Skip to main content

African American Director at LLNL?

Image
By scooby
Bothwell: LLNL Should Seize Opportunity To Appoint African American Director Following Retirement Of William Goldstein

https://ladailypost.com/bothwell-llnl-should-seize-opportunity-to-appoint-african-american-director-following-retirement-of-william-goldstein/

Comments

Anonymous said…

Why not choose the most qualified person?

By the way what is being proposed is actually racists and illegal. You cannot simply say "we must hire an American American Director at LLNL".

When ever you see statements like these just exchange the words "African American" or black with "White" or "Jew" and see how it sounds. If it sounds racists that is because it is no matter what race you put in.

Also I would be very careful trusting anything from Bothwell, if you know anything about him he seems like opportunists and if it suited his agenda he would be saying the exact opposite the next day.
8/30/2020 12:09 PM
Anonymous said…
"Also I would be very careful trusting anything from Bothwell, if you know anything about him he seems like opportunists and if it suited his agenda he would be saying the exact opposite the next day."

Why would you make such a statement? "Seems like" ?
8/30/2020 2:32 PM
Anonymous said…
"When ever you see statements like these just exchange the words "African American" or black with "White" or "Jew" and see how it sounds. If it sounds racists that is because it is no matter what race you put in. "

Interesting position since LLNS Staff Relations (legal department) is loaded with "people of color" meaning non-white. Why is that? Hmm.
8/30/2020 2:46 PM
Anonymous said…
Why not choose the most qualified person?

8/30/2020 12:09 PM

There is no "most qualified" candidate for positions like lab Director, but there will be many equally qualified, if the hiring committee has done its job. In such cases AA/EO demands hiring the minority applicant.
8/30/2020 3:56 PM
Anonymous said…
AA/EEO does not "demand" anything. It is a policy of the federal government, not a law. You need to brush up on the law.
8/30/2020 5:37 PM
Anonymous said…
8/30/2020 5:37 PM

and you need to read 41CFR60-2.1.
9/01/2020 2:45 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more