"Jellyfish Capitalism" and the Jeremy Lin saga

February 27, 2012

The Glenn Beck Program

I am as much of a sports fan as most people are fans of Woodrow Wilson books. They don’t care about Woodrow, I don’t care about sports. My lifetime sports diet consists of the occasional story that transcends ESPN, movies like Jerry Maguire, and several memories of being picked last in middle school. But even I have been drawn in by the story of ‘the headline.’

The online life of the ESPN story in question was about 45 minutes. Since it was 2:30 in the morning, almost no one saw it. Yet, because the headline appeared in an article involving an Asian-American player, the phrase “Chink in the armor” would go from an innocuous cliché to the ultimate expression of racial intolerance.

America was faced with two possibilities:

1) Give someone the benefit of the doubt. Consider, perhaps, that the author was not an anti-Asian activist using subtle racial slurs in headlines of sports stories to underhandedly turn basketball fans towards hatred of those who are different.
2) Freak out and call for the authors head.

Everyone knows what “chink in the armor” means. It is used constantly to describe a weakness in an otherwise strong performance. It properly described what the story was about. The fact that the author didn’t notice the theoretically racial tie between the cliché and NBA star Jeremy Lin is a strong indicator that he wasn’t using it in a derogatory way. No matter.

The mania eventually climbed to such a level that ESPN anchor Max Bretos was suspended for what amounts to an accusation of anti-Asian bias, despite being married to someone who is Asian. This is a phrase that has endured centuries of use, with no offensive origins, and we have supposed news networks like MSNBC actually blurring out the words when covering the story.

Anthony Federico, the author of the original headline, was fired. Once the dust was settled and the blood was spilled, America barely noticed when we were finally able to meet him. He is a Knicks fan. He loves Jeremy Lin. He is a man of strong faith. He is dedicated to charity. He helps his friends in need. He has no reported history of racism and no blemishes on his work record.

In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that would make any rational human being believe that he did this on purpose. Are we really supposed to think a man who gives up his vacation time to travel to Haiti and help earthquake victims, moonlights as a guy who would risk his career on an anti-Asian pun?

In the aftermath, Federico has been incredibly gracious. He took responsibility for the apparent mistake of not predicting that others would apply racism to his words. He apologized to his employer for his role in their spinelessness. He is taking what seems like a completely unfair event, and using his faith to deal with it, and his inner strength as a way to inspire others to consider a relationship with God. He is using his darkest moments to try and share light with others.

Yet, no one stands up for him. No one. All Anthony Federico received from his employer was this public statement:

The ESPN employee responsible for our Mobile headline has been dismissed.

How does something like this happen? It’s based on a cold bottom line calculation that probably seems extremely rational in a board room:

We are a multi-billion dollar company. The public wants a scalp. Investigating the truth, doing our best to discover the intent, soberly explaining the situation to the public, and patiently trying to do the right thing—does nothing for us. There is no upside there. There’s no possible benefit to us in doing the right thing for this nameless, faceless employee. Let’s axe him, and move on with our lives.

This is jellyfish capitalism. It is business without backbone. Pressure groups target companies and their advertisers to create just enough fear to make them ask themselves: “Who cares what is right? Why bother fighting? Where’s the upside for us?”

We’ve come to a point where freedom of speech only exists when others like it. Where we only accept differing opinions from professors, as those professors won’t accept differing opinions form their own students. Where business owners routinely turn control of their companies over to whichever outsider is screaming the loudest.

Why should you care? This is far bigger than one online writer. This isn’t about any one story, one company, or one industry. Sure, it’s easy to sit down and watch a headline writer you don’t know go down in flames. But if you don’t speak up for him, who will be there to speak up for you? More to the point: why should anyone be there to speak up for you?

Anthony Federico’s job at ESPN was to write headlines. It wasn’t to cause international incidents. It wasn’t to put the mouse in Orlando at risk. Everyone understands this, including Anthony. A serious private discussion between Anthony and his manager might have been called for. Perhaps a probationary period was understandable. At worst, maybe a suspension equal to the air personality who made the exact same mistake would have been justifiable.

Instead, we have a giant corporation using the little guy as a scapegoat, with nothing more than fear and greed as motivators, and everyone is silent. The same people who claim to defend the “99 percent” sit by and cheer.

Where is the guy saying that doing the right thing is worth the risk?

Where is the person in power standing up and saying—if he goes, I go?

Where is the Jerry Maguire in this ridiculous sports movie I’m watching?

I started GBTV because I believe the truth should never be compromised. That means maintaining that two plus two equals four, no matter who is telling you that it equals five. It means recognizing that what is right, is always worth sticking your neck out for. It means knowing that the most important time to stand up is when it’s uncomfortable.

The reward for doing so might not seem so obvious. But it’s a long term investment that I firmly believe we all will feel in our businesses, in our communities, and long after our time on this earth is done.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep