The Basstardo's Open Salon Blog

Glenn Beck Isn't Enemies with Godless, Lying Progressives

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:10:58 -0400

Witness the first hour of Glenn Beck's October 26, 2010, radio show!

Beck discussed this quote by President Barack Obama from a radio interview that aired on Univision, October 25, 2010:

"If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2."

Did you hear that?! Or maybe read it?! Obama has decided that he (or at least Latinos) have enemies that need to be punished!

I would simply interpret Obama's words as saying that Latinos (like everyone) should vote for those whose policies they agree with and not vote for those whose policies they disagree with (just like Beck and others have done repeatedly).

But, no, Beck (and others) are interpreting it as Obama drawing up some sort of Machiavellian or Nixonian enemies list and having those on it secretly measured for their custom-made stocks and/or pillories.

Obama's going to settle some scores, he's going to go after his enemies and make them pay!

Beck is employing the worst possible interpretation of Obama's comments (just like Democrats often employ the worst possible interpretation of Republicans' comments), and then criticizing Obama for viewing his political opponents as enemies.

But is Glenn Beck really above having enemies?

Glenn Beck, October 26, 2010, First Hour

Consider some of the things that he went on to say later on the very same show.

George Soros is up to stuff that no one in the media cares to report on. "It's stunning what is happening";
Soros is trying to get Beck taken off the air;
Beck says President Jimmy Carter's accusations -- such as the Tea Party being dupes funded by right-wing oligarchs -- are blatant lies;
Carter's lies are worse than Beck has ever seen, and he can't believe such lies survive in our country today;
Soros secretly funds Democrats through the Tides Foundation;
The Tides Foundation is a shadow government, the details of which will horrify you;
When the American people find out what's really been going on with the Tides Foundation, they'll say: "How could we have been so stupid? How could we have missed this?";
If Tides is exposed, though, progressives will be ruined, because all their eggs are in that basket;
We are in the phase right before progressives unmask themselves and things get really nasty;
Progressives destroy language so that words have no meaning, and they want to trick you into doing the same;
Progressives need you to feed into the anger and be part of the political sliming of opponents so that they can succeed;
We must instead say: "I will base my life in the truth";
Our sponsor for this hour is Zobmondo.

Glenn Beck, October 26, 2010, Second and Third Hour

And that was just the first hour! Check out what else he said later on:

Progressives want communism, they're just calling it "state capitalism" as is done with China's economy;
Guest Michelle Bachmann says, "Soros doesn't like freedom or the will of the people", and Beck agrees;
The next two years are going to be the most dangerous in the republic's history, and will mean the difference between the republic living or dying.
The Left says people are not capable or responsible;
We're in a primordial battle between those who believe they're responsible and capable and those who don't;
Some people desire to stand on their own two feet (Americans), but the Left opposes that in favor of collective salvation;
Guest Rabbi Daniel Lapin explains that the story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) tells the story of communism failing;
The elites in our society want us to reject and be hostile to God;
Our faith, our churches and synagogues, are under attack from inside through social justice, liberation theology, and collective salvation, all ideas that are abhorrent to everything that God and Jesus stand for;
Don't follow anger or fear;
We don't have to punish our enemies, we're above that;
Get Carbonite for your computer.

Nevertheless, Apparently We Can All Get Along

Understand, when Beck says progressives --

blatantly lie and destroy language;
are pushing our republic to the brink of imminent destruction;
don't like freedom or popular consent;
run a shadow government guilty of horrifying acts;
want communism;
oppose God and Jesus;
employ anger and fear and demonizing.

-- when Beck says all this, it's not meant to imply that he's enemies with progressives. He's just pointing out that they're godless, lying Commies who are surreptitiously trying to destroy the country and our freedoms.

But "enemies", that would be going too far.

Kind of reminds me of the phoniness of our political debates: two candidates get up on stage, call each other names -- communist, racist, America-hater, xenophobe, etc. -- and then at the end of the debate, they stand together smiling and shaking hands.

Because they were faking it when they called each other those names. Or they were faking the smiling handshake.

Whichever, the name-calling and the smiling handshake can't both be sincere, but politicians and pundits need to appear to be compassionate hard-asses who will both love and kill their enemies (Whoops! I mean, their well-meaning opponents).

Huh, almost seems like a blatant lie, doesn't it?

Thanks for showing us how it's done, Glenn.

Barack, Tell Michelle to Lay Off Republicans

Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:10:28 -0400

Remember back on May 19, 2008, when Barack Obama told Republicans to "lay off my wife"?

While campaigning for her husband on February 18, 2008, Michelle had made some comments about how -- prior to her husband's presidential run -- she had never been proud of her country. Many Republicans criticized her, believing that there had been plenty of reasons to be proud of the country before Barack Obama's candidacy.

Barack Obama defended his wife, saying that "families are off limits" when it comes to politics, and that he would never make an opponent's family member an issue.

"These folks should lay off my wife", Barack Obama said.

This was always bogus: Michelle Obama was campaigning for her husband, she was stumping for a political candidate, advocating political causes, and making political statements. Her political positions -- including saying there was no reason to be proud of her country -- were and are completely fair game.

But Michelle Obama is again openly campaigning for Democratic Congressional candidates, and criticizing Republicans. She says Democrats are fighting "cynicism", and that "it is going to take us a lot longer to take us out of the hole. We came from too far to go back again".

Ouch! Was This the Best Take?

On top of that, there's a new commercial with her and her husband.

(I don't normally make these kinds of observations, but the low production value of this commercial reeks of last-moment desperation. New game: You have to do a shot every time you see one of them looking away from the camera to read the script.)

BARACK OBAMA: Hello everybody. It's Barack and Michelle.

MICHELLE OBAMA: Election Day is almost here, and people are getting fired up.

BARACK: And we need you to stay fired up, all the way to November 2nd.

MICHELLE: This year's elections are just too important to sit out, because there's so much at stake right now, for our future and for our children's future. Each of you can make a difference. And we've seen it before, we know we can do it again.

BARACK: All across the country, volunteers are getting ready for the final days before the election. There's no more important time to be out there knocking on doors, making phone calls, and helping voters get to the polls. And we're asking supporters like you to sign up now for volunteer shifts on election weekend.

MICHELLE: Now is the time to make plans, not just to vote, but to help get out the vote.

BARACK: This election isn't just about one vote, or one party. It's about your future. It's time to get out there and shape it. And it's time to get out there and fight for it. Because if you do -- if you step up to the plate -- then together we can continue to move this country forward.

MICHELLE: Thank you everyone. We're counting on you. See ya.

BARACK: Thank you.

Get it? This is the most important election in the history of the galaxy, and voting for Republicans amounts to pooping on the future. Don't poop on the future!

You Dish It, You Take It

Apparently, Michelle Obama is off limits to Republicans, but Republicans are not off limits to Michelle Obama. Fair, right?

Politicians in general -- this is hardly limited to Obama -- hypocritically make their families political props and then say they shouldn't be political issues. They put their families up on stage, making the implicit argument that a happy family life makes them a good candidate for political office. But when someone in the family gets caught having an affair or driving drunk or violating the local narcotics laws, they say that their family life has no bearing on their fitness to hold political office.

I know: "Politicians are hypocritical." Surprise, surprise.

If Michelle Obama wants to campaign and advocate for her husband and Democrats, fine. I have no problem with family members getting involved in political campaigns.

But you can't then complain if their political statements bounce back at them.

You can't let them make criticisms of opponents but be above criticism themselves.

Dear Christine O'Donnell: Learn to Read

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:10:52 -0400

Words and phrases not appearing in the U.S. Constitution:

> "separation of church and state"

> "bailout"

> "privacy"

> "handgun"

> "Toyota"

> "health care"

> "peanut butter sandwich"

Do you have constitutional rights with respect to any of the above? Discuss amongst yourselves.

Now, on with the show:

Christine O'Donnell on Religion and the Constitution

In a debate on October 19, 2010, U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell challenged her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, on the matter of whether the separation of church and state is in the U.S. Constitution.

This has raised all sorts of gasping histrionics, as O'Donnell critics are acting as if she's too stupid to know about the First Amendment to the Constitution.

This isn't what's going on, however. O'Donnell knows what the First Amendment says. She's instead making the point that the phrase -- "separation of church and state" -- does not appear anywhere in the Constitution:

"Matt Moran, O'Donnell's campaign manager, said following the debate that O'Donnell was not questioning the legal precedent for a de facto separation of church and state only that the phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution."

And on that point, she's right. The phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. (This is a point often made by conservatives.)

However, that doesn't matter. Just because certain words don't appear in the Constitution -- or any other document -- doesn't mean that the concepts invoked by those words aren't still present, perhaps invoked by different words, right?

Is this new to anyone? Is this completely unfamiliar? Am I preaching the Gospel of !Zor:nak/x the Inhibitor, here? You've heard this, haven't you? Or at least figured it out on your own?

Lesson #1: Learn to Read

Here's the first lesson to draw out of this incident: Learn to read.

And by "read" I mean read. Reading doesn't mean just looking at the words. Reading involves understand their meaning. And the meanings invoked by one set of words can be invoked by a different set of words, capice?

Weren't you ever told by your teacher to summarize what you read using your own words? Better yet, how many of us tried to con our way past a teacher like this:

TEACHER: "Did you read the assigned chapter?"

STUDENT: "Yes, I looked at every page of it, and all the words."

It wasn't convincing then, it's not working now, either.

Reading concerns the meanings of words, not the words themselves.

Lesson #2: What the Constitution Says About Religion

What does the First Amendment say about religion?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

So, Congress isn't allowed to establish a religion, say, by adopting a certain religion as the official, government-approved faith. And Congress isn't allowed to prevent people from practicing whatever religion they want.

In other words, the government -- the state, if you will -- isn't allowed to favor or disfavor a particular religion -- or church. It's almost like these two things -- church and state -- are separated; separated by the First Amendment.

There it is! Separation of church and state! It's just like The Da Vinci Code, it was right in front of us all along!

Even without the phrase being there, there is, in effect -- de facto, if you will -- a separation of church and state!

Yay! America wins!

Lesson #3: Who Coined the Phrase and Why

Historically speaking, the term was apparently coined by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists Association:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Clearly, Jefferson used the phrase to summarize the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

This is a handy thing to do. "Separation of church and state" is a lot quicker to say than "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It's shorthand. It makes conversing about long-winded, technical subjects easier and more short-winded.

Is O'Donnell against shorthand? That would suck. ("Suck" being shorthand for "be neither appropriate nor good".)

Lesson #4: O'Donnell's Legitimate Concerns

O'Donnell does have real worries regarding how we treat the Constitution. She's worried about what the precise meaning of "separation of church and state" is, and so are we all. Does it outlaw school prayer? Government recognition of religious holidays? The wearing of burqas in public? Religious objections to the military draft?

These are all legitimate questions. But they don't get much clearer if you dump the phrase "separation of church and state" and instead refer to the phrases "free exercise" or "no law respecting an establishment" that are actually found in the Constitution.

The more general concern -- and it is real and legitimate -- is that people will begin interpreting vague or ambiguous phrases in the Constitution to find what they want to find. And this is a potential menace to the rule of law, the idea that we should be regulated by rules that only change when we make a conscious democratic decision to change them. Otherwise, the laws will change according to individual whim, which leaves us without stability and vulnerable to capricious, unequal treatment.

This is particularly unacceptable when we do have a means for changing the law: we can amend the Constitution. Wherever the Constitution is unclear, make it clear. Not through changing interpretations, but by amending it with clearer, more up-to-date language. That way, we can settle disagreements regarding what the Constitution says about abortion, gun control, etc.

O'Donnell has a legitimate point to make. But she needs a better way of expressing it than this "the words don't appear in the Constitution" argument.

Propaganda and Irrationality, But Only Sometimes

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:10:57 -0400

Oh, here we go…

Obama says the country is scared. And so:

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared". (October 16, 2010, Democratic fundraiser)

That's the explanation Obama has for why people are opposing his policies: people aren't thinking clearly.

It couldn't possibly be that people have legitimate, rational concerns about his policies. No, their fight or flight default programming has taken over in the face of the frightening economic situation.

Logic, facts, reason, science, and argument are all in Obama's corner, disowned by his opponents.

Why Obama Won the 2008 Election

You see, although there were economic problems back in 2008, and the War in Iraq was going badly in 2006, Americans weren't scared. So of course there was no irrationality in their votes for Democrats. Only now -- when Republicans are being chosen over Democrats -- has irrationality reared it's unthinking head.

When Obama won in 2008, it was due to hope, not fear or anger. Now, in 2010, it's fear and anger, not hope. That's the thinking of the Democratic Party.

Much of the media seems to agree. There's not much glowing coverage about Republican or Tea Party dissent from Obama the way there was about Democratic dissent from President George W. Bush.

How to Win Elections

This is an act of self-deception that most politicians indulge in: When you win, tell yourself and everyone else that you won because people saw the truth. When you lose, tell yourself and everyone else it was because of propaganda, disinformation, and irrationality. You never say that you won because of propaganda or lost because people saw the truth.

This way, you never really lose. Even if you do lose an election, it's not because you did anything wrong, it's because your opponent did things that were wrong. Your loss was virtuous.

When Democrats won in 2006 and 2008, Obama never offered up psychological explanations for those wins that made voters sound irrational. No, then it was voters acting rationally, seeing clearly. It couldn't possibly be that people supporting his policies did so for anything other than legitimate, rational reasons. Only opponents -- for instance, the "bitter clingers" -- had irrational motives.

The rule is simple: You psychologize your opponents, and blame any of your losses on enemy propaganda. But you never psychologize your own win.

Perhaps Obama should have, though. Then he might have understood that fear and uncertainty did play a role in the 2008 election, particularly regarding the economy. That election was significantly a reaction against Republicans, who had been in power for much of the preceding eight years. It was not, as Obama would like to believe, simply a clear-thinking, rational embrace of his policies. No election ever is.

And the Coming Election Is All About…?

The same day as the fundraiser, Obama said there are two responses to fears about the recession:

"One is to pull back, retrench and respond to your fears by pushing away challenges, looking backwards. Another is to say we can meet these challenges and we are going to move forward. And that’s what this election is about."

In other words, disagreeing with Obama means avoiding challenges and looking backwards, not forwards, and retrenching. "Retrenching" means digging in, like a WWI soldier on the Western Front, hunkering down out of futility and going nowhere. This, of course, is simply a fair-minded, nonpartisan way of describing Republicans.

At a rally for Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick that day, Obama went on to describe the vicious character of his adversaries:

"I hoped, like many of you hoped, that we could have both parties put politics aside for the sake of the country … [But Republicans instead chose to] ride people’s anger and frustration all the way to the ballot box."

This is the standard Democratic objection of late regarding Republicans, that they decided to be obstructionists, to be the party of "no", and to hope that Obama would fail.

None of this criticism, of course, is applicable to Democrats -- such as when Nancy Pelosi said, "Why should we put a plan out? Our plan is to stop him. He must be stopped" (March 17, 2005) -- when responding to Bush's Social Security reform ideas. Or when a majority of Democrats said they did not want President Bush to succeed, that they would rather he fail. None of that meant that Democrats were rooting for failure or standing on the sidelines sipping Slurpees while Republicans did all the work.

How Could He Possibly Be Wrong?

More from Obama that same day, expressing his moral certitude (at least, that's what it was called when Bush expressed it):

"On every front there are clear answers out there that can make this country stronger, but we’re going to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling”.

Obama believes the answers to our problems are clear. But they aren't, any more than they were with Bush. Economics (like war) is difficult. It's an empirical science, but not a hard science. It doesn't yield answers as durable as those we get from physics, chemistry, and biology. Even in those latter sciences, there is an awful lot of uncertainty. There's even more in economics.

But somehow Obama thinks this isn't so. To him, matters of economic policy are all very clear, very obvious, and only irrationality, disinformation, or the sinister influence of "special interests" could explain somebody disagreeing with him.

Whatever Happened to Nuance?

When Bush behaved this way, Democrats and the media called it black-and-white thinking. They accused him of lacking nuance. "Nuance" became a word of praise with respect to Obama's candidacy in 2008.

Well, whatever happened to nuance? Obama makes blunt assertions about complicated matters without any caveats, and Democrats and the media don't shrink from it at all. They just treat him as a gutsy politician fighting for what he believes in.

At the rally, Obama said:

"The biggest mistake we can make right now is to -- is out of hurt and confusion -- the worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that caused this mess in the first place".

This, of course, links up with Obama's silly analogy about "what got us in this mess", laying all the blame on Republicans. According to Obama, Democrats had nothing to do with the recession and the financial crash. Democrats had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis. Or maybe the subprime mortgage crisis had nothing to do with the financial crisis. One of those two. Whichever. One way or another, it's undisputedly clear that it's all the Republicans' fault.

No nuance, no shades of grey. This election is, in fact, the ultimate battle between good and evil.

As he said at a rally the next day:

"This election is not just about moving forward versus moving backwards. It’s also a contest between our deepest hopes and our deepest fears. And the other side is playing on fear. That’s what they do. That’s what they do."

Clearly, only the Republicans are playing on fear.

Si Se Puede? No, Él No Puede

Obama has always been a very close-minded person, though he's sought to depict himself otherwise (and others have chosen to agree).

But Obama cannot fathom how people could rationally disagree with him. He blames disagreement on fear, disinformation, or "special interests" meddling.

Obama doesn't get that people wanted two things from him -- to prevent a financial meltdown, and to pave the way for a strong recovery -- and that doing one of them doesn't mean you've done both of them.

Obama cannot understand that people believe the recovery could have been better. Instead, he attributes the unpopularity of his policies to the notion that people can't understand that things could have been worse.

Obama cannot see that he is every bit the name-calling partisan as his adversaries. He's just blind to the way that he demonizes Republicans, even though he sees how they demonize him. He knows it's unfair for them to call him a Communist, but sees nothing wrong in calling them Social Darwinists.

The coming months are going to be a learning experience for someone. Let's hope it's Obama, for a change. :P

Is It Really All Just Politics, President Obama?

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:10:13 -0400

During President Obama's appearance at the MTV Town Hall, he didn't just defend himself against accusations of communism.

He also dismissed Republican opposition as politicking:

OBAMA: Elections are always a little bit funny. People start saying things and emphasizing differences. After the election, my hope is, is that people start emphasizing what we have in common.

I'll tell ya what's funny: Check out what Obama said to House Democrats, while pushing for them to pass health care reform (i.e., while politicking prior to a vote/election):

"Every single one of you had that same kind of moment at the beginning of your careers. … Something inspired you to get involved, and something inspired you to be a Democrat instead of running as a Republican. Because somewhere deep in your heart you said to yourself, I believe in an America in which we don’t just look out for ourselves, that we don’t just tell people you’re on your own, that we are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community -- (applause) -- and we are willing to look out for one another and help people who are vulnerable and help people who are down on their luck and give them a pathway to success and give them a ladder into the middle class. That’s why you decided to run. (Applause.)" -- President Barack Obama, March 20, 2010, Remarks by the President to the House Democratic Congress

So, Obama (October 2010 model) denounces how some people emphasize our differences prior to votes, rather than our commonalities. But Obama (March 2010 model) profoundly lays out the differences between Democrats and Republicans by listing attributes possessed by Democrats but not Republicans.

According to Obama, Democrats, but not Republicans:

> have a sense of neighborliness;

> have a sense of community;

> are willing to look out for one another;

> are willing to help people who are vulnerable;

> are willing to help people who are down on their luck;

> are willing to give people who are down on their luck a pathway to success, a ladder into the middle class.

No wonder Obama pushes so hard for bipartisanship: Who wouldn't want to work with people who have no sense of neighborliness or community, and who don't want to help the vulnerable?

Having It Both Ways

President Obama is your typical politician in that he tries to have it both ways.

On the one hand, he endorses civility in our political discourse. He does this partly because he knows there are a lot of people out there who are turned off by name-calling, and he wants to appeal to them. And he does it partly because he's been called names and he wants it to stop. And also because -- on some level -- Obama genuinely desires civil debate and respectful disagreement (like most people do).

On the other hand, though, Obama regularly indulges in name-calling, because he knows it works to rally and energize the base, and because he's angry and frustrated with opponents who disagree with him and who also call him names.

Add to this that Obama -- again, like most people in politics -- has a very poorly formed, self-protective understanding of what counts as name-calling. He just doesn't view the things he says about his opponents as being unfair. He recognizes it instantly when he gets demonized, but not when he does it to someone else.

Like many, he just doesn't see the beam in his own eye while pointing out the mote in his opponents'. He wants civil debate, but doesn't have a rigorous understanding of what it is. So he winds up supporting civility at one moment and then violating it in the next.

That's how we get Obama speeches complaining about people calling him a communist and saying we should end name-calling and come together as a country alongside speeches calling Republicans Social Darwinists and saying they don't care about helping others.

But Obama never sees himself as one of the "spin masters and negative ad peddlers" who are trying to divide us with the "politics of cynicism" and "anything goes".

Obama says there's name-calling on both the left and the right. But, like a typical politician, he somehow thinks this criticism doesn't apply to him, too.