Thursday, September 22, 2005

What the regents are smoking

From Anonymous:

The blog readers might find this interesting. makes you wonder what the
regents are smoking.


UC regents optimistic about joint bid to retain Los Alamos lab

By Betsy Mason


SAN FRANCISCO - Confidence flowed from the University of California regents
Wednesday as they discussed UC's joint bid with Bechtel for Los Alamos
National Laboratory.

UC's team and its main competition, a team led by Lockheed Martin and the
University of Texas, presented their cases to the National Nuclear Security
Administration earlier this month.

"We showed the quality of the people that we're bringing to bear on this,"
said regent Gerald Parsky at the regents meeting Wednesday. "I think we are
prepared to take the management of this lab to the next level."

[Full Delusionary Recitation]

Main Entry: de·lu·sion
Pronunciation: di-'lü-zh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded b : an abnormal mental state characterized by the occurrence of psychotic delusions
2 : a false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that persists despite the facts and occurs in some psychotic states —compare HALLUCINATION 1, ILLUSION 2a


n 1: (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary [syn: psychotic belief] 2: a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination" [syn: hallucination] 3: the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas [syn: illusion, head game]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

One of the prime partners in LANS has confidence? What is so surprising about this, and why do you think it is delusional? Per the LANS website, becthel brings strong business, BWTX brings nuclear -- so this is not UC.
Ever heard of a poison pill? That's what the "UC" part of the UC/Bechtel/BWXT consortium represents. Per Bob Dynes' own claims, UC would remain in the driver's seat should they win the bid. Game over, dude.
A lot of people read this blog (I read it almost daily), however I think only a handful actually write. The comments about UC/Bechtel winning being delusional is ludicrous. I have a bet with a good friend that UC/Bechtel win. The folks at UC are very smart and are playing a good chess game. Don't anyone kid themselves for a minute that UC/Bechtel dosen't have a snowballs chance because UC/Bechtel are in the drivers seat and always have been.
Although the LANS team has been very quiet, I know something of the team, including some of the principals. It is a very strong team, largely devoid of present LANL managers. I worked for BWTX for 7 years, and I do know that those recruited for the LANS team are the very best in the business. Anyone that thinks that LANS "did a poor job" on their proposal or orals (see the Dawn post a few weeks ago) is the one smoking wacky tabbacy.
If taking it to the next level means going from the basement to the dungeon then I agree with them. Otherwise this crap about LANS being competent is garbage. If UC is the best in the business then just close the doors now it's game over.
From the tone of the UC people quoted in this news article, it sounds
to me like UC is smoking their own fumes. Parsky visited LANL about
a year ago. He was clueless about LANL and extremely unimpressive.
Is that the quality of fellow you want running top management at LANL
in tandem with Sly Foley? Parsky's main claim to fame seems to be
that he headed up the "Bush for 2004" committee out in the state of
California. I'll take LM over these UC folks any day of the week.
To demonstrate their incompetence the UC group has Parsky as the Chair of the new LANS corporation. Not only the lead for Bush's campaign, he also led the ouster of the UC treasurer, and replaced her with someone more open to aggressive investment, read Enron, which led to some huge losses for the pension fund.
Obviously a very corrupt individual and a great choice to lead LANL into the future.
The UC comedy continues.
To annoymous at 9/23/2005 11:49:22 AM:
Well, like it or not, you cannot say that Bush's campaign was not successfull!
9/22/2005 10:06:16 PM made me think. If Don Cobb can make you people think that UC is going to do something for the Kauppilla family just by saying they are thinking about it, don't you think UC can fool a lot of other people by saying something a lot smarter than that?
Regardless of which LLC wins, LANS or LAA, things will be much different, probably sooner with LANS since one of the partners (UC) already knows what the problems are and where. LAA will take a little longer to size up the difficulties. In any case, we will be going from 60 years as a government contractor (UC) to being a non-government contractor (either LLC). If LANS wins, the contractor will "try" to make things "seamless" for employees (see Dynes' memo today) but don't count on it. I believe either winner will result in changes so drastic to LANL that no one will recognize the place a year from now, and few will be around who remember the cold war days of LANL.
I think it is fairly naive to assume that UC is in a better position to understand where the problems reside at Los Alamos than is UC.

Paul Robinson worked here for what, 18 years? And then there is the fact that UC didn't seem to have a clue as to what the problems were here until this blog sprang into being and started to rub their noses in it. I suspect that LM has a much better handle on where the problem areas are at LANL than UC does.

We do agree on one point, though. There will be a lot of changes at LANL after December 1.
"...There will be a lot of changes at LANL after December 1."
Don't you mean May 31, 2006?
Post a Comment

<< Home

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