Who knows what’s next for Olbermann? Perhaps he could go back to Sportscasting where his career started, but that seems unlikely given his relative success in ratings for political banter. As a fellow Cornellian, I wish him luck, though I hope he can find something more useful to do than to continue bashing George Bush and other Republicans.

Update (M. Alan): A few hours ago, Mediaite ended the flurry of speculation that had accompanied Olbermann’s departure, reporting that the deal to end Olbermann’s contract had been in the works since before Comcast’s pending acquisition of NBCU was set into motion. Despite Comcast’s denial of involvement in the Countdown host’s departure, the cable empire’s firing of NBCU head Jeff Zucker, described as Olbermann’s “biggest cheerleader,” undoubtedly factored into the decision.

While Mediaite’s sources attribute the divorce to “mundane office politics,” it has been no secret that the host’s oftentimes incendiary rhetoric on camera and abrasiveness towards many of his colleagues off camera had caused strife behind the scenes at MSNBC. In addition to Olbermann’s suspension by the cable news outlet last year for failing to disclose political donations he made to guests of his show, the CALS alumnus has recently been taking heat from all sides of the political spectrum for his penchant for hyperbole in light of the national debate on tone and civility in politics that has developed out of the media coverage of the tragedy in Arizona. Some of the targeted, er, debated rhetoric included the show’s nightly “Worst Person in the World” segment–an honor I had always dreamed of winning for myself–that usually focused on politicians or pundits who, despite the name of the segment, were guilty of no more than disagreeing with Olbermann.

Finally, a few details from a profile on Olbermann that appeared in New York magazine back in 2007 that are not only telling with regard to Olbermann’s rocky tenure and now second departure from MSNBC, but also indicative of the difficulty he may have finding new work in media:

As an employee, Olbermann was his own kind of Worst Person in the World. His sense of superiority and caustic vibe eventually cost him gigs and friends at three networks. How naughty was he? Olbermann was the only former ESPN star not invited back for the sports network’s 25th anniversary (he’s allowed to participate on Patrick’s radio show only because Patrick promised that Olbermann would never set foot on the network’s Bristol, Connecticut, campus).

. . .He began firing off thousand-word memos to management, lobbying on causes from saner hours for lowly production assistants to profit-sharing for ESPN employees who were helping the network generate billions. Along the way, he won a reputation as a miserable jerk. “Of all the people I’ve known inside and outside of the business, he was the unhappiest,” recalls a SportsCenter staffer. “Sometimes, at the end of the night, I’d leave early just so I wouldn’t have to give him a ride home. And it wasn’t out of my way.”

. . .He was fired from his first stint at MSNBC after he denounced his own show in a commencement address at his alma mater. Fox hired him to host its major-league baseball Game of the Week and then sent him home with a year left on his contract simply for being a malcontent.

. . .It’s a couple of hours before his nightly broadcast, and Olbermann is looking through boxes of mail in his Secaucus office. “Maybe this one contains Chris Matthews’s eyebrows,” he says, referring to his fellow MSNBC host. “You see them last night? Did he borrow them from Joe Pesci?” I’m watching from the wings with Jeremy Gaines, an MSNBC flack. “Did you hear that snort he just did?” asks Gaines. “That’s Keith’s imitation of Matthews.” Gaines then bites his lip as if to say “oops.” He tries to respin. “But they really, really like each other.”

All I can say is, “Have you no job, sir?!?”

Harvard has the highest rate of the Ivies (84%), while William and Mary, the highest of the other group, boasts of a 79% repayment rate. Cornell came in second of the Ivies with an 82% repayment rate.

Too bad these figures weren’t taken into account when US News and World Report came up with their college rankings; Brown was the dud of the Ivies with a repayment rate of 63%.

Northwestern took 12, and Johns Hopkins and Washington University in St. Louis tied for 13. We already mentioned the qualifications on which this seemingly arbitrary decision is based, but in case you missed it, here it is again (also, US News made a few changes to their methodology):

Peer Assessment: 22.5% (down from 25%)
(Peer) Assessment by college provosts, presidents, and deans (15%)
Assessment by high school guidance counselors (7.5%)

Faculty Resources: 20%

Student Selectivity: 15%

Graduation and Freshman retention: 20%
6-year graduation rate: 80%
Freshmen retention rate: 20%

Financial Resources: 10%

Graduation rate performance: 7.5% (up from 5%)

Alumni Giving Rate: 5%

Peer assessment, nearly a fourth of the score, sounds quite subjective. US News is now adding high school guidance counselors to their methodology–I don’t know about everyone else’s high school counselor, but in my experience, they weren’t very helpful in the college-picking or application process. I don’t know how objective “peer assessment” can be, but I know that they certainly made it less objective by adding high school counselors to the mix (can you just see them rating schools based on whether or not their favorite students were admitted, whether or not the high school’s star athlete was recruited, etc. etc.). As far as the other categories, the SAT scores of Cornell’s 2014 class improved, and the acceptance rate went down… but that happened at pretty much every other school, too. Our financial resources seem to be pinched–but again, that’s probably happening at most other schools right now, too. Who knows what actually happens at the table at which a bunch of big wigs rank national schools? At least we didn’t lose any ground (which has been the trend until this year).

Peer Assessment (25%)

Retention (20%)
Six year graduation rate (80%)
Freshman retention rate (20%)

Faculty Resources (20%)
Proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students (30%)
Proportion of classes with 50 or more students (10%)
Faculty salary (35%)
Professor degrees (15%)
Student-faculty ratio (5%)
Proportion of full time faculty (5%)

Student selectivity (15%)
SAT/ACT stats of incoming class (50%)
Freshman in top 10% of graduating class (40%)
Acceptance rate (10%)

Financial Resources- per student spending (10%)

Graduation Rate Performance- metric for “added value” (5%)

Alumni giving rate (5%)

Here are our official predictions, offered by Editor-in-Chief Dennis Shiraev ’12, Executive Editor Oliver Renick ’12, Cornell College Republicans Chair Peter Bouris ’12, and National News Editor Hannah MacLean ’13. The writer with the most accurate prediction will, in theory, win the admiration of our readers.

Dennis:

Cornell will move into a three or four-way tie for 12th with some combination of Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, and Wash U. While a lot of the statistics are unavailable for criteria like peer assessment and retention rates, we can make some predictions about Cornell’s relative strength in the student selectivity and faculty resources categories. Because of the freshman writing seminar requirement, I think we’ll hold steady for the proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students relative to other schools. The Class of 2014 has improved stats (710 verbal and 740 math, vs. 700 verbal 720 math for the 2012s), but like the acceptance rate, it’s not clear how much Cornell has improved relative to its competitors. Cornell’s acceptance rate dropped to 18.4 from 20.4, but JHU (20.4 from 26.7), Duke (14.8 from 18), Dartmouth (11.5 from 12.5), Chicago (18 from 26)and Northwestern (23 from 27) also went down while only Wash U remained steady at 20%. So hopefully we’ll make up group with our improved stats and other intangibles like the peer assessments.

Oliver:

U.S. News will be itching to follow in the footsteps of last year’s Forbe’s rankings in a publicity stunt that will aim to bring the magazine back into circulation.  It will mark the magazine’s transition from a reliable scholastic source to humor tabloid, and will be organized by a few simple criteria.  1) No consecutive 2 positions can be filled without at least 1 liberal arts college listed.  2) Any case of disambiguation will be settled by giving the lesser known college a higher ranking, i.e, Cornell College 102 spaces above Cornell University, and the Fuerzas Militares de Colombia Bogota training center 75 spaces above Columbia University.  3) Any school which rejected the publisher’s son will not appear on the list.  Cornell will fall around 14th, the same area as usual, at the bottom of the green vine and below a few powerhouses.  But who really cares?  The rankings used to be a good way to get a grasp on college standings, but their booming popularity, unnecessary re-workings and ‘twists’ will eventually make them obsolete.  Just as long as we stay ahead of those stoner Brunonians.

Peter:

If I am not mistaken, Cornell has gone down one spot over the last few years every year.  I expect this to continue.  Cornell will drop from 15 to 16.  Yes, admissions rates are down and SAT scores are up, but other top schools have improved their figures too.  This is mainly because people with a modicum of talent have discontinued wasting their time applying to lesser schools (I could not find an article to support this, but I know for a fact that it is a trend), realizing that they are a waste of money and provide degrees that will be worthless in our future world where only top elites have financial security.  Therefore, any schools with name recognition were going to have better numbers.  Even still, better numbers do not change that Cornell lacks the number of distinguished faculty that other well-known schools have, and still admits WAY too many in-state students.  While the latter point is self-deprecating (I’m from New York), it does often feel as though we attend New York State University as opposed to a hallowed “Ivy.”

Either way, I doubt that US News uses the stated criteria.  I suspect that it is all subjective non-sense.  When considering this, along Cornell’s incrementally declining prestige, I believe it is fair to say that the Big Red will drop again.

Hannah:

I do think the US News ratings are somewhat more objective (or at least more rational) than those of Forbes. While, as Dennis pointed out, selectivity increased ever so slightly, I wonder if something like the suicides of last year might negatively affect some aspect of this numbers game (maybe peer assessment?). The student-faculty ratio and class sizes will probably remain relatively stable. Cornell had to make a bunch of cuts this year, and there’s a decent chance that their financial resources might have decreased.  But even if this is true, Cornell still has a gigantic endowment compared to other schools, and there’s a good chance that other schools are feeling the same pains in their wallets. Cornell may move up or down a few notches and it wouldn’t cause any eye brow-raising. I think it will climb ahead of Wash U, given the difference in admissions statistics, but I think Chicago, Duke, and Dartmouth will remain ahead. I think we will either end up in a tie with Johns Hopkins and/or Northwestern and move up to 14 or perhaps 13, depending on whether or not the suicides of this past year affect peer assessment (and if it is affected by such a tragedy, then it’s possible we could slide to 16, but I find that unlikely).

By the way, If it brings you any comfort, Cornell is already way up there on a different US News and World Report list…. made by high school counselors.

Here are a few interesting cases in which Stevens wrote opinions (there are many of them, but there is only room for a few):

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1984* – Dissent
Stevens generally voted with the Left on issues regarding search and seizure. This case was about a high school girl who was caught smoking, subsequently checked for drugs/drug paraphernalia and found to have marijuana and related things, including drug sale documents, in her purse. She, of course, got in major trouble… and then she appealed, claiming that a principle did not have the right to search her purse while she was at school. The Court ruled 6-3 that the search was reasonable under the 4th amendment, and Stevens wrote a dissent.

Texas v. Johnson, 1989* – Dissent
A World War II veteran, he often cited the WWII era in his opinions, possibly trying to appeal to something to which many people, liberal or conservative, can relate. For example, during the oral arguments for Texas v. Johnson, his face showed his anger during one of the attorney’s glib defense of flag burning. The case, which was decided 5-4, decided against a prohibition on flag desecration. Stevens wrote his own dissent, declaring,

“The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for — and our history demonstrates that they are — it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.”

Gonzales v. Raich, 2004* – Majority Opinion
You might think that the most liberal Justice on the 2005 court would have voted to allow states to decide whether or not to allow the local cultivation of (medical) marijuana. Nope. Stevens, as well as the other liberals (as well as Kennedy and Scalia), actually voted to allow Congress to restrict the growing of pot in any state or locality. However, it’s worth pointing out and understanding- this case really wasn’t about the growing of marijuana; it was about whether or not the federal government (Congress) had the power to regulate trade that affected the entire United States. For anyone familiar with early Supreme Court history, this idea hearkens all the way back to 1824, when Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion for Gibbons v. Ogden.

The extent and significance of Stevens‘ mark on Supreme Court history is uncertain, but he has indeed left his mark. He is the fourth longest serving Justice on the Court and is currently (until he retires later this year, of course) the oldest and most senior member of the high Court. He has tried to avoid being labelled a liberal zealot or a reactionary conservative; though he is usually far more liberal, he votes based on the facts of each case rather than along party lines.

Now we get to wait and see who the next Justice will be… the Obama administration has enough time to pick a candidate and get him/her through the Senate before November. It will be interesting to see how the fact that this is an election year effects the questioning and/or voting.

*The years you find here are the years in which the cases were argued. Sometimes the cases were also decided that year–sometimes not.

Hurrah!! We have health care! Woohoo!! All of our dreams have come true! Everyone in this country will now be covered and everyone else will benefit from it! We should expect the deficit to go down. We should expect that everyone will magically be able to have health care and no one will be worse off for it. The government is in charge now. Woo! Well, newsflash: Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP were already in place. They were government-run, and they denied more claims than you want to know.

Sure, we’ll be covered. But watch, you may not get the care you want. You may have healthcare, but now that it’s a political issue, politicians can use it as leverage in political campaigns. Worse, people who know nothing about politics can and will vote in elections that decide these issues. You think you have a choice in your healthcare? Just wait and watch. When was the last time the federal government actually carried out a program without going over the predicted budget for said program? If you believe that this bill will actually reduce our deficit, you have another thing coming. If you have a moment, check out these graphs — but I warn you: they aren’t for the faint of heart. Here are a few of them:

I want to believe that the president and Congress just don’t know what they’re doing. Because if I allow myself to believe otherwise, I must believe that they knew what that they were passing that bill against the will of the people and that they were purposefully fundamentally changing the way this country works. There are about 300 million Americans. According to some estimates, 47 million are uninsured. But once you take out illegal aliens, people who can afford insurance and don’t want it, there are really only about 10 million people here who wanted health care and couldn’t get it without the help of this bill. Why couldn’t we have used some of the stimulus money to cover them? I’d like to think that they were just too stupid to see the other options and that it was just an accident that this plan involves a government takeover of things which the government has no business regulating. But that’s a little hard to believe.

Just some food for thought: Now that Democrats have shoved through health care, they will need to find votes somewhere because Americans are angry and resentful. Now where is he going to get votes? Think about it and it won’t be too much of a stretch. The next big issue will probably be amnesty for illegals. Obama needs their votes – if he promises them health care and finds a way to allow them to vote.. well, think about it. He needs this done by November – stay alert because this could be a very scary few months; these people just showed us that they are not going to ease up and listen to the American people just because elections are in November. No, they are going to get more bold and we cannot just sit back and watch as the government gets bigger and we lose our freedoms, our choices and our hard-earned cash.

He will not admit he was wrong. There’s a good chance he will find some way to blame Republicans for his mistakes. Before he does so tonight at 9pm, let’s look at the facts from the last year.

7,949.09—Dow Jones Industrial Average close on Jan. 20, 2009.
10,198.68—Dow Jones Industrial Average close on Jan. 27, 2010. (Not so bad!)

$787 billion—Cost of economic stimulus approved by Congress. (To create jobs and boost the economy.)

13 million—Number of people 16 and older unemployed as of January 2009.
14.7 million—Number of people 16 and older unemployed as of December 2009. (Where’d the stimulus money go?)

7.7 percent—Unemployment rate January 2009
10.0 percent—Unemployment rate December 2009 (Ahem… I repeat, where’d the money go?)

$10.6 trillion—Outstanding public debt Jan. 20, 2009.
$12.3 trillion—Outstanding public debt Jan. 14, 2010. (2.3 trillion dollars spent in less than a year… I’d be impressed if I were less worried about where the money’s going.)

$296.4 billion—Federal spending from the financial crisis bailout fund before Jan. 20, 2009. (Even I must admit, perhaps this was not the best idea.)
$173 billion—Federal spending from the financial crisis bailout fund after Jan. 20, 2009. (If throwing money didn’t work the first time, why, may I ask, do we continue to do it??)

$165 billion—Amount of bailout funds repaid by banks and automakers. (Good! Now where’s that money going?)

139—Bank failures between Jan. 20, 2009, and Jan. 14, 2010.

12—Formal news conferences.

21—Foreign countries visited.

29—States visited.

10—Visits to Camp David.

2—Vacations.

*The original article (minus most of the commentary) with most of these numbers is here.

When exactly is the president going to take responsibility for his own mistakes? How nice it would be if tonight’s the night he does it – but don’t get your hopes up.

Before this case makes its way to the shadows, take a moment to think about—and perhaps even celebrate—the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision. In essence, the case overturns a precedent (McConnell v. FEC) which formerly hushed the speech of America’s corporations in the political process. The new decision allows both corporations and nonprofit organizations to use their own money to campaign for their favored candidates. In other words, both unions and corporations are now allowed to pay to advertise for their candidates.

Unions have played a huge part in the political process for decades. Unions are groups of people looking out for their own best interest. Corporations are also comprised of groups of people looking out for their own best interests. Why should unions get to benefit from “free speech” while the corporations are hushed? This decision overturns an unfair, activist precedent—a precedent which chooses who gets free speech and who doesn’t. As noted by the decision itself, “government may not restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others.” Government may not impose restrictions on speakers based on the monetary status of the speakers, and speech is not bad because it comes from one person who is more disliked by government officials than someone else. The American public, thanks to the Bill of Rights, has the right to gather (and disperse) information from the widest number of sources.

Speech cannot be corrupt just because it comes from someone with whom the governing body (whether it be liberal or conservative) heavily disagrees. Political speech is protected under the first amendment, and neither elected officials nor the leftist media (who should be jumping up and down but instead are angry that they have to share their “free speech” with others) can pick and choose which group should be able to exercise that right and which group should be banned.