The Blue Bird of Bombardment

blue_bird_of_bombing1.jpgAs seen on the door of the new Money Mart opening up at Bank and Catherine. I tend to think of those pay-day loan places as a way for the rich to extract money from the poor. Hopefully it’ll go out of business soon.

Update: Some self appointed censor has scraped the bomb off of the Blue Bird of Bombardment. I can understand destroying the thing because it’s graffiti, but “editing” it because it doesn’t fit with one’s narrow view of what’s acceptable to represent is small minded and reprehensible.

9 Responses to “The Blue Bird of Bombardment”

  1. 2007.Jun.12 @ 22:25

    Isn’t that what all loans are?

  • 2007.Jun.13 @ 10:36

    Time to show my ignorance but I’m not familiar with that image, what’s the story with the blue bird and the bomb?

  • 2007.Jun.13 @ 22:46

    @Pat: Payday loans seem to be a particularly nefarious extraction scheme. The CBC had a story a while back stating that many of those loans were illegal, because the layering of fees and interest rates pushed the payback rate to beyond 30% (ie, usury, which is illegal under Canadian law).

    @Darrell: The story is whatever you want it to be.

  • 2007.Jun.14 @ 00:05

    As an idea, payday loans aren’t a bad thing. The idea being extending credit to people who normally wouldn’t have any. But like all idea, the implementation is key.

    As for the bird. I want to know his story. I think there should be a contest. Who ever has the best Blue Bird of Bombardment story should get a prize.

  • 2007.Jun.14 @ 09:33

    The story is whatever I want it to be huh? I think I’ll have to come up with something that ties it in with Project BLUEBIRD, the CIA mind control program thingy.

  • 2007.Jun.14 @ 17:28

    @darrell: I had no idea that there was a CIA project by that name.

    @MG: Hmm. Prizes, eh? I can offer a FON router… =)

  • 2007.Jun.15 @ 09:47

    @e: It came up when I was searching for what the bluebird meant. That and Project: ARTICHOKE.

  • 2007.Jun.20 @ 11:24

    “small minded and reprehensible.”? Hmm, so, how is it that the original graf doesn’t fit into that same meta desciption by ‘editing’ the original wall in the first place? Are you suggesting that the orignal graf *wasn’t* small-minded and reprehensible b/c you agree with that P.O.V.?

  • Pingback from Pie Palace · On Censorship
  • Reply

    You can use these HTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    If your website is claim enabled, it will be notified that you have posted here.