Glenn Beck's Adventures of Spooky Dude

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Glenn Beck's Adventures of Spooky Dude

Yesterday, Glenn officially kicked off his TV Network, GBTV. (Started on 9/12 because he says Americans are not the people of 9/11, but instead the people of 9/12, when we came out and helped each other through the crisis.) I saw it and was glad to see that he is going to focus on American history and world events again.

I was watching his televised radio show just now and in one of the commercials, he presented his cartoon, "The Adventures of Spooky Dude."

I had to laugh despite myself. Dayaamm, Beck is talented!

Beck managed to highlight the essential philosophical beliefs of George Soros while lampooning his egomania and hypocrisy. It's an extremely fast-paced cartoon and it only gets funnier the second and third time you see it.

So I tried to find an online version to share here. No luck. The copyright police are out on this one. I wasn't able to find the cartoon by itself. But I did find it sandwiched inside a small take from another show of his on a GBTV preview. The video is hosted by Media Matters, of all things.

Anyway, enjoy. The cartoon is cool, whether you like Beck or not.

<object width='320' height='260'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201106090001'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201106090001' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='260'></embed></object>

Since I am studying persuasion techniques, his blast of hypnosis misuse at the end was especially hilarious to me. "Ohhh, so pretty..."

Michael

[9thdoctor]

So Spooky Dude is supposed to be George Soros? Pretty lame, I say. Compare to Murray Rothbard’s character Carson Sand.

I mean, they could at least give Spooky Dude a proper accent!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Why lame?

Glenn got Popper and everything else Soro-wise in there (in fundamentals) if you pay attention. Want a road-map? The stuff is all there.

Now, if someone is deeply prejudiced against Beck, he could say that rain is wet and the person won't believe him and call him lame for believing in such nonsense. Judging by your post and your past ones, I think that is your case.

btw - I actually like Rothbard's play (and I once made the mistake of saying that to Barbara ), but I really, really dislike that performance.

Instead of satire, all I see is sniggering among very lame actors and actresses. (I realize they were amateurs, but come on...) Once in a while I can catch a glimmer of decent delivery, but the lack of any comedic skills at all really impairs those people. Hell, even a minstrel show for a white backwoods racist is better than those folks do. And, to me, that level of comedy (mocking for humiliation only) was all they were attempting...

If you aim that low and are a crappy shooter, you can't hit a high mark ever.

Frankly, they remind me of Keith Olbermann when he tries to be funny.

Give me Jon Stewart, Penn Jillette, SNL, and even Glenn Beck any day (among some very good others). They are not only good at comedy, they take it seriously enough to present it only if they can be halfway professional.

At least Rothbard was gracious and indulgent to his flock on his birthday.

If Objectivists had done a similar level of performance with one of Rand's unproduced plays at a celebration, I think she would have had a fit.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here, chew on this for a bit. It should make you happy...

Glenn Beck set to become $100m man after taking plunge with his own online network

13th September 2011

Daily Mail

From the article:

The channel's two-hour centrepiece, titled simply 'Glenn Beck', only got its first airing tonight but more than 230,000 paying customers have already subscribed.

That number has tripled since June, when the 80,000 people who were paying $9.95 a month for Mr Beck's pre-existing premium web service, Insider Extreme, had their subscriptions automatically rolled over into GBTV accounts, Forbes reported.

. . .

Analyst Rich Greenfield of BTIG Research estimates that GBTV is already generating annual revenues of $27m from subscription fees by monetising a mere one per cent of the total audience for his Fox show, his radio show, his websites (glennbeck.com and theblaze.com) and other outlets.

Mr Greenfield envisions Mr Beck increasing that conversion rate to five per cent, yielding a subscriber base of over one million.

. . .

But when it is considered that the $135m actually excludes anything he makes from selling sponsorships against GBTV's programming, as well as his earnings from radio, The Blaze, his book imprint with Simon & Schuster, his comedy shows and his merchandise, a figure in that realm is not far off the mark.

Mr Beck made $40m last year, placing him No. 30 on the Forbes Celebrity 100, and the business magazine is confident he is set to pass the $100m mark sooner, rather than later.

Just a little tidbit about a 100% made-in-America entrepreneur to brighten your day.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Why lame?

I thought it sucked. Amateur hour.

Now, if someone is deeply prejudiced against Beck, he could say that rain is wet and the person won't believe him and call him lame for believing in such nonsense. Judging by your post and your past ones, I think that is your case.

Not true. I’m sure I’ve said something good about something Beck has said or done. Shall I hunt such a post down? Game to dine on some crow? I’ll be expecting a full retraction, something Phil might use as a model (when pigs fly).

btw - I actually like Rothbard's play (and I once made the mistake of saying that to Barbara ), but I really, really dislike that performance.

It’s an amateur play, so I think an amateur performance is fitting.

At least Rothbard was gracious and indulgent to his flock on his birthday.

Huh? I don’t get it, was this done on his birthday?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

It's been a while since I saw that thing. I had the impression it was a birthday commemoration. Whatever. It was some shindig in honor of Rothbard. And, as I remember it, he was gracious and indulgent to his acolytes.

You said something good about Beck?

Bring it on. I'll gladly eat crow if you did. I have no doubt that, if it exists, it will be a very small portion, indeed.

Anyway, you sure sound angry about it. That makes me curious.

But rather than play games, I prefer clarity. I think you're prejudiced against Glenn Beck. I get that from the posts of yours about Beck I have read. So I would never take your opinion on anything he says or does seriously--especially since I am familiar with Beck's work and, from what I have read, I don't believe you are. (I do give your opinions the benefit of the doubt on some other stuff, though.)

I'm not trying to be contentious. Just clear. You have a right to your opinion.

As I do mine.

With respect to the reader, check things for yourself, use your own mind, and come to your own conclusions. I think it's a mistake to accept as your own the opinion of someone who is a fan of Beck or someone who hates him.

Beck ain't going away, so you might as well look (especially if you're only familiar with the MSM view).

On the contrary, his influence is spreading.

Even Obama thinks he's important enough to deploy first-line campaign resources on--see www.AttackWatch.com, for instance.

(And I still think that cartoon rocks. Beck did a great job on it. )

Michael

[9thdoctor]

You said something good about Beck?

Bring it on. I'll gladly eat crow if you did. I have no doubt that, if it exists, it will be a very small portion, indeed.

Alas, there’s always the problem of establishing where the goalposts are. I said “I’m sure I’ve said something good about something Beck has said or done”, you counter with “I have no doubt that, if it exists, it will be a very small portion, indeed”. I can pass my own test, but yours? I’d have to have produced a full blown panegyric of that strutting clown to avoid the charge that it’s just a “very small portion”. Anyway, after just a few minutes invested here’s what I’ve come up with:

I’ve only seen excerpts of Beck's show, some were good, but some were just screamingly awful.

I felt that Beck’s show was better than Stossel’s Atlas show.

And the scornful way he pronounced the name Whitaker Chambers…Beck definitely earned a lot of points in my scorebook for that.

http://www.objectivi...indpost&p=97960

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=101108

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=101184

Getting back to Spooky Dude, even the writers of Scooby Doo perform better in the villain-naming department.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhH-LpZick4&feature=related

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Well, let's look. How big a portion of crow do you think you deserve to serve?

Let's look at the first one to get an idea of that size, shall we? Within the same post where you wrote: Within the same post where you wrote: "I’ve only seen excerpts of Beck's show, some were good, but some were just screamingly awful," you also wrote the following:

"Here’s one vote against."

"And his persona is so clownish."

"I’m sure I could dig up some Keith Olbermann clips that are consonant with Objectivism, but it wouldn’t represent the total of what he stands for."

In other words, what Beck gets right is sheer accident. Even a broken clock is right about the time twice a day. And so on. Isn't that you meaning within that context?

And you call that saying something good about what he says and does?

I say that only deserves a sliver of crow, if that.

On the other two comments, I'll take a slightly larger helping of crow.

Who knows? Maybe someday you will come to understand what I am doing by publicly supporting Beck.

Apropos, here's a hint. There are two metaphysical approaches to social order: (1) Man as a species is perfectible on a permanent basis, and (2) Each human being qua individual has to choose between good and evil by his/her own free will, meaning the human species is not perfectible on a permanent basis.

If you hold to the first, you think the best way to resolve the situation is educate people on the right way to think and get rid of those who refuse (or at least let them die off). If you hold to the second, there is a Ronald Reagan quote that Freedomworks is currently hammering that perfectly sums up the approach:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same...

I hold to this.

As to Ayn Rand, sometimes she held to the first and sometimes to the second. I believe this is one of the main problem issues in Objectivism that creates such division and factions.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Just so we can stop the silliness on the cartoon thing, you are showing you really don't know much about Beck. If you did, you would know that he has been calling George Soros "Spooky Dude" for several years--and I even believe that there is a recording of Soros himself referencing Beck doing this (and, if I remember further correctly, from the way Soros joked about it, it showed that "spooky dude" actually stings him underneath).

"Spooky Dude" is quite well known among people who watch Beck. Something about as familiar as "A is A" is to an Objectivist.

So complain all you want about the word choice. I think the complaint would have more teeth if you ever actually become familiar with Beck's context and work--at least for the obvious well-known stuff.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

"Spooky Dude" is quite well known among people who watch Beck. Something about as familiar as "A is A" is to an Objectivist.

So complain all you want about the word choice. I think the complaint would have more teeth if you ever actually become familiar with Beck's context and work--at least for the obvious well-known stuff.

Ugh. It’s like someone saying I’d like rap better if I’d only study it enough to understand the slang. No thanks. I’ve tried my share of Beck, and I don’t like him. You posted this video, you got my expectations up (“The cartoon is cool, whether you like Beck or not.”), I watched it, and then I expressed my opinion. Disappointment yes, but no big deal. Now, if I wanted to have fun yanking someone’s chain I’d head over to SLOP and say something bad about Mario Lanza.

Spooky? Here’s Spooky:

Then Dude. Why Dude? Here’s what I think of when I think Dude.

George Soros isn’t any kind of Dude. And I don’t see him scoring with Dusty Springfield either.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It’s like someone saying I’d like rap better if I’d only study it enough to understand the slang.

Dennis,

Not exactly.

It's more like this.

Suppose you called a rap phrase "lame" because it seems similar to something, say, John Wayne said and you present your case that John Wayne said it better.

I say your criticism of the use of that specific rap term would be far better if you knew what it actually meant. That is not the same thing as liking rap.

And remembering, of course, that John Wayne has nothing to do with hip-hop and that the phrase is actually used by people who do understand the meaning.

You did something very similar that with your criticism of "Spooky Dude" as a name, and now want to pretend that it is some kind of virtue to want to remain in ignorance.

Sorry, but I'm not a fan of refusing to acquire knowledge before judging.

I hold that you have to know what something is correctly before you can judge it correctly.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I hold that you have to know what something is correctly before you can judge it correctly.

Ay yi yi, first you say “the cartoon is cool whether you like Beck or not”, now you’re saying I need to acquire (additional?) knowledge before judging. I’ve demonstrated that I can praise Beck, so this isn’t a matter of prejudice. Everyone repeat after me: chacun à son goût.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion and taste. But as the saying goes, you are not entitled to your own facts.

I don't care if you like Beck or not.

Really I don't.

If and when I respond to a negative opinion, it's most often for the reader's benefit than anything else.

I get bothered when anyone states "facts" (or insinuates "facts") that are based on simply getting the actual facts all wrong, regardless of what the reason is (ignorance or prejudice).

So I try to provide perspective and point to where readers can check for themselves.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Update.

Glenn announced that a new episode of "The Adventures of Spooky Dude" is coming out next week. When it does, I'll see if I can find a version online and post it here.

Michael