Thursday, April 14, 2011
Did Glenn Beck get too hot too fast?
His syndicated radio show on WWOR has been yanked here in New York and the Fox News no longer has his show. The usual explanations have some validity of course, a show needs sponsors to survive and Mal thinks his new religious side turned off alot of people. I know he's a Mormon but Mal will have to fill me in on his latest spiritual quirk as I'm not up to speed. Now the classic liberal, more a dinosaur these days that belongs in a museum used to say things like "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" but today they behave as if censorship and suppression of speech they find offensive is a more important value and way to go which to me makes no sense since the stuff just goes underground anyway where it just bubbles and percolates, simmers so may as well address it seems to me. For my own taste I always found Beck entertaining and informative but somewhat confusing, his thread. One day he's practically saying we're on the verge of uncovering some monstrous conspiracy with Obama at the apex, plans have been drawn up to put political dissidents in concentration camps and a couple days later he's putting down those parents who are suspicious of the government vaccinating their children against Swine Flu. I have to agree with soapie though, he only goes so far. It's like a half-finished dramatic movie with no resolution or overarching theme and he doesn't connect the dots the way Alex Jones does. For me I'm seeing more and more of Life as a vast control issue, people who want to control others but that's just me. He doesn't seem to put Things in an ultimate framework the way Jones does, what I call the Matrix of Politics. The real offense is not that he's offensive but he's afraid of saying certain things, leads you on and then pulls back. I'd say Alex Jones gives certain matters more weight than Glenn Beck let's put it that way and take any thread at random from my own blog and there are interconnecting themes and that's by design, it's the way to go and you have to tie it all together in the end instead of meandering sputterings but free speech? sure the guy should still be on the air:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While Glenn did do a fair job at bringing up certain issues, his irrelevancy could be found in his pseudo libertarianism. The left/right, conservative/liberal paradigm where the left fears the right and the right fears the left is dying a slow death. As it continues to die, people like Beck, Hannity, Maddow, Limbaugh, Mathews, et al. have their shells melt away thereby exposing who they really are (shills for their respective "team").
ReplyDeleteThat's what's different about Alex Jones. When a friend starting loaning me his DVDs I saw that his overall political philosophy is conservative/libertarian, make that libertarianism-cubed but he doesn't hew to any political party. Bush and Obama, different parties but both part of the same problem dig? THAT'S putting it all together. "The Obama Deception" ain't so much about Obama but who's really running things.
ReplyDeleteHe's just getting started my friend, just getting started.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, did you see my picture at my blog?
Beth, saw your picture. You must have been thrilled!
ReplyDeleteI Think it's a Shame that they Took him Off the Air. I just Can't Believe it.
ReplyDeleteBeth that must have been a real thrill for you. Good job. and come on back to the blogging world. Don't let these Progressive creeps run you off .
ReplyDeleteI've read both Beck and Limbaugh say they're 'just entertainers'. The problem is that too many people take them seriously and buy into their rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately.
There is a reason that all those sponsors dumped Beck and a reason that Fox did too. He pretty much represents all the hateful, fear-filled factions of the country.. the xenophobes, the paranoid, and the ones who worry that The White Race Will Be Extinct In 20 Years.
And they love him, because he feeds their preconceived ideas.
The whole thing kinda makes me nauseous.
Indeed, it was thrill to meet a man whom I admire as much as I admire Mr. Beck.
ReplyDeleteHis show was not canceled, you can get the real story here:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/04/08/arguing-with-idiots-what-to-say-to-the-progressives-saying-glenn-was-cancelled/
Mr. Glenn Beck speaks the truth, and he is going to continue to do so, of that I am sure. If the truth nauseates some, that is their problem.
Mal, I have been thinking of blogging again, when my time frees up. Although it is tempting to leave the comments off if I do. :-)
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty obvious that a lot of misinformation is going on out there, and if I can help set the record straight, then it would be worth my effort.
Beth I did see your latest blog. So how'd you get to meet Mr. Beck? Saty where I'm coming from on this is censorship vs. free speech and you as a liberal should agree. The real test of free speech is not when someone says something we all agree with, pleasant stuff but EXACTLY the things Beck has said that has so nauseated you. It is what it is:)
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not what he says that nauseates me. The man can say whatever it is that tingles his wingle. That's his right.
ReplyDeleteThe part that nauseates me is the part where so many people buy into it.
Of course the man is free to say what he likes, and it's up to the listener to do the fact checking and critical thinking. That's the weakest link right there.
As far as Beck's show goes, it is solid fact that 300 different sponsors have dropped him in the US and the UK, and basically, in the end, it's all about making money. No sponsors, no money; no money, no job.
You can spin it any way you like, but that's the bottom line.
Beck will continue, just not at 5:00 on Fox. Sorry to burst your bubble, Saty, but he isn't going away. So, stock up on Tums or Pepto Bismol.
ReplyDeleteI updated my blog posting with my picture to explain how I got so lucky as to have the chance to meet Mr. Glenn Beck. I still get chills thinking about it!
ReplyDeletePeople who "buy into" socialism don't nauseate me, but they do make me wonder how many times they were dropped on their heads as infants.
ReplyDeleteOh yes.. I had read earlier how his radio show has lost eight stations so far this year, including WOR in NYC.. which happens to be the biggest market in the entire country. You can't lose the biggest market in the country without beginning to worry about your continued presence in the overall market.
ReplyDeleteLose the syndications, lose the money. Lose the money, lose the job.
Simple equation. Matter of time. And then, he'll be absolutely free to open his own network/radio station/stumping podium and be free and unhindered to pursue his dreams. It's his passion; surely he won't mind doing it and not making millions off it.
Well then why are you are so worried about him if you think he is going away? Or so nauseated I should say?
ReplyDeleteI don't always agree with Lionel but when the Don Imus nappy-headed 'hos blew up Lionel said something that makes a hell of alot of sense re the whole free speech thing. He said,
ReplyDelete"I WANT TO HEAR IT ALL!!!"
In other words throw it ALL into the mix, the mainstream, the extreme, the bizarre, the normal, the radical - just have it out there is all and we'll sift through it but at least let us hear it. I'll go with that.
I think Saty is fine with Beck saying what he says, she just has a problem with us listening to him.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with any of it, actually... it's up to people to make their own decision to take someone who says that they're an 'entertainer' in the 'entertainment business' as a serious voice in the quasi-political arena.
ReplyDeleteKinda like those Holiday Inn Express commercials. 'I'm not a neurosurgeon, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.' So there you go. Someone says, 'I'm an entertainer' and then commences to put forth perorations of a political nature, and people forget, conveniently or not, that the person in question is a self-admitted 'entertainer', and not some vaunted political prophet of punditry.
In the end if there is blame it falls back onto the listener, who makes their free choice to take as valid the words of said 'entertainer' presenting said 'entertainment' as some sort of political gospel.
Everybody's free to do what they want, including making terrible mistakes with far-reaching consequences. Whether they look like an ass in the end depends on the paths they freely choose to pursue.
Critical thinking is a rare skill that requires both acquisition and use to maintain and perfect.
My Guess is that you are Taking Glen's Comment about being an "Entertainer" Out of Context. He is Obviously more than that. You are Talking as if you Think that, as an "Entertainer", he does not even Believe in and Feel Strongly about what he Says, yet anyone with even Half a Brain Knows that that isn't True.
ReplyDeleteHis website says his show is a fusion of entertainment and enlightenment, so who says that someone who is entertaining cannot also be very knowledgeable and have an opinion? And if I agree with that opinion, what's wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteSee, what I think is that those on the left cannot refute his message, so you must resort to going after the messenger.
Just wondering, Saty, what you think of these people?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/entertainment/march_2009/nearly_one_third_of_younger_americans_see_colbert_stewart_as_alternatives_to_traditional_news_outlets
Damn, the whole link didn't paste, the rest of the website link is:
ReplyDelete_as_alternatives_to_traditional_news_outlets
I think a lack of insight, critical thinking and the willingness to accept what's put forth without independent research and thought to be terribly, terribly sad in any context.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately in the case of Glenn Beck, who has so many times been proven to perpetuate gross untruths (to the point that he has been forced to publicly acknowledge and apologize for them), people who blindly swallow what he puts forth imbibe a lot of hate, fear, xenophobia and negativity.
It's terribly sad. Even when he publicly states that he's lied about X, Y, or Z, people continue to put their unflinching trust in everything he comes out with, rather than acquiring a healthy (and merited) skepticism as one would towards any other person frequently caught in gross, hateful and damaging untruths. Instead, they choose to blame those who uncover and confront him with those lies as 'afraid' or somehow 'intimidated' by him. The thought of calling him on his lies doesn't occur to these people; instead they continue to defend him and perpetuate those lies amongst themselves.
perorations, big library word.
ReplyDeleteBut you know I still want IT to be out there so I can mull it over at my leisure (IT being anything any of us can disagree with). It's the only way and silencing people is not what liberalism used to be about.
ReplyDelete"Even when he publicly states that he's lied."
ReplyDeleteOh Come on, Satyavati, Making a Mistake is not the Same as Lying. You are Assuming Motive, which is the Same as Judging. Even your Use of the Word "Hateful" is in this Vein, for there is no way for you to Prove what you believe to be Glenn's Motives.
In Fact, any Time that Words are Used, such as "Hate", "Fear" and "Xenophobia", these are Words Describing Motive. This is Accusatory and can not be Proved.
"they choose to blame those who uncover and confront him with those lies as 'afraid' or somehow 'intimidated' by him."
Chuckle, Chuckle. Don't you see? When we Use those Words, you Consider them Inappropriate, yet when you Use Similar Words, as Mentioned Above, it is Ok.
You're SO right Lista, motive is such a gray area. I mean if someone makes a gay joke do they hate gays or maybe they just find what they do to be funny? It's kind of a godlike quality to discern this in others.
ReplyDeleteHere's a list of Glenn Beck's 'mistakes'. You may peruse them or not as you wish. You may not wish to; they're all thoroughly researched.
ReplyDeleteIf the man makes this many 'mistakes', how do people continue to believe him without question?
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=glenn+beck+
What I'm saying is that despite Beck's 'mistakes' (since you wish to refer to them as 'mistakes'), people continue to believe everything he says without question.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm just pointing out that a bit of research, which uncovers those 'mistakes', would maybe perhaps indicate to these folks that it might be good to utilize the proverbial grain of salt and do a bit of fact-checking on the 'mistake'-prone Beck, rather than simply accepting everything that he says without question.
I mean, that's what I'd do if someone I admired was making that many 'mistakes'.
'Hate, fear and xenophobia' are fairly standard words with well-circumscribed definitions and don't imply 'motive'. Either what you say is hateful and xenophobic and instils fear, or it doesn't. Either way it doesn't imply motive, it describes what's said, regardless of the reason it's said.
Yes, Satyavati, those Words do Imply Motive. You Only Know a Person's Action, not the Reasons behind those Actions. The Words "Hate, Fear and Xenophobia" do not Describe Actions, but Emotions and the Only Person who Knows for sure what Emotions are being Felt is the One who has the Emotions.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there is another way of Saying "Fear" and that is "Caution". If you Desire to Accuse, you will call it "Fear". If you Agree with what's being said, you will Call it "Caution". The Words themselves have a lot More to do with the Opinion of the Speaker than with any Form of Objective Reality.
Also, the Speaker is not Responsible for those who Over React to what is Said. If that were True, then No One Would be Able to Say anything at all that is Political and Freedom of Speak would be Eradicated.
As you wish, Lista.
ReplyDeleteI have no desire to get in yet another circular argument with you that lasts weeks.
You believe whatever it is that pleases you best.
I shall do the same.
I did, however, notice the lack of comment on the link regarding Glenn Beck's 'mistakes'.
ReplyDeleteNot that I'm at all surprised, just pointing it out.
You Posted the Said Link at 1:12 PM Today. Since Analyzing such a Link would Take a Considerable Amount of Time, I Think your Comment about the Lack of Comment on the Link is Premature.
ReplyDeleteSometimes too, when it is already Apparent that People from both Parties make Large Numbers of Mistakes due to their Bias, it seems like a Waist of Time to Analyze Every Claim that is Made by Democrats and Socialists against those who they do not Agree with.
I have no Doubts that Glenn Beck has Made Mistakes. He's a Human Being.
Glenn Beck always challenges listeners to do their own homework. His show has footnotes at his website. Nobody is perfect, and if he acknowledges his mistakes, he is a much better man than most who don't.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Saty, some people have to go to work during the day, then teach religion school after work, then are called to care for their mother who had a stroke last year and cannot be left alone, then need to get some groceries before heading home to the day. So, I apologize profusely for not responding to your comments sooner.
When you have a lot of time on your hands, you may like to look over Obama's list on Politifacts:
http://politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
"Glenn Beck always challenges listeners to do their own homework." We should whether challenged or not. According to your link, Mr. Beck scores poorly compared to Omama...
ReplyDeleteLet me give yall a hand here. Here are the Politifact breakdowns:
ReplyDeleteBeck's statements by ruling
Click on the ruling to see all of Beck's statements for that ruling.
* True2(2)
* Mostly True1(1)
* Half True5(5)
* Barely True4(4)
* False6(6)
* Pants on Fire5 (5)
So, by this you can see that out of a total of 23 statements that Politifact investigated, 11 were ruled as either 'false' or 'pants on fire', which would be just under 50% of his statements.
Obama's statements by ruling
Click on the ruling to see all of Obama's statements for that ruling.
* True73(73)
* Mostly True63(63)
* Half True70(70)
* Barely True38(38)
* False47(47)
* Pants on Fire3 (3)
And as you can see here, out of 294 statements researched by Politifact, 50 were found to be either 'false' or 'pants on fire'. This would work out to 17% of his statements.
Thus you have it.
Really, how do they determine what statements to investigate? I am sure that Glenn Beck has said hundreds and thousands of things that are 100% true, Politifacts obviously cannot investigate every single comment that every person in the public eye says. Therefore, trying to look at percentages is truly meaningless. Not to mention if you see the statements they actually investigate, the relative importance of the misstatements is subjective, so again percentages are meaningless to me. But I will give you an A for effort, Saty, I mean you did actual calculations and everything to try to make some kind of point. I hope you didn't strain your brain doing so.
ReplyDeleteYes, all that Beth has just Said Leaves Huge Opportunities for Subjectivity and Bias. Since you're a Pretty Smart Person, Satyavati, I'm Surprised you don't know this.
ReplyDeleteShe Chuckles as she Reads a Post that she Realizes would Relate Rather Well to the Glen Beck Vs. Obama Discussion. Check this One Out.
ReplyDeletehttp://zillablog.marezilla.com/2011/04/its-national-tell-congress-to-impeach.html
Truly amazing the lengths people will go to in order to defend their cherished notions even in the light of mass cognitive dissonance.
ReplyDeleteI guess my best recommendation to you would be to take Mr. Beck's advice and thoroughly research his statements with independent resources, and then continue to disavow those resources and believe those things that agree with your predetermined view of him.
It amazes the lengths people go to try to bring Glenn Beck down, then again, they have lots of money and power and don't want to lose all that. So, you go ahead and keep being their lemming, Saty. They don't challenge you to do your homework, you just drink up their Kool Aid.
ReplyDeleteMy advice to you Saty is to try thinking for yourself for a change.
Nice job ignoring my point about percentages though, I guess I gave you too much credit Saty. I assumed you could actually understand that looking at percentages in this instance is meaningless.
ReplyDeletePolitifacts can be helpful if you heard a specific comment made and want to know if it is factual or not. But since every single comment made by every single person cannot be analyzed, to try to use a few examples as a basis for a person's total credibility is really actually very stupid.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteI will Ditto Everything that you just Said and Throw it Back at you in Relation to Liberals and Obama. Oh, I Guess that's what Beth just Did. Well, Ok, then since she Beat me too it, I will Simply say that I Agree with her.
Oh and BTW, I Saw Glenn Beck on Fox News Last Night. I'm not sure exactly what Programming Hours he was Cut from, but he is Obviously not Gone. Sorry to Inform you of that, Satyavati, but I'm Reporting what is True.
ReplyDeleteLista, he is leaving the 5:00 show slot for Fox, he hasn't yet but will. He will do other things for Fox News though, as well as other projects he has going.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was doing was giving you a pointer towards a resource that researches comments people make and rates them as to their truthfulness.
ReplyDeleteThis was OK with you when you recommended I check out Obama's Politifact file.
But then, when we're talking about Glenn Beck, suddenly I'm a lemming drinking Kool Aid?
Maybe because Obama was only 'mistaken' 17% of the time as opposed to Glenn Beck's 50%?
Maybe not.
Maybe I'm trying to assign some kind of motive to your words.
On the other hand, I'm just telling it like I see it.
"I will Ditto Everything that you just Said and Throw it Back at you in Relation to Liberals and Obama."
ReplyDelete..oh yeah? I double-dog dare ya! :)
I referenced Obama's Politifacts page because you seemed to think having untruths on it means a person is untrustworthy, so if that is what you think, then the President is untrustworthy, based on your criteria apparently. Hope you don't plan on voting for him again!
ReplyDeleteAs for the 17% vs. 50%, you cannot extrapolate that data because 100% of Glenn Beck's and 100% of President Obama's comments have not been analyzed. It is subjective which comments they do analyzed, and there could be hundreds if not thousands of things said by either man that really could all be 100% true or 100% false that just didn't get analyzed at all, which would completely skew the percentages.
Beth
ReplyDeleteWe Watch Glen Beck at 11:00 PM, just Prior to "Red Eye", at Midnight, at which Point we Turn it Off and go to bed.
Satyavati,
All Beth was Doing was showing you that Obama has a Politifact File too. These are not Reliable, though, because they are Biased.
BB,
I don't have to do that Ditto thing with Satyavati because Beth has already done it.
Beth: "Really, how do they determine what statements to investigate?"
ReplyDeleteAnother good question which I've posed before on this very topic is who investigates the investigators? You know umpires in baseball aren't always perfect.
Saty: "Maybe because Obama was only mistaken 17% of the time as opposed to Glenn Beck's 50%"
For someone of Obama's moral stature that 17% figure is rather disturbing. It'd be like if your mother lied 17% of the time.
Your mama never told you about the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus?
ReplyDeleteCmon... give me a break.
The nice thing about Politifact is that their research is laid out. They tell you exactly what research they've done, they quote the person, provide links to figures and facts and explain exactly how they came to the conclusion they did. You can read their proceeding and conclusion and then decide on the basis of the same information they did whether or not you think they're right.
With a system that transparent do you really need independent investigation of the independent investigators? I mean, they're giving you the A B C of how they came to their decision.
Personally, I don't expect anyone, not the President nor my mama either to be 100% perfect. I am also grown up enough to know that politics is not as pure as the driven snow. But to put it in a little different perspective:
If you were choosing a neurosurgeon to work on your spinal cord, would you prefer the one who's done 293 surgeries with a 17% failure rate, or the one who's done 23 surgeries with a 50% failure rate?
And now that I'm thinking about it: every man who's ever told his girlfriend or wife 'no you don't look fat in that skirt' is as guilty as the girlfriend or wife who says 'no I don't think your hair is thinning at all'. And the nurse who says 'just a little pinch'. Should I go on about Donald Trump, the potential presidental contender, in this context?
ReplyDeleteNeither Beth, nor I, Believe in the Validity of your Numbers, Satyavati, because the Selection of what Statements to Investigate is Subjective. I don't know why you Go on and on about what is Implied by something that is not Reliable, as if you Think the Repetition is going to Improve the Case any. Well, it doesn't, so why don't you just give it a rest?
ReplyDeleteIf the list of statements was truly subjective, Lista, think about it.
ReplyDeleteIf the list was TRULY subjective, Glenn Beck would have either had a huge proportion of his statements either be true or false, depending on what the bias of the investigators was. Right? I mean, they've graded them all the way across the board, so he's gotten a few true ones as well.
I don't guess you've found a moment to go and check it out yourself, though, right? Probably not.. I'm sure since you've already decided it's biased and motive-laden and subjective you have no need to investigate it for yourself. You can just 'ditto' what Beth says.. that'll take much less time and effort on your part.
Saty: "Your mama never told you about the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus?"
ReplyDeleteLast I checked these were not campaign issues or even important in the Larger Scheme, in the trade they're known as little white lies but to address your point this would still only make about 3% of Mom's overall statements untrue compared to Obama's 17%, the leader of the free world. Actually if Obama said the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus were all true I could more than live with that.
Re Politifact you said: "The nice thing about Politifact is that their research is laid out..."
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of the salt/high blood-pressure connection. I'm not saying it's not true or something to be concerned about but is it probably true or true in a metaphysical certitude sense? how was the conclusion drawn? was the research highly suggestive but not overall conclusive? that sort of thing. Dunno man, I just like to question things is all. We always need to fact-check the fact-checkers just like we need to check out the whole business of red-light cams and not let anybody have the last word (to be continued)...
"With a system that transparent do you really need independent investigation of the independent investigators?"
ReplyDeleteActually yes and you as a liberal should appreciate this. Happens all the time. Black Pace U. football star shot dead by Thornwood police, grand jury fails to indict any officers and so the parents want the feds to look at it. A police dept. in County XYZ is corrupt can Internal Affairs do an impartial investigation? maybe, maybe not. It's always good to double, no make that triple-check the Facts and that not by the same body. Don't know why you have a problem with this. I'm not against Politifact but just seems sensible.
So go look at their research and judge it for yourself.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a complicated thing. They tell you what they base their conclusions on.
You read the same info they did and decide if you agree with their conclusion.
Maybe you do. Maybe you don't. The important thing is taking the step to look at it personally rather than to believe some other person's opinion of it and just let that person's opinion become dominant without checking up on it for oneself.
Their website does not explain how they decide which comments to research, so I went through their Contact page to ask this:
ReplyDeleteI am curious how you determine which comments you research and analyze? Is it from reader suggestions who wonder if something said was truthful, or is it based on your staff sifting through lots of comments and deciding which ones to look into?
Thanks!
To which I got this reply:
Actually, it's all of the above. Some are all over the news and are obvious to check. We have staff look through transcripts of the news shows. And readers give us a lot of our best ideas by forwarding stuff we might not have seen on our own. The standard always is whether we wonder whether the statement is true or not. Doesn't matter where it ends up on the scale -- we just have to ask ourselves, Hmmm, wonder if that's actually true.
So, it is random which comments get analyzed, which is my point. That makes it subjective.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Beck is on the radio three hours everyday, and on television for one hour a day, plus he writes books, has a magazine, does stage shows and has spoken at public events such as at CPAC, has a Facebook page and tweets, and you think that looking at 23 things Glenn Beck has said gives you an accurate assessment of the man? That is ridiculous, to say the least. He has said many true things that for whatever reason Politifacts has not covered, that does not mean they don't exist.
Thanks Beth..you provided the politifacts link and your defense of Mr. Beck clearly applies to Mr. Obama and all other folks
ReplyDeletereviewed at the site.
All I'm saying Saty is I'm more than a little leery of people who have the last word on anything. In order for a fact, any fact to be first established as a fact to be accepted by everybody the group of people who decide on facts have an awesome power and with power comes responsibility. Quadruple check everything is what I say. As the old saying goes if your mother says something check it out. Also everybody and I do mean everybody has some type of bias whether acknowledged or not, it's a part of human nature. Gotta get it right and btw how do Keith Olbermann's numbers crunch through Politifact?
ReplyDeleteBefore I go for the day as libraries close early today one last point Saty. Standard and Poor's and Moody's, both well-respected as economic forecasters had different takes on our economic situation now with S&P taking the more dismal tone. The debt and deficit are objective numbers to be sure and yet here you have different conclusions, just sayin':)
ReplyDeleteI See that this Comment Thread has been Quite Active since I was Here Last. I wrote a Rather Long Response to Satyavati's Comment Yesterday at 1:13 PM and that is what I'm Going to Submit for you Now.
ReplyDeleteI don't have to Think about it, Satyavati. There is no way that 50% of what Glenn Beck says in Incorrect.
"If the list was TRULY subjective, Glenn Beck would have either had a huge proportion of his statements either be true or false, depending on what the bias of the investigators was. Right?"
No, the List is Subjective. Those who do the Evaluations aren't Stupid, Satyavati. They Know that to Claim that Glenn Beck is 100% Wrong and Never Says anything Correct would not be Believable, so they went with a "More Reasonable" 50%, yet Unfortunately, that is still too High to be Believable.
I Dittoed what Beth Said because I was just Getting Ready to Tell you Exactly the Same Thing, but Realized that it had already been done.
Did you Read the Link that I Left at 10:51 PM, on the 19th? Probably not, you're too Busy Making Demands on Others in Relation to what you want THEM to Read. If you Want to Know, though, I did Glance at yours and yet am Still Amazed that you do not Seem to Know the Difference between what is Subjective and what is not.
If it Really was as Simple as Object Truth and Non-Truth, then it would just be One or the other, rather then Degrees of Truth and Non-Truth; Barely True, Half True, Mostly True, False and Pants on Fire. Give me a Break.
And Let's Take a Look at what you Reported in your Comment at 6:38 PM, on the 19th.
Glenn Beck
* True2(2)
* Mostly True1(1) (Subjective)
* Half True5(5) (Subjective)
* Barely True4(4) (Subjective)
* False6(6) (Some of These may be Subjective too)
* Pants on Fire5 (5)
Obama
* True73(73)
* Mostly True63(63) (Subjective)
* Half True70(70) (Subjective)
* Barely True38(38) (Subjective)
* False47(47) (Subjective)
* Pants on Fire3 (3)
Glen Beck was Only Assigned 2 True Statements?! Give me a Break. Your Numbers Only Represent 23 of Glen Becks Comments. That is Far too Small of a Sample to Be Credible. Obama was Given a Much Larger Sample (294) and this way they Could Include a lot more of the Things he said that were True. If your Summary is not Convincing, Satyavati, then what Reason do I have for Spending Massive Amounts of Time on Investigating the Page you Recommended.
Z-Man,
ReplyDeleteI Liked your Point about Questioning and Fact Checking the Fact Checker.
Satyavati,
Beth had to Actually Write the Contact Page in Order to Get the Information that you Claimed was on their Web Sight. I Guess you Made a False Statement.
Gee Lista, maybe I made a mistake.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it's all subjective, isn't it? You haven't read any of the articles so you wouldn't know what I was referencing anyway.
I'm sure, however, if the Politifact findings had been that Glenn Beck was telling the truth 94% of the time and Obama was lying (oops, making mistakes) 94% of the time then we could understand that they're top-notch researchers who do their homework and inform America about who's on the button and who's full of shit.
It's all subjective, isn't it?
People who choose to believe Glenn Beck will never believe that he's a liar. That might mean that some of the things that he says and that they believe were untrue, and if they were untrue, then maybe some of his other ideas are also untrue, and then, by golly, the world might fall apart.
Cognitive dissonance is an amazingly interesting thing to watch.
Now, I am not going to go on and on with you for weeks about this. Personally you can read Politifact or you can get your news from Beth, I don't care. But I'm not going to sit here and go on endlessly about this until it somehow turns into one of those topics that these agonizingly prolonged circular arguments that get nowhere always ultimately turn into, and Soap knows exactly what I'm talking about.
So you do whatever you want, and believe whatever you want, and have yourself a nice, soothing, cognitively dissonant day.
Yes, it's Subjective. That's all that I Want you to Admit to.
ReplyDelete"People who choose to believe Glenn Beck will never believe that he's a liar."
Yes, and those who Believe Obama will Never Believe that he's a Liar. So What does that Prove? Nothing. That Proves Nothing at all.
And as to being a Follower of Beth, I Guess you Didn't Hear me when I said...
"I Dittoed what Beth Said because I was just Getting Ready to Tell you Exactly the Same Thing, but Realized that it had already been done."
Everything that you are Accusing Glenn Beck Followers of is also True of those who Follow Obama.
"So you do whatever you want, and believe whatever you want, and have yourself a nice, soothing, cognitively dissonant day."
Same to you, Thank You.
BB - that goes without saying.
ReplyDeleteI take Saty's bowing out of this debate as her admitting she is wrong.
Wrong about what?
ReplyDeleteThat Politifact has evaluated 23 of the man's statements only to find that he gets it wrong half the time?
That might be your beef with them. I can't help it that the man's a liar.
I have no beef with Politifacts, except that they aren't very clear as to how they determine which comments to investigate.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it is because I do as Glenn Beck says and do my own homework, whereas you Saty let Politifacts do all yours for you apparently.
Happy Easter to you anyway, Saty, Jesus died for you too so blessings to you this holy season.
Of the things that Glenn Beck has said that are supposedly untrue I haven't had the time quite honestly to look into this. Sat can you give at least two or three examples of the more egregious ones? Right now it's rather vague. What are the gravity of his alleged untruths? How important are they? Are his lies so serious that they tarnish his character, how do they rank? I'm not for or against Politifacts just been busy is all so can you fill me in?
ReplyDeleteHere's one:
ReplyDeleteIt’s the story of Wilmington, a town of 13,000 people in Southwest Ohio that has lost about 8,600 jobs since DHL Express, it largest employer, pulled out in 2008. The job losses the small town has suffered since DHL’s departure have been the subject of presidential campaign stops, celebrity charity events and numerous media reports, including two from CBS’s vaunted 60 Minutes.
In Beck’s version of the story, Wilmington is real life Bedford Falls, the fictitious town in the holiday classic, It’s a Wonderful Life.
Wilmington, Beck said on his Nov. 22 radio show, is ground zero of the recession, and its people – like those in Bedford Falls -- are pulling together to save the town through self reliance and prayer.
What makes the Wilmington really special, he continued, is that Wilmington refuses government assistance, a key tenet of the political philosophy he espouses on his shows.
"It went from the No. 1 most up-and-coming city, and a city everybody wants to live in, to ground zero. And this town hasn’t taken any money from the government. They don’t want any money from the government," he said on the show.
Beck then noted how Wilmington area churches are working together to provide food for the citizens and asking God -- not the state or federal government -- to fill its food pantries.
To highlight his Wilmington story, Beck will hold a show titled "America’s First Christmas" at city’s Murphy Theatre on December 15. The proceeds will be donated to a charity in the city.
"I’m going there because I think this town needs to be highlighted," he said. "I think this town is going to help the rest of the country, not the other way around."
We asked for Beck’s sources, but our e-mails to his producer went unanswered. So, we looked ourselves.
We quickly found Beck’s story full of holes.
* The city of Wilmington itself has received federal assistance, including money from the federal stimulus bill that Beck often rails against.
* Government and social service agencies that serve residents of Wilmington and surrounding Clinton and Clark counties have received state and federal money.
* Development agencies and companies in Wilmington have received state aid or pledges of state aid.
* Unemployed residents of the town and county are receiving unemployment and other jobless benefits.
Immediately after DHL announced the closing of its Wilmington air hub, elected officials at the city, state and federal levels began seeking help for DHL workers. The federal government awarded a $3.87 million national emergency grant to Ohio in November 2008 specifically to provide job training and other aid to DHL workers in Wilmington and the surrounding area. It was administered through the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. The area has since received a second national emergency grant worth $4.1 million.
Wilmington and Clinton County benefited handsomely from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the stimulus bill, that was passed in February 2009.
-continued-
ReplyDeleteThe tracking website for the stimulus program allows anybody, including Beck, to search by ZIP code to find the total money spent within the postal district.
Using Wilmington’s zip code – 45177, which includes the surrounding county – the site shows that the area received $7,009,811 in stimulus money through September.
The figure includes money that went to the Wilmington city schools, Clinton County Department of Jobs and Family Services and the Clinton County Community Action Group, a non-profit organization that aids the poor in in the region and provides free weatherization to residents.
The city of Wilmington received a $79,231 stimulus grant to provide programs designed to prevent and control crime; a $167,392 grant for investment in rural public transit vehicles, and about $4 million to replace roads, curbs and sidewalks, typically replaced by residents.
In addition, the Ohio Department of Development is extensively involved in the community. It has provided money to Clinton County Port Authority to help redevelop the Wilmington air park. It’s also offering Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services, a new company operating at the air park, more than $5.2 million in state assistance to grow its business there.
Wilmington Mayor David Raizk, who cited several other sources of federal assistance flowing to the city, said he’s chasing any government help he can get.
"I’ve beat on more doors than I can count," he says. "Not because we are looking for hand out - but we are looking for a hand up. My job is to get whatever assistance I can get for the citizens here and to help create jobs for them."
So where does all this leave Beck’s premise that Wilmington is a place that shuns government help?
His statement isn’t just false. It’s also ridiculous enough to earn a Politifact rating of Pants on Fire.
Glenn Beck rekindled a falsehood about the size of Michelle Obama's staff last week, comparing the first lady to Marie Antoinette, and citing her large staff as evidence that the Obamas are "out of control."
ReplyDeleteOn his radio program on Feb. 25, 2011, Beck asked a researcher to find out how many people are now on Michelle Obama's staff. Beck then immediately supplied his own estimate.
"It's like 43," Beck said.
And, Beck said, "They just hired a personal shopper who is going to coordinate all of her purchases and look for discounts if they're available."
"Forty-three people!" Beck added.
"I think Nancy Reagan may have been the one who had the most people on the staff. She had three. Three!"
"The first lady's office needs 43 people? For what? These people are out of control. It is really Marie Antoinette."
Allegations that Michelle Obama has an excessively large staff compared to other first ladies is nothing new. In 2009, FactCheck.org and Snopes.com debunked the claim circulated in a chain e-mail that Michelle Obama had an "unprecedented" number of staffers, with 22.
Here, Beck has upped the alleged number of staffers to 43. And he claims that when Nancy Reagan was first lady, she had just three.
We went first to the 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff, the latest online data, and did a search for anyone with the words "first lady" in their title. That turned up 15 staffers. We also searched "social" and found three more on Michelle Obama's staff.
But titles don't give the full picture. Myra Gutin, an expert on first ladies and politics at Rider University in New Jersey, said that as of 2009, Michelle Obama had 22 people on her staff. Gutin didn't have any more recent tallies, but she highly doubts it nearly doubled to the 43 cited by Beck.
Catherine McCormick-Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Michelle Obama, told us via e-mail that Michelle Obama's staff is now closer to 25 people.
How does that stack up?
"First lady Michelle Obama’s staff is no different in size than that of her predecessor, Laura Bush -- around 25 people -- and is based on a similar staffing model," said McCormick-Lelyveld. "So suggestions that our staff is larger are wrong. While every first lady approaches the job differently, the responsibilities of the office of the first lady have grown over the years to include planning and hosting hundreds of events at the White House and across the city of D.C., planning and supporting domestic and foreign travel with and without President Obama, receiving, cataloging and responding to thousands of pieces of mail, and supporting the first lady’s active schedule in support of the President -- hence the staff size for both Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Obama."
-continued-
ReplyDeleteThe size of a first lady's staff fluctuates year to year. First ladies typically have several staff members each handling correspondence, press, social engagements and projects. At 25, Michelle Obama's staff is similar in size to her immediate predecessors.
According to an Associated Press story on October 6, 2009, Laura Bush had a staff of between 24 and 26 by the end of President George W. Bush's term in 2009, citing Anita McBride, Laura Bush's chief of staff.
And according to the Clinton Presidential Library, the size of Hillary Rodham Clinton's staff fluctuated from 13 in October 1993 to 19 by March 2000, the AP story said.
Beck singled out Nancy Reagan, and claimed she had just three employees on her staff.
Our first stop to check that was the Ronald Reagan Library, where Archivist Kelly D. Barton forwarded us a list -- based on the internal Executive Office of the President phone books -- of all the full-time staffers who worked in the first lady's office. In all, that came to 53 employees. But they weren't all serving at once, of course. So we turned to Sheila Tate, vice chair of the Washington, D.C., communications firm Powell Tate, who was Nancy's Reagan's press secretary.
By Tate's off-the-top-of-the-head count, there were 15 people on First Lady Nancy Reagan's staff. That includes four on the press team (including Tate); two in the projects office; two in the advance office; three in the social office; a personal secretary and her assistant; and the chief of staff and his assistant.
There are other people who worked in the East Wing, Tate said, including a large social and calligraphy staff that has nothing to do with changes in administrations.
Tate's not sure what jobs Beck counted to get his number for Nancy Reagan's staff (and our efforts to reach his show were unsuccessful), but by any measure, she said, the claim that Nancy Reagan had only three on her staff is "clearly wrong."
Stacy A. Cordery, a history professor at Monmouth College who serves as bibliographer for the National First Ladies' Library in Ohio, said the role of first ladies has expanded over the decades, and so has the size of the staffs.
"Edith Roosevelt hired the first social secretary, Isabelle Hagner," Cordery told us via e-mail. "Ever since 1901, first ladies have had assistance carrying out their duties--duties which are not defined in any job description nor laid out in any part of the Constitution. The first lady's correspondence is massive and her obligations as the 'hostess' of the White House have not decreased over time. Once first ladies took on causes (there were some before Eleanor Roosevelt, but she fundamentally changed Americans' expectations of the first lady) then their need for help increased. Modern first ladies like Lady Bird Johnson, Rosalyn Carter, Betty Ford, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan, have all used many more staff people than three."
And Beck's comment that Michelle Obama "just hired a personal shopper" also is wrong. The claim appears to have its roots in a Feb. 21, 2011, Washington Post report that, "according to several people with knowledge of her White House arrangement," Chicago boutique owner Ikram Goldman's role as "shopper in chief" has been taken over by Michelle Obama's longtime personal assistant, Meredith Koop.
-continued-
ReplyDelete"There has been no recent addition of a personal shopper," said McCormick-Lelyveld. "Like previous first ladies, Mrs. Obama has a personal aide who is part of the residence staff and who provides general support for the first lady, including purchasing clothes when necessary."
So to summarize, Michelle Obama has a staff of 25, not 43 as Beck claimed. Nancy Reagan had a staff of about 15 (not 3, as Beck claimed). The size of Michelle Obama's staff is similar to that of her immediate predecessors. And she did not just hire a new personal shopper. In short, Beck's outrage is based on numbers that are wildly off the mark. We rate his claim Pants on Fire.
While hyping his upcoming "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial, Glenn Beck ominously warned during his June 28, 2010, radio program this may be the last chance to attend a large rally at the historic Lincoln Memorial.
ReplyDelete"The government is trying to now close the Lincoln Memorial for any kind of large gatherings," Beck said. "This may be the last large gathering ever to assemble at the Lincoln Memorial. Historic, historic."
The comment came in the context of Beck challenging critics -- "enemies have come out from the woodwork" -- who criticized Beck's decision to hold the rally on Aug. 28, the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, which King delivered from the same steps on which Beck plans to speak.
"They (critics) have gone on to say that this is a slap in the face of Abraham Lincoln," Beck said. "Okay. So, I don't have a right -- I don't have a right to speak my mind and this -- I told you, the reason why 8-28 is -- one reason why it's historic is because it may be the last time anyone is allowed to hold a rally at 8-28, and they will -- they will couch that in, it's too sacred of a spot."
In an Aug. 25, 2010, story, Los Angeles Times reporter Kathleen Hennessey quoted a National Park Service spokesman calling Beck's claim baseless and wrong.
We contacted Beck's publicist for clarification of, and backup for, Beck's claim about government efforts to close the Lincoln Memorial for any kind of large gatherings, but got no response.
So we, too, contacted the National Park Service and got this unequivocal statement via e-mail:
"There is absolutely no attempt by the government to restrict gatherings at the Lincoln Memorial or at any of our sites," said Margie Ortiz, a National Park Service spokeswoman. "There is zero basis for his claim."
The National Park Service issues about 3,000 permits a year for Lafayette Park, the White House sidewalks, as well as other park sites in the Capital area, including the Lincoln Memorial. About 60 percent of them are for "First Amendment Activity," Ortiz said.
Major rehabilitation work on the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool and grounds will begin next month, and could continue for two years, but National Park Service officials said that work will not prevent the use of the facilities for gatherings, though the size of a gathering would be considered when weighing applications during the construction period. So far, though, that has not been an issue.
"The Lincoln Memorial stands as a symbol of freedom," Ortiz said. "The Memorial is an American icon that attracts millions of visitors a year who seek inspiration and hope. Why would the National Park Service close the Lincoln for any kind of large gathering? Wouldn't this be contradictory to everything the Memorial stands for?"
-continued-
ReplyDeleteThose wishing to hold an event at the Lincoln Memorial need to obtain a permit, and there are some rules, regulations and fees spelled out on the permit website.
Some national events -- such as the Lighting of the National Christmas Tree in the northern half of the Ellipse -- carry priority status, but otherwise, applications for demonstrations and special events are done "in order of receipt ... on a first-come, first-serve basis," Ortiz said. "We remain content neutral to whatever 'message' the permit applicant brings with them."
To review, Beck warned "the government is trying to now close the Lincoln Memorial for any kind of large gatherings" and that his rally "may be the last large gathering ever to assemble at the Lincoln Memorial." It is possible that gatherings as large as Beck's event may be limited during renovation of the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool and grounds -- though no applications have been denied to date. But Beck suggests the government is trying to silence political speech by blocking future rallies, and there's absolutely no evidence of that. We rule Beck's statement Pants on Fire.
It's all subjective.
ReplyDeleteHe just made a mistake.
I suppose if this thread is interminable, Saty you may want to refer to an
ReplyDelete18 page spreadsheet of
Glenn Beck lies. Its down the page a bit.
Thanks BB... the spreadsheet idea is a good one, concise, has everything laid out nicely organized for easy perusal.
ReplyDeleteWell done by them.
The Wilmington Story, that would seem a biggie. Let me read on,
ReplyDeleteFirst Ladies' staffs. For Michelle Obama the correct number would seem to be 25. That would seem large imo so in order to criticize her and I think that's fair game you'd have to criticize most of the other First Ladies and not single her out. I've an opinion on First Ladies as a whole but that's just me. The Lincoln Memorial, that's more of a gray area. Let's just say there is a government conspiracy here to limit large gatherings in the future whose message is deemed controversial, would the government admit to this? Beck has often said on his program that he has a couple of sources about Things, a Deep Throat or two so I'm gonna leave that be, pass for now. I mean I don't trust the government that much to treat everything they say as gospel, just look at the Warren Commission! It's a provocative statement he made and until he reveals what sources told him this it's up for grabs imo. So far the most disappointing tale he told is the Wilmington one, would that there were such a place!!!
ReplyDeleteBe patient, Z-Man. Wiki
ReplyDeleteLeaks will out it all....
There is no spreadsheet, BB, and the site that you linked has no credibility, if they did they would have actual links to debunk what Glenn Beck says.
ReplyDeleteI know there are people out there trying their best to discredit Mr. Beck, and some of you just blindly follow them. Your prerogative, but you might wish to do your own homework sometime, like Mr. Beck suggests.
Saty, I thought you were done with us, but nice job with the copy/paste!
Beth, of course there is a spreadsheet; toggle down to
ReplyDelete8/13/10 and it is six paragraphs below that-click on it for full size and peruse all 18 pages if you wish. As far as homework, I was doing that well before Beck was born..
in fact I was serving as a US Army officer that year.
It is ironic that a Beck
sycophant would suggest those that are not are lemmings, ironic indeed.
I really wonder how many Beck followers really do as he suggests; you might find the books of his hero Thomas Payne. Payne was the first to suggest social security, progressive taxation and welfare and was shunned in the nascent U.S. for his attacks on Christianity.
The first liberal and first progressive. Do your research-Beck did not.
I don't believe there is an actual conspiracy to shut down the Lincoln Memorial for large gatherings BB just that it's the guvment speaking ya know? Gov't also says there ain't no mountain lions left in New York State but folks got their own views. Just saying gov't statements don't settle the matter on pretty much anything and that's kinda the rule I go by. I'm not gonna hold this one against Beck, maybe he was caught up in the moment.
ReplyDeleteSo here's how I see it. I think Beck relies heavily on his research team, doesn't really do most of the work himself so there is obviously a problem with his research team. Now if you wanted to get really nefarious about it all maybe they're undermining him. Also some of the people (emphasis on some) questioned by Politifacts could be gilding the truth (Secret Beck Hater: "What's that? you want me to verify what Glenn Beck said?"). The Wilmington Story seems pretty straightforward though and I just like to ponder the rest is all. BB I thought liberals used to not like or trust the government much so I guess if they say there's no political agenda with the Lincoln Memorial that's good enough for you.
ReplyDeleteTypically, Z-man, you have pretty much covered all the angles. As far as liberals and gov't, dunno..
ReplyDeleteexpect that as a diverse group they hate some spending and like others/usually in inverse
proportion to neocons and the US Chamber of Commerce.
As far as the original premise 'Did Beck get too hot too fast?'...I think so. ....and perhaps started getting short on original material. He had some falling away in his audience as well. But I'm not part of the Beck hater conspiracy, just not a follower, ya know?
& yet he's not part of the birther movement or even the truther movement. Certainly if I were him I'd replace my entire research team.
ReplyDeleteI find it difficult to believe how anyone at all could read the Politifact piece on Wilmington and not admit that it was all a gross fabrication on Mr. Beck's part.
ReplyDeletePolitifact contacted his producer to ask for sources and confirmation and received no answer.
The information Politifact obtained regarding the amounts and disbursement of government funds to Wilmington and the county surrounding is information easily available to all members of the public and is obtained without any fees.
The information clearly shows that Wilmington and the surrounding area received several million dollars in government aid, with local officials attempting to help their citizens by obtaining even further aid.
This would clearly prove that Mr. Beck's story was a complete falsehood. Whether his research was done by himself or his staffers, he personally presented the story as fact, when in reality it was complete fiction. And in the end, as his presentation under his own name, he retains at least an ethical obligation to ensure that the information he presents is accurate and truthful.
I'm surprised that Mr. Beck's listeners, who are admonished to 'do their own homework', didn't discover that the story was entirely untrue.
It's common for his devotees to claim that Politifact or anyone else for that matter is 'attacking the man because they can't attack his words'; however, it would take someone delusional to fail to admit that this story is less than a total lie.
'is no less than a total lie.'
ReplyDeleteWhat say you to the story of Wilmington, Beth? Had you done your homework on this one and discovered yourself it was completely untrue? It doesn't take much research to obtain the relevant facts and figures; I'm sure that no one used to 'doing their homework' would have had any trouble whatsoever with it.
Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power.
Thanks, BB, I will have to look over the spreadsheet when I have more time.
ReplyDeleteSaty, I guess since you copied and pasted your comments here to my blog and I already replied there, then I won't reply here.
"A gross fabrication on Mr. Beck's part", that goes to Motive and Lista recently had some good things to say on that score. I kinda think he's a busy man and so takes the word of his research team pretty much. I hadn't heard his bit on Wilmington at the time since I've only literally listened to a mere fraction of his radio shows so I don't know the context. Was he talking about the citizens of Wilmington not desiring government help? Sure mayors and governors and various politicians of all persuasions always want the federal aid and did the public agree or not with this? Again the context is rather vague but Mr. Beck sure should have readdressed the issue after the Politifacts angle came out.
ReplyDeleteWell, Z-man, if Beck doesn't buy into the birther theories, I gotta
ReplyDeletemove him up a notch in my
portfolio of conspiracy
psychotics. :)
He's not a truther either. "Conspiracy psychotics", now's that's a rich subject. Soapie would call the use of this phrase argument from intimidation and so we cannot get to the validity or lack of it for any conspiracy theory if we are forbidden to discuss it for fear of being labeled psychotic. Related subject of paranoia, husband being very slowly poisoned by his wife making his lunch everyday. Feels a little shaky after each meal, brings it up to various family members who say he needs a shrink. Ah the Power of the Pejorative!!
ReplyDeletePerjorative? I suppose so.
ReplyDeleteBut gee, there are so many attractive C-theories; just my opinion, but what should we call ignoring all available evidence and
looking for that which isn't? Gotta go feed my
Sasquatch now...:)
You see that's where you and I differ. When I first hear of a new conspiracy theory I'll put it through the filter of my mind, mull it over and consider it just so happens the majority of them are false but how do you determine if they're false in the end if you don't consider them? Probability? by now you should know the two words I'm gonna say, Tuskegee and MKULTRA. So here's the principle, if once every blue moon or so there is an actual government conspiracy on some level that behooves us to consider them all. Tuskegee and MKULTRA after all set the precedent. Now let's say Tuskegee and MKULTRA were never proven conclusively to have existed even though they did of course exist then the pejoratives would be in full effect. The ball's on your side of the net now buddy:)
ReplyDeleteYou got me there. I googled MI5 conspiracy
ReplyDeleteand got 870,000, so Brit
Intel must be up to nefarious things...
Then we have coverup vs
conspiracy..Slapton Sands was a coverup, as was the bizarre B-24 packed full of TNT flown by Joe Kennedy. Then there was Ollie N and the Iran-Contra thing. See ya in the Bermuda Triangle. :)
What's your view of the Bermuda Triangle btw? Is it another dimension? Anyway my thing is do we at least consider conspiracy theories or do we simply just dismiss them out of hand? I'm of the first group, maybe you're of the latter and yet we seem to come to the same overall conclusion that most of them are false. It's a way of thinking but there seems to me to be a bias against conspiracy theories, you know it's paranoia and a mental disorder stuff but just wanted to goad you into bringing my thread up to the century mark:)
ReplyDelete