NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/politics/misc/65567

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 7.7 KB | 191 lines

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w
From: [e-mail] (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: "experience" ( was Re: Department of Energy nominee
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:02:20 GMT
Lines: 178

James Meritt writes:
#How's this:  Clinton appears to be using criteria OTHER than "best with
#experience of the department" for his cabinet-level appointees.

Ok, that is your position. Fine. I think your position is wrong. If
you want to modify your position to

Clinton appears to be using criteria OTHER than "best with experience
of what the department used to do" for his cabinet-level appointees"
then I'll agree with you.

However, you are clearly implying that Clinton is appointing someone
without the experience needed to run the DoE which I disagree with.

#This was shown by selecting one department, showing what its primary
#concern (as exhibited by its budget) is, and then that the appointee
#has no (zero) experience with that specific item.


However, this assumes that the experiance needed to run (note the
tense) is the same as was the department used (again not the tense) to
do. I do not think that this is a valid assumption.

#To hypothesize
#upon what criteria WERE used is fruitless and unverifiable.

Oh? Why can't I listen to the public statements of Clinton and the
nominee?

#There is more involved than building them.  As you mentioned, they have
#not built any for years, yet there is still that item in the budget.
#You know, because I got YOU to tell ME.

I don't know what the line item says, cause I never looked. I know
what they do though.

#}#The individual does not have experience
#}#in the main line of work on the position appointed.
#}
#}In the line of work the the position USED to have, agreed. In the line
#}of work the position is GOING to have, I disagree. The issue isn't
#}what the DoE USED to do, but what it is GOING to do.
#
#That may be YOUR issue, but that isn't what I said.  Nor is your
#position verifiable at the moment.  AS an aside, "the job will change"
#IS another criteria that may be considered.

I know it wasn't what you SAID, but then again I think what you said
is misleading. I now think that you INTEND to mislead, or that you
made a statement with poor wording, and are now stuck defending
yourself.

You are stating that the candidate does not have the experience to run
the DoE.

The correct statement is that the canidate does not have the
experiance to run the DoE IF THE DoE IS TO BE RUN AS IT WAS IN THE
PAST. It won't be. Clinton said so.

#BTW: You don't know WHAT it is GOING to do.

I don't know the future, correct. I heard Clinton talk about what he
wanted the DoE to do, and thought that the candidate DID have the
experience to do the job Clinton said.

#We can determine what it HAS done.

But that is not relavent when the job is changing.

#Why do you keep saying that I am wrong, then use the word "qualified"
#that I didn't use?  If you disagree with me, disagree with what _I_
#say, don't disagree with what YOU say then claim that I said it.

Well, since you agree that there is no difference between the use of
the two words, does it matter? It was a minor mistake to use
"qualified" instead of "experience". Simply consider the term
modified. My arguements don't change.

#No.  I would like you to look at the launch processes.

Why? What does that have to do with the experience of Clinton's DoE
appointee?

#So you do not differentiate between "aircraft carrier" and "nuclear weapon"?
#Interesting...

They are both weapons/weapon systems. I never said that they didn't
have differences.


#That is what I said.  If you do not consider them different, please
#quit using YOUR word and attributing it to me.

That is a trivial point. Use whatever word you want. Doesn't matter to
me.

# I gave evidence that can be objectively determined NOW.
#You seem to want to talk about what might be sometime.  I don't.

However, if the "evidence" is for something that the DoE won't be
doing (as much), it isn't relavent.

#Seems that
#you not only implied, you stated as fact.

It is what Clinton said. He talked about the new role for the DoE when
he announced his nomination. When the President says he want's an
agency to change, it's a good bet that it will change.

#As you pointed out, it hasn't been one for years.

2 years out of the last 40. Big deal. There is large pressures to get
it back producing nukes again, as soon as the environmental problems
at Rocky Flats are fixed.

#I request that you keep your story straight.  How can you be expected to
#get your insistance on the properties of the future when you seem to be
#unable to keep the present straight within your own posts?

Just because you wish to think that I'm confused, doesn't mean that I
am confused. I'm not. Just because the DoE hasn't made any nukes for a
relatively short period of time doesn't mean that the DoE (as set up
under Reagan) isn't geared to make them, which is what I've been
claiming.

#Correct - however, the budgetary items are further down the list.
#The facilities are the #1 concern, displayed by the $$$.

Please post these numbers then.

#No, YOU are the one with the fixation on "building nukes".  I have never
#made such a claim.

No, you just toss out rhetorical questions like "what is the number 1
line item" and then when I say "nukes" you go onto the next thread.
You don't state clearly what your points are, that way you can say "I
never made such a claim" even though I ask you several times. Jim, you
are damn frustrating to have a discussion with, cause you seem to want
to win a verbal sparring match over clearly stating your argument.

#You seem to have a problem with it, yes.  In particular, telling it from the
#past and the present.  And differentiating between what you have stated
#as fact and your wishes (example:  The DoE has not built nuclear weapons
#for years, you have said that yourself, yet you continue to espouse a
#desire that they stop building them.)

Jim, you are getting close to having me tell you to fuck off. I am not
confused about fact and my wishes. The DoE under the last three
administrations has had its major job to be building nukes. That
doesn't stop being try simply because they haven't built any for
2/12ths of that time. Don't accuse me of having a problem with reality
over something as chickenshit as that.

The DoE is currently in the business of building nukes, EVEN THOUGH
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES HAS CAUSED A TEMPORARY STOPPAGE OF THIS ACTIVITY.


I'd like the DoE to get OUT of the business of making nukes.

From what Clinton has said, the DoE will be emphasing new alternatives
for Energy production, and given the lack of his mentioning building
nukes, it is easy to conclude that building nukes will be of lower
importance to the DoE in the future.

I also think that you simply want to slam Clinton over this issue,
accusing him of appointing inexperienced people, and will continue
your pedantry no matter what logic is presented, using as your
fallback position  "But you don't know what WILL happen, you can only
guess", which means no rational discourse can come of this.

I also know you must have the last word in, so go ahead. I'm done
replying. Have the last word to your hearts content.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w