Okie Funk Back At Same Url

Okie Funk is back up and running at the old url, http://www.okiefunk.com. I have a new hosting company, and I have new posts on my site. Thanks for those who expressed concern over what happened.

Why Did Micfo Damage Okie Funk?

The current technical infrastructure of my Okie Funk (http://www.okiefunk.com) blog has been severely damaged or completely ruined either deliberately or through incompetence by the Micfo Group, an Internet hosting company.

I say "deliberately" because I have not been given an adequate explanation as to why Okie Funk has been taken off the Internet and the backups deemed not recoverable. I am currently getting legal and technical advice to resolve the issue. I simply cannot get a straight answer from the Micfo people, and I have been trying for more than twenty-four hours.

I get the sense the company is experiencing major problems. Or maybe they simply do not like what I write?

I will have a new Okie Funk at the old url available soon. I do have saved files of my blogs and comments, but the time and effort to repost these blogs will be immense. Anyway, I have many people offering their help to get Okie Funk back up and running, and for that I am grateful

Meanwhile, do not use Micfo to host any of your sites.

New Home For Okie Funk

Okie Funk: Notes From the Outback has moved to its own home on the net, http://www.okiefunk.com. All the Okie Funk blogs are archived at the new site.

Conservatives Plan Attack On Rural Oklahoma

In recent blogs, I have mentioned Thomas Frank’s book What’s The Matter With Kansas? that argues rural residents in states such as Kansas and Oklahoma vote against their own financial and personal interests when they vote for Republican political candidates on both the state and national level.

Frank argues that by joining the conservative juggernaut, these rural residents ensure their school systems are closed or under funded, their small towns are pushed to the point of financial collapse, and their children have no future in the place in which they were raised.

This paradox between people living and thus promoting small-town, rural values and life yet consistently voting for the elimination or financial weakening of small towns and schools is the contradiction that has created the red-state/blue-state dichotomy and has now given the Republican party a clear mandate to destroy rural America.

Frank asks the question, “Why?” Frank asks this question of Kansans. I ask the question of Oklahomans. “Why?”

I think about Frank’s book again because of a recent proposal floated by the Oklahoma GOP to consolidate rural schools. The GOP-sponsored proposal, House Bill 1783, proposes the state create a special commission that would submit a list of school districts that could be consolidated.

As you know, Oklahoma voters recently gave the Republicans a majority in the House for the first time in forty years so this proposal has a fair chance of being passed. Local schools are the focal points of many rural communities in Oklahoma. If the schools close, the town simply dies in some cases. Thus, in a larger sense, Oklahoma voters, under the Republican banner and its Orwellian ideology, are demanding we abandon small towns in the state in order to provide more money for larger cities.

The school consolidation issue has a long and tortuous history in Oklahoma, but it has always been a conservative platform in terms of its ideological foundation.

So why would someone in a small Oklahoma town vote to ensure their local schools are closed by either voting for Republican state legislators or supporting overall conservative ideology by supporting Republican candidates for national office?

Is it the influence of the conservative media on both the state and national level, from the propaganda of The Daily Oklahoman to the hate-speech and racism of Rush Limbaugh ? Is it that so-called cultural issues, such as gay marriage, trump the personal financial interests of rural voters? (In other words, do Oklahoma rural voters really care more about whether a gay couple can get married than their own children’s futures?) Is it conservative and reductionist emotional appeals to nationalism, patriotism and religion?

Or are many rural voters simply the continuing dupes, chumps, and rubes of an elite, wealthy Republican aristocracy that manipulates them into voting against themselves?

The only thing I know for sure is that until Oklahoma rural voters get back to the progressive roots and platforms upon which this state was created, they will reap what they sow: the slow, painful death of their communities.

Reducing American Mythology To Conservative Cliches: The Oklahoman's Deceitful Propaganda

During the past twelve years, I have taught a college course titled Protest Literature that deals with the American history of protest from the country’s revolutionary inception through the counter-culture movement in the 1960s to the globalization and war protests of today.

In the course, students and I first grapple with how an American mythology was created by such documents as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and then we note how the mythology and rhetoric (not always a “true,” stable set of facts, but an arguable history) has influenced literature and politics for more than two hundred years in this country.

What clearly emerges each time I teach the course is the prevailing tension between those people in our country who believe these documents have plural meanings subject to interpretation when applied to contemporary times and those who present themselves as strict interpreters of the founding fathers but who really just distort the meaning of the documents into simple and deceitful emotional appeals. (I am not speaking of my students here, but of two distinct political camps in this country.)

These deceitful emotional appeals reinforce the reductionist and purely celebratory American history now taught in many elementary and high schools in Oklahoma. I make this claim based on personal anecdotal evidence and from seventeen years of talking to Oklahoma university students about their earlier educations.

Essentially, the emotional, right-wing appeals reflect some version of this model these days: The founding fathers were simple, plain-speaking great men who loved America and were truly patriotic to only one cause, the creation of the United States of America as a Christian nation You see, they were fundamentalist Christians, strict six-day creationists, who hated Europeans like the French and Germans, and, oh yeah, the British, too, but do not think about that very much right now. They wanted everyone to own guns and go to church on Sundays. That is what they INTENDED.

And on and on it goes. It is all rubbish, of course. Thomas Paine, for example, ultimately became an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the DOI, was most certainly a deist in his beliefs. And we have argued for years in this country what the DOI signers might have meant by “all men are created equal.” Did they mean women, too? Did they mean their own slaves, too? Does it matter? What about the idea that one of the rights of people is the "pursuit of happiness." Can we ever agree on what that means?

I bring this issue up as a prelude for more criticism of The Daily Oklahoman, which has been another major culprit in dumbing down our state’s students since the now-deceased Edward L. Gaylord decided that as the state’s richest aristocrat he would use his monopoly to stifle any dissent to his immoral and deceitful interpretations of the founding fathers.

Unfortunately, his daughter, Christy Gaylord Everest, continues the newspaper in his hate-mongering and reductionist tradition. The Oklahoman has done more to impede educational progress in this state than any other institution, person, or ideology in the state’s history. And no amount of Gaylord money, not $22 million, not $5 billion, donated to the University of Oklahoma or wherever will erase that enigma.

What The Daily Oklahoman has done for years on its editorial page, and in their story selection and in their distortion of the news, is to tap into the watered-down historical and literary education of the state’s students even as they argue educational standards should be improved. As it has done so, it has consistently presented itself as a champion for Christian fundamentalist views of the founding fathers and their docments.

I get to these old but valid arguments about the newspaper's impact on our state today via a recent editorial in The Oklahoman, which on its surface seems innocuous enough but upon closer scrutiny reveals the trademark rhetorical deceit and subterfuge of its editorial writers.

In the January 24, 2005 editorial titled “Done deal: Route chosen for 1-40 is best,” The Oklahoman argues that those who oppose the planned route of the new 1-40 alignment through the city should quit protesting even if the alignment does preempt another proposed plan to form a light-rail system in the city.

This seems a fair enough editorial stance but read how the newspaper approaches the issue: “Just as some people can't accept the re-election of President Bush, some opponents of the Interstate 40 relocation in Oklahoma City can't accept the planned route.”

And then this: “Remember the liberal advocacy group that was born during the Bill Clinton impeachment era, a group calling itself MoveOn.org? Its simple message to Clinton's political opponents was to move on. But the group itself has never been able to move on from the defeat of Al Gore by Bush in 2000.”

And finally this: “Those who can't move on find comfort in sharing their misery with others of like mind. It was their right to view the president's second inaugural as a national day of mourning. In the end, though, it signified nothing. Continuing to oppose the I-40 route is likewise pointless. Move on.”

There is nothing wrong, of course, with a newspaper taking a position about a local road project, but this type of deceitful, rhetorical transference is illogical and ultimately immoral. The two issues—Bush’s re-election and the road project--are totally unrelated.

Consequently, here is the underlying message of the editorial: If you oppose the new road plan (and I, personally, have no opinion on the matter) you are just like those sore losers who do not support President George Bush. You might even be a liberal and a progressive who voted for Al Gore or John Kerry. (Don't forget, you liberals, Clinton was impeached.) We do not need or want people like you to voice your opinions around here. The facts of the issue do not matter. Do not speak up. Do not get involved.

The editorial is angry and hateful, especially since it is about a local issue that obviously deserves some modicum of thought and consideration. It is dictatorial, mean and rude. It is illogical and irrational. More than that, it is tragic, on a small but symbolic level, because an entire generation of people in this state have either been marginalized or brainwashed by this immoral type of rhetorical rubbish produced by The Oklahoman.

Yet, on an even larger level, this editorial represents how you can get from simple, emotional, select, and narrow interpretations of our founding fathers’ initial documents and lives to the deceit and distortions of current conservative ideology and rhetoric. Why argue over facts or evidence about the I-40 relocation project or, say, the Bill of Rights or Jefferson’s views about slavery when you can tap into reductionist emotional appeals and clichés while counting on the consistent conservative indoctrination of your readership? This is how the right-wing argues, and The Oklahoman remains the provincial poster child of narrow views and deceitful propaganda, which are embedded in even the most innocuous material it publishes.

What Does George Bush's Second Term Mean For Oklahoma?

As George Bush begins his second term as president today, one of the lingering questions for Oklahoma progressives is this: How much will his second-term presidency help push Oklahoma politicians to adopt even more radical, right-wing positions in terms of economic and cultural issues?

Another question is this: What will it take to convince a majority of Oklahoma voters to discard the irrationality of American nationalism and religious fundamentalism and vote for their own financial interests and personal freedoms and liberties?

I will give my answers later in this post, but, first, I want to talk about Thomas Frank again.

In previous posts, I have discussed Frank’s book What’s The Matter With Kansas?. Frank tries to figure out why a majority of people in the so-called heartland have dismissed their leftist pasts and joined forces with the recent conservative juggernaut. He points out how a majority of Kansans, like Oklahomans, vote to ensure their rural towns will not survive, their small schools will close, and their children will have bleak futures.

Frank believes the takeover of mainstream media by the conservatives has much to do with this, and I agree with him on this issue. Oklahoma progressives are especially sensitive to this issue. The Daily Oklahoman, once labeled the country’s worst newspaper, has for years distorted the news and given only one-sided, conservative views about the state’s politics. The newspaper, without any sense of justice, openly and consistently supports Oklahoma’s wealthiest citizens over the middle-class and impoverished.

Yet I would argue other issues are in play here in Oklahoma. For example, college educational levels in Oklahoma remain low, so one might surmise that many voters are easily manipulated by simple appeals to emotion. Also, those fundamentalist religious ideas first politically sanctioned by former President Ronald Reagan have spread here in Oklahoma as much as they have in the Middle East. And George Bush now validates all extreme religious views throughout the world one way or another, either by celebrating fundamentalist Christianity in Oklahoma and elsewhere or by describing as a “crusade” his intention to do away with Muslim religious fanatics. In the long run, what is the difference?

(It’s important to note that Bush’s personal views can hardly be described as extreme. He merely politicizes extreme religious ideas to manipulate voters and ensure power remains vested in the Republican Party.)

We have seen Bush’s direct and indirect influence, I believe, in helping the Republicans take over the Oklahoma House of Representatives for the first time in 80 years. There are now no brakes on the conservative onslaught in this state. Already, the state Republicans, emboldened by their victories and the president’s re-election, are plotting how to redistribute tax income to the state’s most wealthiest residents (i.e., the Gaylord family, oil company executives, etc.) under Orwellian named programs such as The Oklahoma Prosperity Project or the Taxpayers Bill of Rights.

And so my answers to my initial questions are not positive for Oklahoma progressives. Yes, the state can become even more radically conservative in the coming years as the Republicans take the country, incrementally, into the abyss, gutting Social Security, redistributing income to the country’s wealthiest, and blurring distinctions between church and state.

What could change this, of course, is a huge, national financial disaster, which might serve as a wake-up call, but I suspect the country voters can limp along with mediocre but not catastrophic job and income growth as long as the right can manipulate people with fear and lies and appeals to nationalism and religion. Look how national economic policies forced our state schools into major cutbacks a couple of years ago with little or no protest from the media or the voters. The Oklahoma City Public School District still has not recovered from that disaster. The district is now short 200 teachers because many teachers undoubtedly have gone on to other states who pay them better and treat them better.

And what will it take to convince Oklahoma voters their financial interests and personal freedoms are not represented by the radical right?

This is a more difficult question. I do think many libertarian-like Republicans are secretly and sometimes openly afraid of the influence of religious fundamentalism in our state politics, and so it remains our mission to bring this issue to the forefront whenever we can. This one issue can siphon enough votes away from conservatives on a national level to swing the balance of power in Washington.

But how do we approach the rest of those Oklahoma voters who hate themselves and their children so much they vote to ensure they have low wages, fewer job opportunities, inadequate health care insurance coverage, all in the name of fundamentalist religion and fervent nationalism? My belief is progressives need to stay consistent with logic and rationality and hope for the best, but we will not accomplish much, frankly, if national progressives continue to write off red states, such as Oklahoma. Many have done so since the election, judging by articles published on sites such as Common Dreams, and this is not good news.

Much has been made in the press recently about George Bush’s “accountability” moment. Bush, in an interview with a reporter for The Washington Post, said his policies have been vindicated because voters re-elected him and thus he does not have to be held accountable to any criticism of his administration. The major problem with this thinking is that many people never received a balanced assessment of the impact his policies—whether the Iraqi war debacle or tax cuts for the most wealthy-- have had on the country and on the world because of biased media coverage.

We have to try to provide that balance even knowing that doing so in Oklahoma, with its immoral, unbalanced mainstream media, is probably a losing cause right now. Yes, we are marginalized here, at this particular moment in history, but I believe progressive voices will prevail again in the state as they did once before in the early 1900s.

Okie Dilemma: Staying Sane in the Radical Right's Favorite State

(Again, I apologize for the lack of posts recently, and I want to thank all those people who have expressed interest in the blog. I do plan on continuing Okie Funk. Please contact me with your comments on my blogs or with ideas for future blogs.)

The recent election and its ensuing fallout has left me confronting once again the issue of powerlessness of progressives and liberals in Oklahoma.

What is there to do? The election has brought home the fact that Oklahoma seems light years away from embracing policies and ideas that would help the state residents prosper. In fact, with the new Republican majority in the Oklahoma House, and with Tom Coburn in Washington, we can only expect the continuation of weird and radical pronouncements and proposed legislation.

All of it would be real funny if so much were not at stake.

I envision the Oklahoma Republicans will focus their attention on issues such as limiting women's rights over their own bodies, creationist disclaimers for science textbooks that contain theories of evolution, tax relief for the most wealthy in the state, and school prayer. Watch for Republican-sponsored legislation calling for a constitutional amendment limiting state budget growth. The Orwellian-named Taxpayer Bill of Rights, along with other proposed lgeisiation, would ultimately cut public school funding at all levels and give major tax breaks to a relatively small group of wealthy people in Oklahoma.

In addition, U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, already considered a freakish, right-wing extremist by the national media, will undoubtedly continue to advocate killing doctors who perform abortions or talk about the takeover of Oklahoma public schools by lesbians.

The Daily Oklahoman, meanwhile, will continue its editorial distortions and omissions, ensuring its immoral, extreme views help keep the state's residents in the dark about the gutting of Social Security or the Iraq war. (Perhaps, we should rename the state Gaylordahoma. I wonder how much that would cost the Gaylord family?)

And, for the most part, Democratic leaders in Oklahoma will stay silent or join with the Republicans for the sake of ideology or expediency.

So, again, what is there to do?

Listen. If you are a progressive from Oklahoma, there is really no reason to get depressed. Like me, you are used to the contradictions and ignorance that fuel this state's politics and thus support the state's most wealthiest power brokers. You, too, have argued to no avail with those Okie right-wingers who have and will lose money, health benefits, and job opportunities under the current conservative juggernaut in the state and throughout the nation.

So what I urge you to do, if you have not done so already, is extract yourself philosophically from the one-party, conversative system in Oklahoma and, along with other progressives, try to create something new here. We sincerely have nothing to lose. We are already completely marginalized and under fire by the state's power structure.

The state Democrats will certainly want us to work within the confines and ideology of the party, of course. But if the national trend is for Democrats to become even more Republican-lite in face of the recent election, you can imagine what this means for the Oklahoma Democratic Party, which is headed by Jay Parmley. By all accounts, Parmley is a good man, but his public views are probably shaped far more by conservative legislators in his own party than progressive Democrats.

One good sign on the Democratic front is that Howard Dean has announced he is running for chair of the Democratic National Committee. But do not hold your breath. We saw how the party ostracized him during the campaign. Party leaders could do it again.

At my university, we have formed a progressive coalition, the UCOpc, and anyone who shares our ideas is invited to join. I imagine there are other such organizations popping up throughout the state at universities or at other institutions not completely taken over yet by the right-wing.

In addition, I plan to continue to argue with those Oklahoma conservatives who have been blinded by deceitful right-wing rhetoric. This rhetoric is based on appeals to nationalism, patriotism, and religion. These are powerful concepts that have never been based on logic or rationality, so it makes our task extremely difficult.

Yet our continuing commitment to the rules of evidence, rationality, cause and effect, logic, and truth is what will keep us sane in this state.