I Hate Glenn Beck

[Kodiak]

Does Beck even have a single college degree? All I can see from his Wikipedia Page is that he graduated from highschool and took 1 class at Yale before dropping out. It says a lot that a spokesman for the conservetard movement has almost no education beyond his HS diploma. Those lines from his book could be read by Colbert word-for-word and make excellent satire. Maybe that's the secret of Colbert's writers? They just buy conservative literature?

Link fixed-Bean

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't understand people like Glenn Beck's notion that the Founder Fathers were modern day Moses' who received the Constitution and basic American government direct from God. Frankly, if my reading of the men in question is correct, they'd be absolutely horrified at the notion, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

Half of them didn't agree with the other half on whether or not they got things right in the first place. None of them, I'm willing to bet, thought they had everything right and certainly didn't believe that it was an eternal thing they were making. Providence? More like months of bickering and compromises*. Hell, Jefferson himself thought they should restructure the government entirely and draft a new Constitution ever 20 years or so to make sure that it still served the people over the passage of time, because he KNEW that what they had agreed on then wasn't going to stay modern for very long.

*Gift from God, Glenn? I wonder what he thinks about the 3/5ths Compromise, where various delegations fought over whether or not to count black people as human beings for the purpose of the census or not, where the "free states" on one side didn't want them counted at all and the "slave states" on the other wanted them counted 100% because it would mean they'd get more representatives in Congress. But maybe it was Gabriel that told them to only count such people as 60% human for Census purposes.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Hell, Jefferson himself thought they should restructure the government entirely and draft a new Constitution ever 20 years or so to make sure that it still served the people over the passage of time, because he KNEW that what they had agreed on then wasn't going to stay modern for very long..

ISnt that done in other countries? You know, countries where their Founding fathers ARN'T he;ld up as religious icons?

[Serafina]

Hell, Jefferson himself thought they should restructure the government entirely and draft a new Constitution ever 20 years or so to make sure that it still served the people over the passage of time, because he KNEW that what they had agreed on then wasn't going to stay modern for very long..

ISnt that done in other countries? You know, countries where their Founding fathers ARN'T he;ld up as religious icons?

Honestly, i do not know ANY other country (with the exceptions of dicatorships) where the founder(s) of the country are revered in the same way as in the US.

The "founders" are normally seen as imporant historical figures, but thats it.
And quite often, their beliefs are seen as quite backwards.

[Samuel]

Of the top of my head, France is on its 5th Republic. Most of Latin America has gone through various constitutions. England doesn't have an main document, etc. Of course we could say that the US hasn't gone through turmoil like these countries that would necesitate change... except the Civil War fits the bill.

[Knife]

I don't understand people like Glenn Beck's notion that the Founder Fathers were modern day Moses' who received the Constitution and basic American government direct from God. Frankly, if my reading of the men in question is correct, they'd be absolutely horrified at the notion, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

Because he doesn't know, nor does he want to know. He just has his gut feeling and his natural American brilliance to tell him so.

[Serafina]

Of the top of my head, France is on its 5th Republic. Most of Latin America has gone through various constitutions. England doesn't have an main document, etc. Of course we could say that the US hasn't gone through turmoil like these countries that would necesitate change... except the Civil War fits the bill.

You know, some of this turmoil would actually have a GOOD effect.

Pretty much every democratic country in the world had to fight for its democracy amongst its own people.
The US?
Threw out an foreign agressor, and that was it.

I sometimes think that they did not learn some valuable lessons - such as the simple fact that democracy is not self-sustaining.

The democracy of the US is also pretty old-fashioned. In my humble oppinion, they have WAY to much power on the president - but at the same time an overcomplicated congressional system.

Germanys current political system is about sixty years old. France is about the same age. Britain has reformed its system numerous times. The same can be said for most of the other democracies.

When did the US have the last major political reform?

[Duckie]

1783, when the current system was put into place. (The previous system was worse, amazingly)

[Garibaldi]

1783, when the current system was put into place. (The previous system was worse, amazingly)

Leaving aside the fact that this is not even remotely true, what do you mean, "amazingly?" The current Constitution has functioned remarkably well for nearly the entire existence of the republic. While it could obviously use a bit of a tune-up the fact that it is difficult to enact major reforms today is due to the presence of an extremely large and influential bloc of voters rabidly opposed to reform, not because the current system of government is inherently broken.

[Serafina]

1783, when the current system was put into place. (The previous system was worse, amazingly)

Leaving aside the fact that this is not even remotely true, what do you mean, "amazingly?" The current Constitution has functioned remarkably well for nearly the entire existence of the republic. While it could obviously use a bit of a tune-up the fact that it is difficult to enact major reforms today is due to the presence of an extremely large and influential bloc of voters rabidly opposed to reform, not because the current system of government is inherently broken.

Uhm...no.

Or rather maybe, but thats just proof that the system does not really work.

You see, Obama was elected as president - but is still unable to make changes, due to an incredibly stupid party system. Even with the overwhelming power he wields as POTUS.

A comparsion: due to Germanies party system, both major parties had to COOPERATE during the last years.
That caused some problems on its own - but at least they were able to GOVERN, to actually do their job.

You also have some major problems with corruption, which has nothing to do with the voters.

[Garibaldi]

You see, Obama was elected as president - but is still unable to make changes, due to an incredibly stupid party system. Even with the overwhelming power he wields as POTUS.

Unable or unwilling? There are areas in which he could indeed make changes by bringing his "overwhelming power" to bear; he could immediately change course on Don't Ask Don't Tell, for instance. The fact that in these cases no changes are enacted is due to his own political calculations.

He hardly has "overwhelming" power to force through legislative changes like healthcare. Your comparison to Germany is flawed; parliamentary systems are just as capable of being totally dysfunctional (see, Italy) as the American presidential system. The difference is that the German parties are not so ideologically separate that compromise is impossible. If the Republicans were inclined to compromise, OR if there was not a strong conservative faction within the Democratic Party, then it would be much easier to move legislation forward.

I agree that there are a number of reforms which would improve the system, but the heart of the current deadlock is not so much the Constitutional system as it is the fact that only maybe half the population is actually committed to reform of any kind. The rest of the country is either bitterly opposed or lukewarm at best. The two major German parties are center-left and leftist, as opposed to America where we have a rabidly right-wing party and a center-right party with right-wing and center-left factions- so obviously compromise is easier in Germany. The population is simply less bitterly divided.

[Terralthra]

1783, when the current system was put into place. (The previous system was worse, amazingly)

Leaving aside the fact that this is not even remotely true, what do you mean, "amazingly?" The current Constitution has functioned remarkably well for nearly the entire existence of the republic. While it could obviously use a bit of a tune-up the fact that it is difficult to enact major reforms today is due to the presence of an extremely large and influential bloc of voters rabidly opposed to reform, not because the current system of government is inherently broken.

Uhm...no.

Or rather maybe, but thats just proof that the system does not really work.

You see, Obama was elected as president - but is still unable to make changes, due to an incredibly stupid party system. Even with the overwhelming power he wields as POTUS.

A comparsion: due to Germanies party system, both major parties had to COOPERATE during the last years.
That caused some problems on its own - but at least they were able to GOVERN, to actually do their job.

You also have some major problems with corruption, which has nothing to do with the voters.

I would like you to show me where in the Constitution (you know, that document we're actually talking about) the party system is outlined and upheld.

There are, of course, numerous flaws in how our government currently runs, not least of which the Supreme Court decisions which held that money is speech for 1st Amendment purposes, but the party-system is difficult to trace to them, directly. The party system we have is, according to political scientists I've read (you'd have to verify their results with them, I'm not an expert), an inevitable result of a first-past-the-post electoral system; again, something that is not Constitutionally-mandated, save for the electoral college. In the area I live, at least two of the cities and counties have changed recently to use IRV for just that reason.

Moreover, I'd like to know what you propose to fix the symptoms of the problem, given that the underlying cause is that a large proportion of the population is simply too stupid or deluded to vote in a manner consistent with the interests of themselves or the polity as a whole. What Constitutional changes would ameliorate the effects of 50% of the voting population believing the world was created as Genesis depicts? Constitutionally-directed disenfranchisement of the religious and the ignorant? If that's your solution, I can't say I don't see the merits, but I think it's fairly unrealistic in a pragmatic sense.

[Serafina]

You see, Obama was elected as president - but is still unable to make changes, due to an incredibly stupid party system. Even with the overwhelming power he wields as POTUS.

Unable or unwilling? There are areas in which he could indeed make changes by bringing his "overwhelming power" to bear; he could immediately change course on Don't Ask Don't Tell, for instance. The fact that in these cases no changes are enacted is due to his own political calculations.

He hardly has "overwhelming" power to force through legislative changes like healthcare. Your comparison to Germany is flawed; parliamentary systems are just as capable of being totally dysfunctional (see, Italy) as the American presidential system. The difference is that the German parties are not so ideologically separate that compromise is impossible. If the Republicans were inclined to compromise, OR if there was not a strong conservative faction within the Democratic Party, then it would be much easier to move legislation forward.

I agree that there are a number of reforms which would improve the system, but the heart of the current deadlock is not so much the Constitutional system as it is the fact that only maybe half the population is actually committed to reform of any kind. The rest of the country is either bitterly opposed or lukewarm at best. The two major German parties are center-left and leftist, as opposed to America where we have a rabidly right-wing party and a center-right party with right-wing and center-left factions- so obviously compromise is easier in Germany. The population is simply less bitterly divided.

Your main problem is that your system practically only allows major parties to have any chance for actual influence.
Thats why you practically only have the Democracts and Republicans. Other parties exists, but they might as well not . i doubt anyone would notice.

You see, we can again draw a nice comparsion:
The "Bundesrat" (a federal organ that has to agree with every law that affects the states) is dominated by just two parties - the SPD and the CDU. Why? Well, simply - you have a black and white-situation.
Each state goverment sends representatives to the Bundesrat. Each state has a differnet amount of votes (very roughly based on size) - but you either have all of them or none.
Thus, minor parties are not represented.

It is different for the Bundestag (which resides in the Reichstags-buidling and is more important).
Even very small parties can be represented there, and actually are.
Why?
Well, simple - there is no "all or nothing" system. Actually, you get two chances to be elected for the Bundestag.
It works like this:
Each voter has two votes. The first vote is for a specific person in his area. The person with the most votes in the area gets into the Bundestag.
The second vote is given to a specific party. All the votes are counted up, and seats are split accordingly (so, if you have 8%, you get 8% of the seats). The parties allocate these seats as they want.
However, you need to have at least 5% of all votes to get into the Bundestag. This rule does not apply for the first vote.

To form the goverment, you need at least 50% of all seats in the Bundestag. As parties rarely manage that on their own, they have to form coalitions - normally between a major and a minor party. This gives the minor parties some influence (which is in my oppinion mostly relative to their votes).

Now, there are basically three sizes of parties in germany:
-The two major ones - SPD and CDU. They obviously have the greatest influence.
-The minor ones - b90/Grüne, FDP and Linkspartei. They have some influence, but are too weak to form a goverment on their own. But they get their influence from coalitions with the major ones.
They also tend to specialise. Eg: The "Grünen" specialise in enviormental politics. Sp, if they are part of the govermenal coaltion, they are probably decicede (mostly) about enviormental aspects.

Now, as far as i see, you only have a system comparable to the Bundesrat - an "all or nothing" game.
Which eredicates small parties.
Which means that all the extremists are members of the large one.
If you are an enviormentalist in Germany, you will vote for the "Grünen".
If you are an enviormentalist in the USA, you will vote for the Democrats - but you have no guarantee that that vote actually counts. Because the Democrats have to care about more than just the enviorment.

There are more problems than that - the whole electoral college system for the POTUS is just horrible, because it eredicates most of the votes.

I would like you to show me where in the Constitution (you know, that document we're actually talking about) the party system is outlined and upheld.

As far as i know, it isn't. Which is part of the problem. I adressed the rest of the problem above - Germany actually has a structured party system, the US aparently not.

I do not claim to have "the solution" for the problems of the US politics system.
If you give minor parties a fair chance, you would give all those bible-fanatics direct influence - they all could vote for the "bible party" or whatever it would be called.
But then again, they already have the GOP.

Regards
Fina

[Guardsman Bass]

One of the main reasons that the US Constitution has lasted so long (aside from the fact that the central government was never toppled, although there was a very large rebellion) is they've been willing to more or less re-interpret and revise it heavily over the years, partially from amendments but mostly from law and Supreme Court decisions.

Did you know, for example, that originally the Bill of Rights protections did not apply to the states - they only concerned federal laws? It has taken multiple Supreme Court decisions to "incorporate" the protections on the federal level on to the state level. That's among countless other Court decisions and laws.

[starslayer]

Or rather maybe, but thats just proof that the system does not really work.

You see, Obama was elected as president - but is still unable to make changes, due to an incredibly stupid party system. Even with the overwhelming power he wields as POTUS.

Garibaldi is correct here, and yes, the system is broken, but in this particular case, it's not the Constitution's fault. On the subject of elections, it mostly leaves the matter up to the states and Congress. The Constitution says nothing about how electors are to cast their votes; but most of the states implemented a winner takes all system (notably, Nebraska and Maine have not; instead, they use a parliamentary style percentage system for their EVs). So you would have to change the law in 48 states, or, at least for Congressional elections, get Congress to pass legislation fixing this (Article I, Section 4 explicitly allows this). The upshot of all this is that a parliamentary system is Constitutionally possible in the US without amending it in any way, as long the post of PM is not used, and all his duties are carried out by the President.

As Garibaldi noted, however, a large fraction of the population (and especially their representatives) is opposed to reform. Nothing will get done on this subject as long as that remains true.

[Serafina]

Or rather maybe, but thats just proof that the system does not really work.

You see, Obama was elected as president - but is still unable to make changes, due to an incredibly stupid party system. Even with the overwhelming power he wields as POTUS.

Garibaldi is correct here, and yes, the system is broken, but in this particular case, it's not the Constitution's fault. On the subject of elections, it mostly leaves the matter up to the states and Congress. The Constitution says nothing about how electors are to cast their votes; but most of the states implemented a winner takes all system (notably, Nebraska and Maine have not; instead, they use a parliamentary style percentage system for their EVs). So you would have to change the law in 48 states, or, at least for Congressional elections, get Congress to pass legislation fixing this (Article I, Section 4 explicitly allows this). The upshot of all this is that a parliamentary system is Constitutionally possible in the US without amending it in any way, as long the post of PM is not used, and all his duties are carried out by the President.

As Garibaldi noted, however, a large fraction of the population (and especially their representatives) is opposed to reform. Nothing will get done on this subject as long as that remains true.

So...it's still the constitutions fault, because it does NOT specifiy these things.

Since election are an elementary matter of a nation, it should specify these things - and the german constution does.

Granted, you could fix these things without changing the constitution - but that would be a poor substitute.

[Mr Bean]

On a related note(Unrelated to the above tangent) Colorofchange.org recently accounted they have successfully convinced 62 companies to stop advertising on the Glenn Beck show which represents 50% of his total add revenue sponsors. Can they get him to zero or are they going to axe him first? We know he's only gotten Krazier since ColorofChange started their campaign so what will this week hold for him?

[starslayer]

So...it's still the constitutions fault, because it does NOT specify these things.

Since election are an elementary matter of a nation, it should specify these things - and the German constitution does.

Granted, you could fix these things without changing the constitution - but that would be a poor substitute.

You are in essence correct. Conceded on that point.

[Ritterin Sophia]

His "what if there's a civil war in America" series was hilarious.

Got a link?

[Anguirus]

Don't let me distract you from the excellent savaging of Beck that is going on, but I wanted to draw brief attention to this bit:

After September 11, 2001, you thought our country had changed for the better.

Does that sound just a little...off, to you? Like, I think I know in what sense he means it, but it still seems rather weird to think of the attacks that way. Almost like he's celebrating that.

Nostalgic for our collective freak-out, I guess. If only some other enemy would arise that we could kill.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Ang, you're talking about a guy who invited a former CIA intelligence agent onto his show who was nearly masturbating to the thought of bin Laden making another attack on America.

[The Yosemite Bear]

you know since Fox likes to photoshop other journelists, putting a grand wizard's outfit on Beck, would actually add realism given what he's usually saying.

[Count Chocula]

Got a link?

Here we go: Glenn Beck Prepare for the Worst Part 1 of 3. Yep. It's a three-part series. "What if our contry comes apart at the seams?"

Scenario 1:
"The Year Is 2014"
"All U.S. Banks Have Been Nationalized"
"Unemployment at 12%" (well we passed that level a while ago, according to U-6 data)
"Dow Trading around 2800"
"Commercial Real Estate Market Has Collapsed"
"The Government and Unions Control Most Business"
"America's Credit Rating Has Been Downgraded" (we're already there, looking at the last several Treasury auctions)

My impression: "Zoinks Scoob, where's my shotgun and can of crisis garden seeds?"

EDIT: Scenario three is "Anger and Discontent at Home."

[Darksider]

Don't let me distract you from the excellent savaging of Beck that is going on, but I wanted to draw brief attention to this bit:

After September 11, 2001, you thought our country had changed for the better.

Does that sound just a little...off, to you? Like, I think I know in what sense he means it, but it still seems rather weird to think of the attacks that way. Almost like he's celebrating that.

Nostalgic for our collective freak-out, I guess. If only some other enemy would arise that we could kill.

Erm. Yeah. That does sound a little..... off.

All this bullshit about "Returning to the mindset you had right after 9/11" honestly scares the ever-loving shit out of me, because the post 9/11 mindset caused us to burn two fucking countries to the ground, and only one of them deserved it.

Lets not go back to that mindset, mmkay?

[Anguirus]

Ang, you're talking about a guy who invited a former CIA intelligence agent onto his show who was nearly masturbating to the thought of bin Laden making another attack on America.

I can't believe I forgot about that. What a shitcock, and borderline-traitorous to boot.