imurray

Michael, Using those writings which only support their particular agenda and disregarding the rest is distortion. By your logic if I quote "Beck's wrong" from what you wrote above - because it represents something you actually wrote, I could use that and legitimately claim that you think Beck is always wrong. The Founding Fathers wrote a LOT - you could take out bits and pieces and make it fit practically anything. It is laughable to think that because it includes some direct quotes it represents an accurate account. The fact is you have no idea what you're talking about and I don't need God or Glenn Beck to tell me that. He has his audience wrapped around his finger - he has them reading books that are going to reaffirm everything he's been telling them (why bother reading them if they're not going to challenge what you already know). These aren't just any books about the Founding Fathers, they're books that have a definite ideological bias. He's not inspiring independent thinkers, he's herding sheep. The only other person that I can think of who did this off hand is Hitler. I tried not to make that analogy because their goals are obviously not the same, but you wanted to know. Yes, I think it's very scary that even so-called independent thinkers like yourself are going out to buy the books he tells you to and then rabidly defending them by using weak semantic arguments about the definition of "revisionist" in this instance. I can't believe you think this is so great. I really can't. I don't know what else to say except that I really hope you're right about his benevolence because his sheep are going to follow him to the end. Ian

No apology necessary, Mike. I am sorry if you concluded that you were being racist. When I said that it smells of racism, I didn't mean that you were racist. I was referring the stories that I had read. Ian

Dan, What murder? I missed that one. As to methods, see above. See http://www.youtube.c...h?v=DhbbGF4Y9yI I am. The Amazon bestseller list is a great way. Since when have biographies of our Founding Fathers been bestsellers? Not in more than a century. Beck is the only one in the mainstream who is plugging them. Look on Amazon and see for yourself. That's a pretty compelling measurement. Michael Thanks. This measure only means getting people to buy these biographies. It doesn't necessarily presage, I fear, the kind of cultural change I presume you desire. Be afraid, Dan. Be very afraid He's fostering a "great men" view of history. The books portray our Founding Fathers as if they were infallible disciples of Christ. He's trying to remake America into a God-fearing Christian nation. The books are published by the Fundamentalist Christian organization "National Center for Constitutional Studies" whose agenda is to restore Christian morality in the US and to foster a Christian reading of the US Constitution. The books are revisionist crap written with a definite agenda (to show that our Founding Fathers were indeed great CHRISTIAN men and therefore we need to return to Christ in order to restore the original intent of our Constitution) - sorry Michael, it's true. The NCCS is nothing more than a Christian Right organization with an official sounding name publishing books with titles like "The Real Thomas Jefferson" that purposely hide their agenda and mislead people into thinking they're buying an "impartial" history (if such a thing even exist). I hope rational people who don't believe man is irreparably flawed and need to look to a supernatural "higher power" or "great man" for guidance don't buy into this. I don't know what's wrong with biographies that show these men as human beings, with faults, who worked together to put together a document. The US Constitution isn't good or bad based on the greatness and infallibility of the men who wrote it - it is great because it is a superb example of what rational men can do with reason. It's good because it shows that they overcame their faults with reason. These books show them only as Great Men - as if the greatness of the document is somehow tied to whether or not George Washington was a devout Christian. This is the same Skousen who founded the NCCS. Like Beck, Skousen was a Mormon who believed in the importance of faith in America - and not "faith" in the generic sense, but the faith that comes with organized religion (and not just any religion: the Christian/ Mormon religion). Beck may claim otherwise, but the portraits of the Founding Fathers and the interpretation of the US Constitution in those books are indeed written through a Christian/ Mormon lens. The goal is to get people to see the US Constitution through that lens, equate Christianity with the Constitution, and finally to see that being a Patriot and a Christian are one in the same (indeed to be a Patriot one must also be a Christian and preferably a Mormon because you'll find that the "morals" behind the Constitution, the God behind the Constitution, as touted in the books are very much identical to those of the Mormon religion). And now Beck thinks we need another Great Man to lead the country back on the right path - to tell us what to do because only "Great Men" have access to divine truth. Guess who that man is? He's giving His Divine Plan soon...will you tune in? Michael has already referred to Beck as a "Great Man", which I find both amusing and scary. No offense Michael, but for a self-proclaimed "independent thinker" you sure like to be told what to do. In fact, I believe in one of these threads you recount a history of following leaders to detrimental ends. Enjoy the show. Ian

Apparently. I believe in having a discussion. You believe in telling people they don't know anything if they disagree with you. At least I tried to addressyour comments and put firth a coherent argument. Winning or losing doesn't matter to me - I was teasing you because it seemed that it did to you. You really need to brush up on the basics. When you do, we'll talk. Sorry my insults aren't as underhanded as yours - I believe in keeping it simple. And I think you're a great guy. Ian

Ian, There's a mistake here. I didn't throw in any towel--mainly because I am not in any competition for anything. I like Beck. I think he's a great man. I think he is doing our country a much-needed favor. I will promote him. I hope more people like him emerge. You don't like Beck. Fair enough. I found your evaluation of his persuasion skills incorrect and I commented on it. I ended up wasting your time and mine. So I see future discussion of this topic with you fruitless until you learn more about it. Saying you know and actually knowing are two very different things. Despite your academic credentials, your comments show a distinct lack of knowledge. Anyway, on to other things... Michael Haha. Because I don't agree with you, I musn't know anything. Good strategy - you'll never lose! Where did you acquire such rhetorical skill? Too funny. Ian

I like a man who knows when to throw in the towel. Enjoy having your emotions manipulated If I studied 'your' Beck more, I could have persuaded you to see this my way - hahaha. Ian

Ian, Let's do it your way, then. You want the tools of crowd psychology only to be used by the bad guys. Never by the good guys. And you want to impose that by argument from intimidation. That sounds terribly suspicious to me. That sounds to me like you want to promote the bad guys and leave the good guys permanently handicapped and at the mercy of crowds. But I am pretty sure you don't think that. You are just unaware of many things and think you know something about this subject. (You don't.) I am going to stop this part of the discussion now (but I will continue to add good Glenn Beck stuff) because I feel like I am trying to explain to someone who is dead set against the bomb that nuclear energy can also be used to light a city. The person doesn't want to hear it. Nuclear energy is evil to that person. Period. I detect the same thing with you and the innate side of the human mind, especially with respect to advertising, persuasion and crowd psychology. (Pick up any copywriting primer--any at all--even from the 19th century, and the first lesson you will read is sell with emotion and justify with logic. Not to be sleazy, but because that is the way the human mind works--and if you want to sell on a free market against competent competition and not be buried, you have to accept the reality of... Sorry... I don't know why I wrote that. Wasted energy. I am pretty sure--at this point--you are in denial mode--one I typically see in some Objectivists--about the way the human mind actually exists... I will say, though, that reality does not change for anyone, but that's a lesson we all have to learn on a hands-on basis individually, even when we have given lip service to it for years.) So I'm going to stop, but to be clear, I think you're a good dude... Enjoy the show. Michael Michael, I have studied rhetoric on my own and under the guidance of Ph.D. rhetoricians while getting an MS in Communication. I also have a BS in biology (have had an actual neurobiology course), and am a few courses away from finishing an MBA. I know more about all the things you're talking about than you think (I won't be so bold to compare my knowledge to yours, but let me say that it's safe to assume I know more than I need to in participate in this conversation.) What you wrote above was ridiculous. I clearly stated that I would rather educate people about these rhetorical strategies so that nobody could use them to manipulate the masses. Where did you ever get the idea I wanted only the bad guys to use it - I think Beck's a bad guy and I don't think you could have mistaken my comments as a endorsement of him. Funny, Beck doesn't have the same effect on me as he seems to have on you. I don't find myself emotionally stimulated by his rhetoric. That's because I tune in with a rational mind. I understand how marketing works. However, if we educate people to see through the bull then maybe we'll get better products instead of better advertisements. Imagine a public that isn't duped by fancy talk or glossy ads - we'd have competition based on the merits of the products. We'd also have a public that doesn't buy what it doesn't need. The analogy can be carried over to government. We get the entertainment, products, education, government, etc. we deserve - we'll keep getting crap as long as we keep buying it. Finally, I'll restate - I could use big words if you want, but you don't need big words to explain what Beck is doing. I prefer the KISS approach. Don't mistake that for lack of knowledge. Like truly wealthy people, truly educated people don't have to flaunt what they have to make a show. The truth doesn't need embellishing. Ian

Huh, and I just responded to your previous post. "Know thyself." Sorry, thought this meant that you were saying virtue isn't important because all TV, radio, etc. act unvirtuously. Yup, I sure want our media personalities to be manipulative - as long as I agree with what they're trying to get people to do, right Michael? I know the media is manipulative, but I can choose to support media that acts ethically. Let's simplify your comment quoted above: Beck appeals to emotion and then asks them to do something. What do you think they act out of? Rationality? No. One more guess. He gets people to act on their emotions. A bunch of irrational people running around doing what they've been 'triggered' to do - great! I can see why you think this is so good. I say - study it in order to educate people so that they don't fall for it. Is it all coming back to you?

Ian, Virtue has nothing to do with this. If you think it does, better stay away from TV, radio, newspapers, anywhere advertising is presented. They all do this stuff. Actually, Rand did, too, up to a certain extent... If, some day, you should be interested in learning about these things, I can point you to some excellent books and science on it, brain scans and all. Michael If you choose to back someone who you know is not acting virtuously that's your prerogative. Personally I don't buy 'everyone else is doing it' as a rational justification to defend unethical behavior. You seem to think that his ends justify his means - because you agree with him. You even seem to want more commentators doing the same thing. Your scientific explanations downgrade humans to mere animals who respond reflexively, like Pavlov's dog, to triggers. I'd argue that if more people used their rational mind there wouldn't be an audience for this kind of entertainment. We should he educating people to see through this blatant sophistry, not advocating for more of it. Is it not frightening to you to think that all it takes is mastery over a few tropes to influence human behavior? I'm glad that I don't hold that view. Finally, if you need brain scans and books to see what Beck is doing - you're missing it. He's operating at base level. He's all pathos. Sometimes a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing - in this case it has blinded you from looking at the simple explanations first. Ian

Are we not talking about the young woman who won a beauty pageant? Just because I don't believe she is part of or a pawn in a vast conspiracy does not mean I am ignorant of the real threats of Islamic Fundamentalism - or any fundamentalist organization for that matter. As I said in my previous post: the accusations against her don't make sense to me. Why would they go through that much effort to rig a beauty pageant? To what end? What can she do with her 15 minutes of fame to advance their cause? I'd have forgotten all about her by now, if not for this thread. Ian

Even if you are right about Beck's rhetoric and it is as sophisticated as you say (a claim I disagree with - I think you're reading way too much into it), I'm not sure I'd be happy to find out that the person I rely on for my news was a modern day Gorgias who uses "embedded commands" on an unwitting audience. Since when is that virtuous behavior for a person in his position? I still contend that he himself is much less interesting than the conditions that make his brand of punditry possible.

She may not violate (as you say) the rights of someone directly. However, one interesting thing that has happened since her election is that anyone who criticizes her election (such as Debbie Schlussel) or makes a comment about it (such as Daniel Pipes for his comments on affirmative action with Muslim women winning beauty contests) are being condemned by liberal columnists and politicos as being racist or anti-Muslim. By their doing so I think it helps to contribute to stifle debate, discourse and discussion on issues such as this and to the potential appeasement of radical Islam. For more examples of what I am talkinng about, check out books recently written by Bruce Bawer. His first book on the subject of radical Islam and appeasement While Europe Slept is excellent and I think he goes into more detail in his new book Surrender. Perhaps there is no debate except in the minds of those few who you have mentioned? Have you considered that? It certainly smells of racism to me. Leave the girl alone. She's an American and she has rights as an individual citizen. It's a beauty pageant for crying out loud. Who the hell pays attention to the winners after the pageant is over? Do you really think Islamic Fundamentalist would go through the effort of rigging a pageant where the winner gets 15 minutes of fame and then is virtually forgotten? And when she does appear in public, she'll be put in situations where she is seen and not heard - like sitting on the back of a parade float or in a convertible. What is she going to do from there - give a subliminal hand wave?

As a "rhetorician" I have studied Beck's style and he's honestly not very interesting from that point of view. His influence is amazing, but his real power stems from a confluence of events - which, to his credit, he capitalized on (maybe he doesn't even deserve that as FOX created the formula and plugged and chugged - he was popular, but not nearly as popular and certainly not as influential when he was on CNN). If it were not for FOX, the growing divide between the right and the left and extremist positions on both sides, the campaign and subsequent election of Obama, race issues, and immigration he'd be talking to himself. FOX News, like its counterpart MSNBC, has become an echo chamber and he operates within it - well within the boundaries imposed by his audience. The real question is how can people be so blind to this? His main trope is "fear" - fear of socialism, fear of Godlessness, fear of reverse discrimination against whites, fear of terrorism, fear of intellectuals, etc. In short, all the fears his middle-aged conservative white following already had - which FOX had already laid the groundwork for. They were the already ripe low-hanging fruit. I'm not saying there is no reason to fear any of these things - my contention with him is that he feeds it for the sole purpose of maintaining an audience. This is all he is - nothing more. I don't want anybody to emulate him or his antics - right, left, or middle. All he's doing is keeping a devout following by instilling fear in them and then baiting them to believe he's their savior. Don't believe me - are you going to watch him give his divine "Plan" to his people and lead them to the promised land? And trust me, he intends to get there with them - because all he wants is fame and money. In other words: he doesn't "challenge" your beliefs or tell you things you don't already know, on the contrary he tells you all the things you had speculated about, but had rationally suppressed. Beck (and his contemporaries) gives people permission to indulge in those irrational thoughts - at the emotional level. Like all other political commentators/entertainers he gets a majority of his information from the journalist in the print media and then selectively excludes the stories that don't fit the formula. And finally, his style wouldn't work on the left anyway: they respond to a different rhetorical strategy. His schtick is custom-made for his target audience. Ian Good luck in your new endeavor. And thanks for "The Seed Hedge" haha.

Michael, You know how I feel about Beck and, admittedly, that makes my opinion on matters regarding him biased. However, the arguments above clearly show your bias in favor of Beck. I say that because they're uncharacteristically "weak", Michael. I personally purchased a book about Jefferson recently. I bought it because I was fed up with Beck's characterizations of our Founding Father's, which is subsequently being perpetuated among his followers, and I wanted to educate myself before taking them on. So, yes, I bought it because of Beck - because he's an entertainer commonly mistaken as a journalist and/or profit. That's the anecdotal response to your argument. The more rational response is that helping to sell books (even American history books) doesn't make Beck more than an "entertainer" - it merely demonstrates his influence over his fans. Influence which, in my opinion, he wields carelessly. As for the Goldline issue: it looks like a good old-fashioned Donald Trump v. Rosie O'Donnell feud. Both sides are blinded by their contempt for the other. As far as Goldline goes, this isn't going to cost them anything. Beck fans will rally to support them while the rest of us probably would never have used them anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if their business increased. If the accusations are false, they have nothing to worry about. I just hope someone investigates that "Survival Seeds" company! Now that IS a rip-off and clearly only someone driven to a state of irrational fear by Beck's apocalyptic rhetoric would ever pay that kind of money for seeds. A rational thinking person who believes in being prepared for a crisis would not shell out that kind of money for seeds they could buy for much less elsewhere. Ian

It could very well be that she is unwilling or unknowingly helping Hezbollah. Unfortunately, her family members could give money Rima earns and gifts to them to relatives overseas who, in turn, give the money to terrorist groups. However, I think Fakih needs to be pressed to publicly denounce Hezbollah. If she does not that maybe an indication where her loyalties lie. Debbie Schlussel is doing a fairly decent job of pointing out who is supporting Rima Fakih. Among them is Najah Bazzi who was busted for Medicaid fraud and has openly stated she is embarrased to be an American. There is also Imad Hamad who is a supporter of terrorist groups (like Hamas and Hezbollah) and finanically supported Fakih's pageant candidacy. Rima Fakih is either a willing participant in deception or is unknowingly doing so. Whom she has surrounded herself with and is supporting her leads me to conclude its the former. Debbie Schlussel is not, I repeat IS NOT, a reputable source. I wouldn't trust her "information" on this or any other issue involving Muslims. She routinely refers to ALL Muslims as "barbarians" and makes other equally egregious generalizations (just look at her site for examples). This is more "guilt by association" propaganda - if association is all that is needed to prove someone's guilt or innocence then Kevin Bacon is in big trouble! She routinely condemns the favorable use of the words "Muslim" or "Arab" in the media - insinuating that they needn't be mentioned, but she is keen on invoking them when the news is unfavorable. I'm not saying her accusations are false, but based on her track record I need a better source than her before I'd believe a single word. I'd also require better arguments. So she was sponsored by a Muslim organization in Michigan? I don't find that surprising - not any more than I would find it surprising for an Irish or Italian American to seek the help of Irish or Italian organizations. I don't think we would be going crazy if this was Miss O'Sullivan and we found out that the Irish-American organization that supported her also supported and/or financed the IRA. I wouldn't think it would be appropriate to ask every Irish-American in the pageant to denounce the IRA. Anyway, this could all turn out to be true. I'm not discounting that, however, I'm not impressed with the "evidence" presented by Debbie. Ian

She 'hails' from the Great Lakes Region of the United States of America. Will Hezbollah try to use her as propaganda? Maybe, but that doesn't make her a willing participant in a conspiracy. Groups 'claim' celebrities for their causes all the time.

The only thing I can add is: this letter is going straight into the circular file - right where it belongs. I wouldn't have read past the first line: "What I am about to articulate in this letter is a decision I do not come to lightly..." I love the drama and self-importance! Dear Mr. President, What I am about to articulate in this letter is a decision I came to whilst flossing this morning - we need to attack China, eminently! Ian

Chris, And the settlers of the New World "were determined to have" the New World. So? People dream about having a homeland. And they often get quite specific based on cultural values. Even the Palestinians. That's part of human nature. It's universal. Everybody else does it. So what's so wrong about Jews--even Zionist Jews--being human? Michael I know I'm not adding anything here, but I haven't had the pleasure of saying this on his site yet: Michael, I agree with you! Sincerely, Ian

George, Forgive me if I am regressing here, but I'm having a hard time with your above comment. I understood you over in the other thread (A Critique of...) where you defined "knowledge" as a "belief that is both justified and true," however, your line of reasoning above regarding "objective values" seems off. Your article was a critique of Ayn Rand's contextual theory of knowledge - I was under the impression that the definition of "knowledge" you posited was your own and not Rands or NB's. I can only assume that when NB said "I believe it is a virtue" he wasn't using your definition, but his own which does not mean the same as "I know it is a virtue." I haven't read much of NB, but how can you justify writing that when he said "believe" he meant something closer to your definition and not Rand's (or his own)? If you state that values are objective isn't that more than simply stating that we are justified in believing that values are objective? Doesn't it imply that the statement is objectively true? How can you posit objective values without first positing a foundation of objective truth in which they're situated? Within such a foundation it makes little difference if one believes in them or not, they are true regardless. It's no consolation to Xray to say that she doesn't have to believe you - it's just a roundabout way of calling her irrational. Your definition works well to get at the intent of what people mean when they say "I believe" and therefore get to justifications, but it's only a rhetorical trope if you are already working from a foundation of objective truth. Objective truth either is or isn't - belief and mental assent only play a role in the minds of individuals (subjects), i.e., your definition is only more than a rhetorical trope within a subjective system. It works nicely to get "believers" to fall into the trap of having to argue rationally by providing justifications which can then be proved true or false (within an objective system). I'd argue that when a "believer" says "I believe in God" s/she actually means something closer to "I have faith in God." Faith requires no justifications. It's a no-win battle for "believers" who want to prove that God exist from a rational, objective, foundation. That's why faith is so darn important in religious doctrines. Ian

I'm going to go with C.H. Cooley's theory of the "social looking-glass self." "Only in man does man know himself; life alone teaches each one what he is." Goethe, Tasso, act 2, sc. 3. "'Each to each a looking-glass Reflects the other that doth pass.' As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and are interested in them because they are ours, and pleased or otherwise with them according as they do or do not answer to what we should like them to be; so in imagination we perceive in another's mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are variously affected by it. A self-idea of this sort seems to have three principal element: the imagination of our appearance to the other person; the imagination of his judgment of that appearance, and some sort of self-feeling, such as pride or mortification. The comparison with a looking-glass hardly suggests the second element, the imagined judgment, which is quite essential. The thing that moves us to pride or shame is not the mere mechanical reflection of ourselves, but an imputed sentiment, the imagined effect of this reflection upon another's mind. This is evident from the fact that the character and freight of that other, in whose mind we see ourselves, makes all the difference with our feeling. We are ashamed to seem evasive in the presence of a straightforward man, cowardly in the presence of a brave one, gross in the eyes of a refined one, and so on. We always imagine, and in imagining share, the judgments of the other mind. A man will boast to one person of an action--say some sharp transaction in trade--which he would be ashamed to own to another. It should be evident that the ideas that are associated with self-feeling and form the intellectual content of the self cannot be covered by any simple description, as by saying that the body has such a part in it, friends such a part, plans so much, etc., but will vary indefinitely with particular temperaments and environments. The tendency of the self, like every aspect of personality, is expressive of far-reaching hereditary and social factors, and is not to be understood or predicted except in connection with the general life. Although special, it is in no way separate--speciality and separateness are not only different but contradictory, since the former implies connection with a whole. The object of self-feeling is affected by the general course of history, by the particular development of nations, classes, and professions, and other conditions of this sort." From Charles Horton Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner's, 1902, pp. 179-185.

Might not improvements be thought of as finding out what's true or false about something? For instance, when I think of my model of, say, a physical system, such as a volcano, I make an improvement to this because I believe something in my current model -- or its structure (if using "structure" here is believed to add value) -- is incorrect -- e.g., doesn't capture some relevant feature of the real physical system -- or, in other words, is false. Merely using another word -- structure or whatever you care to come up with next -- only seems to hide this, don't you think? Dan, I have not given this much thought, but prima facie GS's "definition" of knowlege seems the most objective. You accused him of using the term "structure" to add value, but I see it as value neutral. It conceives of knowledge as an ongoing process where at any given moment it is what it is. On the other hand words like "improvement", "true", or "false", "better" or "worse" are value judgments. To use your example of the model volcano: according to GS's definition the first model represented a structure commensurate with what had been observed up to the point it was created - the second model represents a structure commensurate with what had been observed up until it was created. According to your definition, the second model is an improvement of the first, but isn't "improvement" an extraneous value judgment; as would be "truer", "better", etc? His definition describes an objective process while yours describes a series of value judgments. Feedback welcome. Ian

In principle no, in practice, maybe. So much for freedom of speech. Ba'al Chatzaf Obviously, you don't understand libertarian property rights principles. This would be a violation of the property rights of the bus owner and of the other riders. In other words, you are not free to do whatever you will on someone else's property. Rothbard covers this here: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp Just text search on "fire" for his treatment. I guess I understand what Rothbard is saying there, but it's hard to apply that line of thought objectively to novel situations. I'd imagine it would be okay to yell "this is my stop" on a bus in English, but to yell it in Arabic might cause a problem. How do you objectively reconcile this? Ian

I'm not sure how you can say this definition excludes many types of knowledge. On the contrary, it is a much broader definition than Locke's. Without a "psychological act of assent", how can you say you "know" something is true? If one were to say they live at 100 Main Street, doesn't that imply prior assent of the numbering system itself?

Kid tested, mother approved. I think this would work too: "Iday alakrab!" Which is Fremen for "the hands of the scorpion" (From the Dune Encyclopedia: http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Fremen_language). Ian