Charlie inherited a third world New Mexican lab. He can't change that. B division at LLNL was first rate under his leadership. He was chosen to save LANL and I think their continued existence is testament to that.
I'm sick of this constant Charlie bashing. Is he Mr. GQ because he dresses like a normal person from civilization. Is he supposed to wear jeans, hiking boots, and a bolo tie?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
25 comments:
You can have him back now. His goose is cooked at LANL.
"Charlie inherited a third world New Mexican lab. He can't change that. B division at LLNL was first rate under his leadership. He was chosen to save LANL and I think their continued existence is testament to that.
I'm sick of this constant Charlie bashing. Is he Mr. GQ because he dresses like a normal person from civilization. Is he supposed to wear jeans, hiking boots, and a bolo tie?"
I would presume this is sarcasm. However in today's world of anything for a buck perhaps it is real. First of all the comment about "Charlie inherited a third world New Mexican lab. He can't change that." is a load of complete sh*t. Sorry but you you cannot change that.
"He was chosen to save LANL and I think their continued existence is testament to that. "
Who said he was chosen to save LANL? I would say if LANL is so bad as it has been stated that it would have been closed in 2000. It was not so perhaps LANL is not the horrible lab that some people at Fox news say it is and it is profoundly valuable to the United States. LANL may have been in steep decline in recent times but perhaps that is due to the contract change. LANL has served the United States from 1944-1999 without problem, why is it that it become went so wrong out of nowhere? Could it be that there where corrupt political interest that where willing to sell out our national security interest for short term gain or was it because scientist and engineers and just pathetic losers? Which answer makes more sense? Again if LANL is in such bad shape than I say shut it down now, it would be better for the United States, for the workers at LANL, for national security and the taxpayer. If the workers at LANL really thought they where no longer of value to the United States they to would say shut it down as fast as possible. So do it.
We are now calling you you out. Shut it down if you really believe what you just said and
if not than come clean with your real agenda. It was always about the money and who gets a piece of it, it was never about the national interests. The whole scandal of LANL is bad was fraud form the start. It was just about money. Think about it. If LANL was the "problem" why did LLNL have to suffer as well? The answer is simple it was about getting as much money out of the lab system as possible. This is what happens to a nation than becomes corrupt, just look at history and see how every great superpower dies. Do you think closing down LANL will make the United States better? Do you think letting LANL/LLNL being run by a sleazy thuggish corporation will make the United States better?
"Do you think closing down LANL will make the United States better? Do you think letting LANL/LLNL being run by a sleazy thuggish corporation will make the United States better?"
I'm not the original poster, but yes, I believe closing down LANL (and LLNL) would make the United States better. It certainly would make the United States less expensive. Perhaps 25% of both labs should be saved, but the Labs are not cost-effective. In part, this is because they no longer have well-defined missions.
The Labs should be closed the day after I retire. Like everyone, I look out for my best interests.
LANL and LLNL are not corporations in the traditional sense. They should not be run like or by corporations. In particular, they should not be run by thuggish corporations that add considerable expense but do not provide any additional value. In fact, LANS/LLNS have negative value. LANS/LLNS should be the ones paying a fee due to the additional problems/costs they create.
Let's not permit facts to get in the way of a good rant; however, Charlie lost the contract for LANS. Contrast this to Mike, who might be credited with "saving" LANL. Charlie will be remembered only for the negative issues under his reign, whereas Mike now could be most remembered for forcing Charlie on the Lab. This blot will likely overshadow many positive accomplishments he had.
In any event, LANL will outlive LANS and this current batch of inept managers.
"I'm not the original poster, but yes, I believe closing down LANL (and LLNL) would make the United States better. It certainly would make the United States less expensive. Perhaps 25% of both labs should be saved, but the Labs are not cost-effective. In part, this is because they no longer have well-defined missions."
You have to decide to close it all down or keep the 25%. Why not say "yes keep the labs but keep make them optimal so that 1/4 of the current size could do the job". In that case what you are really saying is that we do need the labs. The labs in fact do have very well defined missions and those missions have not changed since 1990. What has changed is the perception of the value of the mission and it is no longer seen as important of of any use. Nuclear weapons are like magic or IPones, they just are, have always been, and always will be so they do not matter or need to be thought about. The United States of course is a republic so we should wise member of congress who could see beyond these things, instead we have such intellectual gems as Michael Grim, Michele Bachmann, and Maxine Waters. One way to see it is that the public views freedom as magic, which has always been and always will be so why should it matter. In any case why we are paying for airforce? There are plenty of planes flying all the time and we have lots of drones. Why should we pay for a navy, NSF, NASA, IRS, CIA, and NSA? To be honest there is a huge amount of wast in these as well so you kind of have a point.
There might be another reason to close down the labs and that is what I call the Nanos effect. The idea is that that labs are so far gone that keeping a false pretense that they are a functioning existing capability could be a very a dangerous idea and our enemies may call us out on this at some point. If the labs where simply shut down than we would know for sure that we have no capability in these area and could take action. The idea was it was better in terms of national security to just officially shut down LANL rather than have Nanos in charge of 10 idiots "who get it". Nanos never cared one bit about the labs or the United States he only cared about his own ambition. History has revealed this type of man before, by other names he is known as Judas Iscariot, Marcus Brutus, and Benedict Arnold.
"The Labs should be closed the day after I retire. Like everyone, I look out for my best interests."
You are honest but a bit short sighted. Freedom and the ability to protect it might also be in your best interests but like most people you take it for granted as something that just is. Good luck with that, we will all need it. Methinks you might be saying this toungue-in-cheek.
"LANL and LLNL are not corporations in the traditional sense. They should not be run like or by corporations. In particular, they should not be run by thuggish corporations that add considerable expense but do not provide any additional value. In fact, LANS/LLNS have negative value. LANS/LLNS should be the ones paying a fee due to the additional problems/costs they create."
That is about right.
December 30, 2014 at 6:28 PM"
"Contrast this to Mike, who might be credited with "saving" LANL. "
Ok I will bite, how did Mike "save" LANL? Why did LANL need to be saved? Was there something wrong with LANL in the first place? Some of us lived through the whole thing. Previously the lab was doing well by any accurate measure and now the lab is doing rather poorly, so tell me where did the saving came in?
We had to destroy the village in order save it.
Crickets...
LANL is a turkey pen. Anyone there will look like a turkey. The operating contract assures this.
Time to punish LLNL employees.
It is tough working at LANL these days. The scandal and dishonor never seems to end. At my level, the scientists work hard to contribute appropriately but just we just never seem to make a difference. We lose the RRW competition, we lose hard drives, we lose flash drives, we lose radioactive drum contents, we lose control of criticality safety, and now we lose a very large portion of the management fee. We certainly must feel as if we have lost credibility.
I dare say we might feel like losers.
Charlie seems to be a good guy, but he was at the helm for the latest… stuff. No telling how this will turn out. Everyone I know at Los Alamos likes Charlie. I hope that doesn't change, but I know something has got to change.
"Charlie seems to be a good guy, but he was at the helm for the latest… stuff. No telling how this will turn out. Everyone I know at Los Alamos likes Charlie. I hope that doesn't change, but I know something has got to change.
December 31, 2014 at 6:08 PM"
I am calling BS on this, there is not a single person I know at LANL that has anything good to say about Charlie...not one. I am sure there must be a few people and perhaps you are one of them but you have to be in a vanishing minority.
The argument made over and over again is that he is totally our of his league in this. There is a rumor that Steve Chu made some remarks on the order of what a mediocre scientist Charlie is when it was first announced that they chose Charlie. Has anybody else heard this rumor?
I guessing that you do not work at at LANL and are just some fake. Come clean on this.
Charlie is an ok guy who is also a complete poser. He was a very poor choice for director from day one. Still, we've had worse and I seriously doubt the new director will be any better.
Charlie was a terrible choice, and has done nothing positive for LANL. Thanks to Nanos, he may not be the worst director in history; however, he is racing to the bottom at breakneck speed.
Charlie may have been "an ok guy" but he was a complete disaster as director.
By all accounts, Neville Chamberlain was also an ok guy. He was however a harmful leader.
His successor, Winston Churchill was a leader of considerable talent.
LANL needs a Churchillian leader at this juncture. Based on how they have operated thus far, it isn't clear that the LLCs are able to select such a person.
Maybe LANL needs more of a fast-talking "politician" in their leader than an "insider weaponeer" like Charlie.
Knowing that LANS will likely be kicked out of the LANL contract in just a couple of years (maybe even sooner!), who in their right mind would want to step into the Director's chair knowing that the shelf life is very limited?
The next high compensation craving buffoon to take up the Director position will likely be someone much worse than anyone who has ever gone before!
'There is a rumor that Steve Chu made some remarks on the order of what a mediocre scientist Charlie is when it was first announced that they chose Charlie.'
7:57 PM
If true, Chu was being generous.
'There is a rumor that Steve Chu made some remarks on the order of what a mediocre scientist Charlie is when it was first announced that they chose Charlie.'
7:57 PM
If true, Chu was being generous.
January 2, 2015 at 11:31 AM
Very generous.
Mediocre is good enough when a construction company like Bechtel is your major partner in running an NNSA "science lab".
I'm not sick of Charlie bashing.
I'm just sick of Charlie.
"They hate us because they anus."
- Charlie "GQ" McMillan
Let's face it, there is NO ONE inside LANS to take the helm. Charlie is out, and the succession plan has fallen apart. The unfortunate early passing of Brett left the organization empty of suitable candidates. Thus, the options are limited to either a two year lame duck status by Charlie or going outside for a new Director.
You are right that there are no capable LANS insiders (i.e. carpetbaggers) left. But there are many long-time LANL stalwarts that can easily do better than Charlie at the Director's position! However, unless NNSA grows a couple and bucks Norm Pattiz, we are probably stuck with Charlie.
Sorry, but if there was one single "long-time LANL stalwart" that was even remotely qualified to be Director, then there would have been no need for the LLNL led contract bid. The situation has not improved, and a long-time LANL insider is the only option that would be worse than Charlie.
"The situation has not improved, and a long-time LANL insider is the only option that would be worse than Charlie.
January 5, 2015 at 8:20 PM"
Oh God no, you mean you I think you mean?
Post a Comment