When the Smartest Bloggers Make the Dumbest Arguments

I generally give Roger Abramson's arguments credence, but not this time; this is so far beneath him that it is inexumable.

Seriously.  I have to be a "noted local economist" to blog my opinion on this bailout economy?  Do I also have to be a criminologist to blog my opinion on crime?  Do I have to be a Mayor to comment on the Mayor's office?  Or what about a chef or food critic to recommend a restaurant on Enclave? Maybe I need to go to law school to express my views on public policy.

Speaking of law, unless I am mistaken, Roger is a lawyer, which by his own logic doesn't make him a "noted local economist," even though he does exactly the same thing he's criticizing me for: blog on economics.

Seriously.  Roger looks here like he can't produce a coherent defense himself on why I am wrong in linking a view with which he disagrees.  So, he attacks the fact that I'm not an economist, something I've never claimed or pretended to be; even as I have opinions on the economy, just like Roger does.