I kind of like Glen Beck, even though I don't always agree with everything he says. In this case, I agree with those who observe that he wasn't the one to propose that a violent terrorist attack is necessary in the U.S. to create political activism. His guest was the one who made that proposal.

But Beck isn't totally blameless. I don't think his show is broadcast live, so he knew exactly what his guest said before the show aired and still included the interview and permitted it to be broadcast, even though the proposal was egregious to the extreme. Further, when the guest made the proposal, while Beck didn't state agreement, he sure didn't express any disagreement with the proposla either.

This is yet another example of how entertainers purposely sponsor or permit outrageous conduct or statements purely in the interest of achieving ratings. Both Beck and his guest knew exactly how the public--both liberal and conservative--might react to such an outrageous thesis. They would talk about it, as we are doing here, and probably some will tune in Beck's upcoming shows to see if any further offensive statements are made. Any increased viewership as the result of this offensive guest won't include me.