to falsely paint Obama in a dictatorial light and to lend legitimacy to their kooky claims that the (democratic) process is being circumvented. The fact is these appointees are HEADS. And there's nothing shocking or circumventive about the concept; that's all in your mind. It's been a long-standing tradition to have heads--also called directors, chiefs, etc.--in charge of certain functions at various levels in all forms of government around the world. Obama is the duly elected president of the United States presently; he has a mandate and a *duty* to fix as much of the mess as humanly possible that was created by a moron from your home-state of TX, and if he chooses to enlist the assistance of others to help him tackle problem areas, such as healthcare, education, our infrastructure, the auto industry, our financial markets, or whatever, or if he feels certain areas such as the stock market need tighter supervision, that is his prerogative. You didn't expect one man to fix all the ills of this country by himself, did you? Or were you thinking Obama might have inherited a magic wand from his Kenyan father's tribe that he would just wave in the air and all of our problems would be fixed within a matter of minutes of his taking office??? Or are you one of these free-market lunatics who, despite all the evidence to the contrary we've witnessed lately, still believes the markets will take care of themselves and that the government has no