Hey, Glenn Beck!

Glenn, your Curmudgeon herewith offers you a bit of constructive criticism about one of your recent shows on the Fox network. We can’t find the transcript we need at the Fox website, and because Fox runs a lot of repeats over the weekend we’re not even sure of the date of the original broadcast. Therefore, we’ll have to reconstruct this from memory. That’s not the most reliable source, but it’s all we’ve got to go with at the moment.

As we recall it, Glenn, you were chatting with someone about the “progressive movement” in US history — and Obama’s place in that movement. You were mentioning people like Woodrow Wilson and such, leading to Franklin Roosevelt and the modern era, with the conclusion that those people were opposed to the restrictions placed on government powers by the Constitution, and that as “progressives,” they wanted no limits on their powers. Okay, fine. We agree up to that point. You’re a good guy and not bad at all on politics and economics.

But then things went wrong. Where did your next statement come from, Glenn — out of the sky? Possibly from Uranus? Anyway, you started ranting about evolution. Those progressives just had to be for evolution, so they could take God out of the picture, and thus they could trample on the Constitution. It was at that point, Glenn, that your choo-choo ran off the tracks.

Although we can’t find the transcript, we’ve found one from an earlier show, where you were discussing the same theme: Destined to Repeat(?), Part 2. Maybe that actually is the show, but the transcript is incomplete. Anyway, it’s all we could find. The bold was added by us, except at the start of each paragraph:

JONAH GOLDBERG, AUTHOR, “LIBERAL FASCISM”: Woodrow Wilson is the first president to openly disparage the U.S. Constitution what no longer relevant, and then we’ve been (UNINTELLIGIBLE) aside.

BECK: But he [Woodrow Wilson] did that before he was elected president. He said, “Disregard the Declaration of Independence. It’s not valid anymore – the Constitution,” because this is really tied in to evolution. I mean, I think I understand why progressives fight for evolution so much now, and that’s because if evolution isn’t happening, well, wait a minute, progressivism kind of falls apart. Because what their claim was, and it is so discredited through the 20th century now, that the founders understood government as oppressive, but that will never happen because man and governments have evolved into a higher state.

Hey Glenn, you’re right about the progressive movement, but evolution has nothing to do with it. Nor does atheism (which we recall you tossed in with evolution). We can refute your error with three words. Just three little words — that’s all it takes. Are you ready? Here they are, boxed, colored, and bolded so you can’t miss them:

William • Jennings • Bryan

He agrees with you on evolution and religion, Glenn, but he was one of the biggest and most influential progressives of all. Does that make you want to reconsider your position? We have more on Bryan’s involvement with the progressives, if you need it. According to the Wikipedia article on Bryan:

Bryan founded a weekly magazine, The Commoner, calling on Democrats to dissolve the trusts, regulate the railroads more tightly and support the Progressive Movement.

[…]

The content of his speeches leads in a direct line to the progressive reforms adopted by 20th century Democrats.

We earlier devoted a whole post to this progressivist blowhard: Let’s Have William Jennings Bryan Day!

So where does this leave us? Well, Glenn, you’ve made a mistake. Not a big one, but a mistake nevertheless. There’s no shame in that. The only shame would be in refusing to recognize it, and sticking with your incorrect opinion. How you decide to handle the matter is up to you.

We’ll leave you with this thought: We don’t watch the Fox network for biology instruction, or for sermons. We doubt that anyone does. Please stick to what you know best — politics and economics. Leave evolution and theology to specialists. Okay?

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “Hey, Glenn Beck!

  1. IIRC that Beck spent many years in Seattle, and probably became infected with the Discovery Institute’s “Unknowledge” meme….

  2. He also interviewed one Ben Stein about a certain piece of cinematic propaganda….

  3. James F says: “He also interviewed one Ben Stein …”

    Darn, I missed that!

  4. Years ago, while thumbing through one of his books, I recall an excerpt that suggested that he accepted evolution but didn’t understand it well. Which meant that he was a prime candidate for brainwashing by the scam artists. Apparently some have fed him the necessary feel-good sound bites since then.

  5. Fox has a few science-deniers. Ann Coulter, for one. I think Sean Hannity may be another. And who knows what O’Reilly thinks.

  6. Looks to me like the religious right has become synonymous with conservatism down there.

    It may be time to start another party, one with N2O filled balloons, vodka spiked punch, loud rock music, free sex (I hate paying for it) and rational thinking instead of burning crosses, frenzied hand waving, speaking in tongues and over the shoulder boulder sized Bibles.

  7. Curmudgeon wrote: “And who knows what O’Reilly thinks.”

    O’Reilly used the word “fascism” (or “fascists”) to demote mainstream science’s efforts to keep anti-evolution propaganda out of public schools – and that was before “Expelled”. Hannity has also parroted some anti-evolution sound bites on occasion. But Coulter, who practically had the DI write the anti-evolution chapters of her book “Godless” topped them all with the chutzpah of admitting that she was a science “idiot.”

    Yet amazingly I have yet to hear them even acknowledge the existence of devout Christians like Ken Miller and Francis Collins, or conservatives like Paul Gross. So much for “fair and balanced.”

  8. Don’t forget the solo appearance of Casey Luskin on “Fox and Friends,” claiming that all science books were wrong about evolution.

  9. Curmudgeron wrote: “Don’t forget the solo appearance of Casey Luskin on “Fox and Friends,” claiming that all science books were wrong about evolution.”

    The most mind-boggling thing to me is that, whether these interviewers realize it or not, by not challenging anti-science activists like Luskin to put up or shut up, they give their approval to the outrageous implication that ~99.9% of scientists in the field are either wrong or involved in a conspiracy to cover up the truth. Sadly, that lie sells to the majority to nonscientists.

    To be fair I should say that I have seen some pro-evolution articles (typical media stuff ) on the Fox News web site, but not on the TV channel.

  10. True, the Fox news website has always been okay. Obviously, different personnel.

  11. Frank J wrote:

    The most mind-boggling thing to me is that, whether these interviewers realize it or not, by not challenging anti-science activists like Luskin to put up or shut up, they give their approval to the outrageous implication that ~99.9% of scientists in the field are either wrong or involved in a conspiracy to cover up the truth. Sadly, that lie sells to the majority to nonscientists.

    Exactly, I push this meme often. Some people really do buy that there is controversy among scientists because they don’t know better and have fallen for creationist propaganda. As just one example, look at Bill Maher’s interview with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) in the movie Religulous. He hemmed and hawed about whether or not it was possible that the Earth was a few thousand years old and whether or not scientists were in agreement about evolution. I don’t think Pryor really wants to ruin science education; I think he’s afraid (especially as a Southern Baptist) of coming across as anti-religion. There is much work to be done….

  12. James F says: “There is much work to be done….”

    So it seems.

  13. NoWayNoHow

    I think I listened to this in my car while driving on sunday. I probably didn’t hear the evolution part. I did hear Beck say that progressives, paraphrasing here, want God out of the picture. They want the people to only need the government. So Beck says he thinks this is why progressives like evolution so much because in my own words, it takes God out of the picture.

    And we see it all over now. Prayer is not allowed but one of Obama’s newly appointed Judges says praying to allah is okay. Obama says no funding can go to Christian aid non profits while Obama funds Palestine with millions. Being that muslim can only allow their religion as the one and only, obama is funding a religion.

    I particularly was amazed at the eugenics part of the talk show. That progressives felt eugenics was the way to control births and a better race. Talk about Hitleresque. Something about keeping women from having babies for 20 years?

    And extremely interesting Obama fully backs with our tax dollars abortions at any stage. Funding galore to Planned Parenthood that was originally started by a woman who wanted eugenics and a cleaner race. Funding that does go towards forced abortions and sterilization in China. Remember when Pelosi said funding abortion saves states money? Is America next for forced sterilization and abortion in the progressives ideology?

    I know they are tricky to get what they want. The liberal progressives in California sneakily passed funding for minority areas to set up clinics for abortions run by midwives. Until a senator caught on to it. First of all midwives and not physicians. But the clinics in the poorest minority areas where they felt it most needed. So now poor and minorities need their babies aborted more than anyone else?