Pointless Man

This is Lloyd Blankfein, pictured in a BBC News article on Goldman Sachs execs testifying to Congress entitled, ' Goldman Sachs "Profited at Clients' Expense" '.  Lloyd is Sachs' CEO. Seems a proper reaction for having to play in the absurdist theatre of a Senate hearing on a scandal, where everyone is positively outraged by the actions of their patrons.  Not like it's news that Wall Street is filled with dicks who just want to fuck you.  "I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment!" Meanwhile, our representatives will continue to whittle down their not-quite-strong-enough to begin with legislation set on reigning in just these sorts of excesses.  Of course, even should it be detoothed and declawed, our Republican friends and officials will still lament it being much too intrusive, stifling, and 'big government', as they call for the tougher reform of largely letting the markets manage themselves. Per...

Just wanted to get that out there. Addendum (4/30)-- As per Media Matters : 'Right-wing story time this week -- brought to you by Frank Luntz -- centered around the claim that financial reform legislation would encourage perpetual and permanent taxpayer bailouts. The genesis of this particular tall tale is Luntz's January memo that advised opponents of financial regulatory reform to tie the issue to big bank bailouts. Message received. Driving the clown car was Glenn Beck, who appeared on Fox & Friends to decry the "insane" idea of using $50 billion to save failing firms; Michelle Malkin claimed the bill would "institutionalize and make permanent financial bailouts"; Fox Business' Charles Gasparino said the bill contained a "slush fund" of "$50 billion to bail you out." Actually, the $50 billion fund would be paid for by the financial services industry and would cover the costs of the orderly ...

With mild editing, and a quick background added in Photoshop. Wish I could find the actual hard copy. Shoot.

And it's not because I think they're largely foolish racists with ill thought out ideas being manipulated by corporations and right wing pundits, though that is how I feel. Rather, I've just heard (and read) them called 'teabaggers' so often now, it's hard not to. Nevermind the humour or that it rolls off the tongue much easier than 'tea partiers'. It becomes more apropos when you see signs from their rallies suggesting they should tea bag the Democrats or Obama . For further enjoyment, may I suggest Morons with Signs ? I have to say, it's odd to see Democrats engage in this sort of (admittedly low) tactic and actually seem to win the battle of words.

Much has been made in the media (or at least, the segment that I have concentrated on, that being the New York Times, BBC, and Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews's programs on MSNBC) about Obama's alleged concessions to Republicans who will later refuse to cooperate in the final legislation. The general argument here is that the President gains nothing by making these moves, and that it is therefore foolish for him to seemingly abandon some of his stated goals, which could produce a more liberal result. While I am persoanlly in favor of such an outcome, I believe that the Obama administration has taken the long view, which many critics may have missed. By publicly reaching out to Republicans--and reminding the voter that he is doing this--while adding some of their ideas into the mix, he has not only arranged for the over-all legislation to pass, but has accomplished the following: (1) Taken the centre, which establishes Obama--and possibly the Democrats riding on his coat...

[From April 09] Rational thought (a system or as a line of thinking) is not inerrant. It is not supernaturally endowed with its own special light. It is, more often than not, done in pursuit of rationalising our dispositions, prejudices, and actions. But this does not deny its usefulness, or condemn such thinking to the patent absurdity of gibberish. Instead, it makes the rational into a real practice, like others: fallible, common, and not some shining ideal. Rendering such thinking little more than an attempt to fashion itself into something more internally consistent, and perhaps better in tune with the world it is a part of,

Man who is tired of living, but unwilling or unable to kill himself is brutally murdered by ass-hats. A raven revives him. He spends more time trying to catch the bird and kill it than he does inadvertently doing away with his murderers. In taking out some of these goons, he earns the enmity of several gangs who, unfortunately, cannot kill him. Addendum: The bird should be a pigeon, as opposed to a raven.