From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: "experience" ( was Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:52:45 GMT

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. 

#Don't pretend that it is what
#I was, though.  Why did you erase it?

The reason I erased it was because it seems to be ambigious to me. I
wish clarification. Repeating something that I already said I found
ambigious does not help clarify things to me.

#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.

#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.

#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. 

#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?

#}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. 

#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, and I regard that ever since Regean's gutting of the non
nuke portion of the DoE, the major function of the DoE is to make the
military budget look smaller than it really is, since people don't
generally add in the money the DoE spends on nukes to be when counting
the amount of money spent on weaponry. Which is a different issue than
the qualifications needed to run DoE.

#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? 

#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. 

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.

#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. Find an expert
on cleaning up such messes, make them an assistant, have them clean up
the mess, while the head of the DoE is figuring out the hopefully
positive new steps for the agency. And it doesn't REQUIRE an expert in
building nukes to do that, as you seem to be claiming.

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




--
-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:65866 alt.politics.homosexuality:8688