Posts Tagged ‘Glenn Beck’

The Nobel Peace Prize, The Excluded Middle & Not Glenn Beck


The Nobel Peace Prize, The Excluded Middle & Not Glenn Beck

Aristotle said that people are political animals, that is to say they are social animals.  The recent Rasmussen Reports: on “whether the President deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and whether it is political” is an absurd poll.  The poll itself was obviously done only for political purposes and the questions reflect that purpose.  If we asked how many people believed in aliens, and then asked if those aliens were likely to back a Right Wing or a Left Wing agenda, then we would have had similar results. We could substitute any random idea for aliens here, but aliens will do. The real point here is that the idea that the prize is politically motivated has always been true.  What hasn’t always been true is that political motivation was not always a dirty word meaning that there was a hidden partisan agenda behind the selection. A valid visible political motivation would include that he deserved it due his attempts to change the world’s view on peace itself.  This can be seen by his acceptance speech, which has now disenchanted the Left as much as his nomination disenchanted the Right.

The reason that such distinctions are important is that they illustrate an alarming trend in thought in this country.  What is wrong with the poll is not the questions it contains, but the questions/options that are missing.  It includes no middle ground, no alternative options.  The question of the political role in the prizes can be presumed to have one connotative meaning and imply that the only alternatives are that it is rigged or not rigged. The answer that it is rigged flies in the face of it being considered the most prestigious award that can be given.  So one of my premises must be wrong or the law of the excluded middle is wrong.  The premise that people that think the prize is political, meaning it is biased, is flawed. The implication that it is connotatively construed as bad does not hold unless we would consider that people are paying more attention, think it more prestigious, yet think it is biased. Some would actually have you entertain this as true even though they don’t know the difference between Republican Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.

So let us consider the idea that the political motivation is a bias toward the left. The oft-quoted error is that there was no Republican president that has won the Nobel Peace Prize.  Theodore Roosevelt was a liberal Republican President that won the prize and became Progressive after the disenchantment of his party with him.  The progressive roots of the Republican party run deep from its inception and those roots have been lopped off each time they looked south. Woodrow Wilson was a conservative Democrat that had some progressive ideas which emerged as he abandoned his Southern roots.  Nothing is black or white. The error in thinking is the same as in the poll. It is the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Gold, God, Guns, Glory & Glenn


What is happening? The collapse of Glenn Beck.

more about "Gold, God, Guns, Glory & Glenn", posted with vodpod

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to : Glenn Beck advertises gold and who really cares?


From :Glenn Beck advertises gold and who really cares? published on December 9, 4:23 PM byGlenn Beck ExaminerRobbin Swad in Examiner.com

Robbin Swad starts the article this way:

The Glenn Beck buzz the past few days has been the topic of … gold advertisements. Fueled mostly by … the Beck-bashing site Media Matters, the fact that Glenn Beck and his program endorse gold purchasing is now a controversy, sort of.

Yes, it is a real controversy, just not the one that people are considering.  I do think that Glenn Beck believes what he is saying, as delusional as it may appear to be to any independent observer. I also think he is unethical about how he conveys what he believes.   This is demonstrated by how he delivers his message.  He presents what he believes in the manner of a carnival barker using whatever means necessary to hold the attention of his audience.  By so doing he often helps create the situations that are the subject of his commentary. I am reminded of two Wormwood quotes from The Screwtape Letters, “Tortured fear and stupid confidence are both desirable states of mind” and “Suspicion often creates what it suspects.”  It is not so easy to take some good ideas and twist them to follow Dave Bartley’s Law: Be suspicious of anything that works perfectly — it’s probably because two errors are canceling each other out.

If I make myself the beneficiary of life insurance I have on my employees, crowd them in a theater with my competition, then cry fire in the theater, not only have I moved beyond the bounds of free speech, but I have moved beyond the bounds of commercial speech as well. In a like manner, Glenn Beck attracts sponsors which support his half baked millennial conspiracy message because it is “good for business.”  By investing in, and until recently getting paid by, those that support the fear message and encouraging others to do likewise, he has a stake in continuing to exaggerate his message of fear whether or not it has any basis in reality.  He endangers all concerned by his unethical fire cry. Maybe we should be looking for dead peasants?

… Monday … Glenn Beck began his  exposé on … the “convicted felon”– the other White House gate-crasher. … Robert Creamer… author of “Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win.”suggested … Obama … following Robert Creamer’s plan … “trying to stir up emotion, revulsion and fear to peddle this massive government takeover.”

I have said many times about Right wing commentators, that they have no insight into their unconscious biases which lead them to project onto the Left exactly what they are doing as they project it. Glenn Beck is clearly following Creamer’s advice with his every sentence. Sadly it often works for him with the help of many others.  Just consider Goldline‘s bottom line. The sadder thing is that he is protected as a commentator like the psychic who puts up the sign “for entertainment only” and like the many Glenn Beck satires that mimic his form and method perfectly, but can freely add any random content they please. Gold will do quite nicely.

… one day following … report by Glenn Beck on Robert Creamer,…the internet … titles like “Glenn Beck’s Gold Gate problem” and Glenn Beck’s Gold Endorsement Goes Too Far For Fox” … attacking Beck’s gold advertising…

Yes, and the articles go on and on from Salon.com to Businessinsider.com to bloggrunner.com to wikio.co.uk/news to CBS to ABC to MediaMatters to Mother Jones.

The issue here is not whether the man has the right to make money.  The issue is whether he has the right to make money by any means possible. We can see he is not restricted to telling truth as an entertainer and commentator.  The fact is that FOX NEWS has won it’s misinformation lawsuit and Glenn Beck could even be considered a reporter and legally lie like the rest of the Fox disinformation staff. So can he tell any lie to undercut his competitors and profit from the growth of his supporters with his lies or delusions? All of his accessories would tend to agree that he indeed can do this to their apparent mutual gain, but like any such scheme, politely called a bubble, it will grow until it bursts.

As for the propinquity of this gold issue coming up after the party-felon issue suggesting a causal relationship in this pissing contest, this is quite  ludicrous. Correlation is not causation. Association is not proof. Maybe the Left wing blogs should have talked about all the Right wing felons working  for the News Corporation the day after the event. Now that might have been causal. I have been blogging about the FOX geeks like Glenn Beck for some time, but many have been doing it since it’s inception.

… one finds that liberal/ progressive critics like News Hounds, Air-America and especially Media Matters are among the ones crying foul the loudest. [links added by me]

Obviously not loud enough for her to hear that she contradicted herself.  Either the gold gate issue just came up after the the party-felon issue or it has been something that has been talked about right along. Whereas, the strong articles like the LA Times article cited by the Glenn Beck Examiner below clearly showed that his monetary advice to individuals may not be sound economic advice.

That is a pretty loud yell by the LA Times that Ms. Swad just sidesteps.  Moreover, Robinn Swad seems to be miss the whole point here.  Glenn Beck’s viewers are free to make their own decisions, but if he backs his advice with huckster tricks that he profits from, can we really say this is ethical? And does the disappearing ‘paid spokesman‘ from the Goldline website make it any more right or just more suspect?

Nonetheless, concerning Glenn Beck’s alleged conflict of interest, Politico conducted an in-depth look at Glenn Beck’s endorsement of gold… various … hosts … advertise gold-buying, such as Bill O’Reilly, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Fred Thompson G. Gordon Liddy, and Dennis Miller,

From the “Right-wing talkers go for the gold” at Politico.com

“But Beck has recently come under fire from liberals alleging a conflict of interest. …The Democrat-aligned watchdog group Media Matters asserted the segment was a ‘reward’ to his gold advertisers, while liberal MSNBC host Keith Olbermann charged that Beck is ‘in it for the money. He keeps trying to sell people gold, largely because a disproportionate number of his advertisers sell people gold.’ “

The glaring statement here is that if you traffic in fear, then you traffic in gold.  Also, by the way; diamonds, insurance, lawyers and sex seem to be a good bet too.

A look beyond the far-left attacks … seem to defuse the controversy– if ever there was one.

From the article entitled “Glenn Beck’s Gold Gate” on Yahoo news:

“However, Beck, who responded to the conflict of interest allegations on his show last Thursday by saying ‘So I shouldn’t make money?’, isn’t devoid of defenders on the matter. Business Insider called the controversy ‘nonsense,’ adding ‘there’s nothing wrong with a commentator advising viewers, listeners, or readers to take positions that he is taking himself. In fact, you might wonder about the motivations of someone giving financial advice he wouldn’t take himself.’ In Beck’s defense, some have also noted that the price of gold has spiked since he started at Fox News.”

Again this misses the point. The whole idea of the sarcastic statement of  ‘So I shouldn’t make money’ is that it is value neutral.  The meaning and its truth are in the ear of the listener. Yes, you should make money, but then so should the mafia don that just wants a taste. The objection is off whose back you are making it. If the Right is selectively attending only to what it sees as destroying their worldview, and advertisers that profit from that view flock to them, then we are left only with a self fulfilling prophecy which they are uniquely placed with insider information to manipulate and  profit from the disinformation they promulgate.

Here’s more from the article at Business Insider entitled “Glenn Beck’s Gold Endorsement Goes Too Far For Fox”

“We’re not shocked that Beck’s role as an investor in gold himself and an advocate of others buying gold is drawning [sic] critiques from nattering nabobs of journalistic ‘ethics.’  …The presumption that taking money to endorse something corrupts the endorsement is basically a bias against commerce. Does anyone really think that Beck is secretly skeptical about gold going up and only advocating buying gold because Goldline is paying him? We didn’t think so. It’s far more likely that Beck is bullish on gold and found a way to make some extra money on that position.”

Another case of selective attention.  Yes, the thrust of the Business Insider was to question the questioners of Glenn Beck’s ethics, but the idea that it was the ‘journalist ethic’  breach of not disclosing that you are invested in what you are reporting about is a red herring.  Glenn Beck is not a journalist, nor is he a qualified financial adviser. To even attempt to give the appearance of being a financial adviser when you are unqualified to give that advice and to not disclose your financial holdings is unethical.  Glenn Beck is a professional comedian, entertainer and commentator.  For him to put on the guise of any other profession without a clear  disclaimer and disclosure is unconscionable. Unfortunately, the FOX lawyers have made sure Glenn Beck “noncommercial” speech is not illegal.  It is yet to be heard whether such commercial speech is illegal.

The article from The LA Timesalso refers to Fox’s take on Glenn Beck advertising gold:

“Joel Cheatwood, senior vice president for development at Fox, told DailyFinance’s Jeff Bercovici that Fox had granted Beck an exception to its rule prohibiting news personalities from making paid product endorsements. Cheatwood said the gold pitches were allowed to continue because when Beck moved to the cable station this year, he already had an “established, burgeoning radio business” that Fox didn’t want to interrupt.”

The LA Times concluded … Beck’s audiences… will “judge” just how much they really care.

“Ultimately, the audience will decide whether Beck pushes gold out of real knowledge and commitment and not, at least in part, to pad his personal bank account.”

Glenn Beck Examiner wonders … [if Beck is] pursuing free-market capitalism and exercising one’s individual right to earn a profit?

I wonder if  Robinn Swad really wants to go back to the days of the robber barons, where you were allowed to do just about anything to earn a buck? Maybe he should have Monsanto commercials? But more importantly she misses the point again, the real end of the LA Times article suggested that Glenn Beck should hope that he is not judged by the same standards he judges others.  Judging from the early returns, I suspect the tide will turn on him soon.

If you see a Goldline ad under this article be sure to click on it and tell them what you think of the golden calf.

What do Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin & James Joyce have in common?


 
As we there are where are we are we there from tomtittot Beck
UNDE ET UBI. underwhere
 
to teetootomtotalitarian Glenn in a Nauziated projection.
ADVEHO ME toohell
 
Teaparty tea too oo. Tea 2.0
 
With his broad
Whom will comes over FOX. Who to caps ever flocks.
SIC. o o o
and teary face,
And howelse do we hook our hike to find that
 
to everyman  a
pint of porter place? Am shot, says the big-
 
disgrace.
flag guard.1 And trades the truth for money.
 
 
Whence. Quick lunch by our left, wheel,
IMARGINABLE
Mealy mouthed
to where. Long Livius Lane, mid Mezzofanti
ITINERARY
about
Mall, diagonising Lavatery Square, up Tycho
THROUGH
peebles problems.
Brache Crescent,2 shouldering Berkeley Alley,
THE MOST
 
querfixing Gainsborough Carfax, under Guido
PARTICULAR
 
d’Arezzo’s Gadeway, by New Livius Lane till
UNIVERSAL.
Don’t retch meat
where we whiled while we whithered. Old
HEARSTRUTH
fat salt lard
Vico Roundabout. But fahr, be fear, by greed! And
 
sinks down (and
natural, simple, slavish, filial glory. The marriage of
 
Out sourced).
Montan wetting his fame moll we know, like any
 
 
enthewsyass cuckling a Palin hoyden3 in her
 
 
rougey envy Sarah goes rogue
 
 
 
 
1 Rawmeash, quoshe with her girlic teangue. If old Herod with the Corm-
well’s eczema was to go for me like he does Snuffler whatever about his blue sweatered
canaries I’d do nine months for his teary beaver beard of lies.
2 Mater Mary Mercerycordial of the Dripping Nipples, milk’s a queer
Arrangement ideal for a vaporubbed stuffed shirt.
3 Real life behind the floodlights as shown by the best exponents of a royal
divorce of fair and balanced reality.

In my email:Fox’s Murdoch: Glenn Beck “was right” — Help us go after Fox


Rupert Murdoch — head of Fox’s parent company — said Glenn Beck was right when he called President Obama a “racist.”


http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=2335-1078007

Now he’s trying to backpedal, without disowning Beck.

It’s time to publicly hold Murdoch accountable.

Demand he put an end to Fox’s race-baiting, or admit he agrees with it:

http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=2335-1078007

Dear Dale,

Last week, when asked about Glenn Beck calling President Obama “racist,” Rupert Murdoch, chairman of Fox News Channel’s parent company (News Corp) said “if you actually assess what he was talking about, [Beck] was right.”1

On Tuesday, after his endorsement of Beck’s race-baiting started to draw attention,2 Murdoch claimed, through a spokesperson, that he didn’t mean he agrees with Beck.3 It’s ridiculous — what else could he have possibly meant?

Murdoch calls the shots at Fox News, and he’s just made it clear that Fox’s problem with race starts in his office. Now that he’s been caught, he’s trying to play dumb — he doesn’t want to be held accountable for Beck’s rhetoric, but he won’t denounce or stop it either.

It won’t work, if we stand up. Tell Murdoch he has a choice — he can stand by the fact that he agrees with Glenn Beck; or he can tell us why he doesn’t and what he’s going to do about it. If enough of us call him out, we can create a powerful conversation about Fox’s race-baiting that will help us hold them accountable at the highest level.

Please sign the petition to Murdoch, and ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=2335-1078007

While Beck is the worst offender on the Fox News Channel, the network has a long, deep history of engaging in inflammatory racial rhetoric: attacking Black leaders, Black culture, and Black institutions.4,5,6 And a number of Murdoch’s recent business decisions suggest that he is consciously building a media empire — at Fox News and elsewhere — that attracts viewers by appealing to racial fear and paranoia.

Last month, Murdoch put Don Imus (fired from MSNBC for his infamous “nappy headed hos” comment) back on television on the Fox Business Network.7 And a few weeks ago, Murdoch personally fired Marc Lamont Hill — one of Fox News’ few black commentators — in response to a racially charged smear campaign led by a News Corp shareholder, who said Hill has “reputation of defending cop killers and racists.”8

Murdoch’s right-hand men

Murdoch chooses his employees carefully, and his agenda is obvious when you look at the people he’s chosen to run his media organizations.

Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, made his name by using racial paranoia to propel Republican politicians to victory, starting in the 60s. He engineered key elements of Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and a notorious race-baiting ad campaign that helped the first President Bush defeat Michael Dukakis. Ailes was also the executive producer of Rush Limbaugh’s failed television show.9

Another News Corp property, the New York Post, led by Col Allan, also has a troubling record on race. Earlier this year, the Post caused an uproar after printing a cartoon that appeared to depict President Obama as a dead monkey, covered in blood after being shot by police. Instead of taking the widespread critical response to the cartoon seriously, Allan issued a short, insensitive statement that took no responsibility, and attacked critics of the cartoon.10

Last month, the Post fired a Latina editor, Sandra Guzman, apparently as retaliation for having spoken out against the cartoon when it was published. Guzman is now suing News Corp, the newspaper, and Allan. She says that the Post is a “hostile work environment where female employees and employees of color have been subjected to pervasive and systemic discrimination and/or unlawful harassment based on their gender, race, color and/or national origin.” Guzman says that Col Allan and others at the paper routinely made inappropriate sexual and racial comments. She also says that the paper’s D.C. bureau chief told her that the Post’s goal was to “destroy Barack Obama.”11

Holding Murdoch, Beck and Fox News accountable

When Murdoch publicly endorsed some of Beck’s most inflammatory comments, it seemed he was making it very clear that he approves of Fox’s race-baiting. Now, apparently after realizing how damaging it would be for him to publicly support the rhetoric that cost Glenn Beck 80 advertisers, he’s trying to backpedal. But Murdoch is not willing to distance himself from Beck either. He knows that he could face a backlash from Fox’s viewers if he appears critical of the racially charged programming that attracts many of them to the network in the first place.

So Murdoch wants to have it both ways — he wants to build a network that makes money by pandering to racial fear and paranoia, but he doesn’t want Fox to be seen as cable’s home for race-baiting.

We can’t let him get away with it. Murdoch made a mistake by speaking too openly about what he and his media organizations stand for. He rarely makes mistakes like this, and we need to seize the opportunity to expose Fox’s problem with race.

It starts by demanding that Murdoch explain what he meant, and be clear about whether or not race-baiting is part of the program at Fox. He may or may not respond, but if enough of us speak out, we can create a conversation that makes it clear who is ultimately responsible for Fox’s race-baiting. It’s just one step in starting to bring some accountability to the leadership of Fox News and News Corp — but it’s an important one.

Join us in calling out Rupert Murdoch, and ask your friends and family to do the same. It only takes a minute:

http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=2335-1078007

Thanks and Peace,

– James, Gabriel, William, Dani and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
November 11th, 2009

Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU — your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don’t share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. You can contribute here:

https://secure.colorofchange.org/contribute/

References

1. Rupert Murdoch Interview, Sky News, 11-06-09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsboAwzj7aY

2. “An Open Letter to Rupert Murdoch: What exactly do you mean?” Huffington Post, 11-10-09
http://tinyurl.com/yg2yj58

3. “Murdoch doesn’t consider Obama racist: Spox,” Politico, 11-10-09
http://tinyurl.com/y8fhg4n

4. “On FOX, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson and Mike Gallagher attacked Kwanzaa,” Media Matters, 12-23-04
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412230012

5. “Matalin: ‘I think these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists. And they’re keeping … their African-American brothers enslaved,’” Media Matters, 2-09-06
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602090003

6. “Defending Bennett’s comments, Rev. Peterson cited alleged violence at Superdome to claim that most blacks ‘lack moral character,’” Media Matters, 10-03-05
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510030005

7. “Breaking: Don Imus Joins Fox Biz,” TV Newser, 09-03-09
http://tinyurl.com/mdtn4x

8. “FNC Liberal Pundit Marc Lamont Hill Fired,” TV Newser, 10-16-09
http://tinyurl.com/yzx7xyd

9. “Fox President Roger Ailes’ History Of Race-Baiting,” Media Matters, 10-30-09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnNyEKAZIO4

10. “NY Post Defends Cartoon, Slams Al Sharpton” Huffington Post, 02-18-09
http://tinyurl.com/cdmhmm

11. “New York Post Lawsuit: Shocking Allegations Made By Fired Employee Sandra Guzman,” Huffington Post, 11-10-09
http://tinyurl.com/y964vmb

 

 

 

 

FOX Newscasters Have Been Reduced to Carnival Geeks. Fox is Not News


FOX Newscasters Have Been Reduced to Carnival Geeks. Fox is Not News

Free Speech is only free when it is not backed by front groups supported by makers of products you are shilling. So the suppression of FOX NEWS would not be an abridgment of the right to free speech . Mascarade news designed to sell products is  commercial speech, which is not free at all. If it is proven that you have unfairly undercut competition by misrepresentation, then this may be prosecutable.

In a similar manner news is not news unless it is separate from commentary and stands on its own without the filter of editorial talking points. To give the appearance that your opinion is news would appear also to be a form of commercial speech.  If you promote a millennial point of view garnered only from tainted sources and advertise gold, for example, then this is commercial speech. It has also been said that FOX news only uses incestuous sources.

News also is generally reported without high drama and emotional appeals where possible. Reporting of “grassroots” organizations that are funded by billionaires with ties to FOX and orchestrating these “grassroots” organization’s crowds is being and making the news, but it is not news. Reporting entrapment you have arranged on a group you have done nothing but misrepresent and use their own information against them, is not news. Reporting this “news” with appeals that would make carnies blush is so abhorrent that I would say that FOX newscasters have been reduced to carnival geeks, but the commentators are the real freaks. When FOX backs a movements and a party based on fear, then they can only stand for fear and ballast reporting.  Maybe they used Glenn Beck’s spelling for their slogan? So when they distort, you decide as they report all the news that fit to fake.

Fox is not news, nor is it entertaining. What FOX is, is reality TV gone wild. The cheap faux reality presented at ‘fair and balanced‘ FOX sounds more Orwellian than Orwell these days. All the expert pundits are just hired guns that follow the party line like good whore mongers. None of this is surprising as their conservative backers move more toward a fascism, politely called corporatism.  The favorite media tool of corporatism is projection, accusing their potential opposition of what they are actually doing themselves. It is done preemptively at FOX  lest anyone notice that Rupert Murdoch has no clothes.

Maybe a little history and a bit of smoke might help. Consider  the parallels between Keith Rupert Murdoch and William Randolph Heart. They are astounding.  Take such items as the illegality of hemp and Global Warming.  Hearst championed hemp’s ban for the same reason Murdoch had the two reporters fired that did the report on Monsanto.  That reason is corporatism.  So how is hemp related to global warming?  Monsanto now, like Dupont back in Hearst’s time, and now, have a vested interests in the illegality of hemp and FOX comes up with reasons to discredit anyone that objects. Similarly, Murdoch has a vested interest in global warming denial.  This corporate bias can also be seen by Murdoch’s flip flop on the climate change theme after a corporate deal with a Saudi prince, he selectively had allowed some parts of his “news” organization to champion climate change skepticism, then they did a total turnaround. Obviously Murdoch’s ideals are only based on what he considers best to make a profit. Clearly for his reality, read news, to always have a Right wing bent, his world view must be one of a Reptilian shape shifter. The stories in Murdoch’s media, like Hearst’s media, are as real as they say they are.  Their pseudoscience is firmly backed by the science of profit from human frailty.

Yet this is just the start of the parallels of Murdoch with Hearst and their strange mix of politics with faux news.  They both inherited a struggling newspaper from their father.  They both were leftist before they went right. They both made their name with tabloid journalism.  They both have been noted as ruthless competitors.  They both are warmongers. One can go on, but in the end we can reduce it all to one word: rosebud.

Other than that, why would anyone even consider boycotting Rupert Murdoch?

Deconstructing Glenn Beck


Deconstructing Glenn Beck

From the July 27, 2009 edition of Fox News’ Glenn Beck:

BECK: Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas. That’s what the Contract with America was — I mean, that’s what it was about? Really? Hmm. I completely missed that.

Now, he’s got friends that say things like that. There’s his friend. There’s Barack Obama’s good friend that says things like that, and he has some really, really extra special friends, also.

Well, deconstructing Glenn Beck is almost surreal here.  We all know that he is about to do a high tech lynching of an uppity nizzle that just happens to be the President. Otherwise, why would he allude to Clarence Thomas?  It’s odd really, in 1991 a conservative black being attacked for sexual harassment charges while he was at the EEOC during his supreme court confirmation hearing. This does not appear to be either a bigoted, or politically biased, positon taken by the Democrats in the Senate. This irrational start is only prelude. The only other real parallel here is that both are successful men that happen to be black. So perhaps his point, or his cover, is that the Democrats attack black men too. I wonder if he knows Clarence Thomas once represented Monsanto?

MICHELLE OBAMA : For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.

So she is proud of the involvement of people in the political process, unlike the apathy and defeatism of the past 40 years.  I can see that she is black.  Does that shade the meaning of her words somehow?  Isn’t it more instructive that as a child she was proud of the political involvement she saw? The mood changed with the assassinations ending with that of MLK, but she did not say that.

BECK: We have demonstrated President Obama’s desire for racial justice. But how is he setting out to achieve it? Exactly the way a community organizer would: through intimidation, vilification, bullying, a system, an underground shell game.

Look how he has handled different things. Gates — he calls the cops stupid and racist before he admits, he says, “I don’t know all of the facts.” But he jumps to the conclusion that the cops are racist.

I am quite dumbfounded that so few can see that Glenn Beck’s rhetorical style is full of intimidation, vilification, bullying and the posing of arguments that are a shell game of fallacies, but then he would say he is not the President or a Senator.  So that makes it all OK, because he only talks to millions of people daily. It is OK that he rallies hate, fear and war mongers and promotes power, money and glory hoarders through his bigoted millennial paranoia. Some would claim this his right to free speech, but I say all of what he says amounts to commercial speech.

Maybe I overstate the case, but stupid acts don’t make you stupid, nor does jumping to conclusions make you a racist.  Otherwise, Glenn Beck would have been dismissed as a stupid racist long since. The President did act rashly by not suggesting that the cops appeared to be jumping to conclusions that made their acts appear stupid. This is a slip that Glenn Beck makes with every other sentence.

BECK: Health care — oh, those evil, greedy doctors that are ripping tonsils out at will. And it’s also no longer about access — universal access. It’s about preferential access.

In a free country with a democracy even the socialists and communists have a voice. Our constitution allows for every one to speak. It does not allow you to be a fear monger and yell fire in a crowded teatre. Facts, real facts, do not name call, do not appeal to fear, emotion, authority, past practice, popularity, patriotism or any other fallacy. Appeals are the hucksters trade. I do not want snake oil. I want universal health care, for example, like every other modern nation in the world enjoys. I want a government not afraid to stand up to the tyranny of small shallow minds. I want a government that stands for real values, not slogans, sound bits, and video clips, which are the hobgobins of little minds.

Glenn Beck needs to be dismissed. Especially considering his most insidious of all liar’s tools, guilt by association, that is his, and all the little minds at FOX, most popular fallacy.  Maybe someone should mention the convicted felons that work for FOX.

BECK:  His green policies — it’s easy to say he wants to bankrupt the evil, earth-killing coal industry. But now he’s got a czar who’s a self-avowed communist to make sure that it happens. Our president is not just bankrupting our country; he is fundamentally transforming it as he promised, and he is doing it to the core.

So what happened to freedom to think? I see Glenn Beck’s thought completely bankrupt here? The coal companies are not evil and earth killing, but the people that run them that think like Glenn Beck could indeed be evil. In the past the coal companies surely were so.  If you don’t work to make your workplace and product safe until people die, then you are evil.  If you don’t work for your investors to find valid alternatives when you know you are going down a slippery slope, then you are evil. However, this does not necessarily currently apply to any of the coal companies that Barack Obama appeared in advertising for, promoting the possibilities of clean coal.

If we nationalized the energy and transportation grids and redistributed 300 million shares to the people would that be socialism, communism or a democratized capitalism? Would that be evil?  Talk to the Appalachian population about their B & O taxes and see if they wouldn’t prefer that model.

BECK:  In the next few years, I promise you, America will look more like ACORN in structure and less than anything that our founders had in mind. Obama handles every issue like a community organizer would, and he wants to create a civilian army.

Anybody remember this from the campaign? A civilian army in the form of community organizers, more well — I’m quoting him — “more well- funded than the military.” Last year, he said, and I quote, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded.

“You gotta be kidding me. If you want a government-funded civilian army of ACORNs, well, you’re gonna be a happy camper very soon if America keeps sleeping.

Community action organizations are just that, they organize the community to get involved in the process instead of sitting back hopelessly and helplessly getting told by the backers of the likes of Glenn Beck that they should buy gold and prepare for the apocalypse.  The apocalypse his backers fear is that someone might wake up and see that we don’t have to be slaves to the marketplace of war, fear and hate which help make us a country of self centered narcissists interested more in our appearance than the welfare of our neighbors. If you don’t see the logic in this, then just picture any professional wrestling star as you look in the mirror saying, “consumer patriot” five times.

BECK: Keith Ablow is here. He is a psychiatrist and Fox News contributor.

Keith, am I jumping the gun here? I just see this ACORN thing and also the thing at the White House as a sign. This guy has real issues with race, real issues.

ABLOW: Unfortunately — and I really mean it, Glenn — unfortunately, I have to agree with you. I don’t think you’re jumping the gun. Americans had as their fondest hope and prayer, I think, that they were electing a colorblind president who could embrace everyone equally. I think that was the hope. I think it was the hope — more than some of his policies — that here was a man who could treat everyone equally.

You mean like universal health care and rights for gays?

ABLOW:  Instead, I think we get a transparent president, in this case, whose feelings about white America are coming forward again.

BECK: Yeah.

ABLOW: And I don’t know — listen. As a psychiatrist, I’m trained to look at facts and say what fits and what doesn’t, what’s a theory that can hold water as to someone’s personality and nature. You have someone who sat in a church with a pastor who called white people the devil, whose wife has not been proud of this country in her adult life until quite recently, who calls a Cambridge police sergeant stupid without knowing the facts, and whose friends are community organizers with questionable pasts.

Sad fact is that psychiatrists are not trained to look at facts.  Psychiatry is a practice. A practice that revolves around the notion that people that cause a problem, have a problem and the cure is to agree with the psychiatrist.  Yes, exposure to radical notions like those expressed on FOX News day in and day out could brainwash a person, but that does not mean it will.

ABLOW: And so, you add all that up, and say, look –

Questionable pasts? You mean like Glenn Beck’s? One that might make him a poster child for the need to make things be either black and white because of his past impulse control issues leading to his need for structure and control at all times.  This would also explain his choice of religious affiliation matching his worldview and his frequent shows of bigotry.

BECK: Questionable pasts?

I will not commit the fallacy here of  ‘look at you, you are one to talk’.  The fact is that the past leads people to decisions.  It does not determine them. Those decisions do influence your actions, but again, they do not determine them. It is only when you remain stubbornly blind to your past decisions and remain unaware of your own biases do you let them control you.  The most affected by this lack of introspection appears to be Glenn Beck and Doctor Keith Ablow.

ABLOW: – there’s more than an apology necessary here. This is a question of introspection. The president needs to look at himself and say, “Do I have prejudice that I wasn’t even aware of, perhaps, toward white people?”

Physician heal thyself.

BECK: Well, he’s not — you know what? He’s not going to do that. I think he’s one of the more arrogant people I have ever witnessed in the office. I mean, I — I don’t think he is — this man has absolutely no fear, and no fear of the American people — no fear in a good way, like as in fear God. No fear for the office of the presidency of the United States

This arrogance appears to be a projection much like the rest of what Glenn Beck and the far Right have to say.

The Twisted Thought of Glenn Beck


A recent Glenn Beck show took another of our president’s speeches and twisted it to feed the right wing hater blogs.   I begin to think that he thinks such blogs contain primary source information.  This is a typical example of a quote Glenn Beck used to go on a rant that is now so ubiquitous on the Internet that it is down right scary:

OBAMA: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security

Any fairly intelligence human being can follow Obama’s thought in the quote. No, it isn’t the KGB or the Schutzstaffel.  We already have the FBI. Might Obama be talking about our first responders or even a Peace Corp type force? Is Glenn Beck damning our men in blue and the like? Evil Army?

If the President offered everyone free cherry ice cream, then Glenn Beck would be right there saying, “see it is red.”  Saying, “I told you he was socialist.”  This is the level of social discourse that Glenn Beck has reduced his viewers.  It is right up there with the World Wrestling Federation for its intellectual stimulation and honest reporting of the real world events.

Glenn Beck: Why do we need a civilian national security force that is “just as strong, just as powerful” as the military?

We need one because the military marching in the streets is fascism. Civilian national security force (i.e., local militia, called police and deputized agents of the people, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps) monitoring of terrorists is reasonable aim. It is more reasonable than fomenting war across the globe while not protecting those within our borders. This is actually the second Amendment meaning. Glenn Beck, are you against the second amendment of the constitution? I know twelfth grade was hard to get through, but American History was included. I wonder what a well-regulated militia might look like? Not the vigilantes on the border, for sure.

Glenn Beck: Here’s why I ask this question: Who are we fighting? Who internally is threatening our security?

Well, the last I heard we were at war with terrorist and supporters of terrorists. I guess you might fit into one of those categories. So maybe you do have reason to fear. Glenn Beck the liberals are not responding to you for the same reason you don’t argue with a drunk. Drunks pose no rational argument to fight and do not respond to what you say in a rational manner either. I have read three sentences and, you sir; have made no sense, common, or otherwise, in what you say.  You are clearly more comfortable putting up straw men to argue with rather than actually debating with someone armed with facts.  You appeal to belief, authority, fear, emotion, flattery, popularity and common practice.  These are fallacies all.  You have not demonstrated even the most basic understanding of a well-formed syllogism.  In short, you are illogical.

Glenn Beck: It’s clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border, because anyone who would say that has been deemed a racist.

First off, the Hispanics crossing the border come from a different culture, not a different race. Unless you want to classify Italian-Americans and Greek-Americans a different race as well. Such misinformation shows a lack of education, if not that, then blatant racism on its face. And who are these people that call criticizers of crossing the border racist? I have seen more Right wing bloggers wanting immigration reform suggesting they are being called racist than anyone actually doing the calling. What I have heard is that those that object to the legislation suggest that the immigration legislation had a racist agenda.  That means it is more fear based than fact based and setting up another enclave of institutional ethnocentrism feeding the world opinion that we remain ugly Americans.

The Hispanics I know are a pretty conservative Christian group. They don’t want their jobs undercut anymore than anyone else. They, I predict, in fact, are going to be the future of a more rational Republican Party. Yes, they have sympathy for the oppressed, and yes they will defend themselves against wild-eyed slurs, but no, they are not crying racism anymore than I believe you intentionally advocating for itBorder crossings make their communities much less safe than it makes yours.  The truth hidden in this last sentence is the heart of the issue.  Why is their any their community at all?

Glenn Beck: It can’t be a civilian national security force against Islamic extremists, because according to this administration we aren’t even at war against Islamic extremists anymore.

I last heard we had a war going on two fronts, at least.  If it is not the terrorist we are fighting, then we are spending a lot of money for nothing.  So we need all our troops called home now.  Is that what you believe?  Maybe we should bring the troops home and fund health care reform?

Obama: “Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not and will never be at war and with Islam,”

That is pretty clear. We are at war with ALL terrorists.

Obama: “In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.”  [Mr. Obama continued by adding that the U.S. relationship will not only be] “based on opposition to terrorism.”

Beck: Is this administration really going to ask the American people to profile and call-in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously?

I think that skinheads with guns might be more to the point.  What is not to the point is that every event that upsets Glenn Beck does not rise to the level a terrorist attack except in his mind. Unless what he means to convey is that it his worldview that is collapsing under an attack by a fusillade of lucid moments.

Sound bites and photo ops are not facts, like Glenn Beck thinking that the color of a man carrying an automatic provides sufficient context to make any point whatsoever.  Even if the point was to impugn the motives of those that used the photo op originally without showing that he was Black.  There is nothing that can be implied from the information shown other than that Glenn Beck is an ass and has three-fifths of a brain.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,196 other followers

%d bloggers like this: