If there was only one man's counsel coming my way, this man's wisdom is what I would wish for.

~C~

Excerpt from Victor Porlier's "The President's Council Reports on Y2K Progress":

"As for reducing the Great Uncertainty, this first effort falls short - the phraseology, the glib reassurances, and the arbitrarily established deadlines that keep slipping. The Summary is long on expressions of confidence and short on actual data to support that confidence. We trust that these assessments are being offered with the best of intentions, but is that enormously naive on our part?"

The post is at http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/DSA/VP/vp9902.htm.

-- Critt Jarvis (Wilmington, NC) (critt@critt.com), January 16, 1999

Answers

As for reducing the Great Uncertainty, this first effort falls short - the phraseology, the glib reassurances, and the arbitrarily established deadlines that keep slipping. The Summary is long on expressions of confidence and short on actual data to support that confidence. We trust that these assessments are being offered with the best of intentions, but is that enormously naive on our part? How many of us have wondered what the consequences would be for those who made great protestations of confidence, yet failed ultimately to deliver? How is accountability to be established in the coming months and especially in the Year 2000?

We all need to let Mr. Koskinen know that we appreciate his efforts and understand the limitations under which he works,....

================

With the first paragraph, I agree. The second, NO WAY.

I do NOT appreciate hs efforts. 'Efforts' themselves are not to be appreciated. I do not appreciate the 'eforts' of an attemped rapist to stalk a victim.

The RESULTS of Koskinen's efforts are to put forth happy faced reports in flagrant contrats to the evidence. His 'intentions' are irrelevant. Optimism is an outlook that out to be BASED o the evidence. Koskinen's outlook is NOT based on the evidence. At least not in a meaningful way.

His assurances are in no way supported by ANY data at all. Nor by 'some'. Not by ANY. Yet he waxes optimistic. At vey best, it is conceivable that he could say that he has not enough evidence at all, upon which to make a decisio about the outcome. And he HAS done JUST that. But, even THAT would not be true. That stement would only say he did not have 'ENOUGH' data. And that is patently false.

The most critical industries are way way behind. No ifs, ands or buts. This ought not predispose ANYONE, much less Koskinen, to optimism.

What are the possibilities? One is that,truly, Koskinen is receiving false and misleading information. In that case, I STILL find him at great fault for not having verified that it is false and misleading as anyone in this newsgroup could do. I also find him at fault for not being shrewd enough in the ways of business that he could not see through the sham. This would merely make him a laughablee incompetent. Although that is not too hard to believe, I don't believe it.

Is it a possibility that he is telling the truth? The answer is unequvocably not. I am not talking, here, about whether he is actually lying. I am talking about whether the content of what he is saying is true, It is not. The evidence manifestly contradicts him.

Another possibility is that he is not telling the truth, and he knows it. i think that this is the actual case. I think he knows full well that what he is saying is not ture. But I also think that there is apossibility that he does not actually understand what the consequences of that will be. On the one hand he is partially ignorant and, at the same time, on the other, he is lying.

Yes, he is lying. Out and out, plain, look you right in the eye and swear on your mother's grave, lying.

They may not fear a panic based on objective failures, but they do fear one on perception of failure. And inas much as they DO NOT think an objective failure will occur, they are solely focussed on preventing a panic based only on perceptions. So Koskinen only has to mollify the fears of the masses and calm the subjective outlooks.

That is his WHOLE task. Nothing more, nothing less. And, he is succeeding to a certain degree as measured by the fact that outright panics have not yet occurred. overall, I don't think that he will prevent a panic. Not a subjectively based one, nor, certainly, one based upon objective failures.

The bottom line is that Koskinen is lying. And In NO way do I agree with Victor Porlier that we should be in the least bit appreciative of Koskinen's 'services'. If the 'limitations' under which he works entail lying to the public, then his service is disservice at best, traitorous at worst.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 16, 1999.

May we consider this following thought:

* "Leaders want their organizations to survive, adapt to a world of paradox and unpredictable change, and evolve in ways that will position them for continued existence. Most leaders want the enterprise to move faster, want to enhance employee quality of work- life, want to improve customer satisfaction, increase flexibility and creativity, and want to achieve outstanding financial results. Leaders and followers want to feel good about who they are and what they do. People want to believe their work is important and contributes to something greater than themselves.

Once leaders, managers, and employees establish these laudable objectives many, sadly, race unconsciously to achieve them. They make a crucial mistake in failing to understand that a new external reality requires new beliefs to guide decisions and behavior. Unaware of the false beliefs driving them in a changing marketplace that requires new responses, they rush to control the unseen forces propelling them into the future. People scurry mindlessly from activity to activity trying to push from consciousness the awareness that their actions are futile. Lacking insight into their needs and confidence in their judgment, leaders try new program after new program hoping desperately that something, anything, will rescue them in their efforts to survive, adapt, and evolve in the worlds changing marketplace."

I have zero experience inside the beltway. However, if the belief in Washington, as probably most centers of power, subscribes to an "official future" , such as Peter Schwartz' Long Boom, then Koskinen's public presence is understandable.

If behind closed doors, of which I have no knowledge or need to know, he fairly facilitates alternative points of view, then I can appreciate his efforts. If he couldn't defend the status quo, he wouldn't be there. If he can't attend to the possibilities being offered in other circles, he'll have to step aside.

We might find out very soon.

Critt

* Excerpt is from The Times in Which We Live by Tom Heuerman, PH.D. with Diane Olson, PH.D. Copyright 1998

A copy of this pamphlet is posted at: http://www.critt.com/ pamphlets/pamp17.htm.

-- Critt Jarvis (Wilmington, NC) (critt@critt.com), January 16, 1999.

Critt, have you ever nailed it: "if he couldn't defend the status quo, he wouldn't be there." That is it, net-net. Koskinen's mission is, precis, to defend the status quo. That will not, cannot, change in 1999. Understanding what you said is the rosetta key to interpreting his every word.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 16, 1999.

I had dinner with Victor this evening down on Connecticut Avenue. We argued a lot, agreed on a lot. A good guy; you might want to pick up his new Y2K book.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com), January 18, 1999.