Interesting new Website...
www.deprivatizethelabs.org
"The privatization has placed the LANL and LLNL science and engineering missions in jeopardy. The focus has shifted to meeting the contract performance goals and earning maximum fee, resulting in less tolerance for the open debate and discussion that is necessary both for good science and engineering and for regulatory compliance. The changed environment has affected careers through program misdirection and loss of trained personnel, and has escalated a decline in science and engineering productivity. Both Labs have suffered from a decline in recruitment and a continued loss of senior people. All of this has happened while costing taxpayers an additional 300-400 million dollars per year, more than half of which is in management bonuses."
67 comments:
While the privatization has certainly brought in some very lousy corporate deadwood and grafters, if you look closely you will see that the science was principally destroyed by the managers who had been at LANL since the UC era. They simply were given free reign, astronomical salaries and bonuses, and absolute power by the LLC. We cannot hope to start healing and rebuilding science at LANL with these people remaining in power. Any serious effort must begin with throwing the bums out.
May 1, 2017 at 12:55 AM
That is an interesting viewpoint. What is more troubling is that there are now rumors that bid teams already being formed and guess what...these teams have LANL manages on them. If this is the case than changing the contract could bring more of the same.
This is what happened last time: Lab managers who joined the LANS bid team and helped write the bid were amply rewarded afterward. The rewards included large pay increases, promotions to higher posts, and a license to kill, so to speak. And kill they did. That's how the theory division got destroyed, just to name an example -- see who was involved. And the same guys are now going to latch onto the next team. It's actually very convenient for them that the damage they caused over the past ten years can be vaguely blamed on "for-profit privatization".
Of course the bid teams will have LANL managers on them. How else will the bidding organizations be able to understand the issues and the current status of the lab in order to write their proposals? This happened quite early in the last bidding go round. The LANL managers who joined the losing Lockheed team disappeared fast. The ones who joined the LANS team got promoted fast. The managers must choose wisely. In any competition, there are winners and losers.
"How else will the bidding organizations be able to understand the issues and the current status of the lab in order to write their proposals? "
That sounds good in principle, however the managers have a very different view of what are lab issues than the actual issues. The issues they see are low management pay, too much management work, too few managers, to few benefits to managers, too little travel, too small of offices and too much interaction with the workforce. They will right the next contract according to what will reward them personally.
That sounds good in principle, however the managers have a very different view of what are lab issues than the actual issues. The issues they see are low management pay, too much management work, too few managers, to few benefits to managers, too little travel, too small of offices and too much interaction with the workforce.
May 1, 2017 at 12:01 PM
Nice screed, but a really stupid comment. If the written bid stated the "issues" as you suggest, it would be dead on arrival at NNSA. NNSA knows perfectly well what the real issues are, and at several levels, understands what an enormous mistake it made with LANS and LLNS. The LANL managers who joined the opposing bid teams were told that their jobs were to fully and accurately address the NNSA bid requirements and criteria, and knew very well that their continued employment at LANL depended on their doing a good job and winning the competition. After the contract was awarded, their efforts for the LANS team were almost immediately undercut, and the hush money started to flow.
I predict that the formal bid packages sent out by NNSA this time will bear little resemblance to last time. NNSA, and their Congressional overseers, are not in the mood for more high-level corporate shenanigans.
It took mere hours for the managers in question to take the bait and start posting spurious arguments justifying their LANS bid involvement.
The bidding team would should rely on external experts, perhaps convening a review panel and interview the scientific staff directly. Keep the current managers as far away as possible during these interviews! I've been to many LANL reviews where the workers were couched by the management to give only specific answers and were made to understand that any deviation from the approved script would incur retaliation. And you want these bullies and despots informing NNSA and the bidding teams what the problems are? Nice try.
Only LANL managers know what the problems are? These managers are the problem!
"...NNSA knows perfectly well what the issues are." Said no knowledgeable person ever.
Only LANL managers know what the problems are? These managers are the problem!
May 1, 2017 at 2:39 PM
No, but only LANL managers will be trusted by the bid teams to work in their favor (as prospective managers, Duh!). Get used to the real world. No outside bid team is going to trust employees outside of management and who have made plain in public that they hate management. Get it? The teams are bidding to MANAGE THE LABORATORY, not to be representatives of the employees. The prospective bid organizations will choose their teams as they want, and if you don't like it, you have the same remedy as the LANL managers on the losing bid team have - bye!
"...NNSA knows perfectly well what the issues are." Said no knowledgeable person ever.
May 1, 2017 at 4:35 PM
Do you work for NNSA in laboratory management at mid to high level? Nope, didn't think so. Some people actually have more experience and first-hand knowledge than you do on the subject.
A fascinating and eye-opening prospective from our "mid to high level" manager friend. "Manage the laboratory" for him is completely synonymous with cracking the whip to keep the worker bees in line. And the bid teams would only trust those who have decades of demonstrated experience with the whip. And if I don't like this view, I should get out of the lab.
Still any doubts that it's the managers that are the problem?
Uh, I didn't see the word "whip" in any of the above posts. That's your obsession. Still any doubts that the management-haters are the problem?
It would be amusing to read your argument for how employees with no management experience would be qualified to write a bid proposal for managing the laboratory.
You didn't write the word "whip", but you meant it. Don't play stupid now. And you are also confusing Cause and Effect when you talk about "management-haters". True, the vast majority of scientists and engineers at LANL have no confidence in today's management, but that is a consequence of inept, dysfunctional and often malicious management actions. It's not that the Lab somehow started out with irrational, "management-hating" workforce.
Now, given that there is a broad consensus that the current management team has failed, why on earth would the new bid team want them on board or even seek their opinions? You think the team cannot bring in external experts? The statement that "only LANL managers will be trusted by the bid teams to work in their favor" is absurd. As is the assertion that "No outside bid team is going to trust employees outside of management".
Throw the bums out!
"statement that "only LANL managers will be trusted by the bid teams to work in their favor" is absurd. As is the assertion that "No outside bid team is going to trust employees outside of management". "
The problem is that LANL is now so complex and bizarre no one from the outside world could possibly understand what are the issues, what the lab does, why the lab does it, how the lab does it, what are the drivers for the lab to do anything. The lab is like Madagascar, it is different, very very different. The real world may have monkeys but LANL has something else. Maybe in 1993 the lab made sense and had a purpose...it had monkeys, but now why is the purpose, why have LLNL or LANL, why have monkeys. Instead we have very strange complex out of this world creatures that no one and I mean no one expect the most experienced LANL managers can possibly understand yet control, tame and sell on the open market. This is why you need LANL and LLNL mangers to make the terms of the bid, the rules of the bid, and the outcome of the bid, for they and they alone can understand the mythology , narrative, complexities, simplicities of a the different strange and magical beasts of the labs. These beasts need to be contained, controlled, and MANAGED! This is the key, manage the labs. One does not just come out of the blues and "Manage" Madagascar, one comes in an finds the people that have survived and even thrived under such
such conditions and ask them how to "Manage" and that is exactly what NNSA expects. It is going to an untamed crazy land and asking the local leaders just how the rule and what these rules are. If they can explain it well they will be richly rewarded with trinkets, toys and things that glitter. The real lessons is that there is gold in them there hills if you start digging. There is money to be made and mined out of LANL if you are willing to slash, curt, burn, dig, dredge, haul, steal, burn, and exploit if you play your cards right. Every zoo has lemurs because people are willing to pay $$ to see freaks. If you get my drift you will see that LANL is nothing if not Madagascar. Ca-Ching!!!!
Every major change brings enormous opportunities for those willing and able to take the risk of failure for potentially great gains. Given that some people are going to be highly compensated managers, and some are going to be less well compensated non-management employees, and given that there will be the same range of competence to incompetence, benevolence to malevolence, in both cohorts, for all sorts of reasons, real and imagined, it would seem that those who choose to help the winning bid team get the contract will share in he winning, and those who choose poorly, or just decide to sit out the process and bitch and moan about it will share in the losing. All choices have consequences, even the choice to do nothing.
The "highly compensated managers" who have been running the lab into the ground over the last decade, while fabulously enriching themselves, should not be given a chance for another "enormous opportunity ". The Lab will not survive another 10 years of mismanagement and pillaging.
It's not up to NNSA to call. They do understand the issues, but are bound by the political environment in Washington D.C. They understand that privatization of the labs has made many things worse, to the point that some would prefer to federalize them, but they can neither federalize nor deprivatize the labs without Congress. Congress has no interest in doing either of these things, so here we are.
The rumors I am hearing is that management learned a number of vauable lessons from the last time and teams are already made and that many of them are already pitching to NNSA about what should be written in the contract and yes this is seen as being an enormous opportunity. One disturbing rumor is that the plan is "gasp" to have even more management which will be seen to more tightly control things to avoid issues like WIPP and enforce safety concerns.
A run down of the stuff I have heard, some of it is contradicatry as well
A. UC will not bid
B UC will be bidding but not with Bechtel
C Bechtel will not be part of a bid
D Bechtel will bid but have even more control and will blame UC
E Lockheed Martin and U-Texas again
F The for profit model will stay or even be enhanced
G LANL gets turned over to DOD
H several LANL managers think they are shoe ins to be next Director and it is practically a done deal and they have formed a winning bid team already where the bid wording is just for them. These managers already have groups of fans or toadies singing their virtues and spreading their version of the "gospel" in hope that they will be rewarded when there chosen "God" er...I mean manager is chosen as he next Director. It is interesting to see the layering effect in terms of so called expected rewards for the winning team.
G LANL gets turned over to DOD
May 3, 2017 at 7:44 AM
This idea periodically gets it's two seconds in the sun, but it will never happen. Congress will never agree to give up civilian control of nuclear weapon research and development, and there is no one in DoD who would support or push for this. DoD would much rather have Sandia under its thumb.
The answer is ..... B.
Bechtel doesn't give a rat about LANL or LLNL, and have no qualms about walking away - they've lost contracts and bids before. Read the minutes from UC Regent meetings posted on UCOP's website and you'll clearly see UC takes pride in its association with the national labs, including LANL.
They may "take pride" but they are poison to NNSA and Congress owing to past debacles. UC will never head another bidding team that NNSA would accept.
Hey dummies, the managers on the LANS bid team were Livermore managers, NOT LANL managers ! Get informed before you spout off.
Get informed before you spout off.
May 3, 2017 at 7:57 PM
You are wrong. Existing LANL managers joined the UC/Bechtel LANS team very early. Scott Gibbs was one of the first. The LLNL people only came in later since their experience did not lend itself to proposing management steps for LANL. Anastasio, Mara, and Mcmillan played almost no role in the composition of the LANS bid. You need to get informed, I was there.
Well I'm not sure what UC will do on the upcoming LANL bid, but based on this excerpt from the November 2016 UC Board of Regents meeting, it seems likely that they will fight to continue managing LLNL, with or without Bechtel.
"Vice President Budil introduced (LLNL) Director William Goldstein to provide an update. Mr. Goldstein expressed pride that LLNL was celebrating 65 years of pushing the frontiers of science and technology to help make the nation more secure...Mr. Goldstein reported that...LLNL’s culture is inextricably linked to its UC heritage. The University provides leadership, guidance, and assurance that its mission is executed with excellence and integrity, and that LLNL’s science and technology meet the highest standards...Mr. Goldstein noted that LLNL’s workforce faces a high rate of demographically driven turnovers at the same time its workload is increasing. UC is LLNL’s major partner in academic collaborations, and the Laboratory offers UC students and faculty unique appointment opportunities and facilities use."
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/minutes/2016/doe11.pdf
UC was always an absentee landlord in Los Alamos. Worse, when the Lab was under attack, UC was all too happy to pile on. The memory of Robert Dines standing next to Nanos and announcing complete support for the horrible shutdown makes me cringe. Then they chose Bechtel to partner with, again terrible decision-making. Why would NNSA want to award the contract to them again?
"Congress owing to past debacles. UC will never head another bidding team that NNSA would accept.
May 3, 2017 at 7:30 PM"
That sounds good but what are the past debacles? From 1945 to 2000 it worked well. Some people on this blog go on about WHL however I cannot really see how UC was to blame on this. I can of course blame Nanos on UC but this was in response to the WHL situation and was forced on them. In any case the labs had to be privatized because corporate America wanted everything to be privatized and UC had nothing to do with it. As for UC-Bechtel each side hated the other and UC simply backed away while Bechtel took complete control. The local managers also bought into the whole business-coroprtion since they got paid much more and had to do much less. Of course another rumor is that most managers want to keep the lab a for-profit operation and are pushing hard behind the scenes to make sure it stays the same.
Ancient history is not relevant to the current decision on who runs LANL, and the delusional posters that keep bringing it up are just stuck in a past that is never returning. The factual situation is that the current contract was cancelled due to poor performance and there will be a new manager next year. Take a look at the current LANL management team and study their backgrounds before going off on an anti-Bechtel rant. The lab deputy director is from Bechtel, as is the PAD for construction projects. All the other PADS and ADS are UC, and all but Mcmillan are home grown LANLites.
Face facts before getting all anti-Bechtel about the situation. The initial few years of LANS, when Anastasio was director, had a relatively high fraction of non-LANL managers. It may be instructive to also note that the LANS contract earned award term extensions from NNSA each and every year under that situation. Under Mcmillan, the operator has not earned one single extension. Make your own conclusion, but to the decision makers in DC the correlation is blindingly obvious that more LANLites in management is not a winning path.
"but to the decision makers in DC the correlation is blindingly obvious that more LANLites in management is not a winning path.
May 4, 2017 at 4:33 AM"
I am not laying all the blame at Bechtel just as I you cannot blame a pusher for a drug addicts addition. The home grown LANL managers as you say are the same ones that have gone on and on about how the lab is a for profit corporate entity now so anything goes, we are just like Goldman-Sachs blah blah blah, money, perceptions no right or wrong only profit and power. I doubt Bechtel planned it that way but this is how it ended up. On the other hand maybe Bechtel did plan it that way, they come to some far off land and tell the local warlords that they can run the place anyway they want as long as the profits keep coming and you end of with a Heart of Darkness like scenario. Well either way the bottom line is that LANL management should just be barred from being part of any of the bidding teams. Right now you literally have gangs of people who think that they are certain to be part of the winning bid team so you better choose the right side before the blood starts to flow. You have people that are just giddy at the thought of the expected spoils of war and pillage that they feel will be theirs once they win. It is like Gangs of New York City. Weird stuff if you ask me but different people have different motivations.
For what it is worth, in the most recent competition at SNL, NNSA selected a winning team that was made up of outsiders. The decision to change management operators is not just printing up new business cards for the same old people, it looks more like a 100% turnover in the top and mid level ranks.
The decision to change management operators is not just printing up new business cards for the same old people, it looks more like a 100% turnover in the top and mid level ranks.
May 4, 2017 at 10:42 AM
Wishful thinking, backed by no evidence whatever. It hasn't happened ever, but you are sure it will? Be prepared to defend your prediction when it doesn't come true.
7:18 PM hasn't been to SNL recently.
For what it is worth, in the most recent competition at SNL, NNSA selected a winning team that was made up of outsiders.
May 4, 2017 at 10:42 AM
This realization strikes deep fear into the hearts of presently "highly compensated managers" at LANL.
This realization strikes deep fear into the hearts of presently "highly compensated managers" at LANL.
May 5, 2017 at 9:07 AM
Hmm, from what have heard that LANL managment is spending all its time in DC pitching ideas for the bid and even writing the bid. The idea is that the NNSA people can golf and enjoy themselves while LANL people do all the work for the contract and fight amorist themselves. You see how this works.
Well, if it is indeed true that the NNSA people are golfing while the LANL upper managers are making arrangements for their next "enormous opportunity ", then NNSA will again get the contractor they deserve. God help us all then.
May 4, 2017 at 7:18 PM
Maybe in some far distant past, but in recent times the turnover has been 100% for the top 3-4 layers of management.
4:33 AM
Lansing isn't LANL home-grown. Neither is Cabbil. Why, Brandt isn't LANL home-grown either. Oh my, Watts isn't home-grown too.
Why did you make the false claim that all LANL PADs and ADs (with one exception) are LANL home-grown? Did some Rechtel person tell you this or did you make it up all on your own?
I was there.
May 3, 2017 at 8:30 PM
If you were there, you are a big part of the problem. Leave! Now! We don't like you, and we can't abide your stink!
Too bad, little ninja, the force will overtake you. Get used to the stink. You will lose if you don't win. You can't win if you don't try. Complacency and inaction will cause you much pain. Hint: No one cares what you "don't like."
If you were there, you are a big part of the problem.
May 5, 2017 at 3:30 PM
Yeah, I was there, I saw it all happening. Not as a upper-level LANL manager but as a support person brought in to help. My job wasn't on the line, but nevertheless I was required to sign non-disclosure agreements. It was all very formal yet collegial among the bidding team members. I have since left LANL and will not be returning, so you don't have to hyperventilate that I might still be around to cause you life-threatening injury! You seem to be stuck between the group that is complacent enough to wait and see (with much trepidation) what happens, and ready to bitch about it, and the group that actively seeks to find benefit in opportunities during the transition. Your level of career ambition will guide your choices. Good luck.
May 3, 2017 at 7:44 AM
I've heard from sources close to UCOP Lab Management that if UC's restructured/partnered LLC loses out on the LANL bid, UC is done with industrial partners in Lab operations. The LLNS LLC will be dissolved for the next LLNL bid and that its likely a non-profit UC-Battelle owned LLC will be formed to bid on LLNL. Remember that Battelle is already a partner in LLNS but not LANS, with former LLNL Deputy Director and current Battelle President/CEO Jeff Wadsworth on the LLNS Board of Governors.
UCOP and the UC Regents have concluded that Bechtel and the other industrial partners in LLNS have added little tangible value to LLNL operations. They see little risk in this move, other than a spiteful Bechtel teaming up with a major research university in the California (Stanford, CalTech, or USC) to form an LLC to bid on LLNL. However, Northrup-Grumman was unable to get any of these schools to partner with it on the last LLNL bid back in 2007, and UCOP feels Bechtel will have not fair any better.
May 3, Except there are schools on these campuses with the name "Bechtel" attached and some sit on boards and many are graduates of....
For profit is here to stay. SNL awarded? Do you think the State of New Mexico is giving up the gross receipts tax?
As far as LANL, good people but by far the most horrible place to work on the planet. Buildings falling down and maintained like a third word country, services impossible to receive, the left hand does not care what the right hand is doing and the right hand feels it is their entire job to make the left hand's life miserable. And to whoever said that the NNSA knows what they are doing, BAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA. That is absolutely ridiculous. They can't order paper clips without the contractor.
My favorite question to ask, How many people working at the lab were at the lab before the contract change or are hires not associated with the industry partners? 80%, 90%, 98%?
4:33am,
You want to give the list of PADs and ADs who are homegrown. The ratio is like 6 to 1. Get below that to the division and group leaders (middle management) and it grows to about 25 to 1. This is more of the same, life was perfect before..... but really same players, same crap.
My favorite question to ask, How many people working at the lab were at the lab before the contract change or are hires not associated with the industry partners? 80%, 90%, 98%?
May 7, 2017 at 1:04 PM
Well that is another way of asking, what fraction of lab employees came to the labs from the industrial partners after the transition? It's probably not a huge number. But, take that number and multiply it by 2*pi to find the fraction of the payroll spent on them.
May 7, 2017 at 1:04 PM
Well at LLNL you could count on two hands the number of actual transferees from the industrial partners - most were in Operations & Business, and most are long gone. While Tom Gioconda (Dep Dir) is a Bechtel guy, none of the current PADs or ADs have any ties to the industrial partners. For example at transition the O&B PAD and Facilities & Infrastructure AD and Deputy were all from industrial partners. All are gone. O&B PAD Martinez is a long time LLNL employee (ran the Pu facility) while his deputy came from UCOP, the F&I AD is now also a long time LLNL employee, same in HR.
I would put it at 99% of the LLNL employee immediately after contract change in 2007 were the same and not associated with an industrial partner. Today its significantly less... with 7000 LLNS employees at LLNL, I'm pretty sure that there are not 70 from LLC industrial partners.
There are barely 6000 employees at LLNL these days.
May 7, 2017 at 9:37 PM
Current LLNL employment statistics as of May 1, 2017 from HR website:
5,838 - LLNS Career Indefinite
48 - LLNS Flex Term
318 - LLNS Non-Career
246 - LLNS Postdoc
508 - Supplemental Labor Contractor
Total LLNS 6,450 at LLNL, so you are correct, but I still standby the assessment that substantially less than 60 are directly tied to LLC industrial partner firms - I'd say its in single digits.
Lansing isn't LANL home-grown. Neither is Cabbil. Why, Brandt isn't LANL home-grown either. Oh my, Watts isn't home-grown too.
Why did you make the false claim that all LANL PADs and ADs (with one exception) are LANL home-grown? Did some Rechtel person tell you this or did you make it up all on your own?
May 5, 2017 at 10:46 AM
Someone needs to go take a calm down pill.
Brandt has been at LANL at least since the 1980's and Lansing and Cabbil are hires that were not from Bechtel.
If you are going to continue to insist on some alternative reality where all that is wrong with LANL is the fault of Bechtel, go find some reason other than this. Deal with the facts that nearly all of LANL management is UC, and most of that is home-grown.
Agree that the place is badly messed up, but don't blame this on those that were not in charge.
Agreed that a lot of the "messed up" is LANL home-grown, but a lot of the reason is their sucking up to Bechtel from the beginning, since they got a bonus from participating in the bid process from the start.
is LANL home-grown, but a lot of the reason is their sucking up to Bechtel from the beginning, since they got a bonus from participating in the bid process from the start.
May 8, 2017 at 5:49 PM
I think this is the key to the problem. I saw a large number of managers coming in and saying "we are corporate now so the rules of game and goals are no longer the same", some took as a license to be corrupt under the false pretense that all things corporate are corrupt. It is like the watched Wolf of Wall street and said this is how we can now act. I have heard many times that the corruption could be justified because this is just the way of world, right and wrong or illusions or just "world views" or that there are many opportunities in this environment and that they would have to be fools not to take advantage of it. I do blame Bechtel to some extent because they either gave the hint that this is the way things should run or let the natives go crazy. Bechtel does have a reputation as being very sleazy in in how the operate in this may have trickled down.
11:39 AM.
Brandt is LANL homegrown. My mistake. The other 3 are not. Thanks for admitting you lied when you said all ADs but one are LANL homegrown.
I think his point is well taken here: blaming everything on Bechtel may be expedient, but doesn't get to the root of the problem. If you don't drain the swamp and only change business cards for middle to upper management, expect the same results under the new contractor.
Which begs the question: why would anyone choose to work in a swamp?
Which begs the question: why would anyone choose to work in a swamp?
May 10, 2017 at 1:39 PM
That is an easy one, some creatures can only work in swamps, they die in non-swamp environments.
I assume you are including all the "innocent" non-management working stiffs. If so I agree. The swamp nourishes all kinds of noxious creatures, including the management-haters here. Draining the swamp would rid us of these vermin too.
The workforce at LANL doesn't hate management as a concept, just this particular, incompetent bunch.
It's a little known or appreciated fact that only a minority of LANL employees hate "this particular, incompetent bunch." The majority dislike but tolerate them.
LANL is just a horrible place to work. Change the management, same result. Why? Everyone loves to sit around and discuss instead of actually doing anything. This is not the whole of LANL but it is a VERY large part.
Yes, LANL is so much smarter than everyone. That is part of it. Many never embraced change, they just fight it all the way because they know better than all....
Yes, LANL is so much smarter than everyone.
May 12, 2017 at 3:53 PM
Yep, corporate psychologists agree that institutions are smart. Much smarter than the employees that work there. If everyone at LANL went home, the buildings would still be "smarter than everyone." You are such an uneducated jerk. Please go away.
"LANL is just a horrible place to work. "
Than why do some many people want to work at LANL, why do we still have people transfer from LLNL and Sandia? I suspect that you are rather bitter about they way you have been treated by LANL and you have projected this on everyone and everything at LANL. Perhaps you have been treated unfairly and you have a legitimate reason to be upset however that that does not mean the majority of the people have. It may also be possible that that you have been treated very fairly but you simply will not take responsibility for your own actions or failings. Either way you have now justification or facts to back your claim that LANL is a horrible place to work. Just some food for thought you might want to consider.
Yep, corporate psychologists agree that institutions are smart. Much smarter than the employees that work there. If everyone at LANL went home, the buildings would still be "smarter than everyone." You are such an uneducated jerk. Please go away.
May 12, 2017 at 5:38 PM
No, you idiot I am trying to insult the arrogant people at LANL, I am not saying the buildings are smart. When I say I hate LANL I don't mean the infrastructure I mean the people, the arrogance, the scientists, the engineers, the PHDs, the people with masters degrees, the nerds, the geeks, the disgusting people with beards, the overpaid , people that think about how atoms move and that such things are soooo great, the jerks that go cycling along the road like they own it, the people that go hiking and brag about the peaks they climb, the boring souls going on about art markets in Santa Fe or how they saw such and such Opera, the arrogant letters to the editors talking about more money for local schools. What gets me is that after screw up upon screw up and having your own Director tell you that you are buttheads you still go on proudly with your lives and think so highly of yourselves. Don't you people care that the entire world hates you, wants the place closed down and looks down on you? You people have no sense of shame, no sense of self awareness, no sense of reflection. You just brushed Nanos off like he was nothing, who does that, and what kind of so called person can deny their true nature. The whole town sucks to hell, and it is those Goddam people. Sartre said "Hell is other people", but he never meet the people of Los Alamos. There are a few other places that are worse hell holes than Los Alamos like San Fransisco (the worse pit in the universe), New York, Boston, Seattle, and from what I hear Portland, that are filled with arrogant people that think "education" is soooo important.
"You are such an uneducated jerk."
And this is exactly why the place is so bad. If you are not "Educated" you are jerk.
Wow. Los Alamos sucks, San Francisco sucks, New York, Boston, Seattle, Portland (second hand) all suck, people with beards suck, scientists, engineers, people who ride bikes, people who attend operas, they all suck... Perhaps, just food for thought, it is YOU who suck, and not the whole rest of the universe?
In reference to the above comment:
- Los Alamos sucks TRUE
- San Francisco sucks TRUE
- New York sucks TRUE
- Boston sucks TRUE
- Seattle sucks TRUE
- Portland (second hand) sucks NOT TRUE BUT WHATEVER
- People with beards suck DEFINITELY TRUE
- scientists suck TRUE
- engineers suck VERY TRUE
- people who ride bikes suck TOTALLY TRUE
- people who attend operas, they all suck... HELL YES THIS IS TRUE
YEP, AND THEY'RE BITCHES TOO.
I just pray you don't own guns. Maybe we'll get lucky that you've already been adjudicated mentally ill.
May 17, 2017 at 1:04 AM
Dude you are soo crazy and full of it is not even funny how just effing wrong you are about.....Portland, it actually sucks and that is DEFINITELY CONFIRMED TRUE. Man you look like a fool saying Portland does not suck.
Post a Comment