This is brilliant:
Former Sen. John Edwards said at a Hurricane Katrina conference he would propose what he called "Brownie's Law" requiring that qualified people, not political hacks, lead key federal agencies.
Edwards, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, drew laughter when he spoke on Monday of the proposal at the "Hope and Recovery Summit" ahead of the two-year anniversary of the storm on Wednesday."It's an absolute travesty to have people who are essentially political hacks in a very responsible position," he told the audience at the University of New Orleans.
"Brownie" refers to Michael Brown, who was head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency when Katrina struck the United States on August 29, 2005. He was criticized as being a political appointee unprepared to lead FEMA when a floundering government effort stranded thousands for days in flooded New Orleans.
He resigned shortly after President George W. Bush, who appointed him to the post, told him publicly, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" as chaos reigned in the devastated city.
It is moments like these that make me wonder why Edwards' isn't a frontrunner.
Meanwhile, its moments like these that make me wonder why Duncan Hunter is even still in the race:
Hunter, a U.S. representative from California, said Katrina had proven that "government is inept."He praised the efforts of average citizens to help storm victims, saying: "I see rising from the destruction of Katrina a new and profound appreciation for freedom."
I'd love to ask him about this.
If he believes government is so "inept," why is he so insistent that it lead the charge in "defending freedom" round the world? His website claims we need to give our national security agencies "the tools necessary to identify, track, stop and prosecute terrorists before they have the opportunity to strike." But if they are so inept, why bother? Wouldn't it be better to just let everyone fend for themselves?
If he believes government is so "inept," why is he so insistent that our federal government must do more to protect and defend our borders. His website claims that it is important that "our border enforcement agencies be provided with the necessary resources to ensure that we know both who and what are entering the country." But if they are so inept, why bother? Why not shrink government's role and let freedom take care of itself?
If he believes government is so "inept," why does he want to significantly expand its power to regulate gambling, pornography, and obscenity? Wouldn't it be better to get government out of the way so that we can all develop an appreciation for the diversity freedom will provide?
Hunter believes government is inept. And yet, if president, he would ask it to "protect" us from forces driven by some of mankind's most basic impulses: hatred, desperation, sexuality, addiction, and vice. Government is, in Hunter's vision, too inept to rebuild roads, schools, and houses, but it can conquer human nature just fine. It's as if these people aren't even trying to make sense anymore.
Always remember - the government isn't some abstract entity. It's not a machine. It's made up entirely of people, people just like you and me, and nothing more. If it is inept, it is only because we as a people have allowed it to become so. It doesn't have to be this way.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
