I Like Glenn Beck Because He’s Fun to Watch

I am very shy about doffing my dainty kid gloves, hoisting up my petticoats and wading into the new libertarian-purity argument, a tidepool of insults, mutual excommunications and accusations of purge-ery that I don’t understand. I’m not sure how the departure of a couple of metrosexuals from the Cato Institute counts even as notable, let alone as news. I predicted the term "teabagger" would by this time have been boldly adopted by Tea Party attendees themselves, and you can see how that turned out. I thought the disrespectability of libertarianism was the main attraction and am unsure why the style has become the object of sad-but-predictable kiss-offs.

So I come not to bury liberaltarians but to praise Glenn Beck, who will be working the rubes in the District of Columbia tomorrow.

I don’t watch as much TV as I’d like to, so it had been at least a year since I'd caught Beck's program when news began breaking about all the new forms of radioactivity the Fox News host is emitting.  It’s not enough to call him a bigot, a religious undesirable, a gay marriage lunatic, a closet collectivist, a Marxist/Alinskyan or blind; rejecting Beck has now become shorthand for "I’m a libertarian but not that kind."

I smell a rat.

My right honorable colleague Michael Moynihan has amusingly limned Beck’s freedom from accuracy, but the real reason I and my fellow coastal elites are wary of Glenn Beck is a lot more basic: He’s the fat kid you don’t want to be seen with at the lunch table. I'll admit it! I find Beck a little bit creepy and gross and needy, and he gives me this sense that things are not going to end well. But after hearing all this carping about him, I checked out a recent episode of his show to see if it had somehow changed from the breathless, flop-sweating dormroom tirade I remembered with some fondness. (It was the August 21 ep. if you want to check my math.) And my impression remains: Why is everybody down on this guy? Above all why are libertarians down on this guy?

Yes, he’s trying, as Moynihan memorably put it, to learn history and teach it at the same time. But so what? Like the dumpy woman with low self-esteem we all dream of, Beck makes up in enthusiasm what he lacks in natural gifts. I like the sense that he’s bringing you his findings as fast as they come in. You get the impression that two weeks ago Beck had never heard of Woodrow Wilson, yet now he has figured out that Woodrow Wilson was one of the most evil people of the 20th century, and he wants to tell everybody. There's something fun about that, a performance that invites you to help fill in details and fix errors. It's certainly something you don't see anywhere else on TV, a medium populated almost entirely by people who are more cocksure about everything than I am about anything.

And he’s right about Woodrow Wilson.

It’s understandable that you don’t want to lose all your invitations, and the dismissive pose toward Beck stems from a well founded fear my fellow rootless cosmopolitans have -- that if we seem too close to the cars-on-cinderblocks, chicken-coops-in-yards, shotguns-and-rockingchairs variety of libertarianism, we will lose the respect of liberaloids in New York and D.C. It’s a real concern, but if the trade-off means you reject the Tea Parties -- by far the biggest popular movement with a clear anti-government mood that has occurred in my lifetime – and in exchange you get to be comfortable at table with David Frum, well, that deal sounds like a loser to me. (Then again, I’ve never had dinner chez Frum/Crittenden. Maybe it’s really worth it.)

So to the new up-from-libertarianism faction, I say: Allah makun; you’re welcome back anytime, no questions asked. But I actually like this doughy Mormon over in his spooky little study, who as of the other day was advising his college student viewers in this way:

Don’t you just take from [teachers]. You question them. You read everything they tell you not to read. You read everything they tell you to read, and then you read everything they tell you not to read. You find out why they don’t like it. Challenge them. Find out on your own what’s true.

I have no problem with that advice. Does anybody else?

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.

  • The Man||

    Ditto.

  • kilroy||

    Right the fuck on!

  • Sam Grove||

    Beck on a voyage of self discovery.

  • The Man||

    PS: Frum is about as libertarian (or conservative, take your pick) as his mom.

  • Mike||

    My problem with Beck isn't really the message but more that I feel that he's just another random conservative pundit who changed his tune to a small-government key when a Democrat was elected. Remember the Contract With America?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6C6E6ayh4U

  • ||

    When did you start listening to him? He railed against Bush on spending and the Patriot Act. He gets preachy, no doubt, and he tears up most sincerely too often. But he has taught us more about our history than any of my teachers; and I haven't taken his word for any of it! I've checked it out - as he also advises - for myself! That's what we all should do, not just about what Beck teaches, but the drivel fed to us by our government who are mostly political class elites!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And he tried to tell me that the next time I see a cop, I should suck his dick and gurgle his man juice because of their willingness to "take a bullet for me at any moment."

    Fuck Glenn Beck.

    Anyone who tries to sell me the cops are heroes bullshit can suck a dick.

  • d||

    Go ahead. You can get the speeding ticket. I however will answer respectfully, contribute to the police association and be unmolested in my travels. I actually got an apology once.

  • ||

    UMM... Cops ENFORCE the law, they dont write the retarded laws they are expected to ENFORCE. If you dont like cops intruding on your life you have a few choices:

    1. dont break the law (this one is getting more difficult what with all of the retarded laws).

    2. Change the laws.

    The next time a cop protects or saves your life, liberty or property (because yes, they still do this too) I bet you will be more willing to perform fellatio.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You're in the wrong fucking place if you think that many people here are going to agree with your we should fellate cops bullshit.

    When things even themselves out, how many times I've been harassed/fucked with/ had a fucking shotgun pointed at my face in my own fucking front yard by cops versus how many times they protect my life or property, I'll get back to you.

    You can go ahead and hold your breath.

  • dr kill||

    When seconds count, the cops are at the doughnut shoppe. Always. Law enforcement, my left nut. They are apparatchiks in the fund raising arm of the State.
    Did you really just say law enforcement and cops in the same sentence?

  • ||

    Dude, chill out. Who do you think should capture bad guys when they do bad things? Are you expecting Batman to step in when someone kills another person? Do you think Superman is going to fly in and return your stolen property?

    Don't be a retard. I will repeat so you can really think about it this time. COPS ENFORCE THE RETARDED LAWS. IT IS THOSE VERY RETARDED LAWS THAT ARE BRINGING THE COPS TO YOUR FRONT FUCKING YARD. WHEN YOU MAKE RULES GOVERNING NEARLY EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE, YOU GET INTRUSIVE AND OVERBEARING ENFORCEMENT. MEANWHILE THE COPS ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.

    Yes, cops make mistakes, but if you think they are out to get you, then you have a serious ego issue as you are not the only person in the country and most cops probably dont even know you exist. Everybody likes to be the victim because they can act self righteous and indignant and that FEELS good. Being pissed about the COPS does not get rid of the RULES they are enforcing.

    LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'M BEING OPPRESSED BY THE MAN!

  • dr kill||

    After reading your other comments, I expect more from you than this.

  • ||

    Sorry, I was angry.

    To have a civil society, you must have some form of government to protect the BASIC HUMAN LIBERTIES. We have that, in the USA today, but unfortunatly, we also have a bunch of other rules and laws that are essentially a violation of our basic human liberties. I wont list all of the rules, but I am sure nobody here will have a hard time finding examples just in the Brick Bats section alone.

    I believe in personal property rights. if someone steels or damages my property, the cops are supposed to be there to defend me.

    I believe that people should be protected from violence against their person. I think the best defense is a GUN, but not everyone is a marksman and yet others are simply too feeble to protect themselves so the cops must be there to protect those people.

    The cops today are not perfect. They are all just people and so they bring their biases and fears into every situation. To characterize all cops as unreliable and thuggish is very lazy.

    Cops are people. They have the same failings and the same potential to do the right thing as any other person does. If you deride cops because you have had some bad experiences with a small selection of cops (you cannot seriously tell me you have had a run in with every single cop) then you do little to identify or even address the issue, but instead, you are simply pointing out an observation.

    If the US constitution said only the following:

    Article one: All citizens shall be protected from violence against their person.

    Article two: All private property shall be protected by the full force of the law.

    Article three: All citizens shall have the right to carry any weapon they need to protect the aforementiond liberties.

    Then who do you think should protect these liberties.

    My point is, cops are important to a civil society. You cannot have even basic protection of liberties without law enforcement, prisons and some kind of judicial process.

    When the cops are expected to sniff down pot smoke from afar. When cops are expected to enforce rediculous zoning laws. when the cops are busy tracking down people who fucked filling in their tax returns. when cops are busy making sure dudes arent butt-fucking in darkened mens rooms. then cops are going to have a hard time showing up when they are actually needed. Did the cops write the rules? nope? would it be an easier job if there were less rules? Yup. Would there be less dickhead cops if there were less dickhead rules? uhhuh.

    Another point. The reason why murders are, well, getting away with murder is because the cops are busy. Wouldnt it be nice if there were more cops to take care of the important crimes? Well you can blame big local governments for spending obscene amounts of money on retirement plans, environmental projects, unnecessary social services, bridges to nowhere and a whole host of other expensive things they should probably have nothing to do with.

    In my opinion, the state should provide three things. Simple laws protecting individual liberty. Cops to enforce the laws. and a justice system to hear cases and jail people. That is it. Nothing else.

    So this idea that the cops are bad is an anecdote based on personal experience. Nobody ever hears about the good anecdotes. So I will share my experiences with the cops:

    In college, the cops came looking for me because I bought about $100 of alcohol for an underage student.

    I have been pulled over numerous times for speeding and reckless driving. I no longer speed, though I was pissed at the cops at the time.

    The cops helped to find my stolen BMX bike when I was a kid (this is the 80's in case you dont recognize BMX google or if you prefer Bing it)

    My neighbor is a cop, and when kids were vandalizing property in the neighborhood, he camped out in his front yard and chased them down when they came back for more.

    When I had a flat tire on a major highway, the cops pulled over, turned on their lights and though they could not help with the tire, they at least ensured I didnt get run over by a reckless driver.

    My anecdotes are mixed, but in each case, the cops were doing what they were supposed to do, for better or worse.

    Another argument that I have heard is the Nazi Death Camp Security Guard argument, which posits that the cops, like the guards have an obligation to not enforce laws that are morally objectionable. I would agree with this, except the laws American cops enforce do not even come close to what happened at Nazi Death Camps. If cops had to live by this rule, there would be chaos and inequity in enforcement. What if the cops moral compass is wrong. What if the cop decides it is okay to enforce a law if the crime is committed by one type of person but not by another. These things may be happening already, but like I said, there is no evidence that this is widespread. Instead, police enforcement is generally pretty consistent even though it is far from perfect.

    Less rules = less enforcement
    less enforcement = less opportunity for abuse

    simple math isnt it?

  • ||

    "Cops ENFORCE the law, they dont write the retarded laws they are expected to ENFORCE."

    They are choosing to enforce the bad laws with the good, usually. So usually, they aren't any better than the bad laws.

  • ||

    When you're at your job at Burger King, you can't leave off the bun--no matter how unhealthy or stupid or bad you think that bun is, leaving off the bun is not your job.

    You can talk to your boss about it, but even he is going to have to get some mass approval to get rid of that bun.

    See?

  • ||

    Nice

  • P. Bear||

    My problem with Beck is that I saw and heard him call for the mass murder of up to 90 million Americans, including myself.

  • ||

    Yeah, right. Then unicorns flew out of his ass. Why people want to make stuff like this up is beyond me.

    Besides, who want to live next to a bear anyway?

  • P. Bear||

    I'm not making it up. I saw him ask, as a rhetorical question, why the American people doesn't just kill all the pedophiles - which, depending on how one counts pedophiles means anything from about 8 million to 90 million Americans.

    But apparently you approve, so it's kind of pointless arguing against genocide with you.

  • SFC B||

    Bravo. Took me a second to figure this one out.

  • ||

    He railed against Bush and against the Patriot Act when he was on CNN.

  • ||

    I’m not sure how the departure of a couple of metrosexuals from the Cato Institute counts even as notable, let alone as news

    LOL

    As for Beck, I haven't watched his show much, and not lately, but the few times I was exposed to it, I detested him. I can appreciate wacky, but it was also very dumb, and that I can't enjoy.

    I've been hearing that Beck has actually gotten more libertarian over the last year or so, and maybe his show has improved, but frankly, he could be a fucking an-cap and I'd still watch Penn & Teller instead of him, because, well, they're funny and smart.

    I mean, at least for me, I absolutely fucking despise MSM personalities; every single one of them. I don't even enjoy watching Stossel, because I hate the MSM format. So it's not just Beck.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    In case there's any confusion: When I say "metrosexuals" I say it with nothing but love for those pencilnecked pepperpots, one of whom I know slightly and the other a little.

  • ||

    I realize that one can be humorous without meaning anything by it, Tim. Insulting one's friends is a time-honored tradition.

  • Warty||

    Jesus Christ, you're still talking? Go get throatfucked by a horse or something, you disgrace.

  • ||

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on (that will throatfuck me later), shitheel. I can smell your stench through the intertubes. I know showers don't cut through your slime, but maybe you could try bathing in sulfuric acid.

  • ||

    No homo

  • ||

    You suck. Will you be my friend?

  • ||

    No, you indigent crack whore.

  • hmm||

    So when the bums and people on the street yell at me and call me names they are my friends?

    I feel so much better now.

  • ||

    pencilnecked pepperpots

    Is Tim even a big guy? Or is this bluster and fury all feathers?

  • zoltan||

  • ||

    His chalk board Hitler math is a bit much, entertaining as it is.

  • ||

    godwined! you're out!

  • ||

    Maybe he should just sit in front of a neutral white background, use only one direct camera angle and speak in a monotone voice?

    If you cant get passed a black board and some quirky antics to see the actual message, then you are a moron because you cannot properly process information. Studies have shown that people remember information better when they are laughing. Why do you think more people can quote the South Park more accurately than the US Constitution?

  • ||

    I'd bet our sitting President could quote the Constitution more accurately than South Park, for the very same reason...

  • ||

    LOL. . . I dont think I shall ever foget your post.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Funny, I caught the 'Wilson vs. Coolidge' episode of Glenn Beck over at a friend's house (I don't have cable). While this -

    You get the impression that two weeks ago Beck had never heard of Woodrow Wilson...

    - is true, it was better than I thought it would be.

  • ||

    A lot of Beck's shows seem like remedial history for people with conservative instincts but no real grounding or background in the subject matter. Which is why I find it kind of boring, really, since I do have that background. On the other hand, the wife, who studies other things in college finds it pretty interesting.

  • ||

    sorry - "studied"

  • ||

    I studied History in college. My studies were different than most in that it was focused on how various events shaped our current world and why certain events actually happened. It is a brand of rational history that is not particularly popular because HS teachers and college professors cannot rely on extensive time-lines and instead must explain HOW many thing actually impacted the many other things, and WHY those things happened in the first place.

    Most approaches to history are heavily focused on the events themselves and putting those events in their proper time and place. This is not to suggest there isn't any consideration to the overall inter-connectivity of the events, but this is generally considered in terms of connecting one event to its place in the time-line. A good example of this is how teachers treat the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by the Black Hand as a spark that ignited WWI. While this is true, this is not the sole reason why WWI started, just a tipping point, but some history books are less inclined to put this event in proper perspective simply because it is easier to put together and fits nicely on a time-line. The idea that the roaring 20's was the cause of the great depression comes largely from the fact that it preceded it on the time-line, but the fact that the great depression was triggered by normal market downturns and exacerbated by government intervention is easily left out of the history because there is no real event that would land before the great depression that historians (who are not economists) can point to as an Archduke Ferdinand moment.

    Glenn seems to take the rational approach to history. He insists on using original sources and documents and not secondary writings which may be tainted by bias (though he sells a crap load of secondary sources). I knew about this approach to history and therefore wasn't surprised by its existence. Others may be uncomfortable about this approach to history, because it sometimes requires one to consider things outside of their normal temporal frame, as they are used to doing.

    Consider this. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. This is the way kids learn a lot of their history. Did they really learn anything here? What lead Columbus to sail the ocean blue and what caused that, thing or event? This approach gets to the truth of the matter, whereas knowing that something happened in 1492 simply leads to well knowing what happened in 1492.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Do you like to fellate Beck? You are at his defense at every turn.

  • ||

    Are you obsessed with fellatio? You seem to talk about it at every turn.

  • ||

    I support any mans right to engage in consentual fellatio.

    I defend Beck because he is PRO FREEDOM.

    I am not going to waste any more time on this post because I have already explained in exhaustive detail the various reasons why Beck is important.

    Meanwhile it seems that the only thing you know how to do is take jabs at people, but as of yet, you have not provided a constructive comment.

  • Billy Beck||

    "History is a list of consequences."

    I'm the one who said that. You may quote me widely.

  • ||

    That quote probably came from a pessimist. An optimist would have said, "History is a list of achievements."

    If you ask me, my personal quote explaining the nature of history is: "History is the story of the unseen, millions all working and contributing to an environment that culminates in the events you have been told about in your history books." Okay, so my quote is a run-on sentence and it isn't quite as crisp.

    On that note. I think history is the way it is because it is really difficult to find primary sources that show what the millions of average people were doing at any given time in the past. Today, we have a record of everything. People tweet, blog, text and they can produce their own music and art and everything ends up on youtube. I'll take a wait and see approach on how this will be translated into history (one imagines an entire fold out diagram of who has friended whom and or declared them BFF or some variation thereof).

    Man, i just dont know when to shut up. If your a historian looking at this digital diary, please be kind. And for the record, Al Gore did not invent the internet.

  • Kevin||

    I see a straight jacket & rubber room in Glenn Beck's future.

  • nj||

    Cavanaugh watch him for the next two weeks. You will notice how widely inconsistent he is.

    He is a fool.

  • Paul||

    Consistency is the hobgoblin of really consistent people.

  • Cata||

    consistency is predictable, hence boring.

  • ||

    Here's when I stopped being a hater: I was sitting in a hipster bar in Los Angeles and GB's show was the flat screen, probably to add a further touch of irony. The Cato guys were on and they were all singing the praises of Hayek and GB was madly waving the Road to Serfdom in front of the camera and commanding us to read it. Everyone in the packed bar was riveted to the screen(ok, maybe they were just drunk, but they weren't hooting or throwing bottles).

    And I thought, Ok who ELSE is pushing Hayek during Happy Hour? Dude's got his uses...

  • ||

    Please support this claim.

    I have watched every episode. Glenn's world view has two distinct prongs.

    Prong one: He has a strong moral and ethical frame that he uses (or at least says he uses) for his PERSONAL decisions. These are his personal values and not his policy positions.

    Prong two: His policy positions are strongly rooted in individual liberty. While he is staunchly against alcohol use, he doesn't thing the government should have a say in the matter.

    The fact that Glenn, more often than other talking heads talks about his PERSONAL values tends to lend the impression that he is making a POLITICAL statement. This is why so many pundants an naysayers could not understand how the 828 rally could be non-political.

  • ||

    First of all, I am very disappointed to see Wilkinson, Lindsey, and now Howley leave. When I was on Facebook, I was on good terms with Bartlett (he usually is good about replying to comments on his updates). I'm sorry to see all these fine people leave. However, I do not hold their decisions against them; no one should have to be part of something they don't want. Everyone must follow their own consciences-a change of opinion is nothing to hold against someone.

    I used to be a big heresy spotter, but nowadays I don't really care. I can't control what goes on in other people's heads, nor should I want to. At this point, I'm taking my cue from Leonard Read and Robert LeFevre; just focus on improving myself and my own understanding. All I can do is wait on the world to change, so that I may come forth to speak my mind. Now is not the right time. There is a time to speak up, and a time to fall silent.

    I sort of feel a certain disappointment, a kind of disillusionment; is this what the hippies felt after the sixties ended? A certain sense that it was all for naught?

  • bilgans||

    Left? Where did they go? Do you mean to another institution or to another worldview and why? News to me.

  • ||

    A mix of both. Sometimes I wonder if Jonah Goldberg set out to kill libertarianism.

  • ||

    Howley's been gone for a while.

  • Corn-bred||

    IOWA!

  • SIV||

    Howley was never, in any remote sense,"libertarian". I am happy to see her acknowledge that for the benefit of the many confused fucktard commenters here who ever thought she was.

  • Johnnybegood||

    Good to know for those of us not as familiar with Reason history.

  • BB||

    I don't know if I'd call a self-described "classical liberal," not in any remote sense "libertarian."

    My libertarian heart agrees with a shitload of what she says here: http://reason.com/archives/200.....singlepage

    But, then again, I've always described myself as a libertarian reluctantly; still, as a believer in economic and social freedom, it would at the same time be unfair describe myself as not remotely libertarian.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    First of all, I am very disappointed to see Wilkinson, Lindsey, and now Howley leave.

    Libertarians like Wilkinson, Lindsey, and Howley are the political equivalent of a Slinky - basically useless, but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs....

  • BB||

    They didn't leave libertarianism, for God's sake. Lindsey and Wilkinson merely left the most prominent Libertarian think-tank. So, you'll have to keep hating them, I think, and their opinions will turn up in our discussions for some time to come.

    And damn good thing, too.

  • matt2||

    As a white supremacist, you definitely have a good idea of which libertarians are useful, right?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    While it's been a long time since I've considered myself a libertarian, I'm not exactly approaching the subject from a position of ignorance. Yes, I have a pretty good idea what makes for a useful libertarian. I wouldn't consider any of the aforementioned to even be libertarians, merely slightly less market hating liberals.

    Second, I take exception to being called a white supremacist. I haven't declared myself supreme to anyone, I merely support white people (and everyone else) standing up for their interests. Do you have a problem with AIPAC, La Raza or the NAACP standing up for the interests of the constituencies they represent? What do you call them?

    Presumably, you promote libertarian interests. Do you consider yourself to be a "libertarian supremacist"?

  • TheDude||

    Thinks Obama is as a racist, is afraid of FEMA concentration camps, sees communist innuendo in artwork where there is none, invokes Godwin's law with abandon, peddles his nutty religion regularly, do I need to continue? Absolutely. Batshit. Insane.

  • ||

    Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Read Alexander Zaitchik's "Common Nonsense"? Beautiful book, a hard hitting expose from a left-of-centre thinker who is respectful of libertarianism.

  • Jim Treacher||

    The FEMA thing isn't what he said, even though Media Matters says it is. But yeah, he makes me nervous.

  • Tman||

    Dooooom!

  • ||

    TheDude: First things first. I have posted as El Duderino in other blogs, so dont take my name as a dig.

    Glenn is correct about the Communist "inuendo" in the artwork. What is wrong with pointing this out?

    What is wrong with pushing religion? You dont have to take up his religion or any religion and he states that. Are you that feeble minded that you think you are being sucked into a Mormon cult?

    Here is Glenn's basic message:
    Religion was the basis of the constitution and those many religions all held (and still hold) one consistent truth. That truth is individual liberty comes from God, or if you prefer they are inherent to our natural being and cannot be given, taken or modified by another person or people.

    This is essentially a libertarian message. You are just afraid of the message because he uses the "G" word all the time.

    I am not particularly religious in any conventional sense. I am spiritual and I draw my spirituality from a slightly more modern worldview which embraces evolution and emergence as a source of individual liberty. God is the creator for most people in America and nobody can prove otherwise so just because you dont understand God, dont deride those people who manifest their understanding of the source of their liberty and morality as GOD.

  • Curious||

    God is the creator for most people in America

    And who created the others? Bush?

  • ||

    Correction.

    For most people in America, God is recognized as the creator of all life and the universe.

  • ||

    "And my impression remains: Why is everybody down on this guy? Above all why are libertarians down on this guy?"

    I've never seen his show, and I don't know any more about him than what I've read here, but there were a lot of people who realized they were libertarian during the Bush Administration...

    ...who defined themselves as "libertarian" in terms of what Fox News isn't.

    I'm somebody who doesn't think George W. Bush makes for a very useful example of what a Republican is, but a lot of people think that anybody who's on Fox News or the Red State Radio Network must, by definition, be something a lot of libertarians defined themselves against during the Dubya Administration.

    I think it's as simple as that. That's why I haven't tuned in, and that's why I tend to be dismissive of people who say they do...present company excluded, of course. Quite frankly, if it came from Fox News and right wing radio, I just don't think I'm gonna be interested...

    A semi-endorsement from Cavanaugh could change that perception. ...anybody who's against ObamaCare, bailouts, wants lower taxes and fiscal responsibility can't be all bad.

    I guess.

  • nj||

    Expect of course for the fact that he did endorse the bailouts

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6C6E6ayh4U

  • ||

    Well there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love him, but three outta four ain't bad.

  • Paul||

    Consistency is the hobgoblin of really consistent people.

  • ||

    Stay cynical. It'll keep you out of the cuckoo house.

  • hmm in the cuckoo house||

    Fuck you!!

    And get off my lawn!

  • Coeus||

    That's Tulpa's line.

  • ||

    Thank you. At least someone respects intellectual property here.

  • hmm||

    Fuck You!

    It's my intellectually grassy property and GET OFF IT!

  • cynical||

    FBN, on the other hand, has the most libertarianism you'll see on TV outside of Russia Today.

  • ||

    but there were a lot of people who realized they were libertarian during the Bush Administration...

    ...who defined themselves as "libertarian" in terms of what Fox News isn't.

    I don't want to be a dick but this is one of the most stupid definitions of libertarian that I've ever heard of.

  • ||

    "I don't want to be a dick but this is one of the most stupid definitions of libertarian that I've ever heard of."

    Yeah, well, I'm not saying that's the way it should be; I'm saying that's the way it is.

    I was a libertarian long before Bush the Lesser came to power, but there's nothing wrong...

    It's pretty natural, actually, that when people first realize they're libertarian, it's probably in relation to whoever's in power at the moment. If you found out about and became libertarian because you thought Bush overstepped his boundaries... And from Torture Memos to Warrantless Wiretapping and refusing Americans a trial, from Wall Street Bailouts to expanding Medicare to cover prescription drugs--the biggest expansion of Medicare, mind you, since Johnson...

    No, it's not stupid that a lot of libertarians coming of age defined themselves in opposition to that at all. In fact, considering the ridiculous amount of power a president has these days--shouldn't opposing every president be the default position of most libertarians? It just happens to be that for the last 8 years, the president happened to Bush. And when you consider that for a good eight years Fox News was the prime cheerleader for more or less everything Bush the Lesser did?

    And it wasn't just that they were makin' the case for the President. They loudly denounced us libertarians the whole time as--at best? They denounced us as terrorist sympathizers and wild-eyed, pie in the sky capitalists?! People on the left figured we must be friends of theirs--somehow--since we were against most of what Bush was doing--but over at Fox News?

    They treated us like traitors. And it isn't surprising at all that my fellow libertarians are reluctant to listen to that anymore...considering all the hatred they spewed at us from over there at Fox News.

    Now, we're as much against this rotten too powerful president--and the people cheering for him were the same ones that are denouncing us now for being against Obama... I've seen this all before. Now the people on the right think we're gonna forget it all--since we're both against the same president?

    They're treating us the same way the left did when Bush was in office--why would anybody fall for that now? After they treated us like shit for 8 years?

    Why did the Tea Party begin outside the Republican Party? Ask yourself that.

  • ||

    No, libertarianism isn't "in relation to whoever is in power at the moment". That would make it compatible with fascism. Libertarianism is skepticism of any power.

  • zoltan||

    Did you actually read the comment or does illiteracy just come naturally to you? This is actually a decent comment about how people see someone abusing power and become distrustful of that power. You think all those people who distrusted Bush for warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act are somehow now trusting about Obama's complicity in those same actions (Democrats aside)?

  • ||

    They may not trust him on those issues, but they help him by discouraging libertarians from making common cause with his enemies on other issues.

    A vote from a person who disagrees with you on most issues is just as effective in giving you power as a vote from someone who worships the gerund you walk on.

  • ||

    It's the same old song and dance though...

    The Democrats tried to make nice with us for a while when we were opposed to the same president--only to demonize us much like the Republicans had when their president was in the White House.

    Now (some) Republicans want to make nice with us because we're against the same Democrat in the white house... But we all know the way they treated us when they were in power--it was just like the Democrats are treating us now.

    Same ol', same ol'...

    Oh, and it seems to me that the phenomenon of people defining what they believe in opposition to whoever's in the white house at the moment isn't limited to libertarians coming of age either...

    I remember when there were plenty of Republicans cheering on the Bush Administration's prescription drug benefit as good public policy and denouncing those of us who cried foul as hateful, uncaring free market extremists... It wasn't until Obama came into power that they suddenly remembered they were against that sort of thing on principle.

  • ||

    "Did you actually read the comment or does illiteracy just come naturally to you?"

    For people who were caught up in all this back during the Bush Administration, it's still really hard for them to think that true American libertarians could possibly be against what the Bush Administration did...

    If you found out about and became libertarian because you thought Bush overstepped his boundaries... And from Torture Memos to Warrantless Wiretapping and refusing Americans a trial, from Wall Street Bailouts to expanding Medicare to cover prescription drugs--the biggest expansion of Medicare, mind you, since Johnson..."

    For people who discovered or rediscovered libertarianism out of contempt for Barack Obama--especially if they were rooting for Team Red back during the Bush the Lesser years--it's really hard to come to terms with the idea that true libertarians were steadfastly opposed to George W. Bush.

    This is a movement that's supposed to be against Barack Obama--not all that they once held to be good and holy!

    ; )

  • ||

    People think Glenn is inconsistent and stupid because they cannot distinguish his personal beliefs from his political positions.

    I posted on this earlier in this articles postings... I cant remember where, but just search for it and I think you will have a different understanding.

    Also, I dont necessarily think anyone on MSNBC is worth listening too, but I watch them every day and once they say what they say, I make my own decision and it is usually that they are idiots. Point is, I dont just assume MSNBC talking heads are idiots, I watch them and come to that conclusion 9 times out of 10.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Why is it my job to make that determination? As a rhetorician, it's his fucking job to make those distinctions clear.

    If he can't, that isn't my fault.

    By the way: does it get sweeter with more practice?

  • ||

    He has made the distinction. He constantly points to the very example I have pointed out in another post about how he is against alcohol (because he used to be an alcoholic) but he doesn't think the government has the power to ban alcohol. He has made similar comments regarding religion.

    The reason nobody can distinguish between the two is because they only listen to the soundbites played on other news channels as evidence that he is a jackass.

  • hmm||

    ...that if we seem too close to the cars-on-cinderblocks, chicken-coops-in-yards, shotguns-and-rockingchairs variety of libertarianism,

    My people!

    Beck is okay, I don't dislike him. My wife likes him, but man does he get corny sometimes. It's like that one buddy that can drink for 3 days and still stand-up straight, he's a fucking blast on Vegas weekends, but you want to kill him on the 4th day or any day not within the Vegas weekend.

    Plus the guy has managed to market being informed and profit at it, even if he gets it wrong sometimes. That alone is fucking genius.

  • KPres||

    Beck is an idiot and nut and I can't stand his show, but...

    I did enjoy when he was exposing Obama's radical personal associations. Now I don't think their quite the revolutionary Marxist moles he makes them out to be, but there's no doubt he has some radical far-left ties from his past that the MSN intentionally downplayed during the election, and I'm glad I was able to get that info.

  • Tony||

    You were had.

  • ||

    However, this is what I generally think. Still, I'm finding that I have my own life to lead; I have no real control over the world.

  • ||

    And Obama's press section pipes up!

  • ||

    "Had" in what sense? Van Jones and Wright and Ayers and the New Party and the rest aren't really far left, or Obama had nothing to do with any of them, or what?

  • Tony||

    First, who cares if they're far left? Every single Republican with any political standing is objectively far right, so I don't see how you can condemn the president for having a few loose past associations (although the Ayers thing is definitely trumped up) or an employee with "far left" views. Let's not do a one-way witch-hunt, how about?

  • ||

    "Objectively far right"?? You've got to be kidding. They all want to dismantle the welfare state, end affirmative action, and withdraw from the UN?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Tony's going for the easy Team Blue is Always Superior card-play.

  • ||

    The existence of Lindsay (it's NOT a girl's name) Graham argues that you are an idiot and/or a paid DNC-troll.

  • ||

    All that may very well turn out true. We don't know. Life is lived forward, but understood backwards.

  • ||

    Why do you imagine he is saying they are moles? All he ever said is that the President has surrounded himself with people that have a worldview that is in many ways contradictory to the worldview of most Americans, the constitution and the founding fathers.

    He is not saying that Obama is outright trying to make America a communist regime, but he is pointing out that we are on that path because so many powerful people are willing to entertain socialistic and communistic ideas and they are not necessarily divorced from using radical measures to change things to match their worldview. Is it a bad thing to question this? Has anyone done anything terrible as a result of him asking these questions and pointing out these connections?

    Freedom of speech doesn't just mean the freedom to paint pictures of religious icons with objects shoved up their asses. Freedom of speech is specifically protected for what Glenn is doing today. Would you feel better if Glenn did nothing and nobody questioned anything at all about the Obama administration? No your right, I think we can just trust the Obama administration to provide us with the facts. I think your right, we can rely on NBC and MSNBC to ask tough questions so we can finally get to the bottom of the big issues like where did the Obama's eat dinner when they were visiting Martha's Vinyard.

  • Suki||

    I smell a rat.

    I smell a running gag that was supposed to be a publicity stunt.

  • Fire Tiger||

    Have you tried Hari Krishna.

  • ||

    "That's a myth! Myth!"

    "Yeth?"

  • ||

    Damn Igors, running around....

  • George Harrison||

    Why yes, yes I have.

  • Ecolibertarian||

    I am if anything a slightly lefty libertarian, but in a way nevertheless inclined to rocking chairs and shotguns, but whenever I watch Beck (which is rarely, I don't have cable), I find him somewhat entertaining. Not as entertaining as Jon Stewart, but probably better than Colbert or Limbaugh these days. Compared to Hannity, Beck looks like a stalwart of Old Right America First-ery.

  • Chris||

    I've never watched the guy, but I've always vaguely rooted for him. The reason? Because everyone is just so goddamn comfortable hating on him. Whenever I see a guy whom everyone assumes is stupid/guilty/crazy/etc, I automatically cut him some slack. Case in point: I was thrilled when I heard the Blagojevich verdict. Did he do it? Maybe. Frankly, I don't give a shit. Having a guilty man go free is worth it to see a bunch of assholes foam at the mouth and tear their hair out.

  • ||

    I do partly root for Beck and Palin because the left just hates them so, and they say the right things some of the time. I'm not fully comfortable with them as spokespeople for my particular p.o.v., though.

    But you lost me with Blago. Corrupt pols belong in prison or strung up from lampposts.

  • mr simple||

    I've always been partial to the tar and feather approach.

  • ||

    A woman who looked like Palin walked by once and the guy standing next to me said "Man, if that was really Palin I would have punched her in the face."

    That mentality boggles my mind. I could see feeling that way about, say, your husband who left you for the secretary. But why do people take what someone does halfway across the continent so personally?

  • ||

    It is interesting, isn't it? As I said downthread, many people think the average American is scary, and they hate anyone who appears to lead them.

  • alan||

    ^ this

    Blago! Blago! Blago!

  • zoltan||

    Lots of men and women just don't like seeing a guy in his fifties sobbing into his necktie every night.

  • Tony||

    It's pathetic how much libertarians pant in appreciation whenever some rightwing nutjob inserts some of your rhetoric into their vile white power demagoguery. You're purists when it comes to Democrats and liberals, pragmatists when it comes to the GOP and its minions. I don't know how influential Beck is (perhaps we'll get a clue tomorrow when he shits on MLK's legacy with his white power march), but I do know that preaching apocalyptic fear and falsehoods to the masses is never good.

  • ||

    "It's pathetic how much libertarians pant in appreciation whenever some rightwing nutjob inserts some of your rhetoric into their vile white power demagoguery."

    You should have your own show!

    I guess you do in a way...

    You know libertarians react to you and Beck the same way--and for the same reasons too, right?

  • ||

    preaching apocalyptic fear and falsehoods to the masses is never good.

    But since H&R doesn't cater to the masses, you're in the clear, Ton'.

  • TallDave||

    A white power march?

    You do realize Martin Luther King's niece is speaking there?

    If anyone's shitting on blacks it's Al Sharpton's crowd and their racist identity-politics demagoguery.

  • ||

    On the otherhand, I am with Lew in rooting for Sharpton? Why?

    He's antiwar.

    That's the magic position you can take to get me to support you. You could be a full-on Marxist, but if ending our wars is part of your platform, I will support you completely and without reservation. Yep, that's all it takes.

  • ||

    Here's Lew's blurb on the subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....64326.html

  • BakedPenguin||

    You could be a full-on Marxist, but if ending our wars is part of your platform, I will support you completely and without reservation...

    I disagree, but I can relate. I might have supported Kucinich, Gravel or Tancredo in the last election. Why? Because they are against the (federal) War on Drugs. I believe the WoD is the most damaging, barbaric, and wasteful public policy ever enacted. I'd vote for damn near anyone who would end it, or take steps to end it.

    Kucinich is as far as I'd go, though. I wouldn't vote for a full-on Marxist.

  • Tony||

    You will probably never have the chance, so no worries. Welcome to the Democratic party, Baked! We're pretty darned moderate on the whole taxing and spending thing, really, so if you want to end the WoD then let's get to work electing liberals, because they're the only ones who will.

  • Jeffersonian||

    We're pretty darned moderate on the whole taxing and spending thing, really

    Ummmm...

  • ||

    Don't you see, Jeffersonian, the liberals are willing to leave you with some of your money, and let some of the economy operate partly outside of their direct control. This is "moderate" compared to, say North Korea. Count your blessings and vote for liberal Democrats!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Tony, actions speak louder than words. I know plenty of liberals who, as people, are against the War on Drugs. I don't know any Democratic politicians, other than Kucinich (and Gravel, but I think he ran as an L in 2008) who have publicly stated their opposition to the WoD. Paul ran as, and Tancredo is, Republican.

    While I respect the CA legislator who's responsible for Prop 19, Brown, Boxer and Feinstein all oppose it. And it's just getting rid of laws against pot, not to mention harder drugs.

  • ||

    Democrats control the Presidency and both houses of Congress by wide margins. Have I somehow missed all the anti-WoD actions they've taken in recent years? Or are they just too hobbled by moderates, and if only both chambers were filled exclusively with people like Grayson and Waxman and Lee and Pelosi, then all libertarians would be pleased with what they'd do?

  • Tony||

    They reduced the crack/powder cocaine disparity. It's not everything, but it's not nothing. Thing a GOP majority would have bothered?

  • ||

    It's damn close to nothing.

  • ||

    Do you even remember where that came from? Black community leaders demanding the government DO SOMETHING about the crack epidemic.

    So they did.

    And then we get black community leaders demanding that the government DO SOMETHING because so many young black crack dealers/users were going to jail.

    And now they've done something again.

    But it wasn't anything like legalisation--it was returning the penalties for rock cocaine to something nearer powder.

    Big deal.

  • J||

    HA HA HA HA hahaha.... HA HA HA. The funniest thing I've seen all day.

    That's right, the Democrats are going to end the War on Drugs. Obama just can't shut up about how much damage it has done to our society. I wish he's talk about something else for a change.

    Good one, spoof Tony.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Moderate"? Fuck, Tony, you morons want high tax rates on teh rich only because they ARE rich.

    And as for being "moderate" on the spending thing... I call bullshit.

  • ||

    Like Clinton, who escalated it? Please, at this point it is barely a law enforcement matter any more - it's just a means to more bureaucratic empire buildings, except that some of the bureaucrats carry guns and badges.

  • ||

    Like Clinton, who escalated it? Please, at this point it is barely a law enforcement matter any more - it's just a means to more bureaucratic empire buildings, except that some of the bureaucrats carry guns and badges.

  • SIV||

    You could be a full-on Marxist, but if ending our wars is part of your platform, I will support you completely and without reservation. Yep, that's all it takes.

    Dupe

    Marxists are only strategically "anti-war".

  • ||

    "That's the magic position you can take to get me to support you. You could be a full-on Marxist, but if ending our wars is part of your platform, I will support you completely and without reservation. Yep, that's all it takes."

    Please tell me you are joking. This is how the war started in the first place douche bag.

  • Tony||

    Come on, Beck isn't even that coded. Most of the time it's "us" taking the movement back from "them" but as you ably demonstrate it's pretty clear that what Beck is talking about. He actually represents a regression for the conservative white power movement. It was becoming increasingly coded, to the point where almost everyone here has bought into the bullshit about how poor (i.e., black) people have all the privileges and rich (mostly white) people are oppressed by their evil socialist ways. But Beck sometimes actually comes out and makes it racial. "Obama hates white people," etc. You can try to pretend that your claim to colorblindness makes you the pure one and the black activists are the real racists, but it's all the same switcharoo game the right has been playing for decades.

  • Chris||

    Is that you, Janeane?

  • BakedPenguin||

    So when Howard Dean wrote "Take America Back", he was actually speaking code for an anti-whitey message?

    Also, you honestly believe that everyone who opposes Obama would be on board if only Hillary had won, since she's white?

  • Tony||

    No I'm pretty sure Dean was referring to the neoliberal fanatics who the American people (well, 5 members of the supreme court) had given power to.

    Good point about Hillary. FOX, Koch, the usual right-wing suspects would have tried to tear her down too, they just might not have used such overt racial resentment pandering to do so. Remember what they did to her husband. It's not really about race at all, it's about money. But race is a tried-and-true bone to throw to the GOP base. Sometimes it's about abortion, sometimes it's about Muslims, sometimes it's about the gays, sometimes it's about all these things at once. It's really all about policy and money, specifically the money that the interests behind all of it would be out of if they allowed Democrats to enact their policies.

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...neoliberal fanatics...

    Please tell me you're not referring to the Bush administration. If you are, let me just call you a communist, since Bush : classical liberal :: Tony : Marx.

    It's really all about policy and money...

    The moneyed interests own the Democrats, maybe even more than the Republicans. The people who will suffer from the Democratic agenda are the small businesses that can't afford K street lobbies, middle class Americans, and non-union working class Americans.

    Mattel imports toys with lead from China. This causes a scare, so what does the Democratic Congress do? They enact a bill that demands every new and used toy be tested for lead. Mattel's (and other large toy manufacturers') lobbyists have a large hand in the writing of the bill, which makes it cost prohibitive for any small toymaker to comply with. Additionally, private charities such as Goodwill now have to trash all of the toys they have rather than sell them.

    This pattern happens over and over, and progressive dimwits keep on clamoring for more and more regulation.

  • ||

    It's for the Children!

    Baby Killer!

  • ||

    It's for the Children!

    Baby Killer!

  • Fire Tiger||

    Tony|8.27.10 @ 10:09PM|#
    I do know that preaching apocalyptic fear and falsehoods to the masses is never good.
    This might be a new record in contradicting yourself.

  • Coeus||

    You can try to pretend that your claim to colorblindness makes you the pure one and the black activists are the real racists

    So you're saying that MLK was a racist? Cause I'm pretty sure he advocated colorblindness. If not, then you're saying that Glen Beck can't advocate it because he's white, which is a pretty damn racist thing to say.
    To take it a little further, you're also saying that any white person who follows MLK Jr.'s teachings is also a racist.

  • Tony||

    Is Beck preaching inclusiveness and colorblindness or is he preaching divisiveness, "us" vs. "them" whoever those may be?

    An underappreciated aspect of MLK's philosophy was economic justice. If Obama's a socialist then MLK was a red commie. I can smell right-wing racial pandering in the service of maintaining the white establishment status quo from a mile away. It's not new, it's not interesting except in how many people still buy into it and think it's something good.

  • Coeus||

    An underappreciated aspect of MLK's philosophy was economic justice

    If that's true, then he was definitely no commie.

  • Tncm||

    "Us" vs. "them" politics isn't always racial, Tony. Pigeonholing entire diverse political movements into easily-digestible terms makes it easier to combat them, as well as providing a feeling of unity for the "us" part of the group. For example, in your mind, it's the "Noble Progressive Democrats" vs. "Evil Neoliberal Republicans". You have shown time and time again that you cannot look at people unless they fall either on the Democrat side or the Republican side of the political playing field; if you did, why would you consistently accuse members here of being Republican shills or AM radio worshipers?

    And stop using the word "neoliberal" until you actually learn what said word means. And I'll give you a hint towards it's definition: almost no politician in Congress, including Republicans, is a neoliberal, and John McCain and George Bush the Lesser are both not neoliberals.

  • ||

    Thank you. Tony lives in the paranoid fever swamps of contemporary liberalism, huddled with the rest of the clear-sighted elite of pure motives, surrounded and outnumbered by the brutish American masses, who are cynically manipulated by subtle "code words" uttered by the vile minions of the rich white Republican plutocrats with their top hats and monocles. It makes Tony feel safer to believe that a vast, powerful, liberal government will protect him from the average American Morlock.

  • Tncm||

    Liberal elitism knows no bounds, Papaya. They face the conundrum of having to get the common man to support their cause, while at the same time showing utter contempt and sometimes downright hatred for them. I don't know how many times I've heard a liberal pundit, Bill Maher especially, exclaim, "Why can't the average person see that X legislation is good for them? Are they really this stupid?" Or all the liberals saying that we should, in fact, force Obamacare down the throats of Americans because it will be "good for them in the long run, they just can't see it now".

    So, it's clear that the goal of the noble, altruistic progressive is to guide the brain dead flock of sheep that is the American people towards Utopia, whether by bread or by club.

  • ||

    Tncm,
    Stop that. You know liberals hate it when you read their minds so well. It make them worry that you might be smarter than them.

  • mr simple||

    I can smell right-wing racial pandering in the service of maintaining the white establishment status quo from a mile away.

    Are you sure that's not just something in your trash?

  • ||

    He forgot to shower.

  • bmp1701||

    You really should explain these "code words" on a chalk board, Tony. You could map them out and everything!

  • ||

    If leftists dont like what someone is saying, they just call it "code" for something evil like white power or some other BS.

    This generally stems from the fact that leftists have actually used "code" words to disguise aspects of their agenda and make them pallatable to the general population. You can no longer get away with saying communism or socialism is your platform so now they say "social justice".

    Yes I learned that from Glenn Beck.
    Yes I agree with it.
    Yes it is a fact.

  • ||

    Beck is pointing out that the Civil Rights movement was essentially a movement supporting individual liberty. The movement has been co-opted to promote social welfare programs and other redistributive schemes advertised as ways to "even the playing field".

    Liberals did not invent individual liberty and they certainly didn't do much to promote it just because DEMOCRATS passed the act.

    The fact that you read into Becks statements as meaning he is pushing some white power message in code only points out your own biases. If you had actually watched a Glenn Beck show, you would know exactly what he means.

  • ||

    Tony's belief is strong, it will never waver. He Bears the Word, and the Word is Good, for it is the Light of Humanity. The Word is Also Four Letters Long, and In the Font of Wing Dings.

  • Adonisus||

    MLK's niece? You mean Alveda King?

    I hate to tell you this, but Alveda is sort of the black sheep of the King family. She rides the coat tails of her famous uncle (whom she barely knew) in order to parrot various socially conservative causes.

    Oh, and she was also a supporter of David Duke.

  • affenkopf||

    She's also a member of the Koch Foundation-funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institute.

    Kochtopus! Drink!

  • Jim Treacher||

    Hittin' it pretty hard tonight, eh, Tone? Make sure to stay hydrated.

  • LOL||

    I'm glad I wasn't drinking when I read this!

    I hope he has spare keyboards to keep up the pace, they must be taking a beating with his nonsense.

  • Tony||

    What's different about tonight?

  • Jeffersonian||

    Tony has a point, and this time it's not just on the top of his head.

  • Jim Treacher||

    If that was your usual BAC, never mind.

  • JoshINHB||

    Tony perhaps we'll get a clue tomorrow when he shits on MLK's legacy with his white power march

    Wow

    Just Wow.

    And your side has the balls to call Beck a hater.

  • ||

    Exactly. Most progressives have a shitload of hate in them. I've seen it get ugly. Asin "everyone who listens to Beck should be shot" kind of ugly.

  • mar||

    Reason writers, more so than the commentators, seem to have a kind word to say about particular conservatives *and* liberals. Just last week before Welch started in on his criticism of the New Yorker Koch piece, he said some good things about the writer. I've also heard a nod towards Matt Yglesias(sp?) from some quarters. And I have some memory of Jesse Walker saying a good thing or two about Alexander Cockburn, among others. Perhaps this is because Reason writers mix it up with these folks more as they're in the profession and so feel a need to find some common ground on some things. Or perhaps it's because, unlike some of the commentators, they recognize that it's nearly impossible to find complete agreement on everything. And finally maybe they recognize that some attempts at finding common ground are more productive than simply shouting "get your hands out of my wallet" into your own echo chamber.

  • ||

    I like that too. I adore Cockburn too. He's been very kind to libertarians, even let some write articles for Counterpunch. Sure, he still upbraids us, but it's more in the way of voicing areas of disagreement. He still considers us allies against the war party.

  • Tony||

    Yeah reason has its mix of moderates and full-on teabaggers, there is diversity here. But I don't consider Beck to be part of any useful public discourse. He's a demagogue, and any thinking person should reject demagoguery wherever it crops up.

  • hmm ||

    ...and any thinking person should reject demagoguery wherever it crops up.

    Hope and change?

    Start up the Rejectonator, cause we got some serious rejectin' to do Tony my boy.

  • Tony||

    Find a dictionary. Preaching inclusion, peace, and hope isn't exactly demagoguery.

  • hmm ||

    So predicating your getting elected on nothing more than hope and change, and really not a whole lot more (except not being George Bush) is rational?

    I don't need a dictionary. I just think the agenda's this administration pushes are measures seeking popular support based on nothing rational. You know, demagoguery. You agree the agenda, so of course you don't see it that way.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Apparently, preaching dependence on and control of our lives via government isn't "demagoguery".

  • hmm ||

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Really? I can see how can you deliver peace (not that Obama is doing it brilliantly) but, really, "hope"? Come on... Even "change" is fuzzy: anyone was going to be a change, by defnition. How much change does it need to be a change? And do only positive changes count, or negative ones too?

  • zoltan||

    Ah yes, preaching all that peace and killing...how many in Afghanistan have died since he's become president? It's demagoguery pure and simple and you're certainly stupid enough to fall for it.

  • ||

    Preaching evil rich bankers vs. innocent homeowners is.

    Preaching "corporations" vs. "the people" is.

    Blaming the country's problems on "lobbyists" while shoveling stimulus funds towards your doners is.

  • Shitty Friend||

    Tony it's good having you around these parts. Even tho I seldom agree, you bring up interesting points that are worth considering. I think JS Mill said some shit about listening to your "enemies".

  • P. Bear||

    And asking why we don't just kill all the pedophiles (roughly 8 to 90 million Americans, depending on methodology used) is inclusively promoting peace and hope?

  • ||

    Better a TeabaggER than a TeabagEE I always say. I am sure you'd disagree, but you find it hard to talk with a mouth full of nuts.

  • Dave||

    Alexander Cockburn - nuts on most issues, but a rare voice of sanity on others. All in all I like him.

  • hmm ||

    Wait for it.

  • hmm ||

    Wait for it.

  • hmm ||

    Wait for it.

  • hmm ||

  • Mr. FIFY||

    From what little I've watched or listened to Beck - maybe an hour, total, out of his entire career - I don't see the "white power" angle, Tony.

    Is it because he's not a liberal?

  • ||

    The State Dept complains to the UN about Arizona violating human rights:

    Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.

    The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.

    Problem is, if the AZ law is a human rights violation, then so is the federal law that the administration is supposed to enforce. sounds like Mr Obama is in conflict. Perhaps he should resign in disgust.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Maybe he'll just storm off to the tees for a round instead.

  • Fire Tiger||

    Let me be the first to say, fuck the UN.

  • Sean||

    While we're at it, fuck Arizona and the State Department

  • ||

    Fuck everyone, let God sort them out?

  • hmm||

    We're gonna need more blue pills.

  • mr simple||

    Just be sure to use protection.

  • ||

    There is a possibly that no one in the UN, State Department and Arizona that is passably fuckable.

  • hmm||

    We're gonna need more blue pills.

    and booze

  • Brett L||

    Surely with all of those megalomaniacs stationed in NYC there are some smoking hot secretary/administrative/policy advisers.

  • ||

    I call dibs on Hans Blix!

  • ||

    yes homo!

  • DJ Drugs||

    My lady friend worked at the UN. Make of that what you will.

  • ||

    And we have the playing of the race card! Yes! Surprised it took you THAT long, you naive liberal fucktard!

  • ||

    I thought that the RaceCard is invalid during a black presidency? I saw it on John Stewart!

  • TallDave||

    Thanks Tim, this piece expressed exactly the weay I feel about Beck.

  • ||

    Tony has a godamned point. Which is why I am purist in regards to both groups.

  • ||

    You'd think they'd court us as the swing vote!

    The Tea Party's knockin' down establishment candidates left and right--at some point, you'd think they'd court us as the swing vote.

    ...rather than demonize us, but nooOOOOooo.

  • ||

    Which is why I'm a purist. I don't care what their god-damned platform is. No political party is ever going to see my vote. Ever.

    Every vote is a wasted vote.

  • ||

    I'm with you on that!

    ...but I don't think we should tell them. Let 'em think we can we can be wooed.

    They haven't fallen for it yet--but you'd think they'd at least try! It's just really hard to convince politicians that it's worth wooing libertarians, who don't think politicians are the solution to anything!

    And they're right about that. But why must that be the only thing they're right about--what were the odds?! Of course we'd never go to the prom with them--but you'd think they'd at least ask!

  • Fire Tiger||

    I don't believe in a strictly two party system, so I vote strictly third party, specifically the third party that is polling the highest.

  • Tony||

    With the caveat that most of the time your vote won't count on an individual basis anyway, I think this is a mistaken way to look at things. I think the two-party system sucks too. So did George Washington. But he was the last president we had who was not really wedded to one of two dominant parties. It's an inherent flaw in our system, and short of a revolution or constitutional convention we have to work with that reality, which means supporting the better of the two parties, and not third parties, who, again in our system and unfortunately, are always going to act as spoilers.

  • ||

    Then reform the system to allow other parties to compete. And what is bad about spoilers? No party 'deserves' anybody's vote.

  • Tncm||

    Since when did you give a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers think? You've said time and time again that civil rights don't exist, they're just these imaginary things granted by the government ("He who giveth can taketh away"), and you think that the Commerce Clause gives the government permission to be a totalitarian ruler of the market.

  • ||

    Leftists will, when expedient, forget their hatred of the dreaded White Male Sexist Homophobe Racist Slaveowners. But beware: I think Tony's using "code words."

  • MJ||

    If political parties are a flaw in the system, then they are an unavoidable one. Any system based on the democratic form is going to require allying yourself with like minded people, those alliances will become formal. Political parties are a natural feature of democracy, outlawing political parties will not eliminate them , but only drive them underground and obscure the relationships politicians have with each other from the electorate. Even George Washington was independent in name, but Federalist by temperment.

  • Tony||

    Yeah political parties are inevitable, and the founders' worries about factionalism, while justified, could perhaps be described as naive. The problem I was referring to is the party duopoly.

  • ||

    "Yeah political parties are inevitable..."

    My participation isn't.

    "The problem I was referring to is the party duopoly."

    That's a feature of single member districts, not a bug.

    Look at places where the majority made by an alliance with the far right or far left--proportional districts give the extremists a legitimate seat at the table of public policy, and that is not a good thing.

    Even if that would mean libertarians had more influence on public policy--I'd still rather work on winning the hearts and minds of the American people at large than see policy influenced more by religious and socialistic extremists.

  • Derrr..||

    Every vote is a wasted vote? As opposed to not voting, which is a good use of your vote...?

    Are you drunk?

  • ||

    Voting is for suckers. It's just a con game. I'm going to work with public interest firms. If you want to make real change happen, go through the courts.

    @Tony. I really don't care. Really, I'm that apathetic to who gets elected.

    And, you seem to think that tea-bagger=radical libertarian. I guess that is how it is now, huh?

  • Hmm #2||

    Ah, too bad that pesky Constitution kinda gets in your way, eh? How about this, you start your own country where laws are arbitrarily enacted and redacted by the judges you appoint in various courts, at their own personal whim. See how well that does.

    In the meantime, I'd like to keep America's Constitution and balance of powers intact, thanks.

  • ||

    where laws are arbitrarily enacted and redacted by the judges you appoint in various courts, at their own personal whim

    Aren't we already at least partly there?

  • hmm||

    almost?

    Kilo was probably the last nail in that coffin lid. At least Arizona v.Gant, Heller, and Mcdonald started removing nails from the lid. Lets hope the emerging zombie is still viable.

  • Hmm||

    Yes, that's Exhibit A in why such an idea is Bad.

  • hmm||

    Still on the handle. You are quite the persistent fucktard.

  • ||

    "Every vote is a wasted vote? As opposed to not voting, which is a good use of your vote...?

    Are you drunk?"

    It's not just that they're wasted--they're counterproductive too.

    Politicians respond to voter apathy. That's my working theory anyway.

    They take high participation and winning as a mandate, and when voter participation is down, they become to reluctant to act.

    ...which is exactly what libertarians want. We want them to be reluctant to do anything, and I think a lack of participation among voters tends to limit the scope and number of things that politicians try to do!

    I wish they'd been reluctant to act on the bailouts. I wish they'd been reluctant to act on ObamaCare. I wish they'd been reluctant to act on the stimulus. I wish they'd been reluctant to act...

    ...on just about everything except Katrina, the Gulf Oil Spill and Afghanistan. And since the appropriate reactions to those things didn't really require any kind of political agenda--it didn't really matter who was driving the bus on those issues.

    So, yeah, if you're a libertarian, and you take that to mean that you want politicians to do as little as possible? Then I'd strongly suggest refraining from participating in the process that makes what politicians do legitimate in the eyes of so many.

    The best universal definition of a libertarian I can think of is that it's someone who doesn't think politicians are the solutions to our problems. That's where it starts for me anyway--and there are things that flow from that rather naturally.

  • ||

    Actually, it starts with the idea that the individual is the primary unit of society, and the rest flows from there. Again, I really stopped caring ages ago.

  • mr simple||

    Again, I really stopped caring ages ago.

    Then why do you continue to post so prolifically?

  • ||

    The stuff we say to each other in places like this... The conversations we have around the water cooler, the dinner table and the sports bar?

    That's way more influential than your vote. Your vote means nothing compared to that.

    The sad fact is that democracy works--things are mostly the way they are because that's the way people want them to be. Persuading other people that things should be different is the most pragmatic thing a libertarian can do...

    It worked for Jesus and Marx and MLK and Gandhi--why wouldn't it work for us? But you gotta put the cart before the horse--you don't seize power and then change people's minds with legislation. First, you change enough people's minds, and then things start happening.

  • Hmm #2||

    God, I wish I could convince myself that complete an utter apathy and non-action would produce the legislative changes I want to see Washington make. It must be nice to be so oblivious to the non-sense that comes out of your mouth.

  • hmm||

    I have faith in your ability to convince yourself of anything. You seem to have convinced your self of your own superior intellect and that had to be no small feat.

  • ||

    "God, I wish I could convince myself that complete an utter apathy and non-action would produce the legislative changes I want to see Washington make."

    It makes more sense than voting.

    Who do I vote for that will lay off 75,000 of the 150,000 people working at the Commerce Department? Have you ever seen the government vote itself smaller?

    It happened for a limited time when Gingrich and Clinton were in power, and the Federal Register really did get a little smaller under the Reagan Administration... Reagan didn't get any credit for that; he's largely remembered for exploding the deficit, and Gingrich was largely blamed for shutting down the government...

    Otherwise, have you ever seen the government get smaller because people voted for one candidate over another? We've seen both parties vote to bail out Wall Street investors with taxpayer money. ...especially after we've seen both parties do that! Isn't the burden of proof on the would be voter?

    I think I'm the one that's being pragmatic here--you explain to me how higher voter participation makes spending come down. You explain to me how voting for politicians makes them promise their constituents less.

  • Hmm||

    On average, likely voters tend to be more politically informed than their unlikely counterparts. In other words, merely the fact that they are participating in the political process makes them a whole lot more likely to put forth even a modicum of effort to become more knowledgeable politically. And an informed/engaged electorate is a huge check against abuses of power in government.

    There's a reason why Jefferson (and probably others) made it a point to basically say an informed electorate is necessary for a healthy republic.

  • ||

    "On average, likely voters tend to be more politically informed than their unlikely counterparts."

    With useless information?

    Moonies tend to know more about their religion than the average person too--so what? I don't want to be a Moonie!

    There actually are some people I always root for right or wrong--they're called the Redskins! They've only done well a few times in the last 20 years, which is a few times more than any politician I've had the opportunity to vote for. ...and unlike politicians, the Redskins don't take money out of my paycheck.

    Yeah, come to think of it, the Moonies are better than politicians that way too.

  • Hmm||

    Well, sorry, I didn't realize you had been made arbiter of what is and isn't useful political information.

    A rising tide lifts all boats. As people in general become more engaged and informed politically, the average political competence of the entire populace will rise. Which is undeniably a Good Thing.

    But nevermind that, just keep telling yourself that you best serve your own interests by doing absolutely nothing. At least that's one less nonsensical argument being made by a silly person out there.

  • hmm||

    When voting for the lesser of two evils an informed voter may choose to do the least harm by voting for now one. The do nothing is always an option, and it can be the best option with respect to expected payout.

  • hmm||

    wow... "voting for no one"

  • Hmm||

    It's not just a choice of the lesser of two evils, it is a choice to vote against the Party that currently dominates the Hill. Libertarians should understand that allowing either party to gain too much power (in the form of Congressional seats+the Executive Branch) is bad. If you don't vote against the Party that has the supermajority for the sake of your pointless idealism, all you're effectively doing is giving their rampant abuses of power a free pass. This goes for both Rs and Ds.

  • hmm||

    Thanks for the primer on political modeling. I never would have considered that scenario. So, do we utilize a write in if we are reasonably assured both of the leaders of two evils, in your stalemate scenario, is going to do the same thing. Or is that throwing away your vote too?

    PS get the fuck off my handle you fucking retard.

  • ||

    "A rising tide lifts all boats. As people in general become more engaged and informed politically, the average political competence of the entire populace will rise. Which is undeniably a Good Thing."

    Most of it is useless information.

    Have you ever read the Business section of the LA Times? I'm convinced that it makes people dumber--I think you would know more about the economy and business in general if you never read the LA Times! Certainly no one should read something like that and think they knew what they were talking about...

    Have you ever read anything by Paul Krugman? People learn more about the economy and how businesses work by working in a pizza place than reading Paul Krugman. People get dumber for reading Paul Krugman--certainly if they believe what he writes. People learn more about how business works working on a construction site than they do in figuring out who to vote for.

    Everything I ever needed to know about the economy, I learned by figuring out who to vote for?! I feel sorry for anybody who really believes that. ...especially if you're getting your information from partisan sources...

    Have you seen some of the political hacks that stray into here? There are people in this very thread who check first to see whether something is being proposed by the Democrats or Republicans before they know whether to support it!

    Stupid is as stupid does, and politics makes people do and believe stupid things. The more partisan or politicized people become, the dumber they get too! Politics doesn't make people smarter--it makes people dumb.

  • ||

    "A rising tide lifts all boats. As people in general become more engaged and informed politically, the average political competence of the entire populace will rise."

    I guess what that boils down to for me is that it runs contrary to what I see in real life...

    The more politicized someone becomes, the dumber they seem to be.

    I've never once come across anyone who was so partisan he was brilliant, but I've come across bunches of people who were so partisan they were stupid.

    I really do equate it with spectator sports. It's just that being a fanatic for a football team is relatively harmless... Being that way about a political party, not so much.

    And the factors involved in determining your party affiliation I understand to be similar to what sports team you root for too!

    Were your Mom and Dad Steelers fans? So what are the chances you're a Steelers fan too?

  • ||

    "...but I do know that preaching apocalyptic fear and falsehoods to the masses is never good."

    Tony, you stupid fuck, did you happen to listen to ANYTHING Obama, Pelosi or Reid said to pass the porkulus, Obamacare or the financial regulation bill? For that matter, did you see "An Inconvenient Truth", which may as well be called "The ULTIMATE guide to eco-fearmongering"?

  • ||

    Take care of this!

  • Tony||

    There are some things to really be afraid of, like climate change. Obama's vast socialist conspiracy to oppress the white man, not so much.

  • JoshINHB||

    There are some things to really be afraid of, like climate change.

    ...but I do know that preaching apocalyptic fear and falsehoods to the masses is never good."

    Well, at least you're consistent Tony.

  • Tony||

    There is a difference between truth and lies. That's kind of all-important here.

  • Chris||

    Because you only believe in the Truth, right?

  • Tony||

    I try to align my beliefs with evidence as best I can. I don't want to believe in climate change. It does me no good. It's a scary thing. I just can't deny the facts.

  • Hmm||

    What facts would those be? Ones like the completely disputed "hockey stick" graph? Those mountain of "facts" that came from the utterly exposed charlatans at the IPCC?

  • hmm ||

    www.getthefuckoffmyhandleassclown.fuk

  • hmm ||

    Who the fuck is afraid of climate change? Who goes to bed fretting over it?

    I'm not sure afraid is the word, since afraid is based in fear and fright, which is hardly some thing you associate with climate change. Unless you're really chugging the Koolaid and and sucking up the Patchouli incense.

  • Tony||

    You're right, the emotion of fear is something associated with immediate things not long-term, large-scale disasters--the primary reason we can't get jack shit done about it. A relic of our lizard brains, which incidentally is the part of the organ Beck is interested in appealing to.

  • hmm||

    Or a built in device to keep civilizations from not making rash decisions that are counter productive.

    Is appealing to lizard brain things like hope and change a good thing?

  • hmm||

    From making... not from not making...

    Or a built in device to keep civilizations from making rash decisions that are counter productive.

    Owned with my own edit.

  • hmm ||

    Who the fuck is afraid of climate change? Who goes to bed fretting over it?

    I'm not sure afraid is the word, since afraid is based in fear and fright, which is hardly some thing you associate with climate change. Unless you're really chugging the Koolaid and and sucking up the Patchouli incense.

  • hmm ||

    TAKE THAT!

  • Hmm||

    Grow up.

  • hmm ||

    Piss off.

  • Anonymous||

    .fuk

    This made me chuckle. I'm such a man-child.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    If the trend is really a trend, it's too far to stop. Better to move inland.

  • ||

    yes, because the mainland getting slightly closer to Hawaii's warmth over the course of decades, if that even happens at all, is a much greater cause of concern than someone who doesn't understand economics wrecking the economy and throwing people out of work.

  • hmm as Barry||

    How in the hell do I push for another stimulus without more unemployed people?

    Come on work with me here.

  • ||

    It's possible to have a vast socialist conspiracy that has nothing to do with oppressing white people.

    Most victims of socialism havn't actually been white, after all.

  • Tony||

    Beck is a fascinating creature though... he seems almost sincere, but then you have to even if you're a charlatan. He certainly does peddle overpriced gold and he and Hannity like to skim a lot off the top of their "charities."

  • Spiny Norman||

    Fascinating? Well, Odelay was pretty good, but I sort of lost interest after that.

  • mr simple||

    Agreed. He's interesting in small doses but highly overrated. Although I did like his duet with Bender.

  • ||

    Mellow Gold was his best.

  • ||

    Speaking of which

    I think the shit kickin speed taking truck drivin neighbors downstairs may have a thing or two in common with "the cars-on-cinderblocks, chicken-coops-in-yards, shotguns-and-rockingchairs variety of libertarianism" Tim is describing

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • DJ Drugs||

    I prefer "Guitar Shop."

  • Hmm||

    I don't understand how, if you actually listen to him, you can come to the conclusion he's a charlatan and is only going through what he's doing to make money. I mean, seriously, he could retire right now a multi-millionare, move to New Zealand and never have to get pounded again on by FOUR advisers to the president, tens of thousands of media personalities, and millions of other humans. You seriously think the money is what makes all the abuse, death-threats, etc. worth it?

    Good thing Beck can leave the arrogant masses of people like you for God to handle. You'll see the light one day, one way or the other.

  • Tony||

    Good questions, all. Yet there he is, doing gold coin scam commercials and pimping said coins on his show.

  • Hmm||

    ::sigh::

    Goldline is rated A+ by the BBB. If you want to call Goldline a scam, feel free to dispute the BBB first. You must have new evidence that they don't have.

    Your use of "pimping" is interesting, I think it is also called advertising. And--SHOCKER--the dude on the speaker thing in your car actually uses the products he endorses! He's said hundreds of times he was a customer of Goldline before they were an advertiser.

    Is it so hard to understand?

  • ||

    Better Business Bureau, while generally good, also has been caught doing some iffy practices.

  • Hmm||

    Sources? The BBB is largely considered to be a very good rating/certification institution. I highly doubt some random guy's statement on the internet that they've "been caught doing some iffy practices" is going to change very many minds.

  • Hmm ||

    Goldline is shit. It's not a scam, but it's a shit way to buy gold.

    I did like the SHOCKER in all caps. You should have used bold in conjunction with all caps and added a THE to it. Like this;

    THE SHOCKER or more internet appropriate TEH SHOCKER

    Is it so hard to understand?


    Oddly, I am left wondering the same thing.

  • Hmm #2||

    Glad to see you've stated your opinion on Goldline. Now move over and let people with an IQ bigger than the number of fingers they have join the conversation.

  • ||

    who would have thought that a company that spends a lot of money on TV advertising can't sell gold as cheap as companies that don't.

  • hmm||

    I was SHOCKED!

  • hmm||

    who would have thought that a company that spends a lot of money on TV advertising can't sell gold as cheap as companies that don't.

    Stupid threading making me quote...

    The company is worse than just covering their advertising. They really are a crappy way to purchase gold, but their actions are not illegal or immoral. Just not the best choice.

  • hmm||

    I'm not sure if you realize this. But the bandwidth is pretty large and we can probably fit more than enough people on here without anyone having to move over. Only an atheist, nazi, socialist, Woodrow Wilson loving, country destroying, Progressive would want someone to move over for someone else to get a chance to be a flaming moron.

    Glenn told me so.

  • Hmm||

    My IQ literally drops a couple points every time I read one of your posts. I wish you were at least good at trolling, then it might be worth the time I've spent belittling you. Alas, it is not so.

  • Hmm||

    1) you keep reading it
    2) you keep responding

    Your IQ has gone negative in less than 45 minutes.

    Breath!
    1
    2
    3
    4
    Breath!
    1
    2
    3
    4
    Breath!

  • hmm ||

    Dude you need to GTFO the hmm handle. I don't need help looking like a fucking moron I do a great job myself.

    Plus your brand of moron is, well fucking moronic.

  • Hmm||

    I don't think I could care less about your feelings on me using "your" handle if someone offered me a million bucks to do just that.

    Go lick a wall.

  • hmm ||

    No really, you could start the apocalypse with by crossing your superior stream of stupid with my stream of moron.

    Then all we will have is you and Tony talking to God about Glenn Beck.

    Why is it Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin articles bring all the best posters to the comments.

    I lick light sockets, I graduated from walls to windows, to light light sockets months ago.

  • Hmm||

    And if you look above, there's hmm's best impression of "John Gabriel's Greater Internet F**kwad Theory":

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

    Please don't stare too long, you might enrage the animal and cause it to fling its poo.

  • Hmm||

    Oh crap! You know where penny arcade is.

    I'm not the ad hom machine Cpt. Pooflinger. Bit of irony up in them post.

    You can say fuckwad. Really it's okay. Because linking to it and then not saying it is something a fuckwad would do.

  • Hmm||

    And now we see him doing his best job of the word "pathetic". Isn't he talented?

  • Hmm||

    And now we see him doing his best job of the word "pathetic". Isn't he talented?

  • Hmm||

    You can say that again.

  • hmm ||

    I don't think

    You can say that again.

  • Hmm ||

    I don't think.

  • Hmm ||

    BTW I didn't say "your handle", I said "my handle" so why in the fuck are you quoting your?

    (I put my grammar nazi cape on for that one.)

  • Hmm #2||

    Wow, you seriously need a life. Feel free to keep responding to yourself all night long.

  • Hmm ||

    You have no idea the depths of my depravity. Thanks for the permission!

  • Leroy||

    Talking to yourself?

  • hmm||

    Just sorting out the pecking order for the lower life forms in the comments section. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  • Hmm||

    If you actually had a good retort or even a coherent response to any of the posts I made, you might have a point. Now I realize all the insults I made about your intelligence were below-the-belt, as you truly are a retarded monkey pounding on a keyboard. Sorry.

  • ||

    Calm down, all of you, however many there are. Latecomers, don't use handles too close to those of people who got here before you did. It's rude and confusing.

    That is all.

  • Hmm||

    But I'm one of GODS MONKEYS!!!

  • Hmm||

    I await the time we are all Hmms Now.

  • ||

    Beck is an idiot:
    -converted to Mormonism.
    -doesn't seem to understand what the separation of church and state is.
    -ranted against H1N1 vaccine then wouldn't tell O'Reilly if he was going to get it/let his kids have it
    -Fake tears, old news but still!
    -Seems to be a reincarnation of Joe McCarthy, or at least channels his crazy fear of Communists.

    Beck is a savvy businessman:
    -Has admitted that he is playing a part and doesn't believe most of the insane rants he gives (is in it for the money)
    -Shills for goldline while trying to incite fear in his readers
    -Milks the controversy he makes as free publicity. Genius.

    I still don't like him. If I were running for any office, I wouldn't want his endorsement.

  • DoDoGuRu||

    True... Except that Joe McCarthy was right about Communists in the State Department.

  • ||

    If this is all true, then YOU should be able to explain why he is wrong.

    Shilling for goldline doesnt make a person wrong.

    Being a mormon doesnt make a person wrong.

    Not telling O'Reilly about his H1n1 shot status doesnt make him wrong.

    His "rant" about the H1n1 shot was balanced. In fact there was an awful lot of news out there that the shot was bad for you at the time. Beck explored both sides of the topic and gave experts on both sides equal say.

    Regarding seperation of church and state, i think he understands it better than most Americans. His basic point is that government should not push a particular religion on its people. this does not mean one cannot pray in a government building, or that a mayor cannot put up a display of any religious sort or even encourage a particular religious point of view. The whole church and state issue is simply an item added to ensure that all American citizens have the right to worship as they see fit. Just because there is a cross on the city seal of a town it doesnt mean you cant live there if you are Jewish.

    how do you know he fakes tears? And if he is, WHO FUCKING CARES.

    Regarding his not believing what he is saying, know what you are talking about, but the full context of that conversation was that he was talking about a time earlier in his career. He later explains things have changed when the shit really started to hit the fan (not an actual quote).

    Again, provide an argument or shut up. None of what you said does anything to refute what Beck has been saying. But the other aspect of this is that Beck is making connections, but he always lets you know when he does not have proof. If his connections are wrong, then why are you so mad that he has made them. Just prove them wrong and it all goes away.

  • ||

    Tony, I promise you this; in a couple of years, most of the idiots that have taken over Reason's comment box will be long gone.

  • ||

    And Tony will hopefully be among them.

  • Tony||

    I get so bored on blogs where I agree with everyone, except places where it's all snark. I'm here because you're the most reasonable conservatives, in that occasionally you can be engaged in actual conversations rather than being assaulted with an endless barrage of talking points handed down from the likes of Beck, though admittedly I do spend most of my time calling you guys out for that shit.

  • ||

    Conservatives?

    I guess that is how you see us, I guess. I guess that is what libertarianism is percieved as, another kind of conservatism. The National Review has really worked it's magic.

  • ||

    Calm down Tristan, as you will be viewed as an ultra-liberal next time the GOP is in power and they get all jesusy.

    Check out these boards from the Bush presidency.

    The popular conception of what a libertarian is a pretty good indicator of the statist tendencies of either of the "teams".

  • Tony||

    Ah the great "we were totally as hysterical about Bush" myth.

  • ||

    Fuck off, warmonger.

  • Tncm||

    Oh my dear God. No on these boards gets there talking points from Glenn Beck. To use caps emphasis, NO ONE. You make it seem like the libertarian movement is this ultra-centralized efficient machine where we all receive our marching orders from talk radio.

    And if you thought that, you'd be right. What do you thinks in the newsletter?

    So, to be honest, you could leave and nothing would be lost from this place. You're a bad joke, buddeh, you and Chad both. We have a large supply of people from RevLeft who can do you what you do, only with funnier results.

  • ||

    I will have to grant that at least Tony isn't an abridged Marxist, like Chad. He hasn't yet said anything that screamed of someone who has read the Cliff Notes version of Das Capital, or Hegel for that matter.

  • Tncm||

    Is an abridged Marxist like an abridged Keynesian? "I read the cliff notes to 'The General Theory' so that makes me an expert on everything in economics"?

  • BakedPenguin||

    This, and his opposition to the Drug War, are the main reasons I generally try to be civil to Tony.

  • ||

    most of the idiots that have taken over Reason's comment box will be long gone.

    Sorry, you motherfuckers are stuck with my ass.

  • SIV||

    Since 2007 Bitchez!!!1!

  • ||

    Newbie.

  • ||

    2005 at least for me.

    And i still like Bush's Tax cuts.

  • zoltan||

    January '08!

  • DJ Drugs||

    Long time reader, seldom poster.

  • Beltway Liberaltarian||

    I like Glenn Beck because he's fun to watch

    But he's icky.

  • Gene Berkman||

    I am no fan of Woodrow Wilson, but he is not the worst person of the 20th Century.

    Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu,Enver Hoxho, Mussolini, Castro, Che Guevara, FDR, LBJ, do I need to go on?

    As a long-time right-wing libertarian I was used to blaming Wilson for the Income Tax, since it was passed in 1913. But it turns out that the 16th Amendment passed Congress in 1909 - with Republican majorities in both houses, after President Taft encouraged passage of a tax on corporate income. So Wilson is not even totally to blame for everything bad that happened when he was President.

    So Glenn Beck does not get exempt from being part of the dumbing down of the right syndrome I have seen all my life.

  • ||

    Amen, although I resent having libertarianism being labeled as right-wing

  • SIV||

    The traditional system of holding President's responsible for what happens on their watch(unless they substantially resist it) works for me. Wilson has FDR and LBJ beat because they never could have pulled of their shit w/o him.

  • mr simple||

    That's why I don't like Teddy. He opened the door for all of them. Yes, we were on a first name basis.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    He doesn't win worldwide, but he sure wins for the USA. That probably helps magnify his influence above the ones who ruled small, poor countries, though. Of course, I don't think anyone here is saying that he is comparable to at least the three first of your list.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I've only seen Beck once, at McDonald's, when he was still on CNN/HLN. I'm agnostic on him in general, but anyone that can get Hayek at the top of Amazon's best seller list is alright in my book.

  • Tony||

    Again with the pragmatism... What you should be thinking is, wait a minute, if Beck is peddling Hayek, maybe there's something wrong with Hayek.

  • bmp1701||

    No, there's something wrong with Beck.

  • DJ Drugs||

    Sure, I think it's a wig, but he's got great intonation.

  • ||

    Tony shut the hell up.

    As a great man once said:

    Don’t you just take from [teachers]. You question them. You read everything they tell you not to read. You read everything they tell you to read, and then you read everything they tell you not to read. You find out why they don’t like it. Challenge them. Find out on your own what’s true.

  • Tony||

    That's a lovely sentiment. Unfortunately after saying such things Beck goes on to tell his viewers exactly what books to read, how to behave, and how to think.

  • Jeffersonian||

    And this differs from, say, Friedman, Krugman, Olbermann, Schultz...how? (other than no one gives a fuck about them)

  • Fact Check||

    omg, you took my line.

  • Hmm||

    How about all the times that he tells his audience to question everything, including him? That they should look up what he says for themselves?

    Guess I shouldn't blame you for not mentioning that he does do that, cause it kind of destroys your point.

  • Hmm||

    Oprah tells viewers exactly what books to read, how to behave, and how to think.

    Oprah is the DEBIL!

  • Hmm||

    Oprah tells viewers exactly what books to read, how to behave, and how to think.

    Oprah is the DEBIL!

  • hmm||

    No clue how I managed that, but the two Oprah comments were original hmm.

  • Dave||

    Oprah certainly *is* the devil! There's no telling how many innocent men have gotten life in prison or had their good reputations destroyed thanks to her blatant lies and false accusations - and what is the Devil but the chief liar and accuser?

  • ||

    Therefore, you conclude that all those books must be EVIL, without bothering to read them. That makes sense.

  • ||

    That's a lovely sentiment. Unfortunately after saying such things Beck goes on to tell his viewers exactly what books to read, how to behave, and how to think.

    Precisely. He does this AFTER telling them to not just accept things that terachers tell you but to verify them independently.

    Think before you post.

  • Fact Check||

    As if Beck is there first person to say something like that; he justs sets up a phony straw man and then knocks it down and his audience goes, "Ooooh."

    Anyway,I'm a grad student and have never had a professor tell me NOT to read something just because they personally disagreed with it; but Glenn Beck DOES tell people what to read and what not to read. I'm sure that contradiction doesn't bother any of his devote sheep, and I'm sure none of them would ever question Professor Beck on anything cause if he's says it, they believe it, and that's that.

    Now go and buy some gold before our nazi/muslism/african/communist/racist president destroys America:

    http://www.goldline.com/

  • ||

    Now go and buy some gold before our nazi/muslism/african/communist/racist president destroys America:

    I don't know about destroy it. But Inflation is real and hedging against it is always a good idea. Even more so when the US is throwing money out of helicopters like it is now.

    Personalty i choose land to hedge against it. But i grew up in the land business. I don't know if gold is the perfect inflation hedge but historically it has done pretty good.

    I suggest you find a hedge as well. We can't stay in a recession forever.

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    Just out of morbid interest, what would you do with that gold if society collapses? Do you think anyone will give a shit about shiny metal?

  • ||

    Or maybe there is something wrong with Beck.

  • ||

    Other valid questions: "Did Beck read Hayek? Does he understand what he is trying to say?"

  • Jeffersonian||

    Well, I've been waiting for Olbermann and Maddow to turn their viewers on to Hayek, but somehow they haven't gotten around to it. Maybe it's because Keith and Rachel are grasping kommisar wannabes and Eff-Eh isn't.

  • hmm||

    Maddow is a public policy/politics PhD, Hayek is usually the devil in that academic circle. (at least in my experience)

    Olberman is just a fucking moron.

  • Tncm||

    You're such an isior, Tony. Beck may be a moron, but the fact that he's supporting Hayek does not make Hayek a moron, or his works inaccurate. By your logic, if Beck started to peddle "The Origin of Species" that would make Darwin "wrong" because Glenn Beck is supporting him.

    You are a moron.

  • Tncm||

    *And isior is supposed to be idiot. This is what happens when I stay up late arguing with people like you.

    Though I have to admit, isior is a really funny typo; I deserve and welcome all ridicule I will receive because of it.

  • ||

    Thanks for explaining that. I thought it was bizarre phonetic spelling of "eyesore."

  • Eric||

    I kind of like it. It sounds appropriate as a made-up word for someone who consistently engages in logical fallacy (which was what I guessed it meant).

  • fancy lad||

    I was half way convinced that isior was some new, hipster term I had not yet been exposed to.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    You wouldn't like to have whatever you consider to be important, good literature, promoted, whoever does it?

  • CJ||

    Again with the pragmatism... What you should be thinking is, wait a minute, if Beck is peddling Hayek, maybe there's something wrong with Hayek.

    I don't get the waste of money that is cable and I have no clue what Beck's opinions on anything are, but I will say this. If I had to reject every book and thinker that was ever endorsed by a single loon, every book and thinker would be out the window.

  • SIV||

    Beck shilling for Hayek overshadows any of his shortcomings so far.

  • ||

    I love this post.

    And the best part is it will be here all weekend.

  • SIV||

    I'm kinda sad I missed it while it was fresh but then again it was Friday night.
    I wish threaded comments had been disabled.This is going to be one huge shitpile to sift for gems and sub-threads.

  • jasno||

    Amen to that. Fuck the new hit-n-run.

  • ||

    It’s understandable that you don’t want to lose all your invitations, and the dismissive pose toward Beck stems from a well founded fear my fellow rootless cosmopolitans have -- that if we seem too close to the cars-on-cinderblocks, chicken-coops-in-yards, shotguns-and-rockingchairs variety of libertarianism, we will lose the respect of liberaloids in New York and D.C. It’s a real concern, but if the trade-off means you reject the Tea Parties -- by far the biggest popular movement with a clear anti-government mood that has occurred in my lifetime – and in exchange you get to be comfortable at table with David Frum, well, that deal sounds like a loser to me.

    Is this true?

    There is that whole cosmo paleo thing that goes on in the comments but i have mostly seen it as a game.

    If it is true i am surprised the reason staff does not talk about it.

  • ||

    It's a long story. Read Doherty's book.

  • ||

    Doherty's book not going to tell me if/why some libertarians are not allowed at the "liberaloid's" cocktail parties.

  • ||

    It is also not going to tell me if "It's a real concern" or if Cavanaugh is just screwing with us.

  • KingTaco||

    Cavanaugh may down-play the point, but I think it's pretty clear there's a lot of folks (Frum, Brooks, Lindsey, Wilkinson,etc.) chasing elite social-circles rather than any realistic political commentary.

  • Will Wilkinson||

    Tim Cavanaugh once came over to my place for a cookout. The questions that consumes me are, What now? What is there left to achieve?

  • fancy lad||

    Is snack cake code for something she now refuses to do?

  • Naughty Will||

    Is snack cake code for something she now refuses to do?

    I sure hope not! I can't live without her ... uh ... snack cakes!

  • P. Bear||

    I totally understand. I looooooove delicious caek!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Will Wilkinson|8.28.10 @ 2:35AM|#

    Tim Cavanaugh once came over to my place for a cookout. ...

    Egad! Lonewacko was right!

    ...What now? What is there left to achieve?

    Freedom? Just spitballin' here...

  • zoltan||

    Why do people want to be part of "elite social-circles"? Do these people have friends who they like and stuff? Don't those friends, you know, NOT CARE all that much about their political beliefs and writings? Good christ, these New York and DC politicos are shallow and insecure.

  • johnl||

    Is there any brand of libertarianism that doesn't favor chicken-coops-in-yards and shotguns-and-rockingchairs? Of course cars on blocks are wasted resources.

  • gnut||

    > Is there any brand of libertarianism that doesn't favor chicken-coops-in-yards
    > and shotguns-and-rockingchairs? Of course cars on blocks are wasted resources.

    Yes.

    There is large faction of libertarianism that supports the idea of mandatory membership in an HOA union as a condition of home ownership.

    For example, the libertarian "Houston Lawyer" wrote over at Volokh.com that

    Why the ragging on HOAs? I have found that they are far more responsive than city government. My one phone call to the HOA stopped a neighbor from parking a Ford Excursion in his front yard.

    because libertarianism is about telling other people what they can do on their property, via government-mandated HOA corporations, backed with the very real threat of foreclosure for trivial amounts and reasons.

    While I haven't gotten around to writing "The Privatized Toll Road To Serfdom," former HOA lawyer Evan McKenzie has a book coming out later this year, working title "Private Governments, Local Communities", that deals with the subject of

    "repressive libertarianism," where certain people who call themselves libertarians invariably side with property owners who want to limit other people's liberties through the use of contract law. Property rights (usually held by somebody with a whole lot of economic clout) trump every other liberty.

    Based on an unscientific sampling of blog comments regarding home ownership, it appears that a growing number of conservatives and libertarians believe that property ownership is not for the majority of Americans.

  • ||

    By the way, that photo up there...

    So was that in response to Weigel or something? Is that a "ratfucker" about to set himself on fire?

  • Anonymous||

    Bill Schulz gets no respect.

  • ||

    Bill Schulz =deserves= no respect.

    Come on... if you had the chance, wouldn't =you= set fire to him? And use Pinch as the catalyst to do the deed?

  • KingTaco||

    Glenn Beck is an entertainer. An entertainer, at heart, will always be out for themselves. If Glenn Beck entertains well, there's nothing wrong with crediting him for it. However, I'd always keep one eye on the exit, cause' you never no where the ride is going next....

    ...Just ask Jonah Goldberg and the NR crew whose slobbery praise basically 'made' blog-circus act Andrew Sullivan. How's that working out for them? An entertainer pleases a certain audience...until a more lucrative audience is found.

    The best bit of this post is this however...

    "I’m not sure how the departure of a couple of metrosexuals from the Cato Institute counts even as notable, let alone as news..I thought the disrespectability of libertarianism was the main attraction and am unsure why the style has become the object of sad-but-predictable kiss-offs."

    Tim Cavanaugh +100 points.

  • Hmm||

    Yeah, I get it, he's an entertainer. He's so entertaining, he's got four direct advisers to the POTUS leading boycotts against his show, numerous death-threats directed at him, thousands of detractors in the media calling him everything under the sun, and millions of people that generally hate his guts. I think it's safe to say he needs to change his act if his shows produce such vitriol against him, no? I mean, is doing it PURELY for the money worth all that abuse?

    Ignoramus.

  • Hmm||

    My name is Hmm, because that's the only sound I can make with Glenn's...dick...hmm...in...hmm...my...hmm...mouth.

  • Anonymous||

    I don't know, I kind of like money.

  • ||

    Real Libertarians are suspicious of Beck because he stabs them in the back whenever he gets a chance. He spent most of 2008 attacking Ron Paul and for an encore in 2010 he attacked Debra Medina in the Texas Republican Governors primary. He is a rat. He hates human liberty.

  • SIV||

    He'll probably crap all over the Alaskan Libertarian Party Senate candidate Lisa Murkowski too.

  • johnl||

    Robert Stacy McCain has been all over the Murkowski thing and that really seems unlikely.

  • Ray||

    He spent an entire show interviewing Ron Paul . . .

  • Anonymous||

    He spent an entire show interviewing Ron Paul after the election was over and Paul was a safe interview since he could be counted on to bash Obama and talk more about the Federal Reserve than about the military-industrial complex.

    Beck shit on Paul during the primaries every chance he got.

  • People Power Hour||

    Amen.

    And how can anyone have use for a show host who gets facts wrong so often and makes so many boneheaded mistakes? Have our standards sunk that low?

  • JoshINHB||

    Please cite the last 5 facts he's gotten wrong or the boneheaded mistakes he's made.

  • Random Dude||

    "2010 he attacked Debra Medina in the Texas Republican Governors primary."

    Please, that had nothing to do with politics. It had everything to do with her implicit endorsement of Trutherism by not giving a straight answer to "do you believe the government was in any way involved with bringing down the World Trade Centers on 9/11."

    More than a few people found her answer unsatisfactory.

  • zoltan||

    So the most libertarian candidate for governor of Texas ever since I've lived here gets shit on for that?!?! Look at Rick Perry, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Bill White! Would you really rather have these people as governor than a possible Truther?*

    *I despise Truthers.

  • Random Dude||

    "Would you really rather have these people as governor than a possible Truther?*"

    Yes. If a person can be that imbalanced (and of such a cowardly and malicious temperament), I don't want them running anything that even remotely affects me.*

    * And I despise Ricky Perry, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Bill White.

  • ||

    He didn't attack Medina, he asked her a question and she stuck her foot in her mouth.

  • MacGhil||

    I predicted the term "teabagger" would by this time have been boldly adopted by Tea Party attendees themselves, and you can see how that turned out.

    Here's a proud teabagger:

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com.....7d.jpg?v=0

  • ¢||

    Who the fuck says "snack cake?"

    And he’s right about Woodrow Wilson.

    Juggalo!

    In retrospect, I think the moment I gave up on libertarians (as seen on TV) as defenders of liberty and shit was the moment when, as Respectable People, they en JournoListic masse suddenly forbade themselves to shit on Wilson—who's been in the demonology for as long as there have been libertarians—ever again, because to Democrats, "Fuck a Wilson, yo" suddenly meant "I maybe don't hate Johah Goldberg (or, now, Beck) more than an ax in the butt."

  • PicassoIII||

    WAIT .... did i just see BP and Tony agree on Kucinich?!?
    *grin*

    Him and Ron Paul have shown each other much love u know.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJcnoDfFWhM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

    Then of course Tony, there's the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act ... Russ Fiengold. And for us pot smoking Reds, he's even better on guns.
    Too bad America isn't ready to elect a divorced Jew to POTUS.

  • ||

    You are talking up one of the authors of McCain-Feingold? Really? After that free speech killing piece of crap legislation, you think the divorced part or the Jewish part is the most electorally damning thing about Feingold?

  • PicassoIII||

    As our esteemed toasted pelagic bird suggested, an honest lefty that would actually put an effort into ending the wars abroad and at home would have been worth it. And at least he's to the right of Kucinich on 2A, which is a biggie. A bit more of a 'pay as u go' dem too.
    Would have 'held my nose' about as much as i did voting for Barr. Leagues better than Obama which quite a few Reason staffers voted for.
    +1 on Gravel and Tancredo.

    As for McCain-Feingold being electoral kryptonite, who did team Red put up again?
    I am being completely serious when i say the electorate would not go for a ritually circumcised candidate who does not have a spouse currently.
    Even team blue wouldn't try that.

  • ||

    Lots of Christian men are circumcised.

  • PicassoIII||

    True, but it isn't usually a catered event .... NTTAWWT.
    Just not something the Picassos will partake in if we have a son.

  • PicassoIII||

    Oh, and Glenn? Meh.
    The sweaters, the crying ... yuk. If he's leaning libertarian, good for us i guess.
    Bouncin' between Mike Savage, Norman Goldman and 'All my Blagos' is much more entertaining.

  • IceTrey||

    I find him to be a 50/50 kind of guy. Some of the stuff he does is really good, like the show on black Founding Fathers, but some is pure crap like the show he did the other day about the Haggia Sophia. He had the facts so wrong I got so mad I had to turn the channel. Plus, can you really trust a guy who was raised a Catholic and converted to Mormonism? That's someone whose mind is severely fucked up.

  • ||

    Plus, can you really trust a guy who was raised a Catholic and converted to Mormonism? That's someone whose mind is severely fucked up.

    Not buying this notion. I was raised by a Protestant and an agnostic, married a Catholic, converted to Mormonism, and now am an agnostic. Not really getting into the Mormon Hate TM.

  • zoltan||

    Mormon Hate? You believed a religion that was started by a guy a century and a half ago...that's fucking stupid.

  • ||

    So, a Christian in 150 AD would be fucking stupid, but one in 2010 AD acquires a patina of respectability?

    Look, I had the epiphany that Mormons hold some batshit insane ideas -- the same as conventional Christians also hold some batshit insane ideas -- but the recentness of the founding has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of the ideas of the religion.

    I mean, am I fucking stupid for liking the ideals of the LP, which was only founded in 1970s.

    And, the appeal of Mormonism, at least for me, is that that the members are often some of the happiest, most pleasant people you'll ever meet. Who doesn't want to be happy?

  • jasno||

    liking the ideals of the libertarian party != believing the mormon religious doctrine

  • BB||

    As for the libertarian rejection of the Tea Party movement, I can only believe it a good thing. Whatever hope there was for that "movement" was dashed the instant they started allowing any amount of jingoistic rhetoric into their rallies. Tea Party rhetoric is not a purely anti-big-government stance.

    As a libertarian, I can say that I am not fond of the president. I am no less fond of him, however, than of our last president. In ways extremely similar from my "libertarian" perspective they are/were equally terrible.

    If these Tea Partiers are so anti-government, where were they during the 8 years prior to Obama's election? We were there, loudly registering our disgust, and Glen Beck sometimes was there (I'll admit), but these masses who will be gathering today in D.C. were safely in their homes, and quiet, likely content to vote for whichever big government moron the Republicans nominated next.

    I'm as disgusted as any by the cheap tactic of screaming "racist" used to marginalize dissent against Obama. It is no different than the right's cries of "traitor" toward those who criticized Bush's many appalling power grabs. It's disingenuous and offensive.

    The fact remains, though, that Obama was able to motivate people to rally against him in these numbers because he's black. The vibe at Tea Party rallies, and I've been to two, is distinctly shitty. These people don't fear the government, they fear the other. And Glen Beck preys upon that fear to promote Glen Beck.

    Would there be a raging anti-Obama sentiment regardless of his race? Of course there would be. Would it have been like this for a John Kerry, or if you want to go further left, Howard Dean? I doubt it.

  • ||

    Whatever hope there was for that "movement" was dashed the instant they started allowing any amount of jingoistic rhetoric into their rallies.

    Ummm, there is no "they" or "allowing" at Tea Party rallies. All kinds of people show up, some great, some not so much so. It's not some centrally planned thing where inconvenient people can be "read out" or disinvited.

  • BB||

    I understand that formally you're correct. But that there isn't a natural tendency among this loose configuration to even diplomatically distance itself/themselves from the more nationalistic rhetoric (never mind beliefs and actions), nor the more bigoted strains, speaks volumes of the majority of sorts involved; and those are not sorts with which this libertarian is comfortable being associated.

    I suppose that's all I meant. My comment was a bit unfocused.

  • ||

    I've been to a Tea Party rally. All sorts of people showed up, and I didn't have any control over who showed up or what they said.

    Have you ever been to a Democratic party rally? Kind of a wide array of perspectives there too, and that's with command and control statists running the thing.

  • BB||

    I don't in general affiliate myself with broad movements, coalitions, or political parties for similar reasons.

    This stems from the same thinking which has me identifying as a libertarian to begin with.

    The Tea Party movement, as it's developed (be it organically or by design is no matter), is not about libertarian principles for a majority of its proponents/participants. It's about a return to religious values and "putting America back on top." Its a place for white folks to bray about being victimized.

    Someone below says "just because someone only grumbled when Bush snatched money from the offering plate," and my impression is that the vast majority of those attending Tea Parties hardly even fucking grumbled. They voted for and liked W.

    This about "culture war" and politics, not ideology. It's cheap and unserious.

    Glenn Beck? Sarah Palin? Like it or not, these are the faces most closely associated with the movement, and they're not faces of which I feel comfortable being within a mile.

  • DoDoGuRu||

    f these Tea Partiers are so anti-government, where were they during the 8 years prior to Obama's election?

    /yawn

    Another bit of "what about BOOOOSH" nonsense that evidences no sense of scale.

    Just because someone only grumbled when Bush snatched money from the offering plate doesn't mean they can't shout when Obama steals their car.

  • BB||

    No, but it makes strong suggestions as to their true motivations and therefore I'm not sure I'm comfortable associating and/or being associated with them.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Where was MooOn.bOrg before Clinton?

  • BB||

    What does that have to do with anything? The integrity and/or sincerity of an organization that doesn't even pay notional lip service to an ideology even vaguely in league with my own is of no consequence to me.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Look, I hate what the TP has become, but what it was when it started - and those who haven't gone full Team Red in the process - is and was a good thing.

    My point was, this constant bullshit about why the TP didn't exist until X timeframe, but nobody asks that question about MoveOn and other bullshit lefty front organizations.

  • ||

    I'm a fat, balding, half-crippled, married diabetic archivist and I still had something better to do on a Friday night than jack-off Tony's ego.

  • ||

    This retort is full of win.

    Threadwinner!

  • zoltan||

    But you're up at 7:25 AM according to your tag. That's simply too early to wake up and still be cool.

  • PicassoIII||

    I was up for F1 qualifying from Belguim. Spa is easily my fave track.

  • ||

    1) the time tags are based on East Coast Time. Being in Hawaii, my 8:34 post time means 2:34 am in real time.

    2) Being up at 7:25 am or earlier on a Saturday night or morning DOES NOT mean you woke up early, it could mean you you still haven't gone to bed.

    3) Coolness is not necessarily correlated to bedtime. If you're in bed early because you're, you know, getting laid, that's arguably cool.

  • ||

    But you're up at 7:25 AM according to your tag. That's simply too early to wake up and still be cool.

    You blew right past the "fat, balding, half-crippled, married diabetic archivist" comment and had to look at the time tag before you could deduce that SF isn't some hip young uber-cool swinger?

  • Woodrow||

    Compared to most radio hosts, Beck is pretty non-gross and normal looking.

  • zoltan||

    Wow, can any actual women comment on this? Beck is a fat, dough-faced, pale, teary weakling.

  • ||

    Sounds pretty normal looking. Have you bothered to look at the actual people around you?

  • Woodrow||

    Compared to guys like Rush and Mike Savage (Weiner), he is Fabio.

  • People Power Hour||

    My problem with Beck...his insistence on relying upon religious mythology and his desire to foist it upon everyone else.

  • ||

    Politicians respond to voter apathy. That's my working theory anyway.

    They take high participation and winning as a mandate, and when voter participation is down, they become to reluctant to act.

    Really? Your theory is that people mad enough for power to do what it takes to get elected to office will * NOT * use that power to order other people around because voter participation rates were low?

    If voter participation rates were 1%, and statists got elected, they would still try to push us around. They don't fucking care about whether their policies are popular, other than when their unpopular policies interfere with getting re-elected.

  • Steve Chaos||

    Precisely. Low participation is taken as a mandate that everything's hunky-dory.

    Worse yet, places like Reason actually push this thesis.

    Non-participation is taken as a mandate in and of itself to carry on with the current trajectory.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Indeed.

  • MNG||

    My two favs about Beck: the chalkboards and the weeping.

  • MNG||

    I find the Wilson hate to be pretty funny too, because it assumes that Wilson is some uber-hero of the left. Liberals have long been aware of, and criticized, Wilson for his embrace of segregation and his repression of dissent during WWI (the latter being a big theme in Chomsky's early writings for Pete's sake). As to the latter I'd say it was fairly common to resistance to war efforts/conscription among the executive: look at Lincoln's actions regarding these matters...

    I think any liberals that I know to have good opinions of Wilson do so for his foriegn policy stances, which they see as noble as contrasted to the vengeful stance of some of our allies at the time...His famous 14 points strikes me as having much in it that libertarians could embrace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points

  • PIRS||

    As for the 14 points why should it be any of our business what the barriers of other countries are or are not???

  • MNG||

    You're not for free markets? You don't need to be for bombing people into accepting them to state that reducing economic barriers between nations would be a good thing for the world.

  • PIRS||

    Sure I am. I also support childhood vaccination, this does not mean I support FORCING parents to vaccinate their children. There is a no-so-subtle difference there.

  • JoshINHB||

    A holy war to make the 'world safe for democracy' is now a libertarian position?

  • MNG||

    Oh, the other funny thing about the Wilson hate is that it follows the ever-increasing and amusing trend of conservatives to assume historically static party ideological stances and thus Wilson, being a Democrat, is a liberal!

    Wilson was of course to the right of former GOPer T.R. in the 1912 election, but hey, what's historical nuance amongst rightwing nutjobs!

  • PIRS||

    MNG,

    Please explain what you mean by the words "right" and "liberal" in this context? Context is important when discusing political labels.

  • MNG||

    "Context is important when discusing political labels."

    Agreed, which is why thinking Wilson is akin to a contemporary Democrat or self professed progressive because those labels were used to describe him back then is goofy.

  • PIRS||

    No one is claiming he is akin to a contemporary Democrat. Beck never claimed that he was. He was using him as an illustration of the origins of what we now call progressivism.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck progressivism.

  • PicassoIII||

    "Are u serious?"

    Federal Reserve, FTC, Lever Act, Harrison Narcotics Act, Espionage Act, Sedition Act, etc, etc.
    Then there's the whole World War thing. Libertarians being usually vehemently opposed makes this no small matter.
    Really MNG...
    *shakes head*

  • PicassoIII||

    Oh yeah, the fact that the douchebag was big into eugenics as well.

  • Hmm||

    Aye, so perhaps Beck's point that the R & D are pretty interchangeable is correct, no?

    Regardless of what letter he put after his name, Wilson was an utter racist progressive and did much to advance the progressive agenda. That's why conservatives are coming to despise him.

    Again, for the millionth time, BOTH PARTIES ARE TO BLAME. We are not beholden to the GOP, it's just that we see them typically as not destroying our country as fast as the Democrats lately.

  • PicassoIII||

    Something about a stopped clock....

    It's a common tactic amongst the talkin heads to prove they're independent/openminded .... from left to right. Hartmann to Savage.
    Is the stance preferable to the smarmy moderates like Medved, yes.
    But it's no 'seal of approval'.

  • MNG||

    But interestingly enough had T.R. won "the progressive agenda" would probably have been promoted to a greater degree. But since he had an "R" beside his name such nuance would hopelessly confuse Beck's poor followers...

  • PIRS||

    Beck is not a partisan and has also mentioned T.R. in his criticism of the early 20th Century progressive agenda.

  • Tony||

    National parks would be put to much better use as strip malls.

  • hmm||

    Aren't you advocating that you have to vote or you are doing a disservice? Even if for the lesser of two evils?

    Consistent.

    Still on my handle flaming ass monkey.

  • PicassoIII||

    Oh yeah, the fact that the douchebag was big into eugenics as well.

  • ||

    MNG, I think if you check what's been written by libertarians here and there, that none of them are very big fans of TR either.

    And you don't have to go that far back in history to find the GOP candidate to the left of the Democrat candidate (on some issues, at any rate).

    Nixon v JFK, anyone? JFK was more hawkish on foreign policy (senile old Eisenhower had been soft on communism and an old appeaser who let the Reds get ahead of us, thus creating a "missile gap", advocating a huge cut in income tax rates, etc).

    And the funny thing, Nixon being held up as a "conservative" today. Whether you think "conservative" means something bad or good, Nixon wasn't one.

  • ||

    Beck's religious rally is being covered by C-SPAN right now if anyone is interested in being yelled at by a white preacher who is justifying America's existence on Christian mysticism.

  • PicassoIII||

    Don't mind if he's Mormon, he could be JW or Gnostic for all i care but it is THIS that gives me the willies.
    The founders' stance on church and state is made abundantly clear, it's all in plain language. How anyone can misinterpret it is no different than lefties playing textual gymnastics with 2A.

  • ||

    Yep. They confuse the Pilgrims and other religious sects of the early 17th century with the political theorist Founders of the late 18th, who explicitly banished state-sanctioned religion in the Constitution. That's why the religionists often resort to quoting the Declaration of Independence instead, where the "creator" is cited as "proof" that America was founded on Christianity instead of man's rights.

  • Random Dude||

    "where the "creator" is cited as "proof" that America was founded on Christianity instead of man's rights."

    No, they're simply illustrating that man's "rights" mean nothing without a "self-evident" belief that they exist independently of the state. Reference to those rights coming from a "Creator" is a moral argument based upon the value of a human person as opposed to a utilitarian one based upon social organization.

    Really, however you slice that, it's a form of religious argument. You can't derive "rights" from some set of logical axioms without it degenerating into a "you-say but I-say" type of disagreement on the premises. Ultimately, "natural rights" rest on a transcendental moral precept that you have to agree with completely on faith.

    Judaism and Christianity provided a fundamental backing and rationale for natural rights, and even the minority of the founders who were Deists or proto-atheists still had enough religious DNA to acknowledge that.

  • PicassoIII||

    Thomas Paine?
    Einstein's 'architect' god, not a 'personal' one. Jefferson's twenty or none.
    A moral code does not require an old dude in a beard.

  • ||

    It helps, though. Something about old, angry guys in the sky not really responding to questions kinda avoids most of the "Well, it's not like it's set in stone" thing that kinda screws lay philosophy.

  • ||

    They banned federal sanctioning of religion, but Massachusetts and Connecticut did so for decades afterwards.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The problem with Beck is he's one of the "Yes, but" libertarians. He's great talking about freedom in general terms, but whenver you get into any specifics, he always has a reason why this is one of the cases where we can't have freedom.

    This is partially because he doesn't think, he just emotes and thus is wildly inconsistent from momment to momment. Thus you get a guy who goes from worry about a secret conspiracy to create a communist dictatorship one minute to openly wishing there would be a military coup the next.

  • PicassoIII||

    +3 and a bag of chips.
    Fair weather and ragingly floppy.
    Savage did exactly this recently.
    He was dissin on Mexicans proud of their latin heritage. Said Spanish was the language of their conquest, thought they should be speaking Mayan. Brought up how much he loved 'Apocalypto'.
    'rolls eyes'
    Like he knows Cherokee.

  • Woodrow||

    Anyone who gets Jon Stewart so amped up can be all bad. Unlike Limbaugh, Stewart can't just make some fat jokes to dismiss him.

  • PIRS||

    Beck often makes fat jokes about himself.

  • zoltan||

    Ick, why are there so many fatties in "talking head" media? I can't think of one fit person who sits at a desk and blabbers at me about politics on TV.

  • ||

    I think you answered your own question.

  • ||

    Oh no, now it's the Christian Bimbo herself, Sarah Palin, praising the "one true god of justice," the military, and, of course, motherhood. America's honor must be "restored." There are greater things than "self." Sacrifice is good.

  • PicassoIII||

    *pukes*
    Jefferson would bitch slap her all the way to the Bering Sea

  • SIV||

    At least she's for jury nullification. And Sarah Palin better on the marijuana issue than President Obama

  • PicassoIII||

    MJ is a pretty low bar these days.
    There are few Rs that call out the ENTIRE WoD and even the penal industrial complex.
    Jury nullification is something, but just like 'states rights' it all depends on who it's comming from ..... and what they really mean.

  • PicassoIII||

    Rs OR Ds i meant.

    Glaring at you Biden...

  • ||

    Bimbo means someone who dresses and or acts scually promiscuous. Palin is not either. Why do you call her a bimbo? Because she is good looking? Are you that threatened and afraid of good looking women?

  • MNG||

    "Palin is not either."

    You talking Bristol or Sarah?

  • Anonymous||

    Bristol has really nice tits, man.

  • DJ Drugs||

    Bimbo means "male baby."

  • ||

    I wonder if the people there knew it was going to be a cheesy revival meeting?

  • Mosquevite Sandwich||

    You are absolutely right, Timbo. I use to listen to Beck on the radio, well, mainly because that's what I could pick up with the radio I used. He's damn sure entertaining. But if you only get your information from Beck, or fucking Bill Maher, then you're a moron anyway.
    I don't get the Beck animosity. I realize that Candy Crowley, the wise Rachel Maddow, and Katie Couric all did fantastic shows on The Road to Serfdom!, but can Beck catch a break, he did a week!!!! I would think the "Reasonoids" would be mosquerbating over the exposure given to the Orange Caped Freedom Crusaders by the likes of Beck, and Stossel, and the Judge. And Varney. Does Beck say some wacky, cringeworthy shit? Sure he does. So fucking what. Again, if you only get your news and information from Beck, then you're one of the imbeciles that liberals cynically believe are going to be brainwashed and mind-fucked by the wave of corporate-funded campaign ad propaganda. Considering a large percentage of Democrats in SC just elected the black Boo Radley for a Senate race, there is some concern for this type of ignorance.

    It's imperative, and preferable, that the disasterous economy is front and center in this election, and 2012. Beck has promoted ecomomic policy and philosophy that are a hell of lot more libertarian than any other entity with that large of an audience. That alone is worth having the Sobbing Mormon on the airwaves.

    Most people paying attention recognize that we have just a little bit of a problem with the growth and economic intrusiveness of government and Beck is helping the cause for economic freedom far more than hurting it. I could do without the preachin', but keep on cryin' for economic freedom Beck; I'll keep a clean hanky for ya.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    Beck is a stopped clock that somehow manages to be right half a dozen times a day. I like him.

  • ||

    And now Beck's invocation of the Three Platitudes: Faith, Hope and Charity.
    The Statue of Liberty just made an appearance...
    America is a shining hill...no, wait, a city on a shining hill. Or something.
    And here's Tony LaRussa introducing millionaire ballplayer (and Christian proselytizer) Albert Pujols as a beacon of faith, hope and community. "Fanfare for the Common Man" is blaring over the loudspeakers. I'm going to throw up now.

  • Cata||

    i support beck out of spite.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I predict Glenn is going to have a fabulous fall from grace. He's got the university...but no campus. But he will...and once the compound is set up he will go David Koresh-like crazy feeding off the ardor of his followers. Let's just hope no one ends up getting hurt.

  • ||

    I predict you are an idiot if you think Beck is going to end up on a compound somewhere.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    You're assuming he actually believes what he's saying. I started listening to Beck back before he was big and was actually a big fan until around 2005 or so. Right about the time he got his headline news show, his entire personality changed.

    I'm convinced that he simply made a decision around then that he was willing to adopt completely fake public persona if it meant becoming a millionaire. Pretty much everything since then has just been an act to fleece the yokels.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Like that sort of thing never happens to Team Blue members, eh, Neu?

  • ||

    There is no kissing. There is no offing. A reluctance to think about politics for a little while is not equivalent to self-exile.

  • johnl||

    Politics is injected into everything all the time. Good luck finding time not to think about it.

  • ||

    I understand...but what do you have against snack cakes?

  • BakedPenguin||

    There is no offing.

    That's good. Offing people can get you the chair.

  • ||

    I caught a few of Beck's hysterical "Eeeevul Islamofasciterror Caliphate!!" rants, and was so disgusted there is basically nothing (short of setting himself on fire and plunging to his death from the tip of the Washington Monument) he could do to redeem himself. I find it hard to believe he ever objected in any meaningful way to the Patriot Act.

    Turning the Jefferson memorial into a revival meeting doesn't help. Have they brought the snakes out, yet?

  • ||

    Have they brought the snakes out, yet?

    Newt Gingrich and Ralph Reed?

  • ||

    Jesus H! One of the preaching King relatives, Alveda, is whipping up the crowd with a demand for more prayer in the public squares and the public schools. And the crowd is cheering! Their answer to America's problems is...more religion! If these people happened to be Muslims instead of Christians, Newt Gingrich and the Conservatives would be calling for a pogrom.

  • DoDoGuRu||

    Um, Muslim preachers call for more (Islamic) religiosity all the time dude and there's been no pogrom.

  • ||

    But in sunny's world Muslims are incapable of doing any harm. They are different.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Just thought ya'll would enjoy this quote from the AP story:

    Ricky Thomas, 43, a SWAT team police officer from Chesapeake Beach, Md., brought his 10-year old son Chase to the Beck rally. "I wanted my son to see democracy in action," Thomas said.

    He said he wants government to stay out of people's lives. He acknowledged that he works for government, but said it's "a part of government that helps people when they are in trouble."
  • ||

    Dude! I was just about to post that same quote.

    Unfortunately, the Drug War Mr. Thomas is probably a soldier in is the product of democracy. Maybe he should bring his son on a few raids too.

  • ||

    National parks would be put to much better use as strip malls.

    Haha, good one, Tony. We are no match for your keen mind and trenchant analysis.

  • ||

    Tony wouldn't know trenchant analysis if it crawled up his rectum and started tap dancing on his prostate.

  • Tony||

    Ha... listening to Beck now, he's calling for tithing 10% because "you can afford it." This is some commie Jesus shit.

  • ||

    Tony, I don't expect much from you, but there is a difference between calling for and mandating under penalty of law (ie, at gunpoint).

  • ||

    some commie Jesus shit

    That's what makes this so much fun. Beck is bouncing all over the place like a drunk in a liquor store. I can't believe the crowd is eating up this schtick. Now everyone is singing Amazing Grace. Fitting.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I did hear a sound bite of Beck saying "if ten percent is good enough for the church, it should be good enough for the state", or pretty close to that.

    And on that note, I will agree with him.

  • MNG||

    Is that 10% for every level of the state (local, state and federal)?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why, not enough just to have a ten-percent federal rate? You want more?

    Of COURSE you want more. You're a liberal.

  • ||

    Sure. 10 percent to feds, locals and states. That is 30% total. I will take that. But I doubt you will like it much.

  • MNG||

    I'd love it. Taxes are a necessary evil, at best. I hate paying them.

    Mr. feefee is I guess ignorant of the fact that when teh stimulus was first proposed I said I'd much rather see it done in the form of tax cuts like Bush did...Add that to the list I guess...

  • Tncm||

    If MNG is really a liberal, I still wouldn't put him in the same camp as Tony and Chad, who are Marxists at worst, and democratic socialists at best. From what I've seen, MNG contributes a lot to conversations on this site, albeit with some occasional snarkiness, but that applies to everyone. MNG might just be the fabled liberal who is economically literate, and understands the damaging effects of taxes.

    MNG can stay, Chony can take it's frothing-at-the-mouth stupidity and leave.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Sorry, but MNG is barely better than Tony or Chad, though he is yards better than that prick Max.

  • Tncm||

    You must have read posts of his that I haven't, then. But in my defense, I haven't been around here that long, anyways.

    So, I guess I retract my previous post due to it being made out of ignorance.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I have tough standards, MNG. I also am very much against supporting Team Red OR Team Blue.

    Can you say that?

  • Tncm||

    Actually, being both a communist and an adherent to Christian doctrine is a contradiction. Marxism essentially requires one to be an atheist; in the words of Marx, "Religion is the opiate of the people".

    So maybe you're an atheist for reasons other than you thinking it's rational, Tony.

  • ||

    "I wanted my son to see democracy in action," Thomas said.

    If, by "democracy" you mean populist fearmongering and groupthink.

  • Faith McHopeyson||

    What about Buddhists?

  • ||

    I don't think they are on the approved list. Also conspicuously absent from this love-fest is any mention of atheists. Apparently we are beyond salvation.

  • ||

    he's calling for tithing 10% because "you can afford it." This is some commie Jesus shit.

    So we can put you down as opposing progressive taxation, right?

  • ||

    Oh no. Now he's crying. You knew it was coming.

  • darjen||

    Libertarians don't like Glenn Beck because he is a warmonger. "Supporting the Troops" is a crock and always will be.

  • PicassoIII||

    1st principles FTW.
    That's how Raimondo ends up supporting Buchanon and then Nader.
    I'll even take honest overt private racism over eugenics at the barrel of a government gun.
    Any day of the week.

  • ||

    There is nothing unlibertarian about war.

    However, the particular wars Bleck is in love with are stupid for reasons external to libertarianism.

  • PicassoIII||

    Non aggression and self defense leaves you 1776 and 1941. The rest are all very debatable.

  • ||

    Not sure about 1776.

    1812 (impressment of American sailors), 1861 (Ft Sumter), and 2001 (duh!) all had significant self-defense components.

  • PicassoIII||

    I'll give that 1776 and 1812 are both debatable.
    I'm with Spooner on how the 'War of Northern Aggression' should have have gone down, LOL.
    2001? Please.
    It was our first real Belfast or Beirut. Islamofascism is not a nation w/ a capital. We have no declaration of war.
    Fail.
    Surgical strikes or some black ops into Afghanistan to bust some skulls? I have no problem with that, just playin' thru. Should have not lasted more than a couple of months. Blowback pure and simple. Stop messing in the middle east, killing brown people and demagogues lose their willing pawns. Otherwise it's like playing whack-a-mole. What's next, Somalia again, Pakistan, Yemen or somewhere else?
    I was giving Kucinich and Paul props upthread, doubt i can be convinced otherwise.

  • ||

    "Stop messing in the middle east, killing brown people and demagogues lose their willing pawns."

    that is why places like Spain, Bali and Kenya have been so safe.

  • PicassoIII||

    Oh how could we forget not kissing Saudi ass since they fund much of it.

    John, we've seen your reasonable interventionist arguments multiple times. Not gonna do it.
    Much of this is spilled milk anyway, and clear lessons are decades away. I figure it will take that many years of non intervention to see if it would be effective.
    9/11 required a response i agree, not a pacifist. After a few months, we don't have Osama and crew in hand, leave a fat check for broken furniture .. and bug out.
    Am i naive, maybe.
    The other countries' problems are just that.

  • PicassoIII||

    I also wonder what would happen in opium and heroin were fully legal.
    Just like the unintended consequences of cocaine and mj prohibition help make Mexico etc such hellholes.

  • ||

    Islamofascism is not a nation w/ a capital.

    al-Qaeda was being harbored by a nation with a capital.

    I agree that there should have been a declaration of war against AFG (as opposed to "Islamofascism" in general). There was plenty of time between 9/11 and the invasion to pass one.

  • J||

    Beck is a ranting and raving religious zealot and that is why I won't support him. We need less not more.

  • PicassoIII||

    Tony weakly offered..
    National parks would be put to much better use as strip malls.

    How many of those are now massive military installations. Some of THE most polluted land we have. Also, standard minarchist disclaimer about local control. State parks are usually nicer than Fed .... etc.

    As for the rough rider, animal hunter, militarist prick TR....
    "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.... Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his blood behind him in the world, and that we have no business to perpetuate citizens of the wrong type." - 1913
    A pox on 'Progressives' whatever their flavor.

  • Mike M.||

    but the real reason I and my fellow coastal elites are wary of Glenn Beck is a lot more basic: He’s the fat kid you don’t want to be seen with at the lunch table.

    This is the most honest and straightforward thing I've read on this journal in ages. This is the kind of truth we need more of in America.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "which means supporting the better of the two parties"

    False choice. There IS no "better" between Team Red and Team Blue.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Don’t you just take from [teachers]. You question them. You read everything they tell you not to read. You read everything they tell you to read, and then you read everything they tell you not to read. You find out why they don’t like it. Challenge them. Find out on your own what’s true.

    This flies in the face of modern liberalism, which went from "question authority" to "do what the fuck we say and don't you dare fucking argue with the omnipotent power of a Democratic majority".

  • PicassoIII||

    Two more thoughts.....

    Beck is not even on the same freaking planet as Stossel or Napolitano.

    Someone mentioned Eisenhower.
    1st principles again. The MilitaryIC speech is up there with Washington's farewell address.
    Then on top of that you have the Civil Rights Act of 1957. "I believe that the United States must make certain that every citizen who is entitled to vote under the Constitution is given actually that right. I believe also that in sustaining that right we must sustain the power of the Federal judges in whose hands such cases would fall."
    Strong courts are better than powerful legislatures OR executive to minarchists.

    Oh and a shout out to 'Let Us Have Peace' Grant.
    The ORIGINAL civil rights acts, giving a shit about native americans.
    Then this.
    In an 1875 speech to the Army of the Tennessee advocated "security of free thought, free speech, and free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion." In regards to public education Grant endorsed that every child should receive "the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheist tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools...Keep the church and the state forever separate."
    Of course we love this.
    "The first two years of the Grant administration with George Boutwell at the Treasury helm expenditures had been reduced to $292 million in 1871 – down from $322 million in 1869.
    Grant reduced the number of employees working in the government by 2,248 persons from 6,052 on March 1, 1869 to 3,804 on December 1, 1871"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....nistration

    Not all peaches and cream (cough Comstock) .... but we've done MUCH worse.

  • ||

    Tony|8.28.10 @ 12:53PM|#

    Ha... listening to Beck now, he's calling for tithing 10% because "you can afford it." This is some commie Jesus shit.

    So, I take it you're in favor of reducing the government's take of GDP to 10% total for all levels of government combined -- and also making it voluntary?

    Funny, don't recall you advocating for making participation in Social Security voluntary.

  • MNG||

    Say what you will about David Weigel, but if here were still here at Reason his ass would be out there liveblogging this whole gig.

  • Shitty Friend||

    I miss Weigel around these parts.

  • Shitty Friend||

    I miss Weigel around these parts.

  • Not so fast...||

    with all the certitude here. The First Amendment - along with the rest of the amendments - was supposed to apply only to the Federal Government, and did so until more than two decades into the twentieth century. That's pretty important when you consider how a limited scope such as that might allow for competing claims about the Founders and their intent as to how divorced religion should be from all state actions and actors. In otherwords, one could argue that these limitations were a federalism issue as a freedom/toleration issue. Nothing is ever as easy as you think when it comes to the Founders and the Constitutional aims and origins. School prayer, while abhorrent to me, is not as Constitutionally ridiculous as it sounds, and frankly, was quite constitutional until the judiciary granted these rights to citizens against each individual state. Our history isn't just fifty or sixty years old. From Wikipedia: Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools.

  • Not so fast...||

    Sorry. I edited that a lot before I posted it, so it may read a little roughly. Me fail English? Unpossible!

  • Bruce Majors||

    I really like Glenn Beck when he interviews Nick Gillespie, Burton Fulsom, Amity Shlaes, or Yaron Brook; promotes F.A. Hayek to the top of the Amazon charts; or has a nearly monthly all African American panel and audience of politically incorrect blacks who would never be allowed into massa's house over at the all-white (hosted) MSNBC. When he tries to base natural rights on his religion, not so much.

    But if you tell his supporters which metro stops are safe in Washington, D.C., the bitches he is trouncing in the ratings, particularly Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, will come after you. They want to get rid of his audience members anyway they can, including Metro's notoriously hungry escalator teeth and drive by shootings.

    If you are the one libertarian in the world who missed the story, you can read it here: http://teapartiers.blogspot.co.....to-dc.html

  • ||

    They forgot the 7th Rule of Success, which is to never use COBOL for a job where Fortran will do--at least, that is how Øystein Ore would probably have seen it, if he were administering the Calif payroll

  • ||

    lol, wrong thread

  • Ernie the Bear||

    Since 1984, I have missed two elections. One was a run-off between two people I didn't like. The other, I was at an out-of-state wedding on too short a notice to vote absentee.

    All of you who don't vote give me raging hard-on. I hope you convince 10 of your friends to follow your lead, and so on, until I am the only active voter left in America.

  • Tncm||

    Tony, I have a question for you: have you ever read an actual free market book, like, ever? I'm not talking about epic tomes like "Man, Economy, and State" (great introduction to Austrian economics, by the way), but something as simple as "Economics in One Lesson".

    If I recall, your excuse was, "Those are books are old, therefore, they are wrong". I hope I don't have to explain how stupid that statement is, so I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourself, and prove to us that you actually know about what you rant against on a daily basis.

  • ||

    People who deride Glenn Beck more often than not get their impression of him from the news and not necessarily from the Glenn Beck show.

    People that call him a fear monger draw their opinions without actually considering the message he is trying to deliver. Beck is not saying that Obama is like Hitler or Stalin, though I do believe Beck believes Obama at least draws from a strongly socialistic world view. No, instead, Beck is saying that Obama's and for that matter many of Bush's POLICIES and rhetoric are the types of ideas and rules that can make it easier for a Hitler or Stalin to capture the public eye and maybe get themselves into public office. He is simply drawing parallels and showing why certain policies, while well intended are morally wrong and politically dangerous. Why is this a bad thing? The only people who think this is a bad thing are defenders of the Obama administration and those groups who would like to maintain a friendly rapport with the defenders of the Obama administration.

    From day one Glenn has in some way made an effort to insist that I question everything I believe. I certainly do not hold the same political believes today as I did before Beck went on FOX. Beck got me into Reason. Beck got me to think about liberty in a meaningful way.

    Before Beck, I viewed the political world through a series of "issues". I have always been a registered independent, but I have always been forced to root for Republicans because frankly the Democrats have always been slightly retarded by their affiliations to leftist organizations. Because of my awkward political position, questions about marijuana, gay marriage, taxation, regulation, health care etc. . . were always answered in their own particular bubble and generally influenced by my affinity for Republican values. The only time I even questioned a Republican candidate was when John McCain came out with a plan to fix "Climate Change". I gave John a pass for his "Climate Change" stance because deep down I knew that it would never pass. After Beck, I have thought deeply about all of these "issues" but now I no longer think in terms of "issues" I think from the point of liberty. Now my current worldview can be expressed in one sentence that essentially covers any "issue", and that sentence is: None of these "issues" would even exist if the government focused on protecting basic individual liberty as they are supposed to rather than trying to apply their PERSONAL values to the general public. Ok so my world view is a run-on sentence . . . whatever, I guess you can blame Beck for that.

    My point is Beck opened my mind, how many other minds has he opened? How many Tea Party people started off as hardcore republicans and moved towards libertarianism?

    Another complaint about Glenn Beck is that he is over the top and he is doing it to make money. I say SO FUCKING WHAT. He openly admits that he is a capitalist and is out to make money. Regarding his showmanship, do you think he would reach anyone if he was just another boring talking head?

    I once read a blog, perhaps on this very site that blasted Glenn for asking viewers to go out on the internet and find evidence of Crime Inc. (his name for government collusion in various corporate interests, most notably the CCX). Why is this a bad thing. is the blogger trying to say that the internet is not a valid starting point to any sort of investigation. . . if so did they use the internet to do their research? In my view, this is an incredibly powerful idea. Yes there is a considerable volume of useless information on the internet, but if you have thousands of people dedicating time and effort to grab information and save it, Glenn can find places to start doing the real digging. It is like Epidemiology. Epidemiology is not the scientific method, but rather a step in the scientific method. Unfortunatly, epidemiological studies quite often get confused for actual scientific proof, but I think Glenn understands that evidence needs corroboration. How do I know this? Because he has repeated this sentiment on his show time after time and when he presents an argument, he is rarely challenged with actual contradictory evidence.

    Glenn is different than most talking heads because he maps out the whole big picture and while this big picture may not always match reality it is usually close. Glenn tells people right up front what he is doing when he does this so if you think he is lying then please point out how.

    Here is the final issue people have with Glenn Beck. People think that because so many "redneck" gun / bible type people enjoy his show that they are probably taking away the wrong message, that they are too stupid to draw any meaningful conclusions and rather just walk away with a lot of fear inspiring rhetoric. To those people I say GROW THE FUCK UP. Here is a good test of that theory. Is it okay to assume any other group of people are that ignorant as a whole population? Would you say that about Black people? Mexican people? Gay people? Finnish people? Polish people? Italian people? Chinese people? Russian people? If you are consistent, you should, because all of those people can very easily be "rednecks". "Redneck" is a pejorative term used by people who often strongly denounce the use of pejorative terms.

    One final note. Just because Glenn Beck doesn't ACT like an intellectual what with his TV antics, that doesn't mean he is not intelligent.

  • Mosquevite Sandwich||

    El Duderino, well said. You are precisely the reason I'm glad Beck is on the airwaves. Please see post above. At the very least Beck has given a lot of libertarians exposure. Just this morning I watched Donna Brazile say that the government shouldn't "give" rich people billions of dollars. I guess since Kruggie wasn't at the "round table," she was just regurgitating his column chastizing the notion of the government "cutting checks" to rich people. This type of ideology is far more troubling than Beck cryin' about a return to Jaysus.

    I'll add another thing: The same fucktards that want to assign responsiblity to the words of Glenn Beck, or Limbaugh, or Malik Zulu Shabazz, or Keith Olbermann, or any public figure for other people's behavior and specific actions, are the same dipshits that think guns kill people rather than people kill people.

  • ||

    "I'll add another thing: The same fucktards that want to assign responsiblity to the words of Glenn Beck, or Limbaugh, or Malik Zulu Shabazz, or Keith Olbermann, or any public figure for other people's behavior and specific actions, are the same dipshits that think guns kill people rather than people kill people."

    I agree with this. I cant count how many times I have heard people say some variation of the analogy of "yelling fire in a crowded theater". My biggest concern is that I will one day be in an actual burning theater and someone will not yell fire because they are afraid of getting arrested. The problem with this sort of equivalency is that it is not equal. "Yelling fire" is considered dangerous because it could incite panic. Panic is dangerous because it causes people to trample each other as they try to exit the theater. How does this relate to a TV talk show host? Are people trampling each other to exit their own homes? No, there is no immediate perception of physical danger that is causing people to act irrationally, therefore, if a person takes action based on comments made on TV, then they are premeditated actions and therefore their own personal responsibility. Furthermore, I dont really even buy the "yelling fire" concept. If someone did yell fire in a theater, do you honestly think people would just jump up and run for the door without any evidence of a fire? Based on previous movie theater experiences, I would say that many people would begin looking around and when they done see fire or smell smoke, they will tell the jackass to shut up so they can watch their favorite movie stars do their thing since they paid good money for the tickets.

    In order for the "yelling fire" concept to even apply is if Glenn said hey El Duderino, yes you, we know for a fact that your house is on fire get at all costs, including trampling family members and pets. And even still, it is up to me to get take Glenn's word for it or investigate the possibility of a fire.

  • D. Aristophanes||

    On your first point - so I take it you're for TARP and other corporate bailouts?

    On your second point - would you assign any responsibility for the Rwanda genocide to Radio Rwanda broadcasts?

  • Mosquevite Sandwich||

    First point. Of course not, you're talking apples and oranges. Krugman and Brazile were referring to income taxes. Equating taking a smaller percentage of future incomes of Americans as the same as "cutting a check" to them is absurd. And there is no "giving" involved. Only less taking. The bailouts were bullshit.

    2nd. I know very little of Rwanda's laws or history. Nor was I talking about Rwanda. But if someone here in this country advocated homocide on the radio, and someone or some people committed homocide, I wouldn't hold the moron on the radio responsible for the other's actions.

  • D. Aristophanes||

    First point - I agree that 'cutting a check' is a dumb and inaccurate formulation, given that it's about income taxes.

    Second point - I know you weren't talking about Rwanda. Nor am I saying that whatever consequences people ascribe to Beck/Olbermann/Shabazz/Limbaugh's words are nearly equivalent (in stridency or effect) to the Radio Rwanda broadcasts (which encouraged Hutus to kill 'vermin' Tutsis and some 'collaborationist' Hutus). But I use the example to illustrate that it is *possible* that publicly broadcast violent rhetoric can help initiate actual violent deeds.

    You seem to not acknowledge that, or at least to absolve the rhetorical perpetrators of the predictable consequences of their actions.

  • ||

    If someone broadcast a message telling YOU to kill someone would you?

    If you answer yes, do us all a favor and have yourself committed to the Drooling Acadamy ASAP.

    If you answer no, then why do you assume everyone else in the world is dumber and less capable of reason than you are. Nobody kills because they hear it on the radio. People are responsible for their own actions. Genocides dont happen because the radio personality asks for it to happen there are a lot of other social, political and economic influences that drive those sorts of events. THe radio personalities yelling "kill" are like the football fans yelling "defense" just as the coach is lining up the defensive team.

    Finally, please point out what it is Glenn is saying that you think is so dangerous. He has repeatedly promoted NON-VIOLENCE. The 828 rally was a fucking CHURCH PICNIC without the bad potato salad and flat soda. People that are afraid he is stirring up violence are more afraid of the message than they are of violence.

  • ||

    All I know is that the left and the MSM hate Beck which is a mark in his favor. The few times I have watched his show he has said nothing that I or any other libertarian wouldn't agree with. I am sure that is not the case with every show but so what?

    Also, I would like to thank Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs for getting me to sample Beck. I always thought Beck was a bit loony but when Johnson went off the deep end in the first, big, slow-motion mental breakdown on the internet he named Beck as one of his imaginary, fascist enemies which made me curious to see for myself. Thanks Charles! BTW, did you ever find out who took the strawberries?

  • ||

    Beck makes me think it might finally be possible to one day have a government that is NOT interested in "solving problems", but instead, just being the administrators of the government to ensure it is able to protect our individual liberty.

    Being a politician regardless of whether you are a senator, mayor, or POTUS, should be about the same as doing JURY DUTY. The job should suck and the money should be even worse than suck.

    Too many politicians are trying to slay dragons. They ride in on white horses and without any sense of irony, they declare war on the dragon they themselves let out.

    I want to see stories in the news of politicians who lost all of their fortunes while they were in service of the US government and then a bunch of generous citizens come in to help them with their bills.

  • ||

    Urbanites consistently confuse concrete blocks with cinder blocks. Cinder blocks were made of slag, had inconsistent density, were very light weight, and had to be painted to prevent rust. Nobody uses them anymore, and no backwoods hick would support a car on them. If you're not careful in your insulting characterizations, you come off looking like the dumb one. Just a note for future reference. Could save you a few teeth where I live.

  • ||

    Important distinction noted. Only a total asshole would support a car with cinder blocks.

  • ||

    Anyone who tries to sell me the cops are heroes bullshit can suck a dick.

    ...

    Wow.

    So um, are you out on bail?

  • ||

    "Beck had never heard of Woodrow Wilson, yet now he has figured out that Woodrow Wilson was one of the most evil people of the 20th century... he’s right about Woodrow Wilson."

    Two problems with this statement.

    1) Woodrow Wilson as one of the most evil people of the 20th century is insane. The 20th century was the century of Hitler and Stalin. Sure, Wilson did some bad things on race, and libertarians can choose to hate him for the Fed. But even if you hate the Fed, it's not "evil."

    2) Going from "I just learned about Wilson and now I hate him" is irrational hatred, ignoring any shades of gray. And it's irresponsible to go on TV and say you hate something without being well informed about it.

    In general, this looks like a symptom of Beck's knee-jerk disdain for education and government. "A liberal U.S. president that was once an Ivy League school president? I would like to hate that person, and I am glad that libertarianism gives me a good excuse."

  • ||

    If Beck "just learned" about Wilson how can you say he is not well informed?

    Do you honestly believe Beck thinks Woodrow Wilson is worse than Hitler and Stalin? If so, have you not seen his hour long documentary about these dictators and others like them? Do you honestly not see that Beck outlines the "gray areas" regarding Wilson, but points out that he is an "evil SOB" because he was openly racist and because of his progressive policies?

    Beck doesnt have a knee jerk disdain for education, in fact, he is disdainful of people who think they are smarter than the regular Joe Americans. How do you come to the conclusion that he is anti education when he openly promotes the following values:

    Read primary sources
    Read both sides of an issue
    Question everything, even God
    Question your teachers and professors

    Oh yeah, I can see how these things could be anti education. Nobody ever learned anything important doing these things.

    Finally, I dont think you really understand what evil is.

    Here are three definitions of evil, please tell me which ones DO NOT apply to the FED:

    1. That which causes harm or destruction or misfortune.

    2. The quality of being morally wrong in principal or practice.

    3. Morally objectionable behavior.

    The FED, at the very minimum, manipulates the free market by adjusting interest rates in an effort to attenuate the natural boom and bust cycle. The FED creates or unnecessarily enhances market bubbles and when those bubbles pop despite the FEDs efforts to prevent it the burst is considerably worse than it should have been. When the economy is in a recession, the FED PROMOTES irresponsible borrowing by lowering rates and when the economy picks up, the FED raises the rates causing the people who shouldnt have borrowed in the first place to miss payments or default. This is just a taste of how the FED is morally wrong (evil).

    I think that some people want to hate Beck and use libertarianism as an excuse to deride him.

    If you are a true libertarian, then you have to accept Beck because for all his bluster and noise, he has been consistently pro individual liberty and pro small government. If I am wrong, then maybe its because I didn't yet find the blog post on Reason.com that talks about how true libertarians cannot say what they think with a thick lathering of showmanship or that they cant be religious or that they cant be personally against things like drinking and porn.

    I'm sorry, but if you became a libertarian just so you can smoke pot and butt fuck people with a certain sense of self righteousness then perhaps you haven't really thought it through very well, maybe you should just become a liberal.

  • D. Aristophanes||

    Mr. Cavanaugh - normally I find post-modern hipster contrarianism for it's own sake a wonderful thing ... if you'd written this fluff job about an ill-informed paranoid blowhard a year ago, I'd be saluting you.

    But these days it seems like ironically liking Glenn Beck is getting a little too popular, so now I just think you're a too-clever-by-half sack of shit.

  • ||

    If your not being constructive, then you are being useless.

    I wasted time reading your post, but I suspect you wasted even more time writing it.

  • D. Aristophanes||

    'If your not being constructive, then you are being useless.'

    I'd argue you'd have to include at least a third possibility - destructive. Also, pedantic, but that's another kettle of fish.

    Attempting to be constructive - Cavanaugh likes Beck 'because he's fun to watch', which is Cavanaugh's prerogative.

    He is on shakier ground when he attempts to divine 'the real reason' he and his 'fellow coastal elites are wary of Glenn Beck ... He’s the fat kid you don’t want to be seen with at the lunch table.'

    Or some people may be wary of Beck because he's dead wrong about lots of things and misinforms the public daily of same.

  • ||

    "Or some people may be wary of Beck because he's dead wrong about lots of things and misinforms the public daily of same."

    He may not always be right, but I would really like a list of the misinformation he has provided. You see, its not enough to just SAY he is misinforming people every day, thats the type of thing you have to prove or you lose all credibility. I have been waiting patiently for any sort of sweeping reprisal of Mr. Beck on any news source out there, but all I ever see are unsubstantiated complaints. Whining about things stopped working for me when i was about 5 years old.

    And just as a test to see what you might be afraid of, try saying the following aloud as you read it:

    God is love
    God gives us our liberty

    or

    Liberty comes from my humanity alone
    Humanity benefits from my kindness towards others.

    If you had a hard time saying the first two phrases out loud, then you have some sort of issue with religion. Are you that unsure of your beliefs that you cant comfortably say God in a sentence that doesnt end in damn?

    If you were more comfortable with the last two phrases, just know they are the same thing as the first two, minus the word "god". If you are comfortable with these phrases, you can use them instead of God, but that is basically how Glenn describes natual liberty.

    If his message makes you uncomfortable, then consider how that might impact your reaction to the information. Its perfectly natural for people to be uncomfortable with information delivered to them in a language they are not completely comfortable with.

  • ||

    Americans need to wake up the fact that Beck is simply another opinion pushing charlatan who is a
    product of mormon cult theology and he mixes this with his personal make up as a dry alcoholic. He
    does not possess a single ounce of journalistic integrity, has no college degree, has no qualifications
    and he is definitely not a true conservative. But then, what can anyone expect from someone who can't
    find anything filthier than their own personal reflection. Since people like Beck cannot survive on the
    basis of any personal merits, they survive by putting others down with lies and half truths in order to
    feel good about themselves. The truth about Beck is that he a dry mormon alcoholic who never got the
    counseling required for alcoholics. He flippantly throws around Christian terms like "God",
    "Jesus","Holy Spirit" as well as voices of other so called "Spirit Powers" on his radio talk show. Beck
    is a mormon in active standing with the mormon church and is not a Christian. Mormonism teaches many gods, that the god of the earth was once a man who attained godhood status, there is no trinity, the cross of Christ means nothing and that Jesus Christ and Satan were brothers. Because Beck does not
    possess a single ounce of journalistic integrity, he is the perfect abortion poster child for Fox
    Network. The people who love what Beck says are no different than the impressionable sheep who loved every speech made by Adolph Hitler in his early years when he brought Germany into an era of economic prosperity These same sheep also blindly followed Hitler into one of the darkest chapters of world history. Beck and the Fox Network both cater to the same lowest common denominator of demagogery. Beck would not know the first thing about God as he is a mormon. Someone should ask him which of the many mormon gods he kept talking about during his argument with himself on Saturday on the square in DC. Like a typical dry alcoholic, Beck even lied on national television when he spoke about holding a document signed by George Washington. That event never took Place. Unfortunately, people who love being led around by the nose do not realize that he is talking about a different god than that of Christianity, Judaism or Islam and that he has been a product of mormonism cultism from the day he started doing a radio talk show as an opinion pusher. You don't have to have a degree in psychology to see that he exhibits all the signs of a dry alcoholic. The only reason this unstable impressionable idiot fell into mormonism was because the woman he wanted to have sex with would not do so unless they got first got married and from that point, they joined the mormon cult. Glenn Beck is as big a charlatan as Josephs Smith or the 5th grade graduate (Charles T Russel) who started the Jehovah's Witness cult.

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