Glenn Beck is a raving, foaming at the mouth lunatic.  But an amusing one.  To those of us who find crazy funny.

Glenn Beck is a raving, foaming at the mouth lunatic.  But an amusing one.  To those of us who find crazy funny.

If he was an independent operator, his would be a funny case.  What’s troubling is that he’s grown to be a trailblazer and a lightning rod for Murdoch’s media empire and for the lunatic fringe generally.  With Beck in the picture, the rest of the ludicrous Fox News editorial staff looks sane by comparison; the same applies to the opportunistic new petty tyrants, Christian dominionists, and hatemongers that are setting up shop all over the country via the Tea Party’s inchoate ardor.  Beck is a sophisticated troll; whether or not he is a true believer, response and criticism directed at him is, frankly, useless.  My own thought is to target his hosting institutions, to find a way to hold them responsible for the raging, dishonest beast to whom they’re giving airtime.
[Edit: I wrote this during the first 15 minutes of the interview, then realized that this is exactly where Mr. Zaitchik took the interview.  Apologies for repeating the message.]

I’m waiting for an assassination to occur, at Beck’s urging. It is sure to happen sooner or later.

When Zatchik and Mooney mentioned how talk-radio has become a bastion for right-wing irrationality with no equal on the left, as a filmmaker I have to think that documentary film-making has become the repository for left-wing irrationality.  It is not just Micheal Moore who doesn’t care whether or not what he tells people what is true or not.  On iTunes right now you can find THREE documentary films that promote Dr. Max Gerson’s bogus cancer therapy.

Are we going to get back to skepticism, science, reason, paranormal claims, and quackery some time soon? Political liberalism has highjacked the skeptical movement and, like a virus, is prostituting it for its own propagational ends like it does every institution it infects.
  I hear Beck on average under five minutes a week, but I don’t need to hear him in order to notice that on this episode of Point of Inquiry there is not one example of his alleged irrationality or nonsense, just name calling, ad hominem attacks, and self adulating liberal breast beating..
  I have attended TEA Parties and you bet people are angry. They have plenty to be angry about. But liberalism has no tolerance for dissent and is ever so puzzled and hurt when the “great unwashed” they despise, bully, and manipulate resent or resist their impositions.
  Speaking of logic, I have noticed one thing about Rush Limbaugh and it may be true of Beck also, they have a wonderful instinctive grasp of the way inverse, converse, and contrapositive can be applied to expose vast panoramas of liberal hypocrisy and illogic. I’m sure that’s not appreciated on the left.

Are we going to get back to skepticism, science, reason, paranormal claims, and quackery some time soon? Political liberalism has highjacked the skeptical movement and, like a virus, is prostituting it for its own propagational ends like it does every institution it infects.
  I hear Beck on average under five minutes a week, but I don’t need to hear him in order to notice that on this episode of Point of Inquiry there is not one example of his alleged irrationality or nonsense, just name calling, ad hominem attacks, and self adulating liberal breast beating..
  I have attended TEA Parties and you bet people are angry. They have plenty to be angry about. But liberalism has no tolerance for dissent and is ever so puzzled and hurt when the “great unwashed” they despise, bully, and manipulate resent or resist their impositions.
  Speaking of logic, I have noticed one thing about Rush Limbaugh and it may be true of Beck also, they have a wonderful instinctive grasp of the way inverse, converse, and contrapositive can be applied to expose vast panoramas of liberal hypocrisy and illogic. I’m sure that’s not appreciated on the left.

Let me back you up hear.  I am currently deployed overseas and the weekly download and podcast of Point of Inquiry along with the Skepdics guide to the Universe and Dr. Prices’ “the Bible geek” were the highlights of my week.  But while the other two still are “Point of Inquiry” has slipped from a ‘cast about science, reason and rationality into leftist propaganda shilling as ‘reason and rationality”.  If I want to hear how stupid Fox news is I’d tune into Maher and Olberman.  In the last few casts everytime a conservative, Republican of President Bush is mentioned it is not to examine thier claims, investage where they might be right or wrong but rather to launch personal attacks; most of which seem to be merely: “They don’t agree with me, therefore they must be stupid and evil.”

Wow I just heard the part about Mormon ritualized crying, and something snapped into place for me. A few years ago I heard terry Tempest Williams give a talk at a writer’s conference, and she was almost embarrassingly emotional about her connection with nature, seeming on the verge of tears several times. Now I can place that talk into the larger context - how interesting.

Glenn Beck is an instrument of God.  You know how I know?  Because he told me so.  How skeptical are you?

If I want to hear how stupid Fox news is I’d tune into Maher and Olberman.  In the last few casts everytime a conservative, Republican of President Bush is mentioned it is not to examine thier claims, investage where they might be right or wrong but rather to launch personal attacks; most of which seem to be merely: “They don’t agree with me, therefore they must be stupid and evil.”

Yeahhhhhhhhhh.  That’s exactly what was said.  Speaking of which, why is it that when conservatives are attacked, they have to change it into something completely different - they have to change it into something else that they can actually argue about.  A conservative recently sent me an article attacking Obama - I took a look at the article, noted that the numbers used were completely wrong and exaggerated in order to make Obama look bad, and you know what this conservative said to me when I pointed out the horrible numbers undergirding the whole article?  That they have a right to their own opinion.  Nevermind that I was attacking the erroneous *facts* in the article (actual numbers) - but, nooooo, the conservative had to twist it around into bitching that I was forcing my opinion on them, as if I was suddenly the big, bad liberal who won’t allow anyone to have a different opinion.  Sorry, “facts” and “opinions” are not the same thing and conservatives are not entitled to their own facts.

Your point, for your particular example is valid, It does go both ways though. Liberals keep telling me “Franklin Roosevelt got us out of the Depression” no matter how many times I ask, “How long would it have lasted if he hadn’t?” and I never make an impression when I point out that homosexuals already have the same rights as the rest of us. We can’t marry just anybody we love either. We all are bound by the same restrictions. They tell me condescendingly (Liberals when they are not being condescending are like Sophia Loren when she’s not being seductive. It never happens.) they are astonished I can’t tell the difference between the same and equal. I’m not making that up.  And isn’t it a fact that government spending can’t increase the net number of jobs any more than dipping out of the deep end of the pool and pouring it in the shallow end can raise the average level of the water? These amount to more than a particular set of figures. I also suspect liberals salt the internet and air waves with phony stories and presentations to exploit what we skeptics know about human gullibility as traps for naive conservatives deliberately to make fools of them . Before you yell “conspiracy” put your hand on the humanist manifesto and tell me libs and radicals would be above that sort of thing.

I also suspect liberals salt the internet and air waves with phony stories…

What kind of redundancy should we call it when one mixes a tu quoque fallacy with a straw man argument? This is one of the weakest arguments of the year. “I suspect, therefore my position is right.”

How about the fallacy of composition. Or are liberals as exempt from logical fallacy as they are from racism?

How about the fallacy of composition. Or are liberals as exempt from logical fallacy as they are from racism?

I like the “fallacy of composition.” I’ll have to remember that one. Too bad you followed it with another tu quoque fallacy.

To point out that the other side is guilty of the same thing is not tu quoque unless you use it to attempt to justify your side thereby, which I explicitly did not. So cut the games and the crap. Liberals use lies, bogus numbers, deceptive statistics, rigged graphs and the full inventory of deceit, not just the naive and ignorant fringe but the leadership and the planners. Conservatives in general want the truth. In my experience, most liberals want power and don’t give a damn about truth.

To point out that the other side is guilty of the same thing is not tu quoque unless you use it to attempt to justify your side thereby, which I explicitly did not. So cut the games and the crap. Liberals use lies, bogus numbers, deceptive statistics, rigged graphs and the full inventory of deceit, not just the naive and ignorant fringe but the leadership and the planners. Conservatives in general want the truth. In my experience, most liberals want power and don’t give a damn about truth.

I agree that the radical fringe of liberals use the methods you listed (Michael Moore is an example), but stating “Conservatives in general want the truth” is not true, unless you do not consider Glenn Beck and his ilk at Fox News conservatives. Unfortunately, the leadership and planners on both sides use “lies, bogus numbers, deceptive statistics, rigged graphs and the full inventory of deceit.” We are moving away from Democracy and politics by name-calling.

“In my experience, most liberals want power and don’t give a damn about truth.”

Do I want power?

Very good interview Chris.  This is exactly the kind of examination and critique of social rationality that I hope CFI continues to bring to a dialogue.

As I said, I hear very little of Beck and I haven’t been able to hear Limbaugh in years. But conservatives are people like William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, George Will, and many others of that sort. Liberals, of course, pick less classy, less intellectual, and more entertainment and popular culture-youth oriented examples and make them a straw man. Myself, when I think of the liberal attitude toward truth, I think of Bill Clinton, not to mention the thugs I knew in the New Left movement in the late 60’s, the same types that entirely populate the current administration.

Frankly I don’t see why politics shouldn’t be covered on PoI. What Glenn Beck does is what PoI talks about, because he’s an icon of irrationality, just like Ken Ham or Sylvia Browne or Andrew Wakefield or Deepak Chopra.

And Mooney’s question wasn’t “Why isn’t irrational leftist talk radio as big as irrational conservative talk radio?” but “Why isn’t liberal talk radio as big as conservative talk radio?” No modifiers. Looking at our current level of political discourse, I think a disinterested observor would have to conclude that conservatives are responsible for the lion’s share of irrational thinking, or at least are much more visible.

According to my dad, who listens to a lot of talk radio, they have tried launching left wing talk radio shows, but they never take hold.  The audience is just too intrinsically conservative.

I finally listened to the interview (good job Chris!), and it’s scarier than I thought! It makes me frightened for the future of our country.

Listened to it this morning.

I really liked the Deborah Blum Poisoner’s Handbook interview and I bought the book—am reading it now.  Would very much like more interviews like that one.

This topic on the other hand dragged for me.  I had no interest in Glenn Beck and have never watched or listened to his show. 

It seemed at points that rather than disputing facts, Zaitchik was too often digging up personal stuff like Beck calling someone up and saying over-the-top inconsiderate things, or pointing out that over the years people who get to know him think he’s a jerk.

Listened to it this morning.

I really liked the Deborah Blum Poisoner’s Handbook interview and I bought the book—am reading it now.  Would very much like more interviews like that one.

I read the book after listening to the interview. I was a great, though provoking book.

This topic on the other hand dragged for me.  I had no interest in Glenn Beck and have never watched or listened to his show. 

It seemed at points that rather than disputing facts, Zaitchik was too often digging up personal stuff like Beck calling someone up and saying over-the-top inconsiderate things, or pointing out that over the years people who get to know him think he’s a jerk.

Unfortunately, that jerk is out in the real world, affecting our country and lives. I’m not sure what we can do to counter him, I hope The Peter Principle comes into play soon in the same way it worked to topple McCarthy.

Conservatives in general want the truth. In my experience, most liberals want power and don’t give a damn about truth.

Really?  In my experience it’s been the opposite.

In my experience it’s been a mixture of the two.

In my experience it’s been a mixture of the two.

Seems way more one-sided to me.  I think that was a point in the podcast too.

I’d say it is more of a mixture too.  For every ignorant conservative, I could show you an ignorant liberal.

Indeed.  Ignoring the faults and corruption among your own group is just as dangerous as ignoring that from from outside it.

Being new here and not knowing what to expect, I find exactly what I predicted-politics is not easily argued without someone calling another poster “stupid” and one side and the other declaring their “truths” superior to their oppositions “truths”. All I have read reminds me of a religious argument. Are both sides willing to admit that their judgement is just as clouded as their oppositions?  I counted about 10 logical fallacies in the first page alone. Logical fallacies used to accuse others of logical fallacies. Nice work folks. Guess I should have lurked for a few more weeks until this garbage fell off the forum. 

I count myself a Bob Price/Brian Dunning style conservative. I listen to Beck every morning on my way to work. Is he right? No. His “retcon” of the USA’s founding fathers religious beliefs makes me sick to my stomach. I get the same feeling when I watch Oberlund or Maddow spout their garbage about social justice. I watch them every night thanks to my liberal chemistry teacher wife. 

Now, my most earnest wish is that skepticism stays as apolitical as possible.  I have voted libertarian for 24 years. I am as political as anyone. Can we please point our refined intellects at the degradation of science education or the advance of the “new” ID movement and other topics?  Politics and intellect really don’t mix well. Thank you for reading this.

Being new here and not knowing what to expect, I find exactly what I predicted-politics is not easily argued without someone calling another poster “stupid” and one side and the other declaring their “truths” superior to their oppositions “truths”. All I have read reminds me of a religious argument. Are both sides willing to admit that their judgement is just as clouded as their oppositions?  I counted about 10 logical fallacies in the first page alone. Logical fallacies used to accuse others of logical fallacies. Nice work folks. Guess I should have lurked for a few more weeks until this garbage fell off the forum.

I’m glad you could look at a small sampling of the forum and extrapolate to the entire forum. We certainly wouldn’t want to keep someone here who didn’t feel they belonged. I’m sure the rest of the forum will be just as uninteresting and full of logical fallacies. It couldn’t possibly be a case of anomalous bickering among members (half of them new). Of course as the only libertarian here…(not)
BTW, I listen to Brian Dunning’s podcast too, libertarians aren’t his only fans.
Thanks for reading!

Being new here and not knowing what to expect, I find exactly what I predicted-politics is not easily argued without someone calling another poster “stupid” and one side and the other declaring their “truths” superior to their oppositions “truths”. All I have read reminds me of a religious argument. Are both sides willing to admit that their judgement is just as clouded as their oppositions?  I counted about 10 logical fallacies in the first page alone. Logical fallacies used to accuse others of logical fallacies. Nice work folks. Guess I should have lurked for a few more weeks until this garbage fell off the forum.

I’m glad you could look at a small sampling of the forum and extrapolate to the entire forum. We certainly wouldn’t want to keep someone here who didn’t feel they belonged. I’m sure the rest of the forum will be just as uninteresting and full of logical fallacies. It couldn’t possibly be a case of anomalous bickering among members (half of them new). Of course as the only libertarian here…(not)
BTW, I listen to Brian Dunning’s podcast too, libertarians aren’t his only fans.
Thanks for reading!

Wow. What polite internet bullying? Your post count is indeed larger than mine. I was hoping to increase mine fairly quickly. On to my post, I did not state I was the only libertarian here. If this thread is indeed anomalous, then I will surely apologize.  I have read just a few threads and I have seen quite a bit of irrational attacks flying both ways. Mostly dealing with politics. Is my plea for an apolitical movement invalid or are you just going to call me a n00b next?

You can never completely divorce politics from a subject.

You can never completely divorce politics from a subject.

I do fear that you are correct.  Is it okay to be sad about it?

Sure.  You can even mask it with something.  I prefer a sardonic demeanor and faux nihilism.

Wow. What polite internet bullying? Your post count is indeed larger than mine. I was hoping to increase mine fairly quickly. On to my post, I did not state I was the only libertarian here. If this thread is indeed anomalous, then I will surely apologize.  I have read just a few threads and I have seen quite a bit of irrational attacks flying both ways. Mostly dealing with politics. Is my plea for an apolitical movement invalid or are you just going to call me a n00b next?

Nope! Just trying to discourage a rush to judgment. I don’t think you can find a political discussion anywhere, without differences of opinion. Unless of course we were one of those forums who banned anyone with an opinion! But we aren’t so…we bicker sometimes, and either we change minds..or agree to disagree. Most of us who have been around awhile know the political positions of others, and know when to just leave it alone, or if it is truly egregious, to call them on it. The only time things really tend to get interesting, is when when we get a theist trying to convince us of the error of our ways…or in the free will thread (personally, I wouldn’t go in there to save a small child!). Some of the threads are lighthearted bantering among friends.
Meanwhile, do stick around awhile, don’t judge the forum by just one sliver of a thread, you may just be able to teach us something… or visa versa!

If you want to address Glenn Beck on Point of Inquiry for errors in logic, I think it is a stretch, but maybe I could buy it. But if you are using that as an excuse, dammit, address his logic. Don’t sound like a bunch of school children in the playground attacking an outcast, or a bunch of liberals having a snob paroxysm. And if we are going to get into violations of logic among the politically motivated, how about starting with liberalism – like maybe right at the root – the historical and philosophical foundation of the movement in the tabula rasa theory, and the belief in the improbability of human nature. The wreckage of that notion has been addressed on Point. How about looking at the implications for liberalism?

Just heard the interview.  Very interesting and entertaining.  Thanks.  It gave me a new perspective on Beck.  I have to admit that I’ve been fascinated by him ever since my wife’s 98 year old grandmother told me a few years ago that she was really fond of the man (in most other respects, she’s quite a sharp woman, especially for someone of 98).  I even recently picked up his book “Common Sense” (from the library…I wouldn’t waste my money supporting him).  I must admit that this man is highly intelligent.  I completely agree with Alexander Zaitchik that this man knows exactly what he is doing and how to rile up his base.

So, onto the book.  The book was completely fact free and all emotion.  The thesis of the book is:  “you (the reader) are undergoing some tough times financially and this is because there are corrupt people in Washington who don’t care about the people they are governing and only want power.  They need to be stopped.”

The beauty of this idea is that it is simple and 95% of the country will agree with the first part (financial tough times).  Most will agree that there at least some corruption in Washington, and from there it is easy to make a leap they are the cause of your financial problems.  And once you buy into that, must agree that they need to be stopped.  No facts are needed to back this up because it is “Common Sense”.

This man is so scary to me because he is able to see into your deepest fears and weaknesses and direct them towards his own goals.

If he says there are corrupt people in power in Washington, he is making an understatement. Any disagreement here? Anyone believe they care at all about the well being of the American people or the future of this country? They claim they can fix our economic problems because they are wise and concerned. I don’t think it is such a stretch to suspect they may be causing many of them if they are actually corrupt and self-interested.

@rg21:

That’s my point.  He identifies problems that no one could argue with.  These are problems that are so general that they are almost tautological (eg- there are corrupt politicians who don’t care about the people they were elected to serve).  But the solutions he describes are so outlandish, but so many people are willing to agree with him because of the way he presents the problem.

If he says there are corrupt people in power in Washington, he is making an understatement. Any disagreement here? Anyone believe they care at all about the well being of the American people or the future of this country? They claim they can fix our economic problems because they are wise and concerned. I don’t think it is such a stretch to suspect they may be causing many of them if they are actually corrupt and self-interested.

rg21, corruption and Washington are like hand and glove. It always has been and always will be. Just look at history. Meanwhile, would you rather live in a country like Afghanistan or Iraq? Is there another country you would prefer to move to? We still manage to get things done, while Washington is no more, and no less corrupt than it has ever been. Meanwhile, more people immigrate to our shores than anywhere else on earth. We are still doing something right.

Politically I’m a leftist; lots of whom (as opposed to liberals) just find Beck to be pretty funny and that’s about it.  But he scares me; I have lived in parts of the country where they take people like him and their ideas quite seriously, no matter how half-baked or badly-thought-out their rants are.  Maybe I’m saying most Americans just don’t have the critical thinking skills they should?

Indigo

A lot of the conservatives I know think Beck is a raving loon just as much as the liberals I know do.

Most libertarians want nothing to do with him either.

In the last few casts everytime a conservative, Republican of President Bush is mentioned it is not to examine thier claims, investage where they might be right or wrong but rather to launch personal attacks; most of which seem to be merely: “They don’t agree with me, therefore they must be stupid and evil.”

Let’s investigate Republicans and Bush in particular.
Why do lefties hate Bush so much - well I for one don’t need to look much further than the massive privatizing of our military and the insanity that was started in Iraq - .  Instead, thanks to the insane Republican (well ok and yes Democratic too) love of arms sales - and their attendant use - we have become committed on a hopeless, endlessly downhill slope into non-stop wars and escalating violence & grief.

In the process Cheney and Bush turned out to be Osama bin Ladens greatest booster, now his organization is bigger and stronger and more hate filled than ever.  Thatta boy, you flag waving war lovers.  Great Job.

This only leaves about another dozen categories in which the Bush administration has helped irreparably damaged our country and kinda, sorta doom the future.

And before you hit me with President Obama jazz - given that the Republican strategy is to do everything within its power to undermine him regardless - it doesn’t leave much hope for his chances of turning anything around.

if we are going to get into violations of logic among the politically motivated, how about starting with liberalism – like maybe right at the root –

You mean like the founding of our country?

No, I don’t. I was talking about reality. What we can now recognize as liberalism originated in the early 19th century.

No, I don’t. What we can now recognize as liberalism originated early in the 19th century.

Thanks, I needed that.

I find it reassuring that people do see what a freak show someone like Glenn Beck is, regardless of their politics!

I love the Point of Inquiry podcast and hate that my first post in the forum is a complaint.  If the Center for Inquiry promotes “reason, science and secular values”, the most recent episode did not live up to that standard.  Instead of enlightening the listener as to why any of Glenn Beck’s claims are wrong, the host and guest focused on why he is a bad person.  Even when presented with the opportunity to discuss Beck’s claims, they passed it to continue discussing him as a person.  Being a bad person, even a disagreeable person, does not translate to being wrong.

This may be a point well taken.  In that show, it was assumed that listeners are familiar with Glenn Beck and his claims, and the fact that much of what he communicates is fallacious.  That was the jumping-off point; the approach of the show was not to refute him per se, but to dissect his origins, his career trajectory, his skills and techniques.  Glenn Beck’s opinions and declarations in general do not stand up to the scrutiny of a critical thinker.  I do think he’s bright enough that, half the time he knows he’s just putting out nonsense; he’s just keeping his fans entertained by telling them things they want to hear. 

Here’s an example:  recently when Sen Byrd died, he was ranting about how the news networks were showing no footage or pictures of him filibustering the Civil Rights Act in 1964, as if it was a deliberate choice not to show it.  As anyone who knows anything about media history knows (including him with his media background), no photography of any kind was permitted on the floor of Congress in 1964.  Hence no photos or footage exist of the filibuster.  This kind of game is classic Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck is a raving, foaming at the mouth lunatic.  But an amusing one.  To those of us who find crazy funny.

Must be quite a number who do, because he gets paid a lot of money to be a lunatic.

From what I understand he is a fairly rational nice guy. However he makes his money by putting on a show (30 million+) by being iconic and raving.

More interesting I think is why people tune in. He fulfills a need that people are willing to pay a lot for. 

If you could make 30 million by becoming a media icon and acting like a raving lunatic? (30 million is a lot of money - Ok, yeah I’m a sell out, but for 30 million I wouldn’t care how many books they write about me. Plus think about all those people I’d be helping out by giving them something to write about) Everybody wins…

Who cares about what these media profiteers think? Apparently a lot of people do. Why?... I think that’s the more interesting question.

It has a lot to do with what he says during his raving.  He tells people what they want to hear without actually saying anything.  He’s vague and emotional with just enough of a message to get people to nod their heads in agreement.

Not everyone is nodding.  He has a base he targets and he does it very well.  He is, sad to say, a media genius that way.

I was referring to his audience.  The rest of the people that tune in are probably a combination of crazy watchers, Howard Stern fan-esque shock watchers, and the liberal version of those parent and Christian groups that look for profanity and indecency in television shows.

Monky,

You say you think he’s funny.  Why?  Do you think his base is so small that it doesn’t matter? 

Different parts of the country are more—insulated?—than others; in some areas (like where I live, it seems) you find significant numbers of people who genuinely seem to think he’s the man.

Quite a few people around here think he’s great too.  I think he’s funny in the way I find a crazy person walking down the street screaming at mailboxes funny.  It’s funny, but sad at the same time.

Maybe the issue is, as I think was mentioned before, is someone like Beck a focus and a stimulus to those who think he’s great to put their beliefs, ideas, etc in greater practice in our society?  The guy casts himself as the leader of a movement, is that to be taken seriously?

Who knows?  He’s admitted that while is very conservative and libertarian or whatever his TV antics are mainly an act to draw in ratings and entertain.

Maybe the issue is, as I think was mentioned before, is someone like Beck a focus and a stimulus to those who think he’s great to put their beliefs, ideas, etc in greater practice in our society?  The guy casts himself as the leader of a movement, is that to be taken seriously?

I don’t think he actually says anything however it is said in such a way that incites people into thinking he has said something controversial. Then the game seems that if you try to pin him down on something he becomes the concerned american who is just putting the questions out there.

Honestly I think the criticisms and books just provide fuel to keeps the fires going. Almost like watching wrestling. You know it ain’t real but it becomes fascinating to watch the fancy footwork.

I am unaware of any fundamental challenges that an objective human nature poses to liberalism. I read Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate” and I think he pretty effectively skewers tabula rasa and the noble savage, but one message I got from reading that book was that it is not the principles of liberalism but rather its current rhetoric which is challenged by a universal human nature.

Have you ever listened to a debate between two extremely skilled pundits or politicians and thinking that they both made sense even though they are on two different ends of the political spectrum?  I think that government policy and economics are extremely complex because there is a huge number factors.  A person could string together almost anything and make it sound convincing.  But it doesn’t mean much to me unless I’ve seen it work in the real world, or there is genuine evidence that it works (unless it’s addressing a unique problem).  Since we don’t have a “test” world to try out different scenarios, what I do is look at other countries to see which policies can work and what affect they seem to have.  My goal is to support those policies which lead to the most amount of benefit for the most amount of people, with the most amount of freedom.  If certain policies seem to do this well, then I generally support them. 

I think the worst possible thing a person can do is decide that they are going to be on the liberal team or the conservative team and then try to figure out how things should be.  One of the many disadvantages of this is that people personalize the debate and feel attacked if anyone questions or contradicts any of their positions.  If a policy supports the goal that I stated above, I don’t care what you call it, or how it’s categorized.

Having said all of that, when I look back at the policies I support and then categorize them, I’d have to say that 99% of them would be considered liberal.  To me, the big picture is simple.  I could show you nearly two dozen modern, industrialized countries that are way more liberal than the U.S. and for the most part are at least as successful, if not more successful than the U.S. (and support my stated goal above far better).  This demonstrates that liberal policies can and do work.  I’ve also lived in Germany and Switzerland for many years.  In most respects, the living conditions were outstanding.  It’s mind boggling how liberal average people are in those countries.  On the other hand, I cannot even name another modern, industrial country that is more conservative than the U.S. that is also as successful.  The closest, might be Singapore or South Korea, and even these countries have had “socialized” medicine for a long time.

Needless to say, I find the current U.S. political climate extremely disturbing.  I hate to generalize, but at least compared with 10 years ago, the right-wing has become powerful, influential and as hateful and angry as ever.  Increasingly it also seems to be more and more irrational.  The horrendous economy has left a lot of people scared, angry, and looking for someone to blame.  The millionaire right-wing celebraties are right there telling them who to scapegoat and who to hate.  I believe that we could well be heading for disaster.

So, I think this podcast was very much needed.  I would love to hear more of these kinds of podcasts.  And if ever, in the future, the Noam Chompsky’s of the world were as successful and influential as people like Glen Beck, then I think a podcast on left-wing irrationality would be in order.

...I’ve also lived in Germany and Switzerland for many years.  In most respects, the living conditions were outstanding.  It’s mind boggling how liberal average people are in those countries. ...

I’m a Republican but I think Glenn Beck is a nutcase.  I think using Glenn Beck to typify Republicans is like using Nazis to typify Germans and Stalin to typify atheists.

One can make a reasonable argument that the living conditions in Germany owe a great deal to US Marshall Plan seed money and continued military support; certainly the U.S. deserves some credit for 30-40 years of solidarity with Europe during the Cold War.  It is interesting how easy in retrospect rebuilding Europe seems to be compared to rebuilding Iraq.

If you visit Munich, you can take the train outside the city to Dachau where the camp is there as a museum.  Did you visit it? Do you think it is “mind-boggling” that this could happen in Germany?

If you visit Munich, you can take the train outside the city to Dachau where the camp is there as a museum.  Did you visit it? Do you think it is “mind-boggling” that this could happen in Germany?

I think given the proper conditions, it could happen anywhere.
Most of the Republicans (and democrats) I know are very nice and reasonable. It is the far right (and left) wingnuts that cause me to grimace!

Jackson,

I actually lived in Munich for a while and I have visited the Dachau Museum several times.  It’s “mind-boggling” to me that genocide could happen anywhere.  You bring up several interesting points.  First, it’s a bizarre experience to be in a country where such a human catastrophe occurred.  I lived there in the late 1990’s and still, there were lists of words people didn’t speak and subjects that were so controversial that you shouldn’t bring them up lightly.  I’ve seen people in tears, discussing the Holocaust, who weren’t even there.  People are both hyper aware of the past and anxious to make things right.  They still haven’t quite dealt with it. 

Modern Europe and pre-World War II German society are very different.  Imagine if every other young man were killed as well as a huge portion of the rest of the population, all of your major cities in rubble, all institutions wiped out, the economy non-existent, and your whole country in complete and utter ruin.  And in large part because of a totally radical, extremist, reactionary, quasi-religious regime, that didn’t even have strong roots to begin with.  Society would never be the same again.  Germany is where the ideas of socialism and communism most strongly developed.  In the 1920’s, gangs of communists fought gangs of fascists in the streets of major cities.  It’s almost weird that Nazism happened in Germany.  In the early part of the 20th century, you would’ve thought that France or Poland would have cradled racial fascism, more than Germany.  I’m greatly simplifying and generalizing things here, trying to be short.  The economy in Germany was in a horrendous depression in the 1920’s, when Nazism was gaining strength.  It just goes to show how crazy people can become when their economic stability is threatened and they are shown the supposed “conspiracy” behind it and who to blame.  Any country in this position is in grave danger.

You might say that Germany is so liberal today because it’s a reaction against Nazism, and anecdotally it seems plausible to me, however, it’s not just Germany that became ultra-progressive after World War II; it was all of Western Europe, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  Some of these countries already had a liberal trajectory, notably the English speaking industrial world (minus the U.S.) and the Scandinavian countries.  I do find the role of the Marshall Plan to be ironic.  My opinion is that it allowed Western Europe to stabilize to the point where they could start over.  All of the wacky extremism (especially on the right) was burned out and they had the luxury to sit down and figure out what a stable, fair, peaceful, sane country should look like.  What they came up with was not an American style free market minimalism, but a heavily regulated, relatively socially equitable economy with tons of social welfare safety nets.  Also, since the U.S. was paying a bulk of the military defense, Europe could afford to plow extra tax money into social programs, education, mass transportation, public works, welfare, socialized medicine, etc.  It’s kind of like the U.S. paid to help install a very liberal system in Europe, that most Americans would probably never tolerate themselves.  And it worked.  Western Europe has an awesome standard of living and is incredibly stable.  It was also in the interest of the U.S. to do all of this.  It’s quite likely that if they hadn’t done that, then sooner or later, it would have all fallen to Soviet style communism. 

If only the U.S. didn’t mind spending 54 billion dollars a month for a Marshall Plan to fix our awful ghettos or setup a modern social safety net, instead of toppling a third world dictator.

Present day Iraq is completely different from Western Europe after World War II.  It’s hard to even come up with similarities, except that they both had dictators and they were both conquered and occupied afterward.  Germany was devastated after World War II.  There was almost literally, no one left to fight.  And people didn’t have many deep ideological, cultural, religious, or even political reasons to resist.  Much different from Iraq.  Germany also had a much longer folk tradition of liberalism, socialism, and unionism, as well as sophisticated western styled institutions, western culture, western religion, etc., that was not foreign to the survivors.  In fact some U.S. institutions were influenced by older German ideas.  We play in the same cultural realm.

Finally, I don’t think Glen Beck is a typical Republican (I don’t even know if he calls himself one).  I’m sorry if it sounded that way.  These days, I’m not sure what to call the resurgent American right.  And there appear to be many different strains, from socially liberal Libertarians to Christian Right-wing militias.  They seem to be battling for the heart of Republican Party, but I agree with you, some of them are too nutty to fit into normal framework of the Republican Party.

Jackson,
I actually lived in Munich for a while and I have visited the Dachau Museum several times.  ...

I only visited Dachau once—the European Patent Office is located in Munich and I had an extra day on one trip. It was a chilly April day and a place you can never forget.

It remains to be seen whether European socialist economic policies are viable over the long term; it’s not clear how one would ‘measure’ this because there are so many other factors affecting economies.

I see Germany has the same problem of providing social services for illegal immigrants:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4056861,00.html

I think given the proper conditions, it could happen anywhere.
Most of the Republicans (and democrats) I know are very nice and reasonable. It is the far right (and left) wingnuts that cause me to grimace!

Most Germans remained nice people throughout the 30s and 40s.

Being a first generation German immigrant, with intelligent, interesting parents, I was very aware (growing up in the sixties) about that seemingly endless discussion: “How could such a thing (nazism) have happened to a people with such a cultural, intellectual, even liberal background.”  It was really a head scratcher.

Then 9/11 came along, and I witnessed the Cheney/Bush run up to an absolutely (and obvious to everyone that looked at the greater reality!!)  insane military action (As history has so tragically proven!).  I now understand it with a clarity I would have much rather never known.

Some ten years later, USA still refuses to look at what a total all around failure that Iraq grudge match was - instead waving flags and pretending this is how we are supposed to live.  While fervor and hatred keeps getting amped up, (hey, I’m only trying to make a few millions bucks, what’s the big deal.) while personal weapons stockpiling seems to have become one of America’s favorite past times, right after reinforced faith based hatreds and hysterical notions of one another… and science.

Perhaps I’m influenced by talking with my Mom who is terrified, and truly heartbroken by what she is witnessing, to her it is all too familiar and she just wants to check out before the next inevitable stage overwhelms us.  It would be fun to believe we can finesse ourselves to a more humane run out of history - but history doesn’t hold out much hope for that.

Is this the mirror image of the Glenn Beck conspiracy theory?

I don’t see how you could make a cleaner sweep than electing Obama—just as electing Jimmy Carter was a clean sweep of any hint of Watergate.

I think that is something everyone in the US should be proud of.

Is this the mirror image of the Glenn Beck conspiracy theory?

I don’t see how you could make a cleaner sweep than electing Obama—just as electing Jimmy Carter was a clean sweep of any hint of Watergate.

I think that is something everyone in the US should be proud of.

Yes, it is a triumph of democracy. However, in spite of this wonderful example of a nation founded on humanistic principles, there are those who abuse the freedoms it offers for personal reasons. Beck is a perfect example of such a person and unfortunately he has the ear of the world and his words tear down any gains we may have made in the eyes of the world.

Is this the mirror image of the Glenn Beck conspiracy theory?

I don’t see how you could make a cleaner sweep than electing Obama—just as electing Jimmy Carter was a clean sweep of any hint of Watergate.

I think that is something everyone in the US should be proud of.

Well yes.
But what good has it done when the opposition party has one imperative: ‘oppose and destroy the man’s initiatives at every turn, rather than taking part in the process and working out a better plan than either party can accomplish left to themselves.

I was actually just checking out, but then saw this headline:

AP IMPACT: US wasted billions in rebuilding Iraq

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer Kim Gamel, Associated Press Writer – 6 mins ago

KHAN BANI SAAD, Iraq – A $40 million prison sits in the desert north of Baghdad, empty. A $165 million children’s hospital goes unused in the south. A $100 million waste water treatment system in Fallujah has cost three times more than projected, yet sewage still runs through the streets
As the U.S. draws down in Iraq, it is leaving behind hundreds of abandoned or incomplete projects. More than $5 billion in American taxpayer funds has been wasted — more than 10 percent of the some $50 billion the U.S. has spent on reconstruction in Iraq, according to audits from a U.S. watchdog agency.

I’ll start believing in right wing honesty as soon as I see them recognize the idiocy of the mindset behind perpetrating and contining these wars that only encourage more justified rage against America plus train and increase the strength of our enemies.  Oh yea, I know the Iraq is officially over, but we’ve heard that before haven’t we - maybe we’re getting out, (maybe not) but it seems that the war continues. It ain’t over til it’s over.

And it wouldn’t hurt to start hearing right wingers examine the Anthropogenic Global Warming science with a sense of realism - but that would demand questioning their faith-based notions.

Jackson,
My original point was a simple one; some two dozen countries are far more liberal than the U.S. and do as well or better.  But I’m hard pressed to come up with even one country more conservative than the U.S. that is doing well (and none of them are modern, industrialized countries).  Like I said, it’s too complicated to try to calculate all of the different factors to predict outcomes, but it’s relatively straight forward to take real live countries and figure out to which degree their policies are regulatory vs. free market and see what the social stats are for the country.  This tells me that liberal policies can be successful.  I like to look at countries as models of what’s possible.  Many Western European countries have been extremely liberal (compared to the U.S.) since WWII and some since WWI.  These aren’t polices thought of yesterday!  So we know that these policies can be successful over the long run.  How they’ll do in the future, I think, is how they continue to calibrate the economy in the future and keep things in balance.  It’s worth noting that economically, the U.S. is on the far conservative extreme, among western industrialized countries. 

In general Western Europe prefers to sacrifice high growth, for a high standard of living (ie lots of vacation, shorter working hours, free college, generous social benefits, free medical, etc.)  By studying these countries you can start to see broad, general rules.  You can begin to see where you can set different parameters and what’s likely to happen.

In my opinion, immigration (and foreign internal cultures) is by far Western Europe’s biggest issue.  For some reason, Americans love to point this out.  Then again, I think it’s been civilization’s biggest issue from the very beginning.  Every society struggles with this.  But I think that the U.S. has had a very difficult time dealing with this issue, even though we were supposed to be set up for it.  I think the U.S. has never dealt with its past with black people and the issue simmers and festers to this very day.  In fact, when you compare minority populations (who are actual citizens) in Europe with black people in the U.S., there’s no comparison.  In the U.S. black people have similar stats to the developing world (infant mortality, life expectancy, disease, crime, chronic multi-generational poverty).  The discrepancy in Europe is not nearly as big.  I think immigration (and foreign internal cultures) is also America’s biggest issue.  If we could solve the income discrepancy issues in the U.S., I think we’d be in a far, far better position.

I tuned in expecting to get some ammunition to use when discussing Beck with his supporters, but instead was presented with ad hominem attacks, and some of Beck’s ancient history (to which he freely admits and uses to great effect to show how god can better anyone).

I did not hear any argument addressing the title of the show (Beck’s war on reason), or the book (common nonsense and the triumph of ignorance).  In fact, I did not hear anything that would prompt me to buy the book, which I presume was the principal purpose of the broadcast.

I get that the host and authors are not big fans of Beck, but I would have preferred a few concrete examples of how Beck’s message distorts the truth, assaults common sense, and challenges reason.

As it was, I did hear yet another dig at people who do listen to Beck . . . I believe they were directly or indirectly referred to as having diminished mental capacity.  That may well be the case for some, but if we have any hope of getting them to listen to counter-arguments, we should not continuously call them idiots.

And let’s not forget his audience is not homogeneous.  Some listen because they are pissed off at some of what has happened and is happening in the political and social arena, and while they may not agree with everything he says, he nonetheless speaks to some of their concerns.

No, I am not a fan.  I recognize he offers nothing more than platitudes and vague mission statements, but it is worth nothing he rings a bell with many people not because they are stupid, but rather because his generalities do touch on the concerns of many.

I think the show could have been less Beck-roasting, and more toward dismantling some of his arguments.  At the very least it should have been clearly pointed out, with examples touching on a few issues, his tactics for raising anger without offering solutions. 

As it was, this is not a show I can point a Beck fan to in the hopes they will reconsider their admiration for him; all they would hear is how much left-leaning people hate him, something they already knew and dismiss for lack of any concrete reason.

As it was, this is not a show I can point a Beck fan to in the hopes they will reconsider their admiration for him; all they would hear is how much left-leaning people hate him, something they already knew and dismiss for lack of any concrete reason.

What concrete reason? He doesn’t really say anything. From what I’ve seen he uses emotional reasoning. He connects with people’s pathos. You’re not going to defeat that with knowledge. People hate him, that just plays to emotions.

Probably a failure of our public education system to teach knowledge and reasoning skills.

The question is “why”?  I never got from the host or author why they dislike him so, or what specific things they object to.  Most of all, in their zeal to vilify the man, they neglected to inform me of what I can expect from the book.  Unless the book is full of examples relating to the man, and not his message (just like the show).

If that is the case I am not interested in it, but I was hoping for more. 

For instance. it would have been useful to hear an examination of Beck’s tactics when speaking on global warming.  The guest author mentioned he would have liked to have the host debate Beck on the issue.  You know what? A show taking apart Beck’s arguments would have been infinitely more informative and useful that the dismissive derision I heard.

That said, I will ask what your comment of “connects with people’s pathos” means.  Is it the same as what Obama did during the last elections?  Just wondering.

I won’t ask about the “knowledge and reasoning skills” comment as it sounds . . . what’s the word . . . oh, yeah; Beckish.  You know, vaguely accusatory and widely inclusive, but lacking specifics and too broad in nature to refute or argue against.

I will repeat it is a huge mistake to assume all who listen to Beck fall on the far side of the intelligence bell curve, and that it is therefore no use arguing with them because they lack the reasoning skills.  Why, I might even hint that it is positively elitist to do so.  Surely that goes against liberal ideals.  It certainly goes against my ideals; those of a centrist individual opposed to the arguments and tactics of both extremes of the political and social spectra.

Phil Plait recently gave an excellent talk that can be summarized as “don’t be a dick”.  He was referring to skeptic arguing with believers, but I think it applies here as well.  It seems to me calling the opposition stupid and lacking in reasoning skills violates at least the spirit if not the letter of that sentiment.  (disclosure statement: I myself often fail in that regard, but not when referencing large diverse groups.  One on one, however, I’ve been known to be quite the dismissive and condescending reproductive tool.  Something I am still learning to temper.)

Here is how to find a concrete example of Beck using and spreading irrationality:  Get a book on critical thinking, read the part about logical fallacies, and then watch or listen to his show.  There is your example(s).

The question is “why”?  I never got from the host or author why they dislike him so, or what specific things they object to.  Most of all, in their zeal to vilify the man, they neglected to inform me of what I can expect from the book.  Unless the book is full of examples relating to the man, and not his message (just like the show).

If that is the case I am not interested in it, but I was hoping for more. 

For instance. it would have been useful to hear an examination of Beck’s tactics when speaking on global warming.  The guest author mentioned he would have liked to have the host debate Beck on the issue.  You know what? A show taking apart Beck’s arguments would have been infinitely more informative and useful that the dismissive derision I heard.

That said, I will ask what your comment of “connects with people’s pathos” means.  Is it the same as what Obama did during the last elections?  Just wondering.

In politics I think one has to, to get elected. Political speeches generally don’t have a lot of details. People would get bored. Pathos, you connect emotionally with people. You feel their pain. You promote a commonality of experience. 

[qoute]I won’t ask about the “knowledge and reasoning skills” comment as it sounds . . . what’s the word . . . oh, yeah; Beckish.  You know, vaguely accusatory and widely inclusive, but lacking specifics and too broad in nature to refute or argue against.

It’s not intelligence, it’s knowledge. Whether one’s learned about physics, math, scientific concepts or not. If you have knowledge on a subject then you know. A person is not as likely to be persuaded by an emotional argument. It’s certainly not meant to be elitist. No body knows everything. When ideas and concepts are being expressed when lacking knowledge on a particular subject you rely on trust. Some expert you trust. This is where emotion and commonality of experience comes in which elicits trust. 

I will repeat it is a huge mistake to assume all who listen to Beck fall on the far side of the intelligence bell curve, and that it is therefore no use arguing with them because they lack the reasoning skills.  Why, I might even hint that it is positively elitist to do so.  Surely that goes against liberal ideals.  It certainly goes against my ideals; those of a centrist individual opposed to the arguments and tactics of both extremes of the political and social spectra.

Phil Plait recently gave an excellent talk that can be summarized as “don’t be a dick”.  He was referring to skeptic arguing with believers, but I think it applies here as well.  It seems to me calling the opposition stupid and lacking in reasoning skills violates at least the spirit if not the letter of that sentiment.  (disclosure statement: I myself often fail in that regard, but not when referencing large diverse groups.  One on one, however, I’ve been known to be quite the dismissive and condescending reproductive tool.  Something I am still learning to temper.)

I’m certainly not calling either side stupid. One knows what they know. Some liberals accept AGW for example not because of knowledge but because they trust Al Gore. You ask them for specifics, they don’t know. In their daily lives they have no need to understand the science behind it. They trust Al Gore. Someone else will trust a Rush Limbaugh on AGW. Doesn’t mean they lack intelligence. It only means they aren’t experts on the subject. So they rely on someone, for whatever reason, they’ve developed trust in.

If I have knowledge about a subject then I’ll trust someone who displays a equal level of knowledge. If I’m lacking knowledge on a subject then I have to rely on something else. Emotional ties, ties of common experiences. That’s pathos. People who’ve shared a terrible experience, there is a bond between them. Knowledge has nothing to do with it.

For me knowledge takes effort. Emotions come naturally. It is easier to connect with people on an emotional level and that’s what I’m saying people like Glen Beck does. Trying to connect with people using knowledge is much more difficult.

Even to your point of one group trying to vilify the man. That is connecting on a emotional level.

Glen Beck doesn’t really say anything from a level of knowledge. Truth is I don’t think Obama really says anything from a level of knowledge. From what I’ve noticed “opinion leaders” are more successful connecting with people on an emotional level.

You want more, you want knowledge so you’re not left to rely on these emotional exchanges you have to put the effort in yourself I think. However I don’t really think there is much there besides the emotion.

Here is how to find a concrete example of Beck using and spreading irrationality:  Get a book on critical thinking, read the part about logical fallacies, and then watch or listen to his show.  There is your example(s).

You mean you have to watch the show! Sounds like a trick…

Here is how to find a concrete example of Beck using and spreading irrationality:  Get a book on critical thinking, read the part about logical fallacies, and then watch or listen to his show.  There is your example(s).

That’ll only work, if you’re trying to persuade someone against Beck, with someone who has that knowledge and understanding.

They have to put the effort in and if they love Beck and you vocally hate Beck, they ain’t going to listen to you.

Sorry, you are correct however lacking knowledge, people are motivated by fear, emotions,  etc… Bush motivated a nation on fear of what Saddam might do.

Politicians are great at it. Salesmen, those highly emotional people trying to sell the latest whamo product. Religions use fear before, now they use love.

I’m not a humanist but I wonder how Humanism might choose to address this if it wants to be an opinion leader.

Here is how to find a concrete example of Beck using and spreading irrationality:  Get a book on critical thinking, read the part about logical fallacies, and then watch or listen to his show.  There is your example(s).

You mean you have to watch the show! Sounds like a trick…

Best post yet! IMO

Here is how to find a concrete example of Beck using and spreading irrationality:  Get a book on critical thinking, read the part about logical fallacies, and then watch or listen to his show.  There is your example(s).

You mean you have to watch the show! Sounds like a trick…

  Come on, try it out!

Here is a list of some of the fallacies I noted in this video:

1.  The chalk board serves as a huge visual fallacy of guilt by association.  (But notice all the other names thrown around: Rod Blagojevich, Al Capone, Tony Rezko…)

2.  The whole segment involves what some call a “complex question”: Glenn introduces it like this: “There couldn’t, certainly, be anything else going wrong there, could there?!?...Nooo…”  Of course the implication is amorphous (are they communists? Socialists? Dangerous to us?).  He keeps it going in the middle when he adds: “don’t kid yourself about what’s happening here…”

3.  Ad Hominem: New York Times and a host of others.

4&5. He tries to marginalize, discredit, and delegitimize actual journalists and sources of news who don’t “investigate” the kinds of allegations Beck himself throws around.  This one I would call a blend of poisoning-the-well and muddying-the-waters, calling in to question whether any media organization can be trusted.  This one seems like a whopper since it attempts to persuade the audience that these “others” (ahh: othering) are all probably in on the conspiracy.

6.  Appeal to fear: obviously

7.  Appeal to ignorance: we can’t prove that their not communists…therefore they must be; or, “…she refuses to answer any questions about Grove Park…”

(I challenge others to find additional fallacies: 10 points per fallacy.)

(Okay, the last bit was a trick.)

Here is how to find a concrete example of Beck using and spreading irrationality:  Get a book on critical thinking, read the part about logical fallacies, and then watch or listen to his show.  There is your example(s).

You mean you have to watch the show! Sounds like a trick…

  Come on, try it out!

Here is a list of some of the fallacies I noted in this video:
........

 

When I was a graduate student at MIT they had something on the menu in the student cafeteria called ‘oatmeal vegetable stew’. We always talked about it, none of us ever got it, and we all agreed that to talk about it intelligently SOMEONE had to order it (and eat it).

So thanks for watching Beck (and to Chris for interviewing a book about it) so I don’t have to….

  ‘oatmeal vegetable stew’.

Mmmmm!  That sounds gooood!

Want more evidence of Beck’s “war on reason”?  Okay: 

Beck on universities: “Our children are being submerged in the filth of communism”

Beck: “We have been setting up re-education camps. We call them universities”

Here’s how it gets spread:

A woman in his audience at his most recent rally praised Beck for “teaching us the real history that we weren’t taught in school.”

Discredit universities.  Re-write history.  Rinse and repeat.

I’m not getting paid for this so I’m off the beat now.  Media Matters will handle it from here.

As usual, and I am as guilty as anyone, things get slightly derailed in these discussions.  Hence why I’m not here often.

The original post was not so much to get into these kinds of discussions, but rather to voice feedback to the show I heard. 

I’ll repeat, what I heard was little about the book (other than a couple of examples of how Beck was an rear orifice back in the days), and lots about how the two speakers really did not like the man (duh!).

Unlike some other offerings, this podcast was a waste of my time, mostly because I learned absolutely nothing.  I have a backlog of podcasts I could have chosen from, but I picked this specifically for the title, hoping to get ammunition for future discussions.

Yes, I could watch Beck, but I don’t have the time to do the kind of research needed to refute what he says.  It’s one thing to point out logical fallacies, it’s another to then go on to prove whatever particular premise we are examining is completely lacking in merit.  Many people inadvertently use arguments that are close to, if not outright logical fallacies in support of what may be a valid premise.  True, Beck probably does it on purpose, but that still leaves the burden of disproving the premise. 

Hence my interest in a potential book on the matter.  The hope was for this show to be an intelligent, well reasoned podcast I could have others listen to, and be a point of discussion, maybe even leading to a book purchase and shared reading.

No such luck.

Now, I did make one mistake when I came here; I tried to explain why I found the show lacking.  What I should have said was “It sucked!” or “DJ would have conducted a better interview, with less leading questions, and less personal opinions”.  Then again, I don’t know that last part for a fact. 

Anyway, thanks for the somewhat-trying-to-be-helpful feedback, but I was hoping to direct my comments more at the host and author . . . which I’m sure are not interested in hearing them.

ejd

p.s. @Gnostikosis - almost a good save there differentiating between intelligence and knowledge.  I am not as pedantic as some when it comes to forum posts, so I look at what the tone and intent of the post might be, and yes, sometimes I misunderstand.  In this case, my comment were directed at both you and the host and author, as they too implied a lack of fundamental reasoning skill in the part of Beck’s audience.

Assuming for a moment that you had in fact intended to differentiate intelligence from knowledge and reasoning skills, the fact remains should some of those poor people lacking knowledge and reasoning skills chance across the podcast and/or your post, I can almost guarantee they will miss the nuance, and just assume you guys are calling them stupid. 

I don’t know you, but I imagine if such a comment was directed at you, you might not be inclined to parse the sentence, identify literal meanings, and arrive at what we now know is the correct meaning.  You know, the meaning that says you are not stupid, you just lack knowledge and reasoning skills; a meaning I assume was not meant to be condemning, but rather to be taken as constructive criticism. 

If indeed you would arrive at the correct conclusion, I bow and tip my hat to you . . . if I had a hat.

Later.

@Pragmatic Naturalist - I had missed your post, or they crossed while posting.

Excellent summary of the video (no I did not watch it; your recap was sufficient).

But those are exactly the kind of examples I would have liked to have been covered on the show . . . maybe with a little less snark. 

Thanks.

Want more evidence of Beck’s “war on reason”?  Okay: 

Beck on universities: “Our children are being submerged in the filth of communism”

Beck: “We have been setting up re-education camps. We call them universities”

Here’s how it gets spread:

A woman in his audience at his most recent rally praised Beck for “teaching us the real history that we weren’t taught in school.”

Discredit universities.  Re-write history.  Rinse and repeat.

I’m not getting paid for this so I’m off the beat now.  Media Matters will handle it from here.

Followed the discussion on the recent developments at the Discovery channel’s HQ.  I was amazed (and more than worried) at the many people citing Al Gore’s “an inconvenient truth” as the cause for this man’s deranged behavior. No one mentioned that while the action may have been deranged, the underlying reasons are important. There was a complete disconnect from reality, almost surely created by the likes of Beck.

p.s. just saw a list of books now banned from many schools. Frightening!
http://www.adlerbooks.com/banned.html

Wow.  Seriously, you are connecting Beck to this? 

Because, you know, reading this (http://savetheplanetprotest.com/) my first thought would not be to link right wing conspiracy proponents nut-jobs to this nut-job, James Lee.

And what’s with the Banned books list?  Are you trying to draw Kagan into this?  So she argued in favor of government having the right to ban books.  How does it tie in with the gunman (now dead, thus avoiding a lengthy and costly trial) at the Discovery channel?

In case this post does not make sense, that’s the point.  BTW, those are not “now banned”.  They were banned at some time or other.  Besides, the internet makes book banning almost irrelevant other than as a stunt at a local level.

Wow.  Seriously, you are connecting Beck to this? 

Because, you know, reading this (http://savetheplanetprotest.com/) my first thought would not be to link right wing conspiracy proponents nut-jobs to this nut-job, James Lee.

And what’s with the Banned books list?  Are you trying to draw Kagan into this?  So she argued in favor of government having the right to ban books.  How does it tie in with the gunman (now dead, thus avoiding a lengthy and costly trial) at the Discovery channel?

In case this post does not make sense, that’s the point.  BTW, those are not “now banned”.  They were banned at some time or other.  Besides, the internet makes book banning almost irrelevant other than as a stunt at a local level.

Sorry, I was not clear.
I was referring to the comments on Huff. There were a lot of comments blaming Al Gore’s movie for this man’s behavior. This sort of connection is often made by the far right, those who listen to Beck. Jon Stewart and Colbert regularly have parodies on beck’s and Limbaugh’s leaps of disassociated connections.

The book thing was just informational. It is disheartening to see that great works of literaure are banned in many schools because they will “corrupt” young minds.

As usual, and I am as guilty as anyone, things get slightly derailed in these discussions.  Hence why I’m not here often.

The original post was not so much to get into these kinds of discussions, but rather to voice feedback to the show I heard. 

I’ll repeat, what I heard was little about the book (other than a couple of examples of how Beck was an rear orifice back in the days), and lots about how the two speakers really did not like the man (duh!).

Unlike some other offerings, this podcast was a waste of my time, mostly because I learned absolutely nothing.  I have a backlog of podcasts I could have chosen from, but I picked this specifically for the title, hoping to get ammunition for future discussions.

Yes, I could watch Beck, but I don’t have the time to do the kind of research needed to refute what he says.  It’s one thing to point out logical fallacies, it’s another to then go on to prove whatever particular premise we are examining is completely lacking in merit.  Many people inadvertently use arguments that are close to, if not outright logical fallacies in support of what may be a valid premise.  True, Beck probably does it on purpose, but that still leaves the burden of disproving the premise. 

Hence my interest in a potential book on the matter.  The hope was for this show to be an intelligent, well reasoned podcast I could have others listen to, and be a point of discussion, maybe even leading to a book purchase and shared reading.

No such luck.

Now, I did make one mistake when I came here; I tried to explain why I found the show lacking.  What I should have said was “It sucked!” or “DJ would have conducted a better interview, with less leading questions, and less personal opinions”.  Then again, I don’t know that last part for a fact. 

Anyway, thanks for the somewhat-trying-to-be-helpful feedback, but I was hoping to direct my comments more at the host and author . . . which I’m sure are not interested in hearing them.

ejd

p.s. @Gnostikosis - almost a good save there differentiating between intelligence and knowledge.  I am not as pedantic as some when it comes to forum posts, so I look at what the tone and intent of the post might be, and yes, sometimes I misunderstand.  In this case, my comment were directed at both you and the host and author, as they too implied a lack of fundamental reasoning skill in the part of Beck’s audience.

Assuming for a moment that you had in fact intended to differentiate intelligence from knowledge and reasoning skills, the fact remains should some of those poor people lacking knowledge and reasoning skills chance across the podcast and/or your post, I can almost guarantee they will miss the nuance, and just assume you guys are calling them stupid. 

I don’t know you, but I imagine if such a comment was directed at you, you might not be inclined to parse the sentence, identify literal meanings, and arrive at what we now know is the correct meaning.  You know, the meaning that says you are not stupid, you just lack knowledge and reasoning skills; a meaning I assume was not meant to be condemning, but rather to be taken as constructive criticism. 

If indeed you would arrive at the correct conclusion, I bow and tip my hat to you . . . if I had a hat.

Later.

I guess I’m a little naive in that in accepting the reality of my own ignorance I don’t see pointing it out as insulting but as being helpful. I am quite happy when someone points out a subject I’m ignorant on. Then I’m aware of it and can work to correct it.

Sorry I have a bit of an agenda it that I’m fascinated by how an opinion leader is created and why people listen to them.

I think that the more one learns about how this strange leadership process works the better one can deal with it.

p.s. just saw a list of books now banned from many schools. Frightening!
http://www.adlerbooks.com/banned.html

Wow! I just looked at the list, I’ve read at least half of them, I think I’ve either read or purchased all of the children’s books for my sons except for the Harry Potter books which should be banned for being so poorly written (just kidding about the ban!). I also see books which were required reading by my son’s CATHOLIC school, including; Silas Marner (boring as hell), Catch 22, Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird and a couple of others.
Wow! is all I can say.

‘Silas Marner’ boring? Oh my!

Are we going to get back to skepticism, science, reason, paranormal claims, and quackery some time soon? Political liberalism has highjacked the skeptical movement and, like a virus, is prostituting it for its own propagational ends like it does every institution it infects.
  I hear Beck on average under five minutes a week, but I don’t need to hear him in order to notice that on this episode of Point of Inquiry there is not one example of his alleged irrationality or nonsense, just name calling, ad hominem attacks, and self adulating liberal breast beating..
  I have attended TEA Parties and you bet people are angry. They have plenty to be angry about. But liberalism has no tolerance for dissent and is ever so puzzled and hurt when the “great unwashed” they despise, bully, and manipulate resent or resist their impositions.
  Speaking of logic, I have noticed one thing about Rush Limbaugh and it may be true of Beck also, they have a wonderful instinctive grasp of the way inverse, converse, and contrapositive can be applied to expose vast panoramas of liberal hypocrisy and illogic. I’m sure that’s not appreciated on the left.

I just created an account so I could make just this point. This episode had no examples to support the arguments, and as a new listener to Point of Inquiry, the base name-calling made me want to stop listening alltogether.

H-Bomb

Thanks for offering your salient point re rg21’s statements lacking examples which could be debated. But he is just one voice among many. The beauty of CFI is that there is a free flowing debate on various issues which affect us all.

rg21 is right on one point, people are angry. But he is wrong that this anger is caused by liberals, it is caused by the likes of Beck and Limbaugh, who identify problems and then “blame” it on liberals, not on those greedy capitalists (which they represent) who are the cause for this growing social inequality . They are masters in creating straw man arguments. This is what makes them so dangerous.
Liberals just respond with anger to the false and insidious charges (with psychologically charged pictures and words in the background).

A couple of quotes I find relevant in the case of Beck:

“Few people can be happy unless they hate some other person, nation or creed.”

“The Opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction.”

Both by Bertrand Russell

Just saw this article on HuffPo by Dana Milbank:

“Mormon Prophecy Behind Glenn Beck’s Message”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-milbank/post_996_b_749750.html

A couple of quotes I find relevant in the case of Beck:

“Few people can be happy unless they hate some other person, nation or creed.”

“The Opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction.”

Both by Bertrand Russell

The masses are led by the passion of their leaders.

Just saw this article on HuffPo by Dana Milbank:

“Mormon Prophecy Behind Glenn Beck’s Message”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-milbank/post_996_b_749750.html

In politics, it doesn’t matter how you get support, only that you get support.

Religion is a easy vehicle by which to gather support. As long as individuals identify themselves as members of a particular group they are much easier to manipulate.

In politics, it doesn’t matter how you get support, only that you get support.

But shouldn’t it matter?

But shouldn’t it matter?

Yes.  But it doesn’t.

But shouldn’t it matter?

You want a “Yes”? Sure, however the world isn’t what it ought to be. You got to deal with what is.

Crowd psychology wins the day. Theoretically the crowd mind thinks differently than the individual. Someone like Beck may have mastered crowd mentality.

So i’m thinking that if one is trying to approach this like they are dealing with a “large” group of individuals, they might end up with the wrong answers. At least if that person had any intent to accomplish something practical.

I think Beck has done less to master crowd mentality than he has to master manipulating people’s emotions.  He’s good at it.  Real good.  He is good at getting people worked up about what pisses them off without really saying anything or giving any solutions.  I actually think that’s why Republicans tend to beat Democrats.  They’re simply better at manipulating people.  And they have a backbone.  That too.

I was about to write an article to be titled “Common Nonsense: The Emperor’s New Clothes and the Failure of Civilization in Indonesia” (for an Indonesian newspaper).  I hope the similarity with Mr. Zaitchik’s does not make anyone think that I plagiarize: it’s been in my mind for sometime and I had even thought its my unique coinage.