Given the total nightmare that the securities markets have become over the past few years, you would think that the SEC chairman would be a little bit ashamed of his tenure. At the very least, he wouldn't have the cajones to go on the record as being proud of his accomplishments, would he?

If his name is Chris Cox, yes he would. In his first interview responding to the well-deserved criticism that has been tossed at him, Cox said that "What we have done in this current turmoil is stay calm, which has been our greatest contribution -- not being impulsive, not changing the rules willy-nilly, but going through a very professional and orderly process that takes into account unintended consequences and gives ample notice to market participants."

Holy crap. This is the equivalent of Nero saying that he takes considerable pride in his measured, prudent response to the burning of Rome: "At least I didn't panic!"

He referred to the Madoff affair as a "big asterisk" on an otherwise good record. Right: the largest Ponzi scheme in history was an asterisk. So other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show? Notably, Cox did admit that the ban on short selling of financial stocks was a mistake. Of course, we already knew that, and most intelligent commentators said all along that the SEC was barking up the wrong tree in going after short sellers.

By any objective measure, Chris Cox's tenure as SEC chairman was a pathetic failure. But watching him to try to defend it is sort of fun.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

In light of the short-selling ban, someone recently asked me for my opinion about short selling. Personally, I'm grudgingly accepting of the practice, but I believe that some serious changes need to be made. I believe that the practice of short selling should be made harder to engage in, more expensive to execute, limited in duration, and heavily scrutinized.

The uptick rule is fine, and it never should have been suspended, but I feel that it falls short of the mark. Bear raids can still be orchestrated in spite of uptick only buys. Purchasing on the uptick simply slows the process a little. A system must be developed by which the practice of bear raids is effectively terminated.

When I researched opinions and viewpoints on short selling, it became quite apparent that the writers I had encountered were not supporting short selling nearly as much as they were simply railing against a short-selling ban. Not one person actually made a case for why the practice is essential to market health. The closest I came to finding an eloquent argument in favor of short selling was an article by Paul R. LaMonica, editor at large, CNNMoney.com. Though Mr. LaMonica didn't really explain to me why I should be shorting stocks to benefit the markets, he did quote the SEC on 3.5 reasons why shorting might be beneficial.

I've been screaming to anyone who will listen that the SEC's ban on short selling in financial stocks is bad for the market, the economy, and the world. It's good to see that someone far more knowledgeable than I am is also speaking out. In an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal, renowned short seller and fraud buster Jim Chanos traces the history of scapegoating shorts:

In the 1630s, England banned short selling after tulipmania collapsed in the Netherlands to prevent a similar fallout in England. More recently in Malaysia and Pakistan, short sellers have been faulted for stock-market busts. In the U.S., we've seen how corporate executives have tried to place the blame for their failures on short sellers instead of on themselves. In the end, short sellers -- not management -- defended honesty in the pricing of shares by demanding accountability. Short sellers openly warned about the problems at Enron, Tyco, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before their meltdowns. . .

The huge losses and evaporation of storied companies underscores the need for short selling, not the danger of it. New rules requiring that short sellers disclose their positions cross the line, and will subject investors to harassment and "issuer retaliation" in the form of frivolous lawsuits filed by corporate executives who don't like people betting against their stocks. That's dangerous because short sellers are often the first people to warn other investors of malfeasance and excessive risk-taking at public companies.

When we look back on the current market mess with the perspective of a few years, it will be clear the short sellers had nothing to do with the current crisis.