One of the reasons Oklahoma leads the nation in the number of women in prison on a per capita basis is that judges and juries continue to hand out harsh sentences for drug crimes committed by non-violent offenders.

These non-violent offenders should receive treatment for substance abuse and basic educational rehabilitation and job training, not long prison sentences, which cost state taxpayers a tremendous amount of money and, in the process, shatter families. Broken families then lead to more substance abuse, and the cycle repeats itself.

The point, of course, is to break the cycle. It has to start somewhere, and the state needs to kick start the process if it wants to save taxpayer money by reducing its high incarceration rates.

Recently, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections appointed Laura Pitman as its first deputy director of female offender operations. Her mission, according to news reports, is to reduce the number of women imprisoned in Oklahoma.

This is a long overdue appointment and initiative. The state now incarcerates about 2,500 women, some of whom are mothers. This is more than any other state on a per capita basis, according to the Department of Justice. The state incarcerates women at twice the national average. This does nothing but sully the state’s reputation as it compounds the problem by weakening families, who, in many cases, are already suffering.

Creating new diversionary programs that help some women stay out of prison will most certainly help, but the larger question is whether the state’s judicial system will reduce the number of harsh sentences given to non-violent, female offenders. Prosecutors and judges in Oklahoma don’t want to be seen as lenient, but they need to work with correction officials if they really want to do what’s best for the state, which sometimes means helping families break destructive patterns. This applies to male incarceration as well. In 2006, Oklahoma was third in the nation in overall incarceration rates on a per capita basis.

The bottom line is Pitman needs support from the state’s court system as she tackles one of Oklahoma’s most urgent issues.

What do you think? Vote on a poll about the issue. Feel free to leave a comment.

Okie Funk has won a Peace Arena Netroots Award in the “Wind Power” category for “most sustained rant.”

Serena Blaiz, a well-known Oklahoma progressive activist who publishes the Peace Arena blog, gave out the awards on Monday.

In an earlier post, Blaiz wrote she created the blog awards because “I’m serious about honoring the recipients, who toil in near obscurity day after day in a non-progressive state (for now). Any light I can shine in their direction, I’ll hope can help their ongoing efforts (which are far more consistent than mine).”

The blogs were given awards in free-form categories.

Okie Funk, which has been published for nearly five years, won for its sustained, progressive voice.

“Okie Funk’s resident doctor, DocHoc, is never better than when he is decrying the shameless waste of tree pulp that is The Oklahoman,” Blaiz wrote. “Fortunately for his readers, the paper has given him plenty to work with, and doesn’t look like it will stop any time soon — more’s the pity.”

Other blogs receiving awards included droogie6655321, Woody Guthrie Award, Down With Tryanny!, Mason Jar of Red Dirt Award, Oklahoma Women’s Network Blog, Buffalo Stampede Award, Concrete Buffalo, Land Run Award, and Phototune, Black Blizzard Award.

Read more about the winners on Peace Arena. These are some great blogs that fight for progressive causes in Oklahoma. As Blaiz points out there are a lot of excellent progressive blogs in Oklahoma that deserve recognition. Kudos to Blaiz for taking the time to put together the awards. She consistently works to pull the progressive community together. Her message is this: Keep fighting.

Okie Funk has also won “Best Political Blog” in the Okie Blog Awards contests held in 2006 and 2007. The blog was recently featured in Oklahoma Magazine.

The Oklahoman editorial page is a quagmire of inconsistencies, lies and distortions that presents a subjective, self-serving mythology shared by the rich elites of the Republican Party. The newspaper’s editorials use demonization, disingenuous rhetoric and obvious factual omissions to qualify the decisively undemocratic stance that a small, wealthy corporate power base should control government.

This is nothing new, and I have written about the newspaper’s editorial page for many years, but it bears repeating. The Oklahoman pushes an ideology that benefits a miniscule number of people at the expense of regular Oklahomans, either conservative or liberal. It does so with the a typical arrogance of a monopoly. The newspaper, in a figurative sense, hates the vast majority of its readers to whom it would deny, without morose, quality health insurance, decent wages and the basic civil right to sue for damages.

A recent editorial, “’Obama-care’ warrants thorough public debate” (November 17, 2008), proves the point. The editorial, under the guise of asking for a public debate on President-elect Barack Obama’s health care plans, is filled with rhetorical subterfuge and glaring omissions.

Note the term Obama-care. This is to reflect the term “Hillarycare,” a term used to demonized Hillary Clinton’s efforts to reform the country’s health care system when her husband was president. The editorial notes that Clinton’s plan “went down in flames.” The Oklahoman wants us to mock both plans with silly nicknames, But the rebuttal here is quite easy. The health care system in this country right now is in a major crisis, and it needs immediate reform. Clinton presented her plan when the health care system was in better shape. The two plans responded to different circumstances and two quite different historical moments. The Oklahoman, however, wants its readers to conflate the two and forget the facts.

The editorial notes that the Obama plan would allow companies and individuals to buy insurance from private companies or the government. This could cost $100 billion a year but some anonymous “experts think that’s low-balling it.” But the fact of the matter is this: If the government could fix our health care system for the relatively small amount of $100 billion a year, then obviously it should do it. The editorial fails to put the amount in perspective. The Iraq invasion and occupation has cost at least $600 billion. What about the recent legislation giving a $700 billion bailout to Wall Street companies?

The editorial makes a point that the government would serve as both a provider and regulator, and, well , this isn’t right. Here’s the paragraph:

Meanwhile, the plan would set up competition between private and public insurance, under market rules written by the government. It would be like a sports event where one of the contending teams also serves as referee. "This approach is fraught with difficulty and danger, because the federal government would then ‘own’ a plan in the competition while also setting the rules for that competition,” writes the Heritage Foundation’s Stuart Butler.

First, the government wouldn’t compete against private insurers because it isn’t in the business to make big profits for a small group of rich stockholders and corporate executives (You know, those stockholders and executives who just got a big taxpayer bailout.) Secondly, the Heritage Foundation is one of the most conservative advocacy organizations in the country. Of course, it’s going to be against decent health care for regular Americans. Its very existence is based on supporting wealthy elites who define themselves as Republicans.

The newspaper’s editorial says we should have a debate, but it doesn’t discuss at any level the approximately 46.5 million people who don’t have health insurance in this country or the rising co-payments on office visits and tests for those that do. It doesn’t discuss how some insurance companies deny people with pre-existing conditions or won’t pay for certain procedures because of Orwellian rules that benefit their bottom line. It doesn’t discuss the fact that Americans spend the most on health care in the world, but the country only ranks 37th in the overall performance of the health system and 72nd in the overall level of health among 191 countries by the World Health Organization.

So The Oklahoman says “bring it on” in terms of the so-called “debate” it wants about health care, but, rest assured, the newspaper wants to protect the interests of companies who make big profits off people’s pain and suffering. That’s its focus. If you’re someone who has ever faced large medical costs or been hassled on a pre-existing condition or gone without health care because it now costs too much, then know this: The Oklahoman could care less about you.

The bottom line is The Oklahoman opinion page has been wrong about every important issue in America over the last eight years. It clings to market fundamentalism even as it supports taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street investment bankers. It favors war, tax cuts for millionaires and limitations of civil rights.

So do the newspaper’s editorial writers really think the magic of the marketplace will take care of the country’s health care crisis? How could they given what has happened because of corrupt Wall Street bankers in recent months? But the newspaper’s editorial writers aren’t paid to be right. They’re paid to provide cover for their rich owners.