ED YOURDON ON PENTAGON PAPERS & A "POST Y2K" ROUND TABLE

On August 19, 1999 ED Yourdon posted as follows:

Like most of the people on this forum (and several other forums), I've read all of the postings about Jim Lord's "Pentagon Papers" with great interest and deep concern. A number of excellent points have already been made on this thread; here are a few of my own observations:

1. Credibility of the players: I've met Lord and Koskinen in person, and I know Steve Davis from numerous email exchanges over the past couple of years. I respect the intelligence, sincerity, and integrity of all them; whether they turn out to be right or wrong, I think they all truly believe what they're saying to us -- which is in stark contrast to what I see in the day-to-day business world, where the "rules" of competitive behavior rarely require anything more than a surface-level pretense of sincerity. Nevertheless, the "bottom line" for me is that I would only trust the safety of my family to someone that I've known long enough to have gone through one or more life-and-death crises, in order to have a true sense of how they react under such circumstances. In a few rare cases, that might happen in a new friendship; but in most cases, it only happens after I've known someone 5, 10, or 15 years. For better or worse, I have to say that I don't know Lord, Koskinen, Davis, or many of the other Y2K "notables" well enough to warrant quite that level of trust, which means that I always have to remind myself to take everything they say with a small grain of salt. For many people, discussions like this are great for cocktail parties, but have no relevance in the "real" world; for people who really do think Y2K could pose life-and-death threats, it goes beyond idle cocktail chitter-chatter. Thus, I think one of the questions some of us have to ask ourselves after reading Lord's material, or Koskinen's rebuttal, or any of the related commentaries, is: sounds good, but would I entrust the safety of my spouse and my kids to this person, based on this information?

2. Authenticity of the Navy document: when I first read Jim's material, I was worried about this. Now I'm not -- it appears that Mr. Koskinen has publicly acknowledged that the original document did exist, and was published on a quasi-public web site at some relatively recent point in time.

3. Accuracy and timeliness of the Navy document, as compared to other quasi-official statements about Y2K readiness: bottom line is that nobody knows. Unless and until a more recent document appears from the same naval group, I don't see how we can reject this one as anything less than the "best guess" of at least one group within the Navy. It does seem to contradict the statement issued by Navy brass to their own personnel, but I don't think that necessarily proves that either document is right or wrong.

4. Should it have been released publicly? Obviously, Lord feels the answer is "yes," and Koskinen implies that the answer is "no." I was intrigued to see that Steve Davis seems to have sided with Koskinen on this one. My reaction on this one is entirely selfish, personal, and emotional: if the government is suggesting that the "public" is not entitled to know certain preliminary drafts of the Y2K situation, then I have to assume that I'm going to be included as part of that amorphous "public." It's all very interesting argue, in an abstract and academic sense, about whether John Q. Public is smart enough, mature enough, responsible enough, and experienced enough to be able to handle scary information. But what about you? What about me? And what are the credentials of those who apparently feel they have the God-given right to make such decisions? As noted above, I respect the intelligence, sincerity, and integrity of Lord, Koskinen, and Davis -- but I don't think they're sufficiently smarter, wiser, and purer than me to decide how what information I should be allowed to see, and what I shouldn't be allowed to see. I understand the notion that there may be people roaming the streets with an IQ of 76 who might do harm to themselves if provided access to scary information about Y2K; and in theory, I understand the concern that if the general public was given raw, unadulterated access to Y2K information, they might stampede and head for the banks to withdraw their money. These are serious issues, and I enjoy having a serious intellectual discussion about them ... but when I realize that, by virtue of not being a member of the political elite, I would end up being thrown into the same heap as the IQ-76 folks and the bank-run lemmings, I get very nervous about the possibility that my life is being manipulated. (For whatever it's worth, I would be just as nervous if someone told me that I would be allowed to be a member of the political elite if I would just keep my mouth shut; I don't like the idea of pulling the strings that control another person's life either).

5. Why do we have to "prove" anything about Lord's document anyway? The American system of justice assume that someone (including an individual, corporation, or any other entity) is innocent until proven guilty; even OJ got the benefit of that assumption. On that basis, the private-sector organizations and the government agencies are "innocent" of Y2K bugs until proven guilty; and on that basis, we would have to "prove" that the allegations in Lord's document were accurate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, before we did anything about them. But I think that Y2K is a classic case of safety-critical "auditing" in which one reverses the assumption: we should assume that computer systems, embedded systems, and the organizations that depend upon those systems, to be guilty until proven innocent. Organizations like FAA give lip service to this concept when they tell us that they would never compromise the public's safety with their air-traffic control systems ... but unless every FAA employee put every member of his/her immediate family on a New Year's Eve flight (not just Jane Garvey, John Koskinen, and the born-again optimist Peter de Jager), I'm not sure I trust their sincerity. As a practical matter, I don't think we're going to see any serious Y2K laws or regulations based on this principle -- but it does govern a lot of my thinking. Thus, for me the burden of proof is not on Jim Lord and his supporters to prove that their document is "right," but rather on the Y2K optimists to prove it's wrong. The notion that Mr. Koskinen's "Community Conversations" is providing such proof is laughable: these events have involved nothing more than public officials in some two dozen cities lecturing to an audience of a couple hundred people about why it's a bad idea for them to take their money out of the bank.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon .

A response for Ed and all men and women of good will.

Ed is correct on all points except We cannot believe in the alleged integrity, sincerity and intelligence of a Koskinen. One of said three qualities is clearly missing.

An intelligent man could not misrepresent Y2K as a 3 day winter storm. An honest man would, like Jim Lord, insist that the American people own the Government, their lives are more important than banks and financial markets and must be informed exhaustively and truthfully by their public servants. A sincere man would be direct and uncompromising and resign his post if asked to lie to the people. So Koskinen is either stupid, dishonest, or a lying politician like many others in Washington.

It is our firm opinion that Y2K will separate honest and clear minded people from the ostrich before the turnover and that those whose clarity sincerity and intelligence are proven by this unique test of vision offer the best choices for candidacy for office in a restored constitutional society where commerce will be as separate from government as churches are now, Where campaign contributions are forbidden and absolutely equal media time is given all candidates who have qualified for office.

Our social order is about to be tested. Round tables are being formed. We must protect our civil rights or fall victims of supranational corporations. We must restore compassion and achieve true equality of opportunity, We must establish sustainable local economies. We must limit acquisition and exploitation of finite natural resources. We must stop the fractional banking abuses and restore a real currency based on real assets.

This is the time to prepare the leadership that will be needed when 250 million sheeple and their polly yuppies and blindfolded megalomaniacal corporate puppets fall on their knees trembling in their Armani suits and Gucci shoes.

Tomorrow's leadership virtues must be courage, compassion, vision, and action with uncompromising honesty.

people like Jim Lord and Ed Yourdon will be called to serve. Imperfect as we may all be, Y2K is about to teach us the ultimate lesson on how to secure life's survival on this planet. Egocide is a first step we must all take. Gary North, Cory Hamasaki, Adams, Milne and many others are showing vision and they are setting themselves up for a greater task AFTER Y2K

Gather your knights and make ready for what Ed called " the year for living dangerously"

Arthur

ArthurRex@Camelot.Grail - August 21.1999

-- Arthur (ArthurRex@Camelot.Grail), August 21, 1999

Answers

"Round tables are being formed"?

Now exactly WTF does *that* mean???

Sounds like you're a vigilante.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), August 21, 1999.

Uh, Ed is doing well transcending his ego, but some of the others ... ;^)

Don't think leaders, even new ones, are going to be treated well for a while. Certainly wouldn't volunteer for any "positions" in the next 5 years.

Arthur, your points are noble but when we think about them we don't feel energy and momentum for them; we feel chaos and breakdown first. But it's not intuition or vision at this point; maybe just exhaustion and a growing sense of disaster on its way.

Was it symbolic that the heir to Camelot (your addy) plunged to his demise in the ocean? Sometimes events like that are metaphors streaked across the sky for all to see. In any case, Time Is About To Tell.

The only post-Y2K activity we feel safe about is deep long invisible hibernation. If only that twere possible!

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 21, 1999.

Gee Ron, sounds like you've been grazing too long. Lead, follow or get out of the way!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 21, 1999.

Without Round tables, we will not BE prepared for anything more than new pastures to graze in. Of course, there will be sacrifices, and we will be required to think beyond our own bunkers. I don't want to become an island.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 21, 1999.

Troll alert.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 21, 1999.

Thanks Jerry. I missed the 'Egocide' comment. :)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 21, 1999.

When people are hungry and cold they aren't going to be thinking who is going to be their next representative in Congress! They might, however, get a rope and find a tree if the current representative gets anywhere close to them. I am sure that the sheeples first priority is going to be the constitution. Yeah,right!!

Taz... who sometimes wonders if there isn't truth to the story of aliens among us!!

-- Taz (Tassie@aol.com), August 21, 1999.

Good point Taz. Preparers *need* to prepare for the fact that the sheeple WON'T be able to protect the Constitution (not that they have been anyway). Baaaaaaaa BAAAA.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 21, 1999.

I have not yet made up my mind about the veracity of the Navy document. The nearly unequivocal statements being made in favor of believing its authenticity by people in (nongovernmental) Y2K awareness whom I respect greatly and am inclined to trust do predispose me to take it seriously. Anyone who has read more than 5 of my posts (or spent 3 minutes on my website) knows I am a GI, around 9.5 on the severity scale. Mainly with the IMO useful goal of looking for conceivable alternate explanations, let's play "devil's advocate" for a minute.

My question is: 1) wouldn't an accurate assessment of the U.S. utility reliability problem in 2000 likely result in an even gloomier outlook than is on this document, and 2) wouldn't any document intended to look like a real one (but assembled with gov't pro-pollyanna P.R. goals in mind) be more optimistic? These two inclusive scenarios between them would exclude the possiblity of the document being accurate. Perhaps another goal was kept in mind during creation of this document, such as a "controlled" ratcheting up of GI levels, like a "controlled burn" forest fire is intended to reduce the severity and extent of a later wild forest fire. (Of course, "controlled burns" have been known to go completely out of control, spreading beyond the boundaries envisioned by their initiators, despite all precautions...)

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), August 21, 1999.

I think MinnesotaSmith has it logically about right. I do not think the Navy is stupid. This supposed "leak" is suspicious, IMHO. Things that need to be classified are classified. Things available for public consumption are available. Things published on the web are for the web public. Someone wanted this "leak" to happen or it would not have happened. I think the concept of "controlled burning" is astute.

-- Leslie (***@***.net), August 21, 1999.

Just $0.02 more or less:

I do not think the Lord document is/was a "controlled burn". I find it more probable that it is/was an ongoing work in process by members of the US Navy now widely distributed across the world assessing Y2K preparedness for potential impacts.

See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990112_xex_navys_role_n. shtml

It appears the above identifies the start of a Navy Y2K assessment project. As such, it may be the only or the most accurate assessment made public.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), August 21, 1999.

I doubt very much that the Navy report "leak" was planned, though I would LOVE to hear what Jim Lord has to say. If it was planned, then it seems to me to be pretty stupid, because it was incredibly risky thing to do, and it let the entire world know that as of at best JUNE 1999, we are in very precarious shape, which is completely at odds with the Clinton administration's position. John Q. Public was clearly fast asleep and snoring soundly, why try such a stunt? (Ever hear the saying, "Let sleeping dogs lie"?)

And even the latest (August) version of this report is damning, it clearly shows that we DO NOT KNOW what will happen with power, clean water, gas, etc., come Jan 1. Not that this is going to cause John Q. to do anything other than stop snoring for just a few seconds....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 21, 1999.

Frequently the individuals involved in government work, whether military or civilian, do very dumb things. The basic premise for putting this document on the web probably dates back to the mindframe existing during and just after the Vietnam War. It was considered 'cute' to hide things in plain sight in the computer at Wonderland on the Potomac. It's a strong possiblity that they (TPTB) have forgotten just how curious people can be.

Although I'm sure that they haven't forgotten just how gullible the general public really is.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), August 22, 1999.

Some feel there is no need to prepare a renewal. a rainassance, but men like Jim Lord , Gary North, Hamasaki, Yourdon by their very character will be in action and must even now be making plans. Those who yelp "troll" are petulant infants, time wasters like the pollys. Here is Gary's take on the Pentagon Papers damage control frenzy: ---

Date: 1999-08-20 09:06:44

Subject: Nothing to This Navy Report. Nothing. Believe This Man. Nothing. He Asked Koskinen. Comment: Steve Davis, who used to be a y2k official with Montgomery County, Maryland (still noncompliant, but among the most compliant of noncompliant counties), has this to say about Jim Lord's posting. My comments are in brackets.

* * * * * * * * *

Here is some information for any of you that have heard the hype about the Navy Assessment that is posted at http://jimlord.to. this is paraphrased from an e-mail from John Koskinen that I got in response to my query on the veracity of this "information".

[Clever! Put quotation marks around "information." I say: don't give us a paraphrase of Koskinen's response when lives are on the line. Give me the original if you've got it. Put it on-line, just as the original document supposedly was two weeks ago when the Data Monster ate it. Get everything public, fast.]

The Navy report referenced by Mr. Lord is indeed real. It was on a web site publicly available until a few weeks ago (not just to people passing along "secret government documents").

[Ah, yes, the phantom, unnamed website.]

The report reflected an earlier attempt by the armed services to begin to collect assessment information about infrastructures in the areas in which we have bases. Like everyone else, the services were having a lot of trouble earlier this year getting people to tell them anything about readiness.

[Just as the public is having with the military. That's because a massive cover-up is going on at all levels. The systems are not compliant.]

The ratings were based on anecdotal information that was updated over time and do not reflect "the official government assessment of any kind.

[The "official government assessment" is for the public to plan for a 72- hour disruption, and all data -- all data -- are officially interpreted in terms of this. All reports to the contrary are unofficial. It's a matter of political definition.]

Most significantly, which Jim does not note and may not have known (although he made no inquiries that John knows of) the instructions were to put a "3" (risk of failure) as the default if information was not available. Earlier this year when base commanders and others were trying to determine the status of local infrastructures here and around the world there wasn't much information available, which is why there were so many "3"s.

[Where is the proof for this statement? Where is the document? Why are we being handed out a paraphrase? Why was the document removed from the phantom website? And why did it take a public posting of a summary to get John Koskinen to comment on this document?]

The lack of local information was one of the reasons the White House launched the "Community Conversations" initiative in May and why DoD has a related initiative they have asked all their base commanders to lead in their local communities, either by supporting the communities conversation or helping to organize one in the absence of any other facilitators.

[The reason why the White House launched the "Community Conversations" is to transfer responsibility for the coming martial law declaration to local communities, so that the Federal Government, in all its 99% compliant glory, will not get blamed for its inaction, its dawdling, and its unwillingness to tell the voters what is at stake here. The motive is clear: to get y2k off of Bill Clinton's back, politically speaking. The Republicans in Washington will applaud this, for they have been equally tight-lipped on y2k. So, Koskinen goes on the sawdust trail to tell the nation that the problem is mostly local, especially municipal. The Navy looks into this and finds, lo and behold, just how true this is. The sewer systems are noncompliant in 100 cities. They will be in deep doo-doo in January. And what does John the Baptist, voice crying in the wilderness, say? Why, it's all anecdotal! No big problem. Koskinen dances his partner across the floor. Then he dances her back again.]

Third, the people the leadership at DoD and the services care most about are their troops and the advice sent to them by the Secretary of the Navy -- which is anything but alarmist -- reflects the low level of risks from Y2K as seen by the department leadership. (But they did recommend personal preparedness and continue to do so.)

["We're gonna spin, spin, spin till my daddy takes the T-bills away!" When James Carville rides off into the sunset, John Koskinen Davis will be there.]

John and I both agree that, as we move through the fall, we will have more than enough interesting and important matters to pursue.

[Little does this guy know. None of us can know. We have never seen a systemic, worldwide breakdown before.]

In other words, we won't need to be making mountains out of molehills to keep things interesting.

[Martial law is surely interesting. So is the shutdown of water and sewer systems.]

The moral of this story is to always hold back on assuming these types of reports are 100% accurate until someone takes the time to look for the truth in these stories.

[The moral of the story is to blow the whistle as loud as you can, so that John Koskinen is forced to dance his verbal tango and thereby reveal to anyone with eyes to see that a cover-up is in full force, and you has better take personal action to avoid the looming disaster.]

Best wishes, Steve

(Please feel free to send this to anyone who may have gotten the earlier messages)

-- Arthur (mailto:ArthurRex@Camelot.Grail), August 22, 1999.

Arthur,

I still love and will wait till the end of time.

Neither the pollies nor the doomers have brave hearts. Find your knights among the intuitive and realists. Those men and women who know that Truth is ultimately invincible.

Y2k cometh and it will separate the cowards and the insane the few left silent ready to save the suffering children these will be the true knights.

Gird your loin with EXCALIBUR -- COME AND RIDE AGAIN ON EARTH GREAT KING.

-- Guinevere (Queen@nunnery .inwait), August 26, 1999.

I have heard enough to start to look for the best but certainly prepare for the worst.Tell us common folks more.

-- (rcowen@cswnet.com), August 29, 1999.