Ahhh I have no interest turning this into a Bill and Hillary debate (or a Bush/Cheney debate), but for the record the fact is Bill and Hillary were NEVER convicted of perjury.

So if a tree falls in the forest, blue dress and "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" and all, it doesn't make a sound? Trust the converse is true that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Petaeus, et al aren't war criminals, election stealers, tools of big oil, members of various cabals bent on world domination, felons, and all the other dreck and gibberish that many throw around about 'em?

Yup! the converse is true that Bush Cheney Rove (I prefer to leave Petaeus out of this: I respect him) were never CONVICTED of being election stealers, tools of big oil, etc. Like Clinton, maybe there should be convicted, but they were not.

My only point is to clear the record; the FACT remains that Clinton was NEVER convicted of a felony. Whether he should have been, what you think he did or didn't do, agreements he made, etc. doesn't change the simple fact he was NEVER convicted therefore by definition he is not a felon. Marc had said he was; I am merely clarify the facts for the record that Clinton is not a felon; period.

"Gotcha" Guinness lover; "felon" is a technical legal term; "felon; a person who has been CONVICTED of a felony". As for the group you mentioned, mass murderers they may be but they are not convicted felons. Nor is Clinton a convicted felon. Nor is Bush or Cheney. Got it?

LOL,Biden is on record saying BO ain't ready and he would be honored to run against or *with* McCain.This is unbelievable.

Wans't this the guy who cheated on his resume or some exam to get into law school. We already went through this guy?

Well just months back he said BO is "clean and articulate" which was widely condemned by the same crats as racist who will of course tell us why Biden is the greatest since Julius Ceasar (except of course the "gift from GOd" who is the BO)

ON another note:

Doesn't all this endless BS just make you want to move to Alaska and turn off the TV and radio and not read newpapers or get online sometimes?

‘Just Words’ That Joe Biden Would Like To ForgetThe curse of a loose mouth and Nexis.

By Jim Geraghty

The fun thing about an Obama-Biden ticket is that the McCain campaign can point to a new awkward comment by Joe Biden — either on the importance of experience, in praise of McCain, or in support of invading Iraq — that contradicts the stands and qualities of the Democratic nominee for every day from now until Election Day.

ON MCCAIN:Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”

Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who...”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”

ON OBAMA:Reacting to an Obama speech on counterterrorism, August 1, 2007: “‘Look, the truth is the four major things he called for, well, hell that’s what I called for,’ Biden said today on MSNBC’s Hardball, echoing comments he made earlier in the day at an event promoting his book at the National Press Club. Biden added, ‘I’m glad he’s talking about these things.’”

Also that day, the Biden campaign issued a release that began, “The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden’s long-held views on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That release mocked Obama for asking about the “stunning level of mercury in fish” and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Also from that Observer interview: “But — and the ‘but’ was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect ‘a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,’ and added: ‘I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.’”

Around that time, Biden in an interview with the Huffington Post, he assessed Obama and Hillary Clinton: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

December 11, 2007: “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate,” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. “But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

Also that night, Biden said in a campaign ad, “When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

September 26, 2007: Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said, “Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden’s critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq.

December 26, 2006: “Frankly, I think I’m more qualified than other candidates, and the issues facing the American public are all in my wheelbarrow.”

ON IRAQ: Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

Biden, on Obama’s Iraq plan in August 2007: “I don’t want [my son] going [to Iraq],” Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.” Biden criticized Democratic rivals such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama who have voted against Iraq funding bills to try to pressure President Bush to end the war. “There’s no political point worth my son’s life,” Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. “There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there. None.”

Biden on Meet the Press, April 29, 2007: “The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon — not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was — every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of — after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says “We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed” or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away.”

Biden to the Brookings Institution in 2005: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”

Analyzing the surge on Meet the Press, September 9, 2007: “I mean, the truth of the matter is that, that the — America’s — this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure, and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and — long enough to give political reconciliation, there’s been no political reconciliation... The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no, no real security in Baghdad and/or in Anbar province, where I was, dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is as strong and as solid and as serious a problem as it was before the surge started.”

Biden in October of 2002: “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”

On Meet the Press, January 7, 2007, assessing the proposal of a surge of troops to Iraq: “If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there’s no way to say, ‘Mr. President, stop.’”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “Unless we fundamentally change the rotation dates and fundamentally change how many members of the National Guard we’re calling up, it’ll be virtually impossible to maintain 150,000 folks this year.” (The number of troops in Iraq peaked at 162,000 in August 2007, during the surge.)

Having said all that: “There’s something decent at the core of Joe Biden.” — Jim Geraghty, December 13, 2007

"I knew that the man in charge of disaster preparedness at the Federal Emergency Management Agency turned out to be incompetent and unqualified."**So, how did the conservatives get the incompetent DEMOCRATS elected to Louisiana governor and New Orleans mayor?**

"I knew that the man in charge of disaster preparedness at the Federal Emergency Management Agency turned out to be incompetent and unqualified."**So, how did the conservatives get the incompetent DEMOCRATS elected to Louisiana governor and New Orleans mayor?**

Ahhhh, I am confused; it was actually the REPUBLICANS at the FEDERAL Emergency Management Agency who were unbelievably incompetent. Katrina was truly a terrible national disaster that should have been resolved on a Federal (Republican) level; it could not be resolved on the local level; the disaster was too big. That is what FEMA is for. And failed miserably to do.

Public and Private Responses to Katrina: What Can We Learn? October 20, 2005Mary L. G. Theroux

This talk was presented at the Chief Executive Organization's Women's Seminar October 7, 2005.

For the lessons to be gleaned in the aftermath of Katrina, I look to two non-profits with which I have been involved for many years and that I see as providing a two-pronged strategy for solving problems—immediate-term and long-term.

I’ve served for 10 years on the San Francisco board, and three years on the National board of The Salvation Army, which Peter Drucker has termed “the most effective organization in the U.S.” It does an amazing job at addressing and alleviating immediate problems and suffering. It brings people in off the street to become clean and sober and learn to lead productive lives through its detox and transitional housing and programming. It provides job training, character-based after-school and summer camp programming for children, toys at the holidays; shelters for battered women and their children; senior feeding and housing; delivery of hot meals to the homebound, housing and programming for aged-out foster care young adults; and is one of the largest relief agencies worldwide. Based in London, it operates in 109 countries every day, with 65,000 employees in the U.S. alone. So when disaster strikes, the Salvation Army is already there, ready to spring into action.

The Independent Institute, where I am a director and Vice President, tackles many of these same problems on a long-term basis. We commission and produce research into the underlying causes of problems like homelessness, urban problems, health-care costs, energy, the crisis in education, drugs, and global poverty. We use these studies to devise and promote innovative, market-based solutions to these problems.

The Gift of Markets

Why market-based? Well, here are some statistics from 100 years ago that I think well illustrate my point:

In 1905, our average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47. Only 14% of homes had a tub; 8% had a phone; 95% of all births took place at home; women washed their hair once a month, using borax or egg shampoo; and the average worker made about $300 per year.

Our rapid advancement to the bounty found in even the poorest home in the U.S. today is due not to any government program or non-profit initiative, but primarily because profit-pursuing individuals have innovated to produce hitherto unknown prosperity.

And it’s also due to the for-profit, market-based sector that many of our threatened crises never materialize. For example, when I was a girl, it was widely predicted that there would be mass starvation in the near future, as exploding populations would overwhelm the planet’s limits on food production. Instead, the development of higher-yielding plants and better farming methods created an international green revolution.

Yet when was the last time you received an invitation for a gala black-tie event honoring a for-profit hero? Don’t most of us instead find ourselves inundated with celebrations of those who have “given back” or honoring “public servant” politicians?

Social Innovation and Civil Society

That said, there certainly are problems we see in our communities that we would like to be able to do something about, and we form non-profit organizations to do so. And innovation and entrepreneurship can do much to address those as well. Americans have a long tradition of banding together to do just that. Probably the best-documented study of this can be found in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. A young French aristocrat, Tocqueville toured America in 1831-32, and he made an amazingly extensive study of our society and institutions. One thing that struck him the most was our penchant for forming what he dubbed “associations”:

Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or dimunitive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools....

Unlike the societies Tocqueville had known—the England of a privileged aristocracy, where Noblesse Oblige would tend to the poor, or post-revolutionary France, whose strong central government was assumed to be responsible for taking care of all such problems, in the American democratic society power and money were widely diffused among individuals, such that they had to combine forces to solve any given problem:

Among democratic nations ... all the citizens are independent and feeble; they can do hardly anything by themselves, and none of them can oblige his fellow men to lend him their assistance. They all, therefore, become powerless if they do not learn voluntarily to help one another. [emphasis added]

So, I think our tradition of innovative individuals forming alliances to solve problems stands us in good stead. The Independent Institute’s book, The Voluntary City, similarly brings together case studies of innovative alliances that historically met and many which continue to meet, needs from housing, transportation, education, medical care, to police and law courts. Long before there was unemployment or health insurance, for example, many people belonged to mutual-aid societies, into which they would pay dues. When they found themselves out of work, facing unexpected medical or other costs, they could receive funding from the society. By 1925, there were 120,000 such societies across the country.

And so we have a rich and proven-effective tradition of voluntary associations solving problems. Yet, in case after case, we see government taking over more and more of our voluntary sector. And that is why I’m so concerned about the calls in the aftermath of Katrina to expand FEMA and other programs.

First of all, there’s just the plain evidence that the public sector doesn’t do the job nearly as well as the private. Let’s take a look at the vast differences in the responses to Katrina from the public vs. the private sector.

Responses to Katrina: Public vs. Private

FEMA, and all levels of state and local governments in the affected areas have claimed that a disaster of Katrina’s proportions could not have been foreseen or planned for and they should thus be given a pass—or better, yet, a bigger budget and more power—for having performed so badly.

Yet let’s take a look at what happened in the private sector:

The giant private hospital company HCA held a “Hurricane Lessons Learned” planning meeting last fall, following last year’s devastating Florida hurricanes. Some key gaps they identified were: cell phones often fail, so alternative phone systems are needed. Roads become impassable, so emergency supplies have to be stored closer to hospitals. Back-up generators are needed. As a result of the meeting, HCA provided its hospitals with satellite phones, hurricane shutters and additional backup generators. It struck deals with local businesses like refrigeration, water, diesel and gasoline companies, to provide supplies quickly in the event of an emergency. In hurricane-prone areas it also warehoused food, medical supplies and other gear closer to its hospitals. In the immediate aftermath of Katrina, senior management set up a “war room” and quickly decided they would need to lease 20 helicopters to evacuate their Tulane hospital. HCA’s chairman and CEO didn’t hesitate in ordering them to do so. They used ham radios to create a makeshift air-traffic control system and immediately began ferrying critically ill patients out, without one mishap.

Literally across the street, the state-run Charity hospital was without emergency supplies and unable to get any governmental help in evacuating. Subsisting on fruit cocktail and a dwindling supply of water, Charity’s patients were only saved by being ferried by boat to Tulane and evacuated by HCA’s privately-leased helicopters.

Similarly, Wal-Mart and Home Depot had emergency-response plans in place and their senior management immediately sprang into action ordering them implemented, sending supplies like generators, food, water, flashlights and batteries into the areas hit. They were able to quickly establish and maintain a supply chain throughout the region. Pfizer distributed needed drugs and medicines via Wal-Mart and other retailers. Budweiser delivered truckloads of water and ice. Ford provided vehicles for search and rescue.

At the heart of the corporate response was a stunning array of advanced communication networks that kept firms in touch and coordinating. Following last year’s tsunami aid effort, the Business Roundtable had arranged for each of its 160 member companies to designate a disaster-relief point man. They were in place and ready before Katrina hit. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce set up a clearinghouse to compile lists of needed supplies. Each donor company indicated what order it could fill, eliminating duplication or delay. Black & Decker’s employees worked through Labor Day weekend to produce more generators.

And on and on.

Meanwhile, what was going on the New Orleans mayor’s and Louisiana governor’s offices? Both expressed frustration and helplessness, caused by having no plans for an emergency of this magnitude. The mayor’s office set up operations in the privately owned and operated Hyatt hotel, judged the safest base. They were equipped with old field-type phones that couldn’t be recharged. Both the governor and mayor claimed they were paralyzed by lack of communication, and pointed the finger at the feds’ failure to come to the rescue. The entire governmental response, from top to bottom, was beset by lack of leadership, action, and absolutely no coordination or communication between any two agencies. It had been immediately pointed out following 9/11 that much of that rescue effort was hindered and many of the deaths of firefighters and police were due to the inability of rescue agencies to communicate among and between themselves. Yet four years later, and despite billions of dollars distributed to and by the new Dept. of Homeland Security, the exact same systems were in place.

When one mayor in Louisiana called FEMA to get supplies, he was put on hold for 45 minutes. Eventually a bureaucrat promised to write a memo to his supervisor. Evacuees on a boat could not receive permission to dock along the Mississippi river. A sheriff was told he could only get the help he was seeking if he emailed his request—of course, his parish was flooded and without electricity.

School buses sat idle in parking lots—contrary to the City of New Orleans’ emergency plan that called to use such buses to evacuate residents to safety—not to the Superdome, which lay within the threatened area. Furthermore, the Superdome had been used as emergency shelter before, and there had been violence and civil disorder within it on those occasions. Yet no provision had been made to prevent the recurrence of such violence that had occurred before and worsened under the “hell-like” conditions following Katrina. The people in the Superdome were essentially held under house arrest, not allowed to leave or even go outside for fresh air. No provision was made to provide them food, water, sanitation, counseling, or even communicate to them what was happening and what they could expect. It’s little wonder that such desperate “Lord of the Flies” conditions led to a breakdown in civil society. It could have been a laboratory study in what happens when you treat people like cattle—only worse, because cattle owners feed and water their stock.

A group of 500 guests in French Quarter hotels pooled their resources to come up with $25,000 to charter buses to come and rescue them, subsidizing those without the means to contribute. They waited 48 hours for the buses whose arrival was said to be “imminent,” only to learn that the military had commandeered them as soon as they arrived in the city. Once kicked out of the hotels, “by orders,” they learned they would not be allowed in either of the two city shelters—the Convention Center and the Superdome—which had descended into humanitarian and health hellholes. Yet neither could they leave the city—those trying to leave the city on foot were turned back by armed police, “protecting” neighboring cities from fleeing evacuees. Only those with transport could leave, yet, as we’ve seen, transport was denied them.

Companies wanting to send in planes and helicopters to rescue their people were prohibited from doing so. One company contacted Louisiana Congressman Bobby Jindal’s office for help identifying who could grant them permission to send in a helicopter to rescue their stranded employees. Unable to find anyone at FEMA, the FAA or the military who would accept responsibility to grant permission, the congressman advised the company to just go ahead.

What is probably most inexcusable and has been kept relatively quiet is that the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were staged and ready to enter New Orleans with food, water and other emergency supplies. The roads to the Superdome and the Convention Center were open, and other areas of the city remained similarly accessible. But the Louisiana Dept. of Homeland Security denied them permission to go in, saying their presence would “prevent people from leaving.”

In the ultimate, horrible example of a bureaucratic Catch-22, the government kept people from leaving New Orleans, and the Dept. of Homeland Security would not let aid agencies in, saying having aid available in the city would create a magnet to keep people from leaving.

Eventually, of course, aid agencies were allowed in, and within a few days following Katrina, the Salvation Army had in place 10 mobile feeding units, including at the evacuation points, as well as 2 large mobile kitchens, with a total capacity of serving 200,000 meals per day. As of Sept. 30, the Salvation Army has served over 2 million hot meals plus over 3 million sandwiches, snacks, and drinks from its 150 mobile feeding trucks plus 10 field kitchens deployed throughout the region. It has distributed over 35,000 cleaning kits: brooms, mops, buckets and detergent; and 60,000 food boxes. It has sheltered and provided counseling to approximately half a million people. Its Emergency Radio Network, designed to help people locate family members, has received over 60,000 inquiries and found almost 16,000 survivors. A woman from our San Francisco office was dispatched to run the Astrodome operations, returning last week. As Hurricane Rita built up, the Salvation Army deployed office workers, including our webmaster, to Houston to be prepared to provide disaster assistance there—everyone else was already deployed following Katrina. In all, almost 7,000 Salvation Army officers, together with almost 7,000 Salvation Army employees, plus thousands of trained volunteers have served in the affected areas, and they will remain as long as relief is needed. They’re still serving in Florida in the aftermath of last year’s hurricanes there, and they remained onsite at Ground Zero for two years following 9/11, with a large tent facility housing rest facilities, food, clean socks, counseling and other needs for the rescue workers there.

The Salvation Army is being judged the most effective relief agency throughout the Gulf Coast—and, with reason. A front-page story in the September 29 Wall Street Journal praised the Salvation Army for its quick, effective hurricane relief efforts. Based from their operations already well-established in nearly every community, where they work daily in permanent shelters with the homeless and poor and with people trying to put their lives back together after an apartment fire or years of alcohol and drug abuse, they’re well prepared to meet the needs of victims of natural disasters. Its military-style structure is designed for rapid mobilization and puts a premium on training people in advance to deal with disasters. Most people aren’t aware that the Salvation Army is actually a church. Its officers are all ordained ministers and they are in the Army as a calling—their way of ministering to the poorest of the poor in the name of Christ, with love and without discrimination, and for very little pay. The head of the Red Cross draws a salary of $450,000. The head of the U.S. Salvation Army is paid less than $30,000. They do this work from their hearts, and they do it very, very well.

Now I don’t want to make it sound as if I think that every private organization walks on water. Not every private entity did perform well in the disaster. The government says it will bring criminal charges against the owners of a nursing home whose 34 abandoned residents died, and it is proper that they should be held liable for this negligence. But who do the victims of the gross and arguably criminal neglect in the Superdome, the Convention Center—or for that matter, the thousands whose property and lives were lost due to the government’s failure to maintain its levees—sue?

The Lesson

For this is the salient point: private organizations, whether for-profit or non-profit, perform or lose their customers or their donors. When a private entity fails to deliver on its promise, or actually causes harm, it is held liable for the failure and pays the damages. When government fails, it gets a bigger budget and even more power.

Relying on big bureaucracies is itself a recipe for disaster. Bureaucracies do not talk to each other, and they are actually disincented from solving problems. Last year’s 9/11 commission issued a comprehensive, damning indictment of the intelligence community’s failure to perform its basic function. Yet rather than waiting for any facts on which to act, government had instead three years before created a whole new level of bureaucracy that could be guaranteed to only exacerbate the failings we saw 9/11 and now again with Katrina.

And that is exactly the danger we face again now: suddenly, in the heat of the immediate, emotional aftermath of the disaster, frantic calls go up to have FEMA do more, not less. The federal government is jumping in with promises to perform tasks no-one would have dreamed appropriate following previous disasters: reimburse faith-based charities for their expenses in providing relief; rebuilding entire neighborhoods and communities under no-bid, cost-plus contracts.

What’s going to happen when we allow the pre-empting of our very effective charitable sector by bureaucracy? What’s going to happen to the voluntary, charitable sector when people see enough examples of their tax dollars being used for the purpose for which they used to designate their charitable giving? Just as with the tradition of mutual-aid and other voluntary initiatives, private charity will fade as government’s involvement increases.

Although you may not be aware of it, this is already happening. Organizations like the Salvation Army are already dependent on government funding. When that funding is lost in the face of politics, as happened here in San Francisco when the Salvation Army’s faith-based mission fell in disfavor among our extremist city council, we lost $3 million per year in government funding of detox, homeless shelter, and senior feeding programming. Losing the funding forced us to revitalize the board and get back in closer touch with our community—now that we were again wholly dependent upon it for support.

We also took a close look at the programs for which we had suddenly lost funding, and discovered, a bit to our chagrin, that they could actually be run better and more efficiently than government requirements. I dubbed it the “Pentagon model” of social service. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the adage that the Pentagon is always preparing to fight the last war—commissioning weapons systems, for example, designed to defeat the Soviet Union, not fight a dispersed, decentralized War on Terror; and of course its well-deserved reputation for being bloated. While nothing like that scale, several of our government-funded programs turned out to be a bit behind the times, and we revamped them to better meet our community’s needs today. For example, the Federal Meals on Wheels program has an age 60 minimum. Revamped as the privately-funded Meals That Heal, in addition to providing for seniors, we also deliver nutritious meals to younger people homebound by diseases such as HIV/AIDS.

Similarly, there had been excessive administrative and reporting requirements. We were able to cut administrative positions and place a case-worker in every one of our 16 facilities across the city.

Disasters of Government Failure

As the Independent Institute’s research shows time and again, the Katrina disaster aftermath is simply the current most obvious example of government failure. It is not the exception, it is the pattern: a crisis occurs, often because of existing government failure such as inadequate levees, the cry goes up that government must “do something,” it moves in with ambitious new programs that drive out voluntary initiatives, until the myth that government has to do it or it wouldn’t be done is true.

We saw only too clearly in New Orleans what happens when government is allowed a monopoly on disaster response: bureaucratic bungling and mistreatment of those who most need help.

But to me, at least as important as the fact that government performs relief work less well than private initiatives, is the message Tocqueville drew from observing our society: voluntary association brings us closer together and keeps us free and “democratic.” By working together in voluntary association to help one another and solve our own problems, we learn that we as individuals are effective and powerful.

The lessons of Katrina provide a picture-perfect case study of what happens when we surrender these functions to nameless, unaccountable bureaucrats: levee systems that everyone knows are inadequate and no one does anything about; a Keystone Cop scenario of bureaucrats pointing fingers and waiting for the feds to save them; and helpless victims.

I prefer the very real and well-functioning world documented in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and The Independent Institute’s The Voluntary City. Communities in which individuals working together in voluntary association meet and solve their problems in common.

Unlike the Superdome, the Astrodome was operated as a shelter under the auspices of the Red Cross and The Salvation Army. Government forecasts had predicted that evacuees would be there for months. Instead, less than 4,000 remained in the Astrodome two weeks after Katrina, with all of them placed within a month.

So instead of the Federal government’s disbursing no-bid, cost-plus contracts to rebuild New Orleans (and who on earth is the master planner of what is being built, where, and why?) how about instead declaring the affected region an enterprise zone—exempt from tax and regulatory restrictions? There would be an inflow of investment as dramatic as the phoenix rising from the ashes. Think Hong Kong, that island rock with no natural resources, having even to import drinking water. Yet the economic success story of the 20th century—that could be New Orleans, freed of the most corrupt government at all levels in the entire country. Freed of slums, dead-end lives of hopelessness.

As for the levees, the failure of which was the proximate cause of New Orleans’ devastation, let’s fire the Army Corps of Engineers and turn that agency over to stakeholders who will have incentives to invest in bringing it up to 21st century standards and be held accountable if it fails. You could privatize it as many former iron-curtain countries privatized formerly state-run enterprises, by distributing a share to every citizen of the area; or have the levees be owned and operated through insurance schemes; or bid them out for sale to a consortium of business or other condominium-type holding.

The wonderful thing about the market is that no one has to be prescient—when you get barriers out of the way, innovative entrepreneurs devise ways of solving needs never thought of before. For example, one of the most vibrant economies today is Estonia. This former Soviet satellite was so thrilled to be freed of their hated Russian rulers that they have since 1990 allowed almost no central control. The result is the most booming, energetic, happy place—rediscovering and revitalizing things like traditional native dance. At the same time it is one of the most advanced countries technologically in the world. Estonia leapfrogged traditional telephone technologies and jumped right into the wireless age. You can even pay for your parking meter from your cell phone.

It’s amazing what happens when you set the private sector free.

So, what can we learn from Katrina? First of all, let’s realize that no knight in shining armor is going to come save us, so let’s do what needs to be done ourselves. Let’s believe Mayor Gavin Newsom when he tells us he won’t be able to evacuate San Francisco in the event of an emergency, and that Rudy Guiliani didn’t actually single-handedly save New York post-9/11. They’re just guys, they’re not super-heroes.

The Independent Institute will pursue activities like documenting and publicizing examples like the Business Roundtable’s proactive emergency communication system. Let’s champion those examples, get involved in efforts to promote and replicate them, and support and get involved with organizations like the Independent Institute and the Salvation Army that produce solutions.

And let’s help spread the word to others that this is the way to take care of ourselves and those in our communities who need help. Yes, it’s work, time, and money, and government’s promises to do it for us, at an invisible cost to us, are tempting to believe. But next time we hear a great new proposal for a great new government initiative that’s going to solve everything once and for all, let’s just say, “No, thanks. We’d rather do it ourselves.”

Mary L. G. Theroux is Vice President and Secretary at The Independent Institute and a member of both the National and San Francisco Advisory Boards of the Salvation Army. She is also former Chairman of the San Francisco Salvation Army Advisory Board.

IMHO GM's response to you (cut and paste as it may be ) makes many very cogent points. I await your responce

In a separate vein, it is shocking that MSM has not covered BO getting his butt kicked in debate with a black conservative.

TAC!Marc

Marc,

It is my thought on a disaster of the magnetude that the government FEMA was or should have beenmost qualified to coordinate and fund the response. They failed and should be held responsible.

That being said,

What can I say? GM cut and pasted well I agree with most of the "Lessons Learned"

And I think the Salvation Army is an Outstanding Organization andI have a very high respect for the Red Cross here and internationally.Plus many other organizations, churches, etc. stepped up when the government didn't. Almost all were truly outstanding.

It just wasn't (couldn't be) enough without government's help. And I think FEMA failed.

Due to our constitutional "separation of powers", it is your local level government that is responsible for police/fire/EMS. Then it falls to your state. The USG is 3rd. in line. FEMA is much more of a "check writing" entity rather than a first responder by congressional design.

BTW, you are actually the person who holds the core responsibility for your security and safety. Much of the problems in N.O. result from the entrenched mentality of governmentally based learned helplessness.

I understand and agree for that smaller manageable tragedies I am responsible and then local and then the State; BUT like Katrina, an overwhelming tragedy, if CA had the "big one" I would hope FEMA and the Federal Government would move to the head of the line rather than being 3rd man up. They have the resources and the money and supposedly the expertise.

Anyway, lets return to the subject of this thread-- and there is plenty of raw material for it:

Michelle Obama spoke last night-- assessment? I saw reports of some Nazi type clowns arrested for a plot to shoot BO, McC was on the Leno show (I caught only the last few minutes, he looked good, and was pithy AND funny-- a good combination) Biden is a major gun grabber-- how will this play in the wake of the assassination plot? etc etc etc

Yes, McCain did look good on Leno; even I had to like him I find it odd/disappointing that Obama who is highly educated, a fine lawyer, is still unwilling to debate in an open forum. This is a close race; no one is truly ahead, so let them go head to head. Obama's reluctance to do so may haunt him.

This country just cannot be rid of them. That is why I felt Limbaugh was wrong to try to down BO and up Hillary in the nomination process. Any time we get a chance to dispose of these two criminals we should. We will not be rid of them in my life time.

Is any Republican not glad its BO and not the Clintons now? How would you like it if McCain was running against Shrillary? I would take BO as my opponent any day.

It is amazing all the gals who run around saying she lost because of sexism. Oh I get it. It's not that she is a lying stinking manipulative selfish thief. It is because she is a woman. Right, and she "broke through 18 million ceilings". This country is f***.

Now of course hedge fund Chelsea is being groomed to continue the clan of grifters.

It is amazing all the gals who run around saying she lost because of sexism. Oh I get it. It's not that she is a lying stinking manipulative selfish thief. It is because she is a woman. Right, and she "broke through 18 million ceilings". This country is f***.

Now of course hedge fund Chelsea is being groomed to continue the clan of grifters.

O Great Moderator in the Sky, whether you like the Clintons (some do, many do not) or not, or whether you have criticism to offer, isn't there a limit on a forum searching for truth? As GM (with whom I often disagree) appropriately likes to say and usually does, "back it up with facts." But wonton defamation doesn't seem appropriate or am I wrong?

I found M.O.'s speech to be boring and run of the mill. My wife thought it was overly sincere and heartfelt, which means it probably played well to the Oprah watchers in the audience (she found it ridiculous that there were women in the crowd crying). And I don't know why media "professionals" have not yet figured out that children, microphones, and live television NEVER work.

All in all, a wasted night for the Dems. Tonight will be for Hillary supporters (who I predict will promptly leave the building post-speech) and the rest is just the usual over-hyped garbage. I find the conventions to be an incredible waste of time and money.

Oh I get it. She is not a liar. She is not a criminal. She is not manipulative. She is not selfish. And they are not grooming Chelsea for politics. And Chelsea is not cleaning up as a hedgefund insider.

Biden: Obama will surrender on nukes to IranPOSTED AT 9:13 AM ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 BY ED MORRISSEY

Ha’aretz reports that Joe Biden told Israeli leaders that they would have to accept a nuclear Iran if Barack Obama wins the Presidency. Israelis expressed “amazement” at Biden’s attitude:

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden was quoted Monday as telling senior Israeli officials behind closed doors that the Jewish state will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran.

In the unsourced report, Army Radio also quoted Biden as saying that he opposed “opening a additional military and diplomatic front.”

Biden, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has long been considered strongly pro-Israel. His nomination as Barack Obama’s running mate had been expected to shore up the Democrats’ strength with U.S. Jewish voters.

For those unfamiliar with Ha’aretz, it doesn’t exactly have a knee-jerk conservative spin. In fact, it’s at best a center-left editorial board. They’re not terribly sympathetic to the Bush administration or most of its policies. They wouldn’t have much reason to simply make this up.

If anyone doubted that an Obama presidency would surrender to radicalism and hostile forces abroad, this should clinch it. Biden has pretty much told the Israelis that they’re on their own, and America won’t bother to support them against the nutcases in the region. If Obama and Biden don’t have the courage to face Iran’s nuclear ambitions, then exactly when will they defend American interests?

And what of our Western allies? Europe wants Iranian nukes stopped just as much as we do, especially since they’re more directly threatened by them. Obama and Biden talk about bolstering our alliances, but it looks like they’re more interested in leaving them holding the bag.

Hugh Hewitt sees this as further evidence that Obama is nothing more than the second coming of Jimmy Carter:

American supporters of Israel have to understand that Obama-Biden is a disaster for Israel’s security. It would be Carter II, but without the keen insight that Carter brought to Iran policy.

It’s worse than that. Carter at least had a deranged notion of justice as a foundation; this just looks like cowardice.

Update: The Jerusalem Post says this conversation took place three years ago:

Army Radio reported that the Delaware senator was heard saying in closed conversations with Jerusalem officials three years ago that he was firmly opposed to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reportedly claimed that Israel would likely have to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. He reportedly expressed doubt over the effectiveness of economic sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic and said he was against the opening of an additional military and diplomatic front, saying that the US had more pressing problems, such as North Korea and Iraq.

The Ha’aretz report didn’t mention a time frame. Still, either way, the message is the same: Biden won’t stand up to Iran, and since Barack Obama chose him for his foreign-policy chops, one has to figure that Obama agrees. After all, Biden is the man who once proposed sending $200 million to Tehran to pacify the mullahs.

Even before this week, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was clear. For one, McCain joined more than 300 other members of Congress in signing a "friend of the court" brief, in District of Columbia v. Heller, urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Second Amendment and against D.C.'s handgun ban.

Obama refused to sign the Heller brief, and supports reinstituting the Clinton gun and magazine ban. He also supports Ted Kennedy's bill to ban semi-automatic handguns in the guise of "micro-stamping," and supports banning inexpensive handguns as "junk guns."

But now that each candidate has chosen his running mate, the difference is even clearer than before. And when it comes to guns, the two prospective vice-presidents are as far apart as the states from which they hail.

Sen. McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is a NRA Life Member and hunter who says, "I support our Constitutional right to bear arms and am a proponent of gun safety programs for Alaska's youth," adding "I have always strongly supported the personal use of fish and game by Alaskans. I grew up hunting and fishing in Alaska, and I am proud to raise my children with this same uniquely Alaskan heritage."

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox says "Governor Palin doesn't just talk about supporting the Second Amendment, it's part of her life, and she did her part to vindicate the Second Amendment for all Americans when Alaska joined 30 other states in signing a legal brief supporting Heller's challenge to the D.C. gun-ban."

As for Joe Biden, from Delaware, the Brady Campaign sums it up in a straightforward enough fashion, saying, "Senator Biden has been a consistent supporter of the Brady Campaign," and "Senator Biden was a key player in the fight for the federal assault weapons ban that passed in 1994. He also worked hard for passage of the Brady Law (sic)."

In fact, Biden introduced an "assault weapons" ban in Congress five years before the Clinton gun and magazine ban was imposed. In 1989, Biden's Senate Bill 1970 proposed to ban the Colt AR-15 and eight similar firearms as "assault weapons," and authorize the Secretary of the Treasury (in reality, BATF) and the Attorney General to recommend to Congress any other firearms, regardless of type, to be banned as "additional assault weapons."

As lead sponsor of the Senate crime bill to which the Feinstein gun ban amendment was attached, Biden was instrumental in the passage of the 1994 Clinton gun and magazine ban. Biden reiterated his support for the ban—and, in fact, took credit for authoring it—in response to a question at the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this year (to view the video, please click here).

Biden voted for the ban on a stand-alone vote in 1993, and voted to extend the ban in 2004 as an amendment to the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." He also included a renewal of the ban in his crime bill last year, along with gun show restrictions.

Currently, Biden's S. 2237 proposes to renew the Clinton ban on roughly 200 makes and models of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns on the basis of things like the shape of their grips, and on ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, regardless of the kind of firearm in which they are used.

As if that's not enough, Biden voted against the law that prohibits lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers. He also refused to sign the Congressional brief in Heller, and voted to confirm only one of the five justices who ruled in favor of the Second Amendment in Heller, yet he voted to confirm all four justices who voted against the Second Amendment in that case.

To put it simply, Gov. Sarah Palin would be one of the most pro-gun vice-presidents in American history, and Joe Biden would definitely be the most anti-gun.

John McCain picked Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and mother of five, to be his running mate to woo women like me.

He seems to think that my girlfriends and I are so disappointed that an utterly qualified woman is not going to be president that we will jump at the chance to vote for an utterly unqualified woman for vice president.

You gotta love a guy who thinks things are that simple.

• More news Women already outvote men in this country, and it isn't because we like voting for all those women on the ballot.

Does McCain think we will be so grateful for a skirt on the ticket that we won't notice that she's anti-abortion, a member of the NRA and thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution?

His selection of Sarah Palin is insulting on so many levels that I am starting to feel like the Geico caveman.

You want to look like a maverick and like you think outside the box? Pick a woman for a running mate.

You want to look good to the evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child.

(When James Dobson, the conservative Christian radio host who fancies himself a kingmaker, jumped up to say that the selection of Palin means he can now "pull the lever" for John McCain, I almost felt sick. I don't know what I'll do if she trots out the story of her 5-month-old baby to shore up the Republican base.)

Palin's personal story is very compelling, but it reads more like a movie pitch than a resume for national leadership.

Champion high school athlete, beauty queen. Married to her high school sweetheart. Car-pooling supermom who went from PTA activist to mayor of her tiny (population 9,000) Alaskan town.

Fisherman, sportswoman, hunter. Speaks truth to power in a state corrupted by oil. Has a son headed to Iraq. A woman who made the decision to carry to term a baby she knew to be developmentally disabled.

She makes John McCain, Naval Academy graduate, fighter pilot and prisoner of war, look like just another grouchy, old, rich white guy.

Oh. Right. He is.

And that's the other point here. McCain is 72. He has had at least four go-rounds with melanoma, a deadly cancer.

Under the circumstances, the decision to choose this woman over the likes of, say, Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson looks less like a stroke of genius than a stroke. It looks crazy. It looks wacky.

And that's the other part of this decision that is so infuriating.

If you are going to pick a woman for the sake of picking a woman, can you at least make it a credible choice?

Can you at least make a choice that doesn't give the gag writers for Jay Leno and Jon Stewart the month off?

(The jokes started immediately: She won't be able to hold her own against Joe Biden in a vice presidential debate. But wait until the swimsuit portion of the competition.)

Can you at least make a choice that doesn't have Rush Limbaugh panting? (He called Palin a "babe." It was another memorable moment in the ascent of women in this country.)

Barack Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, for heaven's sake. And the best McCain can do is a woman who minored in poly-sci at the University of Idaho?

Palin might do just fine during the campaign. And she might do an excellent job of going to diplomatic funerals. (Which McCain once said is the only job description for the vice presidency.)

But it is more likely that she will be in over her head, and all the women McCain thinks he is courting will be cringing for our sister instead. And then we will be furious at him for setting one of us up to fail.

It isn't just that Palin might look bad campaigning against the likes of Biden or Obama.

It's that she already looks bad compared to the likes of Hillary Clinton.

I think Susan Reimer said it perfectly; I am glad you printed the whole article.

By the way, "what election has Hilary won?" Ahhh, you might not like her, but did you forget she is a U.S. Senator from the State of New York. Again, like her or not, but the experience of Hilary, her education, her intellect, puts Palin to shame. I understand Reimer's point.

Palin was mayor of a town of 9000 (I don't know offhand any towns that small) and governor for two years of a State with a raindeer population greater than the number of people. She's not too bright (nor is McCain), she seems to be a "nice person" but second in line to be President??? Especially one who already is 72 and has had cancer??? Surely McCain could have done better???

If you truly wanted a qualified woman, how about Rice? First class, very very bright, and experienced.

IMHO Rice has been a substantial factor in some of President Bush's biggest errors.

Speaking of Hillary Evita Peron, the idea that being married to Bill Clinton was presidential preparation is something I take as seriously as Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan being presidential timber. After she bombed with her efforts to socialize 14% of GDP, the only substantive things she did were to dodge sniper fire, hide the billing records of her law firm which would have revealed in her role in the criminal activities of her law firm (IIRC Webster Hubbell took the fall and got $700,000 from the Riadys(a Chinese front) for staying quiet), sell presidential pardons via her husband, and steal White House furninture and silverware on her way out of town.

As for Palin, I share the notion she is not ready to step in, but on the other hand, neither is BO-- and he is the presidential candidate for the Dems, not the Veep candidate. Substantial cognitive dissonance in the Dems brayng about this

I think Rice was just following Bush's direction; that's her job. And she is respected around the world. And at least she is qualified.

And I agree, in general, being married to the President doesn't qualify you for anything (although I find it odd that when a politician dies his spouse is the first to run for that office); that being said, Hillary, much more than Bush or Reagan participated in the legislative process. As for experience, she is a U.S. Senator; something a lot more than only being a two year governor or Alaska is in comparison. And oh yeah, before that she was Mayor of a town with 9000 people.

And as we have discussed before, allegations, rumors, and false inuendoes about Hilary do not a criminal make. Rather she was found guilty of nothing, zero, nada. Nor was her husband... In politics, it seems everyone is being accused of something. The ones that are proven, taken to court and indicted, those are the ones to watch. The others are just talk.

And while BO does not have comperable experience to McCain, he does have more national experience than does Palin. Not to mention his intellect, as issue I believe, is far superior to Palin or for that matter McCain. She/Palin seems like a "nice person"; that is fine for a neighbor, but as President???

I see no evidence that Barry-O is any sort of intellect. Sure, he adopts pseudo-intellectual poses but his academic career is as accomplishment-free as his career as a "community organizer" or politician. Although given he was never arrested for dealing coke, he might have some ability there. I doubt we'll see that touted by his campaign.

Both McCain and Palin have actually done tangible things in their lives. If you want to talk intellectually rigorous jobs, put naval aviator at the top of the list.

BO got into the Senate in a freak election wherein a quality Republican opponent had to drop out at the last moment and only Alan Keyes was available to step in to be his opponent. BO had 143 days in the Senate before he announced. He has a subcommittee from which he could have launched various investigations related to foreign affairs, but , , , how rare! , , , has done nothing.

Look, I went to Columbia Law School-- not Harvard but not too shabby either. My Constitutional Law prof was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I've been around these people and my clear sense of it is that a goodly number of them are as clueless about the real world as they are bright. They think to cleverly articulate a synthesis of positions matters in the real world.

BO has done NOTHING but talk and fence with words. That ain't excrement in the real world. He has never worked in the private sector, never run a business, never been in harm's way, never broken with left liberal orthodoxy, never put together a major piece of legislation, never written a law reivew article. The man has DONE nothing.

As for Lady Evita, no she hasn't been convicted, but I have followed her in these matters pretty durn closely and I think her quite guilty. You would too I suspect , , , if she were a Republican.

The only thing not felonious IMO about Hillary's commodity trading escapades was that the records were hidden until the statute of limitations had expired. Certainly she is entitled to presumption of innocence in a criminal sense, but in a political sense she is shameless felon, one who committed felony without remorse. That is an opinion based on public information, not a court-proven fact.

If Sen. Obama loses she will be the automatic nominee next time, nearly as certain as she was this time.

Look, I went to Columbia Law School-- not Harvard but not too shabby either. My Constitutional Law prof was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I've been around these people and my clear sense of it is that a goodly number of them are as clueless about the real world as they are bright. They think to cleverly articulate a synthesis of positions matters in the real world.

Definitely "not too shabby"; outstanding actually. And you are very bright (even if you lapse once in a while and are a Republican) And in BO's case being chosen Editor of the Law Review means he too is quite bright. I understand your point that many of your classmates were clueless; but forgive them they are usually near the age of 25. Fifteen years later, I bet most of your classmates are bright, articlulate, informed, and accomplished (whatever form that may take). God (and hard work) gave them, and you, and BO higher intelligence than the average. Definitely higher than a low graduating person at Idaho or someone near the bottom of their class at Annapolis who was admitted on connections. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for higher office, but it would be nice if they were even above average.

PS I think Ginsburg is fabulous; did you take good notes in her class? You should review them

Look, I went to Columbia Law School-- not Harvard but not too shabby either. My Constitutional Law prof was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I've been around these people and my clear sense of it is that a goodly number of them are as clueless about the real world as they are bright. They think to cleverly articulate a synthesis of positions matters in the real world.

Definitely "not too shabby"; outstanding actually. And you are very bright (even if you lapse once in a while and are a Republican) And in BO's case being chosen Editor of the Law Review means he too is quite bright. I understand your point that many of your classmates were clueless; but forgive them they are usually near the age of 25. Fifteen years later, I bet most of your classmates are bright, articlulate, informed, and accomplished (whatever form that may take). God (and hard work) gave them, and you, and BO higher intelligence than the average.

**On what do you base your assumption that Barry is so smart?**

Definitely higher than a low graduating person at Idaho or someone near the bottom of their class at Annapolis who was admitted on connections.

**You take cheap shots at McCain, yet I wonder what sort of heroism and sacrifice you could point out that Barry Obama has in his past? Anything to demonstrate he's not just an opportunist and an empty suit?**

Intelligence is not a prerequisite for higher office, but it would be nice if they were even above average.

Ginsburg was VERY dry. A cup of coffee before class was usually a good idea.

I never understood her position that "abortion rights" were a matter of the equal protection clause. As best as I could tell she was saying that because men didn't get pregnant from sex, women too had a right not to get pregnant from sex.

She and I knocked heads over National League of Cities vs. Usery and we didn't see eye to eye on the Equal Right Amendment

And I can tell you that her concern for States Rights in Bush vs. Gore was a first =========As for my classmates and their current level of understanding, I think my point still applies to quite a few of them-- especially those that, like BO, never worked in the private sector.

Definitely higher than a low graduating person at Idaho or someone near the bottom of their class at Annapolis who was admitted on connections.

**You take cheap shots at McCain, yet I wonder what sort of heroism and sacrifice you could point out that Barry Obama has in his past? Anything to demonstrate he's not just an opportunist and an empty suit?**

I am talking God given brain power "smart". BO is "smart", ask Crafty, only the "smart", actually the very "smart" get into Harvard Law and become Editor of the Law Review. BO is smart.

As for "cheap shots at McCain, it is a fact. The guy graduated very very near the bottom of his class at Annapolis. And for that matter he would never even have gotten in except for his Daddy. The guy is not smart; sorry, he's the one who is an opportunist. Except for his Daddy he would be no where. However to be fair, his experience is excellent and I think he is a good man. The issue on the table however is "smarts"; not if he is a nice guy.

As for his "heroism and sacrifice" what does that have to do with "smart"? I mean if he ran a four minute mile I would be impressed, but it has nothing to do with smart. As for sacrifice or not being an opportunist in an empty suit, again as Marc might confirm, graduating from Harvard Law as Editor of the Law Review gives you wonderful opportunities to make big money. BO didn't go for it; he chose to help people instead. I have a good friend, she was "only" third in her class at Berkeley Law School, clerked for an Appeals Judge for one year, and now at the ripe old age of 25 joined a firm downtown LA at $175,000 including a nice little bonus. Now she is bright, but she couldn't get into Harvard (she tried) so I guess that makes BO even brighter.

By the way, (separate subject) I have always been curious about the word "hero" and "heroism". I guess my definition is to do something extraordinary above and beyond your duty and what is expected of you to the benefit of another(s) at risk to yourself. Simply choosing to be a Policeman, Fireman, or soldier does not make you a "hero". I respect you, but a "hero" is someone who goes far and beyond their "usual" job. Following that logic, a soldier who dies on the battlefied or a policeman who is shot by a robber is not automatically a "hero". Nor is a roofer who falls off a roof and dies. Or an Iron Worker who falls and dies. They were doing their job; albeit all deaths are tragic. But the soldier, the fireman, the policeman, even the roofer or Iron Worker, the individual who goes above and beyond his job at great risk to his own life, now that is a hero to me. Nor does simply doing your job give you hero status. Or do you disagree? Or ?