– Glenn Beck has now dropped all subtlety in his American fascist shtick and is now promoting a pro-Nazi book from the 1930s. As Dave explains:
Now, we know that Beck bought whole into Jonah Goldberg’s fraudulent Liberal Fascism thesis, and therefore probably believes that these American Nazis were evil “progressives” at heart. So it’s likely he had a huge blind spot about the fact that American fascists of the 1930s were far-right ideologues whose favorite pastime was Red-baiting.
Media Matters has an interview with Alexander Zaitchik, who has just written a book on Beck’s life and career. Zaitchik is correct when he says this:
As for whether the left sweats him too much, time will tell. He may very well flame out, or melt down. But right now he merits concern. As pleasant as it might be to dismiss him, too many people are willing and eager to enter into this bizarre role-play in which Beck is not only their history professor, but also their quasi-prophetic movement leader. While there is an argument to be made against giving him too much of our energy and attention, completely ignoring him and his ilk is one luxury we can’t afford.
When someone like Glenn Beck is openly promoting books written by prominent white supremacists – and still has a popular show on a major cable news network – that’s certainly not something we should be ignoring as a society.
– In Prescott, Arizona, angry townspeople – led by a city councilman and talk radio personality named Steve Blair – successfully pressured the school principal to order that a recently painted mural have the faces of the children be lightened up. Since then, the councilman was fired from his radio gig. All of the recent insanity in Arizona is reminding me that my old boss repeatedly said he wanted to move there “for the politics”. My old boss was this guy. What the hell is going on down there?
– There were two fantastic media pieces this week on the drug war. Evan Wood writes about how the bloodshed in Jamaica is indicative of a massive worldwide policy failure. And Johann Hari draws the parallels between the failed experiment with alcohol prohibition and its modern global reincarnation.
– In collecting signatures for I-1068 last weekend, a woman who signed my petition commented that she was still worried because “stoned driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving.” This is a topic that rarely yields rational discussion, but it’s still worth pointing out that scientific evidence for that belief does not exist. Driving drunk is far worse than driving stoned. That’s not to say that driving stoned is entirely safe. It’s not. It’s just that driving a motor vehicle while drunk is uniquely dangerous. The major difference between drunk driving and stoned driving is that, while both involve an impairment of reaction times, stoned drivers tend to get overly cautious while drunk drivers tend to become more aggressive with their impairment. And the studies that have been done to compare the two have found big differences between the damage caused by drunk drivers and the damage caused by stoned drivers.