I'm sure you'll find this familiar: with the advent of Y2k awareness, I spend a fair amount of time just looking at people when I'm out in public. Do he get it? Do she? What that one there gone do when the hershey squirts hit the turbines? Just watching how people behave at the mall and on the roads makes me anxious about rollover. What will they do? For most of them, I think, they will just hunker down and do as Uncle Sam tells them, and that is why the government has taken the tack it has. Rather than cause chaos in the markets and unpredictable consumer behavior, the government has chosen to clench its fists, brace itself for impact and then, voila, count on the American people to shut up and do as they're told after the crash, so to speak. If people are ignorant about Y2k and impacts now, how will they be more informed after the fact, when there are telco problems, rumors and innuendo are rampant and the economy is herking and jerking around them. That is when the big PR machine will start cranking and tell people exactly what to do: "If your social security number begins with an odd number, you may go to one of the food distribution centers on Thursday to pick up your cheese and walnuts. All diesel fuel supplies not for use in agricultural purposes shall be turned in at the local National Guard. Banks will be open for three hours a day, every other day; withdrawals are limited to $200 per customer, per week." Etc. What will people do? Exactly as they are told. Seeing that there are plenty of intelligent, conscientious people working for the government, I'm sure some think tanking went on two years ago and this option came up. "Let us maintain order, then put the shit together after it breaks. The costs will be too great to panic folks now, with ramifications and repercussions we can't imagine. At least when shit breaks, we'll know what's broken."

thoughts?

-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), November 13, 1999

Answers

Sounds good, Kurt, only it wasn't two years ago they really GIed. It was less long so they has less time to fix things and allow people prep...

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), November 13, 1999.

If the gooberment will be in charge, what do you need money for? What banks, and what are you going to spend your money on? If all diesel fuel is to be turned over to the gooberment, where does trucking and railroading the stuff to the market come into play? If people are unemployed, where are they going to get the money to even purchase gas if there is any? And what cheese and walnuts? There's isn't enough to go around, cheese and walnuts are expensive items to be handing out to the population. You may be right about one thing, the multitudes are in no position to fiend for themselves, they will have to do what the gooberment tells them to do if they want to eat. The multituded don't have a clue, you are definately right about that.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com,), November 13, 1999.

Also,

"Face it folks, one of the reasons why .gov is playing down y2k is because they do not have the MANPOWER. If the populace is sufficiently shocked they will be compliant." (bold added)

From c4i post last week (either down the line or in archives).

-- de (delewis@XOUTinetone.net), November 13, 1999.

Nations are only held accountable for the majority (Exception being ethnic cleasning). The USA or any other nation would investigate the probability of the majority surviving Y2K. The USA must believe its majority population, though suffering miserably and in chronic hunger, will survive Y2K. 7-10 million in a city is an itty, teeny, amount of people within a population the size of America, India or China. Nations can lose a minority just as they can claim "everyone is insured" and 7-10 million within their borders is not covered.

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), November 13, 1999.

You mean the people will be 'good' like they were in the New York blackout in '77?

some, especially those currently residing at the request of the state, with little else to do, are not unaware of the probable disruptions, the word will spread rapidly that control no longer exists,

don't get me wrong, I am not too sure that people who have been screwed by the rich are not entitled, I have a often wondered why there isn't more violence in this country, but too I often have wondered why people live anywhere but the Pacific coast too, I mean, why would anyone want to live where it freezes in the winter, gets up to tripple digits in the summer with all that dripping humidity, and the bugs?........

does anyone know of any federal government table top exercises to determine better planning? I have heard not a rumor, not a whisper, not even a fiction about the psychological handling of 210+million people without basic necessities and no reliable way to communicate with them, how are they to let us know about the planning of the deliveries of the cheese, by mail, by television, by telephone, NOT,

we are on our own, grow up, you are the adult now, mommy and daddy government is going to have a stroke, quite literally

-- julienne (bootman@value.net), November 13, 1999.

:-) julienne
Quite True!

-- govt will be paralyzed (bedbound@gov.2000), November 13, 1999.

that is when all the UN troops(foreigners) ALREADY in the US will take control of the population

-- RSL (shazing@shazam.zing), November 13, 1999.

I don't necessarily agree with what appears to be the government's restraint on getting people to prepare, but I understand it.

We live in crazy times--indeed--and any official statement that the US will be vulnerable, weak, or temporarily crippled would be like a welcome mat on our own soil for foreign and domestic terrorists. It would also be like placing a welcome mat on Saudi Arabia/Kuwait for Saddam Hussein, a welcome mat on Taiwan for the PRC, and a welcome mat on Seoul for North Korea's armies.

I do think They probably went through the options very carefully based on subtle socio-economic models, and decided that public panic, terrorist attacks, and a three-front war would be worse than "simply" a crumbling infrastructure from y2k. In the latter scenario, they would have a better means of restoring stabilty more rapidly.

In a way, you can't blame the govt. for doing what they did if you believe that it's government's job to effect the greatest good for the greatest number.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the govt.'s job is to merely tell the truth and preserve our individual freedom, they are of course committing a terrible crime.

-- coprolith (coprolith@fakemail.com), November 13, 1999.

Kurt,

I try to shed some light on why the Federal government has taken the course that they have taken in my White Paper: "A Call to Action: National and Global Implications of the Year 2000 and Embedded Systems Crisis". In addition, my newest insights are in my Comments and impact statement for November. These can be found on my website. (For the latter, click on "Comments, Essays, and Op-Ed Pieces" on my homepage page at my GW website. The website for the White Paper and for the Comments page is http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon ).

Cory Hamasaki has emphasized that incompetence and ignorance are playing a major role in what is and isn't happening. (Anyone have Cory's exact words on this?) I believe that Cory is right on target.

From the President's most recent comments on November 10, one certainly gets the impression that

~ the President is in deep denial;

~ the President is ignorant of the facts,

~ the President isn't putting two and two together based on what he does know;

~ the President is relying on the assessments of others who are not putting two and two together;

~ the President is ignorant regarding the seriousness implications for public health and safety and environmental sustainability of malfunctioning embedded systems in oil and gas pipelines, refineries, the chemical sector in general, and nuclear power plants, hazardous materials sites and facilities, water purification plants, etc., etc. (The President's Council has now recognized as of 11/10/99 that some embedded systems that do not appear to track the date may nonetheless have date-sensitive microchips in them and that these systems also have to be tested and plans made to handle breakdowns. If the President has been so informed, he may well not comprehend what this means. He may also fail to know that some oil and gas pipeline companies (among other sectors) will be fixing some of their embedded systems on failure. He may not know that these companies have now publicly stated that this is the case. He may well not be tracking the problem that closely. Neither, apparently, are his closest advisors);

~ the President is lacking in understanding of the cascading impacts globally and nationally. This would include a lack of recognition of the serious implications of the convergence of all sorts of Y2K and embedded systems-triggered "problem threads" over the next days and months and years, not just at or around the rollover: infrastructure disruptions, technological disasters, the destabilization of markets, the breakdown in international trade, unemployment, social unrest, etc, etc. (Parts 1, 2, and 5 of my White Paper address these concerns);

~ the President may be convinced by the "happy face" reports that he has heard and is receiving;

OR

~ the President may not revealing his depth of concern and the truth as he knows it. (I have reason to believe that the truth as he knows it may lead him to believe that the impacts of Y2K will not be more than a 3 on the impact scale).

Of course, it is certainly possible that all of these are in play at once. Indeed, from the inside information that I have been able to gather, everything point to a combination of all of the above, with ignorance and absence of understanding playing a far greater role than I believed at the time I completed Part 4 of my White Paper. As previously noted, my more recent conclusions are in the Comments section on my website as noted above.

Much of the time that I have spent in Washington since the early 1970's has been spent on cutting edge issues, issues that typically involving technical and scientific dimensions, as well as societal dimensions. Key to analyzing such issues and coming up with recommended policies and courses of action is understanding how those in charge are understanding and defining "the problem". Never before have I seen such an absence of interest, let alone well grounded understanding, on the part of those in major roles of responsibility at the helm of the government on any cutting edge issue or problem, on any problem having such potentially enormous impacts on the well being, the stability, and the future of the nation and the world. The few most outstanding exceptions of individuals in the Federal government who do seem to have an exceptional understanding of the the nature of these potential impacts include Lawrence Gershwin of the Central Intelligence Agency; Jacqueline Williams-Bridgers, Inspector General of the State Department; a few at the Department of Commerce in the International Trade Administration; and many individuals at the General Accounting Office, including most notably, Joel Willemssen. Of course, never before in recorded history has there been a problem such as the Y2K and embedded systems crisis. Never before has there been a problem that has been so daunting and complex that we have known about in advance. Never before have so few people been prepared or inclined to try to shed light on a problem that has such immense implications. Never before have so few people come forward to try to shed light on what the policy options are: on what those in roles of public and private responsiblity can and should be doing to address the enormous threats and challenges posed by the problem. The messages of those who have come forward are not being heard or listened to as they need to be.

The nation and the world are in a crisis and those who are in roles of greatest public and private sector responsibility have yet to recognize that fact and have yet to come forward in large enough numbers and with a large enough voice to help address the threats and challenges that face us.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), November 13, 1999.

Paula Gordon,

1) Thank you for all the work you have done regarding Y2K. Many people have alerted the public to the dangers of the coming rollover and beyond, but you are on the forefront of those trying to get the Government off it's sorry butt and REALLY do something. Many of us are truly grateful to you.

2) The President IS lying. He has proven himself to be a consistent and regular liar, so why should this issue be any different? He is not a stupid man (reckless and impulsive, yes, but not stupid). And neither is he uninformed. The CIA, FBI, Senate, House, Navy, and a hundred other agencies have hinted around if not come straight out and said we will have serious problems. He has the most inside information of anyone in the country, and should therefore have the clearest picture of anyone in the country. How can he NOT believe we will have large scale failures?

I only hope that Lewinsky is what he's remembered for, and not Y2K.

-- cavscout (wondering where@we're. headed), November 13, 1999.

--it's very simple. long ago, realizing the importance and obvious serious consequences, an "executive decision" was made to ALLOW y2k to happen. Now, I'm not saying it was planned, and I'm certainly not saying that all the top people in government where aware of this. But the "controllers" knew, and they are not stupid. the people who tell the king what to do, the ones who tell greenspan what to do, etc. we haven't had any sort of real elected government in several decades. Witness the so called "republican revolution". All of a sudden we have both houses controlled by an alledged conservative party. In the beginning, especially with the new freshman reps, a lot of conservative thoughts got promoted into law, but it CHANGED REALLY FAST. What happens is that our elected reps get compromised after just a short time in office. They either get blackmailed, bribed, their families or themselves get threatened, etc. This happens-read Rodney Stich, defrauding america for a start. how much carrot and a stick does it take to get to someone? Her's 50,000$ for a vote on this or that, and by the way, did you get those pictures in the mail of your children taken with a telephot lens? something like that? Intel agencies,and police around the world, use variations on these themes all the time. it's easy to control people, especially PUBLIC people. Everyone is potentially afraid of the long range gun, the "car accident', the "plane crash", the sudden "heart attack". and money is always money, and sex is used for control as well. It's worked for centuries. The "shadow government"-the "dark forces"-whatever you want to call "them" are really in control. These forces are made up of rogue generals and others in the military, certain factions in the cia, fbi, dea, etc, federal judges, higher level career bureaucrats, big defense contractors, big banks and the drug trade and international big money in general. the people you would expect to want more power and more money, and have the ability and resources to pursue these greedy goals. They have the power to completely control the outcome of federal trials, to "set up" people who don't cooperate, to influence who gets big loans and who doesn't, who gets audited by the irs, what bills get talked about in congress, what court cases are dealt with, etc. In short, we already have a de facto dictatorship. Clinton is most obviously a puppet. He's been controlled and groomed for almost three decades now. He's completely at the mercy of the money and groups that have backed him. He does what they say. He was picked to be electable, based on the control that they had over him, and his TV/video appeal to a lot of voters, at least initially. The mass popular media is mostly controlled. The news is rigged blatantly. Months of monica on page one, chinese money and spies and military tech going overseas in little tiny stories on page 32 section c if they got in at all. the media is CONTROLLED, and most of the big market electronic and print media is foreign owned now. Important stories get spiked, pieces of fluff get daily coverage. Now, back to y2k. I am of the opinion that the very rapid rise of universal internet use was not seen clearly by these "dark forces". The internet scares them, because of the speed of spreading of real news. The middle class still has power in this country, and, being this is still the US, they are armed, and have been using the internet and becoming "aware" in big numbers about some of the 'things' that have been going on. A lot of people are putting the puzzle pieces together. Now what would be the single,simple thing to knock the middle class down, and not have it backfire on the "controllers", or even if it did, to make it very hard for any sort of resistance to develop? Answer is to gain complete control over their lives in a short time frame-water, food, economics, energy--all the systems that make middle class life possible. All at once, all together-when the middle class isn't looking and they have put all their capital into some bogus "market" that even the most bullish think is way overvalued. When you look at the obvious downplaying of y2k, the assault on second amendment freedoms, the capitulation of congress on almost anything the executive branch does, the rigged stock markets, the weird happenings with precious metals, the warnings about bio/chem/cyber attacks--all the pieces-it's obvious that a serious coup is imminent. While the US military has been downsized, systems cancelled, training slashed, deployment to so many places overseas it's basically everywhere--and balance that against the huge rise in numbers of all the federal police forces, it makes it even more imminent. They can't hire federal cops fast enough. They can't militarize the local police fast enough. They can't demonize any folks who might be potential threats against their "rule" fast enough. But on y2k it's "we're ok, you'll be ok, trust us". I'm not buying it, haven't bought it, and won't in the future. The lies are all too pervasive. What's coming is global master/slave society, on a scale never imagined before. The people who have been lulled into complaceny will be begging for "stern rule", as long as they have something to eat. It doesn't take long. take one 100 grand a year professional, extremely comfortable and happy now--and you can shatter their world so quickly they won't know what hit them--take away his or her's food, water, security, comforts and replace them with hunger, thirst, terror and cold and in most cases you have a controlled human in one week tops, someone who in that week previous couldn't have conceived about their world changing like that. This is my opinion. Y2K is a big deal, it's being allowed to happen, I think a lot of folks will suffer, and the global elite will pick and choose who will live, for their pleasures. They want an entire world of 500 million, not 5-6-7 billion. There will still be plenty of people to be the slaves, and plenty of everything for the rulers. They know how much resources are left, easily mined or extracted. they know how much fresh water and farmland is left, how much timber and precious metals and all those 'things' that go to making a superior technological lifestyle. They won't go hungry or cold. And they could care less who knows about this now, because it's too late to stop what's going to happen. Now, whether or not they succeed is still a matter for debate, but I think they are commited to these plans now, no turning back, we would have been to close to the masses of people finding out what's really going on. So, y2k was spun as a big nothing, and it still is being spun that way. not a slave zog

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), November 13, 1999.

UN troups, who are you kidding, there really aren't enough of them, even the current police can't keep us in line,

what I just can't get out of my mind is just 2 cities, New York and Los Angeles, sorry I do not know the population of NY, I am the product of US education what can I say, but there are 13 million in Los Angeles,

just what are those 2 cities going to look like without their regular shipments and inventory of : cigarettes, alcohol, prozac, ritillin, valium and chocolate? you will note that I have not even mentioned food or tp,

by the way I have 100 lbs of chocolate in my storage, some of us are ready,

the government position seems reasonable now if they expect nothing worse that a 3, for the sake of my eldest daughter who will graduate this summer with honors from UCBerkeley I hope they are right,

it has puzzled me for the past 2 years now how there has been no leadership,

it is no fun to be king if there are no slaves,

the rich are not even the same species as I am when I really think about it, there are those out there who never see McDonald's or the great unwashed public, the rich are truly different,

this is a manmade problem but I cannot help thinking of the tower of Babel,

may God be Merciful

-- julienne (bootman@value.net), November 13, 1999.

Paula,

I would suggest that you read the first 16 articles posted under Gary North's Martial Law section. They were posted from December 1997 to June 1998.

They are CLUES, big clues IMO.

TPTB know about the severity of Y2K.

DV FSI,

BR

-- brother rat (rldabney@usa.net), November 13, 1999.

Dear cavscout:

Thanks, first of all, for your kind words.

Next, there are several reasons the President could "not know". The comments that follow should be read in context with what I tried to explain above in this thread and what I wrote in my November Comments on my website. In essence, I think the situation is more complicated than just "not knowing," but "not knowing" is a part of the picture.

I know that this is hard to believe, but I have it on good authority that the President chooses not to have regular security briefings! I understand that it is unprecedented that a President should choose not to have daily security briefings. Perhaps, someone may know if there have been other Presidents who have had a similar policy.

It is also my understanding that the President has a habit of delegating issues to others and then deferring to them for their best assessment and recommendations, expecting them to keep him apprised if there are things he needs to know. He has indeed delegated Y2K to the head of the President's Council. Conversations directly involving the President have been recounted to me. (The conversations in question were not with Mr. Koskinen.) These conversations have convinced me that the President has indeed delegated the matter.

The fact that the President has delegated Y2K to the head of the President's Council and the fact that the President does not get daily national security briefings would also help explain why his remarks on November 10 and a few days earlier on the Internet were not in synch with Mr. Koskinen's message that the public would do well to prepare for a three day storm or "long weekend". The President has disengaged himself from what is going on.

The following possibilities also need to be taken into consideration:

~ the President may be briefed, but he may not be hearing what is said;

~ the President may be briefed, but he may be at least in partial denial. After all, if the impacts of Y2K are over a 4 on the impact scale, he will surely be widely accused of having been malfeasant in the carrying out of his responsibilities and a large portion of the blame will be placed on him for what happens;

~ the President may be briefed, but he may not be comprehending the meaning and significance of what is told him; and

~ the President may have some preconceived notions about how serious Y2K might be and he may not be budging from these preconceived notions. He may well regard anyone over a 3 as overreacting at best or as being "looneytunes" at worst.

Another potentially major factor needs to be stressed here. This factor may well be the controlling factor. The President, self-admittedly, has trouble even operating a calculator. Maybe his absence of such rudimentary technical competence reflects a deeper problem with technology generally. He may be relying solely on the judgment of others whom he assumes have the expertise or have enlisted the assistance of persons with requisite competence if they do not have the needed expertise themselves. The President could be unaware of the fact that the head of the President's Council and the immediate on-site professional staff of the Council do not possess the broad technical competence required for understanding and addressing the Y2K and embedded systems crisis. Yes, I know that there people on the Working Groups of the Council have extensive IT backgrounds, but being on a Working Group does not carry with it the same clout and influence on policy and actions as being in "top management". (Other than a professional at NIST who has spent alot of time on embedded systems over the past several years, I do not know of any individuals involved in the Working Groups who do. If anyone knows, I would be glad to learn of their names and contact information.) Roger Bojoly, the engineer whose warnings went unheeded in the decisionmaking process leading up to the Challenger Disaster, is a case in point. Here was an individual with requisite technical expertise that management either overlooked or disregarded.

There has evidently been sparse reliance on expertise when it comes to embedded systems. In April or May of 1999, the President's Council requested from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) an overview on the status of the understanding of the embedded systems aspect of the Y2K problem. That paper may be released next week and should be findable on the NIST website: http://www.nist.gov. Also look for relevant papers on that website by Gary Fisher and Michael Cherry.

It is now November of 1999 and the level of the President's Council understanding on embedded systems assessment process and testing has apparently just made a quantum leap forward. While I am very pleased this has happened, I would only have hope it would have happened years ago, certainly by early last year, and not instead in November of 1999. I have no certainty that the President knows about and comprehends the significance of the leap forward in understanding. From his comments on Wednesday, November 10, he does not appear to know.

Parts 1 and 2 of my White Paper are attempts to explain why people have had such a hard time comprehending the scope and implications of the problem. In May of 1999, as a result of a discussion with a French electrical engineer and embedded systems expert, I gained some additional understanding of the problems that we have in the U.S. when it comes to dealing with such highly technical matters.

Some of the insights I gained in talking with the French electrical engineer were as follows:

~ The technical education of electrical engineers in the U.K. and France tends to be far broader than the education of electrical engineers in the U.S.. As a consequence, electrial engineers from the U.K. and France would be likely to be far more knowledgeable concerning the more esoteric issues surrounding embedded systems, especially date-sensitive embedded systems than electrical engineers in the U.S. whose training had been less broad;

~ There is a greater respect on the part of policymakers and managers for expertise in France than there is in the US. The expert advice is sought, listened to, and acted upon;

~ In the U.S., cost benefit analysis and concern for economic consequences can and often does preempt concerns for the public good, for public health and safety, and for environmental sustainability concerns. This is increasingly the case in parts of the the public sector, where the opposite should be the case;

~ In the particular situation of the French engineer, the multinational corporation that he works for focuses on water distribution and related systems. They do not outsource. The effect of this is that there is far more accountability and in house expertise than would be found in a company that outsources.

Another insight that I got from the French electrical engineer had to do with the importance of common sense in comprehending the significance of the effects of malfunctioning embedded systems. This is written up on Part 6 of my White Paper so I will not repeat it here.

I hope these views that I have shared might explain more fully why the President has quite obviously fallen down on the job when it comes to Y2K. Indeed, the current candidates for President, with the exception of Steve Forbes, have not been raising the issue at all. If they have, it is not being well reported by the media. Perhaps, it would be a very good idea for the media and the public to raise the questions concerning the Y2K and embedded systems crisis with the President as well as with the Presidential candidates at every opportunity. It might be especially helpful if the candidates for President, including Vice President Gore, were asked by the media and the public, for their assessment of how the Administration has been handing the Y2K and embedded systems crisis. It would also be interesting to know what the candidates understand about embedded systems. I believe that if individuals fail to "get" embedded systems, they cannot fully grasp the seriousness of the situation that we are in.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), November 13, 1999.

Kurt: If things happen the way you describe I think people will do one thing:

FREAK. They will FREAK ON A MAJOR SCALE. They will be caught almost completely off-guard. Until I got it, I never realized how cushy our lives really are. How much we sleepwalk around.

Saw the movie "The Messenger" last night about Joan of Arc. Set, obviously in the early 1400's and today when I went grocery shopping I felt like a freakin queen.

They will freak.

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), November 13, 1999.

Dr. Gordon,

Thank you for taking time to respond concerning the reasons why the President is apparently in denial. I don't pretend to know what he is thinking, but it seems to me that the man has a history of being in denial about a number of things. I won't go into all of them, as I'm sure we can all make up or own lengthy lists.

My personal belief is that he is smart enough to understand the basic problem. I don't know what makes a nuclear reactor work, exactly, but I know that it generates a hell of a lot of heat, and if there is not sufficient cooling around the reaction, it will "melt down". I know that experts in the field are concerned about this. I listen to experts in all fields and try to glean whatever information I deem reliable. But I don't need to understand every detail to grasp the basic enormity and possible severe consequences of the problem. Neither does Clinton.

Your claim that clinton does not attend daily security breifings does not surprise me. He seems to have been playing it fast and loose with our national security vis-a-vis China, and foriegn policy has never been his strong suit.

I do believe the the President has chosen to put Y2K on the back burner because the administration is very afraid of panicking the public, and rocking the economic boat which is still sailing along so smoothly. I believe that if the economy had not been SO red hot for the past few years he would probably been convicted of perjury, but public opinion saved him in his impeachment trial. If the economy had slowed due to Y2K fears, he may have been removed from office.

The question remains, what will happen if our worst fears are true? Will Bill Clinton be remembered as the most negligent President in U.S. history? I personally think he been among the worst, but if Y2K is more than say, a "3", I don't think he will be able to evade the spotlight of history as the biggest buffoon we've ever had in the oval office.

Thanks again for taking the time to contribute to this forum.

-- cavscout (cavscout@fix.net), November 13, 1999.

Zog

You are one SCARRRRY dude! Sad part of that, though, is I also think you're pretty much on target.

Tom Green for President !!!

-- Klinton sux (axemansrv1@aol.com), November 14, 1999.

Dear cavscout,

Thanks for your response.

You wrote:

"My personal belief is that (the President) is smart enough to understand the basic problem. I don't know what makes a nuclear reactor work, exactly, but I know that it generates a hell of a lot of heat, and if there is not sufficient cooling around the reaction, it will "melt down". I know that experts in the field are concerned about this. I listen to experts in all fields and try to glean whatever information I deem reliable. But I don't need to understand every detail to grasp the basic enormity and possible severe consequences of the problem. Neither does Clinton."

Some reasons that these principles might not apply to President Clinton especially in the case of the Y2K and embedded systems crisis include the following:

~ There may be few, if any individuals who have access to the President, either in the White House or the Executive Branch, who understand the problem well enough to help the President expand his understanding of the problem and help him understand that we are in a crisis situation as a result of the problem;

~ There may be no one around him or with access to him who both understands the problem and has the educational skills to impart that understanding to him in terms he can fully comprehend.

~ There may be no one near the President or with access to him who feels free to introduce the subject to him or focus in on matters that he needs to hear. Such a person would need to have not only significant knowledge and understanding, but also the ability to impart it effectively. In addition, he or she needs the initiative, gumption, and will to even seek a meeting. The right connections can also be crucial to making such a meeting possible. If the person is affiliated with a company or a government agency, that can serve as a constraint since authorization to seek such a meeting might have to be sought. Authorization to speak freely in such a meeting might also have to be sought. Only a few people I know of could meet most of these criteria.

~ There may be no one around the President who, even if they understood the problem, would dare to bring the bad news to the President along with constructive recommendations concerning what course of action should now be taken. The bad news, whether it is explicitly stated or not, would be that the Administration had badly misjudged the nature and scope of the problem, that Federal efforts had not addressed the problem fully, and that the consequences of this misjudgment were going to be enormously costly in every way; ~ Some heads of organizations do not want detailed explanations of the nature and scope of a problem. They want only what they regard as being essential information. If they have delegated major responsibility for dealing with a problem to someone who also does not understand the nature and scope of the problem and if they will only listen to that individual concerning the problem, then there may be no way for advice or understanding from "outside" to get in. The person who has been delegated responsibility for the problem serves in effect as a "gatekeeper". This gatekeeper may decide to keep information from his superior, particularly if that new information or understanding reflects badly on his or her performance or effectiveness. If material sharply critical of Federal efforts on a given problem is sent to the President, the material may be routinely routed to the person who the President has put in charge of the problem. If the President happens to see material on Y2K that does not come from Mr. Koskinen, he may well ask if Mr. Koskinen has seen it. In an instance I know about, that is what happened. The individual showing him the material did not think it was appropriate to provide an unsolicited briefing on the material at that moment;

~ A person I know who has talked with the President about Y2K, still does not feel that the President's grasp of the problem is all that great;

~ The President is evidently clueless that Y2K could be over a 3 on the impact scale. Some of the preparations that one hears about may be for cyberterrorism and other forms of terrorism, not Y2K per se. Indeed, from what information I have been able to gather, the President is consumed with what he considers to be problems of far greater magnitude than Y2K. This means that it may not be all that easy for even the head of the President's Council to see him any time he wishes. And it may therefore be all the more difficult for the individual in that position to inform the President of what he needs to know concerning the crisis as it unfolds;

~ How many people who have been delegated major responsibilities in the Federal government would readily come forward to tell the President that they had effectively failed in their assigned role, that they had not understand the problem in its entirety and that as a consequence, the future of the country and the world has been placed in jeopardy. It is hard enough to be the bearer of bad news in a substantially smaller organization. How many people have the integrity, the courage, and the will to be that bearer of bad news of that magnitude?

Regarding the issue of Y2K and nuclear power plant safety: I am not aware of any experts, including representatives of watchdog organizations who have been able to talk with the President directly regarding their concerns. There was a meeting in early June of 1999 that included some members of the President's Y2K Council, including the head of the President's Council, some representatives of the Department of Defense and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission among other agencies. These individuals met was with representatives of the Nuclear Information Resource Service, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Michael Craig, and Dr. Helen Caldicott. A number of well documented problems involving Y2K and nuclear power plant problems and nuclear arsenals were discussed. An answer to one of the questions I posed to the Mr. Koskinen at the National Press Club on November 10 was on his assessment of concerns bearing on Y2K, embedded systems and nuclear power plant safety. His answer reflected no awareness on his part of the information that had been shared with him at that June meeting and by others. The information that was imparted at the June meeting may not have "registered" with him. Or it may have registered and he may have found it lacking or he may have decided that the information was at such odds with the information that he had received from industry organizations and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that he simply dismissed what he heard.

There are a host of barriers that can impede the acceptance of well researched findings concerning a problem, findings that have major implications for public health and safety and the environment. Most certainly, the values of those in major role of responsibility play a crucial role. If the public official is relying solely on cost benefit analysis and economic criteria for making policy decisions, he or she may well reject the validity of "evidence" that is based on expert knowledge, understanding, and experience. In addition, an individual's notion of what constitutes valid "evidence" can also serve as a barrier to acceptance of "evidence" that does not meet the prescribed criteria.

Many feel, and I am among them, that the nature and scope of the Y2K and embedded systems crisis is best comprehended from the vantage point of chaos theory and the understanding of the interaction of complex systems. However, the lens through which most persons have been trained to view complex policy issues is the empirical paradigm, the Newtonian paradigm that are based on very narrow and limiting assumptions concerning how human and societal problems are to be defined and understood. I realize that this discussion of basic perspectives is far too theoretical for most folks' taste or inclinations. However, believe it or not, the approach that one takes to understanding and addressing overall Y2K and embedded systems threats and challenges is going to be affected greatly by such basic differences in perspectives. There are few people in the highest roles of responsibility in the Federal government who seem to have much understanding of or affinity for systems analysis and chaos theory. As a consequence, they are not apt to seek advice from people who do have such an understanding, or recognize the merit of such insight and understanding when they are exposed to it.

You also wrote: "I do believe ... the President has chosen to put Y2K on the back burner because the administration is very afraid of panicking the public, and rocking the economic boat which is still sailing along so smoothly. I believe that if the economy had not been SO red hot for the past few years he would probably been convicted of perjury, but public opinion saved him in his impeachment trial. If the economy had slowed due to Y2K fears, he may have been removed from office."

I concur with your assessment that these are also factors that have been involved in the approach that the President has taken regarding Y2K. Maintaining economic stability also appears to be the key objective in Mr. Greenspan's mind. The failure on the part Executive Branch to seek and acquire the resources needed to adequately address the threats and challenges of the Y2K and embedded systems crisis is also traceable to the reluctance to do anything that might undermine the perceived stability of the economy. The failure to dedicate adequate resources to dealing with the Y2K and embedded systems crisis will, however, prove to be the poorest of choices. The failure to apply the requisite resources to addressing the crisis will cost the nation infinitely more in the long run. The recovery costs will be far higher than they would have been had adequate resources been dedicated to minimizing the impacts of the crisis, particularly the most potential devasting technological disasters. The recovery costs could also be minimized significantly if the national policy also simultaneously focused on ensuring that people here and abroad were as fully prepared as possible. While government needs to do all that it can to minimize the chance of major impacts, government also needs to encougage and help the public prepare for infrastructure disruptions, technological disasters, and cascading impacts affecting both social and economic stability. A reduced number of such impacts would still be expected to occur since there is neither time nor resources to prevent them all.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), November 14, 1999.

Paula...

.....I appreciate the solid nature of the information you bring to the forum, But I have to wonder why you're so hell-bent to make excuses for such a loser as wjc.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 16, 1999.

Julienne,

Hey, girlfriend! I like the way you think..."100 lbs. of Chocolate in storage." YES! Can you imagine the following scenario?... NO electricity, no water, no heat, out of PMS meds, heavily armed, AND NO CHOCOLATE? Somebody could get hurt...LOL!

-- Sharon (Sking@drought-ridden.com), November 16, 1999.

Patrick,

Thanks for your comments.

Please rest assured, in no way am I trying to make excuses for the President or anyone else in a major role of responsibility regarding Y2K. I am not sure how you might have come to that conclusion if you have read all of my White Paper and my latest November comments and impact rating. (The latter are both at http://gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon . Click on "Comments, Essays, and Op-ed Pieces" for the November Comments.)

What I am trying to do is figure out what is happening. I am trying to figure out what could possibly account for the monumental errors in judgment that the President and those closest to him have made and are continuing to make regarding the handling of Y2K. I am trying to figure all this out in order to try to effect a change in a more positive direction.

I think that understanding where people are coming from can be crucial to understanding what if anything can be done to influence their actions and help through educational means to willingly adopt a more promising and responsible course of action.

In the case of the President, shedding light on these matters can also be helpful in letting him know that others can see why he has adopted the course of action that he has adopted. If the President realized that others understood what was guiding his actions, he might well change the direction that he has been moving in. Hopefully he would adopt a course of action which better serve the interests of the nation.

I think that developing a clearer understanding concerning what really is happening is also important for another reason: It does not help for public to be in a state of confusion. When leaders lie to the public or confuse the public or mislead them, on purpose or inadvertently, they disserve the public. The creation of such confusion has implications for relationships of all kinds, including the relationship between one citizen and another. I am sure we all know of spouses whose marriages are being torn apart by arguments over what is going on regarding Y2K and what should be done about it, with one spouse believing what the government is saying and the other spouse questioning it or seeing through it. The relationships of friends, family members, associates on the job, etc., etc. are also being unduly strained or damaged, some seemingly beyond repair. Some people are even doubting their own capacity to reason and understand.

Increasing one's understanding concerning what is really going on can be helpful to people for other reasons as well, not least of which is the fact that deepening ones understanding can help clear up an otherwise unfathomable mystery. Clearing up a mystery can help people who have been at odds with one another reach a common understanding of a situation that we are all in, like it or not.

Clearing up a mystery can also unlock creative energies and motivation. It is amazing how freeing it can be when suddenly things begin to make sense. It can give one a renewed sense of confidence in the truth of his or her own perceptions.

There is a quote that I think sums up some of my major concerns for truthfulness and the role it can play. The quote is from "Ethics on the Job" by Pfeiffer and Fosberg. It is as follows:

"Do not deceive other people. By deceiving them, you are creating a false world for them."

It is not helpful for people's mental health and well being to be offered such a false world to live in. In fact, it can be extremely debilitating. Few things are more ruinous to the future of a free and democratic people than leaders knowingly or inadvertently creating such a false world.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), November 17, 1999.

Paula...

.....Very graciously answered, thank you very much.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 17, 1999.