I have just about had it with Glen Beck. I watched his interview with Netanyahu prodding the US to attack Iran on Israel’s behalf, and this is not the first time I have seen this grinning chicken-hawk beating the drums of war. This guy is an absolute lemon, and his network is re-running “Exposed : blah blah blah” again, due to what he said was incredibly high ratings.

Well, sir, if the ratings were so high the first time through, why re-run the damned thing? To further indoctrinate the already-brainwashed of your viewers?

One wonders.

A sane voice echoes my sentiment
Tagged on:

16 thoughts on “A sane voice echoes my sentiment

  • How much of Beck have you watched (or listened to) other than the interview with Netanyahu?…it’s obvious that you and he fall on different sides of this issue, but I hesitate in throwing the guy under the bus.

    I’ve listened to his radio show since its inception and for the most part have enjoyed it, mainly because he doesn’t claim to be an expert, and doesn’t spend the entire time talking about politics.

    When he started his TV show, he unfortunately came in around the time of the Lebanese/Israeli incident this past summer, so that issue sort of took off for him.

    He is now quite obsessed with the “perfect storm” concept (Venezuela, Iran, etc.) and did everything but go door-to-door for your favorite Pennsylvanian, Santorum.

    It has been disappointing to see him spend so much time on foreign affairs, since that’s not his strength, but it seems to be something that he a)found a lot of traction rating wise (and they are really good–but so are Limbaugh’s radio ratings), and b) became obsessed with.

    I would even equate it to your “political awakening” after September 11th. Unfortunately, he read different books, and had a microphone and a contract with CNN Headline News.

    He’s a recovering alcoholic who converted to Mormonism(???) and has about 4 kids. When he talks about family and culture and religion he’s much easier to listen to, and I doubt you would “absolutely have it with him.”

    But yeah, even I stopped watching his TV show because it stopped being funny and he became kind of a one-issue guy, and it happened to be an issue he doesn’t have a complete grasp of.

  • I caught about five minutes of this interview on Thanksgiving night and will have to say that Beck did give Netanyahu the green light to push his agenda. That’s why my viewing stopped at five minutes.

  • Please answer me this: what is Beck’s purpose in pursuing this “propaganda”? Scottie, he’s not Jewish; so, that’s out. Is it just because he is not an expert, as Logipundit claims?

    I’m very interested.

  • thank you Rip. I felt the same way, but I languished through it, because I wanted to see how brazenly Netanyahu made his biased case.

    the agenda is obvious and transparent

    its manufacture consent for another unjust war, and do it through mainstream “news” shows, which have no journalistic merit at all, and parade “expert” after “expert” on the shows and have them indoctrinate the public about the need for military action on Iran, either directly or through Israel.

    In response to Em, being Jewish has nothing to do with it. Did you read the article at the top this blog was linked to?

    By the way, Judaism and Zionism are two different entities. Some of the most rabid Zionists in the world are Christians. Some of the most devout Jews in the world are decidely anti-Zionist. My two favorite intellectuals are both Jewish, as was Jesus Christ. Not exactly sure why you brought up Beck not being Jewish.

    What you are missing is the concerted actions of the media groups as a whole. CNN runs one brainwashing program one day, then FOXNEWS takes on a different component the next. MSNBC chimes in and includes commentary from a neocon think tank. Experts from the Heritage Foundation, Washington Institute on Near-East Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, JINSA et al all come on these shows to spread their hate-all-things-islamic rhetoric. Every now and they get an Israeli official to comment (like the braying jackass Netanyahu who hailed 9-11 as being “great” for Israel).

    This is not accidental. In concert, agendas are being pushed.

    This is quite easy to prove, incidentally. I noticed it last summer when i watched BBC News and CNN World in its coverage of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

    If you take the time to read foreign newspapers and compare the coverage of issues inside the US with coverage outside the US, you will inevitably reach the conclusion that the media here is more political and less journalistic. The CEO’s of the major news outlets are pushing their agendas; frequently those agendas are pro-Israel.

    If what I just said is a crock, then why did the major media inside the US not report what happened to Tove Johansson? I searched for over 2 hours and all i found was a link to Democratic Underground.

    There was a report yesterday that Palestinian factions fired rockets a day after a cease-fire was reached. Nobody was hurt, and that is reported. Yet a human rights worker from Sweden, a 19 year old girl is viciously attacked by Israeli settlers who chanted in Hebrew “we killed Jesus, we’ll kill you too”, and I could not find a single mainstream media outlet in the US which carried the story.

  • I stand corrected…Zionist does not equal Jewish. How short-sighted of me. Sorry, still don’t buy the purpose you painted (yes, I read the article). Beck’s not a straight up news show and it’s not advertised or evaluated that way, either.

    “”Glenn Beck” is an unconventional look at the news of the day featuring Beck’s unique and often amusing perspective on top stories from world events and politics to pop culture and everyday hassles. Like Beck’s radio program, the show will be centered on current events and the opinions of Beck, all delivered in Beck’s humorous, self-deprecating style.”

    He’s also repeatedly states that he needs duck tape to keep his head from exploding (apparently no implements yet to prevent his eyes from bleeded, of which he also complains). The only semblence of straight news is the segment, “The Real Story”, which tells of news stories that don’t get much air time (this would be perfect medium with which he could air what you’ve sent to edumacate him.).

    If you are so pationate about this, why not educate the guy. E-mail him ; invite him to this blog. Something.

    If you want a straight up news programing, watch Nancy Grace.

  • that’s one show

    i am discussing the collection of shows, and the consistent theme of picking a fight with iran

    enrichment of uranium is a smokescreen
    it is right guaranteed in the non-proliferation treaty, a treaty that israel has not signed and will never sign, and iran has signed

    action against iran will be done for 2 reasons :

    1. israeli security (not because of a nuke but because of funding to hezbollah, etc)

    2. dollar hegemony

    everything else is window-dressing

    in regards to writing them, i have done it before, and they never respond, so i washed my hands with it

    i have sent alan dershowitz three emails, 2 of which i diagrammed his logical fallacies

    i spent lots of time composing those emails and they went unanswered

    i have sent nancy pelosi an email, concerning her snafu in regards the taliban and northern alliance and opium production

    i have sent AIPAC emails, no response

    i am still waiting to get on their blacklist for saying things that are critical of israel

    so i blog

    why are you on my case, em?

  • Didn’t see the Beck show (no cable, thus no Fox or CNN, or whatever) so I can’t really comment. The handful of times I did watch cable I saw O’Reilly pitching his book at 7 p.m. on his show. He was complaining that NY Times didn’t review his book. “No bias there.” he complained. The dude hawks his book 5 min/ day on primetime. When I used to hear Rush complaining about liberal media biaas 10-15 years ago it made sense because he was the only “conservative” out there. Now it is untenable to say conservatives (though I don’t think O’Reilly is that conservative, and I just don’t listen to Beck) don’t have an outlet; I mean isn’t Fox news the number 1 cable news network? I did notice CNN has copied Fox’s style and it is irritating. But again I don’t watch TV news so I can’t comment too much on that. I’ll say that I wish TV debates were more like the old Firing Line than Crossfire and the current yelling matches.

    I do listen to NPR daily, and I think in general they do have a leftward lean. You can’t say shows like “NOW” and “Frontline” aren’t uber-left wing platforms. But nobody wants to watch them, despite the fact they are freely broadcast.

    The thing the Common Dreams guy needs to understand is you can’t vote Beck out of CNN. You can urge people not to watch him, but in general if you can’t market your ideas successfully you won’t get heard. MSNBC tried to be a left-wing Fox news and that idea tanked. Nobody forces people to watch Fox News as opposed to MSNBC.

  • Johnny B, i am in total unqualified agreement.

    What I despise most about “news” programs these days is the lack of debate :

    There are guests with viewpoints different than the host’s opinion’s or his/her bosses’ opinions, but there is no debate. They try and make the opponents or the dissenters distill their entire point or platform into a 30 second sound byte, and when the impossible is not done, the person without the microphone comes across like an idiot.

    Or if they do not get rattled on national TV, the host simply interrupts them, makes a label, tells the person how disgusting and un-American they are, and sign off by pitching their latest tripe called a book.

    That ain’t debate, and this tends to carry over into politcal debates as well, for Congress or President.

    The debates should be long and tedious and more like a seminar, so the average voter who doesn’t have time to follow key issues (because he/she is slaving away for Corporate America’s profit margin or paying taxes to keep the Federal Reserve busy counting their unconstitutional interest earnings) can become conversant with the issues.

    Not neat and tidy, but more instructive and useful at raising the citzenry’s collective awareness.

    They should call it a workshop debate, where the goal is to educate the masses first, then allow the masses to make informed decisions.

    Currently, it boils down to who has the best speechwriter who can jam together barbs with catch phrases, who looks the best on TV, and absolutely nothing to do with the best candidate.

    Case in point :

    Alan Keyes, 2000 presidential candidate who did not get the nomination because he was black

    Steve Forbes, who introduced an alternative to the income tax that would have worked. He had other ideas which sounded promising, but he looked like a little nerdy geekboy with those big glasses and wavy nasty hair, and that’s all she wrote.

    The candidates these days look like products off an assembly line, split into 2 conveyer belts, Dems or Repubs.

  • Regarding the 2000 candidates (damn that was good chili):

    Don’t get me started on Alan Keyes (I think I’ve talked about it before on here). The GOP gave him a shot at a Senate seat in Chicago, and he absolutely blew it. I have always been a big fan of his, but if you heard some of his drivel about slavery and singing old negro spirituals on NPR and every damn thing else during that campaign (things like Obama isn’t a “real” African American because his family is from Kenya–?????) then you’d know what I mean.

    As far as the “third parties” Forbes had really great economic ideas but just didn’t come off as a commander-in-chief (big deal in red-state America). It also didn’t help that the MSM called flat tax a “wacky idea”, etc, etc. Perot was also very smart economically, but he made some HUGE wrong political moves (just showing up at all on Larry King to debate the VP candidate is not a savvy political move…regardless of the outcome of said debate).

    And Nader…well Nader will never be President in the modern TV world. It’s just not possible.

  • I missed Keyes arguments used against O’Bama.

    I would need to have full details before I respond.

    I certainly believe your rendition of the events, but I cannot comment intelligently at the moment.

    Flat tax was not wacky. It was labeled as such because it was threaening to the power apparatus.
    The Federal Reserve system would not get its cut of American’s hard-earned income with such a system.

    The system would have clearly fostered a boom to small companies, the supposed backbone of the US economy.

    It also would have generated more revenue than the current system does, with less tax burden on the individual.

    When all facets are good for the people and the collective good, there will be a special interests that become threatened.

    Hence the idea was “wacky”, not in character, but in name.

  • I forgot to respond specifically :

    I have watched Beck’s shows many times.

    It was not an isolated occurrence that I witnessed with Netanyahu.

  • To Johnny B:

    As far as the suspicion that nuclear materials will be used for purposes other than the stated ones of peaceful energy, I believe the onus is on the skeptics to prove otherwise.

    Either that, or change the provisions of the non-proliferation treaty, which Iran has not violated in spirit or in fact.

    To play devil’s advocate for a moment, if you were the head of a state, and a nuclear-armed neighbor expresses ill-will against you, and the lone superpower of the world, another nuclear power, is constantly ranting against your regime, then would you consider developing nuclear weapons, not as an offensive weapon, but as a deterrent?

    Assume for a moment that Iran has a nuclear weapon today. Do you think Iran’s president would use it against Israel?

    If that decision were made, it would spell the certain destruction of Iran, its people, its neighbors etc.

    Do you think the Iranians would commit suicide for the sake of the Palestinian cause?

    Just a rhetorical question, but maybe it will shift your thinking a bit.

  • Agreed on the Fed system, etc.

    Disagreed on the onus. In order to non-proliferation to be even conceivable, I believe the burden is indeed on Iran to prove peaceful intentions with nuclear energy. If we are to learn from history, North Korea showed us that taking a despot’s word on “peaceful uses” is not recommended.

  • Inspectors are there Butch.

    It is hard to “prove” lack of malicious intent.

    an analogy:

    if a wifebeater says one day to his wife, “i love you”, can one prove that he intends to do her harm the next day?

    if you claim that the guy beats his wife, show the bruises, catch him in the act, then the label becomes justified.

  • North Korea blew up a nuke already, admittedly years later, but they did, so they broke their agreement. Nuclear proliferation doesn’t require malicious intent, otherwise there would be no reason for us to downscale ours, or Israel’s or anyone else.

    Can’t see the relevance of malicious intent. If the agreement is: NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS; JUST NUCLEAR ENERGY. Then when they build nuclear weapons and test fire them, they have broken the agreement.

    Inspectors eventually leave.

Leave a Reply

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