Bitte; Schiessen Sie Mich

You Won't Hear This Discussed On 'Charlie Rose'



In college, someone once handed me a small glass of milk. I put it in my coffee. It wasn't bad. Then, they told me that they'd gotten it by milking a dog, which had been nursing puppies.

You know this shtick. Idiot screenwriters have built entire films around it: Lets-Get-This-Guy-To-[Fill In The Blank], Then Tell-Him-What's-Really-Happening, afterwards... Because witnessing that moment of dawning awareness, when their hand goes into the bag and touches the dead rat or fresh animal dung, really is the point, isn't it?



Well, I wasn't that upset. I finished my coffee. I am a Dog, after all. And, it was very good coffee.

But, this? This freaks me out, man. I mean, you can do this; and you could make cheese out of dog's milk, too -- though I wouldn't vouch for its quality when stacked up against even Safeway, vat-created, mass-processed "Monterey Jack" cheese.

Then, there's the question of methodology: How many dogs would you have to milk in order to obtain enough to actually make the cheese? And, how many breasts... well, you get the idea.

Man; that's Psycho Cheese, Qu'est Que C'est? / Fa fa fa fa / fa fa fa fa / better / Run run run run run run / run away...


Janet Leigh Brie: Don't Eat It In The Shower

---

Someone Please Explain

...why is it, in the aftermath of The Crash and revelations of how much Lil' Boots and the Cheney Presidency had lied to the country; that millions of American citizens aren't in the streets -- demanding that Banksters and various Rightist types go to prison, and that reforms and laws are enacted to make it more difficult to ever happen again?

Why?

Is the nation as brain-dead as it was between January of 2001 and sometime in 2007? Does everyone just sit watching cable teevee, and eating almost-reasonably priced bags of heavily salted or sugared things?

(And, in honor of St. Patrick's Day: History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.
-- Stephen Deadlus; Ulysses, James Joyce)

---

Lehman Bros. = Fraud & Theft. Gosh; Who Knew?

Richard "Dick" Fuld Testifies Before Congress
(Photo: UK Telegraph October 6, 2008)

Anton R. Valukis is the Chairman of the accounting firm, Jenner & Block. His report to the U.S. District Bankruptcy Court in re: Petitioner: Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Chapter 11 Bankruptcy has just been released (if you'd like to see it in all its .pdf glory, go here).

You may remember Lehman Brothers as the investment house which imploded during the week of September 11th - 16th, 2008 (otherwise knows as The Crash). The Bush administration refused to help bail Lehman out, and its resulting collapse brought down the curtain surrounding the shadow banking system -- a gigantic sewer, which many people had been able to smell (and complain about) for years, but relatively few wanted to see. And the effects of it all are still playing out.


Children Of The Downwardly Mobile: For Them, Sub-Standard
Education, Crowded Classes; Right-Wing Textbooks From Texas;
Parents With Three Or More Jobs; and Later, Few Job Prospects.

But back at the close of the good-for-the-rich, heady, 'go-go' Bush years, that third of the country, currently out of work, was still employed. People were still treating their homes like ATM's, and that little hiccup in some Bear-Stearns' hedge funds in '07, involving Mortgage-Backed CDO's... ahhh; that was nothing to get in a twist over. Right? Sure.



(Full disclosure: That day in mid-July, 2007, when Bear-Stearns' reported closing two CDO-based Hedge Funds, I took everything I had -- not much -- in the 401(k) at my Place Of Witless Labor™ [mostly, European stocks], and moved it all into a Bond Fund. The two B-S funds filed for Bankruptcy two weeks later, and the entire firm collapsed in the Spring of 2008.)

(Most people I know at work lost up to 40% of the value of their stock-fueled retirement accounts over the next two years [most in the period September, 2009 - January 2010]. They did nothing with their accounts since, and even with an upswing in the market have still lost approximately 25%. I kept my account in Bonds; and while it could be argued I've reduced my earning ability in the 401(k) have still limited my losses to 3%.)

Lehman's Chairman and CEO, Richard "Dick" Fuld, was a hyperaggressive, BSD - Master Of The Universe who (as the Jenner & Block report showed) engaged in the sort of behavior Primate specialists are familiar with: Grasping acquisitiveness; displays of extreme territoriality; and exceptionally poor judgment as a steward of other people's money -- but; hey; Dick made $466 Million dollars, personally, between 1993 and 2007.


Lehman Bros. Employees, Escorted Out The Door After Being Fired
In The Wake Of The Company's Collapse, September 13, 2008

In early 2009, Fuld was revealed to have sold his wife their jointly held $14 million, 3.3 acre Florida beach-front mansion (one of five houses the two of them owned, including their 8-bedroom main domicile in Greenwich, Connecticut). The nice touch was the selling price: One Hundred Dollars, "in a possible attempt," noted the British Times, "to move assets beyond the reach of infuriated investors of the collapsed bank."

Gosh. Just like Lil' Bernie Madoff and his wife, huh? Scumbags.


Mr. And Mrs. Dick, Having To Suffer The Criticism Of Code Pink
After Fuld's Public Lying Testimony To Congress in 2008,
Regarding The Fleecing Of Investors Lehman Collapse

Barry Ritholz's The Big Picture talks about the Bankruptcy report's lessons:

Major accounting firms are worthless to investors. They were either unable or unwilling to detect fraud amounting to 50 billion dollars. The incompetents at Ernst & Young deserve the same fiery death as Arthur Anderson; Whether they are hired guns or paid whores, they — like the rating agencies — are worthless to investors.

Corporate management engages in fraud all too regularly: Am I reading [the Bankruptcy report] correctly — that Dick Fuld’s defense will be, “I didn’t know that Lehman was a giant Ponzi scheme, and I was unaware we were hiding billions in bad debt and leverage off the balance sheet?”


Teevee Wants You To Forget This Took Place. Just Keep Buying
Stuff, And You Will Not Want To Hang People From Lampposts

Based on the release of the bankruptcy court report, LEH was technically insolvent -- perhaps, years before it collapsed;
...

The SEC is utterly incapable of comprehending how markets function. They believe the criminals who commit the fraud, and ignore the whistleblowers who uncover it;


Obligatory Small Animal Photo In Middle Of Financial Rant

The Media did a terrible job uncovering the fraud as well. Some media folk were used by CEOs. Some of the TV press, who relied on access to their subjects, actually rallied to the defense of these CEOs (including Fuld), and trashed [their critics]. Most notably Charlie Gasparino from his CNBC days, but there were others as well.


Your Future Masters: Children Of Wealth Share A Happy Moment
At Their Private School -- Special Textbooks and Technology,
Organic-Produce Lunches And No Lack Of Funds.

The Analyst community, for the most part, failed as well. The few who publicly acknowledged the debacle were notable for being so far outside of the herd. 95% of them were wrong.

---

Wearing Purple, Seeing Red

El Buffoono Grande Et Poco Pene



An effectively leaderless, color-coded protest against the Clown Putz of Europe, Prime Minister -- Silvio! -- Berlusconi, has been taking place in Italy since December of last year. In Georgia, it was the 'Orange Revolution'; in Thailand, the color of protest has been Yellow; and in Italy the color of Anti-Berlusconi is Purple -- and the protesters refer to themselves as 'Purple People'.


Erik Gandini's 2009 Documentary Concerning A Government
Run By A Corrupt Media Mogul; Who Could That Be?

Silvioland Italy -- That's the country where (you may recall) in 2008, a government dominated by Berlusconi’s own center-right party passed a law which insured him immunity from prosecution for any acts committed while in office.


Must Be Cool To Have Your Own Government.

This guy could have sex with Scooby-Do on the Great Altar in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican, and not even receive a parking ticket. He could beat someone to death in broad daylight on the Ponte Vecchio and have his bill for cleaning blood from his clothing paid by Italy's taxpayers.


Scooby-Do ia un cane! Egli è infedele, sbavando,furtivamente
e sleale degli animali che ha un impedimento di parola con la lettera R !

This didn't pass Italians, or their court system, unnoticed. In October, 2009, Italy’s highest court ruled that law unconstitutional. As a result, two trials that consider allegations of false accounting and bribery against Silvio! have been reopened.

Since the 'Stay Out Of Jail Free' law was declared unconstitutional, Berlusconi has reacted by publicly accusing various parties of holding “leftist biases" against him -- including Italy’s president, Giorgio Napoletano, the foreign and national press, left-leaning judges, and 'Scooby-Do' (Reggie was not named by the Premier Pene of Europe).


Obligatory Cute Animal Photo In Middle Of Political Thing.

In addition, Silvio!'s government is now trying to shorten the statute of limitations for certain crimes -- the very ones Silvio stands accused of breaking -- so that, if he can stay in office long enough, he could escape prosecution that way!

Hey; the stones on-a this guy, eh? Ha, ha ha; oh, that Silvio!



Suddenly, in December, small groups of people in Rome began wearing Purple clothing as a silent protest against the breadth and depth of their country being ruled by so obvious an Oligarch, and so obviously corrupt. These Grassroots protests swelled from small and silent to large and full-throated: Tens of thousands marched in Rome recently to show exactly what they though of the Clown King who has made a mockery of their country.

---

Sick

It Got Me.



It's not horrible, but in no way is this any fun.

---

And The Winner Is

Christoph Waltz, Best Supporting Actor,
Inglorious Basterds


Waltz, Receiving The Best Supporting Actor Award

"... And this is your welcoming embrace and there's no way I can ever thank you enough, but I can start right now. Thank you."

From The Ubiquitous Wikipedia: Christoph Waltz studied acting at the Max Reinhardt Seminar in Vienna, and the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute in New York. He started as a stage actor, playing at venues like Zurich's Schauspielhaus Zürich, Vienna's Burgtheater, and the Salzburg Festival.

He became a prolific actor on [German] television. In 2000, he directed his first film, the TV production, "Wenn man sich traut" ['If You Dare']. In Quentin Tarantino's 2009 film, Inglourious Basterds, Waltz portrayed Colonel Hans Landa; for this role, he received the Best Actor Award at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival.

Waltz is fluent in German, French and English, and speaks all three in Inglourious Basterds (Though he also spoke Italian in that film, he stated on a recent Podcast that he does not actually speak that language). He is divorced and has four children, one of whom is a Rabbi. He currently lives in London and Berlin.

---

Humanity Continues To Prove Itself Dumber Than A Bag Of Doorknobs

You're Accepting The Fact That Little Rupert Tells You Some Chick's Rack Is A Front-Page Story??


(Screencapture: London Times Online, Front Page, March 5, 2010)

Little Rupert Murdoch, the Joey Goebbels of international media, is a very old man with a tiny penis and lots of money (Okay; I'm not sure about the tiny penis part, but it would make sense, nicht wahr?). This story isn't actually about him, but may as well be.

Through his company, News Corporation, Little Rupert owns huge chunks of the major media markets in Britain and Australia. And, of course America, where Fox is the helpful propaganda arm of the American Right (including the GOP, though White Power Militias hear their message on occasion, too). It's also home to the lesser lights of that world, like O'Reilly, or Beck, or -- well, pretty much the entire Fox 'News' staff.



It's a fair point that whatever media Little Rupert has purchased, he's turned into a propaganda outlet for the Right, and lowered the reporting and content standards of whatever he's bought (a 2006 documentary, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism, covers this in detail). The only newspaper exceptions were the Sun in Britain, and the New York Post, both of which had been one step above the 'National Enquirer' level before The Ruper nipped them.

Rupert feeds his readers and viewers with lowest-common denominator material (propaganda disguised as 'news and analysis', and entertainment that's little more than T & A). Where he doesn't do this entirely is in his two "business" newspapers, the London Times, and the newly-purchased Wall Street Journal -- Little Rupert hires solid writers and analysts for the finance sections, leaving Right-wing commentary on economic events in Britain or America to the editorial or "news" pages... but, both those papers had always been Right-leaning, so no one noticed.


NY Post: American Flags, And T&A: Rupert Thinks We're Idiots

The Ruper relies on a business model for mass sales of a product; the more you sell, the more money you make: Simple. But it also relies on the notion that the people who consume his products don't deserve anything better, are too stupid to understand anything else; or worse, should be told what to think.

It's also a fair point that media owners, past or present, have frequently treated their readers or viewers with condescension, or contempt. And, that they've influenced the editorial positions of their newspaper or teevee empires to match their own political beliefs.



In that, Little Rupert is no different... except that in 2010, seven corporations control the majority of the planet's television stations, cable outlets and newspapers; an unprecedented situation.

Little Rupert's News Corporation is the largest of these players. He reaches more humans with the content of his company's media than any other -- far more, when you consider most people in Europe and America watch content from multiple sources.

The funny twist in all this is that, in answer to many of his critics, Little Rupert's response could be summed up as Look, Mate; I'm just a businessman -- that he's really not a political propagandist. Or, he is ... but only because he decided there was a buck to be made pushing Rightist assholery, and to develop that market so that even more money could be made.


If Hitler were still alive, Little Rupert might very well
give him a 30-minute slot ("Sure, it's controversial, but
let's see what he does with it. Ya know, he Looks a little
like Walter Cronkite?")

Funny; that's the same logic and perspective as the BSD's on Wall Street, in explaining why they broke the country, and the international banking system, too: Just tryin' to make a living here, folks...


If Joey Goebbels Had Been Born Later, He'd Be Little Rupert --
Seen Here With Trophy Wife (Photo: BBC/Getty Images)

So, The Ruper owns the London Times. Founded on New Years' Day, 1785, it was considered the newspaper of England, embodying both the snobbery and presumed intellectual erudition of that nation's Upper Class. It's editorial line generally supported Tory (and later, Conservative) party positions.

At the same time, it's writers developed what was the international standard in journalism for generations -- many of it's conventions (personal advertising; crossword puzzles; the Sunday special edition) were adopted by competitors, and its masthead was as much a recognizable symbol of England as John Bull, Big Ben and the measured voices of BBC radio announcers reporting the Blitz.



In 1981, when the then-owners of the paper were suffering under debt and wage demands of a British Printers Union at the height of its power, Little Rupert was the only potential bidder with cash; he stepped in and scooped it up.

Aussies don't like those Pommy Bastards very much. The Limeys shoved their great-great-great grandfathers out to live with Funnel Spiders and 'Roos, then let their great-grandfathers die at the utter balls-up which was Galipoli. Buying a real, solid symbol of Great Britain like the Times must have been one, sweet moment for a crafty Digger like Little Rupert.


Princess Anne, Sister To Queen Elizabeth II, Reviews The Proud
Lads Of Australia's Swim Team In a 1980's Visit To God's Own Earth

The Times, in keeping up with technology, has an online presence which effectively mirrors the print version of the paper. Today's front-page story is a hard-hitting and penetrating story you can see in the first image of this post: It's about the nipples of Carla Bruni, First Lady of France, wife of French President Nicholas Sarkozi.

It seems that Ms. Bruni attended a State Dinner at the Elysee Palace this past Tuesday night; as Salon's Kate Harding reported,

Based on photos of Bruni in a form-fitting but full-coverage Roland Mouret gown ... Times writers Hannah Betts and Sarah Vine have (A) determined that she is not wearing a bra and (B) offered a helpful point-counterpoint on whether she should be slut-shamed for it.

And, Oh! the British can be counted upon to weigh in on such a moment, with an opinion steeped in equal parts Language Of The Bard and Churchill's brandy.

Our culture is obsessed with heaving, blancmangey cleavage [the Times article noted], but the erect nipple is a far more potent yet insouciant sexual signifier. The pert pap winningly protrudes between the sluttish and the demure: contained arousal, clothed incitement; an invitation more beguiling for being a whisper rather than a shout.

Oh, well done! Such brave and definitive British reportage; we particularly like the tonal play involved ("far more potent yet insouciant") -- all the more so because this is a piece allegedly written by a grown-up professional journalist, you see; and in the Times, no less. So, there's a certain frisson of irony gilding these lines. Clearly, the writer has presented us with one of the finest public displays of the fruits of a Third-place, Redbrick University degree. Bravo!

Well... There's a lot going on in the world which desperately needs to be reported on -- and reported accurately, free of the kind of political cant which Little Rupert likes to drizzle over whatever he buys.

If you want to bite into what Rupert has to sell, fine; don't blame anyone but yourself if it tastes like you're sucking Joseph Goebbels' underwear.

Humanity is desperate for fact and truth -- and all that the editors this pathetic old man owns can do is focus on a French woman's nipples, and claim that being able to see them is a focus for serious debate.

---

Closer, Mein Weimar, To Thee

Class War And A Simple Country Hyperchicken

I've mentioned Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning Economist and regular columnist for the New York Times, before.

In today's column, Krugman says flatly that there is no 'bipartisan' Washington; Republicans are determined to force the Democrats to fail, even if by doing so they appear less like fiscal conservatives and more like people who kick dogs and ignore starving orphans.

What Krugman used as his initial focus was the recent, one-man Filibuster by Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky. Bunning was determined not to allow a bill to pass which would provide a one-month extension of unemployment and COBRA medical insurance benefits to approximately 100,000 workers -- and these were former Federal employees (Talk about biting the hand that used to serve you, huh?).


Former Phillies' All-Star Turned Nasty Greedy Crazy™
(Photo: SALON)

Bunning has been acting... a little weird, lately; angrily pushing away reporters and yelling at a Rotary Club questioner, and delivering heavily scripted remarks at campaign events in a halting monotone. Bunning travels with a special police escort, at taxpayer expense -- he says, because Al-Qaeda is out to get him.

Then, Bunning -- who is virtually unopposed in the upcoming midterm elections, spent nearly a full month in the U.S. Senate raging against a bill, almost single-handedly slowing the work of the Senate to a crawl and forcing all eyes on him.


Bunning Begins His Famous Filibuster

Democrats and Republicans live in different universes [Krugman noted], both intellectually and morally...

During the debate over unemployment benefits, Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat of Oregon, made a plea for action on behalf of those in need. In response, Mr. Bunning blurted out an expletive. That was undignified — but not that different, in substance, from the position of leading Republicans.

Merkley once ran Habitat For Humanity, the non-denominational organization which builds homes for the poor, in Oregon. Bunning, in addition to his Senate salary of $174,000, takes a hefty annual paycheck home as the head of the 'Jim Bunning Foundation' -- which, basically, does nothing but sell autographed baseballs, and is supposed to donate the funds to charity -- something that's now coming under more scrutiny.

When Merkley spoke on the senate floor about the direct effects upon people of Bunning's month-long Filibuster, the esteemed Senator From Kentucky (who was standing at another podium) said, "Tough Shit".


Obligatory Photo Of Cute Animal, Embedded In Political Rant
(Now With 52% More Handgun!)

The extension bill directly affected families trying to feed themselves and stay in their homes, and have COBRA health insurance. Even so, Little Jimmy was determined to use every possible avenue in the Senate's rules to delay or kill the bill's passage.

Krugman held up Brunning, his use of his position in the Senate, and power as a U.S. Senator, to show three things: (1) Washington is so polarized that it would be a comedy program, if it weren't so deadly serious in its consequences for the United States; (2) Brunning's actions, and those of Republicans in Congress generally, point out what part of America they really represent -- and the same for the Democrats; and (3) this is disastrous for our country, and isn't going to end anytime soon.



Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment... But that’s not how Republicans see it.... Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, [said] defending Mr. Bunning’s position...: unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact... continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

Bottom Line: The Republicans, while very organized, seem to represent The Rich. The Democrats don't appear to be very well organized, but they represent the Rest Of Us. If it were left to the Rethugs, the spirit that controls our government, and our culture, would be that deep belief of the Protestants who came to settle in North America in the early 1600's... that the world is separated into the Elect of God (chosen by predestination for salvation and eternal life), and The Rest Of Us (not chosen, and so already damned to Hell For Ever).



The Chosen are, of course, the wealthy -- to those same early Prots, worldly success being proof of god's favor. The reverse, then -- Poverty -- is proof of god's disfavor -- and who cares what happens to people who will burn for all eternity, anyway? Screw 'em.

(Incidentally -- d'ya think this might be one reason that the period of intellectual flowering which began in the 1700's was called 'The Enlightenment'? Huh?)

Part of me believes that the Right wants a polarized, paralyzed central government. The more effective a strong centralized government is, the more economic and legal rights of the largest number of its citizens is protected. The less effective it is, life comes down to how much money and power you have -- and, as usual, the ordinary citizen has less of both.


1936 Poster Advertising The New Social Security Program
(Photo: Smithsonian Collection; Common Use)

The struggle between Left and Right in America is ultimately about something that we're not supposed to have -- a Class Structure. The Left says we shouldn't have one, and the kind of laws Democrats enact, by and large, are social programs which benefit the majority of the population -- who are the people (at least, supposedly) that the Democratic party represents.

And, the Left believes it's fair that taxes are used to pay for those social programs, since we all have a stake in what those programs do for the country, and our culture.

Cooperation and collaboration are hallmarks of this kind of political philosophy -- summed up by Robert Kennedy's quoting Shaw: Some people see things as they are and say, why? I dream of things that never were and say, why not?

The Left believes that 'Market Forces' or 'Private Interests' don't keep the welfare of individual citizens -- their health, safety or longevity -- in mind, unless forced to do so by law and regulation. And when they aren't, you get what's just happened: Powerful Banking and Investment interests out of control; an economy kicked to the curb; millions of people who may be without steady employment for years. The effect upon millions of lives of the acts of a relatively small group of men, allowed to do almost anything they wanted, hasn't even begun to be calculated or felt.


Italian Poster For The Venice General Association --
A Riskier Form Of Retirement; The 'Association' Is
Part Of The Free-Market (Ayn Rand Hearts Mussolini)

The Right doesn't care about protecting citizens from the excesses and predations of Wall Street, or a chemical company polluting the air or our water. Republican legislation promotes and defends those interests. They don't represent the largest section of our population, but that smaller, wealthier and more influential number of Americans -- the ten or so per cent who own 60%-plus of the nation... that's who the Republicans represent.

Republican legislation reflects a world view of 'free enterprise', and 'less government meddling with individual and property rights'. In fact, it reflects Social Darwinism, nature red in tooth and claw -- and aggressive competition, where the winners step on the faces of the losers as they march forward into that bright, new Tomorrow. It's an old-school-tie, who-you-know (or who you can pay off) kind of world, and if you can't pay, then (as Little Jimmy Bunning would say) Tough Shit.

A good quote for the Right (wherever it came from) is, The Future Is For The Strong. There's no room in that future for the poor, the sick, the weak. They're going to burn, anyway, so to hell with 'em.

So, Krugman goes on to say ... what are the implications of this total divergence in views [between Democrats and Republicans]?

The answer, of course, is that bipartisanship is now a foolish dream. How can the parties agree on policy when they have utterly different visions of how the economy works, when one party feels for the unemployed, while the other weeps over affluent victims of the “death tax”?

I don't know who will win that contest. But I do know who will lose, in the meantime -- and what we stand to lose if the wrong crowd is the winner.

---

They're Cute -- But They Screw Around With You

(Photo: Freshmandy.org [Warning! Not All Images Work-Safe!])

---

It Can't Already Happened Here

Goldman-Sachs May Have Sold Very Bad Paper.
Gosh; What A _______ Surprise.



According to the McClatchy newspapers, in the period 2005-2007, Goldman-Sachs (VAMPSQD) knew it had invested heavily in the now-infamous Derivatives -- which it sold to wealthy clients (which included other investment houses, pension funds, wealthy consortiums, etc).

What wasn't known until now is that Goldman-Sachs knew the Derivative market was very likely to implode, and pushed them to clients anyway, as solid investments, knowing that in truth the risk was higher than with any other kind of investment vehicle:

When financial titan Goldman Sachs joined some of its Wall Street rivals in late 2005 in secretly packaging a new breed of offshore securities, it gave prospective investors little hint that many of the deals were so risky that they could end up losing hundreds of millions of dollars on them.

McClatchy has obtained previously undisclosed documents that provide a closer look at the shadowy $1.3 trillion market since 2002 for complex offshore deals, which Chicago financial consultant and frequent Goldman critic Janet Tavakoli said at times met “every definition of a Ponzi scheme.”

The documents include the offering circulars for 40 of Goldman’s estimated 148 deals in the Cayman Islands over a seven-year period, including a dozen of its more exotic transactions tied to mortgages and consumer loans that it marketed in 2006 and 2007, at the crest of the booming market for subprime mortgages to marginally qualified borrowers.

In some of these transactions, investors not only bought shaky securities backed by residential mortgages, but also took on the role of insurers by agreeing to pay Goldman and others massive sums if risky home loans nose-dived in value — as Goldman was effectively betting they would.

You have to marvel at the arrogance, the cynical manipulation, the greed behind this kind of thing. As Ritholz' The Big Picture site noted, "... the implication ...is not that these were possible losses, but rather, based upon what GS understood about the ways these papers were structured and then hedged (insured with the client), it was a sure loss. So rather than hold on to the money losing mortgage based securities, GS devised a way to sell it to clients!"

But; hey!! Doncha love it?? "[investors were] agreeing to pay Goldman and others massive sums if risky home loans nose-dived in value". Little Lloyd Blankfein's outfit was making money coming and going! They were all over it! They were Masters Of The Universe !!!!

And, they're still doing business. And our government is loaded with current former G-S Employees in key positions at SEC, the Fed... courtesy of Our President, who appointed them.

Has anyone said the United States is "Too Big To Fail"?

---