Here's your daily Wall Street-related laugh -- after getting busted for knowingly selling self-described "sh*tty deals" to clients, Goldman Sachs has now decided that it must stop employees from using naughty words in company emails:

The New York company is telling employees that they will no longer be able to get away with profanity in electronic messages. That means all 34,000 traders, investment bankers and other Goldman employees must restrain themselves from using a vast vocabulary of oft-used dirty words on Wall Street, including the six-letter expletive that came back to haunt the company at a Senate hearing in April.

"[B]oy, that timberwo[l]f was one s— deal," Thomas Montag, who helped run Goldman's securities business, wrote in a June 2007 email that was repeatedly referred to at the hearing.

Mr. Montag, who couldn't be reached for comment, wouldn't be allowed to send that email under Goldman's sanitized communications policy, which is being enforced by screening software. Even swear words spelled with asterisks are out.

Oh, now where's the fun in that! How can get an accurate picture of the Real Wall Street works if traders aren't allowed to email each other messages such as "LOL OMG I CANT BELIEVE THE DUMB-A** C***S***ER BOUGHT THAT S****Y M*****F***ING DEAL I CAN'T WAIT 2 SHORT THAT B***H ROFL!!!!1!"

Man, it's hard out here for a pimp these days. Continuing:

A Goldman spokeswoman said: "Of course we have policies about the use of appropriate language and we are always looking for ways to ensure that they are enforced."

"We always tell our f***ing traders not to mouth the f**k off about the s****y deals they make over email," he added. "That sort of talk must be reserved for company restrooms only."

The new edict—delivered verbally, of course—has left some employees wondering if the rule also applies to shorthand for expletives such as "WTF" or legitimate terms that sound similar to curses.

Traders are now banned from writing things like, "OMFG THAT MF HAS NO IDEA WTF IS ABOUT 2 HAPPEN LMAO! I PURCHASED CDS ON THOSE POS SECURITIES FIVE MINUTES AFTER HE BOUGHT THEM FROM ME -- NOW WHEN HE BLOWS UP I WILL BE EFFING RICH LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!"

This new Goldman policy is a classic example of what we professional philosophers call "Missing the damn point." No one is taking offense at the fact that they used four-letter words in company emails. The offensive thing is that they allegedly designed collateralized debt obligations filled with crappy mortgages and then sold them to unwitting clients and then shorting securities in the CDOs through credit default swaps.

This sort of behavior, needless to say, is much more offensive than using the s-word over and over again in emails.

Well, looky here. Harry Reid is sending a not-so-veiled message to the insurance industry: You want to play dirty? We can play dirty, too. Here's hoping this legislation has a chance of getting passed:

In a rare appearance as a witness at a Senate hearing, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, told the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that it should repeal a 1945 law that granted the insurance industry limited exemption to national antitrust laws by allowing states to regulate insurers.

The law, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, is often cited by Mr. Reid and other critics of the health insurance industry as a reason why coverage can be so expensive for many people. They say the law allows insurers to monopolize markets and fix prices in ways that are usually illegal.

“Since 1945, the insurance industry has enjoyed exemption from federal antitrust laws because of the McCarran-Ferguson Act,” Mr. Reid said. “Pat McCarran, who was the senior senator from Nevada at the time, lent his name to this piece of legislation. Although we’re both Nevadans, I’m not sure what Pat McCarran had in mind when he pushed this bill. And if Pat were around today, he couldn’t be happy with the state of the insurance industry.”

“Providing an exemption for insurance companies to antitrust laws has been anticompetitive and damaging to the American economy,” Mr. Reid continued. “Health insurance premiums have continued to rise at a rapid rate, forcing businesses to cut back on health insurance coverage and forcing many families to choose between health insurance and basic necessities.”

He added: “Insurance companies have become so large they dominate entire regions of the country. They have become so powerful they block start-up businesses from entering the market, and they put smaller companies out of business. They have become so dominant that they dictate business practices. They are so influential that they exert tremendous influence over public policy.”

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, has introduced a bill — the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act — that would repeal the insurance industry’s limited exemption.

And some senior Democrats, including Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, have begun calling for Mr. Leahy’s bill to be included in the major health care legislation that is now advancing in Congress.

That effort could gain momentum as Democrats continue to hit back at a main industry trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, which issued a report on Sunday night asserting that the Democrats’ legislation would lead to a steep rise in health insurance premiums.

The White House, Congressional Democrats and other supporters of the legislation have worked to discredit the industry report, which was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The firm has acknowledged that it looked at only four provisions in the huge health care bill and that it did not take into account federal subsidies that would be made available to help moderate-income Americans buy insurance.

Mr. Schumer, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, issued a news release Wednesday accusing the health insurance industry of trying to “sucker-punch” the Democrats’ health care legislation by issuing the report the day before the Finance Committee voted on its version of the bill.

Spencer was at a Senate hearing and this is very disturbing.

Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson moved the Obama administration into new territory from a civil liberties perspective. Asked by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) the politically difficult but entirely fair question about whether terrorism detainees acquitted in courts could be released in the United States, Johnson said that “as a matter of legal authority,” the administration’s powers to detain someone under the law of war don’t expire for a detainee after he’s acquitted in court. “If you have authority under the law of war to detain someone” under the Supreme Court’s Hamdi ruling, “that is true irrespective of what happens on the prosecution side.”

Martinez looked surprised. “So the prosecution is moot?” he asked.

“No, no, not in my judgment,” Johnson said. But the scenario he outlined strongly suggested it is. If an administration review panel “determines this person is a security threat” and “for some reason is not convicted of a lengthy prison sentence, I think we have the authority to continue to detain someone” under “law of war authority” as granted by the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, Johnson said. And beyond that source of authority “we have the authority in the first place.” I’m no lawyer, but that sounds a lot like Johnson is claiming inherent presidential authority from the Constitution to detain someone after he’s been acquitted in court if the president believes that person to be a security threat. [Update: I think I'm wrong about that. Johnson is claiming authority from the law-of-war construct for such detentions, and that doesn't stem from any constitutional interpretation of inherent power. Apologies.]

Oh, and Johnson also suggested that the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay might remain open after January 2010, since “you can’t prosecute some significant subset of 220 people before January.” He said the administration will continue to detain some of those Guantanamo detainees, “whether at Guantanamo or somewhere else.”

Glenn Greenwald has much more about the "Unjustice system."

Same as the last time...Everything is better, but very fragile...Sure sounds like they want the 1oo year---McCain Plan to me.

Crocker: ...almost everything in Iraq is hard, but hard does not mean hopeless

He sounds like a basketball coach telling his team during a time out----that even though they are losing by thirty five points with 6 minutes left to go, they still have a chance to win,...Win, exactly?

NY Times: The general told senators that he was recommending a 45-day pause — which he defined as a period of “consolidation and evaluation” — before reviewing once again whether there should be further troop reductions.

Duncan notes:

A few minutes ago Candy Crowley told me that the presidential candidates need to appear "above the partisanship," or something like that, at the Senate hearings with Petraeus. I don't even know what that means, but to the extent that I do... uh, why?

I heard the same thing on NBC. How fast will McCain's camp product an ad with footage from the hearings? Will Crowley complain about it?

A man yelled : Bring them HOME!

General P. wouldn't give an estimate about troop levels at the end of the year. He admits the Basra assault. "It was not adequately planned."

David Seaton's News Links: A good question and a good answer

cab drollery: The hazards of wasting a vote on Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Ron Paul, et al

The Satirical Political Report: GOP defends Spitzer's prostitution activities, but slams him for doing it with "undocumented hookers."

The Brad Blog: The insidious nexus between phony GOP charges of "voter fraud" and the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal will finally explored in a Senate hearing this week.

WTF is going on? Anatomy of a scam.

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: This explains everything...An Ombudsman stumbles around...A politician actually speaks sensibly on security and fraidy-cat authoritarianism, while a store-bought GOP shill just lies...McCain BBQ and our insipid press corpse...Violent framing...Cancer scare tactics...News you may have missed...like our press keeps missing stuff

Mike had this in his Round Up, but I'd hate to pass up the opportunity to link back to that ridiculous footage from the Senate hearing.

The Agonist:

(I)t seems another Bush Administration is under investigation for, gasp, abusing her office for partisan political gain. From ABC News:

The Office of Special Counsel confirmed to ABC News it has launched an investigation into General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan, probing concerns she may have violated a ban against conducting partisan political activity at government expense by participating in a meeting featuring a presentation by a White House political aide on GOP election strategy.

Maybe Lurita had reason to be so paranoid ...

From the Senate Hearing:

Robert Byrd voices his opposition to the White House and the bill; Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. is embarrased!

Video

Josh sums it up about right.
Josh Marshall:

If you aren't watching the Michael Brown senate hearings, you just missed a real treat. Sen. Norm Coleman (R), doofus senator from Minnesota, just managed to get his butt kicked by disgraced former FEMA Director Michael Brown. That's a singular accomplishment.

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

"At the end, Coleman actually used the fact that he had run out of time to run away from the encounter with Brown. I'm not sure I've ever seen that happen before...read on

"The Wall Street Journal has just reported that three Christian ministers claim to have snuck into a Senate hearing room in order to anoint the chairs that will be used for Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing next week....read on

Jesus General says: "Are you aware of the recent Wall Street Journal article about the three pastors who snuck into a Senate hearing room and anointed the chairs with oil in preparation for next week's Alito confirmation hearing?"...read on"

Bush was talking today about Alito and started a new talking point. He seems to think that all Senate hearings in the past weren't dignified. He repeated the "dignified" term ad nauseum. You better be nice to Sam no matter what he says during the hearings so he gets his up or down vote. Please tell us how dignified is Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay?

Atrios is correct in saying: "As for the "nuclear option," well, if the Republicans want to wrap themselves in the constitution as a pretense for cheating I say let them. It's long past time for the Democrats to stop playing the faux civility game in the Senate....read on"