Last night, the Daily Show did the public a great service by airing two clips. The first was from January 2008 featuring faux journalist Glenn Beck talking about how terrible the care he received at the hospital it was and how it reflected the sad state of the American healthcare system. In true Beck-ian fashion, his piece was called Beck from the Dead.
You really have to watch the clip to see Beck say one thing and then say the exact opposite thing afterwards, with the same fire and conviction. If you’re in Canada, you can watch the clip on the Comedy Network’s site; if you’re in the U.S. the Daily Show site has the clip.
It’s ironic that a show that purports to be a comedy show that just comments on current events is doing a better job of telling the truth than a network that purports to tell you the truth but ends up doing unintentional black humour.
Gawker sums up Glenn Beck perfectly in a couple of paragraphs:
This should serve as yet another bright, shining example of how much of an utter fraud Beck is. You gotta give the guy some credit though — he’s a charlatan’s charlatan, a near-perfect modern television bullshit artist who fully understands how the slightest glance, vocal inflection, or codeword can plant a seed deep down inside of a feeble mind and germinate.
But still, it’s hard not to watch this clip and come away feeling that he’s an even bigger piece of shit than you probably thought he was previously, because it’s just so goddamn obvious that the man will do or say anything to dig his hook even deeper into the sad dolts who tune into to his show each day seeking guidance.
Oh, my sweet summer child, do you not know about the “Loofah Code” in The…
...and by that, I mean, being completely ignorant of the larger world outside the U.S.…
Wednesday, August 7, 1991: A sunny day at Toronto’s CNE Grandstand, and what a lineup:…
The cover painting says it all.
View Comments
Poor little Glenn Beck, such a loser, he can not keep his lies straight. But then most of Fake News do the same. Sweet.
Joey,
I think you, Jon Stewart, and the Obama administration are making a mistake by focussing your efforts on attacking the messengers of the very real concerns being displayed over health care reform in America. Poking fun at the "tea-baggers", as you like to call them, is not going to do much to sway public opinion - quite the contrary I expect.
http://keyes.ca/journal/2009/08/10/the-politics-of-personal-destruction/
And compiling a list of "dissidents" is downright Orwellian, as I write here:
http://keyes.ca/journal/2009/08/06/does-anyone-else-find-this-a-bit-orwellian/
Andrew: Actually, attacking the credibility of the messenger is a tried, true and honoured tradition in civilized debate. There are many real concerns about healthcare reform in America, but they aren't being brought up by Glenn Beck. From him, you get stuff that's closer to tinfoil-hattery than reasoned analysis. After all, he's on the record as saying that...
And hey, if I were poking fun from your political point of view, I'm sure you'd be praising my ability to sway public opinion.
The real death panels are the nurses....as an R.N., when patients near death were admitted and it was obvious that there was no chance of the patient getting well, we nurses would nag the physician to get a DNR order from the family if the patient did not already have one.
We have the technology to keep almost anyone alive, no matter their physical state, but some states are worse than death.
As an elderly person, I hope my family sends my DNR papers with me to the hospital when its my turn to shuffle off this planet. Doctors aren't taught when to let people die as they are taught to keep everyone alive no matter what, but nurses know when to give up.
Joey: "And hey, if I were poking fun from your political point of view, I’m sure you’d be praising my ability to sway public opinion."
But you seem to have missed my point Joey: look at the polls, the tactics are not working.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the gathering of "fishy" names being conducted by the Whitehouse.
Andrew: The Democrats do have a knack for blowing things, even with the With House, Congress and the Senate, don't they? Yes, support for the bill is sagging in the polls, but in the techie crowd that I roll with, there's still a fair bit of support. You move in different circles from me, and I suspect you hear a different story.
As for your question about my opinion on gathering names: it's a tactic that's used by both sides, and they're well within their rights to do so. The tricky bit is when it stops being used for information gathering and starts being used for intimidation or worse, and alas, that's also done by both sides.
Joey, the waning support I'm referring to is not within my "circles", or "the techie crowd". I'm referring to the national polls:
"As the public has become more engaged in the debate over health care reform, support for the Congressional reform plans has fallen to new lows. Just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan while 53% are opposed. Those who oppose the effort feel more strongly about it."
[Rasmussen Reports link]
Also, my reference regarding the gathering of names was not related to "both sides" doing it - it was about the U.S. government doing it. Not quite the same thing. In either case, it should raise concerns. Am I to surmise you are okay with that?
Andrew: I think it's time to close the discussion with a simple "No, I'm not okay with the U.S. Government collecting information on dissenters with an eye towards future retribution." It's exactly that sort of political climate that made my family leave the Philippines and head to Canada, the country I very proudly call home.
Do I think that the U.S. should offer a public option? Yes. Should the U.S. government follow the will of its people? Yes. Even if I think the majority, in this case, are wrong and going based on hype manufactured by the GOP and insurance companies? Yes.
So I disagree with you and the people polled. That's cool. That's a freedom we enjoy, even if it does get us hot under the collar from time to time.
I welcome reasoned, informed debate on my blog, but your tone and manner suggest an attempt to manipulate me into making some kind statement typical of the "looney left" (of whom you seem to think I am a member) off which you presumably want to make hay. It's making my "political agitator abusing the comments section of my blog" senses tingle.
You've got your own blog on which you're free to make your points in whatever style you prefer, and more power to you. Write an article, let me know, and if I think it's good -- even if I disagree -- I'll link to it.