Everyone knows the old saying that opposites attract, but rarely do two disparate stories so clearly illuminate the same point as two major news items over the past several days.  One is a tale of financial fraud, deception, and campaign cash; the other is the terrifying attempt of a bloodthirsty terrorist and the response of an incompetent government.

First, let's talk about money.  The story of financier Allen Stanford is the Dixie version of Bernie Madoff.  But the latest details in the Chronicle bring even more of the tawdriness into the limelight.  Not unexpectedly, it appears that Mr. Stanford was quite a prolific donor of campaign cash to politicians on both sides of the aisle — $2.3 million in all.  He hosted a wedding dinner for one Congressman; he donated tens of thousands to the both the Republican and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees.  He gave $100,000 to help elect George W. Bush; he treated other elected officials to "caviar, wine, [and] lobster" in "places like Montego Bay, St. Croix and Key Biscayne", the Chronicle reports.

His investments in government, unlike his financial defrauding scheme, paid out handsomely.  He opened a "controversial trust in Miami", "killed" a proposal that would have hurt his money laundering operation, thwarted efforts that would have strengthened tools to combat illicit funds transfers, and bribed regulators.

Disclosure:  I'm no expert in international finance.  I don't know if the measures against which he lobbied (and towards which he donated) were actually good, necessary, or just — many government attempts at "reform" are none of the above.  However, it appears that regardless of which party was controlling the agenda, Stanford was ready with cash, and he appears to have gotten his way.

Now, switching gears:  to terrorism, specifically the attempted Christmas Day Copenhagen-Detroit suicide bombing attempt.  Luckily, the attacker (who was somehow able to smuggle explosives onto the plane in his underwear) was thwarted by alert — and brave — passengers.  As it turns out, the US was warned about this would-be terrorist... by his own father.  The would-be bomber paid with cash, and he carried no baggage.  Yet while his name was on an official government list of suspected terrorists, he was not on the "no-fly" list, and his visa was not canceled (or apparently even reviewed).

Another disclosure:  I have been on the Department of Homeland Security "watch" list — I have a very common name, and apparently share a name with an alias of someone suspected of trafficking drugs (or something) between Mexico and the US.  This has resulted first in my getting detained for extra interrogation by Customs officials when arriving back in the US from traveling to Mexico, and eventually to my not being able to check-in online for flights domestically.  I was able to clear my name from the list (after I found out I was on it — the DHS doesn't tell you) and all is now well.  But if I can be flagged based on having a common name, how in the world can they not flag a suspected terrorist?

But it gets better (or worse, depending on your perspective).  In her initial discussion of the event, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano claimed that "the system worked".  So while a note from your dad is enough to excuse an absence at school, being a suspected terrorist, a note from your dad, and post-9/11 airport security measures are not only insufficient to prevent someone from blowing himself up on a flight, "the system" is considered to be "work[ing]" when that happens.  This can't be overstated:  while Sec. Napolitano and President Obama later admitted that there was a "mix of human and systemic failures", the first reaction of our government was to claim success.

So we have a corrupt kleptocracy enabling an alleged money-laundering thief in return for campaign cash and lavish luxuries on one hand, and on the other we have a bumbling bureaucracy neglecting to protect the safety of its citizens even when supplied with useful, actionable intelligence.  Two completely different circumstances, two epic failures.

Do we really want these people — these incompetent, corrupt politicians — in charge of our health care?