Thursday, September 24, 2009

Maybe You Don't Like Glenn Beck, But I Don't Like Dylan Voltaire

Glenn Beck has a new book, "Arguing With Idiots," ranked #3 on Barnes & Noble.

I wanted to see some of the reviews, and I found this:

Who's the idiot?by DylanVoltaire

Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings

"September 22, 2009: After listening to the preview and reading the excerpt I can see that Beck is a master at arguing with straw men he constructs. I love the idea of a domino effect mindset of people who argue that the Second Amendment is out dated; as though these people want to nefariously end free speech and jury trials. I would like him to produce one serious critic of the NRA who has this in mind. The better argument against the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment is that the founders always believed in a state's power to regulate guns. The arguments that surrounded the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were centered on the power of states to maintain and train virtuous male citizens for their militia to provide for the "common defense" of a young untested republic against the manifold threats extant. One of those perceived threats was the standing army of the National Government. In those days (and I suppose Beck would consider me an idiot for understanding this) "the people" feared a regular army in the hands of the national government; they wanted a small force if any. Today I would suggest that Americans want a well trained regular army to defend our nation. Therefore, in a very real sense, the idea of the Second Amendment is outdated. Now, that doesn't necessarily call for massive gun control, but it does lend to the understanding that states should, and always did, retain the power to regulate gun ownership according to their unique circumstances. In other words, a guy living in Wyoming has very different needs and concerns surrounding gun ownership than a family living in an apartment building in Philadelphia. The family in Philadelphia would like to go to bed at night knowing that the persons living on either side of them isn't going to accidently discharge their AK-47 and kill their child sleeping in its crib.

Here's an idiotic use of evidence: In 1831 the state of Missouri limited the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons. This was a factor in the case State v Mitchell. The statute, a state regulation of gun ownership, was found to be constitutional. That shows that states had the power to regulate gun ownership. Wow, what an idiot I am.

Hey, but Beck is dressed up as a soldier for Halloween this year. I'm convinced. At least he didn't try to dress up as a scholar."

Wow, Dylan, all that and you didn't even have to read the book.


Anonymous said...

Bob Dylan and Voltaire have always been one my favorite people in saying it like it is. Combing the two in his name sure sends to me a rather interesting message. I have a new hero!

Listen, Glen Beck is a complete IDIOT in his own right with absolutely no sense of honor or any intellectual depth than pile of dung. He calls Obama a racist when it’s obvious from his obsession with our president and illegal aliens that he’s one too. Not that the KKK wouldn’t take him as a member, but his complete make’em up as you go probably wouldn’t fly...If you like this guy then you’re of the same ilk. God have mercy on your soul!!!

Al said...

Who the post was even about doesn't matter to me as much as does the idea that this guy would post a review of a book he hasn't read. It seems like a surefire way to diminish any credibility he had.

Anonymous said...

As I would like to leave a credible identity not knowing the score on how this blog interacts, I trust in staying Anonymous or as I am also known on the ”Opinion” remarks as Geez.

Regarding Voltaire’s glimpse and not a complete reading of Beck's book, I believe the adage you've seen one you've seen them all fits. Having read books from conservatives like Bill O’Reilly, Anne Coulter, George Will and Pat Buchanan and on the left side Bill Maher and master liberalist Michael Moore, the same applies. Each writer tells a story leaning their way often skipping over vast facts to make a point. Almost so that any good facts they state goes awry with their over the top rhetoric.

Coulter for example goes on and on in one of her books siding with Joe McCarthy and the raw deal he received in the downing of his Red 1950s Scare. Like Michael Moore who inflates his views she as well gets too farfetched. Both writers totally set up support for predominantly their ideas, not showing much of the opposite side. Outside of Moore once calling Nixon the last liberal president and Clinton a faux liberal rendition, not much opposing collective facts are presented. I supposed had each given both sides of the argument their reader appeal would fall flat.

Having watched a number of Beck’s shows, like the KKK carrying member Sean Hannity and Neo-Nazi Rush Limbaugh he’s all about who can yell the loudest or obsess himself the most about right favorable petty news like Acorn. Those who find any attention probably of the “want to hear” ilk are sucked in by these guys. If they just stayed focused on less volatile conservative topics, not spurring up racial tension and ethnic hate, they probably would be well received by both the low brow right and academic left. Then again they probably wouldn’t have their own shows either.

Al said...

That's silly, Geez.

I started reading your comment and I was excited because you sounded so ... impartial.

But then, you go off the deep end into the Kool-Aid.

Do you really, honestly think that Sean Hannity is a member of the Klan? Or that Rush is a neo-Nazi? If you do, you're off your rocker, and if you don't, well, then you shouldn't say it because it makes you sound like just another brainwashed sheep. It goes along with the tired old cliches like "spurring up racial tension and ethnic hate" ... utter nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Do I really think that Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh exemplify the extreme evil side of the right wing fascist philosophy? Of course not. They are however prejudice, as we all share, but they share more. They use tyrannical techniques with their loud talk over demeanor, ejaculating their inner child of it’s my way or the highway. There is no going back with these guys, once committed down their lowly path they rather die than refute, dogmatic to the end. Being the case if you like running with the wolves, don’t be so shocked when you’re called out as one.

If I should be so bold as not exactly pertinent here, do you really think Barack Obama is a socialist-commie? They also call him a Nazi akin to Hitler which I have no idea where that’s coming from, showing some really warped colors.

Scanning these tea “nut” baggers and lunatic fringe birthers it's obvious to me that they’ve lost touch. The truth is they hate that Obama is their president. Their nasty slogans and catcalls as so generated over such a short period of time, tells all. When comparing left protests against Bush in his first year, they at least had a good reason due the lopsided election results. Later on his poor decisions prompted the left to respond with "dummy" comments, hardly anything when compared to this current over the top extreme nastiness.

With what’s happening today with our slumping economy and so many people out of work, worrying about social change is just plain stupid. In times of trouble it’s imperative that the government take extraordinary means to shore up American business no matter how “big” or “social” they look in their attempt to right our path. As working men and women we should not be accosting Obama for endeavoring to stimulate the economy, but supporting him on doing something. The right has no plan other than watching everything go down the drain. This happen before in the 1930s, if it wasn’t for WWII we’d still be in a depression.

Al said...

You make a few good points, Geez.

Crazy talking heads are not owned by conservatives -- pretty much any political TV/radio show hosts are going to be fairly rabid, or they won't have shows.

Do I think Obama is a socialist/communist? To a degree, yes. His ideology (and that of many on the left) is based on the redistribution of wealth -- take from one and give to another. That's not necessarily bad, mind you, but it can be if the people receiving it aren't kept aware of the fact that they are being given someone else's money; when they are taught that they are entitled to these things, that's where a problem arises.

No, I don't think Obama is Hitler. I didn't think Bush was Hitler, or Cheney. I do think Obama is a tool of the left, though. I think he was chosen by the party as a political ploy, and I think the real scary people, like Pelosi, Reid and such, are just using Obama and his skin color for their own agenda.

You mentioned the tea party protesters and the birthers. The birthers could easily be wiped away with the presentation of a birth certificate. I'd like for that to happen so that the issue would die out.

The tea party people ... well, yeah, some of those people don't even really know what they're protesting, and they don't really know what they're talking about. Again, that's not exclusive to the right. And those people, on both sides, do nothing for the debate, other than to provide fodder for the other side to mock

Anonymous said...

It’s good to have an actual dialog on political issues with someone who knows more than the typical far right mantra.

First off regarding Obama’s birth certificate see on this one. It’s pretty much a closed case: According to them the Obama campaign did produce the certificate, but many right birther nut bags refuse to believe. For a direct link to his Birth Certificate see:

It’s good to hear that like McCain and Graham you are not afraid of denouncing the far right lunatic fringe. The left fringe really is much of a concern, since they basically stay away from anything that remotely smells of prejudicial hate. Usually promoting hate ignorance is not their style.

As for being tough on welfarites, unless these people hold some strong hold over our country’s decisions or impacts the average American I say who cares. Besides most of these people spend their money here within our borders, hence it’s a no brainer solid investment in America. They may not actually work for a living, but in is a sense they do towards working the system. It has been said of those higher in income brackets that they too follow suit as members of corporate welfare.

I hear a lot of disgruntled statements about Pelosi and Reid, I just don’t get it. These people are really not that powerful, despite their titles. There are so many powerful people pushing their weight around in both far and left right wings, some who are not politicians at all. I say don’t lose sleep over whatever you feel about Pelosi and Reid, they’re just typical politicians welding their game. To me they still need to step it up a whole lot more. When Newt was in office his consummate rhetoric was appallingly off the wall. As smart as he is, his narcosis for the gaffe was and still is so very tempting. Guys like him are more of a worry.

On your views about Obama spreading the wealth, which is not exactly true and if it were I say, so what. To date Obama has been bending over so much for the right, talk of socialism and wealth spreading is a stretch. Right now wealth spreading is what we need to do to get this economy going. Allowing the wealthy to have or keep it with tax breaks simply will not do anything. In the past trickle down Reagonomics worked because most of wealthy big business had no better place to go but America. With communistic boundaries we basically marketed ourselves with mainly the free world. Since the advent of the flat global economy, horizons were opened to invest everywhere, including Communist China. Not only that the product we bought from the Far East was pretty good at a damn low price. So by using old tactics allowing wealthy big business to hold on to their money, there is no doubt to me that very little would be spent here, nor would we see much progressive change.

Al said...

Well, I don't fully subscribe to any specific political party's ideology. I base my views on (a) my perception of right and wrong, (b) my belief in a higher power in correlation with nature, (c) the idea of fairness and (d) what I see with my own eyes.

I have no political allegiances, but I tend to identify more with the conservatives.

Fact is, Geez, I don't have much faith in politicians of any stripe. These people don't know what it's like to be us, yet they govern us. They are supposed to represent us, but they don't.

BTW, I like Great site.

Anonymous said...

As much as we like to think that we have no political affiliation, we have our leanings. Also being a blogger that you are who dabbles in these subjects daily, hopefully not a junky like me, it's very hard to stay totally objective. Like magnetic power each side pulls at your inner thoughts in search for the perfect balance. You should know that as often we use this term along with common sense, achieving it is hard both in our daily lives and nature. They say that all forms of space and matter continuously strive and fight to achieve equilibrium. Often to some degree it arrives, but not perfect, due to the many meddling forces in all directions…Good blogging!!