TheDailyBanter.com

Super Sleuth Beck Uncovers MASSIVE Communist Conspiracy!!!

by Ben Cohen

The brilliant, roving reporter Glenn Beck has spent the past few days uncovering the biggest conspiracy since Area 51. According to Beck and his minion of fact finders at Fox News, Barack Obama, the environmental lobby and black farmers are orchestrating a communist take over of government under a secret organization called the 'Apollo Alliance' (OK, it's not that secret, but Beck does a fine job of portraying it as the sinister, Stalin-esque organization it really is). 

Always looking out for Joe Six Pack, Beck spent HOURS drawing a sophisticated diagram on a white board so people less intelligent than himself could understand it. Don't let anyone tell you Beck is a delusional, paranoid, half-baked nitwit. He's the modern reincarnation of Seymour Hersh, and if it weren't for him, Obama and his Communist cohorts would have already burnt America and all the white people in it to the ground.

Matt Taibbi Not a Real Journalist?

by Ben Cohen

This came from Lance Mannion in response to Matt Taibbi's analysis of Democratic capitulation over health care:

Taibbi's an insult artist before he's a reporter, and he doesn't let his reporting, which is minimal, get in the way of a good insult.  Read his book?  It's fun.  Lots of great stories.  But they're just stories.  Stories about Matt Tiabbi's adventures in whatever Wonderland he's wandered into.  He's got one source.  Himself.  All his work has one source.  Matt Taibbi.  Doesn't mean he's not right, sometimes.  Means, though, he's writing off the top of his head.  A lot.

So, frankly, I'm not impressed by anything Matt Taibbi thinks is going on in Washington or anywhere, even when I agree with him.

I don't want to start one of those silly tit for tat fights with Mr Mannion, but really, where on earth did he pull this one out of? I'm guessing his backside, as it's completely unsubstantiated.

Matt Taibbi is certainly an insult artist, perhaps the best around. But he's also a top notch journalist who has done some outstanding work on a number of very serious issues. His epic piece on Goldman Sachs was some of the most well researched and synthesized bits of journalism on the topic to date, full of sources, quotes, analysis and historic context. I'd like to see Mannion produce something a tenth of the quality before he runs his mouth.

Taibbi mostly does 'Gonzo' journalism - a subjective style of writing that Hunter S. Thompson started, and is no less valid than any other type of journalism. Taibbi's sources in his books are varied, but he chooses to present them through personal interaction - a cardinal sin in Mannion's eyes, for reasons best known to himself. I've interviewed Matt before (see here), mostly because I have a great deal of respect for what he is trying to do. He seemed extremely genuine about his role in the media, and understood that it was very difficult to do serious journalism when there wasn't really a market for it. And compared to 99% of the MSM, he's doing a mighty fine job.

Douche Competition - Beck, Hannity or Dobbs?

by Ben Cohen

If you haven't watched this, do so. Jon Stewart's hilarious 'So You Think You Can Douche' contest:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
So You Think You Can Douche
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

Why the Neo Liberal Revolution Was Built on a Myth

by Ben Cohen

Talk to any mildly intelligent Republican, and they will automatically tell you that government intervention into the economy causes stagflation (where the economy doesn't grow, and prices go up regardless). The proof of this apparently comes from the Ford/Carter years when the U.S economy went through a period of low growth and inflation while comparatively speaking, taxes where high and the Government regulated financial markets.

To Conservatives, this period of time justified a massive shift in monetary policy where taxes on the highest earners were slashed, financial markets deregulated, and welfare stripped to minimum.

The problem is, the stagflation in the 1970's had nothing to do with government intervention into the economy. As Paul Krugman points out, there were external factors that caused economic problems, like the massive oil shocks, and inadequate action by the Fed to stem the consequences (so that would be lack of government intervention rather than an excess). Also, another factor conveniently forgotten by Republicans was the massive debt the Vietnam War was incurring, a conflict started in the 1950's and escalated by both Democrats and Republicans.

While economic growth wasn't great in the 1970's, it was preceded by an unprecedented economic boom that basically started from World War Two. The reasons? Direct government intervention in the market, investment into key sectors of the economy, price controls and a centrally planned drive towards full employment. And guess what - it worked.

Mixed economies, or Keynesian economies (a balance between private enterprise and state planning) have provided more economic growth than any other system in history, despite what Republicans will tell you about the free market.

The truth is, deregulation hasn't worked out so well. It has caused two of the biggest crashes in our economic history, and only serves the needs of the rich and powerful. In each circumstance, the government was forced to intervene to save capitalism and the free market from itself, rendering them meaningless terms in the first place. 

We've never had a true free market, and every time we get close, it goes horribly, horribly wrong. So let's stop pretending it's great, and go back to proven methods of sustainable economic growth. And as much as Republicans hate it, that means government. 

What if All the NY Times Talent Left?

by Ben Cohen

Michael Arrington of Tech Crunch puts forward an interesting notion: What if the top talent at the New York Times left to start their own newspaper?

He writes:

I’m guessing that the top performers in the news room, say the best 5%-10% of the writers and editors, produce 50% or more of the real value of the newspaper. The hungriest reporters. The best writers. The most competitive and aggressive editors.

What if that group, the most valuable assets that the NYTimes controls, simply walked out of the building and started their own company? What would that look like?

Using the Politico and Gawker 'lean journalism' model, Arrington calculates a bare bones structure where the journalists get paid top dollar, overhead runs at 20% and expenses are around another 50% of expenditure. He comes up with the following:

That’s $25 million/year to have a well paid staff of the best journalists on the planet. How long before they outstrip those 16 million monthly visitors and 124 million page views? 5 years? Less?

How many private equity funds would kill to put $100 million behind the NNYT to make sure the company had plenty of money until it reached profitability?

My guess is plenty.

There is a debate raging as to whether online content can be profitable, with strong cases pointing either way. The Gawker network is a successful business model having amazingly ridden out the recession, posting a 45% increase in advertising revenue. 

Personally, I think bare bones journalism and tightly knit networks are the way forward (see Banter Media Group, which this site is a part of), where publishers learn to cut costs and leverage their ad space together rather than independently. 

While Arrington's proposal for the New York Times won't happen, it is interesting nevertheless - and Tech Crunch is certainly in a good place to talk about it.

Shocking Racist Email Sent from Boston Policeman

by Ben Cohen

This has to be seen to be believed. The email (pasted below) was sent by Boston Police Officer Justin Barret to a reporter in the Boston Globe lamenting his coverage of the Henry Louis Gates arrest.

In a stunningly paranoid, racist rant, Barret, a former English teacher and military veteran, referred to Gates as 'banana eating jungle monkey', and informed the journalist that he would have sprayed Gates 'in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance'.  After somehow including a diatribe about income tax, incredibly, the officer went on to say that he was 'not a racist', and only 'prejudice towards people who are stupid'.

I often receive emails from people enraged by something I have written, and they always provide an interesting glimpse into the psyches of various sectors of the population. The Rush Limbaugh Right are particularly interesting, as their world view appears to be an amalgamation of deep seated insecurity, extraordinary ignorance, fear of black people, and a kind of nerdy intelligence born from obsessing over things like military equipment and war history. The result can provide for some hilarious reading, but in Barret's case, it is just scary. As a Policeman, his job is to protect the public, but it looks like it is the public who needs protecting from him. Thankfully, he has been suspended, and the Mayor of Boston is calling for his dismissal.

Read the email below (via myfoxboston):

Obama, Crowley and Gates to Have Beers

by Ben Cohen

In an attempt to calm the storm that happened after a prominent black professor was arrested in his own house by a white policeman, Barack Obama is inviting Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge Police sergeant James Crowley (who arrested Gates) to the White House to share beers. From the Guardian:

The informal meeting is also an attempt to calm the president's critics. Law enforcement officials and conservatives have blasted Obama for wading into what they say was a local dispute between a man who took umbrage at a policeman's treatment of him and an officer who reacted to verbal abuse by reaching for his handcuffs.

Obama will drink Bud Lite, Gates will sip Jamaican brew Red Stripe, and Crowley will take Blue Moon, a light, Belgian-style wheat beer. The summit will convene at the picnic table in the White House's back yard, near a swing set for Obama's daughters. 

Why we need to know what each man is drinking is beyond me, but it's pretty clear the whole thing is a PR stunt to get Obama out of trouble for his comments on the situation. Obama rightly pointed out that the police behaved stupidly, but in White America, criticizing the police is tantamount to treason. Anyway, as PR stunts go, I think it's a fairly worth while one if he manages to quell the storm, and hopefully Obama can put the episode behind him.

Thank God for Rachel Maddow

by Ben Cohen

Rachel Maddow calls Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin out for overt and shameless race baiting:

This type of nonsense must stop as it could have some pretty nasty consequences. As millions of people lose their jobs, minorities are at a particular risk from violence because they are the first to get the blame, and the least able to defend themselves.

While Rupert Murdoch epitomizes corporate greed and corruption, he must know that this invective is counter productive to his business in the long run. No one wants to be responsible for a full blown fascist resurgence in America, and the way Fox News is going, they might just well be. It's time to reign in the attack dogs and quietly put them to sleep. 

Hats off to Rachel Maddow for calling it like it is.

A Reminder: The Taliban Were not Responsible for 9/11

by Ben Cohen

Surprise, surprise, the 9/11 Truth Movement won't leave me alone after comparing them to the Birthers. I'm continuing to receive emails, and my article on the Huffington Post continues to attract idiotic comments about the much heralded 'Building 7'.

Reading through the comments, I did find one with a legitimate question in regards to the U.S motives for going to war in Afghanistan (which I had ascribed to oil). Here it is:

Most of what you wrote makes sense to me except for the part at the end where you state your belief that our two wars were "for oil". I can see how this argument can be made in the case of Iraq (though I don't actually agree) but I'm unclear how this argument can be made in the case of Afghanistan. Don't you think responding to the WTC attacks was the primary motivation in going after the Taliban? And Afghanistan's oil production is not significant. Please explain your reasoning.

I felt compelled to respond to this question because the reader, along with many other Americans, still believe the Taliban attacked the United States. They didn't, and it ranks up there with the Saddam - 9/11 connection that much of the country swallowed before going to war with Iraq.

While I'm no fan of the Taliban, and I abhor their brutal, misogynistic beliefs, they had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. In fact, they even condemned them. The reasons for the U.S invasion (as far as I can tell) are as follows:

While Afghanistan doesn't have the oil reserves of say, Iraq or Iran, new resources have been discovered in the Helmand and Katawaz provinces. The region is also rich in natural gases. The main interest in Afghanistan is strategic - firstly, the proposed oil pipeline that would run from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan towards India is of great interest to the world's empires. Secondly, Afghanistan lies between several rising powers - Iran, Pakistan and China. Whoever controls the region wields huge leverage over the other powers. It's a game of monopoly, and the U.S is competing for influence and control, not fighting to avenge 9/11 or for the freedom of the Afghanis.

Matt Taibbi on Why the Health Care Bill Will Fail

by Ben Cohen

Matt Taibbi says what's on everyone's mind:

The reason a real health-care bill is not going to get passed is simple: because nobody in Washington really wants it. There is insufficient political will to get it done. It doesn’t matter that it’s an urgent national calamity, that it is plainly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 8 that our system could not possibly be worse and needs to be fixed very soon, and that, moreover, the only people opposing a real reform bill are a pitifully small number of executives in the insurance industry who stand to lose the chance for a fifth summer house if this thing passes.

It won’t get done, because that’s not the way our government works. Our government doesn’t exist to protect voters from interests, it exists to protect interests from voters.

The latest news from the Health Care debate isn't exactly heart warming. Every day, a new headline deflates the prospect of meaningful health care reform, and every day, the corporatists get closer to getting what they want.

If we do get a public option, it looks like it will be so watered down, it won't actually do anything to control costs. Here's the latest thinking on the Public plan, which the 'Blue Dogs' are successfully destroying (from the Huff Post):

For instance, rather than linking the public option to the rates enjoyed by Medicare, the new language would require a separate agreement with significantly higher charges, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius would also have to sign off on any deal between the public option and service providers, while the plan would lack Medicare's bargaining power.

"The public option must go out and negotiate with providers, just like private health insurance companies do," Ross said. "It's strictly optional. It won't be mandated on anyone. It will not be based on Medicare rates."

Which begs the question - what's the point?