Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I don't know if you've ever seen the Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Girl in 1990 website, but it's fairly amusing. It's a political satire of the style of argument Glenn Beck likes to engage in, which involves requiring that someone prove a negative ("prove you didn't do X") and making claims in the form of an interrogative ("Hey, I'm just asking questions here. I'm not saying he did this. What's wrong with asking questions?").
Well now Beck is trying to kill the site by making a formal complaint (PDF) to an international internet governing body, the World Intellectual Property Organization. He wants the domain name taken away from the person who registered it.
Why would he do that rather than file, say, a libel suit? Because he knows he would lose a libel suit. He is a public figure and the site is clearly satirical. Under precedents like Falwell v Flynt, it is virtually impossible to win such a suit. The attorney for the site owner, Marc Randazza, has filed a response brief (PDF) that is hilarious in its attack on Beck's thin-skinned and legally dubious argument. For instance, on the notion that someone might think the site was serious or that it was affiliated with Beck himself, he responds:
There is no indication that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to confuse anyone searching for Mr. Beck's own website, nor that anyone was unintentionally confused - even initially. Only an abject imbecile could believe that the domain name would have any connection to the Complainant.We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent's website wondering "where did all the race baiting content go?" We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent's website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent's website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck's very rhetorical style. Beck's skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful. Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent's constitutional rights.
That's brilliant. I like this lawyer. He also includes examples of Beck using exactly the same rhetorical techniques. For example, in questioning Muslim legislator Keith Ellison, Beck said:
"No offense and I know Muslims, I like Muslims, I've been to mosques, I really don't think Islam is a religion of evil. I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying let's cut and run. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview because what I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy. But that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
And an analog from the website in question:
"Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations? 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, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?"
Randazzo says that the owner of the website "has merely presented Mr. Beck with a mirror. If Beck does not like what he sees, the Respondent is not to blame." Seems reasonable to me.
Politics
Comments
Which is exactly why Beck is worried, since that's his target audience.
Posted by: Wes | October 5, 2009 9:22 AM
What would be doubly delicious is for Beck fans to believe the site's "claims" are true and yet stand by Beck and defend him.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 5, 2009 9:23 AM
Triply delicious is that he's sought recourse in international law. I don't personally know whether he ever jumped on the anti-international law bandwagon (I make it a point to avoid him), but I'd be willing to bet that he must have at some point, it being a hobby-horse favorite of so many fellow travelers.
And actually, having now taken two seconds to Google the question, yep, Glenn Beck hates international law: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23372/
which includes telling quotes such as:
"Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead. When you say things like, 'We are not going to put the Constitution behind international law,' you say that in the international court, if you say that on the floor of the United Nations, you are a freak show."
and
"Let me tell you something. When you can't win with the people, you bump it up to the courts. When you can't win with the courts, you bump it up to the international level."
Posted by: scott pilutik | October 5, 2009 9:47 AM
Wow! Beck won't deny that he raped and murdered a young girl back in 1990? I mean, I don't think he did, I'm just asking questions. But... wow! Man... wow!
Posted by: Skip | October 5, 2009 9:48 AM
Yeah, because you know what's really funny, guys? Rape.
Not to say that Glenn Beck isn't a loathsome person, or that the site doesn't have a point regarding his usual 'style' of 'argument'. But I'm disturbed by the fact that jokes about the dehumanization and degradation of a womyn's body are being used to score a cheap point against a political enemy. It shows, if nothing else, the unsurprising (but nevertheless deplorable) indifference of 'liberal' parodists towards the sexual abuse that millions of womyn suffer every year.
Posted by: Lavinia Whateley | October 5, 2009 9:50 AM
Scott @ 3 - Great point and find. That's kinda like breaking the backboard on a dunk.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 5, 2009 9:51 AM
Ms. Whately @ 5 -
Would we have been reading a post from you with the same objection if the non-existent victim was a full-grown man? A boy?
BTW, in which country do you spell the words 'woman' and 'women', 'womyn'?
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 5, 2009 9:57 AM
I love this parody. Thin skinned Beck indeed! I do hope the parody site can somehow add this anti-American use of international law to circumvent the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Just sayin'.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 5, 2009 9:57 AM
Lavinia: Does it help that Beck hasn't denied that he only raped her after she was dead?
Posted by: kehrsam | October 5, 2009 9:59 AM
Lavinia Whately, #5: ...womyn....
That is so '70s.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 5, 2009 9:59 AM
I haven't heard a word about Glenn's homophobichomosex dalliances (a threeway with Fred Phelps and Ted Haggard) which I also have no doubt never actually probably could have happened. I guess he's too busy defending himself about the rape charges.
Posted by: democommie | October 5, 2009 10:07 AM
LOL demo.... I have pics of that that nearly prove it.
Posted by: L stanley | October 5, 2009 10:10 AM
(To borrow from the birthers) - I heard Beck has spent millions of dollars trying to get this site taken down.
Posted by: Taz | October 5, 2009 10:11 AM
Yes, that's exactly why this is funny-- because rape is hilarious. Not because Beck became a parody of himself in trying to fight a parody of himself. Way to spot it, Lavinia.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 5, 2009 10:14 AM
I notice, by the way, that you didn't object to "jokes" about murder. Guess murder is funny.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 5, 2009 10:19 AM
scott@#3, thanks for the find. I owuld be loath to try to find the google phrase and actually have to look through any of Beck's spewings. I'm not at all surprised by the thin skinned hypocrisy, mind you.
I'm enjoying a nice hot cup of schadenfreude this morning, I have to admit.
Posted by: FastLane | October 5, 2009 10:25 AM
I visited the site a week or so ago and the comments thread was over 100 posts long. Even by that point, conservatives were still insisting that the website was trying to float the idea of Beck as a criminal; even after having their noses rubbed in it, they didn't grasp the intended point that Beck uses this same sort of crap.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | October 5, 2009 10:26 AM
I was just about to comment about that as well, Gretchen. Lavinia Whateley reminds me of those people who go all in a tizzy about a brief sex/nude scene while ignoring the copious amounts of kill-by-gun-and-bazookas action on-screen.
Posted by: Monimonika | October 5, 2009 10:29 AM
OMFG, that is classic.
heh, yeah, when somebody showed up at my blog to complain about my linking to that website, she also only was bothered by the fact that it was about rape, not murder.
Life advice: If you refuse to allow humor in regards to any given topic, then that topic will destroy you. Humor is the only thing that makes the crushing injustice and inhumanity of reality bearable. Get over yourself.
Posted by: James Sweet | October 5, 2009 10:33 AM
Lavinia Whateley doesn't speak for all rape survivors, that's for sure. I'm a rape survivor and I am not offended by that website. And, I'm only speaking in very general terms here, but most of the anti-Glen Beck people I know are more sympathtic of, and helpful to, rape victims than pro-Glen Beck people. For example, it's the pro-Glen Becks that tend to support laws that force rape victims to carry their rapist's child to term, through denial of emergency contraception and abortion services. I'm much more offended by the ACTUAL harm that the Glen Becks of the world inflict on people, including but not limited to female rape survivors, than by a website owner who uses a rape/murder scenario as a rhetorical device in pointing out Beck's hypocrisy.
There are many people who support legislation that is harmful to, and impedes the recovery of, rape victims. Those people tend to fall into the same group as Beck supporters. They are the ones who are anti-woman. They are the ones who offend me.
Posted by: EM22 | October 5, 2009 10:38 AM
I think you linked to the initial complaint but not to the actual response brief from which you quote. It is here, in case anyone wants to read the whole thing. I agree with Ed that it's really well done.
Posted by: Doug | October 5, 2009 10:53 AM
Would I be wrong in thinking that if Beck succeeds in getting this site removed, he's established a precedent that will allow other people to remove his site and a lot of those associated with the teabaggers?
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 5, 2009 10:54 AM
Ed,
Your linky to the defense brief PDF isn't operable. The whole brief is hilarious, even making reference to "Mr. Spock ate my Balls". Despite (or maybe because of) its obvious humor, it's a well constructed legal argument
See:
http://gb1990.net/legal/response/D2009-1182%20Response%20Brief.pdf
Posted by: winnebago | October 5, 2009 10:55 AM
This is the first I've heard about this site, but it sounds like a virtual goldmine! Truly one of the most clever ways imaginable to highlight Beck's idiocy.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | October 5, 2009 10:56 AM
Lavinia, that "WHOOSH" you just heard was the point sailing right over your head.
Posted by: Spidergrackle | October 5, 2009 10:57 AM
Scott, that is an epic find. My hat is off to you, sir.
Posted by: JGV | October 5, 2009 11:00 AM
This is all just so delicious, I'm beside myself. On a Monday a.m. no less. ahahahahaha!
Posted by: trog69 | October 5, 2009 11:09 AM
OK Glen (if that's who you really are), not that I am saying you're not (or am I?)...
I simply DEMAND you:
SHOW ME YOUR 'LONG' OR 'VAULT' COPY of YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AFFIDAVITS BY BOTH YOUR PARENTS; ALL ATTENDING STAFF, JANITORIAL STAFF & ETC. AT THE HOSPITAL OR VETERINARY SURGERY THAT YOU WERE BORN IN, ATTESTING TO THE EXACT TIME, MANNER AND PLACE OF BIRTH; ALL SCHOOL RECORDS FROM ALL SCHOOLS AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES YOU ATTENDED; PROOF OF OCCUPENCY OF ALL DOMESTILES THAT YOU HAVE RESIDED IN FOR LONGER THAN ONE (1) HOUR AND FROM ALL OCCUPATIONS YOU IN WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED (paid or unpaid), BOTH WITH AT LEAST THREE (3) SIGNED AFFIDAVITS OF REFERENCE; DOCUMENTATION OF OWNERSHIP, REGISTRATION, AND MAINTENENCE RECORDS FOR ALL VEHICLES YOU HAVE BOUGHT, OWNED, RIDDEN IN AND/OR DRIVEN AT ANY TIME IN YOU LIFE.
WHY WON'T YOU PROVIDE THIS INFOMATION TO THE PUBLIC?
CAN YOU PROVE YOU'VE NOTHING TO HIDE !!1!
(Some say you are deliberately trying to cover up the truth in this matter by taking down a website that mocks you, I, for one, do not necessarily believe this). I'm just asking questions, seeking information, searching for the truth, nothing at all wrong with that, right Glenn? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 5, 2009 11:18 AM
I'm half tempted to create an internet push-poll asking the question:
Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 5, 2009 11:30 AM
If Beck expects any sympathy for his grievances over said blog, were I him I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.
Posted by: CHV | October 5, 2009 11:33 AM
I heart Marc Randazza.
(anyone know anywhere we can contribute?)
Posted by: simmi | October 5, 2009 11:34 AM
We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent's website wondering "where did all the race baiting content go?
Who is, by pure coincidence I assume, the president of the Glenn Beck Fan club.
The fact that so many conservatives go to this site, argue against it, and don't recognize that it is a parody of the very style employed by Beck suggests to me that modern conservatives ARE the international association of imbeciles. Combine that with conservatives thinking that Cobert is really a conservative and not a satire, and we need to start a petition to change GOP to IAI.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 5, 2009 11:35 AM
Science Pundit:
While you are at it, I propose a Secondary Poll:
Are you bothered by Glenn Beck?
Yes
No
Who?
Posted by: MikeMa | October 5, 2009 11:35 AM
That is inarguably the funniest thing I have seen in a long time. Nicely done, DJ, nicely done.
Posted by: muffinman | October 5, 2009 11:37 AM
But I'm disturbed by the fact that jokes about the dehumanization and degradation of a womyn's body are being used to score a cheap point against a political enemy.
First of all, this is not a cheap point, it is exactly the sort of shit that Beck pulls and exposes his fucking hypocrisy.
But more importantly, the entire point rests on the supposed crime he refuses to admit he didn't commit being as heinous and vile as humanly possible. Like Heath asked, would you feel this way if they had said young boy, instead of young girl? This has nothing to do with joking about rape and everything to do with a hypocritical fucking lunatic.
It shows, if nothing else, the unsurprising (but nevertheless deplorable) indifference of 'liberal' parodists towards the sexual abuse that millions of womyn suffer every year.
Are you really that fucking stupid - and blind? Unsurprising? Because of course, most liberals are fucking asshole misogynists who willfully oppress women - even other women. Are there problems? Sure as fuck there are. But wandering around and scolding people for things that are blatantly not misogynistic and absolutely do not have any but the most peripheral relation to oppressing or harming women, is counter intuitive.
When you wander through here with a stick up your ass, using self-parodying spellings like "womyn" and make absolutely absurd arguments, you make it harder for people who are trying to raise awareness of and deal with the real problems. Because most of the folks around here are shaking their heads and at least some of them are going to dismiss people with real concerns about legitimate cases where women are actually being treated badly. You make it that much easier for people to dismiss problems that they just don't quite see as a problem, when you go to such an absolutely absurd extreme.
Until some of these folks become like the fucking morons who think that racism is a thing of the past and the only thing perpetuating it is discussions of racism.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 5, 2009 11:45 AM
Easy there, DuWayne. I have a feeling it's just a troll....does anybody else actually use the word "womyn" these days?
Besides, "Lavinia" inadvertently makes her own point-- it is precisely because rape is so bad, so not something to be taken lightly, that indirectly accusing Beck of it in the way that he indirectly accuses others is such a good way to parody him. The point wouldn't come across if the site raised the question of whether Beck will admit to drinking lemonade last Monday, would it?
Posted by: Gretchen | October 5, 2009 11:57 AM
This is great Monday stuff!
DJ: "!!1!" nice touch.
EM22:
Posted by: Sean L. | October 5, 2009 11:58 AM
DuWayne, #35:This has nothing to do with joking about rape and everything to do with a hypocritical fucking lunatic.
In fact, if rape were a joke, then the whole point of the parody is lost. The point of the parody is relies on rape and murder being vile crimes. Using these crimes in the parody is an admission by the parodist that these crimes are vile.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 5, 2009 11:59 AM
EM22: Sorry 'bout that.. I meant to say "(Applause)" but stupidly used symbols, so...
EM22: (Applause!)
Posted by: Sean L. | October 5, 2009 12:00 PM
...does anybody else actually use the word "womyn" these days?
If only they didn't Gretchen.
I am a rather ardent advocate for sex workers rights - including of course, legal and safe prostitution. The thing that most appalls me about that fight, is that religious right organizations like The American Family Ass. and Concerned Women for America are not the most vocal anti-sex warriors. Their numbers are smaller, so they aren't quite as notable, but the rhetoric that comes from certain self-proclaimed feminists is just as shrill and often far more extreme.
Suffice to say I wander their sites sometimes. They almost inevitably use the term womyn.
I am also an advocate for transgendered people - I have a lot of trans friends. There are many self-proclaimed feminists who have particularly nasty attitudes about trans people. They are less cruel to transwomen, because at least they are going in the "right" direction, but that is only a matter of degree. As it stands, they are absolutely vile in their treatment of transmen - some of them literally seeing it as a personal betrayal - treason if you will.
They too, generally prefer to be called womyn.
This is not to say that those two groups are the only ones who use it. Nor is it to say that absolutely all of them are guilty of that. I have just noted that the vast majority of women who fall into those two categories do use womyn. That said, I actually know a few "womyn" who are far more benignly crazy...
Posted by: DuWayne | October 5, 2009 12:13 PM
Knowing the name is from an obscure yet seminal piece of fiction, Lavinia's comment may just be a parody of certain petty, histrionic, reactionary narcissists who have attempted to claim the label of "feminism" for themselves and leave people who are actually concerned about women's rights and gender equality rather than merely being the center of attention in the dust. It'd be kind of on-topic for the post...
Because someone who uses the same term for singular and plural of women, like they're all the same or something, can't be serious, right?
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 5, 2009 12:18 PM
wes: Which is exactly why Beck is worried, since that's his target audience.
Which the brief considers, and then dismisses as irrelevant:
Posted by: abb3w | October 5, 2009 12:23 PM
lavina...the Beck troll in the rape wood pile.....
Get over it Lavina. Rape is horrid and it is used against BOTH sexes so in and of itself, your post is also off base isn't it?
See how easy it is? and it diverts from the original?
The post is 100% correct and Beck is getting what he deserves but I want to see where Beck denied that he slept with his own Mother? I don't believe it but hey I heard it.....
Posted by: Lynn McDaniel | October 5, 2009 12:28 PM
If Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a child in 1990, why doesn't he just come out and say it? I personally doubt very much that he would have done this, but he could put the issue to sleep once and for all by simply saying "I did not rape and kill a young girl in 1990." But he won't, hmmm, very odd.
Posted by: soboco | October 5, 2009 12:34 PM
"So Mr Bek, exactly when did you stop beating your wife? You take the fifth, Mr Bek? Well, I think the jury knows exactly what that means: Mr Bek would say, if he had nothing to hide. Can you prove this is not the case, Mr Bek?"
From the fastest growing game-show in America - 'Trial by Bek'.
Posted by: DingoJAck | October 5, 2009 12:46 PM
Ha, good luck getting this off the internet. The moment this lands on digg or BoingBoing the whole thing will be mirrored ad-nauseum.
You'd figure someone would have pointed that one out to Beck, but clearly if someone did they were probably told they didn't know what they were talking about.
Posted by: Michael | October 5, 2009 12:46 PM
Dear Glenn Bek:
You are Soooooooooo fuked.
Posted by: democommie | October 5, 2009 12:58 PM
Or more classically:
Can Mr Bek prove he's not a descendant of Hawthorne's?- DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 5, 2009 1:03 PM
Bet Glennie won't need the Vicks Vap-O-Rub for while.
Posted by: democommie | October 5, 2009 1:03 PM
Is it me, or does Lavinia remind you of the head 'womynist' from the movie PCU?
"Hey hey, ho ho, this penis party's got to go!"
Posted by: Phil | October 5, 2009 1:10 PM
James, your comment reminds me of a favorite quote:
"Life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel." - Horace Walpole
Posted by: sinned34 | October 5, 2009 1:33 PM
What perplexes me the most about Lavinia Whateley's comment (whether or not it itself is a parody) is that she is up in arms about the rape as oppossed to the murder.
Not to downplay rape, it is one of the worst crimes imaginable. However, as the poster EM22 demonstrates, you can live through it. You can put your life back together, and still, eventually, have a happy and fulfilled existence (I'm not saying its easy, of course, just possible). Murder, by definition, precludes that.
Shouldn't these people be more up in arms about the satirical use of murder on the site. It is the worse crime.
Posted by: Jesse | October 5, 2009 1:43 PM
At least we aren't accusing Glenn Beck of being an unholy abomination from beyond space and time.
Posted by: Mithrandir | October 5, 2009 1:53 PM
Eh, MAYBE the "womyn" commenter is a parody, but I'm not so sure. There are indeed plenty of people who don't get the joke: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/09/rape-is-hilarious-part-37.html
(One showed up at my blog and linked to that post, that's how I found it)
Posted by: James Sweet | October 5, 2009 2:03 PM
Wow! I heard something about this. I heard someone say that Glen Beck had raped and murdered a young boy back in the 90s. and that he used a hamster as the murder weapon.
I don't believe it happened, but I have not yet heard Glen Beck say it wasn't true so I don't know that it isn't.
I wonder how his advertisers can support the rape, multilation and execution of young boys by talkshow hosts (if it ever actually happened not that we know if it did or it didn't just saying, maybe I heard it).
Posted by: Kevin (nyc) | October 5, 2009 2:25 PM
Of course, Lavinia Whateley was raped and murdered herself... by a Great Old One.
Posted by: Will E. | October 5, 2009 2:26 PM
From the web site: "We're not saying he's not patriotic, but why would a patriotic American seek relief outside the U.S.?"
LOLOL!
Posted by: Bill Ware | October 5, 2009 2:48 PM
Hey Ed - why didn't you proudly give the NAME of the person who started this whole "hillarity" about rape and murder??
Isaac Eiland-Hall
Ars Technica who reported this apparently is a better, more reliable source of information, Ed. Guess you're more of a "commentator" and less of a "journalist", heh?
Posted by: Jack-in-CA | October 5, 2009 3:12 PM
I am a close friend, law school classmate, and most recently employee of Mr. Randazza, the lawyer in this case. (He recently brought me on as of-counsel to his firm, for unrelated reasons.) Though I am admittedly biased, I can say with all earnestness that despite the unprecedented creativity of his response in this case, it is by far not even his best work. Check out his blog, The Legal Satyricon, or his work on attempting to register the trademark f**kingmachines.com. (If the moderator would like a copy of the former, I would be more than happy to provide him with one.)
It is a true joy to watch, and now work with, someone who is doing precisely the thing he was born to do. Needless to say, we all had concerns over this guy back in law school. Someone this creative was undoubtedly going to have a hard time finding a place to fit in in such a stodgy industry. Ironically, he's probably the most successful--and, by far, most fulfilled--of anyone I know from our class.
Stay tuned. This is likely only to get a lot better!
Posted by: Damian Biondo | October 5, 2009 3:17 PM
Lavinia:
Sex is a crime of power, not so much of gratification. That is, the rapist attempts to use sex as a means to control his (or her) victim. Livinia, you appear to want to use sensitivity to the issue of rape--i.e., "sex" broadly defined--to control how other peole act and speak. Could it not then be said that you are attempting to commit a form of pseudorape? You are, in fact, attempting to use sex as a means to control others. On behalf of the other 3.5 billion men on this planet (esp. those exposed to recent forms of Western extremist feminism), I am tired of being victimized. Get over yourself, Livinia, and go find a real battle to fight.
Let this be a lesson: every extremist position can be turned upon itself. I don't care if you're Glenn Beck or Livinia. The extremism must go.
Posted by: Lavinia is a Pseduorapist | October 5, 2009 3:27 PM
Please forgive Lavinia.
I really should have at least phoned her after our date.
Posted by: Yog Sothoth | October 5, 2009 3:50 PM
@#54 James Sweet
Nice link. It's interesting (dare I say funny?) that one group of individuals can have such a different opinion about the "is the site mocking rape" discussion. 'Rhoff' was making very valid points, but rather than addressing what s/he was saying, they just ban him/her from the thread.
It is obviously not a discussion board, rather just a place to console other victims and gripe about the society they see from a skewed perspective.
With this being a discussion board, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see Lavinia's response to what has been said.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 5, 2009 4:12 PM
"Yeah, because you know what's really funny, guys? Rape."
Rape isn't the funny part. Glenn Beck is.
Posted by: ProfessorWoland | October 5, 2009 4:14 PM
Mr. Biondo @ 59 - thanks for sharing Mr. Randazza's blog: http://randazza.wordpress.com/ . I did notice others post there as well though he's assigned himself editor. I for one will be sure to bookmark it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 5, 2009 4:18 PM
One possible piece of sour news: Legal experts are saying that the reason for the WIPO filing was probably not because Beck's lawyers knew a libel case would fail, but because they saw it as an end-around to get the website owner's name without a subpoeana. (It worked, of course) In addition, the experts seem divided on whether a libel case would be successful. Beck might have a chance :/
Posted by: James Sweet | October 5, 2009 4:20 PM
Jack-in-CA: So because he didn't give the name of the defendant, a name anyone who follows his links can easily find considering that Mr. Eiland-Hall has made little effort to conceal his identity, on his personal site(which is in no way affiliated with his work as a journalist) Mr. Brayton is somehow a poor reporter? Straw-grasping of that magnitude must really do daddy Beck proud, wingnut; good on you! Maybe next you can explain how it isn't a contradiction for Beck to defame international forums in one breath, and seek legal redress from them in another. It's been awhile since I've seen a circle squared and I for one think it'd be entertaining.
Posted by: Julian | October 5, 2009 4:22 PM
The most unfortunate thing is that I have raped Glenn Beck and it was not worth writing about.
Posted by: Baxter Johnson | October 5, 2009 4:30 PM
"The most unfortunate thing is that I have raped Glenn Beck and it was not worth writing about."
Baxter Johnson:
That would go a long way towards explaining Glenn's ambivalangst about answering questions about his possible role in the alleged rape and murder of an orphanage full of children sometime during the 1990's.
Posted by: democommie | October 5, 2009 4:39 PM
Obviously these "legal experts" are not "web experts", who would have told him to do a WHOIS search:
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com
Posted by: DaveL | October 5, 2009 4:44 PM
DJ: I can't tell you how happy I am to see a Crucible quote on here, especially given that I started teaching introductory material for it today. It's an amazing play for teaching critical thinking, in my opinion.
Posted by: Mr. B | October 5, 2009 4:46 PM
What grade Mr. B?
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 5, 2009 4:59 PM
Juniors (grade 11) - it fits nicely into the American lit curriculum, and we've covered Puritanism not that long ago.
Posted by: Mr. B | October 5, 2009 5:17 PM
Great site DaveL.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 5, 2009 5:21 PM
"Please forgive Lavinia.
I really should have at least phoned her after our date.
Posted by: Yog Sothoth | October 5, 2009 3:50 PM"
This thread has it's own ugly side.
I occasionally listen to Becks radio show and he's actually fairly entertaining. I would only interpret him as a wacky entertainer, and find myself stunned by the obsession of the Left with his actual views. Maybe his TV program is different - Is his TV show considered a serious news show or something? In that case it must be really different from his radio show, which on the occasions when I have heard it consisted of a lot of typical silliness interspersed with long, rambling monologues.
It's as if we were discussing two different people.
And sure, I could believe that the gratuitous aspect of the 'rape and murder of a young girl' story is increasing traffic to the parody site, while adding nothing meaningful* to the content. I don't think this is paranoid thinking: I think it's common marketing knowledge:)
Okay ya'll can attack me now!
*making wild, random accusations isn't really what GB is doing, is it?
Posted by: Isabel | October 5, 2009 5:58 PM
No, of course not. He would never make wild accusations like that; that would be irresponsible. What he does (and Ed gave an example above) is refer to rumours of wild accusations, or imputes some wild accusation to 'a lot of Americans out there', and demands that the target of that accusation defend himself against it.
They're two totally different things, as you can see.
Posted by: DaveL | October 5, 2009 6:06 PM
Just because some over-the-top (possible parody) feminist made a ridiculous comment, that doesn't make it okay to turn around and start making sexist comments.
Posted by: Wes | October 5, 2009 6:29 PM
"I occasionally listen to Becks radio show and he's actually fairly entertaining. I would only interpret him as a wacky entertainer, and find myself stunned by the obsession of the Left with his actual views."
As someone "of the Left" I find myself stunned by the obsession of the right with Glenn Beck in general. He's an idiot entertainer that nevertheless has tons of viewers who are influenced by him and hold him in high regard. Have you been to one of the crazy "teabagger" parties? they love him there.
Posted by: Harry Bosch | October 5, 2009 7:05 PM
"BTW, in which country do you spell the words 'woman' and 'women', 'womyn'?"
Caliphornya.
Posted by: Siamang | October 5, 2009 7:12 PM
Okay, I mean "completely off-topic wild." His accusations/implications whatever - seem based, however flimsily, on some point of reality, they have context on multiple levels (maybe some he's not even aware of). Hinting that a Muslim legislator has divided loyalties, or that 'people' may suspect divided loyalties, is not the same thing as hinting that he may have sexually abused his daughters or extorted 5 million from his last place of employment.
I just don't think it's "the exact same rhetorical argument." I get the 'making an indirect acccusation' analogy, as a way of getting away with extreme claims, I just think the concept is a bit thin. In fact, it would be interesting (and probably funnier) to see a parody that paralleled Beck's style more observantly.
Anyway, obviously it's skewed, but it's not pulled out of thin air, oh well never mind. Again, I haven't been participating in the GB obsession - maybe he actually does do that all the time and the examples used here are skewed.
Posted by: Isabel | October 5, 2009 7:23 PM
Isabel, #74: It's as if we were discussing two different people.
No, what we're discussing are two different groups of people.
One group of people find Beck a credible source of information. The other, rational group of people wouldn't take Beck seriously at all except that the first group of people doesn't allow them that luxury.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 5, 2009 7:23 PM
Isabel - Glen Beck doesn't scare me. What scares me is a nation of voters where a substantial percentage would even consider what he has to say.
When it comes to the performance of our government, we get what we deserve. I'd prefer people consider the cogent arguments of experts whose loyalties lie with the nation's best interests.
Beck instead feeds delusional idiots an anti-intellectual dose of propaganda that serves to keep the sheeple unconsciously subservient to interests that in no way serve the interests of the country but in fact have and will continue to do great damage to it. The recent damage will last generations and while we can look to the Right as being far more responsible, the Left shares in their complicity as well. Especially the exponentially increasing price tag of our procrastination to develop educated citizens in a country that is energy independent from both the Middle East and coal and oil.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 5, 2009 7:41 PM
Wes - you realize that "Lavinia Whateley" is a character in an H. P. Lovecraft story, right?
Posted by: Taz | October 5, 2009 7:45 PM
In fact it has a better claim to logic than "it's ok to claim a Muslim legislator may have divided loyalties because some people may suspect he does."
Then again, why would we expect logic from someone who clearly doesn't get just how pathetic Beck is?
Posted by: James Hanley | October 5, 2009 8:01 PM
Dear Lavinia - You are sooo right, it IS a conspiracy!
The site is really a cover up for Beck's well-known proclivity for sex with small furry animals. Beck usually prefers squirrels, but frankly, he's been putting on the pounds recently, and has been forced to settle for turtles and tortoises.
Why hasn't Glenn Beck announced he is seeking medical help to cure his beastiality?
Posted by: J=Dog | October 5, 2009 8:15 PM
For the record, I suspect "Lavinia's" post was indeed a troll that underscored Poe's Law (not the one to do with the length of poems by err Edgar Allen ...) The use of womyn is obvious troll bait and of course the nym ...
Anyhoo ... This parody is remarakably like something from Dan Riehl
Again I remind everyone of Poe's Law. Sometimes it is just hard to tell.
Posted by: Fran Barlow | October 5, 2009 8:34 PM
Isabel @ 79:
I'll take a stab...
Posted by: havoc | October 5, 2009 8:41 PM
James Hanley (and whoever else replied to her post):
I could be mistaken but I think this is probably the same Isabel that we had on the threads in the not too distant past. Whackjob fellow traveller of mroberts, tom van dyke and their ilk.
Posted by: democommie | October 5, 2009 8:43 PM
@ DingoJack #48:
Maybe Beck could take a line from the Reverend Parris:
At least it would be a kind of denial . . .
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 5, 2009 8:57 PM
This Lavinia person is simply trying to shut people up. Censorship. George Carlin certainly knew that rape CAN be funny - in his words "imagine Elmer Thudd raping Porky Pig". Anything can be funny if you frame it right - if the exaggeration is suitable.
But Lavinia isn't actually worried about that - she's just trying to control you, to tell you what you can or can't think, can or can't say.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | October 5, 2009 9:07 PM
havoc - I don't get it. Is Glen Beck an atheist and a democrat? I thought the parody is supposed to be about him. And don't we have a majority now? It's as if people like Glen Beck represented some new threat. It seems like an old story to me.
Ah well, maybe it's just a result of being late to the story. I guess you just had to have been there for the beginning or have gone to some tea parties!
"I could be mistaken but I think this is probably the same Isabel that we had on the threads in the not too distant past."
That's pretty cryptic - can you be more specific? Which threads?
"Whackjob fellow traveller of mroberts, tom van dyke and their ilk."
HaHaHaHaha who are all those people anyway?
Posted by: Isabel | October 5, 2009 9:14 PM
Wes,
Lavinia is a clear parody. The name refers to a woman in an H.P. Lovecraft story who apparently has intercourse with a horrific creature from beyond our world. Yog Sothoth is a horrific creature from Lovecraft. Hence the comment about the date. Lighten up.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | October 5, 2009 9:15 PM
"The other, rational group of people wouldn't take Beck seriously at all"
I find this belief fascinating, that you represent a RATIONAL group of people as opposed to those "others" who believe whoever plays to their emotions.
It's doubly fascinating that supposedly *educated* people would believe such a thing!
Posted by: Isabel | October 5, 2009 9:19 PM
"Yog Sothoth is a horrific creature from Lovecraft. Hence the comment about the date. Lighten up.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky "
Fucking elitist. Yeah we're all supposed to know that.
Anyway genius why does the joke WORK? Right because of it's sexist implications.
I think it's you who needs to lighten up, clearly you're taking your literary expertise a little too seriously:)
And people who say 'lighten up' are annoying anyway, IMHO.
Posted by: Isabel | October 5, 2009 9:25 PM
Isabel, considering that people had already explained in the thread that Lavinia was a parody and linked to a Wikipedia article explaining the relevant details, which actually mentioned Yog Sothoth, it isn't at unreasonable for people to you know, have actually read the page, just maybe?
I'm confused by your statement that "Anyway genius why does the joke WORK? Right because of it's sexist implications." That's presumably not the original Beck joke since we've already established that that joke only works because rape is so incredibly unacceptable. I therefore presume you mean the post by Yog Sothoth. Frankly, that joke works without any sexism (one certainly sees people of both genders get upset when they don't get intended progress after a set of dates). In any event, it is probably very unwise to criticize the humor of a Great One One. The results can be... messy.
I'm not taking any literary expertise too seriously since a) I'm not at all a literary expert b) the relevant information was linked to earlier in the thread c) I'm not a literary expert (I mean seriously, the last English class I took was in high school).
And people who say "IMHO" are annoying. Obviously it is your opinion or you wouldn't need to state it. Unless you state otherwise that's the default setting. And the presence of the "H" is obnoxious since whenever people use IMHO it is almost invariably not at all a humble position.
I'll make you a deal. I won't tell you to lighten up and you don't use IMHO when you state your opinions? Ok?
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | October 5, 2009 9:44 PM
Isabel, #92: I find this belief fascinating, that you represent a RATIONAL group of people as opposed to those "others" who believe whoever plays to their emotions.
Well, since those "others" believe that Obama is a Muslim Marxist who was born in Kenya, I would say that it's in fact clear that those "others" are an irrational group of utter morons.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 5, 2009 9:50 PM
Censor?
Fox "News"
ANTI 911 TRUTH
All Israeli all the time
Neocon News Network
William J Fallon UNREST
Complete Corruption effect
The "Federal" Reserve flush with cash
All MSM Propagandists singing same song
Ventura Sheehan Perot Paul Nader McKinney Kucinich Kaptur Gravel Gonzalez Clemente Choate Carter Baldwin Anderson
Grayson too?!
Posted by: nader paul kucinich gravel | October 5, 2009 10:01 PM
Thanks, Isabel, for clearing up any doubts I may have had that you are the same fucking nutjob as the one who was here earlier.
Same dismissive tone, same lack of intelligence, same delusional sense of righteousness.
I could, of course, be wrong. There might be two women, named Isabel, who are loons that found their way here.
Posted by: democommie | October 5, 2009 10:02 PM
nader paul kucinich gravel
That is an absolutely fascinating rant; is there some sort of point you're attempting to make?
Posted by: democommie | October 5, 2009 10:04 PM
It may not be exactly the same, but how big is the difference, really? What do you suppose is the actual likelihood that the fact that a legislator is a Muslim would make him disloyal to his country? How small does that probability have to be before we can call bullshit on the whole thing and simply say it's the same as making wild and defamatory accusations without evidence?
That's how satire works. He's doing what Beck does, only in a comically extreme way to make a point. They're both indirectly making ridiculous accusations based on no meaningful evidence. The web site in question is just taking it to a greater extreme and making it clear that his accusation is based on no evidence rather than the "evidence" of a crazy person's suspicion.
Extreme enough to clearly be recognized as satire -> funny and insightful. Less extreme so it manipulates the beliefs and stimulates the suspicions of stupid people -> sleazy and evil.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | October 5, 2009 10:31 PM
"And people who say "IMHO" are annoying. "
I did it intentionally to make that very point. In fact, that was the first and last time I've used the expression. I share your annoyance, believe me:)
"I could, of course, be wrong. There might be two women, named Isabel, who are loons that found their way here."
Well who could tell from your ramblings? Again, some specifics would strengthen your argument!
I'm sorry you find me dismissive. Commie. I'm afraid that my sense of humor doesn't translate too well here sometimes.
Troublesome Frog,
All I'm saying is it's kinda sad when the object of the satire is funnier than the satire.
Posted by: Isabel | October 5, 2009 11:00 PM
Kevin (nyc) @ #55 - Yes the shameless abuse of helpless hampsters is just hilarious, or at least, Glenn Beck has never publically admitted that it isn't.
I'm not saying Mr Beck has ever abused a rodent, so why won;t he take the stand at the International American Constitution Undermining Tribunal at the Hague, and lay the issue to rest, like a the supposedly good, god-fearing, patriotic natural-born American citizen he claims to be ?? How about it Mr Bek ? - DJ
________________________
Apologies for the delay: my cmputer went 'phut', and it took a while to revive it.
Posted by: DingoJack | October 5, 2009 11:21 PM
I think that what you're saying is, "I personally don't find this very funny." That's OK. Most of us find it hilarious.
I suppose you could also be saying that you find legitimate craziness funnier than parody of craziness. I suppose I can get on board with that.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | October 5, 2009 11:49 PM
Isabel, do you not realize that "playing on your emotions" is exactly what Glenn Beck is doing? This "context" you speak of, this "point in reality" is really nothing more than the prejudice of his target audience. He knows it's the kind of claim his audience would like to entertain, and damn the facts.
Posted by: DaveL | October 6, 2009 5:44 AM
Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Boy in 1990?
Posted by: Boz | October 6, 2009 6:55 AM
Boz:
"Did Glenn Be(c)k Rape and Murder a Young Boy in 1990?"
Sadly, we will probably never know for certain. Mr. Bek has chosen to remain silent on this issue, although he surely knows at this junture that silene is his enemy and not his friend.
Posted by: democommie | October 6, 2009 7:12 AM
And people who write "*educated* people " are annoying, IMNSHO.
Yes, Isabel, many of us here are quite well educated. Well educated enough to recognize the game that Beck plays. You appear not to recognize it, so what are we to conclude about you?
Thanks for playing, sorry you're not a winner, but we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 6, 2009 8:08 AM
Boz:
Personally, I think that accusation is ridiculous, but I believe that many of my fellow americans may be concerned about this, and so I think that it would be judicious on the part of Mr. Beck to once and for all settle the issue of his sexual offences.
Furthermore, though I am willing to take him at his word, some of my fellow americans, thorugh no fault of their own, being as they are opposed to all forms of oligarhy, may require more specifics with regard to any possible confirmations or denails that Mr. Beck may decide to provide. I do not agree, you see, but I do believe that, as legal american citizens, they deserve to have their grienvances heard.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | October 6, 2009 8:12 AM
@Isabel
Yeah all these fucking elitists with their fucking books and their fucking education and their posts in this very thread explaining it AND THEIR FUCKING GOOGLE AND THEIR FUCKING WIKIPEDIA how the fuck are uneducated, Beck worshiping rubes supposed to compete with that?
Posted by: JohnV | October 6, 2009 8:52 AM
John V - The way they always do, pull 'truthy facts' from their rectums. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 6, 2009 9:05 AM
I'm not contesting anything you are saying about Beck, you silly people. I'm contesting the idea that you all are NOT driven by emotions, that you are "rational" - are you at all familiar with psychology, say psych 101? :)
They feel the same way about you, "liberalism is a mental disorder etc" - and build a pretty good case!
"Yes, Isabel, many of us here are quite well educated. "
But apparently still naive enough to think you are not driven by unconscious and emotionally-laden factors.
Posted by: Isabel | October 6, 2009 9:30 AM
Isabel,
I'm sorry I upset you, perhaps I could make it up to you this Saturday night with a candlelight dinner.
ps: my appendages are far from noodley
Posted by: Yog Sothoth | October 6, 2009 9:59 AM
I believe a WHOIS would not have worked a couple weeks ago... he was using WhoisGuard. (Google it... I'd link to their website but I worry it would get trapped in Ed's paranoid spam filter) Presumably once he revealed his identity in the WIPO filing, he stopped bothering to use WhoisGuard...
Posted by: James Sweet | October 6, 2009 10:10 AM
@36 ....does anybody else actually use the word "womyn" these days?
Yes, they do. I know some late-to-the-revolution feminists who campaign for using herstory, womyn, and the rest of the claptrappings of outraged feminity.
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | October 6, 2009 10:29 AM
I actually have a little bit of sympathy for those trying to popularize a neuter pronoun. What changed my mind was meeting an intersex individual in the Talk section of Wikipedia who identified as neither male nor female. This person was making the unreasonable demand that that person not even be referred to by "he or she", but despite the unreasonableness of those demands, it still got my thinking...
Grassroots efforts aren't going to go anywhere though, because there are too many alternatives and everybody disagrees on which one sounds the best. What would need to happen would be a major publication like the New York Times or something would have to degree, "we now use 'ze' as the neuter pronoun", for example. (I'm not fond of "ze" because it is shitty for spoken language -- sounds too much like "she" -- but it's the only one I could remember off the top of my head)
Anyway, that's an entirely different issue. "womyn" and "herstory" are just crazy.
Posted by: James Sweet | October 6, 2009 11:31 AM
Yog,
You didn't upset me, but it does seem like you are admitting your joke was sexist. Good for you!
See, we are all driven by unconscious motives, it's nothing to be ashamed of.
Have a cookie!
:)
Posted by: Isabel | October 6, 2009 12:05 PM
Well, ignoring the reaction being unreasonable to start with, the focus on rape is somewhat understandable given that many fewer people trivialize murder or argue that the victim brought it on themselves or really wanted to die and then changed their mind later.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 6, 2009 12:21 PM
But apparently still naive enough to think you are not driven by unconscious and emotionally-laden factors.
Well, if you could show us where, specifically, our emotions have led us to error, then you might have a case worth discussing.
Posted by: Raging bee | October 6, 2009 12:21 PM
I agree, troll.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 6, 2009 12:37 PM
Isabel (#93) - "Yes, the shameless abuse of helpless, hideous creatures from another dimension* is just hilarious, or at least, Glenn Beck has never publicly admitted that it isn't hilarious.
I'm not saying Mr Beck has ever abused a trans-dimensional creature, or found thinking about doing so hilarious, but why won't he take the stand at the International American Constitution Undermining Tribunal at the Hague, and give us proof absolute that under Salic Law such things are both hilarious and perfectly legal ? That would lay the whole issue to rest.
Just stand up like the supposedly good, god-fearing, patriotic natural-born American citizen you claims to be, Mr Bek, and submit to the will of French trans-dimensional judges.
Can you prove you've nothing to hide, Mr Bek ?
Why won't you
JUST SHOW THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, err that is, disprove these charges??- DJ__________________
*You're such as Trans-dimensionist!
Posted by: DingoJack | October 6, 2009 12:48 PM
"Well, if you could show us where, specifically, our emotions have led us to error, then you might have a case worth discussing.
Posted by: Raging bee |"
HaHaHa You want concrete proof of your irrationality?
Otherwise it's not worth discussing? The default assumption when discussing enlightened, educated folks is total rationality. HaHaHa.
Actually I've mentioned many motivations people around here seem to deny (e.g. putting down racists lakes you superior in comparison, and scapegoating - very common in these parts - alleviates guilt and blame and so on) but I don't want to list them all at once because being a troll is bad enough I don't want to be a derailer as well! God forbid!
Posted by: Isabel | October 6, 2009 2:49 PM
Yeah, right -- after nine posts here, Isabel suddenly decides it's wrong to act like a troll when she's asked to back up her arguments.
...putting down racists lakes you superior in comparison...
It also serves the somewhat more rational purpose of exposing racism.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 6, 2009 3:06 PM
Being moved by one's heart is not the same as trying to think with it.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 6, 2009 3:42 PM
NINE POSTS? No way! Well what do you expect when everyone is responding to my comments??? You should just ignore me.
And seriously, you all really believe you are acting totally rationally? That's deeply irrational thinking.
Okay I'll stop posting since you've embarrassed me - nine posts, jeez don't I have anything better to do?
Posted by: Isabel | October 6, 2009 4:02 PM
Yeah, yeah, Isabel, we all know that only a robot completely devoid of all emotion can EVER be allowed to criticize anyone for any reason at all. The very existence of the capacity to feel makes a person incapable of being right about anything.
And since you've now admitted you have that capacity, you're completely unworthy to criticize any of us, by your own argument. So fuck off, tedious troll. Goodbye, and good riddance.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 6, 2009 4:12 PM
"I actually have a little bit of sympathy for those trying to popularize a neuter pronoun"
When I wrote my dissertation in the mid 80s i used ams-tex for the typesetting. I lived in the book "The Joy of Tex" for guidance (still have it, in fact). Michael Spivak wrote it, and in an introduction wrote
He later continued
He than provided a sample sentence, followed by the first exercise of the book.
I was never quite sure whether he was being serious with this, or was simply trying to inject a little levity into the book, but he used this system throughout the book.
Posted by: dean | October 6, 2009 4:30 PM
DingoJack @ 28. I like the way you think. I brought your post to Marco's attention. I think you may have drafted a provisional interrogatory request for use once this case moves into factual discovery. Since Marco's doing this pro bono (a fact no one seems to have picked up on), it might be fun for him to actually expend a good deal of effort fighting over this precise set of facts. Wouldn't that be sweet?!
Like I say, stay tuned.
Posted by: Damian Biondo | October 6, 2009 4:46 PM
Ya, rape and murder are hilarious, Mr. Brayton.
As for the suit. Mr. Beck has a right to protect his name just as you do.
How about this for a website?
"Ed Brayton raped and killed a gay boy."
Just asking questions.....
Posted by: bobs | October 6, 2009 5:03 PM
Satire, actually, is fair game both when it comes to libel and copyright infringement.
Your little attempt at turnabout fails because Ed isn't the one using this sort of tactic, which Beck does all the time.
What is it with Beck fans and false equivalence?
Posted by: DaveL | October 6, 2009 5:07 PM
"Your little attempt at turnabout fails because Ed isn't the one using this sort of tactic, which Beck does all the time.
What is it with Beck fans and false equivalence?"
But GB doesn't invent personal dastardly crimes. To imply something unsurprising, given the current climate, i.e. that a Muslim legislator might have dual loyalties, really is different. It's done all the time. Like worrying a Catholic president would be controlled by the Vatican. Would it have been the same as accusing JFK of raping young boys and leaving them for dead? Hardly.
Furthermore, in one case you have a standard question, that no one will be surprised by and will believe or not depending on their politics but in the other case a potentially personally damaging accusation unrelated to anyone's politics.
I'm no Beck fan, but he is entertaining, at least at times. So is Michael Savage. That's more than I can say for most of the commenters here, especially the rude assholes.
Posted by: Isabel | October 6, 2009 7:25 PM
"I'm no Beck fan, but he is entertaining, at least at times. So is Michael Savage. That's more than I can say for most of the commenters here, especially the rude assholes."
Really? I read a rumor online that Michael Savage helped Glenn Beck to dispose of the young girls body after the murder... and that he may even have taken part in her abduction!!
Posted by: Harry Bosch | October 6, 2009 7:42 PM
To me, it's wholly surprising that any reasonable person would think so. Of course it's not exactly surprising that conservatives might think so--they have a good track record of being unreasonably idiotic. And you're not exactly providing much of a counterexample. For you to treat these suspicions as "unsurprising" means you've got quite the streak of bigotry going on, too.
Admit it, you're a Beck fan. You listen to him. You find him amusing. Conversely, I don't listen to him. I don't find him remotely amusing. I find a 30 second clip of Beck to be a painful use of half a minute of my life. I'm not a Beck fan. You are a goddam fan.
Signed,
Yet another not-funny rude asshole.
P.S. Didn't I already send you on your way with parting gifts? Come on, you're the American Idol contestant who just can't sing. We've shown you the door, now get the fuck out!
Posted by: James Hanley | October 6, 2009 8:03 PM
Isbel - Some say that Glenn Beck killed then raped the child (possibly male, possibly female), Now I'm not saying this is true, in fact, I'd admit some doubt, but there is are rumours on the Internet. I'm simply putting questions to Mr Bek; the public have the right to know the whole truth, whatever it is. They have a right to decide for themselves.
All Mr Bek has to do is prove it is not true and the issue will be put to rest.
YET HE HAS NEVER DENIED IT WAS THE TRUTH!
Some say this is because he can't; he has sold his soul to the Illuminati/Lizard-overlord connextion, not that I necessarily believe this is true, but there's are rumours on the Internet...&etc.* - DJ
---------------
*As a self-confessed Bek fan, does the style sound familiar to you?
Posted by: DingoJack | October 6, 2009 8:18 PM
"What is it with Beck fans and false equivalence?"
Brain damage.
Posted by: Rick R | October 6, 2009 9:30 PM
I think I got it, finally. It was on the thread about slavery and indentured servitude if memory serves, here:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/06/religious_right_leaders_and_sl.php#comments
(google "Isabel"--reading her comments is a benightening experience)
I admit to the possibility that you are not the arrogant liar that beslimed that thread. Of course it is quite simple for you to disprove that you are that "Isabel". All that would take is for you to say that she is an idiot and a liar and you disagree with everything she puked onto that comment thread. Of course we still have to deal with YOUR idocy on this thread, even if you're not that lying liar.
Posted by: democommie | October 6, 2009 9:33 PM
Demo - hey no fair! You didn't use the traditional "Some say...., but personally I don't believe it to be true..." format. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 6, 2009 9:37 PM
Or that a Jewish official might be sneaky and covetous. Totally reasonable stuff like that.
Has anybody offered Ben Bernanke the opportunity to clear the air about the whole "taking over the world's banking system" thing? Because I heard it was all part of the plan. But I don't believe it. Just some people (reasonable people, mind you) do.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | October 6, 2009 10:49 PM
Nice Glen Beck parody, Commie. I clicked the link and this Isabel woman seems very intelligent, and with a great sense of humor! Unfortunately seems to have had quite a time with the other ignorant commenters!
"To me, it's wholly surprising that any reasonable person would think so."
Again with the idea that people are like robots or something! And this amazement with the emotion-driven actions of people. And the conviction in your own immunity.
"For you to treat these suspicions as "unsurprising" means you've got quite the streak of bigotry going on, too."
Another Glen beck impersonator! I love it! The irony is just snow-balling here.
Well it's the standard science blogs tactic. I don't agree with you so I'm a racist!
"You listen to him. "
About six times. As I already said. He's on in mid-day when I'm usually working. I've listened to Savage many times, though. He's hilarious.
James Hanley - I was going to leave Jim, until you told me I HAD to. Who the fuck are you to tell people to leave the thread??
Posted by: Isabel | October 6, 2009 11:09 PM
Yep, same ol' Isabel.
Posted by: democommie | October 6, 2009 11:12 PM
Personally, I would never suggest that people aren't sometimes driven by fear and bigotry. I just don't think it's something we should approve of, and I think that people who make a point of stirring up those responses rather than combating them are a net negative to society. When those people have big microphones and large followings, it's that much worse.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | October 6, 2009 11:27 PM
"I just don't think it's something we should approve of,"
I'm not approving of anything - just being realistic.
And I would say most people - even right here on this thread - are largely driven by drives other than reason. Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Isabel | October 7, 2009 12:44 AM
Since reason cannot produce any kind of motivation without the fundamentally emotional decision to value one state of affairs more than another, all actions are, in some sense, driven by something other than reason - where reason produces an answer to a "why" question, this answer is merely a means to a fundamentally emotional end. This is what it means to say that people "are moved by their hearts."
Having decided on emotional grounds to value one state of affairs over another, one has two basic options. One can either use reason to evaluate possible courses of action and attempt to select, based on inductive or deductive logic and the set of facts and relationships between facts of which one is aware, the one most likely to bring about the desired end (without perfect knowledge, of course, it is not guaranteed that the best solution will be chosen, thus, having chosen a course of action, one must re-evaluate it in the process of carrying it out in order to confirm that one's plan is actually performing as expected). This is what people mean when they discuss "rational decision-making" or "using reason."
The alternative is to simply obey the impulses that happen to pop into one's mind, without thinking through the likely consequences of the courses of action that seem "logical" or "obvious" based on one's prejudices, without evaluating the actual logic behind them, without re-evaluating one's course of action as it is being carried out, perhaps without even developing a coherent goal except in very nebulous, general terms. This is what we are referring to as "emotional decision-making" or "irrational behavior" and what we are criticizing.
So, we have "emotional" meaning "capable of experiencing emotions and assigning subjective value to states of affairs" and "emotional" meaning "LOL WUT U MEEN 'IMPULSE CONTROL'." These are very different things, and your attempt to score points by conflating them shows you to be a very shallow thinker OR very confused OR very dishonest. (Note: all ORs inclusive). Based on your statements upthread, I would tentatively conclude 1 and 3.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 7, 2009 1:26 AM
Actually Beck puts out a tremendous number of facts, including direct quotes (often video) supporting his statements and assertions. The Left (socialists) want to dismiss him as a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists, so that they don't have to face the music.
Everything Beck has stated to date concerning ACORN and Obama's communist Czars has been well supported. If we didn't have a Partisan Liberal Media working as propaganda agents, it would have been covered a long time ago, before this socialist empty suit was elected.
Posted by: Doug in Jax | October 7, 2009 9:07 AM
@Isabel
"But GB doesn't invent personal dastardly crimes."
Congressman Ellison is a Muslim terrorist.
President Obama traveled back in time to 1950 to plant a mural on a building in order to facilitate his brainwashing of US school children in 2009.
General Secretary Stalin used time travel to insert communist propaganda in the bible.
Posted by: JohnV | October 7, 2009 9:18 AM
"Based on your statements upthread, I would tentatively conclude 1 and 3."
Okay one last attempt.
I am not an idiot. Despite the fact that for many people idiot=someone they don't agree with (as evidenced here).
Nothing you have said about using reason is news to me. What I'm saying is I don't see it being done exclusively, or even mostly, by one group of people (educated, elite liberals). There is no evidence for it.
It's fascinating how quickly people assume I need various types of education on these blogs, often patiently explaining things and ideas I have known for most of my life.
There is as much hate here as on any right wing radio show, but it's a lot less entertaining.
Posted by: Isabel | October 7, 2009 10:47 AM
Communist Czars? I think you're yanking our chain.
Posted by: DaveL | October 7, 2009 10:58 AM
There is as much hate here as on any right wing radio show...
So much for "I am not an idiot."
PS to Doug in Jerx: all those allegations WERE covered before the election, and they were all found to be either trivial or bogus. (Oh, and what part of Rupert Murdoch's extensive publishing/media empire is "liberal?")
Right-wing apologist double-fail.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 7, 2009 11:00 AM
Isabel:
You haven't begun to experience hate on this blog. It rarely comes out. Stern disapproval, ROFLOCAO (Rolling On The Floor Laughing Our Collective Asses Off), insistence on providing some sort of evidence for your bold insertions, being labelled an idiot and a liar--sure, all of those; hatred, not yet. Even those people we REALLY disagree with are not hated (well, except for the KKKristian asshats like Phelps and his ilk) but they are certainly made aware that their reasoning, if it may be called that, is faulty.
I don't think disagreement with anyone is why they're calling you an idiot. You're being called an idiot, because you're acting the part.
C'mon, now, Isabel, tell the truth. That was you on the threads back in June, wasn't it? Either that or there are two loony gals with the same name coming here.
Posted by: democommie | October 7, 2009 11:10 AM
As far as the accusation that "idiot=anyone who disagrees with you"... in the narrow case of disagreeing with me on whether Glenn Beck is a total fucking asshole moron, yes, I plead guilty, and I make no apologies. Anybody who doesn't see Beck as lying sack of shit demagogue who is nothing but bad for our country is an idiot. I refuse to apologize for saying so.
Posted by: James Sweet | October 7, 2009 11:29 AM
Beck was at Borders (now personally boycotted) promoting his book the other day. I stopped, ducked into a Walgreens, and made a hasty "Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Girl in 1990?" Within 30 seconds of leaving my car with the sign, I was escorted into the back of a squad car for "questioning." I was then driven, in silence, all the way across town, where the cop stopped, opened the door, and said I was free to go. Nice, huh?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2009 12:38 PM
Anonymous @ 12:38:
I don't know where you are, but you need to contact the ACLU and find out if they have a local affiliate you can talk to. That sounds very much like a civil rights violation. If there is no record of your having been arrested and held against your will, it's a rogue cop; if there's a record it's departmental malfeasance.
Did you send a notice of this to Borders?
Posted by: democommie | October 7, 2009 1:06 PM
Thanks for the great laugh! Does Beck not realize that he is playing with fire? The "hive mind" of the internet hates censorship. Even in the remote chance that he is successful in taking down the site, the consequences will be 1000 times worse!!! I hope this asshole gets cancer and is removed from the gene pool & the sooner, the better.
Posted by: Robert | October 7, 2009 1:17 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | October 7, 2009 1:32 PM
...who was raped and murdered by Glenn Beck? :P
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 7, 2009 2:00 PM
James Hanley @ 152
That made me smile; thanks. :)
Posted by: Kris | October 7, 2009 2:59 PM
For some people, the scariest thing they can face is themselves.
Posted by: Darkr0nin | October 7, 2009 3:31 PM
I heard that he has been doing it since 1990. Im not saying he has been doing it since then, but he isnt denying it either...
Posted by: design | October 7, 2009 4:32 PM
A person's opinion of Glen Beck is neither here nor there on this one.
A website that is any way satirizing or joking about rape and murder is digusting. Period.
Posted by: Laura | October 7, 2009 4:34 PM
This illustrates my point exactly. You wouldn't find it surprising to have a traitor elected to Congress?
There is nothing about the "current climate" that would suggest Ellison was an enemy of America. The fact that the scenario fits nicely with a popular sort of xenophobia is not at all the same thing. Otherwise you have to allow the satirist the same defense, and just claim that since Glenn Beck's enemies might not be surprised by any manner of evil deed in his past, the speculation that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990 is somehow more than just a wild accusation.
Posted by: DaveL | October 7, 2009 4:38 PM
It's been proven that Glenn Beck Is An Idiot!
Posted by: Truth | October 7, 2009 4:38 PM
First of all, as has been discussed ad nauseum, the site is not satirizing rape and murder, it is satirizing Glenn Beck.
Second of all, we will take this under advisement, but could you file a request with the Thought Police to please provide us a complete list of all subjects which are forbidden from appearing in satire? I'd really appreciate it, thanks.
Posted by: James Sweet | October 7, 2009 4:46 PM
"C'mon, now, Isabel, tell the truth. That was you on the threads back in June, wasn't it? Either that or there are two loony gals with the same name coming here."
What is "loony" about anything I've said?
Or about that thread? Isabel sounds very reasonable to me.
You are the freaks who are obsessed with Glen Beck. I simply find him an entertaining, somewhat crazy-sounding radio host, who I disagree with on most issues.
And if he HAS won the hearts and minds of some people that just shows he's smarter than you, who cannot figure out how to do so.
And yes, the "rape and murder of a young girl" is gratutitous, a way of getting hits on a web site.
This is common knowledge. Only a truly deranged person could disagree.
Because I feel it is healthier to have all voices heard, I am instantly assumed to agree with the people you don't agree with.
More deranged thinking.
"t, but could you file a request with the Thought Police"
Thought Police? Sounds like you need to look in a mirror. But that is my point. Because you think you are "right" you are just as "dangerous" as any right-wing nudnick with a radio show.
"This illustrates my point exactly. You wouldn't find it surprising to have a traitor elected to Congress?"
Please work on your reading comprehension.
Posted by: Isabel | October 7, 2009 5:47 PM
Can someone please explain the inside "joke" that Lavinia is apparently trying to make? I did a bit of googling on H.P. Lovecraft and found out he's a unremittent racist. So, I'm truly confused. What's so funny about speaking feminist psychobabel through the voice of a character from a heinously offensive author as a means to object to the scolding of a conversative talk-hack? Truly, I don't get it, and am NOT at all ashamed of saying so. If such "inside jokes" make certain people feel smarter than others, I'll blithely remain among the humanely uncouth.
Frankly, I don't buy the "irony" defense that some are putting forth on Livinia's behalf. The "joke" wasn't funny, went largely unappreciated, and, upon further investigation, reveals some rather disturbing insights about its author. Ockham's razor: it wasn't a joke, and Livinia is a run-of-the-mill psuedofeminist nutjob.
Posted by: Livinia is a Pseudorapist | October 7, 2009 7:33 PM
It occurs to me that intelligence is only one means, and by far not the easiest, to win the hearts and minds of some people.
And yes, casting a U.S. congressman as a potential enemy of the United States because he's muslim is also gratuitous, a way of generating ratings (and 'winning the hearts and minds of some people', namely shallow-thinking xenophobes).
Bonus question: which of the two above examples is actually using this tactic for monetary gain? Hint: check for advertising.
Isabel, I understand you perfectly well. It is you who does not understand the difference between a reasonable suspicion and a popular prejudice.
Posted by: DaveL | October 7, 2009 7:56 PM
Isabel, sweetie:
I get it, you're being coy. It's just not working. It was you that was in the blog back in June, fluffing for the reichwing.
Posted by: democommie | October 7, 2009 8:22 PM
Okay, so you haven't read At the Mountains of Madness. The joke is that someone completely insane and beyond the things of this world would be a doctrinaire feminist. As equivocations go, it's brilliant. I forget the name of the deity used, but there is a series of cartoons with Garfield the cat along the same lines that are well worth finding. Jesus who?
Posted by: kehrsam | October 7, 2009 9:52 PM
Isabel - "How do you know then, you are not a witch?" - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 7, 2009 10:05 PM
"Isabel, I understand you perfectly well. It is you who does not understand the difference between a reasonable suspicion and a popular prejudice."
HaHaHa, Is that like the difference between an "educated" suspicion and "populist" prejudice?
"Bonus question: which of the two above examples is actually using this tactic for monetary gain? Hint: check for advertising."
Who knows????
"It was you that was in the blog back in June, fluffing for the reichwing. "
????
fluffing for the re-witching?
"Isabel - "How do you know then, you are not a witch?" - DJ"
Oh - I get it - the right wing!
Posted by: Isabel | October 7, 2009 10:21 PM
Isabel, didn't I tell you not to leave this blog?
Posted by: James Hanley | October 7, 2009 10:26 PM
Boy, if only Jonathan Switft had known the rules. I'm assuming that cannibalism is on that list too.
You must be a blast at parties.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | October 7, 2009 10:43 PM
Isabel - Some say you are a witch, I don't necessarily agree with them, but that is the rumour I heard. All you've got to do is prove beyond doubt you are not witch.
Let me just repeat I don't necessarily agree with the rumours that you're a swine-killing, milk curdling hag, fond of riding on brooms; a minion of Satan and his foul hordes, and yet you won't confirm my alleged faith in you by simply proving that this is not so.
I'm just asking questions, in the public interest, therefore don't have to have any actual evidence, you have to prove it not true... - DJ
-------------
Get it now, Isabel?
Posted by: DingoJack | October 7, 2009 10:43 PM
I love the satire. Good job!!! What is good for the goose is good for the gander. So to speak. If only you Americans really understand what the rest of the world thinks of you. Keep up the good work. Glen Beck is a jerk. To say nothing of dangerous.
Posted by: Yep | October 7, 2009 10:54 PM
DJ. Um I got it from the beginning? Are you reading the thread dear?? R U OK?
Posted by: Isabel | October 7, 2009 11:14 PM
Yes, you are reading... comprehending however... DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 7, 2009 11:31 PM
Though I know It's satire, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Beck doing this. And based on the general aptitude of his audience I wouldn't rule out them not seeing this as satire.
Posted by: pyrt | October 8, 2009 2:19 AM
Reading the comments here, I would say that Beck is bothering the left a great deal, otherwise, all you guys wouldn't be dumping on him so much...remember, the guy doesn't hold public office.
You should be aiming your criticism at some of the things that Beck has dug up...things like the ACORN scandal, the Van Jones episode, etc. In fact you should be grateful to him for doing that as I don't see the left trying to clean up their side of the fence.
I'm not necessarily a big Beck fan, but of the few programs that I have watched on the tube, I have yet to hear him say anything that I thought was untrue.
I have heard a lot of members of our legislature and even our own President say some things that weren't true(things that were later corrected by the CBO).
So contemplate that all you lefties!
Posted by: Bob Downs | October 8, 2009 2:46 AM
Dear Bob (the witch) Down,
You said (in part) "I have yet to hear him [Glenn Beck] say anything that I thought was untrue", this is called confirmation bias, and is (only one) example of your faulty thinking process. Try taking a course in critical thinking, it might help.
Once you've got that worked out, try this: all the 'scandals' you mentioned have turned out, on closer examination, to be non-issues originating from the Right. As usual, the Right likes to think of itself as the 'white knight holding the high moral ground' while, in reality, resorting to smears, lies and astroturfing to cover the weakness of their actual arguments.
And now for the massive point you seem to have missed: Glenn Beck might be right occasionally (stopped clocks and all that) but that's not relevant, the point is his shoddy 'McCathyite journalism' is unfair, untrue, unsourced and hurts innocent people who don't deserve his character assassination.
Bek, and his 'journalism' deserves to be mocked mercilessly. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 8, 2009 3:27 AM
The difference is which is backed by facts and which is backed only by hate. The courts have by the way, defined the term "reasonable suspicion" in the context of police powers. It requires the existence of "specific, articulable reasons". In particular, the race or religion of a person is not enough.
If you need another hint, there is no advertising on the parody site.
Posted by: DaveL | October 8, 2009 5:35 AM
Bob Downs:
"You should be aiming your criticism at some of the things that Beck has MADE UP...things like the ACORN scandal,..."
There, fixed that for ya!
"...the Van Jones episode, etc. In fact you should be grateful to him for doing that as I don't see the left trying to clean up their side of the fence."
Yep you're absolutely right on that one. It was the reichwing that shitcanned Van Jones. Oh, no, wait, he did it himself. Okay, but it was still the reichwing, Mr. Bek, in particular, that got rid of allathem bad ACORN peop..., no, DAMN! It was ACORN that did that. Ah, fuck, Bob, sorry! EPIC FAIL.
Posted by: democommie | October 8, 2009 7:38 AM
Man, people should just start cranking out as many websites as they can raising exactly these kinds of "questions". Keep that baby-faced prick (and his lawyers) busy.
Posted by: Scott | October 8, 2009 10:15 AM
First of all, sorry for possible grammatical errors. I've stumbled upon this article and I think it offers a great insight into the american psyche. Regarding rape in the United States, the majority of rape victims (about 60 percent) are men, if you believe it or not. It's just that they are prison inmates, so it doesn't really count as a crime, right? At the same time I've read in the local Slovenian newspaper a couple of months ago, that inmates in the most strict prison were complaining about lack of personal space and repeating lunch menus, and were taken very seriously by the human rights organisations and the government ombudsman. If anyone would be raped in prison, I would probably be reading about it in the paper as well (what were the guards doing, people would ask). What I'm getting at is that you people (citizens of USA) have taken competition and aggression to the extreme, worshiping winners of any kind and dehumanizing all losers along the way. The existence of two separate casts of people (white, employed, christian) and sub-humans (people of any colour other than white, excluding eskimos, former inmates, illegal immigrants, religious people of no or any faith different from christianity) may well be the reason why you seem to consider some lives to be worthless. It started exactly that way in nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Goebbels would be proud of the lobotomy your media have performed.
Posted by: Bojan from Slovenia | October 8, 2009 10:19 AM
Yes, yes he does. This may seem strange to you, but the fact that a guy is telling ABJECT LIES on national TV and that millions of people are listening to him and believing him... yes, that bothers me a great deal. Why wouldn't it???
Posted by: James Sweet | October 8, 2009 10:48 AM
Numbskull comment.
It's like saying "Just because Dorkus is blowing cigarette smoke in your face and kicking you in the crotch every 45 seconds, Dorkus must be right because he's bothering you so much."
Um, yeah, he's bothering us.....
Posted by: gwangung | October 8, 2009 11:00 AM
Wow its a very beautiful one, i really like it...any thank u for the post..........
Posted by: Lawyers | October 8, 2009 12:13 PM
You are an idiot, sir.
At least the example you give is not the same analogy, is it?
"And an analog from the website in question:"
.....
Bull Shit!
Islam is inextricably - associated with Islamofacism/terrorist -
and
Beck is associated with 'Rape and Murder of a Young Girl in 1990, ' how?
Get Real Losers!
Puuullleeeze pull your collective heads out of this guys ass and see him for the libtarded member of the party of personal destruction who doesn't like it when it gets it's covers pulled, as Beck does so well.
Or, keep telling yourself that using a persons own words against them is a 'smear' now! LOL!
Posted by: BillyC | October 8, 2009 12:26 PM
BillyC, #184: Islam is inextricably - associated with Islamofacism/terrorist -
and
Beck is associated with 'Rape and Murder of a Young Girl in 1990, '
You got the analogy wrong. The correct analogy would be:
Keith Ellison is inextricably associated with Islamofacism/terrorist
and
Beck is associated with 'Rape and Murder of a Young Girl in 1990.
Both are ridiculous, as the analogy is meant to be show.
Another possible analogy would be
Islam is inextricably associated with Islamofacism/terrorist -
and
American conservativism is inextricably associated with insanity and dumbassery.
Both are probably wrong, but watching the news lately perhaps people can be forgiven for believing them.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 8, 2009 12:33 PM
Yeah.... but can you disprove that Glen Beck did deny the charges? Or could you prove that he didn't say he didn't rape anyone? Yeah didn't think so! Booyah! Hooah.
Posted by: Andre | October 8, 2009 12:56 PM
what a hypocrite
http://twitpipe.com
Posted by: Chris | October 8, 2009 12:58 PM
LOL this is hilarious. My electronic cigarette just fell out of my mouth.
Posted by: Jeffery | October 8, 2009 2:01 PM
Congrats everyone, your all just as stupid as Glen Beck.
Posted by: Whuh | October 8, 2009 6:05 PM
I'll say right now that I do not believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I just find that preposterous.
Glenn, just step forward with the proof and let's put this all behind us. It's time to Move On.
Posted by: Rich | October 8, 2009 7:32 PM
I can see from the responses to my post that most of
you guys are still thrashing around...just as I would
expect.
Posted by: Bob Downs | October 8, 2009 8:14 PM
Bobby, bobby bo bobby, banana fana fo fobby:
Why, whatever do you mean, you stupid fuck? You posted some nonsense, rebuttals were offered and, as is always the case with trolldicks like yourself, you simply ignore the facts that don't line up with your beliefs (which is pretty generally the conservaturd default) and make further inane statments.
By all means, do entertain us with your raped wit.
Posted by: democommie | October 8, 2009 8:27 PM
Bob Downs, #191:
You know, Bob, if you had no intention of responding to the replies to your comment or at least making an attempt at what you right-wing wackadoodles think is "reasoned discourse", you could have just left never to return. It just makes you look stupid to come back just to tell us that you don't know how to respond to the replies.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 8, 2009 8:36 PM
Don't be so cruel...it could have been self defence, or that child may have been a commie or possible liberal...just saying
Posted by: gary | October 8, 2009 8:39 PM
Great coverage Ed; we met at a debate tournament at East Kentwood high school a few years ago, and now you're the top result on Digg!
Posted by: nvalley | October 8, 2009 10:49 PM
@Lavinia Whateley
Women who use the word "womyn" are usually lesbian feminist nazis. I'm not saying you're a lesbian feminist nazi, but I'm just wondering why you haven't denied the allegation.
Posted by: Mistakes Girls Make | October 8, 2009 11:11 PM
"Yeah, because you know what's really funny, guys? Rape.
Not to say that Glenn Beck isn't a loathsome person, or that the site doesn't have a point regarding his usual 'style' of 'argument'. But I'm disturbed by the fact that jokes about the dehumanization and degradation of a womyn's body are being used to score a cheap point against a political enemy. It shows, if nothing else, the unsurprising (but nevertheless deplorable) indifference of 'liberal' parodists towards the sexual abuse that millions of womyn suffer every year."
Uhh.. it's not funny because the word "rape" is in there. It is funny because he interrogates people like this all the time, but can't take it when it is done to him. "Raping and killing a little girl" is never funny. But in this joke it is because it is a fucking horrible thing to do. Something that, I'm sure, no one honestly thinks Glenn Beck would ever do.
Now, I don't like the guy. I think he is a giant douche. But the "rapes and kills little girls" vibe just isn't there with him. That is why it is funny. It would be confusing to the public if it was a claim that was believable. So it had to be something insane that Beck wouldn't actually do..
Posted by: Ssss | October 9, 2009 12:40 AM
Ssss:
So far as we know, sir, so far as we know. All that is required is for Mr. Bek to produce the ORIGINAL LONG FORM POLICE REPORT which exculpates him in the originally alleged incident. I'm also sure that he has nothing to hide, so I am even more puzzled by his seeming fear (or, perhaps, sociopathic indifference) and avoidance of this issue.
After all, if his fellow social commentainers, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have shown us nothing else, they have shown us that illicit drug use, illicit sexual dalliance, serial infidelity and ongoing sexual harassment of staff and employees are, in no wise, career killers.
I hope this helped.
Posted by: democommie | October 9, 2009 8:04 AM
Each time I see "WIPO", I imagine beck wiping the BS off of his chin saying, "Here we go WIPO WIPO."LOL
Posted by: The Laugher | October 9, 2009 9:32 AM
ICYDK, Lavinia Whateley is a conservative who's read Saul Alinsky and is trying it on for size.
Posted by: Stourley Kracklite | October 12, 2009 1:10 AM
No smoke without fire, I always say!
I think the SwiftBoatVeteransForWTF should make some kind of comment - where are they now anyway?
If it is indeed true (and I doubt it) that in 1990, Glenn Beck did in fact Rape and then Murder (or possibly even Murder and then Rape) a Young Girl then I strongly believe he should be brought to justice. If the allegation is not true then he should confront the issue straightaway, ala. Letterman - by explaining in unambiguous detail, on his show why it could not have possibly been him, Glenn Beck who Raped and Murdered a Young Girl back in 1990.
We would then have closure and maybe Glenn could help in the effort to find (ala. OJ SImpson), the real culprit of this heious crime (if it ever happened).
Posted by: Mark Urquhart-Webb | October 12, 2009 3:12 PM
If Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, why is there no record of any of it anywhere? Wouldn't there be newspaper articles, etc. A crime such as that would be a huge deal for the media.
Posted by: Donna | October 12, 2009 5:44 PM
Donna, #202"
Wooosh!
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 12, 2009 5:45 PM
Donna, #202:
Oops. Unless that was meant to be satirical. In that case, sorry.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 12, 2009 5:49 PM
Donna:
There is a simple explanation, actually.
When Obamephistopholes broke the Seventh Seal and used his Wayback Machine to go back to the 1960's and alter the documents of the circumstances of his birth (he was born on a planet circling the star Regulus 5,999 years ago to a race of lizard people--can there even be a lizard person? I digress) he struck the 1990's a glancing blow, dislodging all information concerning the alleged rape and murder of a young woman by Mr. Glenn Bek. I hope this clears things up for you.
Posted by: democommie | October 12, 2009 9:18 PM
Ed Brayton is a journalist who probably raped and murdered a young girl or maybe a boy, or both in 2008... Hmmm. Problem is when you apply the same illogic to a liberal, it does not matter to them as much, because they will eventually get to the amoral ground where they accept that as "normal". That is what the disease of liberalism it - the greater and greater acceptance of any behavior, until anything goes. A brief look at history shows this to be the case - always make it a question of "tolerance" until we tolerate anything - anything accept a firm moral stand.
David T. McKee
Posted by: David T. McKee | October 14, 2009 9:32 AM
David T. McKee:
Aw, jeez, Dave; other than the fact that you're completely fullofshit, howyadoin?
You just now found this post, or are you doing like a lot of sneaky reactionaries do and waiting until the thread is nearly off the top pages, thinking that you somehow score points if you get the last dig in. Wrong.
While liberals do all sorts of immoral things, unlike "conservatives" they don't rail against gay sex, paedophilia and marital infidelity--while engaging in it! Good luck.
Posted by: democommie | October 14, 2009 7:34 PM
David T McKee, #206: A brief look at history shows this to be the case - always make it a question of "tolerance" until we tolerate anything - anything accept a firm moral stand.
Me, I'm of the opinion that "a brief look at history" is righwingspeak for "I'm making all this up." I've looked at history briefly, and I've looked at history not so briefly, and I have never seen this pattern that you appear to be claiming is obvious.
I'm also of the opinion that "accepting a firm moral stand" is rightwingspeak for "hating when people do things I don't like." That is something I have noticed in my brief look at history.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 14, 2009 10:49 PM
Glenn Beck Is RIGHT ! ! ! Dare To know the truth The Government is Unwilling To Divulge To The American Public.
http://alturl.com/qxzj
Posted by: Adam | January 13, 2010 6:43 PM
I agree with Glenn Beck.
Your girl Mary :)
Posted by: E Cig | February 17, 2010 11:55 PM
So now, if he did do it, Glenn Beck should fit in with Liberals.
Posted by: Babs | March 10, 2010 5:10 PM
XD Even though I know it's a joke, why would it not surprise me if it were true?
Posted by: Shopalu | March 14, 2010 8:51 PM
I occasionally listen to Becks radio show and he's actually fairly entertaining.
Posted by: Animation Clips | April 13, 2010 4:21 AM
Not to say that Glenn Beck isn't a loathsome person, or that the site doesn't have a point regarding his usual 'style' of 'argument'. But I'm disturbed by the fact that jokes about the dehumanization and degradation of a womyn's body are being used to score a cheap point against a political enemy.
Posted by: brisbane house painter | June 15, 2010 11:28 AM
For all things Beck, see The Glenn Beck Review, What Everyone Needs to Know About Beck's Honesty, Political Values and Methods of Communication.
Posted by: Victor Tiffany | June 20, 2010 5:45 PM
I was never quite sure whether he was being serious with this, or was simply trying to inject a little levity into the book, but he used this system throughout the book.
Posted by: Copywriting | July 10, 2010 4:26 AM
You should be aiming your criticism at some of the things that Beck has dug up...things like the ACORN scandal, the Van Jones episode, etc. In fact you should be grateful to him for doing that as I don't see the left trying to clean up their side of the fence.
Posted by: Website Design | July 14, 2010 4:49 AM
Ok I'll bite... What ACORN scandal?
The scandal that there was an organization that tried to get poor, disenfranchised people registered to vote? Oh the horror, the horror! - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 14, 2010 6:13 AM
Dingo, it
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 14, 2010 6:31 AM
The fact that so many conservatives go to this site, argue against it, and don't recognize that it is a parody of the very style employed by Beck suggests to me that modern conservatives ARE the international association of imbeciles.
Posted by: cuckoo clocks | July 21, 2010 7:58 AM
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. So to speak. If only you Americans really understand what the rest of the world thinks of you. Keep up the good work. Glen Beck is a jerk. To say nothing of dangerous.
Posted by: HMS Home Warranty | July 24, 2010 5:03 AM
The fact that so many conservatives go to this site, argue against it, and don't recognize that it is a parody of the very style employed by Beck suggests to me that modern conservatives ARE the international association of imbeciles.
Posted by: Walkin Bath | July 26, 2010 6:45 AM
Regarding rape in the United States, the majority of rape victims are men, and that's a truth.
Posted by: healthy chocolate | August 3, 2010 3:05 AM
'We are not going to put the Constitution behind international law,' you say that in the international court, if you say that on the floor of the United Nations, you are a freak show."
Posted by: Electronic Cigarette | September 2, 2010 12:47 PM
Beck, who has become notorious for his conspiratorial rants, wasn't amused when Eiland-Hall registered glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com -- featuring videos of crying women and purportedly examining Beck's lack of denial about the rape/murder -- and earlier this month he filed an administrative complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Posted by: Black Vanity | September 3, 2010 9:26 AM
I often use to listen to Becks radio show and he's actually a lot entertaining. I would only interpret him as a wacky entertainer, and find myself stunned by the obsession of the Left with his actual views. i liked the post a lot and also all the above comments.
Posted by: Robert Avagyan | September 6, 2010 2:09 AM
i found Becks radio pretty enthusiastic and talented. also it is it very enjoyable to hear to it. I'm not necessarily a big Beck fan, but of the few programs that I have watched on the tube, I have yet to hear him say anything that I thought was untrue.
Posted by: Brown Jordan Patio | September 8, 2010 5:35 AM
Brown Jordan Patio "I'm not necessarily a big Beck fan, but of the few programs that I have watched on the tube, I have yet to hear him say anything that I thought was untrue."
From that I can only conclude:
* That there isn't a lot in your head, and most of what's there is in the wrong order.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 8, 2010 5:42 AM
Oh. Wait. You're a bot. It's Bob Downs whose got the atrophied mind.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 8, 2010 5:45 AM
There are many self-proclaimed feminists who have particularly nasty attitudes about trans people.
Posted by: Agio Patio | September 9, 2010 5:27 AM
interesting article,I think conservatives were still insisting that the website was trying to float the idea of Beck as a criminal.
Posted by: Office Cleaning Melbourne | September 17, 2010 6:17 AM
about the dehumanization and degradation of a womyn's body are being used to score a cheap point against a political enemy. It shows, if nothing else, the unsurprising (but nevertheless deplorable) indifference of 'liberal' parodists towards the sexual abuse that millions of womyn suffer every year.
Posted by: how to grow taller 4 idiots | October 9, 2010 10:13 AM
MO - Not to be confused with Bob Downe -Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | October 9, 2010 10:39 AM
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen anyone throw a temper tantrum quite like that on the Web. Is there, maybe, an Obnoxious Idiot of the Year contest going on that I haven't heard about?
Posted by: hoary puccoon | October 9, 2010 11:58 AM
sorry its women not womyn. learn to spell.
and did you know the word for females used to be man but as part of the patriarchal shift of power males co-opted the term to mean their sex?
you call yourself a femynyst!
Posted by: chris | October 17, 2010 12:35 AM
It shows, if nothing else, the unsurprising indifference of 'liberal' parodists towards the sexual abuse that millions of womyn suffer every year.
Posted by: March Group | November 24, 2010 1:45 AM
Aw, jeez, Dave; other than the fact that you're completely fullofshit, howyadoin?
You just now found this post, or are you doing like a lot of sneaky reactionaries do and waiting until the thread is nearly off the top pages, thinking that you somehow score points if you get the last dig in. Wrong.
While liberals do all sorts of immoral things, unlike "conservatives" they don't rail against gay sex, paedophilia and marital infidelity--while engaging in it! Good luck.
Posted by: houston website design | March 27, 2011 3:34 AM
Lovecraft is elitist now? Wow.
I can't decide whether to be happy or sad about that.
Posted by: Leni | March 27, 2011 2:38 PM