CuteSteveJobs writes "Glenn Beck fought the law and the law won. Parody website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com attacked Beck using the same straw man arguments Beck himself is famous for: 'We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 — in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder ... Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?'
Beck didn't see the humour and tried to have the site shut down. He sued the creator on the grounds the site 'violated his name as a trademark.' But in a sudden outbreak of common sense, WIPO rejected Beck's complaint finding the site 'can be said to be making a political statement,' which is a 'legitimate non-commercial use' of Beck's name. But after winning, the owner voluntarily handed Beck the domain anyway. Still, it's comforting to know that satire — the only weapon politicians and talking heads fear — is still safely in the hands of the public where it belongs."
As a Canadian, I don't really get the reference, either. But as near as I can tell, from reading the posts on this thread, he's one of those ultra-conservative blowhards who makes his living by indirectly accusing people of committing outrageous acts. He's the kind of person who'd go on the radio saying something like "I'm not saying Tony Blair is a sheep-shagger, but why hasn't he denied calling the vet to his home under 'suspicious' circumstances last Tuesday at 3am?" As a rational thinker, you know that he's just spewing BS, but you're forgetting that Beck's audience is largely American. They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea. ^.~
It reminds me of McCarthyism... Joe McCarthy used to ask people pointed questions that included veiled accusations phrased as statement of fact. "Tell me, Inda, Why do you hate America?". Not "do you hate America"... in the phrasing of the question it's assumed that you hate America, and he's not asking you for a yes/no, he's asking for an explanation of why.
Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure's name, while gracefully ending the joke when it's done what it's supposed to. Well done.
And the allegations of rape and murder seem to be the internet equivalent of small-town gossip, which might have a seed of truth or might be an elaborate attempt by his political opponents to a smear campaign.
Any Americans care to extend the info on this controversy for all us non-Americans?
Beck is famous for attacking politicians (especially Obama) by "asking questions". So some internet smart asses used his own style against him. Turns out he doesn't like it when the shoe's on the other foot.
Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't. So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.
There is no "controversy" about the birth documentation.
The document presented is prima facia evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is what the Hawaii state seal on the document and the signature of the state official on the document attest to. The republican governor of Hawaii and the Hawaii state officials responsible for maintaining those records have both publicly confirmed that they have reviewed the documents that are in state custody and those documents also prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
It's a parody of what he does when he reports "news". He makes ridiculous statements, but phrases them such that when people call him on his bullshit he can say "I'm just asking questions". He'll then badger people about neither confirming or denying his "questions" - and they won't confirm or deny them because the questions are not even wrong.
That's the point of this site - it's just asking a question, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Obviously he didn't, but why won't he confirm or deny it? That's interesting, isn't it?
The worst part is that he actually has a TV show on Fox News. If you look on YouTube, you can find some of his spiels. They're pretty horrible, and yet somehow Americans still watch him. He sounds like that crazy homeless dude on the corner, except he's wearing a suit and he's in a television studio.
(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit. Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.)
Basically, Glenn Beck is on Fox News as one of the many opinion guys they have. He throws out wild accusations but gets away with it by saying "I'm not saying it's true, but isn't it odd that I'm the only one asking these questions?" He's done so many crazy things (comparing Jesus to Hitler back when he was on CNN, for example). He's so batshit crazy that he makes Bill O'Reilly appear to be a sensible man. It's absolutely terrifying, moreso when you realize how many people religiously watch his show and consider it to be 100% fact.
The controversy is just someone parodying him by making a wild accusation and then covering it with a batshit crazy question.
Nobody is saying he's a rapist and a murderer, they're just pointing out that he's never denied.it. He attacked an Arab-American senator, saying that they've never gone on record stating they aren't a terrorist, and never really presented any solid proof they aren't working for Al Quaida, so basically the website is operating under the assumption that if he can give it, he can take it.
I'm a liberal but I think it's an insult to conservatives to call him that (seriously, there are intellectual, reasonable conservatives). He's just crazy. The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll. I don't think he really has a position. He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.
Not only, as they say, does he refuse to deny having raped and murdered a girl in 1990, but he tries to sue to get the story buried? That does not sound like the act of an innocent man! And, time and again, Glenn Beck has declined to use his show to publicly deny, on the record, that he routinely BBQs and eats babies, saying minorities taste the best, as some reports indicate*.
Because there is none. Quit confounding parody and satire with humour. Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday November 10, @11:21AM (#30046788)
All Beck had to do to make this go away was prove he didn't kill and rape or rape then kill a girl in 1990, how hard is this to do? Just show us the proof. Show the death certificate that says you didn't rape her
Irrelevant. The question isn't whether it provokes outrage, it's whether it was legal. Glenn Beck and his fans are all perfectly entitled to be enraged, but Beck shouldn't try to abuse the system in order to shut the website down.
Being entitled to being enraged is obviously not a legal question but a moral one. Did Glenn Beck have a moral entitlement to being enraged? I don't think so, given his history. That's the point of that domain, after all.
And I'd also add: Don't be such a pussy - anything you dish out you should fully be able to take. I'd love to hear an explanation on why it's fair when you do it and unfair when it's done to you.
And on top of that: If you love 'Murica as much as you say you do, then you should at least learn how she works. We're actually pretty proud of the First Amendment. Too bad you're not.
Well, it really depends on what one considers a news organization. I've tried to watch Fox... I really have (and no, I'm not a liberal). However, Fox News is news in the way Jon Stewart is... they use a "news format" but they have an obvious agenda. Obvious enough that I would call them an editorial organization that occasionally reports on the news.
Note too, that the first amendment doesn't mean "The President has to talk to me because I'm on television". If Obama called for Fox to be taken off the air... then I'd agree that he's obviously not respecting the First Amendment. However, he has only stated that they have an agenda, that they're the mouthpiece of a political group and that he's not wasting his time with them.
All of that seems true.
The first amendment guarantees our right to say what we want. Fox says what they want to say. It does not however, guarantee that anyone is going to respect what you say. I have yet to hear much of anything from Fox News that I respected.
Except he didn't sue for libel in the applicable court system, presumably b/c he knew he would lose. He tried to get WIPO to grant him ownership of the site based on trademark infringement. B/c the site name included his name, which he has apparently not even trademarked. Strikes me as a desperate attempt to censor something he didn't like, but knew was perfectly legal.
Why do you bother? You are right but why make the effort? I swear that the people on Slashdot have pushed the art of bias to new extremes. To answer your question. No I am not furious that the decision was legal. And no I wouldn't be upset if the other URL was found legal. I an and would be furious that both exists and I am a little ticked that Slashdot puts it on the front page and NOT under politics which I have set to not show up on my front page of Slashdot. Yes it is good that it is legal it is bad that idiots create such crap and that other sites then give them free PR. BTW if you hate Glen Beck you do know this will only help him with his faithful don't you? Just so everybody can see the results of this action and understand just how STUPID it is I will explain it to you. Some Beck hater posts this website. People that HATE Beck will think it is funny. People that Love Beck will hate those that think it is funny, Beck takes them to court and doesn't get the site taken down. The people that HATE Beck still think it is funny. The people that LOVE Beck will see it as proof that the courts are biased and hate them. They will become more politically active and work harder for consertives to get elected.
The result is this is preaching to the base and will do nothing but amuse one base and rally the other. End result more polarization which is exactly what WE DON"T NEED. For people like me that don't love or hate Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, President Obama, or NPR. We get anoyed that we have to see this stupidity.
Of course why did I bother to make this effort since it will be unread or I will be modded down as a troll. PS. I bet Health Care will not pass. Both parties are expert at the art of active inactivity.
The thing that I don't understand is that Glenn gets on his show and shows video of some member of saying something like, "I used to be a communist. Now I'm a radical communist." and people attack Glenn Beck!!??!! The only refutations of what Glenn Beck says are personal insults against him and his viewers.
I have never seen anyone refute what Glenn Beck is actually saying.
That's the his entire M.O., is it not? First, Beck accuses you of beating your wife (or some similar calumny). Then he tries to get you to deny it. If you rise to the bait and do deny it, he now has video of you denying it, and can use that video to imply that whether you beat your wife or not is a legitimate question. If you refuse to dignify him with a response, he can go ahead and claim that because you refused to deny it, there must be something to the accusation. Either way, he wins.
Glenn Beck has said: It's just that almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist."
Fact, the majority of american scientists -- over 90%, believe in Global warming. These are not socialist. Most are Democrats, but no, you don't get the right to tell other people what they believe. Deomcrats are liberals not socialists. We have the right to decide our own political affilialtion, you can't tell me I'm a socialist, anymore than I can tell you that you are a member of the NeoNazi party.
More importantly, not all scientists are Democrats. Yes, 55% say they are Democrats, but 6% say they are Republicans. (2% say they are independent). The independent ones also believe in Global warming.
(P.S. Republicans should be ashamed that so few scientists are Republicans. Yeah, I know the hole 'ivory tower' explanation, but frankly that might be enough to explain 20% or even 15%, but 6% indicates a serious problem).
The main problem with Glenn Beck is not the content, but the delivery.
That is I respect a man that says "I believe Obama is not an American Citizen" a lot more than I respect an asswipe that says "Isn't it interesting that Obama has not publicly denied being a Kenyan." The first man is simple ignorant, the second knows he is wrong, but wants to try an attack his opponent using dirty tricks based on a lie he refuses to stand up and state. The first man is a brave idiot, the second one is an intelligent coward trying to hide. I am proud to call the first a friend, but I would throw the second out of my house.
Glenn Beck is a shmuck, not because of what he believes, but of how he presents it.
I agree with that statement 100%. However, the point of this website was not to fight fire with fire, but to fight fire with satire. That is something altogether different. However, one could legitimately ask if this kind of humor is lost on its intended audience as it requires something of an ability to objectively evaluate arguments, rather than simply agree with everything that person A says. Thus the real effect of such satire may just be preaching to the choir, while enraging those predisposed to defend Beck.
But as far as the actual NEWS goes, Fox NEWS was by fair the most "fair and balanced" of any network...
But the organization as a whole works as one machine. What Fox NEWS is very good at is reporting the rumors started by the Fox "commentators* - "...some people say..." - and those *commentators* are very good at talking about that *news* - "...it's been reported...". Rinse and repeat.
There should be no misconception that the entire Fox News organization is a propaganda machine for Rupert Murdoch and the Republican party. They are "fair and balanced" only up to the point that it conflicts with these two entities. To paint a broad stroke, anyone who cannot see that is deluded.
No offense, and I know Glenn Beck fans. I like Glenn Beck fans. I've watched Fox. I really don't believe that conservatism is the politics of stupid. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked.
With that being said, you are a Glenn Beck fan. You are saying, "That's a broad brush" And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not a drooling idiot
And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being a drooling idiot, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
He's a sign of how much of an ideological split we have in this country, that we have certain people flinging accusations of treason against those who question our new overlord. (Or who ask crazy questions like "Where in the Constitution do the feds get the power to...?") The same people also have a tendency to be rude to the point of vileness. I've seen this twice personally with people I'd respected.
There are people on both sides that would like that very much. This includes people who were fighting for a more logical approach to health care by allowing the states to come up with their own systems instead of voting in one giant massive system that's untested. I happen to be one of these people... though I tend to fall more in the Libertarian side of the square as opposed to left or right (blue or red.) IMHO, the Federal government was setup as a check to the state governments where the people voted in representatives that could override decisions made by the states in intent. In practice, and thanks to the fade of States rights, it's been lost.
Or are you one of those people that think only Democrats can think of notable solutions and all other ideas will never work? That somehow "the red states" will fall and the "progressive blue wonders" will reach the utopia of mankind through social programs and abolishment of individual success?
Oh, cherry-picking examples, are we? Detroit is failing because when an entire industry disappears
seattle (crime skyrocketing)
Still a lot safer than that reddest of cities, Dallas, in that reddest of states, Texas.
new york (do i even need to say anything here)
I think you do; I live in NYC and it's a pretty good place to live, even with the world economy like it is.
With out fail, blue leadership has been killing all our major cities.
That is the most profoundly ignorant statement I've read today. Have you ever been to a major city? Or do you just listen to what Glenn Beck tells you from the safety of your little suburb?
Is there such a thing as "too" educated? I don't see how this is possible.
But then again I find people slandering other people over being "intellectuals" to be rather silly. i'd rather be an intellectual than its opposite, ignorant. There also is a huge amount of irony in this, the people who are slandering other people for being "educated" are doing so for almost wholly political reasons. The politicians on the left are "intellectuals", but they ignore the fact that the "home grown" politicians are the right have roughly the same level of education.
G.W. Bush, for example, was a Yale grad, with roughly the same level of education as the evil intellectial Clinton (either of them). Obama actually has LESS time in the crusty halls of Ivy League academe as G.W. Bush.
I never see how being an ignorant yokel could be a point of pride. Its like America aspires to be back in highschool, where picking on nerds, just because they like books more than football, was a great passtime.
Ignorance and stupidity is not a positive character trait.
You still have stuffed animals? It's okay. I know an anarchist who still sleeps with Pound Puppies, although his wife isn't too fond of the situation.
I have several (and I'm 46). My wife and I couldn't have children and she had pet allergies, so we got stuffed animals. They loved to give her hugs and kisses and play in her underwear drawer. She died of a brain tumor in January 2006 (after 20 years together). I cherish my memories of us and our stuffed animals.
his goal is to get attention, whether positive or negative. in fact, getting negative attention from his ideological opponents is probably more dear to him than getting positive attention from his admirers
you have to understand the man and the nature of his business: he's a professional troll. his goal is to create and generate emotional responses, whether positive or negative, its all the same to him. this is his business, and he's good at it. proof being, sites that mock and satire him: its proof of success
in fact, i'd bet he actually doesn't mind the site, it doesn't really bother him personally, but he shrewdly calculated that feigning outrage as a reaction would win him more response. i mean look at this giant shitstorm generated on slashdot over this ego-pumping pointlessness. we're all talking about glenn beck. beck, beck, beck, blah blah blah: he wins, he has our attention, he's the subject of our speech and occupies our thought. that's his goal
the man is a professional demagogue. this is what he does, and he does it well: he generates heat, pointless emotion, mindless easy outrage in service of a cause. of course, its all lies and smears, but what does that matter? truth is not the issue, influence is. and in politics the truth means something, but influence means even more
Glenn makes personal attacks of this very nature, so it is entirely appropriate that this was done to Beck. After all, if he didn't rape and murder a young girl, why doesn't he just prove it? Should be as easy as proving you were born in this country.
I would imagine most of the comments I just read were by those who have never even seen or listened to Beck's show.Calling the accusation of fictional rape of a young girl parody is ridiculous.
I have listened to Beck and I also consider his approach to calling anything or anyone who proposes a government run this or that as communist and socialist (and the "fact" that the left has a "hidden" agenda to turn the US into a communist state) is also ridiculous and extremely distasteful
It's not exactly unreasonable to call a program for the government to have the means to produce a thing (good or service) a socialist program.
That's entirely unreasonable. Socialism != Government-run. You don't think the U.S. military is socialist do you? Policemen and Firefighters aren't socialist are they?
The real problem is that too many Americans have no idea what Socialism is. The term has been shrewdly twisted by people who profit from Laissez-faire policies to effectively mean any and every service the government provides. But that is not socialism. The "means of production" is not defined as the ability to produce any product or any service like you seem to think.
It could just be that people are ignorant in general, and because they resent and distrust intellectuals, they end up getting their history lessons from buffoons like Glen Beck. The result is that a disturbing number of people end up truly believing that Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism are all the same. How can America hope to remain an innovative, dominant competitor in a global economy with such widespread ignorance?
"You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, Okay? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definitions define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path."
I watched the video of her delivering the speech, and it's perfectly plausible that her explanation is true. "...two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Theresa" has all the hallmarks of a poorly delivered joke. She may, in fact, have heard that quote and backstory from Lee Atwater as she claimed.
So Beck, in his usual form, runs right out and connects her to all of Mao's atrocities, instead of to the quote she offered. He implies, AS YOU DO HERE, that she's a student of his work, and that she agrees with all of his choices. In no way can that be supported from anything else she's said, and it certainly can't be concluded on the basis of even this one isolated quote.
Beck does not back up most of his stuff. He implies. He solicits emotional response instead of enlightenment. He draws casual lines and tosses them aay without backing them up. He hammers his points, and you suck it up like his greedy little lap dog.
Wait a second... he's Michael Moore! Should have seen it before.
DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com (Score:5, Funny)
DidKDAWSONRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com
Has the real question been answered? (Score:5, Funny)
Has Glenn Beck denied having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
If not, why not?
Re:Has the real question been answered? (Score:5, Informative)
As a Canadian, I don't really get the reference, either. But as near as I can tell, from reading the posts on this thread, he's one of those ultra-conservative blowhards who makes his living by indirectly accusing people of committing outrageous acts. He's the kind of person who'd go on the radio saying something like "I'm not saying Tony Blair is a sheep-shagger, but why hasn't he denied calling the vet to his home under 'suspicious' circumstances last Tuesday at 3am?" As a rational thinker, you know that he's just spewing BS, but you're forgetting that Beck's audience is largely American. They haven't demonstrated any rational thought, as a nation, since proving in 1776 that they had no clue how to make tea. ^.~
It reminds me of McCarthyism... Joe McCarthy used to ask people pointed questions that included veiled accusations phrased as statement of fact. "Tell me, Inda, Why do you hate America?". Not "do you hate America"... in the phrasing of the question it's assumed that you hate America, and he's not asking you for a yes/no, he's asking for an explanation of why.
Parent
Ah, satire (Score:5, Funny)
I think this internet meme was the best satire of Glenn Beck, until Jon Stewart joined in the fun [thedailyshow.com].
Precident-setting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Handing back the domain after the decision strikes me as a way of setting a precident protecting such usage of a public figure's name, while gracefully ending the joke when it's done what it's supposed to. Well done.
I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck [wikipedia.org]
And the allegations of rape and murder seem to be the internet equivalent of small-town gossip, which might have a seed of truth or might be an elaborate attempt by his political opponents to a smear campaign.
Any Americans care to extend the info on this controversy for all us non-Americans?
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Informative)
Beck is famous for attacking politicians (especially Obama) by "asking questions". So some internet smart asses used his own style against him. Turns out he doesn't like it when the shoe's on the other foot.
Parent
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Informative)
Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't. So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.
Parent
Re:Not entirely true (Score:5, Informative)
The document presented is prima facia evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is what the Hawaii state seal on the document and the signature of the state official on the document attest to. The republican governor of Hawaii and the Hawaii state officials responsible for maintaining those records have both publicly confirmed that they have reviewed the documents that are in state custody and those documents also prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The noise from the birthers is just denial.
Parent
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a parody of what he does when he reports "news". He makes ridiculous statements, but phrases them such that when people call him on his bullshit he can say "I'm just asking questions". He'll then badger people about neither confirming or denying his "questions" - and they won't confirm or deny them because the questions are not even wrong.
That's the point of this site - it's just asking a question, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Obviously he didn't, but why won't he confirm or deny it? That's interesting, isn't it?
The worst part is that he actually has a TV show on Fox News. If you look on YouTube, you can find some of his spiels. They're pretty horrible, and yet somehow Americans still watch him. He sounds like that crazy homeless dude on the corner, except he's wearing a suit and he's in a television studio.
(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit. Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.)
Parent
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, Glenn Beck is on Fox News as one of the many opinion guys they have. He throws out wild accusations but gets away with it by saying "I'm not saying it's true, but isn't it odd that I'm the only one asking these questions?" He's done so many crazy things (comparing Jesus to Hitler back when he was on CNN, for example). He's so batshit crazy that he makes Bill O'Reilly appear to be a sensible man. It's absolutely terrifying, moreso when you realize how many people religiously watch his show and consider it to be 100% fact.
The controversy is just someone parodying him by making a wild accusation and then covering it with a batshit crazy question.
...He also cries loudly at random intervals on his show. I highly advise you try and find some Glenn Beck vids. http://vodpod.com/watch/1409182-colbert-mocks-crazy-eyes-beck-with-doom-bunker-segment [vodpod.com] There's one off of the Colbert Report that gives you an excellent example, in fact.
Parent
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:For everyone who is going WTF who is Glenn Beck (Score:5, Insightful)
"He is very conservative"
I'm a liberal but I think it's an insult to conservatives to call him that (seriously, there are intellectual, reasonable conservatives). He's just crazy. The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll. I don't think he really has a position. He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.
Parent
Defensive? (Score:5, Funny)
*Well, just this one.
"Beck didn't see the humour" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there is none. Quit confounding parody and satire with humour. Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).
Re:"Beck didn't see the humour" (Score:5, Funny)
All Beck had to do to make this go away was prove he didn't kill and rape or rape then kill a girl in 1990, how hard is this to do? Just show us the proof. Show the death certificate that says you didn't rape her
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was a public figure, yes. It's part of the price of fame, and of free speech. You like free speech, right?
I find it particularly appropriate that this happened to Glen Beck, who uses the same tactics of making people refute completely bogus accusations.
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
Being entitled to being enraged is obviously not a legal question but a moral one. Did Glenn Beck have a moral entitlement to being enraged? I don't think so, given his history. That's the point of that domain, after all.
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of satire has a rather long history, and has long been protected (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell [wikipedia.org] ).
Beck is an infantile baby. Don't want this sort of attention, get a job as an accountant or burger slinger. Otherwise, shut up and take it.
Parent
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'd also add: Don't be such a pussy - anything you dish out you should fully be able to take. I'd love to hear an explanation on why it's fair when you do it and unfair when it's done to you.
And on top of that: If you love 'Murica as much as you say you do, then you should at least learn how she works. We're actually pretty proud of the First Amendment. Too bad you're not.
Parent
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it really depends on what one considers a news organization. I've tried to watch Fox... I really have (and no, I'm not a liberal). However, Fox News is news in the way Jon Stewart is... they use a "news format" but they have an obvious agenda. Obvious enough that I would call them an editorial organization that occasionally reports on the news.
Note too, that the first amendment doesn't mean "The President has to talk to me because I'm on television". If Obama called for Fox to be taken off the air... then I'd agree that he's obviously not respecting the First Amendment. However, he has only stated that they have an agenda, that they're the mouthpiece of a political group and that he's not wasting his time with them.
All of that seems true.
The first amendment guarantees our right to say what we want. Fox says what they want to say. It does not however, guarantee that anyone is going to respect what you say. I have yet to hear much of anything from Fox News that I respected.
Parent
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody's been trying to "muscle" Fox out of the networks. Is the White House trying to shut them down? Send the army into the studio?
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Funny)
How can you like a man who raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
Parent
Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you bother? You are right but why make the effort?
I swear that the people on Slashdot have pushed the art of bias to new extremes.
To answer your question. No I am not furious that the decision was legal. And no I wouldn't be upset if the other URL was found legal.
I an and would be furious that both exists and I am a little ticked that Slashdot puts it on the front page and NOT under politics which I have set to not show up on my front page of Slashdot.
Yes it is good that it is legal it is bad that idiots create such crap and that other sites then give them free PR.
BTW if you hate Glen Beck you do know this will only help him with his faithful don't you?
Just so everybody can see the results of this action and understand just how STUPID it is I will explain it to you.
Some Beck hater posts this website.
People that HATE Beck will think it is funny.
People that Love Beck will hate those that think it is funny,
Beck takes them to court and doesn't get the site taken down.
The people that HATE Beck still think it is funny.
The people that LOVE Beck will see it as proof that the courts are biased and hate them. They will become more politically active and work harder for consertives to get elected.
The result is this is preaching to the base and will do nothing but amuse one base and rally the other.
End result more polarization which is exactly what WE DON"T NEED.
For people like me that don't love or hate Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, President Obama, or NPR.
We get anoyed that we have to see this stupidity.
Of course why did I bother to make this effort since it will be unread or I will be modded down as a troll.
PS. I bet Health Care will not pass. Both parties are expert at the art of active inactivity.
Parent
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
Refuted. [politifact.com]
Parent
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have never seen anyone refute what Glenn Beck is actually saying.
That's the his entire M.O., is it not? First, Beck accuses you of beating your wife (or some similar calumny). Then he tries to get you to deny it. If you rise to the bait and do deny it, he now has video of you denying it, and can use that video to imply that whether you beat your wife or not is a legitimate question. If you refuse to dignify him with a response, he can go ahead and claim that because you refused to deny it, there must be something to the accusation. Either way, he wins.
Parent
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200611150004 [mediamatters.org]
Go on, justify it.
Parent
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Glenn Beck has said: It's just that almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist."
Fact, the majority of american scientists -- over 90%, believe in Global warming. These are not socialist. Most are Democrats, but no, you don't get the right to tell other people what they believe. Deomcrats are liberals not socialists. We have the right to decide our own political affilialtion, you can't tell me I'm a socialist, anymore than I can tell you that you are a member of the NeoNazi party.
More importantly, not all scientists are Democrats. Yes, 55% say they are Democrats, but 6% say they are Republicans. (2% say they are independent). The independent ones also believe in Global warming.
(P.S. Republicans should be ashamed that so few scientists are Republicans. Yeah, I know the hole 'ivory tower' explanation, but frankly that might be enough to explain 20% or even 15%, but 6% indicates a serious problem).
The main problem with Glenn Beck is not the content, but the delivery.
That is I respect a man that says "I believe Obama is not an American Citizen" a lot more than I respect an asswipe that says "Isn't it interesting that Obama has not publicly denied being a Kenyan." The first man is simple ignorant, the second knows he is wrong, but wants to try an attack his opponent using dirty tricks based on a lie he refuses to stand up and state. The first man is a brave idiot, the second one is an intelligent coward trying to hide. I am proud to call the first a friend, but I would throw the second out of my house.
Glenn Beck is a shmuck, not because of what he believes, but of how he presents it.
Parent
Re:its fair turn around (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:its fair turn around (Score:5, Insightful)
But the organization as a whole works as one machine. What Fox NEWS is very good at is reporting the rumors started by the Fox "commentators* - "...some people say..." - and those *commentators* are very good at talking about that *news* - "...it's been reported...". Rinse and repeat.
There should be no misconception that the entire Fox News organization is a propaganda machine for Rupert Murdoch and the Republican party. They are "fair and balanced" only up to the point that it conflicts with these two entities. To paint a broad stroke, anyone who cannot see that is deluded.
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
No offense, and I know Glenn Beck fans. I like Glenn Beck fans. I've watched Fox. I really don't believe that conservatism is the politics of stupid. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked.
With that being said, you are a Glenn Beck fan. You are saying, "That's a broad brush" And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not a drooling idiot
And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being a drooling idiot, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Funny)
there are other people who are Glenn Beck fans and not drooling retards.
[Citation needed]
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Funny)
I Googled it, there are't any.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=glenn+beck+fans+who+are+%22not+drooling+retards%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= [google.com]
there are other people who are Glenn Beck fans and not drooling retards.
[Citation needed]
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Interesting)
There are people on both sides that would like that very much. This includes people who were fighting for a more logical approach to health care by allowing the states to come up with their own systems instead of voting in one giant massive system that's untested. I happen to be one of these people... though I tend to fall more in the Libertarian side of the square as opposed to left or right (blue or red.) IMHO, the Federal government was setup as a check to the state governments where the people voted in representatives that could override decisions made by the states in intent. In practice, and thanks to the fade of States rights, it's been lost.
Or are you one of those people that think only Democrats can think of notable solutions and all other ideas will never work? That somehow "the red states" will fall and the "progressive blue wonders" will reach the utopia of mankind through social programs and abolishment of individual success?
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Informative)
Blue states support the red welfare states.
Red states do pull ahead of the blue states in teen pregnancy rates, though, so you have that going for you. [mediagirl.org]
detroit (falling apart more every day)
Oh, cherry-picking examples, are we? Detroit is failing because when an entire industry disappears seattle (crime skyrocketing)
Still a lot safer than that reddest of cities, Dallas, in that reddest of states, Texas.
new york (do i even need to say anything here)
I think you do; I live in NYC and it's a pretty good place to live, even with the world economy like it is.
With out fail, blue leadership has been killing all our major cities.
That is the most profoundly ignorant statement I've read today. Have you ever been to a major city? Or do you just listen to what Glenn Beck tells you from the safety of your little suburb?
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Funny)
I like beck. Perhaps you are too educated for your own good.
That's right citizen. Ignorance is strength.
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there such a thing as "too" educated? I don't see how this is possible.
But then again I find people slandering other people over being "intellectuals" to be rather silly. i'd rather be an intellectual than its opposite, ignorant. There also is a huge amount of irony in this, the people who are slandering other people for being "educated" are doing so for almost wholly political reasons. The politicians on the left are "intellectuals", but they ignore the fact that the "home grown" politicians are the right have roughly the same level of education.
G.W. Bush, for example, was a Yale grad, with roughly the same level of education as the evil intellectial Clinton (either of them). Obama actually has LESS time in the crusty halls of Ivy League academe as G.W. Bush.
I never see how being an ignorant yokel could be a point of pride. Its like America aspires to be back in highschool, where picking on nerds, just because they like books more than football, was a great passtime.
Ignorance and stupidity is not a positive character trait.
Parent
Re:icing on the cake: (Score:5, Informative)
I have several (and I'm 46). My wife and I couldn't have children and she had pet allergies, so we got stuffed animals. They loved to give her hugs and kisses and play in her underwear drawer. She died of a brain tumor in January 2006 (after 20 years together). I cherish my memories of us and our stuffed animals.
Parent
glenn beck is a smear merchant (Score:5, Insightful)
his goal is to get attention, whether positive or negative. in fact, getting negative attention from his ideological opponents is probably more dear to him than getting positive attention from his admirers
you have to understand the man and the nature of his business: he's a professional troll. his goal is to create and generate emotional responses, whether positive or negative, its all the same to him. this is his business, and he's good at it. proof being, sites that mock and satire him: its proof of success
in fact, i'd bet he actually doesn't mind the site, it doesn't really bother him personally, but he shrewdly calculated that feigning outrage as a reaction would win him more response. i mean look at this giant shitstorm generated on slashdot over this ego-pumping pointlessness. we're all talking about glenn beck. beck, beck, beck, blah blah blah: he wins, he has our attention, he's the subject of our speech and occupies our thought. that's his goal
the man is a professional demagogue. this is what he does, and he does it well: he generates heat, pointless emotion, mindless easy outrage in service of a cause. of course, its all lies and smears, but what does that matter? truth is not the issue, influence is. and in politics the truth means something, but influence means even more
Parent
Re:This is an attack on the teabaggers (Score:5, Informative)
The one where you got a democrat elected instead of a moderate republican? Or is my satire detector off?
Parent
This was a parody of the Glenn Beck Style (Score:5, Insightful)
Glenn makes personal attacks of this very nature, so it is entirely appropriate that this was done to Beck. After all, if he didn't rape and murder a young girl, why doesn't he just prove it? Should be as easy as proving you were born in this country.
Parent
Re:handing back the domain FAIL (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sick of the Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine most of the comments I just read were by those who have never even seen or listened to Beck's show.Calling the accusation of fictional rape of a young girl parody is ridiculous.
I have listened to Beck and I also consider his approach to calling anything or anyone who proposes a government run this or that as communist and socialist (and the "fact" that the left has a "hidden" agenda to turn the US into a communist state) is also ridiculous and extremely distasteful
Parent
Re:Sick of the Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
That's entirely unreasonable. Socialism != Government-run. You don't think the U.S. military is socialist do you? Policemen and Firefighters aren't socialist are they?
The real problem is that too many Americans have no idea what Socialism is. The term has been shrewdly twisted by people who profit from Laissez-faire policies to effectively mean any and every service the government provides. But that is not socialism. The "means of production" is not defined as the ability to produce any product or any service like you seem to think.
It could just be that people are ignorant in general, and because they resent and distrust intellectuals, they end up getting their history lessons from buffoons like Glen Beck. The result is that a disturbing number of people end up truly believing that Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism are all the same. How can America hope to remain an innovative, dominant competitor in a global economy with such widespread ignorance?
-Grym
Parent
Good Example, But Not Necessarily How You Meant... (Score:5, Insightful)
"You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, Okay? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definitions define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path."
I watched the video of her delivering the speech, and it's perfectly plausible that her explanation is true. "...two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Theresa" has all the hallmarks of a poorly delivered joke. She may, in fact, have heard that quote and backstory from Lee Atwater as she claimed.
So Beck, in his usual form, runs right out and connects her to all of Mao's atrocities, instead of to the quote she offered. He implies, AS YOU DO HERE, that she's a student of his work, and that she agrees with all of his choices. In no way can that be supported from anything else she's said, and it certainly can't be concluded on the basis of even this one isolated quote.
Beck does not back up most of his stuff. He implies. He solicits emotional response instead of enlightenment. He draws casual lines and tosses them aay without backing them up. He hammers his points, and you suck it up like his greedy little lap dog.
Wait a second... he's Michael Moore! Should have seen it before.
Parent