BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Suggest new topics here

SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE

Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Don Cook named acting NNSA administrator

Don Cook named acting NNSA administrator:

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2013/05/neile-miller-announces-her-dep.html#more

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a gift for llnl. Cook is regularly used as a whipping boy by some LLNL managers who revel in disparaging him and his intellect. Now they can continue to do so even more. Hate is a nasty business. But LLNL seems to be the market leader for it. Hopefully cook becomes full appointed administrator. Then those managers can really have a rip roaring time tearing him down from behind the fence surrounding that one square mile.

When you face other bigger problems, what better way to deal with it than to create an enemy, demonize him in front of your employees, and get those war drums beating and all the employees in a frenzy of bloodthirsty revenge.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Don will help LLNL workers and get rid of abusive managers.

Anonymous said...

The lawsuit and EEOC complaint is enough to make your case Don.
http://www.contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=1259

Anonymous said...

I think Parney is there to do his part in taking out the trash and cleaning up the lab.

Anonymous said...

Read Miller's departure letter. If she was working with "creative professionals," she couldn't have been referring to NNSA. Furthermore, this "enterprise" jargon is nonsense. NNSA is just a useless bureaucracy.

Anonymous said...

Yeah the sponsor/customer is stupid. They are also supposed to prevent the labs from getting away with shenanigans. But NNSA is bad because they are ineffective in curbing lab shenanigans. So say the labs. It's all NNSA's fault that they can't root out the criminal mentality at the labs.

Anonymous said...

The labs employees, particularly non-exempt need greater labor protections and stronger union laws. If NNSA can't stop the abuses then the unions might be able to squeeze management.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't Don Cook remind you Mr. (Fred) Rogers? "A little National Ignition Facility in the neighborhood"...... Won't you be my friend Livermore?"

Anonymous said...

Don Cook, Chris Deeney, Jeff Quintenz. All former managers of the pulsed power program at Sandia. All involved in experiments on the Z machine. All tangled with Livermore over the exaggerated claims about NIF.
Livermore is screwed.

Anonymous said...

LLNL Lawrence Livermore Nonstop Liars. That is their reputation. Going to take decades to undo that one.

Anonymous said...

These NNSA administrators have been lied to far too often by LLNL. They should require EVERYTHING in writing and with other lab officials present as witnesses.

Anonymous said...

You know how those NNSA administrators can take revenge on the lab in the most vicious, brutal and cruel way?

They could force an EXTERNAL INDEPENDENT REVIEW of their LASER EOS and MATERIAL STRENGTH PROGRAMS

ouch

Anonymous said...

No mas! No mas! Mercy mercy! Please no!!! Independent external review!!!!! Please no!!!

Anonymous said...

That's exactly what we need. After all, LLNL people have been claiming for the last decade that NNSA administrators are not intelligent. If that's the case, we can't possibly let them be the judge of anything. Better get an independent external review to go through everything including the analysis of raw data.

Anonymous said...

Congress should mandate such a review regardless of what NNSA thinks.

Anonymous said...

That's a death blow... like forcing them to explain D2 EoS.... damn you are sadistic

Anonymous said...

Livermore experimenters hid the Nova D2 EOS shot film so that no one else could examine it.

Anonymous said...

Never fear, any "external" review, whether by JASON or NAS, will be stacked with Livermore shills who will show up with gallons of whitewash. It's happened all to often in the past.

Anonymous said...

Hiding or destroying the the streak films is tantamount to admitting that they fabricated the analysis.

Anonymous said...

You know how those NNSA administrators can take revenge on the lab in the most vicious, brutal and cruel way?

They could force an EXTERNAL INDEPENDENT REVIEW of their LASER EOS and MATERIAL STRENGTH PROGRAMS


Ha that is a death blow. They don't have 15 years worth of EoS work demonstrating a progression or leadership in capability development for analyzing these types of experiments. It makes NNSA look bad too because they signed off on all their work for years. With this kind of shite about to hit the fan, those ignition people are actually looking good, occupying high ground and making legitimate progress. Laser EoS and figuring out how to "hide the dead bodies" doesn't give us any confidence that it will end well for that effort.

Anonymous said...

Ignition may be the one having to save the ass of stockpile stewardship, and not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

Why does ignition have so many reviews behind it while laser EoS has none? Is that work that bad?

Anonymous said...

The thing is, the material EoS shots are more complicated to analyze than the D2 shots. 16 years is alot of time to build up the analysis capability for material shots. Surely they have something to say if put in front of an external independent review committee.

Anonymous said...

I think Cook will make an excellent administrator for NNSA. A fair and balanced administrator pushing for independent external reviews...what more could we ask for.

Speaking of fair and balanced, the IRS did the right thing in putting those nutty orgs under scrutiny. The IRS was right to question the legitimacy of their non profit status. They deserved a medal, not an investigation.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of fair and balanced, the IRS did the right thing in putting those nutty orgs under scrutiny.

May 20, 2013 at 3:07 AM

Except for the slight inconvenience that it was totally illegal to do so. If they can do it to anyone, they can do it to you. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

Illegol Smeagol. I'm honestly not a fan of the tax exempt status of nonprofits to begin with. They should pay some amount of taxes because they operate using infrastructure paid for by tax money that commercial entities and individuals end up paying for. Some places like Boston hurt because the high density of nonprofits put a squeeze on city revenues needed to pay for police and fire fighting service, upkeep in infrastructure, etc. etc. The real cost (and overhead) of nonprofits is hidden since those infrastructure and public service costs are externalities. And that squeezes commerce if businesses have to pay for it through higher business taxes.

Anonymous said...

You might be able to force an external review...but an independent one??? You can only imagine what is involved in covering up the bad analyses of raw data. What needs to be done is a comprehensive review of laser EoS for the 16 year period going back to D2 EoS. NNSA needs to have an assessment of the state of that capability. They need to shut it down if it fubar. Same goes for material strength.

Anonymous said...

Illegol Smeagol.

So you don't like the law. Too bad.

By the way, Smeagol's other name is Gollum.

Anonymous said...

I like the Obamacare law. We need more laws like this to deal with negative externalities in a rational way. Same with the non-profits, though that is not as severe.

Anonymous said...

The IRS needs to target all non-profits for greater scrutiny, not just conservative groups.

Anonymous said...

The IRS needs to target all non-profits for greater scrutiny, not just conservative groups.

May 22, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Again, illegal under current law.

Anonymous said...

Not if they develop further guidelines that are based purely on non-ideological factors. Profiles and criteria based on historical rates of abuse of tax-exemption status would be well within the law.

Anonymous said...

IRS policies to increase scrutiny across all non-profits equally are completely within the law.

Anonymous said...

IRS policies to increase scrutiny across all non-profits equally are completely within the law.

May 22, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Cite which law you are referring to, please.

Anonymous said...

They are within the law to uniformly increase scrutiny because there is no law prohibiting them from adding scrutiny uniformly. If every application is going to have 2 checks instead of 1, for instance, that is a matter of IRS procedure.

The question I have is regarding the statement made by May 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM:
The IRS needs to target all non-profits for greater scrutiny, not just conservative groups.

May 22, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Again, illegal under current law.


I'm curious what law is prohibiting all non-profits being targeted for greater scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

The one-sidedness of debates here is just horrible. I think somebody has bad eyesight and is not reading all the your words. What law would prevent the IRS from applying uniform standards for greater scrutiny... that's just bizarre. If there is a law, i'd love to hear it.

Same thing with the argument about private funding for basic research in the United States. You were asked to name one source and you named many. Somebody doesn't know how to apply logic.. or just has bad eyesight and is misreading everything... i dunno. It's speaks to the sad state of American education I guess.

Anonymous said...

He's not very bright, that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

How is this illegal? By what law?

The IRS needs to target all non-profits for greater scrutiny, not just conservative groups.

Anonymous said...

Here is a question to the person suggesting greater scrutiny equally... Is the targeting of conservative groups for greater scrutiny even illegal. I believe it is against policy or atleast very very bad form. I ask because I don't know the answer and is curious what law was broken if any, in this event currently in the news. The bureaucrat pleaded the 5th so I'm thinking she did break a law but am having some difficulty finding the specific one(s).

Anonymous said...

The one who resigned kept insisting that no laws were broken. I wonder if that is factually correct. He still deserves crucification regardless.

Anonymous said...

I'm waiting for him to go on a tirade about Obama, unions, blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, lesbians, Californians, democrats, centrists, the low income, or whatever. He's so predictable, simple and stupid.

Anonymous said...

Yep, Obama is God, and no one should defame God.

Anonymous said...

Obamacare is brilliant. It's not his idea, but he and Romney both undrstand what economists have been telling them for years. The fact that Obama would push this to deal with the negative externalities shows greatness and courage. He made the corrrect fiscally conservative decision to push it. It stops government subsidies of healthcare for the uninsured.

Anonymous said...

By the way, did you identfy the law that prohibts the IRS from applying greater scrutiny to all non-profit tax-exmption status applicnts? No? Figured.

Anonymous said...

It stops government subsidies of healthcare for the uninsured.

May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

You are seriously misinformed. It uses government money to PAY FOR health care for the uninsured. All of the "exchanges" MUST offer certain coverage through private insurers. Who do you think pays the insurers to do this, especially since they have no reason to want to? This is just a thin disguise for government run health care, the ULTIMATE "subsidy."

Anonymous said...

The uninsured have incentive to get coverage. Thank god too. They can get problems dealt with early rather that at advanced stages at the emergency room with highest costs eaten by the hospital or government. Thank god for obamacare. Reducing overall costs and increased coverage is the best possible move, even if you want to call it socialized medicine. Romney had the right idea too! Smart guy

Anonymous said...

Why is it that within 10 posts or so, every thread on this blog turns into a rant about Obamacare, Unions, or Nazis?

Haven't you people got some huntin' an' fishin' to do to get ready for your imminent layoffs?

Anonymous said...

It first starts with the grammar and spelling nazi. Then that naturally leads to anti-Obama, anti-women, anti-Union stuff or just about anything else. Fluffy topics can meander. Topics like EoS, VSP, ignition, etc. tend to re-center themselves.

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days