DocHoc Posts

"In a minute there is time/For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse."-From T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"

Is the Oklahoma Senate's decision to pass Gov. Mary Fallin's major income tax cut proposal reckless or is it just part of ongoing political negotiations?

On Wednesday, the Senate voted to approve Fallin's proposal, which would lower the top income tax rate from 5.25 to 3.5 percent next year and then lower the rate by one-quarter of a percent each year revenue growth is 5 percent or more.  
The Oklahoma Policy Institute, a think tank based in Tulsa, estimates Fallin's tax-cut plan would cost $1 billion in the first year, a staggering amount of money in a state with a current budget of $6.5 billion. It's unclear how the cut would be paid for, but some legislative leaders apparently are saying the major cut isn't going to happen this year.

According to a NewsOK story:

. . . Republican legislative leaders say they're still negotiating several tax cut plans and have acknowledged it's unlikely that a cut of more than 1 percent can be accomplished this year.

That's some good news, although the prudent action would be to hold off on any tax cut this year. Even 1 percent or even a quarter of that amount is way too much. Declining natural gas gross production tax revenues and recent major budget cuts at state agencies and in education should mean the tax-cut talk should be put on hold for this year. Oklahoma still has not returned to pre-recession revenues. Let's revisit the tax-cut issue when that "return" happens.

Senate Republicans might just be giving respect to the governor, but their action could also be labeled as at least questionable if not reckless. Why pass this particular plan if it's not going to make it through the legislative gauntlet? Why didn't Fallin, pictured right, release Republican legislative leaders of any obligation to her plan given the downturn in natural gas tax revenues and issue a statement about it? Why play with fire?

Or is the point to show how financially responsible the Republicans have become when they pass a smaller cut? Will it make it more politically feasible for them even though a smaller cut would likely end up requiring more budget cuts?

I'm not necessarily arguing there are ulterior motives here in passing this particular plan beyond legislative protocol, but anyone who has followed the Oklahoma Legislature through the years knows the political shenanigans never cease until adjournment.

When it comes to the lege, I often think of these two lines in T.S. Eliot's poem "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," "In a minute there is time/For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse."

So the major question is simply this: Does this plan have any chance of reaching Fallin's desk? Maybe I'm just too much of a skeptic, but I wouldn't rule it completely out at this juncture.

There's growing evidence in favor of NOT implementing any type of tax cut this year as I've noted here and here. OK Policy makes the comprehensive case against a tax cut here. This is an important issue that has the potential to negatively impact the quality of life here through even more cuts in education and state services.

"In a minute there is time/For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse."-From T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"

Is the Oklahoma Senate's decision to pass Gov. Mary Fallin's major income tax cut proposal reckless or is it just part of ongoing political negotiations?

On Wednesday, the Senate voted to approve Fallin's proposal, which would lower the top income tax rate from 5.25 to 3.5 percent next year and then lower the rate by one-quarter of a percent each year revenue growth is 5 percent or more.  
The Oklahoma Policy Institute, a think tank based in Tulsa, estimates Fallin's tax-cut plan would cost $1 billion in the first year, a staggering amount of money in a state with a current budget of $6.5 billion. It's unclear how the cut would be paid for, but some legislative leaders apparently are saying the major cut isn't going to happen this year.

According to a NewsOK story:

. . . Republican legislative leaders say they're still negotiating several tax cut plans and have acknowledged it's unlikely that a cut of more than 1 percent can be accomplished this year.

That's some good news, although the prudent action would be to hold off on any tax cut this year. Even 1 percent or even a quarter of that amount is way too much. Declining natural gas gross production tax revenues and recent major budget cuts at state agencies and in education should mean the tax-cut talk should be put on hold for this year. Oklahoma still has not returned to pre-recession revenues. Let's revisit the tax-cut issue when that "return" happens.

Senate Republicans might just be giving respect to the governor, but their action could also be labeled as at least questionable if not reckless. Why pass this particular plan if it's not going to make it through the legislative gauntlet? Why didn't Fallin, pictured right, release Republican legislative leaders of any obligation to her plan given the downturn in natural gas tax revenues and issue a statement about it? Why play with fire?

Or is the point to show how financially responsible the Republicans have become when they pass a smaller cut? Will it make it more politically feasible for them even though a smaller cut would likely end up requiring more budget cuts?

I'm not necessarily arguing there are ulterior motives here in passing this particular plan beyond legislative protocol, but anyone who has followed the Oklahoma Legislature through the years knows the political shenanigans never cease until adjournment.

When it comes to the lege, I often think of these two lines in T.S. Eliot's poem "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," "In a minute there is time/For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse."

So the major question is simply this: Does this plan have any chance of reaching Fallin's desk? Maybe I'm just too much of a skeptic, but I wouldn't rule it completely out at this juncture.

There's growing evidence in favor of NOT implementing any type of tax cut this year as I've noted here and here. OK Policy makes the comprehensive case against a tax cut here. This is an important issue that has the potential to negatively impact the quality of life here through even more cuts in education and state services.

(Be sure to watch the highlights of an April 5th forum on the proposed income tax cut plans in the above video.)

The reasons for Republicans to drop plans for any type of income tax cut this legislative session continue to mount.

Parents and educators in the Tulsa area, for example, have begun an effort to convince state leaders to restore school funding to 2007-2008 levels because of recent devastating budget cuts and not implement a new tax cut. The Tulsa School District, for example, is in the process of eliminating 150 positions because of budget cuts.
A rally has been scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Thursday at the field house at Edison Preparatory School, 2906 E. 41st St. in Tulsa.

Is the GOP, including Gov. May Fallin, paying attention to the political ramifications of this grassroots movement opposed to a new income tax cut?

Meanwhile, Democratic leader state Sen. Sean Burrage of Claremore and Democratic Senate Caucus  leader Tom Ivester of Sayre have made powerful statements opposing tax cuts.

Here's what Burrage had to say in a media release:

Oklahoma does not have enough revenues to even begin to meet critical needs in education, health, public safety, transportation and other services our citizens depend upon. House Bill 3038 will further erode those resources. We're 48th in the nation in the health of our citizens. If this becomes law, we'll soon be 50th. We're close to last when it comes to teacher pay and per pupil spending. We'll soon be dead last in those categories, too. Supporters claim we're going to see businesses and people flock to Oklahoma if we end the income tax. When they see Oklahoma's schools, roads and bridges, and our public health all ranked last in the nation, this will be the last place in the nation they'll want to come.

Here's what Ivester had to say in the same media release:

The State Capitol building is crumbling around us. We don't know how we're going to pay for the DHS reforms that are supposed to prevent more Oklahoma children from dying in state custody. We have yet to restore funding cuts in education and other critical areas in the wake of the national recession. No one promoting the elimination of one-third of the state's revenue is addressing these issues, except with vague claims that this will bring in more jobs, more taxpayers and that will take care of it. These are empty political promises that will leave thousands of Oklahomans without vital services and many more with a lower quality of life.

Again, do Republicans stand to lose politically if they go ahead with a tax cut given these rational arguments?

Let me add another reason, though it may be a bit of a wildcard. The Occupy Wall Street Movement has begun to focus on exorbitant student loan debt of college students. Some politicians have floated ideas that would forgive some, if not all of this debt. (I favor this effort.) The forgiveness most likely would need to be accompanied by reasonable tuition rates, which could pressure state governments, including Oklahoma, to provide more financial support for universities and colleges.

How can Oklahoma do so with drastic cuts in state revenues?

Of course, the opposition cited in this post to an income tax cut in Oklahoma this year represents a tiny fraction of recent developments or ideas. The Oklahoma Policy Institute has the state's most comprehensive information of why an income tax cut would hurt the state. Different plans for some type of income tax cut, including the eventual elimination of the income tax entirely, are now under consideration in the legislature.

(Be sure to watch the highlights of an April 5th forum on the proposed income tax cut plans in the above video.)

The reasons for Republicans to drop plans for any type of income tax cut this legislative session continue to mount.

Parents and educators in the Tulsa area, for example, have begun an effort to convince state leaders to restore school funding to 2007-2008 levels because of recent devastating budget cuts and not implement a new tax cut. The Tulsa School District, for example, is in the process of eliminating 150 positions because of budget cuts.
A rally has been scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Thursday at the field house at Edison Preparatory School, 2906 E. 41st St. in Tulsa.

Is the GOP, including Gov. May Fallin, paying attention to the political ramifications of this grassroots movement opposed to a new income tax cut?

Meanwhile, Democratic leader state Sen. Sean Burrage of Claremore and Democratic Senate Caucus  leader Tom Ivester of Sayre have made powerful statements opposing tax cuts.

Here's what Burrage had to say in a media release:

Oklahoma does not have enough revenues to even begin to meet critical needs in education, health, public safety, transportation and other services our citizens depend upon. House Bill 3038 will further erode those resources. We're 48th in the nation in the health of our citizens. If this becomes law, we'll soon be 50th. We're close to last when it comes to teacher pay and per pupil spending. We'll soon be dead last in those categories, too. Supporters claim we're going to see businesses and people flock to Oklahoma if we end the income tax. When they see Oklahoma's schools, roads and bridges, and our public health all ranked last in the nation, this will be the last place in the nation they'll want to come.

Here's what Ivester had to say in the same media release:

The State Capitol building is crumbling around us. We don't know how we're going to pay for the DHS reforms that are supposed to prevent more Oklahoma children from dying in state custody. We have yet to restore funding cuts in education and other critical areas in the wake of the national recession. No one promoting the elimination of one-third of the state's revenue is addressing these issues, except with vague claims that this will bring in more jobs, more taxpayers and that will take care of it. These are empty political promises that will leave thousands of Oklahomans without vital services and many more with a lower quality of life.

Again, do Republicans stand to lose politically if they go ahead with a tax cut given these rational arguments?

Let me add another reason, though it may be a bit of a wildcard. The Occupy Wall Street Movement has begun to focus on exorbitant student loan debt of college students. Some politicians have floated ideas that would forgive some, if not all of this debt. (I favor this effort.) The forgiveness most likely would need to be accompanied by reasonable tuition rates, which could pressure state governments, including Oklahoma, to provide more financial support for universities and colleges.

How can Oklahoma do so with drastic cuts in state revenues?

Of course, the opposition cited in this post to an income tax cut in Oklahoma this year represents a tiny fraction of recent developments or ideas. The Oklahoma Policy Institute has the state's most comprehensive information of why an income tax cut would hurt the state. Different plans for some type of income tax cut, including the eventual elimination of the income tax entirely, are now under consideration in the legislature.

You have to appreciate all the attention actor Alec Baldwin has given Oklahoma's two U.S. senators lately.

Back in March, the 30 Rock television star called Republican U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe an "oil whore" in a tweet to his some 700,000 followers on Twitter, which created a minor controversy but also awareness. The tweet, from @alecbladwin, went like this: "Is there a bigger Oil Whore alive than James Inhofe?" He also tweeted, "Oil Whore Jim Inhofe has betrayed every man and woman who lost their livelihood on the Gulf due to BP's overwhelming negligence..." and "We need to have Inhofe retire to a solar-powered gay bar."
On Monday, according to a media report, Baldwin spoke at the National Press Club in Washington about the importance of arts funding and mentioned that U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, another Republican, is "not as wonderful as we would like him to be on the issue of the arts."

Baldwin also listed some Oklahoma organizations that received funding last year from the National Endowment for the Arts, including the Oklahoma Council of the Arts, which got $773,000.

For some in Oklahoma, Baldwin's comments will likely seem intrusive and elitist, but I think it's great anytime a person of his stature brings public scrutiny to the state's politicians. It's a reality check. Coburn is a media darling on The Oklahoman editorial page, for example, and Inhofe pretty much gets a free ride here from media outlets in his campaign against climate-change science. Baldwin's comments, even if humorously outrageous, help to correct the local media distortions and give support for progressives here.

Baldwin has hinted that he may run for a political office in the future, maybe even running for governor in New York. In the meantime, I hope Baldwin keeps speaking up about Oklahoma politicians.

You have to appreciate all the attention actor Alec Baldwin has given Oklahoma's two U.S. senators lately.

Back in March, the 30 Rock television star called Republican U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe an "oil whore" in a tweet to his some 700,000 followers on Twitter, which created a minor controversy but also awareness. The tweet, from @alecbladwin, went like this: "Is there a bigger Oil Whore alive than James Inhofe?" He also tweeted, "Oil Whore Jim Inhofe has betrayed every man and woman who lost their livelihood on the Gulf due to BP's overwhelming negligence..." and "We need to have Inhofe retire to a solar-powered gay bar."
On Monday, according to a media report, Baldwin spoke at the National Press Club in Washington about the importance of arts funding and mentioned that U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, another Republican, is "not as wonderful as we would like him to be on the issue of the arts."

Baldwin also listed some Oklahoma organizations that received funding last year from the National Endowment for the Arts, including the Oklahoma Council of the Arts, which got $773,000.

For some in Oklahoma, Baldwin's comments will likely seem intrusive and elitist, but I think it's great anytime a person of his stature brings public scrutiny to the state's politicians. It's a reality check. Coburn is a media darling on The Oklahoman editorial page, for example, and Inhofe pretty much gets a free ride here from media outlets in his campaign against climate-change science. Baldwin's comments, even if humorously outrageous, help to correct the local media distortions and give support for progressives here.

Baldwin has hinted that he may run for a political office in the future, maybe even running for governor in New York. In the meantime, I hope Baldwin keeps speaking up about Oklahoma politicians.

I think most people here can agree that Oklahoma City's Chesapeake Energy Corp. is a significant financial component of the local and state economy and any major calamity to its overall business structure could have widespread, devastating effects.

Recently, it was widely reported that decreasing natural gas prices have made Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon, the company's founder, pictured right, search for ways to raise cash for the company. Now a Reuters article is citing several people who say $1.1 billion in loans made to McClendon that use his stake in the company's oil and gas wells as collateral have raised questions about his "fiduciary duty." Here's a key paragraph in the article:

The size and nature of the loans raise concerns about whether McClendon's personal financial deals could compromise his fiduciary duty to Chesapeake investors, according to more than a dozen academics, analysts and attorneys who reviewed the loan agreements for Reuters.

Chesapeake, of course, immediately denied that there's anything wrong with the loan arrangement. Here's its response.  After the article was published, Chesapeake stock shares dropped by 5.5 percent.

The main issue for Chesapeake, at the moment, seems to be lower natural gas prices, caused partially by a warmer than normal winter in the United States.

I wrote recently about how declining natural gas prices, perhaps caused by global warming, has affected the state's revenues because of declining gas production taxes, but Chesapeake's issues also call attention to the boom-and-bust cycle of the state's energy industry. Anyone who lived here as an adult during the early 1980s can attest to what a "bust" can do to an economy.

A warm winter, which causes dropping natural gas prices, the need for Chesapeake to raise cash, a one-day significant drop in its stock price and bad publicity for its CEO don't necessarily mean a major business calamity is pending, but it does mean the state's legislative leaders should be prudent as they consider cuts to the state's income tax.

What would happen to our state revenue base, for example, if there were massive layoffs at Chesapeake? I'm not arguing that's going to happen, but the drop in natural gas prices alone raise that question. What if next winter is as warm as this winter? The Reuters article only adds more questions to what's going on at the company these days.

Again, all of this is yet another reason not to cut the state's income tax this year.

I think most people here can agree that Oklahoma City's Chesapeake Energy Corp. is a significant financial component of the local and state economy and any major calamity to its overall business structure could have widespread, devastating effects.

Recently, it was widely reported that decreasing natural gas prices have made Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon, the company's founder, pictured right, search for ways to raise cash for the company. Now a Reuters article is citing several people who say $1.1 billion in loans made to McClendon that use his stake in the company's oil and gas wells as collateral have raised questions about his "fiduciary duty." Here's a key paragraph in the article:

The size and nature of the loans raise concerns about whether McClendon's personal financial deals could compromise his fiduciary duty to Chesapeake investors, according to more than a dozen academics, analysts and attorneys who reviewed the loan agreements for Reuters.

Chesapeake, of course, immediately denied that there's anything wrong with the loan arrangement. Here's its response.  After the article was published, Chesapeake stock shares dropped by 5.5 percent.

The main issue for Chesapeake, at the moment, seems to be lower natural gas prices, caused partially by a warmer than normal winter in the United States.

I wrote recently about how declining natural gas prices, perhaps caused by global warming, has affected the state's revenues because of declining gas production taxes, but Chesapeake's issues also call attention to the boom-and-bust cycle of the state's energy industry. Anyone who lived here as an adult during the early 1980s can attest to what a "bust" can do to an economy.

A warm winter, which causes dropping natural gas prices, the need for Chesapeake to raise cash, a one-day significant drop in its stock price and bad publicity for its CEO don't necessarily mean a major business calamity is pending, but it does mean the state's legislative leaders should be prudent as they consider cuts to the state's income tax.

What would happen to our state revenue base, for example, if there were massive layoffs at Chesapeake? I'm not arguing that's going to happen, but the drop in natural gas prices alone raise that question. What if next winter is as warm as this winter? The Reuters article only adds more questions to what's going on at the company these days.

Again, all of this is yet another reason not to cut the state's income tax this year.

Gov. Mary Fallin has vetoed a legislative bill that would reduce the legal liability of mobile home parks that allow residents to ride out storms in their offices.

Meanwhile, she has signed into a law a similar bill that reduces the legal liability of gun ranges, gun shops and gun shops if injuries occur at their businesses.

Both bills, passed by large legislative margins, are based on limiting lawsuits and protecting businesses. One bill, according to one of its sponsors, "could have saved lives." The other bill, according to one of its sponsors, will "enhance our ability to exercise Second Amendment rights."
Or, to put in another way, Fallin cares more about political expediency than anything else. She can't oppose the state's Second-Amendment fanatics if she plans to run for a second term as governor, and, let's face it, the mobile home park vote is probably not a key constituency for her in terms of campaign contributions and votes.

Even given that, the contrast here is remarkable.

House Bill 2296, the one vetoed by Fallin, would have exempted mobile home parks from civil liability if they offered shelter in their offices during tornadoes.

One sponsor of the bill, state Sen. Brian Crain, a Tulsa Republican said, "Obviously, we are very disappointed by the veto. In some mobile home parks, the office is the safest nearby structure during a severe storm. We felt this bill could have saved lives by encouraging those owners and managers to be good Samaritans."

Alex Weintz, a spokesperson for Fallin, defended the veto and was quoted this way: "The problem that our office and the governor had with that bill was that in some cases it actually encouraged ... people to send occupants of these mobile homes into unsafe environments."

I'm unsure that holds up. How do you define "unsafe environments"? The recent tornado in Woodward killed four people at a mobile home park. Residents there received short warning of the tornado. A trailer is perhaps the least safe place to be during a tornado. The state's history is filled with deaths of people who have died in trailer homes during tornadoes. Any type of effort to reduce the death toll is probably worth it.

I favor requiring mobile home parks to install storm shelters. Weintz, according to a media report, said the governor thinks mobile home park operators need to make sure shelter buildings are actually safe, but why doesn't she push them to do so? Does she believe mobile home parks should be required to install storm shelters?

Meanwhile, Senate Bill 875, signed into law by Fallin, limits "the liability of owners, employees and customers for injuries that take place on gun ranges, gun shops and gun clubs." As I mentioned, one of its sponsors, state Sen. Anthony Sykes, a Moore Republican, said, "This measure will enhance our ability to exercise Second Amendment rights."

But the other sponsor, state Rep. Dennis Johnson, a Duncan Republican, said this:

It's not likely that you will get shot on a gun range, but there is a higher risk of getting shot on one than say in your own home. Due to this, gun ranges and the people who frequent them are vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits. Creating a higher standard of culpability in order to sue is a reasonable and appropriate change to current law. I was extremely proud to see this legislation signed into law.

This will help reduce the cost of liability insurance for these small businesses that are already struggling in our tight economy.

But isn't it true that you're more likely to get injured or killed during a tornado in a mobile home than in most other structures just like there's a higher risk "of getting shot" at gun ranges than at houses? Mobile home parks are small businesses, too. What about the cost of their liability insurance? My point is you can make these arguments fit both bills.

Also, how come Fallin doesn't apparently think the gun-related bill won't lead to less safe environments at gun ranges, guns shops and gun clubs? Shouldn't they make sure their businesses and activities are actually safe just like mobile home parks should ensure their shelters are actually safe?

That Fallin (or any politician, for that matter) chose political expediency and contradicted herself is nothing new, but Oklahoma does have an issue with tornado safety. It's a much larger issue than protecting gun ranges for some type of meaningless Second-Amendment ritualistic thrill.

Gov. Mary Fallin has vetoed a legislative bill that would reduce the legal liability of mobile home parks that allow residents to ride out storms in their offices.

Meanwhile, she has signed into a law a similar bill that reduces the legal liability of gun ranges, gun shops and gun shops if injuries occur at their businesses.

Both bills, passed by large legislative margins, are based on limiting lawsuits and protecting businesses. One bill, according to one of its sponsors, "could have saved lives." The other bill, according to one of its sponsors, will "enhance our ability to exercise Second Amendment rights."
Or, to put in another way, Fallin cares more about political expediency than anything else. She can't oppose the state's Second-Amendment fanatics if she plans to run for a second term as governor, and, let's face it, the mobile home park vote is probably not a key constituency for her in terms of campaign contributions and votes.

Even given that, the contrast here is remarkable.

House Bill 2296, the one vetoed by Fallin, would have exempted mobile home parks from civil liability if they offered shelter in their offices during tornadoes.

One sponsor of the bill, state Sen. Brian Crain, a Tulsa Republican said, "Obviously, we are very disappointed by the veto. In some mobile home parks, the office is the safest nearby structure during a severe storm. We felt this bill could have saved lives by encouraging those owners and managers to be good Samaritans."

Alex Weintz, a spokesperson for Fallin, defended the veto and was quoted this way: "The problem that our office and the governor had with that bill was that in some cases it actually encouraged ... people to send occupants of these mobile homes into unsafe environments."

I'm unsure that holds up. How do you define "unsafe environments"? The recent tornado in Woodward killed four people at a mobile home park. Residents there received short warning of the tornado. A trailer is perhaps the least safe place to be during a tornado. The state's history is filled with deaths of people who have died in trailer homes during tornadoes. Any type of effort to reduce the death toll is probably worth it.

I favor requiring mobile home parks to install storm shelters. Weintz, according to a media report, said the governor thinks mobile home park operators need to make sure shelter buildings are actually safe, but why doesn't she push them to do so? Does she believe mobile home parks should be required to install storm shelters?

Meanwhile, Senate Bill 875, signed into law by Fallin, limits "the liability of owners, employees and customers for injuries that take place on gun ranges, gun shops and gun clubs." As I mentioned, one of its sponsors, state Sen. Anthony Sykes, a Moore Republican, said, "This measure will enhance our ability to exercise Second Amendment rights."

But the other sponsor, state Rep. Dennis Johnson, a Duncan Republican, said this:

It's not likely that you will get shot on a gun range, but there is a higher risk of getting shot on one than say in your own home. Due to this, gun ranges and the people who frequent them are vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits. Creating a higher standard of culpability in order to sue is a reasonable and appropriate change to current law. I was extremely proud to see this legislation signed into law.

This will help reduce the cost of liability insurance for these small businesses that are already struggling in our tight economy.

But isn't it true that you're more likely to get injured or killed during a tornado in a mobile home than in most other structures just like there's a higher risk "of getting shot" at gun ranges than at houses? Mobile home parks are small businesses, too. What about the cost of their liability insurance? My point is you can make these arguments fit both bills.

Also, how come Fallin doesn't apparently think the gun-related bill won't lead to less safe environments at gun ranges, guns shops and gun clubs? Shouldn't they make sure their businesses and activities are actually safe just like mobile home parks should ensure their shelters are actually safe?

That Fallin (or any politician, for that matter) chose political expediency and contradicted herself is nothing new, but Oklahoma does have an issue with tornado safety. It's a much larger issue than protecting gun ranges for some type of meaningless Second-Amendment ritualistic thrill.

I wrote about how President Barack Obama received a rude welcome to Oklahoma during a recent visit to Cushing, but I failed to note U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn joined in the presidential smackdown as well.

I wrote about the rude welcome here. Four local energy executives, Gov. Mary Fallin and The Oklahoman editorial page criticized the president as he announced his support to expedite the Keystone pipeline from Cushing to the Gulf Coast, an act that should have brought cheers not jeers from this crowd.
Their unfounded complaint is that Obama is hostile to the oil and gas industry, an industry led by Exxon Mobil that made $41 billion in profits last year and, according to one report, pays lower taxes that average Americans. In fact, according to the report, the company paid no federal taxes at all in 2009.

The complaints against Obama over how he responds to the oil and gas industry are a fictional political trope designed to create a narrative that Obama is anti-business. They are not based on facts.

Coburn also complained about the president's supposed hostility to the fossil fuel industry, issuing a statement in which he described the president's energy position as "All hat, no cattle."

Coburn said:

In Oklahoma, we have a phrase to describe the president's position: 'All hat, no cattle.' The president offers big talk on domestic energy production but has offered little action to back up his claims.

In word and deed, this administration has consistently expressed an illogical and ideological hostility to oil and gas. President Obama has even called oil the 'fuel of the past' even though government experts recognize our nation will rely on fossil fuels for nearly 70 percent of our energy needs through 2035. For better or worse, oil and gas are the fuel of the present. Oklahomans, in particular, understand that the Cushing facility is part of our future, not our past.

Note the use of the language "illogical and ideological hostility." Also, remember that Obama was in Cushing to announce an expansion for the fossil fuel industry.

Coburn goes on to complain that the federal government prevents the type of drilling that could make the country energy independent, which is the GOP "drill, baby, drill" philosophy that places profits of oil companies over common sense. It's simply a myth that we can drill our way to independence. Read here and here. Note, as well, how the last eight presidents, including Obama, have all promised energy independence in the above Comedy Central video.

Will a new open carry law in Oklahoma make it more likely the state will experience an incident like the Trayvon Martin case? Probably.

Martin, of course, is the 17-year-old African American who was killed by 28-year-old George Zimmerman, a watch patrol volunteer in Sanford, Fla. The case has generated widespread protest and media attention, and Zimmerman has now been charged with second-degree murder in the case.
I believe the emerging agreed-upon facts alone warranted charges in the case. Zimmerman reported Martin as "suspicious" to police when, in fact, the teenager was not suspicious.  Zimmerman followed him. He was armed with a weapon. He shot and killed Martin, who was unarmed and simply returning to his home. Zimmerman took the initiative when he simply should have relied on police. This type of vigilantism from a neighborhood watch coordinator deserves thorough police and public scrutiny.

There have been allegations of racism (one can speculate on how police would have handled the case if it was a 17-year-old white girl), but the main issue is Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which means citizens can use deadly force to protect themselves. Zimmerman claimed he killed the teenager in self-defense as Martin attacked him, and, at this point, no clear evidence, such as a video, has surfaced to dispute the claim.

But even if Martin did attack Zimmerman, didn't the teenager also have the right to stand his ground if he felt threatened? That's the conundrum of "Stand Your Ground." Once there's an altercation between people, physical or otherwise, then everyone has the right to defend themselves. If there's no clear evidence of who instigated the altercation, then you can end up with only one side of the story.

Oklahoma passed its own "Stand Your Ground" law in 2006. It states:

. . .  a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Everyone believes in basic self-defense, but the codification of the "deadly force" language creates a situation in which the government is, under at least some interpretations, actually encouraging altercation and conflict. The push to allow Oklahomans to openly carry weapons is yet another way the government is actually pushing for a violent outcome in any given altercation.

"Stand Your Ground" and open carry don't take us back to the Wild West, which actually had strict gun control laws, but into a new dystopian world of guns and violence.

What would you do if confronted by an armed man, packing heat in his visible belt holster, on a dark, rainy night in your neighborhood? Would you feel threatened? Most people would. In Oklahoma, the government is encouraging such confrontations through laws that promote gun violence.

What's coming next from the Second-Amendment crowd? Does anyone really think gun advocates here are going to stop with "Stand Your Ground" and open carry?

Will a new open carry law in Oklahoma make it more likely the state will experience an incident like the Trayvon Martin case? Probably.

Martin, of course, is the 17-year-old African American who was killed by 28-year-old George Zimmerman, a watch patrol volunteer in Sanford, Fla. The case has generated widespread protest and media attention, and Zimmerman has now been charged with second-degree murder in the case.
I believe the emerging agreed-upon facts alone warranted charges in the case. Zimmerman reported Martin as "suspicious" to police when, in fact, the teenager was not suspicious.  Zimmerman followed him. He was armed with a weapon. He shot and killed Martin, who was unarmed and simply returning to his home. Zimmerman took the initiative when he simply should have relied on police. This type of vigilantism from a neighborhood watch coordinator deserves thorough police and public scrutiny.

There have been allegations of racism (one can speculate on how police would have handled the case if it was a 17-year-old white girl), but the main issue is Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which means citizens can use deadly force to protect themselves. Zimmerman claimed he killed the teenager in self-defense as Martin attacked him, and, at this point, no clear evidence, such as a video, has surfaced to dispute the claim.

But even if Martin did attack Zimmerman, didn't the teenager also have the right to stand his ground if he felt threatened? That's the conundrum of "Stand Your Ground." Once there's an altercation between people, physical or otherwise, then everyone has the right to defend themselves. If there's no clear evidence of who instigated the altercation, then you can end up with only one side of the story.

Oklahoma passed its own "Stand Your Ground" law in 2006. It states:

. . .  a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Everyone believes in basic self-defense, but the codification of the "deadly force" language creates a situation in which the government is, under at least some interpretations, actually encouraging altercation and conflict. The push to allow Oklahomans to openly carry weapons is yet another way the government is actually pushing for a violent outcome in any given altercation.

"Stand Your Ground" and open carry don't take us back to the Wild West, which actually had strict gun control laws, but into a new dystopian world of guns and violence.

What would you do if confronted by an armed man, packing heat in his visible belt holster, on a dark, rainy night in your neighborhood? Would you feel threatened? Most people would. In Oklahoma, the government is encouraging such confrontations through laws that promote gun violence.

What's coming next from the Second-Amendment crowd? Does anyone really think gun advocates here are going to stop with "Stand Your Ground" and open carry?

The decline in state tax revenues last month and the continued decline in gross production taxes on natural gas will make any income tax cut this legislative session especially irresponsible and unconscionable.

If Republicans proceed with a tax cut, it would represent a complete capitulation to "starve the beast" ideology, which advocates widespread and deep tax cuts, rather than responsible policy, to cut government spending.
Gov. Mary Fallin, pictured right, and other Republicans should drop their tax cut proposals and work to generate revenues for state agencies and educational institutions, which have faced large budget cuts since the 2008 economic downturn. The recent tax-cut debate here has been worth it for some political and philosophical reasons, but the timing is exactly wrong for a cut of any kind. Obviously, the issue is not going away as long as conservatives dominate the legislature.

At a recent forum on the issue hosted by the Oklahoma Policy Institute, Alexander Holmes, a University of Oklahoma economist and a former state finance director, called the math behind some of the proposed cuts "insane."

The state's intellectual community, for the most part, is opposed to a cut. The state's two largest newspapers are urging caution about the potential for lost state revenues. There appears to be no active or visible groundswell of popular support for the tax cuts. That might leave only the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank, and some, but not all, GOP elected officials still actively working for a major tax cut. Support for a cut is waning.

One initial proposed plan would cut the top income tax rate from 5.25 to 2.5 percent. If GOP elected officials proceed with such a major cut at this time, without raising other taxes, the ensuing loss of government services and decline in education funding will fall squarely on Fallin and her party. The cut, if enacted, would have a huge potential to disrupt Fallin's chances at reelection.

Ironically, what has most recently exposed the extreme danger behind the tax cut proposals may have been the effects of global warming. This is in a state that has repeatedly elected U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, the world's loudest skeptic of climate change science.

The state's tax revenue last month came in under last year's March revenues by $2.6 million or 0.3 percent. A main reason for this is the decline in gross production taxes on natural gas, according to State Treasurer Ken Miller, one Republican who has urged a responsible approach to the tax cut issue.

According to a media release issued by Miller:

Gross production collections were down in March for a fourth consecutive month, reflecting the impact of low natural gas prices. On Monday, the spot price of natural gas closed at its lowest point for the year, below $1.90 per thousand cubic feet (mcf), at the Henry Hub in Louisiana, the primary marketplace for Oklahoma-produced natural gas.

Miller said, "While one month does not a trend make in overall revenue collections, four continuous months of decreasing gross production collections is getting trendy. And due to the timing of gross production collections, March receipts reflect market activity from January. We should expect a period of shrinking natural gas tax collections until prices rebound, especially if the price triggers a lower extraction tax rate."

Although Miller doesn't mention it in his release, one factor driving low natural gas prices has been what some have referred to as "the year without winter" in America. In March, the average temperature was 8.6 degrees above normal in the lower 48 states. It was the fourth warmest winter in the country's history.

According to an Associated Press article, "The magnitude of how unusual the year has been in the U.S. has alarmed some meteorologists who have warned about global warming. One climate scientist said it is the weather equivalent of a baseball player on steroids, with old records obliterated."

Any given weather event doesn't prove or disprove climate change. It's the long-term information that counts. But this year's warm winter does tell us that Oklahoma is still heavily reliant on the ups and downs (or the boom and bust) cycle of the energy industry. A business blog published in The New York Times, for example, mentions how Oklahoma's Chesapeake Energy has had to recently raise cash to deal with "the effects of a warm winter."

What if next winter is even warmer? How will that affect state revenues?

The state's income tax provides approximately one-third of the state's revenues. To cut it without raising taxes or revenues elsewhere at this time, given the uncertainty of the natural gas market and other factors, would be reckless.

The decline in state tax revenues last month and the continued decline in gross production taxes on natural gas will make any income tax cut this legislative session especially irresponsible and unconscionable.

If Republicans proceed with a tax cut, it would represent a complete capitulation to "starve the beast" ideology, which advocates widespread and deep tax cuts, rather than responsible policy, to cut government spending.
Gov. Mary Fallin, pictured right, and other Republicans should drop their tax cut proposals and work to generate revenues for state agencies and educational institutions, which have faced large budget cuts since the 2008 economic downturn. The recent tax-cut debate here has been worth it for some political and philosophical reasons, but the timing is exactly wrong for a cut of any kind. Obviously, the issue is not going away as long as conservatives dominate the legislature.

At a recent forum on the issue hosted by the Oklahoma Policy Institute, Alexander Holmes, a University of Oklahoma economist and a former state finance director, called the math behind some of the proposed cuts "insane."

The state's intellectual community, for the most part, is opposed to a cut. The state's two largest newspapers are urging caution about the potential for lost state revenues. There appears to be no active or visible groundswell of popular support for the tax cuts. That might leave only the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank, and some, but not all, GOP elected officials still actively working for a major tax cut. Support for a cut is waning.

One initial proposed plan would cut the top income tax rate from 5.25 to 2.5 percent. If GOP elected officials proceed with such a major cut at this time, without raising other taxes, the ensuing loss of government services and decline in education funding will fall squarely on Fallin and her party. The cut, if enacted, would have a huge potential to disrupt Fallin's chances at reelection.

Ironically, what has most recently exposed the extreme danger behind the tax cut proposals may have been the effects of global warming. This is in a state that has repeatedly elected U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, the world's loudest skeptic of climate change science.

The state's tax revenue last month came in under last year's March revenues by $2.6 million or 0.3 percent. A main reason for this is the decline in gross production taxes on natural gas, according to State Treasurer Ken Miller, one Republican who has urged a responsible approach to the tax cut issue.

According to a media release issued by Miller:

Gross production collections were down in March for a fourth consecutive month, reflecting the impact of low natural gas prices. On Monday, the spot price of natural gas closed at its lowest point for the year, below $1.90 per thousand cubic feet (mcf), at the Henry Hub in Louisiana, the primary marketplace for Oklahoma-produced natural gas.

Miller said, "While one month does not a trend make in overall revenue collections, four continuous months of decreasing gross production collections is getting trendy. And due to the timing of gross production collections, March receipts reflect market activity from January. We should expect a period of shrinking natural gas tax collections until prices rebound, especially if the price triggers a lower extraction tax rate."

Although Miller doesn't mention it in his release, one factor driving low natural gas prices has been what some have referred to as "the year without winter" in America. In March, the average temperature was 8.6 degrees above normal in the lower 48 states. It was the fourth warmest winter in the country's history.

According to an Associated Press article, "The magnitude of how unusual the year has been in the U.S. has alarmed some meteorologists who have warned about global warming. One climate scientist said it is the weather equivalent of a baseball player on steroids, with old records obliterated."

Any given weather event doesn't prove or disprove climate change. It's the long-term information that counts. But this year's warm winter does tell us that Oklahoma is still heavily reliant on the ups and downs (or the boom and bust) cycle of the energy industry. A business blog published in The New York Times, for example, mentions how Oklahoma's Chesapeake Energy has had to recently raise cash to deal with "the effects of a warm winter."

What if next winter is even warmer? How will that affect state revenues?

The state's income tax provides approximately one-third of the state's revenues. To cut it without raising taxes or revenues elsewhere at this time, given the uncertainty of the natural gas market and other factors, would be reckless.

An Oklahoma senator has made a fresh attempt to bring creationist ideas as a challenge to evolution theory into the state's public science classrooms.

State Sen. Steve Russell, an Oklahoma City Republican, has filed a floor amendment to House Bill 2341, which originally dealt with textbook adoptions.

The amendment inserts the language of House Bill 1551 into the bill. HB 1551, originally sponsored by controversial state Rep. Sally Kern, an Oklahoma City Republican, finds certain topics, such as biological evolution, can cause controversy and requires school districts "to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies." The bill, passed by the House, didn't receive a hearing in the Senate Education Committee and thus was presumed to be killed for the session.
Kern's bill and now Russell's floor amendment are widely seen by science educational organizations, such as the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), as an attempt to introduce creationist ideas through the faux science of intelligent design as a valid challenge to the theory of evolution, a bedrock of scientific knowledge. Intelligent design, which has been invalidated by a federal court, holds that the natural world is so complicated that a "designer" (i.e., wink, wink, a god) created it.

The bill and amendment also cite the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning as topics that can cause controversy.

I've written about House Bill 1551 here, here and here, noting that it would make Oklahoma students less prepared for college, damage the state's image and make it difficult to expand the state's medical research base and lead to an even greater shortage of doctors here. It's also a clear example of religious intrusion in public schools, which some people, including myself, see as a violation of the separation between church and state as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Russell's move to insert the language of one bill in another bill is fairly typical political maneuvering for the Oklahoma Legislature, although it seems especially disingenuous in this case given the public and media attention received by HB 1551. Many of those who opposed the bill were not even aware that Russell had made the floor amendment until a few days after he did so.

One Senate sponsor of HB 2341 is state Sen. John Ford, a Bartlesville Republican, who is chairperson of the Senate Education Committee, which didn't hear HB 1551, effectively killing it. It's uncertain how Ford or other Senate leaders will respond to Russell's amendment.

The bill has yet to be placed on the Senate's voting agenda so there's time for those opposed to HB 1551 and now HB 2341 to contact senators and express their views, according to Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE), which issued the following action alert:

We have just found out that Senator Steve Russell has filed a floor amendment to HB 2341, a bill to delay textbook purchases because of lack of funding, that would attach HB 1551 ("Academic Freedom Bill") to that bill. Please contact senators John Ford, 521-5634, fordj@oksenate.gov and Judy Eason McIntyre, 521-5598, easonmcintyre@oksenate.gov, senate sponsors of bill, and your own senator, and urge them to defeat the amendment. Emails are especially encouraged. Mention that the amendment is not germane to the bill. The amendment will be considered when the bill is heard on the Senate floor.

Here are the email addresses for the Senators:

adelson@oksenate.gov; aldridge@oksenate.gov; allen@oksenate.gov;anderson@oksenate.gov; ballenger@oksenate.gov; barrington@oksenate.gov;bass@oksenate.gov; bingman@oksenate.gov; branan@oksenate.gov;brecheen@oksenate.gov; brinkley@oksenate.gov; brownb@oksenate.gov;burrage@oksenate.gov; childers@oksenate.gov; coates@oksenate.gov;crain@oksenate.gov; david@oksenate.gov; easonmcintyre@oksenate.gov;ellis@oksenate.gov; efields@oksenate.gov; fordj@oksenate.gov;garrisone@oksenate.gov; halligan@oksenate.gov; holt@oksenate.gov;ivester@oksenate.gov; johnsonc@oksenate.gov; johnsonr@oksenate.gov;jolley@oksenate.gov; justice@oksenate.gov; laster@oksenate.gov;lerblance@oksenate.gov; marlatt@oksenate.gov; mazzei@oksenate.gov;newberry@oksenate.gov; nichols@oksenate.gov; paddack@oksenate.gov; schulz@oksenate.gov; shortey@oksenate.gov; simpson@oksenate.gov; sparks@oksenate.gov; stanislawski@oksenate.gov; lewis@oksenate.gov; treat@oksenate.gov; wilson@oksenate.gov; wyrick@oksenate.gov

OESE has fought against bills like HB 1551 and now HB 2341 for more than a decade, and one of its members, Victor Hutchison, George Lynn Cross Research Professor Emeritus in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma, worked especially hard to organize and present opposition to the original bill.

National organizations opposed to the bill include NCSE, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, the National Earth Science Teachers Association, and the National Biology Teachers Association. State organizations opposed to the bill include OESE, the Oklahoma Academy of Science, the Oklahoma State Teachers Association, the OKC and Tulsa Interfaith Alliances and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

An Oklahoma senator has made a fresh attempt to bring creationist ideas as a challenge to evolution theory into the state's public science classrooms.

State Sen. Steve Russell, an Oklahoma City Republican, has filed a floor amendment to House Bill 2341, which originally dealt with textbook adoptions.

The amendment inserts the language of House Bill 1551 into the bill. HB 1551, originally sponsored by controversial state Rep. Sally Kern, an Oklahoma City Republican, finds certain topics, such as biological evolution, can cause controversy and requires school districts "to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies." The bill, passed by the House, didn't receive a hearing in the Senate Education Committee and thus was presumed to be killed for the session.
Kern's bill and now Russell's floor amendment are widely seen by science educational organizations, such as the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), as an attempt to introduce creationist ideas through the faux science of intelligent design as a valid challenge to the theory of evolution, a bedrock of scientific knowledge. Intelligent design, which has been invalidated by a federal court, holds that the natural world is so complicated that a "designer" (i.e., wink, wink, a god) created it.

The bill and amendment also cite the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning as topics that can cause controversy.

I've written about House Bill 1551 here, here and here, noting that it would make Oklahoma students less prepared for college, damage the state's image and make it difficult to expand the state's medical research base and lead to an even greater shortage of doctors here. It's also a clear example of religious intrusion in public schools, which some people, including myself, see as a violation of the separation between church and state as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Russell's move to insert the language of one bill in another bill is fairly typical political maneuvering for the Oklahoma Legislature, although it seems especially disingenuous in this case given the public and media attention received by HB 1551. Many of those who opposed the bill were not even aware that Russell had made the floor amendment until a few days after he did so.

One Senate sponsor of HB 2341 is state Sen. John Ford, a Bartlesville Republican, who is chairperson of the Senate Education Committee, which didn't hear HB 1551, effectively killing it. It's uncertain how Ford or other Senate leaders will respond to Russell's amendment.

The bill has yet to be placed on the Senate's voting agenda so there's time for those opposed to HB 1551 and now HB 2341 to contact senators and express their views, according to Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE), which issued the following action alert:

We have just found out that Senator Steve Russell has filed a floor amendment to HB 2341, a bill to delay textbook purchases because of lack of funding, that would attach HB 1551 ("Academic Freedom Bill") to that bill. Please contact senators John Ford, 521-5634, fordj@oksenate.gov and Judy Eason McIntyre, 521-5598, easonmcintyre@oksenate.gov, senate sponsors of bill, and your own senator, and urge them to defeat the amendment. Emails are especially encouraged. Mention that the amendment is not germane to the bill. The amendment will be considered when the bill is heard on the Senate floor.

Here are the email addresses for the Senators:

adelson@oksenate.gov; aldridge@oksenate.gov; allen@oksenate.gov;anderson@oksenate.gov; ballenger@oksenate.gov; barrington@oksenate.gov;bass@oksenate.gov; bingman@oksenate.gov; branan@oksenate.gov;brecheen@oksenate.gov; brinkley@oksenate.gov; brownb@oksenate.gov;burrage@oksenate.gov; childers@oksenate.gov; coates@oksenate.gov;crain@oksenate.gov; david@oksenate.gov; easonmcintyre@oksenate.gov;ellis@oksenate.gov; efields@oksenate.gov; fordj@oksenate.gov;garrisone@oksenate.gov; halligan@oksenate.gov; holt@oksenate.gov;ivester@oksenate.gov; johnsonc@oksenate.gov; johnsonr@oksenate.gov;jolley@oksenate.gov; justice@oksenate.gov; laster@oksenate.gov;lerblance@oksenate.gov; marlatt@oksenate.gov; mazzei@oksenate.gov;newberry@oksenate.gov; nichols@oksenate.gov; paddack@oksenate.gov; schulz@oksenate.gov; shortey@oksenate.gov; simpson@oksenate.gov; sparks@oksenate.gov; stanislawski@oksenate.gov; lewis@oksenate.gov; treat@oksenate.gov; wilson@oksenate.gov; wyrick@oksenate.gov

OESE has fought against bills like HB 1551 and now HB 2341 for more than a decade, and one of its members, Victor Hutchison, George Lynn Cross Research Professor Emeritus in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma, worked especially hard to organize and present opposition to the original bill.

National organizations opposed to the bill include NCSE, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, the National Earth Science Teachers Association, and the National Biology Teachers Association. State organizations opposed to the bill include OESE, the Oklahoma Academy of Science, the Oklahoma State Teachers Association, the OKC and Tulsa Interfaith Alliances and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Oklahoma has long been known as a place with kooky liquor laws. No cold beer in liquor stores, which can't sell mixers or ice. No wine or strong beer in grocery stores.

Remember "liquor by the wink" when you supposedly had to join a club and bring your own bottle to get a gin and tonic at a hotel bar?

The prevailing wisdom on all this for years is that the liquor store lobby and the Southern Baptist lobby have joined together in an unholy alliance to deprive Oklahomans of the same basic shopping convenience enjoyed by millions of people throughout the nation.
Liquor store owners here don't want business competition, the supposed hallmark of capitalism. They want the state to guarantee their profits through archaic laws. The Southern Baptist leadership apparently views the devil brew as counterproductive to leading a rewarding spiritual life, though even Will Rogers once remarked, "Oklahoma will be a dry state as long as the voters can stagger to the polls."

Greed. Hypocrisy. Two of Oklahoma's less attractive attributes joining together to prevent the application of common sense. What else is new, right?

The group Oklahomans for Modern Laws once seemed a bright hope for liquor law change here, but now that notion seems unclear given the parameters of their announced initiative petition drive, which would replace kooky with, well, more kooky.

The group has announced it will collect signatures to get a measure on the ballot that would allow ONLY wine sales in ONLY grocery stores at least 25,000 square feet. This could only happen in the state's largest 15 counties. Corporations could only get six location licenses altogether. To get those licenses, corporations would have to perform certain sacrificial rituals involving a rain of catfish, and those people purchasing the wine would have to do so blindfolded and would later be tattooed with a scarlet "W" on their forehead. (Okay, that last sentence isn't true. Kooky is what kooky is.)

According to media reports, the group limited its scope in order to make it more quenching for voters, but its under reach might well doom the proposal altogether. Can anyone really imagine this as a first step to sane liquor laws given its own quirkiness and limitations?

Why not collect signatures for a ballot measure that would allow wine and strong beer sales in all grocery and convenience stores and allow liquor stores to sell food, mixers and ice to level the playing field? Let them serve that beer and the appropriate wine chilled.

Let's have the real fight, and, if we lose, we'll get back up and fight the kooky laws again and again until we win. That's the path to victory.

Oklahoma has long been known as a place with kooky liquor laws. No cold beer in liquor stores, which can't sell mixers or ice. No wine or strong beer in grocery stores.

Remember "liquor by the wink" when you supposedly had to join a club and bring your own bottle to get a gin and tonic at a hotel bar?

The prevailing wisdom on all this for years is that the liquor store lobby and the Southern Baptist lobby have joined together in an unholy alliance to deprive Oklahomans of the same basic shopping convenience enjoyed by millions of people throughout the nation.
Liquor store owners here don't want business competition, the supposed hallmark of capitalism. They want the state to guarantee their profits through archaic laws. The Southern Baptist leadership apparently views the devil brew as counterproductive to leading a rewarding spiritual life, though even Will Rogers once remarked, "Oklahoma will be a dry state as long as the voters can stagger to the polls."

Greed. Hypocrisy. Two of Oklahoma's less attractive attributes joining together to prevent the application of common sense. What else is new, right?

The group Oklahomans for Modern Laws once seemed a bright hope for liquor law change here, but now that notion seems unclear given the parameters of their announced initiative petition drive, which would replace kooky with, well, more kooky.

The group has announced it will collect signatures to get a measure on the ballot that would allow ONLY wine sales in ONLY grocery stores at least 25,000 square feet. This could only happen in the state's largest 15 counties. Corporations could only get six location licenses altogether. To get those licenses, corporations would have to perform certain sacrificial rituals involving a rain of catfish, and those people purchasing the wine would have to do so blindfolded and would later be tattooed with a scarlet "W" on their forehead. (Okay, that last sentence isn't true. Kooky is what kooky is.)

According to media reports, the group limited its scope in order to make it more quenching for voters, but its under reach might well doom the proposal altogether. Can anyone really imagine this as a first step to sane liquor laws given its own quirkiness and limitations?

Why not collect signatures for a ballot measure that would allow wine and strong beer sales in all grocery and convenience stores and allow liquor stores to sell food, mixers and ice to level the playing field? Let them serve that beer and the appropriate wine chilled.

Let's have the real fight, and, if we lose, we'll get back up and fight the kooky laws again and again until we win. That's the path to victory.

(Update: Apparently the language of House Bill 1551 has made its way in the form of an amendment to a bill dealing with textbooks. The floor amendment to House Bill 2341 was made by state Sen. Steve Russell, an Oklahoma City Republican. The Senate could vote on the bill as early as today.)

A bill designed to bring creationist ideas into the state's public science classrooms failed to get a committee hearing Monday

House Bill 1551, originally sponsored by controversial state Rep. Sally Kern, an Oklahoma City Republican, would have required schools to assist teachers in presenting information about what it deems scientific controversies, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

Essentially, the bill would have allowed religious precepts under the guise of faux science as a challenge to evolution and undoubtedly allowed misinformation about global warming in science classrooms. Among other things, it would have made Oklahoma students less prepared for college.
I wrote previously about the bill and Kern here and here.

The Oklahoma House passed the measure, although more than 30 members didn't even vote on it. It was then sent to the Senate Education Committee, where it didn't receive a hearing on Monday. Since the committee will not meet again this year, the bill is effectively dead, according to Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE), which led the fight against the bill.

One OESE member, Victor Hutchison, George Lynn Cross Research Professor Emeritus in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma, worked especially hard to organize and present opposition to the measure.

But as Hutchison noted in an email message to those who helped him oppose the measure, "The creationists are not likely to stop." He also noted that although similar measures have been presented since 1999, not one has made it into law.

Hutchison wrote,  . . . "we must be prepared to continue the opposition in future years."

Religious intrusion into government and schools-from bills attacking the theory of evolution to draconian anti-abortion measures-has become a major agenda of right-wing extremists in this country, and there's no sign that it will end anytime soon.

As I've written in the past, a stopping point for fundamentalists may come when their beliefs and documents, such as the Bible or, say, the Book of Mormon, are carefully vetted and scrutinized. As Christian fundamentalists continue to work disingenuously and incrementally to turn the nation into a theocracy, their religion and worldview should become a major interest for everyone.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, for example, was challenged recently at a rally by someone who questioned whether he believed in racist language contained in the Book of Mormon. Romney essentially avoided a direct answer, but later in the rally he did talk about serving as a Mormon pastor for 10 years.

Obviously, a former pastor running for president, who makes his religion a major part of his campaign, deserves to have his beliefs vetted and scrutinized. In fact, all the presidential candidates, including Barack Obama, should be asked hard questions about their religious beliefs given the current political landscape throughout the country. Do they believe in literal interpretations of the Bible's Old Testament, for example, which condones slavery and female oppression?

As long as right-wing fundamentalists insist on theocracy, no political candidate should be allowed privacy when it comes to religious views.

Given the fundamentalists' push to inscribe their beliefs as science or as government policy, one has to wonder about the point of "faith" or the point of metaphorical readings of the Bible. Ultimately, the fundamentalists damage the credibility and viability of Christianity. Once that becomes clear to more moderate religious folks over the long term, there will be a correction. But, for now, the fight against religious zealotry continues in places like Oklahoma.