Beck is attacking the enemy at the foundations of their power, their claim to race as a permanent trump card, their claim to the Civil Rights movement as a permanent model to constantly be transforming a perpetually unjust society.
He is nuking out the foundations of the opposition’s moral preeminence, the very thing I proposed in this post.
Actually, it’s more like the pretense of their moral preeminence.
Jiminator – let me re-phrase the basic question: How much of Walgreens revenue is prescription-filling vs. selling the million other things they stock in the store? If you can’t answer that, don’t bother with the other questions.
It would be nice if one day Gerrib would take his own advice.
Hey Rand, the troll is now linking to his site with non-sequitor subject matter. His noise alone isn’t sufficient, so he is trying to pull your page views to his site. I know you don’t work on advertisements, but the troll’s actions still seem slimy to me. And yeah, it’s pretty obvious he wouldn’t know what Glenn Beck is doing with a “Rally to Restore Honor”.
The “fear” I feel about Beck (and Palin) is the same as the fear I would have of a 5-year-old left alone in the control room of a nuclear reactor. It’s a fear that somebody clearly out of their depth gets put in a position of responsibility.
So exercise of free speech is a position of responsibility that shouldn’t be allowed to Beck or Palin? Good to know. (They are both private citizens, after all).
Also, I don’t particularly want my neighbor in a position of national responsibility, but I haven’t:
(1) tried to bribe her daughter to abort her unborn baby;
(2) spread lies about her marriage;
(3) stated online that her own baby was actually the incestuous offspring of her husband and their daughter–thus also playing into the ignorant belief by most leftists that all rural people practice incest regularly (and implying that they are genetically inferior and should be dealt a final solution by your paid thugs, while you sit giggling in your easy, cowardly comfort);
(4) paid the father of her daugh.ter’s baby not to pay child support, using an ugly D-list Hollywood ugly whore as a go-between;
(5) made common cause with a pedophile “assistant kindergarten teacher” to bring her down;
(6) called for a harassment campaign against her son who is on the front lines, in the hope that he will be distracted and killed;
(7) set up a hate page for each member of her family on the Whorington Compost.
You have done all these things.
Since we don’t see anything hateful about Sarah Palin, a
Trent Waddington wrote:
Can someone set aside their politics for a second and explain what Glenn Beck is about?
Glenn Beck believes America is on the path to ruin. He further believes that her current political and economic troubles are a symptom, not a cause, of her true problem: she turned away from God and the Christian principles upon which she was founded (e.g. faith, hope, charity, and honor).
His Restoring Honor rally was an attempt to bring like-minded people together to begin to restore honor in themselves and, should that phenomenon spread, to the country as a whole. Then, and only then, can America be brought back from the brink.
That’s my take on it anyway.
Mike
(continued from last post)
mother who didn’t kill her unborn baby and an NRA member, we have to conclude that it is these very things for which you desire to hurt and kill her and her families.
We also share these traits with her; thus you clearly want us exterminated as well.
Therefore, we fully intend to defend ourselves and our families against you, using any means necessary.
Michael, cool. I never know whether or not people are just focusing on the part of the message they like/hate and ignoring the rest. And then cynical interpretations don’t help.
“And then cynical interpretations don’t help.”
And what, exactly, is THAT supposed to mean? Huh?!
MfK, I think he means that people tend to interpret other people’s views in ways that best suite their own arguments and agendas. Do it positively and it is called being generous. Do it negatively and it’s building a straw man argument.
Chris L., if you need your ironometer repaired, I can do that for a nominal fee.
larry j Says:
September 1st, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Chis is showing a beautiful example of Orwellian Doublethink. He lambasts Palin for being unqualified for office when her executive experience was greater than Obama and Biden combined back in 2008.
Correction: Obama, Biden, and McCain combined.
I thought most Americans agreed that a shaved ape was over qualified for political office.
I didn’t say that Beck needs to be stopped, shouldn’t be allowed to speak his mind or run for President. For that matter, I didn’t say I thought Beck was running for anything.
I said that I don’t think he knows what he’s talking about. I’ve seen him make gross historical errors (claiming that half the Founding Fathers were ministers, for example), and poor economic arguments such as Walgreens ‘nationalization’. (A lot of businesses would kill for a 26% margin on goods sold).
Because I don’t think Beck knows what he’s talking about, I don’t actually fear him at all. I am concerned that people will think he knows what he’s talking about and follow his ideas, leading to problems.
Ken – I have no idea what you’re talking about, but you might want to take a few deep, calming breaths.
RickL – 2 years as Governor of the 47th most populated state isn’t exactly vast experience. Heck, there are 300,000 more people in my county than in the State of Alaska, and my county commissioner isn’t high on anybody’s list of Presidential candidates. Can you honestly say you knew who Palin was before McCain picked her?
“2 years as Governor of the 47th most populated state isn’t exactly vast experience. ”
…and yet ironically, she was still the most qualified candidate in the race.
“2 years as Governor of the 47th most populated state isn’t exactly vast experience.”
It’s a whole lot more experience than Obama had in governing anything.
Chris, the appropriate way to call someone on poor factual claims is to quote them accurately, providing a reference for when/where they said it, and then identifying all the conflicting evidence to build a case which discredits their claim. For historical claims, that’s often as easy as saying “Glenn Beck isn’t a historian, yet he’s made a novel historical claim, can anyone provide a reference to back up this claim? Otherwise I’m going to assume he’s mistaken” when no references are forthcoming, you can suggest to others that Glenn Beck is mistaken. Of course, what exactly you’ll achieve from that is beyond me.. I’m not sure anyone thinks Glenn Beck does a whole heck of research before he goes on his rants – correct me if I’m wrong. And even if you show he got something wrong, you’ve yet to show that he lied, and even if you did, who even claimed he was honest?
“I am concerned that people will think he knows what he’s talking about and follow his ideas, leading to problems.”
Beck’s audience already had those ideas you are afraid of, that’s why they are tuning in. He reaffirms their belief system. You are making the same mistake with Beck as other people do with Limbaugh. You believe that they are telling their audiences what to think, when in fact they are just letting their audiences know that they are not alone in those thoughts.
If the main stream media had actually treated the whole tea party movement with something other than total disdain, it is entirely possible that Beck would still be pulling Oberman like ratings these days. But they didn’t, so the folks who have a problem with what the administration is up to gravitated towards the folks in the media who weren’t calling them racist morons. Funny how that works.
… I don’t think he knows what he’s talking about. I’ve seen him make gross historical errors … and poor economic arguments
Again, whom else can I think of to which this would also apply?? Mmmmmm…..
You’re a lost cause.
I am concerned that people will think he knows what he’s talking about and follow his ideas, leading to problems.
Again with the personal experience. This is just hilarious.
Then there is this:
poor economic arguments such as Walgreens ‘nationalization’. (A lot of businesses would kill for a 26% margin on goods sold).
Yeah, suggesting that 26% margin on goods for a department store is great, is a poor economic argument. I’m sure when you write a book that doesn’t sell, 26% margin sounds great. But when you run a business that has capital costs, payroll, and utility bills; 26% may not be enough to cover the overhead. Especially in an environment in which a President, who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, keeps doing things that raise overhead costs.
Leland, maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re talking about but 26% margin is phenomenal for retail. I’d be asking where that number came from.
Oh my, so thanks to caching, I read Gerrib’s diatribe. Apparently Gerrib’s comprehension problems caused him to misunderstand satire, but that’s not surprising. Gerrib does asks a few questions that are pretty telling. For example:
Why wouldn’t the other drugstore chains pick up this business?
The context here would be Walgreens failing (going bankrupt) rather than being bailed out. Where was Gerrib asking this question when GM and Chrysler were bailed out?
Why couldn’t the Feds just increase their reimbursement rates and/or work with Walgreens to get the meds at a better discount?
First, note that Walgreens only quit taking Medicare patients in Washington State only (well threatened to quit), so that should be the first signal that the problem is not a “Feds” issue. Second, why can’t Walgreens decide to just cut patients that don’t reimburse fully for prescriptions? Why should the Feds have any authority to determine the acceptable profit margins for any entity? And if Gerrib thinks the Feds should set these rates and keep Walgreens from dropping Medicaid; why does Gerrib think Beck is crazy for suggesting the government might nationalize Walgreens?
Finally, this issue with Walgreens dates back to March. 6 months later, Gerrib is still angry about it. Bitter. Clingy.
True enough Trent, Gerrib doesn’t say where the number comes.
The issue was reimbursement rates from Medicare. Also not mentioned is whether the margin is gross or net. I’d agree that 26% would be great net profit margin. But I suspect that’s not the case, since again, we are talking about reimbursement rates. If the drug sells from the manufacturer for X, and Medicare says you should only get 26% margin over X; I suspect that’s a gross margin for the product.
“2 years as Governor of the 47th most populated state isn’t exactly vast experience. ”
It helps if Alaska was a successful state under her tenure.
A criterion that discourages any enthusiasm over Mike Huckabee.
Is she an Alaskan native or did she move there to run?
She was born in Idaho, but the family moved to Alaska when she was an infant. Nice bit of long range planning.
heh, very long range..
Obviously the idea that Gerrib worries most that listeners might pick up from Beck is that their lives and property belong to them. not the State.
That’s why it’s futile to debate wih this guy. As I’ve said before I’m not sure if he’s as stupid as his arguments, or if he is feigning stupidity simply to divert discussions. Since the effect is the same, it really doesn’t matter. He’s a State-humper: he loves the State; likes forcing others to submit (if only by proxy, through Obama) to his ideas on how you should live and spend your money; and no matter what the specific argument, will always take the statist side no matter what facts and logic get in his way.
” For that matter, I didn’t say I thought Beck was running for anything.
I said that I don’t think he knows what he’s talking about. I’ve seen him make gross historical errors (claiming that half the Founding Fathers were ministers, for example)”
Just when did he say this Chris? I’ve never heard him say or espouse that. I watch and listen to GB daily. And NOT to be led, as you suggest, but because I already agree with him, his views and his account of history.
And as to his “twisted, inaccurate” history, he has an entire list of books, posted on his site, that have his concepts and / or “version” of history in them. He has more solid information to prove his views than his detractors on the left who use Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book for every situation!!
Like him or hate him, lemme ask, where was all the White Power crap GB was SUPPOSED to put out last weekend? You, like the rest of the libs, left that in the dust early Saturday when it didn’t happen. But tell me WHY almost all of you pushed that to start with?
Other than the obvious of course.
A Million African-Americans together is a great and acceptable idea, a Million White skinned Americans together has gotta be about racism.
How many times have we heard from the likes of Gerrib what dangerous agitators certain players on the right are? It is a constant refrain of the left be the subject of their hate Reagan, Limbaugh, Bush, Palin or Beck. They claim that these conservatives are leading people to commit acts of violence in the name of the right.
But where are these leftists when a real-life dangerous loon actually commits an act of violence, but in the name of the left? When Joe Stack flew his aircraft into a building in Austin TX he left a leftist diatribe ranting against George W. Bush, corporate America, insurance companies and the healthcare system. Was he egged on by Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and maybe even leftist bloggers like Chris Gerrib?
When James Jay Lee took hostages at the Discovery Channel building yesterday, what was his beef? Was he a Tea Partier mad about big government and high taxes? No. Who were his mentors? Was it Beck, Palin, Bush? No, it was Al Gore and extremist wacko environmentalism.
But I fully expect, at the very next opportune moment, that the leftists will continue with their baseless accusations, because that is all they have left.
Oooh–demagogues of the Right! They want to whip up a howling mob WHO WILL LEAVE YOU ALONE!!! Gerrib’s nightmare.
I said that I don’t think he knows what he’s talking about. I’ve seen him make gross historical errors…
He doesn’t claim perfection (or an ability to heal the earth) and he accepts correction. These are admirable qualities in case you must be told. He gives documentation for everything he says, so if he’s in error, it’s his source that errs which does happen from time to time. Much less so than for his detractors.
I am concerned that people will think he knows what he’s talking about and follow his ideas, leading to problems.
As has been mentioned, his audience is not made up of a herd of Beck zombies (sorry, don’t mean to give you nightmares.) You should be more concerned that you don’t give his references some research and consideration before nit picking. BTW, what part of being honorable do you find so disturbing?
2 years as Governor of the 47th most populated state isn’t exactly vast experience.
…and your misrepresentation of her experience isn’t exactly flattering to you or your argument. She has well over a decade of administrative experience not only including elective government (why only talk about those two years, which btw did more good for the state of AK and the country than anything Obama could do in eight… if his last two are any example.) She was also a government appointed head of an agency where she radically fixed decades of problems… by resigning no less) and a successful business woman (Obama has no business experience which is easy to tell.)
Can you honestly say you knew who Palin was before McCain picked her?
Everybody that reads this blog knew of her before McCain picked her as one of the lady commenters mentioned her before then. I even blogged about it and did some minor research. Her convention speech and polling after put McCain back in the race. His unwillingness to compete (and general lack of conservative principles made him a loser.)
I had given conservative a strike thru. Apparently the ‘S’ tag doesn’t work in comments.
Apparently the ‘S’ tag doesn’t work in comments.
I just noticed that yesterday.
I’ve stayed out of the Walgreen discussion because (a) it’s out of whatever expertise fields I have, (b) I didn’t hear or read what exactly Beck said on the subject, and Gerrib is an unreliable source; (c) it’s just not of that much interest to me; and (d) it’s ultimately a side-show, and probably one of Gerrib’s usual diversionary tactics. If Beck were absolutely 100% factually correct in everything he says (a record set by no one I know, not even people with the best intentions), do you really think the Gerribs of the world would drop their hostility? Anyone who says to them “Leave me alone” is their enemy. To them statism is its own reward, consequences be damned.
QFE because this is the fundamental difference between those who view civilization as a voluntary collection of free humans instead of an ant colony.
Glenn Beck believes America is on the path to ruin. He further believes that her current political and economic troubles are a symptom, not a cause, of her true problem: she turned away from God and the Christian principles upon which she was founded (e.g. faith, hope, charity, and honor).
China and India are doing rather well at the moment, with high growth rates and presumably a pretty good selection of virtues. When I think of their virtues I think of hard work, entrepreneurial spirit, a drive to get ahead (education, financial, etc.) and a hope for a more prosperous future – a will to power. I would specifically not typify these cultures with the virtues of faith, hope, charity or honor.
The set of virtues suggested above for Glenn Beck, which seem virtuous enough to me, are actually ones that I would also associate with Ludditism. Are people sure that Glenn Beck wants to create a better future? Or does he simply wish a return to his beloved past?
Those who live in the past – do not live in the future. I would agree that the US is on a path to ruin, but from what has so far been suggested of Glenn Beck, I do not see that his is a path back to economic competence, indeed, it seems quite the opposite.
“and Gerrib is an unreliable source”
He gets far too many of his points from the Soros-backed Clown Shows on the left like Stink Progress.
Chris Gerrib wrote:
“The “fear” I feel about Beck (and Palin) is the same as the fear I would have of a 5-year-old left alone in the control room of a nuclear reactor. It’s a fear that somebody clearly out of their depth gets put in a position of responsibility.”
Here Chris expresses perfectly what I call “the politics of sneer”. He seems to believe that some highly technical political ability is needed to find and pay attention to what will get our society through the next generation. In fact, it is attention on needed things that will guide us to perfect the abilities needed to build the society we need. Palin and Beck are paying attention to needed things, whatever their level of technical ability within political thought. The focus of attention comes *first*, and the abilities develop guided by that focus!
That, of course, is what so many cannot stand about Palin and Beck, and those who have any agreement with them. What they pay attention to will not lead us to ever more adroit manipulation of society by its government. The simple fact is that many like Chris*want*to manipulate the rest of society, or, more often, see someone else do it for them.
The desire to assert one’s self, whether subtly or coarsely, is a normal human trait. Those who fear people like Beck and Palin to the point of denigration are fooling themselves if they think the basis of their viewpoint comes from *any* subtle level of understanding. Of course, some then deny there can ever be anything subtler than what they can pound on, but that’s a level of self-willed ignorance that would take far too long to get into.
Beck and Palin will not be perfect, either as leaders or as commentators. Neither was was Ronald Reagan. Still, Reagan’s focus of attention was far more successful than any of his predecessors for decades. If these two can be *half* as effective as he was in growing human freedom, we will owe them a great debt. It isn’t the “smart boys” who are always the ones needed.
It’s what we pay attention to that lays a basis for action.
Again, a dull day brightened by a skim read here. I’d comment but it would be extremely hard to top the stuff here.
I’m going to go back and read about how Glenn Beck can prove that the Book of Mormon is real again. That’s *almost* as much fun as reading this load of old wibble.
I’m non-religious; but based on my familiarity with the Book of Mormon (based, admittedly, mostly on a South Park episode), I’d say it’s no more irrational than the SDtate-cultism you and Gerrib subscribe to, Daveon. In fact, looking at history, I have an easier time believing the angel Moroni gave those gold tablets to Joseph Smith than I do accepting the State as my best friend.
Note how Daveon (aka “Captain Syllogism”) stops by for a visit but doesn’t attempt to refute any of the “wibble” he mentions. (I’m guessing “wibble” is UK State-fellator for “pro-liberty.”)
Pete, I was surprised to see you make a connection between Beck and Luddism. To me, Luddism describes people who are against general industrialization, computerization or other advances in technology. I thought Beck’s message was more of a call to return to little-r republicanism, so I don’t see the connection between that and Luddism.
What did I miss?
…and right on cue, Dave rides by and sticks his head out of his palanquin to demonstrate aforementioned sneer. Wow.
Pete can best explain for himself; but I think he might be saying that Beck, in calling for a restoration of “traditional” values, is being a traditionalist conservative along the likes of Russell Kirk. And Kirk did have a strong streak of neo-mediaeval Ludditism, as I recall. It’s a kind of nostalgia for a pre-industrial Good Old Days. (Needless to say people like Kirk saw themselves as the squire comfortably seated before the fire, and not the peasant pushing a plow.) I think Hayek calls it the “Myth of Merrie Olde England” (which wasn’t merry, and where most people were living pretty brutal lives.) It was the “philosophy” (if one can call it that) of the old Tories who aligned themselves with the Marxists and other socialism to fight “Machesterism:” (i.e., capitalism).
I don’t see Beck as a “trad” in the Kirkean sense, and although I’m a “decadent ” libertarian (and to the “trads” a libertine), I don’t see any real contradiction between those virtues Beck is supposed to be espousing and a dynamic, capitalist society. But Pete’s post wasn’t exactly clear to me, either, so I may be misinterpreting.
For what it’s worth, I believe the atheistic Murray Rothbard credited Catholicism (and not, as usually claimed, Proestantism) with laying the foundation of modern capitalism.
“Note how Daveon (aka “Captain Syllogism”) stops by for a visit but doesn’t attempt to refute any of the “wibble” he mentions. (I’m guessing “wibble” is UK State-fellator for “pro-liberty.”)
”
Now Bilwick, you know he is too far above the fray to dirty himself down in the trenches with us proles.
> I would specifically not typify these cultures with the virtues of faith, hope, charity or honor.
I work with lots of people from China and India. They are great people. I would say that the cultures of both China and India celebrate the virtues of faith, hope, charity and honor.
What sort of stupid claptrap have you been reading about China and India?
Yours,
Tom
There’s also the small issue that, while they may be a small minority within the population, there are possibly more Christians in China than in the US, and despite decades of lesser-and-greater oppression (“on-and-off” would be less accurate), Christianity is growing there. It may never have a dominant influence in the government, or even a modest one… but, it is there.
Also, FYI, the link at the top may not be accessible for some time. Glenn Beck sort of RTWT… on air… during his TV show. And showed a screen of it, with the URL clearly visible.
So… the whole chicagoboyz site is down at the moment.
“We are grand, aren’t we?”
Reagan’s focus…
His funeral should have been a clue to the true nature of America to this current crop of morons. I miss him, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.“
Note how Daveon (aka “Captain Syllogism”) stops by for a visit but doesn’t attempt to refute any of the “wibble” he mentions. (I’m guessing “wibble” is UK State-fellator for “pro-liberty.”)
The thread wouldn’t be complete without a “showing the flag” by the dinghy, HMS Daveon. I understand it has a novel, “single-oared” propulsion system that is the envy of the world.
> I would specifically not typify these cultures with the virtues of faith, hope, charity or honor.
I work with lots of people from China and India. They are great people. I would say that the cultures of both China and India celebrate the virtues of faith, hope, charity and honor.
As do I and I have also been to China quite a few times (not India though). I did not say that they were not great people or that they did not have these virtues, just that I would not typify these cultures by such virtues. The point I was trying to make is that a high level of these particular virtues is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity – as these cultures demonstrate.