I'm trying to figure out if Tim Geithner was held accountable for his leadership at the NY Federal Reserve. I dont think so. The Fed under Greenspan took responsibility for the fall of the banking system. What was Geithner doing for $398,000 a year?

KEngelhart, people are not, and never will be, equal. Men and women are not equal. They are equally capable, and when they are created, they are created "equally capable," but they are not equal.

We do not need to "get away from this idea of idea that some people are 'leaders,' and embrace the belief in equality." That form of equality discriminates against talent and ability.

In saying there should be no prestige, you are saying there should be no risk. Because taking risks without rewards is simply foolish. Humans recognized that before there was any philosophy of governance, corporation, or executive power.

What has happened is that with the free flow of information, we've been able to push our leaders to more dramatic levels of invulnerability. However, they are still just people and can still suffer humiliation when they fail to use the information effectively.

You need to recognize that what makes a person a "leader" today is their invulnerability. You never get to be a leader if you are vulnerable. We need to get away from this idea that some people are "leaders," and embrace the belief in equality. These jobs are just different, and there should be no prestige, public or private, to doing the top job in an organization. Any special resources needed to do those jobs should be corporate property and belong to the shareholders.

No one is infallible. Any person and any institution can make a mistake. One of the differences between weak people and strong ones is that the former is incapable or unwilling to admit a mistake. Former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney were weak; their way of compensating for it was to be arrogant, closed-minded, secretive, and unyielding.

President Obama is not unflawed: his decision to pick people who had serious tax issues was not wise and he incorrectly assumed that violating his own ethics rules was all right. But what separates President Obama from his predecessor and so many of his predecessor's underlings is that he was willing and able to admit his mistake. His candor and self-confidence tell me the man is decent and strong. My only complaint about his statement is that he used language that is unbefitting his position as president. A more conventional statement ("I made a serious mistake") would have been better. In this respect I agree with Ms. Kellerman.

But I do not agree with Ms. Kellerman's idea that there was indignity involved in the change "from riding high to eating humble pie." In fact, the reverse is true: President Obama rose above insecurity and arrogance to admit his mistake. By doing so, he showed he was more accountable---and more of a man---than his predecessor.

I'm grateful that we now have a president I can be proud of.

To CALCYON:

A common myth perpetuated by many people (particularly non-Catholics) is that the Pope is infallible. However, there is absolutely no basis for this opionion.

The Pope, like everyone, is flawed. Papal infallibility only applies to Church doctrine. So that when the Pope utters or writes something pertaining to doctrine or Catholic interpretation, infallibility is assumed.

We actually have a president who admits his mistakes. I know you Kewl Kidz are having a blast ridiculing him for things that look insignificant and petty next to the scandals and outrages attached to certain Bush appointees (remember Michael Mukasey, anyone?), but the rest of us are appreciative.

As for Pope Benny, well, old Nazis stick together, don't they? I still find it appalling that a man who was once a member of the Hitler Youth is now considered "infallible." Yeah, yeah, yeah, he was forced to, he was just a teenager, whatever. No man, or boy, is ever forced to sell his soul.

The Pope is the leader of the Roman Catholic Chruch. He speaks for the RCC god, who is not the God of the Bible. It makes perfect sense for the RCC to deny the Holocaust. They've been denying the Jesus of the Bible for centuries.

The pope is the head of the first institutional church of Christianity, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and you, my dear are a HERETIC! And a SLANDERER, to boot! I'm just using a definition as defined, though I'm an apostate, myself. The rest are your opinions, dear commentator, you and your God, gods or whatever monstrosity you believe in. But I will not stand here and tolerate your slander that the Roman Catholic Church denies the holocaust. IT NEVER DID! WITHDRAW YOUR SLANDEROUS COMMENT. Now if you want to talk about the finer points of history regarding views of the holocaust among Christians, be my guest.

I misspelled the word ex cathedra, literally, from the chair, when the Roman Pontiff declares a theological teaching as leader of the church and binds the whole church to that teaching..so far, 2 INFALLIBLE ones since the 1870's. Just to point out the IGNORANCE of people regarding papal infallibility. Still, a load of bullcrap, but that's just me...an apostate. ;-)

The Pope is the leader of the Roman Catholic Chruch. He speaks for the RCC god, who is not the God of the Bible. It makes perfect sense for the RCC to deny the Holocaust. They've been denying the Jesus of the Bible for centuries.

So much for the infallability of the Pope--one of the basic teachings of the Catholic Church...

Posted by: greatscott47 | February 9, 2009 2:56 PM

The infallibility of the pope is a much misunderstood dogma among X'tians and others. Infallibility as a dogma only covers doctrines/dogmas defined by the councils(e.g. The Nicene Creed as defined by the Council of Nicaea...incidentally, the last Council, Vatican II had no teachings covered by this)..And FYI, only two dogmas have been declared infallible, that is, when the pope speaks ex chathedra, The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception (w/c has been a traditional view of the Church since its inception, anyway) in 1870 and the Dogma of the Marian Assumption (Body and Soul into Heaven, also, a traditional belief since the apostolic times)..THAT'S IT...2..TWO!!! since the 1870's. Which means, dear readers that teachings of the pope/councils on gay people, contaceptives, non-female clergy and the recent brouhaha..are NOT INFALLIBLE. Remember that before you make that FALSE ASSMPTION about papal infallibility. As an aside, I don't believe in all that bullcrap, anyway...I was baptized a Catholic, am gay and now an atheist whose sole purpose is love and betterment of my fellow men in all things I do. Still, I will be buried in a Catholic ceremony when I die..I just cannot do without those rituals..ha,ha!

greatscott47 -- The pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. Otherwise, he's just as fallible as any other human being.

Many thanks for the opportunity to correct your confusion.

So much for the infallability of the Pope--one of the basic teachings of the Catholic Church...

I'd agree with your sentiments on the Pope if he really WAS being forced to backtrack.

Whether you agree with whatever stances he has or not, the simple facts are:

-he lifted an excommuncation on multiple people (not just this one nutcase holocaust denier)
-the excommunications had nothing to do with Williamson denying the holocaust in the first place
-forcing Williamson to recant his obtuse and inflammatory statements, lest he be bounced like a drunk at a bar, also has nothing to do with the prior excommunication, and therefore is not backtracking... just being stand-up in the face of dissension within the ranks and badness.

Simply put, the Pope had no obligation to keep this guy in a position of clerical power upon being redeemed by the Vatican, and the guy is certainly giving Benedict little reason to let him stay. Benedict obviously didn't come down on the guy fast enough (I guess proof positive that they're not up to speed with the GIMME-IT-NOW FoxNews/CNN/BBC speed-of-light news media), but people need to back off now that it's been made abundantly clear no one has any patience for this guy's nonsense which has apparently been going on for years. Give him the boot! :)

I have no problem with Barbara "presum(ing) to teach the Pope"

Assumign the selections of poor candidates was unintentional, Cardinal Richelieu, err, Ratzenberger, ahem, Pope Benedict made the same stupid mistake that Mr Obama did. He delegated the selection process to incompetent underlings and failed to use well-known management principles to ensure they were doing the right thing.

Of course if they both knew ahead of time that the selections were flawed, and choose to let them go through anyway, then they both deserve the bite marks on their buttocks.

In so many ways, you'd think the Church could've done the right thing if only their leaders had sought God's counsel instead of acting impulsively.

And for Barbara’s next trick she will walk on water. Obama did not cheat on his taxes Daschle did. President Obama did something that President Bush was unable to do he listened to the American people. Daschle was chastised for his indiscretion not by President Obama but by Daschle who withdrew his nomination.

Barbara your “sky is falling” scare tactics no longer work. Next time try using intelligence.

Please feel free to criticize politicians. We know not whether you are Catholic, but when you presume to teach the Pope, you are out of your league. We fully expect your next piece to be "When will God ever learn that we're going to have things OUR way!??"

Barbara, Get a freaking clue. Coloradodog is absolutely right. We now have a grownup man with integrity as President and you are criticizing him for dealing with the problem in an honest manner and making an assumption-your assumption-that he was eating humble pie. WRONG. President Obama looked like a very smart man comfortable in his own skin and secure enough to admit a mistake--no more no less--Get over your pretentious inaccurate political juvenile political analysis and start practicing journalism. This country needs honest journalism again.

You got it all wrong Barbara when you wrote.
"Apart from the indignity of the phrase, there was the indignity of a man who had morphed nearly overnight from riding high to eating humble pie."

Only closed minded neocons and neochristians think there is "indignity" of admitting mistakes or "eating humble pie" After too many years of abuses and denials from the Cheney administration, Obama's character to stand up and admit he made a mistake like a man is real refreshing and exactly what this country needs. We don't need any more mealy-mouth, sniveling "Christian" Bushisms like "mistakes were made.