THE DAILY BANTER.COM

Death Toll in Afghanistan Mounting

By Ben Cohen

Worrying figures from the U.K - the death toll stands at 184, now more than the losses the British army sustained in Iraq.

While the political rhetoric strengthens, the objectives for this war dissipate further. Why are we fighting in Afghanistan? To beat the Taliban, the group of lunatics we essentially created? Or is it another stage in the war for strategic control of their massive energy resources?

Writes Eric Margolis:

Soviet veterans of Afghanistan warn the U.S. and its allies that they face defeat there. The Obama administration cannot even articulate a coherent political strategy for Afghanistan. Its latest big idea is to kick out the hapless Hamid Karzai and install a new 'asset,' one of the CIA-groomed 'good' Afghans who the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, colorfully brands 'dog-washers.'

Washington hopes U.S. troop reinforcements will finally bludgeon the Afghan national resistance into accepting American domination. Then the long-planned pipeline from the Caspian Basin across Afghanistan to Pakistan can finally be built.

No foreign army has conquered the rugged, brutal terrain, and empires have been fighting over it for centuries. The Soviets left having destroyed the country, and bankrupting their own, and the United States and Britain are having no better luck. There is no end in sight, no exit strategy, and seemingly a lot more death to look forward to for no apparent reason. The war will devastate the region further (an amazing feat given it is basically a medieval country), and drain the economies of the U.S and U.K to the point where they don't function any more. We're travelling down a familiar route, but a complicit press, and foolhardy belief that we are 'doing the right thing' is stopping us from realizing the obvious: We can't win, and we shouldn't be there.

Finally, Common Sense on Health Care: Taxing the Rich

By Ben Cohen

A sensible approach funding a health care package is finally discussed by House Democrats:

House Democrats will ask the wealthiest Americans to help pay for overhauling the health care system with a $550 billion income tax increase, the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee said Friday.

The proposal calls for a surtax on individuals earning at least $280,000 in adjusted gross income and couples earning more than $350,000, said the chairman, Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York.

It would generate about $550 billion over 10 years to pay about half the cost of the legislation, Mr. Rangel said. As the proposal envisions it, the rest of the cost would be covered by lower spending on Medicare, the government health plan for the elderly, and other health care savings.

Given the monstrous tax breaks the super rich have enjoyed over the past 8 years, it's about time they contributed their fair share to the government. Republicans (and some idiotic Democrats) still believe reform can happen without paying for it, but the reality is that the system is so corrupt and inefficient, it isn't really an option. And given the huge outcry from Progressives over Rahm Emmanuel's slip that the Obama Administration wouldn't necessarily go for the public insurance plan, the likelihood that a medicare like package will be extended to the rest of the population seems more likely than ever. At least that's the way it looks now - not always the best indicator of what will actually pass.

Fixing the Leak

By David Glenn Cox

We are what we are; we are good and bad, strong and weak, intelligent and stupid. Yet here we are. As President Kennedy once observed, “Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.”

There is much common ground that unites us all. We all seek a peaceful life in comfort and dignity. We all seek the opportunity to better ourselves and opportunities for our children to better themselves. In time of crisis secondary issues lose their importance. If, for instance, the ship were sinking it would no longer matter if I brought along my brown suit.

UK Government Sells Out Country for Banks. Again.

By Ben Cohen

Reassuring news that New Labour is committed to real change in the UK:

Alistair Darling stepped back today from a radical overhaul of Britain's banks when he ruled out caps on bankers' pay or breaking up the biggest City institutions.

Pointing to the importance of 1m jobs in financial services and the £250bn of tax generated by the sector in the past nine years, the chancellor's much-anticipated response to the current "severe financial crisis" rejected demands for major reforms by opposition parties and the Bank of England governor Mervyn King.

So, Banks invest heavily in the subprime mortgage market, reap profit based on meaningless projections year after year, lose it all when the scheme collapses, take billions of pounds from the government, and then continue to pay their workers outrageous salaries. Sounds like a great deal to me. When will the Labour party stop pretending to represent actual labour? A more apt name would be 'The Corporate Party', or 'The Capital Party'. At least we'd know who they were actually representing. 

Taibbi Accused of Antisemitism

By Ben Cohen

Any time powerful entities are challenged, the first line of response is dismissal. If the charges look like they might stick, the next stage is to throw mud. And if that doesn't work, they throw even more mud.

Goldman Sachs, the financial institution largely responsible for the massive economic meltdown, has had its hands full with the recent piece 'The Great American Bubble Machine' in Rolling Stone Magazine by Matt Taibbi. Taibbi essentially chronicled the company's role in blowing a multi trillion dollar hole in the economy via a mixture of reckless speculation, stock manipulation and astonishing greed. His research was top notch, and Taibbi went into great detail, naming names, and explaining the complex financial jargon the company used to disguise the fact that it was buying and selling junk.

It was a mind blowing piece of journalism as it laid out in basic terms how Goldman Sachs stole money from middle class investors and funneled it upward to the Wall St elite. Taibbi also warned that they are planning to do the same again in the new cap and trade economy, cataloging a history of deceit and theft to build a devastating picture of the financial juggernaut as a giant fraud machine.

Goldman Sachs hit back, but interestingly, they didn't point to specifics and stuck to broad generalizations about Taibbi and his 'lack of understanding' of all things financial. The official Goldman Sachs response was as follows:

“Your questions are couched in such a way that presupposes the conclusions and suggests the people you spoke with have an agenda or do not fully understand the issues.”

Other than that, they haven't refuted a single fact.

Taibbi's piece has gained acceptance by many people with a moderate understanding of the murky world of finance, even if they don't agree with him politically. Time Magazine basically agreed with Taibbi's analysis, complaining only that it was too focused on Sachs (yes, that apparently passes as legitimate criticism in the MSM), and many others haven't come out to denounce it.

Those left defending the corporate giant have now been reduced to name calling, with people going as far as accusing Taibbi of being anti semitic. 

This is a tactic extreme Right Wing Jews use to alienate anyone mildly critical of Israel, and broadly speaking, it works. If you are regarded as an anti semite in the American Media, essentially, your career is over. Throwing the accusation around is like accusing someone of rape - they'll never really recover from it.

Luckily, the link between Taibbi's superb piece and hatred towards Jews is so completely ridiculous, no one is taking it seriously. However, the Rolling Stones piece has only been out a week or so, and Goldman Sachs and Co. have a limitless amount of time and resources (thanks to the tax payer) to chuck crap at it. Get ready for more of this nonsense, as it's probably only just begun.

Republicans Can Have Their Private Health Insurance

By Ben Cohen

When I speak with Republican friends about the health care issue, I'm always amazed at their strict adherence to the mantra that private insurance is always better. Even when those same friends are paying hundreds of dollars in monthly payments, and outrageous co payments on basic treatments, there's no way they'd sign up for a government plan. Or at least that's what they tell me. But I suspect when most of them can no longer afford the crippling cost, or heaven forbid, lose their job, the public option may look rather attractive. 

But the argument in public remains the same - the Right will not consider a government insurance plan and are dedicated to ensuring private companies retain their vicious strangle hold on the American people. 

Bob Cesca, who has been doing some fantastic work on the health care debate (along with Lee Stranahan), has a solution:

People are, in fact, dropping dead here due to a lack of affordable, reliable healthcare. They're being abandoned on the street. They're being denied coverage and care. They're going bankrupt and losing everything just because they had the bad luck of losing their job and then getting sick. And the Republicans are telling us that this is the best system ever, even though our infant mortality rate ranks 29th, our life expectancy ranks 42nd (so much for "pro life") and our healthcare spending is the highest among industrialized nations.

We have an opportunity to turn all of that around, though, with a strong public health insurance option. In fact, 70 percent of us want it. But if certain wingnuts and Republicans don't want affordable, guaranteed health insurance, then they don't have to sign up. They're welcome to continue to defiantly roll the dice with their private plans. And good luck with that, by the way. Just don't punish the rest of us with this self-defeating Palin-ish ignorance.

I think we should also get a commitment in writing from them that they won't add to the government spending they profess to be so worried about. That way, they practice individual responsibility, get the health care they seem to love so much, and won't cost the tax payer a dime. They'll get to lecture those who do buy the public option for being lazy socialists, and feel proud that they are supporting corporate America. In that way, everybody wins.

Unless it turns out that the public option is so good and the economy so bad, that they have to buy in. And then we'll all be socialists together, and they'll have to shut the f#$%k up about it.

Hack Watch and Stupid Hall of Fame: Fox and Friends' Brian Kilmeade

In the most embarrassing clip I've yet seen (out of at least 50,000 options) from the imbecilic and often incoherent FNC morning show Fox and Friends, co-genius Brian Kilmeade goes on a rant about racial purity...during a discussion about how staying socially active can help prevent dementia.  It's not quite as cringe-worthy as Bruno, except that's what Sacha Baron Cohen was going for.

Via HuffPo and Salon.com:

A Long List of Sarah Palin Lies

By Ben Cohen

Andrew Sullivan seemed to take personal exception to the existence of Sarah Palin on the political landscape during election season. Her lack of any discernible talents (asides from winking) riled Sullivan up on a daily basis, and her continuing presence in the media hasn't eased his pain. While Sullivan may have gone slightly over board on Palin, he has made some very good points that are hard to refute. In response to her 'resignation', Sullivan rounded up the various lies Palin told during her short lived stint in the limelight, and poses the question: If this woman lies about virtually everything, how can we tell when she is telling the truth? The big lies below, and the rest here:

Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.

Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.

Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla's police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.

Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.

Obama the Chess Player

By Ben Cohen

A telling line from a fascinating interview with the master of the dark political arts, Henry Kissinger:

SPIEGEL: Do you think it was helpful for Obama to deliver a speech to the Islamic world in Cairo? Or has he created a lot of illusions about what politics can deliver?

Kissinger: Obama is like a chess player who is playing simultaneous chess and has opened his game with an unusual opening. Now he's got to play his hand as he plays his various counterparts. We haven't gotten beyond the opening game move yet. I have no quarrel with the opening move.

I hope that Obama isn't taking his cues from Kissinger (a war criminal of the highest order), but the praise is warranted. Obama's behavior abroad is extremely nuanced and careful, just what we need after 8 years of smashing things with a sledge hammer. While I vehemently disagree with his policy towards Afghanistan, his artful performances elsewhere have endeared him to leaders world wide - an absolute necessity if the United States wants to be respected and lisened to.

Sacha Baron Cohen Talks Bruno and Terrorism

By Ben Cohen

Continuing the Bruno Banter, take a look at Sacha Baron Cohen's interview with David Letterman, where he talks about interviewing a very serious terrorist for the movie: