Idiots On Both Sides

Naturally, Glenn Beck would weigh in on this in order to malign anyone within the liberal/progressive movement.



Funny how he is doing exactly what he told people NOT to do in reference to the Tea Baggers that have repeatedly been caught using racial divisiveness and blatant and unblushing racist language.

And while the reactionary Right in America are falling over themselves trying to show that it's really the Left that are the racists, there is one thing that separates what happened at the Koch's event and what happens each and every time a Tea Bagger is highlighted for their racial animus - the Left actually holds people accountable while clearly admitting that not everyone in attendance at any event is going to be a "perfect" person.

Common Cause, the group hosting the Florida even where Breitbart and his crew shot the video in question, has released this statement:

Common Cause condemns bigotry, hateful statements caught on film at rally

Common Cause’s 40 year history of holding power accountable has been marked by a commitment to decency and civility – in public and private. So we are of course outraged to find that a few of those attending the events around a gathering Common Cause helped to organize Sunday near Palm Springs voiced hateful, narrow-minded sentiments to an interviewer in the crowd.

We condemn bigotry and hate speech in every form, even when it comes from those who fancy themselves as our friends.

Anyone who has attended a public event has encountered people whose ideas or acts misrepresented, even embarrassed, the gathering. Every sporting event has its share of “fans” whose boorish behavior on the sidelines makes a mockery of good sportsmanship; every political gathering has a crude sign-painter or epithet-spewing heckler.

We organized the “Uncloak the Kochs” panel discussion and took part in the rally afterwards to call public attention to the political power of Koch Industries and other corporations, their focus on expanding that power, and the dangers it presents to our democracy.

We’re committed to staging other forums and public events in the coming months to continue that effort. We urge all Americans of good will to join us.

Those on tape who made these pointless and ridiculous statements are just as bad as the Tea Baggers that make equal claims against their opponents. They are both a pox on their respective movements and should be pointed out as such. However, the modern American Right are more intent on framing this as a failure of American popular media as well as a way to white-wash their own failures.

Once the initial claim broke that ALL within the Tea Bagger caliphate were racists, I knew that this would spell trouble for the Left in America - as it wasn't true. Certainly, there are more than enough racists in the modern American Right to have to deal with at any given "party gathering", but to paint the entire group with the same brush is dishonest. I think there are even some I would regard as my political opposition that just might be able to exercise the intellectual honesty to admit even as much.

The only problem is that a majority of Tea Bagger allies are more content to point the finger in the opposite direction - or even reinforce the Left's claims by trying to be clever - and cast aside accountability ( allegedly a cornerstone of conservative ideology ) in total.

The Left in this country would do well to speak out about this clip, but do so in an honest fashion that not only points out that racial animus can cross party lines but showcase how the modern American Right are continuing with the same debunked narrative - that it's not them.

Relevant Quote Of The Moment b/w Prophecy In Song

And you knew that it was going to come from Glenn Beck:

....They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind.

Now certainly, the modern American Right will say that he was speaking metaphorically, that "votes" are bullets. Yeah, right.

Immediately, this song from Corrosion of Conformity came to mind. I'm honestly surprised that Sharron Angel didn't have this as a campaign theme song, even though Pepper Keenan and crew wrote this track to reflect the state of the Right Wing in America - in 1991.
.


Blaming the music that Loughner listened to is something that is not exactly a new strategy from the modern American Right. They've been doing it in conjunction with violence and Marilyn Manson for years.

Check out the barrage of comments this video got in light of Loughner's rampage.

Because He Knows

Pay close attention to this clip, because Beck lets us all know that he is finally becoming "aware", but then jumps right in and does what he's paid to do.



Yeah, who is "using" Giffords, Glenn?

His first reaction - "send someone to protect the kids". If nothing else, this shows that Glenn immediately knew that someone that disagreed with him was going to come after him because of what he is paid to do - create mistrust, fear, confusion, and distort accurately recorded history in order to push conservative narratives. He wasn't concerned with who was shot, if they were alive, dead, if there were more victims - he first thought that this would ultimately be about him. Thinking about the safety of others and to "pray" always comes second to someone like Glenn.

But it didn't stop there, as that's when his "professional" ( read: how can I use this on my show to blame the Left ) instincts kicked in and he thought "let's wait and see what everyone else does so we can use this against them, to make us look reasoned. Let everyone else report on/react to the story and once the dust starts to settle we will talk about how not reacting to/not reporting on the story is what makes us superior from a moral/journalistic/patriotic perspective.

This is nothing more than conservatives wanting others to do the heavy lifting, to jump through the hurdles that one faces during a quickly evolving story such as this. It's the perils of reporting to make quick decisions and make corrections on the fly when necessary.

And what the hell does Van Jones and Francis Piven and Communism have to do with what happened in Tuscon? Nothing. But that's how Beck's show works, to create connections between persons/actions that completely alter reality in order to create a new story designed to disorient and redirect attention - to cause fear and mistrust.

In classic form, Beck attempts - without any shred of evidence which he claims the Left lacked also - to have his viewership believe that Bill Sparkman, Joseph Stack, and Clay Duke are all characters of the Left. Of course, he is disregarding that it was an insurance company that claimed Sparkman committed suicide while disregarding evidence. Stack's own manifesto was anti-government agencies/anti-tax. Duke hated both political parties and referred at the mainstream media as "government sponsored". Do these sound like Leftists to you?

And what of Palin's map? If it really isn't the problem, why was is almost immediately scrubbed from the SarahPAC site, and why were her handlers claiming that those were actually "surveyor symbols" and not gun sights?

But credit where it's due - though I only think that Beck does this to cover his own widely documented instances of eliminationist rhetoric - Beck does state that Loughner didn't specifically mention Fox, MSNBC, Palin, himself, or anyone in particular as a person that he identified with even in a tangentical sense; at least not yet.

One can't but get the sense that Beck knows that he should admit that his words can/have/and will continue to inflame the rage within people - and words like those most likely had a part in what pushed Loughner close to his ultimate goal. One can't but realize that Beck will do one of two things once a few weeks or months have passed - that Loughner will become yet another example of "left wing offenders" that he can equate with Sparkman, Stack, and Duke in order to distort, confuse, and redirect his audience that are looking to be spoon fed a new set of talking points or that he will never speak of this story again, as it comes just a little too close to looking like a pure manifestation of his own anti-government rhetoric.

The Unhinged

It's just this sort of incident that allows conservatives to continually cast themselves in the role of "victim", question the integrity of media outlets that aren't Fox"News", and provide specious claims that it's actually The Left that is to blame for moments like this:



A look at Duke's Facebook page - which has been taken down, naturally - reveals this about the man.

Duke's "Favorite Quotes" section contains a number of links to political websites—mostly pretty out-there 9/11-truther-here-comes-the-new-world-order stuff, but also the mainstream liberal Media Matters and, of course, a Wikileaks mirror. (Expect these sites to be the ball in the exciting "Clay Duke Was a Dangerous Liberal" vs. "Clay Duke Was a Nutcase Conservative" game we'll all get to watch over the next few days.) His "Religious Views" are "Humanism" and his "Political Views" are "Freedom Fighter."

And Glenn Beck is already launched into this game, albeit with a half-hearted caveat that Media Matters really wasn't responsible for the shooting.

Considering that Duke's Facebook page is gone, we really don't know what he had to say about Media Matters, but Beck certainly continues to paint a dark and venomous picture of who runs MM. Look for Beck's writers to fold this story into a new chalkboard meme in the coming days.

Other conservatives are even framing this from the angle that Media Matters and liberals/progressives aren't even going to be remotely curious as to why Duke read, watched, and listened to the information sources he listed on his page. Naturally, the "truther" aspects of Duke's digital footprint get no mention from conservatives. Typical.

But looking at Duke's "suicide note", you get a clear picture that this man was pretty screwed up, and is more on par with an Alex Jones fan than a liberal or progressive.

My Testament: Some people (the government sponsored media) will say I was evil, a monster (V)… no… I was just born poor in a country where the Wealthy manipulate, use, abuse, and economically enslave 95% of the population. Rich Republicans, Rich Democrats… same-same… rich… they take turns fleecing us… our few dollars… pyramiding the wealth for themselves. The 95%… the us, in US of A, are the neo slaves of the Global South. Our Masters, the Wealthy, do, as they like to us…

As far as the "V" symbol, this will likely become part of the Beckian analysis of this story, though it just appears to be yet another example of how plain-old batshit crazy this guy was.

Sarah's Sliptastic Spin

In which I ultimately have to dive into this issue.



And while I was somewhat shocked that the conservative spin on this didn't somehow use the verbal gymnastics and trickery they normally employ to show that, in point of fact, we do have "allies" in North Korea in order to show that Palin knows something about what lies to the north of the DMZ - or at least try to make the case that she can see those allies from Wasilla with the right set of binoculars - I think they are missing the larger point that Palin's knowledge of foreign countries and foreign policy in general aren't exactly on par with her liberal/progressive opponents.

I'll cut her enough slack to openly and honestly admit that anyone of any prominence that speaks to large audiences on a daily basis is going to make some verbal stumbles, but when one looks at the broader picture Palin versus Obama, it's a fair statement to say that our President not only knows how to utilize the English language but actually has substantive remarks in regards to policy - both foreign and domestic - without having to rely on glittering word-salad-ism that do nothing more than create the illusion that you know what you're talking about.

If you need any further proof, take any Obama speech about healthcare reform and play it side by side with one from Palin and you'll get a clearer picture of who knows more about what's going on.

The Tower Of Babbling

Yeah, Beck is totally off the rails now.



Let's take stock -

-- Encouraging those that likely can't afford to buy that house - despite the fact that the modern conservative movement blamed that exact thing on the financial crisis in America.

-- Telling people to buy cars so they would have to spend all that money on expensive gasoline that is driven up by those evil empires who control all the oil

Wait, didn't Beck just tell us to sell off all the "stuff" we don't need, to become as "minimalist" as we could to benefit ourselves or something? Oh well, another day, another conspiracy.

Also, look into Rabbi Lapin's history and you'll find some interesting tid-bits that Beck won't tell you about.

The Palin/Soros Chalkboard Connections

Oh, this is just too sweet to pass up.

Glenn Beck spent the past week denouncing the liberal billionaire and philanthropist George Soros as a "puppet master" who is orchestrating a coup "to bring America to her knees."

Given Soros' alleged role plotting to destroy the United States, Beck and his Fox viewership might be surprised to learn that one of Sarah Palin's top aides has been on Soros' payroll for years.

That would be Republican lobbyist Randy Scheunemann, Palin's foreign policy adviser and a member of her small inner circle. He runs a Washington, D.C., consulting firm called Orion Strategies. Scheunemann and a partner have since 2003 been paid over $150,000 by one of Soros' organizations for lobbying work, according to federal disclosure forms reviewed by Salon. The lobbying, which has continued to the present, centers on legislation involving sanctions and democracy promotion in Burma.

Scheunemann's client is the Open Society Policy Center, a DC-based advocacy group founded and funded by Soros. The Open Society Policy Center says on its website that it "encourages Congress and the Administration to press the military dictatorship in Burma to restore political rights and democracy."

( h/t to Ed Brayton )

And while I'm not even going to be so naive to expect Beck to broach this subject from even a damage control perspective - as it's these sorts of revelations that are summarily ignored by conservatives - I do believe this should be blasted from all corners of the liberal/progressive blogosphere.

Here's a little "conspiracy bait" for Beck - Palin actually recommended Randy Scheunemann to do debate prep for a Tea Bagger candidate that Palin and her media masters at Fox"News" were literally drooling over for weeks - Christine O'Donnell.

I can almost sense Beck's chalkboard hand twitching with confusing and horror.

Beck's "Stuff" Sale

In which Glenn Beck thinks a country wide "yard sale" will better our lives.



Before anyone claims that that's not what Beck is advocating, just take a look at what people do on EBay, Craigslists, and local a regional print media every day - they sell "stuff" they don't need.

Yeah, really ground-breaking idea there Glenn.

Aside from that, I'd really like to know where he gets his dollar figure from, as I have had many yard sales over the past 5 years and I haven't made much more than $800. Who is really considering while he is putting forth this "action plan"? Certainly not the "average American" of whom he is allegedly speaking. And do you really expect people that do have all that extra "stuff" to sell it off? Neither do I.

What really bothered me about this whole half-baked idea, is that it's not only NOT based on encouraging people to do away with the waste in their lives and create some sort of minimalist paradise or even have a "safety net" of sorts when times get tough - this is all about Beck's next "special event". Moreover, framing the story around Katrina and those that didn't or were unable to leave doesn't shed a very pristine light on Beck. He might as well have started out by saying "Do you want to be just like those lazy black people"?

Profits, Prophecy, And Preposterous Notions

Here's a heaping helping of Glenn Beck doing his best impersonation of Jack Van Impe, complete with "Soros Doomsday Clock".



Despite the fact that all Americans benefit from "socialism", Beck feels that Lawrence O'Donnell's admission that he is a "socialist" while debating "Glennzilla" Greenwald on Morning Joe was clearly a a send-up of conservative fear of the word, those same conservatives - including Beck - have latched onto this like this is the missing puzzle piece in a grander puzzle that is going to rend the fabric of space/time in two.

I will, however, have to pause a moment and say that Beck's concern that Mark Penn saying Obama "needs another Oaklahoma City" incident is actually grounded in reality. But using this as a jump-off point to claim that liberals/progressives actually embrace this idea isn't grounded in anything at all, as liberals/progressives have clearly expressed their outrage at such a suggestion.

Beck is quite adept at taking completely disparate moments in time and connecting them in his chalkboard style to create a deceptive web of intruige. And adding George Soros to the mix isn't exactly a new tactic - he just goes a lot further than O'Reilly has ever done.

The part that really gave me a great laugh is Beck's claim that people on Facebook or Twitter who point out the ignorance of those citing him as a credible source are all too often paid operatives of Soros. And while it would actually be nice to get paid for doing this blog, I have yet to receive a check from George Soros.

But while Beck completely brushes off the very real aspects of what he does and how it has affected certain viewers of his program, I think we are beginning to see the culmination of what Beck wants - a conservative, preemptive strike against a foe that really isn't there.

Likely, Beck will also talk about this segment from the Dylan Ratigan program on MSNBC:



This is already something that conservatives are already claiming that Ratigan, his guest, and the entire network are advocating violence. The trouble with that, is that these people obviously didn't pay attention to the interview and will likely not read the book.

And this guy is clearly not a fan of Obama - just in case Michelle Malkin decides she's going to cyber-stalk this guy and find out who is "really is".



Beck does make one claim that is so off the charts that I think I should end with it, as it is something the entire Fox"Network" loves to tout without fulling realizing it's complete irrelevance.

The fact that a large number of people watch his show has no correlation to it being even remotely accurate. It's a lot like saying that since more people went to see Avatar in theatres instead of The Hurt Locker, that James Cameron's film is more factually accurate than Kathering Bigelow's film. The next time some conservative points to Fox's and Beck's ratings as a signifier of accuracy, hit them with that movie reference and see what happens.

The Foxiness Of Projection

Having been at work most of last night as further news unfolded about Keith Olbermann, I feel I need to respond to at least some of it, as most of it has ended up as either rank speculation or nothing more than sophomoric prattling disguised as intellectual discourse.

First, here's Glenn Beck - the man that recently donated a HUGE amount of money to the US Chamber of Commerce. And let's not forget that that action was predicated on the fact that they were doling out money to help bolster the campaigns of conservative, Republican, candidates.

--- clink link to watch clip ---



Beck is most certainly the last person that should be deriding Olbermann for his stance on not voting but giving donations instead.

I'm not going to try and reconcile how the two are different means of socio-political action, but I do think that there is a separation between the two. Though that difference is subtle, Beck would rather take the approach of that of a spoiled rich kid taunting a classmate. To put it a more blunt way, Beck's only ammunition is to either fabricate to insight fear or too mock the messenger rather than address the message. Classic conservative posturing.

Hot Air's mysterious Allahpundit took the predictable route of saying "Fox is more news than MSNBC" - a stance somewhat akin to sticking your thumbs in your ears, wiggling your fingers, while sticking your tongue out and making a mouthy drone. How "professional" of him.

In his response to Olbermann's suspension and the completely unfounded accusation that Keith won't be back - from an anonymous source on less - he referenced a challenge laid forth from the same man that gave Olbermann the temporary boot. That challenge was to show where MSNBC openly "fundraised" for Democrats.

The link provided was to Olbermann stalker Johnny Dollar who referenced less than a handful of examples from Ed Schultz and one from Keith. And while the guests on those specific shows do mention their respective websites, this is nothing in comparison to what the "fair and balanced" folks at Fox"News" do every night. Fox"News" openly encourages their guests that are currently engaged in campaigns to openly ask for support. Then again, that's nuance that conservatives don't seem to understand.

But this is ultimately about the continued war between Fox and MSNBC. For former quite literally coddles to conservativism while the later has booted hosts for even lesser offenses than what Obermann has done.

Michelle Malkin, in full on purse-lipped rage might as well have put her foot in her ever gaping maw as she went on a none-to-clever tirade about "disclosure". Really, Michelle?

Olbermann’s sanctimony and hypocrisy only compound his core failure to disclose the donations before Election Day — especially during the show in which he hosted one of the beneficiaries of that cash.

Whatever NBC’s guidelines may be, it was the basic journalistic failure of the Murrow wanna-be to disclose the donation on the night he hosted one of his cash recipients that seals his fate and undermines whatever iota of credibility his station has left.

So, financial contributions are "free speech" unless an individual does it.

In terms of Malkin's accusations - and actually everyone within the modern conservative movement - that all news networks that aren't Fox are somehow "in the tank" for liberal causes is not only preposterous when even given a rudimentary glance, but that narrative is completely destroyed when considering what MSNBC has done to it's more left-leaning commentators in the past.

To end, here is Racheal Maddow's response to all of this:



Even thought some of the people that I follow on Twitter, some of those in the liberal/progressive blogosphere, and some within my community that I have discussed this with are saying that it's not right for Maddow - or any Democrat - to simply say "well, if Fox does it we can to" is to clearly be missing the point that Racheal put forward; a point that can be seen daily when one watches Fox"News".

What this boils down to is Fox openly campaigning for their Republican and hosting events to raise funds, MSNBC is simply at fault for not attacking their Democratic guests for mentioning their campaign websites on air.

Another distinction that should be noted is that Fox does not have an "ethics" policy like MSNBC does. Also, MSNBC doesn't operate under the false premise of "fair and balanced", and has a clear separation between their news and commentary. But also, isn't that something that Olbermann's detractors are clearly not admitting - that his show is "news and commentary"? After all, those exact words are part of his intro.

To end, I'm not going to remove the fact that Olbermann violated alleged company policy by not disclosing his financial contributions. Also, I'm not going to pretend that this isn't at least fractionally connected to Comcast's take-over of NBC Universal - even though that process is not fully complete. This action by Phil Griffin is clearly one to curry favor with his new bosses prior to their complete placement as NBC Universal owners.

Regardless of what happens to Olbermann, MSNBC management has made a poor decision and conservatives are equally as ignorant to claim some sort of moral victory in this.

Fiscal Context

------ Saw this highlighted over at The Political Carnival and thought it needed a little expansion, considering who it is that is talking about fiscal issues -------

Let's take a look at newly elected, Tea Bagger backed, Pat Toomey and his response to something that conservative absolutely went nuts over recently.



Ah, there's that magic word again - "context". Could this be the moment where the Tea Baggers start to get nervous about their choices? Well, let's just ask their spokes model, Glenn Beck:

( skip ahead to the 5:03 mark for the bit that will likely have Toomey singing a new tune once he gets his Fox"News" talking points memo his first day at work )



Sounds like Beck isn't too keen on this idea. And we all know how the modern conservative movement looks at Beck as it's new messiah.

Have we just seen the first hiccup in the Tea Bagger "tidal wave"? I certainly do.

Who Are The Thugs Again? Part II

Let's take a look at Beck's continued insistence that conservative Tea Baggers aren't the violent ones - it's those evil liberals and progressives.



Too bad that doesn't square with what happened in this clip:



And while the predictable conservative chant - lead by the mouth agape throngs at Fox"Nation" - is that this is some sort of "plant", a "hoax", one has but to look at what people like Beck and the Fox noise machine are cultivating - an atmosphere of fear, hatred, and conspiracy.

Hot Air and Ed Morrissey take a more interesting approach when discussing this issue: insisting that conservative candidates use the "Joe Miller Approach" and bring your own security force:

This is one of the reasons why it’s incumbent on candidates to provide their own security. While guard firms rely on the same legal principles of citizens’ arrest that apply to everyone else, they get a lot more training in it than rally attendees. Paul has his own security with him, as the video seems to show, and they knew better than to react to an obvious provocation, and especially not to overreact to it.

The person in this video shown stomping on the prone woman should be facing charges of assault and battery today, just as Gladney’s attacker should have to answer for his assault. And in the future, perhaps calmer heads will prevail.

That's right Ed, gloss over the fact that this woman was about to be curb-stomped by a completely unhinged Paul supporter, conflate this with the utterly specious claims surrounding Kennth Gladney, and insist that Rand Paul's security team acted accordingly. Guess what Eddie, they didn't do anything. They didn't stop this from happening and they certainly were within proximity to do so. They were, as many in the video show, nothing more than spectators.

And while Paul supporters are more than willing to push this incident aside as nothing more than socio-political theatre, Rand's campaign - as well as he himself - are looking at this from an entirely different perspective:



Rand seems kind of disconnected from the "issue", don't you think?

Something else that caught my attention - there was only one person, at least from the video footage, that attempting to help this woman. The remainder of those surrounding the violent assault simply watched.

While we are a voyeuristic people by nature - how many times have you slowed down to look at a car wreck, or house fire, or police subduing someone - when you are literally this close to someone being attacked by those you call "fellow patriots", perhaps it's time that you reconsider the fact that Tea Baggers are a peaceful lot.

Becks Time And Tides

Beck is nothing more than the screaming man on the street corner shouting incoherently about how "they are coming to get us". Conservatives can dress up his conspiratorial blathering as intellectual research and reportage all they want, but this is probably one of the most - if not THE most - dangerous men on television today.

Despite the fact that his rants regarding The Tides Foundation - a lunatic fringe extension of Bill O'Reilly's narrative that George Soros is some grand puppet master of liberals - were the admitted catalyst of Byron Williams to travel to San Fransisco to kill members of the organization, Beck continues his hate speech with absolutely no proof.



According to the Tides website, they define "progressive" - you know that evil word that Beck has molested since his premiere on Fox"News" - is thus:

We define "progressive" as creating a positive impact on people's lives in ways that honor and promote human rights, justice, and a healthy, sustainable environment.

Beck's "Christian" message - the one that he claimed was the cornerstone of his Restoring Honor rally was about, neverminding the fact that he is a Mormon - apparently has nothing to do with the basic rights of humans, of justice, and even though the modern conservative movement has nothing but apparent disdain for the environment, I'm guessing that the later is the farthest from Beck's mind at this point.

There is a wealth of information included within the Tides site that certainly doesn't reflect the evil, dark, nature that Beck insists they propagate. Then again, the conservative message late has been one of "I" rather than that of community and "loving they neighbor has thyself". What book was that from anyway? Ah, it probably doesn't matter.

Modern conservatives have completely abandoned one of the cornerstones of their belief system: accountability. In place of it, they have implemented what I have often referred to as The Pee-Wee Herman Defense. That is, rather than examining how their rhetoric and ignorance towards a variety of issues have caused the followers of conservativism to become completely disjointed from reality, they throw their hands up and screech "I know you are but what am I!".

Not only that, but they have become so enraptured with what is and what isn't "Constitutional", that they have forgotten that certain things - although they may be Constitutional - do not come without repercussion or response. Chief of which is Freedom of Speech.

While Beck has an indisputable right to say whatever he wants, he simply does not consider the impact of his words. In an attempt to deflect from what we are taught even as children - that our actions far too often have consequences that we have to deal with personally - Beck resorts to this:



I'm trying to figure out why The Story of Stuff is inherently "evil". But let's not forget that Beck isn't the first to try and demonize this program, as Fox"News" tried to paint the film and Annie Leonard as "anti-capitalist". Again, this is a perfect example of conservatives completely ignoring accountability of actions in favor of pushing a poorly constructed narrative.

Beck, along with his fellow Fox"News" employees, are not going to admit that what they do and say has any sort of impact on America - that is unless it gets Republicans elected. And when that first person gets killed because of what they have been peddling, they are going to either ignore it or blame liberals/progressives.

And What Of Children's Rights?

In which we see that Beck has little concern for the rights and needs of children.

Click the rather appropriate picture below to play the clip from The Right Scoop.



While the conversation does devolve quickly into the bizarre realm of the dangers of vaccination, I think this is something that needs to be discussed in regards to Beck's influence and his own abilities as a parent.

While Beck immediately walks it back enough to say that if it were cancer then it may be a problem where does he draw the line?

Is an eye at 10 months old going to lead to an arm at 3? Both legs at 10? What about your ability to speak? To hear? And all this predicated under the notion that because the parents have a right to practice their "faith"?

In Beck's eyes, the needs of a child are greatly outweighed by the "rights" of the parent.

Restoring Honor folks, one child's medical condition at a time.

Glenn Beck: Stigmata Martyr

I think Glenn Beck's megalomania has finally reached a fever pitch.

Check this out.....



So, tests on his hands and feet. Is he experiencing pain in his ribs, like "piercing" pain? Come on Glenn, get off the Cross because some people could really use the wood right about now.

Seems that Glenn is taking a couple of days off for what he claims are "spiritual wounds".

This morning on his radio program, Glenn Beck discussed in more detail some of the physical challenges he’s been facing. Glenn told his audience that he will be taking several days off next week to undergo tests at a hospital “out west.”

On recent broadcasts he’s discussed that he has been having problems with feeling in his hands and feet. Today he explained that “small fiber” issues may be involved but that testing will provide more understanding. “We don’t even know what all of the symptoms are at this point,“ he explained adding that he believes ”physical, mental and spiritual are all tied.“ By ”small fibers,” he was referring to the possibility of a small fiber neuropathy diagnosis. But that is just one possibility among many things that will be considered.

Glenn also said the listeners may have noticed a change in how he sounds on the air. He said he’s been having problems with his vocal cords and that doctors will also be examining this problem.

Glenn talked at length about how the bond he has with his radio audience has been built on a foundation of disclosure and that he felt it was important for him to share as much information as he could, “So that you will understand my mindset."

The shear weight of the hubris this man exhibits would be enough to crush an entire city block in New York. Is this Beck's way of attoning for his idiocy, his exploitative nature, and his blatant falsehoods smearing generations of people? Possibly.

Keep an eye out for conservatives looking to capitalize off of Beck's "medical condition" in relation to healthcare reform and the "compassion" of conservativism. There's easily a weeks worth of Fox"News" programing to be born on the backs of this likely charade.

Rhetorical Flourishes

Would a more apt title to this be "How To Say Nigger And Still Sound Intellectual"?

Just take a look and you tell me.



The predictable racial invective allowed at Fox"Nation" flows just as freely as D'Souza's poorly constructed thesis.

But it isn't only Dinesh that is on the only one "anti-colonialism" talking-point train. Enter likely Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich:

Gingrich cited a recent column D'Souza wrote in Forbes -- promoting his upcoming book on the theme that Obama's central motivation is to weaken America, viewing it as an evil colonial power: "Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son."

In an interview with ABC News this morning, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to Gingrich by accusing him of trying to appeal to those people "who don't believe the president was born in this country." That is, Gingrich was accused of attempting to use coded language for the birther movement.

"You would normally expect better of somebody who held the position of Speaker of the House but look it is political season and most people will say anything and Newt Gingrich does that on a genuinely, on a regular basis," Gibbs said.

I wouldn't at all say that it's coded any longer, as it is blatantly in your face on a daily basis.

There's lots to be questioned with D'Souza's latest tome, considering the fact that much of his thesis is predicated on an anecdotal error from Obama's book "Dreams Of My Father".

Here, I believe, is where Obama got his skin treatment anecdote. He found it in Fanon and altered the setting and the facts to invent a personal experience instructive about American racism. Barack Obama, meet Tawana Brawley. Obama’s bogus racial incident is reminiscent of the Brawley case, in which Brawley fabricated a story about being a victim of racist assault. But in a way Obama’s lie is worse. Brawley’s fabrications were the product of a troubled 15-year-old, while Obama’s were delivered as an adult in a book that, in some respects, served as his presidential campaign manifesto. Because this is not a trivial deception, we cannot let it pass: It is time for Obama to come clean.

I'm guessing that if any of you have heard Sean Hannity talking about Al Sharpton you will be familiar with the Tawana Brawley incident. But that's another story all together, even though it gave rise to more racial animus from the conservative movement - and continues to.

What Dinesh is not presenting in his argument is that Obama's father was quite literally absent from his life. He is, from my understanding at this point, is relying more on a poor understanding of Obama's book "Dreams" as well as cobbling together pieces of his father's life and attempting to project that onto the son.

This is something that D'Souza should be wary of pursuing, as The Economist reports:

...while I don't have any trouble understanding how Barack Obama thinks, I have a lot of trouble understanding how Dinesh D'Souza thinks. And if I were to try to understand his thinking using the same methods he uses to interpret Mr Obama, I might look to his Indian background, which is where he says he gained his insight into anti-colonialism. Mr D'Souza notes simply that he grew up in Mumbai, but a more complete accounting is that his parents were members of the Christian community in the state of Goa, which was colonised by Portugal. The last name "D'Souza" is a common family name in West Africa, where it indicates that the family is descended from the slave-trading coastal mixed-race elite. In India, however, it indicates that the family likely belongs to the Roman Catholic Brahmins, Hindu Brahmins who were converted by missionaries beginning in the 17th century. Interestingly, the Christian community in Goa retained a Hindu-style caste system, with Catholic Brahmins continuing to discriminate against Catholic dalit or "untouchables", whom they refer to as mahara or chamaar. Elite Catholic Brahmin households in Goa sent their children to Jesuit schools (like the one Mr D'Souza attended) and often spoke Portuguese at home, referring to the main local native language, Konkani, as the lingua des criados ("language of servants").

Goa remained a Portuguese colony until it was annexed by India in 1961, which happens to be the year of Mr D'Souza's birth. Many Goan Christians did not welcome the annexation, fearing they would be subsumed in the Hindu-Muslim mega-state. A later source of anxiety was India's affirmative action (or "reservation") policies, which set aside university slots and civil-service jobs for people from recognised historically stigmatised groups, known as "scheduled castes and tribes". Beginning in the early 1980s, when Mr D'Souza was off studying at Dartmouth, these affirmative-action policies engendered widespread resistance among India's elite classes, who were terrified of losing their privileged status in a colossal country where hundreds of millions of indigents might overwhelm the available spots at top schools (and reduce their kids' chances of, say, going to Dartmouth). Goa itself has set itself up as a redoubt against the reservation policies: it has the fewest scheduled castes and tribes of any Indian state. This is largely because elite Christians have refused to acknowledge discrimination against the Christian dalit, or to allow them to be recognised as a scheduled caste. Pope John Paul II rebuked Indian bishops for these practices on his visit to Goa in 2003.

The way that I read that is that it shows that D'Souza can be framed in the same light that he has placed Obama in - albeit in a ham-fisted and bizarre way, considering that the thesis that simply because a father is one way that that must mean the child will be as such.

But let's look at the racial component in all of this.

Beck has set this up in such a way where he can easily deflect accusations of racism being leveled directly at him, as he is hosting a non-white, non-American-born man of some apparent educational level to make the argument that Obama - for lack of a more polite way of putting it - is an angry negro.

The reality of this is that it's not about how D'Souza's narrative is constructed on hyperbole and conjecture, but how those that will use this information to espouse their racism. It's actually a pretty impressive bit of pre-damage control from the modern conservative media.

Chase To The Rally

In which Chase Whiteside shows what's really going on.



Before I go into this, let's take an inventory:

1 - Al Sharpton runs the Black Panthers who had scheduled a conflict with Beck's supporters

2 - Most Beck fans that were asked had not seen the widely circulated clip of him openly calling Obama a racist nor heard Beck walk back his accusation just days before the rally they all attended.

3 - Barack Obama is responsible for whites and blacks fighting one another

4 - Barack Obama doesn't believe in America so much that he fought long and hard to be her leader

5 - Conservatives still don't know the difference between a Mosque and what is the Muslim equivalent of a YMCA

6 - Ben Franklin uses a cell-phone

And while Chase Whiteside and New Left's piece didn't show any racists, neo-nazis, or completely unglued right-wingers hell-bent on blowing something up, it did show us that people within the conservative movement are more than willing to ignore the truth and believe any fringe meme that is spoon-fed to them by Beck and his ilk.

And while Beck framed this as a "non-political event", it appeared that there were plenty of those interviewed that were there for overtly political reasons. Why do you think that was?

I'm sure you already know the answer.

Hype And Hysteria

In which we see Beck and his "I'm so happy to be here Mr. Beck can I wash your undercarriage" side-kick drone on like a bad comedy duo about something that Palin and Beck are going to be doing on - wait for it...................Sept. 11th.



And we are to believe that this is the same man that said "oh, it's just a coincidence that my rally at DC is on the anniversary of the famous speech by Martin Luther King Jr. at the same location"?

Also, this from the man who is one of the figure-heads of the movement that proclaims with shrieking tones that no one should co-opt Sept. 11th 2001.

And while there is the theory pushed ( and then immediately denounced within the same piece ) by prominent conservative blog Hot Air that this will finally be the day that Palin will tell the world the horrific news that she is going to run for President, I find it quite odd that they would even postulate this.

Sure, the back-peddle within the same piece says precisely what most sane people would also say - that a conservative co-opting Sept. 11th to make an announcement like this would be even greater than what Glenn Beck just did last weekend; or even equal to the press release that Park 51 was going to be built in Manhattan. There are certainly more comparisons, but are we really to believe that conservatives would become enraged even if the "Mother Teresa" of their movement decided she wanted to build her own personal bathroom on the epicenter where Towers 1 and 2 fell?

But is this nothing more than Part II of the Beck/Palin "Let's Use The Anniversary Of Something Important To Make A Rambling Speech About Something That Will Do Nothing But Boost Our Q-Score" Tour? If so, I'm guessing the next date will be in Hawaii on December 7th, only the two will be a few miles away from the USS Arizona - but only if Jan Brewer declines to show up.

What is this all about really? The rallies, the hype, the hysteria, the constant media attacks that don't seems to make much sense the further we get away from Jan. 20th 2009. Are people like Beck and Palin so enamoured with image, fear, and a distorted view of history that they have completely lost the plot?

The answer, I'm guessing, is yes.

More Sauce For The Goose?

But I want video of who the geese ( God ) pooped on?



My guess is that this could possibly be one of the first waves of Canadian Geese headed south looking for greener grass to eat and not the "God flock" that Beck is wanting you to believe in.

I'm in Western Kentucky and have been seeing Geese do "v-formation fly-overs" for weeks now. And this has been happening for years. Does this mean that God is going to bless this part of Kentucky with something?!?!?!?!?!

Likely not, as Canadian Geese are sited around DC around this particular time, despite what Beck would have his viewers believe. But would we expect them to think otherwise? Of course not.

Rating Worship At The Altar Of Beck

The sophomoric taunts and stereotypical "mine's bigger than yours" dribblings of Beck and crew have ceased to become just sad - they are just plain pathetic now.



While it would be far to easy to destroy the notion that because Beck has a larger audience that he must have all the facts, I think it's a far better approach to point out that childish nature of the conservative movement.

All too often, we hear conservatives speaking about their responsibilities, their mature approach to governance, or even that they are more "grown up" than their liberal/progressive counterparts. But when we see and hear people like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and even elected conservative officials do nothing but belching out rhetoric that is sub-par when compared to "your ugly and your mother dresses you funny", one has to wonder what it is that draws so many people to them and accept what they are stating.

I've often stated that people, by nature, often want to feel like they are a part of something. It's that herd mentality that causes people to gravitate to the most popular kids in high school - to do and say and act as they do in the hopes that they will be seen as equals. For anyone to want to be seen as an equal to Glenn Beck should give anyone with higher brain functions pause.

Beck, on virtually a daily basis, is known to throw tantrums, scream and make silly noises to show his "passion" and "love" for America. And while it's sometimes fun to point and laugh at Beck's twitching machinations, there's always the response to his thesis of the moment when people like Olbermann, Maddow, or any non-conservative pundit, anchor, or commentator takes him on. The idea of debating issues on merit is sorely lacking within the conservative realm, as they prefer to act like the spoiled brat in grade school who taunts people to make up for their own inadequacies in life.

Such is the case with the clip above, as it's quite likely that Beck knows he would be on the losing end of the argument had he tried to put up a contradictory position to what Olbermann was stating. And it's funny, since this is allegedly the same position that Beck takes up on a nightly basis - how freedom of religion and honesty in reporting issues at hand should always rule the day in America.