Why I hate Glenn Beck

Even though I had no idea who Glenn Beck was, I had a feeling I would hate his show as soon as CNN started advertising for it. Call it a bad vibe, or a premonition, or just the fact that something about the short clips in the ads struck me as worthless. But it would be unfair to actually dismiss it without viewing his show, right? So I did watch his show, and as I expected, I hated it. But why? I suppose it could be his particular views, but I’ve known plenty of people with views like that in real-life, and I got along with them.

So what was it about his show that pissed me off and made me hate it? Curious, I tried watching a second show. Once again, I hated it. What’s more, I even started hating the commercials themselves, and even any mention of his show. When the vapid news anchors started spouting ads for his show at every turn, it set my teeth on edge. “Watch the Glenn Beck show for his unique take on current events”, they would say.

“Unique take”, eh? I heard that phrase a few times and I think I figured out why I hate his show. When I watch regular news, I want to see information I would not be able to easily get on my own, or that I wouldn’t bother seeking out. Or I want to see footage from foreign correspondents who are on the scene and can show me things that I obviously couldn’t see on my own. When I read Businessweek Magazine, I’m expecting them to offer insights and information that are new and interesting, and which I couldn’t pick up casually if I hadn’t read it there.

But what does Glenn Beck’s “unique take” on life offer? That’s the problem: there’s nothing “unique” about it at all. Instead, he offers the same kind of useless half-assed unresearched blue-collar opinions that I heard countless times at the cafeteria table when I used to work in tool-and-die shops. In short, there are millions of Glenn Becks out there; he represents the voice of the Guy In Overalls. But I’ve worked with plenty of guys in overalls; I don’t see any fucking reason to turn on CNN to watch a whole show devoted to one particular example of the breed. He doesn’t offer any special background or knowledge to offer any particular insight into the news, and he doesn’t offer news itself. All he offers is the opinion of the Guy In Overalls demographic, and that is anything but unique.

You know, you can call me an elitist, but I figure that if some guy gets a national TV show to discuss current events, he should be able to offer some special credentials to make his opinion more interesting or well-informed than mine. Otherwise, why should I watch it? To hear the kind of half-assed knee-jerk opinions that I could easily get from my mailman? No thanks. There’s something wrong with news channels when guys get TV shows precisely because they don’t have any special background by education or experience to cover the news. Of course, there’s also Glenn Beck’s belief that he’s genuinely funny; that’s yet another thing he shares with far too many guys in overalls.


EDIT: Today is September 13 2009. It has been three years since I wrote the above post. Interestingly, I notice that criticism tends to be what conservatives would call “politically correct” complaints about my lack of respect for people who aren’t qualified experts in a field, as compared to people who are. It’s not that I think they necessarily know nothing, but blue-collar workers should stick to pontificating on subjects they are qualified in; if I want to know which type of cutter to use when milling Stavax tool steel, I won’t hesitate to ask a milling machine operator. But they should quite frankly shut up when they feel the urge to explain why all the experts are wrong about some subject outside their particular oily expertise. And yes, I do think that people who can’t do calculus are not as smart as people who can. Boo hoo.

According to FOXNews’ commentators who defend knuckle-draggers like Joe The Plumber (and ironically love to use the term “politically correct” on others), it is wrong to treat uneducated people any differently than educated people. Of course, no rational argument can be advanced for this position, so the critics tend to use the tactic of moral righteousness: my statements about uneducated people must mean that I’m a terrible person, a sad person, an angry person, a hostile person, a vicious person, etc. It doesn’t even matter whether a statement is true; according to the thought police, the truth or untruth of the statement has nothing to do with the question of whether I should dare say it. Welcome to the idiocracy.

This entry was posted in Mike's Rambling Blog. Bookmark the permalink.

260 Responses to Why I hate Glenn Beck

  1. Formless says:

    What is there to understand? Obviously nothing, or else you would TELL me what it is I’m missing. See, that’s what intelligent people do, they EXPLAIN themselves rather than spewing vacuous bluster that boils down to “I’m so much better than everyone else that I don’t have to communicate properly! Yay me!”

    Yes, yay you for proving you do not have an open mind because you won’t even READ criticism before you decide its foolish. Who is the more brainwashed: Mike, who takes the time to comprehend what his critics are saying and respond to them with reasoned counter criticism? Or you, somone won’t even read what people are saying, but is nonetheless convinced that his preconceived notions are correct and that everyone who says something to the contrary is stupid?

    See, unlike you, some of us would rather lose a little dignity debunking the foolishness others spout in the hopes that the fence sitters will see it and make up their minds. Idiocy, like evil, triumphs when intelligent people do nothing to stop it from spreading.

    Of course, all these things will be lost on you because apparently there is something I don’t understand, but you refuse to explain. What arrogant tripe.

    PS. No one wants to talk about linux in a thread about Glenn Beck. Trying to save face by changing the subject only works in face to face conversations, not online.

  2. winnie says:

    I am surprised that a Canadian is SO concerned about us. If American healthcare is so important to you, then I will round up 5 or 6 people who do not have health insurance and you can subsidize them. That would be putting your money where your mouth is. A majority of us Americans are happy with our health insurance and a majority of those who are not, are not for this socialized medicine plan. We do not want the government involved in any part of it other than tort reform to get rid of the scumbag trial lawyers, like all those in our congress and possibly creating a framework for private health savings accounts. I feel like you are a frog who has jumped in boiling water, hasn’t died yet, but sees his fate on the horizon and you are calling out to all the other frogs screaming, “Come on in! The water is great and there is more than enough room for everyone.”

  3. Formless says:

    He is concerned because, unlike so many of our own citizens (you), he actually cares about the suffering of his fellow human beings, regardless of what country they live in. Just like why people donate money to disaster relief efforts in places like Haiti.

    And please stop asserting that you know what the rest of America wants. Clearly, we would not have elected a president like Obama who campaigned so heavily on health care reform if we were as happy as you are with our current system. You rant so much about how you don’t want it, but has it ever occurred to you that no one cares? The facts stand: our country spends ludicrously more on health insurance than almost any other first world country, we rarely go to the doctor, and our life expectancy is below average * . At this point, I could not care any less if you are happy with your health insurance, could not care less how much Rugged Individualist rhetoric you can spout: this has to happen. The only reason you are happy with it is because you have never experienced any other way of doing things. You don’t want the government involved? Tough luck. At this rate almost anything would be a step up from what we have.

    * see http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2010/01/13/look-how-much-more-the-us-spends-on-health-care-than-anyplace-else/ or (if the graph in that one is too hard to understand) http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/healthcare_spen.html for more details. The evidence is damning and readily available. I don’t know why this is even up for debate, but trust the Right in this country to blow things out of proportion in the name of money.

  4. winnie says:

    It may be hard for you to understand, but even Obama will concede in his state of the union that it is not the will of the people to have government run healthcare. Now we will step back and be reasonable in our bipartisan legislation, just like Obama promised while he campaigned. We will look at tort reform to limit the role of the scumbag trial lawyers who make our healthcare so “unaffordable” and perhaps if private healthcare savings accounts are established and create a tax savings, Americans like that, then people can begin to learn to take more responsibility for themselves. Big government is going to take a huge hit next election.

  5. winnie says:

    It’s those pesky independants. They hate healthcare. Damn free thinkers gumming up our two party system!

  6. Formless says:

    I’m an independent, FYI. Okay, technically I’m a registered Green, but that’s a pragmatic choice. Besides, in this country being part of a third party means you might as well count as an independent.

    And I don’t think you quite grasp just how much tort reform is meaningless as long as the insurance companies are in the loop here. Their entire business model depends on them turning away as many people as they can get away with, since every patient they have to pay for is money they don’t get to spend on vacationing in Hawaii and the Caribbean. Think about it: Why don’t you trust the government to run health care? I put it to you that every reason you can name applies to corporations in spades. Inefficient Bureaucracy, corruption, you name it. Think “Enron.”

    This isn’t just about the price of health care, although that is part of it: this is about having a physically healthier society. Do you know what responsibility is, winnie? We have a responsibility to give back to society. We have a responsibility to uphold both the rights of others and our duties to them as fellow human beings. You are right when you say that health care is not a right. It is our duty to provide it. A duty we are neglecting, because we’re too selfish to get past the “I’m personally covered, its everyone else that needs to learn a little responsibility.” The way you use that word it sounds like you are trying to avoid taking any responsibility at all.

    And by the way, just because president Obama lacks the courage to stick it to the Right (you know, just like Bush was willing to stick it to the Left, the constitution, the rest of the world, etc.?) doesn’t invalidate anything myself, Mike, and countless others have said on this subject, nor does it justify your personal apathy. Frankly, all you have proven is that our leadership is so committed to compromising with the corporate misers on the Right that they will compromise away any sort of actual reform or change. That’s not bipartisan, that’s not even reasonable.

    P.S. when you say “Big government is going to take a huge hit next election.” do you mean the republican’s will lose next term? Oh, that’s right, when its a Republican expanding the role of the Government suddenly its all flags and patriotism and “we’re so great we invented Freedom!” Never mind then.

  7. Mike says:

    Isn’t it funny how, when conservatives use the word “responsibility”, they actually mean that they want to shirk all of their moral responsibilities, by refusing to help those in need?

  8. Winnie says:

    It is funny how liberals can’t accept the term PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and confuse it with moral? responsibility.

  9. Mike says:

    Personal responsibility and moral responsibility are one and the same, you stupid cow. How can they be different? Are you not responsible for your own morality?

    This is precisely what’s wrong with people like you.

  10. Winnie says:

    Nice, we went right to stupid cow. Shows why your points are being rejected by the majority so handily. You can’t make a valid argument so you decay to idiot mentality. You show your ignorance and bitterness which highlights the weakness of your mind and argument. It is funny. Thank you for a good chuckle!

  11. Winnie says:

    It has been delightful. I will now sign off now with kudos to you for beating your head against the largest brick wall in existance with rabid fervor and brutal determination. Keep pounding wonderboy and one day you may see the daylight. I wish you well, my friend.

  12. Mike says:

    How typical. I point out a monstrous flaw in your argument and you respond by complaining about my rudeness and then attempting to drown me in superciliousness. Nice dodge.

    So sorry to be rude, but I’m just calling a spade a spade, and you are being a stupid cow when you say that personal responsibility has nothing to do with moral responsibility. It has everything to do with moral responsibility. In fact, the entire concept of responsibility is based on morality: something you would understand if you had more than two brain cells to rub together. What do you think “responsibility” means? Where do you think it comes from? It is intrinsically a morality-based term.

    You are merely engaging in the political correctness of the Right: in your mind, no one should ever be allowed to call out your stupidity for what it is. In right-wing land, you can call people Nazis, you can call them evil, you can say they have no “values”, you can accuse them of “palling around” with terrorists or criminals just because they think they should get due process, you can call them “baby killers” because they support abortion rights, but you can never call someone “stupid”.

  13. Formless says:

    It is indeed a hypocritical world they live in, where its okay to insult someone through a vapid, wordy metaphore involving frogs, but the instant someone insults them up front and in no uncertain terms they start whining about politeness.

  14. Funny says:

    A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
    A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.
    So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

    They claim 700,000 vehicles so that’s 224 million gallons saved per year.
    That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

    5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

    More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

    So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

    We spent $8.57 for every dollar saved.

    I’m pretty sure they will do a great job with health care though…

  15. LOL says:

    Isnt funny liberals are always generous with everyones money but their own?

  16. Mike says:

    I guess it didn’t occur to you two geniuses that the cash for clunkers program was mostly intended to boost demand for new cars and reduce the pollution from old decrepit cars which have horrible emissions.

    As for liberals being generous with other peoples’ money, that’s actually a right-wing idea. Right-wingers love to reduce taxes on themselves (George W. Bush’s first big tax cut was specifically aimed at people who stood to inherit large fortunes from wealthy parents) while foisting the burden onto somebody else (specifically, future generations).

    Conservatives love to bash the idea of “tax and spend”, but if you look through the last 30 years, you can see that the conservative alternative is to “borrow and spend”, even in times of prosperity when such behaviour is completely unnecessary. But hey, you have your one-line slogans and that’s really all you need, right? It’s about the maximum level of thinking you’re capable of.

  17. Duh says:

    Nice how you didnt tackle any of those facts. Thought that was your motto?
    We spent $8.57 for every dollar saved. oh wait that doesnt matter we cant find a better way to reduce emissions…

    PS Republicans SUCK, Democrats SUCK and PROGRESSIVES REALLY SUCK. I am for people that are Dumb like ME and think spending over 8$ to save one is IDIOTIC…

  18. Mike says:

    I did “tackle” that fact, by pointing out that “Cash for Clunkers” was never intended to be a net cost savings program, so it’s utterly pointless to judge it as one.

    You must be a loyal Glenn Beck listener. Only a Glenn Beck fan could be so mutton-headed as to think some kind of devastating point was scored by pretending that “Cash for Clunkers” was designed as a government cost savings program rather than an environmental mitigation and automotive industry boost program. Worse yet, when someone pointed out this glaring flaw in the argument, you were so utterly clueless that you couldn’t understand the rebuttal, so you triumphantly claimed that the argument had not been refuted! You remind me of the people who make idiotic arguments against evolution, don’t understand the rebuttals at all, and then cry victory because the “evolutionists” dodged the point.

    Tell me, are you honestly this stupid, or are you trying to be an imbecile? Is English your second language? Is your brainpower so limited that you can’t comprehend this? Is this an argument that Glenn Beck made on his show, hence you figure it must be sound when you mindlessly repeat it to others or defend it in this manner?

  19. Mike says:

    Starting in the 1960s, the original neoconservative critics such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan expressed distress about the breakdown of inner-city families, only to be maligned as racist and ignored for decades — until appalling statistics forced critics to recognize their views as relevant. Long-standing conservative concerns over the perils of long-term welfare dependency were similarly villainized as insincere and mean-spirited — until public opinion insisted they be addressed by a Democratic president and a Republican Congress in the 1996 welfare reform law. But in the meantime, welfare policies that discouraged work, marriage and the development of skills remained in place, with devastating effects.

    Ignoring conservative cautions and insights is no less costly today. Some observers have decried an anti-intellectual strain in contemporary conservatism, detected in George W. Bush’s aw-shucks style, Sarah Palin’s college-hopping and the occasional conservative campaigns against egghead intellectuals. But alongside that, the fact is that conservative-leaning scholars, economists, jurists and legal theorists have never produced as much detailed analysis and commentary on American life and policy as they do today.

    Perhaps the most important conservative insight being depreciated is the durable warning from free-marketeers that government programs often fail to yield what their architects intend. Democrats have been busy expanding, enacting or proposing major state interventions in financial markets, energy and health care. Supporters of such efforts want to ensure that key decisions will be made in the public interest and be informed, for example, by sound science, the best new medical research or prudent standards of private-sector competition. But public-choice economists have long warned that when decisions are made in large, centralized government programs, political priorities almost always trump other goals.

    Even liberals should think twice about the prospect of decisions on innovative surgeries, light bulbs and carbon quotas being directed by legislators grandstanding for the cameras. Of course, thinking twice would be easier if more of them were listening to conservatives at all.

  20. kinderegg says:

    Mike, like the website, like the rants. Economists will be quick to remark that the private sector is “smart” wereas the public sector is “stupid”. So why has the “smart” private sector had to resort to bailouts from the “stupid” public sector? Why do we all pay for our private sector healthcare when nations with public sector health care pay far less and enjoy better overall health? Can we both agree no program public or private is free of corruption or idiocy trumping its goals.
    Cash for clunkers is a perfect example of this; I don’t have exact numbers but many many working vehicles were junked with complete disregard. If reducing CO2 is the goal it could be proclaimed a failure if the CO2 that went into the creation of the new vehicles and the CO2 from the disposal of the old vehicles were to be factored in. Lets call a spade a spade and say it was aimed at stimulating american car producers, well the facts show more foreign vehicles were bought with the program then american ones. Overall the program could be called a failure anyway you slice it.
    Could the public sector do better? Look at GM and say they could with a straight face. Bottom line the public sector should be stepping in earlier to stop private sector malpractice with regulation. Look at the subprime loans people were given during the go-go real estate boom of the Bush years. We can’t expect the private sector to have the forthought not to shoot itself in the foot like that. Sadly the majority of people in this country (the USA, I understand you are Canadian) believe government involvment constitutes socialism or communism both of which equal bad in their minds because the Nazis were socialists and the Ruskis were communists. Its always easier to call someone a name then to actually pick apart their argument.
    This is why I hate Glenn Beck and all pundits on both sides. They reduce complex issues into sound bites. They push agendas. They pass of this watered down spin as facts, assuring you they’re opinions are held by the majority and are on the side of whats right. People latch on to them. To all the Glen Beck supporters you are entitled to your opinions but please look outside of one persons take on what he believes to be reality. If you don’t believe me buy some gold something Glen Beck tells you to do because he has many sponsors that sell gold which is at a primium right now and is sold for a 30% markup. Then when it goes down when the Euro stablizes tell me who is the communist is and the socialist is and who is stupid.

  21. Mike says:

    You’re forgetting that old cars pump out a lot of serious pollution of other kinds, not just CO2. It’s actually been estimated that 90% of the car pollutants are produced by 10% of the cars, ie- the oldest ones. It’s because they’re not running well; they’re burning oil, their catalytic converters are toast, etc. The fact that they’re still working doesn’t change that.

    In any case, I can agree that “Cash for Clunkers” might have been better received if it only applied to domestic automakers, but that would have definitely been regarded as a domestic industry subsidy by trading partners. Sparking a trade war of that magnitude might have been bad mojo; just something that the FOXNews second-guessers would not have bothered mentioning.

    Besides, if American citizens chose to buy more foreign cars than domestic cars, why are we blaming the government for that? Shouldn’t we blame the citizens? It’s interesting how conservatives always tell us not to look to the “nanny state” to keep us from doing idiotic things to ourselves like driving without seatbelts, biking without helmets, eating crap, or smoking cigarettes, but when it comes to the unpatriotic choices Americans make in their purchasing, they do a complete 180 and say that it’s somehow the government’s fault.

    PS. Canada had a similar program but it generated no criticism from talk radio and the other usual suspects because our Conservative Party did it. One thing I’ve observed about politics in the last 20 years is that Conservatives can do the exact same things that Liberals do and not get in trouble for it. So much for the “left-wing media”; from where I sit, the news media leans right.

  22. Mike says:

    Shouldnt matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

    Our Social Security

    Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
    Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

    1…) That participation in the Program would be
    Completely voluntary,

    No longer Voluntary

    2.) That the participants would only have to pay
    1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
    Incomes into the Program,

    Now 7.65%

    on the first $90,000

    3.) That the money the participants elected to put
    into the Program would be deductible from
    their income for tax purposes each year,

    No longer tax deductible

    4.) That the money the participants put into the
    independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the
    general operating fund, and therefore, would
    only be used to fund the Social Security
    Retirement Program, and no other
    Government program, and,

    Under Johnson the money was moved to

    The General Fund and Spent

    5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
    would never be taxed as income.

    Under Clinton & Gore

    Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

    Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
    now receiving a Social Security check every month —
    and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
    the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put
    away’ — you may be interested in the following:

    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —-

    Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
    independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the
    general fund so that Congress could spend it?

    A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
    controlled House and Senate.

    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —

    Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
    deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

    A: The Democratic Party.

    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —–

    Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
    Security annuities?

    A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
    ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the
    Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— –

    Q: Which Political Party decided to start
    annuity payments to immigrants?


    A: That’s right!

    Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party!

    Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
    began to receive Social Security payments! The
    Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
    even though they never paid a dime into it!

    Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
    And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

  23. Mike says:

    Wow. You know how to copy and paste from right-wing websites. Your mother must be very proud.

  24. Formless says:

    Uh, Mike (I mean Mike Wong, the guy who owns the blog)… just to be clear, your posts are the one’s that link to the main website, right? The one talking about “Even liberals should think twice” really does not sound like you, but isn’t as obviously nuts/copy pasted from right wing blogs as the second post by “Mike” that don’t link to the main website. Its kinda confusing.

  25. Michael Wong says:

    Yeah, the other “Mike” with the mindless right-wing copy-paste job is obviously not me. I’ll identify myself by my full name from now on.

  26. Formless says:

    Thanks, that’s a lot better.

    (P.S. it was the horseshit about welfare that tipped me off that it wasn’t you)

  27. Robert says:

    Well I just tuned in to read whatever was written since I last posted, and I want to say that I am dismayed by Winnie who claims that 90% of Americans are happy with their healthcare. Most Americans are tired of the massive premium increases they have to pay each year, coupled with a reduction in coverage.

    Those who claim they are happy with it are ONLY happy with it because they have it. If they lose their job or coverage due to terminal illness, etc… then how happy are they?

    It just is terribly selfish to state that because most of us have coverage, we shouldn’t do anything to extend coverage to those who don’t have it.

    Basing an opposition to this on ‘independence’ is silly. Prior to Roosevelt and social security, and Johnson and Medicare – we were REALLY independent. And we had old people starving to death and families living in cardboard houses in Hoovervilles.

    We’ve had the society conservatives want for us, and it wasn’t pretty. It was so ugly that the public supported the creation and sustenance of social programs for the last 70 years.

    And I’ll just close by stating that yes, a majority of Americans oppose the Senate bill that we generally regard as Obama’s healthcare reform effort. But until he and the leadership dropped the Public option a majority of citizens supported his reform efforts. If they added the public option back into the mix, support for it would skyrocket.

    A public option competing with private insurers is akin to public universities existing alongside private ones. The public institutions provide a pull on the private institutions from the greed of charging more and more, while providing a service to those who need to pay a bit less.

    I stopped supporting Obama’s reform efforts when they dropped the Public option. Just in the last few days 11 Senators have asked Reid to submit a vote for it through reconciliation. If he does and it passes, I – like millions of others who previously supported reform – will gladly support it again.

    It is the key to Obama getting re-elected.

    And… getting back to Beck…. what a moron. He is even more of an idiot to me than when I first googled ‘I hate glenn Beck’ back in July. I LOVE Rachel Maddow, and I think she’s done a good job of pointing out his idiocy…

  28. Somebody hit my site today from this one.

    I’m glad I found it, you have a way with words and you are well-informed about Glenn Beck.

    I was vaguely aware of Glenn Beck when he was at CNN although I never watched his show. He always seemed like a fucking schmo to me, a real live waste of precious oxygen.

    But then he popped over to Faux and then made a star out of him. I decided to start a website about Beck when the meat puppet threatened the Speaker of the House on national TV. I’m not a huge fan of Nancy Pelosi, but she’s third in line for succession to the Presidency and since this was roughly contemporary to him pouring “gasoline” on some schmuck and claiming that Obama was doing this to the country, and then lighting a flame… well, I thought it was time to strike back.

    http://www.glennbeckreport.com was born, and I got very active with it for a few months. I hit a writer’s block after Thanksgiving, and then some health stuff went wrong, so I haven’t been keeping up on it lately. I started writing a piece about the bitch-slapping he was taking from Rachel Maddow over the Bill Nye The Science Guy piece, but I got too drowsy to finish it so it’s sitting in with several other drafts. I’ve tweeted and solicited for contributors, but so far nothing’s been happening.

    Meanwhile, my site is climbing the Google for “glenn beck lies”. In fact it’s doing pretty good in other search engines, too. So, it would really be cool if brave folks who have more fortitude than I do to watch this cousinhumper would send me some of his lies so I can add them to my spreadsheet. The more the merrier.

    Well, that’s it, I think my Tourette’s need for typing cuss words is satisfied for the moment. If you would like to help me document the rat bastard, his Mormon motherfucking cult, his crazy death threats, his outright lies, his channeling of Cleon Skousen, his endless, mindless, assault on rational thought, please stop by and drop me some lines.


  29. Paste r says:

    Yesterday morning on CBS, Senator Evan Bayh said this:

    “If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.”

  30. Michael Wong says:

    ^^ Looks like someone never went to school and never learned that a quote can be used to punctuate a point, but not to prove it.

  31. Robert says:

    OMG, I haven’t heard of Cleon Skousen in years…. Yes, I can see that Beck is channeling him. Hadn’t thought of that before.. When I was a Mormon I listened to the entire Cleon Skousen series. It terrified me. But then, that is the goal of religionists… It keeps the sheep in line.

  32. Michael Wong says:

    What’s that supposed to prove? Some wealthy Canadian politician went south so he could get a particular surgery faster (the news article is misleading; he could get the same surgery in Canada, but it would have been quicker and easier for someone of his wealth to get it in the US).

    How does this disprove anything anyone has said? We all agree that the US health care system is great if you’re wealthy. It just sucks if you’re not, and it’s ridiculous to say that you have a “health care system” which is only good for rich people. Rich people don’t need help.

  33. Dark says:

    Looks like a bit has gone on since I last posted in early Novemeber(163).

    I always wondered about the “I’m a rugged American and if you can’t pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, your lazy and worthless” mentality in the USA.

    It’s actually the same mentality that allowed snake oil salesman, The guys that said they could make it rain, the tent revivalist that only state long enough to have a few local girls and fleece the rubes and smooth palmed well dressed man that said if you sent him to Washington he could changes things.

    Like you and several posters mentioned Mike W the current health care system really only works for those that have the money to pay for it. If your below the poverty level, or because paying 40 to 70 grand for a “degree” that makes you no more able to get a better job then the other several million people that did what you did when most of those jobs were outsourced or one of those folks that lost their good jobs because of the current economy then the current status quo isn’t sufficient.

    The real problem is the mentality that “This is mine and nobody, especially the governemnt can have it”. Without ever realizing that if other people weren’t paying they’d have far less then they have right now.

    Glenn Beck and the rest (left and right)simply fan the flame of misunderstanding and fear, it’s what has filled their pockets for so long.

    As to the Cash for Clunkers scheme …
    Which country’s use of steel has dramatically raised the most … China
    Follow where the steel from those cars went … China
    Which nation is the deepest loaner for the USA’s debt … China
    Less an attempt to better the environment and stimulate car sales and more a pay off to the USA’s biggest loan shark. :)

  34. Joe the Truly Average Plumber says:

    I am a graduate student at the University of Michigan. I work two jobs to make ends meet, one of them being a maintenance mechanic for the University. I have the unique “opportunity” of working with “guys in overalls,” and I can tell you for certain that these men are uneducated, and should not have a voice in politics. Sorry, it seems condescending, but it is true. These men hate, and I mean hate as in they talk daily about their plans to shoot President Obama in the head. They hate him that much. Why? Because he is going to take their guns, health care, and rights. All assumptions which are false. But these guys believe it like religion. Why? Because the Becks, Limbaughs, and O’Reillys say so. America has a stupidity disease, and it is that disease that makes me frequently wish we did censor speech, because idiots and anarchists like the FOXNews crew fundamentally incite riots with their hate-spewing demagoguery. Hate that is unfounded, and most importantly, untrue. Fundamentally untrue. Yet America believes it.

    Anyway, my point is that people who hate on “elitists” are idiots. There is no other word for it, and no other way of viewing it. They are idiots. Sure, I suppose it is their prerogative to believe what isn’t true, but their prerogative ends when their idiotic beliefs affect me. People become elitists when they accept that they don’t know everything, not when they go to college. You wouldn’t ask a carpenter to suture a split lip, right? Elitists are necessary, because without them, people would have no educational standard to hold themselves to, and people who dislike elitists are generally uneducated (or at least make their living by exploiting the uneducated, such as any Fox News anchor). The founding fathers of the United States knew the general population was too stupid to be trusted, which is why the electoral college was created. This is basically my rant, since I read these comments and became infuriated by the jerk-offs who think being “elitist,” liberal, progressive, etc are condescending. Every positive movement ever in history arose out of progressivism. Jesus. MLK, JR. Liberalism, elitism, and progressivism is why we all aren’t serfs. Stupid conservatives deserve nothing more than to be our slaves. They shouldn’t vote, and they shouldn’t have rights. Yes, my closing statement was extreme, but can anyone argue that it isn’t true?

  35. Chris says:

    You know, its funny, I didn’t notice anything in your article than your opinion. Double Standard?? And to “Joe the Truly Average Plumber”, its funny you say: “I can tell you for certain that these men are uneducated, and should not have a voice in politics”, thats funny because The Constitution says they SHOULD have a voice, and that voice is actually a vote.

    And Joe, if you think that progressivism is so great and people shouldn’t have rights then why don’t you go live somewhere like that? Your statement also is a double standard: “progressivism is why we all aren’t serfs. Stupid conservatives deserve nothing more than to be our slaves. They shouldn’t vote, and they shouldn’t have rights”. Who said that the progressives cared about you? Haven’t you ever heard the saying “power corrupts”? I am assuming you have, and with that being said, what makes you think you wouldn’t be a “serf” or “slave” to the progressives who have undoubtedly kept us from being “serfs” yet in your opinion should make conservatives their slaves. And speaking of slaves, you mentioned Martin Luther King Junior, who fought for equal rights.

    Joe, in your first paragraph you state that these men you work with think that their assumptions about President Obama taking their “guns, health care, and rights” are “assumptions which are false”. Then in your nest paragraph you state “THEY shouldn’t vote, and THEY shouldn’t have rights”. Are we to assume that these two groups of people aren’t the same? Because if they are, again, like the opinionated author who doesn’t like the opinionated Glenn Beck, you have a double standard. I think they are the same because you say “Stupid Conservatives” and then call your co-workers uneducated.

  36. Michael Wong says:

    Wow, Chris actually thinks “progressivism” means “nobody should have any rights”, even though human rights were originally a progressive idea. The original human rights thinkers were French and English Enlightenment-era philosophers like Voltaire and Locke. You know, the kind of liberal intellectuals that right-wingers hate with a passion.

  37. I’ve been thinking a lot about updating a couple of pages on my site. One that would be right to the point is “Glenn Beck-Libertarian?”

    Libertarians are anti-social throwbacks to a time closer to when we lived in caves rather than when we lived in countries. Libertarians are materialists to a fault. It’s all about what they OWN, and you’d best keep yer goddam hands OFF it. I had the most enlightening conversation with a Lib once, when he came into the office complaining about getting a speeding ticket. He confessed he was going 75 in a 55 or something like that. His complaint… he didn’t believe that the government has the authority to set speed limits on roads. Not only that, he didn’t think the government should even BUILD roads.

    I explained to him that it has been determined that there are safe speeds for cars where they can be controlled and that it’s better that all traffic move at the same speed. I told him that speed limits were determined for the safety and benefit of all people that use the roads.

    His answer was amazing. He said that it didn’t matter if people had car crashes and people should be allowed to drive as fast as they want as long as they are willing to pay the consequences. WTF??????

    So you make some kid a paraplegic with a dead mom and dad and that’s OK because you can pay for it?

    Libertarians are anti-social.

    Glenn Beck is anti-social, too, but he’s not a Libertarian. He’s materialistic, he’s selfish, he’s grabbastic, he’s chock full of conspiracies, but he’s no Libertarian. He’s a GOPER. He works for the GOP Network, he directs an arm of the TeaBaggers, but he’s really just another crackpot schmuck GOPER when it all boils down. Notice he never takes issue with the Faux News position du jour on any issue. It’s all just GOP party line. The Libertarian schtick is just a ploy to try to try to channel the TeaBagger rage into the GOP, which he has unwittingly helped become the party of almost nobody.

    I think I’ll take a nap.


  38. Michael Wong says:

    Libertarians will actually argue that “selfish” is not a bad thing. In the mind of the libertarian, everyone is a totally selfish bastard, and libertarians are just more honest because they admit it. This habit of psychological projection makes them difficult to talk to, because there is, of course, no ethical system in the world which actually praises selfishness … except one: Ayn Rand’s “objectivism”, which they all subscribe to.

    Of course, the central premise of Ayn Rand’s outlandishly named “objectivist” ethics system is that self-interest is “enlightened” by the assumption that misdeeds will come back to bite you, so an “enlightened self-interest” person would behave well. What Rand’s followers don’t realize is that this is an assumption, not a fact. In fact, many people commit misdeeds without ever suffering any negative consequences. One excellent example is Stalin, who lived to a ripe old age and died peacefully in bed. In fact, many of his greatest atrocities were related to his smart but ruthless measures intended to protect him from negative consequences: a fine example of self-interest.

    Ayn Rand attempted to create the unprecedented: a completely selfish ethics system with no reference at all to collective social benefit (naturally, since she felt that society is the enemy of the individual). The fact that it requires a built-in assumption which is easily disproven by observation tells you all you need to know about the feasibility of such a thing.

    Neither she or any of her modern followers would admit that all morality is collective and social by nature; a man living alone on a deserted island would have no use for morality.

  39. Michael says:

    LoL, now the hacked emails of the iPCC shows the data was manipulated. Glenn beck had it right.

    • Michael Wong says:

      Two points for the moron above who resembles me in name, if not intellect:

      1) The data you speak of is not what the global warming theory was based on. It was just part of a campaign to try and convince the public of its validity. The actual basis for global warming was laid down decades ago, before the sharp warming trend of the late 20th century. That’s one of the reasons it is so credible: they predicted it before it happened.

      2) The researchers in question were actually cleared of wrongdoing. See link1 and link2. Just like the ACORN scandal which turned out to be a doctored video, this is yet another case of the right-wing manufacturing its own victories. The fact that it started with an illegal computer break-and-enter operation should have clued you into the honesty level of the perpetrators, but I guess people like you will latch onto anything that confirms your prejudices, won’t you? Even if it comes from criminals.

      It doesn’t help that someone like yourself has probably never seen the inside of a lab in your life, so you hear common research phrases like “we massaged the data” and assume that’s a smoking gun for fraud. Never mind the fact that researchers routinely use that as facetious slang for legitimate data processing (not that an ignoramus like you would know that, of course).

      Glenn Beck had one thing right: morons like yourself will keep him wealthy by eagerly and stupidly lapping up every bit of muck-raking that he serves up, without the slightest trace of critical thought or independent investigation.

  40. David says:

    I have always considered myself to be a conservative, yet do not associate myself with the republican party. I do not believe in voting along party lines. That said, Glenn Beck is soley responsible for me to question and almost be ashamed of my conservative beliefs. I completely fail to understand how he can go on non stop about how we are all destroying everything in our paths just because he can’t help but to find something that he hates about everyone. If all was as bad as he claims, we as humans could not have possibly survived for as long as we have. And as for his listeners, how the hell can they so blindly buy into his every word with no desire to take the time to pay attention to life itself? Politicians come and go, none of them have ever done so much damage that we as people can not live our lives as we choose to. But if Glenn were to have his way and have us all follow and obey his every command, than we would all truely be in danger.

  41. Michael Wong says:

    Why do his listeners blindly follow him? I have a theory.

    The funny thing about people is that we have trouble seeing evil in people we meet face to face, but we are all too eager to see it in people who are far away. So people who have never personally known anyone from one of the “target groups” are all too eager to see them as whatever evil caricature Glenn Beck paints for them.

    They don’t even see what’s so hateful about it; to them, he’s just saying what everyone is thinking deep down. They assume that most sensible people agree with them, which is why they like to refer to their opinions as “common sense”. I believe that if these people actually spent time with real-life members of the groups they’re vilifying, they might moderate their tone. But in a big country, it’s easy to avoid such contact.

  42. Rebecca says:

    GOOD JOB! Way to go Ryan! I love you as much as I love Glenn Beck. You are the only one that makes sense here. I also am an American and a Glenn Beck fan. As to you people who hate Glenn, this is what I have to say to you. Glenn Beck is only concerned about the truth. Clue: Do some research before you make up your mind. And for goodness sake shut up or stop swearing! You sound ridiculous!
    p.s. Or as the british say instead of shut up, belt up.

  43. Rebecca says:

    Mike who summed up Glenn Beck’s defintion of a conservative. I fit that catagory. I belive all those things you just named. I believe in personal responsibilty. I agree with Beck. Healthcare is not a right it’s a privilege. You have to work to pay for it youtrself. And I quote Glenn Beck, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

  44. Michael Wong says:

    Yes, you proudly say you believe in personal responsibility. It’s too bad you don’t also believe in social responsibility: the idea that people have moral obligations to OTHER people, not just to themselves.

  45. Winnie says:

    Rebecca, Take heart. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. The winds are blowing toward personal responsibility and the Obama monstrousity that is “healthcare” will be eviscerated if not totally collapsed. Over 53% of Americans are against healthcare as Obama envisions it and only 32% approve for now, but those numbers are expected to decline sharply once it is implemented and the true costs are appearant. Our social responsibilities do not extend to feeding an ever growing and childishly glutonous pig our wacko republicans and democrats have caused our government to become. America is the most charitable nation on earth and we take care of our own on a community level as we have since our inseption.

  46. Michael Wong says:

    Winnie, you talk just to reassure yourself, don’t you? It’s amazing how there’s so much rhetoric and so little actual content in your posts. Of course, it’s obvious you’re simply not accustomed to being challenged on anything you say, or at least you’re not accustomed to acknowledging any such challenges.

    Please, explain why you believe that a society’s collective responsibilities do not include the protection of its weaker elements. Produce evidence to support your claim that America is the most charitable nation on Earth, especially in light of its very large gap between rich and poor[1]. Produce evidence for your claim that America successfully “takes care of our own” even though infant mortality rates in impoverished regions of the country are similar to those of third-world nations[2]. Assuming, of course, that you actually know what “evidence” means, which I doubt.

    1. http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/07/unequal-america-html
    2. http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/

  47. George says:

    Hi there. I just stumbled onto your website and was reading through the posts to try and get an understanding of what this site is about. As a Canadian (and a proud one at that) living in Texas, this is what I have noticed about the American living here(I won’t assume Texas can be analogous to the rest of the nation): many are good people, but they are generally ignorant across a surprisingly broad spectrum of human understanding. The root of that ignorance is an absolute certainty in beliefs that have no basis in logic. For example, I was “debating” (probably arguing since there was precisely no chance of changing his mind)health-care reform, much like what you were doing a while ago. Prior to even entering the debate, I had read the “reform” bill and the impact on the national debt according to Congressional Budget Estimates. I figured it would behoove me to understand the details of the argument. When this American and I got into our discussion, I found that every point he brought up regarding affordability, scope, taxation, “death panels” (I thought this was actually a joke initially. I was wrong), and “illegal immigrants” was either wrong or not included in the Bill. Needless to say, I didn’t persuade him with logic, reason or actual first hand reading of the bill and the CBO report; his “feelings” and what he heard from “reliable sources” trumped rationality.

    The point I am trying to make is that people who are ignorant tend to be very forceful in the presentation and defense of their beliefs. To argue with them is akin to pissing in the wind: it’s a pointless activity. There is no desire to learn or understand, so live and let live.

    I’m actually very disappointed in the political life in America. It’s like watching two particularly stupid children trying to untie the Gordian knot.

  48. Michael Wong says:

    I don’t seriously expect to change the minds of the truly ignorant (such as the kind of person who uses the word “intellectual” as an insult). When I debate such a person, I do it mostly in the hopes that a fence-sitting observer might be swayed by the differences highlighted in the debate. A secondary objective is to point out things that like-minded people might find useful if they get into arguments.

    If you’re completely surrounded by mouth-breathers, and there are no fence-sitters anywhere to be seen, then yeah, I’d agree there’s really no point. It’s like walking into a Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall and trying to have a serious philosophical discussion about the logical flaws inherent in Biblical inerrancy. You can have that discussion in a mixed environment, but inside a Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall, it would be totally pointless.

  49. michaelK says:

    More power to you Michael. Glenn Beck is buffoon who only does damage to the USA. It saddens me greatly that enough people watch him and “learn” from him to keep him on the air.

  50. Charlie Richard Richards says:

    As an American citizen with a logical, open mind, I cannot fathom why thousands of people in this country who live at the poverty level or just above it, are against health care reform. What has an insurance company done for you lately? Do you really believe that they care about helping you and your family? The old saw, which is getting as tiresome as the “Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” slogan, that reformed health care will lead to “socialism” was invented to scare poor folks who don’t know any better. Most civilized countries in the west have implemented far more drastic health care plans than what Obama has proposed, with enormous success, without the government taking over people’s private lives in some kind of “1984”-esque coup, and all the while making us, one of the leading powers in the world, look like ignorant, backwoods swamp dwellers. When I hear “tea party-iers” rant about how we want to keep America like America and not follow the lead of progressive programs in Europe and Canada that obviously are working far better than the antiquated and unbalanced systems we currently have in place, I literally feel queasy. What would be so wrong with trying to follow the example of Europe? Is it because we’re in the “new world” and we want to do things our way, even at the expense of more than half of our population? It makes me ill. I love America and I want to see it shine as a beacon again for the rest of the world – but it will only continue to keep sliding down the mud-hill until some kind of progressive changes are implemented.

    • Michael Wong says:

      The problem is that they’re both right and wrong: they’re right in that universal health care plans are basically socialist in nature, but they’re wrong in thinking that socialism is inherently “unamerican”. In fact, many of America’s most cherished institutions are socialist. Public education, a taxpayer-funded centralized military organization, Social Security, police and firefighter departments … these are all socialist institutions: paid for collectively, and responsible to society rather than any individual or corporate benefactor.

      American corporatists have successfully convinced most Americans that “socialist” is a bad word, akin to being some sort of traitor or communist. In reality, socialism is merely a balancing force against unchecked capitalism; either socialism or capitalism alone would be disastrous if the other did not exist as a counterbalancing force.

    • Pierre says:

      Obviously you have never lived in any of those countries you speak so proudly of, go live in France you idiot then come back and talk to me in 5 years. I am French, I live in America now but hey it starting to look like Europe. At least it was nice for a while, I am re-living it all over again… Need to move to Mars…. Wait a minute still too close… we sending crap there, need to move to another galaxy

      • Michael Wong says:

        Yes, we already know there are bigoted morons in France too. So you left, hoping to find a white capitalist man’s paradise? Good for you, but the vast majority of people in your country (and every other first-world country for that matter) obviously disagree with your hatred of socialized medicine, given the total lack of voter support for switching to an American-style system.

        I see the same kind of imbeciles in America who emigrated from Canada: you claim to speak for the people even though your personal attitudes are so wildly at odds with those of your fellow citizens that you felt it necessary to leave. And then, once you leave, you tell everyone that most people in your country of origin actually agree with you, which only begs the question of why they don’t vote that way. In reality, you are the fringe element.

  51. Pingback: Beck uneducated | Zanahoriadesig

  52. Doug Beattie says:

    I’m 39 years old. 23 years ago, I was diagnosed with cancer. As a (proud) Canadian citizen, my treatment was covered, in most part, through our system of public health care. If my family and I were Americans, the treatment would’ve been prohibitively expensive. My parents would still be in the poor(er) house and I would have likely perished. Of ‘average Joe’ Americans who vehemently rail against the very mild reforms Obama introduced, some may view their own mortality as a cost of keeping markets free. However, I suspect their feelings would change drastically if something awful befell their child.

    After spending 10 weeks in peds ICU, my 14-month-old daughter Emily lost her fight against a notoriously difficult to treat auto-immune disorder. With a slim chance of cure, specialists from all across Canada (and the world) tried to save her. At a ‘bed-cost’ of $10,000 per day, ‘average Joe’ would be looking at more than $1 million before adding in the cost of some very exotic medicines. If Joe had some insurance, there was nothing stopping his provider from terminating coverage because his child was proving to be to costly.

    Only the very rich or the very stupid would choose to keep American healthcare as it (was) is. Canada’s system is hardly perfect. In fact, it is seriously flawed, but as least I know that my country and my own insurance provider spared no expense in doing all it could to try to save my innocent little girl. She deserved no less.

    As do we all.

    • Michael Wong says:

      I’m so sorry to hear about your daughter. I’m glad they tried their best to save her, and I’m proud that my tax dollars contributed to the effort.

      I find it incredible that some people think it would be some sort of injustice to make healthy people pay for the care of sick people. Isn’t that the whole point of a civilized society? That the strong should protect the weak? This is exactly the sort of thing I want my tax money spent on, whereas American conservatives seem to think it’s the last thing their money should be spent on.

  53. Zach says:

    To me, this sounds like you watched Glenn’s show just so you can talk about how bad you think it is. How’s this: why don’t you slow down and think about what he is saying. Listen to the facts he provides to back up his points. He also tells you to go find these facts for yourself, maybe you should go do that. Our leaders in government have been trying to prove him wrong for years but the truth is they can’t for the very reason that he is right. He gets the truth by combining common sense, reasoning, and reliable facts together. This is probably one of the better programs to watch on these types of subjects because, more than likely, you will not get these facts anywhere else.

  54. tsisageya says:

    Yes, I hate him too, Mike. There’s so much to hate. Should I pray for him or should I just dust off my feet and leave that place? I already know the answer so you don’t have to! lol

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *