This seems true. And, WTF??

I can't find the words to describe this any better than . . . high school.

You know, those halcyon days, when the law of the locker room gave the angry creep with unresolved issues the advantage because 1. other angry creeps hovered around him, giving him a false impression of strength, 2. his reaction to the smallest slight was so over-the-top that no one dared to approach him in anything other than a deferential or compliant posture (not to mention his pre-emptive reactions to expected slights), and 3. his kind flourished in the state of arrested development that characterized high schoolers, who didn't yet have the judgment or intellect to see new, more just ways of organizing their particular micro-culture.

But this is what happens when angry fucks like Cheney never do resolve their abundant fear- and gender-based issues. He and all of his cronies and their accompanying deferential and compliant lackeys have all found a new high school in DC.

his chosen people totally fucking up and contradicting themselves and covering their asses, people getting chucked under the bus, all the insincere grandstanding, the gargantuan ripoff of the taxpayers with no end in sight, politicians so transparently in thrall to the moneyed class --

the scapegoating of Dodd --

all this and more has served to make Obama look completely out of his depth and lacking in vision. To say the least.

(I transcribed them myself, but they are pretty accurate)

CM: This is Chris Dodd, who chairs the Banking Committee. . .

CM: How did your efforts to try to stop the bonuses from going to AIG, or anywhere, get stopped?

Dodd: Having written the provision in the bill to pass unanimously in the Senate to deal with golden parachute bonuses and excessive executive compensation, the debate this evening would be, why did you try to write anything in the stimulus bill? And at the time there was resistance to even that proposal, although no one objected to it. When it got into the conference . . . that meeting between the House and the Senate, I was not a conferee, that is, I wasn't sitting in there with a voice or a vote, but nonetheless, it's been reported widely the administration had problems with my language, the "Dodd language" in the stimulus bill on this compensation. They came and said that we'd like to make some modifications--this was a month and a half ago. The alternative, frankly, was that we might lose the entire amendment, as part of that negotiation. That's what happened to a couple of other amendments. And so we agreed to some modifications. But the important language is not just the date in the thing but also the insistence that the Treasury be able to then reach back to these bonuses or compensation packages where they are inconsistent with the TARP legislation or in contrary to public interest. In fact, it's that very language tonight which the Treasury is using as the basis with which they believe they can reach back and go after some of these bonuses. So I am glad I wrote the language. There was a lot of opposition. I find it somewhat ironic, Chris, that over the last month and a half I've been highly criticized by many for writing that language into the bill, some of the very people who are now criticizing because I wasn't restrictive enough. So I'm glad I wrote it; if I hadn't done so, we wouldn't be taking about that tonight.

CM: So. . . You wrote there would be no bonuses....Who came to you from Treasury and told you to get rid of that language?

Dodd: It was staff, I won't name individuals . . . they weren't the only ones expressing concerns. . . but they expressed their concerns about lawsuits and other things that might happen. I don't believe, I don't have any information they were thinking about AIG at all. No one was talking about any bonuses. I only learned about the bonuses at AIG late last week, that they were even out there at all. So a month and a half ago, in February, it had more to do with these contracts, and the abrogation of contracts. I believe that was their motivation. And it seemed at the time, that provided we had that language that allowed the Secretary to reach back, or the Treasury to do so, that they only seemed technical in nature, and so the choice was, do I accept that, or frankly, the alternative, while it wasn't explicitly stated to me, was that the entire amendment would be dropped. There were those that wanted to do that.

CM: What do you think of the AIG bonuses? . . .Should those people give the money back? [Dodd: Absolutely.] . . . [How] can you get the money back to the government?

Dodd: . . . Well, one, the provision of that bill and the language of my amendment, the stimulus bill, would I think give the justification to the Treasury to go back and to go after those bonuses. Secondly, Max Baucus tonight I know is working with Chuck Schumer and others on a tax provision that would allow us to recapture at least a good part of those bonuses as well and I am sure there are others who are looking at the legal ramifications. You know, people talk about these contracts as if somehow they were sanctified. Contracts are renegotiated all the time. Tell that to a labor union, for instance, that finds today of [sic] having to renegotiate its contract. So the idea that somehow this contract is so sacrosanct that you can't touch it at all I find offensive, quite frankly. And my hope would be that those who had gotten these bonuses would step back up at this moment and say you know what, we're going to give them back, let's dissolve this matter without a lot of lawsuits and other matters.

What. The. Fuck.

I was unfamiliar with the guy.

But that calls for another

What. The. Fuck.