[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

So you believe and Brownie and his minions did a great job with Katrina? Adequate job? What?

This is actually exactly what I'm railing against. Maybe I'm not being clear, so I'll explain further.

My basic point is twofold:

1 - You're assigning massive blame to Bush for something that was nearly entirely out of his control (in multiple senses, including: act of God, literally singular in nature/scope/scale, actions of others overrode his actual role, etc.); and

2 - You're hand-wringing without giving any context, which because of #1 brings us the problem with tautology (by this I mean, I'd prefer if we got into specifics instead of saying "too slow" or similar).

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

And that only those with professional/specialized knowledge are entitled to an opinion which is not "meaningless tripe"? As far as I know, you have no professional/specialized knowledge in this area, so does your response now count as nothing?

My comparison was between your opinion and Bush's stated opinion, which you seem to feel rather strongly about. My opinion of your opinion (LOL) is based in an education in formal logic, etc., so I would hardly call it "uninformed" but yes, my opinion of Katrina would largely be regurgitated from media reports and my own biases, and wouldn't add much to the conversation. Hence, I didn't give it.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't give yours - feel free.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I would be interested in what criteria you are using in defending the response to Katrina. Maybe you have some information I do not, and that would inform my opinion. I doubt it, but am always open to having to change my opinion. We are perhaps using a different definition of "adequate" for the federal response.

I mean, this is what I'm getting at - I'm sure there were mistakes made, and clearly it doesn't appear to be the most efficient from the outside, but I'm not sure why we expected a seamless operation out of a.) the Federal Government and b.) something that's never really happened before, ever.

In that regard, it seems silly to make sweeping judgment of the man.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

No, Bush is not responsible in the sense that he made every decision, but he is in the sense that he appointed those who were. The buck stops with him.

It's fair if you feel like this, but I respectfully think it's pie-in-the sky and not really true.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

As to whether or not professional/specialized knowledge is required to judge the federal government's actions, I'd have to defer to C.S. Lewis, who famously said that the problem with allowing only those in a field to judge is that you then have to decide the criteria for who is entitled to an opinion. I don't have specialized/professional knowledge in foreign affairs, or finance, or a host of other aspects of the government. That does not mean I am not fully able to judge the actions of my elected representatives. Using your logic, almost none of us should be able to have an opinion regarding almost anything other than our limited professional/specialized field of knowledge.

I'm really not interested in telling you NOT to have an opinion, and if that's what you got from my previous post, well we're not really rowing the same boat.