From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:40:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.224208.27279@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#Not quite.  I stated that the candidate appeared to be chosen for reasons
}#other than expertise in the position in which she was selected.  And you
}#have managed to say such yourself.  See?
}
}I'm not sure I agree with this summary. Your origional article, which
}has expired on my system, seemed to imply that the head of DoE needs
}to be qualified in nuclear weapons, as does your summary above
}("expertise in the position she was selected"). I disagree with the
}fact that the DoE *needs* to be headed by such a person, and I don't
}think that Clinton's appointee is unqualified to be head of DoE. 

My original post, dated Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:32:57 GMT
===================================================================================
Pop test:
1. Rank the budget of DOE in decreasing order, with the biggest line item
first.  Now, by a sizeable fraction, what is the #1 item in the budget of the
Department of Energy?

2. What area does the Clinton nominee have absolutely no experience in?

hint:  If you had the same answer for #1 and #2, you win!

Question:  In you opinion, what conclusions may you draw from these facts
on the validity of the statement "get best qualified for the position"
posturing, and what is the likelihod that the decisive consideration was
NOT experience in the appointed position's functions?
===================================================================================

Do you care to re-evaluate your "summary"?

}Query:
}I got the impression from your first post that you thought that
}Clinton's appointee was unqualified to head DoE. Is that what you
}wanted to imply?

Nope.  I wanted to bring up the point that Clinton has considerations
OTHER than qualifications for the cabinet positions in selecting
his appointees. And the posturing by the various womens groups and the
immediate subsequent appointment of women candidates would not go against
that theory.

}#}#Neither your,
}#}#nor my, opinion counts.
}#}
}#}Gee, and I thought that the USA was a democracy. Silly me.
}
}#For FUTURE events, not what has already happened.
}
}As far as I am aware of, the topic is basically "what should the DoE
}be doing under the Clinton administration?" Is that not what you think
}we are discussing? 

That isn't what _I_ was discussing.  I didn't mention what DoE SHOULD
do, or WOULD do, but what it demonstratedly DID.

}#}If the DoD isn't in charge of purchacing battleships, who is? (or
}#}substitute "destroyers" if that makes you feel happy.)
}#
}#Is this suppose to be a topic change?
}
}Nope. You seemed to disagree with my statement that the DoE should get
}out of the nuke weapons building game by implying that the DoE was
}better than DoD for this purpose. I am trying to show that the DoD
}takes care of all the other weapons systems, and imho, should do the
}same with the nukes. Do we disagree with this? 

Could be.  How's this line of reasoning:
1. DoD is, and should be, under civilian control (you stated this)
2. DoE is under the control of the same person (statement of fact.
   They both report to the president of the united states)
3. The President of the United States is probably better informed on a specific
   topic which is directly relevant.  (probable, not certain)  His
   reasoning with that information does not agree with everyones
   (direct observation of statements made while campaigning)
4. Truman, the President of the United States, deliberately set up the
   manufacture of nuclear weapons to be handled outside of the DoD.
   (historic fact).  Given his information and authority, there is a
   likelihood that his opinion, which neither agrees with yours nor is
   (nor should be) so humble.

   I agree with him.  I think that putting the "doomsday weapons" totally
   under the control of one person who does not necessarily have national
   interests is an error.  Which is, by the way, the same reason I am
   glad that the biologicals are not totally under DoD control.  I am
   also, btw, in favor of the draft because I dislike the concept of
   having a military who individual alligence is to the military rather
   than have a large percentage who identifies with the civilian sector
   (from where they came, and to where they shall return). In my opinion,
   through observation of "military overthrows" throughout the world,
   I do not find a professional military the safest thing for a democracy
   to have around.  The civilian equivalents strike, but the military
   "strike" could be much less friendly.  As witnessed throughout the
   world.  And the idea of giving the total control in a vertical and
   horizontal monopoly to the said forces is, in my opinion, scarey.


BTW:  In your "nukes are the same as other weapons systems" - which others
are totally under the control of thge DoD that can devistate entire
continents?

}#}It is a bit of rhetoric, but Reagan basically gutted the DoE of most
}#}non-nuke activities. I'd like to see it return to something non
}#}defense department related. Let the DoD take care of it self.
}#
}#Ah, I see.  What you wish, not what is or even what you think is.
}
}Yea. What I wish for the DoE to do in the future, as I thought I was
}discussing. Why don't you SAY what YOU think we are discussing? It
}gets a lot easier that way.

Are you having comprehension problems?  I said:
>Question:  In you opinion, what conclusions may you draw from these facts
>on the validity of the statement "get best qualified for the position"
>posturing, and what is the likelihod that the decisive consideration was
>NOT experience in the appointed position's functions?

I did not say anything about what anything should do in the future.  If you
require additional explaination, let me know.