New Haven Independent

Posted by: William Kurtz | April 8, 2009 9:43 AM

Have people really been paying attention to Glenn Beck all this time?

Does anyone else remember when he was the morning host on KC-101 and his show alternated between Top-40 hits and schmaltzy stories from the Internet that he would read as true bits of inspirational wisdom?

His ascension to prime-time television completely mystifies me. I would have expected him to have replaced Art Bell by now.

Posted by: robn | April 8, 2009 9:58 AM

...and what right wing nuts fail to grasp is that, besides our own laws forbidding torture, our adoption of international treaties forbidding torture automatically make that part of our law.

Posted by: Borist | April 8, 2009 10:45 AM

The problem with this country you are all brained washed at what is going on obama is a socialist that why hes hiring all liberal people that are against the constitution and everything that the fore fathers stood for and as for glen beck hes right on the money he speaks the truth but people dont want to here it, read the book the Perfect storm, then you will understand whats going to happen in this country.

Posted by: Walt | April 8, 2009 11:41 AM

Glenn Beck may be wrong re Koh, but I would prefer to see comments from a middle of the roader rather than a rant from Fernandez about nuts and liars. or Ms. Bass' column from the Yale Daily News before deciding.

To me the obvious bias from your own headline writer who apparently inserted "wacko" to describe those opposed to Koh It was not so termed by Ms.B' actual article I believe, just inserted arbitrarily by the Independent it seems

Personally I admire neither those far right like Beck and Limbaugh nor their opposites to the left who back Koh.

I do not know whether or not Koh is really a hazard, but it doesn't seem too far out from a Pres who put a tax dodger in charge of tax collections, does it?

Posted by: William Kurtz | April 8, 2009 1:47 PM

I don't much about Harold Koh, but the very fact that an inarticulate paranoid (I got my psychology degree from the same place as Dr. Borist, who recently diagnosed Beck's critics as "all brain washed at what is going on" (sic)) nut opposes his nomination makes me think he's the best person for the job.

Generally, I agree with Walt that naked ad hominem attacks (like the word 'wacko') don't have a place in legitimate journalism, but there are times when the shoe fits so perfectly, it's a shame not to put it on. Is the right-wing even listening to itself anymore? Read Ms. Bass' story or the remarks of the other people who heard Mr. Koh speak in Greenwich and you realize that his comment about Sharia law was taken completely out of context. To claim otherwise, and to perpetuate this character assassination and distortion of the man's record is unacceptable; it's either delusional or blatantly dishonest and either way needs to be exposed for the foolishness that it is.

Anyone who doesn't believe Mr. Koh is right for this position should deal with his qualifications and record, and not a gross distortion of a remark he made when commenting on a complicated topic, in response to a confrontational question.

Posted by: Joey | April 8, 2009 2:22 PM

Wow lots of left wingnuts comment on this site! scary..

Posted by: Jim Blunt | April 8, 2009 2:24 PM

Henry,
Man, what do I say... I agree with you for the most part on Koh, but you totally lose credibility to me when your start ranting about the "right" as if they are the great evil force of our country. The left and the right are both morally and ethically bankrupt. There are very good people with very good ideas on both sides, as well. The beauty of our two party system is the allowance and accountability of differing views being vigorously debated. Demonizing a particular party, perspective, or person is a weak and disrespectful approach to debating the very important issues that face us as a country and as individuals.

Again, I appreciate and agree with much of your article. Quite honestly, I am just tired of partisan mud slinging and disrespect. Moreover, I long for politicians, reporters and every day citizens who will swim against the current by trying to understand, as well as, meaningfully and intelligently disagree with opposing views.

Posted by: nfjanette | April 8, 2009 4:25 PM

I agree with Walt and Jim. The liberals seem to be in a competition lately with the conservatives to use rhetoric and insults rather than facts and logic. Mr. Beck seems like the successor to Rush L. - not a proud act to follow, either. Be wary of the claims from left and right. Look for facts, not claims.

Posted by: Henry Fernandez | April 8, 2009 5:20 PM

Normally I don't respond to comments on pieces I write because I think the comments reflect the myriad of reactions that the piece generates for different readers. As such, I respect those views and don't want to be defensive or discourage such reaction.

I still believe that but here I do want to clarify one thing raised by Jim Blunt. I did not use the terms "liars" or "nutty" lightly. There are plenty of solidly intelligent conservative reasons not to support Koh, and equally intelligent progressive rebuttals to those. I was not commenting on either of those.

I tried to make this distinction clear in the opening paragraph: "A small number of conspiracy-theory, far-right conservatives have raised concerns about Obama's appointment of Harold Koh to be Legal Adviser to the Department of State. Their nutty views have been trumped up by Fox News and the NY Post, with extremist Glenn Beck leading the charge. This despite there being no basis in reality for the charges against Koh."

What I find problem with is the absurdity of both the claims against Koh and the reality that currently modern big dollar media provides an audience for that absurdity. It is my belief that the truth that Glen Beck can so diminish the debate in this country needs to be called out for what it is.

Beck lies to a large audience every day about made up things like FEMA concentration camps being built to house US citizens, as well as describing Obama's efforts to make the US a facist/communist state while literally running a tape of Nazi troops marching behind him. He felt the need recently to clarify that just because someone who watches his show and believes his rhetoric about the government coming to take away people's guns then kills three police officers does not mean that he (Beck) has any responsibility. The absurd critique of Koh fits within this context.

To disagree with Beck and his ilk on policy terms alone elevates their conspiracy theory/dangerous entertainment to the level of acceptable policy dialogue and diminishes the quality of overall reasoned debate. Truthfully, how does anyone respond in a pure policy mode to the idea that Koh, the head of a prestigious US law school, wants to bring Sharia law to the US?

Finally, a small point. When the Independent generously re-printed this piece from ThinkProgress.org, it left out the links that I provided at ThinkProgress. These links lead in many cases to primary source material backing up the specific points I make. This allows the reader to click through and determine for themselves whether what I wrote is appropriate. The original article with links intact can be found here: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/06/beck-koh-silliness/

Thanks for the comments.

Posted by: William Kurtz | April 8, 2009 9:24 PM

Mr. Fernandez:

Thank you for the followup comments. When I saw Mr. Blunt's response, I had the same thought about the difference between principled, reasonable conservative views and Beck's irresponsible and irrational ideas. I considered writing a response, but you have said it more eloquently than I could have.

I am with NFJanette in that I would prefer to see more facts and logic and less rhetoric and vitriol.

Posted by: Westville Mom | April 9, 2009 12:00 AM

Dear Henry,
You obviously view only excerpts from Glenn Beck and are not an avid listener/viewer. (I listen more than view.) If you were, you would know that Beck is one of the VERY FEW people in this country who (2 years ago!) ACCURATELY predicted the entire financial meltdown and much of what is going on now, both financially and politically. He's been so prescient, it's almost scary. He is also an ENTERTAINER. He does stage shows and appearances. He mixes comedy with politics and commentary--not unlike Garrison Keillor, but more intelligent.

Regarding your connection to ThinkProgress ---isn't that the organization that just in the last few days has been carrying on a vendetta against Bill O'Reilly by initiating an online petition to get UPS to drop their sponsorship? (I got their email.) I guess people of your "ilk" like to go for the jugular while spouting pretty talk about how darn reasonable and victimized you all are?

For your information, Beck refused to endorse a candidate until almost the last minute in the presidential campaign because he tried to remain objective in analyzing the qualities of the candidates and wasn't happy with any of them. I have YET to see such objectivity in the mainstream media.

It's a well-known fact that the Left is on a crusade against Talk Radio. Do you REALLY feel comfortable as a hopey-changy left-winger with the ideas of censorship (radio) and such things as the killing of the secret ballot (in unions)??

Your overblown outrage regarding Beck's program content certainly rings hollow in light of the stealthy, cutthroat shenanigans your ThinkProgress (sic) organization is engaged in.

Posted by: Westie | April 9, 2009 6:51 AM

I like the "Frank the Tank" bobblehead in the video!

Posted by: tom | April 9, 2009 6:51 AM

WOW, if Glenn Beck is a nut job, then why is his ratings so high.? radio, t.v, books. hey liberals, just a question, if someone were to rape and kill your love one, what would you do.

Posted by: William Kurtz | April 9, 2009 9:31 AM

There's no 'censorship' involved in petitioning UPS to drop their sponsorship of Bill O'Reilly. In fact that's the completely-free market so beloved of the right-wing at work in its purest form. If it makes good business sense for UPS to pull ads from O'Reilly, they will do it. If it doesn't, they won't. Either way, he's still free to say whatever he wants, and consumers are free to vote with their wallets.

Posted by: Edward_H | April 9, 2009 9:48 AM

Henry

Beck lies to a large audience every day about made up things like FEMA concentration camps being built to house US citizens,

A absolutely disgusting bald faced lie.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/06/glenn-beck-no-fema-isnt-running-concentration-camps/

Glenn Beck has spent a lot of time debunking this foolishness. At least get your facts straight in your hatchet piece.

Their nutty views have been trumped up by Fox News and the NY Post, with extremist Glenn Beck leading the charge.

I would rather listen to a nut than a liar who thinks the public is too stupid to check out readily available facts.

"The account given by Steve Stein of Dean Koh's comments is totally fictitious and inaccurate.

How can something be fictitious and inaccurate at the same time?

Koh claimed that 'in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why Sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.' "

Did Koh actually say this? If so was it taken out of context? If so what was the broader context of his statement?

Posted by: ROBN | April 9, 2009 10:37 AM

EDWARDH

Sorry buddy...Glenn Beck propagated the lie of FEMA camps. Classic fear-mongering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjfdfDHjWQ

Posted by: William Kurtz | April 9, 2009 11:05 AM

Koh claimed that 'in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why Sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.' "

Did Koh actually say this? If so was it taken out of context? If so what was the broader context of his statement?

My understanding from Carol Bass' original story was that Mr. Stein asked a series of confrontational questions of Dean Koh until he got the soundbite he was looking for. Is there a transcript or a video of the address available somewhere? It seems that would put this question to rest pretty quickly.

But, now let's demonstrate what a reasonable person does when he doesn't entirely understand something and knows that he shouldn't talk out of--well, you know from where. T

The first thing I thought of when I heard his remarks was that traditional religious law might be of some value in deciding cases surrounding personal life, like dividing property in divorce, or inheritance, or small-claims cases based on informal agreements. These tend to be the kinds of cases where judgment and discretion have to be employed. So I was curious to know what sharia law said about divorce, for example, so I did a quick Google search and lo and behold; the first hit was this article from the Council on Foreign Relations:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/

which addresses the problem of the relationship between sharia and civil law.

Now remember, the idea that religious values should influence civil law is very near and dear to the extreme right-wing which is very enthusiastic about amending the US Constitution to align with their narrow interpretation of Christian value concerning marriage. So when they immediately cry foul, they're being hypocritical.

So I haven't had time to read that article yet, and when I do, I still won't be a expert, but it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me that in case where a hypothetical family, in which all the adult members have long adhered to the principles of Islam, finds itself in a property dispute over an inheritance from an elder member, that a probate judge would take into consideration provisions in Islamic custom, providing there was no clear-cut civil law that would supersede (in the event that there was no will, for example).

It takes a little more time to think things through than it does to shriek 'America-hating closet Muslim apologist and New-World Order promoter!" but it really is worth the effort.

Posted by: Edward_H | April 9, 2009 12:08 PM

EDWARDH

Sorry buddy...Glenn Beck propagated the lie of FEMA camps. Classic fear-mongering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjfdfDHjWQ

I don't watch Fox and Friends but I do watch Glenn Beck. When was the video you linked to first aired? The video I posted was aired this week. As far I remember from his show when he said he "could not debunk them" he was telling the audience he did not have sufficient evidence to debunk the conspiracy theorists at that time.

Posted by: Jim Blunt | April 9, 2009 12:09 PM

Henry,
There are, as you say, "nutty" "conspiracy theory, far right conservatives." The same could be said for the left, right?

Seriously Henry, how many articles have you written in an effort to expose the lies of such personalities on the left? Did you know that "currently modern big dollar media provides an audience" for absurdities and lies on the left, as well as, the right?

To be honest, your response to me was more bothering that your article. One statement in particular stands out far above the rest:

"Truthfully, how does anyone respond in a pure policy mode to the idea that Koh, the head of a prestigious US law school, wants to bring Sharia law to the US?"

How about collecting as many perspectives and facts as possible and developing a critical argument based on this research?

How did you go about writing this article? Did you interview Koh, Stein, Zorthian or anyone else that attended the event? Buddy, high school English teaches us how to think critically and develop a credible argument. Is Glenn Beck a "liar" or just very misinformed and persuaded by obstinate partisanship?

After reading your article, I have no idea what the actual facts are. Sure you gave us a couple of quotes, but in doing so made clear that you yourself haven't done much more than read a couple of article in developing the argument laid out in your article.

My take away form your article is two fold:

1. You despise the far right and think they are nut jobs.

2. Koh should be appointed because he is the Dean of Yale Law School those who appose this are all far right crazy people.

As I mentioned before, I AGREE many of your points about Koh. I believe your approach in writing this article, however, simply reinforces obstinate partisan militancy... on both sides. Contrary to your belief, your partisan ranting plays directly into the hands of people like Glenn Beck. He loves it when people attack him and call him crazy, nutty, etc. It literally feeds his entire approach and, believe it or not, it gives him more credibility in the eyes of those who listen to him. More importantly, it steers your readers away from the substantive issues surrounding this story and will likely reinforce obstinate partisanship in many of them.

I appreciate your reporting and simply want to challenge you to give your readers more substantive reporting and less partisan bickering.

Posted by: Bill | April 9, 2009 4:37 PM

Kurtz, you are right the conservatives want to amend the constitution, that's how it was intended to modify the law, not thru some judges myopic view of the world. Saying that religious law should be used to govern cases in U.S. courts is completely different even if it's difficult for you to comprehend.

Posted by: lance | April 9, 2009 6:28 PM

not to change the subject...but has anybody looked atop the NY Times bestseller list lately?

Liberty and Tyranny, by Mark Levin who in incidentally can be heard on WELI every evening.

Support local business and tune in!

BAM!

Posted by: William Kurtz | April 10, 2009 9:40 AM

Bill,

As I thought I pointed out, I took the time to read carefully and therefore I'm confident that I comprehend the issue. I'm sorry if my post confused you. While we're cataloging each other's misunderstandings, among the things you don't seem to comprehend:

1) the definition of 'myopic', which according to wordnet.princeton.edu is. 'short: lacking foresight or scope; "a short view of the problem"; "shortsighted policies"; "shortsighted critics derided the plan"; "myopic thinking" '

Considering that the trend in Constitutional interpretation has been to expand individual rights, amending the Constitution to restrict who can get married seems pretty myopic to me.

But so what, you say; it's that kind of activism that's ruining this country! We need a strict constructionist interpretation! Original intent is all that matters! This brings me to my second point:

2) The original intent of the Framers regarding the relationship between religion and civil government. I'm not going to do your research on this one because it's time for breakfast but basically, Jefferson and the others believed strongly that secular government should not be controlled by religious authority or principle. Here's one excerpt from Jefferson's Notes on Virginia to start with:

our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. In neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

You're going to be hard-pressed to convince me that allowing Catholic teachings to decide who can receive the civil benefits of marriage is "injurious to others." But feel free to try.

Posted by: robn | April 10, 2009 10:55 AM

Back on Subject...this is the kind of idiocy that people like Glenn beck propagate. Its electronic junk food and its poisoning the minds of our citizens.

http://washingtonindependent.com/37511/at-gun-show-conservatives-panic-about-obama

Posted by: Edward_H | April 10, 2009 3:11 PM

Robn

Back on Subject...this is the kind of idiocy that people like Glenn beck propagate. Its electronic junk food and its poisoning the minds of our citizens.

http://washingtonindependent.com/37511/at-gun-show-conservatives-panic-about-obama

First ,where in the linked article is a connection to Glenn Beck? Just how do you draw the line from Glenn Beck to this article? What you are doing is not much different from the people who are trying to draw a line from the New Haven ID card to the heinous rape/assault that was committed not long ago.

Secondly, This author of this article decided to focus on a few extremists at an event that is attended by families of every background, current and retired military, police officers, all types of government agents, doctors , lawyers and sportsmen. The gun shows I have been to are more ethnically diverse than most events in New Haven

Funny, all of the sudden Glenn Beck is a dangerous influence on America but Reverend Wright was not influencing Barack Obama's worldview while he and his wife were sitting in the pews nodding, clapping and putting money in the plate for 20 years as the Reverend damned America and blamed "The Man" for all of societies ills.

Posted by: Walt | April 10, 2009 5:49 PM

This week's Time Magazine, certainly not a creature of the right, in a column by James Poniewozik, whoever the hell he is, speaking of Beck, says, "He devoted a segment to debunking a conspiracy theory about FEMA "concentration camps"" just the opposite of statements above.

I don't rely on Time very much, but do think that quote is more reliable than the ranters' above.

Page 22 if you want to see it. Post a link if you have that talent.

Posted by: Walt | April 11, 2009 9:06 AM

Jim Blunt.

Good post.

Thanks.

Posted by: robn | April 11, 2009 9:40 AM

EDWARDH,

Glenn Beck, unlike the Reverend Wright, is nationally televised daily on a conservative TV network (which deranged right wing gun show people are more likely to be watching than say..the McNeil Lehrer Report) and he is propagating a distorted image of the Obama administration with speculation about socialist takeovers and re-education camps. By constantly saying "I can't debunk this" he reinforces the make-believe issue and inflame right wing paranoia.

Its like if, every day for a year, I telephoned all of your friends and repeated the phrase, "I really can't prove or disprove that EDWARDH has leprosy"...after hearing that repeated so often, some would begin to believe or consider it.

Posted by: Edward_H | April 12, 2009 12:22 PM

ROBN

The crux of the matter is:

Has Glenn Beck used his show to propagate the lie of FEMA camps?

Neither you or Henry have shown any evidence to back this claim up. No one has yet posted clips from either the Glenn Beck radio show or television program of him spreading the falsehoods about FEMA concentration camps. Thus far your entire argument rests on ONE interview on Fox and Friends and Henry's argument is based on what people have told him. One interview does not equal him "constantly saying "I can't debunk this""

Glenn Beck, unlike the Reverend Wright, is nationally televised daily on a conservative TV network (which deranged right wing gun show people are more likely to be watching than say..the McNeil Lehrer Report)

Reverend Wright, unlike Glenn Beck, has had a chance,with his Black Liberation Theology, to shape and mold the worldview of a man who now can steer the course of millions of lives at home and abroad. Sure, Obama and the good Reverend won't be having Easter dinner together but Reverend Wright's influence on the future of this country will be far greater than Glenn Beck's. That is of course, unless Obama never really believed in Wright's sermons and was just attending for short sighted political purposes. At least Oprah had the good business sense or moral convition to leave that church. I still don't see the connection between a certain segment of his audience and propagating lies about FEMA camps.

Many of the deranged PETA and Greenpeace wackos watch Oprah. As far as I know, Glenn Beck has never caused economic harm in the way Oprah has with her anti-beef comments. Nor has he placed anyone like James Frey in the public spotlight, nor has he propagated the urban legend of "rainbow parties. Why aren't people calling Oprah "nutty" as well?

and he is propagating a distorted image of the Obama administration with speculation about socialist takeovers

In a few short months President Barack "Spread the Wealth" Obama ,who has never even run a lemonade stand for a profit ,used his influence to have fired a CEO who worked for 30 plus years and barred the company from paying severance. Obama also supports taking AWAY a workers ability to vote in secret ballot wether or not to unionize. Rep. Barney Frank implied he wants to control the salaries of all bank employees , not just the TARP recipients. Exactly what has Glenn Beck distorted?

and re-education camps. By constantly saying "I can't debunk this" he reinforces the make-believe issue and inflame right wing paranoia.

If you have links to him constantly saying this I would love to see them. If you do prove he has constantly propagated the FEMA camp lies I will punish myself by watching The View for a week straight.

Its like if, every day for a year, I telephoned all of your friends and repeated the phrase, "I really can't prove or disprove that EDWARDH has leprosy"...after hearing that repeated so often, some would begin to believe or consider it.

I choose my friends very carefully, they are not that stupid.

Just out of curiosity, Have you ever actually watched the Glenn Beck Program or listened to his radio show? How do you know what he is saying repeatedly or propagating?

Walt

Thanks for the tip

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1890174,00.html