Glenn Beck: Wall-E

GLENN: Stu, stop the music. This is important stuff. Is it possible, do you know, is Wally starting this weekend?

STU: I believe it is starting this weekend.

GLENN: Oh, I can't wait to teach my kids how we've destroyed the Earth.

STU: Well, it's not you teaching as much as a robot.

GLENN: Yeah, I know, as much as, you know, Pixar is teaching. I can't wait. Just, this is great. You know if your kid has ever come home and said, "Dad, how come we use so much styrofoam," oh, this is the movie for you. I love that. "Dad, how come we don't recycle as much as we should?" "We do recycle." "Well, teacher says we don't recycle enough." "Oh, really? Is that what teacher is saying? What's the teacher's phone number?" I'm becoming one of those people, I really am. I am this close, and I haven't said anything on the air. I've said it in other states during the stage show, what's been going on in my life under the surface, all kept quiet, bottled up inside since January, but I'm coming this -- I'm about to spill the beans. You know, within three weeks if there isn't something changed, oh, I'm going to become one of those people.

Stu, I actually am thinking about building a gigantic billboard -- I'm sorry. A gigantic fence which I can build at any size on my property as long as it's 60 feet away from the road, I'm thinking about building a giant fence that I paint once in a while, little slogans like "This town council sucks" or "Bad neighbors 50 feet ahead," things like that.

STU: You're having some problems with your property, aren't you? It's like eminent domain except they don't take it, they don't let you use it.

GLENN: The law says I can do what I want to do. The law says it but they won't hear of it. They are trying to convince me that, well, that doesn't matter. Excuse me? What do you mean the law doesn't matter? I told them, yeah, I did. Two days ago when I was heavily medicated and on a lot of medication and in a lot of pain, the city decided to show up at my house. I backed them down the stairs into the street. Wasn't really pleasant. I wasn't really in a good mood that day.

STU: And you are saying these people are giving you a hard time?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. Well, I never -- no, I was pleasant at first. I was very pleasant at first. I was just trying to understand. And then when they started to get into, well, that's, sure that's what it says, but there are a lot of people on the council that just don't want this to happen. Well, I don't really care now what they want. I'll see you in court. I'm becoming one of those people. I really am thinking about painting maybe my house black because I can, black with purple and orange shutters. Oh, yeah, yeah. You worry about property values? Oh, you have no idea.

STU: What's the town ordinance on lighting, Glenn? Because I don't know if you can -- I mean, if you have a light --

GLENN: Can't, can't. I already thought.

STU: Really bright lights pointed at your neighbors?

GLENN: Can't, can't.

STU: Lasers?

GLENN: Looked that one up, yeah. Because I was thinking about the bat signal.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean? Really, seriously, Stu, I really did think about, you know those giant arc spotlights, the kind for movies?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I actually thought about -- I'm not kidding. If it were legal, I looked it up. I wanted to have one in my side yard, went it for like a week and like at 3:00 in the morning, just start her up and just have that thing burn right into my neighbor's window. Anna was out walking the dog with me yesterday and I'm walking the dog and the neighbors are out in their backyard and I just raised my hand and I said, hey, bad neighbor, and they just looked at me. And they had company over and they were barbecuing. They're like (laughing). I said, yeah, good to see you, bad neighbor. Bad neighbor, bad neighbor, bad neighbor! My daughter just laughed. She said, you're insane, Dad. I said, oh, yeah. You haven't begun to see my insanity.

STU: Well, you have to look at it. Washington D.C. wanted to ban handguns. They did for quite a long time and then someone stepped in and said there's a higher order here. There's the Constitution, there's the Second Amendment.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And I think, you know, there's a really famous smart guy that said let there be light, and I think you can kind of maybe use that argument to say, look, I've been reading this fancy book and it says let there be light, so there was.

GLENN: Light there shall be. And on the first day, on the first day... there was light. I want an arc one, too. I don't want any new kind of fangle -- I want the one that's actually burning carbon to be able to light it up. I in fact would like carbon lights for my entire house if I could get it. You know, you just have to go out and replace the little carbon sticks? I'm burning actual carbon to light my flower beds. How do you like that? I'm going to find out -- I haven't done this yet, but I'm going to try to find to see if there's any way I can put an oil rig on my property. You know those -- what are those called, those things that go up and down? Are those oil derricks? Does anybody know? Pumps.

STU: Yeah, pump it right out of the ground.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't have any oil. I'll pretty sure I don't have any oil. I'll going to drill for it. What the hell. I might find some. I just want a big -- I mean, you're worried about property values, really? How do you like the big huge house with the oil rig on it, huh? You like looking at that one? Yeah. Hello, bad neighbor. Okay, I'm sorry. We were talking about Wally. Stu?

STU: Yes, Glenn. Very highly reviewed, by the way.

GLENN: Is it? What a surprise. This is about how man destroyed the Earth.

STU: Well, I haven't seen it yet, but yes, that's exactly what it's about. It has to be.

GLENN: I saw the preview. I'm sitting in the movie theater. This is, I don't know how many months ago. And I just see Wally and he's on the Earth and he's cleaning stuff up and I looked at my wife and I said, it's a frickin' global warming movie, it is how we destroyed the Earth.

STU: Yeah, you actually called this one on the air and you were 100% right on it in that it appears to be Wally is the story of one robot who was a trash collecting robot and there's apparently a lot of these. The spaceship -- because they couldn't -- unfortunately the robots weren't efficient enough to clean up the Earth before it was going to kill all humans. So the humans had to leave in a spaceship but Wally gets left behind to clean up the trash that's still there.

GLENN: I think that would be great. They got a big enough spaceship, let's all get on board. Come back, we'll all party until it's 2099, get back on the spaceship, let the robots clean everything up, come on, kind of what we do with stadiums, isn't it? Why don't we -- I mean, we don't live in the trash in stadiums. We go, we have a good time, we have, you know, some drinks, we leave, get in our cars. Why don't we just do that with the Earth, get in the giant spaceship.

STU: Yeah, let a couple of Roombas go around, we'll come back, they go to the edge of the continent, turn around and come back.

GLENN: Let me tell you something. The Roomba is going to change the world.

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?