Dr. Paula Gordon has posted parts 4 and 5 of her working white paper(must reda)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

An extrordinary expose' of the Presidents lack of leadership and culpability on the y2k and embedded chip problem. This, coupled with Jim Lord's accounts should awaken some.

Bob P

-- Bob P (Rpilc99206@aol.com), August 19, 1999


Bob, this isn't a link, but it will have to do:


-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Hey has anybody seen Hoff and Flint tonight? Do we need to put their faces on a milk carton?

-- a (a@a.a), August 19, 1999.

Yes, they need to explain this to us, otherwise I fear some may start to waver to conclude that Y2K may be a bit of a problem after all.

And, if they DON'T explain it, I shall once again be forced to explain it as I know that THEY would. (There, that ought to reel them in....)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Hey King, I think Flint is busy preparing one of those 50,000 word essays proving the insignificance of y2k. But now that the Associated Press has moved closer to the doomer camp, he'll probably expand it to 75,000 to make it more convincing.

-- a (a@a.a), August 19, 1999.

Hoff and flint are class "A" Morons from the word go.

If things were going even 'remotely' well, the news could not possibly reflect what it is now. Every source indicates that most are falling further and further behind and that 'globally' things are devastating.

Both are psychologically incapable of dealing with the unpleasant truth.

flint will become increasingly more shrill as time wears on. He has no other recourse. No facts, no evidence, 'nothing at all' to reinforce his views.

Idiocy is its own reward. And flint is well rewarded.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), August 19, 1999.


Durn, burn it! I was just about to go to sleep....

This is another "must read".



-- Critt Jarvis (critt@critt.com), August 19, 1999.

I'm sorry Bob...I didn't mean to trash this thread with polly bashing.

Paula's article outlines precisely what all of us have been worried about all along. She has been regarded as an alarmist from the very beginning and was criticized early on for suggesting that the answer to y2k was more government oversight. That she is a 9.5 on the impact scale ranks her as a true GI in my book any day. Part 5 should be interesting....

I have a feeling that in September we will see some very drastic "new thinking" by DoD and the Clinton administration.

-- a (a@a.a), August 19, 1999.

a, Clinton is still snarfing up his sleeve at the millennial "alarmists." Snicker Dicker. The only change from the top will come from the coup c4i hinted at (not likely; military's not remediated either and will be verrrrrry busy) or the Constitutional Convention [is that the right term?] that Hardliner reminded us all about, long ago, as the "correct" way to bring about dramatic change.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 19, 1999.

Well, you know the DoD has put all bases on notice to be ready for call out starting Sept. 1, 1999. So, maybe they're going to spill the beans after Labor Day, when the kids are safely back in school, and Mom and Dad are winding down from their summer of fun. "All bases, standby, Presidential announcement coming up." Who knows?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Leska, I'm not being snide, but the reason information is classified is to keep it a secret from the enemy and the public, who may turn it over to the enemy. You can bet your ass that there is a ton of classified material dealing with how the federal govt and military are going to handle y2k, beginning from their stated start date, next month.

In other words, don't be fooled: the roller coaster ride is well underway.

-- a (a@a.a), August 19, 1999.

Congessman Kuchinich in response to a question by Paula about national leadership:

"But I think that that belies a greater challenge here which is to step up to responsibility and claim leadership of a nation and say what we have to do as a country and rally (the) country around it and (that's) not being done, as you say, (it's) purposefully (not being done).

Purposefully not being done. Sometimes I need to be reminded how some think. In this case, when reading the appendix, I noticed that the congreessman thinks political repercussions first. This includes answering a question about other politicians. They have no motives but politics and to look at it in any other light is to miss the point.

It does not matter what the consequences are to the consituency. Death and suffering are secondary to politics.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), August 19, 1999.

To a@a.a:

Read your August 19 comment.

Please have another look at my White Paper. I am not calling for "more government oversight". I am calling for greater understanding of the Y2K and embedded systems crisis on the part of those in roles of public responsibility. I am calling for responsible action, for action based on the understanding that we are in a crisis. I am particularly calling for action that is aimed at minimizing the risks of technological disasters in the US and abroad, owing to the potential malfunctioning of embedded systems. This most notably includes the systems, plants, sites, facilities, and pipelines that put public health and safety and the environment at greatest potential risk.

I am also calling for leadership, Churchillian leadership, that might help us get through this with the least amount of damage to the social fabric.

This will all require the dedication of resources, far beyond what we have expended to date.

We have a clear cut choice regarding resources: our choice is to pay now or pay much, much more later. Continuing to follow the present course of action will result in the latter.

It is only partly true to say I am at a 9.5. I am provisionally at a 9.5. I believe that impacts could be as high as a 9.5 if national and global efforts continue to unfold as they are at present. However, I think that we could be at a 4.5 if everything that could be done were done to keep technological disasters and infrastructure disruptions to a minimum, and if everything were done that could be done to maximize individual, family, community, national, and global preparedness. I tried to point that out in Part 4 at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon. I also made a similar comment for on http://www.russkelly.com at the beginning of August.

Please also have a look at my Real Video at websitehttp://www.y2kapproaches.com/real/pgordon.htm. I think you will see that I am not an alarmist. (By the way, the proceedings of the July 26 - 30 Y2K Conference at George Washington University will also soon be posted at that RealVideo website. Some material from the conference is already posted in text at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/1999conference.)

What I am trying to do is awaken understanding and a sense of responsibility in persons in roles of public responsibility, persons who have an obligation to act in a way that protects the public interest. I can no more be called an alarmist than IEEE can. I share the perspective they expressed in their open letter to Congress of June 9 that we are in a crisis and that the problems that we face are not solvable in time. This is a realistic assessment. I am basing my optimism that more could be done to minimize the impacts based on my experience in government working on a wide range of issues and problems, including the energy crisis of the 1970's and my knowledge of what can be done in crisis situations over the course of the last 60 or so years.

I think that it behooves us to use our commonsense and do everything that can be done now to minimize the impacts by making sure that the largest time bombs that could do the most damage do not go off, while also minimizing the infrastructure disruptions and at the same time making sure that everyone is prepared to the extent possible to deal with a range of possible scenarios that may unfold. That, I think, is simply commonsense.

I hope this clarifies matters a bit.

Paula Gordon

Director of Special Projects Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning, School of Business and Public Management George Washington University Please direct communications to .

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), August 20, 1999.

Better late than never. . .


-- robert waldrop (rmwj@soonernet.com), August 20, 1999.

Oops. Let's try this again.


-- robert waldrop (rmwj@soonernet.com), August 20, 1999.

Paula: Thanks for the reply. I concur. I believe it was Cory Hamasaki that originally labeled you as a "death by committee" advocate at a WDC Y2K meeting. Hang in there and keep up the good work.

BTW...I posted the first 3 parts of your paper here back in March. It got zero replies. Go figure.

-- a (a@a.a), August 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ