these editorials

2009-05-06T20:34:00.000-07:00

May 6 Editorial

In "Owning up: Brouhaha displays Democrats’ excesses", The Oklahoman Editorial staff writes that "...Coffee, R-Oklahoma City, is president of the Oklahoma Senate. Questions surrounding (Glenn Coffee's) failure to pay income taxes on time, a tax lien filed against him and a bank loan to have that lien removed are fodder for a partisan attack." and continue "...We’re not defending Coffee in saying that this needs to stop! We’re defending the people’s right to an end-of-session period devoid of excess partisanship."

Considering The Oklahoman's history of breaking out the proverbial MAN LANDS ON MOON! Font anytime the ol' crook Gene Stipe does anything, portraying bush supporting Pedophiles as decent people, calling for Clinton to resign on 1-22-98, and calling Iraq War Protesters "...graying hippies, lifelong peaceniks, malleable college students...(who) trash McDonald’s and Starbucks stores during demonstrations" while referring to the recent Tea Party at the Capitol as "Something real" and how the participants "showed how easy it is to quickly channel and mobilize raw emotion" (to name a few things) makes their claim that they are not defending Coffee suspicious.

Also, in the comments field of the article on the newsok.com site, "Jan" points out that "...Glen Coffee is not the President of the Senate. That honor is Constitutionally assigned to Lt Gov. Askins. Coffee is the President Pro Tem. That office is filled by a vote of the Senate. The Senate President's office is filled by a vote of the people. In case there's not an Oklahoma Constitution around the Oke's editorial office, you can pick up one at the State Library."