I was curious what Beck's attitude towards the whole situation was.  It turns out that his explanation of the crisis isn't that bad.  He is most upset that the government is stepping in to bail out these companies.

[T]he new chorus you're likely to soon hear will be from people arguing that the only way out of this mess is for the federal government to step in and purchase all of the toxic mortgages themselves. That would allow the companies with eyes bigger than their balance sheets to start over, with barely any repercussions whatsoever and without ever taking responsibility for their mistakes.

That is not an unconventional line about the situation from free market true believers.  He doesn't mention regulation in the piece at all.

But something he said really stunned me in my tracks as I read.  When explaining what Lehman Brothers is he says this:

Lehman was founded in 1844 when Henry Lehman, a German immigrant, opened a small shop in Montgomery, Alabama. His brothers joined him six years later and, by 1858 they were busy turning cotton provided by local farmers into a cash crop -- a business that didn't have anything to do with helping low-income families afford 27-bedroom McMansions.

What?!?  This paragraph almost seems like after-thought in the article.  It's just stuck in there towards the beginning to give the reader a sense of the historical significance and long-lasting success of the company.  But his characterization of sub-prime mortgages is amazing.  His contempt lies not with the bankers, regulators, politicians, or any of the people on up the line who allowed the situation to get so out of hand that it is rocking the fundamentals of our economy.  No, he really despises those low income families who greedily took out loans that they can't pay back.