Wonderfully written invective. I've never seen Glenn Beck's TV show. Listened to him on the radio a few times, read one of his books. Maybe he comes across differently on TV. Interesting use of mellow James Taylor tune to spew such rabid vile insults. Really liked the line "subdue him with milligrams".

Just so you know, when I think of the word "Psycho", I think of Norman Bates! Hearing him makes me thinks of Crazy Eddie from the 1980's commercials! Just like Crazy Eddie, he's completely insane! He went nuts with a caller about healthcare that I saw on YouTube when he roars "KATHY,GET OFF MY PHONE! GET OF MY PHONE, YOU LITTLE B**CH!" He ought to chill the f**k out! Take some crazy 555!

Beck is kind of eccentric, lately...good bash

Thanks, Patrick, Chrisie, AFW.

I hate to 'Rush' to judgement, but, come on--It's gotta be an act... (crying on demand, over-the-top dramatic pauses and pretty much every trick the televangelist's manual!) Nice takedown John!

To clarify on my last comment, I meant that hearing Glenn Beck, not Bates makes me think of Crazy Eddie and that Beck is completely insane like Eddie. As a matter of fact, Beck is even more of a psycho than Bates!

It is a little bit of an act, since he started his career as one of those "Morning Zoo" radio DJs. But there also is history of mental illness in his family, so it's hard to say what is shtick and what is bi-polar ravings.

to mcKludge - why does the left always resort to personal attacks when they're conered or on the run? i don't watch tv so I can't watch mr. beck but last I checked he was right about that wack-job van jones and acorn and other issues. it's very obvious when someone is having an effect in exposing you when you start bringing out the clubs and try to destroy him (or her). it's funny but i never see any real "facts" based on reality when reading these kinds of "parodies" lately, only angry hateful rants and ravings and name-calling. this parody is kind of immature but i guess juvenile humor appeals to a lot of people.

Proudly immature am I, Kaypatella. I go after both sides, but the right, frankly, provides richer fodder.

I wish I had a richer fodder... Oh, wait-- that's not what that means, is it? ;)

Quite the Beck "sheesh"-kabob you've served up today! ;)

And keep going after them - I enjoy the jabs at both ends of the spectrum. And Beck probably doesn't care; the nuttier he is, the more money he probably makes.

Very well crafted rant at someone I've never heard of

Fact-free name-calling, degenerating to the lowest levels of the political nut-cases on this site. What a come-down from once being the best writer on the site.

By contrast, MSNBC, of course, is perfectly fair and impartial, with one of their reporters (or reports showing) a "journalist" wearing an Obama button during the campaign, and openly admitting that they supported him and were biased in his favor. If you do indeed "go after both sides", I seem to have missed the parodies of that, John, as journalism in this country has indeed sunk to hellish lows --- on all sides.

Drugging people with whom you disagree? Do you realize what you're advocating? 1984 is here.... and free speech is gone. (Yes, it applies to nut-cases too, if he is one, or else it doesn't apply to anyone.) Please don't drug me for speaking my mind against your Orwellian nightmare of lobotomizing and drugging everyone with whom you disagree. ... btw, if he bugs you, why not quit watching? Can't abstain here... I guess the pacing is OK, can't stomach it enough to check closely, so 511. Scary ... not Glenn, but your response.

I agree wth you totally, TT. You are obviosiously one who watches Beck and realizes this no more resembles Beck than the ... the...the... (words fail me). It frankly is a 'Sound of Violence' (Parody of mine) and Beck doesn't sound like violence in the least.

TT, 'fraid my stance is that all these sanctimonious sh!theads deserve all I can dish out, and I'll continue to do so. That you can even defend this idiot is, frankly, disappointing.

John, I don't even watch "this idiot". I'm defending his right of free speech, as I defend yours, Michael Pacholek's, and many other writers with whom I've had political or other differences. Dish out all of the criticism that you like -- it's your absolute right -- but to advocate lobotomizing and drugging "sanctimonious sh!theads" or anyone else you don't like, as you've overtly done today, is a totalitarian nightmare come true, and not the least bit funny. I'll defend his or anyone else's right to speak versus your wish to control those whom you don't like via surgery and psychotropics. *That*, I find very disappointing -- and I'm also a bit disappointed that a man of your intelligence missed that point in my third paragraph the first time around.

FWIW, I personally considered Obama to be a dangerous demagogue since he started campaigning, and it's only gotten worse -- appointing an avowed Communist to a high post; being involved with ACORN, now proven to be a corrupt organization, as everyone knew at the time, etc... and while I've dished out plenty of parodic criticism, I've never advocated that he be drugged or lobotomized. Impeached, perhaps, but not drugged or lobotomized.

Incidentally, Obama is scarier than this Beck fellow, because O holds the most powerful position in the world, with the governmental authority of the US behind him, and Beck doesn't. Governments have always done more harm, stolen more money, and killed more people than any private citizen in the history of the world, because of that power. Scary.

TT, come on, it's a parody.

I know I shouldn't even bother, but sometimes I just can't help myself...

kaypatella - "why does the left always resort to personal attacks ..." Well, both "sides" are equally adept at that. For that matter, one man's personal attack is another man's opinion (or sometimes, fact). But both of my statements above are true.
Morning Zoo DJ, see http://tinyurl.com/yeh9f8x
Mother's mental illness (since most people would consider a person who suicides as mentally ill) see http://tinyurl.com/m782j5. Yes, it's up for debate whether she really killed herself, but Glenn thinks she did.

TT - 1984 is here? Hardly. The fact that we are all here typing away our random thoughts proves that free speech is not gone. Just because someone tells a person to shut up doesn't mean they are taking away his right to free speech. Even if someone got banned from here (and I'm not suggesting that anyone here would be or even should be), that's still not taking away his first amendment rights.

Far too many people in the US are becoming far too frightened and angry over perceived injustices and imagined threats. Please remember, everyone:
1. Anecdotal evidence does not equal universal truth.
2. A person's religion is a choice, not a birthright.
3. If a person believes in using the power of government to fix social problems, that doesn't make him a Communist.
4. A few corrupt people in an organization does not make the entire organization corrupt. Nor does it negate previous good acts (this applies to ALL organizations).
5. Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes.

to mckludge-no i don't think so, sir or madame. when i see the satire from the left side i mostly see "real" personal attacks. their idea of 'satire' or 'humor' is to say their target is stupid, fat, ugly, a bigot, a racist, ignorant, a redneck, etc. when i see most of the satire from the middle and right, i see poking fun of people based on real issues and things they do and say. like all of these nutty 'czars' with radical backgrounds, like a president who needs a teleprompter to talk for him, who apologizes to the world for this great country, who jokes and laughs with dictators, who talks about how wonderful we are doing when the economy is falling apart, who is printing worthless money to give to his friends and supporters, who jets all over the world lobbying for his friends in chicago, who lies all the time and never gets called on it, about his connections with acorn, his nutty pastor and church, all his radical friends, calling policemen who are doing their jobs 'stupid.' and what about reporters who have tingles when he speaks, who bend over backwards to hide anything that hurts him? no, i to differ with mr. barry's observation above, i think most of the 'fodder' is on the left. i maybe reading people like jonathan swift who wrote real satire has turned me off to the people who resort to all this juvenile stuff. maybe if swift had written low-brow satire like, 'the king is a big fat idiot" i wouldn't be so tough, but he didn't and i know better. that's why low brow juvenile 'humor' does not appeal to me. but you are certainly free to immerse yourself in childish name calling if you wish. maybe that's all you have?

Like I said, sometimes I can't help myself...

"when i see the satire from the left side i mostly see "real" personal attacks. their idea of 'satire' or 'humor' is to say their target is stupid, fat, ugly, a bigot, a racist, ignorant, a redneck, etc. when i see most of the satire from the middle and right, i see poking fun of people based on real issues and things they do and say."
Then you are only seeing what you want to see.

"but you are certainly free to immerse yourself in childish name calling if you wish. maybe that's all you have?"
Who did I call a name in my above comments?

"that's why low brow juvenile 'humor' does not appeal to me"
Then what the hell are you doing on this website? :-)

. . . Pirate Jack, there's quite number oLoons loose on this Site, as well Sir !!