Anonymous wanted to start a thread on benefits:
He/she said:
Got "Open Enrollment" info from LLNS today. Lots if whining about costs (poor Georgie and ULM, they must be crying all the way to the bank) and weak explanations about why coverage will cost more and benefits will be reduced. Real reason? Bechtel needs to save money for "profit" and inflated ULM salaries. And here's the catch: despite lots of info being provided (yes, it's up to you to decipher the plans and see if your current providers will take them), I couldn't find ANYTHING about what the new plans will cost the employee or retiree. Nada. Nothing. Zip. Already received a letter from Health Net saying my coverage is over come Jan.1, and now I have only a couple of weeks to choose a new plan. And I don't know how much it will cost me. Nice. Complete incompetence on the part of LLNS and their over-paid managers.........Anyone know where the cost of the plans is published (tried the LLNL web sites and Hewitt......couldn't find even a mention of this new health plan fiasco; called LLNL/LLNS Benefits office...they didn't know their asses from a hole in the ground either....) Best and the brightest, my a**. The "Best" will easily find employment elsewhere, and the "Brightest" are too smart to come to work here.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Poll on politics in this BLOG
It is clear that the vast majority prefer not to see policical fights in thsi BLOG.
So, starting now, I will screen out anything election, candidate, party, right, left, related stuff
So, starting now, I will screen out anything election, candidate, party, right, left, related stuff
NNSA's decline
Anonymous said:
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke at the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace today (10/28/2008) — Topic: The Future Of U.S. Nuclear Weapons. I caught most of it on C-SPAN and have tried to paraphrase it below. It also looks like you’ll be able to listen to it yourself in the future via this link:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/
B-1 Bombers and four Trident Submarines no longer have a nuclear mission
In 1992 we unilaterally stopped nuclear testing and developed a Stockpile Stewardship Program
The U.S. has completed all reductions for START
The U.S. is planning to reach a 2/3 reduction of our 2000 nuclear deployed force numbers by 2010 as part of Moscow Treaty, nearly two years early
The U.S. will have 75% fewer nuclear weapons than at the end of the Cold War
A new defense triad developed:
Strike capability consisting of existing capabilities
Defense capability including a limited ballistic missile defense
New infrastructure to support
Rising and resurgent powers, rouge nations -- we need to keep a deterrence
Other countries lacking funding are putting more reliance on their nuclear force
Russia and China are not considered adversaries but we cannot ignore their developments
Proliferation: the fewer nuclear armed states, the better
We simply cannot predict the future, our track record has not been that great
The genie cannot be put back in the bottle
If we can accept that nuclear weapons are still relevant, must continue responsibility
Recent issues of Air Force handling of nuclear weapons and related material
1990’s streamlining folded some nuclear related components into regular supply chain
Another element to credibility: Safety, Security, and Reliability of the weapons
Our weapons are currently safe, secure, and reliable
Long term prognosis -- Bleak
No new design since the 1980’s, no new devices have been built since the 90’s
A serious brain drain of veteran nuclear scientists and technicians
NNSA has lost a quarter of work force since 90’s
Half of nuclear lab scientists are over fifty years old
By some estimates, three-quarters of experienced workforce will be at retirement age in several years
Weapons were designed on the assumption of a limited shelf life then replacement
Sensitive parts do not last forever and developed with narrow technical margins
No test to certify these weapons since 1992, test data becoming incomplete
Currently the U.S. is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal or has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead
To be blunt, there is no way to maintain a credible deterrence while reducing the number of weapons in stockpile without testing or pursuing a modernization program
Funding for a Reliable Replacement Warhead program has only been supported at a conceptual phase and now the funding for that has been cut
The program did not deal with new capabilities; it dealt with the future credibility of our nuclear deterrent
The U.S. must transform from an aging cold war nuclear weapons complex to a smaller, less costly, modern enterprise that can meet our nations nuclear security needs
A new paradigm is required for the post cold-war world era
Need ability to deter a range of potential adversaries from taking a variety of actions
Also must face nation states passing weapons into the hands of terrorists
Need to design redundant systems to make attack appear pointless
As long as human nature is what it is…
- - - - - - -
I retired early when the management of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab transitioned from the University Of California to LLNS. I saw the funding issues, I saw the moral issues, and I endured the management issues. I smile though as I reminisce to when I contributed my limited pieces to the puzzle.
p.s., My thanks to those who maintain the "LLNL, The True Story" web site.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke at the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace today (10/28/2008) — Topic: The Future Of U.S. Nuclear Weapons. I caught most of it on C-SPAN and have tried to paraphrase it below. It also looks like you’ll be able to listen to it yourself in the future via this link:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/
B-1 Bombers and four Trident Submarines no longer have a nuclear mission
In 1992 we unilaterally stopped nuclear testing and developed a Stockpile Stewardship Program
The U.S. has completed all reductions for START
The U.S. is planning to reach a 2/3 reduction of our 2000 nuclear deployed force numbers by 2010 as part of Moscow Treaty, nearly two years early
The U.S. will have 75% fewer nuclear weapons than at the end of the Cold War
A new defense triad developed:
Strike capability consisting of existing capabilities
Defense capability including a limited ballistic missile defense
New infrastructure to support
Rising and resurgent powers, rouge nations -- we need to keep a deterrence
Other countries lacking funding are putting more reliance on their nuclear force
Russia and China are not considered adversaries but we cannot ignore their developments
Proliferation: the fewer nuclear armed states, the better
We simply cannot predict the future, our track record has not been that great
The genie cannot be put back in the bottle
If we can accept that nuclear weapons are still relevant, must continue responsibility
Recent issues of Air Force handling of nuclear weapons and related material
1990’s streamlining folded some nuclear related components into regular supply chain
Another element to credibility: Safety, Security, and Reliability of the weapons
Our weapons are currently safe, secure, and reliable
Long term prognosis -- Bleak
No new design since the 1980’s, no new devices have been built since the 90’s
A serious brain drain of veteran nuclear scientists and technicians
NNSA has lost a quarter of work force since 90’s
Half of nuclear lab scientists are over fifty years old
By some estimates, three-quarters of experienced workforce will be at retirement age in several years
Weapons were designed on the assumption of a limited shelf life then replacement
Sensitive parts do not last forever and developed with narrow technical margins
No test to certify these weapons since 1992, test data becoming incomplete
Currently the U.S. is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal or has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead
To be blunt, there is no way to maintain a credible deterrence while reducing the number of weapons in stockpile without testing or pursuing a modernization program
Funding for a Reliable Replacement Warhead program has only been supported at a conceptual phase and now the funding for that has been cut
The program did not deal with new capabilities; it dealt with the future credibility of our nuclear deterrent
The U.S. must transform from an aging cold war nuclear weapons complex to a smaller, less costly, modern enterprise that can meet our nations nuclear security needs
A new paradigm is required for the post cold-war world era
Need ability to deter a range of potential adversaries from taking a variety of actions
Also must face nation states passing weapons into the hands of terrorists
Need to design redundant systems to make attack appear pointless
As long as human nature is what it is…
- - - - - - -
I retired early when the management of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab transitioned from the University Of California to LLNS. I saw the funding issues, I saw the moral issues, and I endured the management issues. I smile though as I reminisce to when I contributed my limited pieces to the puzzle.
p.s., My thanks to those who maintain the "LLNL, The True Story" web site.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Recipient or Donor?
So, raise cards came out last week. A co-worker asked me an interesting question. They asked if I was a recipient or a donor. After they explained it. it went something like this.
A few people received a raise percentage greater than “bring in”. Those are the Recipients. Then there are those who received less than the “bring in” percentage. Example of this is from http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2008/09/salaries-in-short.html The 300 series allocation was 1.54%. If you are a 300 series and got more than 1.54% then you are a recipient. If you got less, then you are a donor. Someone has to get less so all the supervisors and good ol boys can get a big fat raise on this lean year.
So, I pose the question. Were you a recipient or a donor?
A few people received a raise percentage greater than “bring in”. Those are the Recipients. Then there are those who received less than the “bring in” percentage. Example of this is from http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2008/09/salaries-in-short.html The 300 series allocation was 1.54%. If you are a 300 series and got more than 1.54% then you are a recipient. If you got less, then you are a donor. Someone has to get less so all the supervisors and good ol boys can get a big fat raise on this lean year.
So, I pose the question. Were you a recipient or a donor?
BLOG value questionned.
Anonymous said:
Scooby,
Thanks for the work you do. I appreciate it. However, I do not truly believe that opinions expressed in this blog are representative of people who are still working at the Lab. I'm still very proud to be a lab employee. I feel valued and fortunate to be working at LLNL. Everything I read here is so negative. There are a bunch of "chicken littles" here. Yeah, things are tough all over the country, not just at LLNL. I honestly cannot see our country going forward and staying strong without a healthy science program at our national labs. Anyone in congress or in the senate or in the executive branch of our government would be totally ignorant to think otherwise.
Reading this blog has no value for me. It just provides the chicken littles with a podium for expressing their negativity. Yes, the lab has changed. Yes, we are no longer UC employees. That is very unfortunate. Get over it!
Let's discuss how we can promote research and science. Let's talk about how new technologies can save ten times as much energy through conservation than oil drilling could ever contribute toward US oil independence. Aren't we a department of ENERGY national lab? On the day, year, decade when we can thumb our noses at the Saudis and say your oil is worthless is when we will, through our technology truly be the superpower of the world.
Just my rant and two cents here.
Scooby,
Thanks for the work you do. I appreciate it. However, I do not truly believe that opinions expressed in this blog are representative of people who are still working at the Lab. I'm still very proud to be a lab employee. I feel valued and fortunate to be working at LLNL. Everything I read here is so negative. There are a bunch of "chicken littles" here. Yeah, things are tough all over the country, not just at LLNL. I honestly cannot see our country going forward and staying strong without a healthy science program at our national labs. Anyone in congress or in the senate or in the executive branch of our government would be totally ignorant to think otherwise.
Reading this blog has no value for me. It just provides the chicken littles with a podium for expressing their negativity. Yes, the lab has changed. Yes, we are no longer UC employees. That is very unfortunate. Get over it!
Let's discuss how we can promote research and science. Let's talk about how new technologies can save ten times as much energy through conservation than oil drilling could ever contribute toward US oil independence. Aren't we a department of ENERGY national lab? On the day, year, decade when we can thumb our noses at the Saudis and say your oil is worthless is when we will, through our technology truly be the superpower of the world.
Just my rant and two cents here.
Friday, October 24, 2008
About Obama
Anonymous said...
The mystery of Barack Obama’s missing thesis
"After a few days of getting nowhere, I asked my readers for help. It was not long before one of my brilliant readers informed me that the topic of his thesis was “Soviet nuclear disarmament,” and Columbia refuses to release it."
[...]
Obama's Resume
"Columbia University
B.A. Political Science with specialization in international relations
Thesis topic: Soviet nuclear disarmament"
Does anyone else wonder what is in that thesis? Is there really a thesis or is this an internet rumor?
The mystery of Barack Obama’s missing thesis
"After a few days of getting nowhere, I asked my readers for help. It was not long before one of my brilliant readers informed me that the topic of his thesis was “Soviet nuclear disarmament,” and Columbia refuses to release it."
[...]
Obama's Resume
"Columbia University
B.A. Political Science with specialization in international relations
Thesis topic: Soviet nuclear disarmament"
Does anyone else wonder what is in that thesis? Is there really a thesis or is this an internet rumor?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Media stacks the cards in the left wings favor
Anonymously contributed:
Presidential debates take on role as big as office
Analysts say the stakes are raised this election year
By SCOTT SHEPARD
Cox News Service
Sept. 20, 2008, 4:55PM
WASHINGTON There's no underestimating the importance of the upcoming presidential debates. They are the main event in the 2008 White House contest in an America tiring of its lengthy war in the Middle East and battered by economic chaos.
"They always seem to be bigger than all outdoors, but this time there's great potential to be even bigger," said Allen Louden, a political communications expert at Wake Forest University who maintains a Web site, www.debatescoop.org, that analyzes political debates.
In a campaign already historic because of the first African-American candidate, events in Iraq and on Wall Street "have raised the stakes" for the debates, added Louden in a telephone interview Thursday.
In the contest between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, "they are the main event," agreed Paul Stekler, a documentary filmmaker and professor of radio, TV and film at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin.
And "if there's any one event the whole country is going to be watching, it's the first debate," Stekler said in a telephone interview.
The first of three debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates takes place Friday at the University of Mississippi at Oxford.
The candidates will be seated at a table, and discussion will be moderated by Jim Lehrer, anchor of PBS's The NewsHour.
The subject: domestic policy, with the 90-minute debate divided into 10-minute segments for various issues and closing statements.
The second will be on Oct. 7 at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., with moderator Tom Brokaw of NBC News. The candidates will field questions on foreign and domestic issues in a 90-minute town hall format.
The final debate will be Oct. 15 at Hofstra University in New York, moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS News. Again, the candidates will be seated at a table for a 90-minute discussion, but the topic will be foreign affairs only.
A vice-presidential debate between Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Sarah Palin will take place Oct. 2 at Washington University in St. Louis, with moderator Gwen Ifill of PBS.
It, too, will be 90 minutes with both candidates seated at a table with Ifill, and it will cover domestic and foreign policy.
The timing of the topics domestic first reflects the priorities of voters in public opinion polls.
Even before the meltdown in Wall Street this week, Americans were telling pollsters that their major concern this election is the economy, largely as a result of high gasoline prices, a rising unemployment rate and the spreading credit crisis.
At this moment of high economic anxiety, Americans do not appear to be in the mood to hear the two candidates merely regurgitating political talking points manufactured by advisers, in order to minimize any potential damage.
"Voters want to see the two presidential candidates engaged," said Louden. "Talking points and glib one-liners just won't do" this time.
Presidential debates take on role as big as office
Analysts say the stakes are raised this election year
By SCOTT SHEPARD
Cox News Service
Sept. 20, 2008, 4:55PM
WASHINGTON There's no underestimating the importance of the upcoming presidential debates. They are the main event in the 2008 White House contest in an America tiring of its lengthy war in the Middle East and battered by economic chaos.
"They always seem to be bigger than all outdoors, but this time there's great potential to be even bigger," said Allen Louden, a political communications expert at Wake Forest University who maintains a Web site, www.debatescoop.org, that analyzes political debates.
In a campaign already historic because of the first African-American candidate, events in Iraq and on Wall Street "have raised the stakes" for the debates, added Louden in a telephone interview Thursday.
In the contest between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, "they are the main event," agreed Paul Stekler, a documentary filmmaker and professor of radio, TV and film at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin.
And "if there's any one event the whole country is going to be watching, it's the first debate," Stekler said in a telephone interview.
The first of three debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates takes place Friday at the University of Mississippi at Oxford.
The candidates will be seated at a table, and discussion will be moderated by Jim Lehrer, anchor of PBS's The NewsHour.
The subject: domestic policy, with the 90-minute debate divided into 10-minute segments for various issues and closing statements.
The second will be on Oct. 7 at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., with moderator Tom Brokaw of NBC News. The candidates will field questions on foreign and domestic issues in a 90-minute town hall format.
The final debate will be Oct. 15 at Hofstra University in New York, moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS News. Again, the candidates will be seated at a table for a 90-minute discussion, but the topic will be foreign affairs only.
A vice-presidential debate between Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Sarah Palin will take place Oct. 2 at Washington University in St. Louis, with moderator Gwen Ifill of PBS.
It, too, will be 90 minutes with both candidates seated at a table with Ifill, and it will cover domestic and foreign policy.
The timing of the topics domestic first reflects the priorities of voters in public opinion polls.
Even before the meltdown in Wall Street this week, Americans were telling pollsters that their major concern this election is the economy, largely as a result of high gasoline prices, a rising unemployment rate and the spreading credit crisis.
At this moment of high economic anxiety, Americans do not appear to be in the mood to hear the two candidates merely regurgitating political talking points manufactured by advisers, in order to minimize any potential damage.
"Voters want to see the two presidential candidates engaged," said Louden. "Talking points and glib one-liners just won't do" this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)