OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...

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...."
Tom

Tom Littleton wrote:
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...."

At least as regards the Associate Director of Asian-American,
Pacific Islander and Arts Community in the Office of Public
Liaison, a position the Christian Science Monitor reports has
whopping $50K salary, our friend Rick is talking out his ass.

That sounds anatomically improbable until one realizes where
his head has been stuck. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Apr 9, 4:55*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
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...."

At least as regards the Associate Director of Asian-American,
Pacific Islander and Arts Community in the Office of Public
Liaison, a position the Christian Science Monitor reports has
whopping $50K salary, our friend Rick is talking out his ass.

That sounds anatomically improbable until one realizes where
his head has been stuck. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Just a cotton pickin minute here Ken, Rick is rightfully suspicious.
$50k for an appointee? Why if Kumar were a Republicrat . . .

He would be a front runner presidential candidate, quoting the Great
Dullard Raygun ad nauseam.
He could have been given a licence to steal in the civilian Iraq
Occupation Administration.
He would be in line for an ambassador slot in one of the countries of
the "Old Europe."
He would have a fat no bid contract to supply defective armor kits for
our troops.
He would have his own seat in the pet minorities seating section of
the Republicrat nominating carnival.
He could get an auction ticket for sloppy seconds on Gluckert after
dark in Rove's Whitehouse office.
He would have a Bush nickname . . . maybe something like "Kunta
Kinte," or maybe "Mathwhiz."
He would qualify for an autographed pair of Palin's $200 used
knickers.
He, his extended family, their friends and his girlfriends would never
serve in the U.S. Military, or Peace Corps.
He could get a seat in the Torture Theater, in the Old Exec Bldg, to
watch waterboarding live with Cheney and staff.
He would be spending money stolen by Bob Perry, that Texan fraud
artist who funded the Swift Boaters.
He would have an anonymous off shore banking account to hide his ill
gotten gains.
He would be twice as likely to cheat on his taxes if his income were
over $200k, than folks with less.
He would be currying favor with other losers by showing how much he
hated America.

Dave

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

On Apr 9, 7:40*pm, wrote:

Lets see: Obama gets to clean up 2 Bush wars, one massive Bush
depression, and root out thousands of feather bedded Liberty
University and other right wing diploma mill grads salted all over the
DOJ and other federal departments sitting on their asses, and these
Boo****s have the nerve to ride his ass over little ****? Typical
America hating crap from losers who correctly recognize that the
partisan gravy train of no-bid corruption and ****-our-troops-for-a-
dollar are OVER.

Dave

wrote in message
...
Will those things lacking matter in some dramatic
fashion? Impossible to say as it can only be commented upon after the
fact.


overall, I see a very human leadership, warts and all, that seems to be
doing an extremely competent, workmanlike job of plowing through a host of
problems(most brought on by gross incompetence of others, dating back
years).
Like I said, something is happening here, and it goes far beyond the
Administration, to the renewed focus of a larger part of the electorate on
the common good. A changed notion, if you will, of the role of the public in
government, and role of government in the functioning of society. Probably,
this is merely a pendulum-swing type of reaction to the Conservative swing
of the past several decades. But, focusing on minor issues with the
President's administration, while overlooking the ability to put some
competent folks into key roles, and value intelligent input, seems to be an
odd choice.Given the potential of Obama to tap into, for good purposes, that
new spirit and focus of the electorate, IMO, you could ponder more important
matters, without losing much sleep over the competence of the Obama team. As
they say, though, YMMV.
Tom

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:29:01 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Will those things lacking matter in some dramatic
fashion? Impossible to say as it can only be commented upon after the
fact.


overall, I see a very human leadership, warts and all, that seems to be
doing an extremely competent, workmanlike job of plowing through a host of
problems(most brought on by gross incompetence of others, dating back
years).
Like I said, something is happening here, and it goes far beyond the
Administration, to the renewed focus of a larger part of the electorate on
the common good. A changed notion, if you will, of the role of the public in
government, and role of government in the functioning of society. Probably,
this is merely a pendulum-swing type of reaction to the Conservative swing
of the past several decades. But, focusing on minor issues with the
President's administration, while overlooking the ability to put some
competent folks into key roles, and value intelligent input, seems to be an
odd choice.Given the potential of Obama to tap into, for good purposes, that
new spirit and focus of the electorate, IMO, you could ponder more important
matters, without losing much sleep over the competence of the Obama team. As
they say, though, YMMV.
Tom


Here's how I see it - I think most agreed that Obama could not possibly live up
to the ridiculous, unrealistic "hype" during the election cycle and immediately
afterward. So the fact that he didn't means little. Likewise, a fair portion
of the nonsense, ala "Beancounter" and his not being a US citizen, his being
some secret Muslim "terrorist," etc., was and is preposterous and ridiculous.

He did and does have fantastic potential, both personally and to tap into "the
public potential." But when he does things like nominate and champion Hillary
Clinton, Tim Geithner, and worse, Daschle, he demonstrates a lack of both common
sense and political savvy, not to mention "smarts." And then, he does plain ol'
amateurish **** like bowing to Abdullah, _with footage of it_, and then,
allowing/having his people make up **** about shaking hands with Shorty, or
having Jarrett hire Kumar as PL to Asian-Americans and the Arts and having his
people defend it by citing Kalpen's "International Security" college work, which
consisted of a coupla-few online classes, and now, as Ken posted, this dog
stuff. And then, the "surrogates" defend all of this amateur-hour shtick by,
yet again, going to the "OH, YEAH?! Well, BUSH BUSH BUSH CHENEY CHENEY
CHENEY!!!!" defense. Of course, none of the small stuff matters _as isolated
incidents_, but when viewed as a total, it's not promising. Look, if was and
ran as some "plain ol' guy" with good ideas, it would mitigate this stuff, but
he didn't - he ran as the super-sharp man with the plan.

Combine all this with the more serious "violations of trust" in all but ignoring
key campaign _promises_ (and thus placing them in the realm of typical "business
as usual" campaign "promises") such as "no lobbyists," "out of Iraq in 09,"
etc., etc. (which themselves were amateurish campaign promises that even his
one-time Dem rivals called as such), and I believe the criticism is warranted.
Can he pull up and out of it? Sure, and I hope he does. But he better pull
back on the stick pretty quickly or he's gonna hit a pretty big hill...

HTH,
R

On Apr 9, 5:23*am, wrote:

Ahhhhh. Don't think you Boo****s have much to brag on here. Lets get
real and stop just rewriting FOX scripts OK?
What was DeLay's former occupation? Bugger, right?
And Hastart? Sure nuff coach.
Wolfowizz?

Rick, do you really want to compare position for position Bush vs
Obama appointments? If you like we can, and lets include the
sanctions, indictments and jail terms for good measure. I will just
remind people just how incompetent and venal were the folks who you
uncritically supported in their every move, no matter how stupid, no
matter how unpatriotic, no matter how wasteful . . . for the last 8
years.

Dave

wrote:
"Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
The guy gives up a huge Hollywood salary and puts a highly
successful acting career on hold to take a low paying job
as a public servant and you *SMIRK* ? Well, doesn't that
just speak volumes.
while Ken's evaluation of his acting talent and career arc might be a bit
over the top, I get the same overall impression. What's to *smirk* about?

Hmmm...first, taking you two quasi-literally for just a second, he ain't exactly
Burton or Olivier, or even Brad Pitt or Owen Wilson. Also, depending on his
exact title, he ain't exactly making minimum wage in a DR to White House - he
could well be making 100-150K plus benefits, perqs, etc., etc. - granted, not a
"huge Hollywood salary," but it ain't washing windshields for spare change,
either.

As to Kalpin/"Kal Penn" himself, if he were a Danica McKellar type and the
position was as an education advocate, fair enough - hell, even he were Bono and
was appointed to the President's Advisory Board on Wearing Faggish Sunglassses
At Inappropriate Times - but this guy (and I've heard various versions as to
whether he even was graduated with a BA - some saying yes, some no) was a film
student, with (again, AFAIK) no serious work experience beyond acting and now he
is, in Obama's own words, helping keep "the front door of the White House"...

Long story short, ...
more drivel snipped

What leads you to believe that the guy is not qualified to be
an associate director in the public liaison office ? Besides
the vibrating antenna on your tinfoil hood ?

Like I said, you're just beancounter with a better vocabulary.
Every day it's a new smirk, a new snicker, some new proof that
Obama is a screwup and that electing him was a mistake. And
this from the guy who assured us that Shrub is actually a
pretty smart fellow and Sarah Palin's academic credentials are
every bit as impressive as Obama's.

After eight long years of rule by a party whose core tenet is
that government is incompetent (and who worked hard to prove it),
the smart folks are back in Washington. Smart folks are now
encouraged to pursue public service instead of being told that
public service is for the shmucks and losers.

Well, on this planet at least. I wouldn't know about things on
your planet.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:25:29 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
"Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
The guy gives up a huge Hollywood salary and puts a highly
successful acting career on hold to take a low paying job
as a public servant and you *SMIRK* ? Well, doesn't that
just speak volumes.
while Ken's evaluation of his acting talent and career arc might be a bit
over the top, I get the same overall impression. What's to *smirk* about?

Hmmm...first, taking you two quasi-literally for just a second, he ain't exactly
Burton or Olivier, or even Brad Pitt or Owen Wilson. Also, depending on his
exact title, he ain't exactly making minimum wage in a DR to White House - he
could well be making 100-150K plus benefits, perqs, etc., etc. - granted, not a
"huge Hollywood salary," but it ain't washing windshields for spare change,
either.

As to Kalpin/"Kal Penn" himself, if he were a Danica McKellar type and the
position was as an education advocate, fair enough - hell, even he were Bono and
was appointed to the President's Advisory Board on Wearing Faggish Sunglassses
At Inappropriate Times - but this guy (and I've heard various versions as to
whether he even was graduated with a BA - some saying yes, some no) was a film
student, with (again, AFAIK) no serious work experience beyond acting and now he
is, in Obama's own words, helping keep "the front door of the White House"...

Long story short, ...
more drivel snipped

What leads you to believe that the guy is not qualified to be
an associate director in the public liaison office ?

What leads you to believe he is...? Here's a rhetorical question for you - what
you have said if Bush (or more likely, someone had recommended to him as a
political move) had appointed someone with such a resume to such a post?

Besides
the vibrating antenna on your tinfoil hood ?

Like I said, you're just beancounter with a better vocabulary.
Every day it's a new smirk, a new snicker, some new proof that
Obama is a screwup and that electing him was a mistake.

Nope. It still remains to be seen what kind of POTUS he'll be, but yeah, thus
far, he does look every bit the rank amateur he is.

And this from the guy who assured us that Shrub is actually a
pretty smart fellow and Sarah Palin's academic credentials are
every bit as impressive as Obama's.

Er, no. What I said was, generally, that comparing resume to resume, Palin's
resume made her just as qualified as Obama. I don't recall saying much about
Palin's education (I don't even recall what it is beyond, IIRC, several so-so
schools to eke out a so-so degree) - I'd agree that Obama's academic
credentials exceed Palin's in all manner (even including time).

After eight long years of rule by a party whose core tenet is
that government is incompetent (and who worked hard to prove it),
the smart folks are back in Washington. Smart folks are now
encouraged to pursue public service instead of being told that
public service is for the shmucks and losers

Yet again, you show you don't know, and therefore, don't understand, the
difference between "intelligence" and "smart." Bush is, from an objective
standpoint, of above-average intelligence, and there's not much evidence that
"smart people" are in Washington, back or otherwise...much like Urbana, it
seems...

HTH,
R