Glenn Beck and Personal Integrity

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I like a man who knows when to throw in the towel.

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

[imurray]

I like a man who knows when to throw in the towel.

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ian,

I am not winning or losing anything, neither are you. Simply because there is no competition.

You indicate you think there is. That's wrong.

Apparently we have very different discussion values...

Michael

[imurray]

Ian,

I am not winning or losing anything, neither are you. Simply because there is no competition.

You indicate you think there is. That's wrong.

Apparently we have very different discussion values...

Michael

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a video of a discussion on The Right Scoop that Glenn Beck had with Stu, the guy who works with him on the radio. He is talking about his appearance on O'Reilly where they discussed the Weiner affair. This was shot before the O'Reilly segment aired. It's very funny because he said he was going to make Bill O'Reilly say he liked Weiner on national television (and he did). Sorry, but the video does not embed.

Glenn Beck: Last night O'Reilly told me "I like weiner"

There is another video on that site (an update) that does embed and it's below: the actual presentation on O'Reilly where Beck is eating the hotdog. It's a hoot.

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdqGSUSUZu" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdqGSUSUZu" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

I think Weiner is going to get embarrassed big-time. He is now moving into Valliant-land with respect to checking his sources. Except Weiner's discredit, of course, is on national TV while nobody knows who my comparison is outside our little world...

btw - I sent the Beck people the link indicating the problems RipOff Report (Weiner's source for attacking Goldline and Beck) has with its own credibility (see here). I don't know if they will use it, but I will be watching...

Michael

[dan2100]

His methods are what though? Shouting and fomenting, in too many cases, an unreasoned response -- such as his blaming that murder (the one with a railroad tie) on rampant atheism.

Dan,

What murder? I missed that one. As to methods, see above.

See http://www.youtube.c...h?v=DhbbGF4Y9yI

Also, you should consider how many people he has an impact on by changing their minds on something important. Do you believe he's done that to any significant degree? I'm not sure how to measure that...

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.

[imurray]

His methods are what though? Shouting and fomenting, in too many cases, an unreasoned response -- such as his blaming that murder (the one with a railroad tie) on rampant atheism.

Dan,

What murder? I missed that one. As to methods, see above.

See http://www.youtube.c...h?v=DhbbGF4Y9yI

Also, you should consider how many people he has an impact on by changing their minds on something important. Do you believe he's done that to any significant degree? I'm not sure how to measure that...

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.

From Wikipedia (not the best source, but this, I believe, is an accurate summary):

According to Skousen's nephew, financial and political commentator Mark Skousen, Leap reflects Skousen's "passion for the United States Constitution," which he "felt was inspired by God and the reason behind America’s success as a nation."[39] The book is touted by Beck as "required reading" to understand the current American political landscape and become a "September twelfth person".[37] Beck authored a foreword for the 2008 edition of Leap and Beck's on-air recommendations in 2009 propelled the book to number one in the government category on Amazon for several months.[37]

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

Edited May 24, 2010 by Panoptic

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

I agree that Beck makes a false dichotomy in equating faith in government as opposed to faith in God. But along his broadcasts (and I watch him often), he stresses the individual responsibility kind of morality OVER faith in God, if you look between the lines. He is falling out with religious folks who promote the view that God's will is social justice, for example, although I doubt he would deny that they believe in God.

But I'm not going to defend his interpretation of the murder shown in the video (I had seen the news item at the time, but I had not seen Beck's comments). Beck's wrong here. He not only claimed that the callousness of the people watching was due to lack of faith in God--and he stressed the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, he also claimed it was due to misplacing that faith and putting the misguided faith in government and Obama. He stressed this enough to put it on equal footing as a reason.

I think the whole behavior behind such callous murder and reactions has nothing to do with lost faith--or even some lost morality or other. People have been brutally killing each other ever since before recorded history. It is usually not because people turned from God, but instead because they are fighting to the death over which version of God is to prevail.

As to your comment on getting people to buy books on the Founding Fathers not meaning anything other than buying books, I have 2 questions for you:

1. Who in today's culture, or hell, even in the last 100 years, has been able to push books--one ofter the other--about the Founding Fathers up to the bestseller list? You think that feat is simply selling books? Name me just one person who has done that.

2. If you do not think that this accomplishment an indication of a small-government, low-tax, individual-responsibility, republic-style political awareness waking up with the general public, where would you start from the status quo to do that? In other words, what would be an indication of that to you?

btw - I found Ian's comment that those books are revisionist history comical. They are well-researched books with a specific interpretation, not false history.

I am reading one right now, A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen. Jeff Riggenbach, who is an authority in his own right, hates this book and discussed it in his article, Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction To Revisionism. He hates it (as he told me here on the forum) presumably because of its pro-government bias. That's what he said in the article. But he also claimed in that same article that the book is factually accurate. Good thing, too, because it is footnoted to death with original sources. Jeff's beef is with what it left out, especially things like the ugly side of war and American government abuses. Not with factual inaccuracies.

One of the hallmarks of revisionist history--in the sense Ian means, which is as Wikipedia says, "illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favorable light"--is that it not only often gets facts wrong, it does not rely much on original sources or footnotes. Hardly ever.

Thus, for a good example, to call the book Beck recently pushed to No. 1 on Amazon, George Washington's Sacred Fire by Peter A. Lillback, which is predominantly made up of Washington's own writings, revisionist because the guy, Lillback, wanted to prove--and did prove--that Washington was a Christian, is a stretch by any stretch of the imagination. From what I have seen so far, the books Beck pushes are factually accurate.

It is legitimate to complain about their point of view. It is not legitimate to claim or insinuate that they present distorted facts. They don't. Especially seeing as to how they are chock full of the original writings of our Founding Fathers and the texts of other historical documents.

Michael

[imurray]

Dan,

I agree that Beck makes a false dichotomy in equating faith in government as opposed to faith in God. But along his broadcasts (and I watch him often), he stresses the individual responsibility kind of morality OVER faith in God, if you look between the lines. He is falling out with religious folks who promote the view that God's will is social justice, for example, although I doubt he would deny that they believe in God.

But I'm not going to defend his interpretation of the murder shown in the video (I had seen the news item at the time, but I had not seen Beck's comments). Beck's wrong here. He not only claimed that the callousness of the people watching was due to lack of faith in God--and he stressed the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, he also claimed it was due to misplacing that faith and putting the misguided faith in government and Obama. He stressed this enough to put it on equal footing as a reason.

I think the whole behavior behind such callous murder and reactions has nothing to do with lost faith--or even some lost morality or other. People have been brutally killing each other ever since before recorded history. It is usually not because people turned from God, but instead because they are fighting to the death over which version of God is to prevail.

As to your comment on getting people to buy books on the Founding Fathers not meaning anything other than buying books, I have 2 questions for you:

1. Who in today's culture, or hell, even in the last 100 years, has been able to push books--one ofter the other--about the Founding Fathers up to the bestseller list? You think that feat is simply selling books? Name me just one person who has done that.

2. If you do not think that this accomplishment an indication of a small-government, low-tax, individual-responsibility, republic-style political awareness waking up with the general public, where would you start from the status quo to do that? In other words, what would be an indication of that to you?

btw - I found Ian's comment that those books are revisionist history comical. They are well-researched books with a specific interpretation, not false history.

I am reading one right now, The Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen. Jeff Riggenbach, who is an authority in his own right, hates this book ad discussed it in his article, Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction To Revisionism. He hates it (as he told me here on the forum) presumably because of its pro-government bias. That's what he said in the article. But he also claimed in that same article that the book is factually accurate. Good thing, too, because it is footnoted to death with original sources. Jeff's beef is with what it left out, especially things like the ugly side of war and American government abuses. Not with factual inaccuracies.

One of the hallmarks of revisionist history--in the sense Ian means, which is as Wikipedia says, "illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favorable light"--is that it not only often gets facts wrong, it does not rely much on original sources or footnotes. Hardly ever.

Thus, for a good example, to call the book Beck recently pushed to No. 1 on Amazon, George Washington's Sacred Fire by Peter A. Lillback, which is predominantly made up of Washington's own writings, revisionist because the guy, Lillback, wanted to prove--and did prove--that Washington was a Christian, is a stretch by any stretch of the imagination. From what I have seen so far, the books Beck pushes are factually accurate.

It is legitimate to complain about their point of view. It is not legitimate to claim or insinuate that they present distorted facts. they don't. Especially seeing as to how they are chock full of the original writings of our Founding Fathers and the texts of other historical documents.

Michael

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

Edited May 24, 2010 by Panoptic

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ian,

Now you are distorting my words?

Michael

[imurray]

Ian,

Now you are distorting my words?

Michael

Michael,

No. I don't have to. I couldn't make them appear any more ridiculous if I tried!

Anyway, it's useless. Beck has you hooked on a line that is apparently strong enough to hold both of us (and Dan and Chris). I'm letting go with them before I get dragged aboard and clubbed.

Ian

Edited May 24, 2010 by Panoptic

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No. I don't have to.

Then why did you?

[imurray]

No. I don't have to.

Then why did you?

What part of "no" didn't you understand? Here comes the club...enjoy the show. I'll give you the last word.

[RightJungle]

Michael,

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists.

As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect.

One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people.

A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends."

The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs.

I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner.

Better that than to curse the darkness.

Mary Lee

[imurray]

Michael,

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists.

As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect.

One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people.

A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends."

The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs.

I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner.

Better that than to curse the darkness.

Mary Lee

Need I say more?

Ian

[dan2100]

Dan,

I agree that Beck makes a false dichotomy in equating faith in government as opposed to faith in God. But along his broadcasts (and I watch him often), he stresses the individual responsibility kind of morality OVER faith in God, if you look between the lines. He is falling out with religious folks who promote the view that God's will is social justice, for example, although I doubt he would deny that they believe in God.

But I'm not going to defend his interpretation of the murder shown in the video (I had seen the news item at the time, but I had not seen Beck's comments). Beck's wrong here. He not only claimed that the callousness of the people watching was due to lack of faith in God--and he stressed the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, he also claimed it was due to misplacing that faith and putting the misguided faith in government and Obama. He stressed this enough to put it on equal footing as a reason.

I think the whole behavior behind such callous murder and reactions has nothing to do with lost faith--or even some lost morality or other. People have been brutally killing each other ever since before recorded history. It is usually not because people turned from God, but instead because they are fighting to the death over which version of God is to prevail.

My problem here is, again, that he blames this on atheism. Here he is no different than other religious conservatives -- and no more trustworthy. (Think of Gina Cobb, if my memory's correct, blaming the Virginia Tech murders on prevailing atheism and recommended religious training to prevent further outbreaks.)

Also, as to your view, I'm not sure about people why people brutally kill each other -- or what reasons prevail over the course of human history. I doubt, though, atheism per se has much to do with this. (Of course, in some seemingly religiously motivated killings, it might be the case that the killers see their victims as atheists.)

As to your comment on getting people to buy books on the Founding Fathers not meaning anything other than buying books,

My comment was "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." The Amazon measure only tells us people are buying those books. It doesn't tell us exactly what's happening with them.

Let me provide another example. I have a friend and to avoid giving his identity away, I'll call him Aidan. Aidan is a libertarian, admirer of Rand, and has been involved with both the libertarian and Objectivist movements now for, he's told me, about 25 years. He's a big fan of books like The Real Lincoln. He's actually purchased about 20 copies of this to pass around to his family, friends, and colleagues. (He tried to give me a copy, but I'd already bought one at that time. He did foist off a copy of Blowback on me -- for which I thanked him.) Now his family and colleagues are mostly what could be called statists of the Left -- many of them are big Obama supporters and were Kerry supporters the last election cycle. I seriously doubt -- and he has yet to prove me wrong -- that a single one of them read these books he's passed along to them and changed their basic views. (In fact, he's told me as much. Some people gobbled up Blowback, which he gave out many copies of, but read it not as a critique of interventionist foreign policy, but merely of the Bush Administration. I know this partly because he's related back dicussions to me he's had with the same people once Obama was elected and showed he was basically doing four more years of Bush in terms of foreign adventures.)

Of course, this doesn't mean you're totally wrong here. It just means that one can't read sales being up as cultural change per se. Some of the sales increases might be people like my friend Aidan. Others might be people buying the book because Beck said so, but never actually reading it. Let's call these non-readers. Still others might buy it, read it, and not change in the direction you'd want them to change -- i.e., I think toward a more libertarian, rational society. Let's call these non-changers. I don't know the exact numbers here, but I doubt it's around 99% are doing what you think and the rest are divided among people like Aidan, non-readers, and non-changers.

Finally, I don't know about the books in particular. I don't have a high opinion of the first president, especially reinforced by reading books such as The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the Transformation of North America by Colin G. Calloway, The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War by Fred Anderson, and The Whiskey Rebellion by William Hogeland. (Granted, in that last book, Washington looks less like the villain and more like just a dupe going along with Hamilton's whacked out policies.)

I have 2 questions for you:

1. Who in today's culture, or hell, even in the last 100 years, has been able to push books--one ofter the other--about the Founding Fathers up to the bestseller list? You think that feat is simply selling books? Name me just one person who has done that.

I don't know, but, then, I'm not familiar with biography sales over the last century. Are you? I'd like to see some actual research here as my guess is the Founding Fathers make it up the charts. Also, why isn't he pushing books by Thomas Paine -- the forgotten founder? Because Paine questioned religion! My guess is Beck's agenda here is not so much less government as more religion.

2. If you do not think that this accomplishment an indication of a small-government, low-tax, individual-responsibility, republic-style political awareness waking up with the general public, where would you start from the status quo to do that? In other words, what would be an indication of that to you?

I don't know. You might be right here. After all, most people are probably not ready to take the plunge and adopt a radical political philosophy like libertarianism. They'll have to go through stages and maybe you're right in that one of those stages for some of them will be looking back at some of the Founders. (Not all. I actually don't think much of Washington. He presided over a pretty large expansion of the federal government and put down a rebellion. Also, I'm suspicious of many of the others founders, especially Hamilton -- and for good reason and he's probably more the Founding Father of big government for America -- but also of many of the ones pushing for a stronger central government.)

btw - I found Ian's comment that those books are revisionist history comical. They are well-researched books with a specific interpretation, not false history.

I am reading one right now, A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen. Jeff Riggenbach, who is an authority in his own right, hates this book and discussed it in his article, Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction To Revisionism. He hates it (as he told me here on the forum) presumably because of its pro-government bias. That's what he said in the article. But he also claimed in that same article that the book is factually accurate. Good thing, too, because it is footnoted to death with original sources. Jeff's beef is with what it left out, especially things like the ugly side of war and American government abuses. Not with factual inaccuracies.

One of the hallmarks of revisionist history--in the sense Ian means, which is as Wikipedia says, "illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favorable light"--is that it not only often gets facts wrong, it does not rely much on original sources or footnotes. Hardly ever.

Thus, for a good example, to call the book Beck recently pushed to No. 1 on Amazon, George Washington's Sacred Fire by Peter A. Lillback, which is predominantly made up of Washington's own writings, revisionist because the guy, Lillback, wanted to prove--and did prove--that Washington was a Christian, is a stretch by any stretch of the imagination. From what I have seen so far, the books Beck pushes are factually accurate.

It is legitimate to complain about their point of view. It is not legitimate to claim or insinuate that they present distorted facts. They don't. Especially seeing as to how they are chock full of the original writings of our Founding Fathers and the texts of other historical documents.

Michael

One has to select when writing history, I presume. One can't report everything. I'm not a historian by any means, though Jeff's was not the first book I read on the subject. (Another one I'd recommend is David Hackett Fischer's Historians Fallacies. The title alone caught my attention in college -- even though I wasn't a history major.) That said, though, I do recommend it and enjoyed it.

Back to Beck, doesn't Beck's recommending the Lillback book only make my case here? Was he recommending it just to shrink government? Or was he recommending it to promote religious views acceptable to him? What's the take away from a book like this? That Americans have an oppressive government? It seems more likely to me that the reason to promote this book -- though it's a guess on my part as I didn't hear where Beck promoted it, what he said and such -- was to boost religion.

[imurray]

Michael,

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists.

As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect.

One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people.

A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends."

The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs.

I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner.

Better that than to curse the darkness.

Mary Lee

Need I say more? Not a single original thought in that whole diatribe. Look at it: she uses a few sources - the same sources that every one of Beck's followers use - because he provided them for them. Can't you see that supporting Beck IS supporting the status quo? You let yourself be manipulated into following "great men." How can you be a libertarian or for small government when you want and think you need great leaders just as much as those on the left? You just want leaders you agree with - and will fight for them as hard as the left fights for their own great men. The only way around this is to educate people to see through the rhetoric which these men use to manipulate them - to teach them to become great men and women themselves. The best part is you don't need a great man to teach you these things - you need to use your own rational mind.

It's not that I disagree with the points Beck is trying to make - it's that he's using manipulation to get people to believe him. If he can do it, you'd be naive to think that he's the only one who can. Doesn't it worry you when everybody is reading the same books and will rabidly defend their profit? If we can see through the rhetoric and get to the message, we will revolt against people like Beck, Obama, Olbermann who wish to manipulate us with appeals to irrational fears and emotions. The fancy rhetoric accompanying the message will become superfluous and extraneous - as it is to anyone who knows how to think now. I don't need my emotions jolted to know what's right. Wake up!!!

So it's not on the basis of political ideology that I dislike Beck (although I don't always agree with him) - I find it disheartening that smart people want leaders who use manipulation. The truth doesn't need embellishment.

Ian

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Finally, I don't know about the books in particular. I don't have a high opinion of the first president...

Dan,

I got to this point and I almost stopped reading. There's no common ground I have with this view.

Also, why isn't he pushing books by Thomas Paine -- the forgotten founder? Because Paine questioned religion! My guess is Beck's agenda here is not so much less government as more religion.

Then I got to this point and I actually did stop reading. That's quite a statement of causality you just made.

Here is a book that was a New York Times bestseller a few months ago, and it stayed on the charts for quite a while. It currently sits at no. 374 in the Amazon ranking of best sellers. The entire text of Paine's Common Sense is the last part of the book. And Beck asks people to please read it.

Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine

Beck not only discussed Thomas Paine, he made one of Paine's books into part of a bestseller. You don't need to read Beck's book like I did. Just the title would be nice before you accuse...

(I read the rest of your post, but I lost the urge to comment on it. I feel we are not going to have a serious discussion when the word "Beck" arises.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Mary Lee,

You are most welcome. I think that the Crichton passage deserves far more exposure than it has gotten. But I doubt it will because it strikes the politicians, the lawyers and the mainstream media all at the same time.

I'm glad to see you are getting the same impression about Glenn Beck as I am.

What I find fascinating about Beck is that he is making it cool to talk about our Founding Fathers. It's not just history. It's something living we can use for inspired entertainment.

He mentioned on one of his shows that the new generation does not know who Daniel Boone was. I simply did not believe it until I asked Tina (Kat's daughter), who is now 20 years old. She never heard of Daniel Boone. What?!!!! And she is now in college. I was flabbergasted, but it's true. Those idiots--those progressive idiots on the school boards--are trying to do a Stalin on American history by doctoring the textbooks of children.

You mentioned Barbara. I don't talk with her as often as I would like in this phase of my life as I am a blabber-mouth and keep her on the phone much longer than is good for either of us. (I am committed to getting this Internet marketing thing down pat and the studying requires almost all of my time right now, except for what I post here on OL and family matters. So I have cut out my calls and almost all my emailing. I don't even give Kat and the kids as much attention as I would like--and poor Kat is patiently and lovingly waiting her turn...)

But the last time I talked to Barbara--on her birthday--I told her she might not like it, but I greatly admired Glenn Beck. She told me she adored him, that he was so cuddly.

That's a true statement.

We discussed Beck's impact on the culture and, although I don't remember exactly what I said, she basically agreed with me. I am pretty sure I said to her what I always say.

Then Barbara mentioned something--the same thing that has captivated me with Beck right from the start. She said that people may not like him, but they have to like his facts whether they like it or not. They never rebut his facts and he presents a lot of them.

I have found that to be true, even here on the forum.

So us Back fans are in good company.

(I hope Barbara is not ticked at me for outing her. )

Michael

[anthony]

Mary Lee,

There's wisdom in your words - "Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect."

Indeed.

Relating to Beck, sometimes, maybe, you just have to seize on someone who is also less than perfect.

From what I've seen and heard of him, he's doing an essential job no one else wants, or can do as well.

(Besides, I have never known a "religion booster" attempt to force me out of my atheism.)

Tony

[dan2100]

Finally, I don't know about the books in particular. I don't have a high opinion of the first president...

Dan,

I got to this point and I almost stopped reading. There's no common ground I have with this view.

I can't force you to respond, but why do you have such a high opinion of the first president? How do you account for many of his big government policies and the like? Or do you disagree that he supported these? Or do you balance these against something else?

Also, why isn't he pushing books by Thomas Paine -- the forgotten founder? Because Paine questioned religion! My guess is Beck's agenda here is not so much less government as more religion.

Then I got to this point and I actually did stop reading. That's quite a statement of causality you just made.

Here is a book that was a New York Times bestseller a few months ago, and it stayed on the charts for quite a while. It currently sits at no. 374 in the Amazon ranking of best sellers. The entire text of Paine's Common Sense is the last part of the book. And Beck asks people to please read it.

Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine

You don't need to read Beck's book like I did. Just the title...

(I read the rest of your post, but I lost the urge to comment on it. I feel we are not going to have a serious discussion when the word "Beck" arises.)

Michael

I was thinking more Paine's anticlerical The Age of Reason and The Rights of Man, but I must admit to missing that in the title of his book. I might be overstating my case against Beck, but your parenthetic comment and your refrain about not reading and then reading my post are not, I feel, deserved.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

You're doing it again. Beck has talked about those books. And he encourages people to read them.

I don't mean to be snarky, but a lapse of that size is something akin to coming from another country and bashing the American people because the USA could never have a black president.

If you want to bash someone, I think the minimum to be expected (if you want to be taken seriously) is to have a passing familiarity, or even just a vague familiarity, with the titles of the person's most popular recent works.

Don't you think that this deserves reflection? That you knew enough about a Beck statement against atheism to post the video on it (and it wasn't even against atheism per se, but against people "not having a religion"), but you were unaware of the fact that he wrote a book based on Thomas Paine and complained that he did not promote Paine because of his religion?

I certainly think that deserves reflection.

Starting with where you are getting your information from.

People on a crusade will embarrass the hell out of you if you do not check their facts. Original sources are always the best sources. Always.

Lack of familiarity with the actual text is the common complaint we have when people wrongfully bash Rand.

At least your video was of Beck and not someone talking about him. But that was nowhere near enough to justify making the Paine statement...

Michael

[dan2100]

Dan,

You're doing it again. Beck has talked about those books. And he encourages people to read them.

I don't mean to be snarky, but a lapse of that size is something akin to coming from another country and bashing the American people because the USA could never have a black president.

If you want to bash someone, I think the minimum to be expected (if you want to be taken seriously) is to have a passing familiarity, or even just a vague familiarity, with the titles of the person's most popular recent works.

Don't you think that this deserves reflection?

Yeah, you're right here. I've not done enough research on Beck to be truly informed about him.

That you knew enough about a Beck statement against atheism to post the video on it (and it wasn't even against atheism per se, but against people "not having a religion"), but you were unaware of the fact that he wrote a book based on Thomas Paine and complained that he did not promote Paine because of his religion?

I certainly think that deserves reflection.

Yes, my mistake -- especially in regards to his promotion of Paine. This makes him a bit rare among conservatives -- most of whom hardly mention Paine.

Even so, regarding his take on atheism and religion, I think it's safe to say he's extremely if not dangerously pro-religion -- at least based on the on air clips I've seen of him. And one has merely to google to find other clips of him actually attacking atheists. In other words, blaming the murder on Godlessness or lack of religion (while also mentioning an atheist group -- so the connection is pretty obvious here) is not the only example of this. E.g., see:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=JJJlgNf06ek

and

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0y3x_cJyRqI

Granted, this makes him no different than mainstream religious conservatives who think that not being able to have religious stuff in government institutions is the same as abolishing their religion. (And, to be sure, as others have pointed out, the problem here is having public institutions in the first place. They only politicize these issues because some people will be forced to pay for what other people control or use.)

Starting with where you are getting your information from.

People on a crusade will embarrass the hell out of you if you do not check their facts. Original sources are always the best sources. Always.

Lack of familiarity with the actual text is the common complaint we have when people wrongfully bash Rand.

At least your video was of Beck and not someone talking about him. But that was nowhere near enough to justify making the Paine statement...

Michael

For what it's worth, my information about Beck comes from seeing him on air or hearing clips of him -- not from some other source. Any mistakes I've made here have been ones of omission -- particularly, not looking at his books and such.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

Cool.

I respect that.

(I'm not immune, either. I sometimes step on my own dong, so you certainly don't have a monopoly on it. The cool thing to do is just admit it, correct it and move on. I really identify with your attitude.)

I agree that Glenn Beck is a bit heavy-handed on religion, but his approach is different than other conservatives I have seen.

The general conservative approach is to make sure government enforces religion. Beck's approach is that religion is volitional. And his emphasis is on personal responsibility and individual rights, not on any particular religious doctrine. (He focuses a bit on the Christianity of the Founding Fathers, but he does that in order to correct an historical distortion, not to preach Christianity. Ditto for his emphasis on George Whitefield and Whitefield's influence on the revolt against England.)

I do admit he gets right up to the line of outright preaching, though. But I don't mind so much since it is always framed as individual choice.

Beck tells people something I arrived at on my own way back when I decided to give up drugs. If you want to change the world, you have to start by changing yourself. You have to start with yourself. That's the first step.

That's exactly what Beck tells people to do. He says, if you want to get rid of corruption in Washington (or at least cut down on it a lot), you have to start by being honest in your own life. So if there are areas where you are cutting too many corners, where you are intentionally doing something wrong, even a little bit wrong, to gain an advantage, then stop it. It doesn't matter what you have done up to now, just stop it. Be forthright, then you can demand that others be forthright and have a butt load of morale backing you up.

I can only agree with that.

You might be interested to know that he mentions Ayn Rand sporadically during his shows in a highly favorable light. For instance, on his show last Friday (which he calls Founders Fridays), he was discussing the spirit that moved people to come to America from Europe during the colonial times. He said that America was the Galt's Gulch of back then. I don't remember his exact words, but I think he mentioned Rand's name. I remember that he elaborated on what this means to make sure people understood.

Beck is no Buckley. He preaches for the individual good, not the collective good, and he uses those words to describe it. The tribe--the collective--is not important, the individual is. The individual subordinated to God, maybe, but to Beck that is an individual matter--a matter of free choice, not a collective matter. And certainly not one enforced by the government.

He is big on non-initiation of force, too. From the reactions I have seen, several of the Buckleys out there are really bothered by his growing popularity. Many of them like war, although they may say otherwise. He doesn't like it for real.

Michael

[RightJungle]

Michael,

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists.

As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect.

One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people.

A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends."

The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs.

I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner.

Better that than to curse the darkness.

Mary Lee

Need I say more?

Ian

One of the more interesting books that Beck held up was American Progressivism edited by Ronald J. Pestritto and William J. Atto. In the introduction the editors tell us how those who brought the most pressure against the U.S. Constitution used Altruism (Rand's favorite bad to the bone idea) to denigrate the founding fathers and their motives. They made snide accusations about the selfish, power hungy founding fathers who just wanted to protect their own financial interests, rather than working selflessly for the good of the country as a whole. One of these, Charles Beard, writing in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, published in 1913 (does that year ring a bell?), asserted that (quoting the book's editors):

"The delegates at Philadelphia, Beard contended, were motivated by personal economic concerns and determined to produce a document that strengthened their control of government and thus assured their continued financial success. While Beard's assertion was similar to J. Allen Smith's, his methodology, which seemed to substantiate the charge of avarice in a way that Smith's had not, combined with the charge that the framers should be condemned for reprehensible self-seeking, was a direct assault on the previously sacrosanct Constitution and its authors. Jefferson may have believed that the delegates assembled in Philadelphia were "demi-gods", but Beard thought otherwise. In Beard's analysis, even Madison, perhaps especially Madison, was charged with subscribing to "the theory of economic determinism in politics.""

"The implications of Beard's thesis were clear and significant for advocates of progressive reform: there had been no popular control of government from the founding erneration to the present; a great people had been duped by the conniving of a relatively small interest group. It was, therefore, incumbent upon proponents of democracy to wrest control of government from the few and place it where, despite the rhetoric of earlier generations, it had neve been, in the hands of the poplulace. "

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how Ayn Rand would have used this analysis of how we lost our Republican form of government?

Anyone still think that Glenn Beck has done no good for this country - for the people who used to read the sports pages and the Dear Abbey columns and are now reading American history with a passion? Seriously?

To answer your question Panoptic - I think you have a whole lot more to say. Go to it.

Mary Lee