If you are only in it for a buck, your target audience is the biggest one - I assume you are aledging that the biggest possible audience in the American market is the pro-Nazi demographic?
No. The sort of people Nazi style agit-prop works on? Sure. Critical thinking is a sorely lacking commodity in this country, even you've got to agree there.
He's a savvy businessman. He knows he can make more in residuals from a single Priceline commercial than all the royalties from all of "his" books combined. Why should he waste his time actually writing them when he can subcontract?
Well, I've not read the book, or anything about it except as referanced in this thread - thus I have insufficient data to reach a conclusion. I'm well aware of the propensity for claims to be made that turn out to not be altogether true. I will say though that it's not uncommon for one or more works to be cited from a person who, in other works, said something distatsteful. For instance, I like a lot of Rand's philosophy and quite disagree with her views on faith. What I do know is that when I have the occasion to watch or listen to Beck's program, I find some 80-90% of what he says either spot on, or credible enough to warrant consideration. When he speaks of something I have no knowledge of (such as recommending a book I've never heard of by an author which is unknown to me) I dismiss it. When he says something that troubles me or I disagree with, I note that and move on, unaffected by the fact that he happens to say or think something I disagree with. I find it fascinating how many people simply assume that if you listen to anyone, you are some mind-numbed robot who exercises no discretion about what they are being told. Especially since that claim so often comes from the left with the unstated implication that leftest never succumb to such "indoctrination." But most of all, i point and laugh derisively at all yall getting your drawers in a twist about Beck. If he has no other value in the world, the fact that he pisses off the right people is enough to justify him.
If someone will shovel whatever he has to for a buck, why wouldn't he shovel a pro-Nazi book if there was a buck in it for him? Assuming he is going to get paid for doing so, he may just be a short-term thinker and not calculate that he might lose out in the long run for doing so.
And what would that be? The overriding theme of "your country is full of enemies, and when your enemies are gone, your misery will be gone"? Or, does he toss in an indisputable fact now and again like "nice weather we're having today"?
So, you disagree that thinking that America can only be justified by an appeal to a supernatural other-world concedes the intellectual argument, and hands this world over to America's enemies? Oh, right, you refused to watch the video...
It's the giant shovel that was used to uproot the statue and move it so that it faces a completely different direction that shows that piece of skyline from the rear.
I was trying to figure that out myself. I think it's supposed to be a pen, but it could be a spear. If it's a pen, I think the idea behind it is it's time to rewrite the Constitution so that we stick to smaller government. If it's a spear, I think Glenn Beck is calling Lady Liberty a spearchucker.
I hadn't even heard about this book until this thread. And to be honest, I still haven't heard of it anywhere else. I am heartily entertained by the general foolishness liberals are displaying here. Continue!
Close, it's it's time to rewrite the constitution so there can be no more spearchucker presidents. Y'gotta think like a conspiracy theorist. Which, the book invites you to do by virtue of what it is.
Does it really matter what Dicky's interest is? Isn't it more relevant if Rand has food for thought? I think it's unfair to accuse him of wankery without having a clue of what the video says. I also think Dicky's in a Catch-22. When he jokes around, he gets auto-dismissed. When he contributes something of substance, as seems to be the case here, he gets auto-dismissed. FWIW, I watched the video and found it interesting, not really having a horse in this race. I don't watch or particularly care about Beck, and I don't particularly love or hate Rand. But I will give her credit for having a first-rate mind. And it takes all of 5 minutes to listen to what she has to say in this case.
In the context of substantial discussion, there might be something of value there - in the context of THIS thread, substance is as out of place as a huge portrait of Lincoln over Muad Dib's mantle.
But hey, what the hell....(watches video)... Wow, check that out! an irreligions person speaks out against the use of religion in public discourse! Imagine that - the next thing you will tell me is that Dicky thinks it's a bad idea too, right? Here's the thing - to cite faith as a supporting factor does NOT forfit the potential presence of reason in support of the same action. for instance, one might offer charity to a neighbor who's house has burned because your faith approves of charity....and you might also offer assistance based on some rational consideration. he citation of faith as your motivation doesn't by definition exclude the potential for a rational basis. That said, the place where I break ranks with Beck MOST often (and I've said this before on this board) is that he's becoming too heavy handed with the religiosity. I think in the end he loses more audience than he gains in doing so and there are religions leaders in every tradition who can carry that message. However, if Dicanu was expecting me to be shocked or troubled to find than an avowed atheist has a differing view than Glenn Beck on the importance of faith to addressing our national concerns, I'm afraid he's going to be greatly disappointed. I'm quite sure Ms Rand wouldn't have stood still for the great many religiously derived comments and concepts integral to our founding either, that doesn't mean I'm kicking the lot of them to the curb because Rand disagrees.
Does one have to agree with EVERY philosophical position of a "fellow traveler"? I think that Beck would agree that the rational JUSTIFICATION for CAPITALISM does not arise either from faith or from tradition, as she argued, but that he would disagree with her on the necessity of noting the importance of faith and tradition to our particular exercise in capitalism. that is, not that capitalism stands or falls based on whether or not faith and tradition justify it (they do not) but that while capitalism as an abstract concept has a purely rational basis, that we are not abstracts automatons in an abstract matrix and that in OUR culture, faith and tradition have the power to motivate people in ways that make the machinery work better. In other words, while I and, I think he, would agree that Rand's statement is in the abstract quite true, I believe Beck would part with her on the need for fiath and tradition as necessary "parallele threads" to the rational basis for capitalism which , for lack of a beter word, serves to refine the outcome. and yes, I think Rand would scoff at that. But as I said, I don't think one needs to share every philosophical point to be fellow travelers. Especially when the objective is narrowly focused. As an example, consider the Log Cabin Republicans. they obviously do not share ever philosophical opinion of, for instance, focus on the family - but in terms of things like economic policy, they are fellow travelers.
No, but if you're gonna throw around "Ayn Rand was right", maybe, y'know, read up a bit more.... *Does so...along with Jews for Jesus, and Clayton Bigsby*
Their "fellow travelers" are people who would wipe them from the face of the earth given the least chance to do so. The Log Cabin Republicans campaign on behalf of people who view them as subhumans who deserve to die painful and lonely deaths. The Log Cabin Republicans are morons as sure as Baba is spelling deficient.
Here's an alt cover I found, which will either clarify the intent, or muddy it further: If I were a betting man, I'd say the author comes up with some plot device by which the original Statue of Liberty gets destroyed, to be replaced with one more to his liking, once his revolution takes root.
The concept of the Overton Window is fascinating. Looking back, I can see the ways in which radicals have used it to further their evil, liberal agendas. One of the biggest examples of this is Homosexuality in America.
Did garamet say that Shatner can't write a book or create a story for a book?? Of course he doesn't 'write' the whole book. But the stories are his. I'm sure she is aware that some authors don't actually write the whole thing. Editors and whatnot fix it up and make it whole and readable.
