Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

« Hope dies last, after common sense | Main | No charges for cop who shot fire chief in back, in court »

September 03, 2009

Glenn Beck loses 11 more sponsors

Glenn Beck: Officially too sketchy for sellers of miracle cleaning products, insurer, and Big Yogurt.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Glenn Beck loses 11 more sponsors:


Glenn Beck and his focus on Obama's CZARS is interesting. One would have thought that with all of this attention, *SOMEONE* would have stepped forward to challenge the facts that Beck as put forth.

Why hasn't that happened?

Beck lies continuously throughout his episodes. He can easily run up tens of separate untruths per episode; refuting each separately will take too long. You can learn to discern truth from lies in much less time if you find that a person is a compulsive liar, by spending, say, 6 hours to refute the lies he tells in 30 minutes, and then immediately ignore everything the same person says in the future. There are surprisingly few false positives with this method; however, since it takes much less time to tell a lie than to refute it, there are too many false negatives with the "challenge the facts" method on someone who is not concerned with getting facts right to begin with.

Makes one wonder about the advertisers who are sticking with him. Is there a list anywhere of corporations sticking with this sack of shit?

Beck redlines stupid while FOX's other twerps just run their idiocy at a steady 5000 rpm. Ultimately what's the difference? Horse shit is better than dog shit but it's still shit. The boycott might actually mean something if advertisers refused FOX any revenue for any of their pernicious crap.

A company that advertises on FOX in any time slot is participating in the lie that FOX is anything but a propaganda organ for the rabid, nihilistic right. Substituting a "toned down" version of Beck, which is all O'Reilly, etc. are, for Beck himself is just putting lipstick on the FOX pig. - Or perhaps more like putting lipstick on the pig's ass, considering all any of their people ever deliver is fetid hot air as opposed to actual, you know, journalism.

Glenn Beck exposed Van Jones for the racist Communist Truther that he is - something that I didn't see anyone else do.

You have to give him that.

"Exposed"? Van Jones has about 2 serious skeletons in the closet: he's a truther, and he used to be active with an environmental group with Marxist roots. Beck also tried to complain that Jones believes green jobs will lead to a new economy, saying that this means a communist revolution. It's hard to tell exactly - Beck says so much crap (e.g. he thinks universal health care will lead to communism) that even when he's right, it's probably by accident.

Now, the truther part is, embarrassingly, true. It's also not relevant for an environmental post. It's perfectly plausible that, say, Ray LaHood is a creationist; I don't think he's ever said otherwise. That would disqualify him for a science-related job, but not for Secretary of Transportation. Jones is the same.

The communist part is so full of innuendo it's hard to tell what's true. The one allegation that has been actually proven - the former ties to an organization founded by Marxists - doesn't mean too much. Anti-war protesters, environmentalists, and liberal feminists have all been tarred by affiliation in organizations with communists in them (Betty Friedan used to be involved in Marxist circles), even people who attacked the radical left and who the radical left attacked for being bourgeois.

The problem with the "attack every appointee until something sticks" model is that it skews numbers. Many of Obama's appointees have had to suffer conservative criticism for all sorts of stupidities - e.g. Real Clear Politics was convinced Samantha Powers is a dangerous radical because she believes US foreign policy should include global human rights. When something really does stick, like Jones' support for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it makes it look like the attacker has a point, when all he did was throw a hundred darts until one hit the bull's eye.


I thought he resigned over his statement that Bush let 9/11 happened? (And I sort of think that is somewhat true. Osama bin Laden determined to attack the US?)

If I were Obama I would redo the 9/11 investigation and destroy GOP for next 50 years. (but large section of democrats would go down to.)

He described himself as a Communist.

And I'm going to have to question the judgment if not the sanity of anyone who is a Truther / Semitruther

"When something really does stick, like Jones' support for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it makes it look like the attacker has a point, when all he did was throw a hundred darts until one hit the bull's eye."

It's impossible for them to get everything right, but somebody in the O administration really dropped the ball on this one...especially any perceived ties to Marxism. What in the world were they thinking. This just makes it look like the Beck-type idiots know what they're talking about....yeh, maybe Obama really IS trying to brainwash our kids today, etc. etc.


Anti-communism and the (formerly named) war on terror are, for right-wingers like me, moral the irrelevance his conspiracy theory has to his post is itself irrelevant, nor is trutherism therefore analogous to being a creationist. It’s closer to the mother of all conspiracy theories, Holocaust Denial, or more recently Birtherism. These theories intersect with bigotry (anti Semitism and xenophobia) and are therefore intricate parts of dangerous movements like neo-Nazism and white supremacy. I'm sure democrats would have serious problems with republican czarists associated with such theories, regardless of the lack of relevance to their position.

The problem with Van Jones's petition is it enables Islamic supremacists by adding to their already exaggerated sense of victimization. Such movements strive on conspiracy theories, as potential recruits are especially vulnerable to being radicalized by "evidence" of scapegoating. The petition was deeply anti-American, paranoid, laced with denial over one of the world most dangerous ideologies, and ties into a larger anti-Semitism. The existence of Howard Zinn's name on the doc doesn't exonerate Jones, rather that should've been a red flag, as Zinn himself has been an apologist for totalitarian movements in the past. Even if we are to believe Jones’s painfully inadequate response that the doc doesn’t reflect his views, what are we to make of his judgment? How can a man who dedicated his life to alleviating oppression be so blind to such an oppressive ideology and its apologists? Surely if he had such an awareness he would’ve dug deeper to check if the organization was legitimate. This reminds me of the Archie Bunker episode where he accidentally joins the KKK. Sure it was an accident, but there’s a reason he made it.

Yet no such statement acknowledging the sheer evil of Islamic terrorism emerged from Van Jones, no recognition that it is a real threat, or of the anti-Semitism driving much of the left and the 911 truth movement, or even the bigotry inherit in this form of religious jingoism, a jingoism he enabled. If only the man who glibly called himself a communist and associated with a group that sympathized with Maoist inspired peasant insurgencies showed some of his alleged humanity for the Indians being slaughtered by naxalites as we speak, or even the victims of Mao himself, who last I checked, outnumbered those of Hitler’s holocaust. Perhaps if he called out Rep. Dianne Watson for praising Che Guevara and Fidel Castro would’ve neutralized the right and survived, not to mention done the right thing.

You are right to point out such associations are common on the left (as white supremacist connections find their way into the right) but that’s precisely the problem, and precisely what wrong with both Van Jones and Glen Beck.

Manju, there are moral issues around other than anti-communism and anti-Islamism - for example, anti-fascism. It's sometimes hard to take anti-communism seriously when its main proponents apologize for every fascist regime - even the more thoughtful ones. Solzhenitsyn is an anti-Semite; Robert Conquest has apologized for fascism. And yet those people are still serious, because whatever Conquest's other failings are, they don't make him wrong about the Holodomor.

Look, most people are only concerned with the human rights records of regimes they don't like, which infuriates people who like a different set of regimes. The consistent human rightists mostly don't care - for example, the only people I've seen complain that many Ahmadinejad election fraud critics are giving Karzai a free pass are people who themselves are giving Ahmadinejad a free pass.

What you say about Watson is illogical. There are many apologists for every authoritarian regime in the world. Should we conclude McCain is a fascist because he didn't take the time to attack every Republican who had supported Pinochet or Papa Doc? Hell, you'd have a better case attacking Giuliani, who actually did defend Papa Doc, than Jones, who merely didn't attack a random Congresswoman who defended Castro. Or for that matter every Republican who cheered Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan's 1992 culture war speech.

What you say about left-wing anti-Semitism is just as wrong. The left hates Israel, but not for anti-Semitic reasons. Both the left and the right view the I/P conflict as a proxy for a broader conflict between the West and the third world, and, by extension, for class conflict. In fact Arafat survived for decades by trumpeting Palestine in general and himself in particular as the symbol of third world resistance, and Israel was happy to play along as a way of getting American support. The anti-Semites within the debate tend to be right-wing anti-Israelis, like Lew Rockwell or Pat Buchanan, who are marginal. The leftists who hate Israel, on the contrary, are often Jewish, for example Chomsky, and if they're not, they usually work closely with Jewish communists and anarchists.

The same is true for trutherism. Most truthers are run of the mill conspiracy theorists. Unlike birtherism, trutherism has no partisan split, and has been promoted by people who just generally believe the government to be capable of anything. There's very little actual racism involved - in fact when I read Democratic Underground, the large minority of posters who believed that Bush let it happen on purpose displayed few anti-Semitic or even anti-Israeli sentiments. They were rabidly anti-Bush, but so were the other posters.

The real issue there is that trutherism is especially common among blacks and Muslims, two demographics who conservatives have convinced themselves are anti-Semitic. In fact most anti-Semitic hate crimes in both the US and Europe are committed by white neo-Nazis (see e.g. the anti-Semitism chapter in The Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner), but there's a lot of scaremongering about black/Muslim anti-Semitism. However, in popular mind, Muslim equals anti-Semitic, so truther equals anti-Semitic.

Rightwing moral issue:

snow flake baby, McCarthy Red Scare, anti gay marriage, rupture, Iraq is a crusade, etc. (Beck-Palin-Oreilley-Hannity )

I for one elect for chemical castration to all these fuckers. They are dangerous to the planet and everybody. Same boat as taliban. (surprisingly, the last one who actually go to war after beating the war drum.)

alon: except for pat buchanan i don't worry that those republicans you named are actually sympathetic to fascism. kisseingeresque "our bastard" realpolitik is a different breed from the fellow traveler. Trent lott however crossed the line into revealing his own prejudices and payed the price.

i agree hypocrisy abounds on these issues but clearly the line is somewhere. after all, this post is about a boycott for someone who presumably crossed that line. if Van Jones had clarified that the Marxism was a youthful indiscretion a la robert byrd and the kkk, acknowledges the brutality of the Moaists and the sinister nature of 911 conspiracy theories, i'd let him pass.

Marxism as social solution doesn't work, however as analytical tool it's right on.

Do you really think Bush get into the presidency because of his merit instead of what his daddy and the people around him put him there to protect their interest? (yes, that's historical materialism for you.)

Also, is not like righwinger bothered to know what marxism is, let alone carefully read it. (t's a friggin boring read.)

"Unlike birtherism, trutherism has no partisan split"

Brendan Nyhan: "using the weighted data provided by Scripps (see update below), we can directly compare the proportion of incorrect or don't know responses to the 9/11 conspiracy and Obama birth certificate questions There is an undeniable symmetry to the misperceptions, which skew in the expected partisan directions in both cases. The total proportion of incorrect or don't know responses among Republicans on Obama's citizenship (58%) is comparable to the proportion of comparable responses among Democrats on a 9/11 conspiracy (51%)."


What does parody marriage have to do with this matter?

GW Bush got his job on the merits. Just as much as Raul Castro and Kim Jong Il did.

All marriage is parody to some degree. Just because you put priest and sprinkle it with religious BS doesn't make it more legit without the two persons deciding.

Bush got his job on merit? lol lol

Yeah Sarah Palin 2012!!

(I hope somebody infiltrate GOP and fuck it inside out hard with dogma talk. That'll be a fun comedy. If Glenn Beck can be the high priest of GOP talking point. Somebody smart can do it better.)

The score at this stage of the game is Glenn Beck 1, Obama nil

Beck may be crazy as a bedbug, but he was smarter than Obama and his vetting crew on the Jones matter. Give him that.

BTW, republican marriage/family value/Jesus talk in action. .. lol . lol ...

Still think marriage with all that God talk is not a parody?

Sanford: I Shouldn't Resign Because "God Can Use Imperfect People To Perform His Will"

Marriage as being between one man and one woman is what Obama ( says he ) believes ( wink wink )

And its not religious at the core. Religion ratified fundamentals of human nature.

Wait, so now Obama is correct ? lol

(Look, republican is about status quo. Scamming people, giving them sweet talk about nothing, then rob them blind. With republican it's all about which think-tank is pulling the string. Ultimately which interest those think-tank are protecting. The rest is about creating PR/media move. GOP itself is intellectually bankrupt.

I am surprise Democrats haven't exploit this to its logical end. It's not that hard setting up bait to people like Glenn Beck and Palin. It's highschool level hackery.

Manju: your graph shows that a large minority of independents (30%+) believes in trutherism, as does a smaller but still significant minority of Republicans (about 18%).

And I'm not concerned about Kissinger - though given that the Vietnam War killed 4 million civilians, I wouldn't be so quick as to brush it off as mere realpolitik; nobody does that with the Holodomor, with its 8 million victims. The people I did name in my comment are Solzhenitsyn, who's anti-Semitic and who's sympathetic to Putin's autocracy, and Conquest, who has a Hayek-style "I'd rather live in a capitalist dictatorship than in a social democracy" view of the world.

I don't give a damn what a politician says about his past. I care about what he does. A good example of this in action is Al Sharpton: he has never admitted Tawana Brawley was a liar, but he learned his lesson and remained quiet during the similar Duke lacrosse episode. Conversely, a bad example is the Catholic Church as an institution, which has apologized for its Renaissance-era crimes, but which keeps committing comparable crimes with its opposition to condoms even when necessary to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Finally, Jones isn't Beck. The problem with Beck isn't just birthism. It's not just that he's a conservative. It's that he lies, multiple times per episode. He said universal health care will lead to communism. He said Americorps is Obama's SS. Jones doesn't even come close to that. Color of Change's main activism has concerned the Jena 6 - plus the occasional shrill statement that some policy will disparately impact black people. I'm pretty sure the real reason conservatives are concerned with Jones isn't trutherism or who he was with in 2001, but the fact that he cofounded a popular civil rights organization that's now leading the movement for boycotting Beck.

"Manju: your graph shows that a large minority of independents (30%+) believes in trutherism, as does a smaller but still significant minority of Republicans (about 18%)."

Your cherrypicking. The graph does show a somewhat moe bipartisan spirit to trutherism but it certainly debunks your statement "Unlike birtherism, trutherism has no partisan split." A Prof Nyan (a democrat) states: "There is an undeniable symmetry to the misperceptions, which skew in the expected partisan directions in both cases."

"Conquest, who has a Hayek-style "I'd rather live in a capitalist dictatorship than in a social democracy" view of the world"

I googled: robert conquest fascist apologist to see what you were referring to (i mean hitchens has praised him as a social democrat) and found your comment on this very post ranked #2. heh.

"And I'm not concerned about Kissinger - though given that the Vietnam War killed 4 million civilians, I wouldn't be so quick as to brush it off as mere realpolitik"

The point is i defend realpolick. if the obama admin wants to hold 911denial up as good policy, let them make the case. i put it alongside holocaust denial (though not as serious).

"I don't give a damn what a politician says about his past. I care about what he does."

Fair enough. if your policy is to have a broad range of opinions and you execute that fairly, then i can live with that. what i can't live with is considering birthers or these milita groups out of bounds while bending oever backwords for 911 denialists and maoist sympatizers like jones. i like obama, i voted for him and i hope his presidency succeeds, but the reaction on the left to van jones really reminds me of the paranoid right...perhaps they're not as unhinged and they're more intellectual of course, but history has proven them to be just as bloody. i'd like them out of goverment.

Plus i think we have a legit shot here at smoking out the racist right and damaging them permanently, one of the resons i vated for obama. this seriously undermines the effort.

hitchens has praised him as a social democrat

Is that supposed to mean good things about him? I mean, Hitchens has bashed Gandhi and thinks little of Martin Luther King (who, by the way, was also branded as a communist in the 1960s, and to my knowledge never explicitly attacked Maoism, either).

The words "fascist apologist" are mine. I tend to be less tolerant of "Your regime is totalitarian; mine is anti-totalitarian" attitudes, owing to years of arguing with fervent Chomskyites. However, Conquest was attacked, by other people, for having an unreconstructed Hayekian view of the world (no, I don't remember where I read that - sorry; for what it's worth, I don't read radical leftist zines, so it can't be in one of those). And speaking of Hayek, that's one apologist for dictatorship who definitely has made valuable contributions that should be acknowledged...

what i can't live with is considering birthers or these milita groups out of bounds while bending oever backwords for 911 denialists and maoist sympatizers like jones.

How is Jones a Maoist sympathizer?

We have a complete list of Beck's current sponsors with email contact info. And a list of all those who have dropped him. Glenn Beck Boycott group:

The comments to this entry are closed.