Sunday, August 14, 2005

I second Bernard's suggestion

I second Bernard's suggestion for Gary Stradling. After all the space that Gary has taken on this blog to espouse his own points of view, I think it would be educational for him to ask (and actually listen to) other LANL employee's opinions regarding former director Nanos.

Unfortunately, I suspect that Gary is one of those people does not listen well to others, especially when their ideas differ from his own. Nevertheless, if he were to try, it would be educational for him and for the other readers of this blog.


Please see my more detailed response to Bernard. I continue to listen, ready to hear relevant information.

That you, or John, or Sarah, or Bernard, or others are angry at the events of last summer and want vengeance is a fact that I have registered and think I understand.

Your lust for vengeance does not solve the root issues that have enabled the long string of scandals at LANL since Wen Ho Lee that have not yet abated. Do you have anything constructive to offer in that vein?

Gary Said:
"Your lust for vengeance does not solve the root issues that have enabled the long string of scandals at LANL since Wen Ho Lee that have not yet abated. Do you have anything constructive to offer in that vein?"

You sound like a newspaper reporter. I don't think Doug lusts for vengeance. I think he is eager hear the truth.

A scandal is an allegation that may, or may not, be based on truth. It is up to you to elaborate on the root issues that enabled the events since the Wen Ho Lee issue.
"Lust for vengeance..."

Sounds positively biblical, Stradling. Doesn't sound like Roberts, though. He's not biblical.
Well, what would be the motivations for Doug and others to continue this rant? Vengeance certainly seems near the top of the list. What do you think?
Doug- what are your motivations? Larry? Scott?Mushroom? Bob? Dawn? How about you, Finknottle?

What are you folks hoping to accomplish?
Gary Stradling is that worst kind of fool: the clever kind. He is quite skilled at defending his position while completely disregarding all evidence which has the potential of undermining it. One often sees this type of blind adherence to doctrine in followers of fundamentalist religions; it is a quite effective method of rebuffing any and all attempts at cool, dispassionate, logical discussion. "Faith-based" reasoning is, at its heart, illogical.

My suggestion to those who have repeatedly attempted to use logical arguments to counter Stradling's ludicrous positions regarding LANL, the former Director, and his (Stradling's) "superior" abilities to determine what is best for the lab is to just quit wasting your (and our) time.

Gary has a fundamentalist's faith in his beliefs, coupled with a not insignificant quantity of arrogance.

Logic won't make any dents in his armor.
You should not give up on logic before at least trying it. Come on, give it a shot!

I offer some insight into the political environment affecting some contentious decisions, but certainly do not claim omniscience in what is good for the Lab.

To say that I am clever should not mean that I am incapable of understanding and responding to "cool, dispassionate, logical discussion." I may even have participated in such a time or two.

Our "cool, dispassionate, logical discussion" is quite an exciting debate. As usual, it consists of proponents of differing positions putting forward their ideas in a “point-counterpoint” mode with the intent of persuading the open-minded observer. Our "cool, dispassionate, logical discussion" has progressed like this:
You say-
‘Pete Nanos is a bad man, and should be punished because he chose to stand down LANL last summer.”
I say, “He stood down LANL for compelling reasons and other evidence shows he is a dedicated and capable leader.’
You say, ‘But the stand down, hurt me and my projects, and cost the nation big $, and I don’t think there was really anything wrong at LANL that merited a stand down, so Pete is a bad man and should be punished.”

I say, ‘Here is a list of reasons that likely appeared compelling to the man at the helm to call out, “Engines Full Reverse Power!” in an attempt to prevent a more serious disaster.

You say, ‘The sailing was smooth. I do not have radar in my cabin and do not believe anyone else has radar either. I could not see the iceberg. And maybe hitting an iceberg is no big deal. And the evasive maneuver dumped soup in my lap and I spent days cleaning up broken furniture and putting books back in the bookshelf. Pete is a bad man and should be fired!”

And I say, “Well Rocky Flats hit an iceberg and went under. If the captain had data that said that there was a big iceberg off our bow, it is his job to prevent a collision.”

And you say, “That was a bigger iceberg. Ship LANL would have not even flinched, much less gone under. Why would you even think of comparing LANL going into Full Reverse with Rocky Flats hitting an iceberg?! ”

You say, “In addition to the captain, the first mate and all of the officers should also be thrown overboard, because put some of the crew on report for not watching out for and reporting the icebergs until they were a danger to Ship LANL.”
And then I say, “Hey, weren’t you part of the team tasked with building up an iceberg detection and avoidance system from the time of ADM Watkins? Do you share the responsibility for avoiding icebergs?”
And you, coolly and dispassionately, say, “Pete is a bad man because, because he took a sharp evasive maneuver and I was not consulted. Poll the passengers and see how many of them are angry because their soup was spilled and furniture was broken.”

And our "cool, dispassionate, logical discussion" continues in this manner.

I apologize for simplifying our discussion into the above metaphor, but it seemed like an apt way to describe the situation without a lot of big words or an appeal to blind dogmatism. (The latter would be a situation in which someone is unwilling to listen to reason and respond in a cool, dispassionate, and logical way.)
I'll decide if it's worth wasting any more of my time in what, to this date, have been pointless verbal exersizes with an arrogant, intransigent pedagogue when I see evidence that there would be any value it it.

What would be evidence?

How about conducting that survey that Bernie suggested, and reporting the results back to us.

Until then, feel free to continue to play your chosen moralistic role of Nanos management apologist, but you'll be playing solo, as far as I'm concerned.

The word you seek is "Justice" not vengance. When such egregious acts as those perpetrated by Nanos, Seestrom, Jones,Irving et. al go unpunished it invites more abuse. That is why we have laws Gary. Powerful people such as Ebbers and Lay are learning that they are not above accountability. Now it is time for the same standard in the upper echelons of government.

John N. Horne
Did I just hear you whimper and scurry out of the room?
Please do not leave us in the dark about your objectives.
Gary? No response? Talk about whimpering and scurrying out of the room. Tell us Gary, what are your thoughts about people who abuse positions of power? Go ahead Gary, rationalize away.

John Horne
Sorry John to be so unresponsive. I have other things to do during the day.
RE: Finknottle's : 8/15/2005 10:20:32 AM ad hominem comments.

I checked with Doug to see how he is enforcing his standards against "Venomous, mean-spirited, comments."

Says Doug-
"I don't consider his (Finknottle's) comments to be any more or less derogatory than comments you have made to those who seem to disagree with your own particular points of view. Finknottle's comments seemed (to me, anyhow) particularly measured and considered, if not flattering."

Intriguing, but not an indication of an elevated level of discourse. I wonder if the subject of Finknottle's comment were Todd or John, whether Doug’s response might have been different.
It seems that G. Stradling and the laboratory directorate that supported the "Nanos" administration fear the possibility of an open congressional investigation. They have good reason to fear the truth becoming public. Our Washington representation from New Mexico seems to also want the facts not to become public. Has U.C. got control of our representatives? The longer the U.C./L.A.N.L. coverup goes on the more embarrassing the truth will be to those responsible for trying to keep this matter under the rug. A congressional investigation that will hear the real truth is long overdue. The information will become public.
To Anonymous : 8/18/2005 09:27
We would all like to welcome you back from your trip to a faraway planet.

G. Stradling has repeatedly encouraged that either the facts and data to be presented to support the spate of unsubstantiated allegations appearing here, or that the accusers respect the rule of law and let the matter be worked out in the courts. But we have had more than our share of congressional hearings (often political tools), some of which have neither served truth nor justice, and in cases have done severe injustice to a great institution.
Post a Comment

<< Home

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