Nov 28, 2007

Editorial: Chávez demagogues LANL; Udall wants new role for it

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Udall is an idiot. Instead of trying persuade "those scientists on the Hill" to diversify, he shoulda been trying to persuade those who hold the purse strings. Congress and the DoE, for example.

Anonymous said...

Bullshit, 7:38!

There has been nothing stopping LANL from pursuing WFO from outside sponsors for the past two decades. Nothing except a LANL management that couldn't be bothered, that is.

You are the idiot for taking the 'victim' attitude.

Gussie Fink-Nottle said...

Well said, 7:42.

-Gus

Anonymous said...

Whatever WFO the lab has (or could have) mustered up is in addition to the nuclear weapons funding provided by Congress. With or without WFO, the cut in NW funding results in people getting laid off.

I stand by my comment: Udall is an idiot.

Gussie Fink-Nottle said...

And I stand by 7:42's. Anybody who cops a victim attitude about LANL's not having diversified already has only himself to blame. You might not be an idiot, 7:53, but you could sure pass for one by blaming Udall for LANL's problems.

-Gus

Anonymous said...

But..but...we're the best and brightest! But...

Anonymous said...

Udall is the idiot, yet we're the ones in jeopardy of losing our jobs? That's like the smoker dying of cancer trying to say the tobacco farmer is the idiot.

Anonymous said...

This is what this blog is:




Talk, its only talk
Arguments, agreements, advice, answers,
Articulate announcements
Its only talk

Talk, its only talk
Babble, burble, banter, bicker bicker bicker
Brouhaha, boulderdash, ballyhoo
Its only talk
Back talk

Talk talk talk, its only talk
Comments, cliches, commentary, controversy
Chatter, chit-chat, chit-chat, chit-chat,
Conversation, contradiction, criticism
Its only talk
Cheap talk

Talk, talk, its only talk
Debates, discussions
These are words with a d this time
Dialogue, dualogue, diatribe,
Dissention, declamation
Double talk, double talk

Talk, talk, its all talk
Too much talk
Small talk
Talk that trash
Expressions, editorials, expugnations, exclamations, enfadulations
Its all talk






Oh, and Udall IS an idiot.

Anonymous said...

While it is true that LANL management, pushed by NNSA, made it very difficult for us to bring in WFO. But, that doesn't change the fact that Udall is an idiot. And, he is an asshole!

Anonymous said...

Woohoo! King Crimson! You left out the "Elephant Talk" lines though.

Anonymous said...

A recent high level LLNL presentation had vu-graphs that showed LLNL is preparing for aggressive WFO growth.

I've seen nothing similar to that here at LANL. What I hear from LANS management is "We can't do that unless Congress tells us it is OK."

The difference between LLNL and SNL vs. LANL on the matter of project diversification couldn't be more striking.

Anonymous said...

The reason for that difference, 12:20, is that NNSA does not have plans to do pit production at SNL or LLNL. Pu operations do not mix well with WFO. LANL's mission is in the process of being narrowed to that one work area: making pits. DOE and NNSA don't want LANL to focus on anything besides making pits, and so that is all LANS is interested in.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the comment made by Anonymous at 11/28/07 2:58 PM, I do not understand why pit production is incompatible with WFO.

Anonymous said...

Two reasons, 3:36.

1. The Pu work, because of all the expensive facilities, security, etc. required will raise overhead rates for LANL, making staff too expensive for WFO sponsors.

2. DOE and NNSA don't want the distractions of WFO. They want LANL to do pit production, period.

Anonymous said...

11/28/07 3:43 PM

You are a little off on #2. The reason they do not want WFO work at LANL is that they are short term project typically and make it harder to project the funding picture over the long term for strategic planning reasons. Therefore WFO work is kept to being a small percentage of the overall LANL funding picture.

Anonymous said...

7:38 is right. Udall is an idiot. Udall should have spent a few of those nine years making deals with funding agencies to help us achieve the diversification he wants. He didn't. He should have cast a dissenting vote just to show the people he "represents" that he is behind them. He didn't.

By Udall's standard, it would be OK if I stole his car just to teach him a lesson that the world needs alternate sources of energy.

What would happen if there actually were a 400M budget cut in one Fiscal year? That is 20%. But there are fixed costs. Maybe that means 30% of the work force have to go. But wait! It couldn't be done right away. Maybe it is done later in the year, and 40% have to go.

My numbers may be wrong. Regardless, Udall's position is not courageous. It is irresponsible. Same goes for the entire House of Representatives.

Not only that, but Gussie says we are all to blame for the lack of diversification. On the face of it, that is ridiculous. We do not all secure funding. Gussie doesn't like complainers who "cop a victim attitude" either. Nice.

Well, Gussie, I have news for you. I am not a victim, because I don't care what happens to me. I do care what happens to LANL and its (believe it or not) hard-working employees. I am complaining because I think a 20% budget cut in one year is absolutely the wrong way to downsize the nuclear weapons complex. And because Udall is an asshole for going along with it.