Glenn Beck

A would-be mass killer enters a shopping mall and begins shooting. A civilian with a permit to carry a concealed firearm draws his pistol and approaches the killer. Seeing the pistol, the killer turns his own gun on himself and ends it. The armed citizen never does fire his pistol, but other people in the mall that might have become further victims of the killer are spared. (See the third from last paragraph below for a possible explanation of the killer 19s behavior.)

This is just one of the many examples that advocates of 1Ccommon sense 1D gun control ignore and even claim never occur. One of the ways they get around it is by compiling only incidents in which four or more people are murdered by a gun-toting killer. But when someone else on the scene has a gun, there are apt to be fewer than four victims. Gun control advocates not only take advantage of this in compiling their statistics, but even when there is a case in which a gunman did kill four people before being stopped by an armed citizen, they ignore that case, too.

Glenn Beck 19s 1CControl 1D provides statistics of his own as well as many anecdotes similar to the one above, citing locations, dates, and the names of the armed heroes. But he refuses to name the killers because so many of them wanted to become famous, and Beck won 19t give them the satisfaction 14even posthumously.

Also, quoting representative statements from politicians and pundits who advocate gun control, Beck argues against each contention with facts and a reasoned argument that seems very persuasive. When gun control advocates ridicule second amendment advocates by asserting that no one wants to take away their right to bear arms, Beck cites examples of gun control advocates who do state the desire to take all guns away from private citizens. Sometimes, it is the very individual who says that no one wants to take away all guns who, on another occasion, has expressed the desire and intention to take away all guns. (Maybe they have multiple personalities and don 19t know what their alters have said.)

One of the remarkable points that Beck makes is that even though we are seeing a rash of reports of mass shootings, especially by killers using rifles, these types of shootings are actually statistically rare and becoming fewer with every passing year. Somehow, the shock of having someone kill school children or theater-goers is so sensational that it makes it seem as if this kind of crime is epidemic. (I don 19t recall that Beck says so, but there is likely to be a copycat aspect that has made these types of shootings cluster together in time.) Yet the number of firearm deaths each year is almost entirely due to handguns while those that are due to rifles are few. This is no comfort, of course, if you or a loved one happen to be among the statistically rare victims of mass killers toting so-called military-style assault rifles (more accurately, military-style, assault-style rifles since they are not, in fact, either military or assault rifles but sports rifles made to look like military assault rifles). Still, neither does it make any sense 14common or otherwise 14to make a sweeping, special federal law to address no more than one or two percent of all murder weapons 14especially if the proposed law can be shown not to address the problem at all.

The above line of argument is what takes up the first part of Beck 19s book. The second part argues that violent video games are more of a proximate cause of mass shootings than is the availability of guns. This is also a persuasive argument, not to say that I am entirely persuaded. Among the curious factoids that support some sort of a societal cause rather than one related to the availability of guns, is that before 1975, when guns were as available as they ever have been, there were no public school shootings by students like what we 19ve seen since that year. Why did this phenomenon start in the last quarter of the twentieth century, not earlier? Another factoid more specifically suggestive of the video game thesis is that quite a number of the recent mass killers were dedicated video game players. This fact explains a couple of the significant components of their crimes. One is that many of them re-loaded their weapons before entering each new room so that they were fully loaded each time they confronted a new group of victims. Beck cites an expert who says that this technique 14which made these killers more effective killing machines and less vulnerable to an unarmed citizen who might stop them while they were reloading 14is generally unknown to all except policemen, soldiers, and video gamers.

Another factor that seems to be due to the influence of video gaming on these mass killers is that they view their attacks as if they were playing a game in which they achieve points for each victim they kill. One of the corollaries of this sick imposition of game rules on reality is that, because in a video game whoever kills a high scorer wins all of his points, if a policeman 14or, in the case of the mall shooter I described at the top of this review, an armed civilian 14kills the mass killer, he loses all of his points; but, if the killer commits suicide, he retains his points. This probably explains why the killer in my opening example killed himself rather than risk shooting it out with the armed man who was approaching him.

A topical book is blessed and cursed by being topical. Some of the material cited in 1CControl 1D is as recent as 2012. Not outdated, yet; but it will be some day, and then this book might become outdated because it does not include any facts after 2012. It will certainly be outdated if the gun control debate changes drastically or goes away entirely. On the other hand, the unlikelihood of this debate falling by the wayside is extreme. Even if it cools down for now, gun control will be back as a controversy sooner than we might expect. When it does return, the arguments in this book will still be at least useful. Any argument in favor of gun control ought to have to refute Beck 19s twin case against gun control and for video games as a precipitating cause of extreme gun violence. BTW, Beck does not think that outright banning of video games is necessarily a solution, but instead argues for better parental control of children 19s game playing. Many parents are unaware of how violent video games are and the low threshold for mayhem and murder reflected by game rating systems.

As always, a Glenn Beck book is a team effort into which we can at best presume that Beck himself had some input but where much of the research and writing was done by others. Beck takes primary credit as author but notes the names of other contributors without always specifying the extent of their roles.… (mer)

This book goes against a politically correct shibboleth that has only grown stronger and more pervasive since the day that a terrorist attack, deliberately planned by subordinates of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans. Politically correct doctrine since 9/11 has held Muslims to a generous standard of conduct as a non-western and ethnically-linked minority group that is presumed to be culturally oppressed. (1. This seems to be a classic example of the bigotry of low expectations, and 2. it blithely ignores the fact that there is no ethnic restriction on membership in the “ummah” or Muslim community.) More importantly, any misconduct by an individual member of this group must not be tied in any way to Islam or to any sect or group thereof.

We seem to have learned since that day to downplay or even deny any connection between terrorism and Islam, but at least three administrations – before during and since 9/11 – assumed that “Islam is a religion of peace” and that terrorists cannot be “good Muslims” or reflect the true interpretation of Islam. Part of the “logic” (or “wish fulfillment”) of this narrative has to do, at least partly, with a fear that by making war on terrorists who happen to be nominally Muslim, the U.S. might be seen to be at war with all Muslims – all 1.6 billion of them, which would be imprudent and untenable.

As Glenn Beck writes in this book, “According to the Clarion Project, President Bush was due to meet personally with Muslim leaders—many with [Muslim] Brotherhood connections—in 2001. One of the invitees, Abdurahman Alamoudi, had also met with officials in the Clinton administration. Alamoudi would later be sentenced to twenty-three years in prison for plotting with Libyans to assassinate the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. That meeting, which was to happen on September 11, was, of course, canceled.” That cancellation was not due to Alamoudi’s criminality being found out by the administration, but was only because the events of 9/11 effectively cleared the president’s schedule of business as usual.

The Muslim Brotherhood, alluded to in the above quotation, plays a major role in this book. Founded in the early twentieth century to promote a return to Islamic purity and supremacy, the Brotherhood has spawned many spin-offs including al-Qaeda. Subsidiaries of the organization have been cited by U.S. government investigators for raising money for terrorist groups and spreading violent Muslim supremacist propaganda. The Brotherhood also directly backed the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and his replacement with Brotherhood member Mohamed Morsi whose subsequent autocratic rule and repressive measures earned him little popular support when a military coup removed Morsi not too long after he became president.

The comedy of errors that has come out of the West’s inability – or unwillingness – to make an effort to distinguish the bad guys from the good guys has resulted in anything but a comedy. Across administrations, nominally Muslim front groups for terrorists have been both indicted and welcomed into the halls of government. They have even had a hand in deleting any references to Islam from government manuals on dealing with terrorism.

When a Muslim member of the U.S. military slaughtered 13 of his fellow soldiers while crying “Allahu Akbar!” (Allah is great!), it was classified as “workplace violence,” even though Major Nidal Hasan, the perpetrator, had been in contact with a radical Muslim cleric and had told colleagues that he believed the U.S. position in the Middle East was wrong and that he sided with the enemy. This sounded dangerous to some of his colleagues, but they dared not report Hasan because, by 2009, it had already become U.S. government policy to treat Muslims with kid gloves even if they preached violence against the United States. Other mass murders that followed had an obvious religious component, too, but were dismissed as “lone wolf” acts – even when connections between these lone wolves and known terrorists were identified, and even when the so-called lone wolves acted jointly with others as in the massacres that took place at the Boston Marathon and in San Bernardino, California. Two or more “lone wolves” acting in concert with each other are rather obviously not alone. (Facilitating the argument against a foreign-inspired operation – even when contacts with foreign operatives via the internet have been established – is the fact that most of the American cases have been amateurishly carried out – for example, San Bernardino; whereas more of the European attacks, such as the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, were perpetrated by well-trained combatants.)

The notion that terrorists cannot represent Islam or reflect its values and aims is not tenable, and not just because it ignores the statistical reality that the majority of terrorists around the world turn out to have Muslim ties. A Pew Poll of Muslims in various countries notes that large numbers – sometimes large minorities and other times actual majorities – are sympathetic to some of the goals of terrorists, including a brutal, literalist interpretation of sharia (Muslim law) and the imposition of sharia on non-Muslim societies, and violence against those who leave or criticize Islam. The trouble is that, despite western attempts not to offend the rank and file Muslim, the terrorists are winning hearts and minds to a worrisome degree.

Much of this book is devoted to a history of Islam, what the Quran – the holy book of Islam – actually says and how Muslims interpret it, as well as their interpretation of other Muslim texts. Are terrorists who say they represent Islam to be taken at their word or should we say that they must not be real or good Muslims? I have looked into this question myself. I happen to have two versions/editions of the translation of the Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1872-1953), who divided his life between his native India and England. I took a passage that has often been cited as proof of Islam’s violent intolerance, and I consulted Ali’s commentary on the passage. Ali’s basic position throughout his commentary is that the language in many Quranic passages should not be taken literally. After all, when it comes to stoning people to death, chopping off body parts, or sanctioning battlefield atrocities, people do not do such things anymore, right? The trouble is that people who call themselves Muslim today are engaging in exactly those kinds of things, and they can justify their behavior by taking the Quran literally. Indeed, it is my impression that the more literally one takes the Quran, the more one must agree that the terrorists’ interpretation is correct. It is not up to non-Muslims to either tell Muslims that they must not make literal interpretations or to pretend that they don’t when a great many of them do.

It is sometimes argued that the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity are just as violent as the verses of the Quran, and, indeed, they are; but most Jews and Christians have long since taken the position with their own scriptures that Ali nearly a century ago took with his: that they are to be taken non-literally and that civilized people no longer stone criminals to death or preach the subjugation and/or extermination of members of other groups. Again, the more literally one takes one’s scriptures, the more intolerance, cruelty and violence seem like holy ideals.*

As to the alliance that has grown up between the political left and the radical Muslim cause, I would feel remiss if I did not mention the utter incongruity of this alliance. Theoretically based on the left’s championing of the underdog and the radical Muslim’s self-identification as just such an underdog, oppressed historically by colonialism and still oppressed by colonialism’s legacy, the alliance has to overlook many glaring contradictions. The left has come to champion open sexuality, rights for homosexuals, gender fluidity for transgender individuals including equal access to public restrooms, equal rights for women and other groups, religious freedom including freedom for secularists and atheists, and political freedom (at least for socialists). Swept under the rug is the fact that many hardcore Islamic radicals would kill LGBTQ persons, oppress and abuse women, and oppress or massacre religious minorities, especially Jews. There seems to be a sell-by date on this alliance. (If you want to see “A Handmaid’s Tale,” you needn’t look for it in some fantasy dystopia; just look at life under the Islamic State.)

As Beck writes:
“Islam is increasingly becoming intolerant, not just of Westerners and others around the world who seek to stand up for basic freedoms and human rights, but of millions of Muslims as well. These voices for moderation, for a classically liberal approach that recognizes faith as something between God and an individual, not to be imposed by governments—are being silenced, and in some instances, targeted and killed.”

It is true that historically speaking, the fact that Jewish and Christian communities in territories held by ISIS are only now being forced to flee, after centuries of living relatively peacefully under majority Muslim rule, tells the tale on the abberative nature of radical Islam. A valid criticism of Beck’s dismal take on Islam’s civilization quotient is that it doesn’t take into consideration Islam’s past ability to tolerate other groups now and then. Beck does not tell and perhaps does not know about the great Muslim king of northern India, Akbar the Great, who was a model of tolerance. The trouble is that his successors decided to embark on warlike jihad and, at first, expanded the kingdom, but then over-extended themselves and had to pull back behind even Akbar’s borders. I wonder whether the current expansion of radical, warlike jihad has already spent itself. (Beck published this book while Obama was still president, and things have changed since then.)

Both George Bush and Barack Obama tried to speak for the “religion of peace” that they could not properly represent. Beck declines to make that mistake. “I believe that only when Muslims themselves decide they need a reformation will there be a real chance at one,” Beck says. “But it isn’t for you or me to say. I’m not a Muslim. I cannot tell a Muslim how he or she needs to resolve the deep—and perhaps irreconcilable—conflicts between their faith and freedom.” Beck, nevertheless, tries to tease apart Muslim terrorists from Islam, notwithstanding the caution he urges in doing this when we are not part of the “ummah.” He takes his cue from those who try to distinguish Islam from “Islamism,” the taking of Islamic traditions and texts so literally that terrorism seemingly must be embraced, but he also concludes that, “Saying that Islamism has nothing to do with Islam is like saying that a particular cut of beef has nothing to do with a cow.”

*I am reminded of John Tuturro’s movie “Fading Gigolo” in which Woody Allen’s character, Murray, is accused by an Orthodox rabbi of being a pimp, and is reminded that, in ancient times, a pimp could have been stoned to death under Jewish law. Murray replies, “Let me tell you how glad I am that you no longer do that.”… (mer)

Picks up where "Miracles and Massacres" left off, in a way. These books are not perfect but the true stories anthologized here tell something significant and important to be aware of if you care about American history. The stories each tell us something about America that you cannot understand just by getting the dry, big picture or the official highlights.

What is most novel is the representation of both the good and the bad. Charles Ponzi ripped people off because both he and his victims thought that America presented an opportunity to get rich quick with very little work. By contrast, Desi Arnaz worked hard and was fortunate to marry a talented wife. (His contribution behind the scenes was often underestimated, though: Desi Arnaz practically invented the TV rerun.) In his personal life, Arnaz was a womanizer who ended unhappily without the woman he really loved.

Everything is a mixture. Deceivers are also dreamers; it's just that their dreams are false, but when dreamers are pure, their lives can be meaningful even if bittersweet. The founders of the award-winning animation company Pixar, for example, had both been spurned by the companies where they had had their dream jobs, and yet, through Pixar, they not only rediscovered their passions but eventually worked their ways back into their original jobs--only when they returned they were more successful than before.

There are also heroes within each story of a villain. Sometimes people are part hero and part villain. We learn that someone risked everything to expose a presidential lie and his reputation suffered. Beck does not dwell on it, but perhaps tacitly acknowledges that the president in that case, Grover Cleveland, had a good reason for lying to the American people, but did this justify either the perpetuation of the lie or the destruction of a man's reputation?

Unlike with the previous book, here there isn't even one clunker. (See my review of "Miracles and Massacres" where I found the story of the ratification of the Constitution much too superficial.) In the present volume, we have the story of Alan Turing who could be considered off-topic since he was not an American; nevertheless, it is good that Beck made an exception because Turing follows the pattern of Beck's books in this series: little-know true stories that lie behind something we take for granted in our every day lives. In the case of Turing, he is the man who invented the computer. (Coincidentally, also portrayed in the movie I am about to go see: "The Imitation Game.")

This is not great literature, yet it is well worth reading for its insight into the moral vicissitudes of history: Twistings in moral clarity and compromise that play out today, too, although Beck only makes that connection in one remark, generally letting the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

As always, Beck writes his books with the great help of a committee. (See also in my review of "Miracles.") He seems to work closely with them on these projects and his own voice can occasionally be distinguished, yet he has a staff of both researchers and writers who stitch these books together. (I'd like to help edit them so they could avoid the sometimes jarring little mistakes that a good proofreader might have noticed.)

The authorship question is not entirely a matter of simple fraudulence. I once heard a talk by Germaine Greer in which she said that she had wanted to edit a book on women painters with the help of a team of writers but her publisher had told her that she needed to be the nominal author of any book she produced because, as an established "name," she was the commodity being sold to the reading audience. Beck's name is clearly the commodity that sells all of his books regardless of how many of them are his own work. In any case, as with Greer's proposed project, the nominal author directs the project and gives final approval to everything that goes into the work. This is Beck's baby, warts and all.

For the scholar unsatisfied with the popularized tellings of any of these stories, there are notes for each story that point to the sources. It has come to my attention that in some, perhaps many cases, the reader might be disappointed to know that other writers dispute Beck's conclusions. This is what happens when you explore history--or any subject, really--and find that nothing is ever definitive and there is always controversy.… (mer)