From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:16:15 GMT

James Meritt writes:
#Do you care to re-evaluate your "summary"?

No. Do you care to answer any of the clarifying questions I had to
your position? Cause you didn't answer them in this last post.

#Nope.  I wanted to bring up the point that Clinton has considerations
#OTHER than qualifications for the cabinet positions in selecting
#his appointees. 

"There you go again!"

You are assuming that the head of the DoE needs to be be qualified in
building nukes, since when someone who has qualifications other than
that is appointed, you talk about them having qualifications OTHER
than for the post they are nominated for.

FOR THE SECOND TIME: Your posts seem (to me at least) to be implying
that Clintons nominee is not qualified for the position of DoE. Is
that the postition you are trying to portray? Don't bother reposting
anything, please answer yes or no.

#That isn't what _I_ was discussing.

Then please SIMPLY list the point that you think that you are
discussing. 

#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.

As far as I can tell, your second sentence isn't a sentence, so I
don't know what you mean by it. If it mean what I think it means, my
impression was that the DoE was origionally given the task of making
the nukes for security reasons, and now that everyone knows we have
nukes, that isn't much a reason to continue.

#   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.  

But the these weapons AREN'T totally under the control of one person.
To the best of my knowledge (not having direct experience with these)
several different officials/officers need to agree for these weapons
to be used. A situation I agree with.

#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?

Chemical weapons and biologicals.

#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.

You are implying that the Clinton appointee is not qualified to lead
the DoE since the DoE IN THE PAST mainly made nukes, ignoring that the
DoE IN THE FUTURE will have other tasks. 

Yes, I know quite well that you did not say anything about future
events. I'm pointing out that I consider that an error.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65474 alt.sex:40340