On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:59:34 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:59:05 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:50:34 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:07:03 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:20:40 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:08:32 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:29:35 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:46:06 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:17:11 -0500, wrote:


DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either
but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became.
I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what
happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started
up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was
they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws.

Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total
nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly
involved profit.

No it was bad because it was an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of
an already redundant layer on an agency that was working well.

According to you. So, no coordination among the disparate groups is
needed?? That's what you're claiming...


Make up your mind, you started out saying we needed this omnibus
bureaucracy to regulate a small sector of the energy business that
runs nuclear reactors and now you are talking about disparate groups?
What groups?

There were two agencies that were disbanded. They, along with several
others were combined. For some reason you think that represents
terrible bloat.

That may be what you learned in your civics class but I was there. The
AEC was still there (in a big building in Germantown Md). ERDA was a
new office with a bunch of new bureaucrats in Rockville Md that sat
over AEC. When DoE was started it was yet ANOTHER office in DC that
sat over both previous bureaucracies. The difference was the old AEC
people now had two more levels of management above them who knew very
little about what they did and chipped away at their allocation of the
pot of money.

Come on. I made a statement of fact. Published fact. You can claim you
know more, but it doesn't mean much when compared to the published
facts.

What "fact"? Disbanded only meant they got different stationary. I
guarantee you the building and all the people in it were still there.
They just lost some of their autonomy to decide what they should be
regulating.

You sure are an expert in so many things! Esp. when the published
facts don't match your view.

I know what I saw.

Well, let's see... say I walk down a street and I see a mugging. Do I
then conclude that all streets have muggings on them? That seems to be
what you're saying...because you saw something that means it happens
everywhere.

This is simpler than that. You said AEC was disbanded and I said it
never went anywhere, nobody lost their job, they just got a new
"agency", and then layer a "department" above them.

Something is simpler, but I'm not going to say what.


I also seem to understand government jargon better than you. Maybe it
is because I grew up around it, most of my friends worked there for
their whole career and I worked there for 15 years.
It you want to talk about the patent attorney business I will deter to
your experience.

What gov't jargon? Seems to me you're speaking regular English (more
so that some people in fact)

Things like agency and department. They have distinct meanings and
different political connotations. It is not the Webster definition.

Whatever. That's not jargon, but feel free to be the king of it
whatever you want to call it.


A cynical person might say that confusion actually disrupted the AEC
oversight and allowed TMI ... but I don't think there was that much
oversight in the first place.

So, there should be less?


There was less

Things are a bit more complicated now. Perhaps we should go back to
the regulations in place before the 1920s.

In some cases, maybe we should.

Which cases? Like extreme poverty, no safety net, terrible food
safety, etc., etc.

Changing the subject again?

You commented, I replied. Sorry if you don't like the reply. Next time
don't talk about the 1920s.



Why should the agency that regulates the safety of our nukes have to
live under the same bloated bureaucracy that is promoting the
collection of methane from cow farts?

So, therefore, remove it. No way to fix something right? That's your
argument?

I don't think you fix anything by increasing complexity. Keep it
simple.

?? Making it more simple doesn't not equate to removing something.

It also does not equate to putting more management overhead on top of
an agency that was working just fine.

It's not clear it was "working fine." That's your interpretation
that's unsupported.

We were not having plant melt downs when AEC was regulating them.

Which melt down is that? I can think of 3-mile island...

Here's list. You pick...

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

Maybe the government can't be trusted with nukes

Haha... so, give them to Haliburton.


I guess AEC just did a better job of covering it up.
You win


I haven't won or lost anything. That's a guy's game.