One Of The Best All Time Y2K Articles -- Paul Milne

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

Fair Use For: Educational/Research Only

Public Perception of the Year 2000 Computer Problem: A Tale of Two Cities

By David Tasgal October 19, 1999

"Fools, why speak ye to us of elephants?"

One city is very large. Its residents learn about world events mainly from TV, newspapers, magazines and radio, i.e. the "mainstream media". The information they receive about the Year 2000 computer situation might be summarized: "There could be a few problems, but basically there's nothing much to worry about because the public and private sectors have been very very busy and have fixed just about everything, so that the worst you should expect will be the equivalent of a three-day snowstorm or hurricane. Alarmists who say it could be worse than this are probably whackos and con artists." Seeing few signs of concern from the media, the stock market or their friends, neighbors and local computer gurus, residents of what we will call Big City quite rationally put Y2K on the bottom of their long list of things to worry about.

The other city is very small. Like Big City, people here follow the mainstream media, but they also tune in regularly to the Internet where they are exposed to a very different picture of reality. They find there significant government and scientific documents containing sobering revelations. They notice that expert opinions about the likely severity of Y2K are wide ranging, and that many well-informed reputable commentators take very seriously the possibility of disaster. Thus, many in Little City, based on information available to them, quite rationally decide they'd better get serious about covering their butts. Of course, they try to warn their friends in Big City, but the latter (being unaware of the mountain of worrisome information on the Internet) do not take seriously warnings from their Little City friends whom they understandably think have lost their marbles.

Residents of Little City take note when the Year 2000 Technology Committee of the U.S. Senate releases a massive report about Y2K on Sept. 22, 1999. The report, while generally moderate, contains some ominous pronouncements, such as "The likelihood of disruption in oil imports is high due to the lack of preparedness in key oil-producing countries" and "Available evidence indicates that millions of small businesses in the United States are ill prepared for the anticipated Y2K problems" and "Severe long- and short-term disruptions to supply chains are likely to occur". Meanwhile in Big City no one hears about any of these juicy soundbites from the nation's most august legislative chamber because by some remarkable coincidence the entire mainstream media decides not to report them or any of the pessimistic statements contained in this important document.

While this could be viewed as a curiosity in itself, it is just one example of many highly credible, newsworthy but alarming stories that have somehow never made it into the script of Dan Rather or the columns of the Washington Post or even the tabloids. Instead the mainstream media is chock full of glowing reports of how well prepared this or that company or government agency is or expects to be, and presented in the media as truth regardless of whether such claims are accompanied by verifiable documentation.

If the media industry as a whole has indeed adopted a policy of accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative, a similar policy would seem to be in place in the government, with its steady stream of don't worry, be happy messages from the President via his Y2K representative, John Koskinen.

No one knows whether the year 2000 will arrive with a handful or with a Pandora's boxful of mishaps, but one thing that is beyond dispute is that, with a few exceptions, bad news about Y2K has been essentially ignored in the mainstream press and the public statements of the government. Thus it appears that both institutions have come to the same conclusion: that the public should be told only half the story.

Would anybody stand to gain by such a policy? Yes, indeed. If the public were to lose confidence in the future of publicly traded companies those companies could kiss their investors goodbye. Or if the public thought Y2K could wipe out its bank accounts it might stampede and bury the banks in withdrawal slips, with disastrous consequences for the whole economic system. Would the press and government deliberately censor the flow of information to protect the financial interests of the corporate world? With stakes this high one would have to be naive to simply rule it out.

So what are we to make of this? We could rush to accuse the powers that be of conspiracy to withhold the truth from the American people. The trouble is, a good case can be made for the correctness of such a policy. It is in fact well within the realm of possibility that a scared public could pull out of the banks causing the banking system and therefore the economy we all depend on to collapse, even with no computers malfunctioning. Thus, Protecting the Public from becoming Part of the Problem (PPPP), if a conspiracy, could reasonably be viewed as a benign one.

However the PPPP policy has some serious drawbacks. Chief among these is that it magnifies the Possibility of Public Pain if Y2K is bad. What happens if all the people of Big City decide, because of the PPPP policy, to keep living in their straw houses -- and the wolf that wasn't supposed to show up actually does? Oops. Everyone, especially the Little City people who had rebuilt their houses with bricks, will remember that there could have been a lot more brick houses if people had been given the bad news as well as the good.

Now, because you've been such a good reader, here's a nice story for you.

And it came to pass that word reached the land that a multitude of elephants approached. The people, wishing to know if they should be afraid, asked their rulers, "Tell us, rulers, what is an elephant?" The rulers of the land and the wealthy merchants held counsel on this matter and decided that it was not good that the people fear the elephants. And lo, they bade their messengers go among the people with pictures of the tail of an elephant, saying to all, "Behold! This is an elephant." And the people were much relieved that surely no harm could come from this small worm-like creature.

But in one small city there resided messengers who had themselves seen elephants and they told the people of their size and weight, and here the people were sorely distressed and much talk there was of what to do if elephants came. And the people called to their brethren in the big city, "Beware, above all let not an elephant step on you!" Whence their brethren replied with much mirth, "Fools, why speak ye to us of elephants?"

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

This is one of the best all time articles that I have seen on Y2K and one of only two that I wish I would have written myself. I intentionally did not disrupt the above article with my comments. I have reposted it below interspersed with what I consider salient points...

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

"Fools, why speak ye to us of elephants?"

One city is very large. Its residents learn about world events mainly from TV, newspapers, magazines and radio, i.e. the "mainstream media".

(In very large part, the mainstream media is one of the biggest Culprits of Y2k. And I mean, like in "C"riminal "C"ulpability, with a capital "C". The mesage that they have portrayed has UNVARYINGLY been the happy faced message. And, any time that they have even slightly deviated from that by saying something of the most remote concern they have immediately taken it away. Such as, "There is some concern over the safety chemical plants, but every rational person who loves their children and volunteers at nursing homes knows that they will fix it before December.")

The information they receive about the Year 2000 computer situation might be summarized: "There could be a few problems, but basically there's nothing much to worry about because the public and private sectors have been very very busy and have fixed just about everything, so that the worst you should expect will be the equivalent of a three-day snowstorm or hurricane. Alarmists who say it could be worse than this are probably whackos and con artists." Seeing few signs of concern from the media, the stock market or their friends, neighbors and local computer gurus, residents of what we will call Big City quite rationally put Y2K on the bottom of their long list of things to worry about.

( This is what makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. I mean knee-walkin' porcelain huggin' sick. It is one big fallacy mixed with a lie. First of all, there is absolutely no correlation between working 'hard' on something and successfully fixing it. There is no correlation between spending billions on it and getting it fixed. Secondly, it leads people to believe they are talking about the totality of systems instead of simply a very small percentage of that totality arbitrarily designated 'mission critical' systems. And on top of that, they assert that it is fixed and that your only 'fear' comes from fear itself. Every report makes out that those who ARE preparing are whackos, deviants, religious fanatics or worse, profiteers. Anyone who takes it 'seriously, is an ALARMIST, the conotation clear as a bell. What are these people to expect or think they ought to do when this is all they are fed? They are drones who would not DARE look into it for themselves. And, of course, if they see nothing being done about it in their neighborhood, or by co-workers, they write it off as something only the whackos are concerned about. And this is what is going to get them killed.)

The other city is very small. Like Big City, people here follow the mainstream media, but they also tune in regularly to the Internet where they are exposed to a very different picture of reality. They find there significant government and scientific documents containing sobering revelations. They notice that expert opinions about the likely severity of Y2K are wide ranging, and that many well-informed reputable commentators take very seriously the possibility of disaster. Thus, many in Little City, based on information available to them, quite rationally decide they'd better get serious about covering their butts. Of course, they try to warn their friends in Big City, but the latter (being unaware of the mountain of worrisome information on the Internet) do not take seriously warnings from their Little City friends whom they understandably think have lost their marbles.

( I think it is MANIFESTLY clear by virtue of overwhelming evidence that the LEAST one ought to do is prepare. Even if you did not believe that it would result in a catastrophe, there is certainly a mountain of evidence to suggest that it could turn out very very ugly. It is simply common sense. 99% of the people that I have talked to either 'get it' right away or they will never 'get it'. I have tried to figure out what the common denominator is. I have not found it. But, in most of those that have 'gotten it' I have found a high degree of intellectuall honesty, self-reliance, healthy skepticism of authority (read Government) and strong family values. This is NOT meant as a gratuitous inverse dig at pollyannas. )

Residents of Little City take note when the Year 2000 Technology Committee of the U.S. Senate releases a massive report about Y2K on Sept. 22, 1999. The report, while generally moderate, contains some ominous pronouncements, such as "The likelihood of disruption in oil imports is high due to the lack of preparedness in key oil-producing countries" and "Available evidence indicates that millions of small businesses in the United States are ill prepared for the anticipated Y2K problems" and "Severe long- and short-term disruptions to supply chains are likely to occur". Meanwhile in Big City no one hears about any of these juicy soundbites from the nation's most august legislative chamber because by some remarkable coincidence the entire mainstream media decides not to report them or any of the pessimistic statements contained in this important document.

While this could be viewed as a curiosity in itself, it is just one example of many highly credible, newsworthy but alarming stories that have somehow never made it into the script of Dan Rather or the columns of the Washington Post or even the tabloids. Instead the mainstream media is chock full of glowing reports of how well prepared this or that company or government agency is or expects to be, and presented in the media as truth regardless of whether such claims are accompanied by verifiable documentation.

( This goes back to the abysmal failing of the media. Their reporting has been ANYTHING but even-handed or impartial. it has been DESIGNEDLY geared towards the happy face scenario. )

If the media industry as a whole has indeed adopted a policy of accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative, a similar policy would seem to be in place in the government, with its steady stream of don't worry, be happy messages from the President via his Y2K representative, John Koskinen.

( Don't even get me started. If the media is bad, then there are not enough circles in hell for people like John Koskinen.)

No one knows whether the year 2000 will arrive with a handful or with a Pandora's boxful of mishaps, but one thing that is beyond dispute is that, with a few exceptions, bad news about Y2K has been essentially ignored in the mainstream press and the public statements of the government.

( BINGO)

Thus it appears that both institutions have come to the same conclusion: that the public should be told only half the story.

( It is beyond the pale of belief that the government could adopt the position that it has. or, actually not. They have painted themselves into a corner. They are not meely victims. They have caused their own problems by their own inaction and complete incompetence. They should have made serious warnings two years ago. Those warnings could IN NO WAY have panicked the public. Most would have done nothing anyway. Since they did not, they have created their own disaster. Now, they claim that they are worried about inducing a panic. A panic that they will have WHOLLY created themselves by their gross inaction.)

Would anybody stand to gain by such a policy? Yes, indeed. If the public were to lose confidence in the future of publicly traded companies those companies could kiss their investors goodbye. Or if the public thought Y2K could wipe out its bank accounts it might stampede and bury the banks in withdrawal slips, with disastrous consequences for the whole economic system. Would the press and government deliberately censor the flow of information to protect the financial interests of the corporate world? With stakes this high one would have to be naive to simply rule it out.

(To date, not ONE company, large, medium or small, has admitted that they will fail outright. This is NOT possible. )

So what are we to make of this? We could rush to accuse the powers that be of conspiracy to withhold the truth from the American people. The trouble is, a good case can be made for the correctness of such a policy.

( I disagree. NO case can be made for it. The government of this country was formed to SERVE the citizens. It does not IN ANY SENSE serve the citizens for the government to withhold the truth no matter what they think the public will do with it. They have no RIGHT to withhold the information. To withhold the information is to set themselves above the citizenry as arbiter of what the citizens should do and when they should do it as if the Feds were better suited to do it. This is pure unadulterated bullshit. It puts governors above the governed. It is tyranny itself. And not one Semnator or congressamn has come forward, unalloyed to the 'party line' and said, "Look, we are in deep shit". Not one. The best we have gotten is that asshole Bennett saying that we could have problems, maybe, I think, errrr....well, no one really knows, but have half a tank of gas in your car to be prudent." With leadership like that we might as well all go swim the Pacific and join ol' MaoTse Tung. The government has utterly and totally abrogated its deepest and most solemn responsibility. )

It is in fact well within the realm of possibility that a scared public could pull out of the banks causing the banking system and therefore the economy we all depend on to collapse, even with no computers malfunctioning.

( Yes, but I doubt that this is true. At least not to a degree of total destruction lasting years and years. It could crash markets, but that has happened before. They are straining out the gnat and swallowing camels.)

Thus, Protecting the Public from becoming Part of the Problem (PPPP), if a conspiracy, could reasonably be viewed as a benign one.

( Again, I disagree. It could never ever be considered benign. Condescending, but not benign, unless you meanby that, that the submoronic cretins merely had no overt malintent with a flow chart and planning schedule for enacting said malintent..)

However the PPPP policy has some serious drawbacks.

( Understatement of the millennium)

Chief among these is that it magnifies the Possibility of Public Pain if Y2K is bad.

(Precisely. What if these bozos have completely misappreciated the gravity of the situation?)

What happens if all the people of Big City decide, because of the PPPP policy, to keep living in their straw houses -- and the wolf that wasn't supposed to show up actually does? Oops. Everyone, especially the Little City people who had rebuilt their houses with bricks, will remember that there could have been a lot more brick houses if people had been given the bad news as well as the good.

(The very funny thing is that the government has left NO out for being wrong;simply wrong. No out at all. if they are wrong, we are completely enscrewed from the ground floor up. It defies any bit of rationality for them to have gambled, yes, GAMBLED, that they have not fouled up. 'Federal government' and 'fouling up' are synonymous, and yet it dawns on NO ONE that they have fouled up.)

Now, because you've been such a good reader, here's a nice story for you.

And it came to pass that word reached the land that a multitude of elephants approached. The people, wishing to know if they should be afraid, asked their rulers, "Tell us, rulers, what is an elephant?" The rulers of the land and the wealthy merchants held counsel on this matter and decided that it was not good that the people fear the elephants. And lo, they bade their messengers go among the people with pictures of the tail of an elephant, saying to all, "Behold! This is an elephant." And the people were much relieved that surely no harm could come from this small worm-like creature.

( All the pollyannas chime in with their favorite nonsense.

1. They are working hard on it.

2. They have spent a lot of money.

3. They are motivated.

4. The reports (self reports) look Great!

5. The government would NEVER let this happen to us.

6. Other people may have problems in isolated areas, but not us.

And all of their nonsense utterly devoid of facts and evidence, only mere rhetoric.)

But in one small city there resided messengers who had themselves seen elephants and they told the people of their size and weight, and here the people were sorely distressed and much talk there was of what to do if elephants came. And the people called to their brethren in the big city, "Beware, above all let not an elephant step on you!" Whence their brethren replied with much mirth, "Fools, why speak ye to us of elephants?"

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

The overwhelming majority of the public is absolutely clueless as to the scope and magnitude of Y2k and of the consequences of a failed remediation. They have been fed a steady diet of complete tomfoolery and more than that, they have been INTENTIONALLY willing to hear ONLY what they want to hear that than to have really examined the issue. Not only could y2k have NEVER been fixed, the public NEVER would have prepared in any case.

A catastrophic result is inevitable.

http://www.wbn.com/y2ktimebomb/Special/Opinion/Readers/tas9942.htm -- Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"



-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 19, 1999

Answers

To the top of New Answers!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 19, 1999.

So what is Paul Milne saying, that our democracy is just smoke and mirrors?

-- (not@now.com), October 20, 1999.

Two selected quotes:

1) "It defies any bit of rationality for them to have gambled, yes, GAMBLED, that they have not fouled up."

2) "A catastrophic result is inevitable."

My question: if a particular result is "inevitable", how could it also be described as a "gamble"?

Which is it, Paul? A sure thing or a gamble?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 20, 1999.


Paul --

Must take exception to one part of this. The statement "However, the PPPP policy has some serious drawbacks." is NOT the understatement of the millennium. That has to be reserved for "It will only be a 'Bump In The Road'". ;-)

-- just another (another@engineer.com), October 20, 1999.


BM, I think Milne is saying they gambled and lost.

-- las (vegas@the.desert), October 20, 1999.


Look, there's no mystery here, and no conspiracy. You have all run into DGI's among your friends and relatives. They are the majority. Why are you then surprised that the press, the government and CEO's can also be full of DGI's? Plus the steady drone of reassurance from the powers that be has set a tone that keeps even the GI's within these organizations quiet. Who is willing to stand up and shout "You're all wrong! This stuff is *probably* going to fail!" Especially when there's no smoking gun you can point to -- a critical industry that comes out and says it's not ready.

I know, given the track record of software projects, and the size of the projects that have been done, there is a zero chance of getting through this without some chaos. Just look at the money spent -- when was the last time a $50 billion dollar project got done on time and without bugs? On top of that, look at the small businesses and state governments, and foreign governments and foreign small businesses and possibly even foreign banks, that are obviously not going to get done. Even if you trust all the official pronouncements, you still have this huge pile of organizations that we know will not be done.

But as long as that argument does not convince people, and as long as the conventional wisdom is BITR, no one in power is going to stick their neck out and say that this is a disaster. Some will gamble that it won't be that bad, or that they won't be blamed. Others will listen to their own PR and actually think that it is OK.

But all of this is just human nature, especially when confronted with something unprecedented like a worldwide computer failure. People live in flood and earthquake zones, ignoring the potential for KNOWN disasters. So of course they can ignore the unprecedented ones.

-- You Know... (notme@nothere.junk), October 20, 1999.


Paul,

You wrote, "This is one of the best all time articles that I have seen on Y2K and one of only two that I wish I would have written myself."

What's the other?

-- Critt Jarvis (critt@critt.com), October 20, 1999.

Parlous. "Dangerously shrewd." The word describes the machinations of our Central Government as it services its master, the Bank Power. Our government receives its marching orders from the financial elite, and the minions in the press read the script they're handed. The government fears loss of authority, the banks fear runs, and the corporations fear loss of share value: all three linchpins of our cosseted society have EVERY reason to lie about impending difficulties. Bank and Corporate leaders are FORCED into lying by their fiduciary responsibility: they'll be fired if they take actions that threaten shareholder's investments. Our benighted government, in thrall to the Federal Reserve and BISS/IMF crowd, does as it's told (and, if I may, kudos from this long-disaffected Republican to the Senate for refusing Globalist doctrine on the test-ban treaty). It is crowning foolishness to think that these powerful entities won't lie and lie again to protect their wealth and power. As Raygun used to say: "Trust, but verify."

-- Spidey (in@jam.parlous), October 20, 1999.

i have been reminded many times during the last few years of one of my favorite (clever) phrases. i have long felt it to be the slogan of the klinton administration, and never more so than concerning y2k.

it is the title of a novel by walter wager.

"The fools in town are on our side."

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), October 20, 1999.


no talking please,

Thanks for this excellent posting. Yes, it is a sore dilemma for those of us who have looked at the evidence and become alarmed. Using the analogy of a dam on a river, if we see the waters behind the dam are rising, and evidence shows that some cracks are appearing in the dam, we have a right and duty to inform others of what we saw. All those who are living along the river below the dam are in danger. If we attempt to go from house to house and warn people, what will be the reaction? This sort of thing has happened many times in reality. What we would find is that unless some "official" warning is issued by a recognized government, media, or industry source, nothing will be done by the majority to move out of harms way. That's human nature. That's what we are seeing. Will the dam actually fail? Who knows? Does the situation look very dangerous? Sure does. But all we can do now is sit back, on higher ground, and see what happens. If the dam lets go, as we fear it might, many will be swept away. Then, we can wonder about human nature again, and why the "authorities" didn't act sooner to warn the river dwellers. It will become a study in politics, power, and psychology. And it will start to remind us of other, endless, historical disasters that were not seriously dealt with. We could remember the space flight of Challenger, and that mini- disaster. Or if we take the story of Noah seriously, we could ponder that world wide disaster, and wonder again about basic human behavior.

One thing is for sure, if that dam fails to hold. For the few of us who have moved to higher ground, and put in extra supplies of basic essentials, we can be sure that those who surive the wave of water will be struggling up to our level and first asking, then demanding, our assistance and supplies. Even the government may come by and take from us what they feel they need for the unfortunate ones. Yes, we can expect that too, can't we? And like in the days of the old west, a solitary rancher can not hold out against a determined "army" of attackers. Not without help from many of our neighbors. But if the neighbors are also under attack, then what? In the above case, those who come to demand we give up our security will probably be both government *and* local citizens injured by the flood. Gary North has been sounding the alarm for a long time now, and has personally made a lot of preparations for his family. If this situation turns out to be close to a 10, does anyone doubt that Gary will be at the top of the government's list of those who have essential supplies stored?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), October 20, 1999.



Thanks for the thoughtful post Gordon.

The sellers of wood and tar, no doubt, laughed behind Noah's back.

They were the Doubting Thomases of their day.

Today we call them Pollys.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 20, 1999.


In answer to this....

So what is Paul Milne saying, that our democracy is just smoke and mirrors?

-- (not@now.com), October 20, 1999.

First of all, we do NOt live in a democracy and never have. The founding fathers ALL vilified democracy as they understood it to be no more than mob rule. They SPECIFICALLy set up a constitutional republic. Obviously you have no idea what that is or the reasons why it is good and a democracy is evil.

And no, our government is not just blue smoke and mirrors. Smoke, at least, has substance, and it is rumored that even a mirror held to Washington DC would 'reflect' that there is nothing there at all.

Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), October 20, 1999.


To Critt: The other article.....

http://www.wbn.com/y2ktimebomb/Economy/Trends/meag9749.htm

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), October 20, 1999.


Paul's Favorite Article:

Sorry, Buttheads, You're Going Down In Flames

-- h (h@h.h), October 20, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ