Glenn Beck and Grover Norquist


Recommended Posts

Glenn Beck and Grover Norquist

For several days now, Glenn has been running a controversy against Grover Norquist, essentially calling him an Islamist tool who is--possibly intentionally--working to undermine the USA.

He finally interviewed Grover face-to-face. Here is an article on TheBlaze covering part of the interview. I saw the whole thing.

Glenn Beck and Grover Norquist Finally Meet for On-Air Battle Over Alleged Ties to Radical Islamists: ‘Not True’

This is a case where I believe Glenn has overreached--a lot. And I'm not taking Grover's side. He's a politician and major power-broker, so in my book, he's automatically suspect of everything that is--and can be--bad until proven innocent. :smile:

I'll dig more into the charges against Grover over time, but from the tenor of the interview and other information I examined, although I did get the impression that Grover was hiding things in between the lines (and out front in some outright sleaze), and maybe had a tendency to overract in the past when attacked, I was not convinced that he has led a life attempting to make nice with terrorists such as Glenn kept insinuating.

I smell money.

I think Grover manages (and has managed for a long time) to influence where a lot of oil money from the Middle East ends up in the USA--especially in Republican political campaigns--and this is the core of his power. I don't base this on any financial evidence, I insinuate it from the way Grover manages to bully politicians.

However, from the interview, from his history, and from the glowing endorsement of major neoconservative political figures like Karl Rove, I have the impression he is sincerely working to establish free market principles within Muslim countries.

I think he's hiding money, not terrorism.

As to Glenn, for this issue he is relying on a lot of dot-connecting done by Frank Gaffney and David Horowitz. Both of these individuals are good men (in my humble opinion), but both are extremely agenda-driven. Both have no problem fighting propaganda with propaganda (meaning lies with lies). And both have been engaged in a public feud with Grover for several years.

Glenn always says to do your own homework and come to your own conclusions. I have in this case (I looked at much more than just the show) and I will do more. But the conclusion I have arrived at so far is that Glenn is not interpreting certain events and connections correctly.

When I imagine what the world was like at the times the contentious things happened, imagine the churn and swirl all around, look at records of what other people were also saying and doing, I just don't see any organized effort by Grover to open the USA to an Islamist takeover. Not even unintentionally.

He's a neoconservative, a big honking one at that, not an Islamist sleeper or agent.

I might be wrong, so I will keep digging. It's not a priority, so I will take my time, but I will keep digging.

I'm glad we live in a society where this kind of thing can come up and the public can see it with their own eyes. One of the good things is that it throws mainstream light on some situations and people who should not be forgotten. I want to dig more before I cite names. Just to give one name, though, I can say without reservation that Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi is a very dangerous enemy.

To Grover's credit, after some drama and the old-fashioned Hollywood build-up, he did appear on Glenn's show for a full hour knowing he would be facing a hostile interviewer. He was quite polite throughout, even when Glenn got ugly.

To Glenn's credit, he ended the show with a prayer asking for wisdom and for God to protect anyone who has been unfairly accused. He was sincere, too. You don't have to believe in God to see he is struggling in his manner to be objective.

I saw a misunderstanding tonight between two men who hold good intentions for the USA peppered by some unflattering personal excesses (by both), not a crackpot nor an exposure of hidden Islamist evil.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested, here is Glenn's analysis of the interview.

Frankly, the public is not too interested (barring a small portion of Glenn's normal audience).

Why?

I think I know.

Glenn now says openly,

Beck said he does not believe Norquist wants to “destroy the United States of America,” but that some of his actions may be guided by a desire for “power and money.”


Oh really?

A powerful politician likes money and power over integrity?

Dayamm!

Whoopdeedoo!

Who wouldda thunk that?

:smile:

My issue is the following.

If Glenn wanted to crusade on that point about Grover, I'm fully OK with it. I agree. It's kinda like saying the ocean is full of fish, but OK. I have little doubt money and power are Grover's drivers, albeit from a conservative small-government neocon ideology.

But since Glenn crusaded on the point that Grover was some kind of Islamist sleeper agent, it's a little late to change now that the interview has taken place and pretend he exposed Grover on something or the other.

Oh, I suppose Glenn could say he always emphasized he wasn't accusing Grover on his intentions, but when he framed his many attacks within a discourse where every other word coming out of his mouth was "terrorist," the overkill was kinda obvious on what he wanted people to think. I've been following Glenn on this for a while. And it has been overkill on the wrong reason.

Sorry, Glenn. I love you. But you fizzled on this one.

Next time crucify the guy for the right damn reason.

When you do that, I'm with you.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Beck

Rush Limbaugh

Strange bedfellows for those of an Objectivist orientation raising questions about the orientation(s) per se.

--Brant

it ain't radical

Hmm let's see what is that cliche again ...works in business and politics...

According to Magill's Quotations in Context, the quote "Politics makes strange bedfellows" can be attributed to Charles Dudley Warner and was published in My Summer in a Garden (Fifteenth Week), 1870.

Here's a quote from Magill's:

"In My Summer in a Garden, a series of light, humorous essays on the art of gardening he digresses often to make a point on any given subject. In the fifteenth essay or chapter, he begins by commenting on the fact that his absence of two or three weeks has allowed his garden to run riot. The strawberry plants...have run everywhere, an allusion to Schuyler Colfax, elected Vice-president in 1868. Further, he says, the Doolittle raspberries have mixed with the strawberries, an allusion to James Rood Doolittle, U.S. Senator and strong supporter of President Johnson."

The exact quote from Warner is:

"...I may mention here, since we are on politics, that the Doolittle raspberries had sprawled all over the strawberry-beds: so true is it that politics makes strange bedfellows."

Edit: Another stab at tracing the source of that "quote."

The origin of the phrase "politics makes strange bedfellows" is obscure - most likely it is a 19th Century paraphrase of Shakespeare's line in The Tempest, "Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows." Whatever its origins, the phrase has never been more true than this year, in Nevada.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this will be forgotten once the Beck World theme park opens.

Heh.

I just love non-producers who mock those who dream and produce.

People used to mock Walt Disney all the time, too.

It's funny how people now remember Walt, but don't remember the mockers.

Just because Glenn stopped putting out press releases on his theme park project for the progressive media to mock doesn't mean the project has shut down.

But I suppose in remote control zombie-land, if someone can't erect an entire city in one day so zombie remote control jockeys can read a headline about it the next, that means the someone is a failure. Time to change the channel.

I do admit it is a hell of a lot easier to sit behind a computer screen and do remote control jockey-mocking than actually build something out of nothing, like, for instance TheBlaze, TheBlaze TV, a string of NYT bestsellers in four different categories (Hardcover Non-Fiction, Paperback Non-Fiction, Hardcover Fiction, and Children's Picture Books), set up a major charity organization (Mercury One), start and/or be a major figure in several political movements (the 9-12 Project, Tea Party, Freedomworks, etc.), open a fashion line (1791), host the No. 3 talk radio show in the country every working day over years, host one's own TV show for years, and some other productive enterprises.

I suppose the fact that, in addition to all that, he is also working on a theme park project, is now producing Hollywood-like movies and TV shows, and has some other similar grandiose projects in the works, all that is worthy of mockery by those who don't do such things.

Why?

Because he said he would do them and didn't snap his fingers and make it all happen instantly. I mean, he said he would do a theme park in 2013. Where is it already? Shit. That's pathetic.

:smile:

Glenn works for a living. And works hard. Not for some boss, but for a dream where he creates top-selling stuff out of nothing.

Let's all mock that...

Besides, it's easier than trying to compete productively...

:smile:

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Beck

Rush Limbaugh

Strange bedfellows for those of an Objectivist orientation raising questions about the orientation(s) per se.

I would love to have O-Land cultural producers of that capacity to root for.

Where are they? Ayn Rand has been gone a long time.

If you don't produce the alternative yourself, you take what you can get. And you don't have to like it all.

These guys are for small government and the constitution. That's something at least...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I like Beck better than Limbaugh.

--Brant

squirm

Serious question Brant?

Why?

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I like Beck better than Limbaugh.

--Brant

squirm

Serious question Brant?

Why?

A...

Rush was a hypocritical drug addict. Was, I guess not now. I did enjoy him when he had a TV show. Beck just gets the default.

--Brant

the answer you want is one I can't give for I don't know enough

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this will be forgotten once the Beck World theme park opens.

Heh.

I just love non-producers who mock those who dream and produce.

People used to mock Walt Disney all the time, too.

It's funny how people now remember Walt, but don't remember the mockers.

Just because Glenn stopped putting out press releases on his theme park project for the progressive media to mock doesn't mean the project has shut down.

Delighted that Beck World is still cleared for take off! Maybe the Rootin' Tootin' Shootin' Gallery there will have cutouts of Mr. and Mrs. Norquist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this will be forgotten once the Beck World theme park opens.

Heh.

I just love non-producers who mock those who dream and produce.

People used to mock Walt Disney all the time, too.

It's funny how people now remember Walt, but don't remember the mockers.

Just because Glenn stopped putting out press releases on his theme park project for the progressive media to mock doesn't mean the project has shut down.

Delighted that Beck World is still cleared for take off! Maybe the Rootin' Tootin' Shootin' Gallery there will have cutouts of Mr. and Mrs. Norquist.

The loneliness of the long distance Gerbil Man runner...

car0166.jpg

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Framed "now"? Didn't you frame it in Post #6?

I just love non-producers who mock those who dream and produce.

Those who mock Beck, though lovable, must be non-producers. Or could it be that only the non-productive Beck mockers are lovable, the others being unworthy of affection?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Framed "now"? Didn't you frame it in Post #6?

I just love non-producers who mock those who dream and produce.

Those who mock Beck, though lovable, must be non-producers. Or could it be that only the non-productive Beck mockers are lovable, the others being unworthy of affection?

FF,

Do you have a theme park you built, TV station, bestselling book, radio or TV program, etc., I can look at?

I thought not.

But Glenn Beck has all that and more. And yes, he built that (except the early-stages theme park project you like to mock).

However, you do have a computer screen and keyboard. That's what you have shown people so far.

That's the proper frame.

The love part was sarcasm.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, and furthermore I don't have a global financial data and media company that pulls in $8 billion per year in revenue. I suppose, then, that makes me unequal to Michael Bloomberg and thus disqualifies me from mocking him? Nor, for the record, have I made hit documentaries like Michael Moore's or written books that sold in the millions like L. Ron Hubbard's. They, too, according to the rules of barring criticism from the lower ranks, must be immune to my mockery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Beck and Grover Norquist

For several days now, Glenn has been running a controversy against Grover Norquist, essentially calling him an Islamist tool who is--possibly intentionally--working to undermine the USA.

He finally interviewed Grover face-to-face. Here is an article on TheBlaze covering part of the interview. I saw the whole thing.

He made the whole video free at time of broadcast to non-subscribers to The Blaze, I believe. And someone of course recorded it and Youtubed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPo7hnihvF8

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

... disqualifies me from mocking him?

... must be immune to my mockery.

I would say so.

People are free to mock productive folks from the comfort of their home armed with nothing but a computer monitor and a keyboard. That's how the Internet works.

But when one starts talking about being qualified and mockery targets not having immunity to his efforts, a new standard arises.

So let's look at the standard.

Is this poster qualified to mock Michael Bloomberg enough to make a difference to Bloomberg, or society about Bloomberg for that matter?

Nah...

Look at the effect of Bloomberg's achievements and future out in the real world and compare that against the real-world effect of this dude's mockery and there's not even a smidgen of qualification.

Are Michael Moore and Scientology immune to his mockery?

I would say so.

Nothing he says or does makes a damn bit of difference to them, nor will it ever.

Is this poster qualified to bitch in a a gossip-like manner on a free forum?

Yup.

What is the extent of his efficacy?

Well, he can irritate a couple of people for a small amount of time. I admit to not being immune to that. And that's something, I guess.

:smile:

In productive terms (whether for good or evil), he is not in the same class as those he mocks (or says he mocks). He's not even on the same planet.

Once again, proper framing.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the effect of Bloomberg's achievements and future out in the real world and compare that against the real-world effect of this dude's mockery and there's not even a smidgen of qualification.

Following your recommendation, I looked at the "real-world effect of this dude's mockery" and found that my words had no effect at all on Glenn Beck. Just as you said, it made not "a damn bit of difference" to him.

Out of curiosity, I also examined other instances of mockery on this forum. Incredibly, I discovered that the mockery of Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton had made not "a damn bit of difference" to those targets either. Not even a "1" on the Smidgenometer®.

What? Could it be that of the hundreds (thousands?) of mocking posts on objectivistliving.com, not one has had a "real-world effect" on those with great wealth, power or influence? Perhaps this is just a technical glitch and those posts about Williams and Clinton didn't get sent out to all parts of the world wide web.

Please look into this, MSK. When truth is spoken to power on OO.com, I want to make sure the powerful are awake and paying close attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the main purpose of a site such as OL is to provide an orienting context to people new to Objectivism and ideas respecting the philosophy and the world out there. Robert Bidinotto left here, and any other site he was posting on, several years ago to become productive in a new way by writing a novel. I believe he has two under his belt and now uses Facebook to keep in touch and for feedback with those interested in what he does. There have been at least two pre-college students who stopped posting on OL when they left for college. One, Jeff Kemmer (sp?) had posted a lot. He played baseball for Duke and must have graduated by now.

What I like most about OL is all the different people being their own true, even silly, individual selves. Most who come here with a standard Objectivism agenda bounce off for they can't get a toe-hold because they aren't speaking from their gut, but through a dogmatic, philosophical filter. Objectivism seems so wonderful to them they think they are on a mission to spread the word. Ayn Rand lived and died with this idea even to the point of congratulating an actress for incorporating the philosophy into her acting and leaving the actress befuddled about such an idea as in WTF?

The problem with you here, Francisco, is the essentially negative approach involved with the mocking of someone with a positive approach to doing. Mocking, of course, is not funny, it's not humor, it's straight arming, but has nothing to do with having any effect on Glenn Beck though tending to be somewhat poisonous like a plant destroying it's competition. It doesn't bother the likes of me for me as I appreciate your analytical ability. I like to analyze your analytics. That's the big kick in the brain I also get from Jonathan.

So, Francisco, that's why Michael is pissed off at you. Too much negativity. It gives OL a sour taste. If you drop most of the mocking what you'd have left would be much better. While I don't especially remember any mocking from me, I'm sure I use it albeit rarely. That's okay if not one's leitmotif of address, for sometimes mockery is deserved for a negative target. Beck is a positive target on the face of it. If you think there's something negative simply spell it out or no one here will likely bother to go to the thinking effort of agreeing with you. Now Michael is mocking you in turn.

You cannot win a mockery war with a site owner, not this site. If I want to fight Michael I usually gently prod and poke him with my humor stick. It works! If only I had a nickel for every time I've won!

--Brant

I'd have two nickels

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think there's something negative simply spell it out or no one here will likely bother to go to the thinking effort of agreeing with you.

Brant,

You certainly got that right.

In general, OL readers admire producers as a default over criticism. So they don't even bother chiming in when someone starts the snark qua snark stuff. On the contrary, even when I poke fun at something, and even when it's in the humor section, I often get challenged--and the core issue often leads to respecting the productive efforts of the target.

The people here think, independently and aggressively, and I am proud I built a place where they feel at home.

Now Michael is mocking you in turn.

You got that right, too. It is so easy to lead this guy on, it's incredible.

Now why would I do that?

Well, if you can't get anything substantive out of pompous idiotic self-righteous snark, you can at least make it entertaining. And I have an audience on OL to entertain. After all, I built it. So it's on me to keep it.

The weird thing is this guy never realizes he's being played, that he often plays the role of court fool and people are laughing at him, not at the things he mocks. Nor does he realize I use him as an example when I want to share knowledge about persuasion techniques with OL readers.

But it goes even deeper. When I get bored or think the audience is getting bored, it's really easy to make him stop. All I have to do is let him believe he has made the point that he is superior to all the others around here. I don't have to tell him that or create anything because he constantly insinuates it. He provides such a wealth of opportunities to choose from I can make him stop whenever I want. And that satisfies his itch because he always stops after he feels no one will challenge his superiority. It's like clockwork and it never fails.

:smile:

But I can't think of a single person on OL who actually believes this guy is superior to them. Like I said, court fool.

:smile:

You cannot win a mockery war with a site owner, not this site. If I want to fight Michael I usually gently prod and poke him with my humor stick. It works! If only I had a nickel for every time I've won!

You would have a crapload more than two nickels.

You're good at that.

And you have found me out. I'm a pussycat underneath. But don't tell anyone.

:smile:

To be fair, this guy does have a brain and, when he is not publicly primping himself in the mirror of his own cheap vanity, sometimes has interesting things to say.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, Francisco is tightly focused on logical structure. Like a laser. When things go off his understanding of the proper logic involved, he uses mockery. He strikes me as a libertarian with a large utilitarian locus, not so much a moral one. It's not viable, for you can't use that to arrive at individual rights--at libertarianism. It's essentially the bathtub approach to economics applied to politics. That is no good for economics either except as a secondary argument. All he has are secondary arguments.

--Brant (vanity, all is vanity [the obscured truth])

it's morality all the way down (the official truth)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with you here, Francisco, is the essentially negative approach involved with the mocking of someone with a positive approach to doing. Mocking, of course, is not funny, it's not humor, it's straight arming, but has nothing to do with having any effect on Glenn Beck though tending to be somewhat poisonous like a plant destroying it's competition. It doesn't bother the likes of me for me as I appreciate your analytical ability. I like to analyze your analytics. That's the big kick in the brain I also get from Jonathan.

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. My standard for comments is truth not humor. No one here has argued against the likelihood of what I forecast in Post #3: when Beck's theme park opens--in two years or in ten years--nearly everyone will have forgotten his dust up with Norquist. If this be error, let us hear a more plausible outcome.

Now Michael is mocking you in turn.

If so, he knows his own words as well as anyone: "Nothing he says or does makes a damn bit of difference to them, nor will it ever."

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