Beck is being mocked to shreds on the Daily Show right now. It’s just fantastic.
Wait, have you actually stopped to watch a complete hour of his show? I have. I admit that most of his show is entertainment, and that he often acts like a clown, but his actual facts are hard to refute. This is because they are facts. And he has the means to pay a lot of people to research on his behalf. He is the fourth most popular show on cable television in the US, and is the only author to have a bestseller on the NYT list in the non-fiction and fiction catergorys at the same time. He is primarily an entertainer, and he must be doing something right. You may disagree with his analysis of those facts that he presents, but unless you actually watch the show, how would you know?
I, for one, am willing to make my prediction about what he is up to right now.
I think, that if none of his favorite Repubs make a good showing for the nomination to run against Obama, Beck will run himself for the LP nomination. An active political campaign by an associate would put Fox News into the situation of conflict of interests, and Fox News has already put Palin on notice should she chose to run that doing so would end their business relationship immediately.
They’re hard to refute because they’re not facts. Beck has been thoroughly proved wrong time and again.
But I guess it’s too much to think the Tea Party people would even care…
Hmm, how about the freedom for any race of old person to sit at the front of the bus?
Gay men are now free to walk down a city street without the fear that they won’t get a beatdown for their lifestyle from the cops?
What about the freedom to choose to use any number of Voip telephone providers for one’s home phone line at less than $20 per month (long distance anywhere included) rather than a state supported monopoly lock-in with a private company called AT&T?
Or even just the idea that you can get broadband Internet service from a company that is not called AT&T?
What about the right to bear arms, in public? (consealed or otherwise)
Right to homeschool one’s children?
Right to marry outside one’s own race without interference from the state?
How about the right to pornography? Cursing in Public?
I’m sure I could go on, but sure, you’re probably not any freer today than you would have been in 1950; presuming that you are white, male, protestant and above the poverty line in income.
He has been wrong occasionally. From what I’ve seen of his show (admittedly, not a great deal) those few failures are both minor in scope, and tend to be less often than his detractors. I’m more often wrong than he is, as my family is quick to whip out their smartphones to call this old man to the mat. Google has killed my fun of making up bs for children, because kids these days are in the habit of googling every new thing they hear.
I’ve been lurking on this forum for months now, and have been terriblely disapointed in the intelectual quality of the membership, considering this is a forum sponsored by an intelectual organization.
No, it really is Liberte. Look at how the bio is written, and recall how Liberte’s was written. That is no coincidence. I much appreciated her posts, so I’m glad she’s back. Her and Ricky James have a future together.
Umm… what? ‘Liberte’ and ‘Vichy Army’ were two usernames used for a single account. They were the same person.
He has been wrong occasionally.
Most of what he says is wrong. Even if he’s going the right way, he runs off the rails. His analysis of Progressivism is sectarian and silly and the ridiculous conspiracy theories he steals from Alex Jones don’t help, either.
In evaluating Beck’s usefulness to the libertarian movement one important question needs to be asked: Do you know of anyone on the left that finds him persuasive, informed, and educated? Facts or no facts, people on the left can’t stand him because of his over-the-top presentation and silly dramatics. On the right, he might swing a few neocons into the camp, which is nice, but the damage he’s done to libertarianism’s reputation on the other side is more significant and will prove difficult to repair.
People who get their history, economics, and worldview from television are not very sophisticated. People will sit and listen to Beck and nod their heads, but when a Republican gets into the White House and turns to protectionism, welfarism, or imperialism, any good done by Beck will be forgotten.
I’d say I’m glad to see him go, but he’s not going anywhere.
Television is not going to help us, as it has become the propaganda wing of the state itself. It’s like expecting the government schools to be the vehicle for libertartian reformism. Not gonna happen. If we had the Mises channel run by Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker I would make an exception.
This needs to happen
Personally, I like Glenn Beck’s program. Do I agree with him on everything? Certainly not. Do I identify with his degree of religious identity? No. Do I watch him regularly? No. Do I like his information? Yes.
Glenn is a bit too eschatological for me. He’s very “doom and gloom” as is the usual prescription from the people I speak with. However, he has sounded the alarm, warning of statism for some time. Yes, he gets too emotional and does a lot of flashy things for show…but I can honestly say I’ve learned a few key things from him; more accurately, I’ve learned how severe some things are.
I realize that Michael Savage also speaks of George Soros’s involvement in currency and making profits off of sabotaging financial markets, but Glenn really did his research in that area. The other good thing is he doesn’t do the standard Republican song-and-dance that Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh do. Ever notice how similar their talking points are and that they hardly–if ever–disagree? I don’t think that’s coincidence.
My favorite to listen to on the radio is Michael Savage. Similar to Glenn, he’s an independent, although he takes to nationalism too strongly for my taste. Nevertheless, I don’t have to agree with the guy 100% to admire him and respect his information. The same goes with Glenn.
If you ask me, I believe Glenn’s show is failing because he constantly keeps people up-in-arms without giving them a solution other than the become religious, which I disagree with. I believe in God, but I view religion and God to be completely different. That’s a whole other ball of wax, one I’m sure the majority of the people on here will debate until they’re blue in the face, and that’s a debate I frankly don’t care about.
Nevertheless, Glenn leaves viewers with a sense of despair; either that, or his rhetorical antics turns people off and they turn the station immediately. That’s why I think his show is failing.
“Except we’re not going to arrive at that, because I live in the real world full of billions of idiots who don’t care whether or not they’re right and have a vested interest in primate status games. Some imaginary future is totally irrelevant to me, once I’m dead the planet can take an asteroid hit for all I care.” - Ricky James Moore II
And once more to my point, whatever his imperfections, because of Beck more people are inclined towards a more free society in the present.
“Except it makes no difference, even if you manage to convince hundreds or thousands of people; so treating them like the herd animals they are seems appropriate and rewarding.”
Often I agree and participate in doing so. But I’m also smart enough to recognize when someone has revealed a toe hold for me and my views to climb out of the pit of public unawareness. And I’m not going to berate someone who is more or less on the right path just because he hasn’t gotten to the destination yet.
“It’s not that they don’t have specialized knowledge, it’s that they have the gumption to form opinions about subjects they are obviously totally ignorant of, such as sociology, metaphysics, etc. If they’d just shut their God damn mouths like I do about molecular biology and Armenian literature I wouldn’t care much; but as long as they’re going to spout their bullshit arbitrary opinions, screw them.”
So the general condition of the world annoys you? What should all them imperfect people do while your majesty holds forth on such lofty topics in you opinion? The market is a process of moving resources around to their highest valued ends. Education is a process too, and by impication that both systems are moving toward subjectively better conditions, both are imperfect now and have to work to get there. Your part in that is what, if any? I’m all for berating willful idiots, in fact I am actively against ‘polite’ debate, especially with people who lie. But most people aren’t lying, they’re just ignorant. As you were one time. Now maybe someone berated you until you improved your knowledge and that’s one model for teaching, but there are others?
“Most of what he says is wrong. Even if he’s going the right way, he runs off the rails. His analysis of Progressivism is sectarian and silly and the ridiculous conspiracy theories he steals from Alex Jones don’t help, either.”
Facts and analysis are two different things. A point which I think was made previouly. Do you have an example of FACT(S) that he’s gotten wrong, or is it his partcular historical interpretation of what they mean and their relevance to current events that you have a problem with?
“In evaluating Beck’s usefulness to the libertarian movement one important question needs to be asked: Do you know of anyone on the left that finds him persuasive, informed, and educated?” - Lewis S.
Do you know of anyone on the left who be persuaded by anyone, one way or another, toward being libertarian or anarcho capitalist? I don’t dobut there are a few, you think they give much of a damn about TV or Beck? Beck’s show was useful outreach to conservatives who are sick of main stream Republicans but don’t see other viable options. If they watched Beck’s show they might at least realize they’re not alone in wanting some serious change as opposed to a nit tuck approach to reigning in government.
And, as Brutus points out, even if he’s not quite getting the analysis right by your and Moore’s standards, at least he’s giving people some background on history and current events that asks qui bono? One thing I would have loved him to do was turn that blackboard of his on to who is behind the main stream ‘conservatives’ in the US. I don’t think he ever did, but seeing a coherent and decently presented version of history and current events that indentifies the big players with skin in the game trying to make things go one way or another, that’s actually a step towards getting a Rothbardian view of The Fed’s history into the mainstream. I guess a lot of people look at it as shady now, think they might right The Case Against the Fed? Hell, Beck may even have presented that at some point. He seems fair enough if skewed toward neocons too much for my taste.
Anyway, the broader point is you can fight a one man war and lose and feel ideologically pure despite accomplishing jack shit, or you can accept the fact that despite your protestations to the contrary you’re likely not the most brilliant human being in the world, even in the areas you think you are, and work with differring people toward a common goal so long as it’s useful and mutual. Beck’s going his own way for whatever reasons, however losing his show is I think a net loss for libertarians. One venue where libs and perhaps even ACs could have gone to and spoken and been taken seriously is gone. In our current world, that’s not good in my estimation. I’d have rather worked to get Beck and his audience closer to reality than lose the opportunity all together.
Am I the only one that has a problem with a show getting kicked off the air due to lo lobbying by random people being considered a great success of the free market? I bet most of these people that contacted advertisers didn’t even watch the show. The show had great ratings, but because some people didn’t like the content they threatened the advertisers with boycott. That isn’t exactly the marketplace of ideas.
While checking my mail at Yahoo.Com, I caught some foreign news bulletins posted next to the Inbox area, Scrooge McDuck.
Glenn Beck’s firing was among the several news posted there. What is the likeliest explanation that was given by the advertised sources?
It turns out that when official unemployment figures started dropping, there was a general drop in demand for all TV talking heads. Before Beck, one or two TV talking heads had already lost jobs.
Beck got desparate and started upping his game…in the wrong direction. He tried to make his show even more conspiratorial.
It turns out that his latest series of conspiracy theories only ended up involving the very businessmen who happened to be good friends of both Fox News heads and its advertisers. But they could still tolerate that!
The last straw, however, was when he invited some anti-Semitic guest, without knowing he was anti-Semitic, and then did not bother calling that guest out when that guest suddenly threw out “Zionist conspiracy” during his tirades. With this guilt-by-association situation, the top honchos suspected his Mormon views may have coloured his views of Judaism a bit.
Not wanting to be associated with a potential anti-Semite, the boycott started.
Yea Idk what happened to him. His show never used to be that bad but recently he has been acting more and more like the figure his critics paint him out to be (crazy and a nutcase).
I’m not sure where all this language about him getting “fired” is coming from. Maybe I missed something, and maybe he’s just hamming shit up to save face, but this doesn’t sound like a guy who got canned by his network…
I know there is rarely a practical divide, but one can believe in a Zionist conspiracy and not be an anti-Semite.
"Am I the only one that has a problem with a show getting kicked off the air due to lo lobbying by random people being considered a great success of the free market? I bet most of these people that contacted advertisers didn’t even watch the show. The show had great ratings, but because some people didn’t like the content they threatened the advertisers with boycott. That isn’t exactly the marketplace of ideas. " - Scrooge McDuck
Not likely, but I’m not one of them. I think his show going away is a loss, but he has no partcular right to be on TV nor have his presence there deterined by any particular system.
“The last straw, however, was when he invited some anti-Semitic guest, without knowing he was anti-Semitic, and then did not bother calling that guest out when that guest suddenly threw out “Zionist conspiracy” during his tirades. With this guilt-by-association situation, the top honchos suspected his Mormon views may have coloured his views of Judaism a bit.” - Prateek Sanjay
Sure, blame the Jews…
(c:
“I’m not sure where all this language about him getting “fired” is coming from. Maybe I missed something, and maybe he’s just hamming shit up to save face, but this doesn’t sound like a guy who got canned by his network…” - John James
I think he looks on the bright side more than most if you take my meaning. Contrarily, I’ve been amiably fired before and have amiably fired some people myself. It’s not personal, and they’re not bad people for it nor am I. Sometimes even the most competent, best intentioned people screw up so bad you have no other option, and can still part on good terms. Especially when the person getting canned is honest and lives up to their screw up. A capacity for empathy helps in understanding why you’re getting canned. And Beck sure as hell was empathetic.
I am not “blaming the Jews”, xahrx, but I would blame Beck for inviting the wrong sort of polemics.
Like, in the name of TV ratings, he was possibly just this close to inviting IHR’s people there. Then what would have happened to Fox?
It would have been better. As wacky and axe-grinding as it is, IHR is ten times as good on history as the mainstream media. James J. Martin and L.A. Rollins have both written for them.
One speech at IHR killed Joe Sobran’s career.
Just one speech.
Can you imagine?