If I remember correctly, the biggest reason for the ICCC is the "coordination" of information. They were receiving reports but every Govt agency had their PR folks at the center and every major media outlet. MAKES IT AWFULLY CONVENIENT TO GET THE SAME STORY, SAME WORDS, ETC OUT. So why are we surprised?

-- tt (, January 02, 2000



I don't think Koskinen will have much trouble defending the money that was actually spent on remediation; he can find more than enough IT managers who will eloquently describe what horrors would have occurred if they had NOT spent the money.

Perhaps he (and Clinton et al) will be criticized for having spent $50 for a high-tech bunker to monitor the situation -- but this is relatively small potatoes compared to other political expenditures.

From the various comments you can see on this forum, it appears that the most sensitive issue is that of PERSONAL preparations. Even people who were genuinely concerned about Y2K are somewhat prone to say "Gee, maybe I should not have 'wasted' my money buying those cans of tuna fish." (That's the mild version -- you should see some of the email I'm getting!!).

So, if Koskinen had recommended that people study the Y2K problem and consider stocking up for two weeks, or a month, or three months -- as several Y2K activists were recommending -- THEN he would have been in trouble. And of course, it was just that political risk that he and the other gov't leaders were concerned about all along. Mind you, I still think it's possible for the Y2K situation to deteriorate to the point where some of us WILL be eating our spam and tuna fish sometime later this year -- but by then, no one will blame Koskinen for having failed to recommend stronger preparations.

What a strange world we live in...


-- Ed Yourdon (, January 02, 2000.


Whoops, a small error: I meant $50 MILLION for the high-tech bunker.

-- Ed Yourdon (, January 02, 2000.

Er, who's surprised? This is exactly the situation that a lot of middle of the road people were predicting (sorry doomers and pollys, but they were): if the utilities stayed on, Y2K would be a media non- event. Bingo.

Note that the only people with a vested interest in demonstrating Y2K failures are insurance companies, and those quasi-political figures who "wasted" all that remediation money.

I actually feel genuinely sorry for Koskinen right now. There's no way he can come out of this as anything other than a villain.

Incidentally, did he (and Garvey) make good on their promises to fly over rollover?

-- Servant (, January 02, 2000.

And wasn't CPR supposed to be on the same flight? Or did someone actually READ some of the borderline psychotic rantings that have issued from his twisted little mind and decide he was a security risk?

Just curious...

John Ludi

-- Ludi (, January 02, 2000.

Since we KNOW that the utility industry wrote their happy-face, all's well press releases of last summer the summer before that (when they were clueless of the outcome), I'm assuming they had the rollover press releases written in about the same time frame, certainly no later than the coordination center was created.

-- Brooks (, January 02, 2000.

There *is* no spin... if you doubt our news organizations, use others; they're only a shortwave radio away. The eastern part of the US is well-situated to hear stations from all over the globe... and they all report the same thing: little if anything broke. Get over it.

-- Just (, January 02, 2000.

I care nothing about spinning, whether the spin is one way or another. My life has still not been impacted noticeably by the Y2K problem. The gov can spin one way and you can spin the other - doesn't matter. So far Y2K hasn't even been a bump in the road for me, so I am celebrating. I recognize that things could change Monday or Tuesday, but I no longer expect anything major.

It isn't about a contest on who was right; what matters is quality of life. Most people's lives have yet to be significantly affected. Joy to the world!

-- Gus (, January 02, 2000.

I has been obvious for a long time that the news media never understood Y2K and never believed it. Therefore, they are quite willing to accept the official version of Y2K problems. Unless there are highly visible problems directly affecting the public, the news media will only report information that comes from official government channels.

-- Dave (, January 02, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ