Monday, February 23, 2009

We surround them?

Glenn Beck....hmm... I just don't know. I've heard he's not at the top of the "Worst Conservative Radio Shows" list. I've heard he's a Mormon. I've heard he's not a Republican (*cough*). I've never even looked at anything he's done, or had any opinion on him whatsoever until I read this. "This" is spreading like wildfire across the conservative bloggernacle, these....nine principles.

If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie.
While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.

We surround them.

What a warm and friendly mantra. So Glenn Beck's not a Republican?
Really, because this whole "We surround them, send your pictures to me" theme sounds a little mutinous against those who currently control the Whitehouse. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I wouldn't think that if this whole thing didn't reek of Fox News.

But, what of these supposed "principles",do I believe in any of them?
Because according to Glenn Beck, if you don't believe in 7 of the 9, you must be really bad, or at least that's the cozy impression I'm getting from his website.

The Nine Principles

1. America is good.
Sure. True. America is good. No argument there, as long as we are adhering to our laws, and compromising no one else's.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
Okay, I believe in God, but I will not force other's to believe as I do.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
Okay. Sounds good.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
Okay, the family is sacred, but as far as the ultimate authority, what about supposed abortion rights Mr. Beck?

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
Okay, I agree, but does that include our government and the torture that's been going on at Guantanamo Bay?

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
Here's where these start to sound, well, to put it simply....mean. I' m rich and you're poor and that's just too bad because.....(continued to #7). What about providing equal opportunity for all?

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
Again, the perfect degree of sly meanness. Charity and love really win out on this one. What is it with this...air of superiority?

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
I agree with this whole-heartily. If you don't like what's going on, say it out loud.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Okay, I guess I can't argue with this one, but I would've worded it differently. I believe the government should work for every single American: the rich and poor, the healthy and sick, and the males and females of every race and religion.

You Are Not Alone

Okay, these aren't that bad. I agree with most of them in one way or another. I guess what bothers me about this "We Surround Them" campaign and the "lifting of the curtain" that's going to happen in the next few weeks, is the whole attitude behind it. The whole - us versus them - attitude. This kind of language doesn't unite a nation; it divides it.

And Glenn Beck, he sounds just as cocky and arrogant as the rest of the conservative show boats around the country on the radio.
I was hoping he'd be different.
But I guess money talks, even to a guy like him.


Ben and Christina said...

#6 is probably what bothers me most, and has always bothered me most, and is probably one of the biggest reasons I am a democrat.

The people who work the hardest are NOT the richest in the country-they are the backbone of our country. They are the union members working on the lines, the mechanices working 3 jobs to try and make ends meet, the garbage men who clean up the streets- literally- and get no respect.

My dad is the hardest worker I know- bar none. Growing up, he worked 3 jobs at a time- he did the swing shifts and the graveyard shifts- he came home covered in grease, freezing cold from being outside in the cold all day, barely able to make ends meet. And, we were very poor growing up- the hardest worker America has ever seen- my father- isn't a corporate millionaire flying in corporate jets. He didn't get to go to college because he grew up on a farm and didn't have the required "skills" to make it in higher ed. So this idea that if you are rich it is because you worked hard is a lie! I saw it in my life- if you work hard, you struggle to make ends meet, you live paycheck to paycheck, and you pray your kids never get sick because if they do you might never be able to get the care they need to get better.

That's why it sickens me when people are so quick to blame the unions for everything- not the CEO's for making millions while their companies fail- but the guy who works so hard he can't even stand at the end of the day because he is so exhausted. I wish these people who said such crap had to live just one day in the life of my father- I bet they would quit after 3 hours and run home crying.

Peter said...

Glenn Beck is special...

He's an angry dry drunk, like a certain ex-president. He's the one who asked Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota (raised in that far off and exotic location, Detroit, before moving to the Land of 10,000 Lakes)to "prove" to him that he wasn't a terrorist, just because he happens to be a Muslim.

On his "principles"

The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

OK, but you and the government get to define WHO can be a SPOUSE, right?

I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

OK, but then can the government not force me to pay for war on those I don't want to?

Lula O said...

I agree with both of you. I don't like the arrogant tone that seems to imply they are the only party with values. That we're a, lazy, poor, uneducated, Godless, family hating bunch of liberals that are hiding behind a curtain of lies.

This is exactly how I've been feeling about the Republican Governors who are refusing some of the stimulus money. So, let me get this straight, it's okay to spend billions upon billons of our taxes in/and/for other countries, but not okay to use our tax money to help other citizens of the United States????


Bryce and Mandy said...

I must be the only one but I don't even get what this means? So our government is hiding behind a curtain? Huh? Has it always been hiding behind a curtain or is this only as of January 2009?

Sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me.

Anonymous said...

I'm new and have been reading for some time, my sister-in-law told me about it. I just had to comment.

I'm not sure if you have actually listened to Glenn Beck explain each one individually, but it is very different then how you are interpreting some of it (particularly no. 6)--which is why I have never commented before, everything seems misconstrued in writing without hearing the tone or voice or in-depth explanation, but I'm going to give it a try. This could be my first and last comment ;) If you have seen or heard him personally explain this, then I apologize for the assumptions.

I happened to have watched his show when he went over these nine items and explained how he came up with them and what they meant. It might help clarify some of the misconceptions you seem to have. Mostly he endlessly read books and quotes from the founding fathers, historians, scholars, etc. and has tried to really get inside their heads and understand what their intentions were for this country which is how he came up with this list. He is a devout conservative (not republican, he won't affiliate himself with that party any longer because he feels they have lost their principles). In your summary you state that "Glenn Beck sounds just as cocky and arrogant as the rest of the conservative show boats", but he is very different. He's actually a BIG cry baby and seems very humble and sincere--unlike Rush or Sean who have an arrogant, know-it-all tone. He is always stating how he hopes his thought and feelings are very wrong, but he has to say it how he feels about it.

You also said that his language doesn't unite a nation, but again, I think if you could hear it out of his mouth instead of words on paper you might feel different, you might still disagree with him, but at least know where he is coming from.

The only one I will comment on is no.6 because there seems to be so much controversy on this blog about it. He isn't defining rich or poor at all. He is simply stating that we all have equal rights but that doesn't mean we are all going to have equal results. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are for everyone, he whole-heartedly believes this. The problem he sees in this country is that we have this idea that everything needs to be completely equal and fair at the end of the day (sounds like communism which he does fear). This isn't realistic. Is it fair that one person gets cancer and dies and one survives? Someone has a successful marriage and another ends in divorce. A lot of what this country offers has to do with how we take advantage of the opportunity and beyond that, how we deal with the cards we are dealt. Everyone, no matter what, has opportunities, they aren't all the same, but they are there for everyone. So just because someone is rich and another is poor doesn't have anything to do with who worked the hardest, it just means that the results were different. He also isn't stating that we shouldn't help the poor. Did you know that he gives 20% of his income to his church and also gives to charities on top of that? He certainly isn't fitting into the stereotype that Christina described as the rich guy. The end results have nothing to do with the fact that we all get the same rights. We don't all get the same start or shot in life and it's not all just about money.

Christina, I'm curious, does your father have strong political views that have been shaped by his personal experiences? He sounds like a really great man and was a great example to you.

I really don't know if any of this made sense and I apologize if I just made things worse in my written explanations. I think I have exhausted myself for nothing :)


Lula O said...

Thanks for stopping by Marce. Well said. You are a brave girl. ;) I will say I haven't ever heard one of Beck's radio shows, and tone can occasionally mean everything, a point I've noticed here in the bloggernacle. It is sometimes hard to tell someone's intent without reading their tone of voice.

I'm not saying that Beck isn't charitable with his money. Good for him if he is. Numbers 6&7 bother me because of his obvious idea, not his alone mind you, of social Darwinism. A sort of survival of the fittest attitude. It just comes across as mean and unfeeling to me, and like Christina is one of the main reasons I'm a Democrat.

You see I'm not willing to accept the fact that some get a shot and some don't. Sometimes the playing field needs to leveled so all have a chance to succeed, otherwise the rich just get richer and the poorer worse still.

Just my two cents.

I'll have to give Beck a listen, don't know for how long, but hey, I made it through two hours of Rush and Hannity once. Anything's possible.. ;o)

Ben and Christina said...

Fair enough, Marce- you brought up some valid points! I will admit that I don't listen to Glen Beck, and the reason #6 issue is so frustrating to me is because when I graduated college and was trying to figure out politics (my parents never talked politics- it wasn't until a year or so ago that I even knew what party they belonged to- they're Republican) that I started to listen to Rush- a BIG mistake! I guess I should really thank him for making me a democrat:)

Anyway, he was very adament that if you were poor it was because you were lazy. Period. I knew this wasn't true because of my life experience, and it infuriated me- and I have heard it repeated amongst Rep. circles, but I will admit, not so adamently as Rush. It bothered me that he blamed the working class (unions and manufacturers) for so many problems, and yet the CEO's were somehow gods and goddesses who could do nothing wrong. Now when I hear phrases like that repeated (I saw a bumper sticker that said: "Annoy a liberal- work hard and be happy"- I almost wanted to follow the guy and tell him what an ignorant statement that was), that anger that I felt listening to Rush downgrade and belittle the working class boils up inside again inside of me. From that perspective, I started to view (and probably continue to view) Reps. as selfish, uncaring, greedy, spoiled, only caring about the rich, etc. etc. Of course, I know that is not true with the typical Rep. who goes to work every day- but I see glimpses of that in Rep. leaders and talk show hosts/commentators, and it really irks me.

I will admit that working hard does produce results in the end (not being a millionaire, but after years of struggling my dad now owns his own business) and being lazy does not. But, we should be willing to help those in impoverished areas, forced into prostitution, have a health crisis, etc. rather then doing nothing. To me, that is the Christian thing to do. Obviously, I could go on forever on this topic, and I apologize- long story short, I just think we need to help those less fortunate without enabling them.

Anonymous said...

I have a question...the woman above stated that what Glenn meant is that we all have an equal shot but not always be guranteed equal results....those who commented later still seem to feel that the playing field should be leveled. Do you feel that the government should level it? I am just so confused by what you are saying....should the government be making sure that certain people make more and others make less? Do you feel socialism is the answer?

Jen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Anonymous--I was actually going to ask a very similar question. Thank you for bringing it up. My natural inclination was to give a reply filled with assumptions about what Lula meant by her statement, however, in an effort to keep things clear and not go off on tangents based on assumptions I have one question for Lula. What do you, Lula (not my interpretation of liberals in general), mean when you want the playing field leveled? What does that look like and what does that entail?


Lula O said...

There is a difference between socialism - an end to the predominance of capitalism, and social injustice - arises when equals are treated unequally and unequals are treated equally (Aristotle).

I lean towards the latter. Democrats are not socialists. We want what I stated earlier, a chance for all, a removal of barriers if you will. Will that ever happen completely? No. Has it already happened with the current welfare system or the civil rights movement? No, but it's better because of them. Not worse. That's the whole point. That's what I don't like about 6-7. I share Christina's and Peter's viewpoint. Glenn Beck picks what's convenient and makes it fit into a one-size-fits-all-conservatives- sort of statement. And that's the problem, each person is different, has a different set of issues. If there was no sort of guarantee of equal results we'd have no civil rights movement, no equal opportunity, no help for the poor, because like he said in 7, you can't make him be charitable.

So what, we leave it up to each individual rich person, if people die, or starve, or are prejudiced against? We let them decide who to help and not help with no other course of action for these people but to depend of the whims of the people with the means?

And "Marce", you sound very familiar. Sure you haven't commented before now? Whose your sister-in-law?

Peter said...

I'll take a long-winded shot.

Do I want some people to make more or others to make less by government fiat? Of course not, with one huge exception, noted below.

Let's begin, though, by understanding that 1) capitalism, socialism and communism (Marxist, not Leninist/Maoist) are economic theories and structures rather than politcal ones, and that capitalism and democratic republican government are not necessarily connected. In fact, if you go back to the revolutionary origins of the nation, you will find that many of the leaders of early national America feared the corrupting influence of acquisitive capitalism (see Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution for a good discussion.) The framers (admittedly in one of their great contradictions, the wealthy calling for self-sacrifice, slaveowners for liberty, etc.) saw America's future as a "commonwealth," a commitment to the common good. Jefferson desired a nation of independent farmers and small merchants, and distrusted "manufactures." He wrote that "Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth. .. Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. . . While we have land to labor then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a workbench...The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body."

I am a "yes but" capitalist. Yes, I believe in entrepreneurship, competition and opportunity, but I think enough of the revolutionary commonwealth should survive that we do not abandon the less fortunate to the excesses of unabated capitalism.

To "level" the playing field? Initially, we need to radically restructure our education system. It is no wonder that we are falling so far behind not only the rest of the industrialized world, but the emerging economic powerhouses, when you look at our educational mess. I am fortunate to live on Chicagp's north shore, where my kids attend one of the country's best high schools. I grew up in ompoverished rural central Illinois and went to one of the state's worst schools. Local property tax funding of schools is a fundamentally flawed concept that punishes poor children from the start. We should also make higher education affordable, so that is it readily available to all without regard to cost and that we are not crippling the next generation with mountains of debt.

We cannot have a country where parents must choose between tending to sick children, or where millions of people cannot afford basic health care. For-profit insurance companies also should not be making health care decisions. Any person who works a full-time job should receive a livable wage [the huge exception mentioned above] and companies should NOT be rewarded for exporting American jobs.

Lula O said...

Ka-ching Peter! Excellent.

Ben and Christina said...

Peter basically said exactly what I was thinking! Last night in bed I was thinking about the question, "should the government completely level the playing field?" I don't think so, but there are two areas I belive the government must level the playing field- exactly the things Peter said- education and health care. Otherwise, the sick and poor will never have a chance- in any society.

I do wonder what on earth Beck's plan is? What curtain is he going to pull back? Who is he trying to surround? Did he- like so many other reps.- forget that they LOST the election by far more then Gore or Kerry lost??? The country wants a change- that's what they voted for- they don't want this mumbo-jumbo that Beck is talking about. Acutally, I don't even know what Beck is getting at- he just sounds like a ranting crazy man to me...

Peter said...

He is an OBNOXIOUS ranting crazy man.

And thanks for the kind words. When you mix in one part historian and one part lawyer, I'm afraid you get long-winded!

One thing that always amazes me about the right is their seeming NEED to listen to these talk radio blowholes, as if they need their own views validated by the vouce through the car speakers.

Anonymous said...

Who do you think I sound like? That's funny. I've never commented before. My sister-in-law hasn't commented either. Her name is Becky and she likes the Moms Into Politics blog but she won't comment because it's too intimidating. I understand why.

I'm starting to feel overwhelmed because there is so much to comment on but I know that it's not going to get me anywhere. Peter makes a good point and I think the idea is a very centrist one. I think that democrats and republicans alike really do want the same thing, but it's just a difference on what we do. The path from a to b looks different to each party. I never understood why both parties have to be so angry with each other and blame each other so much for the mess it seems both have gotten us into. It's Bush's fault because he was a dumb republican president, it's congresses fault because they are mostly democrats. It's Barney Franks and Chris Dodd's fault because they are regulating the housing industry and putting people into houses they can't afford. It's Rush Limbaugh's fault because the stupid republican's listen to him. It's glenn beck's fault because he's just a crazy recovering alcoholic. Let's enact the fairness doctrine because people don't have their own free will to turn the radio off. bla bla bla. I'm tired of the blame game. I think it's the fault of the American people because we don't take responsibility for our own actions and then we want the government to bail us out because they put a gun to our head and made us live in a house we can't afford. They put a gun to our head and make us listen to talk radio. They put a gun to our head and make us put diapers in the land fill. Why do we even turn to them because it seems that everything is their fault anyway and we stupid American's don't have the ability to take responsibility and make decisions on our own so we turn to stupid politicians. I think that we are all stupid because we can't seem to raise up a leader is 1/2 as good as any of the leaders of the past. Republican's and democrats take claim that they are the party of Lincoln and they are the Party of Washington and Jefferson and all the great ones. It's all childish and stupid to me. I want to yell at all of them and tell them to stop being so arrogant because our political leadership is so watered down. Barak Obama was suppose to be above all that but he's just another one to blame, just like the rest of him. Hope, difference, change. Prove it! Yeah right. It seems that all the great minds lived a long time ago and we just have the leftover mush running our systems. It's hard to affiliate with one party over the other because you have to take sides but each party offers something really bad that I am against and some things really good that I am for. I hate feeling like I have to belong to one or the other just to have a place I can fit in. I actually didn't want to comment on this blog either because there is so much yelling back and forth and blaming and name calling. There are a lot of excuses that people make for their own party but you won't say where your own party has flaws everything is still completely the other party's fault. What are we all so afraid of to admit that one party is just as bad as the other party? Both are corrupt and misguided. No party is perfect so we all need to stop acting like one is better than the other. Education needs major reform. The health care system need major reform. Neither system need more tax money. I just don't think that the government has proven that they can do a good job. If the government proved otherwise I would be in favor of letting them do it.

I know you guys don't like Glenn Beck, but the reason I like him is because he is the only one who at least seems honest about what he is saying. I don't agree with him on everything and I think he is doom and gloom. But, he helps me to feel inspired to be prepared and to reflect back to the great ones and stop looking at the mushy crap we have to look to today. He is at least sincere and he gets mad at republicans and democrats. Adimttadly he gets mad at democrats more, but he get's really mad at the republican leadership also. I want an honest voice and an honest opinon and at least he gives it to me even at the risk of being called crazy and even losing his job. He isn't arrogant, he isn't selfish. He talks about his wife and his kids all the time and how much he loves them, he talks about all his crappy mistakes and his crappy childhood and totally owns up to what a bad husband he was in his first marriage and how he tries to redeem himself everyday. I think he is a good man and because he's on Fox News and has generally conservative values he is an easy target. You can disagree with him all day long, but you can't bash his character and you can't call him selfish or divisive or insincere because if you took the time to listen to him regularly you would understand him and where he comes from and at least kind of respect him for what he is trying to do.

I want to say so much more but I just can't because I hate typing and I know that I won't be able to express myself. Attack me, call me crazy, go at it. That's how I feel and I am not making any excuses for it.


Anonymous said...

Peter, you are just as divisive as the rest of them. Why do you have to be so arrogant and condescending to those who listen to talk radio? You use name-calling which is nothing more than just that, more name calling. I'm all about diverse opinions no matter how far left or how far right they are. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you need to be so disrespectful and arrogant and resort to name calling.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I am sorry about calling you arrogant. I don't know you and I got mad at you for name calling then I turned around and called you a name. That was completely unfair of me. If I could delete the comment I would. I wish I didn't post it.

Peter said...

Name-calling? Where did I call listeners any names? And arrogant? How so? Read your comment. YOU are the one tossing out insults. Geez.

Anonymous said...

There you go. That's why I wish I didn't write it, I didn't have it posted fast enough and then you had a completely fair response before you could read my apology.

Lula O said...

I will agree "Marce" with the fact the we as American's need to own up to our excesses, expect more of our leaders, move forward, and learn how to manage our money better, as a people and as a government. But when Glenn Beck says, "You've fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie," and "their voices are weak," or Rush says, "I hope Obama fails," that doesn't sound like comments that are meant to unite. They are made to define and separate the country. Alot of conservatives count Rush as the fountain of all truth. Can you think of one liberal radio or talk show host that has the same sort of following that conservative radio has? Hmm, because there isn't one. We don't need it. Why do some conservatives? That's what Peter was saying.

There's those words again - name calling. Hmm..interesting. "Marce", sure you don't have an alter ego named Jen??

Lula O said...

Because according to my email system, that's who you are...

Peter said...

I know you're just tossing out examples, nut--

It's Barney Franks and Chris Dodd's fault because they are regulating the housing industry and putting people into houses they can't afford.

When did these two gentlemen "regulate" the banking industry? They were MINORITY members of the committees when the damage was done, and even as committee heads, had an absolute GOP block on any proposals.

The fairness doctrine? That has nothing to do with "free will." It has to do with consolidation of ownership. Conservatives were resoundingly thumped in the last election, but corporate ownership of radio stations puts forth almost exclusively right-wing talk.

So Glenn Beck was being "honest" when he asked a member of Congress who happened to practice Islam to prove that he wasn't a terrorist?

Lula, thanks for letting me play in your sandbox!

Lula O said...

Peter you are more than welcome here! I just wish you'd been around earlier, like during the election. That would've been something.

okbushmans said...

Miss a day, and I fall WAY behind. My goodness, I can't comment on everything dicussed. There are obviously extremely passionate people here, and I know I'm on the commenting minority. So I tread lightly...:)

#6 and #7 seem to be the most controversial. What I find interesting, is in his radio shows he has said repeatedly, you do NOT have to agree with him on all 9 of them. After listening to him frequently, I feel what his whole goal and intent was to find common grounds between those of us who are labeled "republicans" or "democrats" or even "conservatives" and "liberals". And what I find sad about this entire post and the following comments are instead of building on the other 7 common grounds, we split hairs, read into each others words, and play the politics point the blame finger game. (both sides, including myself, would be guilty). I don't want to spend any more time defending Glenn Beck, because I don't think he needs it. He says what he believes and follows it up with action, which I think separates him drastically from Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly, who have schticks to keep up with.

One thing has sparked some thoughts that I will probably write about on my blog, so as not to monopolize commenting space! And honestly I wish more of you would comment on mine, just so the conversation isn't one-sided. I think honest (and respectful...which is easier said than done on both parts!) is much more interesting. Thanks Lula!

Anonymous said...

I am the one who asked the "level the playing field question" and just finally had some time to come back...just want to identify that this is only my second time commenting as there were other anonymous comments. The weird thing I have found about many things being said here is that I think most of us do have more in common than not. I wish we could all be less worried about Democrat and Republican and try to understand what we as people feel. If we could be less worried about parties and wanting to defend anyone who has a donkey or elephant and listen to eachother I think we could find more common ground. Maybe that is what Glenn Beck is trying to do is find common ground. There are many things you have said that I don't agree with but when we label eachother as Rep or Dems then we stop seeing eachother as people and more as the opposition. just a thought.

Ben and Christina said...

I think we all get frustrated with the idea that one side is always right and one side is always wrong-we all know that simply isn't the case.

I really just don't understand what Beck is trying to accomplish here??? Is he trying to bring everybody together, or is he trying to have some weird photo mantra being displayed to Obama about how people don't like him? This is a sincere question- I really don't get what he is trying to do. Anybody know?

okbushmans said...

Obviously I am not him, I can only assume his intentions. One main purpose, I believe, is similar to my purpose of blogging. To connect with those who share the same beliefs, and find common grounds with those I would normally disagree with. It is always comforting knowing there are other moms like me who pay attention and are passionate about the world around them. I think he is trying to provide that forum.

And just to clarify, when he refers to "them" we are surrounding, or those "behind the curtain" I know he is NOT referring to Obama or democrats specifically. He has said this MANY times on his program.

I don't know if that helps. And I'm shocked Glenn Beck has sparked more comments than almost any other post! If I would have known the crowd he would draw, I would have written about him much sooner!

Peter said...

"Mostly he endlessly read books and quotes from the founding fathers, historians, scholars, etc. and has tried to really get inside their heads and understand what their intentions were for this country which is how he came up with this list."

I would LOVE to see his "reading list," given that he has a career-long record of anti-intellectualism (not surprising, given that he is an uneducated buffoon. Check out this nonsense on the Harvard endowment--

Harvard University, which has the largest endowment in the country, has a total of $34.6 billion. To put into perspective just how much money that is, consider that the largest charitable foundation in the world, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has a total endowment of $37.3 billion.

But while their financial statements may look similar, their missions aren't. The Gates Foundation is working to cure malaria, develop new tuberculosis vaccines, and stop the spread of AIDS. Most of our colleges and universities are only working to spread the radical political views of some of their professors.


If anyone finds edification in the words of this moron, I am truly saddened.

Ben and Christina said...

So are the "others" anybody who doesn't agree with him? Just saying that makes me want to go rent that movie...

okbushmans said...

I may be pointing out the obvious, but I find it interesting that Glenn Beck has sparked such controversy now. There hasn't been a recent jump into the deep end, or new extremist philosophies. He said the same doom-and-gloom rhetoric when Bush was in office, and when he was on CNN Headline News. I'm just curious what has sparked this new interest or outrage? Possibly he is becoming more of a household name, who knows.

I honestly have respect for any man who can turn his life completely around, and literally come from nothing. A former drug user, now a clean and devoted family man. Even if I didn't vote for him, or agree with him on many policies, Barack Obama is a great example of the American Dream. So even if you absolutely disagree with Glenn Beck, why not respect him for at least what he has been able to accomplish with what he has been given? To me, a moron or someone of borderline intelligence wouldn't be able to accomplish what he has. A buffoon, maybe.

Peter said...

I personally don't see anything to respect in him (and yes, I have heard/seen him), but differences make the world go 'round I suppose.

okbushmans said...

It is sad when differences of opinion can cloud anyone's judgement as to who is a good person, or worthy of respect. Peter, I don't see the difference between your inability to find "anything to respect" in Glenn Beck and those of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter who demonize Barack Obama or Harry Reid. Doesn't the door swing both ways?

Peter said...

I guess you and I just have different views of what constitutes a good person. To me, it has nothing to do with one's views. I admire and respect many, public and private, who I disagree with on practically everything. It comes down to character and integrity, and I guess we just evaluate those things differently.

okbushmans said...

I completely agree it should have nothing to do with political affiliation or views, and should be based on character and integrity. That is why I find it difficult you can't find "anything to respect" in Glenn Beck. You might see him as "Satan's mentally retarded little brother", like Stephen King does, but I think he is someone of integrity and character.

Stephen King is definitely creepy but has a way with words!

Peter said...

I just don't have much use for liars, bigots and demagogues who appeal to America's lowest common denominator. Just part of my quirky charm.

okbushmans said...

I'm glad you stopped me before I continued embarrassing myself by attempting to defend a man who obviously holds similar personality traits as Judas, KKK members and Hitler. Thank you for sparing me of such humiliation!

I just don't have much use for people who use over exaggeration and inflammatory language to demonize a public figure, just to make a point. Just part of my quirky charm.

Peter said...

Wow. Project much?

Can you refute my characterizations or just insult?

okbushmans said...

I would like the same from you. When you label someone a "liar, bigot, and demagogue" factual examples to back up such claims would make it more difficult to "refute your characterizations".

I have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who throws around a word like bigot. Bigot is inflammatory and an absolute over exaggeration. To use such a weighted word without also giving any evidence to back it up is unnecessary. As someone who has had that word spray-painted on my place of worship because of differing political opinions, sure I am overly sensitive to it's use.

Peter said...

Go to Media Matters and just enter Beck. Before you get all over MM, all they do is play his clips. There are your facts, irrefutable in my view, but you are free to defend whatever vermin you care to.

it is not an "over-exaggeration" if it is true.

Your turn.

Peter said...

From the dictionary, among many definitions of a bigot:

A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked.

From Glenn Beck, to CONGRESSMAN Keith Ellison, who just happens to hold a "differing" religious belief:

"I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

Yeah, he's a "good person."

Anonymous said...

I'm so glad my sister-in-law Becky told me about this site. At least you guys don't attack each other personally or bash other political blogs to make yourself look better. Politics is about letting off steam in sometimes a passionate way. That's the whole point of this blog it would seem. I like that.
Thanks for the comments.


Anonymous said...

I agree Marce! I love this site!


okbushmans said...

In regards to this one-lined question to Cong. Ellison, which Beck was quoted afterward saying it was "quite possibly the poorest wordest question of all time. That might come from my lack of intelligence". Ellison responded to his question eloquently and from what I could find dismissed the question by saying, "It's just shock TV. Some pundits think they have to ask the most outrageous questions". Beck has referred to their conversation following the interview as friendly.

And as you probably know, the timing of Beck's question was after the 2006 Congressional campaign when questions of Ellison's financial campaign contributions from CAIR was raised. (An organization that even Sen. Schumer and many Jewish groups allege have 'ties to terrorism'). So although Glenn Beck later lamented his questioning, I would even argue the question might not be solely based on the fact that Cong. Ellison is the first Muslim Congressman, but that there were interesting issues raised during his campaign.

Does anyone else find this ridiculous or are the rest of you just relishing in the fact that the banter is not involving you?

Peter said...

Wow again.

Peter said...

Since you seem willing to make excuses for him--was he joking when he said that Hillary Clinton was "the stereotypical bitch?" Or "if you're an ugly woman, you're probably a progressive as well." Or when he falsely claimed the average UAW worker makes $154 per hour? Or about the California wildfires, "I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today."

Make excuses for those. And the thousands of others.ry

okbushmans said...

First, there is a difference between making excuses for someone and providing the context, follow-up and regrets of a bad comment or question. I knew there was more to that story, so I shared it.

In response to your laundry list of Beck quotes, I would be willing to look into each, but I honestly don't see the point. You have made up your mind about him, and so have I. Neither of us will change the other's opinion. And like I have said before, I don't agree with everything he says or does. I would just find it difficult to refuse to find one redeeming or respectable quality in any person. That was the only point I was making before we stepped into this vicious cycle.

And Peter brings up a good point. When you are a public figure, every word you say will follow you around for eternity. One slip up, mis-speak, or sarcastic comment becomes headline news, and you are forever characterized by it. Or even if you have changed a position or opinion because of becoming more educated or through life experience, is unacceptable because you are a flip-flopper. I am positive President Obama has moved past V.P. Biden's comments about Obama being the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean..." Yet at the time, it was blasted on the prime time news and over-discussed. Everyone in public life is scrutinized, but is it really what they believe or who they are? Anyway, I just find that interesting.

Peter said...

Context, right. That's what we call it, context. Good one.

You don't see the point "because you've made up your mind." Right, we don't want to confuse you with the facts. There's critical thinking for you. I guess that's why you like him.

Lula O said...

You both saw my Amazing Race post right? Wasn't that a pretty picture?

Peter said...

Point taken, I'll let it go. I'm beating my head against a wall anyway over a guy who is a flyspeck of insignificance. Thanks for the heads up.

Lula O said...

Glenn who? :P

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lula O said...

Thanks for your well thought out hateful comment supposed anonymous. How brave you are to not put your name even though this thread has pretty much ended. It's not a big stretch figuring out who you are. How about spewing your lovely snarky comments at another site were somebody actually cares.

Lula O said...

Also, OkBushman was the only conservative willing to put her name in the debate. What are the rest of you anonymous commenters?


okbushmans said...

Oh, I'm definitely not afraid to put myself out there. Even if everyone thinks I'm nutso! I don't think I helped my cause at all, but at least I tried.

A- for effort, maybe?

Peter said...

I wasn't really impressed with how you whined about us on yours, but--I returned the favor.

Peter said...

My apologies, OK. I was reading and reacting above someone else's comments (for the miost part), not yours.

okbushmans said...

Apology accepted and appreciated.

Furthermore, I am truly flattered I graced your blog. I would like to think my figure is slightly more flattering than a giant squid, although progressing further into pregnancy may prove you correct. And since I can't think for myself, I listened intently to what the Klansman himself, my "hero", Glenn Beck had in store for us this week. While listening to his radio broadcast backwards, he gave specific instructions on how to create an underground compound in your backyard, stock-pile guns, and start nightly rituals of Beck worship. All of you are of course invited to participate!

Don't come over until after The O'Reilly Factor is over though, that is the only schooling I allow my kids to have.

Lula O said...

Hey! Didn't you receive the memo? No biting sarcasm allowed here, on your site or any other site for that matter! *tsk, tsk. I might release the attack dogs, aka, the moral police if you're not careful. Oh but wait, I forgot, according to your commenters, only YOU can be sarcastic. Silly me. I guess you're in the clear then. Whew.

I think from now on we should just keep our answers to no and yes. Maybe that would quit disturbing the political pot from mind- numbing stagnation to a rolling boil of movement.

After all, exercise only does the body good, not the mind. We must not overdo.

Ben and Christina said...

Oh, yeah! I just wanted to be comment #60- that's all!