Why You Should Boycott Glenn Beck

Why should you boycott Glenn Beck? The short reason is that Glenn Beck is the exact opposite of everything that informed and thoughtful journalism should be, even while he panders his beliefs and ideals on a news network.

The issue, when deciding to boycott Glen Beck, is not that the man has impassioned conservative beliefs. The issue is that he does not rely on factual statements to back up his beliefs. Millions turn into his show every night, and he is irresponsible enough to produce a show that does not offer one shred of factual evidence to support the rantings he subjects his audience to. Certainly, his audience should be blamed for being gullible enough to buy the "facts" he shoves into their laps, but so too should Glenn Beck be held accountable for his version of the "truth."

Instead of facts, Glenn Beck relies upon emotional manipulation. From night to night, Glenn Beck will turn reduce himself into a pile of tears as he turns his weeping face to the camera. The reason for his hysteria are always some variation of the same: he is afraid for America. He is sad for America.

Why is he afraid and sad for America? Because the entire nation is not made up of conservatives. That the man wants to cram everyone into the same tiny pigeon hole, or reduce them down to a scary enemy of the United States is reason enough to boycott Glenn Beck.

For those that think it isn't reason enough, consider more closely your American history. Glenn Beck's hysteria has no right to be on a news network, as it certainly doesn't hearken to any responsible journalist. But it does have a very obvious precursor: Joseph McCarthy. Like McCarthy, Beck resorts to fear-mongering without a shred of factual information to back up his hysterical "fear for America" outbursts. The only differences between them is that McCarthy's bogeymen were commies, while Beck has to rely upon the scary socialists.

While no doubt both McCarthy and Glenn Beck are firm in their conviction that they are doing the right thing, if there was ever any reason to fear for America, it is because of men like them. That is surely reason enough to boycott Glenn Beck.

The Nestlé Boycott (in favor)

The Swiss-based Nestle Corporation has truly crossed the line of decency and veracity by trying to convince Third World women to switch to packaged products instead of using their own breast milk. The action has been condemned by leading health officials including Europe's own World Health Organization, or WHO.

In order to deceive and defraud this most fundamental of biological functions, the Nestle corporation has had to spend millions on propaganda and re-conditioning techniques to bamboozle women into buying their baby formulas. The best and most nutritious milk comes from the mother, and now she is led to believe she is redundant and superceded by a company out to make a buck.

Nestle makes some of the best chocolate in the world and should have been content with those profits before going after the nursery consumer that does not need or have consent to their unnecessary product. Women living in Third World conditions have enough on their plate without being riddled with guilt because they can't afford the Nestle formula. Nestle has identified the pregnancy game as a recession-proof business and one they that are going to capitalize on. These poor women are not consumers, they are victims caught in a web of decision to use their own perfect breast milk or be laden with guilt for harming their child. The Nestle claims of using packaged breast milk is unfounded and a cruel attack on the mind of mothers who only want to do what's best for their children. We have no mechanism to educate or contact these women, so our only chance at retribution is to boycott Nestle.

Western women are on to this ridiculous campaign and do not buckle to the marketing pressures from Nestle. However, women with minimal education and resources have been bullied into believing that they must spend their scant resources on baby formula that is inferior to their own, free milk. If you can swap your Nestle product for Hershey's, then do it. Nothing wrong with Hershey's, people, and they are an American company without spot or blemish.

The Nestle Corporation has been at it with replacing mother's milk since the late 1970's. However, organic breast feeding predates them all the way to the Garden Of Eden. Hold your ground and go Hershey, whether or not Nestle feels the financial crunch or not. Its not like you will suffer and do without chocolate, you'll just feel a little better knowing that your consumer contributions didn't end up in dirty hands.

There are fewer great hypocrites in the world than the brutal killer who claims to be a “naturalist.” This epidemic of self-delusion stretches from the South Atlantic, where whalers claim to be the last of a breed, to the Arkansas whitetail-hunter who claims to feel at one with wilderness while slaughtering innocent animals. But nowhere are excuses for sub-human impulses more regularly exercised than in the killing fields of Northern Canada.

Canada is one of five nations left on earth to sanction the wholesale slaughter of seals. Though industry insiders claim that this centuries-old tradition is well justified by history and the “vast well of resources” that seal carcasses represent, the fact is that the same could be said for the Normans who regularly sacked England millennia ago. Imagine the chaos that would erupt today if ships carrying heavily armored shock troops from Norway showed up on the River Themes today, intent on carrying men to rape and plunder or to dine in Valhalla. Some practices are best left in the past.

Canada’s Royal Commission on Sealing states that the hunt could be viewed as a culling of a destructive species, as the seal regularly feed on the offshore stock appropriated by Canada’s fishing industry. This is an excuse which the aforementioned white-tail or hog hunter can rightly use, as those species would indeed run amok without such culling. However, no such validation exists for Canada’s fisheries. It is estimated that Seals are responsible for consuming less than 1% of all commercially viable species, and have never been shown to have a significant impact on the industry.

As to the sealer’s claims that seals represent a valuable commodity, one can only answer with a question: valuable to whom? Seal skins are used in some designer clothes, and seal oils are used in some industrial applications, but generally only as a supplement for synthetic lubricants. In short, there isn’t a machine in the world that requires seal-oil to function. However, it must be said the oil does serve one valuable function. Because a seal subsists on a diet of fish, its fat can be rendered to extract Omega-3 acids and are routinely included in “fish-oil” supplements by Canadian vitamin suppliers.

Seal hunting is a vile industry. It serves no purpose, other than to re-direct the base instincts of man away from other men. Though the Canadian government has recent imposed a moratorium on sealing, the fact is that this destruction needs to stop completely if we are to ever rise above the animalism of our past.

 

The campaign donations made by Whole Foods Chief Executive Officer John Mackey show that the man is a rightward-leaning libertarian whose views are likely more in vogue with nineteenth century thinking. Mackey's views are even arcane enough that he supported radical Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne with financial gifts to Browne's campaigns. This proves that Mackey's economic views are extremely classical and in many ways anti-working class or poor. The fact that he strongly opposes the Obama health care plan should surprise no one.

The real question is whether or not the millions of young people who supported Barack Obama's presidential campaign would ever follow through with a boycott of Whole Foods to show their displeasure with his extremely adamant and open anti-Obama rhetoric. If these young people do not take action then nothing will happen. Of course Mackey came out with his own health care proposal which is centered around the false premise that tax credits will often be enough to provide health care for the poor and the underpaid. Mr. Mackey's proposal just parrots more right wing talking points about enacting tort reform and enacting Medicare reform without going into specifics.

Of course Mr. Mackey would say that it is not his job to come up with the specifics, but indeed the job of legislators. This is correct, but so many CEOs are always screaming that a political outsider with business credentials can always do a better job of legislating than any representative within the territory of Washington D.C. This is why I invited Mr. Mackey to step up to the plate and offer specifics. Of course Mr. Mackey also references the tax code again and says we should just make it easier for affluent people to donate to causes to help the uninsured, as if a few rich people sitting in a room writing a check is going to fix the issue.

People on Daily Kos and other left wing sites have vowed to never shop at Whole Foods again due to Mackey's position on health care reform. I guess this way Mackey will see the tort reform that he was given that there will less people in his stores so thus less of a chance you will end up getting sued. I don't know if the Daily Kos crowd will follow through on their threats, but they at least need to point out to him that tort reform has already been enacted by many state legislatures around the country.

In the world of television news that you would expect and that a new station would report what happens and not give you their opinion on what happens. This is especially not the case when it comes to fox news. Fox news advertises that they are “Fair and Balanced” when to anyone with a reasonable mind and they are in fact the exact opposite of their tag line.

Take for example in the way they have attacked the Obama administration from day one. During the Bush administration Fox News repeatedly referred to those Americans protesting the president and his decisions as nut jobs, whacko's, and as un-patriotic citizens.

Before the Obama administration Fox News did not support protests or those who questioned former President Bush. Now that the Democrats are in power, Fox has supported, helped organize and broadcast from multiple protests against the current administration. Policies enacted by Republican leaders are now being blamed on the current administration whereas before they were praised by the same ‘news’ channel.

One need not look any further than the talk shows hosted on this news channel. Featuring extreme right wing characters such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, who have both shown that they are not afraid to invent, distort and completely twist the facts to fit their agendas. Both of these talk show hosts are known more for their loud and combative nature when interviewing anyone who has an opinion that does not fit with their republican ideals, than they are for any truthful representation of the news.

This can be seen and heard easily by performing a search online. Anyone can find multiple video clips that will show how Fox News repeatedly spins any news story to fit a right wing agenda. It would seem at times they don’t even try to make enough effort to make their stories seem fair or balanced as long as they get their opinion across.

Fox News used to, it seems, attempt to cover up their strict right-wing spinning but that has completely changed. Fox News is the absolute worst representation of news as they see fit to broadcast. If you have any intelligence you will see Fox News for what it is, an extreme right-wing propaganda machine.
 

The legal drinking age in the United States is 21. There has been really one main argument for lowering that number to say 18, and that is a person can serve their country at age 18, why shouldn't they be able to purchase alcohol. It makes sense. Take the current conflicts over in Iraq and Afghanistan. An 18 or 19 year old soldier has to sacrifice their lives on the streets of Kabul or Baghdad but if they were on a base and were caught drinking or in possession of alcohol, they could face legal action. Doesn't make sense to me.

Here is another good argument. A person can vote when they are 18. If a person can dictate who our legislators are then they should be able to go into a bar or restaurant and have a beer or mixed drink. It all stems from back when the drinking age was raised to 21 during the 1970's that alcohol was a gateway drug that led to marijuana and other drug use. In today's world we have programs like D.A.R.E. in our schools that teach children that drugs can lead to bad things. Responsbile use of alcohol will not lead to bigger drug use. This is nothing but a crutch that has been used by the government for so long. Drug use has drastically declined since the heyday of the 70's. The government knows it and so does the public.

The bottom line is that if a person can vote in elections and die for their country on foreign battlefields at the age of 18, then they should be able to drink and possess alcohol. Bottom line. Especially the ones who have been to war. Common sense will tell you that these men and women are hardened, responsible adults and to think that if they drink before the age of 21, that they are not going to end up shunned citizens is ludacris. I bet there are some 18 year olds that are more mature than people say 22 or 23. Until the government can see this point clearly, the drinking age in the United States will always be 21.