You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1461)

PLAYS: (6242)

[h/t to Heather.] On Countdown, Keith Olbermann talked about the power of words and why Bill O'Reilly and the Fox News Channel are at least partially responsible for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. As his guest, he had author Frank Schaeffer, who wrote "Crazy for God" about his years in the religious right.

Yesterday, Schaeffer wrote a heartfelt apology apology at Huffington Post for his part in forming the anti-abortion movement. Keith contrasted his apology with the response by Bill O'Reilly, in which Billo blamed - well, just about everyone but himself and Fox News.

Keith spoke thoughtfully about hate speech and how it influences people, then posed this question:

So, what to do? Viewer boycotts mean little. You are already here. You are not watching Fox News channel. Advertiser boycotts are of limited value, most make barely a dent in a company. Besides which, in this economy, an advertiser who found its sales boosted by association with malaria would start breeding mosquitoes.

If there is a solution, it is perhaps an indirect boycott. It is probably your experience, as it has been mine that stores, bars, restaurants, waiting rooms, often show Fox News on their televisions. Don't write a letter. Don't make a threat. Just get up and explain if they will not change the channel, leave the place and say calmly why it is you are taking your business elsewhere.

If you know a viewer of that channel, show them this tape, or just the tape of the attacks on Dr. Tiller that set the stage for his assassination. Fox News channel will never restrain itself from incitement to murder and terrorism. Not until its profits begin to decline, when its growth stops. So, not so much a boycott here as a quarantine, because this has got to stop.

I'd like to add that I already do this, and it really does have an impact. After all, businesses aren't going to anger the few customers they have left.

It's getting even more difficult to find good news these days, but I thought this was worth a mention. I don't know how much of a difference it will make, but I hope it does. Businesses would do well to seek out those graduates and hire them:

When a new crop of future business leaders graduates from the Harvard Business School next week, many of them will be taking a new oath that says, in effect, greed is not good.

Nearly 20 percent of the graduating class have signed “The M.B.A. Oath,” a voluntary student-led pledge that the goal of a business manager is to “serve the greater good.” It promises that Harvard M.B.A.’s will act responsibly, ethically and refrain from advancing their “own narrow ambitions” at the expense of others.

Only 20 percent? Oh well, at least 1 in 5 has scruples!

What happened to making money?

That, of course, is still at the heart of the Harvard curriculum. But at Harvard and other top business schools, there has been an explosion of interest in ethics courses and in student activities — clubs, lectures, conferences — about personal and corporate responsibility and on how to view business as more than a money-making enterprise, but part of a large social community.

“We want to stand up and recite something out loud with our class,” said Teal Carlock, who is graduating from Harvard and has accepted a job at Genentech. “Fingers are now pointed at M.B.A.’s and we, as a class, have a real opportunity to come together and set a standard as business leaders.”

At Columbia Business School, all students must pledge to an honor code: “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” The code has been in place for about three years and came about after discussions between students and faculty.

In the post-Enron and post-Madoff era, the issue of ethics and corporate social responsibility has taken on greater urgency among students about to graduate. While this might easily be dismissed as a passing fancy — or simply a defensive reaction to the current business environment — business school professors say that is not the case. Rather, they say, they are seeing a generational shift away from viewing an M.B.A. as simply an on-ramp to the road to riches.

Those graduating today, they say, are far more concerned about how corporations affect the community, the lives of its workers and the environment. And business schools are responding with more courses, new centers specializing in business ethics and, in the case of Harvard, student-lead efforts to bring about a professional code of conduct for M.B.A.’s, not unlike oaths that are taken by lawyers and doctors.

“I don’t see this as something that will fade away,” said Diana C. Robertson, a professor of business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s coming from the students. I don’t know that we’ve seen such a surge in this activism since the 1960s. This activism is different, but, like that time, it is student-driven.”

It's kind of ironic, in light of Harvard's present financial crisis.

Michael Steele's mind inhabits an alternate reality. This is his new talking point against gay marriage.

Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

''Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,'' Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. ''So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.''

As Steele talked about ways the party could position itself, he also poked fun at his previous pledge to give the GOP a ''hip-hop makeover.''''You don't have to wear your pants cut down here or the big bling,'' he said.

So his argument is that gay marriage is fiscally irresponsible? Every time he opens his mouth, more garbage comes out of it. I'm sure the less than .050% of gay married couples will produce a huge dent in corporate earnings. First gays were just demented people who weren't allowed to make love because they would be thrown in jail for it. Now, in Steele's world, gays are just too costly. I mean, WTF?

Remember Obama's announcement Monday that insurance companies were going to cut the rate of health care spending? It was all over the news:

“These groups are voluntarily coming together to make an unprecedented commitment,” Mr. Obama said. “Over the next 10 years, from 2010 to 2019, they are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year — an amount that’s equal to over $2 trillion.”

Now they're clutching their pearls, insisting they never said such a thing!

Health care leaders who attended the meeting have a different interpretation. They say they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts.

“There’s been a lot of misunderstanding that has caused a lot of consternation among our members,” said Richard J. Umbdenstock, the president of the American Hospital Association. “I’ve spent the better part of the last three days trying to deal with it.”

Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said “the president misspoke” on Monday and again on Wednesday when he described the industry’s commitment in similar terms. After providing that account, Ms. DeParle called back about an hour later on Thursday and said: “I don’t think the president misspoke. His remarks correctly and accurately described the industry’s commitment.”

The Washington office of the American Hospital Association sent a bulletin to its state and local affiliates to “clarify several points” about the White House meeting.

In the bulletin, Richard J. Pollack, the executive vice president of the hospital association, said: “The A.H.A. did not commit to support the ‘Obama health plan’ or budget. No such reform plan exists at this time.”

Moreover, Mr. Pollack wrote, “The groups did not support reducing the rate of health spending by 1.5 percentage points annually.”

And yet, here's what went up on the lying bastards' industry's faux-grassroots website:

Health care stakeholders came together at the White House today to present ideas on how to lower health care costs and create real savings for American families. President Obama hosted representatives of a group that included AdvaMed, American Hospital Association (AHA), American Medical Association (AMA), America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The six groups submitted a letter to the President outlining a framework for slowing the growth of spending throughout the health care system, making it more efficient and more sustainable. Read the letter that was sent to President Obama.

By reducing the rate of growth in health care spending by 1.5% each year, the nation can achieve a savings of $2 trillion over the next decade. This effort will have a direct effect on the budgets of individuals and families and will also go a long way in ensuring that every American have access to affordable, high-quality health care. Stay tuned for more information on this important initiative in the weeks and months ahead.

Read a complete account of President Obama's remarks at the White House today.

America's Health Insurance Plans released a statement today that expressed strong support for the framework that all the stakeholders have presented. Read the full statement.