It happened again on Tuesday night. I couldn't go to sleep. When that happens, I tend to get up and flip around the dial and search for something that will make me doze.
Ah, Glenn Beck's 2 a.m. rebroadcast. That always works.
Tuesday's show was particularly odd. He had some tape of Steven Lerner, a former union (SEIU) leader, spouting about how bad things were in this country and that we needed to essentially blow up the system and start over. The way to do that, he claimed, was to urge people not to pay their mortgages -- particularly if they were affiliated with JP Morgan Chase.
Hearing this guy actually brought back memories. When I was in college in the Seventies, there were always left-wing newspapers floating around campus, preaching something close to economic revolution. No one took them seriously.
Then Beck had a clip of Barack Obama addresses a SEIU meeting at some point, saying that he stood with the union. From there it was on to a recap of facts, with our host saying that Lerner wanted to practice economic terrorism, was a former union leader, and had actually been in the White House a few times.
So reviewing here:
1. One former union member preaches some silly economic tactic, and everyone in SEIU will follow it.
2. Since Obama has worked with SEIU, and Lerner used to be a member, there's an obvious connection between the two men.
3. President Obama is responsible for making sure absolutely no radicals set foot in the White House grounds, which I guess means we soon will be giving loyalty tests to anyone who shows up for a tour.
Remember when Sarah Palin thought that since Obama and William Ayers were on the same college faculty and had run into each other a few times, Ayers was obviously successfully spreading his evil world view to Obama? That type of thinking is alive and well.
Tell me again why this guy draws five million TV viewers.
Unless they need the sleep.
Showing posts with label Glenn Beck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Glenn Beck. Show all posts
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Guilt by association
I couldn't go right to sleep the other night, and wound up turning on the television a little after 2 a.m. Trust me on this, there is very little on television at that hour unless you like informericals.
So in looking for something to put me to sleep, I tuned in during the Glenn Beck show on Fox News. The few times I've watched him in the past, I've become quickly bored with his chalkboard and rhetoric and moved on. But without much choice, I hung around for a couple of minutes.
What I saw was interesting, in a bizarre sort of way. Beck was talking about some guy from 100 years ago who advocated eugenics -- "thinning the herd" when it came to the human species. I forget the name of the scientist -- it was late -- but the basic idea was to essentially get rid of the weak links. We'd be better off to stick to the strong and smart and weed out the others, he argued.
The scientist in question wrote then ex-President Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, who wrote back a letter of support for the idea. Teddy wasn't alone in his support; the idea was actually backed by people ranging from Woodrow Wilson to Margaret Sanger.
From there, Beck pointed out that one of the most admired people by the progressives of today -- including someone like Hillary Clinton -- is Teddy Roosevelt. The implication, of course, is that Clinton wants to follow Teddy's example in everything, including this.
So if I'm listening correctly, if I admire most of Roosevelt's actions and beliefs -- particularly for the time when he was arrive -- I have to go along with every single one of them. If I think Thomas Jefferson was one of the intellectual lights of the American Revolution, then I have to be in favor of slavery.
That's rather intellectually dishonest. Remind me why five million people watch that level of thinking every night.
Me, I hit the off button and went to bed.
So in looking for something to put me to sleep, I tuned in during the Glenn Beck show on Fox News. The few times I've watched him in the past, I've become quickly bored with his chalkboard and rhetoric and moved on. But without much choice, I hung around for a couple of minutes.
What I saw was interesting, in a bizarre sort of way. Beck was talking about some guy from 100 years ago who advocated eugenics -- "thinning the herd" when it came to the human species. I forget the name of the scientist -- it was late -- but the basic idea was to essentially get rid of the weak links. We'd be better off to stick to the strong and smart and weed out the others, he argued.
The scientist in question wrote then ex-President Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, who wrote back a letter of support for the idea. Teddy wasn't alone in his support; the idea was actually backed by people ranging from Woodrow Wilson to Margaret Sanger.
From there, Beck pointed out that one of the most admired people by the progressives of today -- including someone like Hillary Clinton -- is Teddy Roosevelt. The implication, of course, is that Clinton wants to follow Teddy's example in everything, including this.
So if I'm listening correctly, if I admire most of Roosevelt's actions and beliefs -- particularly for the time when he was arrive -- I have to go along with every single one of them. If I think Thomas Jefferson was one of the intellectual lights of the American Revolution, then I have to be in favor of slavery.
That's rather intellectually dishonest. Remind me why five million people watch that level of thinking every night.
Me, I hit the off button and went to bed.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
One taste was enough
Curiosity got the better of me the last couple of nights. I've been hearing a lot about Glenn Beck in the last few months, mostly in a bad sense. I did read a profile in Time magazine for background information. When I was up at 2 a.m., he popped up on a re-run on Fox News.
Beck usually is quoted as saying something really odd, such as that President Obama's henchmen were going to be coming for him in the near future. Still, there's nothing like seeing him in his own element.
It took about four minutes for me to get annoyed. Beck made the statement that he was not a journalist, and "wore that fact as a badge of honor." Hmmm. Collecting the facts and informing the public always struck me as something of a noble profession, even if the bearers of bad tidings aren't always popular. Wonder how he gets his news?
One night Beck used a headline on economic indicators from the New York Times as a launching point for a rant. The headline was something like "Why so glum? Economy shows strong growth." Which, according to everything I've seen is true. You may argue that it's propped up by government spending, and I'd argue that it is what most people want about now.
Good indicators don't match gloom-and-doom message, so Beck launched an attack ... on the New York Times. If things are so good, why is the New York Times laying off people, he argued. I'm not going to say this is a great time for newspapers, but that industry is a little small to be called representative of When the facts get in the way, attack the messenger.
Then today, Newsweek came out with a commentary saying the economy was rebounding in impressive fashion. This was written off as another example of "Obama-media." (In fairness, the Fox News host did complain about a picture layout in that article with him under Father Coughlin, which might have been over the line for the magazine).
Beck also showed a clip of Ben Bernanke from early in 2007, saying he expected good growth through the summer and fall. Beck made fun of that prediction; the problem is that, while it's difficult to say when exactly the recession began, it very well could have been very late in 2007. So in other words, Bernanke may have been right.
Click. New channel.
I realize that Beck has an interest in telling people that disaster is right around the corner. More gloom and doom builds ratings and fires up the audience.
It doesn't mean I have to watch, though.
Beck usually is quoted as saying something really odd, such as that President Obama's henchmen were going to be coming for him in the near future. Still, there's nothing like seeing him in his own element.
It took about four minutes for me to get annoyed. Beck made the statement that he was not a journalist, and "wore that fact as a badge of honor." Hmmm. Collecting the facts and informing the public always struck me as something of a noble profession, even if the bearers of bad tidings aren't always popular. Wonder how he gets his news?
One night Beck used a headline on economic indicators from the New York Times as a launching point for a rant. The headline was something like "Why so glum? Economy shows strong growth." Which, according to everything I've seen is true. You may argue that it's propped up by government spending, and I'd argue that it is what most people want about now.
Good indicators don't match gloom-and-doom message, so Beck launched an attack ... on the New York Times. If things are so good, why is the New York Times laying off people, he argued. I'm not going to say this is a great time for newspapers, but that industry is a little small to be called representative of When the facts get in the way, attack the messenger.
Then today, Newsweek came out with a commentary saying the economy was rebounding in impressive fashion. This was written off as another example of "Obama-media." (In fairness, the Fox News host did complain about a picture layout in that article with him under Father Coughlin, which might have been over the line for the magazine).
Beck also showed a clip of Ben Bernanke from early in 2007, saying he expected good growth through the summer and fall. Beck made fun of that prediction; the problem is that, while it's difficult to say when exactly the recession began, it very well could have been very late in 2007. So in other words, Bernanke may have been right.
Click. New channel.
I realize that Beck has an interest in telling people that disaster is right around the corner. More gloom and doom builds ratings and fires up the audience.
It doesn't mean I have to watch, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)