On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:25:07 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Ah, OK...so as long as intentions are basically good, then all's well. By
this
logic, anyone who wishes to offer the least criticism for, as an example,
Michael Brown and/or George Bush, must prove to an, um, metaphysical
certainty
that they had bad intentions for every factor that would affect that
criticism
or have that critique voided by the "but they didn't INTEND..."
rebuttal...

I must have missed the part where this actor was going to serve in a
mission-critical function like, say, head of FEMA. Could you elaborate?


I have no idea what actual legal duties the
Prothonotary in BC has, but if it does, I don't see how,
generally-speaking, a
person in an "IT job" would have legal training to qualify them for the
position
over, say, a notary (a "civil attorney" type notary, not a bank teller
with a
stamp and a pen), lawyer, paralegal, legal secretary, etc.

as the job is set up here, the Prothonotary is more or less the keeper of
all non-court related County records. Yes, in this day and age, IT
management can make for a much more modern and organized system of doing the
job. The normal occupant of said position is usually a person from a
well-connected family in need of a job, any job.

That brings us to the second point - this civic-minded IT guy isn't being
appointed, he's having to run, and if the people he intends to serve want
him to
serve regardless of his qualifications, then so be it.

I read your objections, such as you raise, to the Obama administration, and
both the trivial nature of the beefs, along with a general missing of the
whole changed nature of his political organization jump out at me. In fact,
I start hearing Bob Dylan in the background singing, "There's something
going on here, but you don't know what it is...."

Oh, hey, I freely admit I have no idea what the Obama administration is doing in
many instances...what concerns me is that they don't, either...

I do not claim, as of yet, that he or they are "incompetent," but rather, that
it is what concerned me all along: complete inexperience and lack of knowledge.
And you (and Ken and many of his other defenders) are correct when you address
some of the criticism _in isolation_ as small or "trivial" things. But when you
look at the entire spectrum, it adds up to indicating that the lack of
experience and knowledge is causing problems - so far, thankfully, most small
ones in the scheme of things. Will those things lacking matter in some dramatic
fashion? Impossible to say as it can only be commented upon after the fact.

TC,
R
Tom