Michael Erskine.....who he is?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
For those of you wondering, everyone of your comments are consumed and analyzed by some really interesting folks.e.g. Michael Erskine, aka E. Bowles
Doesn't it feel wonderful to be a part of the new media threat?
-- WebSnooper (drudge@xfoxnews.xxxcom), October 21, 1999
What the HELL are you talking about? Stop babbling, will ya, and try making sense! Jeesh!
-- (start@making.sense), October 21, 1999.
Erskine Bowles? Clinton's former Chief of Staff? Skipper's boy? Charlotte, NC, investment banker and erstwhile and possibly future North Carolina gubernatorial hopeful?Presumably he runs a good bit of money and is keeping a finger on the pulse just like everyone else (a least everyone who has a pulse.)
How about fleshing this out a little bit and let us know what importance can be attached.
-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.
"..former Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration and White House Deputy Chief of staff.."I could see where he'd be interested in the topic.
-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 21, 1999.
Is this the person WebSnooper is talking about?http://www.senate.gov/~moynihan/071698.htm
[snip]
Now, in that capacity I wrote the White House and said we need some direction out of the executive branch and urged the president to appoint a Y2K czar. He didn't answer my letter, but he appointed a Y2K czar, which is even better--John Koskinen, appointed in February of this year. And when he came to see me and we chatted for a while, I said ``I'm very impressed with you. I think you're just what the president needs, only I have one problem: you're not high enough profile. Nobody's ever heard of you.'' We do need a higher profile here.
I called Erskine Bowles. Senator Dodd joined me. Erskine came to my office. We sat there, the three of us, and talked about how we could get the president involved. And I am delighted that yesterday the president made a major address on this. If you missed it, go back and get a hold of it.Much as it hurts me, as a Republican, to have to say so, it was a superb speech. He touched all of the right bases, sounded all of the right notes. And this is a very, very welcome addition to the Y2K challenge.
Then I picked up the paper this morning and saw Robert Samuelson's column on this issue.
[snip]
-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), October 21, 1999.
That's good... yeah, I'm Erskine Boles. You found me out. What do I do now?:-)
-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 21, 1999.
He pitched for the Dodgers
-- (batty@ball.boy), October 21, 1999.
That was a cousin.
-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 21, 1999.
Mike, you stick around and talk to us.Welcome aboard big-time, Sir.
(whatcha think of us loonies so far? :-) )
-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 21, 1999.
I thank you kindly for the welcome. I am with you in your concerns. I believe there is hope but in my opinion we are in for very trying times.Yes I believe there are terrible forces at work. It is my most fervent hope that we as a people show the same resilence and strength that the great Americans have shown at other turning points in history. We must band together and meet this problem as a people united. If we fail to do that we will become a quagmire of little fiefdoms easily over run by nations less dependent upon the very technology which is our achille's heel.
These thoughts are not novel, new or inspired. Anyone who believes that other nations are not watching and waiting for their opportunity to climb to the top of the dung heap simply has not been paying attention.
I don't think a "New World Order" will survive for more than a decade if it is ever even established. They do not have the technology, expertise, or military might to control five billion people.
-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 21, 1999.
* * * 19991021 ThursdayTROLL ALERT!!
Er-skin, my ass!
A colleague of to Ko-skin-em?
Don't feed the trolls!
-- Robert Mangus (rmangus1@yahoo.com), October 21, 1999.
Open Letter to Erskine Bowles:[Note: It seems unlikely that "Michael Erskine" is "Erskine Bowles", particularly since "Michael Erskine" spelled his last name incorrectly. Whatever the case, it seemed liked an ideal opportunity to post the following open letter to Mr. Bowles and indeed any other President advisor to President Clinton, past or present. I will also start a separate thread with this letter.]
Dear Mr. Bowles,
Would you please comment on the news items that I am attaching below. It concerns the President's strategy for addressing Y2K, the views of Congressman Dennis Kucinich and myself. As I understand it, that strategy is to wait until the rollover to take a leadership role in addressing Y2K. One version of this that I have just heard for the first time this week is that the President has intended for some time to wait until after the rollover and then appoint Vice President Gore to be the "Knight in Shining Armor" to come in and take care of the aftermath.
Would you confirm or deny that this is (and/or has been) the President's strategy? If it is or has been the President's strategy, who else besides the Vice President knows or has known about it?
How does such a stance square with the sworn obligation of the President and the Vice President to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? How does it square their sworn obligation to preserve the Union? How does it square with the sworn obligation of his advisors who work with them in the White House to do the same? How many of them knew or know that this has been his strategy?
Confirmation concerning this strategy has come to me from a variety of sources. What do you have to say? Do you have any idea of the consequences that this strategy has already had? Do you have any idea of the consequences that it is likely to have as the nation and the world approach the December 31st so ill prepared?
Thank you for considering this message.
Paula Gordon
Attached news item that includes a discussion about the President's strategy:
Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM
(Fair Use: For research/educational purposes only)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- September 30, 1999
If a Congressman came right out on the evening news and said the government Y2K stance is a responsibility-avoiding ploy designed to boost key candidates in the 2000 elections, that would be a shocking admission to most people. Yet this is exactly what has already taken place, but almost nobody reported it. The conversation, in fact, was so obscure, that even Y2K Newswire didn't locate it until recently.
The conversation took place on July 28th, 1999, between Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Paula Gordon. It was a panel on "Y2K and Emergency Preparedness" held at the George Washington University. During this exchange, Congressman Kucinich talks with amazing candor about what he thinks the government is doing with Y2K. And, by the way, this Congressman is friendly to the current administration!
In reading the conversation, one is struck by the apparent calm in Kucinich's demeanor -- a calm that stands in stark contrast to the actual meaning of his words. This is common, actually. In many cases, the way something is said gets across a lot more than the content of what was actually said. Perhaps this is why this conversation never made the headlines. But when you parse the sentences carefully, you find some startling revelations.
We reprint a selection from the conversation (below), but first, take a look at the major points we pulled from the dialog:
The moment for national leadership on Y2K has already passed.
A decision has been made to take a low-profile approach on Y2K.
This decision was made due to the 2000 election. There's too much risk in being high-profile and getting blamed for problems.
The politicians are doing just enough to claim they took some sort of action (in case things go wrong).
Stepping up to responsibility is purposefully not being done.
The consequences of Y2K on the country will not be happy.
There will be system failures and people will not understand it. There will be a lot of confusion.
Again: There was a decision made not to do it (not to take a high-profile approach to Y2K.)
THE DIALOG
PAULA GORDON: I brought up in the last panel.... the hypothesis that perhaps the reason the President and the Administration have not moved forward on (Y2K) before (now is that they have made) a conscious decision (not to do so). (They may have decided that) it is possible that increasing the awareness of the public concerning this issue could be very disruptive with respect to the economy for instance, and perhaps a conscious decision has been made not to risk that kind of upset. (Perhaps they have) instead (decided to) wait until after the (rollover) and then come in and respond in the recovery. Do you think that there is any way to move the Administration from that position so they could see that we would have to pay more.... if we were to wait to (act)....... It's more economically reasonable and wise, I think, to put resources into preventing and mitigating the infrastructure disruptions and technological disasters that we could expect in this county as well as abroad -- than to wait until the rollover and come in and pick up (in the aftermath).
CONGRESSMAN KUCINICH: I think that the answer to your question is "Yes" and it's "Yes" because it becomes self evident. I'm concerned that the moment for national leadership has been passed over. If you go forward right now and call (Y2K) to the public's attention, the person who does that whether it's the President, the Vice President or some other leader takes ownership and then if something goes wrong, you know -- it's still politics: "You did it -- You're Mr. Y2K". And, you know, there is an election in the Year 2000. (And) you can bet there's been some discussion about what happens if there is a failure in voting machines. I would say that it is unfortunate that the decision has been made to take a rather low profile approach.
PAULA GORDON: Do you understand why that's (the case)?
CONGRESSMAN KUCINICH: I would guess......it doesn't get too complicated: there's an election in 2000 and I don't think that anyone wants to risk having this issue to carry on their back if something goes wrong. What they do is to say enough about it so that they can go back through newsreels and say something about it: "...We got together at the National Academy of Science (which they did -- I was there.) "We were part of a United Nations effort." (They were...I was there.) "You know we did all these things through what John Koskinen has done. We did everything we (could). We weren't on the stage all the time..." 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). And I think that the consequences can only be adverse. By the way, and I say this with only the greatest respect for the Administration and having been a supporter of the Administration in many things: I think they're missing an opportunity here and I think the consequences for the country will not be happy. However, almost four billion dollars in resources have been devoted to Y2K at the Federal level, most of it to make sure that all of the systems are being reworked. More money will be dedicated, but down the line, out of Washington, across the country, there will be system failures, people will not understand it. There will be a lot of confusion. In fact, the Small Business (Administration) does have a system set up to tell people what they can do to run a routine...analysis of their small business. We had a Year 2000 preparedness Act which would have helped raise the public awareness of the implications of Y2K and solutions to Y2K problems. You know, we need to do more though, and that more has to come out of the White House, plain and simple. So we'll still see. Is there still time? Yes, even now, even at this late moment, there's still time. (But).... just like anything else, the less time you have the greater the intensity goes and sometimes you don't get it done. I would say the Administration would do well to check with some of those who are working (in) emergency preparedness... at local community (level) and just talk about the massive effort that goes into just the community. But communities need help and we need some direction; we're not just thousands of different communities. We're an American community. That's what my concern is. So more can be done, but you are absolutely right, there was a decision made not to do it and with all due respect to John Koskinen who's probably pulling his hair out.....
[End of excerpted transcript from http://gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon Click on Part 4 of the White Paper on Y2K.]
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? This conversation is a rare glimpse into the real story behind Y2K at the federal government level. It catches a Congressman in a frank conversation, not "sound bites" created for public consumption. As a result, he is not afraid to describe what can really only be called a cover-up. He acknowledges that Y2K will cause system failures and problems across the country, and that Washington officials know it, but that they've consciously decided not to move on this because of risk to their own political careers!
That's really the bottom line here: screw the country, save my political career! It's yet more evidence that the Y2K wool is being pulled over our eyes.
Honestly, does this surprise anyone here?
ACTION ITEM: Go rent the newly-released movie "The Matrix." It's a fairly violent movie, but there's an important point made in it. The most important quote from the movie has everything to do with Y2K. When asked, "What is the Matrix?" the "Morpheus" character replies:
It is the world that's pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This page is subject to the following disclaimer: http://www.y2knewswire.com/Index.asp?pageid=disclaimer All statements made herein, and made since August of 1998, are Year 2000 Statements and are retroactively protected as Year 2000 readiness disclosures under the Good Samaritan Act
Copyright ) 1999. All rights reserved. **********************************************************************
-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), October 21, 1999.
Well, as of January 1999, Mr. Erskine Bowles appeared to be a resident of North Carolina.http://charlotte.com/observer/opinion/view/pub/032111.htm
Now go see:
http://osiris.urbanna.net/
Erskine appears to be SySop of this little Virginia ISP. But not only that:
from the above link:
"I am a Computer Scientist. I have spared no effort to keep you out. That is not a challenge. There is no doubt that ANY system on the internet can be compromised. If you are good enough you will be able to compromise this system.If you are thinking of that you should probably read the second point above one more time.
I want to make if expressly clear, the above is NOT a challenge. I am confident that someone with the appropriate skills can crack ANY system. I had a Top Secret clearance and worked for the National Security Agency for a number of years, many years ago. I have a pretty good idea what can be done and how it is done. Therefore my philosophy is simple, "Ensure detection and then ensure prosecution.""
Oookaaayyy....
Allright, everybody. Back up the firepoles....
-- (just@nother.lurker), October 21, 1999.
[Sorry, lurker - we don't need to play those kinds of games here tonight. Sure, anyone can find the info you posted, which included personal info on Mr. Erskine, if they really want to, but we don't need to post it here. If you don't like like the fact that I deleted your post, too bad. Sysop #2]
-- (just@nother.lurker), October 21, 1999.
OK, Thanks anonymous lurker. You wouldn't be the webmaster at [snip--per request--Sysop] would you? Someone at that site is showing an inordinate ammount of interest in my system. That was at 18:58:18 EST. I meant what I said. That is NOT a challenge to anyone. I have NO desire to be hammered by a bunch of crackers because some anonymous person decided to provoke people to hit my business. I wasn't going to contact the [snip--per request--Sysop] until I read this post. Tomorrow morning (if my system is still operational) I may yet decide not to contact the [snip--per request--Sysop]. If it is not, well the telephone will certainly work.So lurker, drag your cowardly ass out into the light of day and identify yourself BEFORE I get it from my logs.
I am sorry people. I did not start this thread, but I did ask FOX if they knew it had been started. I have not heard from them at this point. I guess I will give you the details when I have them sorted out.
Lurker, you have just pissed me off.
-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 21, 1999.
One other thing lurker, spoofing name servers is a felony... For those who don't know what is going on here. This ass seems to know just enough to be a liar. It is possible to trick a name server into returning the wrong address when a lookup on a name is done. This results in making one computer appear to be another computer.Nice bit of bait and tag lurker. When we check the packet logs for the first five minutes before YOU posted the initial question in this thread are we going to track it back to flint? Or whom, precisely.
God I do hope they are logging packets, I truly do.
-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 21, 1999.
Subject: Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:58:18 -0400 From: osiris@urbanna.net To: osiris@urbanna.net
Oct 21 18:58:16 vast wu.ftpd[20050]: refused connect from [snip--per request--Sysop]
And three more like it.
-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 21, 1999.
I must admit I had a hard time following this thread. Let me summarize, someone tell me if I have it down right:* Websnooper (drudge@foxnews.com)insinuates that Michael Erskine is Erskine Bowles
* Start is confused by the claim
* Puddintame clarifies by telling who EB is
* Lisa adds evidence that Michael is actually Erskine Bowles
* Linkmeister provides a link tying EB to Clintons Y2K policy
* Michael, humored by all of this, provides an obvious tongue in cheek admission that yes, he is Boles
* baty throws in some balltalk (go Braves!)
* Lisa is even more convinced that Michael is Erskine after the balltalk
* Encouraged by Lisa, Michael plays along and throws out a windy speech emulating the politico Bowles
* Robert, not easily fooled, slowly realizes that Michael is NOT Erskine Bowles, and briskly issues his standard TROLL alert as required by anything he doesnt quite understand
* Paula, not believing for a single minute that Michael is Erskine Bowles, but also never being one to miss an opportunity, immediately posts a letter to Erskine Bowles or any other advisor to Clinton, JUST IN CASE..
* just another lurker spoils thread by clarifying the whole sordid affair, but at least provides us with the humorous Allright, everybody. Back up the firepoles.... saluation
* just another lurker, never believing for a single moment that Michael is Erskine Bowles, DOES have a suspicion that Websnooper just MIGHT be Matt Drudge.so he request an IP check by the TB2000 SysOp Double Naught Spies.
* just another lurker shows his extreme Netelligence by posting MORE domain info, and request another SysOP spy check.but unfortunately, refers to Michael as a troll, thus demonstrating that he was clueless to the fact that Michael was just playing along with the silliness..
Does that about cover it? I don't think so....how could you guys have missed this little clue -
Websnooper (drudge@foxnews.com)has the following FIRST nameserver: ELVIS.NIS.NEWSCORP.COM 206.15.105.113FIRST name, Elvis. Get it? Websnooper isn't Drudge, you idiots, he's Elvis Presley! Websnooper has left the building!!!
-- Ima Spy2 (Imaspy2@who.R.you), October 21, 1999.
Wow, this one is pretty bizarre. Oh Diane, you picked the wrong day to get away from Y2K! Yoohoo, Diane ... paging Diane ;^)
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 21, 1999.
Aw, hell, I think I just made an ass of myself... Darn! Look lurker, I am not sure I understand your post. This was fun but PLEASE people undestand that I am NOT challenging anyone to take a crack at my server. I think I shall rewrite that little section.Lurker, if I misread you. I am sorry. It did not take long for people to start poking around after your post. I hope I was wrong in my assumptions and I hope you are able to understand that I try to make a living with that Linux box.
I really do enjoy the above post.. pretty darn cool actually.
-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 21, 1999.
A&L -I just started watching this thread, and I'm gonna delete the whole damn thing if the kiddies can't learn to play nice. This crap is a waste of bandwidth.
-- Sysop #2 (Sysop #2@TB2000.forum), October 21, 1999.
One thing is crystal clear. Michael Erskine is not Erskine Bowles. Hell, I don't even need my double-naught spy certificate to figure that much out. So I guess the question now is, "Who the hell is Michael Erskine and why do I care if he does or doesn't lurk?" No offense intended to any Michael Erskine. I assume he has the same question, at least the second half of it.
-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.
Cyclops #2,Well, let it stand until Diane gets a laugh or an ulcer ;^)
How many wanna start placing bets that c4i adds to the melee?
We do read c4i posts very carefully, just figure the flagpole needs a red 'n black pirate flag fluttering in the hot wind ...
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 21, 1999.
I am just another guy. I am not and never was Erskine Boles. We both spell our name with the extra e on the end (I think). Carl Erskine was indeed a pitcher and a damn good one I am told, I never knew him but I have been told we were related. I am going to change that text on my web server. This thread is a TOTAL waste of bandwidth but it does illustrate the point that it is very easy to misunderstand what people just drop into print. I hope the sysop deletes the whole damn thing because I certainly did not ask for the thread to be started and I don't believe I want to persue it further. If you good folks will allow me, I should like to consider it my initiation.One other thing, I am what I have said I am. That does not make me anything different from anyone else. We all have to work for a living in this world. I am not a 'double naught spy'. Though I am about as smart as Jethro.
So sysop please give them a few minutes more and then dump the thread.
Thanks, Mike
-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 21, 1999.
Anybody else bowled over? Welcome to the hazing, Mr. IrkSwine, no, ErrorSkin, obviously a mole counterpointing KoSkinEm. Fish bowl time. A plot to knock lynchpins down. Something's missing.So how long Michael Erskine have you been lurking, how long have you debated the itch to post? Submit!
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 21, 1999.
Not me I'll never rat. Burning bamboo under the nails, no problem. I am a highly trained (and dangerous) double naught agent of the realm. You will never get me to talk. Never.So who did start this thread anyway? What a sneeky turd...
;)
-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 21, 1999.
Hey Michael,Living on the Northern Neck aint too bad. Some of my friends think that is where the South begins and ends :-).
Deo Vindicie,
BR
-- brother rat (rldabney @usa.net), October 21, 1999.