Wednesday, March 07, 2007


And Speaking of Corruption

[Yeah, that's the ticket: Let's give LANS another 6 months to cover up their culpability with respect to LANL's current security, safety, and ethical "issues". Who still thinks Bingaman, Udall, and 'St. Pete' are our friends?

Or, as one comment puts it: "I guess it is ethical to slow down an investigation but not to speed one up. "

-Pat, The Dog

PS: I meant to put the quotes around the saint part -- "St." Pete. Sorry.]


March 7, 2007

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - New Mexico's two U.S. senators and the congressman whose district includes Los Alamos National Laboratory have asked the Government Accountability Office to delay for six months its probe into security problems at the lab.

Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., argued that the delay would give the lab's new manager, Los Alamos National Security, more time to implement operational and security reforms.

Reps. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Joe Barton, R-Texas, asked the GAO for the investigation last month _ including whether any lab operations could be moved elsewhere.

"We believe a six-month delay will provide a better baseline on which we can judge the progress that has actually been made in improving the operation of the laboratory," the New Mexico delegation, joined by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., wrote Dingell and Barton on Tuesday. "Like you, we are interested in seeing significant and verifiable improvements in the area of safety and security."

The letter said the new management team, which took over in June, is working to increase security and reduce the potential for theft of classified material. However, they said, the reforms will take time.

On one hand, I would say, "If you're going to do an investigation, do it now." Why give the politicos time to distance themselves from the mess they may have helped to create (Pete, in particular)?

And why give the current management time to gloss over any mess they may have added or compounded?

On the other hand, well...I don't think there's an 'other' option anyway so just get it over with.
Do it *now*, dammit! The longer you wait, the better prepared LANS will be to obfuscate and shift blame.

Unless that's the plan, that is...
I think Pete may be pre-occupied for a while with his "ethic's" or lack of incident. LANS may have to stand on it's own.
I guess it is ethical to slow down an investigation but not to speed one up.
just remember this bullshit next time you vote
Well, if UC gave Nanos 7 months for his massive Shutdown of LANL, surely we can give UC -- oops! I mean LANS 6 more months to strut their "stuff." Right? I mean, nobody's getting RIFed until October, right? Wasn't that Mike ("Golden") Anastasio's promise to us?
What old Pete Domenici doen't realize is that giving LANS another six months could cause he and us even more problem's, they cant' go even 1 month with some type of moral, ethical, saftey , security or other problem..Maybe another six month will proved with-out a doubt that LANS and his buddies sre not up to the the old saying goes"give em enough rope"......
Ah, shit. As much as I hate to admit it, 12:30pm has a point. It is a virtual certainty that in the next six months, LANS will manage to massively fuck up *something* else, so holding off to do the investigation makes some sense.

On the other hand, though, I would have thought that LANS had *already* amply demonstrated to everybody's satisfaction that they were incapable of managing LANL.

All things considered, I still think it's time to go for the jugular, especially if the FBI investigation into "recent security events" has yielded fresh ammunition. The only folks who are in a position to know that are

1) the FBI,
2) Stupak & Dingell's committee, and
3) John Mitchell & friends.
8:24AM - Mike's promise was for "this year." Just in case you're not aware of the nuances, "this year" ends on June 1st. Just look at the lab budget and expenditure data. The lab has only enough funds for 75% of the year (plus or minus).
5:19 has it right. Word on the street this Monday is that LANS has already received DOE permission for a RIF.
Permission, hey "we don't need no stinkin permission" we do what ever we want...
Actually, there is a provision ("3161") that requires public notice for any proposed RIF in excess of (I believe) 250 people. If someone can post that, great. Otherwise, more entropy on the blog....
I think you are allowed 60 a week forever without notification to the public, so watch for those vacant cubical around you on a daily basis until they get the manpower down to a level they want it. Come to work each morning expecting to see a pink slip on your keyboard and it won't be such a shock.

Anonymous said...
Actually, there is a provision ("3161") that requires public notice for any proposed RIF in excess of (I believe) 250 people. If someone can post that, great. Otherwise, more entropy on the blog....

3/09/2007 6:06 AM
These two URL seems to non accessible. What did they do, shut their servers down?

H. T. Gauss said...
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484, Oct. 23, 1992) Subtitle E -- Defense Nuclear Workers SEC. 3161. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

Annual Report on Contractor Work Force Restructuring for Fiscal Years 2000-2005

3/10/2007 3:21 PM
The URLs work now.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?