Keep this in your sights

Glenn Beck is dangerous. I think he’s very dangerous. Neither Palin nor Limbaugh attract at such a deeply emotional level. And that is partly because Beck compels your attention. Even his critics can get momentarily drawn in (speaking as one of his critics). Beck is a new thing – at least in this modern media age.

He is going wherever the road leads – and he is  the one laying the paving stones.  Even Beck isn’t sure where he’ll land. I think he’s just making it up as he goes along and staying with whatever works (where have I heard that before?)

I don’t think he’s planning to run for any office. Doing that would force him to pigeon-hole himself to some extent; to address the issues of  whatever office he sought. Not really his style. I think his two favorite subjects are himself and things he fears or doesn’t understand and must therefore attack. He is really the epitome of the long and fabled paranoid strain in American political life.

Since I don’t think Palin is running for anything either, maybe the best  we can hope is for Beck and Palin to go at each other. That would be tidy.

From the business section of today’s New York Times: Glenn Beck Stakes Out Activist Role in Politics

11 responses to “Keep this in your sights

  1. Wow! Why is it some left-leaning folks fear Glenn Beck? I mean nearly everything said regarding him is personal attacks, and broad accusations. But for some reason no one actually sits down and “debunks” the things he reports as fact. (ie) the Van Jones episode, the Acorn expose, and the obvious dangerous policies of the Obama administration.
    Granted he is a bit emotional but I don’t think there’s anything wrong his enthusiasm. I mean look at how enthusiastic the left is in their attacks on him and Ms. Palin. Talk about emotional!

    Like

    • Steve – I don’t personally fear Glenn Beck. I do fear for the country. I think we’re very fragile and deeply divided so when someone like Beck plays emotionally TO that, I worryfear. Other people that I really really don’t like (and you could probably write my list yourself!) are entirely different and draw their audiences on a cultural or factual basis. Beck uses – and I mean USES – all the emotional triggers – fear, anger etc – he USES them and plays on them and does great damage.

      Like

    • Steve:

      Some links for you re: fact-checking Glenn Beck. 🙂

      http://www.factcheck.org/tag/glenn-beck/

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/

      Glenn Beck is not a journalist, nor does he check his own facts (he himself has admitted this). He spends his days ranting and raving into a camera, scaring the hell out of people, spewing lies, creating insane conspiracy theories…and now he’s planning to become an even bigger figure in American politics. As much as I laugh at him and dismiss him, I worry about the fact that he’s taking advantage of people at a very vulnerable time in our history. It’s both dangerous and cruel.

      Like

      • He also targets his pitch directly at the most fearful – and therefore vulnerable – among us.

        Like

      • Thank you sleepygirl. I’ll check it out; though I must tell you that I don’t put alot of stock in factcheck.org as they’re a division of the Annenberg Foundation of which Obama was a part of. But I will look the stuff over.

        Like

        • Steve – from their website:

          “The Annenberg Foundation is a private foundation established in 1989. It is the successor corporation to the Annenberg School founded in 1958 by Walter H. Annenberg. ”

          Annenberg served the Nixon administration as Ambassador to Britain (the very top of the diplomatic title, so not a crony appointment).

          The Foundation was established with a bequest of $1.2 billion. Given its size and scope, I would imagine hundreds if not thousands of people in public service professions have been affiliated with them.

          As usual, just sayin’.

          Like

          • Yes, it is a fairly large organization. Here’s a statement from factcheck.org’s website:

            FactCheck.org is funded by, and is a project of, the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which was established by the Annenberg Foundation with a $20 million endowment in 1993. The Annenberg Foundation also made additional grants to support our work. We also receive funding from the Flora Family Foundation to help support our educational offshoot, FactCheckED.org. We receive no other outside funding.
            And that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge also was funded by The Annenberg Foundation.
            Obama was the board chairman of the CAC and Bill Ayers was one of the founders; and was instrumental in gaining the $49.2 million grant for CAC.
            My point is that there is a fairly close relation with factcheck.org and Obama. So there’s obviously a ‘conflict of interest’ here; that among other things is why, as far as I’m concerned, Factcheck.org is not a reliable source of “factchecking”.
            I do appreciate the links though.

            Like

            • Here’s my problem with that Steve. Your reasoning is that because Obama was connected to Annenberg and Annenberg funds factcheck.org, then factcheck.org is not reliable. That’s quite a leap.

              In any case, here come our dueling links:

              http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/thisweekineducation/2007/03/obama_and_annenberg.html

              The link is the obundsman column at EdWeek, an education trade magazine. The article is from 2007 and addresses the business of Obama as chair of CAC and says it’s absolutely not true.

              He says:
              “If he did [have any meaningful connection to CAC], it’s news to me and a lot of folks in Chicago. I wrote a long report about the CAC in 2001 (From Frontline Leader to Rearguard Action PDF) that failed to unearth Obama’s name as anyone of any influence — and never came across his name in an education context in the following six years during which I wrote a book about school reform in Chicago. Obama gets barely a mention in the Chicago Catalyst magazine, which goes back further and deeper than I do. “

              Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s