"Call the insurance industry and say you want to buy insurance!" he countered. "And they'll tell you with their quotes just how much they think there's a risk!"

Take THAT! How DARE you argue with the pricing judgment of property insurance underwriters?!?

In all seriousness, obviously high-profile facilities such as the Mall of America deserve federal anti-terrorism funding.

But I agree with Mayor Bloomberg that Uncle Sam should examine all applicants for terrorism prevention grants with the discerning eye of a property insurance underwriter. Invest the money where there is the greatest risk and this country will be a lot safer. Play politics by delivering "pork" to constituents, and we're looking at another 9/11--or worse if WMDs are involved.

Will Democrats in Washington be better risk managers than their macho Republican counterparts? They couldn't be worse.

If you recall, Republicans campaigned on the bogus notion they would protect you more vigorously against terrorists. This from the same crowd that ignored gaping security breaches at ports, power plants and chemical facilities, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and renew the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

So far, Democrats seem determined to address the most glaring terrorism exposures, including those facing The Big Apple. That's good politics as well as excellent risk management.

***

On an unrelated topic, I want to apologize to readers of our Online News Service for a lapse in news judgment.

On Jan. 5, we reported that Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland had named a member of the Columbus City Council--Mary Jo Hudson--to be the new insurance director. Pretty routine, right? Well, we blew it by headlining the article, "Ohio Gets First Openly Gay Insurance Director," making her personal life the thrust of the story.

We received angry letters from readers challenging the relevance of Ms. Hudson's sexual preference as far as regulating insurance goes. Those readers are absolutely correct.

Ms. Hudson's personal preference is no secret--it was reported prominently by a wide array of news organizations, including at least one of our competitors. But in retrospect, I've decided that while our story was accurate, that doesn't make it right.

Sometimes journalists instinctively go for the provocative aspect of a story to get the most attention. But at times we step over the line, and this is such a case.

I apologize not only to readers, but to Ms. Hudson for making an issue out of an aspect of her personal life with no bearing on her job as insurance commissioner. We wish her luck, and thank readers for calling us to account. We count on you to keep us on our toes.