Matt Taibbi’s recent article in the Rolling Stone about massive stock market abuse to push Bear Stearns & Lehman Brothers off the cliff for fun and profit is eye popping. The article focuses on the practice of naked short selling — selling a stock short without actually having the shares to cover or knowing where to find them. It’s apparently technically illegal, but with no enforcement, it’s done frequently. Without having to have control over actual shares, the naked short sell is similar to flooding an economy with counterfeit dollars, driving the share price down with your “counterfeit” shares, and making your short sale bet more likely to pay off.

Taibbi makes it clear that Bear & Lehman were ripe for the pushing because of their bubble investing, but the final push off the cliff looks a lot like fraud engineered by the other big investment firms and members of the Fed.

Along with the specifics of the naked short sale technique, Taiibi paints a picture of what amounts to a counterfeit economy.

[T]he great investment banks like Bear and Lehman no longer made their money financing real businesses and creating jobs. Instead, Wall Street now serves, in the words of one former investment executive, as “Lucy to America’s Charlie Brown,” endlessly creating new products to lure the great herd of unwitting investors into whatever tawdry greed-bubble is being spun at the moment: Come kick the football again, only this time we’ll call it the Internet, real estate, oil futures. Wall Street has turned the economy into a giant asset-stripping scheme, one whose purpose is to suck the last bits of meat from the carcass of the middle class.
. . .
To the rest of the world, the brazenness of the theft — coupled with the conspicuousness of the government’s inaction — clearly demonstrates that the American capital markets are a crime in progress. To those of us who actually live here, however, the news is even worse. We’re in a place we haven’t been since the Depression: Our economy is so completely fucked, the rich are running out of things to steal.

The whole thing kind of makes you feel like a chump for working for a living. Still, worth a read.

This story in the Muncie Star Press made me feel all judgy. I don’t know any facts except those in the article, so I realize I might have an incomplete picture, but:

#24 year old woman;
#With 5 children;
#Leaves children with her mom for 5 days;
#Goes to stay with estranged, soon to be ex, husband who is on house arrest for having previously abused her.

Just me talking here, but: Twenty-four seems too young to have five kids, you shouldn’t abandon your kids, and if a guy beats you, don’t go back to him. One fairly common theme in my collection cases is a screwy family situation. Family problems and money problems can have a chicken and egg dynamic – hard telling which causes which.

I’m not saying it’s technically, politically, or morally feasible, but some days the idea of requiring a license to reproduce doesn’t sound like an awful idea. Maybe put some sort of contraception in the water and give an antidote upon demonstration of family stability. Yeah, probably a bad idea. Still.

The Indianapolis Star has an editorial that is a little wishy-washy, but mostly critical of Rep. Buyer’s Frontier Foundation activities. What’s amazing to me, however, is that the editorial is absolutely silent on Buyer’s jarring about face on his involvement with the Foundation. First, he has no special involvement with the organization, but only after the heat was on did he suddenly remember that he was deeply involved with it.

Barbara Bradley Hagerty, writing for NPR, has an article entitled “A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists.” (h/t Tom D.) The article describes a debate among atheists about how best to engage with believers. It describes peaceful, polite coexistence as the more traditional view as opposed to a newer, more confrontational approach.

What struck me is that it seems reminiscent of a debate that took place (or is still taking place) in pretty much any other minority group movement you care to name. Martin Luther King versus Malcom X are the examples that leap to my mind first. But, gays and feminists have had this debate as well. Do you go along to get along or do you get in their faces and try to shatter their prejudices?

I’m definitely no student of such movements, but from my perspective it seems that the more peaceful approach worked better in terms of black rights while a more aggressive approach has worked better for gay rights. As for atheism, I don’t know how closely it parallels some of these other movements. One huge difference is that there is nothing innate about religious belief or lack thereof. By and large, it seems to reflect what is stuck in your head at a young age (note, for example, the very large number of people who adhere to the same religion as their parents.) But, certainly there is nothing immutable about that belief. I was raised as a Presbyterian, for example.

I think atheists need to be open and unapologetic about their lack of belief, but they don’t need to be jerks about it; at least to people who are being respectful to them. Being open about it is necessary for the mainstreaming effect this has. Others who aren’t religious should be able to see that, even if they’re in the minority, they are not isolated.

The article mentioned Christopher Hitchens saying, “I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right.” In my mind, that approach makes him kind of like the Ann Coulter of atheism. It will make him money and earn him a certain hardcore following, but ultimately, it will probably be counterproductive as it leads to people digging in and refusing to communicate very well. On the other hand, responding with contempt when contempt is being dished out is probably necessary at times. But, in my mind, disrespect is only appropriate when directed at the disrespectful. Where you have a person of faith treating you as an equal with whom there is an honest difference of opinion, I don’t think there is any upside to behaving rudely.

The Balloon Boy saga was like the “Baby Jessica down a well” saga of 23 years ago, except sped up for the Internet age. It took 58 hours to get Jessica out of the well. The Balloon Boy thing lasted a few hours. Recent information, however, suggests it’s more like the “Bart down a well hoax” Simpson’s episode of 17 years ago.

The first “tell” probably should have been that the Balloon Boy family had been on a reality television show. After the prospect of a kid trapped in a run away balloon captured the attention of a nation, the balloon crashed into a field with no kid inside. Then he was “found” in the family’s attic. But, bless the imperfect lying skills of 6 year olds, when questioned by Wolf Blitzer, the kid turned to Dad and said, “you guys said we did this for the show.” The most recent thing I saw was that the kid threw up during morning show interviews. I don’t blame the kid at all. Indications are that the dad is consumed with fame-seeking. If this is a hoax – and I’m 99% sure it is – I hope the world comes crashing down on the guy.

Hunter, of Daily Kos fame, made a pointed media critique: “horrible thing, happening live” does not equal news. It’s a snuff film with anchors. This incident caught our attention at the same time most of us ignore the much greater number of children at risk from non-balloon related causes. I suppose it goes back to the Stalin quote about how one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic.

Francesca Jarosz has an article for the Indy Star about an Indianapolis urban renewal plan that has a warm and fuzzy vision for the area north of downtown around the Monon Trail.

Neighborhood renewal leaders picture a landscape of energy-efficient homes, cozy shops and restaurants bustling with patrons, a light-rail station and plentiful manufacturing jobs — maybe even jobs making solar panels to power nearby homes.

No word on the unicorn petting zoo. But, don’t mind me, I’m kind of a grumpy skeptic when you peel away my sunny exterior. The article cites the downtown Canal District as a previous successful revitalization effort. However, take a look at the lengthy and persuasive article written by the Urbanophile on the Indy Canal District entitled Indy: The Failure of the Canal Walk. With respect to that project, he cites the hermetically sealed areas that surround the Canal. The result:

The Canal Walk can be viewed as a success in some regards – the Canal itself is quite nice, there is new development along it where previously there were rundown buildings or weedy lots, and at times you’ll see a few people strolling along it. However, if viewed against the aspirations that were publicly set for it – that it would be another San Antonio Riverwalk – the Canal has clearly failed. There is very little retail development along the canal, the developments there have generated effectively no organic spin-offs, and the Canal is generally lightly patronized.

But, back to the near north Monon project. The Monon Trail is obviously a good starting point. There has been discussion of a stop in the area along a proposed light rail system from downtown to Noblesville. Proponents have apparently identified federal funds that can be used. There is also a goal to avoid displacing existing residents. Beyond that, visions of who will live there and why seem to be kind of all over the map. IU professor David Reingold noted an “if we build it, they will come” aspect to the project. Being less refined than the good professor, I see a South Park underpants gnome aspect to the project: 1. Build stuff. 2. ???. 3. Neighborhood revitalization!

But, like I said, I can be a grumpy skeptic. I hope it works out for them.

It looks like a bit of good news for the Eli Lilly plant in Lafayette. According to John Russell, writing for the Indianapolis Star, Lilly has sold the plant to German conglomerate Evonik Industries AG. The plant had been potentially on the chopping block.

I hope the change in management won’t significantly reduce the commitment the people at that plant have shown to the Lafayette community.

I had only been scanning the headlines as they crossed my news reader, but when they showed up back-to-back, it occurred to me that it had been a rough time for veterans in eastern Indiana.

In Muncie, a young veteran took his life in a movie theater in Muncie. Jacob Sexton was on leave from Afghanistan, went to see a movie in Muncie, and apparently had an exchange with the manager about whether he was old enough. He said something about having shot 18 people but showed the manager his ID and was allowed into the theater. While in the movie:

Jeremiah said Jacob asked for his gun, a 9 mm Taurus, which he played around with as they were watching the zombie killer movie.

“He did not say anything,” said Jeremiah on Tuesday.

Jacob then told Keagy to duck, grabbed his head, pushed it down and then shot himself.

In Winchester, Iraq War veteran, Andrew S. Ward is accused of opening fire on Randolph County Sheriff’s deputies.

According to authorities, Ward fired four shots from a shotgun at three deputies as the officers responded to a 911 call at Ward’s sister’s house, 7651 Boundary Pike.

Ward had allegedly broke into her home, battered a baby-sitter and threatened to kill his sister.

Alcohol was apparently involved in both situations as well. I don’t know that any particular conclusions can be drawn from two isolated incidents, but a movie quote is leaping to mind:

The Schofield Kid: [after killing a man for the first time] It don’t seem real… how he ain’t gonna never breathe again, ever… how he’s dead. And the other one too. All on account of pulling a trigger.

Will Munny: It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.

The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.

Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.

I will, however, go way out on a limb to say that we should make sure our veterans are getting good mental health care and to say that alcohol and firearms are a bad combination.