I think Flint's last name may be Bennett...

Subject:	The Unbridled Two faces Of Senator Bennett.
Date:	1999/07/21
Author:	Paul Milne <fedinfo@halifax.com>
	Posting History

On the one hand, the consumate pollyanna......     "Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah) thinks, "In the United States, many, if not most, will go through the year 2000 without knowing it, without noticing it. The basic infrastructure issues now are pretty much under control. "   And in the next breath......     "That having been said, however, there is still the possibility that individual citizens in individual places can be hurt, and hurt quite badly. We just don't know where that will hit. It will be a random kind of thing that will spring up, statistically, just about anywhere and in just about any situation, so it behooves everybody to still be a little bit nervous about it and to be prepared."   =======   This is why Bennett is an EXTREME asshole.   "Everyhting seems fine. But you might get killed. They have it under control, but, who knows how many will die. I expect most people won't even notice, except of course, those who are seriously injured. Your bank is 'probably' OK, but you could lose all your money.  We've spent almost ten BBBBILLION dollars on this collosal problem which MAY, I repeat MAY only result in a three day temporary hardly noticable glitch, except if  we failed to fix it.  "   Bennet is a complete moron. He speaks out of both sides of his face, His constant refrain is that he DOES NOT KNOW what will happen. Well then, get the HELL out of the way and let someone speak who DOES know something. Bennett is the shining paradigm of a 'leader' in our country. he knows NOTHING at all about anything at all and blathers about it at will.   Ahh, but wait, there's more! More amazing backpedaling....   "We have no way to predict, with any accuracy, any of the specific results, " says Senator Bennett, "but I think we're safe in saying, statistically, it's just overwhelming the odds that we will have serious disruptions around the world that will cascade (domino effect, if you will) and create economic dislocation. How long it will last, how deep it will go -- I can not tell you whether it will rise to the level of world-wide economic depression, as some economists are predicting. I really don't know. Frankly, I don't think so. "   "Now, there was a time when I did; and when I say that, I have people who quote my old speeches back to me. But this is a fluid thing that's changing. There was a time when I did -- I'm not quite so sure now. But I wouldn't rule anything out. The random nature of this thing and the fact that we've never gone through it before so we have no precedent to look back on makes it almost impossible to predict."   ------   He says,'  Everything is fine, but I wouldn;t rule anything out."   Now, this is an American leader. How does any rationl person listen to him and make a rational decision about the necessity  to prepare or not.   "The economy looks good, but it could crash. I think no one will notice, but you might get killed. I think your bank is OK except if they lose all you money. No one knows but I will stand up here and make ridiculous meaningless comment as if they had any substance or value in guidance at all."   Now listen to THIS gem....   "I'm not encouraging anybody to take any extra cash. I think if you have done what you should do, which is check with your bank or credit union to make sure that they are Y2K-okay -- that the ATMs work, the checks will clear, the credit cards will work -- and I'm hoping we're not going to see a cash run on banks on that situation. "   ------     Say what? Do what you SHOULD do? Check your bank? Receive their self-assessment as a reliable indicator of their readiness? Name ONE bank out of thousands that has honestly admitted it would not make the grade. NOT ONE has admitted such. Never before in the history if Information technology has such an event occurred. EVERY organization making the grade ON TIME AND Successfully. NEVER.   Yet Bennett suggests that THAT is what you SHOULD do, Just ask them. That is an adequate defense against the effects that may befall your money in  a bank that has problems that are outside of it's control. But, Bennett is 'hoping' that people do not run on banks.   Bennett is a man of ACTION!  "Take Charge!!" he says.   "Be in charge of your own Y2K situation, and if you stockpile anything, stockpile information. Call city hall. I said this -- I was in a small rural town in Utah -- 'Take charge: check with your own bank; check with your own pharmacist; check with your own stockbroker, whatever. "   **Ask** your banker. **Ask** your pharmacist.   "Hi, Mr. drucker? This is Paul. Senator Bennett advised me to "TAKE CHARGE" (tm) of my life. This means asking you if things will be allright with Y2K."   " How the F*ck would I know? "   "Well, that's a bit rude Mr. Drucker. After all I am only trying to "TAKE CHARGE" (tm) of my life. I am not supposed to take my money out of the bank to protect my family or stock up food. I am just supposed to find a guy dressed in a white smock with a pencil protector and ask him if Y2K will be noticeable or not."   " Look, moron, I put pills in bottles for old people. I do it manually. I don't care about Y2K. OK? "   "But, but....'   "Listen, I uh....I uh... Changed my mind. Yeah, that's it. I changed my mind. I am going to tell you the truth. Nothing is going to happen. It is solved. Everything is fine. Ok?"   "Wow! Thanks, Mr drucker! Whew, I sure am relieved! I KNEW you would know. Thanks again for helping me "TAKE CHARGE" (tm) of my life."     Bennett is a moron.     http://www.cbnnow.com/newsstand/stories/990720.asp Paul Milne

-- a (a@a.a), July 22, 1999

Answers

Reminds me of a guy we have on this forum, and how everyone is always saying, "Gee, THANKS Mr. Decker! I KNEW it would be all right, and that the Y2K problem is all under control. Thanks to all those smart people in office, and the amazing free market forces that work so hard for us. Thank you for cleansing my meme of that scaremongering crap about bad computer code, which has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING! God bless, you Mr. Decker, you surely are a man for our time!!"

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 22, 1999.

Or a LEDGEND IN HIS OWN MIND. Mr Decker is so in live with his wit and charm that he is a crowd unto himself

Laughing

-- Laughing (Haaa@Lol.sniff), July 22, 1999.

Schizophrenia is no laughing matter. Neither is Multiple Personality Disorder.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), July 22, 1999.

I can only admire Senator Bennett for struggling publicly with overwhelming ambiguity and fluidity. Like any reasonable person studying y2k, he sees the potential for huge problems, and cannot predict how things will play out. Like many of us, he sees small problems one day and catastrophe the next, depending on what he reads and hears. And unlike many of us, he faces this ambiguity squarely, admits it exists, and tries to deal with it on its own terms.

In contrast, Milne's approach is pure wish-fulfillment fantasy. Milne lives in the boonies? OK, y2k means that's the best place to be. Milne hates the government? OK, y2k will bring down the government. Milne hates taxes? Fine, y2k will eliminated taxes. Milne can't earn an honest living? OK, y2k will doom everyone who can. Milne can't handle the complexity of the modern world? OK, y2k will destroy that complexity. Milne believes he has minimal reliance on technology? y2k will doom those who rely on it. Milne is broke? y2k will destroy the banking system. Etc., etc.

It should be very obvious that Milne isn't trying to predict what y2k will bring based on anything beyond what he *wants*. He hasn't changed his lifestyle at all, he's simply *defined* y2k in such a way as to justify what he was already doing. How very convenient.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 22, 1999.

Flint -- Yes, leaders must often "struggle with ambiguity" while analyzing problems. In the end, however, leaders must LEAD. One does not lead by communicating an ambiguous message.

Sen. Bennett needs to make up his mind.

EITHER:

"In the United States, many, if not most, will go through the year 2000 without knowing it, without noticing it. The basic infrastructure issues now are pretty much under control. "

OR:

"We have no way to predict, with any accuracy, any of the specific results, " says Senator Bennett, "but I think we're safe in saying, statistically, it's just overwhelming the odds that we will have serious disruptions around the world that will cascade (domino effect, if you will) and create economic dislocation."

...BUT NOT BOTH!!!

-- M.C. Hicks (mhicks@greenwich.com), July 22, 1999.

... unless, of course, you intend to argue that what happens in the rest of the world doesn't affect the United States.

-- M.C. Hicks (mhicks@greenwich.com), July 22, 1999.

It seems to me that what Sen. Bennett says is not all that different from what others say: He doesn't know what will happen. Therefore, he advises people to check out their own prospects and take action accordingly.

Any reasonable assessment of failures likely to occur should not assume the same failures nationwide - it's likely that systemic breakdowns will mean that there's plenty of milk but no bread, or gas but no electricity in Philadelphia but electricity to spare in Spokane.

So the message from Bennett and Yourdon and most others boils down to "Beatsafuckouttame. Better figure out your own situation as best you can."

As I've said before, I expect to go to work as usual on Jan. 3rd and thereafter. Having lived through the earthquake in 1989 in the Santa Cruz mountains, I keep reasonable supplies on hand at all times and have for 10 years. I don't expect to use them, but they're there.

JZ

-- Jeff Zurschmeide (zursch@cyberhighway.net), July 22, 1999.

Hey Jeff!

I've got a newsflash for you:

MOST PEOPLE DON'T GO CAMPING.

MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO PREPS FOR ANYTHING.

If Y2K is bad, but not really bad, you will be okay.

MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT. In fact, many could die.

Like Decker, you don't seem to understand this really simple concept. You are saying to people on this forum, "I would be OK, so I don't really care how Y2K turns out."

I know you don't EXPECT anything bad to happen, but shouldn't more people be prepared in case something does?

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), July 22, 1999.

(I'm actually speaking in a low, soft, and calm voice, let there be no misunderstanding here, OK?)

Flint, perhaps you are unable to recognize the sterling stupidity of Bennett's comments because they resemble yours to a tee. Have you NO sense of dignity? Have you any sense? Would it be possible for you to *just once* read the information presented by Milne and comment on THAT alone? I could care less if Milne payed for a sex change operation in Switzerland with his last tax return! He has on MANY occasions presented us with evidence of overwhelming stupidity where Y2K is concerned and his comments about said info have always been on the mark.

Please overlook the fact that his comments about you are dead on in the crosshairs, and tell us what excuse our political leaders have for not knowing anything about what they've known for years and don't want the country to know as they might learn something about just how much the government knows, but won't actually tell us. Know what I mean?

Then, explain how you feel about be singled out by our government as being the cause of any crisis due to their neglect and failed remediation, which they've all been distorting the facts about.....would ya please, you little wacko extremist preparer, you?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 22, 1999.

Here's the tenor of this post:

Bennett: Most people traveling by automobile will experience no problems, but some individuals will suffer fatal crashes.

Milne: What an asshole! Automobile travel is either safe or it isn't! First he says it's safe, then in the next breath he says its fatal. Why can't he make up his mind? Call this leadership? How can any rational person listen to this two-faced weasel and make a decision? Blah blah blah.

Now, you will notice that what Bennett said is precisely correct. Bennett's descriptions in this post are very similar to observations about driving on any normal New Year's Eve. There are a lot of drunks out there. The roads are unusually dangerous. If you drive, you'll probably be OK (even on New Year's Eve, the vast majority get where they're going without incident) but you should recognize the hazards. This is not two-faced, it isn't lying, it isn't poor leadership, it is simply factual.

Milne's desperate attempts to mischaracterize such a description fall flat (except to fellow fanatics). Bennett describes reality, and Milne blasts him for failing to parrot Milne's fantasies. Even for Milne, this is a weak and dishonest diatribe.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 22, 1999.

Well, I think its more like,

Bennett knows that there will be a large number of drunks on the road, very rainy weather is in store for the evening, and a he knows that a certain percentage of peoples cars have faulty brakes. Should he advocate that everyone wear seat belts, attempt to delay their trips until the storm clears, and suggest that folks perform their needed auto repairs? Or should he just say "Most people traveling by automobile will experience no problems, but some individuals will suffer fatal crashes."

The only positive thing that can be said with certainty about Bennett is that compared to the rest of Congress, he's a hero.

-- a (a@a.a), July 22, 1999.

'a':

I agree with you entirely here. That's exactly what Bennett should advocate.

Now, if he started screaming that everyone should junk their car, and we should tear up the road system and reinstitute prohibition, I'd be opposed. That would be a Milne-level response.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 22, 1999.

I'd be quite content to hear the pin-heads simply tell the *truth* about it, without speaking out of both sides of their mouths, if they'd be willing to even speak about it at all. I'm not so sure Milne would disagree with that. Most of us would be happy to have some damn leadership, as it would aid us in convincing others that this ridiculously reckless suggestion of "prepare for a three day storm that will only hit in localized locals....maybe" is in fact a bunch of crap! Why not simply sing a chorus of, "don't worry, be happy"? Oh, sorry, I guess that's exactly what they HAVE been doing, eh?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 22, 1999.

Flint,

Your car safety analogy makes sense when talking about Y2K remediation efforts.

However, my point was the lack of leadership regarding encouraging the public to make serious, prudent preparations against the possibility of disruptions. The analogy here (going back to cars again) would be more like making sure the seat belts, air bags, and brakes are all in good working order... and that you've checked the spare tire, etc.

-- M.C. Hicks (mhicks@greenwich.com), July 23, 1999.

MC - I think the greater analogy is that most people on the road have catastrophic car insurance, even though an accident is extremely remote and is far more likely to be a minor fender bender (the 3-day BITR) than anything more serious.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

We are dealing here with two entirely different issues. These are:

1) Bennett's understanding of what we're facing. That is, how accurate are his expectations?

2) Bennett's leadership responsibilities in advocating a proper response to those expectations. What should he tell us to do?

The car analogy was intended as a metaphor of Bennett's expectation of the distribution of impacts *in principle*. According to this distrubution, the majority of us won't experience all that much out of the ordinary (although we'll sure *hear* about stuff, just like we hear about fatal accidents). Of those who 'have accidents', the severity of the accident will be inversely proportional to its incidence. That is, the more serious the accident, the less common it is in practice. There are a lot more fender benders than accidents with serious injury, and there are a lot more serious (but survived) injuries than there are fatalities.

Bennett's key problem in communicating all this, is that nonlinear distributions of impacts are damn hard to reduce to a single sound bite. This challenge becomes especially difficult when Bennett's audience demands a single, uniform prediction (it will be bad, or it won't be bad). Milne's problem with most politicians is their refusal even to try to describe the curve. Milne's problem with Bennett is Bennett's refusal to reduce this curve to a single, nondescriptive POINT.

An additional problem is, even if we intuitively grasp the *shape* of this curve, but we lack the coefficients to determine it's height or slope. Just what *is* the probability of a fender bender? A serious injury? A fatality? The data necessary to determine these factors are simply not knowable.

Rather inadvertently, Will continue asks a question that forms a bridge between the two key issues here. She wonders why our leaders won't tell us the truth. This begs the key question -- what should our leaders tell us when the truth is both unknown and unknowable (and even a rough approximation is nonlinear)? By implication (implied by many here), they should *make it up*! Of course, it goes without saying that they should pick a single point on the curve, *way* out toward the fatality end, and claim that point is *typical*! This approach has the advantage of simplicity and ease of understanding. It has the disadvantage of abandoning any pretense at reality. This disadvantage is usually overcome by the simple expedient of (1) insisting that the single chosen point on the curve *is* reality; and (2) closing the mind very tightly.

Inevitably, the cost of insurance against any danger is proportional to the coverage. The more extensive your y2k preparations, the more expensive they are. Bennett (as a leader) must contend with the public's ability and willingness to bear this cost. A lot of drivers out there carry no insurance because they can't afford it. Willingness to pay is also important. Seat belts are a cheap form of insurance, yet how often do we hear that the victim wasn't wearing one? The 'cost' of the time and effort necessary to put it on was considered too great!

When the curve of ultimate y2k impact graphed against the whole population is subject to wildly varying informed estimates, a 'reasonable' leve of coverage cannot be quantified. In other words, it's sheer guessing. Certainly some insurance is prudent, but how much? It's fine to say OK, the more the better. But Bennett knows that if he recommends a level of coverage that represents a significant burden on a significant percentage of the population, a lot of that burdened group will regard it as hopeless and elect to do nothing. Too small a recommendation (like 3 days) may result in unnecessary hardship for too many people.

Compounding this problem is the non-zero probability that y2k impacts will actually exceed the preparation resources of a large percentage of the population -- they couldn't have made sufficient preparations if they'd tried. So Bennett has picked two weeks as the best compromise recommendation he feels is plausible under the circumstances. He feels this level of preparation will prove sufficient for the vast majority. Let's hope he's right.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 23, 1999.

Brooks -- point well taken.

Flint -- Two weeks is better than none, but it still seems like bare minimum "insurance" to me... and not the position that should be taken by a true leader, in the face of uncertainty.

-- M.C. Hicks (mhicks@greenwich.com), July 23, 1999.

Flint!?!?!?!?!?!

"Compounding this problem is the non-zero probability that y2k impacts will actually exceed the preparation resources of a large percentage of the population -- they couldn't have made sufficient preparations if they'd tried."

They sure they hell could have - we have, no?? - and still could today if somebody had the guts to INSIST that they do.

-- Lisa (Lisa@work.now), July 23, 1999.

Nothere says:

>Hey Jeff!

Hey nothere, how's it going?

>I've got a newsflash for you: >MOST PEOPLE DON'T GO CAMPING. >MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO PREPS FOR ANYTHING.

I believe that. And yet, for at least the last ten years, every time disasters are mentioned, various spokesdroids from the Red Cross, gubmint, and virtually anyone speaking from authority has recommended that people have basic survival supplies on hand. If people don't by now, do you think that Sen. Bennett can change things?

>If Y2K is bad, but not really bad, you will be okay.

I expect to be fine no matter how bad it is. I have a long and abiding interest in low-tech skills. My farm tractor is a 1942 Allis with one wire. I have a complete hand-powered smithy and I used to docent at a state park as a smith/machinist in an entirely water-powered shop. (Now, where's a good supply of Pelton Wheels when you need them?) >MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT. In fact, many could die.

True enough, but there's nothing that you, I, or Sen. Bennett can do about that.

>Like Decker, you don't seem to understand this really simple concept. >You are saying to people on this forum, "I would be OK, so I don't >really care how Y2K turns out."

Well, that's more or less true. Everyone has to live their life according to his or her best lights. If I wanted to, I could build an extensive underground blast/fallout shelter. I could stock 10,000 MREs and have concertina wire around my farm. It's my assessment that such a level of preparation is unwarranted, foolish, and not a good use of my time, money, and effort. It's also my assessment, having lived through a couple natural disasters, that I would not want to live in a 50th floor apartment in Manhattan and eat out every meal.

*Everyone* makes these choices every day, to the extent that their wealth allows them to choose their settings and activities. If Portland, OR, gets nuked, I'm likely screwed for not having the shelter and MREs. Oh well.

If Y2K plunges the world into the early 19th century, thousands and thousands of people all across the northern part of the USA will freeze to death this coming winter. And there's absolutely fuck-all that you, I, or Sen. Bennett can do about that, either. People in Florida will not freeze, however.

>I know you don't EXPECT anything bad to happen, >but shouldn't more people be prepared in case something does?

I tend to agree with the authorities - each person has to evaluate their exposure and prepare according to their own lights. Several days of water and food, flashlights, batteries, candles, heat (even extra blankets), and medications, as well as a first-aid kit make sense no matter where you live. If you think you might end up without water for longer than that, then keep more on hand.

My exposure is completely and utterly different from someone who already lives off-grid in the desert or in downtown San Francisco or on a dairy farm in Wisconsin. The answers are different for all of us. My neighbor 3 stops up the road has a spring and cistern water system. About now, there's a hose from his next-door neighbor's place down to his, as the spring gets real slow this time of year.

He'll have fresh water in quantity next winter, while the rest of us will be hooking up our generators to the well pumps for an hour per day to do the bathing, laundry, dishes, and to get our drinking/cooking water. His exposure is different from mine. (Thankfully, we're close, so even if my generator craps out, we'll have no shortage of clean water next winter.)

In the end, we all have to be big people and take responsibility for ourselves. That being said, I think what Sen. Bennett said was reasonable. Not panic inducing, not blowing off the chance for local trouble that could catch anyone.

Thing is, I think some folks would *like* to see a measure of panic, if only as a validation of their prior preparations.

JZ

-- Jeff Zurschmeide (zursch@cyberhighway.net), July 23, 1999.