Olbermann

I'm on my way to a you have to watch this, but I need to take the long way around.

I have spoken in praise of MSNBC's commentator Keith Olbermann before.

Now for a span there during the Bush administration, there were some lefties who looked at him like he was the second coming of Edward R. Murrow ... or like he was the crafty, witty, relentless liberal voice we now have in the form of the amazing Rachel Maddow. Having watched a bit of his show, I have to admit that this is the internet being kind to Olbermann—not in the sense that the people of Left Blogistan were too generous in their praise, but rather that the medium of the net played up his virtues. Folks circulated clips of Olbermann's best Special Comments, but it turns out watching the actual show, that most of the time it's very TV-ish in a bad way: gimmicky, full of cheap shots, and Mr Olbermann sometimes speaks in the voice of outrage at times that are forced and artificial. He plays up the outrage because he's good at it, and I mean that not as a backhanded compliment but a sincere one because expressing outrage well, like expressing anything well, requires talent, skill, and discipline. And so the internet made Olbermann look good because folks could circulate clips of him expressing brilliant outrage when it was called for, unhappily true all too often during the Bush administration.

Given a worthy target, Olbermann's outrage is awesome to behold: right, and necessary, and ... here is where his greatness lies ... delivered with subtlety and profundity to match its vigour.

I have a clip for y’all where Olbermann expresses outrage where it is warranted. That outrage is really only punctuation at an appropriate point in telling a larger story, and mighty as that outrage is, it is not even close to being the heart of his comments. You have to watch this.

It's almost fifteen minutes long, serious, searing, and not work safe—not because it will show anything offensive or embarrassing on your screen, but because it demands a kind of attention that you're not going to be able to muster at your desk at the office. Don't let that deter you. Make a date with yourself to watch it.

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

Good work, Mr Olbermann, and thank you.

(That I may keep it handy, here's a link to Crooks and Liars, where they have the clip, a partial transcript, and a link to Olbermann's dKos diary.)

Olbermann vs. Rumsfeld

A few days ago, Donald Rumsfeld spoke to the American Legion, working the ol' dolchstoßlegende.

1919 was the beginning of a period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate public discourse and thinking in the West.

Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then-recent memory of World War I could be avoided.

It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

....

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today—another enemy, a different kind of enemy—has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons.

....

And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.

Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC commentator, comments.

About Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism:” as he was correct to remind us how a government that 'knew everything' could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that ... though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism, indeed.

Follow the link and watch the Olberman video. Really, don't miss it.

Update:

Y'know, since Rumsfeld and Olberman both touch the war hawks' theme of “appeasement” and the shade of Neville Chamberlain, I realize that I'm long overdue to link Billmon's take on the lessons of Munich.

In the neocon wisdom tale, Munich is always about Neville Chamberlain and that scrap of paper. But that's only half the story—or not even half. Hitler might never have risen to power in the first place if the allies had dealt justly with Germany and the other defeated powers at Versailles, or if the Western governments of the 1920s and early '30s had shown one tenth the willingness to compromise with the democratic governments of the Weimer Republic that they later did to appease the Nazi regime.
....

The British and French only understand force, the would-be Furhrer shrieked. Germany must take what was rightfully hers, instead of going hat in hand to plead for concessions.

And of course, the allies proved Hitler right .... Weimar—and democracy—were discredited and disgraced in the eyes of millions of ordinary Germans long before they started flocking to Hitler's rallies.

And after the Nazis took power, the allies proved Hitler right yet again: They willingly gave him what they had refused the democratic governments of Weimer.

Billmon applies these lessons to the US and Iran, to chilling effect.

Disease

Perhaps you've seen Michael J. Fox's gutsy and heartbreaking campaign ad for Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, in which his plea for stem cell research is punctuated by tremours from his Parkinson's medication.

Rush Limbaugh has tried to outdo his usual low standards by saying Fox was faking to try to win sympathy.

Olbermann, Tristero, Hilzoy, Lance Mannion, Shakespeare's Sister, and Jane Hamsher give Limbaugh the shellacking he deserves.

Olbermann

Better than ever. And ever more necessary. He is truly a Great American.

Go watch.

Today's quote

Keith Olbermann on Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

They are never wrong, and they never regret. Admirable in a French torch singer. Cataclysmic in an American leader.

It's a wonder he isn't on Comedy Central.

9-11

In honour of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, I'd like to take a peculiar tack. I'd like to bring how that time felt back to mind, through the words of comedians returning to work the following week.

Seriously. This stuff really brought it back for me.

You may recall that the first issue of The Onion after 9/11 proved that it really is America’s Finest News Source. (There were also some good articles the following week.) When people say that there are some subjects that are just not appropriate for humour, period, I think of those Onion stories, especially God Angrily Clarifies “Don’t Kill” Rule. The Onion managed, miraculously, to keep its voice while saying exactly what needed to be said.

Thanks to the magic of YouTube, I also have video for you. Check out David Letterman’s first show after 9/11. First he speaks, obviously extemporaneously. Then he talks with Dan Rather. [Later note: that one has link rotted away.] I’m not among the ranks of Rather’s fans, but seeing him cheerleading for the Bush administration in that video is instructive when one reflects on how the right would soon portray him as the personification of “liberal media bias”.

I also have Jon Stewart’s first show after 9/11. Watch the whole thing; you must see the bit at the end where he talks about the view from his window.

Two other non-comedic thoughts for today: Nous Sommes Tous Américains, and Phil Agre’s Imagining the Next War, written just four days after 9/11, which I have blogged repeatedly because, well, it deserves it.

Update

Keith Olbermann in 2006, when I originally wrote this post.