Glenn (B)Feck's Common Sense in Review

Before I continue to "outline the facts" of these two books, I wish to say I take back what I said in my card, asking us to drop our political differences. It seems that even a time of year meant to be founded in the good graces of selflessness and good will has been defaced by your incessant need to be right.

The facts found within Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" is lacking. He does not cite his sources so the reader does not know from which source he derives his points.

Some of the so called "facts" are total misrepresentations. On more than one occasion he has taken things said by former presidents out of context. What more

the book is riddled with religious rhetoric that makes me want to burn it. That said there are some keep points and facts that I cannot argue with;

Chapter 1: The Reshaping and Redeeming of America

"You cannot take away freedom to protect it, you cannot destroy the free market to save it, and you cannot uphold freedom of speech by silencing those with whom you disagree. To take rights away to defend them or to spend your way out of debt defies common sense." (Page 17 Beck)

"Those who know they are right have no reason to stifle debate because they realize that all opposing arguments will ultimately be overcome by fact...if science is on their side, then why should they care who's against them? 'The debate is over' is a line that's used only by those who realize they would never win a debate." (Page 17) (I might point out that you have used this tactic on me on more than one occasion, though albeit through varying forms, my favorite "I'm the older wiser person, I know better you don't, so you should be silent" or, "You are a know nothing child, you should be seen and not heard." It would seem Glenn Beck disagrees with you...)

Chapter 2: Money; the Real Opiate of the Masses

"With a few notable exceptions, our political leaders have become nothing more than parasites who feed off our sweat and blood. They fail to appreciate America's potential or recognize her superiority and instead they view her as just another country to be sucked dry for their own benefit, without regard for the health of the host" (Page 22 Beck). Of course he fails to point out this is a byproduct of the free market system, which is centered wholly on personal gain. Interesting how he doesn't want politicians that are out for personal gain, yet he still wants a free market.

"Common sense tell us that you can't solve a debt crisis with more debt or solve a spending crisis with more spending" (Page 23 Beck) Though I agree with this, especially at the micro level, at the macro level of our economy, since the installation of the federal reserve, the country's productivity and ability to make money is dependent upon the level of debt, and swap of that debt. His claim for the first half of the second chapter is a very poor view of our economy and has little understanding of our economy, which is not supported by any real facts. He has even misquoted the number of bounced checks produced by congress in 2008 and total national debt at the time of the end of the Bush administration.

He also quotes "nation building" and "internationalism" as base problems for the production of debt, which is nonsense. Nation building actually establishes debts in other countries to us, not the other way around, and internationalism provides connections for trade outside of the US, which brings in revenue.

His calculations on interest payments are underestimated and he mentions nothing of our NGP (National Gross Profit) which this year alone will be over 15 trillion dollars.

He overestimates the cost of Medicare parts ABC and D, citing it as $68 Trillion dollars; however the source he did use to get this information cites it at $68 Billion dollars.

What is interesting is how much Beck bashes Bush and his administration as well as Obama.

Ok one chapter out of this entire book, which in its self is full of holes, I do agree with, that is Chapter III; The Political Weapon of Choice, the US Tax Code. Many of his concepts are accurate, a flat tax would be better than a tiered tax, there are tons of discrepancies in the policies held by the IRS towards some of the former and current cabinet's workers and their tax evasion.

However, his portrayal of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and other progressives alike is a grand failure. He asserts a progressive divide between politicians and the majority population, and that progressives have failed in protecting the country, and are pushing the country towards an inevitable down fall; which includes loss of rights, a super nanny-state, and too much oversight. This is all strictly opinion and speculation; he cites no evidence to support the claim and opinion.

Chapter IV, I did not find too many fallacies, however again he fails to cite sources and facts, it is mostly opinion, no literal facts to convey, in short.

Chapter V: the Cancer of Progressivism is the most contemptible and deluded part of this book. He uses a form of denialism to assert his beliefs, as well as a level of anti-intellectualism, it's a tirade against "experts," defined as "Ivy Leaguers" who think they know better than "cabdrivers, mothers, or plumbers" (11; see also 65, 71, 85). This sentiment is rather paradoxical to his entire point, the so-called progressives who are intellectually known, rather than known for their money or power, sets up a state of affirmation for those he is directly arguing against, those with money and power and who are using that money and power to corrupt. This assault and skewed view of what it means to be progressive only continues a bantering and rant upon the usual conservative boogeymen; global warming and environmentalists (77) to AmeriCorps/public service (99), taxes (43), public schools (91), and democracy (41).

In chapter V, he focuses again on these same things, posturing them as "progressivism", loosely defined by Beck as the radical idea that, sometimes, as Spock would say, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." He arrives at this confluence by packing in Teddy Roosevelt (70), Franklin Roosevelt (80), and Karl Marx (82) under the same label, before directly asserting that this idealism lead to the internment of Japanese in the US during WWII and the eventual interment of other people thought to be troublesome, and the removal of fire arms.

All of which is a sad load of crap.

"By defining "Progressivism" so broadly, though, Beck's argument becomes not an assault on "out-of-control government," as the title proclaims, but an assault on the very concept of government. Government and law are both built on the proposition that the needs of the many must be balanced against the needs of the few, if we are to have a civilization or even a criminal code. This principle is not up for debate. What is up for debate is where and how this balance is struck. To be sure, Communism, socialism, and police-state tactics like the Japanese interment example fail to achieve the proper balance, by tilting far too heavily against the individual, but are we really to question the value of national parks (70), vigilance in the war on terror (83), and even the federal regulation of interstate commerce (65)? What Beck seems to want is not a return to the values of the Constitution, but a return to the Articles of Confederation. Because he fails to sensibly define the evils of "Progressivism," Beck fails to define a problem - and to the extent that he does, the cure sounds worse than the disease."[1]

To be perfectly honest Beck's attempt to equate himself as a modern Thomas Paine is ludicrous. His book is by no means an opinion changer, it is not even revolutionary, he uses mostly the same old arguments made by conservatives in failed and vain attempt to push the country away from its original principles and highest law.

The most important part of the book is actually the reproduced section by Thomas Pain, which oddly contradicts in many ways and in many aspects what Beck is trying to persuade his audience into believing. Which, on a separate point, is very pointed, and rather bias. The targeted audience of his book is a middle class white male worker; and is written in a way that would be hard to relate to for any number of minority groups, as well as for the working woman, single parent, or modern teenager.

Further, according to this article here (http://losangelespublicrelations.com/glenn-beck-admits-to-never-checking-facts/01017) Beck never fact checked his book, hence no citations, footnotes, or even relevant bibliography. He only gives a list of sources that are unverified as accurate.

And a teacher wrote in his review "Well, I just finished Glenn Beck's "Common Sense," which, according to Beck, was "Inspired by Thomas Paine." Beck has clearly never truly read Thomas Paine and knows very little about him, his history, or his beliefs. For many readers, pages one to seven seem to make a lot of sense. There are some general and specific criticisms about government spending and corruption in Congress I agree with. Who wouldn't? But Beck's attempt to connect his neo-conservative positions with Founding Father Thomas Paine is shockingly ignorant of both Paine and American history."

http://a-teachers-view.blogspot.com/2009/08/glenn-becks-common-sense-is-sham.html

There is your outline of "Facts" from Glenn Feck's (I mean Beck's) "Common Sense", which it really isn't.

[1]http://acandidworld.com/2009/06/17/book-review-glenn-becks-common-sense-is-no-such-thing/ no author given