A new critical thinking meme: This web site features a grating parody of the "Leave Britney alone!" video at the top of the page, and proceeds to explain its purpose:
This site exists to try and help examine the vicious rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. We don't claim to know the truth -- only that the rumour floating around saying that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 should be discussed. So we're going to do our part to try and help get to the bottom of this.
Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations? We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 - in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?
Yes, it's a dead-on satirical joke -- simply parroting the very phrases used by the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Sarah Palins, Birthers, Bushies, LaRouchies, Dining Room Tables, Creationists/Intelligent Designers, etc. It's all based on the old logical fallacy known as "negative proof," the implication that something is true only because it hasn't been proven false: "We know Saddam has WMDs because he won't prove that he doesn't." "Where does it say there are no death panels?" "We know these detainees are terrorists because at no time since they have been arrested and held in isolation without charges have they proven they are not terrorists, and the president says they would not be imprisoned if they were not terrorists." (This is where I want to have continuous instantaneous access to a clip from "The Larry Sanders Show" of Artie [Rip Torn] with his shit-eating Producer's grin saying: "Don't start pulling at that thread or our whole world will come apart.") From there, it's only a short hop to: "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy?" "When did you stop beating your wife?"
This nonsense is usually combined with Pavlovian association and repetition. The more people hear the juxtapositions -- Saddam/9-11, detainees/terrorists, Obama/Muslim, healthcare reform/Naziism -- the more they are inclined to assume a connection where there has never been one. Does anyone honestly think Glenn "Obama is a racist" Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990? I don't know. I hope not, because that would put them on Glenn Beck's level. This site mimics exactly the sort of evidence and logic Beck uses to smear public figures on Rupert Murdoch's Australian gossip tabloid, FOX News. (Apparently he's on the radio, too, but I have heard no hard evidence of that.)
There's another element at work here, too, which I think of as the Johnnie Cochran Offense, after the celebrity lawyer and publicity-hound who bamboozled the O.J. Simpson jury by inundating them with so much irrelevant bullshit (from "race card" conspiracy theories to ridiculous catch phrases) that they couldn't even find the evidence anymore, much less distinguish between what was relevant and what wasn't. His goal was not to create reasonable doubt but to manufacture doubt for any reason, based on anything but reason. Because of the fantastic success of this offense in 1995, it is now the most popular approach used by those who would rather stifle argument than engage with any externally verifiable reality. (Remember it was a FOX News personality who first posited that Alaska's proximity to Russia gave Sarah Palin foreign policy expertise.)
So, as a former president once said, let's "teach the controversy."
Among my favorite comments on the site (which is actually based on a Gilbert Gottfried bit from a Comedy Central roast of Bob Saget) are these:
"I can't believe evidence as to whether or not Glenn Beck raped a girl in 1990 has not come to light! What are the law enforcement agencies doing? Every year hundreds of innocent girls go missing. How many of them have fallen prey to the murdering and raping hands of Glenn Beck? And how many more will have to suffer before we get to the bottom of this?"
"Not to add to the rumor mongering, but [I] have no knowledge of any plausible alibi Glenn Beck has that would prove he didn't rape and murder that girl in 1990. Lexis Nexis provides 0 articles that state Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a girl for the entire year of 1990.... Why won't Glenn Beck release her death certificate?"
It's true. I've looked and I, too, have not found one scintilla of evidence in the public record that Glenn Beck did or did not rape and murder a girl in 1990. So, where was he that year? And why did he wait all this time after 1990, until Barack Obama ran for president, to start attacking Barack Obama's presidency? To distract attention from his own crimes, perhaps? Why didn't he rape and murder a young girl during the second Bush administration? Or did he? He won't say so much as a "You lie!" to those who are accusing him and spreading these horrible rumors. What's worse, he won't even say he's sorry. Not one trace of remorse over such a heinous crime. In fact, he doesn't even have the decency to promise he wouldn't do it again, if given the opportunity. He has offered absolutely nothing in his defense whatsoever -- because he can't prove his whereabouts in 1990, much less in 2000-2008. And while I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, that time he poured gasoline on somebody on his show demonstrates conclusively that he's crazy and capable of... anything, including the rape and murder of a young girl in 1990.
At the bottom of the homepage is this: "Notice: This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven't yet seen proof that he didn't. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation. Read the last sentence again. That's the point. Read it a third time..."
But that hasn't stopped Beck's lawyers from trying to shut down the site -- resulting in more blowback and another manifestation of the dreaded Streisand Effect!
(tip: Bilge Ebiri)
* * * *
UPDATE: At Salon, Steve Almond has an overview of conservative pundit bestsellers that includes some thought-provoking insights into Glenn Beck's ultra-theatrical approach to entertainment:
"Glenn Beck's Common Sense" (No. 1, nonfiction paperback, 13 weeks on the list) is perhaps the boldest of the lot, which should come as no surprise. Anyone who has seen his syndicated TV show or his infamous YouTube tirades knows that Beck is a wildly imaginative performer, a man who weds the operatic impulses of the demagogue to the grim mutterings of the conspiracy theorist.
His tract, accordingly, takes the form of a direct address to the reader, in which he seeks to reassure us that he too feels a "creeping sense that SOMETHING JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT. America has let thieves into her home ... Our country is about to be stolen ... Open your eyes ... These people are robbing us blind. They have set our house on fire and blocked all the exits." In short, Eeeeeeek!
We might take this as a textbook example of what Richard Hofstadter called, way back in 1964, "the paranoid style in American politics." Except that Beck is not a politician. He's an entertainer, in this case a writer indulging in a mischievous satire narrated by his energetic counterpart "Glenn Beck."
"Paranoia is a dominant concern in modern literature," John Farrell observes in his trenchant "Paranoia and Modernity: Cervantes to Rousseau," "and its peculiar constellation of symptoms -- grandiosity, suspicion, unfounded hostility, delusions of persecution and conspiracy -- are nearly obligatory psychological components of the modern hero." Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "Glenn Beck," modern hero.
The most striking aspect of Beck-as-narrator is his acute racial neuroses. It's not just that he compares Joe the Plumber to Martin Luther King -- heck, that's meant to play for laughs. It's his veritable obsession with slavery, specifically the likelihood that he (and his children and you, the reader, and your children) will be enslaved.
How will this happen? "Glenn Beck" won't say exactly. After all, he needs to leave room for a sequel. But here's a hint: It has something to do with universal healthcare.
I have to give Beck some credit for the way he suckers his audience and reaps the benefits. He's fits into the tradition of the hellfire-preaching evangelist (or televangelist) who promises apocalyptic Revelations and gets rich on donations.
Jim, thank you for drawing our attention to this important issue. Why hasn't Glenn Beck denied explicitly that he will not rape or murder any ten year old girls in the future? There are untold numbers of girls that have not yet been conceived, and Glenn Beck could potentially murder any one of them!
It is not as if this man doesn't have a method for getting information out: he has a television show. He is showing himself not raping girls, but only for an hour or so a day. Does he REALLY expect us to forget that there are 23 other hours in a day? Why is he not broadcasting his not raping girls then as well?
(I wonder if the reason Beck's lawyers are trying to shut down the site is that Beck is fearful that people reading the site, trained to respond to Beckian tactics, will believe the rumour is true and completely miss the satire. Or maybe he and his lawyers miss the satire too. It's like the Ricky Gervais entry. Not getting the joke? Reminds me of Sarah Silverman's routine about Joe Franklin in "The Aristocrats" and that controversy....)
JE: I am willing to believe he's idiotic enough to not get it -- because this is the way he makes his living. If he understood what he was doing, that would make him evil intentionally.
I'm glad this issue is finally getting the attention that it deserves. This new lack of evidence forces us to question every rape and murder of the last 20 years. I personally didn't think Beck was capable of such things but the fact that he hasn't yet even tried to address these charges is seriously fueling my doubts. I mean the law states that one is guilty until proven innocent does it not?
Hey, you'd almost think Beck was the President of the United States or something! It's good to see that liberal propriety remains firmly exclusive to insults and inappropriate behavior directed at their own party. You and Andrew Sullivan could get together and write a killer article for a gynecology journal.
So let it be known for the record that Emerson is asserting, characteristically free of any evidence or rational thought whatsoever, that Johnny Cochran's defense of O.J. Simpson served as the model for right-wing talking heads. Sort of like saying Deep Throat was the inspiration for the Clinton presidency; a ridiculous assertion that only a raging idiot could type with a straight face.
The only thing worse than your insufferably dull and pointlessly verbose film commentary is your aggressively moronic and giddily spurious political writing. A tip: political writing from a hardcore partisan who desperately wants to think of themselves as independent is never, ever good.
JE: Yeah, your logic is devastating -- with a straight face. Us agrees! Oh, wait. You insulted me, called me names, attributed to me comparisons I didn't make (to say two rhetorical approaches are similar is not to say that one served as the model for the other, particularly when Limbaugh's brand of conservative talk radio flowered during the Reagan and Bush I administrations and the OJ Simpson trial was during the Clinton administration), and failed to address the subject of the post. That reminds me of somebody...
These jokes about Glenn Beck are sick and tasteless. You may find humor in the shock value of such vulgar attempts at "humor," but, rest assured, there are real people out there who have suffered and lost their children to adult predators, murderers, and TV's Glenn Beck.
Thank you so much for a thorough look at my website. We'll see whether or not I lose the original domain - but I have gb1990.com and the "didglenn...com" domain (which is the title of the site now) parked there, so we should be able to keep it going.
One point I'd like to make is that we're planning to expand the idea - to take on other talking heads using unethical tactics like we believe Beck uses - and we won't care if the person is liberal or conservative... (there's a board on the site's forum dedicated to discussing the furtherance of this idea).
I'm also glad to answer any emails sent to the site to the best of my ability and time - although readers of your blog post here shouldn't be confused, unlike certain others posted on other blogs elsewhere on the `net.
Thanks for getting it and giving us a fair shake. :)
JE: My pleasure. May I suggest you take a look at Michael Moore's anecdotal, context-less approach? I haven't seen his new "Capitalism" movie yet, but I suspect there will be plenty of material...
If I could add "Truthers" to your list of "Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Sarah Palins, Birthers, Bushies, LaRouchies, Dining Room Tables, Creationists/Intelligent Designers"...
JE: I worry that B--- O'------ might feel left out, too. And A-- C------ and A----- W----.
Shame on you jim for taking focus away from the real problem, the Limbaugh/ O'reilley child pornography ring
Oh what sermonizing from the great Jim Emerson, the man who recently posted an essay lamenting the usage of Nazi comparisons in American politics ("Maybe Bill Maher was right"), only to shrug his shoulders and ignore it when a poster proceeded to actually compare George W. Bush to the Nazis. You're a shining becon of morality and decency during these vulgar times.
JE: Well, that's where you're wrong. (Both sentences, I guess.) I don't always get a chance to read EVERY comment, but once several people pointed out that one, I went back, found it, and replied:
http://bit.ly/4DjBgk
@James Van Fleet: Good! It looks like you definitely have the hang of the misdirection joke...
Why hasn't Obama denied raping and killing a young girl? Why hasn't he denied having gay sex? Why hasn't he denied that his wife is really a man? Why hasn't he denied that Bill Ayers ghost wrote his books? Why hasn't he denied that he is the most overrated intellect of our lifetime? Why hasn't he denied being a Marxist? Why hasn't he denied that most of those close to him are, and always have been, leftist extremists? Why hasn't he denied that he is the most partisan president of the last 50 years? Why hasn't he denied that he called numerous members of Congress liars in his speech on Wednesday? Why hasn't he denied using Coke with Glenn Beck? I don't know.
I love how the left always tries to change the focus of everything. Since those on the left can rarely win with objective facts they instead just look for facts to support their feelings, and when they can't find any facts they just try to discredit their opponents. They claim they're crazy or stupid or an extremist. Because who would listen to anyone like that?
This is just the pattern. The left survives off of the character assassination of those it sees as a threat: Bush, Cheney, Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, etc. The fact is, there is far less controversy surrounding all of the famous people currently criticizing Obama's administration than there is surrounding those in the administration themselves. The right doesn't survive off of making fun of these people though. They may poke fun at occasional things that happen, but they do not participate in character assassination in this way. They don't get personal like the left.
JE: Everything needed to refute your misrepresentation of Beck is contained in the links to video of Beck himself in the above post. You need to do a little research to refresh your memory. All the people you mention above have made headlines with their personal attacks over and over and over again, whether it's A-- C------ calling John Edwards a "faggot" or Rush Limbaugh accusing Michael J. Fox of faking and exaggerating his Parkinson's symptoms.
You forgot the most ubiquitous example of the negative proof fallacy: "You can't prove there *isn't* a God!"
Got the feeling your career has flat lined? your writing isn't even compelling. Let's see, 3.5 million viewers a day vs. 2 readers. Beck lawyers trying to shut you down? In your dreams, leach. And you think Acorn is doing Gods work too?
This is a little off-topic, but in reading through the comments, I suddenly became incredibly curious: What will it take for the maniac Beck to break through into that infamous Candyman rank of "dare-not-say-their-names," and henceforward be referred to as G---- B--- on this blog?
It's interesting that Bill Wilson mentions Andrew Sullivan. Wilson didn't say that Sullivan was a liberal, but certainly compared him to Jim in the paragraph, which began with an accusation about Jim being a liberal partisan, so it seems very heavily structurally implied that Andrew is a liberal partisan as well. (If this is not the intention, I apologize.) But Andrew is not a liberal, though; he's a democrat right now because he prefers Obama to any of the leading GOP candidates, but supported George W. Bush, fairly strongly, for about 5 out of 8 years. Which is the thing about partisan accusations: they don't always make sense, and detract from the actual issue. Jim primarily criticizes the convervatives right now, but I think that's because he genuinely finds their behaviour more objectionable; he writes posts against Bill Maher (and knocks Michael Moore), liberal partisans, so he's not one-sided.
Glenn Beck's method of reasoning is being criticized, not his mere party affiliation. Anyway, no actual accusations against Beck are being levelled besides that his reasoning is flawed. It's satire, only slightly exaggerated (and more personalized--a personal violation rather than accusations of trying to destroy the U.S. and its citizens) from Beck's. Obviously no one (well, hopefully no one) is suggesting Beck should deny raping a girl. That's absurd. And that's the point.
Incidentally: brilliant observation, James Van Fleet.
By now, we all know that Glen Beck is an American hero. But there's one thing I can't forgive him for: His refusal to tackle the Joe Biden citizenship scandal head-on.
Don't believe me? Click this link for documented CINEMATIC evidence that Joe Biden isn't a natural-born American citizen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0-p_x9Xztk
Uncover the Scandal. Learn the Truth. Open your eyes.
But will it be enough if Beck decides to answer to these allegations? It's pretty common that once a rumor takes hold, no amount of proof, logic, and reasoning can deflate it.
When men who are on death row are released years later because of DNA evidence that has surfaced, one still has suspicions and doubts. The specter of their incarceration still hangs over them. Would you trust these men to be alone with your children?
So, once Beck valiantly tries to vindicate himself, will it be enough to clear the cloud of ignominy that hovers over his very being? He could have video of himself clear across the country, time-stamped, verified by an independent source, accepted by a court of law as indisputable proof, but it would not hold water for the "Beckers" who are demanding his head.
They know....
No, let me rephrase this...
They looked into his eyes and saw his soul. They KNOW he did it. What more proof does one need?
Thank you for bringing Glenn Beck's alleged murdering and raping ways to the attention of the public, Jim. Clearly, no one will be safe as long as people like Glenn Beck are allowed to continue allegedly murdering and raping young girls. Why won't Glenn Beck simply refute these claims, or provide proof of his actions during the course of 1990, thus refuting these serious claims? Obviously he can't, so therefore there must be truth in it.
It's surely a tragedy that these accusations will not and can't be addressed by the Right. Clearly they pose a threat to their secret agenda to take over the country via re-education camps for our youth. Have you seen the internment camps built under the Bush administration? They are EVERYWHERE, WAITING TO BE USED. Why won't Glenn Beck deny that he secretly plans to house our youth there, for him to systematically rape and murder????
When Glenn Beck cries, a devil gets its horns.
Jim, I am perfectly fine with your piece mocking Glenn Beck. I am a conservative but hold no particular good will towards him. I would prefer to be represented by individuals such as Milton Friedman or Charles Krauthamer. However, what I find to be a double-standard is your silence on individuals such as Keith Olberman or sites such as the Daily Kos.
A nugget of Keith Olberman wisdom:
"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
Perhaps the common denominator is not political party but people.
Funny, no doubt. But, deranged as well.
Glenn Beck is doing some amazing journalism right now on the Czars our President has surrounded himself with. Beck was right on Van Jones. He's right on other Czars who were problematic.
He was right on ACORN.
Count me in Beck's camp. I'm guessing I'll be a minority on here.
JE: I'm really not interested in choosing up "camps." That's the whole problem with the FOX/MSNBC approach to infotainment: they treat policy as if it were a football game, with "fans" on two (and only two) sides, cheering on their teams and booing their opponents. Being "right" (or "winning"!) means nothing without reasoning and evidence behind it, and I don't know what Beck was allegedly "right" about with regard to Czars or ACORN.
JE: My pleasure. May I suggest you take a look at Michael Moore's anecdotal, context-less approach? I haven't seen his new "Capitalism" movie yet, but I suspect there will be plenty of material...
I hope YOU do, Jim. I'll be expecting a scathing critique once the movie hits theatres. I'm also still waiting for your scathing attack on Keith Olbermann, who is only able to survive off of cheap humor and character assassination. "Worst Person in the World"? Please hold them to the same standards.
And when liberals ("progressives") obsessively attack Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, they help them more than hinder them. The reason they're so popular on the right is because the left demonizes them. Palin actually wrote a reasonable, intelligent article on health-care reform recently, which of course gets no attention from those leftists who are only willing to see her as a bimbo, or from the right-wingers who only focus on her home-town appeal.
JE: I don't watch MSNBC or FOX -- I've just seen a lot more Beck clips than Olbermann clips. I don't like their whole cable news approach -- marketing ideologically slanted material to a particular audience of True Believers. (The one thing I'll say for MSNBC is that, to my knowledge, they don't fraudulently market themselves as "Fair and Balanced.") MSNBC was driven to become FOX for the left in a bid for ratings, but Bill O'Reilly says their numbers aren't very competitive. I've taken apart Michael Moore several times, going back to the appalling "Bowling for Columbine." While "Fahrenheit 9/11" had its moments (reminding people of what actually happened), it was marred by Moore's usual cheap shots and those grandstanding stunts that don't make a lick of sense. Couldn't even bring myself to see "Sicko," though. The idea of Moore telling people's medical horror stories made me ill. I may try to watch "Capitalism," if I can gather the strength. The clowns of the right don't upset me because they have different values (travel a little and you'll meet all kinds of people with values different from your own), but because they aren't interested in making serious arguments. They just want to appear to "win." The clowns on the left (Moore, Maher) may not be as cartoonishly loony as Beck or Limbaugh or Hannity or Malkin or C------, but they're guilty of many of the same crimes against reason.
Jim,
You really are a disgraceful human being. I'm used to Roger's liberal leanings, but at least he expresses them with a maturity above the age level of a toddler, which is a lesson you might want to learn.
And before you write me off as a FOX News zombie, I voted for Obama in the last election, I still do not regret doing so, and I have never watched an episode of Beck's program in my life.
JE: In that case, you might not understand the satire. If you've never seen Beck, you don't know the meaning of "disgraceful." Hence, the website parody that gives him a dose of his own medicine -- clearly labeled as satire.
Now I'm not a rapist or a murderer, but if I was I'm pretty sure I would try and shut down any website looking into my alleged illegal activities. The real shame is only Glenn Beck has the power to come forward and put an end to this controversy by once and for all denying these accusations and providing the DNA sample to prove once and for all his innocence.
William B,
While I didn't explicitly call Andrew Sullivan a hardcore partisan, his shift left over the past 5 or so years has been profound. I've been reading his blog on and off since 2003 or so, and he went from reasonably conservative on many issues to fervent leftist nearly all of them. He's a proponent and defender of Obama that makes Jim's enthusiasm pale in comparison, and nary a drop of conservative ideology can be found in anything he has written in quite a long time. So while Sullivan would doubtlessly reject the partisan label, all you have to do is see if the left shoe fits.
JE: I'm curious about his book "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back," but I haven't read it yet.
JE: I'm curious about his book "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back," but I haven't read it yet.
To be fair, Sullivan has taken the trouble to hammer out long, disjointed, preposterous explanations about why Obama was the truly conservative candidate and thus his support of any doesn't constitute any betrayal of conservative principles. Personally, I think he's reluctant to give up the label because of his rep (a gay conservative, wow!) and the aforementioned book title.
When I first heard about this story I thought it was offensive and in extremely poor taste. After learning a bit about Mr. Beck I still think the satire is in poor taste (the best satire usually is) but also brilliant and funny. Glenn Beck is a self described entertainer and clown. He has earned this kind of response. When clowns square off it frequently gets dirty fast.
On a serious note, as an avowed Republican when Bush Sr lost his reelection bid I was almost in tears that night. Now thanks in part to the members blind acceptance of the misdeeds of his son and the degrading celebration of people like Beck, Coulter and Palin I have split from the party. I'm not mad at the clown. I'm mad at the people who take him seriously.
I think the real scandal is Jim Emerson's failure to deny that he had sex with his neighbor's children this morning. I've heard things. Can we address that, please? Soon.
You are a pathetic partisan, Jim.
JE: That's a good approximation of the way Beck operates. You're catching on. BTW, is he a partisan? Is he a registered party man? I don't know that he particularly cares about party affiliation. He describes himself as a libertarian (small "l") and a conservative -- and has characterized his own work as that of an entertainer, a pundit (rather than a reporter), a rodeo clown, and a Howard Beale-like prophet -- but I'm not sure he's seriously interested in party politics. I know I'm not, which is why I ask.
There was nothing cheap about "Roger & Me" either. It contained a great depth of sincerity, irony, and the transparent apathy of corporate America.
So, one would hope that "Capitalism" will be in the same vein. Though, from the trailer, it does look a bit grating.
But I don't want all of this to distract us from the matter at hand: that Glenn Beck potentially RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990. I mean, if that turns out to be the case, can you even fathom what a grotesque, putrid, depraved beast Beck must be to go on living his life after RAPING AND MURDERING A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990? I truly hope that you at home continue to ask this difficult question. If you fail to do so, then perhaps you too were capable of RAPING AND MURDERING A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990. Shame. Shame on you.
Bill Wilson:
"The only thing worse than your insufferably dull and pointlessly verbose film commentary is your aggressively moronic and giddily spurious political writing."
Pointlessly verbose indeed.
re: Beck's party affiliation, I read an article on Politico about the 9/12 marches that happened to mention Beck. He didn't seem to be very enamored with Democrats or Republicans...
Beck seemed unconvinced, telling DeMint and Rep. Pence, who appeared with DeMint on Beck’s show via satellite before speaking to the rally – that the national Republican Party had yet to reach “a pivot point.”
“I’m a recovering alcoholic,” said Beck, “and I can tell you the moment I said ‘enough. I have to change my life or I will die.’ And I have not seen that from the Republican Party.”
Americans, Beck said, believe that Republicans have lost their way and that – even when they oppose Obama’s plans – they are doing so for political motivations, not philosophical ones.
“I don't care who you vote for. I really don't,” Beck said in introducing DeMint and Pence. “Vote for Republicans, Vote for a Democrat. I think, quite frankly, you vote for either of them right now, and you still haven't gotten it. And, they are both taking us into a land of gigantic government where they control everything through corruption and everything else.”
http://tinyurl.com/qadptg
Jim, this post is appalling. Why would you make light of the fact that it hasn't been disproven that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990? It's disgusting that you would even talk about Beck's theoretical heinous crime for which no human being should ever be forgiven. I'd rather just ignore Beck's involvement in this whole situation -- even though, like it or not, Beck very much is involved in allegations that he raped and murdered a young girl. In 1990. Let's just move past it. After all, whatever Beck did or didn't do, he'll never be able to change what he did.
I love people who appreciate satire. Not everybody gets it -- there's a critical component missing in their brains. But some of the comments on this post are genius -- and have made me laugh very hard. Muchas gracias, as we say in the Americas!
You heard it here first: Jim Emerson states: "[When] I love...everybody gets it...very hard...in the Americas." VERY disturbing sexual implications! I am sure that Beck will soon expose you as attacking him to cover up your own obvious geosexual preversions.
Are you leading an army of preverts, incidentally?
JE: That reads like a movie ad blurb that was attributed to me once...
James' post above reminded me of a rhetorical trick from Rush Limbaugh from back in the day when I was forced by my father to listen to the big guy while on the way to school every morning: the statement of an opinion preceded by some variation of the phrase, "the facts are." "The fact is that Obama is a socialist." "The facts are that Bush knew about 9/11 before the attack and is in league with the Saudi terrorist groups." From James: "The fact is, there is far less controversy surrounding all of the famous people currently criticizing Obama's administration than there is surrounding those in the administration themselves."
I've always hated this. It's as if these people know what the word "fact" means, but use only for context and refuse to actually consider whether their other words fit. Fact is, they're idiots.
Jim, there is no proof that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. You know this. I know this. So why give publicity to the unfounded rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990? It seems to me that some people believe that if you repeat that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 over and over again, people will eventually believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 dispite any proof whatsoever that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. And I find that sad.
@Michael Z - It seems to me that some people believe that if you repeat...over and over again, people will eventually believe...And I find that sad.
Wasn't it Stalin - or maybe Goebbels - who said that if you repeat a lie loud enough, long enough, people will eventually believe it to be true? Which, of course, is why Beck wants the site shut down - he wants to nip this lie in the bud before it attains the critical mass and becomes accepted. Then he's finished no matter what happens.
@ Matthew I've always hated this. It's as if these people know what the word "fact" means, but use only for context and refuse to actually consider whether their other words fit. Fact is, they're idiots.
Yep. There's a rhetorical device called "Expletive", which www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm describes as "...a single word or short phrase, usually interrupting normal syntax, used to lend emphasis to the words immediately proximate to the expletive." In cases such as this, the expletive is used as a club to silence potential opposition. Most people find it difficult to argue with someone who starts a sentence with "Fact is..."
JE: Limbaugh is apparently so good at using "Fact is..." or the like to preface unsupported statements of opinion that have nothing to do with fact, that he inspired Al Franken (now Senator Franken) to come up with an extremely funny and perceptive title for his first book -- which became a bestseller. The first half only becomes funny when you the second half, which provides the perspective: "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot... And Other Observations." Limbaugh himself might have written that (except for the Limbaugh part). But those who object to it don't even understand it. They think it's about Rush Limbaugh being overweight and moronic rather than the way in which the blatant ad hominem attack is made...
Normally, I would give Beck the benefit of the doubt. However, the principle "We Must Protect the Children" trumps everything else. Even if we don't lock him up, can't we get an order forbidding to come within 1000 feet of any school, playground, shopping mall?
One thing about a thread like this, sometimes it's hard to distinguish between the satirical and the "real" posts.
If he denies this allegation (because it isn't true), then what happens the next time someone accuses him of something? If he doesn't deny the next allegation, that will be even stronger evidence that it IS true...because, after all, now we know that he will deny untrue allegations. Ergo anything he doesn't deny is likely true. So perhaps he considers the more prudent route to ignore all allegations that have no evidence to back them up.
If you find this difficult to believe, imagine that you are talking about a liberal you like rather than a conservative you despise. It's easier to understand people's (possible/likely) motivations when you actually think of them as people and not villains.
“I’m a recovering alcoholic,” said Beck, “and I can tell you the moment I said ‘enough. I have to change my life or I will die.’ And I have not seen that from the Republican Party.”
Wait, so Glenn Beck STOPPED drinking?
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/218576/february-11-2009/truth-from-the-gut
If he denies it, then the controversy will go away. Just like if the President produced a birth certificate, everyone would just accept his being President and we could all move on. Just like if the astronauts had just brought back rocks from the moon everyone would believe we landed there. Just like if we had overwhelming scientific evidence for a theory like evolution or global warming, everyone would accept the science and use it to better the world.
JE: It's true! And all he has to do is to prove he didn't do it -- and then simply keep proving it again every day for eternity because, you know, people don't pay a lot of attention and sometimes they forget! Is that too much to ask? http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html
JE: My pleasure. May I suggest you take a look at Michael Moore's anecdotal, context-less approach?
I saw a preview for Capitalism. He and his camera crew shows up at the AIG Headquarters with his camera crew to "make a citizen's arrest". Security shows up and escorts him out of the building. So now he's come full circle and is back to the Roger & Me shtick again.
"See? This corporation must be evil. See how they throw me out of the building when I show up with a camera crew unannounced, uninvited and making a scene? What are they hiding?"
JE: That's exactly what he does, all right. I'm sure he makes security companies antsy -- he behaves like a kook and no doubt encourages other kooks, just like his colleagues on the right. His stunts are dumb in concept and execution -- and they don't demonstrate anything except that he's an attention-seeking boor.
With all the political and religious biases he seems to have, I think it's pretty funny that Jim Emerson claims that the people that don't find all of the same things funny that he does have "a critical component missing in their brains".
The people that don't like this "satire" don't fail to get it. They just have that certain critical brain component that allows them to see bad taste and hypocrisy for what it is. The "joke" is obvious, it just isn't funny. But then again, I suppose that anything negative about Glenn Beck would make you laugh. I could probably just mention a former Alaskan governor by name and get a laugh from you.
Does the esteemed blogger think that all those that disagree with him are intellectually inferior?
While I'm not a leftist, I don't think that you're kind is necessarily intellectually inferior. I just think you're missing a critical component in your brain.
JE: Well, there you go again (as somebody once said). I said nothing about "funny." But you're saying that "anything negative about Glenn Beck" or Sarah Palin would get a laugh from me, which indicates to me that you don't understand the nature of this particular piece of satire -- the one you say you find so obvious. So, just so we can understand each other: What do you think is the concept behind the joke here? I'm serious. It has absolutely nothing to do with left or right, or agreeing or disagreeing about politics (having originally been used [see clip above] by Gilbert Gottfried on Bob Saget -- and I know nothing about their politics), which is why I'm curious about the way you've characterized it. What does it mean when someone satirizes Glenn Beck in this way, rather than Bob Saget? I want to know how you see it. Thanks.
The comparison between Gilbert Gottfried's joke and the attack on Glenn Beck is spurious. One is a joke during a roast and the other is political "satire," if you want to dignify something that vile as satire.
JE: This is the crucial component I was taking about. What Glenn Beck does (see clips) is exactly what Gilbert Gottfried did. It's not even "political" satire. It's just a method of character assassination he is fond of using. So, to exaggerate it and turn it back on him is the very definition of satire. BUT the point is to make the allegation so outrageous that no one would be stupid enough to believe it. It takes Beck's methods to their illogical extreme to show how spurious they indeed are. And by deliberately coming up with something so grotesquely horrific, the web site creator is actually being kinder and more ethical to Beck than Beck is to his victims. Because Beck WANTS his audience to actually believe what he's saying about the people he smears, even though he has no evidence.
Scott M.: Either you're making a satirical comment way over my head, or you are missing the joke.
Re: Jim Emerson and satire: there's a difference between getting satire and finding it funny. It's genuinely true that some people don't understand satire. I've dated some of them. Someone can also understand a joke and not find it funny. I think Emerson was describing one category and not the other. I don't know if "there's a critical component missing in their brains" is a very generous description, but it might not be inaccurate. But then, there are a lot of components of my brain that I know I am missing, that are crucial to, e.g., understanding certain genres of music.
JE: That's it exactly. For some people there's a disconnect between how they feel about something (like or dislike, funny or not funny) and what the thing itself IS, independent of their (or anyone else's) opinion about it. That's the missing component. Somebody in these comments says that there's no comparison between Gilbert Gottfried's routine and the Beck web site because, even though the joke is the same, almost word for word, one is a roast of Bob Saget and the other is tasteless "political satire." I guess we could look at it this way to consider the contexts: Why is Gottfried saying these things about Saget? (Because it's a roast and it's an outrageous form of insult.) Why is the webmaster saying the same things about Glenn Beck? (Because he is mimicking the techniques Beck himself uses, as in the whole "birther" fiasco.
I'll admit that maybe it's just that I'm not intelligent enough to "get" this.
Is the objective of this exercise to criticize Beck for going after liberal politicos and others on the left without any supportive evidence on his side? If so, I'm afraid you aren't paying attention (witness the resignation of the disgraced Van Jones who quit the Obama administration after the videos/audio tapes of his past speeches were aired; the video tapes of the shameful acts of members of ACORN caught via hidden camera; etc.)
Beck has much DOCUMENTED evidence to back up his arguments. Who you gonna believe, the left or you're own lyin' eyes?
And with regard to your dismissal of the argument that Obama is racist, you may have a point. It may only be a coincidence that President Obama surrounded himself with the likes of the aforementioned Van Jones and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, etc., although I believe that line of reasoning to be a bit naive.
This piece only serves to cement my belief that Liberals and Conservatives are wired differently.
Not that one or the other is always correct, just different.
@James The people that don't like this "satire" don't fail to get it. They just have that certain critical brain component that allows them to see bad taste and hypocrisy for what it is.
Maybe you should search through some of the pictures of the signs people were holding up in D.C this last weekend and re-think your claim.
JE: Looking at those signs would be a good test of one's appreciation for satire. They're already satire.
I think Pat C. is onto something, about protecting the children. Ever since the web site went up examining the unsubstantiated rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, we've seen that Glenn Beck hasn't raped or murdered any young girls since then. Obviously, this web site is protecting America, and anyone who wants it taken down must support rapists and murderers.
Well, if we're to follow the Fox News style of reporting, all we need to say is, "SOME PEOPLE believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990," and that's that. We don't need to identify those people, ever, but it sure sounds convincing.
You can actually make a pretty good drinking game by taking a shot every time a Fox News reporter/analyst/"body language expert"/etc starts a sentence with some variation of "Some people believe..." or "According to some people...".
@Mark And with regard to your dismissal of the argument that Obama is racist, you may have a point. It may only be a coincidence that President Obama surrounded himself with the likes of the aforementioned Van Jones and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, etc., although I believe that line of reasoning to be a bit naive.
I do believe this is exactly the kind of attack Jim and the gb1990 people are trying to address. Might as well say "Here's the names of some black people Obama knows who have experienced controversy in the media! Sure this doesn't prove or necessarily even mean anything, but anyone who's not naive can, you know, read between the lines."
It appears Beck has no use for politicians of either party. He is now calling for a freeze on all new legislation in Washington until after they root out all their corruption.
Given some of the stuff he examines and how he examines it, in a certain way, no wonder he's become a little unhinged. It's hard to examine Washington politics of either party without soon getting a head-ache. It seems like all these people care about is being in power and taking care of themselves and their buddies. it doesn't seem to matter which "side" it is, neither one seems to care very much about "the public good" at all.
Look at how much money the investment banks give to both political parties, for example. There are as many super-rich "liberals" as there are super-rich "conservatives". The fact that both "sides" became super-rich by gaming the system at the public expense is conveniently glossed over.
Is this a conspiracy "theory" or actual EVIDENCE that a conspiracy does in fact exist? We report, you decide....
Jim,
I do get satire. I also think that this piece fails as satire. That's because Glenn Beck has had an incredible week: he exclusively outed Van Jones, not for his dismissal, but to get answers. Instead of answers, Jones was dismissed.
Then Beck gave substantive and exclusive evidence about the problems with Sargent's scandal with the NEA. Sargent was demoted, again, without a single mainstream media publication breaking the story.
Now, Beck has partnered with Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe, showing damaging video after damaging video after damaging video, which singlehandedly appears to discredit ACORN. The Senate voted 83-7 (incl Al Franken) to defund this scandal-plagued group. But this lede seems to be buried amongst the presses of the MSM, if covered at all. It's a story that's got everything going for it: political corruption, racial tensions, sexual scandal, illegal slave trade, and now murder. And yet, the lede is buried. Why is that?
People go to Beck--yes, the sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy-head, fever so we can rest politico--nowadays because the mainstream press is simply not doing its job. And your comedic satiric commentary falls flat in the face of this.
Do your job. Then it will be funny.
Glenn Beck not denying raping and murdering young girl...Developing
Nice hatchet job on commentators from the right side of the aisle.
Why didn't you point out that the same tactics are used by the left?
JE: That would be pointless and redundant, wouldn't it, since attacking the left is what Glenn Beck does with these techniques? (Although I did mention Michael Moore and Bill Maher.) The point is the invalid nature of the methods, not which ideology is behind them. However, if you want to give other examples of intellectual or rhetorical dishonesty along with explanations of how they operate, please do.
Satire is at its best when the satirized are unaware of the satire; the more it is denied, the funnier it gets.
It is being said that Glenn Beck has spent well over $300,000 on high priced attorneys to squash the GB1990 Movement. Why would Glen Beck spend this kind of money hiding behind his goon squad lawyers if he were indeed innocent and not guilty of brutally raping and murdering a really nice and innocent young girl in 1990? What is he hiding?
This story is NOT going away!!
I have no evidence that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, but he did say recently "...we're blowing children..." which sounds alarming like someone who may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
I don't really give a damn if Glen Beck raped a girl; I only hope, by golly, that it wasn't Britney Spears...
(Girls who run around in their panties have to pay the piper, although woman to woman I think being raped by someone more physically appealing than the gross, bovine Beck would be punishment enough.)
However, if it were Britney, as I have heard despite my having dropped my hearing aid in the commode at Wal-mart, I certainly hope there were no offspring from this genetically unfortunate coupling.
That might suggest the possibility of an entirely new species...
And would further provide a compelling reason to leave a planet I am used to, and love, for less potentially terrifying pastures..
I do think even the current Pope would relax his objection to abortion were he to study side by side photos, and/or listen to tapes of both the male and female in question.
Of course any spermatozoon escaping from Glenn Beck under any circumstances presents a challenge to public health and welfare, and the possible future of genus homo.
If Glenn Beck HAS to rape to satisfy his biological imperative... which is, all things considered, entirely possible, shouldn't his choices be strictly controlled by a concerned Federal government?
What are my burdensome taxes going for?
Monitoring the rapes and pillages of illegal immigrants?
NMBlum
Jim,
I think you're off base comparing MSNBC to Fox. MSNBC has exactly three liberal pundits: Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and the insufferable Ed Schultz. Fox is just wall-to-wall right-wing vitriol. As you're well aware, there's a big difference between liberal and leftist. MSNBC is liberal, while Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! are leftist. You don't see Olbermann interviewing Noam Chomsky every night, do you? The truth is that - save for a precious few exceptions - the left simply isn't welcomed to the table by the MSM, while the right controls much of talk radio and has its own 24/7 news channel. The results of this sad situation are laid quite eloquently in Roger's recent review of "What's the Matter with Kansas?"
Fascinating article Jim. What is your opinion on Rachel Maddow? I find her to be the most sincere and intelligent political commentator on the air. It may also be why she is the least popular.
I find Glenn Beck to be horrible, and his fans to be horrible, but this whole rape and murder thing to be a horrible way to go about criticizing him as well.
JE: I appreciate that, but what do you think IS the criticism being brought against him here? How would you handle it?
"JE: I appreciate that, but what do you think IS the criticism being brought against him here? How would you handle it?"
Heh. Somebody criticizes you for your awful style, and you start tossing out some silly psychobabble. Please don't insult our intelligence by acting like you're making a serious point, as opposed to just delighting in saying "Glenn Beck raped and murdered a child". If somebody calls you out for being immature and in poor taste, don't write a f*cking Cliff Notes chapter review question in response.
JE: Who's insulting whose intelligence? I wasn't asking you. I wanted to know what the previous commenter thought. If you'd read the post you'd know what the repetition is about. You don't. There are no Cliff Notes. But just because you don't/won't understand what's happening here doesn't mean somebody else won't.
1)It could be that I am having trouble with the links but could you give more specific examples for Beck. The one that you have regarding the President being a racist does not seem to fit within what it is being satirized. He reached the conclusion about being a racist in large part it seems based upon attendence at church services run by someone, Wright, who many people have concluded is a racist. That may be a poor conclusion based on evidence that is weak or with which you do not agree, but that seems different from simply making stuff up and relying on the difficulty of forcing someone to prove a negative in a media environment where even lies take on a life of their own.
2) What is a Bushie?
JE: 1) "Racist," "Manchurian Candidate" (out to destroy America), "heroin pusher," "vampires"... you can see a quick clip sampling of Beck's ad hominem antics here: http://bit.ly/X9bbs . You can find more links, and discussions of Beck's paranoid-conspiracy rhetorical methods (FOX's Shep Smith calls his show the "fear chamber"; Beck likens it to a "dorm room") on his Wikipedia page, here: http://bit.ly/18KN3H . TIME magazine's story (quoted there) goes into some detail and describes Beck's style this way: "a gifted storyteller with a knack for stitching seemingly unrelated data points into possible conspiracies", proclaiming that he has "emerged as a virtuoso on the strings" of Conservative's discontent ... mining the timeless theme of the "corrupt Them thwarting a virtuous Us." As for Wright, Obama was clear about what he had found valuable in Wright's preaching in the past, but then repudiated him in specific terms when he thought Wright had gone too far. Indeed, the paranoid-conspiracy rhetoric of Wright ( http://bit.ly/q2cAj ) and Beck are remarkably similar. For Wright, it's "the Jews" or "the white enemy" and for Beck it's the communist socialist racist heroin-pusher vampire liberals he associates with Barack Obama.
Here's Republican candidate (later, FOX News commentator) Mike Huckabee on Joe Scarborough's show, "Morning Joe," talking about Wright and Obama in March 2008:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/72716/0494/229/479797
2) You can find a definition of "Bushie," and its history, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushie. The term, used first by conservative Republicans (from John Podhertz to John Ashcroft to David Brooks), refers to loyal partisans of George H.W. Bush, and later George W. Bush -- similar to the terms "Reaganites" or "Clintonistas" for supporters of those presidents.
why dont you put a facebook-transfer function here? I would just love to post this to my wall and then distribute it to friends. this is a perfect, score 10, reverse Beck.
JE: If you're looking at the full post (permalink URL), there's an "Add This" button under the search box near the top of the page that will let you post it to Facebook with just a click or two. Otherwise, of course, you can always just copy and paste the URL into a Link on your Facebook page!
Gosh, fellas, you sure are BRAVE to use this technique of slamming Beck, Limbaugh, et al. Ooh, a non-charge charge. Just BREATHTAKING!!! And how's YOUR conscience these days? CAN'T WAIT to see my comment posted! Have a good day!
JE: You'd love it even more if you read the post and the other comments before submitting yours! Peace be with you!
This is pretty late in the comments-game for this, but I didn't know where else to post it and thought you needed to read this, as it pertains to the very central question of identifying satire/sarcasm/irony:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/colbert-study-conservativ_n_191899.html
I will call out your repeated abuse of the term "conspiracy theory" as if all cases are automatically equivalent (and with this derogatory usage) without merit. That's nonsensical on its face. Conspiracy is the most popular crime prosecuted by the justice department. Government conspiracy coincidentally is almost never prosecuted by the justice department. This owes more to who's in charge and who they answer to, than to the evidence that can be brought against malevolent government operatives.
Ignorance of CRIMINAL government misconduct ("conspiracy"), simply means you don't have the basis to form an educated opinion on whichever matter is up for discussion. Calling names like "conspiracy theorist" shows you lack critical skills, and this bludgeon has shut down serious questions of treason and war crimes recently.
I'm not sure who said it, but "your utter ignorance doesn't make me crazy."
It does, however, make for an environment where official felons have a freer hand to engage in criminal activity.
Consider the implications of the terms you use.
JE: Conspiracy theories promoted by Glenn Beck:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909220045
I fully feel the need of THE PEOPLE to look at some disturbing facts regarding Mr Beck, the night of the murder he REFUSES to deny doing on that night, and his future REFUSAL to deny the FACTS I'm about to lay out on the wide open table of an AMERICAN FREE PRESS.
FACT: In 1990, Glenn Beck was in or near a major city or town or village where shovels could be purchased or stolen
Fact: An uncounted number of shovels WERE purchased or stolen that year.
Fact: One of these shovels could very well have ended up in the hands of Mr Beck. There is no evidence that they didn't!
Fact: Mr Beck REFUSES to deny that he used one of these shovels to BURY THE GIRL HE RAPED AND MURDERED! And then threw the shovel away!
How about it Glenn? prove me wrong, if you dare, by PRODUCING THE SHOVEL YOU BURIED YOUR VICTIM WITH!! It should be simple thing for an INNOCENT man to do.