This week, the full Comment of the Week award goes to this insightful glimpse into what it is like to work at LANL under LANS, LLC. Our winner comes from the LANL PurchaseIT Rollout Designed to Eliminate Laptop Usage post which, although pretty funny, was sufficiently close to the mark as to be a little scary, as well.
Interesting thought. Let me see if I got it. You pay for a computer with a wireless feature. You then pay more money to get that feature physically disabled. You then buy a wireless card, to allow your laptop to have a connection. Makes total sense. Great stewardship of taxpayer dollars, to be sure. Why not repeat this cycle a few times, just to be safe?
Of course, getting the wireless card would require tons and tons of special paperwork, approved at the CIO level, right? No big deal, it's just scientists' time. What do they have, project deadlines or something?
But wait, after all, the LANL policy has absolutely nothing about any option to add a wireless card. They really thought this one through.
Of course, getting the wireless card would require tons and tons of special paperwork, approved at the CIO level, right? No big deal, it's just scientists' time. What do they have, project deadlines or something?
But wait, after all, the LANL policy has absolutely nothing about any option to add a wireless card. They really thought this one through.
Next week, we'll discuss thin clients. Or perhaps bottled water. Or maybe day care.
Until then, PBI's baby!
--Doug
102 comments:
"You pay for a computer with a wireless feature. You then pay more money to get that feature physically disabled. You then buy a wireless card, to allow your laptop to have a connection. Makes total sense. Great stewardship of taxpayer dollars, to be sure."
Yes, it IS a good use of money. The cost of removing internal wifi and adding external wifi is significantly less than the cost of any security problems.
The goal is not the cheapest single action (e.g. removal, replacement), but rather the best value for the entire process (e.g. wifi without security problems).
What the heck is so hard to understand???
Could you please 'splain it one more time, 5:43? You weren't very convincing the first time, in spite of your apparent (PBI-based?) sincerity.
Are you being sarcastic 6:22? Was my argument difficult to understand or did it contain a major flaw?
Major flaw.
The laptop's wireless card is no more of a security threat than is the ethernet port, or the USB ports.
People are the security risk, not computing hardware.
Wireless hardware (cell phones, pdas, laptops) are not allowed in secure areas). If you can't stop people from bringing them in behind the fence, you have a much larger problem than you realize.
But, please don't let me discourage you. Feel free to shove JB weld up the ethernet ports of all LANL laptops while you're doing the USB ports and ripping out the wireless.
I get paid the same whether or not my laptop can communicate.
I disagree with your assessment that there is a flaw in my argument.
I can physically see if there is something plugged into my ethernet port or my USB port. I can see if an external wifi connector is present.
I cannot always see if an internal wifi is on.
Sarcasm on: Unlike a poor mortal like me, perhaps you have superman-like x-ray vision and can see the radio waves. If this is the case, then you should keep internal wifi.
Hey, 6:51 PM.
I thought I explained: it makes no difference to me if my LANL laptop can communicate via usb, wifi, or eth0.
I don't care. It pays the same. Do your worst.
I've got my own laptop, you can keep yours. I gave up trying to get any real work done around here about a year ago.
PBI's, baby. Go for it.
Hm. How many ACTUAL security incidents - defined as actual or suspected loss of classified information - have occurred as a result of someone forgetting to software disable their wifi onsite at LANL.
Now compare this to the number of ACTUAL security incidents that have occurred due to classified information being transmitted via ethernet port.
Hmm.
Part of the problem here is that it is not much of a vulnerability. Anyone have a wireless network at work? I thought not. What is the range of the wireless in your laptop when it has no network?
As one of you said, the problem is with people not hardware. I agree that I get paid the same if my laptop can communicate or not, so I have stopped caring. But it is quite remarkable that walking into your office and having your wireless on, realizing it, and turning it off in software is such a big deal given there is really nothing to be done with it anyway. No infrastructure.
Day care seems not to be an issue in Los Alamos anymore. I've been approached by several other parents, mentioning that their kids' day care center has openings. And have you seen the tacky sign that the Ark has hanging from the high school overpass? My how the mighty have fallen. Maybe the ridiculous prices will start coming down now.
4/18/09 7:13 PM asked ...
"How many ACTUAL security incidents - defined as actual or suspected loss of classified information - have occurred as a result of someone forgetting to software disable their wifi onsite at LANL.
Now compare this to the number of ACTUAL security incidents that have occurred due to classified information being transmitted via ethernet port.
Oh, you would have to ask Mary Neu and her husband. IMI1 baby and all covered up!
People are the security risk, not computing hardware.
Yip, & whether Ethernet port, USB port or wireless card all those secrets exit the security areas every day.
If you can't afford to pay to have your kids taken care of while you work, then your incremental family salary is insufficient, and you either need to 1) stay home and take care of your kids, or 2) don't have kids because you can't afford them. Not rocket science.
Manufactured safety and security problems are much easier for LANS executives to fix than the real world variety. Don't slip. Wear shoes that grip! Riiiiiiight.
Ponder this for a minute... nearly $40 billion in stimulus money was approved for the Department of Energy last month with the passing of the Stimulus Bill. This is an enormous amount of money. Some of this money was initially going to be given to the NNSA labs for scientific work. The anti-nuke crowd, however, raised a loud stink and the Obama administration then decided to react by pulling the NNSA money out of the Stimulus Bill.
In the end, LANL managed to get $212 million over 2 years for some cleanup work. It comes out to a paltry 0.5% of the DOE's massive $40 billion in stimulus funding.
About 70% of that LANL cleanup money will be used to hire outside contractors to come in and do the work at the lab. Cleanup appears to be about the only work which the anti-nuke crowd wants to see happening at LANL. As far as the administration and Congress are concerned, LANL isn't worth even a measly 1% of the DOE's enormous stimulus funding.
Are your hearing the message loud and clear? The NNSA weapon labs (particularly LANL and LLNL) are on a steeply downward path, while the DOE labs (ORNL, PNNL, ANL, NREL, Fermi, Brookhaven) all look to be headed for a very bright and promising future. To think otherwise is to be in denial about what is happening right before your eyes. This latest laptop insanity is just another sign of the downward slope and the slope is beginning to steepen.
The 'future' hasn't been so great under W, Clinton, or Bush I either.
20 years of disintegration.
I hope the nation doesn't expect much national security in the future.
"20 years of disintegration."aka: Death by a thousand cuts.
8:06,
Thanks for your enlightening insight. Did I *say* "can't afford"? No, it's just surprisingly expensive, not to mention historically very difficult to find openings in Los Alamos. But there seems to be a buyers' market emerging... some kind of demographic shift, which is of possible interest to everyone at LANL, even those who don't have kids.
Personally, the last thing I'd want to inflict on my own kids is LANL-sponsored day care. (Toddler-size Yak Trax, anyone?)
We have a high percentage of college educated workers at LANL. The rest are, well, should know how to set up their laptop:
On a Windows laptop, go to controls>admin tools>Services>and disable the Wireless Zero Configuration setting. The little wireless icon on the bottom of your screen will disappear if there is no wireless ability now. Really paranoid managers and worker can remove the wireless driver, very simple to do from the desktop, by right clicking on My Computer icon, and getting to hardware and device drivers.
On a Mac its even easier, and anyone using a Mac knows it already, since they are more intuitive to drive than Microsoft Windoze.The little Airport thing on screen top goes away if you disable WIFI.
How hard is this to do? Is it really worth paying to have the hardware REMOVED? My God, what have we done here? There is obviously a lot of mistrust of the workforce by the cyber security czar (forgot their name). Since January, we have had PDFs blocked, Excel spreadsheets blocked, and many THOUSANDS of perfectly useful and important websites from suppliers, academia and other laboratories permanently blocked from web access within LANL. If you ask for desktop computer help, a boilerplate letter comes back telling you to retake computer security training. It has gotten so out of hand that its laughable to try and use a computer to help do real work at LANL. At least once a week, the impediments of the new computer experts has stopped work for employees.
We don't need to worry about Pit production, we'll be out of business soon unless we can get the cyber-security "war room" (seriously their name) out of the line of total control of workspaces at LANL.
This cybersecurity-as-theatre is the rule at all the labs. LLNL always disables wireless; you have to use a USB dongle.
Everyone (except the CIOs of course) knows these measures are nonsense, and don't address the real issues, but you can get *anything* set up as a rule if you invoke cybersecurity.
The only people who have a clue are being ignored. Of course these are the people who have been asked to stand up cybersecurity programs to bring in money.
Irony alert! The labs are trying to sell their cybersecurity expertise for WFO -- recycling researchers. Do the labs involve these researchers in their internal cybersecurity decisions? Of course not!
Simple question for the anyone funding an NNSA lab for cybersecurity: "Do you use your own experts to formulate your internal policy?" -- in computerese, "do you eat your own dog food?".
Wait for it to get worse. It will. But LANL is not alone in this ongoing stupidity -- thank the NNSA, DOE, the US Congress ... it's a long list.
"This cybersecurity-as-theatre is the rule at all the labs." - 10:43 AM
Perhaps it is the rule at all the broken NNSA labs (LANL, LLNL and maybe at SNL), but not at the DOE energy labs (ORNL, PNNL, ANL, etc).
The core problem here is NNSA. They tell the for-profit LLCs to jump and the for-profit LLCs at both LANL and LLNL ask them "How high?" Want things to improve at LANL and LLNL? Then work to get rid of (a) NNSA, and (b) the for-profit LLCs (Bechtel and BWXT). Things will get remarkably better once that is done.
Sig Hecker realizes this fact and has said so in public on several occasions. Of course, getting rid of NNSA and the for-profit LLCs will never happen unless the politicians come to the same conclusion as Sig. It's time to start asking Sen. Bingamin, Sen. Udall and Congressman Lujan some very tough questions about this ugly subject. Are they more interested in lining their own pockets with money and power or do they actually care about strong national security for America and a thriving set of national science labs in New Mexico. Which is it, gentlemen?
12:04,
Don't be naive. They are politicians; they can be bought. Bechtel has a very large, very well funded stable of lobbyists. How do you think a construction company ended up with the LANL & LLNL contracts in the first place?
The only way Bingaman, et. al. would ever change their publicly-stated support for the Bechtel-fronted LLCs would be if they found themselves losing voter support over the issue.
Given the repeatedly proven cowardice of LANL's constituency, there is little risk to New Mexico's politicians over their having backed NNSA's now de-facto obscene for-profit lab corporatization process.
The Los Alamos community has had repeated opportunities to object to what NNSA has done. They chose to "duck and cover" instead, every time. Aside from a few anonymous whimperings on this, and the predecessor LANL blogs, nobody has had the guts to take an official stand against the new regime.
Take a good look around you. Do you see anything to lead you to suspect that the residents of Los Alamos county have suddenly grown spines? Me neither.
Like I said, wrt computer security and having a spine to do something about it.
Oh, you would have to ask Mary Neu and her husband. IMI1 baby and all covered up! Different rules for different fools.
It's time to start asking Sen. Bingamin, Sen. Udall and Congressman Lujan some very tough questions about this ugly subject. Are they more interested in lining their own pockets with money and power or do they actually care about strong national security for America and a thriving set of national science labs in New Mexico. Which is it, gentlemen?The answer is "A."
During an election year, the answer is "B"...but changes back to "A" the day after the election.
We have the best politicians money can buy.
Do you see anything to lead you to suspect that the residents of Los Alamos county have suddenly grown spines?
4/19/09 1:37 PMYou think that only residents of Los Alamos county work at LANL or are affected by LANL? You are seriously misinformed.
I think some people have put this into perspective more than others. Think about it:
Since January, emails over xmas were quarantined and impossible to release. We have had PDFs blocked, Excel spreadsheets blocked, and many THOUSANDS of perfectly useful and important websites from suppliers, academia and other laboratories permanently blocked from web access within LANL.(see above) All off-site computers needed to be brought back, "inventoried", and re-approved again for off-site computing. The OCE was put into place when it's obviously not ready for prime time. Now *ALL* incoming systems will have their hard drives erased and have wireless, Bluetooth, cameras, and microphones physically removed from systems so that they are permanently disabled.
Someone posted that if many more things happen, they're going to find a new job. Honestly, if you can't see the writing on the wall now, you are just an f'ing moron! Somewhere in Santa Fe, a fuzzy ewok is drinking a margarita and laughing, saying "Those assh*les at LANL, let's see how they feel about my draconian policies now! And the best part, they can't do a damn thing about it! The economy is so bad, many can't find jobs and the lab isn't hiring so they're stuck in their homes! BAHAHAHAH!!!"
Dilbert is the only thing that comforts me anymore: http://www.dilbert.com/2009-04-13/
"Those assh*les at LANL, let's see how they feel about my draconian policies now!"
bottled water, Be contamination, Kevin Roark...the list goes on and on.
I think someone is pissed being called a fuzzy ewok.
oops! i almost forgot. "plutonium's a treasure, learn to measure."
It used to be a federal crime to deface or otherwise alter a government computer system such that it voided the manufacturer's warranty, and that it could not, after some years of use (four, I believe), be donated to schools and colleges as useable hardware. I guess the Obama administration no longer cares about government donations of useable computers to schools.
Can you start a new main topic:
From Sunday Monitor:
"Lilly Ledbetter is the namesake of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act signed into law in January by President Barack Obama.
Ledbetter is traveling to UNM-Los Alamos as part of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Spring Convention.
The public is invited to hear Ledbetter speak at 4 p.m. Friday in the college lecture hall in Building 2, about how her historic legislation restored the long-standing interpretation of civil rights laws and EEOC policies that allow employees to challenge any discriminatory paycheck they receive."
Now that's the ultimate in ironies, to invite the champion of equal pay to the the institution of where there has been over 60 years of "men get paid more because they are, well men" or "you have a husband who supports you, you don't need the same pay, we need to give the head of the household the most pay" or "the lab can't afford to pay men and women the same". I know, let's also invite President Obama to talk about race discrimination is Los Alamos as he looks into the audience and sees what, about 20 African American employees. Oh, let's show him the senior management org chart and let him see the representation of Native Americans and Hispanics. Yes let's do that!
"I guess the Obama administration no longer cares about government donations of useable computers to schools."
Give it a rest, Rush.
what the heck is so hard to understand...
why the heck security can't do a better job of protecting from real and imagined threats without wasting the time of all those who try to live under the miasma of incomprehsible, time wasting, start-stop, red, yellow green confusion.
Incompetents pretending at intel-cops, cock-sure of themselves and their high school football education, who make rules that make it hard of everyone else and who don't give a damn.
bad cops.
Energy Secretary Offers Dire Global Warming Prediction
Speaking at the Summit of the Americas in the Carribean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, Steven Chu says some islands could disappear if water levels rise as a result of greenhouse-gas induced climate change.
By Major Garrett
FOXNews.com
Sunday, April 19, 2009
PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago -- Caribbean nations face "very, very scary" rises in sea level and intensifying hurricanes, and Florida, Louisiana and even northern California could be overrun with rising water levels due to global warming triggered by carbon-based greenhouse gases, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Saturday.
Chu's comments followed meetings with environmental ministers attending the fifth Summit of the Americas. He did not shy away from the most perilous predictions about the potential effects of global warming.
He said global temperatures have already risen by 0.8 degree Centigrade, that another 1 degree increase was certain to occur and "there's a reasonable probability we can go above 4 degrees Centigrade to 5 and 6 more."
Chu painted a dire picture of the implications.
"So imagine a world 6 degrees warmer. It's not going to recognize geographical boundaries. It's not going to recognize anything. So agriculture regions today will be wiped out," Chu said.
"I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes. This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. The island states in the world represent -- I remember this number -- one-half of 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. And they will -- some of them will disappear," he added.
Chu said the United States would not be spared, either.
"Let me state what the official IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) prediction is: It (sea levels) could go up as much as three-quarters of a meter in this century, but there is a reasonable probability it could be much higher than that," Chu said.
He said a rise in levels of one meter, coastal areas around Florida around Louisiana would move much farther inland.
"Lots of area in Florida will go under. New Orleans at three-meter height is in great peril. If you look at, you know, the Bay Area, where I came from, all three airports would be under water. So this is -- this is serious stuff. The impacts could be enormous," he said.
Conservative climate change skeptics immediately denounced Chu's assessment of the threat and potential consequences of global warming.
"Secretary Chu still seems to believe that computer model predictions decades or 100 years from now are some sort of 'evidence' of a looming climate catastrophe, said Marc Morano, executive editor of ClimateDepot.com and former top aide to global warming critic Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.
"Secretary Chu's assertions on sea level rise and hurricanes are quite simply being proven wrong by the latest climate data. As the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute reported in December 12, 2008: There is 'no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise.'"
Morano said hurricane activity levels in both hemispheres of the globe are at 30 years lows and hurricane experts like MIT's Kerry Emanuel and Tom Knutson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "are now backing off their previous dire predictions."
He said Chu is out of date on the science and is promoting unverified and alarming predictions that have already been proven contrary.
4/20/09 4:43 AM
LANL climatologists will not be able to help there because they have to access RoadRunner through thin clients and small bandwidth OCE boxes and are unable to access their data when attending conferences due to the restricted usage of laptop computers abroad.
When you observe what is happening in terms of new policies at LANL, you really do begin to believe that the LANS plan must be aimed at killing off science through the use of back door methods and work free safety zones. It's becoming insidious.
I guess science has become too expensive in terms of forecasting and managing a lab budget. LANS LLC prefers to keep things simple by emphasizing enviro cleanup and make-work production activities. This is the stuff that Bechtel and BWXT are good at managing. Our esteemed Director, Dr. No-Show, appears to be on board to let it all happen.
Yes, we will have to get rid of the science as thare are no PBIs involved and thus no way to affect my bonus except negatively.
MIKEY!
What's with the 'PBI's baby!' all the time? Where do people get the idea that LANL should be their own private playground, and that they should not have to answer to the NNSA? If anyone cared about your sandbox, there would be a PBI based on it.
"If anyone cared about your sandbox, there would be a PBI based on it."Exactly!
And we all know that the none of the PBI's have anything to do with science.
So PBI's Baby! Three cheers for the NNSA and LANS, LLC!
Someone over at the LLNL blog put up this old NY Times article from the dotcom days of 2000. Ahhhh, the nostalgia. Those were the days. Today, it's not so much the money that lures scientists away as the disgust with the current state of the lab.
www.nytimes.com/2000/09/19
/us/technology-boom-too-tempting-
for-many-government-
scientists.html?pagewanted=all
===================
Technology Boom Too Tempting For Many Government Scientists (NY Times, Sept 19, 2000)
In defense of US nuclear deterrence:
From The Heritage Foundation:
April 20, 2009
WebMemo #2400
Incompatible Pronouncements on the Future of the U.S. Nuclear Force
by Baker Spring
In an April 5 speech in Prague, President Barack Obama reiterated his campaign to "seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." [1] Unfortunately, he also made two completely incompatible pronouncements regarding the future of the U.S. nuclear force.
First, President Obama stated, "As long as these [nuclear] weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary and guarantee that defense to our allies--including the Czech Republic." [2]
However, President Obama went on to state that "to achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty." [3]
These two pronouncements are incompatible because the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is a treaty of unlimited duration that imposes a "zero yield" ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. [4] The ban on testing imposed by the treaty prohibits the maintenance of an effective nuclear arsenal in the context of a wide variety of changing circumstances. These include the adoption of new strategies and postures for governing nuclear weapons and changes in targeting requirements because of the emergence of new targets that require new nuclear warheads or the need for new delivery systems that also demand new warheads.
Put succinctly, the CTBT will prohibit--essentially forever--the development of new nuclear weapons that are necessary to maintain an effective nuclear force under changing circumstances.
The Clinton Administration´s Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Program
The actions taken by the Clinton Administration in its failed attempt to obtain Senate ratification of the CTBT demonstrate the incompatibility of President Obama´s Prague pronouncements. The Clinton Administration, prior to Senate consideration of CTBT ratification, explained how a Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship (SBSS) program and an associated series of "safeguards" would support the U.S. nuclear arsenal, stockpile, and weapons infrastructure under all conceivable circumstances and that if some unforseen scenario called into question the "safety and reliability" of nuclear weapons, the U.S. would withdraw from the CTBT and resume explosive testing.
The SBSS program and the safeguards were designed to convince the Senate that the entry into force of the CTBT for the U.S. would not force U.S. nuclear disarmament or otherwise incur undue risks. The Clinton Administration, however, also asserted only that the SBSS program would preserve the safety and reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons. [5] It was careful neither to assert that the SBSS program would assure the effectiveness of U.S. nuclear weapons nor to indicate that a lack of effectivieness would institute future withdrawal from the CTBT under the safeguards.
The Clinton Administration´s omission likely resulted from a well-grounded assessment that the U.S. could not maintain an effective nuclear weapons force for an indefinite period of time absent explosive testing. Thus, it essentially admitted that establishing a clear standard of effectiveness under the SBSS program was incompatible with U.S. entry into the CTBT.
The Senate Votes to Reject the CTBT
The CTBT suffers from a number of fatal flaws. [6] Among them is the fact--admitted by the Clinton Administration--that the CTBT is incompatible with the maintenance of an effective nuclear arsenal over the long term. The argument regarding the long-term effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear arsenal under the CTBT raised important questions about the wisdom of U.S. ratification the last time the ban was considered. [7]
In response to this concern, as well as others, the Senate voted to reject the treaty on October 13, 1999. [8] Leaving aside the fact that Senate rejection of the CTBT represents its definitive judgment on the issue of U.S. ratification, the questions regarding the long-term effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear arsenal under the terms of the treaty are at least as valid today as they were in 1999. [9]
President Obama, as stated in his Pague speech, is now insisting on a U.S. nuclear arsenal that is effective, as well as safe and secure, for as long as nuclear weapons exist. [10] This insistence invalidates the SBSS program and the safeguards put in place by the Clinton Administration to support CTBT ratification. With it, President Obama has also invalidated his own call for U.S. ratification.
Nuclear Weapons in the Post-Cold War World
Today´s real world circumstances have justified the Clinton Administration´s concerns. The world now presents a complex and unpredictable array of potential strategic threats to the U.S. and its allies from disparate sources that did not exist during the Cold War. Yey the U.S. nuclear arsenal, although smaller, essentially consists of the same weapons that existed during the Cold War. As a result, the U.S. needs to modernize its nuclear force, along with defensive and conventional forces, to adapt it to new circumstances.
Specifically, the U.S. need to adopt a more defensive strategic posture that strives to protect the people, territories, institutions, and infrastructure of the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack--as opposed to relying on the kind of retaliatory forces used to deter Soviet strategic attacks during the Cold War. [11] The current U.S. nuclear force is not designed for this defensive strategy. In short, the U.S. nuclear arsenal is not as effective as it should be for meeting today´s security requirements.
President Obama is right to insist on maintaining an effective U.S. nuclear arsenal for as long as nuclear weapons exist, but he also needs to acknowledge that the entry into force of the CTBT for the U.S. is incompatible with this effectiveness standard--a truth the Clinton Administration tacitly acknowledged in the 1990s.
Also, President Obama will be better served by recognizing that the CTBT complicates, more than contributes to, his long-term vision for nuclear disarmament. There is no direct route to nuclear disarmament at this time. What President Obama should be focused on is adapting U.S. strategic forces--nuclear and conventional, offensive and defensive--to fulfilling the needs of a fundamentally defensive strategic policy that is consistent with today´s security needs. Following the modernization of all U.S. strategic forces, including the nuclear arsenal, to fulfill the requirements for this defensive policy and posture, the U.S. is more likely to find itself in a position to pursue nuclear disarmament directly. The first priority, therefore, is to modernize U.S. strategig forces.
The Senate, for procedural reasons, should acknowledge that its decision in 1999 to reject the CTBT was its definitive judgment on the treaty´s shortcomings. Substantively, the Senate needs to regognize that President Obama´s stated policy of insisting on an effective U.S. nuclear arsenal for as long as nuclear weapons exist is incompatible with CTBT ratification and that both international circumstances and the atrophy of U.S. nuclear forces since the end of the Cold War have only increased the CTBT´s incompatibility with U.S. security requirements. Ultimately, the CTBT does not serve U.S. security interests.
Baker Spring is F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
------------
[1] Robert Schroeder, "Text of President Obama´s Speech in Prague," MarketWatch, April 5, 2009, at http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/text-president-obamas-speech-prague/story.aspx?guid=%7B61A1EE9A%DAA02%2D4876%2D8F9F%2D7E0A3797F54B%7D&dist=msr_2 (April 14, 2009).
[2] Ibid (emphasis added).
[3] Ibid.
[4] U.S. Department of State, Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Articles I and IX, at http://www.state.gov/t/isn/trty/16411.htm (April 16, 2009), "Article by Article Analysis of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty," under headings "Article I--Basic Obligations" and "Article IX--Duration and Withdrawal," at http://www.state.gov/t/isn/trty/16522.htm (April 16, 2009).
[5] The White House, "Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Safeguards," Fact Sheet, September 22, 1997.
[6] Baker Spring, "The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: In Arms Control´s Worst Tradition," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1332, October 7, 1999, at http://www.heriage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1332.cfm.
[7] Baker Spring, "Why the Administration´s Stockpile Stewardship Will Harm the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1334, October 7, 1999, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1334.cfm.
[8] Congressional Record, 106th Cong., 1st Sess, October 13, 1999, p. S12547.
[9] Baker Spring, "Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Bad Idea in 1999, A Worse Idea Today," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1533, June 29, 2007, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/wm1533.cfm.
[10] It is not clear why President Obama also decided to drop the Clinton Administration´s insistence on retaining a "reliable" nuclear arsenal under the SBSS program, the safeguards, and the CTBT.
[11] Baker Spring, "Congressional Commission Should Recommend ´Damage Limitation´Strategy," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2172, August 14, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg2172.cfm; "Toward an Alternative Strategic Posture," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2183, January 2, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm2183.cfm.
PS: I agree in the remarks by Baker Spring, I usually do.
Christ - the complete text, plus footnotes, of an Obama speech?? "All Obama, all the time" - the mantra of the left. Yuk. What a lightweight, ineffective fool we have as President. And no, the response that he is "better than Bush" does not excuse his naivete and foolishness and failure to recognize the gravity of his position. He can't get out of campaign mode. What a juvenile.
President Obama has challenged his cabinet to find 100 million dollars in wasteful spending. He's giving them 90 days.
This is such a miniscule amount when compared with the entire federal budget that its a laughable goal. Dr. Chu can offer up 79 million in wasteful spending in one single place; he can fire LANS and save the LANS fee. If he were to also fire LLNS, why that would be the entire 100 million right there. In a single cabinet department. On day one.
Like it or not (imo), ratification of the CTBT by Congress is a done deal. The Pres & Congress are now in lock-step. It will be proclaimed as one of the Presidents greatest achievements.
As more and more countries move toward nuclear energy to solve their future energy needs, proponents of the CTBT are convinced it will lead us toward a more peaceful world.
With or without a CTBT, nuclear energy will proliferate around the world resulting in the littlest of cheaters becoming major problems – be it pirates like the NORKS blackmailing for $$$ or other countries threatening to destroy their hated enemies.
They can ratify the damn thing - I just hope they don’t fall in love with it.
Re: CTBT: Two thoughts: 1) If a non-weapon state signatory develops and clandestinely tests a weapon, and we detect it through seismic or other means, guess who gets to adjudicate it and decide sanctions? Yep, the UN. 2) For weapon-state signatories, there will be the "supreme national interest" clause, which will allow us to stay on the same path we've been following for the last 15 years.
Net result: this is a meaningless treaty. As George Will recently observed, significant arms control pacts are impossible until they are unnecessary.
Christ - the complete text, plus footnotes, of an Obama speech?? "All Obama, all the time" - the mantra of the left. Yuk. What a lightweight, ineffective fool we have as President. And no, the response that he is "better than Bush" does not excuse his naivete and foolishness and failure to recognize the gravity of his position. He can't get out of campaign mode. What a juvenile.
4/20/09 10:21 PM
You're correct that better than Bush (or McCain, or H or W Clinton, or Richardson) is not a very satisfactory argument. But, let's give him a little more time to get out of campaign mode, where he was for quite a long time, before calling him a juvenile.
If he were to propose that concealed weapon carry by ordinary citizens should be permitted in New York City and New Jersey to force the Mafia to have to operate on even terms, would he then not be a lightweight juvenile?
11:47 am: "If he were to propose that concealed weapon carry by ordinary citizens should be permitted in New York City and New Jersey to force the Mafia to have to operate on even terms, would he then not be a lightweight juvenile?"
First of course, the federal government does not control gun laws in NYC or NJ. Second, if a citizen has a Constitutional right in city X, why does he not in city Y?
If you think people in NYC or NJ (or anywhere else) who want to carry concealed weapons don't because it is illegal, then you are the naive one. Your comment about the mafia implies you realize that criminals don't obey the law.
If you think people in NYC or NJ (or anywhere else) who want to carry concealed weapons don't because it is illegal, then you are the naive one. Your comment about the mafia implies you realize that criminals don't obey the law.
4/21/09 12:42 PM
So are you implying that because the criminals don't obey the law, nobody should? - interesting.
Maybe I should quickly visit TA-55 to get some Pu for my nuclear weapon DIY backyard project - to defend myself against "the evil", of course. Get a life!
Regarding the last two posts on the subject of concealed carry, remember, "it's always better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6."
The SBSS program and the safeguards were designed to convince the Senate that the entry into force of the CTBT for the U.S. would not force U.S. nuclear disarmament or otherwise incur undue risks.20 years of political negligence, leveraged by SBSS, is taking us to disarmament through lost capabilities to understand, design, build or maintain nuclear weapons.
We're on the last generation of designers who have direct experience with the codes and simulations failing to predict real results.
How comforting to think about Congress and the Presidents unilaterally disarming us in the face of the gravest of proliferation threats we've seen in thirty years.
I'm disappointed Obama believes, as he stated in his speech, that the world was at peace before nuclear weapons.
Before nuclear weapons, we had World War II, and before that, World War I.
The facts simply don't support his beliefs.
2:32 pm: "So are you implying that because the criminals don't obey the law, nobody should? - interesting."
Ask a question and then assume the answer you want. Typical on this blog.
I was suggesting that more laws don't inconvenience criminals. Law-abiding people will follow them until their individual thresholds are crossed, and then the government will have succeeded in turning them into criminals too. The government will misjudge where the citizens' thresholds are until it is too late. The whole point of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves against the government. It's not about hunting.
"We're on the last generation of designers who have direct experience with the codes and simulations failing to predict real results."
I'm not worried. The people in X can do anything - just ask them, they'll tell you.
"We're on the last generation of designers who have direct experience with the codes and simulations failing to predict real results."
In order to retain these "designers", I suggest making them all laboratory fellows without any technical justification.
Nevermind, we're already doing that.
"Net result: this is a meaningless treaty. As George Will recently observed, significant arms control pacts are impossible until they are unnecessary."
/21/09 11:02 AMHenry Kissinger has an article today in which he provides his thoughts for resolving the proliferation concerns with North Korea & Iran.
Obama's Foreign Policy Challenge
http://www.realclearpolitics.com
/articles/2009/04/22
/obamas_foreign_policy_challenge_
96113.html
Regarding North Korea, he makes the point that if the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia cannot achieve an enforceable restraint on a country with:
• “next to no impact on international trade” and,
• “no resources needed by anyone”,
Then, we have no chance at success with more complex countries such as Iran.
I also, concur with his point that North Korea’s nuclear weapons program affects all of its neighbors more that it does the United States and therefore, it’s a waste for the U.S. to enter into bilateral talks with the Norks.
As for successfully negotiating an enforceable restraint with Iran, Kissinger states:
“Its outcome will depend on whether it is possible to establish a geostrategic balance in the region in which all countries, including Iran, find security without any country dominating.”
Wow! Nice thought but, imo, this can happen only in a fairy tale.
We have to try to successfully negotiate with these countries but, imo, we best spend our foreign policy efforts on the realistic outcome of these negotiations – or as Kissinger states:
“In a world of multiplying nuclear weapons states, it would be unreasonable to expect that those arsenals will never be used or never fall into the hands of rogue organizations.”
don't drink the kool-aid?
LANL’s drinking water is supplied by the County of Los Alamos
Drinking water is pumped from 11 deep wells tapping the regional aquifer.
Pumped groundwater is treated with a disinfectant prior to distribution.
LA County owns the water production system up to the point of transfer to the LANL distribution
system.
LANL is responsible for water distribution inside the facility.
If the only thing to say in a week is comments on comments,
TURN OUT THE LIGHTS.
THE PARTY'S OVER.
8:30 AM
Well, yeah, and then the water goes through the 60 year-old lead-soldered pipes inside decrepit LANL buildings. Just don't be the first to drink in the morning after the water in the pipes soaked up all that lead overnight.
If the only thing to say in a week is comments on comments,
TURN OUT THE LIGHTS.
THE PARTY'S OVER.
4/22/09 1:05 PM
Nah, Doug is just spending time hunting anony-gnomes with is parrots and Frank is away on another vendetta. They have tons of private e-mails they will post over the weekend - or maybe not...
I believe Frank is on travel. In the mean time, all I do around here is the Comment of the Week gig.
One does gain an interesting perspective on the place by glancing through all of the comments each week. If I didn't know better, I'd say that there were a few unhappy campers working there.
Fortunately, Kevin assures me that the blog is merely the hangout for a few highly vocal malcontents.
Can someone please send Frank or DOug the FAQ about bottled water? You guys won't believe the shit the LANS morale busters have crafted.
Bottled Water FAQs
1. Can we keep the coolers and fill them with tap water?
A. No, Industrial Hygiene has determined that there are safety concerns due
to potential for bacterial re-growth as the chlorine residual in the tap water
dissipates, and with filling and moving the 5 gallon (40 lb) bottles.
2. Can we purchase water for the water coolers privately and bring it in? Or have
the Water Man deliver water to our building?
A. No, for similar reasons discussed in the answer to question 1 and for site
access and security issues associated with water deliveries.
3. Can we take the 5 gallon bottles or coolers home for personal use or give them
away to persons who don’t work for the Laboratory?
A. No, the bottles have a deposit on them and must be returned to the Water
Man. The coolers were purchased by the Laboratory and must be
dispositioned as government property.
4. Can we install filters (Britta, Pūr) on taps?
A. No, however workers may bring pitchers made by these companies for
personal use. These products have water filters built into the pitcher.
5. If we bring in individual bottles of water for personal use, and can the Laboratory
recycle the plastic?
A. Yes, workers can bring in individual bottles of water for personal use.
However, please consider using reusable containers to reduce your
environmental footprint.
The Laboratory recycles plastic bottles with a 1 (soft drink bottles) or 2
(milk jugs) stamped on the bottom. Bins for recycling plastic bottles, as
well as aluminum cans, are located throughout the Laboratory. If you are
not sure where your recycle bins are located or if you need additional
recycle bins, please contact the Laboratory’s Recycle Program by e-
mailing wastenot@lanl.gov. For more information regarding the
Laboratory’s Recycle Program, please visit the Recycling at LANL
webpage.
6. How can we find more information about the tests completed on Laboratory
drinking water?
A. Los Alamos County is responsible for meeting the requirements of the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the New Mexico Drinking Water
Regulations. Los Alamos County and the New Mexico Environment
Department collect samples from various points in the water system to
demonstrate compliance with the maximum contaminant levels for
microbiological organisms, organic and inorganic constituents, and
radioactivity in drinking water. Information on the quality of the drinking water from the Los Alamos County water supply system is in the County’s
annual Water Quality Report (http://www.losalamosnm.us/), and at the
New Mexico Environment Department’s website, Drinking Water Watch
(http://eidea.state.nm.us/SDWI/).
The Laboratory also conducts additional monitoring of the Los Alamos
County water supply system for environmental surveillance purposes. The
data are available at the online RACER Data Analysis Tool
(www.racernm.com/) and are published annually in the LANL
Environmental Surveillance Reports.
7. If we have limited availability of drinking water at our location, how do we
request continued bottled water service?
A. Contact your Facility Operations Director’s (FOD) ESH&Q Managers and
Deployed Environmental Specialists. The Facility ESHQ Managers &
DES staff will identify locations with limited drinking water availability
and will submit a justification for continued bottle water service for your
location.
8. If we still have concerns about water quality in our building, how can we request
testing?
A. Enter a Facility Service Request and specify the concern to be addressed.
The request will be reviewed by Environmental Managers to determine if
additional testing is needed.
9. How do we disposition our working coolers?
A. Working coolers from non-radiological and non-hazardous areas may be
dropped off at salvage (TA 60 BLD 2) on Fridays. Otherwise, please
contact salvage@lanl.gov to arrange for pick up. Please wipe down
coolers prior to drop off / pick up to ensure that it is clean and dry.
10. How do we disposition our non-working coolers or coolers coming from
radiological or hazardous areas?
A. Non-working coolers contain refrigerant that is subject to EPA regulations
and must be purged from the cooler prior to disposal. For assistance in
disposing non-working coolers, or coolers that are coming from
radiological or hazardous areas, email your Facilities Deployed
Environmental Generalist (DES) or Environment, Safety, Health and
Quality (ESH&Q) Manager. A list of DES and ESH&Q Managers can be
found at Facility ESHQ Managers & DES.
The "reducing your environmental footprint" comment is laughable. Lately I've been watching the groundspeople raking up old leaves and brush, then stuffing it into plastic bags. why not just leave it on the ground? I hope they throw the bags into the dump. The best part, there are two people working and a supervisor...i guess supervising. I don't know, he appears to like the phone a lot though.
Another thing, they cut down two trees near my building last week. Happy Earth Day!
"If the only thing to say in a week is comments on comments,
TURN OUT THE LIGHTS."I'm thinking the same 4/22/09 1:05 PM
However, it's a LANL Blog & the subject is their call as far as I'm concerned.
While I (as a member of the NWC but not a LANL employee) prefer to engage in Nuclear Weapons issues (ala nuclear weapons production or non-proliferation, etc.) or just those relating to the NWC, the demise of Americas’ nuclear weapons Labs is the central issue of this blog and one that I fully consider a major concern for our country.
While I might want it (the Blog) to be more, I will submit to their preferences since they are the ones who created the blog & are suffering the ill effects from their current management.
From my selfish stand-point, LANL people have important opinions on the matters of nuclear weapons & energy ,the NWC future, Non-Proliferation & the many related subject.
To me, their dialog is not just interesting, but important to America’s future.
I like getting their opinions out here where the rest of American can see what they have to say.
We aren't the only site to have a bad apple or two.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel09/williams_pantex_indict_pr.html
Frank,
Perhaps you should ask Director Anastasio if it's time to "turn out the lights" on your blog. I expect Kevin will be happy to get right back to you on that!
I'm not worried. The people in X can do anything - just ask them, they'll tell you.If you were at the X Fellows round-table last week at the PWT, you would know that what they are saying is they can't do everything.
These days, with the primitive, compliance-based bureaucracy, budget and award-fee strangulation and negligent dithering by American leaders, we can do less and less each day in the face of increasingly intractable problems.
But you obviously weren't there, and you apparently don't work in, or with, X, either.
If you were there, you could finish this quote from the meeting:
'SBSS is...'
'SBSS is...'
Sudden Boner Syndrome, Silly.
'SBSS is...'
some boob's stupid story
'SBSS is...'
some big sexy sista?
Anybody walking through the catacombs of the Metropolis would guess the answer is "SBSS is dead!"
Latest bottled water silliness:
People are not allowed to privately purchase their own bottled water for delivery because its a "security and safety risk"
We used to deal with NW, now we can't be trusted with water.
I hope a RIF is coming.
"SBSS is..."
Dead.
spank bank sex snake
4/22/09 6:33 PM said:
We aren't the only site to have a bad apple or two.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel09/williams_pantex_indict_pr.html
In the article it states "Williams also listed an address in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as his permanent mailing address on his Pantex security badging documents, however, he and his family have lived in the Amarillo area since 1992 and he has no relatives or acquaintances who reside at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, address he provided to Pantex".
I find it lame that here this guy is, puts fraudulent information on his security clearance questionnaire and gets one anyway. I think that is the norm these days. That is why we have so many dunderheads working among our midst.
"Another thing, they cut down two trees near my building last week. Happy Earth Day!" (6:03 PM)
I noticed the same thing. Big, beautiful shade trees cut down by maintenance workers. Apparently they have nothing better to do and feel the need to do more than just cruise around, aimlessly, in their government trucks all day long.
Stockpile Based Science Stewardship
A. No, Industrial Hygiene has determined that there are safety concerns ...with filling and moving the 5 gallon (40 lb) bottles.
Oh right. Never mind that we've been moving and lifting these bottles for the past 20 years without incident.
10:19 PM, A few weeks ago I watched the decimation of those grand old shade trees behind the old Ad Building. I can't bear to walk by there again to see if they were cut down completely or just "trimmed."
this is why you should read the links emails. can we please have this man do something more important than picking up trash? also, there's a picture!
https://int.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/nb.story/story_id/16357/nb_date/2009-04-23
Anastasio picks it up
Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio donned work gloves and a safety vest to help Team Pueblo pick up trash around the Pueblo Complex on Wednesday as part of the sixth annual Great Garbage Grab.
Fred deSousa of the Communications Office joined Anastasio in picking up litter. Team Pueblo picked up 29 bags of litter on Wednesday and plans to go out again today.
The April 13 NewsBulletin has more information on the Lab's Earth Day activities.
Bottom photo: Joanna Kramer of Waste and Environmental Services and John Cathey of Construction Management are part of the DP Disposers picking up trash near Technical Area 21 along DP Road. The Disposers picked up 13 bags of trash, three large landscaping timbers, several metal signs, and other debris.
Team members also plan to pick up litter today. The Great Garbage Grab continues through Friday. The employee team that picks up the largest amount of trash wins the 2009 Traveling Trash Trophy.
Just what we need - a lawyer!"Daniel Poneman, a lawyer and former National Security Council official, has been nominated as deputy secretary of energy in charge of the nuclear weapons complex. Poneman is the only nonscientist among the Obama administration's four deputy secretaries nominated to lead DOE."
"1. Can we keep the coolers and fill them with tap water?
A. No, Industrial Hygiene has determined that there are safety concerns due
to potential for bacterial re-growth as the chlorine residual in the tap water
dissipates, and with filling and moving the 5 gallon (40 lb) bottles.
2. Can we purchase water for the water coolers privately and bring it in? Or have
the Water Man deliver water to our building?
A. No, for similar reasons discussed in the answer to question 1 and for site
access and security issues associated with water deliveries. "
wait, did they answer the question in 2? so in my own personal home i have used 5 gallon water jugs for the past 6-7 YEARS with no problem at all. hell, we even had a rotation system at work where someone would "get the water" when it was out. but we can't purchase water privately for the coolers here b/c of a safety risk of filling and moving the jugs...who in the hell do they think is putting the jugs on the coolers, the water man? this makes no sense to me.
and as for site access, the water man could just leave the bottles outside the door...like he's done at the gated access areas for years.
why do i work here?!?
8:34 am
this explains why i've seen the groundspeople picking up leaves and brush outside! thank you. it's for a competition to "pick up trash" not "take care of the grounds". this also explains the removal of trees, it adds more to the trash pile. i wondered why people were working...
"why do i work here?!?" - 8:48 AM
Good question. It's a question that more and more people at LANL should be asking themselves each and every day. Maybe it's so you'll be able to enjoy being reminded at every opportunity to wear shoes that GRIP?
I don't know about the rest of you, but I *like* working for a construction company.
The grippy shoes are a plus, admittedly.
"why do i work here?!?" - 8:48 AM
Like most people, you probably work here for the paycheck.
Like most people, you probably work here for the paycheck.Not too long ago, and usually observed with scientists, more idealistic motifs are reasons for work, such as making great discoveries, serving the country or mankind.
Usually investment bankers "just work" for the paycheck. This has changed too...
"Not too long ago, and usually observed with scientists, more idealistic motifs are reasons for work, such as making great discoveries, serving the country or mankind."Amen brother. That's where I want you & your brethren.
These current distractions benefit none.
12:54 pm obviously doesn't work here. no one would put up with this crap for "the paycheck". right now, i'm hanging in there until i can get another job.
"more idealistic motifs are reasons for work, such as making great discoveries, serving the country or mankind."
all of the above. i am one of the lucky ones at LANL, since i still get to do science, and i look forward to coming to work every day to do so. yeah, the bureaucracy is a big, ridiculous pain, but i know a lot of very talented unemployed people these days, so i count my blessings that i have a good job; one that is intellectually fulfilling/challenging, and that i enjoy very much. and, yes, it pays very well.
any bad thing could happen at any time, but until that time comes, i am going to try to get as much good science in as i can. what else is there to look forward to? if i pay too much attention to the fact that i have no trust in top management, my quality of life diminishes.
"The grippy shoes are a plus, admittedly."
Ya'll got any openings?
"12:54 pm obviously doesn't work here. no one would put up with this crap for "the paycheck". right now, i'm hanging in there until i can get another job."
Ummm. It sounds like you DO in fact work for "the paycheck."
And since you are working here, you also in fact "put up with this crap."
Your sure talk tough for a second rater who can't get a job anywhere else.
Nicely said, 7:54. Thanks. Too bad that will never make the comment of the week. Too coherent and not anit-LANL enough.
"i am one of the lucky ones at LANL... if i pay too much attention to the fact that i have no trust in top management, my quality of life diminishes."
lucky to have your head in the sand, until it gets chopped off? weird.
I'm 12:54. I've been here for 20 years. My statement was based on the observation that most people seem (or claim) to work for the paycheck. My statement does not preclude those like 7:54, nor does it imply that people don't put forth good effort or dislike their job.
well 9:02 pm, if the fact that i'm looking *and interviewing* for jobs makes me a second rater, then so be it. i guess only "the best and brightest" would continue putting up with the status quo and collecting a paycheck.
another thing, the age demographics at the lab is shifting. as mentioned earlier, day cares now have openings. the only people willing to stay are mediocre FN. if the policies don't kill the lab, your aging scientists will.
"i am one of the lucky ones at LANL... if i pay too much attention to the fact that i have no trust in top management, my quality of life diminishes."
lucky to have your head in the sand, until it gets chopped off? weird.
4/24/09 12:01 AM
Not at all. S/he may be doing real work in spite of all the chicken shit. Maybe only at 50% of potential, or less, but there is still some investigation that one can do at Los Alamos that can be done nowhere else. Despite all the obstacles to using it, there is still some equipment at Los Alamos that isn't available elsewhere.
Would you say it is wrong to continue worthwhile work, even if done at only, say, 25% possible productivity, if it otherwise would not get done at all? Anyone with background in ethics want to take a stab the answer? Want to make it more complicated; what if the activity is mostly weapons-related, or not at all weapons-related?
12:01.
There is a huge difference between having your head in the sand and subscribing to the serenity prayer.
Your attitude, at that of other totally negative commentors like you, serves nobody's interest.
Uh oh...
From the Monitor's Police Beat:
April 20
4:39 p.m. – LANL reported a laptop stolen from POB 1663. The estimated loss is $2,068.11.
3:24 pm: " LANL reported a laptop stolen from POB 1663."
Stolen from "POB 1663"?? This is a joke, and a new low for LANL security and their stupid secrecy. I guess to state the actual TA and building it was stolen from would endanger national security? Or maybe it was just Kevin, and his "Kevin" stuff. Or, maybe to point out that the area it was stolen from would severely embarass LANL since it is a Protected Area or SCIF, where of course all workers have been shown, through enhanced security checks, to be absolutely reliable, trustworthy, and patriotic??
"..if i pay too much attention to the fact that i have no trust in top management, my quality of life diminishes." - 7:54 PM
What an amazing statement. He has no trust in LANS upper management so he simply decides to ignore all the destruction they are bringing to this once great science lab.
I nominate this poster for the "Sheeple of the Month" award. Unfortunately, this attitude is all too common among many LANL employees who still remain. It's as if some type of culling process has begun taking place.
1:04pm, you are an idiot. Perhaps this is what a reasonably well-adjusted adult looks like. Granted, it is quite an anomaly on this blog, but this person is simply working on his or her science and not fussing over that which he or she cannot control. Sounds like a healthy attitude. If enough people did this, it might catch on.
1:04 pm: "Unfortunately, this attitude is all too common among many LANL employees who still remain. It's as if some type of culling process has begun taking place."
It's simply a choice. You just don't buy into the drama, do the best you can to accomplish something meaningful, and try to make the Lab a slightly better place for you and your coworkers. In any job, it's always better to be seen as an asset than a liability. That, or simply leaving, are the only two rational choices, IMO. Anything else is obviously not in your own best interests.
If enough people did this, it might catch on.
4/25/09 2:07 PM
I'm sure that is the dearest wish of Mikey and his PAD/ADs, that employees simply ignore all the ugly destruction of science and low morale that has taken hold under NNSA and LANS management. Just ignore it and maybe it will all go away someday.
Oh, and always remember this... PBIs, baby!!!! That's something that LANS never wants employees to forget or ignore.
"PBIs baby!!" has become really old and annoying. Who the hell are you calling "baby," and why?? Maybe the most offending poster (and there are probably more than one) who can't get off this rant, is the same one who drilled "sheeple" into the ground, but in any case, there needs to be more diversity here. It is sad and really disgusting that so few malcontents have been given so large a venue. Doesn't speak well for the values or philosophy of Frank or Doug. You are known by the quality of the blog that you manage.
Post a Comment