Good Night, and Good Luck, Keith.

I am very saddened to learn that Keith Olbermann will be leaving MSNBC.  I couldn't sum up his importance an better than MMFA founder David Brock did, saying that "led the charge" against "conservative misinformation in prime time," and "showed there was a market for progressive views on cable news."  Of all the opinion shown on Cable, and in the media in General, Countdown was arguably the one that most resembled actual journalism, the way it is supposed to be practiced, and his practice of criticising democrats and President Obama inarguably sets him apart from the "Left-Wing version of Fox" stereotype that lesser people in the media and the blogosphere would have you believe he represents.

I am curious to see if he DOES end up on CNN.  That would be pretty cool; though I laugh at the statement that it would "mean a dramatic shift in the network's determined nonpartisan stance.  I think it would be more accurate to say that it would "represent a return to balance, and an end to their leaning to the right." Hey, CNN: "Balance" isn't worth anything if it means you've got to let a Conservative Lie, because you've featured a Liberal telling the truth!" In any case, it would be nice to have another major Cable network featuring a strong, popular, and professional Liberal voice. (It would kind of poke a hole or two in the Right's perpetual argument about ratings and the market for Liberal opinion, huh?)  And I'm sure Rachael Maddow will do fine taking over his spot at MSNBC.  She's a great talent and actually, even a bit funnier than Keith. I will miss the "Worst Person in the World" segments though.  That has been my favorite two-minutes of television every week for the past few years now!  (Even if I missed the show, I'd tune in at the end, just to see that.  And if I missed it, I'd faithfully check the transcipts online the next day.)


Another thing I gleaned from this article was about Keith being "hard to work with." The example they give is his leaving MSNBC in the late 1990's because his bosses wanted him to do more about the absurd, non-story that was the Clinton "scandal."  I guess "hard to work with" is a euphemism for "principled and independent."  Like I said: More than any other opiner, what Keith does most closely resembles ACTUAL JOURNALISM.  I've NEVER seen him do PROPAGANDA, I challenge ANYONE on the Right to prove me wrong.

Anyway, Keith? You will be missed, but I'll be sure to tune in wherever you end up. Keep speaking truth to power, and never lose that principled, independent streak you've got.  It's your single greatest asset.  I'd watch a "hard to work with" truth-telling over an easy-going liar ANY day.  So keep fighting the good fight.  There's a generation of truth-tellers waiting to follow in your footsteps.

Good night and good luck, my friend.

Newsflash: Liberals are smarter, more evolved.

CNN reports on a study verifying what we already knew: Liberals and Atheists have higher IQ's.  What's more the data in the study is explained though evolution.  The conservatives are sure to hate this, huh?  Especially coming on the heels of multiple papers showing how conservatism is like a form of mental illness!

Now let's recap.  According to Conservatives:

ACADEMIA, meaning people that study and learn things, has a liberal bias.

The part of the MEDIA that practices anything even resembling actual JOURNALISM, has a liberal bias.

And SCIENCE (climatology, evolution, stem cell research, etc...) has a liberal bias.

That says, pretty clearly, that RESEARCH, STUDYING, LEARNING, and KNOWLEDGE CREATION all have a liberal bias.  So it really shouldn't come as any surprise that higher intelligence would be liked to Liberalism and Atheism, since, according to CONSERVATIVES, all the things that support intelligence and come from intelligence ALL have a LIBERAL BIAS! 

You wouldn't think they should be so proud of that, but as "Mister Conservative," Glenn Beck himself said: We don't WANT to evolve! 

Well, good on you then Glenn, because: you haven't.

Actually, I still think then-Senator Obama said it best, during a 2008 campaign speech: "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant!"  As eloquent and articulate as President Obama can be, I still believe that statement to be the most relevant, prescient, observant, telling and accurate of his political career.

And lest you think this phenomenon is anything new, consider this exchange between Adlai Stevenson and an admirer of his during the 1952 campaign:

     "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!"

     "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

The Right has learned this lesson all too well and, in the decades following 1980, have devolved from a party of Libertarianism, Progressivism and Center-Right Populism to one of hate, bigotry, fear, paranoia, greed, superstition and madness.  Obama realized the pride they take in their ignorance but thus far he does not seem to have any ideas how to confront the problem.  Nor do I.  When it comes to separating the dumb from the Right, I have no idea where to even begin.  And don't get me wrong: I only want their votes, not their voice.  The Right got their vote by giving these fools actual representation.  That was the ultimate example of putting party and personal interests above those of the country.  Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. But there sure are a LOT of them, aren't there?  And we can't fix anything if we don't WIN ELECTIONS.  So what to do?

For once? I'm stumped.  Good luck, America.