About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Friday, November 13, 2009 - 8:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was wondering if this was done with Beck's or Fox's approval.

So why the hell doesn't Fox make them available? Do they think there is no market for them?

Post 61

Friday, November 13, 2009 - 3:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sponsors get piiiiiiiiiiiisssssssssed!  They pay good money to advertise on stuff we're seeing for free.

Post 62

Friday, November 13, 2009 - 9:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't blame the sponsors, but what is the matter with the executives at Fox? Why is Beck, who is on before most people get home, only available at 5pm and 2am? Why does Fox not provide his show archived and with commercials on their own website, like South Park has the friggin sense to do?

Post 63

Monday, November 16, 2009 - 5:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The South Park episode was terribly unfunny. It didn't make Beck look bad. It was just boring. I only laughed once, when the Smurfs were bulldozed. The best personal parodies are when they reveal the conspiracy (Catholic Church, God is a giant Spider, MechaStreisand, Akira/Rosie O'Donnell) or the secret identity of the celebrity. The kill smurfs acrostic was not enough to carry the episode.

Post 64

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 9:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn Beck: MediaMatters 2009 Misinformer of the Year. I haven't read it. Don't shoot the messenger. I Just saw the headline posted on another online site and thought discussers here might be interested.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 12/22, 3:36pm)


Post 65

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 3:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Link's not working, Jordan.  I'm curious to see what kind of "misinformation" Beck throws around.

Post 66

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 3:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ok. I think it's fixed now.

Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Blah blah blah blah

When he wasn't calling the president a racist, portraying progressive leaders as vampires who can only be stopped by "driv[ing] a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers," or pushing the legitimacy of seceding from the country, Beck obsessively compared Democrats in Washington to Nazis and fascists and "the early days of Adolf Hitler." He wondered, "Is this where we're headed," while showing images of Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin; decoded the secret language of Marxists; and compared the government to "heroin pushers" who were "using smiley-faced fascism to grow the nanny state."

Like his predecessor, Beck spat on scruples, frequently announcing his goal to get administration officials fired. He increasingly acted not as a media figure, but as the head of a political movement, while helping to bring fringe conspiracies of a one-world government into the national discourse.




Blah blah -

 

The article goes on and on, but doesn't make a single correction to any of Beck's so called "misinformation."  In fact, the article goes to crazy lengths to avoid every bit of foundation Beck ever gave for his claims, deliberately painting him as a raving lunatic, which he absolutely is not.  Context is consistently ignored, which does more to "misinform" readers than anything Beck has ever said, or even implied.  Beck backs up his implications, but, apparently, Media Matters can't be bothered with details like "context." 

 

Really, MSM should get with it and accept the fact that Beck is probably the coolest, most popular guy on television today.

 

 

 



(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 12/22, 5:41pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 8:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This is a comic strip sent to me by a friend several years ago, with the explanation that it reminded him exactly of me.

 

Dilbert is getting ready for a date, and asks his little dog companion if he has any advice.  After a moment’s consideration, the dog says to him, “Try to be less like you.”

 

“Hmm, less like me, less like me---that just might work”.

 

The next panel is of Dilbert at the girl’s door giving her flowers.  Both are happy and smiling, and thing are going well.

 

As they are walking down the hallway she says to him, “I collect crystals.”   Dilbert gets a pained look on his face.  “I don’t know that they have any healing powers or anything like that, but it is my belief that they do.”

 

You can just see the strain on Dilbert’s face trying not to react, but helpless not to.  “And when did ignorance become a belief?”

 

In the next panel they are at the restaurant looking over the menus.  Behind her menu, she looks absolutely furious.  Behind his menu, Dilbert is mentally smacking himself in the head.  “too much like me, too much like me!”

 

 I really, really, really shoudn't do this!

 

I can not help myself----the best part of Glen Beck ran down his momma’s leg.

 

Now that that is out of the way consider this---what epistemological model do you think governs the “concepts” running around in Beck’s head?  Look at the hierarchy and the opening to objetivist epistemology

 

“1. The “extreme realists” or Platonists, who hold that abstractions exist as real entities or archetypes in another dimension of reality and that the concretes we perceive are merely their imperfect reflections, but the concretes evoke the abstractions in our mind.  (According to Plato, they do so by evoking the memory of the archetypes which we had known, before birth, in that other dimension.)

            2. the “moderate realists,” whose ancestor (unfortunately) is Aristotle, who hold that abstractions exist in reality, but they exist only in concretes, in the form of metaphysical essences, and that our concepts refer to those essences.

            3. The “nominalists,” who hold that all our ideas are only images of concretes, and that abstractions are merely “names” which we give to arbitrary groupings of concretes on the basis of vague resemblances.

            4. the “conceptualists,” who share the nominalists’ view that abstractions have no actual basis in reality, but who hold that concepts exist in our minds as some sort of ideas, not as images.

            (there is also the extreme nominalist position, the modern one, which consists of declaring that the problem is a meaningless issue, that “reality” is a meaningless term, that we can never know whether our concepts correspond to anything or not, that our knowledge consists of words—and that words are an arbitrary social convention.)” 

 

 and tell me how an avowed theists’ so called thinking can be admired by anyone who believes in the objectivist method.  True, if you set a thousand monkeys to banging away on keyboards for a thousand years, one will type out a Shakespeare sonnet, (or at least some Kerouac) but it’s still a fluke; the monkey has no real idea what it is doing.


Post 69

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 11:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I like the Dilbert cartoon - Scott Adams is hilarious... but wait, he isn't an Objectivist so I shouldn't laugh at his stuff. And Einstein wasn't an Objectivist so lets toss out any of his contributions in physics. Do we know if Jonas Salk was an atheist? Beck has compartmentalized his mental life in a way that is sad, but it would be crazy to ignore the fact that on the level of political activism he has done more to move our culture towards a rebirth of freedom than Tom Paine did in his time. How ugly would it be to say that the best part of Tom Paine ran down his mother's leg if he had a similar level of compartmentalism.

Sorry, James, but on this it's your thinking I call into question. The man is a political commentator and should be judged accordingly. He gets a bunch of points taken away whenever his political positions or principles deviate from Objectivist's positions and he gets a bunch of points given to him where they coincide. Then imagine multiplying the net points by his effectiveness in transmitting them into the culture. That is a model of his value to an Objectivist in the area of moving the culture away from "Republicans" or "Democrats" with their mixed economy moving deeper into statism... and moving the culture into seeing the issue as "Progressivism" versus "Small Government and Free Enterprise."

Post 70

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 12:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

1)  I said I really shouldn’t do this.

            2) when I was working on my profile here the other day, I was asked whether I was an objectivist (in the broadest sense of the word).  I took that to mean—do I accept reality as objective and as the final arbiter of what is true?  Yes I do.  I think this is probably true of Einstein and Jonas Salk.  One does not spend ones life trying to understand reality, and not believe in it. (god [I read as existence] does not play dice) I have a sense that Scott Adams is such a person as well.  I do not get that impression of Glen Beck.  I get the impression from him that he would say anything so long as it furthered his/his employers goals.

            3) but it would be crazy to ignore the fact that on the level of political activism he has done more to move our culture towards a rebirth of freedom than Tom Paine did in his time.  Yes, he has done so much to assure the equal rites of gay humans, the privacy rights of women, and the alleviation of hatred of atheists.  A real champion of freedom all right.

            4) The man is a political commentator and should be judged accordingly.  Yes, that is exactly what I am doing.  As a political commentator I find him to be a stone thrower of the worst sort; the kind who doesn’t really care where the stone lands or who it hits, so long as he looks good to his audience.  In a nut shell, otherish.

            5)  "Progressivism" versus "Small Government and Free Enterprise."  Just exactly  what do you mean by “progressivism”.   The fact that you put it in quotes seems to indicate that you mean “what everybody indicates when they say it”-- see my last post as to what epistemology that fits with.  As far as "Small Government and Free Enterprise" are concerned a) same answer, and b) there are reasons further up the hierarchy that are the reason objectivists believe in it.  I do not think the reason Glen Beck, or his employer, desire small government has anything to do with those.
            6)while I have some problems with Piekoff, I will reference the fact that at the end of Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, he—a) stated that objectivism is a progressive philosophy, and b) gave an explicit warning about neo-cons and how they camouflage themselves to look like objectivists. 


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 8:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

Objectivist, with a capital "O" means more than accepting reality as objective and the final arbiter of what is true. It means accepting the basic principles of Ayn Rand's philosophy - not every detail or even the smaller principles, but all the key principles. Certainly one could not be an anarchist, or a Christian, etc.

You discuss an impression of Beck, in your second point, as being dishonest at a deep level (would do anything to further his employer's goals) - but that is put out there as an unsupported assertion. I'm not seeing any of the facts of reality that would support that.

Point three: he has had Yaron Brook on his show and has never advocated against atheists. He believes that human rights come from God, but he gets that Objectivists see human rights as derived from the nature of man. And he isn't buying it or opposing it. He isn't taking the positions that conservatives take - he isn't crusading against gay rights. I'm not saying an Objectivist is going to agree with him on all political positions, but on 95% of them? Yes.

Point 4 seemed to much emotional attack and too little substance to comment on.

Point 5 - the fact that you don't know what progressivism is, means, sadly, that you need to see what Beck has been saying this last year. Since there isn't a chance in Hell that is going to happen, I'd just say that you need to be aware that there is a dimension of American politics that is of major importance that most people have no clue about. As a matter of fact, if you don't know what a progressive is, then you have seen very little of Beck.

Point 6 - I've been an Objectivist for about 40 years and an Atheist for longer. Thanks, but I need no warnings about neo-cons, traditional conservatives, the religious right, or any of the strange ideological concoctions that show up in the Libertarian tent.

What you have written appears to be more of an emotional reaction to Beck than a reasoned critique of his various positions.

Post 72

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

This definition may help you understand what "progressive" means:

A neocon is:

a progressive republican (a "progressive" "conservative").

Using this as a differentiating tool might be real fruitful. Look at neocons, and then look at the Founding Fathers. Where they are different is in the "progressive" nature of the neocons. If you ask yourself how they are different, answer yourself, and then mentally label what it is that makes neocons different as "progressiveness" -- then you will not be far off the mark.

Ed


Post 73

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, that's nowhere near accurate. A neocon is someone who has been converted to a position of supporting a strong national defense. Progressive Republicans, like Teddy Rooseveldt, might be for a strong military, but you won't even find the words defense or military in the article on the archetypical progressive Republican, Nelson Rockefeller, at wikipedia.

Post 74

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 4:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

From their respective Wiki's:

Progressivism
Progressivism is a political and social term for ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in an egalitarian direction for economic policies (public management) and liberal direction for social policies.
Recap:
Progressives want to advance "liberalism" and "democracy" as well as the broad, liberal-defined notion of "human rights"
... American progressives tend to support interventionist economics ...
Recap:
Progressives are generally comfortable with a welfare state, and are willing to intefere in the market for overriding social purposes

Neoconservatism
Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. ...

In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.
I rest my case.

Ed


Post 75

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, Ed, progressives are centrally concerned with egalitarian economic and social policies and may or may not support a strong military, while neocons support an active military and are "generally comfortable" with a welfare state. What is accident for one is essence for the other. The two may overlap but your purported "definition" is simply invalid. Rockefeller was a progressive Republican, but not a neocon.

Post 76

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 4:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The term 'progressivism' in the United States is different from how the term has been used in other countries. Here it refers to a political ideology that began in the late 19th century that advocates large government and interprets the constitution as an 'evolving' 'guide' rather that a limit on government powers. It believes in a strong executive in a strong federal government with weak states. The movement is aimed at massive increases in government size and power for egalitarian and altruistic purposes. It has been understood by progressives that their system will be evolved, sometimes quite slowly, through a steady erosion of support for capitalism, a steady shift in seeing the constitution as limiting, increasing the percentage of those who are entitled, and by actively revising history and continually moving economics away from a theoretical base of capitalism to a theory closer to Socialism. Progressives recognized that they were in a long term fight where making incremental changes would eventually win them the day and that the best tactic was to coopt the universities.

Progressives can be agnostic on military policy - supporting or rejecting military intervention based upon the individual or the proposed intervention. They might be in favor of a large, strong militarry or a small military. It just isn't a defining issue for this ideology.

They will nearly always be in favor of economic intervention, large government, and an elite that run the collective from the top. Things like nanny-state regulations are big today along with single-payer health services, and cap and trade. They have always been for high taxes, progressive taxes, equality of outcomes (except for the elites in power), higher spending. They will tend to employ the class war view of society and stand against the rich, and corporations, and side with the poor, with protected classes, and with unions.

They differ from Marxists in that they are not as rigid, are far more patient, look to get their way incrementally rather than an all at once revolution, and they exist in a large tent that welcomes middle of the roaders - confident that over the long run they will move everyone to the left.

The combined effects of the progressives and the Fabian Socialists have had over the last 100 years in the universities is stunning.

There are progessives in the Republican party as well as the Democratic party. They exist on the political spectcrum as a fairly wide band that in today's political world fits most of the Democrats holding office.

In Liberal Fascism, Johah Goldberg, describes late 19th century Progressivism as having "...many fault lines running through [it]. One one side there were the likes of John Dewey and Jane Adams who were more Socialistic and academic in their approach to politics and policy. On the other side were the nationalists who appealed more directly to patriotism and militarism. Wilson and [Teddy] Roosevelt more or less represented the two sides."

Post 77

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 5:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm fairly familiar with Beck, but rarely see/listen to the shows.  Since there are some fans here, perhaps they could fill me in on where Beck's loyalties lie. (ei: does his brain do his thinking or his church?)

When California was considering Prop. 8 (an amendment to CA's constitution defining marriage as between a man and woman, or something to that effect), and the Mormon church took as stance for it (perhaps even to fund advocate sites), did Beck take any stance at all?
 
Knowing if he was pro/against or had no apparent stance would help me complete my picture of the man.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 5:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
SEKULOW: The real question here is who decides what the laws are in the state of California and what their constitution is going to be.

BECK: OK. That's the difference. Correct me - I mean, Jonah, jump in here. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's what America has going for it. That's why we don't - for instance, prohibition - we put it in there. That's why we don't take it out. We leave the scars of what the people have done to the Constitution for a reason.

Jefferson people will come - they can change the Constitution. But things will change and they'll come to their senses and they'll repair that mistake and change it back. When did we turn into a country where the people don't have control of what they want in the Constitution?

Interesting interview here.


Post 79

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 7:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Progressives and NeoCons are both welfare/warfare statists.

They each emphasize their favorite half of the statist coin -- but it is a statist coin no matter how you turn it. War is the health of the state, but so is welfare. In each case, it is statism that is pushed down our throats. Statism is the essential thing, regardless of the specific flavor of it.

You are merely hyper-focusing on the small detail of who the statist has in mind for their own brand of "reform" (Progressive focus on welfare recipients; Neocons focus on other countries). In each case, however, the statists hold their hand out -- asking you to sacrifice -- while pointing to those "in need." In each case, there are 2 classes of society: the "public" and the "ruling" class.

You are simply attempting to miss this essential thing, focus on a non-essential, and "flip the coin" -- using projection to claim that I am the one (not you) guilty of a definition by non-essentials.

Ed

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.