Olbermann Out at MSNBC

In a move that shocked some, but not others, Keith Olbermann announced on his MSNBC show Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Friday that he was leaving the network and his show was ending. He offered no reason, other than to say that he was informed late in the week that Friday was his last night.

The network claimed the move had nothing to do with NBC Universal's recent acquisition by Comcast (a corporation with well-known right wing ties) -- which is suspicious because the denial was issued before anyone officially asked the question.

A side effect of media consolidation is the homogenization of voices. The fewer media entities in existence, the less diverse the viewpoints being expressed.

I stumbled across Countdown one night by accident; I was initially confused when I saw Olbermann talking about the war in Iraq. Growing up, I'd seen Olbermann co-hosting SportsCenter on ESPN with his friend Dan Patrick. I knew Olbermann to be a goofy sort who loved baseball, but I never thought he'd find a career in politics.

But there he was, verbally ripping the Bush administration a new one over its lies and propaganda. I wasn't nearly as liberal back then as I am now, and I had no idea Olbermann was, either. But even then, I saw the visceral anger -- I could feel his disdain for what he thought was the abandonment of American principles.

Even if I didn't agree with him that night, his steadfastness stuck with me.

As I became more engrossed in politics in the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, Olbermann -- and MSNBC as a whole -- became my network of choice. Even then, I saw Fox News for what it was and wanted nothing to do with it, and CNN was simply too milquetoast for me (I find it's self-proclaimed centrist nature with relation to the other two networks pathetically laughable).

Olbermann introduced me to several media figures who I trust to this day, including Rachel Maddow, Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post, Chris Hayes of The Nation, Lawrence O'Donnell and Arianna Huffington, among others.

Sadly, he never converted me to Chris Mathews.

Before long, Countdown became nightly viewing, even though it meant missing my share of basketball games and what few hourly dramas I enjoyed (sorry, Bones). Eventually, I watched Countdown and then The Rachel Maddow Show and, for a short time, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. Anyone who follows this blog knows how much I love these shows -- not just because the hosts are liberal, but because they cut through the right wing noise and support their assertions with facts.

And yes, Olbermann can be funny. Not Jon Stewart funny, but he held his own.

Insiders suggest Olbermann's ouster is a result of his defiant attitude following his suspension back in November -- but if that's the case, why wait until now to fire him? Why not just toss him to the curb in November? I think it has more to do with the Comcast merger, and I think none of MSNBC's other liberal hosts should feel too comfortable.

Olbermann was by far the network's ratings winner -- he had the highest-rated cable news show not on Fox News. If he could be unceremoniously tossed, how long do we have to wait before the other liberal voices are shown the door?

For almost eight years, whether he meant to or not, Olbermann was a reliable voice on the left. He was the first to stand up against the war in Iraq and the first to hold the Bush administration accountable for its lies and its alleged war crimes. He was passionate and instrumental in setting up the liberal narrative for health care reform, and even though he was an ardent supporter of President Obama, Olbermann was by no means a cheerleader.

His Special Comments were always must-see programming -- I've posted quite a few of them on this page. Even when he was over-the-top, even when he resorted to the same name-calling that the right wing calls home, Olbermann's heart was always in the right place.

I hope Olbermann finds a new home soon; we need voices like him in the media. The right wing always pointed to him as an example of the so-called liberal media, when in fact his voice from the left was one of few.

We need that voice, and damn MSNBC and Comcast for silencing it.

President Obama's Speech in Tucson

President Barack Obama delivered a 33-minute speech Wednesday night toward the end of the memorial service in Tucson, Ariz. for the victims of Saturday's shooting that left six dead and 14 injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

In many ways, President Obama's speech was to strike a tone similar to the one President Ronald Reagan gave after the Challenger disaster, or the speech President Bill Clinton delivered after the Oklahoma City bombing.

The speech was a success, rousing and emotional. The president called for us to be more civil and respectful of one another, and though the cynic in me doubts that will happen (I don't see the right wing media machine -- which I do not believe accurately represents many of this country's Republicans -- allowing it), it's a laudable and emotional message.

It's a message that needs to be repeated often. Video of the speech, in its entirety, is below.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Stop. Just ... Stop.

I know it's been a while since I've written on this space -- and that a lot has happened that I could've covered -- but between the holiday and an uptick in activity at work, a lot of things have fallen by the wayside ... this blog included.

But after the horrific events of Saturday, in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and several others were shot outside a supermarket in Tuscon, Ariz. -- an event that left Rep. Giffords in surgery for hours, a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl killed -- now seemed like as good a time as any to pause and offer insight.

You won't find anything particularly revelatory in this post, nor will you find me calling everyone on the right wing every name in the book -- that's been done by virtually everyone else in the blogosphere and anyone in the mainstream media who tacks the slightest left of center. I do wish more voices on the right would join the chorus calling for the proverbial cease-fire -- to my knowledge, only one GOP Senator has made such a call -- but I'm not surprised that we haven't seen one.

I'm not here to take Sarah Palin to task for her poster during the midterm campaigns where she placed crosshairs over what she thought to be vulnerable districts for Democrats -- including Rep. Giffords -- because frankly, that speaks for itself. I'm not here to rail against Fox News for its rhetoric designed to mislead and frighten its audience with relation to the Obama administration and Democrats as a whole. That point has been made ad nauseum, and will continue to be made as long as there is a Fox News.

There were the "Second Amendment remedies" that Sharron Angle referred to in her Nevada Senate race against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- the idea that if one didn't get their way at the ballot box, it was okay to turn to guns, because that was what the Founding Fathers intended.

Never mind that bugaboo about majority rule.

At this point, all we know about the alleged shooter was that he was anti-government -- the media narrative will automatically try to pigeon-hole him (if it hasn't already) into the Tea Party movement. I've heard media reports theoretically tying the shooter to Jesse Kelly, Rep. Giffords' opponent from the most recent election who held a campaign rally and encouraged supporters to bring their guns.

Tempting as it is for me to do the same -- a side effect of my partisan leanings -- I'm trying not to automatically lump the shooter in with the ultra-conservative, corporate-backed Tea Party movement that fueled Republican gains in last November's elections.

The only thing I know for certain is that words have consequences. Whether we mean for our words to do actual damage is largely irrelevant; though we may have the Constitutional right to say whatever we please, we also have responsibility for how those words are received. Relay an inflammatory and violent message long enough, you become at least partially responsible for it when a less-than-stable individual acts out in a violent manner.

Take Bill O'Reilly. The Fox News host is adamantly pro-life -- which is fine. It's a free country, and he's entitled to that opinion, just as I'm entitled to be pro-choice. But when O'Reilly goes on his highly-rated cable show and proceeds to call Dr. George Tiller "Tiller the Baby Killer" on several occasions and show such obvious personal disgust for a doctor who is providing a women a perfectly legal medical procedure, don't you think he bears some responsibility over the fact that Scott Roeder walked into a church in which Dr. Tiller was attending and killed him?

I'm not saying charge O'Reilly with murder, but last I checked, there was this thing called incitement. I'm not a law expert by any means, but I remember the term incitement being the one instance where the courts did not have to apply First Amendment protections. Basically, if you said something that led a person to commit a violent act, you were held responsible for that.

But the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio makes the subject of incitement a little more complex; the Court ruled that inflammatory speech cannot be punished unless the speech in question is intended to incite and will lead to "imminent lawless action."

If that sounds like a ruling that leaves the door open to plausible deniability, you're probably right. If you can't prove a person intended for their words to bring about violent or lawless behavior, then their First Amendment rights are protected.

Short of recordings of Palin discussing the idea for her crosshairs poster or leaked video of a production meeting for The O'Reilly Factor, how do we prove they intended to have their words leads to the lawless actions of the less stable among us?

Not think they wanted that to happen. Prove it.

Fox News is never going to admit publicly that it means to incite violence with its rhetoric; when Glenn Beck hosts a segment on his show in which he poisons former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in effigy, he'll simply explain it away as a light-hearted moment in his circus of a show, that no one should make anything of it.

Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that's not the case, Beck gets away with it.

The long and short of it, the responsibility rests on all of us to make sure our personal and political discourse never deteriorates to the point where we're encouraging violence against others. We are all human beings, and we are all Americans; it's senseless to incite violence and hatred against each other over political debates. Bringing guns to political rallies does not further our democratic process; it damages it.

Democracy may not be a spectator sport, but it shouldn't be a contact sport, either. Everyone -- from our mainstream media to our own selves -- need to do a better job of making sure our language is civil. We can still get our respective points across without calling for each others' heads.

Can't we?

More on Tax Cuts

Lots of Keith Olbermann on the blog tonight, with three video segments from his MSNBC show Countdown. The first is a special report from Monday night's show, in which guest host Sam Seder examines just where the money America borrows to pay for these tax cuts comes from. Borrowing money from foreign countries -- possibly even nations unfriendly to us -- just so the wealthy can have their precious tax cuts.

And the government doesn't say shit about it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The second video is an interview Olbermann did Tuesday night with my Congressman, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va. 3rd). As far back as I can recall, this is the first time Rep. Scott has been interviewed on a national stage, and he continued his argument against extending any of the Bush-era tax rates; as unpopular as that move would be, its effect in shrinking the deficit cannot be argued.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The last video is a Special Comment from Olbermann, in which he takes the Obama administration to task not just for the compromise deal, but also with President Obama's condescending and angry response on Tuesday to liberal criticism. Decorum prevents me from truly revealing how I feel about the comments -- nothing like pissing off your base by telling them, essentially, to sit down and shut up -- so I'll let Olbermann articulate the anger for me.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tax Cuts Deal: Compromise or Caving?

With Monday's news that President Obama had reached a deal with Congressional Republicans that would temporarily extend the Bush-era tax rates, while also providing 13 more months of unemployment insurance and a few other benefits, much hand-wringing has occurred.

After all, letting the tax rates on the highest earners -- those who make more than $250,000 a year -- expire at the end of 2010 was one of President Obama's most popular campaign promises. It also had the side effect of lopping $700 billion off the deficit over the next 10 years; for all the talk in Washington over the deficit, letting the tax cuts expire -- at least on the wealthy -- was a pretty damn good way to start tackling the issue.

But Republicans, who are always quick to harp on the deficit (just ask those whose unemployment insurance ran out), didn't seem to care about that $700 billion. Apparently, we don't need to pay for tax cuts for the rich, but we do need to pay for helping keep unemployed people relatively afloat in a bad economy where jobs are scarce.

The GOP has two functions today: a) help the rich as much as possible, and b) make sure President Obama doesn't win anything. This deal, which some are calling a "compromise," accomplishes both goals.

There were those -- like Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va. 3rd) -- who advocated for the expiration of all the Bush-era tax rates, which came with a $4 trillion price tag over the next decade. While that's true, and would certainly help the deficit ... that large an increase in taxes with the economy still in shambles would've been a political nightmare.

But letting the middle-class rates stay while raising the rates on the highest earners? That was a public opinion winner. But aside from a vote last week in the House on the issue, the whole thing was never really given much life -- because the GOP -- aided by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker-to-Be John Boehner decided they'd rather force their hand upon a president who seems none too willing to fight.

Look at the tax rate differences between the parties. See how massive that bottom circle would be under the Republican idea? Notice how all the rest of the tax rates look almost identical, but then the highest earners get the biggest cut? That's the tax world we've been living in since 2001 and 2003, and if this deal goes through, this is the reality that will continue.

Those tax cuts for the wealthy didn't create jobs over the last decade, and they won't create jobs now. The rich don't spend the extra money they get in tax cuts like middle class workers do; they sit on it and save it, which does nothing to boost the economy.

Also ... while the deal says the tax rates will expire again in two years, does anyone really expect that? Are we really supposed to believe President Obama will just let the tax rates revert back to Clinton-era levels while we're in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign? He didn't want that fight now, with no election in sight and with the Democrats still in control of Congress; what makes you think he'll want that fight on the campaign trail with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives?

Tax cuts for the wealthy that aren't paid for, to go along with wars that aren't paid for. More money borrowed from China and who knows what other countries. President Obama had a chance to make good on one of his central campaign promises and work on the deficit at the same time, yet he punted on third down.

Compromise happens; more often than not, it's the name of the game in D.C. I get that. I'm also glad the unemployment insurance was extended for another 13 months, and the payroll tax credit will put more money in people's pockets immediately.

But the president waved the white flag and conceded before the fight even began. It's one thing to wage a fight and lose; sometimes that happens. But to not even force the issue, to start conceding before you even step into the ring?

This is not the fierce advocate who inspired so many on the campaign trail. This is not the man who seemed so vigorous in defending the middle class and making sure the American dream was still reachable. President Obama gave up far too soon and abandoned a core principle, which is perhaps the most unsettling part of all this.

Because as disenfranchised as liberals were in last month's elections -- between a bad economy and legislation that probably didn't go far enough -- imagine the disdain and the outrage now. Where do liberals go from here, and for that matter, where does President Obama go from here?

I have no idea, but if this is any indication, the next two years are going to be really long.

Boy, We Dodged One ...

There's been a lot of hand-wringing over the past year, year and a half over the relative effectiveness -- or lack thereof -- of the Obama administration.

Conservatives, aided by the corporate-funded Tea Party movement and Fox News, claims President Obama is a socialist foreigner who's out to destroy America. Liberals felt the administration and its congressional majorities didn't go far enough in landmark legislation such as health care reform, Wall Street reform and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

I'll admit, this page has participated in its fair share of the latter.

Independents and other voters who cannot be easily defined along partisan or ideological boundaries have developed an overall sense of disappointment with regards to the slow economic recovery and the persistent unemployment rate -- a phenomenon that always favors the party in the minority at the time.

But let's ... take a step backward for a moment and consider an alternate reality: specifically, one in which Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) was elected in 2008. I'm not even talking about the horrifying reality of Sarah Palin as Vice President (which could be its own separate blog post ... or book).

I mean Sen. McCain specifically.

In that vein, I offer this video clip from Monday night's edition of The Rachel Maddow Show. When watching this takedown of Sen. McCain's hypocrisy and the media's fascination with him, keep in mind ... some people wanted this man to be president!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Discussion of Media

Anyone who follows this blog knows that a) I studied journalism when I was in college, and b) even today, I have a keen interest in the shape and role of the media in today's society.

A lot of times, what I see in today's media -- between the struggling newspapers, the all-too-loud cable stations and sensationalistic websites -- is not what I learned at Old Dominion University, and that saddens me. Not just because I see people who aren't being good journalists taking journalism jobs away from people like me, but because I see what today's media is doing to our discourse -- both political and societal.

There are exceptions to the media climate that I support -- specifically, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and such magazines as The Nation. Not necessarily because these are prominent liberal voices and I have become increasingly liberal with age, but because these prominent media voices live in a land of facts and reality -- a land sparsely populated in today's perpetual conflictinator, to borrow a phrase.

I also take a keen interest in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, in large part because he was a big focus in a class I took at ODU surrounding the media and politics. Stewart is more than just an average funnyman, even if he won't admit it half the time, and I find his insights fascinating, even if I don't always agree with them.

Which brings me to Thursday night's interview between Stewart and Maddow on the latter's MSNBC show. The 50-minute discussion, which was cut to fit Maddow's airtime, centered largely around the role of the media -- 24-hour cable news in particular -- and how it affects public feeling and discourse.

I found it to be a fascinating discussion, even if I disagree with some of Stewart's points (sorry, Stewart, but Fox News is partisan and President Bush is a war criminal). Still, I recommend watching the interview and coming to your own conclusions.

Fair warning, though: this thing's long. But so worth it.