From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: "experience" ( was Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:28:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.175245.19695@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#I gave what I was specifically talking about from the beginning.  
}
}Well, for some reason, after about five of these exchanges, I *STILL*
}don't know exactly what your point it. 

How's this:  Clinton appears to be using criteria OTHER than "best with
experience of the department" for his cabinet-level appointees.
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.  To hypothesize
upon what criteria WERE used is fruitless and unverifiable.  Or at
least I think so.  It may be "to do future job", it may be "to fill
the quota", it may be "right number of letters in the name".

}#Nope.  Reread.  I did not say "qualified in quilding nukes", I said
}#"expereince" in the #1 budget line item for the appointed cabinet.
}
}For the record, will you please state exactly what is the #1 budget
}item is? My understanding is that it is building nukes, but this
}sentence implies it isn't.

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 am portraying EXACTLY what I said.  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.

BTW: You don't know WHAT it is GOING to do.  You may know what you want
it to do, what Clinton said he wants it to do, what the man-on-the-street
wants it to do, but you don't know.  We CAN determine what it HAS done.

}#I gave it in the first post, and I reposted it twice in the posting
}#I just made.  Why did you delete me quoting me, then ask for what I 
}#quoted?
}
}Because, as I explained, I don't find what you wrote to be clear. I'm
}asking you to rephrase yourself so it *IS* clear. You have now done
}so, if your position is that Clintons appointment is not qualified to
}run DoE. We now disagree on the qualifications are needed to run DoE. 

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.

}#Wanna bet? (hint: I do)  On the unclass side, how do you think that
}#greek ship got zapped by an antiaircraft missle?
}
}I was unaware that the Greek ship was hit by a nuclear weapon. Are you
}implying it does?

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

}#}Chemical weapons and biologicals.
}#
}#And are these 100% under the control (vertical and horizontal monopoly)
}#of the DoD? 
}
}I have no information that they aren't and do have information that
}the DoD is in charge of some of them. 

Correct.  "some of" is not absolute control over.  As an easily verifiable item,
check the Department of Health and the biological agents.

}#Have you noticed that there are political (nonmilitary) treaties being
}#made on all of these?  Seems to be a non-military control.  
}
}This seems a red herring. Was it an intetention one? The fact that the
}US military takes orders from the president, and is bound by treaties
}ratified by the US Senate does not detract from the fact that the
}military is responsible for the building and operation of air craft
}carriers. I see no good reason that the DoD should not do the same
}with nukes, 

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

}#I did not say "qualified", I said "experience".  Look at what you quoted.
}
}I don't consider the difference between "qualifications" and
}"experience" to be an important distinction in this issue. Do you? 

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

Can you differentiate between "observation or practice resulting in or tending toward
knowledge" and "a special skill that fits a person for some work or position"?

Experience is objectifiably verifiable at the present time, before the
particular job is done.  Qualified (for the job) is not as objectively
determined until after the job has commenced and performance can be
observed.  I gave evidence that can be objectively determined NOW.
You seem to want to talk about what might be sometime.  I don't.

}#And, weither you like it or not, the facilities for the production of nuclear
}#weapons is, and has been, the #1 item in the DoE budget.  You may, of
}#course, wish and dream whatever you wish, as long as you don't expect
}#these daydreams to be accepted as observable truths.  
}
}Since I never even implied it wasn't, this seems like nothing more
}than a gratitutious attempt at an insult. 

Interesting.  You keep claiming that the department IN THE FUTURE
(to use your caps), which seems a lot stronger than implied...
I recommend that you reread your paragraph which contains the words
"USED" and "GOING" in caps that you wrote just above.  Seems that
you not only implied, you stated as fact.

}However, you seem to be stuck thinking about the past. The cold war is
}over, and hopefully it will never come back. I'd rather have the DoE
}move on to more useful civilian tasks, and not be stuck (as it has
}been since Reagan) as simply a nuke building program.
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

}#Oh heck:  Are you saying that DoE shouldn't be responsible for cleaning
}#up its own mess, which is what it has been budgetting for years, and NOT
}#(as you acknowledge) production?
}
}Of course I'm not saying that the DoE shouldn't clean up the mess, but
}the DoE has more to do than simply clean up the mess. 

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

}And it doesn't REQUIRE an expert in
}building nukes to do that, as you seem to be claiming.

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

}#Then don't "correct" me for what YOU said. And the future is clearly what
}#YOU are addressing in your "IN THE FUTURE".  Your problem, not mine.
}
}The problem is that YOU claim that the current choice to head the DoE
}is NOT qualified, because they aren't an expert in building nukes. And
}I am trying to correct that.

I have NEVER said "qualified", I have said "experience in".  If you are
going to use quotes, quote.

}I find it amusing that you consider trying to think of the future to
}be "my problem".

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.)



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex