Showing posts with label glenn beck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label glenn beck. Show all posts

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Why the Rally to Restore Sanity Sucks


I’m going to Jon Stewart’s big “Rally to Restore Sanity” this Saturday. Why? Well, because I think it will be fun to be in a large group of people who have similar views to mine and are also probably around my age. I like big crowds. Also, some people may dress up and wave humorous signs around, and that’s always fun. Maybe I’ll be on TV! I’m not treating it as a serious political rally, as some critics of Stewart insist on doing. It’ll be fun, I’m taking a free bus ride from New York to DC and back again, and I’ll probably end up getting drunk.

The only thing that worries me is that this rally might very well be the largest lefty political event of the midterm election season—it’s already the most talked-about—and that fits into a disturbing trend: Protests are no longer about anything.

The Civil Rights marchers were protesting the Jim Crow laws and other forms of institutional racism. The Vietnam War protestors wanted US troops to leave Vietnam (I’m leaving out all the protestors who wanted to ascend to a higher level of consciousness through rigorous use of chemicals, they weren’t really political protestors). Today’s big protest movement is the Tea Party and they want—what? Lower taxes? A balanced budget? Prayer in schools? I’ve been reading about them for at least a year, and yet besides the repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act, I couldn’t tell you what these people actually want.

Glenn Beck’s big rally back in August—billed as non-political but pretty clearly linked to the Tea Party—was defined by Beck like so:

This is not a political event. This is to send the message to us and our children and the rest of America: There is a revival going on of values and principles. There is a revival of honor and integrity, and we’re going to demand it of ourselves and our politicians. We are not going to put up with it anymore, in our own lives or in the lives of politicians or our banks and our businesses.

What the fuck does that even mean? In a related question, what the fuck does Stewart’s website mean when it says,

Ours is a rally for the people who’ve been too busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs (or are looking for jobs) — not so much the Silent Majority as the Busy Majority. If we had to sum up the political view of our participants in a single sentence… we couldn’t. That’s sort of the point.

I’m pretty sure I could sum up the political view of the participants in a phrase: left-of-center to far left loony. There aren’t going to be a whole lot of Republicans there, just as there weren’t many Democrats at Beck’s rally. (I’m pretty sure the only Democrats in attendance there were making spiteful documentaries about how ignorant and intellectually inconsistent the Tea Partiers were.) Just as there won’t be any Republicans at the Rally, neither will there be any people who are too busy to go to rallies—they’re going to be too busy. Like Beck’s event, this will be a gathering of people who have mostly similar views on politics and on life but few clearly definable shared goals.

This is a problem because without some clear goals, a protest isn’t going to do much more than make the protestors feel good about themselves for waving signs. A protest or a petition can make politicians aware that a large group of people care passionately about one issue, and that can have consequences. The act of protesting is a cornerstone of yada yada yada. But when a bunch of people gather to say, “We need to restore honor and pride to America!” or “We need to have a civil environment for political discussion!” it doesn’t inform politicians that we feel a certain way about an issue. It just informs politicians that we like to yell and wave signs around.

Anyway, if anyone is going to the Rally, I’ll see you there. I’ll be the guy waving a sign around.
Read more!

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

The Most Worthless Thing On The Internet, Dying Magazine Edition


Today’s most worthless thing on the internet has crossover appeal: not only is it a web page not worth visiting, it might be the least essential piece of political journalism ever published. It comes courtesy of Time magazine, which apparently decided that this obscure new political movement called the “Tea Party” deserves more media attention than it’s getting.

Back when it was one of the few available sources of national and international news, Time used to be an iconic publication—it used to matter who was on the cover. This latest cover had the image of an elephant in a tea cup (get it? Metaphors! Visual shorthand!) and the astonishingly uninteresting headline, “It’s Tea Party Time.” Now, if Time was your sole source of political news, if it dominated the market the way it used to, this might be an interesting cover. “This is intriguing,” you might say. “Tea Party? And they’re taking over the Republican Party? I must read on!”

But, obviously, no one in the world relies on Time this way. Anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention to the news, even someone who gets all her news from The Daily Show, already knows more about the Tea Party than the Time article manages to communicate. On this subject, Time is hopelessly trailing hundreds of blogs and other print publications, but instead of trying to find a new angle on the Tea Party it rehashes events that have been covered already and spreads on a layer of vague generalities.

Among the things the article does not bother to discuss in detail are:


  • -The fractured nature of the Tea Party. There are actually many, many groups that compose the “movement,” and there are important ideological differences between them. Some are more free-market libertarian, some are conservative Christians; Rand Paul and Christine O’Donnell do not have the same agenda.

  • -The money trail that leads from some “grassroots” organizations to the billionaire Koch brothers, which the New Yorker covered already. In fact, the Koches are not even mentioned in the Time piece.

  • -Glenn Beck is mentioned, but only in passing, and is lumped in with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity—which is odd because he’s widely regarded as the face of the Tea Party and just held that massive rally in Washington D.C.

  • -Most notably, the Time article only focuses on the recent crop of primaries and doesn’t acknowledge the two Tea Party candidates who have actually run against Democrats—Scott Brown, who won a Senate seat in Massachusetts at least partially because of his opponent’s incompetence, and Doug Hoffman in New York’s 23rd district, who lost his race thanks to Republican in-fighting.


Besides all of those omissions, which make the article instantly outdated, there’s also the problem that Time is a weekly, which meant it could keep up with the news cycle in 1923, when it was founded, but in 2010 it has no chance. Case in point: the Tea Party piece focuses a lot of attention on Christine O’Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware, and even compares her to the “leader of a rebel army.” But less than a week later she’s mostly known for admitting to practicing witchcraft, speaking out against masturbation, talking about feminism in J.R.R. Tolkein, and having a shady financial past. Not coincidentally, she’s trailing by 15 points in a recent Fox News (!) poll, which is not where the leader of a rebel army wants to be. None of that is mentioned in the article, although some of those developments came to light after the article was published. (Sort of argues for the irrelevance of print media, doesn’t it?)

To recap: Time published an article about a phenomenon that was already old news, revealed nothing new about the phenomenon, contributed nothing to the conversation about the phenomenon, and may have overstated the importance of one part (O’Donnell) of that phenomenon. The best you can say about that article is that it doesn’t seem to be factually incorrect. Actually, the best thing that can be said about the article is that it reassures all of those people who don’t read Time that they’re doing the right thing.
Read more!

Sunday, July 4, 2010

400 Pages of Suck: A Running Diary of Glenn Beck's Novel, Which I Actually Read


Like a car accident, Glenn Beck fascinates me. He’s one of those rare political figures that doesn’t seem to want to be elected (not that he ever could be), doesn’t seem to want to debate policy in any sort of intellectual, wonkish sense, doesn’t care about building a viable movement (the Tea Party is nothing if not unviable), and doesn’t dream of being a lobbyist or a cabinet member or a diplomat (so far as I know). He’s a pure orator—or demagogue, if you don’t agree with him. He is to television what Rush Limbaugh, or further back, Father Coughlin, was to radio: someone who can manipulate the medium without special effects of any kind, and whose appeal is obscure to anyone who doesn’t share his politics. His style of argument is to basically never state any facts or opinions—he hints at dark, leftist conspiracies, he makes vague references to the Nazis, and, famously, he cries on camera. He’s either stark raving mad, the prototype of the next generation of pundit, or most likely, both. So when I heard he had written a novel (or at least overseen the production of a novel) I had to read it. It took me four and a half hours, and here’s how it went:

6:00 PM, Page 20: After a prologue in which a guy named “Eli Churchill” hints at a giant conspiracy involving Donald Rumsfeld, 11 nuclear weapons, and 2.3 trillion “missing” dollars, then gets shot in the head by a mysterious assassin, this is the first sentence of Chapter One: "Most people think about age and experience in terms of years, but it’s really only moments that define us." Deep, man. We are introduced to Noah Gardner, who has “all the credentials for a killer eHarmony profile” and gets laid constantly, as long as he keeps “the bar for an evening’s companionship at only medium-high.” However, "Noah had begun to realize something about that medium high bar: it takes two to tango.” From context, I known this is supposed to mean that he’s ready for a serious relationship, but I keep staring at that line and I’m pretty sure it’s a mixed metaphor, if you even want to count it as a metaphor.

6:09 PM, Page 25: Only a few sentences after we’re informed Noah is looking for a serious relationship, his vaguely described soulmate appears! She has an “aloof and effortless hotness,” and defies “a traditional chick-at-a-glance inventory.” It’s like the words are forming a picture in my mind!

6:14 PM, Page 30: Noah’s soulmate turns out to be a member of the “Founder’s Keepers,” which sounds a lot like the Tea Party. She doesn’t fall for what we’re told is Noah’s charm, and then tells him a punny joke about the Biblical Noah, who has “herd” everything. Ha ha! For some reason, this witty banter renders our Noah speechless. Anyway, he’s going to meet her at a Founder’s Keepers/Tea Party meeting later.

6:22, Page 38: We meet Noah’s father, who doesn’t believe in God or the dollar. I’m guessing he’ll be a bad guy. Also, he’s in advertising. He talks in phrases like, "I’ll show you the path to a whole new world in which everything you want is laid out before you, ripe for the bountiful harvest.”

6:29, Page 45: Big Bad Dad notes that Social Security “was the boldest Ponzi scheme in history” and forecasts worldwide economic devastation. It’s sort of like what’s happened in real life in the past few years, but a lot simpler. Oh, and it turns out this guy is the guy who came up with the idea of selling bottled water. He’s definitely evil. He speaks vaguely of an evil-sounding conspiracy.

6:38: Page 56: Chapter 4 consisted entirely of Noah calling some high-ranking financial people’s assistants at the request of his father. Remember, this is a “thriller.”

6:43, Page 61: The ad agency the Gardners work at is responsible for every successful ad campaign of the past 50 years, from selling t-shirts of Che and Mao to “clueless rock stars” to selling the lottery to the guileless public to helping every president get elected, except for Jimmy Carter and Nixon, who was too cheap. (That’s an odd admission, since Nixon’s campaign was one of the greatest accomplishments in advertising history, but whatever.)

7:00, Page 87: The Tea Party meeting in this book is “…a total cross section, a mix of everyone—three-piece suits rubbing elbows with T-shirts and sweat pants, yuppies chatting with hippies, black and white, young and old, a cowboy hat here, a six-hundred-dollar haircut there.” So clearly, we’re in an alternate reality. Also, I come across this gem of a line, as Molly gazes at Noah: "It must have been only a second or two, but it felt so much longer than any other mere moment he could remember."

7:03, Page 89: Despite the open nature of this gathering of patriots, the characters that we’ve met so far have Southern or Appalachian accents. Are there any gay people at this gathering, I wonder?

7:07, Page 96: Noah is a “human lie detector” and picks out an “infiltrator” at the meeting (which is packed, by the way). I thought this was an open, accepting crowd. Chapter 10 looks like it’s going to be straight exposition, delivered through the mouth of a speaker at the meeting.

7:15, Page 110: Yup, the speaker told us all about how bad corruption, the New Deal, lobbyists, and the IRS were. The crowd was rapt with attention at a boilerplate speech that included advice like, “Instead of bin Laden, give them Gandhi” and the somewhat vague rhetorical question, "Who loves America more, those who want to restore it, or those who want to transform it?”

7:23, Page 120: More speeches. The government has a secret plot to round up all the right-wingers and third-party members into camps. There’s a muddle of left- and right-wing issues, then Noah is goaded into getting in front of everyone, where he quotes George Carlin and The Beatles. These chapters are an accurate description of most meetings of fringe political groups (except for the packed house); they really are very boring.

7:29, Page 129: The meeting is predictably broken up by black-clad cops. This is less boring than the speeches because anything would be, but it’s delivered in workmanlike prose: "As the black truncheon swung down Noah reached up and caught the uniformed man by the wrist, stopping him cold with an unexpectedly steely grip toned over years with his personal trainer at the Madison Square Club.” Good of them to mention where Noah works out. I’m sure that’s important.

7:42, Page 138: Noah is under arrest. The cops are boring and generic. This is how a lawyer is described: "he always looked as though he’d just stepped out of the ‘Awesome Lawyers’ issue of Gentlemen’s Quarterly."

7:48, Page 152: They get out of jail in a few pages, although I couldn’t tell you exactly what happened. Some cops admitted infiltrating the meeting and causing trouble, I think. That’s glossed over though, so we can get to the part where Molly apologizes to Noah for misjudging him. I’m bored. Can we get a sex scene?

7:52, Page 158: No. More speeches. Noah spouts off on the hideous history of Public Relations. He sounds like the young liberal journalism teacher I had in high school, but more boring.

7:55, Page 170: Eliot Spitzer makes a cameo. Noah has a fancy apartment. He reads a books before going to bed, but realizes "No arrangement of ink on a page could possibly hold a candle to the twists his actual day had taken." Good of Beck to tell us how awesome that preceding sequence was.

8:01, Page 180: A character clearly modeled after Beck himself (a celebrity who has a shady, drug-ridden past, and is now a YouTube sensation) is approached by an FBI agent. This is supposed to be a “thriller,” but except for the brief appearance of the riot squad, every single scene in 180 pages has been people talking.

8:07, Page 187: Looks like the Beck character is going to be used as an informant to trick violent right-wing militia members. We’re told he’s “charming” and there’s “quite a bit more to this young fellow than initially met the eye.” Let’s hope so.

8:11, Page 196: The two soulmates kiss! "With everything to see and hear around them there at the very crossroads of the world, soaring billboards, scrolling news crawlers, bright digital Jumbotrons that lined the tall buildings and blotted out the whole evening sky, it all disappeared to its rightful insignificance, flat as a postcard." Sentences like that make me long for the ham-fisted speeches.

8:18, Page 215: Well, I got my wish. Noah and Molly discover the conspiracy that was obviously going on. The secret conspiracy includes taking away gun rights and giving convicts the right to vote. Weren’t the good guys ranting about the prison system some pages ago? The concept of the “Overton Window” is explained: people don’t accept radical change all at once. Talk about self-evident truths.

8:24, Page 233: We visit the home of one of the radicals. In a bit of business stolen directly from Fahrenheit 451, the Founders’ Keepers memorize books written by the founders.

8:46, Page 264: This is an example how events are related in the book: the FBI agent goes undercover and meets some violent militia folks, the scene is described in detail, and then we flash forward in the next chapter and are told about the most interesting parts of the meeting (the militia folks might be suspicious, there’s an extra militia member who wasn’t present) only after the fact. Why can’t we have a complete scene? Would that be too exciting?

9:00, Page 293: It’s becoming obvious that the conspiracy is engineering a fake terrorist attack by a right-wing militia to allow them to put all the Tea Partiers in concentration camps. Noah’s Big Bad Dad is giving a sub-1984 speech to explain why he needs to take over the world. Seriously, that’s his plan: world domination.

9:04, Page 301: We’re now in Part Three. I didn’t notice when we crossed from Part One to Part Two. Noah throws up because his father is so evil, and Noah’s "skin was as pale as a Newark Bay oyster.” That’s my favorite line so far.

9:09, Page 313: We meet a woman who was never mentioned before, but is apparently Noah’s best friend. Luckily for the plot, she’s a doctor who informs him one of the good-guy revolutionaries was poisoned, and hints at a conspiracy. Every character is constantly hinting at a conspiracy, even if he’s just feeding his cat.

9:15, Page 327: Holy shit! Beck and his co-authors clearly realized that things were getting boring, so this happens: Molly pretends to be Natalie Portman so the protagonists can sneak through airport security, but the security guard is a Star Wars geek (Noah knows this from his “Luke Skywalker blow-cut”). Being a Star Wars geek, the guard loves the prequels and knows everything about Natalie Portman. Then Molly quotes the scene from New Hope where Obi-Wan says, “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for,” and they get through undetected. Oh, then Noah and Molly do the “I love you,” “I know” bit that Han and Leia do in Empire Strikes Back.

9:23, Page 333: Glenn Beck is a Star Wars nerd. And people wonder why he fascinates me.

9:29, Page 346: After quoting several 18th-century American thinkers (Beck isn’t even bothering with speeches at this point, the omniscient narrator is just telling us what to think), the book summarizes a Samuel Adams quote this way: "Put up or shut up, in other words; go hard or go home. Freedom is the rare exception, he was saying, not the rule, and if you want it you’ve got to do your part to keep it." Oh, now I get it. I’m a Tea Partier now, Beck has convinced me.

9:33, Page 349: I can’t take it anymore. "Way off to the driver’s side, maybe three hundred yards distant, Danny saw what looked like the only man-made thing for miles around. Whatever it was, it wasn’t much." FUCKING TELL US WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU WRITTEN-BY-COMMITTEE PIECE OF HORSESHIT “THRILLLER!”

9:36, Page 354: "Upon their arrival Kearns had made a bit of small talk with each member of the group, and soon all agreed it was time to do the deal they’d come to do." WHY EVEN INCLUDE THIS LINE? WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT TELL US? DO TERRORISTS WHO ARE ABOUT TO DETONATE A NUCLEAR WEAPON REALLY HAVE “SMALL TALK?”

9:50, Page 372: I’m done critiquing the prose. It’s too exhausting. The character who is clearly supposed to be Beck just told the FBI agent what’s going on: the government is setting it up so it appears the Tea Party launched a nuclear attack on Las Vegas. They bravely kill themselves to detonate the bomb in the middle of the desert. That was mildly thrilling. Even Beck can’t make a nuclear bomb boring.

9:55, Page 378: Noah is captured and tortured—waterboarded—for a page. This lasts about as long as an earlier sequence in which he is nervous about getting on a hammock with Molly. Ah, this ends when his father shows up. I wonder if we’ll get some more speeches?

10:01, Page 383: Yes, more speeches. Like Ayn Rand, Glenn Beck likes his characters to state their philosophy of life every chance they get, then sets up opportunities for them to do so. “The ends do justify the means,” says Big Bad Dad, before revealing himself to be the head of the Trilateral Commission or some shit: "Now, we openly take the reins. Now, we’ll give the people the government they’ve shown themselves to deserve." Some Saturday morning cartoons have more complicated villains.

10:10, Page 388: Noah is now going to be tortured by some electrical current, in a bit stolen completely from Atlas Shrugged. The prose refuses to rise to the climatic occasion: "They’d refashioned his bonds in a manner that would still restrain him, but with less likelihood of causing him to injure himself in the course of the coming ordeal."

10:15, Page 393: Noah quotes some poetry, so his father…lets him live? I don’t even understand what is happening anymore. I think Noah just realized he could pretend to be on his dad’s side and not get tortured anymore. That’s our climax, by the way—our protagonist lies his way out of getting tortured.

10:25, Page 400: We’re in the Epilogue now. Now I know how marathon runners feel on the 26th mile. I just realized that the scene in the Prologue, where a guy who knows stuff gets shot, never comes back into play. The evil conspiracy has taken over even though the nuclear weapon didn’t kill thousands of people like the bad guys planned. Noah is a PR guy for the new totalitarian government of his father—sort of exactly like Winston Smith in 1984. But he gets contacted by a member of the resistance, and we end on a positive note: “The fight starts tomorrow.” Do I smell a sequel? The Overton Door, perhaps?
*
The rest of the book consists of endnotes explaining what parts of what the characters said were factual This includes, interestingly enough, explanations as to why some of the crazier stuff the Glenn Beck character said was wrong. "It is our responsibility to look at everything with a skeptical eye, and also to be aware that many will try to twist reality to serve their own agenda or reinforce their worldview,” Beck says, and few reasonable people would disagree.

The endnotes are by far the best and most interesting part of the book. The Overton Window is not only the worst-titled thriller in history, it’s also probably the most boring. The plot boils down to “Evil powerful people commit an act of terrorism and frame someone for it, allowing them to cease power in the confusion,” which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like the plot of the Star Wars prequels. To hide the thinness of the plot, there’s a bunch of bits casually stolen from better books, endless speeches that quote the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Paine, and that ridiculous business involving Natalie Portman. Most of the characters are forgettable, but that doesn’t matter since they generally just disappear once no more is required of them by the story. It’s not a formulaic novel, since the formula for political thrillers involves more plot twists and action sequences. I imagine there’s some comparisons to be made between it and Star Wars, at least the Luke-Darth Vader/Noah-Noah’s Dad relationship, but I’m too tired to think about it. There are some political ideas in this book too, but they’re mostly of the bland, “freedom is good” sort, except for a strong anti-gun control stance. Jesus, what an awful book. Why did I read this? Life is short. Only read good books.
Read more!