Beck U

The excitable Fox News host goes to college

Glenn Beck never went to university, though that hasn’t prevented him from creating his own. Today Beck, the weepy, blackboard-scribbling Fox News host, launches his eponymous institute for online learning, Glenn Beck University, available to the curious and undereducated for $79 a year. Subscribers will receive access to online lectures on the subjects of “faith, hope, and charity”—the pedagogical approach is as yet unclear, though it seems to be pro-Mormon and pro-McCarthy—and are offered a forum to discuss the course material with other “students.”

Beck, who recently received an honorary degree from Liberty University, the Christian college founded by Jerry Falwell, believes that if the American people only read more history books—specifically, the books that Glenn Beck reads, many of which are infused with a paranoid brand of Mormonism—they would arrive at a collective Kronstadt moment; the zombified products of American public education realizing that the revolution of Adams, Jefferson, and Washington was long ago betrayed by a cabal of progressives-communists-Marxists-socialists (to Beck, the four groups are interchangeable).

Indeed, Beck’s reading drive has made him the Oprah of the right. His recent obsession with vindicating Sen. Joe McCarthy’s crusade against communism (which was more effective in derailing the honorable cause of anti-communism than anything Victor Navasky could have ever dreamt up) led him to praise the conservative ideologue M. Stanton Evans, author of the revisionist book Blacklisted by History, a breathless defense of McCarthy. Evans book, published to largely negative reviews in 2007 (including mine in Reason and Ron Radosh’s in National Review), then shot to the top of Amazon’s bestseller lists, occupying both the number one (paperback) and number 11 (hardcover) slots.

When parents, publishers, and J.K. Rowling suggested gleefully that the Harry Potter craze was having the positive effect of luring kids away from the Xbox and towards literature, Yale University professor Harold Bloom grumbled that there was rather significant difference between reading and reading. "Harry Potter,” Bloom wrote in The Boston Globe, “will not lead our children on to Kipling's Just So Stories or his Jungle Book. It will not lead them to Thurber's Thirteen Clocks or Kenneth Grahame's Wind in the Willows or Lewis Carroll's Alice.

It would be easy to dismiss Bloom as engaging in literary snobbery, though he is surely right that reading the right books is more important than merely reading books. While Beck launched The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek’s classic treatise on the superiority of the free market, to the number one spot on the Amazon bestseller list, the classical liberal message is being subsumed by Beck's other recommendations, which include the conspiracies of Cleon Skousen and Carol Quigley and a reading of American history that's something like a right-wing version of Howard Zinn—popular, ideological, and wrong.

In recent months, Beck has beseeched his viewers “to know history,” and promised that his show will attempt to “restore history” of the religious components of American’s founding and establish the unmitigated “evil” of Woodrow Wilson. "Please, please," he pleads with his viewers, "Learn from history. Please."

There is no unifying feature of Beck’s “historiography”; he darts from subject to subject, riffing on whatever pops into his head. To get an idea of the curriculum at Glenn Beck U., I watched a few of his recent programs on communism, McCarthy, and 20th century totalitarianism. It wasn’t pretty. In no particular order, a few corrections to Professor Beck’s riffs on the history we “need to know”:

  • The Communist Party of the United States didn’t start as the “Communist Working Party” in 1917.
  • It is not true that “if you were a Marxist” in 1960s, you were a “Soviet sympathizer,” as former members of the International Socialists can attest.
  • The Nazis did not “learn propaganda” from Woodrow Wilson.
  • Beck says that “Most of Europe was preparing for war in 1917.” Europe had been at war since 1914; the Americans joined in in 1917.
  • The Venona decrypts were not “released in the 1980s,” when the Soviet Union was still in business, but in 1995. Nor was Venona “compiled” by the KGB; Venona was the codename given by United States intelligence services to the collection of intercepts. Incidentally, Beck, demonstrating his lack of familiarity with the subject matter, stumbles when identifying Venona, first calling them the “Verona papers.”
  • No one claims Castro was “democratically-elected,” except, perhaps, the brothers Castro themselves.
  • Obama’s mother, who grew up in Kansas, did not attend the Elisabeth Irwin School (“The Little Red Schoolhouse”) in New York City.
  • Beck’s history of late Weimar Germany manages to be both totally incoherent and completely wrong, such as this comparison of the German Communist Party (KPD) and the Nazis: “The National Socialists, the Nazis, did round up the communists. OK? But the communists, they rounded up the store owners first. Nazis, number two. The old and infirm. Number two on communist's list, farmers and landowners. Three, I think it was Jewish on both sides.”
  • A list of “1963 communist goals from the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)” Beck presented on his television show (and available here on his website) are not from the CPUSA, but reprinted from The Naked Communist, a bizarre book of conspiracy authored by John Birch Society lunatic Cleon Skousen.
  • In the aftermath of the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla, Beck argued that anti-Semitism is the inevitable byproduct of socialism. “Socialism and anti-Semitism have complemented each other throughout history.” “How many [Jews] have to die,” Beck asks, “to remember who keeps killing them?” The idea that anti-Semitism flourishes under left-wing regimes because Jews are associated with capitalism is certainly true, though it ignores the long history of far-right anti-Semitism and the Tsarist-era pogroms and blood libels. In far-right circles, Jews, like Bela Kun and Leon Trotsky, were associated with communism and the revolutionary left.

It is apparent that Beck the history preacher isn’t terribly familiar with the very material that so fascinates him, as demonstrated by his difficulty keeping names straight. The former FSB agent poisoned in 2006 was Alexander Litvinenko, not Alexander Lavinko. The Soviet agent accused of “losing China” was Lauchlin Currie, not “Laurie” Currie. His fellow agent in the Silvermaster group was Harry Dexter White, not “Harry Dexter.” During a brief digression into the activities of the Baader-Meinhof groups, Beck received a little help from off-camera: “In the 1970s, the left wing German terrorist, Ulrike Meinhof, he sounds friendly. He said—oh, it's a she?”

Or how about this laughable summation of the Holocaust: “It was the emergency propaganda in Germany that led the Jews, eventually, to the ovens, because Jews were causing the problem, Jews that were just too many in Europe.”

It is unclear what Beck means by “emergency propaganda,” but this reductionist view of history—Wilson was a clever propagandist, which informed Josef Goebbels, and hence the Final Solution—hurts more than it helps, leaving viewers with the impression that Germany was under the spell of Wilsonian propaganda, thus ignoring centuries of anti-Semitic conditioning. Perhaps Beck will modify this view as he reads more (I recommend Christopher Browning on how "ordinary men" become genocidaires, not, as the previous sentence suggests, Daniel Goldhagen's award-winning disaster, Hitler's Willing Executioners), as he recently told viewers that he was "researching the Holocaust of Germany (sic)."

This sort of thing isn't uncommon. Take this bizarre exchange between Beck and M. Stanton Evans, on FDR’s performance at the Yalta Conference:

EVANS: It's about Roosevelt saying to Stalin and Churchill that he is going to meet with the king of Saudi Arabia, after this conference, King Saud. And Stalin asked him, does he intend to make any concessions to the King Saud of Saudi Arabia. I'll let you read what the answer is for the Arabs.
BECK: "The president replied that there was only one concession he thought he might offer, and that was to give him the six million Jews in the United States.
EVANS: Yes.
BECK: This is a collection—where is this from?
EVANS: That is from the papers of Edward Stettinius, who was the secretary of state at the time of Yalta. Those papers are at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. That paragraph—
BECK: What does he mean by he'd give—
EVANS: Well, one might think that he was closet anti-Semite. But I think it also suggests that maybe he was a little bit gaga.

Evans continues, saying that this outburst of mad anti-Semitism was expunged from the historical record, thanks to the Roosevelt hagiographers who control the past. So the Beck viewer, having never heard this hidden history of FDR, shuts off the television set thinking that the president was either mad or harbored a deep animus towards Jews (possibly both), and that a circle of progressive historians have kept this fact from the rest of us, lest we find out the truth about a liberal icon.

Roosevelt and his defenders have, Evans and Beck are quite right to notice, won the battle for history; to the victor go the spoils, after all. Indeed, rarely are students aware of the New Deal’s major failures or defects, nor are they typically told the successful constitutional challenges of, for instance, the National Recovery Administration and FDR’s deeply undemocratic attempt to pack the Supreme Court. But the suggestion, made by Evans and lapped up by Beck, that the president seriously entertained trading Jews to Saudi Arabia is not only well known to historians, but it is also understood that Roosevelt was attempting, lamely for sure, to make a joke.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • -||

    Glenn Beck never went to university

    We use articles here in America, Michael. He never went to a university. Minor quibble, I know. Release the trolls!

  • Jeff P||

    True. But we also go to Church and School.

  • Jeff P||

    And College.

  • -||

    And the hospital.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    Leaving off the article does make it sound vaguely euro-weenie-ish.

    "Would you like Flavorbar?"

  • -||

    Yes! Can I eat on subway?

  • Gabe E||

    Can I smoke with cigarettes?

  • Comrade Zero||

    MIT IODINE!!!

  • Metazoan||

    In Soviet Russia, Flavorbar eat YOU!

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    nothing vague about it.

  • Beltway Liberal-tarian||

    We must absolutely focus on this buffoon - Beck, and not the socialists that Obama is empowering.

    Beck is ignorant

    The socialists are smart.

    Besides their just like us.

  • Asharak||

    Yeah, because everyone who doesn't agree with Beck or like him just is an Obama-loving "Beltway Liberaltarian" (or just an Obama-loving liberal socialist), right?

  • ||

    Same reaction. Speak American, you fool!

  • TallDave||

    Trolling is a art.

  • -||

    One of the "dismal" arts.

  • Sean||

    An art. You're an artard

  • -||

    But can it core a apple?

  • ||

    trolled

  • spencer||

    ha
    oldest trick in book

  • Kiwi Dave||

    in Soviet Russia, university goes to Glenn Beck!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Russians don't have "the" in their mother tongue. Maybe Moynihan is a Soviet agent.

    Can you tie all this together for us Glenn?

  • Metazoan||

    Classical Latin doesn't either. Perhaps he is a member of a long-forgotten secret group of imperial Roman centurions who have actually conquered the world! D:

  • Glenn Beck||

    Oooh that would look good on my chalk board.

  • Joshua||

    As I understand it, Classical Latin also doesn't have a word for "NO"

    What the fuck? srsly!

  • &||

    or for "srsly"

  • ||

    I think you're supposed to use "non est" i.e. It is not.

    And Yes is "sic" which is actually thus...maybe even sic est. It is thus.

  • The Heresiarch||

    "Minime" was also commonly used to express "no".

  • Soonerliberty||

    Actually, it is correct to use go to university. When it's an institution that we attend regularly, it is okay to drop the article in English. Examples: go to school, go to church, go to hell

  • ||

    I think you only go to hell once.

  • ||

    I think you only go to hell once.

  • ||

    I think you only go to hell once.

  • ||

    I think you only go to hell once.

  • ||

    I think you only go to hell once.

  • ||

    I think you only go to hell once.

  • ||

    though somehow i clicked my mouse way more than once.

  • Soonerliberty||

    I was being ironic, but the Hindus have some belief like that.

  • ||

    i think Buddhists are actually more into that temporary hell over and over again thing.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Also : names of countries, when referring to world cup teams, are singular in both form and function so the god damn verb should fit the fucking noun.

    Right:

    USA is good.

    Wrong:

    USA aren't a plural noun.

    Why is that so god damn hard? Soccer is hard enough to watch without having to pissed off that professional word-talky-guys on the TV can't get basic fucking verb noun agreement going.

  • The Heresiarch||

    The "United States" was often considered a plural noun in the 18th and 19th centuries. Even now, the British refer to some nouns as plurals that Americans consider as collective and thus singular.

  • ||

    I argue that these United States are plural (there are 54 of 'em, after all).

  • ||

    We need to get back to using the plural verb with the US - "these united states ARE, and of right out to be..."(Declaration of Independence).

    I just started reading Dr. Woods book "Nullification" and I want my state sovereignty back, and I want the US to be a plural noun again. We've all been socialized into accepting a collectivist identity where we're all one. That's ludicrous!

  • ||

    Caption Contest!

    "My mother made me this sweater. She grew like six feet of armpit hair and painted it with the blood of dirty illegal immigrants."

  • Jeff P||

    Funny, cuz McCarthy didn't trust Mormons...

  • ||

    I'm afraid I'm going to stick with the Teaching Company and Modern Scholar for my continuing education. And that Intertubial network thingee.

  • hmm||

  • ||

    Would that help me get the Court of St. James?

  • hmm||

    No clue I just see it at the top of H&R all the time.

  • ||

    They must advertise like crazy, because I've seen it before, too (and I don't see ads here, usually).

  • hmm||

    After intertubing the school it is apparently a pretty decent undergrad school.

    /shrug

  • ||

    Unless I get the urge to go back and get a science/technical degree of some sort, I'm done with formal education.

  • hmm||

    I'm shopping PhD programs.

  • ||

    I attended The Russian School at Norwich University in the summer of 1985. It is located in Northfield Vermont. It was a blast. My roommate was employed by the NSA. Perhaps he knows that I am an anarchist revolutionary.

  • ||

    IMO, from late June right throught the middle of October, there is no place on earth more easy on the eyes than a good deal of Bernie Sanders land, including the Northfield area.

  • hmm||

    Ozarks in fall.

    The only saving grace of this horrid state I live in is the sort color in fall and the sea of green in summer.

    Other than that it's fucking hell on earth.

  • NSA||

    Like other Reason posters, we don't give a shit ;-)

  • hmm||

    Such are the joys of text based communication. (e.g. Don't fucking read it retard) :^0

  • NSA||

    Hmm, I think I just killed two birds with one stone.

  • ||

    You know, posts like NSA's are a window into the soul of a loser nihilist.

    Loser because his content is so banal and so hackneyed-devoid of any creativity. Besides, it does not communicate anything of importance.

    Loser because the post does not add anything. It does not educate. It does not uplift. It does not challenge nor does it offer constructive criticism.

    Loser because it is not funny or amusing in the least. In fact, it is downright BORING.

  • NSA||

    libertymike, Really? I don't reply with 80 words when I find something uninteresting. ;-)

  • hmm||

    I was just treating it as a silly troll and felt obliged to make a funny while responding.

    I didn't know there was a word count threshold for interesting. I will have to consult my troll manual.

    I do know there is a strict code dealing with the usage of smilies and you are rapidly approaching that threshold.

  • NSA||

    "banal and so hackneyed-devoid of any creativity. Besides, it does not communicate anything of importance.
    Loser because the post does not add anything. It does not educate. It does not uplift. It does not challenge nor does it offer constructive criticism.
    Loser because it is not funny or amusing in the least. In fact, it is downright BORING."...Unlike my genius work:

    libertymike|2.11.09 @ 7:30PM|#...Death penalty advocates are real pussies when the rubber meets the road.
    libertymike|2.11.09 @ 7:39PM|#Generally speaking, IMO, the biggest pussies tend to be:

    libertymike @ 7:43PM|#Given that this is a family friendly medium, I shall respond as follows:
    my bedroom. My wife considers herself to be a talented adult entertainer and she has no tats.


    Next time I'll add pussy to my post

  • NSA||

    libertymike, you're a pussy

  • troll manual||

    #1 libertymike is a pussy
    #2 Hmm, fuck off :-)

  • hmm||

    Now you're just being silly.

  • And you're?||

    hmm|7.7.10 @ 7:30PM|#
    I'm a rather large bitch. Thank you very much.

  • hmm||

    C&P without comment is like masturbating without getting off.

  • I prefer ||

    slow play and even slower

  • Mrs Hmm||

    He rushes me too!

  • ||

    I did too, but in the summer of '89. Chestnoe slovo and all.

  • more fascinating than the crap||

    is your blog up?

  • JEP||

    "but it is also understood that Roosevelt was attempting, lamely for sure, to make a joke."

    Ha, get it? Roosevelt was lame.

  • ||

    Chet Roosevelt?

  • JEP||

    I haven't seen that movie (had to google), but I was referring to the wheelchair.

  • ||

    I know, I just like to drop pointless Americathon references. Why that film isn't on DVD is beyond me.

  • TallDave||

    Eh, Beck's not so bad. He's no more incoherent than anyone else in the newsertainment business.

    Of course, I'm basing this on the maybe three hours total of his schtick I've been exposed to. I have little use for TV/radio anyways; bandwidth is too low compared to online. I can read about 10x faster than they talk.

  • ||

    Shit....I flunked out of Hamburger U maybe Beck U will be better!

  • ||

    Try clown school, that's where Penn Jillete went, and he seems pretty smart.

  • ||

    fucked up my name...damn clown U

  • ||

    Ringling, right?

  • ||

    Clown School?

    I'd thank you not to refer to Princeton in that way.

  • ||

    @PL...Yes, Penn went to the Ringling Bros. circus college. And I'll take his policy prescriptions over any overeducated "wonk" any day of the week...mostly because he doesn't care what I do, as long as I harm no others.

  • ||

    I'm a fan of that juggling clown. The reason I asked is that I was just down at the Ringling Museum during a weekend in Sarasota. Old Man Ringling had a big house right on the bay. Suh-weet!

  • ||

    I was just down at the Ringling Museum

    Did you pay to get in?

    If you did, then there is a grave yard somewhere that if you close your eyes and concentrate real hard you can hear a very faint..."sucker".

  • ||

    /dickeshness

  • ||

    It was actually pretty decent. The property and house are great, and the art museum is pretty impressive. We also liked the Circus Museum.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I said it before and I'll say it again. I kinda like Beck's radio program. (And yeah, I also kinda like Neil Diamond. And some of the novels of James Mitchner. And I'm drinking Ten High bourbon at this very moment. Fuck you haters.)

  • ||

    Kentucky woman!
    She shines with her own kind of light.
    She looks at you once
    And a day that's all wrong looks all right.
    And I love her,
    God knows I love her.
    Kentucky woman!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Exactly.

  • ||

    Is it nekulturny to like any Michener? I like several of his novels--Poland, Mexico, and The Source.

  • ||

    Learn how to spell Michener, if you're such a big fan. I mean, come on, if you read his books, his name is spelled correctly on the freaking COVER.

    I suppose you also listen to the music of You Too.

  • Almost everyone here||

    progressives-communists-Marxists-socialists (to Beck, the four groups are interchangeable)

    You mean they're not????

  • dis friggin guy ||

    So what is the difference between the last three?

    Seriously

  • Igor||

    There is a huge difference between the defunct Soviet Union and modern Western Europe.

  • Eric||

    Yeah, the Soviet Union paid for its own military.

  • TallDave||

    +win

  • Soonerliberty||

    Hotter women!

  • Karl||

    Euro-women, hot? Ok the beer is better so we can extrapolate that the beer goggles must also be more effective.

    I guess you'll just drink more when you wake up and realized you were drunk and had sex with a Yeti. And the cycle of self-abuse will continue.

  • Mr. Mackey||

    Turdballs

  • Mr. Mackey||

    Turdballs

  • Untermensch||

    In far-right circles, Jews, like Bela Kun and Leon Trotsky, were associated with communism and the revolutionary left.

    This is certainly true in Hungary, where Béla Kun is still the bête noire of the far right. It is routinely stated by those on the right that communism was a Jewish plot, based largely on this one figure, and that Jews are somehow using both Socialism/Communism and Capitalism to take over. (The far right in Hungary is very nativist and certainly not capitalist, but something more in the mold of WW II-era Italian fascism.)

    There, incidentally, I was told in all seriousness by a member of the Jobbik (Far Right) party that the Protestant Reformation was a plot of “the Jew” because the Inquisition had been too successful… You can’t argue with ignorance like that (at least not successfully).

  • Ragin Cajun||

    The far right in Hungary is very nativist and certainly not capitalist, but something more in the mold of WW II-era Italian fascism.

    Kind of like a Hungarian Third Position Party?

  • Untermensch||

    I wasn't familiar with the Third Position Party before, but it sounds pretty similar in general outlook. The Hungarian variety would associate itself with the peasantry rather than the working class (which tends towards socialism in Hungary), but other than that, it sounds comparable.

  • Adonisus||

    Third Way-ism is one of the selling points of Fascism. That's one of the reasons it became so popular in the earlier 20th century, the fascists convinced enough people that you could still hate capitalism, but also hate communism as well. It was sold as the 'alternative' to communism.

  • ¢||

    I came up in the era of American history edumaction where the least wrong thing we were taught was that to this very day sharks swim the Middle Passage in search of overboard Negroes. Beck's random pile of half-true exclamations and wacky Jesus crap is like Josephus in comparison.

  • ||

    Is this the same Beck who did the song 'I'm a loser baby' so why don't you kill me? Somebody should off him before he morphs into something serious. Glenn Beck is mental hospital bound.

  • ||

    Aristotle was not Belgian.
    The central message of Buddhism is not, 'Every man for himself.'
    The London Underground is not a political movement."

  • ||

    There is no coast of Nebraska either!

  • ||

    One of my favorite film comedy moments ever.

  • Member of European Parliament||

    Actually, we struck a deal with the Greeks. In exchange for convincing the Germans to bail them out, we get to claim Aristotle was Belgian... not a dirty Walloon however.

  • ||

    b-b-b-beat me to it!

  • Old Mexican||

    It is not true that “if you were a Marxist” in 1960s, you were a “Soviet sympathizer,” as former members of the International Socialists can attest.

    Wow, that's totally believable...

  • Rudan||

    Plenty of Marxists/Communists/anti-statist socialists died under the Soviet Regime. Probably the only time they were sympathetic was about 2 minutes before they died.

  • Old Mexican||

    I am pretty sure they were sympathetic right up to the moment the bullet opened their skull, rationalizing the moment by saying to themselves "it is still a good idea as long as the right people are in power.

    Brain-dead statists still rationalize things that way.

  • Rudan||

    Not all socialists are statists. I flirted with libertarian socialism when I was younger before I decided to skullfuck capitalism. Really, libertarian socialism is possible.

  • ||

    Really, libertarian socialism is possible.

    Really? Perhaps you could explain it to the rest of us?

    I will start off. How could you have socialism without coercion?

  • ||

    I'm guessing that it has something to do with the Skullfucking of Capitalism.

    Just spitballin.....

  • Capitalism||

    Sorry I'm late guys. I woke up with the worst headache.

  • Justice||

    +1^^

  • Tony||

    You can't have society without coercion.

  • Soonerliberty||

    According to Tony, that justifies everything George Bush did as president. You can't have peace in the Middle East without a little butt-kickin'.

    You're mixing up coercion with manipulation. You can have society without coercion but not without manipulation.

  • ||

    You can't have society without coercion.

    Of course you can. If you said you can't have government without coercion, you'd still be wrong but closer.

    Nevertheless you know very well the NAP only precludes the initiation of force.

  • shrike||

    Does a smidgen of regulation make one a "statist"?

    I support Child Labor restrictions. Does that make me a statist?

    If so, I am proud of it.

  • ||

    You know who else supported child labor restrictions(no need to capitalize 'child labor')...drum roll please...

    George W. Bush.

    Next time you scream "Bushpig", maybe you should look in the mirror.

  • shrike||

    I am amused, I admit.

    Its not like child labor is open to debate now. Us "statists" have a small victory.

  • ||

    Shrike, everything is up for debate.

    Things change, shrike, every single fucking day, they do. Standing astride on the tracks whist the train of history inexorably makes its way through time will leave you a living corpse.

    With children in our age being shuttled from one extracurricular activity to the next, without pay, and sometimes without their consent; do you think that there may be a better use of their time?

    Maybe, I could agree that kids should be coerced into education, but what about their free time.

    Maybe we could think of ways that kids can use their time, imagination, and brain for profit in their spare time.
    Possibly to save money for college.

    But no, the debate is closed...so sayeth thee.

    Anytime someone closes the door on debate I see not a sound mind, but rather a lack of imagination and intellect.

  • ||

    Nice, I love being a libertarian because I always feel so radical for saying things that completely baffle the "logic" of most people, but I've never entertained the idea that child labor laws are not always in the best interest of the kid. You make an excellent point- kids play soccer, take piano lessons, participate in pageants, etc. all for no pay. Is that really less stressful than if a 10 year old kid wanted to be a bagger at a grocery store for a few hours after school everyday? Do I want kids working 15 hours in factories or mines? Absolutely not. But can a kid handle the responsibility of a job that is sufficient for his age and skill level? I say absolutely!

  • ||

    shrike|7.7.10 @ 7:11PM|#
    "Its not like child labor is open to debate now. Us "statists" have a small victory."
    Uh, tell that to the children that various NGOs would rather not be making sneakers, but would rather they end up looking at the smelly end of a buffalo again as they plow fields.
    And starve.
    "Child Labor" laws are a luxury of the rich.

  • TallDave||

    As a victim of child labor (I was forced to vacuum and dust and even take out the trash -- and I was barely even paid) I have to say the statists have failed on this one as well.

  • tarran||

    It makes you a supporter of the sexual enslavement of children.

    Thanks to you monsters runaways are easy prey to abusers -> you've made it a crime for them to live independently.

  • Soonerliberty||

    So, you support forcing children into prostitution, drugs, and starvation. Now, that's a moral position. What happens to those children after you pass a law? Ever thought about that? Perhaps, we could pass a law against gravity and we'll all fly. The only thing to kill child labor is more technology, making us so productive that they don't need to work. Regulation does nothing but condemn them to absolute poverty.

  • ||

    "In the aftermath of the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla, Beck argued that anti-Semitism is the inevitable byproduct of socialism"

    Has he ever read about that Zionism thingy? I believe a few Jews are involved and that Zionism involves socialism.

    I should just write my own history book...

  • zoltan||

    Guess he's never heard of a kibbutz. Beck is just as moronic as any other talking head on TV--except he cries more than any of them.

  • Cabeza de Vaca||

    Isreal must be the most anti-Semitic place on the planet.

  • Sean||

    Well they do kill a lot of Palestinians

  • Mr. Mackey||

    God damn joos

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "anti-Semitism is the inevitable byproduct of socialism"

    "Has he ever read about that Zionism thingy?...Zionism involves socialism."

    Have you ever heard of that Jewish self-hatred thingy? (rimshot)

  • ||

    "... specifically, the books that Glenn Beck reads, many of which are infused with a paranoid brand of Mormonism"

    Which books does he read that are "a paranoid brand of Momonism"? And why are they "paranoid" and what make a book a "brand of Mormonism".

    This is a cheap throw away sentence that is dishonestly written that shows your own bias, Michael.

  • zoltan||

    Cheap shots at Mormons are almost required.

  • hmm||

    I took a chip shot at a Mormon once. Fucker retaliated by driving his ball at me with an iron. Later we laughed about it over a beer.

    True story.

  • Joshua||

    but they're so nice!

  • Rahm Emmanuel’s kippah||

    Read that as “Cleon Skousen.” It's pretty accurate and honest on all counts, and I say that as a Mormon...

  • Rahm Emmanuel’s kippah||

    Just to be clear, “it” = Michael’s statement, not Skousen’s book.

  • jester||

    W. Cleon Skousen was a professor in the Religion Dept of Brigham Young University. The leaders of the LDS (Mormon) Church even went so far as to distance themselves from his literature.

    Of course, that is no endorsement of Harry Reid's paranoid brand of Mormonism, I assume.

  • ||

    I kind of got the impression that mark is slightly embarassed to be W Cleon's nephew the few times I've heard him speak. :)

  • ||

    Glenn Beck is like the Retardo Clock that is right 2 or 7 or -9.38 times a day. It takes a discerning mind to determine truth from bat-shit insane. Here's a hint, no charge: when he starts talking about The Bible®, click to Sports Center™, where the LeBron™ Faux Emergency­® is coming to a head.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Yeah, I check in with him from time to time and sometimes he's right on (most the time not) but as soon as I hear the words "the only thing that can save this country is..." I change the channel. I assume the part I always miss has something to do with NorthAmericanJesusMormanChristGod or something like that.

  • shrike||

    Glenn Beck, like the Texas Board of Education, is frantically rewriting history to remove Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and replace them with good cracker conservatives who love the Bible more than the Constitution.

  • Jules||

    Shit nigger thats all you needed to say!

  • shrike||

    I always say just what is needed.

  • ||

    Bushpig!

    See above.

  • This Dave||

    Yup, Beck sure doesn't want anyone reading Jefferson and Paine.

    Well, I mean, unless you count the bazillion times he's told his audience to read Jefferson and Paine.

    Not very familiar with the man, are you?

  • shrike||

    I am familiar with his whitewash of them.

    They both hated Christianity. Jefferson rewrote the New Testament to remove the miracles and resurrection. Paine railed against Christianity in his 'Age of Reason'.

    Beck won't tell his fish that though - he pushes their "faith" instead.

  • This Dave||

    So I guess people will see that for themselves when they read "Age of Reason" as Beck suggests they do.

  • shrike||

    Went to Becky boys website and didn't get a single hit on "Age of Reason".

    Can you back up your silly claim?

    Beck would rather take a full-on felch from Michael Moore than promote a book of reason.

  • shrike||

    make that "secularist" reason.

    The Beck girl did promote Hayek - who would hate his jive ass with a passion.

  • This Dave||

    He named his book "Common Sense" as an homage to Paine, and bound it together with Paine's book. If that's not good enough promotion of the man, I don't know what else to tell you.

  • This Dave||

    So just to repeat....if you bought Beck's book, you got a copy of Thomas Paine's book included.

    Please shrike, even you have to admit that's not the work of a man trying to keep you ignorant of Paine.

  • ||

    Yeah, a copy of "Common Sense," not, as you imply heavily, "Age of Reason," which Beck, given his command of the material, would likely not even be able to recognize as having been written by Thomas Paine.

  • ||

    Glenn Beck has never portrayed Paine as a christian. In fact, he has clearly pointed out that Paine was opposed to organized religion.

    As far as Jefferson is concerned, I've included several of his quotes below. I'm sure that you can point to several opposing examples, however it is clear that Jefferson was a religious man. He may have had doubts regarding theology, but he certainly believed in Christian Values.

    "The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    "The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
    -Thomas Jefferson

  • ||

    Please present these quotes in context, also it should be noted that most of these are from the same letter to Benjamin Rush.

  • shrike||

    Jefferson admired the "peace before violence"of Jesus.

    However, he rejected the supernatural claptrap that a "born again" has to cotton to amongst his peers today.

  • ||

    Who needs "opposing" examples? These are pretty clearly the words of a slightly coy secularist embracing the moral teachings associated with Jesus while dispensing with the rest. He sounds exactly like the modern village atheist reassuring his neighbors that he's a good person...

  • ||

    Good observation, Julian. If you read the letter that I referenced, and the history of the time when the Jefferson pro-jesus quotes were made you will see that you are correct in your observation.

    @shrike...you are still a dick.

  • PhxXD40||

    Jefferson's religious view are certainly ambiguous. However, may I ask, why does it matter what his religious views are?

    Also, he was only one of our many founding fathers. If he religious views are so important, what about the others?

  • Metazoan||

    I don't think they are ambiguous. He was a Deist, which usually holds that the Creator no longer intervenes, has a will that is discernible through reason, and has a form that is incomprehensible. That isn't ambiguity, it just isn't a theistic treatise on what God "precisely is."

  • TallDave||

    They didn't hate Christianity, they hated organized religion and religious superstition. They were even less fond of Mahometans.

  • ||

    Bollux. He's fairly enamored of Paine and Jefferson.

    He's very religious. That's annoying, and it colors his presentation. But it doesn't change the fact that he's presenting information that has been systematically suppressed.

    Is it all letter perfect accurate? Does he color some conclusions with god?

    Sure.

    But the majority of what is presented is accurate.

    Yes, Beck is no Rothbard. But who is?

    And if people get curious about the progressive movement and the economic history of the US they may be led to Rothbard.

    Do you think Jon Stewart, the comedic commentator on the left, will ever get people to think for themselves?

    Beck serves a purpose.

  • ||

    I dont believe everything I hear from anyone. What I find amazing, after doing my own research, is how much we as a people don't know about our own history.

    So let Beck rant, at least he gets some people off of the couch and starts them thinking. If we unquestioningly believe only what we are told, hear and read, however, we deserve what weget...kinda like what we got right now.

  • shrike||

    Beckerheads don't do their "own research" or thinking.

    They can't even correctly spell signs they bring to rallies.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    They can't even correctly spell signs they bring to rallies.

    At least they make their own signs. Statist pea-brains can't even do that, receiving their beautifully-printed signs from their gauleiters themselves.

  • shrike||

    Beck is a snake-oil salesman. He hawks overpriced Goldline gold coins (gubmint can take bullion ya know), survivalist seed banks, and gloomy conspiracy theories to shut-in fools.

    He mixes it with some good ole timey religion and - presto! - you have a huckster extraddanoire.

    Jon Stewart makes mincemeat out of this clown every week.

  • hmm||

    LoL awesome reference to Weiner's wasteful use of my tax dollars.

    God I hope that isn't a shrike puppet, cause the Weiner reference and the Stewart reference together are great. Not to mention they are buddies that once lived together. Which is fitting, and awfully telling.

  • Old Mexican||

    I just love your non-sequiturs.

  • WTF||

    Jon Stewart? Really? You're citing Jon Stewart as the source of your worldview? The dude can sometimes be funny; other than that, there's not much redeeming value there.

  • Joshua||

    yeah... cuz the gubmint's NEVER forbidden citizens to own gold or anything...

  • Brian||

    RE: Shrike - "He hawks overpriced Goldline gold coins (gubmint can take bullion ya know)"

    Government cannot (as of yet) confiscate gold coins. Bullion bars yes. Coins are still protected as collectibles for numismatic purposes.

    As for his hawking of gold coins or seeds or whatever, he has sponsors whose shit needs to be hawked. They pay air time which pays his salary. Shit. I know that is confusing to some.

  • ||

    Short memories are the bane of trolls. Not one month ago, there was a giggle-inducing photo in the news of a placard wielded by a student of a teacher who "organized" a student protest of teacher cuts. Remember now? The real joke: the teacher in question taught "language arts"

  • Some Guy||

    If Glenn Beck viewers were capable of or willing to think for themselves, they wouldn't be Glenn Beck viewers.

  • PantsFan||

    +1 brazillian

  • ||

    That's unfortunately true of most infotainment viewers, regardless of their political bent.

  • ||

    I stopped reading this critique when I realized one of the criticisms was Beck's mispronunciation of a name. Most others fell into similar categories. Very weak. The rest of the criticism basically amounted to, "He's wrong." I think you failed, and frankly, came across as nothing more than the snobs Beck makes fun of with his pipe. Bravo, Glenn!

  • Mr. Wick||

    Johnson, you're fired!

  • Rudan||

    "The rest of the criticism basically amounted to, "He's wrong.""

    You'd be surprised how often criticism comes down to pointing out that someone is wrong.

  • This Dave||

    "His fellow agent in the Silvermaster group was Harry Dexter White, not “Harry Dexter.”"

    Oh, well in that case....

    Are you serious? These criticisms are thin, thin, gruel. Was Beck wrong about what was in the Verona decrypts? Is the fact that he referred to them as "papers" rather than "decrypts" relevant? Are you just nit picking the hell out of this?

    Nobody claims that Castro was democratically elected? NOBODY? Would you like to re-think that statement?

    Moynihan did this the last time he wrote about Beck. In the context that Moynihan presented, you would have thought Beck was a proponent of the FEMA Camps conspiracy theory, instead of the man who spent an entire show destroying the theory.

    This is becoming like reading Andrew Sullivan, where your personal distaste for someone's style opens up the floodgates of ridiculous criticism.

    Perhaps some of this time could be spent talking about how to work together with his audience, who after all launched the Tea Party (successor to the 9/12 Project), which is the best hope libertarianism has had for putting actual people in office in my lifetime.

  • JoshINHB||

    Maybe

    But he doesn't realize that “if you were a Marxist” in 1960s, you were a “Soviet sympathizer,” as former members of the International Socialists can attest

    That alone proves what a nut he is.

  • This Dave||

    I don't remember left wingers doing much criticizing of the Eastern Bloc, unless it was used as a way of criticizing something the USA was doing by comparison.
    We're seeing the same thing happening today. After Hugo Chavez gets a bullet in his head from his own starving people, are his smitten followers on the Hollywood left going to pretend like they never had a love affair with him back in 2010? You bet they will.

  • JoshINHB||

    Don't forget those lovable peaceful muslims that we forced into terrorism either.

  • ||

    Criticism often does.

    However if I'm going to EFFECTIVELY and HONESTLY criticize someone's argument, I cite facts and argue where I differ.

  • zoltan||

    You forgot the crying, constant mention of alcoholism, and near-delusional self-comparison to Thomas Paine (who wasn't a sobbing little pussy--he never gave up drinking).

  • This Dave||

    No, you are forgetting the talking points, as mentioned above. Beck HATES Paine, and never wants anyone to read him. Which is why something something Texas.

  • ||

    I was with you up to there, Dave. Get back on track!

  • TallDave||

    also, Hayek

  • ||

    I watched after the Gaza flotilla to see what his response would be. He reviewed the history of the founding of Israel, which had nothing to do with the efforts of Jews, European Jews, and everything to do with the efforts of the British and Americans. He did actually go to great lengths to discuss the current "socialist" nation of Israel and the problems it has because of socialism. His shows are purely propaganda, and the sad thing is his regular viewers consider him to be gospel. I know, I have friends who consider Fox News to be the only trustworthy source of information available.

  • zoltan||

    Judge Napolitano and John Stossel are great. Dyke-voice anchorwomen and blubbering ballsack Bill O'Reilly are not.

  • shrike||

    post here more! you are a worksmithee!

  • ||

    I may be making a leap, but I believe you meant wordsmithee, so apparently you are not.

  • ||

    Yeah, I consider MSNBC, ABC (Obama's cocksucker, CBS and CNN to be the REALLY "trustworthy source of information"...Whatever, James, Fox beats the ALTERNATIVE (which aint sayin' much) but you refer to these "friends" of yours which nothing but the thinly veiled contempt the Chinese have for the mentally disabled...hate to see how you refer to your "enemies"

  • zoltan||

    Shrike called me something that sounds positive...I feel...dirty.

  • This Dave||

    They should watch MSNBC, a trustworty news source that isn't propaganda.

  • ||

    Wow!
    I hope you are being sarcastic, cuz if you believe MSNBC is unbiased, you need to expand your horizons my friend.

    That's not to say Fox News is unbiased. They have a clear conservative slant.

    I don't trust any single news source. I watch Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN to get different perspectives. After I've seen different viewpoints, I make my decision based on the evidence and arguments presented.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    That's what I used to do but you just spend hours wading through a bunch of shitty opinion just to get small nuggets of news.

    Recently I found a last bastion of unbiased news on AM news-radio(not talk-radio). I get more news on the 10 minute drive to work than I would in hours of horrible TV news.

  • CJ||

    I watch Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN to get different perspectives. After I've seen different viewpoints, I make my decision based on the evidence and arguments presented.

    Sounds kind of like drinking three types of poison and hoping they'll cancel each other out.

  • PhxXD40||

    Poison? Did you have a better drink in mind?

  • ||

    I was being sarcastic

  • TallDave||

    Frankly, it was sad that anyone had to ask.

  • Sean||

    Sarcasm?

  • ||

    BACK TO FEELIN' YA, DAVE!!!

  • JoshINHB||

    He reviewed the history of the founding of Israel, which had nothing to do with the efforts of Jews, European Jews, and everything to do with the efforts of the British and Americans

    Huh??

    Are you saying the Zionist entity is really an Angol-American entity?

    Don't tell all the Jews running that joint, they'll be pissed.

  • Joshua||

    well it does only exist because of the anglo american alliance propping it up.

  • TallDave||

    That's not how it looked in "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

  • hmm||

    But these stories can be told without exaggeration, without relying on conspiracy, without the rehabilitation of a heavy-drinking senator who believed that Gen. George Marshall was a Soviet agent.

    You can also choose to be taught at University where you will also get a skewed version for a much higher price from more than one person with a skewed view. Where the pressures and systems of grading will follow you forever causing you to capitulate to the most absurd bullshit known to man. So really what's the total take here? A guy selling something on TV and getting ratings chooses the most flamboyant manner in which to sell things and get ratings. Well color me shocked.

  • Old Mexican||

    No one claims Castro was “democratically-elected,” except, perhaps, the brothers Castro themselves.

    You would be suprised just how many otherwise intelligent Latin American socialists claimed such a thing. And they still claim it. So don't say "nobody claims", because that is a damned lie.

  • jester||

    Everything I learn, I learn here in the comment posts at hit n run.

  • shrike||

    In Bill S. - the jesters were the only truthtellers.

  • red watcher||

    Stanley Ann Dunham *did* however, attend the "Little Red Church" on Mercer Island near Seattle. It was a very pro-Castro, pro-Communist, etc. Unitarian outfit.

    The local high school on Mercer Island (also where Stanley Anne "grew up," and which is not in Kansas) was also widely known for hiring commie/pinko teachers. There's a video online with some of her classmates talking about the school.

    Hope this helps.

  • red watcher||

    More on the "Little Red Church on the Hill" and its connection to Stanley Ann's high school:

    http://www.americanthinker.com.....paign.html

    Why would Obama want to hide his grandparents' Unitarian connection? In interviews with the Seattle Times and The Chicago Tribune, classmates of Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham recount the Dunhams' late 1950s membership in the East Shore Unitarian Church in Bellevue, WA. According to its own website, East Shore Unitarian Church was nicknamed "The Little Red Church on the Hill" because of, "Well-publicized debates and forums on such controversial subjects as the admission of ‘Red China' to the United Nations...."

    The "Little Red Church" label was also mentioned in the Chicago Tribune story, but there is more. According to his 2000 obituary, a man named John Stenhouse, once served as church president. This might also have contributed to the "red" label. Stenhouse in 1955 testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee about his membership in the Communist Party, USA.

    Stenhouse was also chair of the Mercer Island, WA school board. Time Magazine April 11, 1955 recounts intense debate in the Mercer Island community resulting in a decision that Stenhouse would keep his position. At the height of the McCarthy era, this was unusual. The next year, the Dunhams moved across the bay to Mercer Island in order to admit Stanley Ann Dunham to Mercer Island High School.

    ---- further hyperlinks @ source link

  • ||

    Psst...There's still a bit of BBQ sauce on your foil hat...you must have recycled the foil from the 4th of July.

    I took a look at your link. Seriously? This is Andrew Walden's life, this chasing down of he-said-she-said-Obama's-first-cousin's-dog's-second-owner might have seen Obama slipping into a mosque in Indonesia and chanting "Death to America!" while he dashed freshly-aborted Christian fetuses against the marble pillars of the mosque for fun?

    What a thrilling existence, being a ham-fisted tennis player in an eternal volley of dubious, largely misquoted, and ill-documented "facts" with some other keyboard masturbator on tah Intarnetz. Makes obsessed online gamers suddenly look like they're at the peak of the self-actualization pyramid by comparison.

    Obama's not a Communist, and FFS, if he never mentioned his experiences in Indonesia, you'd certainly be bitching about his silence. Obama's a capitalist who happens to believe that if companies are large and powerful enough, they should be allowed to raise their "capital" right out of the public till, especially if some of that "capital" makes its way back into his campaign coffers come 2012.

    For crying out loud. Obama's not a lousy president because he's a closet Muslim terrorist or a four-star general in the Red Guard. He's a lousy president because he's inexperienced, because he thought running the country would somehow be the easy-peasy Jedi mind trick that running his campaign was, and because he has no real convictions about anything (his conviction, like 99.9% of politicians, is to keep his desk chair warm for as long as possible). America, being all about marketing and image (the one thing Obama does like a champ), was mesmerized to orgasm by his svengaliesque chants of "hope and change." And now, unless someone can impeach him, we're stuck with him for another two years.

    So unless you've got something good enough to impeach his useless ass (and here's a hint: wide-eyed legends about his supposed links with someone who once accepted a stick of gum from a Communist or a Muslim probably won't make that happen), I just don't get why you foil-wrapped freaks spend so much time on this crap.

    I guess zoltan already said what I said, but I'm much more long-winded.

    On the subject of Glenn Beck: Feh, how times have changed. 30-some years ago, we had a Glenn Beck on TV. He spouted malapropisms and various harebrained theories about Jews, Darkies, Pol-locks, wetbacks, Chinks, hippie meatheads, and other alien creatures. His name was Archie Bunker, and his steady stream of bullshit was intended to be funny. Now, his name's Glenn Beck, and instead of laughing, his audience Hoovers up whatever he says as the gospel truth. Most interesting.

  • ||

    Touche

  • red watcher||

    What are you babbling on about? Are you replying to voices in your head, or to my post?

    Do you have anything relevant to say about Stanley Anne's "little red church" and its affiliated school?

    Beck obviously had Mercer's little red church and/or school board in mind, not some school in Manhattan. I was just trying to help out Mr. Moynihan, who apparently doesn't know anything about the Dunhams except the word "Kansas."

  • zoltan||

    ::Yawn:: Consider me unimpressed by the crimes of the father. Obama's only crimes are much worse and the only relevant ones when discussing his actions.

  • This Dave||

    Considering that these things are said by Beck in the context of "this is what Obama was raised to believe, and I think it explains his actions", I'd say it's relevant.

  • zoltan||

    If you care about that, then yes--if you don't really give a shit why this guy is such an authoritarian, then not so relevant. I'm not sure why people care why he's like this. I doubt it's his upbringing anyway; it's the high-fives he got from prep school to college and beyond for being a black dude with leftist politics.

  • ||

    I don't think it's a matter of WHY he's like this, so much as it is an attempt to reveal what he actually believes, as opposed to what he says for public consumption. I know saying things like that will get you a mocking "ooh he's a sekret blah blah", but if Beck had told you in '08 (or '09, or June 2010) that the head of NASA would be ordered by Obama to make his primary mission about Muslim self-esteem, that would be C-C-Craaaaazy. And last year if you had said that Obama was going to appoint a self-avowed fan of the British NHS' rationing, you'd be spouting extremist rhetoric. And if back in 2008 you'd said that Obama would appoint a self-avowed Marxist like Van Jones to "Green Czar", that would be extremist rhetoric. And if on election day I told you that Obama and his AG were going to drop a case they'd already won against Black Panthers who engaged in the most obvious case voter intimidation in the last 40 years, for reasons that are being kept secret but probably are racial, you would be a crazy racist. And if you said that the media, working with Democratic operatives, were going to report that opposition to Obama shouted "Nigger" at rallies even though it was filmed and they obviously didn't,
    that would be crazy. So maybe we can start to fucking talk about the differences between Obama's public face and what the man really believes without derision, because deriding it is what's crazy.

  • Libertarious||

    Stop hating on Glenn Beck, Euro-trash honkey!

  • PantsFan||

    Glenn Beck is a total muppet.

  • ||

    A ton of people have been able to put together all of interconnections of the Obama organization. However, only one has parlayed it into a TV show. Laugh at him all you want, but be sure he's laughing at you, too.

  • shrike||

    Interconnections? You're a gullible fool too.

    I bet you think his advisers are Van Jones and the Rev Wright like the Beckerhead does.

    Try Larry Summers, Paul Volcker, Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon, Tim Geithner, Austin Goolsbee and other free-market types.

    But that doesn't feed your paranoid Beckerhead idiocy, does it?

  • This Dave||

    Would you like to talk about how Larry Summers and others you mentioned are bailing because they think Obama's policies are taking us over the edge?

  • shrike||

    Summers is bailing?

    You got a scoop pal. Get thee to the WaPost now.

  • ||

    I only think Rev Wright - the most virulent hate monger around - is his "adviser" because he was LISTED in Obama's campaign material as his "Spiritual Adviser"...WTF DON'T you understand about that, dipshit?

  • ||

    That's right he is his "adviser". If his advice is to kill all the joos then that's his advice.

  • zoltan||

    Being pathetic enough to have your own news show? Not really all that newsworthy. This guy's popularity is in the same vein as Maddow, Velez-Mitchell, Olbermann, etc.

  • hmm||

    The only problem is he is pulling multiple times more viewers in a worse time slot. A time slot that feeds prime time. The argument that no one will advertise on his slot and that will drive him out is hilarious. Racking up the views he does as a lead in into prime time makes him worth his weight in gold.

    He is vastly different than the people mentioned in that he is marketable. Which love it or not is important when in business.

  • zoltan||

    His style of crazy is more popular; doesn't make it any less crazy.

  • hmm||

    Oh god. My sides hurt. Jesus I can't breathe. Make it stop. LoL

    Try Larry Summers, Paul Volcker, Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon, Tim Geithner, Austin Goolsbee and other free-market types.

    Did you say that with a serious face?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    shrike's face is always serious.

  • shrike||

    yeah - I know. They are all "sekret commies".

    You Beckerheads need a lesson in reality.

  • SIV||

    Did you say that with a serious face?

    shrike is just agreeing with Radley Balko

  • hmm||

    Of that list that is the sole free market person that hasn't spent his life manipulating the system for his own benefit.

  • hmm||

    The first four are laughable.

  • hmm||

    5

  • SIV||

    I'd say all 6

  • SIV||

    with props to Volcker on his career as Fed Chairman

    Goolsbee is not by any stretch a "free market economist"

  • hmm||

    he's closer than the others, but that may be due to a lack of opportunity. I was attempting to avoid a hyperbole economist battle.

  • SIV||

    he's closer than the others

    "horseshoes and hand grenades"

  • hmm||

    Economics is all hand grenades. Just like any other social science.

  • hmm||

    They aren't very secret about what they do.

  • hmm||

    Where o' where did my ive go?

  • Mr. Wick||

    I know its easy to blow off beck, the first time I saw him he cried. I was disgusted. The emoting aside YOU ALL SUCK. One of you mentioned John Stewart.. Really? I'm back to you all suck. Buncha pretentious little bitches.

  • hmm||

    I'm a rather large bitch. Thank you very much.

  • zoltan||

    Jon Stewart is a pretentious little bitch; just like you, apparently.

  • Adonisus||

    I hate Glenn Beck and I hate his little cult of followers.

    I'm not going to try and mask my loathing of him with any kind of intellectual dishonesty, because I prefer to be a straight shooter.

    He is a meglomanaical, whiney, shrill huckster. And his followers are more irritating than Twilight fans.

  • hmm||

    You can say that about every media personality and their followers.

  • Adonisus||

    I really could, especially political pundits.

    But Beck in particular really gets under my craw.

  • shrike||

    But he didn't.

    And you are wrong. I have disagreed with Chris Hitchens many times but I have never questioned his intellect.

  • hmm||

    You wouldn't question the intellect of anyone you agree with. I'm not surprised by that. I'm even less surprised by your willingness to question the intellect of everyone you disagree with.

  • hmm||

    The Mexican is right. You are all over the non-sequiturs. No one even mentioned intellect yet you toss it right on out there, bravely and without remorse.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    So, Adonisus. Are you Team Edward or Team Jacob?

  • Sean||

  • zoltan||

    What happened to the Onion? Their latest issue is so unfunny. The more politicized they become the more it's just a bore.

  • Adonisus||

    Eeeerrr.....I'll take my jetpack. >.>

  • ||

    Adonisus|7.7.10 @ 7:44PM|#
    "I hate (Glenn Beck, Sean Penn, John Stewart, Keith Olberman, River Phoenix, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver Stone, etc. ) and I hate his little cult of followers.

    I'm not going to try and mask my loathing of him with any kind of intellectual dishonesty, because I prefer to be a straight shooter.

    He is a meglomanaical, whiney, shrill huckster. And his followers are more irritating than Twilight fans."
    FIFY

  • Citizen Nothingw||

    So.
    Is Moynihan the Weigel of the Right? Discuss.

  • ||

    Ah man, you got hit with the "thirty day name misspell" as well. Dang near invalidates everything you say, doesn't it?

    *see my comment at 6:56p above, a most grievous error

  • ORLY||

    Great, now Reason seems to be syndicating HuffingtonPost content. If you're going to go that route, at least show us t&a galleries too.

  • hmm||

    There was far less foaming at the mouth than Huffpo articles. And the comments have a lot less retarded team cheering. Hell even the trolls are better here.

  • ||

    hmm, I gotta know. You have to be very close to me geographically.

    Independence, KS here...

  • hmm||

    St. Louis

  • Troll||

    Hell even the trolls are better here.

    It's quite a art.

  • SIV||

    at least show us t&a galleries too

    delivered.

  • Colin||

    The difference is, here there's actually some truth.

  • SIV||

    establish the unmitigated “evil” of Woodrow Wilson.

    What's with the scare quotes?

  • ||

    Good question. Beck is a tool, no doubt. But that doesn't mean that everything he knows is false.

    Wilson evil? Check

    Progressives, Communists, Socialists birds of a feather? Check. Differing degrees of the same pathology.

  • SIV||

    I'm curious as to whether Moynihan would consider any chief of state evil.I suspect the progressive twit has more than some small love for Wilson as the "father" of intergovernmental organization.
    Moynihan is an über-statist

  • This Dave||

    I find it really hard to believe that there are people at Reason who would have a hard time lumping Marxists, Communists, Socialists, and "Progressives" together. The differences are a hell of a lot smaller than the similarities.

    You could call yourself a "Friedman-ite" or "Hayekian" or "von Mises-based" or "libertarian" or "free marketeer" and quibble about the differences, but in the grand scale of the political world stage, it's the same thing.

  • ||

    So you see no difference between Vermont (progressive) Sweden (Socialist) and the USSR? Interesting. Must take a superior intelligence to come to that conclusion.

  • ||

    I see no difference between a "Progressive" who believes the government should control everything so the "smart people" can make our decisions for us (but lives in a country where they can only take that so far) and a "Socialist" or "Communist" who lives in a country where they can take that further. The philosophical premises behind Socialism and the USSR are the same; the big difference is in how far they took it how much of a polce state they set up to execute it.

  • ||

    But you can explain to me: What is the difference between a Vermont "Progressive" and a Swedish Socialist, other than the opposition they face?

  • TallDave||

    Deodorant.

  • Colin||

    Well done, sir!

    Next time you hear someone say that Reasoners are nothing but right-wing stooges, you should point them here.

  • EJM||

    I really can't take seriously anyone who considers David Barton to be "the most important man in America today".

  • shrike||

    Barton is a propagandist lying fuckstick.

    That is why Beck likes him.

  • ||

    I'm sure that's not the ONLY reason.

    David Barton supports his claims with his massive historical document collection.

    Can you point out any specific examples on how Barton is a liar?

    Thanks,

  • EJM||

    Whether or not he's intentionally dishonest, it looks like he should have said something when John Hagee apparently used one of his "unconfirmed" quotes.

  • ||

    Dude, you are out of your depth, as Barton has been caught falsifying quotes from the founding fathers.

    Barton is a fucking charlatan, and a liar...this cannot be said enough.

  • AlmightyJB||

    So does the $79 include the ride into the afterlife on the spaceship? Or is Beck more of a kool-aid kind of guy?

  • ||

    Straight up magic underwear guy.

  • hmm||

    I have magic underwear. The wife however, doesn't see it as magic at all.

  • ||

    Just because the crotch looks like a brownish version of the shroud of Turin doesn't make them magic.

  • ||

    Aw fuck man, you just won the thread.

    I congratulate you, Kant.

  • hmm||

    What crotch?

  • ||

    Oh snap!

  • ||

    specifically, the books that Glenn Beck reads, many of which are infused with a paranoid brand of Mormonism—

    Name me names, damnit! (Because "Title me titles" doesn't have the same ring)

  • Rahm Emmanuel’s kippah||

    Read the comments upstream. This is Moynihan code-speak for Clean Skousen.

  • Rahm Emmanuel’s kippah||

    err, Cleon Skousen.

  • Mark LaRochelle||

    Did you hear the one about Roosevelt telling Stalin he might hand over the six million Jews in the United States to King Saud? Mind you, this is in 1945, during the liberation of Dachau.

    Too soon?

    Evans' immediate point was not that FDR was serious, but that anyone who told such a “joke” might be thought to be a closet anti-Semite, or perhaps “gaga.” His larger point was that the scrubbing of such incidents from the official record erases evidence suggesting that Roosevelt was indeed losing his faculties, leaving the actual details of Yalta in the hands of assistants such as Alger Hiss.

    Moynihan seems to think he is in good company with Ron Radosh in trashing Blacklisted by History. He might want to rethink that position. In his review, Radosh accused the author of plagiarism, saying “Evans takes virtually all of his material” on Amerasia from a book Radosh co-wrote with Harvey Klehr, “which he does not acknowledge."

    Evans responded: “This vicious statement is an astounding, and outrageous, lie... at no point in my career has anyone to my knowledge ever accused me of plagiarism...”

    In his rebuttal, Radosh did a little revisionism himself, claiming: “I never wrote anywhere that Evans plagiarized our book.” (The exchange is preserved here: http://socialissues.wiseto.com.....747/?print)
    The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize), defines "plagiarize" as “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (another's production) without crediting the source: to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.”
    In short, taking virtually all of one's material on a given subject from the work of another without acknowledgment is about as close to a dictionary definition of plagiarism as one is likely to get. It's hard to believe Radosh, who writes for a living, didn't know he had accused Evans of plagiarism.
    Radosh should be ashamed.
    Moynihan should be ashamed of his own review, for other reasons. For example, he writes, “Evans provides almost no representative selections from McCarthy’s speech about Marshall...”
    In fact, on page 413, Evans quotes both the notorious “a conspiracy ... so immense” passage:
    “How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this Government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.”
    and the equally infamous “If Marshall were merely stupid” passage:
    “What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence. If Marshall were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve this country's interest.”
    If Moynihan does not consider these selections “representative,” what quotes would he suggest Evans should have included? Moynihan suggests an answer of sorts when he writes: “If Evans had so chosen, readers would have seen … the bizarre suggestion that the Marshall Plan ...was inspired by U.S. Communist Party boss Earl Browder.”
    Moynihan could really have nailed Evans here, simply by quoting the “representative selections” in which McCarthy makes such an outrageous claim. Why doesn't he? McCarthy's speech about Marshall, as posted at Fordham University's Modern History Sourcebook, contains no such claim at all: no mention of Browder; none of the Marshall Plan. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1951mccarthy-marshall.html)

    Speaking of which, McCarthy voted for the Marshall Plan. (See page 446.) I mentioned that it's hard to believe Radosh didn't know he had accused Evans of plagiarism, but it's even harder to believe that McCarthy claimed that a plan he voted for was inspired by Earl Browder.

    Speaking of whom, did you know McCarthy testified as a defense witness for Browder? (See page 218.)

  • ||

    ...Blah blah blah...secrets of the universe...blah blah blah...

  • ||

    Mark LaRochelle|7.7.10 @ 10:05PM|#
    "Did you hear the one about Roosevelt telling Stalin he might hand over the six million Jews in the United States to King Saud? Mind you, this is in 1945, during the liberation of Dachau..............."

    I'm sure you had a point buried in there, but after reading that so-and-so said X while a reference to a review said otherwise, I haven't a clue as to what it is.
    Wanna try this with a declarative sentence followed by evidence?

  • Joshua||

    Maybe there was some other point, but all I got was that MCM seems to have written his review of a book he maligns Beck for liking either with an agenda, or with ignorance.

  • sickahishit||

    Glenn Beck discovered Thomas Paine about the same time he discovered Ayn Rand. Somewhere between TARP and the election when he stuck his finger and noticed the political wind changing. Before that he couldn't see anything but Bush's cheeks.

  • This Dave||

    You don't know what you're talking about. Beck called Bush's inattention to border security an impeachable offense, just for starters.
    Which probably doesn't play well with the people on Reason who don't believe we have a border, but still, if you think he was a shill for Bush, you weren't listening. If there was a period where he uncritically kissed Bush's ass on a daily basis, it was a long time before I ever heard of the man.

  • Metazoan||

    Several years back he was indeed an ultra-neocon. I recall it quite well. Anyway, how much more crap can we put on the border?

  • Obama||

    The quintessential American quality is the capacity to change.

  • EasyPeasy||

    Everyone hates everyone else. More of the same no matter where you go. I predict that this will all end badly.

  • Mark LaRochelle||

    Ron L., Okay, here's the declarative sentence: In the article to which these comments supposedly reply (“Beck U”), Michael Moynihan admits that FDR told Stalin he might hand over America's six million Jews to the King of Saudi Arabia, but Moynihan defends FDR for saying this, because he was only joking!

    And here's the evidence: Moynihan writes, “Roosevelt was attempting, lamely for sure, to make a joke.”

  • This Dave||

    "And here's the evidence: Moynihan writes, “Roosevelt was attempting, lamely for sure, to make a joke.”

    This is ok, just like how Robert Byrd only joined the KKK to get elected.
    Time there was when saying "He'd even join the KKK if he thought it would help you get elected" could be considered an insult. Unless it's a Democrat.

  • This Dave||

    Let's take it a step further: How would Moynihan treat it if Beck made a joke about handing all the Jews over the king of Saudi Arabia? Would that be "Just a lame joke"?

    Yeah, I didn't think so.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    1) Beck is a fucking turd on a stick.
    2)

    though he is surely right that reading the right books is more important than merely reading books.

    Bullshit. Go read yourself some fucking Areopagitica.

  • Mike K.||

    I find it curious that Moynihan is so quick to trash Glenn Beck, and point out his "errors", yet fails to mention that Beck frequently tells his viewers/listeners to not take his word for it and check it out for themselves. Now how many people in the MSM tell their audience to do this?

    I know that someone is going to follow this up with the standard whine about people who don't bother and "just believe" everything they hear... It is still no excuse for not questioning what one takes in.

  • ||

    The primary reason Moynihan dislikes Beck is because he's a member of the "paranoid center." For all his failings, Beck threatens the more or less bi-partisan consensus on domestic and foreign policy. "Sure, the parties are supposed to argue. But they're not supposed to really argue! That might prevent the rational moderates in both parties from getting things done!"

  • ||

    What I don't care for is Beck's packaging of his message. It's too amped up for my taste and somewhat on the fear-mongering side. But I have read some of the books he has recommended, Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, Housing Boom & Bust by Thomas Sowell, American Progressivism by Ronald J. Pestritto and The Lost Constitution and Restoring the Lost Constitution by Randy Barnett. I didn't find any weird Mormon Message in these books. I haven't watch his show for a while, but I did like when he had Penn Jillette, John Stossel & Judge Andrew Napolitana on the TV show.

  • ||

    Penn and Teller are awesome

  • ||

    Bullshit is one of the best shows on TV.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    yeppers. When does the new season start?

  • zoltan||

    The "weird Mormon Message" would be from Cleon Skousen, not from those authors you listed.

  • clownpenis||

    I love reaon magazine, however they have slowly lost their balls. I am not expecting them to be excitable Glenn Beck but they want to deny what is right there to see. Progressives pretty much are communists. Obama is a commie and has ties to militant leftists. I want Reason to be reasonable but not blind.

  • Reason Editor||

    Here's a little secret clownpenis.

    The people running Reason like Obama.

    They identify with him, think its great a well spoken ivy leaguer is running things.

    It's telling that their number one critique of Beck is that he doesn't realize that all Marxists aren't Soviet Sympathizers.

  • ||

    Ugh. As a Mormon, I just want to assure you that Glenn Beck (nor Cleon Skousen) does not speak for all of us.

  • ||

    You tell 'em, Dave!

  • Peetsker||

    bunch of ass-wiping uninformed agenda driven media-speak bullshit in here, and I don't fucking mean the fucking article

  • Joshua||

    Hey! I wipe ass. Only my own, but still...

  • ||

    Beck's overly-emotional tone and mannerisms - especially the constant refrain of loud sighs and "isn't that weird?!" admonitions - rub me the wrong way and make it difficult for me to watch his show. That being said, Beck's basic premise - that the political Left has been waging an all-out assault on American traditions, institutions, and civil society for the past 100 years - is absolutely correct. More importantly, he's getting millions upon millions of Americans to start paying attention to the political forces at work in this country.

    So while I think he would benefit from a more even-keeled approach - less blackboard, more panel discussion - in the end I think what he's doing is a net positive for the American people.

  • Genius||

    You see one panel you've seen them all. Panels suck they just bicker about the same boring crap to no end. People just listen to that crap to perpetuate their smug feeling of I'm smarter than you. I'm sure everyone here is different though of course like me I listen to the NPR because I find it intellectually stimulating and not because I like to lord it over other people that I'm cultured and listen to smart sounding accents on the radio.

  • ||


    You see one panel you've seen them all. Panels suck they just bicker about the same boring crap to no end.

    You obviously haven't watched the panels on Beck's show. As such, why are you commenting?

  • Genius||

    Cas de first emmenment tells me i can you nazi

  • ||

    Beck's basic premise - that the political Left has been waging an all-out assault on American traditions, institutions, and civil society for the past 100 years - is absolutely correct.
    Only if you're a Southerner. The Left has been the primary driver of keeping the institutions, traditions and civil society of the North East alive for the past 100 years. John Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin have far more in common intellectually with Obama than they do with Beck or Palin.

  • Genius||

    "John Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin have far more in common intellectually with Obama than they do with Beck or Palin."
    How so? those racist white devils have nothing in common with our glorious leader!

  • ||


    The Left has been the primary driver of keeping the institutions, traditions and civil society of the North East alive for the past 100 years.

    Oh really?

    The "living, breathing Constitution" was a staple of the North East from the founding to the 1900's?

    Wealth redistribution - via instruments like the progressive income tax - were a staple of the North East from the founding to the 1900's?

    Multiculturalism was a staple of the North East from the founding to the 1900's?

    Centralized, top-down govt authority was a staple of the North East from the founding to the 1900's?

    Speech-codes on university campuses were a staple of the North East from the founding to the 1900's?

    The US press acting in lockstep to promote Leftist ideology and policies was a staple of the North East from the founding to the 1900's?

    Advocating deference to international law over American law was a staple of the North East from the founding to the 1900's?


    John Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin have far more in common intellectually with Obama than they do with Beck or Palin.

    Except that Adams, Hamilton,and Franklin used their intellects to arrive at a completely different conclusion about the role of govt...a conclusion shared by Beck and Palin.

  • JoshINHB||

    You forgot prohibition and world policing. Two other gifts from the left.

  • JoshINHB||

    John Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin have far more in common intellectually with Obama than they do with Beck or Palin.

    Those three guys were communists too?????

  • TallDave||

    Man, that Venona stuff goes back farther than I thought.

  • MattN||

    That's funny... I didn't realize I was a southerner.

    Of course, I'm not from the northeast, either....

    Hey, where do I fit in in all this? What does _my_ geographical location mean?

  • ernie1241||

    (1) With respect to Beck's comments about Sen. Joe McCarthy:

    One of our nation’s foremost scholars about the McCarthy period (Dr. John Earl Haynes) has written several articles which compare McCarthy’s assertions to newly available data including, for example, the Venona papers and material in KGB archives.

    See for example:

    (1) Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona
    http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html
    (2) Exchange with Arthur Herman and Venona book talk
    http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page58.html

    Whittaker Chambers summed it up pretty well in his 1/14/54 letter about McCarthy to conservative book publisher Henry Regnery, when Chambers observed that....

    "All of us, to one degree or another, have slowly come to question his judgment and to fear acutely that his flair for the sensational, his inaccuracies and distortions, his tendency to sacrifice the greater objective for the momentary effect, will lead him and us into trouble. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that we live in terror that Senator McCarthy will one day make some irreparable blunder which will play directly into the hands of our common enemy and discredit the whole anti-Communist effort for a long while to come."

    With respect to Beck's reliance on material authored by W. Cleon Skousen:

    The following report is based upon first-time-released FBI files and documents pertaining to Skousen. Contrary to what Skousen's admirers believe, his FBI career was predominantly administrative assignments, not investigations into internal-security-related matters.

    http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/skousen

  • tadcf||

    I never thought I would find myself agreeing with a right wing publication.

  • JoshINHB||

    You don't.

  • Van||

    The Nazis did not “learn propaganda” from Woodrow Wilson.

    Joseph Goebbels was in fact a great admirer of FDR's new deal. See Adam Curtis's documentary, "The Century of the Self", for the proof. Includes film of Joseph Goebbels praising the New Deal and Roosevelt.

  • ||

    Churchill praised Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.....does this make him a) a nazi b)a fascist c)a communist d)none of the above.....grow up.

  • Van||

    I haven't drawn any conclusions, merely stated the facts which you can check for yourself.

    You young guys are always assuming a position of authority. your ignorance of my true nature is ludicrous.

  • Fool||

    I hope that is a joke, that has got to be one of the most arrogant things ive ever heard. Talk like that and you'll be off slaughtering innocent children in no time!

  • The Dude Lebowski ||

    Why in the hell do you guys mock Glenn Beck?
    Beck's delivered more crushing blows to statism, collectivism and the nanny state than any tv personality today. Have you noticed how much the media statists HATE him??

    For goodness sake, what values of free markets and smaller government are advanced by adding your voices to the left wing chorus of scorn for Beck???

  • JoshINHB||

    Haven't your realized that they are part of the establishment.

    Kind of like a neutered house cat that's part of it's owners household.

    They know the hand that feeds them and won't bite it lest they cocktail party invites cease.

  • ||

    Haven't your realized that they are part of the establishment.

    Sadly articles like this remind me this is the case.

    I hope Michael just really didn't think too much about this before he wrote it. I do like his writings.

    Beck's an easy target, and I suppose if one needed a hug from a liberal that day one might be tempted to take down Beck.

  • toolate||

    do people invite cats to cocktail parties?

  • JoshINHB||

    Manhattan cocktail parties are full of pussies, mostly the non female sort.

  • Van||

    If you are really paranoid, you might conclude that Beck is part of a disinformation campaign, that he is creating a cover story for the conspirators which is itself unbelievable. For example, attempting to convince everyone that the reconnaissance jets flying out of Air Force Bases are UFOs flown by extraterrestrials.

    There is no single influence group or secret society with total control over the whole world. The world is obviously too fucked up for that to be the case. If you investigate history with an open mind however, you can find out facts that confirm the existence of real conspiracies. Not great overwhelming conspiracies, just attempts to control elections, control trade in some commodity, assassination plots, etc.

    Does anyone know if Beck has ever mentioned Rupert Murdoch's relationship with the Freud family?

    Who is Matthew Freud?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Freud

  • ||

    And yet this guy is a major voice in Republican/conservative politics in the US. And if you're in any doubt about it just surf some of the comments here. Does this make you feel good Michael?

  • Tony||

    You're bragging about that? The guy's not just a partisan hack but either a performance artist or certifiably paranoid. Not to mention a pimp for various snake oil scams.

  • TallDave||

    He's still at least 3 lithiums saner than Keith Olbermann... and about 10x more popular.

  • ||

    I am impressed, Mr Moynihan, impressed! If you're auditioning for the Weigel slot at the Washington Post, I'd say you're spot on!

    Great Work!

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Oh man. I was gonna go there. I thought I was pretty damn clver too.

  • Hat-Man of Tin-Foil||

    You guys are all conspiring against each other in a grand conspiracy to distract everyone from the truth:

    Glenn Beck is conspiring with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and Jimmy Hoffa to take over Euro-Asia with their secretly cloned underground army of fire-breathing demon-sheep commanded by the Evil Seductress-General Bertha McTruthie.

    Of course everyone knows George W. Bush devised, planned and financed this entire operation.

  • Genius||

    I want to believe!

  • ||

    Micheal this article is a misguided cosmotarian feelgood screed.

    Your criticisms while accurate (mostly) as far as they go, are nits compared to the misinformation he's attempting to correct.

    He calls himself a libertarian. He leads people to think about libertarianism. He leads people to think about the failings of the two political parties and the lack of definitive difference between them. He leads people to read worthies such as Hayek, Jefferson, Paine, Hazlitt.. and many many others.

    These are good things.

    Yes he also thinks 'the 5000 year leap' is a great book.

    Yes he's a religious loon.

    Yes he's embarrassing to cosmotarians trying desperately not to look uncool by vague association with a blubbering fatman who occasionally calls himself a libertarian.

    Yes, he's no Rothbard. He's slightly confused about the progressive movement and why it happened. But it did happen and understanding it is important to understanding politics in the country we live in.

    Sorry to be harsh, but this is beneath you. I've praised you before and I'm sure I will again. If you really wanted to straighten people out you would have pointed out where he is spot on right too (and he often is), and corrected the details which he was wrong. So I suspect your motives in writing this.

    Beck is sometimes out of the box, but he does put a lot of people's feet on the path to understanding libertarianism. In that I consider him a force for good.

  • Van||

    +10

    What this guy said!

  • Tony||

    Beck is beneath any thinking person. It's so funny what libertarians decide to get pragmatic about.

  • ||

    If you had formed your own opinions about Beck you wouldn't conclude that. He's occasionally hilarious, and often correct. And unless you're a student of progressivism there's information he has that you will never, ever, get anywhere else from the media.

    If you really want to understand your own religion, Tony, however I don't recommend Beck. As with so many things, Rothbard is the source.

    You needn't even read. You can listen. For free.
    http://media.mises.org/mp3/rot.....onomy1986/

    You're on the wrong side, Tony. You are on the side of the robber barons, the oligarchs, the corporatists.. and the pietists as Murray would say.

    Honestly, I don't see how you can have observed the Obama administration for the past year and a half and not start to wake up.

    Does it not concern you how your 'team' is the one pushing thoughtcrimes and political conformity? How the ignant bible beaters are now the force protecting civil liberties?

    It's because you're not liberals anymore that you make what used to be the theocratic right look good now. You're all wrong but now it is the bible people who are (pardon the pun) on the side of the angels.

    Become a liberal again or let the right win by virtue of being in favor of much more freedom than you do. Your team won't be in power forever, or for much longer. Your might makes right philosophy, can, and will, be used against you in the court of democracy.

  • Tony||

    My opinions are my own. I've watched Beck. He's either clinically paranoid or he just plays it on TV. He knows almost nothing of history, and the bullshit revisionist version he sells is just as much a crock as the overpriced gold he peddles.

    As for Rothbard, I don't see what possible relevance the Austrian school has to the real world--it's not considered fringe and discredited because the man has got it down, it's because it's just not rigorous enough to be taken seriously, it's just a series of assumptions and platitudes.

    Now I don't begrudge you guys for believing in a form of utopia. We all have our versions. What really pisses me off though is the doublethink.

    "You are on the side of the robber barons, the oligarchs, the corporatists.. and the pietists"

    No. Nobody's saying liberals are perfect, but what's wrong with libertarianism today--the lip-service libertarianism of the GOP, the libertarianism of reason, and certainly the libertarianism of Glenn Beck--is that it is being whored out for the sake of the corporate status quo.

    You've got to know that anarcho-capitalism has no political relevance. So it just ends up being the philosophical lipstick on a big fat corporatist pig, since all incremental steps toward your definition of freedom always seem to favor the corporate status quo, which is what the GOP, FOX News, and CATO are all really interested in.

    I am not a part of any of that--your sadly misinformed Beckian account of history notwithstanding--any progressivism I'm a part of is the movement that has championed actual increases of freedom for individuals, workers, racial and sexual minorities. What has the Austrian school ever done for anyone?

  • Van||

    My opinions are my own., ..........
    ............,any progressivism I'm a part of is the movement that has championed actual increases of freedom for individuals, workers, racial and sexual minorities.

    Exactly what movement are you a member of Tony? What movement did you derive your own opinions from?

    What group do you identify with?

  • JoshINHB||

    What has the Austrian school ever done for anyone?

    Well it doesn't serve as a justification for politicians to inflate the currency for it must be worthless.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    +10 to you Tony(no sarcasm)

    That seemed thoughtful and honest. Still really snarky but I learned way more about your ideas from that one comment than from all your polished, party-loyal one liner bromides combined.

    The impression that I got is that you don't really think that we're evil fascists but that our ideas are wrong and that you have better ones. You're still wrong but that's a much more interesting discussion.

  • ||

    any progressivism I'm a part of is the movement that has championed actual increases of freedom for individuals, workers, racial and sexual minorities.

    But it's not. The movement you are part of has consistently championed decreases in freedom for individuals in favor of increases in favoritism(not freedom, as what has been given can be taken away) towards groups(workers, racial and sexual minorities)

  • ||

    As for Rothbard, I don't see what possible relevance the Austrian school has to the real world

    First off Rothbard was more of a historian (by volume) than an economist or philosopher (though he was brilliant in all) and Rothbard didn't invent the Austrian school. Bear that little fact in mind next time you make an assumption. I was pointing you at Rothbard so you could understand the historical origins of your own religion.

    it's not considered fringe and discredited because the man has got it down, it's because it's just not rigorous enough to be taken seriously, it's just a series of assumptions and platitudes.

    The only economic school which has predicted every single major economic event is 'discredited'? Lol. The whole world is becoming austrian outside of governments and central banks. (non German governments it should be said)

    We are witnessing the failure, yet again, of Keynesian, socialism and planned markets.

    Now I don't begrudge you guys for believing in a form of utopia. We all have our versions. What really pisses me off though is the doublethink.

    There is no doublethink. The problem is as a utopian you can't imagine other people aren't utopian.

    Planners, in seeking utopia, create dystopia, every time.

    Austrians, free marketeers, invisible hand types don't believe in utopia at all. They prefer the best outcome possible. You may call us optimists as we seek optimal outcomes.

    Calling austrians 'utopian' displays a profound ignorance and tells a lot more about the beliefs of the speaker than about austrianism.

    No. Nobody's saying liberals are perfect

    Well on that we're all agreed;)

    but what's wrong with libertarianism today--the lip-service libertarianism of the GOP, the libertarianism of reason, and certainly the libertarianism of Glenn Beck--is that it is being whored out for the sake of the corporate status quo.

    Holy crap Tony are you paying no attention at current events? You are supporting the corporate status quo

    It may be that Beck is a shill for them as well. But he's certainly not talking like it. The GOP, oh hell yeah, you're right there. But then, what else do we do? For myself I see things deteriorating at a slower rate whenever the legislative and executive opposed, so that's what I work for. Gridlock is a friend to freedom.

    So it just ends up being the philosophical lipstick on a big fat corporatist pig

    Wake up and smell the tea party. Why do you think they exist? Have you spent so much time in progressive echo chambers that you really think it's because a black man is in the oval office?

    Things that libertarians have been saying for decades is becoming common understanding. This is very hopeful.

    your sadly misinformed Beckian account of history notwithstanding--any progressivism I'm a part of is the movement that has championed actual increases of freedom for individuals, workers, racial and sexual minorities.

    Well I pointed you at knowledge. If you actually listened you could tell me how Rothbard is 'sadly misinformed'. But you won't and you'll continue to pontificate about that which you know nothing.

    But I'm interested, what 'freedoms' do you think need championed today? It's clearly not individual freedoms. (excepting gay marriage)

    What has the Austrian school ever done for anyone?

    Nothing for people that don't understand it. Quite a bit for people who do and thus know what will happen.

    But keep listening to Krugman. Base your decisions on the idea that the bailouts and stimulus and debt will save the day.

  • TallDave||

    +1

    Also -- wow, cosmotarian is still a word.

  • MattN||

    +1

    Agreed.

    What I don't get is why I keep seeing "hate Beck" rants passed off as poignant, meaningful articles in Reason. Surely Reason writers have a LOT better ways to spend their time. Bashing Beck seems tangential to the purpose of the magazine.

    Is it always Moynihan? It might be -- I'd have to go back and look.

  • ||

    You misspelled Carrol Quigley...two r's. THE EVOLUTION OF CIVILIZATIONS is a good book. Institutions become corrupt was one of the themes. Clinton cited Quigley as a major influence as his Georgetown professor. So he certainly wasn't a rightwing nut. He has full acces to Rockefeller archives and worked closely with leading members fo the CFR for much years. When he wrote about the decay in American institutions and some of the less straight forward aspects of our political system the people he wrote about got mad at him. That is know reason to dismiss his writing as "conspiracy"...he was a competant historian.

  • ||

    Gabe: You also mis-spelled Quigley's name. It has two l's, i.e. Carroll.

    Dr. Quigley's major work (Tragedy and Hope aka T&H) which is cited by right-wing conspiracy theorists, contains no footnotes and no bibliography. Consequently, there is no way to ascertain if what he wrote is accurate and truthful or if other interpretations are possible concerning the data he reviewed.

    Furthermore, Dr. Quigley is on record stating that right-wing conspiracy theorists who relied upon T&H such as W. Cleon Skousen and Gary Allen were intellectually dishonest and misrepresented what Quigley believed and wrote.

    For more details, see my report (and my footnotes) regarding W. Cleon Skousen which discusses the FBI evaluation of an article which Skousen wrote for Law and Order magazine. His article repeats many of the arguments Skousen presented in his book, The Naked Capitalist -- which is predicated on Quigley's T&H.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Ernie, I don't understand your point. Are you saying I shouldn't read T&H, because it doesn't have footnotes?*

    *or because it has been misrepresented by others?

  • ||

    "Furthermore, Dr. Quigley is on record stating that right-wing conspiracy theorists who relied upon T&H such as W. Cleon Skousen and Gary Allen were intellectually dishonest and misrepresented what Quigley believed and wrote."

    That is a very good reason to read Quigley for yourself and make your own determination if he was misrepresented in "None Dare Call It A Conspiracy". I can assure you that he was not misquoted, I can also promise that yes there is context to be added. I read the interview your referring too and it would have been great if Quigley had been able to get out in public a lot more..unfortunately something seemed to be holding him back. odd really.

    While your at it read "None Dare Call It A C" and see how anti-semitic you find it to be.

  • ||

    The mispelling was intentional to draw more attention Quigley's work. The attempted smear of Quigley was one of the weakest parts of the article and Moynihan. The guy was a far more reputale thinker/writer/teacher/historian than Moynihan and doesn't deserve to be dismissed with a rather retarded accusation of "conspiracists"

  • GrilledCS||

    So far, no one alive has convinced more people to take an interest in books like "The Road to Serfdom" and "Atlas Shrugs" then Glenn Beck.

    This guy needs to be stopped. If he isn't, he'll have people running around with all kinds of libertarian thinking in their heads, and no one at Reason would want THAT to happen.

    Mr. Moynihan mentions Howard Zinn. How about writing such a detailed point-by-point analysis on his failings. It's often a useful strategy to assist your political allies while debunking your political opponents.

    If Beck is so wrong, just give him a call. Are you under the impression that he doesn't care if he's wrong? If so, please explain why.

    People from Reason have been on his show enough times, after all, including Mr. Moynihan. I'm sure you have his number.

  • Asharak||

    Looks like this article brought out the butthurt Glenn Beck fans like I knew it would. Not every person who thinks Beck is a fool can possibly be a progressive leftist, you humorless whiners.

  • GrilledCS||

    Michael C. Moynihan on Glenn Beck's FOX TV show.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rvn7jAIGzI

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6cBuUnSsHI

    What gives here? Was there a fight in the hallway? Perhaps Mr. Moynihan explained this here and I missed it. If so, my apologies.

  • GrilledCS||

    "Today Beck, the weepy, blackboard-scribbling Fox News host, launches his eponymous institute for online learning, Glenn Beck University, available to the curious and undereducated for $79 a year."

    Holding Beck to the same scrutiny Moynihan applies to him, this is misleading. First,it costs $74.95, not $79.00. Beck offers other features including access to podcasts, an online magazine, a discussion forum, video broadcasts of his radio show, and other stuff. It's not just "Glenn Beck University".

    Also, you have to be pretty interested in Glenn Beck in the first place to pay for this feature. Since when do libertarians have a beef with people paying for private access to stuff other people have no interest in?

    It's odd that a writer from Reason would pay for this access simply to criticize the content.

    Forget Glenn Beck. Let's presume that Beck is a mean, evil, crazy, fear mongering bastard who uses child slaves to mow his lawn. Whatever.

    My intent isn't so much to defend Beck, but to figure out why is Reason so preoccupied with him? What gives here?

  • MattN||

    +1

  • GrilledCS||

    "Today Beck, the weepy, blackboard-scribbling Fox News host, launches his eponymous institute for online learning, Glenn Beck University, available to the curious and undereducated for $79 a year."

    Holding Beck to the same scrutiny Moynihan applies to him, this is misleading. First,it costs $74.95, not $79.00. Beck offers other features including access to podcasts, an online magazine, a discussion forum, video broadcasts of his radio show, and other stuff. It's not just "Glenn Beck University".

    Also, you have to be pretty interested in Glenn Beck in the first place to pay for this feature. Since when do libertarians have a beef with people paying for private access to stuff other people have no interest in?

    It's odd that a writer from Reason would pay for this access simply to criticize the content.

    Forget Glenn Beck. Let's presume that Beck is a mean, evil, crazy, fear mongering bastard who uses child slaves to mow his lawn. Whatever.

    My intent isn't so much to defend Beck, but to figure out why is Reason so preoccupied with him? What gives here?

  • GrilledCS||

    Sorry about that duplicate thing. Not sure how that happens but it's annoying.

    Fuck!

  • Snorri Godhi||

    "The idea that anti-Semitism flourishes under left-wing regimes because Jews are associated with capitalism is certainly true, though it ignores the long history of far-right anti-Semitism [...]"

    I cannot defend Beck because I do not follow him, but this particular criticism is baseless:
    1. According to this very article, Beck did NOT say that "anti-Semitism flourishes under left-wing regimes": he said it flourishes under _socialism_.
    2. Since Beck has apparently studied The Road to Serfdom, he'll know that Hayek distinguished between socialists of the Left and of the Right.
    3. Hayek's distinction is not what you might think: for Hayek, socialists of the Right are illiberal, undemocratic, and nationalistic; hence, the Soviet Union and most of the modern "far-left" are socialists of the Right (sensu Hayek).
    4. Obviously, socialist antisemites are socialists of the Right.
    5. The central claim of The Road to Serfdom is that socialists in power must become illiberal, undemocratic, and nationalistic to retain power -- ie socialism in power is always socialism of the Right, and therefore potentially antisemitic.

    Ergo, in this case Beck has done nothing more than draw logical conclusions from Hayek.

  • ||

    So you think the far right is anti-semite? Who is it that is against Isrial today? The Right? Or the Left?
    Though I agree Isreal is a facist nation today, I don't think they favor the Left.

  • ||

    And another thing, What do you think we are in today? If you rent a home instead on owning one, your a Serf! You are in debt to them, the Landlord! Sorry for the gibbirsh, I drink, and love it .

  • Snorri Godhi||

    So you think the far right is anti-semite?

    Yes.

    Who is it that is against Isrial today? The Right? Or the Left?

    First of all, Americans, including Mr. Moynihan, have got it all wrong. Read my first comment again. What Americans call the "left" is actually the Right.
    With this qualification, the "left" = Right is against Israel today.

  • ||

    The important thing is that people are reading about history. Not all of which are "conspiracies". People getting active in history and economics is a bonus even if he is a little ADD.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Obviously well known Beltway left-libertarian Moynihan is angling for a job at Mother Jones or Air America. The usual career path for Reason editors.

  • ||

    Moynihan wrote about Glenn Beck??? You're kidding me!

    I almost want Beck off the air so Mikey doesn't have anything to write about.

  • wholesale mlb jerseys||

    Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in wholesale mlb jerseys.There are so many famouse mlb stars jerseys,we have New York Yankees Derek Jeter Jersey.

  • Tucci78||

    --
    On those few afternoons when I have watched Glenn Beck's program, I confess that I've found his offerings irregular in quality and style.

    He's certainly correct in his appreciation of American educational standards denying exposure to the classical liberal heritage we must, perforce, call "libertarianism" today, and I was pleased to watch him speak to the value of Dr. von Hayek's *The Road to Serfdom*.

    But I'd like it a helluva lot better if he'd come across Henry Hazlitt's *Economics in One Lesson* and started to push that little argument for the suppression of destructive government interference with the operations of the marketplace.

    My problem with Beck is that he has gained his bully pulpit at a time when Americans genuinely hunger to hear some kind of viable alternative to the collectivist insanity which has been ruining their lives for the past century and more (and is there really any practical distinction between progressives, "Liberals," socialists, Marxists, and other species of fascisti when you get right down to it?), but he is simply too ill-educated to understand that the solution isn't the substitution of right-wing normative cement-headedness for left-wing "social justice" malignancy.

    Beck is, inescapably, the product of the same pitifully inadequate (and I would say deliberately crippling) system of "education" to which the majority of his viewers have been subjected, and he doesn't appear to have the capacity to learn better.

    That he offers commentators like John Stossel, Thomas Woods, and Andrew Napolitano opportunities to speak to the public in a well-promulgated forum is beneficial, but it simply is not enough.

    Beck and his handlers at Fox would do better to couple the popular power of his anti-Obama appeal with consistently sound methodological individualism, bereft of unthinking appeals to traditionalism for its own sake.

    It is not enough simply to cite the Founders and summon up respect for these Dead White Guys out of a reflex sanctimoniousness. Their ideas need to be re-stated, explained, and defended on the basis of viability and superiority when contrasted against the crony thievery of government policies which amount to nothing more than the plunder of the private citizen - a longstanding hatefulness of the American political right.

    Until Beck gets his act going properly, he's nothing but a sham. An illusion posturing before his blackboard, scattering chalk dust all to hellangone over the place.
    --

  • Amazonian||

    "Their ideas need to be re-stated, explained, and defended on the basis of viability and superiority when contrasted against the crony thievery of government policies which amount to nothing more than the plunder of the private citizen - a longstanding hatefulness of the American political right."

    If you look up "The Federalist Papers" on Amazon right now, you'll see that the two top books also purchased are "The Road to Serfdom" and Beck's new book "The Overton Window".

    People buying "Common Sense" also buy "The Road to Serfdom", "The Federalist Papers", and another published version of "Common Sense" (not Beck's).

    People buying Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" are most likely to also buy "The Road to Serfdom". Also, Hazlitt's book is outselling both "Common Sense" and "The Federalist Papers".

  • Amazonian||

    Correction: those are the books ultimately bought after the initial book is viewed, but not necessarily purchased.

  • Cap'n NoStar||

    To blast Beck for exposing that the Wilson Administration propaganda techniques helped the NAZIs to learn that craft is refute Bernays's own 1965 biography where he recalls a dinner at his home in 1933:

    Karl von Weigand, foreign correspondent of the Hearst newspapers, an old hand at interpreting Europe and just returned from Germany, was telling us about Goebbels and his propaganda plans to consolidate Nazi power. Goebbels had shown Weigand his propaganda library, the best Weigand had ever seen. Goebbels, said Weigand, was using my book Crystallizing Public Opinion as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me. ... Obviously the attack on the Jews of Germany was no emotional outburst of the Nazis, but a deliberate, planned campaign.

    My question is this:? Has Moynihan become the new Weigel

  • GrilledCS||

    And, of course, Bernays worked in Woodrow Wilson's Campaign of Public Information (CPI). And, as you mentioned, Bernays certainly influenced Goebbels. So, it may be an overstatement to say that the Nazis "learned propaganda" from the Wilson administration, but it's hair-splitting to proclaim it to be an outright falsehood.

  • ||

    "paranoid brand of Mormonism"... it seems that Mr. Moynihan is playing for the ridiculous here. Glenn is an admitted attention deficient big mouth that often speaks from his butt. That's his style, it's not an art. I've found Glenn to be refreshingly knowledgeable in his understanding of history. He's not a historian, he's a talking head and I don't think he would say otherwise.

  • ||

    I agree with J 2da T. Beck's style is annoying as all get out, but he does not flinch from his own admitted shortcomings.

    I am suspicious of Moynihan's use of ad hominem against a few of Beck's sources and would've liked links to opinions supporting the labels he applied.

    The criticism over getting names and genders wrong is just silly.

    The real question, in my view, is whether censorship is employed to correct the record in Beck U related forums. Beck unscripted (on radio and TV) will get things wrong and mis-recall details. Whether he owns up and corrects the record or addresses the criticism is the important thing.

    Does he? I dunno, I don't watch/listen to him all that much, so have no broad sample with which to say.

  • ||

    I agree that this whole thing doesn't demonstrate the perils of being an autodidact, but I don't think it even demonstrates the perils of being an autodidact and trying to teach at the same time. Actually, if you are very careful about your reading and fact-checking, this can be a very effective way to learn.

    Glenn Beck's mangling of the facts suggests that he is either just not terribly bright, or that he doesn't actually read any of this stuff (or both). It seems to me that he probably has hirelings who read and summarize for him, and he briefly scans this material before the show. He half-digests it, and then spews out nonsense. His staff groan, roll their eyes, and try to catch things by talking to him through his earpiece.

    I'd bet his books are largely ghost-written.

  • ||

    More pontificating by a left wing "libertarian". This is getting tiring.

  • ||

    GEORGE WASHINGTON NEVER WENT TO UNIVERSITY EITHER-HE WAS JUST A FARMER!
    ANYONE CAN GET A PIECE OF PAPER SAYING THEY MEMORIZED ENOUGH MATERIAL TO EARN A SO-CALLED "DEGREE", HOWEVER, FEW ARE BORN WITH COMMON SENSE!

  • ||

    Has anyone considered the content of the essay? Nit-picking on the nit-picker?

  • surpa shoes||

    k our tracking page, and see hundreds of orders which we have delivered.Now you can

  • sellnfl||

    I wanna say something,especially if I read a post that really grabs my attention. However, I won’t do it for the sake of doing it.nba jerseyI just think that I really like in your article point of view.

  • Radiis Shoes||

    First of all, I would like to thank you for the stellar and informative entry. I have to

    admit that, I have never heard about this information. I have noticed many new facts for

    reasoning. Thanks a lot for sharing this useful and attractive information. I will be

    waiting for other interesting posts from you in the nearest future.

  • Radiis Shoes||

    First of all, I would like to thank you for the stellar and informative entry. I have to admit that, I have never heard about this information. I have noticed many new facts for reasoning. Thanks a lot for sharing this useful and attractive information. I will be waiting for other interesting posts from you in the nearest future.

  • polo ralph lauren outlet onlin||

    I will be waiting for other interesting posts from you in the nearest future.

  • Radii Straight Jacket shoes ||

    Radii Straight Jacket shoes

  • polo ralph lauren factory stor||

    polo ralph lauren factory stores

  • ralph lauren outlet online uk||

    ralph lauren outlet online uk

  • birkenstock sandals sale||

    birkenstock sandals sale

  • Jordan Shoes||

    so perfect

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement