Not sure where he is but I think he is still around. He seemed very bitter the last few months with LANS. Kinda of strange, I would think he would be happy that he got something at least. I guess he really thought that he should be the Director for years and years. Someone pointed out just how vindictive he is, so I think he blames others for why LANS fails. My guess he felt that he was always going to be the next Director after McMillian but it would be with LANS for 5-10 years. LANS was thrown out and that was that so someone is at fault.
Wallace should not make the mistake of several recent and not-so-recent Directors, of comparing themselves favorably with Oppenheimer, Bradbury, Agnew, Hecker, and even Browne (forget Kerr). Not in the same class, not even close. Wallace's Mommy's influence got him his upper management job, not his (lack of) qualifications.
Wallace was far better than any of the three Livermore carpetbaggers. He was also far better than Nanos and Kerr. That puts him right in the middle with Brown. Neither he nor Brown ever understood the mission of the Lab. Neither he nor Brown had the necessary background. He had far fewer “incidents” under his watch and handled them well. Edge to Wallace. Admittedly, that’s a pretty low bar, but the days of Bradbury and Agnew are long gone. Mason will be fighting for a middle seat in this bimodal distribution. Unless he is a total screw up, his legacy there is all but guaranteed.
5 comments:
Not sure where he is but I think he is still around. He seemed very bitter the last few months with LANS. Kinda of strange, I would think he would be happy that he got something at least. I guess he really thought that he should be the Director for years and years. Someone pointed out just how vindictive he is, so I think he blames others for why LANS fails. My guess he felt that he was always going to be the next Director after McMillian but it would be with LANS for 5-10 years. LANS was thrown out and that was that so someone is at fault.
Wallace should not make the mistake of several recent and not-so-recent Directors, of comparing themselves favorably with Oppenheimer, Bradbury, Agnew, Hecker, and even Browne (forget Kerr). Not in the same class, not even close. Wallace's Mommy's influence got him his upper management job, not his (lack of) qualifications.
That last part is quite an extrapolation.
Terry has a new office, and was in DC this week helping with transition related discussions.
Wallace was far better than any of the three Livermore carpetbaggers. He was also far better than Nanos and Kerr. That puts him right in the middle with Brown. Neither he nor Brown ever understood the mission of the Lab. Neither he nor Brown had the necessary background. He had far fewer “incidents” under his watch and handled them well. Edge to Wallace. Admittedly, that’s a pretty low bar, but the days of Bradbury and Agnew are long gone. Mason will be fighting for a middle seat in this bimodal distribution. Unless he is a total screw up, his legacy there is all but guaranteed.
"Wallace was far better than any of the three Livermore carpetbaggers."
Ok that is true so at least Wallace is a zero rather than a negative.
Post a Comment