http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001HEz
The Y2K Newswire Fact Sheet
greenspun.com : LUSENET :
TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
"FOR EDUCATION/RESEARCH PURPOSES
ONLY"
The Y2K Newswire Fact Sheet on the Leaked Navy
Documents
Folks, the Washington spin machine is about to go into "full
spin cycle" on these Navy documents. You're going to see the whole thing
relentlessly attacked. To get ready for this spin job, prepare yourself with the
following facts:
FACT #1: Our government sat on this information and made
no effort to make it available to the American people. That's what we mean when
we say the information was "kept hidden from the public." It doesn't mean the
document had to be stamped "top secret." It just means they HAD the information
and they SAT on it. This inaction in inexcusable. In fact, it is
negligent.
FACT #2: Just because the documents were buried somewhere on a
Navy web site doesn't mean they were easily reachable by the public. For
example, Y2K Newswire has many, many documents filed under the main web site but
not linked from the main page. Unless you know the FILE NAME of the document,
you can't get to it (even though we could still claim they are "publicly
available"). That's why these Navy documents stayed secret for so long: nobody
knew they were there and the U.S. government sure didn't go out of its way to
tell anybody about them!
FACT #3: The Y2K deniers first called this a
hoax. But when John Koskinen verified the authenticity of the documents,
suddenly the Y2K deniers switched arguments. "Okay, they're real now, but they
don't mean anything."
FACT #4: Y2K Deniers are now attacking the report
by suggesting -- with no evidence to back this up, by the way -- a worst-case
rating was the "default" and that ratings were only eased as information became
available. Apparently, they think all utilities should be marked as "compliant"
unless they tell you they're not. In this way, Y2K Deniers are assuming, once
again, that you should wholeheartedly trust every utility company that issues
some kind of rosy-sounding press release (but refuses to document their Y2K
compliance status). To Y2K "pollys," no news is good news. NO INFORMATION = FULL
COMPLIANCE, apparently.
FACT #5: The U.S. Navy is now engaged in
wholesale damage control. Watch for more news announcements denying everything.
They'll say things like, "We expect everything to be fine." This is the REACTION
to the news, not the news. Of course they have to control the spin on this. All
of a sudden, with this story breaking, people are learning the truth about
Y2K.
FACT #6: Y2K Newswire does not know the identity of the Navy person
who leaked these documents (thank God), but we do know that "heads will roll!"
in the search to find the courageous person who leaked it.
FACT #7: The
AP did their homework on this story. Two thumbs up to the Associated Press' Ted
Bridis who actually did the research and ran with a story that every other news
organization would have called "kooky."
Y2K Newswire's coverage of this
important breaking news continues through the weekend and into next week. Stay
tuned...
_____________________________________________ Suffered a
computer glitch? Report it: http://www.y2knewswire.com/citizensreport.htm
--
Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Y2KOK.ORG), August 20, 1999
Answers
And this
from Michael Hyatt:
MICHAEL HYATT'S Y2K PREP SPECIAL BULLETIN Friday,
April 20, 1999
THE MOST SHOCKING Y2K REPORT I'VE READ
YET
Yesterday morning began like any other weekday morning. I got up,
poured myself a cup of coffee, logged onto the Internet, and started reading the
Y2K headlines and e-mail. There were the usual don't-worry-be-happy spin reports
from the government, banking, and utility industries. There was also a liberal
sprinkling of failure reports, some provided by the mainstream media; most via
private e-mail. (Although the frequency and severity of these reports have been
steadily increasing, they have now almost become routine for
me.)
However, an e-mail from a friend stopped me cold: "Secret Government
Study Reveals Massive Y2K Problems in American Cities." He then gave me the link
and asked me to read the report for myself. If the report had not been written
by a trusted friend, I would have dismissed it immediately as another
sensationalistic Y2K headline.
The Report was written by Jim Lord and
entitled "The Pentagon Papers of Y2k: Cities at Risk from the Year 2000 Computer
Crisis." You can read it for yourself at:
http://www.jimlord.to
(Yes, the "to" at
the end of the address is correct. Jim's website is located on a secure server
in Tonga. He did not want someone in the U.S. to shut him down because they
didn't like the message. If you get an error message when you try to access the
site, keep trying. Jim had over 400,000 hits to his home page yesterday, and the
server has gone down several times since then.)
Overview of the
Report
The report is based on a secret U.S. Navy assessment of U.S.
cities, which Jim claimed that he had obtained from "a confidential source of
the highest reliability and integrity." The information is, quite frankly,
shocking. It is what I have suspected all along, but didn't have any way to
corroborate.
The survey was conducted to determine the risk of utility
failures at military facilities worldwide. (The military is also dependent on
the civilian infrastructure.)
The Navy provides its assessment of 125
American cities, dividing them into three categories: those cities
where
(1) partial failure is probable (43 cities, including Charlotte,
NC; Columbus, OH; Dallas, TX; Houston, TX; Knoxville, TN; Mobile, AL; Norfolk,
VA; Philadelphia, PA; Tulsa, OK; Washington, DC; and Several others);
(2)
partial failure is likely (28 cities, including Atlanta, GA; Charleston, SC;
Chattanooga, TN; Columbia, SC; Ft. Lauderdale, FL; Fort Worth, TX; Jacksonville,
FL; Miami, FL; Nashville, TN; New Orleans, LA; Orlando, FL; and others);
and
(3) total failure is likely (44 cities, including Baltimore, MD;
Buffalo, NY; Erie, PA; Hartford, CT; New York City, NY; San Jose, CA; Seattle,
WA Trenton, NJ; and others).
Is your city on the list? Mine was -- and I
didn't like what I read. Of course, in this morning's Tennessean (my local
paper) both utilities have already taken issue with the Navy report, assuring
the public that they will be ready by January 1. Right. What they're really
saying is that they are not ready now!
The bottom line is that the
picture painted by the Navy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the one portrayed by
the federal government and the media establishment.
But Is It
True?
After reading the report my hands were shaking. I made my wife,
Gail, sit down and read the report while I got dressed for work. When I came
back to the den where she was reading, I could tell that she was upset. "What
are you going to do about this?"
"Well, I want to send it out to my
e-mail newsletter subscribers, but I've got to verify it first." I replied. "The
last thing I want to do is get people more stirred up than they already are over
an unsubstantiated report."
"How are you going to do that?" Gail
asked.
"I'm going to start by calling Jim directly."
I have known
Jim Lord now for several months. We have been on a couple of shows together, and
I have developed a deep respect for his thorough research and knowledge of the
technical aspects of Y2K. He is a retired Naval officer with 24 years of active
service. He has been involved in a number of fields, including electronics and
nine years in the software industry.
Jim is a well-known Y2K expert,
having written more than 90 articles on the subject. He is best known for his
moderate, reasoned approach to Y2K. His perspective on Y2K has been similar to
mine -- Y2K is not the-end-of-the-world-as-we- know-it, but it's probably going
to be worse than the equivalent of a three-day, winter snowstorm. If anything,
my experience with Jim is that he *understates* his assertions and supports them
with ample evidence.
When I finally spoke with Jim late yesterday
afternoon (Thursday), he told me that he was convinced that the report was
authentic. "I've seen a lot of official Navy documents in my day," he said, "and
this one has all the earmarks of the real thing." He then told me the report had
specific Navy jargon that only Navy-insiders would know and
understand.
While this sounded good, I wasn't quite sure I was willing to
step out on this limb without seeing the actual document and verifying it with
someone inside the Navy. Jim said he had requested the supporting documents from
the Navy, using the "Freedom of Information Act." Unfortunately, under the law,
the government has 20 days to comply with the request. At this point, I decided
that I would simply send the information about the report to you and my other
subscribers and insert an appropriate disclaimer.
A few minutes later,
Jim called me back. "I just got off the phone with an Associated Press writer by
the name of Ted Bridis. He had spoken with John Koskinen (the President's "Y2K
Czar"), who has confirmed the authenticity of the report. It's the real deal,
alright." The Washington Post just published Brandis report this morning
(Friday). You can read it yourself at:
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-08/20/074l-082099-
idx.html
And by the way, lest you think the Navy report is based on old
data, it is dated June 1999. Koskinen's office also provided to Brandis (who
subsequently e-mailed it to Jim Lord) the spreadsheet on which the Navy report
was based. It was last updated on August 4, 1999.
Koskinen is already
spinning the report, of course. (Why am I not surprised?) His explanations are
some of the most ridiculous I've heard so far. For example, according to the
Associated Press story (published in the Washington Post):
- "President
Clinton's top Y2K adviser, John Koskinen, called the Navy's conclusions overly
cautious, saying they assumed that major utilities would fail unless proved
otherwise."
Duh. I don't consider this overly cautious. This is the ONLY
safe assumption anyone can make. To assume otherwise is to be hopelessly naove.
If the Navy is being this cautious, why shouldn't we?
- "Koskinen said
the Navy report's worst-case predictions for failures were marked as 'interim'
or 'partial' assessments."
What is this supposed to mean? The report is
dated June 1999. The spreadsheet, which Koskinen's office sent over to Brandis
was updated on August 4! Of course, it is "interim"; we haven't rolled over to
January 1 yet. Every report you read from now until then will be "interim." That
doesn't invalidate it. He is simply stating the obvious.
I have no idea
what he means by "partial." If he means that it doesn't deal with every city,
fine. It doesn't claim to. In fact, the only cities discussed are those where
the military has a strategic or tactical interest.
- "'It's not nearly as
interesting as the world coming to an end,' said Koskinen. 'The way they worked
was, until you have information for contingency planning purposes, you ought to
assume there was a problem.'"
This is the rhetorical technique of trying
to make something look ridiculous by associating it with something truly
ridiculous. The Navy doesn't say it's the end of the world and neither did Jim
Lord (for the record, neither do I). But he implies that people are making a
mountain out of a molehill. He wants us to believe that this was just a routine
planning exercise. Nothing to get excited about and certainly nothing he didn't
already know. Uh-huh.
- "Koskinen said the Navy was not withholding
information from anyone, noting that the continually updated report was
available until recently on a Web site maintained by the Defense
Department."
Oh yea? Well then why didn't I or the small army of Y2K
pundits who scour the web daily for Y2K information stumble across it before
now. More important, why was it recently taken down. (And, oh by the way, why
doesn't he mention the website by name?)
- "'The last people in the world
the department is going to keep information from is their own people,' Koskinen
said."
Yea, right. Why in the world would we think that he is hiding
information from the American people? Just because he has been telling us for
months that all is well and there is nothing to fear but fear itself, and just
because this is virtually the polar opposite of what the Navy report reveals,
doesn't mean we should question his motives or the government's. Rest assured:
they have our best interests at heart.
Sorry, but I'm just not buying
it.
You really must read Jim Lord's report for yourself. This is the only
way to keep from getting confused by the Administration's spin
control.
The Implications
There are several important implications
you can draw from the Navy's report.
1. The government -- your
government! -- has been systematically lying to you about the probable impact of
Y2K. They have been more concerned about managing public perception than telling
us the truth and letting us manage our own perceptions. Frankly, I resent it.
I'm not a child, and I don't appreciate being treated like one. Sadly, I believe
this strategy is going to blow up in their collective faces, just as I warned
them it would when I testified before Congress a year ago.
Not only has
the Administration lied to us (what else is new), but it also looks like
Senators Bennett (R-Utah)_and Dodd (D-Conn) have been in on it as well. I truly
hope not. Until the nonsense they printed last week in Ann Lander's column, I
was a big fan. If they have truly been in the dark, the time to come clean is
now. They either need to show some outrage at learning of this report or we must
assume they are part of the whole sordid scheme.
2. Y2K is going to be
worse than you thought. Look, I've been accused of being a "doom and gloomer" by
the nay sayers. And, I've been accused of being an "Y2K optimist" by the true
doom and gloomers. I'm like the man who dared to go outside during the Civil War
wearing a blue jacket and a pair of gray pants -- he got shot at from both
sides.
The truth is that I have been a "Y2K agnostic." The term
"agnostic" simply means you can't know. Up until this point, I have stubbornly
maintained that no one knows what the impact of Y2K will be. But, this report
has changed my perspective. I still don't think Y2K is TEOTWAWKI (i.e., "the end
of the world as we know it"), but I do think it is going to be much worse than I
anticipated.
3. You must increase the intensity and scope of your Y2K
preparations.
I expect this report to be widely distributed over the
weekend in the traditional media. Be assured, Koskinen and his cronies are even
now working overtime on spin control. You are going to hear all kinds of
conflicting reports. That's why I'm taking the time to write now, BEFORE the do-
do hits the fan.
Whom are you going to believe: the government, bankers,
utility industry executives and others who obviously have a vested interest in
managing the public perception or an internal U.S. Navy report that was not
intended for public consumption?
I have to tell you: this report has
significantly altered my own sense of urgency. The first thing Gail and I did
yesterday morning, once she had finished reading the report for herself, was
immediately to write up a list of the items we had still not acquired and which
we believe will disappear first.
I don't know where you are in your Y2K
preparations. I know that everyone on my subscriber list is interested in Y2K,
otherwise you wouldn't be a subscriber. However, my suspicion is that only a
*fraction* of you are actively engaged in preparing for it. Most of you intend
to do some preparations, but, for one reason or another, just haven't gotten
started.
Listen to me carefully: YOU ARE ALMOST OUT OF TIME!
What
do you think will happen if 5 percent of the American public wakes up tomorrow
and decides to buy some supplies, "just in case"? Let me tell you. Y2K supplies
will be gone and the shelves will be empty. All it will take is a story like the
U.S. Navy report to catch fire.
Will this be the story? I have no idea. I
have been amazed at the complacency of the public to Y2K issues. They just don't
get it. But at some point, they will. And when they do, the "sleeping giant"
will awaken, and the window of opportunity will slam shut.
What You Need
to Do Now
What do you need to do? If you haven't started, let me suggest
several things (these are in PRIORITY ORDER):
1. Secure an alternative
source of water. This is the single most important thing you can do. If there is
one thing that is clear from the U.S. Navy report, water utilities in many
cities are likely to fail. You can store water in two-liter plastic jugs or
55-gallon, food grade drums. I discuss this at length in THE Y2K PERSONAL
SURVIVAL GUIDE, Chapter 5. I've made this chapter available for free -- this
weekend only -- on my website at:
http://www.michaelhyatt.com/survival/xchap05.htm
At
the very least, I would urge you to get a good water filter. If you have one of
these, you can use virtually any source of water you can find. Y2K Prep (a
company I have a financial interest in) sells the British Berkefeld filter for
$279.00. It's one of the best on the market, and the one I bought for my own
family. You can get more information by calling (888) 925-2844.
2.
Stockpile food and common household goods. I still expect the food supply chain
to be disrupted. I have stored a year's worth of food for my family, and I am
now actively storing more for the unexpected "guests" that will undoubtedly drop
in. I know this seems like a lot, but it should give you some idea of how
seriously I take this.
In my book, THE Y2K PERSONAL SURVIVAL GUIDE,
Chapter 4, I discuss five categories of food that do *not* require
refrigeration. I've also made this chapter available free for the weekend. You
can find it at:
http://www.michaelhyatt.com/survival/xchap04.htm
The
core of my own food storage program is the third category: dehydrated food. It
doesn't take up a lot of space (especially compared to normal, hydrated food)
and it's relatively cheap (as little as $0.78 per meal). David Dunham, my
business partner, has negotiated with several canneries for the best prices any
where. He also has available several different packages, so you can build your
own program, based on your assessment of the threat and your available
resources. Specifically, he has:
- a three-month, one-person package for
$295.00 ($1.09 per meal);
- a six-month, one-person package for $495.00
($0.92 per meal);
- a one-year, one-person package for $895.00 ($.082 per
meal); and
- a one-year, four-person package for $3,395.00 ($0.78 per
meal).
Right now, you can take delivery IN THREE WEEKS. But I can promise
you: THIS WILL NOT LAST.
If you have any intention of ordering a
dehydrated food storage program, you need to do it now. You don't have to order
it from us, but get it from someone, and DO IT NOW. The longer you wait to
order, the longer you will wait to receive your order. And if you wait too long,
you may very well not receive it at all. You can call (888) 925-2844 for more
information. Please be patient if you don't get through immediately.
3.
Secure an alternative source of heat. Unless you live in a climate where the
weather is warm -- or at least moderate in the winter -- you need to figure out
how you are going to stay warm if the electricity goes off or the natural gas
stops flowing. (Please re-visit Jim Lord's report. Notice how many gas utilities
the Navy believes are likely to fail.) Again, there are several options --
kerosene or propane space heaters, wood-burning stoves and fireplace inserts, or
just plenty of blankets and warm clothing. The important thing is to come up
with a game plan and get the supplies you need while you can.
I discuss
12 other key areas of preparedness in THE Y2K PERSONAL SURVIVAL GUIDE, but these
three are the most important. If you want to read about the others, you can buy
the book at your favorite bookstore or at Amazon.com. The exact address
is:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895263017/michaehyattsy2kp
I
wrote this book to make it as easy as possible for you to prepare. I included
specific recommendations, with specific suppliers. If you want to see the table
of contents, it is at:
http://www.michaelhyatt.com/survival.htm
(I
also talked David Dunham into giving my book FREE to any one who places an order
for the water filter or food.)
Let me mention one final item: an electric
generator. Not everyone needs a generator, but if you have medical equipment you
are dependent on, a well pump, or other devices you need to power, you don't
have many options.
As I have stated in previous newsletter, I bought my
Lister-Petter diesel from RJK Power, North America and they still have a supply
of reliable Lister-Petter diesel or propane and Kohler propane units at great
prices available immediately on a first come-first serve basis. RJK Power also
provides PRI fuel stabilizers and fuel filters to protect your Generator (which
I also have). Read all about their products at:
http://www.rjkpower.com
Then check
pricing at:
http://www.rjkpower.com/d_prices.htm
and
make you own decision. If you think you might need a generator, PLEASE DON'T
WAIT. You may not have the option of getting one much longer -- especially now
that the Navy report has been leaked.
Conclusion
I know I am going
to get a barrage of criticism from sending out this bulletin. I always do. Some
will accuse me of fear-mongering. Others will accuse me of profiteering from
Y2K. The truth is that I am taking the time to write because I AM CONCERNED
ABOUT YOUR WELFARE. Maybe I'm naove, but I still think you can mitigate the
effects of this crisis if you take the initiative to prepare for it. But I'm
also convinced that if you don't, you WILL become a victim.
The bottom
line is that I no longer care about the criticism. I am doing my best to warn
people of what's coming. We have worked hard to make it easy for people to get
the basic supplies they need at affordable prices. If you want to ignore the
warnings signs, fine. But if Y2K turns out to be something more than the federal
government's official three-day-winter-snowstorm scenario, you'll have no one to
blame but yourself.
Let those who have ears to hear,
hear.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Hyatt
P.S. Please forward this
Special Bulletin on to as many people as you can.
SUBSCRIBE
In the
event that this special bulletin was forwarded to you by a friend, you can
subscribe and my FREE e-mail newsletter delivered directly to your e-mailbox.
Please note: I *cannot* sign you up. You must do so yourself at http://www.michaelhyatt.com/email.htm.
(c)
1999, The ProSpectives Group
Trash Sent Junk
Mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Copyright 1998-1999 USA.NET., Inc. All Rights Reserved. Users of this
site agree to be bound by USA.NET Net@ddress. Subscriber
Agreement.
-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), August 20,
1999.