Glen Beck Warns Viewers Not To Use Google 1276
An anonymous reader writes "Glenn Beck has told his viewers to do research, but to not use Google, because 'Google is pretty deeply in bed with the government.' He points to the fact that Google is having some problems overseas, as well as Jared Cohen. Cohen is Director of Google Ideas, has worked with the State Department, and has played a role in the 2009 unrest in Iran. He also mentions social networking in sinister undertones, asking if it's government propaganda."
Google his name (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's see: Glenn Beck [google.com].
Hmmm, yes he has reasons to be afraid of Google. However that's just because he refuses to deny it. Why? Why doesn't he come forth and deny it?
Re:Not Just Google, Suspect All Other TV Networks! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Asking questions" is how he can slander and libel without being sued.
I strongly recommend watching the South Park episode Dances with Smurfs for a pretty accurate (and lulzy) overview.
Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con (Score:5, Interesting)
No, he's selling books and getting ratings and a lot of money. Folks who think Beck is crazy are just as bamboozled as any of his fans. It's really hilarious.
I don't know if he's clinically diagnosed or if he's just putting on an act to make money. And it really doesn't matter. Regardless of the cause of his actions, the guy is spewing flaming ignorance all over the place.
Yes, but by saying that, *you* have taken him seriously!
As opposed to what, ignoring the loony? Just letting him spew his ignorance without any kind of rebuttal?
The fact of the matter is that he's on national TV, publishing books, and presenting some truly deranged stuff as "truth".
If he was just some kind of comedian and everybody laughed and went on with their lives, that'd be one thing. But people believe him. Folks base their world view on what he says. They cast their votes based on his insane rantings.
You can't just ignore him, because he affects American politics whether you like it or not.
The attacks on him just make his supporters circle the wagons, and maybe even gain him followers from the stupid "Well, if he's pissing people off he must be doing something right!" crowd.
So, what... Plug your ears, hum real loud, and hope the crazy isn't there when you open your eyes?
I'm thinking of writing a crazy book, and shopping it to one of these neo-con publishers, all to get me some early retirement on the backs of the ideological loons. I'm not sure yet if I should invent a new angle, or tie together multiple existing memes in a new way.
There are a lot of crazy ideas out there. And most of them are just languishing in obscurity. I have absolutely no doubt that you could throw together some really insane horseshit and make money off of it. There are plenty of paranoid/gullible/curious folks out there who'd gobble it up.
But that isn't going to put you on par with Glen Beck.
There are tons of raving loonies out there that get absolutely no attention.
What differentiates Glen Beck from some homeless idiot claiming that the world is flat is that he has an audience. He has thousands (millions?) of viewers. They actually listen to him. If he claims that Google is in league with the devil, they'll believe it. They'll go use Bing instead.
And while it might not matter to me what search engine a bunch of paranoid neocons use... It does matter to me how they vote in elections, because I live in the same country that they do. And when he gets them all riled up to vote against some random bill that would actually be quite beneficial, I suffer for it.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not arrogant enough to think that my way is the only right way to do things. I have no problem being wrong or being out-voted or whatever. But I'd prefer to be out-voted based on reality. Not the ravings of some lunatic - regardless of whether it's a genuine clinical problem or simply an act to make money.
Re:We worship the blowhard (Score:3, Interesting)
The majority of atheists are left-leaning because the right doesn't really play nice with atheism.
Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't watch a lot of Goodman, either, basically a segment here and there recommended by other sites and linked to the middle of one of her broadcasts. Generally because the link notes she has hard information, an interview, that nobody else dug up.
Still, it seems a little harsh to mention in the same sentence (which tends to imply equivalence), somebody who runs a tiny operation with web-only access and a shoestring budget, and has won several really major awards for journalism, stories that got her beaten up in Indonesia, arrested (charges all dropped), and so forth....with a TV guy who makes $30+ million per year promoting theories like the ones under discussion...and never has to risk a thing to get his "stories".
Or, to put it another way, if that's the best "equivalent" to Glenn Beck you can come up with, you just gave the "liberal media" vs "conservative media" comparison a gigantic boost for liberalism.
! monotheistic (Score:4, Interesting)
Christians are monotheists, but Mormons are polytheistic
Although Christians claim loudly they are monotheists, they are still unsatisfied with just worshiping God (as Jews do), and have added in a dead Jew who they worship instead, attributing to this man-god-hybrid all the powers of the original God. This is not really monotheism.
No True Scotsman. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a pretty common fallacy [wikipedia.org] Christians like to use when they're embarrassed by other Christians. Given all the variations of "monotheistic" Christianity, especially given most of them accept the Trinity and many accept Saints as well, why should it be impossible for there to be a polytheistic brand of Christianity, and why would it matter to you?
It certainly doesn't seem to matter to his fans!
Re:! monotheistic (Score:2, Interesting)
Although Christians claim loudly they are monotheists, they are still unsatisfied with just worshiping God (as Jews do), and have added in a dead Jew who they worship instead...
Add to this the Catholics with all their saints who supposedly put in the good word to God/Jesus when prayed to. Is that so different to the ancient Greek gods with Zeus at the top? Alternatively, it's almost a form of ancestor worship.
Ah, religions are fascinating things to look at when you don't believe any of the nonsense!
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm more of a Ron Paul fan. The only real threat from the government is they may tax us to death.
Yes, they "might." But here I am paying less taxes then at any other period during my lifetime, and the Ron Paul fans won't shut up about how I'm being taxed to death.
As a right-leaning person, there is no party for me. Republicans can't stop spending and starting pointless wars, Libertarians can't stop being misrepresenting themselves (either you're a "Constitutional originalist" or you support the Civil Rights Act, pick one) and fear-mongering, and Democrats don't have enough backbone to actually DO anything (Health Care is a perfect example. It's a gift to insurance companies that does little more than fleece the rest of us.)
Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that Joseph Smith made a number of claims that are provably false. Only an idiot would believe in something they know to be false.
I understand that many claims made by "Christians" are also provably false, but these are claims made by preachers peddling doctrines, not claims made in scripture. For example, it is not clear whether depictions of miracles in scripture are meant to be taken literally or metaphorically. At the time, there was a tradition among Jews to make points using legends. The canonical version if the Bible offers differing accounts of Jesus' life (but does not make conflicting claims about what he said) almost as if to say that the details of his life are added to make points about spirituality rather than to document actual historical events. Another problem is the claim that scripture is inerrant. That claim is, ironically, not found in scripture, and it's obviously used by con-artists to peddle false doctrines based on narrow readings of particular scriptures ("Jesus hates fags" and stuff like that). I don't really have time to go into all differences between sound teaching as it's depicted in the Bible and what is taught in Church, but there are a lot of them.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is you shouldn't judge Christian values based on the actions and words of people who are only claiming to be Christians for worldly gain. It's good to stay open minded about things. And if you ever read the Bible, you would be shocked by all the differences between it and what is said about it in Church. And you'd be shocked by how bad Christians are at doing what it says, but then it's not surprising since they don't really know.
Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con (Score:3, Interesting)
In any case, I find it amazing how the left completely misunderstand Glenn Beck. No, I'm not going to explain it here... but ask the bees. The bees know! (Yes, I know GB is a sensationalist. However, like Rush Limbaugh, those on the left are usually spouting what they've heard second hand and not actually listening to the "horse".)
Another amusing thing is that many people on slashdot already don't trust Google. But when Glenn Beck says it, he is wrong?
Headline:"GB says something new... /. doesn't" (Score:3, Interesting)
The most juvenile aspect of this is the utter predictability with which /. responds. All one has to do to work posters into a lather is mention the name of Glenn Beck. Just post "Glenn Beck said X"... if "X" is a Good Thing (tm), then we'll get flooded with comments of how "a broken clock is right twice a day". If "X" is a Bad Thing (tm), we get this thread.
And the funny thing is that this is absolutely no different than what was happening 3-4 years ago under Bush. /.ers want to pretend that rabid anti-"other side"-ism is the sole purview of the "right wing" fanatics.
If I've noticed one thing in my years of reading /. it is that everyone here likes to claim higher intelligence, but are just as susceptible to buying into propaganda, fear-mongering, and group-think as any other demographic.
Do you honestly believe you are less fear driven than the "right-wing"? Less dogmatic than the "religious"? Less deluded by your own sense of superior knowledge than 19th-century men? The fear, dogma, and delusions are about different things, but they are equally as strong.
For every redneck idiot out there, there is a white lab coat idiot out there. For every right-wing nutcase, there is a left-wing nutcase. Every rabid Republican has a counterpart rabid Democrat. The destruction caused by ignorance is only matched by the destruction caused by hubris.
Destruction is destruction and death is death. Does it matter whether it's caused by the religious zealotry of the Inquisition or by the scientific hubris of the A-bomb? Do we measure human suffering by the numbers killed or by the quality of life lost?
Just because we have more information, doesn't make us smarter and it CERTAINLY doesn't change human nature. We think we are "civilized", but we are still subject to the same desires, motivations, strengths, and weaknesses that ruled our ancestors 100/200/500 years ago. We see our nifty gadgets and think that we are SOOO much more advanced. I would rather see rioting in the streets, than to see the millions of
Our hubris would be humorous if it weren't so destructive.
Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con (Score:4, Interesting)
What also amazes me is that people feel they are somewhat superior to others because they don't.
Why does that amaze you? Seems perfectly rational to me
And that they think they'll actually get people to listen to them by treating them as such.
I agree with you there. Not that their minds are changeable anyway...deprogramming humans raised from birth to think a certain way is damn hard.
Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con (Score:2, Interesting)
When a media outlet puts out a statement saying the U.S.A has the worst healthcare in world, is when I make a statement like that. The GF post mentioned CNN said that and that 18 months later Fox said the opposite.
I am glad that you brought up Europe. I have spent some time there, and I would be to know what specific countries you would be referring to. Some are "ok" some flat out suck, and I don't want to throw stones at any one country over there because I generally do like most of the countries in Europe, but let me tell you some reality. A very good friend of mine needed open heart surgery. He was put on a waiting list, and the reality is that he would be long dead before his time came up for surgery. We (many of us) had to pay off the doctor to get his schedule moved up before he would be dead. Unfortunately this is somewhat the norm, and it is how the free market has adapted over there. The doctors WILL make their money after all. Did he get decent care? Yes. Did it cost him? YES! Would he have been dead without the bribe/expediting fee? Probably.
The U.S.A. use to believe in a true capitalist system. Yes the rich will get better treatment than the poor. That happens in EVERY society anyway and you are kidding yourself to think different. However, the U.S.A. use to promote the very best to become doctors and those doctors could make a LOT of money. As more doctors entered the workforce the salaries balanced out. The same with high end medical technology. At first things like an X-Ray was only for the super wealthy, but now it is common place and relatively cheap. Please don't fool yourself in to thinking that there is any solution where the poor get the same care as the rich. It NEVER happens, and the best anyone can do is to promote competition. This is the core difference between socialism and capitalism.
Re:I think Beck has started to believe his own con (Score:4, Interesting)
That's pretty funny, because the main thing man has to say about God is "God exists". Nothing else in science or nature or reality (though I repeat myself) even whispers that phrase.
Just think about it. If you are born a Muslim, 90% of the time you grow up to be a Muslim. If you are born a Christian, 90% of the time you grow up to be a Christian. If you are born a Mormon, 90% of the time you grow up to be a Mormon. Weird, isn't it, that the religion you're born into is almost always the religion you follow as an adult?
And yet - babies are born without the concept of object permanence. Somehow, though, nearly 100% of all babies change their minds eventually, and they all decide the same thing: even if I'm not looking at it, it still exists. Isn't it funny that when it comes to God, nobody can agree on anything? When the existence of God should, a priori, be as fundamentally true and fundamental to our understanding of the Universe as object permanence?
Weird, isn't it?