Great Legs: Taibbi on Goldman Sachs

Taibbi's Article: Great 'Legs'

If online articles were ranked the same way as newly-released (music) singles, Matt Taibbi's scathing attack on Goldman Sachs in the current issue of Rolling Stone (yup, Rolling Stone) would be number one -- with a bullet.

If it were a new movie, you'd say Taibbi's article has 'legs.'

If you haven't read it, Taibbi lays bare how the company has done something even worse than break the rules: it has tailored them -- rather skillfully -- to suit its (financial) interests.

In the two weeks since the article appeared, it has precipitated literally thousands of blog posts commenting on it (here's mine: "Goldman Sachs, Culprit").

The comments seem to split into two categories: the "retail" posts, from little guys like me, who are lavishing "atta-boy's" on Taibbi, and want him to run for something; and the "wholesale" posts from financial columnists, the so-called Main Stream media, and Goldman Sachs itself.

By sheer quantity, I'd put the split at 90-10. But of course, the two groups' power splits 10-90 (more like 1-99).

What I find most interesting is the most common adjectives emanating from the latter camp: 'hysterical' (Goldman Sachs' term), 'outrageous,' 'hyperbolic,' 'irresponsible,' 'simplistic and ill-informed,' etc.

The one term I haven't heard used in connection with Taibbi's piece?

"Factually wrong."

P.S.: Best blog post on the subject (besides mine)? The one suggesting that Goldman Sachs was going to put out a hit on Taibbi -- but only after buying a life insurance policy on him first.