Umm. Ahh. Uhm. Did anyone else notice how much time was spent on ethics? It seemed that he took up a third of the meeting to talk about it. It was almost surreal to hear this after the recent public relevations surrounding his deputy. Umm. Ahh. Uhm.
McMillan is not the most inspiring speaker. The ethics part was very very uhm ahh...hmm uncomfortable. Hey we are a corporation now sometimes one of us gets caught, and that is the price of admission, the cost of doing business, the way of the world, how it is, you know the rules just, play to pay but just don't get caught. You cowboys and buttheads have no place to judge since you all would do the same too if you where in their place. Oh ya LANS is great ra ra.
52 comments:
What did Charlie say regarding "ethics"?
Who cares what the clueless dumbo said? If you need him to explain ethics to you, please resign now.
What came through in the meeting is that Charlie is worried that the credibility of the Lab is being called into question as a consequence of ethical lapses. It seems as though he was much more worried about everyone hearing him talk, and was tone deaf to his own actions.
He probably is right that since he kept her in place for two years after he knew about his Deputy's ethical breaches, his actions are seen one way. Spending a large part of the meeting talking about ethics does not change his actions.
One other disconnect in the talk was when he bragged about this month's completion of the TA-55 perimeter security project. No matter what you call it, the larger issue is why it took so long to complete. Back in 2012, didn't Charlie swear that it would be finished in less than a year?
Have been to many such All Hands over the past 25 plus years, and don't ever recall any previous Director lecturing on what he does.
During one part of the meeting, all we got was a lot of "I do this. And, I do this. And, I do this." It should be a good hint that if you have to devote so much effort to telling people what you do, then someting is wrong. A leader is judged by their actions, not by their lectures.
Ethical lapse discussions shortly after a leak of such an old event have little value other than damage control. "I'm sorry I did X", or 2 years later, I'm sorry I got caught in the public view for doing X". Does this event have any connection to the departure of the last NNSA LANS Field Office Manager?
I heard the security project was "almost" done and yes he promised it would be done sooner.
The Ethics of an organization are only as good as the toilet paper they are written on. Let's just say they are not using charmin at LANL!!!
"Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear"... that's all Charlie seems to think his lab should be doing. He even mentioned in his talk that "90% of what LANL does has something to do with nuclear" and he seemed to strongly support that concept.
All the endless pleading by politicians and locals to diversify LANL like SNL did many years ago so that it can better prepare to survive future budget cuts have fallen on deaf ears with this bunch of for-profit executives running LANL. They'll stick with "nuclear" and use their myopic vision to ride LANL straight into the ground if necessary.
Prepare for bigger Los Alamos downsizing because of Charlie's single-minded vision for LANL. If it doesn't contain the word "nuclear" somewhere in it, Charlie and his executive team are not interested. Perhaps it is time to change the name of LANL to the Los Alamos *Nuclear* Lab.
April 21, 2014 at 10:18 PM
If you accept Charlie's number of 90% of the money that comes to LANL is for nuclear, then a major downsizing should be in the wings. There is no way that 90% of the staff at the Lab are doing nuclear work now, and therein is the problem. The good folks in Washington who write the checks for nuclear programs are not happy to discover that large fractions of those funds are spent on non-nuclear activities.
If it turns out that the situation today is that only 50% of the staff at LANL do nuclear work, there are a couple options to return balance. You could retain the same size staff, and bring in additional non-nuclear projects. Or, keeping the budgets as they are currently, you could downsize the staff until 90% of them are doing nuclear work. All indications are that the second option has already been selected, and it is just a matter of time until the reality sinks in for the impacted staff.
Some people seem to think that "all nuclear" is a major change for LANL, as if it has always been a multidisciplinary lab. Apparently these are young scientists with no knowledge of the history of the institution where they work. If you wanted to do non-nuclear science, you should probably have chosen a different employer. More recent history has shown quite clearly that diversification leads to mediocrity. If you want to use Sandia as an example, recognize that it is not a science lab, but an engineering lab.
Hey don't blame Sandia's mediocrity on diversification or its engineering focus. That has nothing to do with it. It is the pervasive groupthink mentality that is to blame for Sandia's mediocrity. But hey that's what the weapons complex needs, no? We don't need no stinking innovation. We just need labs that can burn taxpayer money fast and produce accomplishment bullet points every year. There ain't no competition to worry about.
Diversity has spawned mediocrity at LANL and LLNL too. Maybe Sandia is less mediocre since diversity is easier and makes more sense at an engineering lab.
Mono-cultures have a tendency to die due to their lack of diversity. Change happens and they can't cope with it.
Places like LANL where Charlie's "nuclear" vision rule the roost are yet another example of that lesson.
"...you could downsize the staff until 90% of them are doing nuclear work. All indications are that the second option has already been selected, and it is just a matter of time until the reality sinks in for the impacted staff." (6:00 am)
Good luck with that one if you own a house in Los Alamos County and are part of the LANS pension!
However, your observation is probably correct. Charlie has decided on this path and further downsizing at LANL will likely be the result. That will simply make it easier for LANS to manage LANL and help assure a nice profit fee each year. Really, that's all the current LANS executive team seems to care about. It couldn't be more clear.
As long as DOE/NNSA, (who owns the labs and calls the shots here, not LANS) does not see fit to place a new performance objective involving scientific diversity into the contract with LANS (or LLNL), then it is clear what the direction will be. DOE/NNSA does not see its mission as supporting any old non-nuclear science that could be done elsewhere. Remind yourself what "NNSA" stands for.
8:59am is correct. if you work at LANL and dont understand how a multidisciplinary lab can also be a "nuclear" lab, then you don't understand the lab or how it works. LANL has always employed a diverse set of technical disciplines, all of which contribute in some way to core missions. There are even sustainable, non-core missions that were spun off because of expertise derived from the core mission, and everything that supports it.
One may expect more evolution, but it doesn't happen on time scales of only a few years without significant pressure, such as an existential threat.
Under DOE/NNSA control of the WC labs and plants, there will never be "evolution" away from things nuclear. There is no need to do that, from the NNSA perspective. What the labs and their contractor management want or do not want is irrelevant.
April 24, 2014 at 10:13 AM
I completely agree. As much as I hate LANS and their management clowns; the direction of the lab is given by DOE and NNSA and ultimately by Congress.
The Bechtels of this world are just the henchmen executing their masters wishes.
The Bechtels of this world are just the henchmen executing their masters wishes.
April 25, 2014 at 5:28 PM
Hey, you choose to work there...
April 25, 2014 at 7:18 PM
I guess you must be from Bechtel. I did not choose to work for Bechtel, I chose to work for an organization which was in the public interest, run by a public entity. Going into science was a choice I did, based on my beliefs and ideals. If I wanted to go into the corporate world, I would have done so and made a lot more money and still would make a lot more. But I guess in your thinking greed is good.
So don't give me your blabla about you chose to work there.
And don't tell me you can leave anytime; just look at the job market, especially for someone like me who is close to retirement.
So don't give me your blabla about you chose to work there.
April 26, 2014 at 6:05 AM
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, huh? I said "...choose to work there." Present tense. What you chose, or thought you chose, in the past is irrelevant. I promise you, if you don't change that choice, you will not be any happier after you retire than you are now.
April 26, 2014 at 8:49 AM
I am giving up. You are too clever for me. I bow in humiliation to your sophistication. You won the argument, hope you have a great day.
You give up way to easily. Which explains a lot.
4:49....your momma gave up to easy!
Oh, brilliant, just brilliant retort! (Even if it took you a while to think of it.) And, to show respect, you even repeated my misspelling! Bravo! Well done!
Oh, brilliant, just brilliant retort! (Even if it took you a while to think of it.) And, to show respect, you even repeated my misspelling! Bravo! Well done!
April 30, 2014 at 7:16 PM
Oookkaaaay, in case you where not listening you just got your ass handed to you.
Just in case here is some urban dictionary.
"Getting completely, utterly and totally beaten, defeated and crushed at a game, challenge or debate."
Ouch that has gotta hurt, thanks for playing and think twice next time. Peace out.
Oh yeah? Well I just handed your ass to my momma.
April 30, 2014 at 9:11 PM
WTF??
What don't you understand?
Somebody made a bad "your momma" retort, and another guy thinks that completely, utterly, and totally beat and crushed the guy who's posting was "your momma-ized"
I'm sure that the first poster has already been transported to the psych ward for his suicidal depression at being "your momma-ized"
Because boy, that would sure crush me.
NOT
Just in case here is some urban dictionary.
April 30, 2014 at 9:11 PM
Sorry, I don't speak ghetto-ish. It appears that reference to one's "momma" is supposed to trump all argument and reason and end the discussion to general approbation. What if it doesn't? The switchblades come out?
"Sorry, I don't speak ghetto-ish. It appears that reference to one's "momma" is supposed to trump all argument and reason and end the discussion to general approbation. What if it doesn't? The switchblades come out?
May 1, 2014 at 12:48 PM"
You lost, get over it.
What exactly did I lose? Because I know it wasn't a game of wits.
"What exactly did I lose?"
The reason you lost is because you where not paying attention. Build a bridge and get over it.
Reading comprehension again...Not "why" but "what"?
"Reading comprehension again...Not "why" but "what"?
May 2, 2014 at 10:30 AM"
And that is exactly your problem, you are always asking the wrong questions. What you lost is not important right now, it is how you lost it. Know that and perhaps you can avoid making the same mistake again. You need to go on this journey of discovery yourself. We wish you luck.
"Journey of discovery" to find out why "your momma" is a clever, debate-ending retort? HaHaHaHaHaHa!
LANL has had it right, and LLNL is going in the same direction. Though it may be too late to save it, because LLNL is saddled with the NIF. Maybe it will be left only with the NIF. Once upon a time, not that long ago, both labs were all about nuclear weapons, and that is the one enduring mission that almost certainly will never go away.
May 2, 2014 at 10:42 PM
Exactly. The most technologically advanced and destructive weaponry will always be sought and valued. A guarantee against existential threats is a very good thing. Everything else done at LLNL, LANL, and SNL is subject to political oblivion.
We'll all be interested to see how the stockpile prevents invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
That's not the purpose of the stockpile. No existential threat to the US. If Obama actually wanted to stop Putin, he could. No nuclear stockpile involvement needed. But he doesn't. He's a community organizer. It's not in his wheelhouse. He'll go yell and wag his finger in front of a bunch of college students who already agree with him. That'll fix everything.
No existential threat to the US.
May 3, 2014 at 9:15 PM
You should read a history book some day.
You think what Putin is doing in Ukraine is a direct, existential threat to the US? Paranoid much?
If you ever do read a history book (unlikely), be sure to look up Manchuria, Austria (or anscluss), Sudetenland. Also, use your online dictionary to look up "escalation" (if you know how).
What crap. "anscluss??" Did you mean "anschluss"?? Try to get your history right. Besides, so what? The rise of Nazi Germany was NOT an existential threat to the US. Get a grip. If it was, we would not have survived without dropping atomic bombs on them. Nor was Japan - they were already beat in the summer of 1945, but the atomic bombs saved many thousands of American lives by ending the war early. No existential threat there either.
To the May 4, 2014 at 7:31 PM
So you did not read a history book. Typical of an arrogant lazy, "I am so great you cannot tell me what do lab scientist." Try that crap in the real world...not. Go back to our liberal latte drinking life, I hope you like socialism. There is more to the world than your puny existence.
Wow, I guess some people really are stinking drunk this early in the evening.
May 4, 2014 at 7:31 PM:
OK, Neville, have it your way.
You want US nukes dropped on Russia today? Or a direct conventional-force confrontation with US troops? How about instead a US President with some spine and leadership to impose really serious sanctions across all Russian economic sectors, and isolation of all Russian financial markets and banks, no matter what the EU says? Ban Russian stocks from being traded on the US market. Cut off all Russian natural gas and oil purchases by NATO countries. Cancel all passports for US citizens traveling to Russia. Freeze all Russian citizens' assets in all Western financial institutions. Twist the arms of the EU until they give.
Forget giving Ukraine direct military aid - it will be in Russian hands the next day. Ukraine's government is collapsing, and their military is close to absolute defection to Russia - you are asking them to shoot their cousins, who outnuber them 10 to 1.
There are a multitude of options for the US short of war with Russia if we had a President with guts.
"There are a multitude of options for the US short of war with Russia if we had a President with guts.
May 5, 2014 at 7:26 PM"
Ya if Bush was in he would encourage the invasion of Ukrainian so that Halliburton could get no bid contracts to rebuild. Ukraine is essentially a Stan, so it helps on the war on terror. We could also sell drones to kill Ukrainian that disagree. Unfortunately we have a community organizer for a president instead of a crony gangster in charge. By the way how did that war on Iraq turn out? Oh yes for some it made them very wealthy for others which include the mostly working class it made them very dead. Indeed Obama just is horrible and Bush was so sooo much better. Obama may be a socialist but that beats a gangster thug player fascist any day.
Well, I guess the "Ya" man is back. Too bad. So your pea brain suggests that we only have two options, Obama or Bush? No more thoughtful, more strategic analysis and action allowed in between? Can't get your brain around that idea? Sheesh.
"Well, I guess the "Ya" man is back. Too bad. So your pea brain suggests that we only have two options, Obama or Bush? No more thoughtful, more strategic analysis and action allowed in between? Can't get your brain around that idea? Sheesh.
May 5, 2014 at 8:59 PM"
Fair enough, I just have a problem with people going on about how bad Obama is with spending, spying, endless war, and the breakdown of personal freedom when he is really very similar to Bush on these same policies. How about Rand Paul? I know people keep saying he simply not a viable candidate but who else? I am not sure what his opinion of the DOE is.
Rand Paul is an isolationist who does not take US national security seriously. His libertarian views will attract supporters on both sides, but his refusal to accept America's role as leader of the free world disqualifies him as President, just as it does Obama, IMO. I predict he will go further to the right for the primaries, and then tack back to the middle for the general election if he is the candidate, as all Republicans do. He'll completely lose his support first among college students, and then among Tea Party people, in that process. He'll end up a nothing as Obama has.
The R's need a candidate who can call in a majority of conservative votes in the primaries, and then a majority of "middle" votes in the general, without seeming a hypocrite and turning off one set of voters or another. No one has done that effectively since Reagan.
I just have a problem with people going on about how bad Obama is with spending, spying, endless war, and the breakdown of personal freedom when he is really very similar to Bush on these same policies.
May 5, 2014 at 9:43 PM
Well, to paraphrase a quite popular and opinionated talk-show host, "you don't excuse bad behavior by pointing to someone else's bad behavior." In my own words, "He did it first" is a third-grade cop-out.
Post a Comment