You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1654)

PLAYS: (5341)

Every time we run a Glenn Beck post, someone trolls into the comments and asks, "Why bother with this guy? We should just ignore him! Post more videos on [insert name of preferred progressive figure here]!"

We'd like to refer them to this week's special report from the ADL on the rise of populist anti-government rage, the one that officially dubbed Beck our national "Fearmonger in Chief".

Keith Olbermann invited Arianna Huffington onto Countdown to discuss the report last night:

OLBERMANN: It would be nice to think of Glenn Beck just as a joke, as fodder for this show and the “Daily Show” and others that point out how stupid some of this stuff is. But this report, you know, suggests something else, this is—fearmonger-in-chief term is frightening.

HUFFINGTON: It is frightening. Well, I would say the fearmonger-in-chief title should still be reserved for Dick Cheney, even in retirement. But barring that, there is something that we need to really pay attention to with Glenn Beck. We cannot just dismiss him. Because the truth of the matter is that there is a good reason why we have an exemption to the free speech protection by the first amendment when we say you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater.

And he's doing that every night. He's basically using images of violence to bring together with all that he's accusing the Obama administration of, which varies from racism to communism, Nazism and everything else in between. So, all that has definitely an impact. I believe words matter, language matters and he's using it in incredibly irresponsible ways night after night.

OLBERMANN: What do you say to the argument that this country has always self corrected, that whether Father Coughlin on the radio in the ‘30s or Bo Carter (ph) who was a newscaster who presented literally stuff that was made up on the hour in CBS News in the ‘30s or the columnist Westbook Pegler or Senator Joe McCarthy? All these people a finale in which they exited the stage and suddenly. What is to say that that‘s not going to happen here?

HUFFINGTON: Well, I hope it's going to happen, but it's not going to happen without people pointing out what Glenn Beck is doing.

Indeed, since the report was issued, Beck seems to have turned up the Wingnuttery Dial all the way 11.

We put together a compendium of Beck's finest fearmongering of just the past year on Fox, inspired largely by the instances cited by the ADL -- with a few of our own favorite moments thrown in for good measure.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (538)

PLAYS: (4951)

As Arianna says, confronting the Becks is vital to keeping our discourse healthy -- because he is polluting it daily with the toxic garbage of disinformation, paranoia, and scapegoating.

We discussed this recently in the matter of Lou Dobbs:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (861)

PLAYS: (2312)

Sean Hannity's desperation in his dire quest to keep up with Glenn Beck by getting a White House scalp in the form of safe-schools advocate Kevin Jennings has now gone from simply fabricating stories out of distorted evidence to outright gay-bashing.

Last night he brought on Rep. Steve King of Iowa -- one of the nation's leading bigots, the guy who predicted Al Qaeda would love Obama and claimed that the hate-crimes bill would protect pedophiles but not veterans. And it quickly became clear what their chief objection to Jennings really is:

He's gay.

King objects to having someone "pushing the homosexual agenda" in charge of advocating safety in schools -- even though one of the primary forms of violence within our schools involves bullying gay students. But then, King is a guy who objects to including gays and lesbians in hate-crimes protections on free-speech grounds -- which is to say, he thinks that beating up gays is a First Amendment right -- so it fits.

And Hannity chimes along. Because, like Inspector Javert, he is a man possessed ... of the need to beat Glenn Beck. He doesn't mind whatever casualties pile up along the way.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (113)

PLAYS: (260)

Bill Moyers weighs in on the right wing screechers crying about the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine being brought back. I think the bigger issue is media consolidation, which Bill has addressed in other shows, but did not do so here. Those complaining about the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine coming back will always have the biggest megaphone until these companies are broken up, and media ownership rules are revised.

Moyers: Do I think any conservative commentator wished for what happened in Knoxville last year, or to Doctor George Tiller in Wichita two months ago? Not for a minute. The killer who pulled the trigger is the guilty party. But do I wish the vendors of venom, and their sponsors, would think harder about how angry words become accomplices of foul deeds? Yes, I do. Most certainly. Especially as the words and crazy theories of militias and other elements of the lunatic fringe are given even a shred of credibility by their repetition in the conspicuous conservative media. God only knows the price we pay when we turn political opponents to be debated, into mortal enemies to be eliminated.

Now, when some of those who shout through the megaphone of right wing radio hear a critique like this, they immediately throw a fit. They claim that people like me are calling for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Some of you remember the Fairness Doctrine, adopted 60 years ago by the Federal Communications Commission. It said that opposing points of view had to be presented on radio or TV in a way that was honest, equitable and balanced. If not, said the FCC, a station could lose its license.

Ronald Reagan abolished the doctrine in 1987, but mention it today and the Rush Limbaugh's of the world still scream like martyrs being stretched on the rack. These people earn millions inciting riots in the public mind. If they were required to be fair, they would soon be penniless, out on the street, cup in hand. So when we first telecast our report on the killings in Knoxville last year, some of them threw a tantrum, as if our criticism of their malicious rhetoric was a call for government censorship.

It's true that in this current climate of mean-speak some members of congress and others have called for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But I'm not one of them. The Doctrine is a throwback to a time when there were a lot fewer ways to hear news and opinion than there are in today's universe of websites, blogs, and tweets. Just last week, the two new commissioners to the FCC expressed their strong opposition to its restoration. The new FCC chairman is opposed, too.

Conservatives nonetheless wave the fallacious threat of its return as a bloody flag, lofted above the straw men they evoke to roil the faithful and keep the cash registers ringing.

So let me say it again: the first amendment protection of a free press extends to The Savage Nation as surely as it does to The Nation magazine. Anyway, you can't coerce taste; fairness is not a doctrine to be enforced, but a choice to be made, a responsibility to be honored.

That's it for this week, but the Journal continues at our website. Log onto PBS.org and click on Bill Moyers Journal, where you can find out more about the history of talk radio and free speech and follow the debate on health care reform.

I'm Bill Moyers. See you next time.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (824)

PLAYS: (1288)

Huckabee seems to have forgotten that most militaries have something a little larger than muskets to fight with these days. He apparently thinks arming the Iranians to the hilt and turning Iran into the wild, wild west would make things better over there. I don't think arming the citizens with guns is going to do them a whole lot of good trying to go up against that country's military force. They'd just be getting out bigger weapons to slaughter them with and more of them would end up dying. And while we're on the subject, just who do you think Jesus would arm Huck?

Huckabee: Well across America we celebrate this day as our nation’s 233rd birthday, and what a wonderful country. We ought to never take for granted our freedom, nor forget the depth of sacrifice for those that have given it to us. Just watch the events in Iran and breathe deep the air of freedom that you have. And we know the shot that murdered the twenty six old Neda Agha-Soltan has been called the shot heard round the world.

That’s a reference of course to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s poem commemorating the battle at the Concord Bridge in 1775, which begins:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

But there’s a huge difference between these two shots. A difference not just in hundreds of years and thousands of miles. The shot that took Neda was for brutality and darkness. It was fired not just to stop her young heart, but to destroy the demand for dignity and fairness. The Battle of Concord ended differently from the battle and the events five years earlier when Americans had thrown snowballs at the British and five Americans ended up dead. That confrontation became known as the Boston Mascare.

Now what’s the difference between a masacre and a battle? Well I’ll tell ya’. Guns. Some of us fail to understand that our 1st Amendment right to speak and assemble is meaningless without our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. We don’t make the connection sometimes.

Without the 2nd Amendment there are no battles, just masacres. That’s why I don’t understand some people in groups who are so gung-ho on the 1st Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment, not so much. Some don’t seem to believe that we have an indivdual right to bear arms and the founding fathers wanted to make certain that what ever happened in this country, we would be prepared to protect our freedom like the Minutemen, and not be reduced to pathetic victims throwing snowballs or chunks of cement like the poor souls in Iran.

Forewarned about the danger of tyranny is forearmed against it. Unarmed, is simply dead. As long as evil exists the shots will continue to be heard around the world and as free men and women, we need to do everything we can to ensure that they echo the Battle of Concord, and not the masacre of Tehran.

During her now 10 month-long media victimization campaign, Sarah Palin has time and again revealed her fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment and Americans' free speech rights. Now as she prepares to exit the Alaska Governor's mansion, her confusion - and thin skin - is again on display.

On the Fourth of July of all days, Palin's lawyer Thomas Van Flein issued a warning that his client would bring defamation claims against bloggers and media alike speculating on rumors of a criminal investigation involving the Governor:

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as "fact" that Governor Palin resigned because she is "under federal investigation" for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those "responsible for the abuse of that right." Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/... These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.

As Moore herself noted regarding her reference on MSNBC to the lingering questions surrounding the construction of the Palin home and the Wasilla sports complex (a story first raised last year by the Wayne Barrett in The Village Voice):

"I haven't defamed the governor, I reported on speculation and rumor in Alaska. ... It's not my rumor; it's been out there for 10 months and the First Amendment protects me," Moore said. "Even if I didn't say it's 'rumors and speculation,' I'm still protected -- I would just lose credibility, which I'm not willing to do."

UPDATE: For its part, as the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday, "the FBI's Alaska spokesman said the bureau had no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity."

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 1143

PLAYS: 1392

My longtime friend and colleague Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates was interviewed on NPR's Fresh Air earlier this week, talking about right-wing extremism (a term he actually loathes). It's a fascinating discussion and an enlightening listen, as it often is with Chip.

The focus of the discussion was a new paper Berlet wrote for PRA: "Toxic to Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, and Scapegoating". [The main PDF is here.]

Berlet bounced off the paper for Huffington Post in discussing the Holocaust Museum shooting, and sums up his argument concisely:

People who believe conspiracist allegations sometimes act on those irrational beliefs, and this has concrete consequences in the real world. The shooting today is a prime example of why it is a mistake to ignore bigoted conspiracy theories. Law enforcement needs to enforce laws against criminal behavior. Vicious bigoted speech, however, is often protected by the First Amendment. We do not need new laws or to encourage government agencies to further erode civil liberties. We need to stand up as moral people and speak out against the spread of bigoted conspiracy theories. That's not a police problem, that's our problem as people responsible for defending a free society.

... Apocalyptic aggression is fueled by right-wing pundits who demonize scapegoated groups and individuals in our society, implying that it is urgent to stop them from wrecking the nation. Some angry people already believe conspiracy theories in which the same scapegoats are portrayed as subversive, destructive, or evil. Add in aggressive apocalyptic ideas that suggest time is running out and quick action mandatory and you have a perfect storm of mobilized resentment threatening to rain bigotry and violence across the United States.

Now the only question is: Will Bill O'Reilly send one of his ambush crews after Chip now?

Happy Mother's Day!!

The Mahablog: More infantilism

Zaius Nation: Bristol Palin has miraculously transformed herself into the Abstinence Fairy

Alternate Brain: Always remember this...

Informed Comment: Karzai complains about US air strikes

HOLY CRAP: Teacher broke law by calling creationism "superstitious nonsense"...By their fruits ye shall know them...And maybe not want to hang with them...Hypocrites...Nigerian Witch-Finder going to court...Mormon Controversy...Texas seceeding from earth...This Week In God...Religion cures everything... Bible In a Minute...40 million Nonbelievers in America...This time, the Baptists are right...Always good for a laugh...

DOWNLOAD (30)

PLAY (62)

David Shuster questions McCain spokesperson Ben Porritt about Sarah Palin's statement that she thought her First Amendment rights were under attack because the press said she was going "negative" on Obama.

Palin: ...Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama. Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

Shuster asks Porritt why Palin thinks the First Amendment protects her from the press rather than the other way around. When pinned down, all Porritt could do was say that she really didn't mean it, attack Barack Obama and Joe Biden, claim that he didn't hear the entire interview, and blame the press for playing "gotcha' games".