WHAT AN ODDLY SPECIFIC THING TO SAY

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011120014

Beck urges people not to believe that he is into child pornography. JUST IN CASE SOMEONE ACCUSES HIM OF IT.

Hes also "rolling dude heavy" apparently.

[E.O.T.]

OK

           this is the first thing i've checked out by this guy and i didn't make past 30 seconds. "said my prayers this morning, "

FUCK YOU

          if this guy doesn't molest kids, it's only because he's afraid of hell. what a fucknut. i can't believe this guy is anyone

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I predict the Streisand effect.

[Juana]

 

[Cain]

Second commenter has it

I'm thinking he either knows a shoe's going to drop (unlikely, IMOP), or he's thinking, "How would I attack me?"

Third commenter misses the point and is thus a moron.  Par for the course at Media Matters, though.

[Faust]

Or he wants someone to attack him that way so he can rail against it and stir up more drama.

[Death]

That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.

[the last yatto]

That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.

[Death]

That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.

I believe it to be anyway, don't care enough this late about proving my point so mbyl8r.  Have you watched his show?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.

I believe it to be anyway, don't care enough this late about proving my point so mbyl8r.  Have you watched his show?

If Peleus is asking you for citation needed, there is good reason to provide citation. You're really not going to find anyone sympathetic to anything that Glenn Beck says here. You would be best served to describe what specific things Glenn Beck is legit about, before Cain/Subetai sees this. And if you do so, best back it up with sources.

Blight,
-eating popcorn

[Death]

If Peleus is asking you for citation needed, there is good reason to provide citation. You're really not going to find anyone sympathetic to anything that Glenn Beck says here. You would be best served to describe what specific things Glenn Beck is legit about, before Cain/Subetai sees this. And if you do so, best back it up with sources.

Blight,
-eating popcorn

I can't find very much at the moment but heres some excerpts from his book, "Arguing with Idiots" which I own I'm copying this from PDF.  The book has about 20 pages at the end dedicated to citations and it's all small print.  If I could find a better PDF version I'd share, but here.  I could show you hour upon hour of his show that shows him repeatedly stating that he's equally dissatisfied with the Republicans as he is with the Democrats, but he himself is very much to the right.  I don't agree with him about everything but I do see the points he's making when it comes to dealing with the way things are run.  I find that the book was more informing than anything else though.

Zzzz~ time though, zzzz~

Excerpt from the Book:
"WE NEED A NEW KIND OF CAPITALISM, ONE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS MORE CONTROL."
Thanks for buying the book, Stalin. Actually, if you agree with that statement, your views are closer to those
of French President Nicolas Sarkozy than those of Stalin. In January 2009, while hosting a two-day
economic conference titled "New World, New Capitalism," Sarkozy said that "in capitalism of the 21st
century, there is room for the state."
Now, I'm not exactly sure when America started taking advice on capitalism from socialist France -- but
plenty of people seem to be listening anyway. From German Chancellor Angela Merkel (If governments "are
not in a position to show that we can create a social order for the world in which such crises do not take
place then we'll face stronger questions as to whether this is really the right economic system"), to Alan
Greenspan ("It may be necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and
orderly restructuring"), to Newsweek magazine's cover ("We Are All Socialists Now"), there seems to be no
shortage of voices begging the government to take more control over private markets.
And that's exactly why we should ignore them all. It's easy to get caught up in the headlines and make
decisions based on emotion, but it's much harder to objectively look at the decades of evidence that
conclusively prove that the state runs things only one way: right into the ground.
The reason why combining the government with private industry always fails is simple: their motives are
completely different. Private companies exist to create wealth, the government exists (at least in theory) to
provide protections critical to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Private companies closely manage
expenses and ensure every dollar has a return; the government attempts to spend every dollar it's given and
measures returns in campaign donations and polling data.
Their constituencies are also different: Corporations serve shareholders and customers; the government
(again, at least in theory) serves taxpayers, which means they have to serve politicians, special-interest
groups, and the established bureaucracy first.

The incentive to earn a profit goes hand in hand with the ability to operate efficiently and effectively. Take
one away and the other will vanish faster than the taxpayer dollars that are continually wasted trying to
overcome the simple rules of economics.
Here are four examples of how a few high-profile public/private partnerships have played out in real life:

1. FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC
Fannie Mae was started by FDR in 1938 with a billion dollars and a mission: to buy up mortgages from
private lenders so that those banks would have more capital to lend. It worked. By 1968 Fannie's loan
portfolio had grown so large that it was weighing down the federal budget. So, our politicians did what they
always do when faced with something they don't like: They hid it.
President Johnson turned Fannie into a quasi-governmental corporation that would be publicly traded. That
allowed him to take Fannie's debt off the government's books, an idea that worked so well they used it to
form Freddie Mac two years later.
Unfortunately, there was one big problem: Given their history, size, and importance in the mortgage market,
virtually everyone knew the government wouldn't let them fail. That not only gave Fannie and Freddie an
unfair advantage over their competition, it also gave them access to things like guaranteed lines of credit
and exemption from state and local taxes. We all know how this story ends. The so-called implicit
government guarantee turned into a very explicit one that resulted in the government seizing control of the
two companies in September 2008. It also resulted in the $5 trillion in mortgage liabilities they'd racked up
moving right back onto the very same books politicians removed them from in the first place.

2. AMTRAK
Congress created Amtrak in 1970 (are you starting to detect a trend here?) as a for-profit corporation.
They've lost money every single year since. Despite receiving over $30 billion in federal subsidies (not
including another $1.3 billion that they picked up as part of the 2009 stimulus bill), Amtrak has never quite
figured out how to fulfill their politically mandated mission and make a profit. So they've done neither.
I realize that I'm no choo-choo-train expert, but I am a thinker, so let me take a stab at fixing Amtrak's
problems: First, some of their lines require massive government subsidies because the costs simply don't
justify the ridership. For example, the Sunset Limited, which runs from Los Angeles to New Orleans,
requires somewhere in the area of $466 in government subsidies for every paying customer. Now, again, I'm
a self-educated guy...but if that were my business and my money on the line (oh, wait, it IS) then I might
take one look at the old annual report and think to myself, Huh, I bet if we stopped operating that line and
instead moved the trains to a line with, you know, ACTUAL PASSENGERS, we could make a little more
money.
But that kind of common sense doesn't go over well at Amtrak. Their former chief executive, David Gunn,
actually warned Congress that they shouldn't be fooled into thinking that the decisions were so black and
white. "Do not be misled," Gunn said, "by those who quote huge per-passenger losses on certain routes.
Most would conclude that by simply cutting the [Sunset Limited] train you would save tens of millions of
dollars." But the actual savings, according to Gunn? "Less than $15 million." Oh my gosh, only $15 million a
year -- what was I thinking? Why would we even bother closing a route that costs taxpayers only $15 million
every year? Of course, while that kind of logic may explain why Mr. Gunn was fired by Amtrak seven
months later, it can't explain why I can still go onto the Amtrak.com website and book myself a seat on the
Sunset Limited for $133.

And that brings me to Amtrak's second big problem: Pricing is dictated by politics. The Sunset Limited takes
47.5 hours to make the trip from L.A. to The Big Easy. Does anyone else see a problem with charging $133
for 47.5 hours? Here's a hint: That's a rate of $2.80 per hour! The IRS figures the cost of driving one mile at
fifty-five cents. So, figuring that you can drive 65 miles per hour in most places, the cost to drive for an hour
is about $36 -- over twelve times more than the cost per mile that Amtrak is charging for this route.
The only reason the Sunset Limited route is still in existence is politics. Amtrak needs subsidies to stay in
business, those subsidies have to be approved by Congress; therefore, Amtrak needs to keep certain
politicians happy. They can't do that with heavy discounts on their delicious café-car microwave pizzas, so
they do it with concessions and favors (like, for instance, keeping a money losing route open in exchange for
votes from the politicians who represent the districts that the train runs through).
Some might argue that that's actually a good thing -- America needs intercity rail service (even the moneylosing
kind) and the government is the only entity that can provide it. Fine -- but then let's have that debate;
let's talk about nationalizing Amtrak and changing its mission. Until then, we're just kidding ourselves that a
company reliant on the government for survival can ever produce a profit.

3. CITIGROUP
In 2008, Citigroup, along with just about every other major bank in the country, opposed the idea of "cram
downs" which would give bankruptcy judges the discretion to modify a borrower's loan. But, on January 7,
2009, news broke that Citigroup had changed their mind -- they would support cram-down legislation after
all. Why the one-eighty? I can give you 40 billion good reasons. That, of course, is how much money Citi
had taken in federal bailouts at the time they "changed their mind."
So why should you care about any of this? Because when private companies start making decisions based
on what's best for their political relationships instead of what's best for their shareholders, we're in big, big
trouble. Cram downs are a terrible, awful thing for the banking industry. After all, if some judge can rewrite
the terms of a contract, why would a bank ever want to give out another mortgage?
Citigroup's support of this idea means they are acknowledging that their relationship with politicians is more
important than their profits. If you're a fan of capitalism, that's a very scary prospect.

4. THE POSTAL SERVICE
This might seem like an odd example, but it's actually a great study in how government meddling can
prevent an organization from ever reaching its full potential.
In 1971, the "Post Office Department" was turned into a quasi-governmental corporation called the "U.S.
Postal Service." The USPS is run by a board of eleven, with nine of those people appointed by the president
(meaning they're not exactly independent of the political process). There are other oddities, too. The USPS
receives no government appropriations (good), but they have to adhere to a set of complex regulations that
mandate each class of mail pay for itself (bad). They can borrow money by issuing debt (good), but all
increases in mailing rates are decided by an independent body called the "Postal Rate Commission" (bad).
They don't have to adhere to federal standards on employee pay (good), but they have a federally mandated
monopoly on regular mail delivery (bad).
Here's what all of that has added up to: After being semi privatized, the USPS recognized the need to
update their antiquated systems. By issuing debt (and bypassing the ridiculous federal acquisitions process)
they adopted bar-code readers and optical scanners that, by 1986, were responsible for processing 90
million pieces of mail each day. Think that would've happened if they were still a government agency?
But it wasn't all sunshine and lollipops. Remember those political appointees? Along with Congress, they
wielded tremendous influence over the organization. By simply threatening to hold hearings on the Postal
Reorganization Act (translation: "we'll make you a government agency again"), they could influence all major
decisions made by the USPS.
In the mid-'70s, the USPS sought to take advantage of their "semi-autonomy" by closing underutilized post
offices. Like a national retail chain with under performing stores, they realized that they could close some
locations without impacting service. In fact, a GAO study calculated that they could save $100 million a year
by closing 12,000 post offices, some of which served only a few people or were located absurdly close to
other post offices. But politicians liked that idea about as much as they like the idea of closing down a
money-losing Amtrak line that runs through their district. To stop it, they amended the Postal Reorganization
Act to prohibit the closings, stating that "the rural post office has always been a uniquely American
institution" and that "service" is more of a priority than "profit."
In 1977 the USPS, under pressure to keep postal rates low, decided to suspend Saturday mail delivery.
They calculated that it would save them $400 million a year and wouldn't adversely impact many
businesses. In fact, polling indicated that most people preferred the loss of Saturday delivery to higher
stamp prices. But Congress did not. The House passed a resolution opposing the change and the USPS
dropped the idea, even though they knew their budget would suffer. Being unable to execute either of those
business strategies has cost the USPS at least $500 million a year (likely much more given inflation) for the
last 30+ years. The result? The USPS lost $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2008 and expects to lose another $3
billion to $6 billion in 2009.
In early 2009, Postmaster General John Potter told Congress that the USPS is once again "facing losses of
historic proportion. Our situation is critical." But their hands are tied. The Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act of 2006 mandated the USPS to fund its entire retiree health-benefit fund within ten years -
- something, as postal officials point out, that no other government agency or private company is required to
do. They tried to resurrect the idea of five-day delivery again, but leading politicians with oversight of the
USPS, like Senator Susan Collins and Congressman Jose Serrano, have both said they would oppose it.
The Postal Service brought back the idea of closing facilities, but politicians don't like that either. (You try
winning the next election after losing a few post offices in your district.)
That leaves the USPS without very many options. They can't raise rates, close locations, cut employees,
reform retirement benefits, or change their service. In fact, about the only thing they can do is continue to
issue debt and accumulate losses -- all of which will have to eventually be paid back by the constituency
they serve: the taxpayers.

[Cain]

Glenn Beck is lulzy.  And by luzly I mean "has clearly never worked for a corporation in his life", in any sort of admin capacity anyway.

Corporations are just as wasteful as government.  Both are heavily top-down, hierarchical structures that rely on systems of surveillance and discipline to keep order.  This invariably causes waste as systems of control rarely ever contribute to efficiency, and usually detract from it.  Both attempt to ideologically train their subjects in their preferred ways to identify their goals with overall group goals (strangely enough, with the emergence of the Third Way managerialist style, this ideological training is now virtually identical).  And the biggest corps are supported by the government anyway.  Hallliburton didn't just "happen" to get lucky, it chose people with political access to sit on it's board and voila, no-bid contracts.  Goldman Sachs didn't just "get lucky" when the government decided to recognize it as an investment bank for bailout purposes, it had several dozen former senior managers in government, and several dozen high-ranking Treasury and Finance officials now working for them.  So creating a dividing line between a "corporation" or "business" (good) and "government" (bad) is a false dichotomy in the first place.  Anyone aware of the history of, say, the East India Trading Company would be aware of how this relationship works, but Beck has shown repeatedly he is rather ignorant of history (using W. Cleon Skousen as his inspiration was a big clue).  Corporations are a political invention and thus embedded in the political structure of any nation they occur in, responding to and trying to influence political decisionmaking to their exclusive benefit.  To pretend otherwise, as Beck does, is lunacy.

Also, I can think of a couple of excellent counterexamples to Beck's assertion that "states run companies run only into the ground" off the top of my head.  Gazprom, for example.  The NHS, for another.  The Swiss Federal Railway, back in the day, as well.  As for "governments attempt to spend every dollar they get", how does that explain the massive cost-cutting exercises now taking place all over "socialist" Europe?  The UK government alone is engaging in spending cuts that are making Thatcher green with envy.  Not because they need to, as they so often claim (the maths does not add up), but because they want to and are ideologically predisposed to do so.

Beck also seems ignorant that sometimes profit and the greater good do not go hand in hand.  The French postal system is an excellent example.  It was efficient, with two deliveries every day except Sunday. All deliveries were guaranteed, and it would take at most 3-4 days to send a parcel from the south west to the north east.  As such, in the pre-internet years, it was a huge boon to French companies and businesses, as it allowed for efficient, secure and prompt transfer of information and good.

And then, it was privatized.  Lots of workers were laid off, prices were raised and the ability to provide the same sort of service the state-run system did was degraded.  Laying off the workers and selling off assets sure made plenty of profits for the owners, but it negatively impacted on thousands of other companies in the process.  A somewhat similar story happened with privatization in the UK, in most cases.  The trains in particular being an excellent example - they were terrible under British Rail, no-one will deny that, but they became even more terrible once privatized.  Again, the quickest ways for the new owners to make money was to engage in layoffs, raise prices and strip-mine assets and sell them on.  All of which resulted in a massively degraded service.

As for Beck being equally dissatisfied with the Republicans as he is with the Democrats, why is he playing around with the Tea Partiers then?  You know, those groups of numpties who protest against the government which, in most cases, is paying their benefits, and is organized by senior Republicans such as Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, and frequently extolled by President Bush cheerleaders such as Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin and, uh, Glen Beck himself?

In fact, the only thing that seems to override his political beliefs is his incessant, cross-platform self-promotion.  He's a sloppy analyst, terrible historian and partisan hack.  And the world is a lot more complex than he would like his viewers and readers to believe.

[East Coast Hustle]

That's pretty fucked up, but for the most part a lot of what he talks about on his show is legit.

lolwut

[Phox]

Uh-oh. Phox smells a verbal smackdown coming on. Death, i warned you about those conservative views of yours....

[East Coast Hustle]

There's nothing inherently wrong with having conservative views, but there is something wrong with listening to and/or believing thigs spouted by an ignorant demagogue who eschews facts and logic in favor of fearmongering and appeal to emotion.

The problem with Glenn Beck is not that he is right-wing, it's that he's a dangerously ill-informed idiot who panders to an audience gullible enough to believe his lies and half-truths.