Recommended Posts

Glenn Beck RIP? Dayaamm!

I just visited RoR and came across a thread called Glenn Beck RIP. I looked at the comments and didn't understand a damn thing about RIP. Then I got the idea to click on the title. That took me to the following article on Front Page Magazine:

A Letter from Glenn Beck
August 21, 2014
Front Page Magazine

From the article:

As Americans, we believe in freedom of speech. That no one should control what people hear, say or see. We know that technology makes it possible for even the smallest voice to be heard, and that is a miracle of freedom. Those are our values.

In February, Comcast announced it was going to buy Time Warner Cable. Think about that for a minute: Two of the biggest cable monopolies – with the worst customer service records – will merge and dictate what 30% of America can see on cable TV. This means less consumer choice, less competition and higher cable bills.

This merger can only be approved if the FCC determines it¹s in the public interest ­ your interest.

The merger of these two cable giants will serve Comcast’s business interests. Our values require us to take action to preserve choice and competition.

I believe that businesses should operate free of government intervention, but these companies are government sanctioned monopolies that have the power to silence independent, competitive voices like TheBlaze, if it furthers their business interests.


Then he calls on people to go to Get The Blaze to fill out a form protesting the merger, with the results to be sent to the FCC.

So is this considered RIP?

I still don't get it.

I saw Glenn talk about this issue and he said he has distaste for doing it in this manner, but he is fighting against the information he has received about certain cable carriers, especially Comcast, refusing to include TheBlaze because of his politics.

He flat-out said he would open his own cable network, but the industry is so regulated they won't let newcomers in. So he is forced to play by the rules they dictate (at least for now). As a brilliant businessman, he is doing just that.

I get the impression that some people consider this to be hypocrisy by Glenn, as they conveniently ignore that he is standing up to a government-protected cartel and, based on the success of TheBlaze TV, winning.

But it will be difficult if the government cartel puts a humongous amount of monopoly-like control in the hands of one corporation instead of two.

How this adds up to RIP, I don't know. But it must make sense to some people.

On another point that made me laugh, when I signed into RoR, I saw a notice that I had received Atlas Points on June 10. I clicked to see what this was about since I don't post there anymore. The notice said that I had received 6 Atlas points for a post I made (probably from years ago) in a section called "Project Discussions," but when I clicked on it to see what I wrote, I got the following message (repeated as given below):

This site is for Objectivists. You may continue to post on the Dissent board only.
This site is for Objectivists. You may continue to post on the Dissent board only.


:smile:

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On another point that made me laugh, when I signed into RoR, I saw a notice that I had received Atlas Points on June 10. I clicked to see what this was about since I don't post there anymore. The notice said that I had received 6 Atlas points for a post I made (probably from years ago) in a section called "Project Discussions," but when I clicked on it to see what I wrote, I got the following message (repeated as given below):

This site is for Objectivists. You may continue to post on the Dissent board only.

This site is for Objectivists. You may continue to post on the Dissent board only.

:smile:

Michael

So, RoR quarantines and aborts reason in order to rebirth it?

Interesting.

In retrospect maybe it is a blessing these Objectivists stay in their own echo chamber and not get involved in politics.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

LOL...

They're good people over there.

The owner Rowlands bit off more than he can chew.

He doesn't know much about leadership and it frustrates him.

Those little human suckers just won't act right. :smile:

So he shewed off the best and brightest of RoR's members.

He's not a bad person, either. Just misguided and prejudiced against independent thinking.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what I believe is one of the driving issues of Glenn's concern.

CNN Held Talks About Joint Venture With Glenn Beck's The Blaze
By KEACH HAGEY CONNECT
Aug. 22, 2014
The Wall Street Journal

Time Warner Inc.'s CNN has looked beyond Vice Media in its quest for a partner to help revamp its struggling sister station, HLN.

CNN executives have held talks in recent weeks with representatives from Glenn Beck's The Blaze, a 24-hour news and entertainment network, about a potential joint venture to overhaul HLN, according to people familiar with the matter. Those discussions came after Vice's talks became public in June. CNN and The Blaze representatives couldn't agree on terms, the people said.


I imagine one of the big issues in the backroom was the potential merger of Time Warner with Comcast.

Comcast does not like Glenn and is as open as possible about it without actually admitting it in public.

If the merger does not happen, I suspect CNN will be contacting TheBlaze once again.

As to people in our subcommunity who see this as "RIP" for Glenn, they should look at reality, admit reality is what it is, and see that CNN was going to Glenn for help, not the contrary. Why evade that?

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

politie090.gif

BUSTED!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer Merlin Jetton's question:

I thought that Beck's proposal to invoke government to stop a move by private businesses and his intellectually slovenly conflation of government power with private economic activity were reprehensible, and they caused me to lose respect for him.

Inevitably somebody will say that the big broadcasters and cable providers are part of the mixed economy too. That is a reason to call for less regulation, not more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be nice if Beck just rolled over and died under the machinations of the crony capitalists without fighting back? That would be so much tidier.

The formation of a gigantic government-protected communications monopoly is a life-boat emergency situation for smaller broadcasters--especially ones that operate as purely capitalistic as they can manage. One fights, one joins the cartel bad guys, or one dies. There are no other choices. Glenn prefers not to die or join the bad guys. So he fights with what he can get his hands on.

But let's use the standard of contextless intellectual purity for a minute.

Maybe Nat Taggart was a character in Atlas Shrugged who deserved of contempt, too, because he dealt with government regulators on their terms and won. But he also went all mafia on some of them, an absolute criminal. Nobody should respect that, huh? The guy was a total hypocrite...

And Ayn Rand surely was a hypocrite for going to a state-run college in her youth and collecting government benefits at the end of her life...

So let's ring it out loud and true! Survival be damned! The Word is sacred! Against The Word, Life is not!

That's the One True Path.

Heh.

It's funny how the whip of intellectual purity as the only acceptable response for dealing with the government behemoth squashing people is reserved for those one does not like and no others...

I. personally, find the enshrinement of the rule of backstage pull as a weapon for condemning moral inconsistency in another odd in our subcommunity, but I'll let readers come to their own conclusions...

RIP something or the other, but it is not Glenn Beck.

Besides, he embarrasses many Objectivists and libertarians because he gets the freedom message into places they cannot enter due to their elitism. And he does it with raw talent and business acumen, things they say they promote. Even Yaron Brook acknowledges that as he periodically goes on Glenn's shows.

In our subcommunity, I just don't understand the love and respect bestowed on crony capitalists who constantly leverage backstage pull, ones like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and others, but that is another subject for another day...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurs to me that I might be right, but I ain't convincing anyone.

It's OK to dislike Glenn Beck.

I like him, but I realize his religiosity is a problem for some.

I get sad to see people lowering their usual bar to hate on him.

So how about this?

We can love or hate or be indifferent to Glenn Beck, and that's OK, but we should keep the bar just as high (especially re facts) when we talk about him as we do for other things.

That still may not convince anyone, but at least it keeps reason on the table.

Just a thought...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurs to me that I might be right, but I ain't convincing anyone.

It's OK to dislike Glenn Beck.

I like him, but I realize his religiosity is a problem for some.

I get sad to see people lowering their usual bar to hate on him.

So how about this?

We can love or hate or be indifferent to Glenn Beck, and that's OK, but we should keep the bar just as high (especially re facts) when we talk about him as we do for other things.

That still may not convince anyone, but at least it keeps reason on the table.

Just a thought...

Michael

The man is a buffoon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurs to me that I might be right, but I ain't convincing anyone.

It's OK to dislike Glenn Beck.

The man is a buffoon.

Robert:

I assume that you mean he mixes comedy with his insights?

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Michael on this. I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck. I don't dislike him. I think he has his good points, but I don't seek him out. I actually haven't seen him or heard him for months, maybe years, though I do occasionally read stories on The Blaze. His apocalyptic vision bothers me more than his religiosity. But, enough about Beck. This isn't about Beck. This is about a double standard to which some Objectivists hold people who could be their potential allies on various issues.

As Michael pointed out above, the double standard is saying to lovers of freedom that they can't use government force. Only the enemies of freedom can use government force. That is, the latter shouldn't use government force either, but we already know they're corrupt and this is just more evidence of it. But, heaven forbid that the good guys should interfere in the already corrupted marketplace. After all, two wrongs don't make a right.

Let me use an analogy. During WWII, Germany often put out false information to try to confuse their enemies. The U.S. also put out false information. By the above argument, the U.S. should be condemned because one should be honest and two wrongs don't make a right. So, the defenders of freedom would have the U.S. lose the war rather than their moral purity. However, I think it is a mistake to call it moral purity. It is a misapplication of principles.

One should be honest with other honest people. Sometimes, one should be honest with dishonest people. However, there is no requirement that one always be honest with dishonest people. A dishonest person is attempting to gain something through deception. Using counter deception is sometimes a valid method for catching them at it. Think about how the police often take down criminals.

But, some will argue that if you are dishonest, you're no better than the dishonest person you're attempting to catch. That is the same kind of argument made by people that don't understand self defense. If you try to shoot someone, aren't you just as bad as the person that was attempting to shoot you? Of course not. It matters who initiated the act of violence. It also matters who lied first. And, it matters who used government force first.

Beck, by going to the government to attempt to protect his business enterprise is acting in self defense. Clever witticisms like, "Two wrongs don't make a right," don't apply uncritically in all contexts. Objectivists, of all people should understand that the sequence of events matters. It matters who did what first. It matters who initiated the use of force.

Darrell

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm default dishonest so when I fall off the wagon I feel good about myself. If it were the other way around I'd feel bad whenever I was dishonest. I feel good about my dishonesty for that's the honest me. (And integrity is a piece of cake.)

--Brant

win, win, win!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comcast does not like Glenn and is as open as possible about it without actually admitting it in public.

The part after "and" is a pretty bizarre claim. Doesn't "open as possible" imply "admits in public"?

What evidence do you have of Comcast's dislike for Beck?

When I did a Google search for 'Glenn Beck' limiting it to www.comcast.com, I got 0 hits. Limiting it to www.comcast.net, I got 3 hits, none expressing any dislike for Beck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comcast does not like Glenn and is as open as possible about it without actually admitting it in public.

What evidence do you have of Comcast's dislike for Beck?

The evidence seems to come from Beck's side. For example, in congressional hearings, Rep. Louie Gohmert had this to say, according to The Wire:

And it was reported that Al Jazeera wanted to get their Sharia law push into the United States, and they were willing to pay big bucks....but they wouldn't do the deal unless Comcast was willing to keep them in its list of networks provided. So it was reported Comcast agreed, so Al Gore got all that oil and carbon based money. Then, that kept Glenn Beck off the air. Off Comcast.

There's some more of Gohmert questioning Comcast's David Cohen at Mediaite with a video of the questions and testimony. which gets testy.

I suppose that we can read anything into Comcast's unwillingness to add BlazeTV to its roster.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

What evidence do you have of Comcast's dislike for Beck?

Merlin,

It was on one of his radio shows. I don't remember which one--to be honest, I have heard him mention in different shows. I would have to do some research to find the dates and times and that is not a good use of my time right now. Leave it to say that it's there if you want to dig.

Glenn said he had received information from several quarters that Comcast had put him on some kind of blacklist because of his politics, but Comcast formally denies it.

When Al Gore sold Current TV to Al Jazeera, Glenn started a huge call-in campaign to get TheBlaze on all the different cable TV carriers. His campaign was largely successful with minor carriers all over the USA and he was accepted by DirectTV. His argument was that his show had viewers and Al Jazeera did not. Reality has borne that out over time and now Al Gore is suing Al Jazeera. So Glenn periodically makes a stink about how Comcast (and others) keep supporting Al Jazeera while blocking entry to TheBlaze.

In May, Louie Gohmert created a stink in Congress about Comcast blocking TheBlaze from buying an indebted cable network on Comcast until after the midterm elections (see here).

Actually, once I started digging, I started coming across more stuff to satisfy your hunger for evidence for my "bizarre claim." Try it. You'll see.

Google is your friend, but, seriously, dude. You really need to learn how to do a search correctly. Here. This should get you started: Search Education Online, Power Searching and Advanced Power Searching.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
In May, Louie Gohmert created a stink in Congress about Comcast blocking TheBlaze from buying an indebted cable network on Comcast until after the midterm elections (see here).

That's pretty shaky evidence. Did you expect me to believe that Gohmert was 100% credible and Cohen was 0% credible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you expect me to believe that Gohmert was 100% credible and Cohen was 0% credible?

Merlin,

I don't expect you to do anything, especially since you appear to be convinced of whatever.

You asked for evidence. I gave you evidence. Now you're asking for something else.

Shoot. Believe whatever the hell you want.

I don't live in your head and I certainly don't have to agree with your prejudices.

Nor do you have to agree with mine. I happen to admire producers over crony capitalists.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the concerns of Glenn's detractors, even if they may not be perfectly applicable in this case. If government interference justifies further governmet interference, where does it end?

Which concerns?

Be specific please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I happen to admire producers over crony capitalists.

So do I, but let's see if I get what you say. Comcast is merely a gang of crony capitalists unworthy of being called a producer. Comcast laid thousands of miles of cable, and continues to upgrade cable lines, to bring cable tv and internet to many thousands of homes and businesses. It manages the transmission of signals that pass through the cables. It acquires content and produces content of its own. It employs workers to connect individual customers and fix problems. Yes, it has plenty of lobbyists to try to keep government thugs off its back. Hank Rearden hired the Wet Nurse. No doubt Comcast gained some of its market share because many local governments allowed only one cable provider in a community. But Comcast gets blamed for what politicos did.

I don't know much about the feeling Glenn Beck has toward Comcast. I find it plausible that it isn't about politics like Cohen said. I find it plausible that for Beck it's all about revenge for him not getting exactly what he wants.

Beck's claim that the merger would "dictate what 30% of America can see on cable TV" is a red herring. If the 30% is correct, it's already true because Comcast and TWC serve almost entirely distinct non-overlapping geographic areas. I used to live near Chicago. Comast was there, TWC wasn't. I now live near Cleveland. TWC is here, Comcast isn't.

How does it all balance out? You've made your opinion clear.

Incidentally, I had seen Scherk's 'The Wire' link with a wider search before limiting my search and posting #16.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlin,

I use Comcast and they have a monopoly here on broadband. It really sucks what they do to their customers. I have a litany of things I could tell you.

Shit, Brazil does broadband better. And that was over 10 years ago when I lived there.

If you like government-enforced monopolies, go for it.

That's not the kind of world I want to live in.

I find the entrepreneur-producer credible. You find the crony capitalist and producer in the sense of a public transportation monopoly credible.

Going by the posts so far, that much is clear.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now