Skip to main content

Are we more secure?


Article by Diane Randall of Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL)

Comments

Anonymous said…
Are we more secure? Yes. Are we invulnerable? No. Can we be perfectly secure? No. Did Operation Iraqi Freedom contribute to our security? Not nearly in proportion to the price tag.
Anonymous said…
Did Operation Iraqi Freedom contribute to our security? Not nearly in proportion to the price tag.

September 10, 2011 11:52 AM

Ok, genius, how much security is worth how much money? What a stupid argument. Compare a subjective feeling (security) with a (reasonably) definite number (cost). An absolutely fallacious line of reasoning. Try another blog where no technical people hang out and you can get away with that crap. The cost is measured most appropriately by goals accomplished. If the goals weren't specified in a measurable way, blame your politicians.
Anonymous said…
Cheney was the perfect foil for Osama. Fact acting, unscrupulous coward, looking to send others children to fight.

Bush senior, Scowcroft and Schultz counseled less sweeping gestures, but Wormtongue prevailed. Those with fight in their background were much less willing to commit anyone's children.

Lots of heros resulted. God Bless them.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem

From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use.  touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...