In case nobody's checking the old birthday thread - here are the July birthdays that haven't already taken place. The 15th - Kaerae; the 19th - Jamais; the 21st - wolfie turns 19; the 31st - bugblast. If there are amymore please post `em!

-- Laighe of the Limberlost (laighe@excite.com), July 12, 1999

Answers

ERKS...sorry forgot to post the birthdays I know...was in hospital... July 2 was poisonella 5 July was lisaski 3 July was Carl_Nolan 21 July is Wolfie 12 July was cheshire3 9 July was buju Now August 11 August = rachmaninov 1 August = Shoshinsha 16 August = Paladin22 6 August = kfrazier 11 August = ceasaria 23 August Spyderette that's all I've got...sorry for not putting them up before hug

-- gobbles (gobbles2@hotmail..com), July 15, 1999.

H A P P Y B I R T H D A Y!!

TO ALL THE BIRTHDAY BOYS AND GIRLS. HOPE ALL YOUR WISHES COME TRUE!

JAIZEE

-- jaizee (jaizee@hotmail.com), July 16, 1999.

(_*_)

(_*_)

-- a (a@a.a), July 26, 1999.

No, I don't think AR is CET. Not a big enough asshole. Here's a comparison:

Maria: (_*_)

AR: (_*_)

Poole: (_*_)

CPR: (_*_)

(_*_)

-- a (a@a.a), July 26, 1999.

No, I don't think AR is CET. Not a big enough asshole. Here's a comparison:

Maria: (_*_)

AR: (_*_)

Poole: (_*_)

CPR: (_*_)

-- a (a@a.a), July 26, 1999.

WTF?

-- Megiano (tbauer@feist.com), July 26, 1999.

I agree Meg. Not only WTF but (no pun intended) who the heck? LOL

-- Laighe of the Limberlost (laighe@excite.com), July 26, 1999.

Y2K as the catalyst for Utopia

Is there a silver lining to the Year 2000 Crisis? If so, perhaps it is the fact that this disaster may spur a new sense of purpose, similar to the moon race. What should be the goal of this new pursuit? How about:

Elimination of warfare, hunger, poverty, repression and disease. Cease spending on weapons of destruction. Concentrate on restoring the natural environment of Earth and moving human society into space.

Assume for a moment that the world had attained a sustainable peace 100 years ago. Now imagine what the world would be like today if instead of spending the trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons, super tanks, smart bombs, cruise missiles, and advanced fighting aircraft we had concentrated on the above objective. Where would we now be? The answer is: in the future. But because of human greed and stupidity, and the aggressive behavior that is created when greed and stupidity intermingle, we instead find ourselves in the present.

Although its first stages may produce more pain and suffering than in all of the 20th century, Y2K may eventually stimulate a globalism akin to what happens when a city is hit by a smaller scale disaster like a hurricane. In the aftermath of a hurricane, I have experienced a level of cooperation and camaraderie that is really quite inexplicable in normal times. People go out of their way to help other people. Traffic flows relatively freely at intersections that have no signals. There is an underlying cheerfulness. Yes, there is still looting, and fights over bags of ice. But in general, there is a collective consciousness established that is otherwise unobtainable when electric power, running water, telephones and TV are all in working order. It is possible that this behavior can be explained by the fact that folks have no job to report to for a few days so they are idle and bored. Or perhaps it is because they are just anxious to restore their city to the way it was before. Or maybe it's the Hawthorne Effect caused by the outpouring of assistance from neighboring communities (the Hawthorne Effect is the tendency of humans to improve their performance when they are aware it is being studied). But the point is, every country in the world will feel Y2K and its ensuing economic repercussions more or less simultaneously. Will we see a synergy similar to what is generated when a community is confronted with a local disaster?

Currently there are efforts underway to globalize the world's governments and financial systems. Some refer to this as the New World Order, and infer that it is a sinister plot to enslave the world's population. Of course it's possible. But it doesn't have to be our destiny. The future is plastic and is affected by each and every one of us in the decisions we make. A glance at a world history book will reveal the natural progression:

tribe > village > city-state > nation

It is only logical to think that the next stage of Life on Earth will be some form of global community. If it is not, then at the rate that new countries are establishing nuclear and biological weapons, the next stage will likely be the end of Life on Earth.

Will Y2K be the catalyst of Utopia?

-- a (a@a.a), August 06, 1999.

At least you didn't decide that Y2k was a sign of the apocalypse. LOL

-- Laighe of the Limberlost (laighe@excite.com), August 09, 1999.

Here it is folks, the 1999 Pollyanna Silliest Sequential Syllables contest. The nominees:

Paul Davis:

ON THE ETHICS OF THOSE WHO PREPARE: "Doomers are selling drugs to raise money for their preps"
ON THE PROJECTED Y2K OIL CRISIS: "We can run the trains off peanut oil if need be"

Maria:

ON THE READINESS OF OVERSEAS COUNTRIES: "Russia will not be adversely affected by y2k"
ON THE RISKS OF PUBLIC PANIC: "I think its only a matter of time before some of the doomers are going to react badly and kill someone"

Flint:

ON THE STATE OF Y2K IN GENERAL: "Y2K is now insignificant."
ON THE POSSIBILITY OF ECONOMIC CRISIS: "Even if no one had even lifted a finger towards remediation [a 50% chance of a depression] would still be absurd"

Mr. Decker:

ON CRIME IN THE 90's: "Violence today is no worse than the 30's."
ON UFOs AND BODY SNATCHERS: "the economic problems associated with y2k are about as concerning as the coming invasion of the pod people"

Do you have a favorite polly saying? Enter now! All entries must be postmarked by noon tomorrow. Winner gets the ticket to South America over rollover that Hoff will eventually refuse on grounds that he, ah, needs to spend more time with his family.

See Also: The Yourdon Pollyannas: A comedy of errors

-- a (a@a.a), August 10, 1999.

I was using this thread to test my HTML...if I'm bothering you let me know, and I'll go elsewhere :)

-- a (a@a.a), August 10, 1999.

A wild ride coming

) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

Ready or not, we are all in for a very wild ride in the near future.

Although I've wondered about the turn of the millennium for years, my two-year stint as editor of a monthly newsletter for late-night radio talk superstar Art Bell really brought it home for me. I had the opportunity to interview many people deeply involved with advanced technologies, earthquake prediction, drug-resistant super-microbes, Marian apparitions and other supernatural phenomena, "near death experiences," extreme weather patterns, the New Age, UFOs and alien "abductions," virtual reality, and other exotic, paranormal, or just plain weird stuff.

But here's the weirdest part. Although they represented every conceivable paradigm, virtually all of Art's guests were convinced of one thing. Drastic things -- "earth changes" (earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes), pandemic plagues, convulsive social upheaval, and even an explosion of supernatural phenomena -- were in store for around the year 2000 or shortly thereafter. Christian, New Age, scientist, and psychic -- all pointed with appropriate fear and trembling toward the time we are now approaching as a giant vortex of unprecedented world transformation.

So where does Y2K fit in? Seems that even if we experience only minor "best-case-scenario"-type problems during the century rollover -- very unlikely, by the way, given the interconnectedness of our world systems -- we're still in for a wild ride. Well then, if the turn-of-the-millennium is a spiritual lightening rod, a giant "magnet," just what is this magnet attracting?

There are groups actively planning to commemorate the new year by such merry-making as blowing up the Al Aqsa mosque on Jerusalem's Temple Mount, which would no doubt precipitate an all-out "Jihad" involving a hundred million or so Arabs versus a relative handful of Israelis and their allies (if America is still an ally). Their object? Force God's hand and speed up the Second Coming of Christ. But wait, there's more.

Cyberterrorism has become a major threat capable of inflicting worst-case Y2K-type cyber mayhem -- electrical power, transportation, communications, banking, the works. Sound familiar? It's Y2K's evil twin, infrastructure destruction with a malevolent intent and an unknown detonation-date. Osama Bin Laden and other foreign and domestic terrorist groups are known to be actively pursuing cyberterrorism. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, it would take only 30 people and a $10 million budget to wreck America's cyber-infrastructure and all that goes with it. And a great time to strike, obviously, would be on or shortly after Jan. 1, 2000. Nobody would know if it was a cyber-attack or a Y2K computer glitch. Talk about attacking the "Great Satan's" soft, vulnerable underbelly!

Even under a best-case Y2K scenario, our government will still be totally preoccupied with "helping" us poor citizens solve our Y2K-caused problems by every means possible, including major military deployments. So there will be no chance that America could simultaneously mobilize its armed forces to protect, oh, let's say, Kuwait. In fact, is there any chance at all that Saddam Hussein will not seize this golden opportunity to try and take over the entire Persian Gulf -- including its oil -- in a few months? I mean, really, if you were Saddam and wanted to make your move, for keeps this time, what better time to strike than at the turn of the millennium, under cover of worldwide Y2K chaos and confusion? Ditto for countless other rogue nations, warring ethnic and religious groups, and clandestine movements of every conceivable (and some inconceivable) sort.

The federal government, which never fails to increase and consolidate power when faced with a real, perceived, or self-created crisis, will go hog wild. For the depraved Clinton administration, always eager for distraction from its many sins, as well as an easy opportunity to expand its reach, Y2K is a dream-come-true. For Bill Clinton, it promises to be pure ecstasy.

These and many other events are tied specifically to the Year 2000 date change just a few months from now. Adding to the bumpiness of our ride, however, will be a multitude of other rapidly accelerating trends, such as:

The demonization of Christianity: If you haven't noticed the growing anti-Christian movement in America -- well, as the bumper sticker says, "you're not paying attention." Many of the blossoming political and cultural phenomena we see today -- the relentless and ever-expansive Gay Rights movement (including "Hate Crimes" legislation), radical environmentalism, the New Age Movement in its many guises, and so on -- have their roots in a spiritual battle that has been raging for decades, some say for millennia. I'm talking about a direct assault on Judeo-Christian values and institutions. The fact is, many of today's political and cultural "leaders" are increasingly hell-bent on discrediting, demonizing, or just plain shutting up anyone who dares to champion what they consider to be the outmoded, superstitious, life-denying, and repressive values of traditional Christians.

The war on gun ownership: Predatory lawsuits against firearms manufacturers for crimes committed with guns severely threaten Americans' right to armed self-defense. If the Second Amendment goes, history says you can kiss the other nine good-bye. Although a pile of evidence the size of Mount Everest proves beyond doubt that firearms in the hands of private citizens deter far more crimes than they cause, lawmakers, the establishment media, and special interest groups constantly work to undermine and even eliminate this fundamental American right.

The resurgence of infectious disease: Now the world's third largest killer, infectious diseases are staging a spectacular comeback. Flagrant overuse of antibiotics and other factors have led to the emergence of new, drug-resistant strains of once-"conquered" bugs like TB, as well as brand new lethal pathogens never before seen. Add to this the very real threat of biological terrorism featuring such lethal organisms as anthrax and even smallpox. And let's not forget AIDS, officially considered non-infectious, which is consuming the continent of Africa. Official estimates are that more people will die of AIDS in Africa in the next few years (about 34 million) than perished on all sides in World Wars I and II, and the Korean, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf wars combined.

There are so many other ominous trends -- rampant government corruption and even treason at the highest levels, ever-increasing serious crime committed by children, including mass murder, the outrageously corrupting fare offered by today's entertainment industry -- the list is seemingly without end.

The point is, friends, regardless of how bad Y2K is or is not, we are going for a ride. So get ready. Denial just makes it bumpier.

Denial? What's that?

Terminal denial

As the Nazi Holocaust finally came to an end, Allied soldiers led the horrified German population -- the everyday, law-abiding, government-believing people of the day -- through the concentration camps. Newsreels of this guided tour shows women crying convulsively, stunned men with heads bowed low in shock and dismay.

Filing past piles of emaciated corpses, the stench of death everywhere, an unspeakable horror permeated their souls. For all at once, they realized that the nagging doubt in the back of their minds -- the secret fear that the rumors of genocide might actually be true, but which they had disbelieved, thinking such negative thoughts to be from the demon of disloyalty, weakness, or lack of patriotism -- those doubts had actually been the desperate cry of inner truth. The soft, velvety denial they had lived in vanished instantly, and in its place, the agony of guilt and betrayal.

Don't look down on these people. At least they faced their sins of omission and tacit complicity, having believed their leaders and ignored the urgings of their own conscience. They were forced to acknowledge the horror they had previously denied.

What about us? Will we one day tour through the wreckage of our own culture of death and weep? A few years ago an anti-abortion group discovered an abortion clinic that had warehoused in a large storage room dozens of late-term aborted babies in bell jars. The room and its contents were photographed and distributed nationwide by this group under the title, "The American Holocaust." It was truly shocking. Yet little has changed. Today we have polite debates over the relative merits of "partial birth abortion," the ultimate euphemism for infanticide. If you lined up a thousand Americans at random and showed them a video of a partial birth abortion, virtually every single one -- after recoiling in horror, throwing up, and screaming hysterically -- would register their clear disapproval of this barbaric, murderous practice. And yet, it's legal.

That's denial.

Hitler knew that people have short memories, and this knowledge freed him to be ruthless and outrageous without fear of opposition. What about us? How is it that the American conscience can so easily be wiped clean of its memory of Juanita Broaddrick? Remember her? Or did the war in the Balkans, the mass murders in Colorado and Atlanta, and the Kennedy deaths wipe your memory clean? Allow me to remind you. Juanita Broaddrick went on national TV, dripping with credibility, accusing Bill Clinton of brutally raping her. The next day, 62 percent of Americans polled said they believed her. Almost two out of three Americans believed that Bill Clinton may have been guilty of forcible rape, a crime that used to be punishable by death. Two out of three! That, in the same country where, when citizens at random are polled regarding a question like "Does 1 plus 1 equal 2?" there are always about 17 percent who are "undecided" or "unsure." So what happened to us? We forgot!

That's denial.

The truth is, asking the human race about denial is like asking a fish about water; he doesn't know what you're talking about. It's his element, he's swimming in it all the time, and he's never known anything else. If we didn't have our denial, we'd probably gasp for "air" and die.

So let's summarize: Point A, a whole lot of stuff is about to hit the fan. And point B, many of us have our heads buried so deeply in the sand, we wouldn't recognize the truth if it kicked us in the rear.

And that brings us to Y2K.

Y2K reality check

Will the lights stay on? Will I have a job? Will the stock market crash? Will I be allowed to withdraw money from my bank? Will my government check arrive? Will we have a recession or depression? Will there be riots and social disruption? Will Clinton impose martial law? Many people are asking themselves these questions.

Clearly, because of the interconnectedness of systems, the "weak-link" nature of the Y2K problem, the century rollover could result in virtually any conceivable outcome, from mildly disruptive to apocalyptic. I don't have to describe the possible scenarios in detail; you've no doubt heard them all. Edward Yardeni, chief economist for one of the world's largest banks (Deutsche Morgan Grenfell) and a celebrated Wall Street analyst, gives a 30 percent chance that Y2K won't be too bad, a 25 percent chance for moderate recession, a 40 percent chance for major global recession, and a 5 percent chance for, and I quote, "Depression lasting two to five years, blackouts, social and political upheaval. Stock market ... you don't want to know." And Yardeni is mild compared to some Y2K experts.

Of course, we Americans have made it through a Depression before, but during a very different era. With all its faults, America of the '30s clung to the ideals of a cohesive Judeo-Christian culture -- a melting pot of many nations, but with one set of ultimate values that cemented our society together. Thus our parents and grandparents weathered the Great Depression with relative dignity. That was then. How would today's Americans react to another Depression? At least in those days, people desperately unhappy with the stock market just jumped off a building -- they didn't feel compelled to shoot a dozen people before taking their own miserable lives.

What about leadership? Wouldn't it be nice to have a little inspired national leadership during this crisis period? Sorry. Acknowledged by all to be a pathological liar, a major league sexual predator, one willing to give national security secrets to our enemies in return for campaign donations -- and these are just the things that everyone agrees on -- the president of the United States at the turn of the millennium will be Bill Clinton.

The scariest scenario of all

No doubt the new millennium will bring with it great adventure. The convergence of all these various trends promises a profound transformation of our world, and there is the distinct possibility of that transformation being for the better. After all, disasters historically bring the best out of good people ... and the worst out of bad people. That's why, when somebody's store is burning down or being flooded, you'll find strangers taking great risks to try to save the threatened business, but you'll also find others trying to loot it. The sheer difficulty of this time we will soon enter, and the necessity of working together, could very well bring many people to their senses and we could end up with a better country. It is possible. In fact, it is essential.

Because when all is said and done, there is one future scenario that is conspicuously scarier than all the rest. The worst possible scenario we could experience is the one in which ... nothing happens.

Nothing. The stock market just goes up forever and everyone's 401Ks continue to get fatter, continually anesthetizing them -- like a morphine IV drip -- against caring about the brazen theft of their country, culture and freedom. (Remember: "It's the economy, stupid"?) Hollywood just continues to corrupt the nation's youth with films like "American Pie." Children continue to have sex and shoot each other at an ever-earlier age. We continue to allow government to chip away, no, make that hack away at our fundamental rights as a free people. Yes, the most dangerous future scenario is that we just continue on the way we are going, with the slow, steady, disintegration of our nation into a fragmented, hedonistic, selfish, valueless, nothing society. And roaring in to fill this moral vacuum, with the same force as the mile-wide monster tornado that devastated Oklahoma recently, tyranny will overtake this once-free country. And that will be the wildest ride of all.

"If men are not ruled by God," wrote William Penn, "they will be ruled by tyrants." We are about to discover that truth -- big time. It may be that before too long Americans will walk through the concentration camps of their own making, and see what has become of their beloved country, their families, and their own lives.

Each of our lives has a purpose -- the perfection of our souls for God. He doesn't care so much what we go through in the short run, but rather that we ultimately come to Him. To that end, the wake-up calls we get become more and more urgent. They are meant to bring each of us to a recognition of our individual and collective folly. If we don't heed the warning, we get another warning even higher on the Richter scale. Eventually, the wake-up call succeeds in waking us up -- or it kills us.

I believe Y2K is an incredibly compassionate wake-up call from the Good Lord. I believe it is meant to get us to shake off the stupor we all wallow in for most of our lives, prod us to look around, and get prepared for whatever great and terrible things are to come. The Y2K analysts are telling you that the computerized life support system we depend on is in serious trouble. It is. So developing a Plan B for you and your family makes a whole lot of sense. But the most important preparation is deeper still. Please don't neglect it, because it's the only thing that ultimately matters. If you died today and went before the judgment seat of God and were required to give an accounting of your life, could you look upon the Almighty and say honestly, "I've done my very best"?

David Kupelian, the new managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, is the former managing editor of the award-winning news magazine New Dimensions.

David Kupelian, the new managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, is the former managing editor of the award-winning news magazine New Dimensions.

-- a (a@a.a), August 11, 1999.

This weekend the Baltimore Sun ran this story on the F-22, Raptor. I've included the entire text as a fair use quote and because the Sun's webpage grants the right to "email the article to a friend" and today there is no difference between email and a database (see Lotus Notes.)

The Raptor story isn't about planes and it's not about the Air Force or congress. It is a metaphor that explains how we got into this Y2K mess.

Just as the people in the article allowed the engineering, project management, and funding to get way out of control, the same kind of thinking as gotten us into this Y2K mess.

Maybe it was optimism, maybe it was wanting to please superiors, maybe it was a little bit of cluelessness, at this point it doesn't matter. The Raptor is much more expensive than promised and Y2K will take a toll on each of us.

There are several things to note about the Raptor. The cost overrun was horrendous. If you reached your hand into someone's purse and took a twenty dollar bill, everyone would be appalled, shocked, infuriated.

In the case of the Raptor, cost accountants, budget analysts, program managers, and chief engineers, by jiggering the numbers, presenting optimistic analysis, stole billions of dollars just as if they reached into someone's purse.

Note that I'm not blaming them or even talking about them. The Raptor incident is an example of how optimism, good intentions, indifference, inattention, whatever, has caused a situation to spin out of control.

This kind of hopeful thinking is the basis for the thousands of systems that have not, absolutely not been remediated. The work has not been done.

Here is the Sun's article, I'll comment more after you read it.

Optimism, not deceit, beset F-22 Air Force general hopes to save ailing fighter jet

By Greg Schneider Sun Staff

Military officers have sugar-coated problems on the F-22 fighter plane program out of a can-do optimism, not with an intent to deceive, the Air Force's top general for acquisitions said in an interview.

But as Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Martin fights to save the F-22 from a $1.8 billion budget cut passed July 22 by the House of Representatives, he faces what some say is an Air Force credibility problem.

"My impression from staffers I've talked to is that among the services, the Air Force at present has probably the lowest credibility, and it's altogether because of the way they've handled the cost growth in the F-22 program," said Bert Cooper, a military aircraft expert with the Congressional Research Service.

The situation is frustrating and perplexing to Martin, who said Air Force officers who have worked to keep the $62.7 billion program alive over the years were merely "aggressive" and "proud."

"Whenever possible, they will put their best foot forward and the best light on the program, even if it has problems," said Martin, who was responding to a series of articles about the F-22 Raptor published July 18 to 20 in The Sun.

A central point of the series was that the Air Force made deceptive claims to Congress in a rush to acquire the coveted F-22, beginning in the mid-1980s when it promised that the plane could be built for $35 million a copy even though the service knew that figure was unrealistic.

Model program planned

Created as the model for how the Pentagon can reform its business practices, the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-22 has -- after artificially low target prices, program changes, congressional cuts and technical hang-ups -- emerged as the most expensive fighter plane ever built. Already double its initial estimated total cost, the program this year identified close to $1 billion in further excess expenses.

Pentagon budget analysts, the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office all expect costs to balloon even higher -- as much as $7 billion higher, by some estimates.

Meanwhile, the Air Force has been relentlessly cheerful about its top-priority weapon, insisting that it will meet all cost and performance goals.

The House Appropriations Committee finally called a timeout last month, urging a pause before buying the next six planes so the Air Force can take stock of more immediate needs such as tankers, transport planes and pilot retention.

Many observers predict the Senate will restore some money to the program when Congress returns from recess next month. The Air Force and Lockheed Martin are lobbying hard -- holding classified briefings and arranging trips for politicians to visit fighter pilots and the Georgia factory where the F-22 undergoes final assembly.

Marshaling support

Martin said the service is working with the Air Force Association, prominent officers in the field and other "friends of the Air Force" to rally support for the plane, which he called essential for future military dominance.

But the trickiest issue is that of credibility. Newspapers across the country -- including the New York Times, USA Today, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, San Diego Union-Tribune, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Chicago Tribune -- have written editorials challenging the Air Force's claims that the F-22 is both affordable and necessary.

One congressional staffer friendly to the program acknowledged that lawmakers believe the Air Force's "level of commitment can have a tendency to have people skew their numbers on purpose."

Even the most recent issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology -- widely respected as a no-frills chronicler of Air Force technology -- notes that "some lawmakers are unabashed about their distrust of the Air Force."

The `party line'

Martin took pains to explain a military culture that he said might be misinterpreted by outsiders. Faced with political concerns over cost as well as the typical technical glitches of any leading-edge program, it is human nature, he said, for officers to want to put out a positive message.

"Let me just give you an example. You go spend a lot of money on a brand new car, and somebody asks you how you like it. Unless it's a real lemon, I bet you'll say you like it. Because you don't want someone to think that you spent a lot of money on a product that's no good," Martin said.

In the case of the F-22, the Air Force promised Congress as late as 1988 that it was "committed to adhering to" the cost goal of $35 million per plane. In truth, an Air Force study from 1985 showed that a tough but realistic goal would be $45 million per plane, and some program officials believed $50 million could be a stretch, given all the technology being piled into the effort.

Nonetheless, Air Force program managers marched under what Martin called the "party line" of $35 million. Because officers are assigned to such programs and then move on, a succession of aggressive, driven personalities did their best to follow orders. When mistakes were made or problems arose, he said, such people downplayed any glitches out of faith in themselves that things would work out.

"In the end, I would hope that we would not find somebody that would say, `I was directed to lie' or `I was directed to be deceitful.' But having said what I just said, I will also tell you that it's human nature to try and figure out a way to please your bosses," Martin said.

At various points, despite glowing reports to Congress, it became undeniable that the program could not achieve certain cost or technical goals. "Somewhere along the way, somebody has to say `Wait a minute, we're too optimistic here, we're way too optimistic there. We've got to come clean,' " Martin said.

"Well, when somebody says, `Come clean,' it makes it sound like everybody else has been lying. But in fact what they've done is they've cut corners, they've pulled money, they've done everything possible to do what they thought their bosses meant," he said.

That is acceptable behavior, Martin said, because a program manager who dwells on the negative would never get anything done.

No promises or guarantees

For his part, Martin said he has tried not to oversell the F-22 to Congress.

"I tried in testimony this year to never say that it's going to happen this way. This program is challenging, it has very serious challenges ahead of it," he said. "I've tried never to say that I promise this or I guarantee that. All I can say is that we've got some of the smartest and best people working it, and working it very hard."

While some in the Senate have expressed "very, very strong support" for the program, the general said he is not certain about its future -- not only politically, but also whether engineers can make the plane work and keep costs in check.

"I'd like to think we'll be able to convince the House that the program is necessary," Martin said. "But if it stubs its toe or starts to see serious problems, I think we'll be back up on the chopping block."

He said the Air Force must balance its goals.

"We've got to be careful about how much publicity we try to get here," he said. "Frankly, we've got a lot of work to do that isn't F-22-related. There's an awful lot of modernization and acquisition stuff going on, and personnel things, and operational training. We have to be careful that we don't devote all our time and effort to the F-22 without regard to the rest of the Air Force."

Originally published on Aug 15 1999

E-mail it - Send this story to a friend

The Raptor story explains why Y2K repairs failed. Just as no one in the Air Force wanted to say, "hey wait a minute, this crate isn't coming in at $35 million, it's going to be $60 million if it's a dime." No one wanted to say that the Y2K work would cost more than the company could afford.

The consequence is that we have 137 days to make our peace and to prepare for a different world.

I'm not one of those who thinks that the power will fail and riots will break out. My background is large enterprise systems, such as are being fumbled at SUN Hydraulics and the World Bank. The power might fail and riots might break out.

Both SUN Hydraulics and the World Bank are implementing Y2K compliant systems and are having trouble getting the processing to work correctly. In the case of SUN, they weren't able to ship product for a week and in the case of the World Bank, several hundred employees have gone months without paychecks.

I expect more problems like these at most large organizations. Whether this leads to a depression, riots, world war, or nudity as a way of life, I can't say.

In the case of SUN and the World Bank, the warning is clear. Have some extra cash, perhaps a few months worth. Not necessarily in your possession but certainly where you can get to it.

Add to that the MCI-Worldcom Frame Relay outage that lasted for 10 days or so. This hit the CBOE, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, a major financial market. It also took out ATMs and affected several Internet Service Providors (if you do Internet banking.)

The warnings are clear, don't be 100 percent dependent on electronic money. What you do is determined by your confort level. No one can tell you what is best, I've seen a lot of clueless advice on the Internet and in the popular financial press.

Be very careful. Financial writers, with the exception of Dr. Ed Yardeni, do not understand enterprise computing. The large complex systems that run the world are at risk of failing in 137 days. Please study this and make your own decisions. I will help you understand the risks but I can't tell you what your best solution is.

I will tell you what seems reasonably to me but this does not mean that my solution is the correct one or that it will work for you.

Over the last few years, I have gradually moved my savings from stocks and mutual funds to cash and money market accounts. These savings are not substantial, most of my "assets" are in the valuation of my house and the family businesses.

The Dow Jones Industrials are above 11,000 again. I will take this opportunity to move the last of my pension money out of stock funds and into money markets. I will also make a small bet on the Dow ending the year below 9,000. This is gambling. This is not investing. I don't recommend that anyone do this.

I took last weekend off. I did manage to visit with Jody Hudson for a few moments. We talked about preparation, knives, and assault rifles.

I stopped at a nearby storefront, Ted's Military Surplus and picked up a Chinese copy of a Leitz binocular. I compared it to a couple Nikon's and the Nikon's have better contrast but at $29.95, the Chinese Leitz was a good addition to my bugout bag.

I think that Jody could organize a nice early fall preparedness expo in the parking lot there.

I'm still kinda worn out. It's like a flu but without flu symptoms. I'm feeling run down. I have been eating more healthfully, having at least one vegetarian meal a day, cutting down on my donuts, and cheese-steaks.

I think part of this is due to things going bad so soon. Ed Yourdon's TB2K forum has been discussing the spoolup of Y2K remediation costs at Citigroup and GM. Not only didn't they make December 31, 1998 and a full year of testing, they seem to be throwing money at the problem at the last minute.

It's like the Raptor. At this point, it is very difficult to solve the problem. There is a solution for corporations. I'm working with two clients, getting them ready for the rollover.

-cory

-- a (a@a.a), August 17, 1999.

This weekend the Baltimore Sun ran this story on the F-22, Raptor. I've included the entire text as a fair use quote and because the Sun's webpage grants the right to "email the article to a friend" and today there is no difference between email and a database (see Lotus Notes.)

The Raptor story isn't about planes and it's not about the Air Force or congress. It is a metaphor that explains how we got into this Y2K mess.

Just as the people in the article allowed the engineering, project management, and funding to get way out of control, the same kind of thinking as gotten us into this Y2K mess.

Maybe it was optimism, maybe it was wanting to please superiors, maybe it was a little bit of cluelessness, at this point it doesn't matter. The Raptor is much more expensive than promised and Y2K will take a toll on each of us.

There are several things to note about the Raptor. The cost overrun was horrendous. If you reached your hand into someone's purse and took a twenty dollar bill, everyone would be appalled, shocked, infuriated.

In the case of the Raptor, cost accountants, budget analysts, program managers, and chief engineers, by jiggering the numbers, presenting optimistic analysis, stole billions of dollars just as if they reached into someone's purse.

Note that I'm not blaming them or even talking about them. The Raptor incident is an example of how optimism, good intentions, indifference, inattention, whatever, has caused a situation to spin out of control.

This kind of hopeful thinking is the basis for the thousands of systems that have not, absolutely not been remediated. The work has not been done.

Here is the Sun's article, I'll comment more after you read it.

Optimism, not deceit, beset F-22
Air Force general hopes to save ailing fighter jet 



By Greg Schneider 
Sun Staff



Military officers have sugar-coated problems on the F-22 fighter
plane program out of a can-do optimism, not with an intent to
deceive, the Air Force's top general for acquisitions said in an
interview.



But as Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Martin fights to save the F-22 from a
$1.8 billion budget cut passed July 22 by the House of
Representatives, he faces what some say is an Air Force
credibility problem.



"My impression from staffers I've talked to is that among the
services, the Air Force at present has probably the lowest
credibility, and it's altogether because of the way they've
handled the cost growth in the F-22 program," said Bert Cooper,
a military aircraft expert with the Congressional Research
Service.



The situation is frustrating and perplexing to Martin, who said
Air Force officers who have worked to keep the $62.7 billion
program alive over the years were merely "aggressive" and
"proud."



"Whenever possible, they will put their best foot forward and the
best light on the program, even if it has problems," said Martin,
who was responding to a series of articles about the F-22 Raptor
published July 18 to 20 in The Sun.



A central point of the series was that the Air Force made
deceptive claims to Congress in a rush to acquire the coveted
F-22, beginning in the mid-1980s when it promised that the
plane could be built for $35 million a copy even though the
service knew that figure was unrealistic.



Model program planned



Created as the model for how the Pentagon can reform its
business practices, the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-22 has -- after
artificially low target prices, program changes, congressional cuts
and technical hang-ups -- emerged as the most expensive fighter
plane ever built. Already double its initial estimated total cost,
the program this year identified close to $1 billion in further
excess expenses.



Pentagon budget analysts, the Congressional Budget Office and
the General Accounting Office all expect costs to balloon even
higher -- as much as $7 billion higher, by some estimates.



Meanwhile, the Air Force has been relentlessly cheerful about
its top-priority weapon, insisting that it will meet all cost and
performance goals.



The House Appropriations Committee finally called a timeout
last month, urging a pause before buying the next six planes so
the Air Force can take stock of more immediate needs such as
tankers, transport planes and pilot retention.



Many observers predict the Senate will restore some money to
the program when Congress returns from recess next month.
The Air Force and Lockheed Martin are lobbying hard -- holding
classified briefings and arranging trips for politicians to visit
fighter pilots and the Georgia factory where the F-22 undergoes
final assembly.



Marshaling support



Martin said the service is working with the Air Force
Association, prominent officers in the field and other "friends of
the Air Force" to rally support for the plane, which he called
essential for future military dominance.



But the trickiest issue is that of credibility. Newspapers across
the country -- including the New York Times, USA Today, St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, San Diego
Union-Tribune, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Chicago Tribune
-- have written editorials challenging the Air Force's claims that
the F-22 is both affordable and necessary.



One congressional staffer friendly to the program acknowledged
that lawmakers believe the Air Force's "level of commitment can
have a tendency to have people skew their numbers on
purpose."



Even the most recent issue of Aviation Week & Space
Technology -- widely respected as a no-frills chronicler of Air
Force technology -- notes that "some lawmakers are unabashed
about their distrust of the Air Force."



The `party line'



Martin took pains to explain a military culture that he said might
be misinterpreted by outsiders. Faced with political concerns
over cost as well as the typical technical glitches of any
leading-edge program, it is human nature, he said, for officers to
want to put out a positive message.



"Let me just give you an example. You go spend a lot of money
on a brand new car, and somebody asks you how you like it.
Unless it's a real lemon, I bet you'll say you like it. Because you
don't want someone to think that you spent a lot of money on a
product that's no good," Martin said.



In the case of the F-22, the Air Force promised Congress as late
as 1988 that it was "committed to adhering to" the cost goal of
$35 million per plane. In truth, an Air Force study from 1985
showed that a tough but realistic goal would be $45 million per
plane, and some program officials believed $50 million could be
a stretch, given all the technology being piled into the effort.



Nonetheless, Air Force program managers marched under what
Martin called the "party line" of $35 million. Because officers
are assigned to such programs and then move on, a succession of
aggressive, driven personalities did their best to follow orders.
When mistakes were made or problems arose, he said, such
people downplayed any glitches out of faith in themselves that
things would work out.



"In the end, I would hope that we would not find somebody that
would say, `I was directed to lie' or `I was directed to be
deceitful.' But having said what I just said, I will also tell you 
that
it's human nature to try and figure out a way to please your
bosses," Martin said.



At various points, despite glowing reports to Congress, it became
undeniable that the program could not achieve certain cost or
technical goals. "Somewhere along the way, somebody has to
say `Wait a minute, we're too optimistic here, we're way too
optimistic there. We've got to come clean,' " Martin said.



"Well, when somebody says, `Come clean,' it makes it sound
like everybody else has been lying. But in fact what they've
done is they've cut corners, they've pulled money, they've done
everything possible to do what they thought their bosses meant,"
he said.



That is acceptable behavior, Martin said, because a program
manager who dwells on the negative would never get anything
done.



No promises or guarantees



For his part, Martin said he has tried not to oversell the F-22 to
Congress.



"I tried in testimony this year to never say that it's going to
happen this way. This program is challenging, it has very serious
challenges ahead of it," he said. "I've tried never to say that I
promise this or I guarantee that. All I can say is that we've got
some of the smartest and best people working it, and working it
very hard."



While some in the Senate have expressed "very, very strong
support" for the program, the general said he is not certain about
its future -- not only politically, but also whether engineers can
make the plane work and keep costs in check.



"I'd like to think we'll be able to convince the House that the
program is necessary," Martin said. "But if it stubs its toe or starts
to see serious problems, I think we'll be back up on the
chopping block."



He said the Air Force must balance its goals.



"We've got to be careful about how much publicity we try to get
here," he said. "Frankly, we've got a lot of work to do that isn't
F-22-related. There's an awful lot of modernization and
acquisition stuff going on, and personnel things, and operational
training. We have to be careful that we don't devote all our time
and effort to the F-22 without regard to the rest of the Air
Force."



Originally published on Aug 15 1999 



E-mail it - Send this story to a friend 

The Raptor story explains why Y2K repairs failed. Just as no one in the Air Force wanted to say, "hey wait a minute, this crate isn't coming in at $35 million, it's going to be $60 million if it's a dime." No one wanted to say that the Y2K work would cost more than the company could afford.

The consequence is that we have 137 days to make our peace and to prepare for a different world.

I'm not one of those who thinks that the power will fail and riots will break out. My background is large enterprise systems, such as are being fumbled at SUN Hydraulics and the World Bank. The power might fail and riots might break out.

Both SUN Hydraulics and the World Bank are implementing Y2K compliant systems and are having trouble getting the processing to work correctly. In the case of SUN, they weren't able to ship product for a week and in the case of the World Bank, several hundred employees have gone months without paychecks.

I expect more problems like these at most large organizations. Whether this leads to a depression, riots, world war, or nudity as a way of life, I can't say.

In the case of SUN and the World Bank, the warning is clear. Have some extra cash, perhaps a few months worth. Not necessarily in your possession but certainly where you can get to it.

Add to that the MCI-Worldcom Frame Relay outage that lasted for 10 days or so. This hit the CBOE, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, a major financial market. It also took out ATMs and affected several Internet Service Providors (if you do Internet banking.)

The warnings are clear, don't be 100 percent dependent on electronic money. What you do is determined by your confort level. No one can tell you what is best, I've seen a lot of clueless advice on the Internet and in the popular financial press.

Be very careful. Financial writers, with the exception of Dr. Ed Yardeni, do not understand enterprise computing. The large complex systems that run the world are at risk of failing in 137 days. Please study this and make your own decisions. I will help you understand the risks but I can't tell you what your best solution is.

I will tell you what seems reasonably to me but this does not mean that my solution is the correct one or that it will work for you.

Over the last few years, I have gradually moved my savings from stocks and mutual funds to cash and money market accounts. These savings are not substantial, most of my "assets" are in the valuation of my house and the family businesses.

The Dow Jones Industrials are above 11,000 again. I will take this opportunity to move the last of my pension money out of stock funds and into money markets. I will also make a small bet on the Dow ending the year below 9,000. This is gambling. This is not investing. I don't recommend that anyone do this.

I took last weekend off. I did manage to visit with Jody Hudson for a few moments. We talked about preparation, knives, and assault rifles.

I stopped at a nearby storefront, Ted's Military Surplus and picked up a Chinese copy of a Leitz binocular. I compared it to a couple Nikon's and the Nikon's have better contrast but at $29.95, the Chinese Leitz was a good addition to my bugout bag.

I think that Jody could organize a nice early fall preparedness expo in the parking lot there.

I'm still kinda worn out. It's like a flu but without flu symptoms. I'm feeling run down. I have been eating more healthfully, having at least one vegetarian meal a day, cutting down on my donuts, and cheese-steaks.

I think part of this is due to things going bad so soon. Ed Yourdon's TB2K forum has been discussing the spoolup of Y2K remediation costs at Citigroup and GM. Not only didn't they make December 31, 1998 and a full year of testing, they seem to be throwing money at the problem at the last minute.

It's like the Raptor. At this point, it is very difficult to solve the problem. There is a solution for corporations. I'm working with two clients, getting them ready for the rollover.

-cory

-- a (a@a.a), August 17, 1999.

Optimism, not deceit, beset F-22 Air Force general hopes to save ailing fighter jet

By Greg Schneider Sun Staff

Military officers have sugar-coated problems on the F-22 fighter plane program out of a can-do optimism, not with an intent to deceive, the Air Force's top general for acquisitions said in an interview.

But as Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Martin fights to save the F-22 from a $1.8 billion budget cut passed July 22 by the House of Representatives, he faces what some say is an Air Force credibility problem.

"My impression from staffers I've talked to is that among the services, the Air Force at present has probably the lowest credibility, and it's altogether because of the way they've handled the cost growth in the F-22 program," said Bert Cooper, a military aircraft expert with the Congressional Research Service.

The situation is frustrating and perplexing to Martin, who said Air Force officers who have worked to keep the$62.7 billion program alive over the years were merely "aggressive" and "proud."

"Whenever possible, they will put their best foot forward and the best light on the program, even if it has problems," said Martin, who was responding to a series of articles about the F-22 Raptor published July 18 to 20 in The Sun.

A central point of the series was that the Air Force made deceptive claims to Congress in a rush to acquire the coveted F-22, beginning in the mid-1980s when it promised that the plane could be built for $35 million a copy even though the service knew that figure was unrealistic.

Model program planned

Created as the model for how the Pentagon can reform its business practices, the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-22 has -- after artificially low target prices, program changes, congressional cuts and technical hang-ups -- emerged as the most expensive fighter plane ever built. Already double its initial estimated total cost, the program this year identified close to $1 billion in further excess expenses.

Pentagon budget analysts, the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office all expect costs to balloon even higher -- as much as $7 billion higher, by some estimates.

Meanwhile, the Air Force has been relentlessly cheerful about its top-priority weapon, insisting that it will meet all cost and performance goals.

The House Appropriations Committee finally called a timeout last month, urging a pause before buying the next six planes so the Air Force can take stock of more immediate needs such as tankers, transport planes and pilot retention.

Many observers predict the Senate will restore some money to the program when Congress returns from recess next month. The Air Force and Lockheed Martin are lobbying hard -- holding classified briefings and arranging trips for politicians to visit fighter pilots and the Georgia factory where the F-22 undergoes final assembly.

Marshaling support

Martin said the service is working with the Air Force Association, prominent officers in the field and other "friends of the Air Force" to rally support for the plane, which he called essential for future military dominance.

But the trickiest issue is that of credibility. Newspapers across the country -- including the New York Times, USA Today, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, San Diego Union-Tribune, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Chicago Tribune -- have written editorials challenging the Air Force's claims that the F-22 is both affordable and necessary.

One congressional staffer friendly to the program acknowledged that lawmakers believe the Air Force's "level of commitment can have a tendency to have people skew their numbers on purpose."

Even the most recent issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology -- widely respected as a no-frills chronicler of Air Force technology -- notes that "some lawmakers are unabashed about their distrust of the Air Force."

The `party line'

Martin took pains to explain a military culture that he said might be misinterpreted by outsiders. Faced with political concerns over cost as well as the typical technical glitches of any leading-edge program, it is human nature, he said, for officers to want to put out a positive message.

"Let me just give you an example. You go spend a lot of money on a brand new car, and somebody asks you how you like it. Unless it's a real lemon, I bet you'll say you like it. Because you don't want someone to think that you spent a lot of money on a product that's no good," Martin said.

In the case of the F-22, the Air Force promised Congress as late as 1988 that it was "committed to adhering to" the cost goal of $35 million per plane. In truth, an Air Force study from 1985 showed that a tough but realistic goal would be $45 million per plane, and some program officials believed $50 million could be a stretch, given all the technology being piled into the effort.

Nonetheless, Air Force program managers marched under what Martin called the "party line" of $35 million. Because officers are assigned to such programs and then move on, a succession of aggressive, driven personalities did their best to follow orders. When mistakes were made or problems arose, he said, such people downplayed any glitches out of faith in themselves that things would work out.

"In the end, I would hope that we would not find somebody that would say, `I was directed to lie' or `I was directed to be deceitful.' But having said what I just said, I will also tell you that it's human nature to try and figure out a way to please your bosses," Martin said.

At various points, despite glowing reports to Congress, it became undeniable that the program could not achieve certain cost or technical goals. "Somewhere along the way, somebody has to say `Wait a minute, we're too optimistic here, we're way too optimistic there. We've got to come clean,' " Martin said.

"Well, when somebody says, `Come clean,' it makes it sound like everybody else has been lying. But in fact what they've done is they've cut corners, they've pulled money, they've done everything possible to do what they thought their bosses meant," he said.

That is acceptable behavior, Martin said, because a program manager who dwells on the negative would never get anything done.

No promises or guarantees

For his part, Martin said he has tried not to oversell the F-22 to Congress.

"I tried in testimony this year to never say that it's going to happen this way. This program is challenging, it has very serious challenges ahead of it," he said. "I've tried never to say that I promise this or I guarantee that. All I can say is that we've got some of the smartest and best people working it, and working it very hard."

While some in the Senate have expressed "very, very strong support" for the program, the general said he is not certain about its future -- not only politically, but also whether engineers can make the plane work and keep costs in check.

"I'd like to think we'll be able to convince the House that the program is necessary," Martin said. "But if it stubs its toe or starts to see serious problems, I think we'll be back up on the chopping block."

He said the Air Force must balance its goals.

"We've got to be careful about how much publicity we try to get here," he said. "Frankly, we've got a lot of work to do that isn't F-22-related. There's an awful lot of modernization and acquisition stuff going on, and personnel things, and operational training. We have to be careful that we don't devote all our time and effort to the F-22 without regard to the rest of the Air Force."

Originally published on Aug 15 1999

-- a (a@a.a), August 17, 1999.

The following story, entitled Optimism, not deceit, beset F-22 appeared in the Sunday edition of the Baltimore Sun. The parallels with y2k status reporting are obvious.

In the case of the F-22, the Air Force promised "Congress as late as 1988 that it was "committed to adhering to" the cost goal of $35 million per plane. In truth, an Air Force study from 1985 showed that a tough but realistic goal would be $45 million per plane, and some program officials believed $50 million could be a stretch, given all the technology being piled into the effort.

Nonetheless, Air Force program managers marched under what Martin called the "party line" of $35 million. Because officers are assigned to such programs and then move on, a succession of aggressive, driven personalities did their best to follow orders. When mistakes were made or problems arose, he said, such people downplayed any glitches out of faith in themselves that things would work out.

"In the end, I would hope that we would not find somebody that would say, `I was directed to lie' or `I was directed to be deceitful.' But having said what I just said, I will also tell you that it's human nature to try and figure out a way to please your bosses," Martin said.

At various points, despite glowing reports to Congress, it became undeniable that the program could not achieve certain cost or technical goals. "Somewhere along the way, somebody has to say `Wait a minute, we're too optimistic here, we're way too optimistic there. We've got to come clean,' " Martin said.

"Well, when somebody says, `Come clean,' it makes it sound like everybody else has been lying. But in fact what they've done is they've cut corners, they've pulled money, they've done everything possible to do what they thought their bosses meant," he said.

-- a (a@a.a), August 17, 1999.

Inside the belly of the technobeast

By Patrick Houston 08/30/99 07:27:00 AM

New media thinker Douglas Rushkoff takes aim at technocapitalism.

It's as though the rabbi has lost his religion.

Douglas Rushkoff, one of cyberculture's leading chroniclers, has recanted his faith in the Internet as a tool of liberation. Instead, in a stunning back flip, the writer, new media thinker and card-carrying member of the digital intelligentsia now claims the Internet has become a hypnotizing and corrupting e-commerce tool. He's even taken a swipe at electronic day trading -- likening the Web's latest darling to a pyramid scheme.

"Many people in America are walking around hypnotized," he told ZDNN in an interview, wanting things for reasons they don't comprehend and, worse, alienating themselves even farther away from life's real satisfactions.

Rushkoff's scorching indictment of the Net is contained in a new book due out this Wednesday. It's called "Coercion: Why We Listen to What 'They' Say" (Riverhead Books, Sept. 1, 321 pages, $24.95), and it promises to send a collective shudder through the Internet's commercial establishment -- from California's Silicon Valley to New York's Silicon Alley.

The reason is that Rushkoff, in effect, worked undercover to gather information for "Coercion" -- taking advantage of his access to the corridors of technocapitalism to reveal the methods and motives of the for-profit forces that now dominate the new media. In Rushkoff's own words, he was a "double agent."

Rushkoff said "Coercion" makes good on a two-year-old promise he made to himself to basically say that his writings and ideas may have been wrong. "I saw it for one way for awhile. Now I'm seeing it another way," he said.

The 38-year-old "cultural anthropologist" entered the vanguard of a new cyberspace intelligentsia with his non-fiction works "Cyberia" and "Media Virus." His novel, the "Ecstasy Club," is being turned into a Miramax Films movie. In these writings and three other books, he extolled the "liberating" virtues of electronic technology.

Fencing in the 'mediaspace' As Rushkoff saw it, the TV remote, the home video, computers and, finally, the Internet gave consumers new powers and the savvy to demystify the media and wrest it from its corporate keepers, as well as the marketers it represented. He predicted a "populist renaissance" in which everyone was empowered to champion their ideas in a chaotic and ever-growing expanse he called the "mediaspace." An idea in this rich and networked environment would find the perfect conditions to propagate and spread, as readily and rapidly as the latest flu strain.

His provocative ideas, propounded at a time when the Internet remained a mystery to the mainstream, began to win him speaking engagements and consulting stints. Politicians, advertising agencies such as Leo Burnett, and companies such as Sony, Turner Broadcasting and TCI sought his advice. His speaking and consulting fees went, as he says in his book, "through the roof."

Blanching in Miami Then it hit him.

As Rushkoff recounts it, he was in Miami Beach, Fla., where he was to speak about "Media Virus" before a 1997 gathering of advertising researchers. He'd been flattered by the invitation, but, at the conference, it dawned on him: The attendees weren't there to surrender to his ideas that advertising and marketing were being outmoded by the new media in the hands of savvy young heading to an end. Instead, they wanted to know how to create better ads by actually using viral techniques.

"It was at that point I realized that the forces attempting to turn the Internet into a marketing machine were actually stronger and better organized than I'd imagined," he says now.

"They used the books I had written about celebrating our liberation from coercive media as the basis for retooling their coercive systems to a new audience.

"My work had been co-opted." It was then and there, he says, that he decided to write "Coercion."

For next two years, Rushkoff said he used his newfound access to Madison Avenue and corporate America to study and analyze the increasingly sophisticated methods of manipulation being employed by the for-profit forces that now dominate the Web.

Not an expose Although he made his mark writing about the new media, Rushkoff does not consider himself to be a technologist. "I don't know f--- all about technology," he says.

He also refuses to characterize the book as investigative journalism. "I didn't set out to write an expose," he says. "I don't see it as expose -- I see it as primer in media literacy.

Nevertheless, he admits, he may have succeeded in burning a few bridges. "We'll have to see," he says. "As far as I'm concerned all I'm trying to do is tell it like I see it."

Rushkoff swung wide enough in his book to sting somebody. Among his claims:

The Internet has changed marketing-driven medium, just like TV.

The machines have taken over.

The Net is a haven for pyramid schemes.

Hypnotized Rushkoff argues that, with technology, the people turning the media into an electronic marketplace "have succeeded in automating their craft. In effect, they've put the machines in charge."

"People lack the defensive techniques to maintain independent thinking and clarity in a media environment fraught with coercive techniques," he says.

Rushkoff goes so far to say that Web trading is the most dangerous technology of all. "It's giving individuals the false sense they are making educated decisions," he says. "I look at electronic trading programs as the way to get one more level at the bottom of the pyramid."

-- a (a@a.a), August 30, 1999.