The Ideology of Peace

[Perknose]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/media/22beck.html?hp

On his daily radio and television shows, Glenn Beck has elevated once-obscure conservative thinkers onto best-seller lists. Recently, he has elevated a 78-year-old liberal academic to celebrity of a different sort, in a way that some say is endangering her life. Enlarge This Image

YouTube

On Jan. 5, 2010, Glenn Beck delivered one of several attacks on Richard Cloward, now deceased, and his wife and collaborator, Frances Fox Piven, who wrote about ending poverty.

[...]

This week, Mr. Beck suggested on television that she was an enemy of the Constitution.

Never mind that Ms. Piven’s radical plan to help poor people was published 45 years ago, when Mr. Beck was a toddler. Anonymous visitors to his Web site have called for her death, and some, she said, have contacted her directly via e-mail.

[...]

Mr. Beck has invoked Ms. Piven dozens of times since. Conservative Web sites, like the ones operated by Andrew Breitbart, have also spent time dissecting her articles and speeches.

Ms. Piven came under additional scrutiny when she wrote in the liberal magazine The Nation this month that unemployed people should be staging mass protests.

Her assertions that “an effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece,” and that “protesters need targets, preferably local and accessible ones,” led Mr. Beck to ask on Fox this week, “Is that not inciting violence? Is that not asking for violence?” Videos of fires in Greece played behind him.

“That is not a call for violence,” Ms. Piven said Friday of the references to riots. “There is a kind of rhetorical trick that is always used to denounce movements of ordinary people, and that is to imply that the massing of people itself is violent.”

That, she said, is what Mr. Beck is doing, trying to frighten his viewers.

The Nation, which has featured Ms. Piven’s columns for decades, quoted some of the threats against her in an editorial this week that condemned the “concerted campaign” against her.

One such threat, published as an anonymous comment on The Blaze, read, “Somebody tell Frances I have 5000 roundas ready and I’ll give My life to take Our freedom back.” (The spelling and capitalizing have not been changed.)

[...]

“We are vigorous defenders of the First Amendment,” the center said in its letter to Fox. “However, there comes a point when constant intentional repetition of provocative, incendiary, emotional misinformation and falsehoods about a person can put that person in actual physical danger of a violent response.” Mr. Beck is at that point, they said.

Ms. Piven, for her part, said she was amazed that she was still being brought up on Mr. Beck’s show as recently as Wednesday.

“There are hundreds and hundreds of people who are just boiling with anger and hate,” she said.

Of course, if and when Ms. Piven and 8-10 supporters or others who just happen to be in her vicinity are slaughtered or maimed by 30 plus round clip expressions of 2nd amendment rights, it will be by an obviously crazy person who couldn't possibly have been influenced or emboldened to do so by any hysterical and irresponsible climate of hate, right?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

P&N?

 

[boomerang]

So what's the solution for something that might happen?

 

[Jaskalas]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/media/22beck.html?hp

Of course, if and when Ms. Piven and 8-10 supporters or others who just happen to be in her vicinity are slaughtered or maimed by 30 plus round clip expressions of 2nd amendment rights, it will be by an obviously crazy person who couldn't possibly have been influenced or emboldened to do so by any hysterical and irresponsible climate of hate, right?

So if all you have to do to get rid of Beck, is to first get rid of her, how long til you're the one pulling the trigger?

You've already laid out the case, all you have to do is seal the deal and Beck is gone. How much is that worth to you?

 

[101mpg]

Well said, there are so many people in this country that would just love for their to be a huge violent attack that they could blame on conservatives that I'm surprised they haven't made it happen yet. It's like a firefighter starting his own fires to put out.

 

[Perknose]

P&N?

That forum frightens me. Hold me?

 

[Perknose]

So if all you have to do to get rid of Beck, is to first get rid of her, how long til you're the one pulling the trigger?

Never. Eschewing violence is my point here.

You've already laid out the case, all you have to do is seal the deal and Beck is gone. How much is that worth to you?

Less than nothing. I don't live in fear, unlike the hysterical and dangerous political idiots in my country and the cynical clowns like Beck and Palin and Rushbo who pander to them.

I would never whip out my gun dick and piss on the highest ideals of social comity and Western Civilization in such a manner.

You?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Well said, there are so many people in this country that would just love for their to be a huge violent attack that they could blame on conservatives that I'm surprised they haven't made it happen yet. It's like a firefighter starting his own fires to put out.

Yikes
How many of them do you think there are?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

"The Ideology of Peace" ?? I don't see where you get that from. Certainly not from the marxist Pivens nor Beck. Neither called for anything violent(except her invoking greece). Beck is informing people about people who exist in America that want to promote Marxist ideals such as hers - do you feel that informing people of these things is somehow a call to violence?

 

[Rainsford]

"The Ideology of Peace" ?? I don't see where you get that from. Certainly not from the marxist Pivens nor Beck. Neither called for anything violent(except her invoking greece). Beck is informing people about people who exist in America that want to promote Marxist ideals such as hers - do you feel that informing people of these things is somehow a call to violence?

I'm not sure it qualifies as "a call to violence", but neither is Beck simply informing people about others with differing opinions.

What Beck and folks like him do is paint a picture where differing opinions are no less than a dire threat to our freedom, if not a harbinger of the destruction of our country. By employing such moronic hyperbole, Beck might not directly be calling for violence, but he's pushing the option for rational discussion right off the table. No longer are political opponents simply people with different ideas, they want to DESTROY THE COUNTRY, OMG!

Of course he's free to say what he likes, but that doesn't mean what he says isn't badly damaging the political environment in this country.

 

[Red Dawn]

 

[IBMer]

Calling someone an enemy of the constitution sure is informing people. Such a great following she had too, being published 45 years ago and people are obviously big followers of her now being that 99 percent of the people probably had no idea about her or her writings before Glenn Beck started talking about her.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Calling someone an enemy of the constitution sure is informing people. Such a great following she had too, being published 45 years ago and people are obviously big followers of her now being that 99 percent of the people probably had no idea about her or her writings before Glenn Beck started talking about her.

Marxists are enemies of the Constitution. Sorry if you haven't realized that yet but the Constitution was put in place to prevent such things from happening in this country so it would remain free.
Did she or did she not write for the Nation recently ?

Second, before people can mobilize for collective action, they have to develop a proud and angry identity and a set of claims that go with that identity
...
Third, protesters need targets, preferably local and accessible ones capable of making some kind of response to angry demands
...
Local protests have to accumulate and spread—and become more disruptive—to create serious pressures on national politicians. An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees
...
There is no science that predicts eruption of protest movements. Who expected the angry street mobs in Athens or the protests by British students? Who indeed predicted the strike movement that began in the United States in 1934, or the civil rights demonstrations that spread across the South in the early 1960s? We should hope for another American social movement from the bottom—and then join it.

...peace...

 

[IBMer]

Marxists are enemies of the Constitution. Sorry if you haven't realized that yet but the Constitution was put in place to prevent such things from happening in this country so it would remain free.
Did she or did she not write for the Nation recently ?

Depends on how you go about it. If you want the government to involuntarily take control of production and make the country communist that is an enemy of the constitution. If you want to sway the will of the people in that direction to amend the constitution to allow it then that isn't.

...peace...

You have to consider she was a protester in the 60s where they weren't violent. You read violence into it where it was unintended.

 

[Craig234]

So what's the solution for something that might happen?

Recognizing that Beck is a dishonest propagandist advocating for the interests of the rich, trying to shut down the rest of the people using their political rights for their benefit.

And then not listening to his show, and encouraging others not to, while continuing to support that it's further exposed as described above while he's still on the air.

In the meantime, remembering that it's not about Beck - if he was off the air today, there'd be a replacement for him tomorrow, because it's the INTERESTS with the power.

And pushing for the education of the people so that they understand the errors in his propaganda and they follow the advice to organize for their interests.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Depends on how you go about it. If you want the government to involuntarily take control of production and make the country communist that is an enemy of the constitution. If you want to sway the will of the people in that direction to amend the constitution to allow it then that isn't.



You have to consider she was a protester in the 60s where they weren't violent. You read violence into it where it was unintended.

You must not have read what she wrote then. Why invoke Greece and the student riots if not to embrace the "angry" "strikes and riots".

I see don't see where she advocates changing the Constitution. She advocates people rioting to get the fed gov't to take things over and put wage controls in place.

 

[sandorski]

What's up Glenn?

 

[Jaskalas]

Never. Eschewing violence is my point here.

The point was, if anything happens, Beck is to blame.

Less than nothing. I don't live in fear, unlike the hysterical and dangerous political idiots in my country and the cynical clowns like Beck and Palin and Rushbo who pander to them.

I would never whip out my gun dick and piss on the highest ideals of social comity and Western Civilization in such a manner.

You?

Many on the Left fear the Right. Ergo the blame for the Safeway Massacre. The jump to conclusions before evidence. At least for this case your NYT fabricated the evidence ahead of time. Just in case. In case of what? I've made a conclusion as to what that is. You say it's not you, fine, but someone fears Beck enough to make others a Martyr.

You sounded the call. Passed along the message.

 

[Rainsford]

Marxists are enemies of the Constitution. Sorry if you haven't realized that yet but the Constitution was put in place to prevent such things from happening in this country so it would remain free.
Did she or did she not write for the Nation recently ?


...peace...

See, that's the kind of ridiculous black and white thinking that is the end result of Glenn Beck type ideology. Even worse, it involves the laziest possible arguments, where every single thing you don't like is not only worse than Hitler (or possibly Stalin) but it violates the Constitution in some apparently obvious but suspiciously unstated way.

Believe it or not, there is room for compromise somewhere between Ayn Rand and Karl Marx when it comes to the government helping people.

In any case, all we're talking about here is the exercise of the 1st amendment in terms of advocating a position and encouraging protesting to get your voice heard. Not only do I have a hard time thinking of anything more American than that, it's something that's EXPLICITLY allowed by the Constitution...even if you don't like what they have to say. In fact, the obvious intention was for that to be so ESPECIALLY if you don't like what those people have to say.

 

[Rainsford]

The point was, if anything happens, Beck is to blame.



Many on the Left fear the Right. Ergo the blame for the Safeway Massacre. The jump to conclusions before evidence. At least for this case your NYT fabricated the evidence ahead of time. Just in case. In case of what? I've made a conclusion as to what that is. You say it's not you, fine, but someone fears Beck enough to make others a Martyr.

You sounded the call. Passed along the message.

I don't see any "fabricated evidence" here. The NYT is reporting things that Beck said, specifically the claims that Piven is an enemy of the Constitution and trying to destroy America. Coinciding with this are a series of death threats made against Piven, a women who I'm pretty confident the folks making the threats had never even heard of before Beck and others starting the campaign against her.

Is it too much to blame Beck for the assholes making the threats? Obviously he didn't encourage anyone to kill anyone...but neither can he claim total innocence. This is different than what happened to Congresswomen Giffords and the others who were shot. In that case, people tried to lay the blame at the feet of the general moronic attitude emanating from people like Beck allegedly creating a general culture of violence. In this case, we're talking about a specific person who Beck specifically attacked on his show, coinciding almost exactly with death threats made against her. I think you can agree that this is a bit different of a situation.

 

[sandorski]

This hearkens to the old Hypothetical: If you could travel back to 1920s Germany/Austria, would you kill Adolf Hitler?

 

[Craig234]

Many on the Left fear the Right.

That's not a very accurate way to describe opposing inciting violence.

Ergo the blame for the Safeway Massacre.

Yes, the risk that political operatives putting a gunsight on her picture and using inciting language to a horde of gun lovers, that you will cause one or more of them to get misguided ideas that the country is under attack by Democrats and their patriotic duty is to defend it with the courageous use of violence, was looked at as possibly being involved in this incident - and the point is made that this incident makes the risk even more clear.

The jump to conclusions before evidence.

It wasn't all people jumping to conclusions. The risk exists regardless.

At least for this case your NYT fabricated the evidence ahead of time.

Post the substance explaining your claim.

Just in case. In case of what? I've made a conclusion as to what that is. You say it's not you, fine, but someone fears Beck enough to make others a Martyr.

You sounded the call. Passed along the message.

Can't make sense of this.

You can criticize the inciting, without saying it's to blame for this incident.

It's like people criticizing the shooting of guns in cities for celebrating, then finding a child was killed by a falling bullet and reiterating their concern. Then it's found the bullet that killed the child was actually from an accidental discharge - it doesn't disprove their concern on the first issue, that the incident wasn't caused by it.

 

[Craig234]

I don't see any "fabricated evidence" here. The NYT is reporting things that Beck said, specifically the claims that Piven is an enemy of the Constitution and trying to destroy America. Coinciding with this are a series of death threats made against Piven, a women who I'm pretty confident the folks making the threats had never even heard of before Beck and others starting the campaign against her.

Is it too much to blame Beck for the assholes making the threats? Obviously he didn't encourage anyone to kill anyone...but neither can he claim total innocence. This is different than what happened to Congresswomen Giffords and the others who were shot. In that case, people tried to lay the blame at the feet of the general moronic attitude emanating from people like Beck allegedly creating a general culture of violence. In this case, we're talking about a specific person who Beck specifically attacked on his show, coinciding almost exactly with death threats made against her. I think you can agree that this is a bit different of a situation.

In the small bit of Beck I've watched, I've seen him quite inciteful of violence.

He doesn't do it by saying "go kill people", but he does it with 'end-times' type drama, where he says basically the world is being destroyed, and people are letting it.

They aren't 'taking action' to stop the forces of evil destroying the world. He acts contemptuous of people who WON'T take 'action' to go out and fight these evils.

It's strongly suggestive of such violence.

 

[Rainsford]

In the small bit of Beck I've watched, I've seen him quite inciteful of violence.

He doesn't do it by saying "go kill people", but he does it with 'end-times' type drama, where he says basically the world is being destroyed, and people are letting it.

They aren't 'taking action' to stop the forces of evil destroying the world. He acts contemptuous of people who WON'T take 'action' to go out and fight these evils.

It's strongly suggestive of such violence.

It's a hard call. You don't want to restrict free speech except for the most obvious of cases of inciting a crime. Beck might be encouraging "taking action", but that could mean anything from protesting to violence. How his lunatic audience interprets it is the real problem, and as much as it pains me to say it, I don't think he can be held responsible for their state of mind.

On the other hand, by that logic, rational people shouldn't be capable of being "incited" at all. Even if Beck specifically told his audience to shoot liberals, rational viewers shouldn't do that, yet I'm fairly certain that would still be a crime.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

See, that's the kind of ridiculous black and white thinking that is the end result of Glenn Beck type ideology. Even worse, it involves the laziest possible arguments, where every single thing you don't like is not only worse than Hitler (or possibly Stalin) but it violates the Constitution in some apparently obvious but suspiciously unstated way.

Believe it or not, there is room for compromise somewhere between Ayn Rand and Karl Marx when it comes to the government helping people.

In any case, all we're talking about here is the exercise of the 1st amendment in terms of advocating a position and encouraging protesting to get your voice heard. Not only do I have a hard time thinking of anything more American than that, it's something that's EXPLICITLY allowed by the Constitution...even if you don't like what they have to say. In fact, the obvious intention was for that to be so ESPECIALLY if you don't like what those people have to say.

No, it's not black and white thinking. Marxism as an ideology and how this woman pushes it is very much against the intent of the Constitution. Yes, people can push for what they want but her solution, her ends goal is for gov't control - exactly what the Constitution was put in place to limit.
No one said she couldn't speak her mind - neither I nor Beck suggested otherwise so kindly take your straw elsewhere.