The event logo? Stark, stylized red fists raised in defiant unison in front of the nation’s capital. Anonymous sources tell me Kim Jong Il might be Comrade Beck’s art director…

Check it out at http://912dc.org/store/!

Re Beck, he’s certainly no worse an advertisement for conservatism than Obama is for progressives. And look at the adulation Obama receives. IMO, Beck is a much more reliable witness than Obama, who has proven himself to be a serial liar. Re David Frum, I have little respect for him these days. He’s free to have an opinion. I don’t agree with it. (And, by what authority should I?)

Joe, you make a lot of undocumented assertions (with, unfortunately, like Obama, many grammatical errors):

Joe: “Beck went on TV yesterday and made claims [which ones?] about communist propaganda that are simply indefensible. [How so?]”

“I haven’t found one respectable source [sic] defend his claims [which ones?]. Not one.”

“This [caused?] 33 of Fox’s advertisers to pull their ads from him [sic] show.”

You don’t mention that this boycott is an orchestrated campaign by Color of Change, “Changing the color of democracy”, a radical lobby group. One of its founders? VAN JONES! You were speaking of “respectable sources” . . .?

Joe: “I looked at them [my points at 1) and 2), above] again and I’m not sure what you want addressed. [I made my points perfectly clear.] I’m also not sure I would agree that these are ‘substantive issues.’ [Communist infiltration at the upper/policy making level of the White House, and the WH using the arts community with public funds to produce propaganda are not substantial issues?] These are ‘talk radio issues’ [like the war, the deficit, unemployment, company takeovers by the government, health care reform, etc., I guess]—hot button topics that play well on radio but actually have no real impact on the direction of our country.” YOU’VE GOT TO BE JOKING: WHAT AN ABSURDLY RIDICULOUS AND UNINTELLIGENT ASSERTION.

Joe: “Actually, until just a few days ago, the comments section didn’t even have time stamps: No one said a thing [so no one should?] and I suspect few people even noticed. [So?] I’m sure it is important to some readers, however, and because of that I’ll try to get them fixed as soon as possible.” Thanks.

Joe, have you considered just doing it because it’s the right and professional thing to do?

I’m going to stop here. A back and forth with someone who seems to have a language processing problem and an apparent desire to obfuscate and bait is not my idea of either a professional blog or a good way to spend any more of my time. Have a fine day.

If it’s not obvious, then I’m not sure what evidence would convince you. But let me give it a try.

First, keep in mine that only a fraction of the people in America will ever watch an entire episode of Beck’s show. All they will know his clips of his antics and the most outrageous things he says. From this limited exposure—and the fact that he has conservatives who will defend him no matter how ridiculous or indefensible he becomes—they will assume that this is what conservatives are really like. (Sadly, this may actually be true.)

Let me be clear that Beck could be right on his message 100% of the time (which he isn’t), but if the way he delivers his message turns people off and makes people think conservatives are stupid, gullible, and insane, then he is bad for conservatism.

While it might be fun to hole up in our bunkers and scream “The socialists are taking over!” it isn’t the best way to make a positive change on our country. Talk radio and cable TV are already dumbing down the discourse of our nation. But Beck is going to extremes. He is not only not convincing anyone to become a conservative (which isn’t really his job since he’s not a conservative himself) but he is turning people off.

Not only does he turn off independents and moderates, he turns off conservatives.

—Beck went on TV yesterday and made claims about communist propaganda that are simply indefensible. For him to say such things when an actual communist is an adviser to the President makes me wonder if he isn’t simply trying to undermine his own message simply for more attention. (To Beck, negative attention is as good as positive press.)

I haven’t found one respectable source defend his claims. Not one.

—Beck called Obama a racist and said he wanted to poison Nancy Pelosi’s wine. This 33 of Fox’s advertisers to pull their ads from him show. What kind of message does that send? (By the way, are you comfortable with these statements of his?)

—Many of the biggest conservatives websites openly mock him (HotAir.com and Little Green Footballs are prime examples). Even Sheppard Smith, his own co-worker at Fox makes fun of him.

—The conservative writer David Frum said Mr. Beck’s success “is a product of the collapse of conservatism as an organized political force, and the rise of conservatism as an alienated cultural sensibility.”

And here’s my favorite, from the mouth of Beck himself: “I say on the air all time, ‘if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’ ”

That is exactly what Beck thinks of his audience. He is being outrageous to be entertaining. If he hits on the truth, great. If he makes stuff up, no big deal. It’s not his duty to be truthful, only entertaining. To him it’s all the same; it’s about ratings.

The substantive issues I wanted addressed, about which you seem confused? Try looking at 1) and 2).

I looked at them again and I’m not sure what you want addressed. I’m also not sure I would agree that these are “substantive issues.” These are “talk radio issues”—hot button topics that play well on radio but actually have no real impact on the direction of our country.
Van Jones is an outrageous choice and Obama will eventually dump him. But at the end of the day Beck and his cable cronies will take credit for taking a scalp while the bigger issue—why do we have a “green jobs” czar in the first place?— will go unaddressed. For the talk radio/cable TV hosts, as long as they are keeping the rabble stirred up and are getting ratings, it doesn’t really matter that serious issues are being ignored.

My husband and I have a multi-year subscription to First Things, a publication for which we’ve had the highest regard. However, my new experience on this blog has been altogether disappointing: I expect a much more professional level of discourse from a First Things contributor than I’ve experienced on this thread.

Um, you’re defending the antics of Glen Beck and then chastising me for being unprofessional? Normally I would assume you were kidding but I fear you are all too serious.
Unless you equate “not liking Glenn Beck” to “being unprofessional” I also have no idea what you are talking about. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

At a First Things site, I also expect that such an important matter as the accurate recording of the times of each comment would be both acknowledged and rectified.

Actually, until just a few days ago, the comments section didn’t even have time stamps: No one said a thing and I suspect few people even noticed. I’m sure it is important to some readers, however, and because of that I’ll try to get them fixed as soon as possible.

In your “5:14 p.m.”, “Judy . . .” post above, you write, “Yes, Beck talked about this [Marxist] issue—at length—but he did so [in a way] that brought discredit to the conservative movement.” Is that so? Evidence, please. (Honestly, Joe, I think this undocumented mantra from you is both tedious and so much hot air.)

The substantive issues I wanted addressed, about which you seem confused? Try looking at 1) and 2).

Joe, you’ve also ignored another substantive issue presented to you, this one entirely non-political: WHY IS EVERY POST HERE GIVEN THE TIME, 5:14 P.M.?

It is ESSENTIAL that the times of our posts here be accurately documented.

My husband and I have a multi-year subscription to First Things, a publication for which we’ve had the highest regard. However, my new experience on this blog has been altogether disappointing: I expect a much more professional level of discourse from a First Things contributor than I’ve experienced on this thread.

At a First Things site, I also expect that such an important matter as the accurate recording of the times of each comment would be both acknowledged and rectified. I gather you are the Web Editor. Is there any chance that accurate recording of posting times might be happening sometime soon?

(When I noticed that my first “Well said, Gretchen” post was missing, I posted it again at the real 5:14 p.m. I was informed that I’d already posted that comment—still not published. Then I saw Joe’s long-winded reply to Gretchen. So I sent my “I don’t appreciate”, “5:14 p.m.” post. And now, here it—and my earlier, added in—post are! Fishy. . .

I asked earlier on this thread about the “5:14 p.m.” time accorded to every post. This is a very serious problem. I ask that First Things blog rectify this oversight. Displaying the correct time that posts are made is very important.

I gave pertinent, new information on this thread about Van Jones—I quoted from Power Line—and asked Joe, who’s ridiculed Glenn Beck on both counts, to address the substantive issues of communists in Obama’s administration and government arts propaganda.

What substantive issues do you want me to address? Van Jones appears to be a Marxist. Now that he is embarrassing Obama he’ll likely be kicked under the bus along with his grandmother, Rev. Wright, et al.

Yes, Beck talked about this issue—at length—but he did so that brought discredit to the conservative movement. Obama should be thanking his luck stars that Beck is on TV. Because Beck is screaming about “Commies everywhere! Their propaganda is even on our buildings!” it makes people dismiss not only him but the fact that a real-live commie was actually appointed to the President’s team.

I’ll say it again. Beck is detrimental to the conservative movement. But he doesn’t care because Beck is about Beck. He’s an entertainer who will play the conspiratorial nut for laughs and ratings and then will jump to something else when people tire of being duped by him.

I gave pertinent, new information on this thread about Van Jones—I quoted from Power Line—and asked Joe, who’s ridiculed Glenn Beck on both counts, to address the substantive issues of communists in Obama’s administration and government arts propaganda.

I’m still waiting.

In Brown’s “Da Vinci Code”, on a page labeled ‘Fact,’ prior to the main text, Brown claims that “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” His book may be fictional but he claims that everything in it is true—and hundreds of thousands of gullible people believed him!

Beck states facts. Is it a fact that communist-inspired artwork graces some of our buildings? He demonstrates it, reasonably to me, since he specifically points out certain images that are prevelant in communist/socialist propaganda, as well as naming a particular artist who was known for just such art.

Before we dig into the facts, let’s take a look at what you’re claiming is so persuasive (I just watched the video again):

Beck is saying that an oil company may actually be evil since a purported capitalist, Rockefeller, hired artists to include communist-art on his building in New York.

Beck fails to clarify:

(a) Which Rockefeller he is talking about,
(b) Why a oil baron would be a communist/fascist sympathizer,
(c) Why this “Rockefeller” would subscribe to two idealogies—communism and fascism—that were mutually opposed to each other,
(c) Why they would use propaganda—the deliberate use of images to help a movement—that was so subtle that no one noticed it for 70 years, and
(d) Why Beck is the first person to make this connection despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have seen the images before now.

Beck says, “The hammer and the sickle, where have we seen those before?” implying that the terms are inherently communist. They are not. They were used as images for a hundred years in Europe before they were co-opted by the commies. It is natural that a German artist would use them for a piece titled “Industry and Agriculture.”

By the way, does Beck think the cross is a rascist symbol since it was co-opted by the Klan? Are Christians secretly racists when we display that symbol on our churches?

And the part where Beck says, ” This represents, at the time this was made, Mussolini. This represents Mussolini.” Uh, no. There is no evidence that the artist, Attilio Piccirilli, was a fascist sympathizer. Also, Piccirilli was the same one who used the hammer and sickle imagery in the piece that Beck had just complained about. So which is it? Is Piccirilli a commie or a fascist? The fact that Beck thinks they go together shows that he still isn’t that up on his history (as he admitted just a few days ago).

Beck then goes on to point to a picture that says “Isaiah” and talks about beating swords into plowshares. It appears to completely have slipped past the historically and biblically illiterate Beck that that phrase comes from the Bible.

Somehow, though, Beck ties this nefarious image to the statue on his desk which is a model of one that is displayed at the UN. The only connection: Rockefeller donated that land to the UN in 1946. Thirteen years later a statue was given to the UN—not to Rockefeller—that was to symbolize the UN’s commitment to ending war.

Beck’s scurrilous implication that John D. Rockefeller was a crypto-commie/fascist is just . . . stupid. There’s no other word for it. It’s one thing for people who aren’t that familiar with history to be taken in by Beck. It’s quite another for him to make such dumb claims about a historical figure on national television.

By the way, Beck fails to note that this quote by John D. is also on that same building:

I believe in the supreme worth of the individual and in his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.

I believe that the law was made for man and not man for the law; that government is the servant of the people and not their master.

I believe in the dignity of labor, whether with head or hand; that the world owes no man a living but that it owes every man an opportunity to make a living.

I believe that thrift is essential to well ordered living and that economy is a prime requisite of a sound financial structure, whether in government, business or personal affairs.

I believe that truth and justice are fundamental to an enduring social order.

I believe in the sacredness of a promise, that a man’s word should be as good as his bond; that character — not wealth or power or position — is of supreme worth.

I believe that the rendering of useful service is the common duty of mankind and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human soul set free.

I believe in an all-wise and all-loving God, named by whatever name, and that the individual’s highest fulfillment, greatest happiness, and widest usefulness are to be found in living in harmony with His will.

I believe that love is the greatest thing in the world; that it alone can overcome hate; that right can and will triumph over might.

Sounds a bit like something Beck himself might say, don’t it?

Oh, but that’s not all. Beck returns to his Rockefeller rant—but confuses John D for Nelson.

He says that Diego Rivera’s painting can now be found in a museum in Mexico city, but that it was originally in the lobby of the building. The one that Beck shows is not the original. The original was torn down and destroyed by Nelson Rockefeller because he was infuriated by the propagandistic painting. Rivera painted another which is now in Mexico, and which was the one Beck used.

Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky—even Rockefeller himself—were not in the original. In other words, Beck lied to his audiences (or, if you prefer, was so careless with the facts that he simply doesn’t know enough to Google the “facts”). The picture he showed was never displayed at 30 Rock.

So now can you see why I get a bit perturbed when people defend Beck’s antics? Sure, he may be right some (or even most) of the time. But when he produces outright nonsense like this—and people lap it up!—it destroys his credibility and makes conservatives look like we really are a bunch of gullible morons who will believe any conspiracy theory that we hear. Glenn Beck is a self-admitted clown who will do anything to get attention and ratings. If it means making his audience look like a bunch of moon-barking crazies, then what’s that to him?