Jon Stewart Vs. Glenn Beck

[HoustonEagle]

It really just amazes me. Why would anyone listen to someone that bends the truth and sometimes downright lies in order to pander to a advertising demographic. Here is a recent track record. Disgusting

Has our Nation become so simple? If you looked up to your Uncle Bob and revered his view on politics would you not be pissed when you realized he was lying to support his arguments? Absolutely you would be and you would quit listening. Whatever. To each his own. I just don't get it

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

It really just amazes me. Why would anyone listen to someone that bends the truth and sometimes downright lies in order to pander to a advertising demographic. Here is a recent track record. Disgusting

Has our Nation become so simple? If you looked up to your Uncle Bob and revered his view on politics would you not be pissed when you realized he was lying to support his arguments? Absolutely you would be and you would quit listening. Whatever. To each his own. I just don't get it

Kind of like Idiocracy coming to life.

[FirefightnRick]

Noting more patriotic than that.

What about raising money for college for the kids of our fallen military? Thank you Sean Hannity!

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

It really just amazes me. Why would anyone listen to someone that bends the truth and sometimes downright lies in order to pander to a advertising demographic. Here is a recent track record. Disgusting

Has our Nation become so simple? If you looked up to your Uncle Bob and revered his view on politics would you not be pissed when you realized he was lying to support his arguments? Absolutely you would be and you would quit listening. Whatever. To each his own. I just don't get it

That website is a liberal leaning load of crap. Scroll down and look at the comment about Beck mentioning Holdren's writings about population control? Your great website goes about dispersing what is said as lies because he simply used his own interpretation. Beck say's "Forced Abortions". Holdren fantasisingly wrote about all kinds of sick, disgusting types of population control to which I have linked to a site which gives us much more detailed insight to John Holdren's Ecoscience here, yet Holdren calls it "involuntary fertility control", what's the difference? Either way it is what it is which doesn't make Beck a liar? So if Glen Beck say's Holdren supports parents murdering their children in order to control global population, he's a liar according to the way your website would look at it. Never the less he and the Ehrlichs are admitted Malthusiasts who came up with such a sick concept.

Disgusting indeed.

Rick

Edited August 28, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[HoustonEagle]

Did you even read this?

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

Glenn Beck on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in his TV program

Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population

Bookmark this story:

Buzz up!As evidence that the country is closer to socialist than capitalist these days, radio and talk show host Glenn Beck recently made this claim about John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy:

"I mean, we've got czars now," Beck said during his July 22, 2009, program. "Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

Political figures like Holdren, who are little-known by most Americans, make easy targets. And Beck's biting quick hit on Holdren provides a healthy enough dose of outrage on which to hang his argument.

But is it true?

Beck's allegation has its roots in a book Holdren co-authored with Paul and Annie Ehrlich more than three decades ago called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment .

Conservative bloggers have quoted the book extensively, and often out of context, to make the point that Holdren has advocated positions such as the ones Beck stated.

We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don't shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, "We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy."

In a section on "Involuntary Fertility Control," Holdren and the other authors discuss various "coercive" means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.

Here's a few excerpts:

"The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. ...

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. ...

"Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children."

Later, the authors conclude, "Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

"Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries."

And here's the part that some have interpreted as Holdren advocating for forced abortions.

“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however."

This comes in a section discussing population law. The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." Again, that's a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position.

In the book, the authors certainly advocate making abortions readily accessible for women who want to get them. But they never advocate forced abortions. Big difference.

In response to the comments from Beck and others, Holdren's office issued this statement: "The quotations used to suggest that Dr. Holdren supports coercive approaches to limiting population growth were taken from a 1977 college textbook on environmental science and policy, of which he was the third author. The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors’ own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation."

Holdren's office also provided a statement from Annie and Paul Ehrlich, the co-authors: "We have been shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren in blog posts based on misreadings of our jointly-authored 1000-page 1977 textbook, ECOSCIENCE. We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended — in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.

Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he "no longer thinks it's productive to focus on optimum population for the United States. ... I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have for years been calling 'sustainable prosperity.'"

Vitter continued with his line of question, asking directly, "Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?"

Said Holdren: "No, senator, I do not. ... I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well-being of the citizens we have."

But with regard to Beck's claim that Holdren "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population," the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions.

Some have argued that Holdren's view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given Holdren's current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. That's a matter for reasoned debate.

But in seeking to score points for a political argument, Beck seriously mischaracterizes Holdren's positions. Holdren didn't advocate those ideas then. And, when asked at a Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he did not support them now. We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context to dismiss Holdren's long and distinguished career. And we rate Beck's claim Pants on Fire!

[Censored by Laurie]

Did you even read this?

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

Glenn Beck on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in his TV program

Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population

Bookmark this story:

Buzz up!As evidence that the country is closer to socialist than capitalist these days, radio and talk show host Glenn Beck recently made this claim about John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy:

"I mean, we've got czars now," Beck said during his July 22, 2009, program. "Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

Political figures like Holdren, who are little-known by most Americans, make easy targets. And Beck's biting quick hit on Holdren provides a healthy enough dose of outrage on which to hang his argument.

But is it true?

Beck's allegation has its roots in a book Holdren co-authored with Paul and Annie Ehrlich more than three decades ago called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment .

Conservative bloggers have quoted the book extensively, and often out of context, to make the point that Holdren has advocated positions such as the ones Beck stated.

We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don't shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, "We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy."

In a section on "Involuntary Fertility Control," Holdren and the other authors discuss various "coercive" means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.

Here's a few excerpts:

"The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. ...

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. ...

"Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children."

Later, the authors conclude, "Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

"Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries."

And here's the part that some have interpreted as Holdren advocating for forced abortions.

“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however."

This comes in a section discussing population law. The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." Again, that's a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position.

In the book, the authors certainly advocate making abortions readily accessible for women who want to get them. But they never advocate forced abortions. Big difference.

In response to the comments from Beck and others, Holdren's office issued this statement: "The quotations used to suggest that Dr. Holdren supports coercive approaches to limiting population growth were taken from a 1977 college textbook on environmental science and policy, of which he was the third author. The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors’ own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation."

Holdren's office also provided a statement from Annie and Paul Ehrlich, the co-authors: "We have been shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren in blog posts based on misreadings of our jointly-authored 1000-page 1977 textbook, ECOSCIENCE. We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended — in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.

Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he "no longer thinks it's productive to focus on optimum population for the United States. ... I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have for years been calling 'sustainable prosperity.'"

Vitter continued with his line of question, asking directly, "Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?"

Said Holdren: "No, senator, I do not. ... I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well-being of the citizens we have."

But with regard to Beck's claim that Holdren "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population," the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions.

Some have argued that Holdren's view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given Holdren's current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. That's a matter for reasoned debate.

But in seeking to score points for a political argument, Beck seriously mischaracterizes Holdren's positions. Holdren didn't advocate those ideas then. And, when asked at a Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he did not support them now. We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context to dismiss Holdren's long and distinguished career. And we rate Beck's claim Pants on Fire!

Look...I support you...and many capable of reasonible thought support you as well. The problem is that FireHelmet Jesus has already made up his mind...well...had his mind made up for him...so its probably best for your own sanity to save the 1000 word diatribes for those more worthy and just read his posts with a shake of the head and a feeling of pity.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context

Sadly, this happens much too often with a 1,000 page, 1,500 year old book.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Beowulf?

[Shuke-D]

Beowulf?

Epic of Gligamesh.

And Enkidu would have made a killer middle linebacker.

[FirefightnRick]

Did you even read this?....

Yes I did, all the way down to the part that read:

But in seeking to score points for a political argument, Beck seriously mischaracterizes Holdren's positions. Holdren didn't advocate those ideas then. ....We think it's irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook,

He didn't advocate those ideas? Really? Beck is simply Mischaracterizing him, REALLY!!!? A few LINES???? Try 15 pages full of crap like this:

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Come on, you can't defend this guy? Seriously? He's been so far off the planet on his ideas for years, and not just with his sick population control ideas either. He's still trying to jam his Global Warming catastrophe ideas on people. Your telling me you think it's ok in your book that this guy is now our Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology?

Rick

Edited August 28, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[Shuke-D]

True, but he would have scored with several magical cheerleaders along the way and said it was his duty. You know, respecting local customs.

[this is a pleasant first, a blatant political thread hijacked by allusions to classical literature]

[Guest JohnDenver]

How about this pure comedy?

P_lgTIZ22jE

[Censored by Laurie]

Epic of Gligamesh.

And Enkidu would have made a killer middle linebacker.

Ishtar experimented with the Spread...but from what I recall it didn't work out too well.

Perhaps the lack of a tight end?

[Shuke-D]

Ishtar experimented with the Spread...but from what I recall it didn't work out too well.

Perhaps the lack of a tight end?

Actually, out of frustration that her four-wide formation was ineffective, she reluctantly got under center and emphasized the ground game by releasing Anu "The Bull" on the draw play every third and long situation. This failing miserably, she eventually gave up and went back to the minor Pantheon league.

[FirefightnRick]

Look...I support you...and many capable of reasonible thought support you as well. The problem is that FireHelmet Jesus has already made up his mind...well...had his mind made up for him...so its probably best for your own sanity to save the 1000 word diatribes for those more worthy and just read his posts with a shake of the head and a feeling of pity.

Hey, don't feel pity for me. I'm not the young 20 something single cubicle dweller who spends his late friday and saturday evenings searching for relevance on a message board based 1500 miles away?

Rick

[Censored by Laurie]

Hey, don't feel pity for me. I'm not the young 20 something single cubicle dweller who spends his late friday and saturday evenings searching for relevance on a message board based 1500 miles away?

Rick

Mid-twenties.

I have an office...but I only spend about 25% of my day here...the rest is spent playing with 500 degree molten metal.

Its only 6pm here...and you couldn't keep up with me on Friday and Saturday nights...even in your relevant days.

My alma mater is always in my heart...despite the distance.

[NT03]

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

My alma mater is always in my heart...despite the distance.

Amen

[FirefightnRick]

Mid-twenties.

I have an office...but I only spend about 25% of my day here...the rest is spent playing with 500 degree molten metal.

Its only 6pm here...and you couldn't keep up with me on Friday and Saturday nights...even in your relevant days.

My alma mater is always in my heart...despite the distance.

I don't know? Back before I repented and was just plain ol Rick instead of FirefightnJesus........?????

Rick

[Green P1]

If neither of you want the pity, I'll take it. The two sub-contractors I worked alongside with this week supplied the radio, thus they chose the listening material. Early mornings=piss poor college quality Jam-Band crap. Lunch to afternoon=Rush/Hannity/lunatick that comes on after Hannity.

[EagleD]

I love Jon Stewart b/c he's funny and relevant. People who criticize Stewart usually say he's just a left wing hack. Truth is, he goes after the left as well. If you want to say Olbermann is just a cheerleader for the left, I can't argue, but Stewart loves to point out hypocricies of the media (a pretty easy target), and politicians of both sides of the aisle (an easier target). When was the last time Beck had something critical to say of a republican?

I would love to see Stewart and Beck in a one on one debate.

[DeepGreen]

Your telling me you think it's ok in your book that this guy is now our Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology?

Rick

Wouldn't this make him the Sci-Tech Czar? Gotta love these new layers of government Obama's creating. Not sure what the function of his Cabinet is these days.

[HoustonEagle]

Wouldn't this make him the Sci-Tech Czar? Gotta love these new layers of government Obama's creating. Not sure what the function of his Cabinet is these days.

I believe Congress made the post official in 1976. Damn you Obama!

OSTP

Edited August 31, 2009 by HoustonEagle

[Censored by Laurie]

I believe Congress made the post official in 1976. Damn you Obama!

OSTP

I heard Obama thought it up in a dream while in a Kenyan Taliban camp.

[Eagle1855]

I heard Obama thought it up in a dream while in a Kenyan Taliban camp.

While listening to Marxist rhetoric on his 8-track tape player.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Eagle1855