From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: "experience" ( was Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:51:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.210220.21888@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}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. 

I have no information on what it WILL do, so I shall only make verifiable
statements on its past, documented, behavior.

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

As you pointed out, the candidate has no experience in the primary
task of the DoE.  Q.E.D.

}#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.

That is nice.  However, what you think may be debated but is not verifiable
as an actuality.  You may be wrong.

}#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? 

For one, have you checked upon the historic correlation between the
public statements of candidates and their subsequent actions?
For instance, when Clinton was running for governor of arkansas last time,
he promised to stay.  I guess you can see how well that statement
correlates with his subsequent actions once elected.

}#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.

You also claim to know what they do NOT do i.e. have not "built nukes" for,
to your information, approximately two years.  Yet, that is still the #1 budget
item.  The obvious conclusion is that the $ is spent for something
else, right?

}#}#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. 

So you would rather discuss what you think rather than what you acknowledge 
was what I said.  The blame for your tangent does, therefore, not rest
with me.

}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.

And the Easter Bunny helps the Tooth Fairy. Santa Clause said so.
When I see the documentation of the actions, then it will be a fact
worth discussing.  Until then, it is, at best, a campaign promise
suitably cataloged.


}#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.

That's nice.

}#We can determine what it HAS done.
}
}But that is not relavent when the job is changing.

And how do you show that?

}#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.

Ah, but they do.  In your case, they make you wrong.

}#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?

Nothing.  It has to do with the question that you directly asked.  I DO happen
to know nucweps, and will not discuss them further.  I will be glad to, upon
your direct questions, talk about the firing sequence (as published in the newspaper)
for the anti-aircraft missle that was fired at the NATO member ship.

}#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. 

And I propose that that difference is why they should be treated differently.
You, I, and cattle are all carbon-based organic systems.  I hope that
McDonalds treats us differently.

}#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. 

Then why did you consistently do so?

}# 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.

Other than a campaign promise, please provide concrete evidence that
this IS occurring.

}#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.

Oh, really?   When the President says something, you believe it 100%?
That is a little, but not much, better than when a candidate campaigning
says it.  BTW:  Clinton isn't President yet.

}#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. 

You state "stop making" AND you state "hasn't made for years".
You did not say "geared up to make".

}#Correct - however, the budgetary items are further down the list.
}#The facilities are the #1 concern, displayed by the $$$.
}
}Please post these numbers then. 

And why would you believe me?  You haven't for anything else.  Tell you
what.  If you think something else is so important, post its relative
position.

}#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.

Aristotle would have been very frustrated with you.  Why not look into
how you should get someone ELSE to reach a conclusion.  Assume that
they will dispute anything that you say, hence you must get THEM to
state the relevant facts and arrive at the conclusions independently.

}#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.

Excuse me for having reality intrude.  Fact:  it isn't happening.

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

Really?  And upon what do you base this?

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

I'd like sodawater fountains on the moon.  That's nice.

}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.

Right.  There is, of course, a 100% correlation between what he has
said and what he has done, and what he has not said and what he has
not done.  NOT.

}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. 

Interesting.  "Rational discourse" does not include observable facts
independently verified but does include candidate campaign promises
and private wishes.  Odd.  In that case, I do not wish to do your
version of "rational discourse".  That isn't what my "rational
discourse" is like, though.  I don't include wishes and empty promises.  
I much prefer objectively verifiables.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush