You're being freaked out because you're paying attention to what Meghan McCardle says, and she's an idiot.

Love it! :-)

What is sobering to me, Obey, is that McArdles' rationalized ethics are not confined to the good 'ole boys banded together at the top of the financial heap, or to those regulatory bodies or reporters who excuse them.
I don't know about the professional or personal worlds you inhabit; but for the past five? to ten? years, I've heard the same smooth steamroller of disclaimer in just about every facet of my life, no matter what gender or generation or venue is involved. And so what really, really concerns me is not the entitlement/eschewing of responsibility among the manipulators and apologists on Wall Street, but that similarly cynical postures are being voiced by John and Jane Doe in Middle America. And, of far direr consequence, by their children -- the generations that have come of age during the past decade or will come of age in the next few years, hearing only this as a manifesto of malfeasance.
You ask: where is the outrage? As I see it, there isn't much outrage -- except to the extent that Everyman and Everywomen perceives a lack of fairness in the distribution, not necessarily of wealth, but in the ability to get away with whatever.
So the question in my mind is not where is the outrage, but rather, where are the people with a perception of boundaries that are inviolate, regardless of circumstance?

Obey: If Geneva -- oh well. If Lugano, will you be there for the Blues Festival? A wonderful experience, a way to flee the mind and experience both body and emotion -- at first, self-consciously, but then, viscerally, serendipitously, and mindlessly.

And also.
Obey -- just curious. Why is it that you call me Staebler? As if I were one of your male friends, as compared to calling me WW or Wendy?
Perhaps you missed the kerfuffel last year when Articleman called me a "she stud" without any photo reference or personal acquaintance to make that claim.
I confess -- that designation hurt me. As it made me angry. And so, perhaps lending credence to his unfounded claim, I wrote this:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wwstaebler/2008/07/27-week/

I am not suggesting that callling me Staebler qualifies on any scale as the same insult/injury as being called a "she-stud." But I am perplexed -- and admittedly alarmed -- that what I write seems to evoke responses from men that are at best collegial, and at worst are gender neutralizing.

So tell me, what is it I say or write that gives men the impression that I am one of you, sort of, rather than a woman who loves men, but is, fundamentally, female?

Oy!

Glad SOMEONE is thinking about these things.

I wonder if Miss McArdle uses a Prius or Cadillac, but in a usual car it is very easy to notice that the sound that the car is making is not consistent with pressing break pedal to the floor.

So a case of a husband expiring in such circumstances would be investigated. Now, suppose that it looks perfectly innocent but --- 100 husbands in town die in similar circumstances. Would it increase, or decrease your suspicions?

I thought you had to be 70+ to get off on the gas/brakes mix-up defense (Actually, I've never done that in forty years of driving; does that make me a freak?).

I wonder of Ms. McCardle came to the defense of the homeless guy (turned away from rehab) last winter who, starving, walked into a bank and asked for the cash. The teller handed him a stack of hundreds but he took only one and apologized for that. The next day he returned the money, saying he wasn't brought up like that. He only got fifteen years.

The whole financial system is rife with fraud. It is built on fraud from the sub-prime liar loans to the CDS to the rating agencies and even the revolving door regulators. In most of these cases the fraud is right there in black and white. It is obvious and obviously criminal. How many cases are being prosecuted? How many of these guys have apologized and returned the money? How many will spend fifteen days, much less fifteen years, in jail?

It doesn't exactly say much about YOUR mental health that you just wrote this long piece obsessing about Megan McArdle.

Obey: the clock is ticking on your post, but I'm curious to know what you see as solutions -- not in terms of a market correction, but an ethical correction?
Since you posted this yesterday, I've been thinking about the difference between the outrage that is in short supply and the rage that is endemic everywhere. Curiously, rage that is more often expressed by the miscreants/malfeasors (is that actually a word?) who do not like being questioned or challenged, at all, and who therefore can be counted on to respond with either derisive shrugs of dismissal or blasts of belligerence -- both of which responses are intended to shut down any further discussion and both of which are very often successful.
What to do? I've given up cable news, said goodbye to a number of publications and columnists I used to read and now try to avoid contact with known perpetrators of ethical crimes -- whether known professionally or personally. But playing possum is not the answer, either. What, in your view, is a more effective counter?

Obey --
You've given me a lot to think about by saying:
"Pointing out shameful aspects of a situation is so closely related to acts of shaming or humiliating that it is generally regarded as 'bad form'. It is a charge that penetrates too deeply not to be seen as other than a malevolent attack. If people are too invested in their outlook, taking such points constructively just isn't an option."
I know you're right about this, at least in terms of where we, as a culture, are now. But it was not always so. Hiamm Ginott's whole theory of child rearing was that it is not only possible, but actually healthy to question and discuss a child's decisions and/or actions.... so long as one is careful to "criticize the behavior, but not the child."
I'm waiting for a revival of that theory. But while "waiting for Ginott," I'll continue to be alert, watching out for people with yokes of madness, as I've no desire to be sacrificed for a favorable wind. (Did I mention that my middle name is Iphegenia? Just kidding.)
And, Obey? I'm sorry I questioned you about calling me Staebler, at least while your thread was still open. I should have waited until after the clock ran out, or better, should have not mentioned it at all.

I personally think your writing is fab -- informed, beautifully constructed and quite often laced with a touch of irony and considerable wit. But that's just my opinion, though I'm sticking to it.
On the subject of personal ethics and responsibility, you may or may not have read a post I wrote a few weeks ago in which I tentatively tried to address that issue in the context of journalists who still have real standards:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wwstaebler/2009/06/truth-or-dareshouts-and-whispe.php
When you have time, let me know what you think of it. Or just keep addressing the issue, no matter how few recs result at first.
It's "impoewtnt" (as they say in Charleston).