Why waste time and energy dissecting another disingenuous editorial by The Oklahoman? Everyone already knows the right-wing newspaper is horribly biased, right? Just act like the stench in the backyard does not exist. Forget about it.

But, then again, there is the historical record to consider. Blogs and other Web sites can correct the historical record and challenge the freaky un-reality presented by the corporate media, especially The Oklahoman. It remains worth the effort as an ongoing culminative project.

The Oklahoman published an editorial (“The Tao of oil: Energy path not as green as we think,” August 17, 2008) about renewable energy sources on Sunday that intentionally omitted crucial information in order to criticize former Vice President Al Gore and presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The editorial argues that the “boring reality” is that focusing on renewable energy sources, such as wind power, will do little to solve any energy problems. This country “still runs on oil and will for a long time to come.”

The editorial notes, “We can't drill our way out of oil shortages, but we also can't green ourselves out of a paper bag. Yet Al Gore wants a weaning from fossil fuels within 10 years and Barack Obama has the same goal "in our time.”

The editorial’s point is that Gore and Obama have pie-in-the-sky views about renewable energy.

According to the editorial, “The ‘boring reality’ is that alternative fuels, for all their promise, would account for even less than the small contribution they now make were it not for government subsidies. Prevailing political winds, which would increase to hurricane strength if Obama wins and has a filibuster-proof Congress, would take money from Big Oil and transfer it to Big Green, including Gore's $35 million hedge fund.”

The idea that somehow “Big Oil” needs more taxpayer money is ludicrous. Oil companies have been reaping record profits under the corrupt regime of President George Bush. The reference to Gore’s hedge fund is disingenuous as well. Does The Oklahoman not support free markets?

But, more importantly, what about the views of two ultra-rich Republicans with strong ties to Oklahoma? T. Boone Pickens, who is a major benefactor of Oklahoma State University, recently announced an energy plan for the nation based on wind power and converting cars to run on natural gas, which is still abundant. Chesapeake Energy executive Aubrey McClendon also recently spoke to a Congressional committee about the need to convert cars to run on natural class to preserve Americans’ quality of life.

Both Pickens and McClendon, who have spoken urgently about their concerns, have donated large amounts of money to Republican causes in the past.

Yet The Oklahoman completely omits these two Republicans as it tries to denigrate Gore and Obama over an issue that has become nonpartisan. The editorial does mention natural gas conversion, but nothing about its principal advocates, Pickens and McClendon. Why is that?

So the point here, under the un-reality presented by The Oklahoman, is that if you are a Democrat and you favor exploring the use of renewable energy sources and natural gas and tying this use to free markets, then you are basically unrealistic. If you are a Republican and you want the same thing, then, well, you just do not get mentioned at all because it does not fit with the narrow-minded, clichéd, right-wing views of some anonymous editorial writer at The Oklahoman.

The real boring reality is The Oklahoman remains a terrible newspaper that serves as a propaganda ministry for the Republican Party. It intentionally uses rhetorical subterfuge to twist facts and arguments.

(Can Oklahoma meet the sustainability challenge it will face in coming years? Read DocHoc's commentary this week in Oklahoma City's finest alternative publication, the Oklahoma Gazette.)

The failed neoconservative movement has left horrible legacies for future generations, from a rising federal budget deficit to a loss of American prestige and security throughout the world to a health care system that fails to provide adequate medical care for millions and millions of Americans.

Thanks to the Republican Party and Imperial President George Bush, Americans work more for less and have diminished opportunities in life. We have lost basic respect among our traditional allies, and we are engaged in a prolonged military occupation that has divided the country and cost billions of dollars.

The richest people in our culture have seen their incomes and political power rise in record, mind-boggling proportions, but the rest of us remain without a voice, too busy and, for some, too scared to speak out against the social injustice that frames the neoconservative philosophy.

But the neoconservative assault on higher education is perhaps the most wretched legacy. This assault reveals itself most clearly in the astronomical increase of college tuition in recent years, especially in states like Oklahoma, which has been cutting the taxes of the ultra-rich and making it more difficult for middle-class students to go to college. It is the most wretched legacy because it both denies people a chance of obtaining their dreams and it marginalizes—through the stigma of debt—a sizeable portion of college graduates.

According to Americans United for Change, “Tuition is rising. At four-year public colleges and universities, tuition skyrocketed by 40 percent between 2001 and 2006. The typical student leaves college today with $17,500 in debt.”

This has been the neoconservative formula for disaster: State legislatures cut taxes for rich people under the neoconservative rubric. As a result, universities receive less or stagnant funding. Universities must then raise tuition. Middle-class students then delay college, work multiple jobs as they attend school or borrow money from a broken and, some argue, corrupt system that rewards predatory loan companies.

I published an article about this issue on a more local level recently in the Oklahoma Gazette.

This post, though, is about the larger ramifications of the assault on higher education. How can any rational person not think that the neoconservative philosophy is to make it more difficult to go to college and to marginalize many of those people who do go to college by saddling them with a debt so massive they can never truly get ahead financially in life?

Yet all the surveys and election results show the neoconservative agenda has lost support. Michael Lind, writing in Salon.com, argues the country is poised to enter a neo-Rooseveltian era. Lind writes, “The public wants the middle-class welfare state to be rounded out by a few major additions -- chiefly, healthcare and childcare -- and the public also wants the government to grow the economy by investing in public works and favoring companies that locate their production facilities inside the U.S. There, in a sentence, is a program for a neo-Rooseveltian party that could effect an epochal realignment in American politics.” Make no mistake about it. This new era will most certainly privilege education at all levels.

The issue of basic accessibility to higher education has become so apparent that even Washington has gotten involved. Congress recently passed a bill that would make tuition increases more transparent. Watch for more legislation making college more accessible on both the federal and state level.

Over the last several years, Oklahoma universities have been raising tuition almost annually. The average tuition increase this year was nearly 10 percent. Those students who started college in the last few years have been getting hit hard with rising tuition and now increased living costs. How do they make it? Sure, the students of wealthy, dedicated parents have no problem going to college, but what about the majority of students?

Oklahoma has one of the lowest per capita income rates in the nation, but you will never hear the neoconservatives here talk about that issue when they are cutting taxes for rich people.

What happens to a culture that refuses to invest in education and, instead, shifts more and more wealth to a miniscule number of people who then use their money to consolidate their tyrannical political power? It is time for a major correction in this country. Will Oklahoma correct its error as well?

(Can Oklahoma meet the sustainability challenge it will face in coming years? Read DocHoc's commentary this week in Oklahoma City's finest alternative publication, the Oklahoma Gazette.)

"This report shows that more than 60 percent of U.S. corporations have been paying no corporate income tax from 1998 to 2005. Washington is giving million-dollar handshakes to big businesses, but they're giving working Oklahoma families the cold shoulder."—Andrew Rice

Under U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe’s watch, American corporations increasingly pay no income tax.

As energy companies report staggering profits and as the cost of living skyrockets for Oklahomans, the question becomes whether the Republican Inhofe, 73, has lost touch with the day-to-day economic struggles of the citizens he supposedly represents. The answer is obvious.

Inhofe, as the political saying goes, has absolutely “gone Washington,” which means he can no longer relate to hard-working people who are unable to afford basic medical care or college or groceries. He has lost empathy with regular families. This is not simple political hyperbole. Inhofe has bought into the ideology that corporations should come first, then regular citizens.

Unless they are ultra-rich, Oklahomans who vote for Inhofe are voting against themselves.

The General Accountability Office just released the report showing that more than 65% of foreign-owned U.S. corporations from 1998 to 2005 paid no income tax, with a high of 71.7% in 2001.

Andrew Rice, 35, the Oklahoma City Democrat running against Inhofe, was quick to point out after the report was released that the current Washington political establishment is failing Oklahoma families. This is a defining issue in the campaign, and voters should pay attention. The corporate media here will simply not report the truth or ignore it when it comes to Inhofe.

"This report shows that more than 60 percent of U.S. corporations have been paying no corporate income tax from 1998 to 2005,” Rice said. “Washington is giving million-dollar handshakes to big businesses, but they're giving working Oklahoma families the cold shoulder."

One of the major problems related to the issue, according to Rice, are U.S. tax laws that actually help companies that move overseas.

"Not only are most corporations not paying income tax, but multinational companies that relocate American jobs overseas don't have to pay taxes on the income that those foreign workers generate," Rice said. "Washington has to get its priorities straight. We should be granting tax breaks to companies that keep jobs right here on American soil."

Rice wants more accountability in Washington.

“There is clearly a lack of accountability in Washington, which is one of the main reasons I am running for the U.S. Senate," Rice said. "This is why we need a U.S. Senator who changes with the times and is not stuck in the partisan politics of the last 22 years."

Rice pointed out that Inhofe recently voted against the child tax credit for working families.

For years now, the Washington political establishment has ignored the basic interests of regular Americans and Oklahomans. Inhofe, a staunch supporter of energy and insurance companies, has turned his back on regular families. He continues to embarrass the state with his outrageous statements about global warming and cultural wedge issues.

The Oklahoma corporate media, especially The Oklahoman and its right-wing propagandist/reporter Christ Casteel, will not hold Inhofe accountable so many state residents have not tracked how our senior Senator has become a laughingstock on the world stage through the years.

What makes it worse is Inhofe’s actions show he cares nothing about the economic security of Oklahomans. As he embarrasses the state as an ambassador, he works against the interests of regular families here.