Open Letter to Eskine Bowles and President Clinton's Advisors, past and present: What knowledge did you (do you) have of his Y2K strategy to wait until after the rollover and then take action?

Note: I was prompted to write this open letter by a thread at http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001cf1

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

Answers

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.

To "Just Another Lurker":

You wrote:

"Well, as of January 1999, Mr. Erskine Bowles appeared to be a resident of North Carolina...."

According to my most recent source, the President's Y2K strategy that I have written about in Part 4 of my White Paper has been in place since early 1998.

See http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon for a description of the strategy. Part 4, by the way is entitled: "The Y2K and Embedded Systems Crisis ~ Why Isn't the Crisis Being Treated as a Crisis as Yet, Nationally or Globally?

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), October 21, 1999.

My point, Ms. Gordon, is that I doubt the esteemed Mr. Bowles started this ruckus. The email address he used was osiris@urbanna.net

The link http://osiris.urbanna.net/ brings you to the SysOps page.

His name IS M. Erskine, but there the resemblance stops.

Welcome to Trollery, Timebomb2000 style.

We are very glad to have you here, and if you feel irked at having been duped, believe me when I say that everyone here (including me), has fallen for something like this at least once. Remember the old Gary Larsen cartoon "On the internet, no one knows your a dog." ?

I only wish your response would arrive at the screen someone of Mr. Bowles stature.

-- (just@nother.lurker), October 21, 1999.

I wrote the open letter to him to ask him a question that I would ask any of the closest Advisors to President Clinton, past or present. I hope that someone will respond.

My writing the open letter has hardly anything to do with the "ruckus" you mention (brought up in another thread). Seeing that thread simply prompted me to come up with an open letter. I know that Erskine Bowles has been held in highest esteem during his years in public service. That is all the more reason to hope that he might respond to this letter...if he ever sees it.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), October 21, 1999.

Dr. Gordon:

A lot of people, even Y2K aware and worried people, these days tend to think that embedded systems are not the threat that they were thought to be as of 6 months ago. Can you give us an opinion, as we sit here with but a scant 2+ months to go before the year 2000?

Thank you.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 21, 1999.

I've only been around here 18 months...so I could be mistaken,..but isn't this the 'traditional fix on failure'...wasn't that the question in your thread heading? It is what happens in the post-modern and the post post-modern world. Don't bother us with future-thinking...we gotta make money now. We'll fix it when it stops working....

Y2K or no Y2K this is very bad business practice, and a bad way to live one's life...just plain damn dumb.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 21, 1999.

There is no such thing as "the public disrupting 'the economy.'" There is no "the economy" sitting in a shoe box with velvet ropes around it that one snaps pictures of. The publics' needs and demands define what an economy will and will not be.

The business community will either address the needs and demands of the people or will find themselves in bankruptcy. Quote obviously, those that incorrectly define what an economy is and is not will be shutting their doors forever and good riddance to them. If they can't cope with "the economy" than they're not competitive.

It seems there are some lessons to be learned ahead and those lessons will be learned by a few deranged power freaks. I look forward to their down fall. One generation goes out and a new one comes in.

I'd like to discuss how some businesses and politicians incompetence with code remediation is going to disrupt our economy.

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), October 21, 1999.

Paula,

Thanks. I think this is pretty clear. It's about as cynical as politics can get. I believe that it will not work to anyone's advantage, however. There will be payback and it won't be in the form of electing any incumbents. If TS really HTF, we will be witness to the birth of a very new kind of political party. There will be, rightfully so, a lot of anger. It's frankly unbelievable that things could have gone this far, yet we see that they have!

I appreciate your efforts, personally, as will those who have been duped when they wake up to what has occurred at some time in the future.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 22, 1999.

King of Spain:

You wrote:

"Dr. Gordon:

A lot of people, even Y2K aware and worried people, these days tend to think that embedded systems are not the threat that they were thought to be as of 6 months ago. Can you give us an opinion, as we sit here with but a scant 2+ months to go before the year 2000?

Thank you."

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 21, 1999.

I am hoping to have a chance to add a new part to my White Paper on what I have been learning about embedded systems since writing what is not Part 2 of my White Paper. I don't know if you have had a chance to look over the references on embedded systems and failures in my list of references and resources. Those sections list some references that were not mentioned in Part 2 (Embedded Systems). The White Paper and the list of references can be found at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon

There are alot of people who are saying that embedded systems are not the problem that they seemed to be six months or more ago. I am not one of those people. In fact the more I hear from people on the "front lines" and the stories they are telling, the more concerned I have gotten. I have come to believe that what is reported in official filings is not always true. I am also concerned that the assessments, remediations, and testing that have been completed have not always been done correctly. The assessments that have been made have not always been made with public health and safety in mind.

For several reasons, it is not at all instructive to say that "a threat was less than you thought it had been". It would be a help if the person saying such things would also explain how bad he or she thought it was to begin with (for instance serious enough to result in an 5? a 8? on the impact scale) and how bad he or she thinks it is now (a 4? or a 7?). The listener or reader can easily infer that when such things are stated, that the person making such a representation now feels the threat has been reduced to a 1 or 2. You cannot know unless you spend some time trying to figure out how the person is defining the problem, what there understanding of impacts might be, and how well they comprehend the seriousness of the situation that we are in.

Those distinctions aside, I do not believe that it is that it is all that important whether one's estimation of the seriousness of the embedded systems aspect of the crisis has moved upward or downward. In the final analysis, what is most important is this:

There are too many embedded systems for them all to be found, let alone fixed, remediated, and tested. It is simply impossible to find and fix them all in time. There will be an unknown number of failures. Some of those failures could be catastrophic in nature threatening public health and safety, social stability, and environmental sustainability.

The IEEE said in their Open Letter to Congress in June that we are in a crisis. (I discuss this in Part 4 of my White Paper.) I totally agree with IEEE's assessment.

People can differ radically concerning the fact that there will be failures. Some people might dismiss the implications of that fact. Others may take it very seriously. Such differences can reflect a difference in values, including the value of human life.

re will be failures. Even to North American Electric Reliability Council has publicly stated that there will be failures.

More serious however is that fact that some of those failures could cause real calamities, including Bhopal and Chernobyl type disasters. I fault the Federal government more than I can say for having failed to do everything possible to minimize the chance of such failures. The threads in the Time Bomb 2000 discussion forum have been filled with behind the scenes revelations concerning what is really going on regarding embedded system remediation and testing. Keith Wolgamuth's recent thread is an excellent example.

Some oil and gas pipeline companies have admitted that they are expecting failures. Enron has been extremely forthcoming in the SEC filing.

The chemical industry has daunting problems that are repeatedly the focus of threads. The nuclear power industry has serious problems. See http://www.nirs.org to get an idea of the range of Y2K and safely related problems that afflict that industry.

I have tried to explain some of my current concerns more fully in the comments and ratings section of http://www.russkelly.com

The assessment and testing protocols used by GSA and also recommended by North American Electric Reliability Council will yield definite failures. GSA and GAO both admit that GSA will have some failures because of the assessment and testing protocols that GSA followed (type testing being one of the approaches used).

To my knowledge nothing has been done to change GSA's protocols.

Failures are expected in utilities as well. The nature of those failures and the problems that can be caused can not fully guessed or predicted in advance. The recommendations that NERC made on page 35 of their April 30, 1999 report have set the stage for failures. The NERC recommendations were offered for both nuclear and non-nuclear utilities. On page 35, there is a list of their recommendations for assessment. These include such methods as vendor certification, type testing, statistical sampling, etc. ~ all known to yield a certain failure rate.

A GSA and a GAO official each admitted to me that they were aware that there would be failures using these approaches. Both individuals told me that it would cost too much to assess and test everything. In addition, there was not enough time. (These exchanges were in March of 1999).

There is no excuse for adopting such protocols when it comes to the highest risk, highest hazards sites, plants, systems, etc. With nuclear power plants there are Y2K issues involving systems that are not being monitored and assessed by NRC because they are not considered "mission critical". However they are "safety critical". The weaknesses of diesel backup generators are a cause of great concern. If Y2K is accompanied by an energy crisis, it could be very difficult to provide adequate fuel to keep an emergency generator going.

Other simultaneous infrastructure problems could also make safety a major challenge. If the embedded systems in the airconditioning systems or the security systems fail in part of a nuclear power plant not generally closely monitored by NRC, those kinds of failures could create major safety problems.

California is leading the way in the approach that they are taking when it comes to the chemical industry. They are trying to identify those that constitute the greatest risk to the public and focus efforts on ensuring that those highest risk plants don't cause trouble. The Federal government has no such proactive, crisis-oriented approach. In the end the approach that the Federal government has taken will prove not only shortsighted and far more costly economically, it will cause needless suffering, loss of life, and devastating environmental impacts.

I think that one Chernobyl in the US is more than we should tolerate. I think that no expense should be spared to ensure that we do not have any Chernobyls or Bhopals here. Gas and oil pipeline problems should also be averted at any cost. The price tag for failing to act now will be infinitely higher than the current price for doing everything we can to keep infrastructure disruptions and technological disasters to the barest minimum possible.

I believe that we need to do all we can to help avert similar disasters throughout the world. The world has become very small and interdependent. Catastrophes in other parts of the world are felt here and we will be moved to dedicate resources to helping with recovery efforts abroad. Taking preventive measures would be must less costly in all ways.

I hope this responds to your question.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), October 22, 1999.

You never cease to AMAZE me... Bravo!!! And, THANK YOU for bringing these issues to light time after time... RELENTLESS... You will be remembered by us, along with other Y2K heros... God bless you and yours...

KEEP THE FAITH AND HOLD ON

-- booann (keepthe faith@hold.on), October 22, 1999.

Paula..it's just shameful and beyond belief and downright criminal, negligent... that your most important words fall on "deaf" ears... at will be very, very costly to everyone habitating this planet... at least you have presented the facts for those who care to listen and it has helped us prepare.. Again, we thank you... God help us all!!

-- booann (keepthefaith@hold.on), October 22, 1999.

Yes, Paula, thank you for doing what our national leaders should have been doing all along...and for being the burr under their saddle. You will also be a witness against them in all your research and writings when payback time arrives. Isn't it odd that the morally defunct occupant of the Oval Office should think it would cause Gore's becoming a "hero" if he could conceivably help salvage anything from the ashes? Instead, should we have national calamities of the nature that you warn about, the two of them could end up like Mussolini at the end of WWII. I was ten and I recall vividly the newsreels and photos in the printed media of him and his mistress being hung, then their bodies taken down and desecrated for what they'd brought on the Italian people!!!

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), October 22, 1999.

Dr. Gordon for president!! :-)

In all seriousness Dr. Gordon, I want to add my humble thank you for your hard work and keeping on keeping on.

Reading your essays, such as this one, leaves me very depressed, but then I look at the silver lining under it, that is, people like you do exist and the human race will go on, with or without me.

-- (flakygirl@home.now), October 22, 1999.

Thank You Dr. Gordon!!!!!

With only 70 days to go, the course of future events has been cast by our "fearless" leaders. You have done wonderful work along the way to alert the politically reckless and selfish now it can be used in criminal trials that many of these potential murderers will be involved in if the courts are still operating. So sit back, finish your preps and bask in the glow of the light of truth.

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), October 22, 1999.

An Open Postcard to Erskine Bowles Regarding The Paula Gordon Open Letter

Mr. Erskine, I beg to differ.

"With nuclear power plants there are Y2K issues involving systems that are not being monitored and assessed by NRC because they are not considered "mission critical"." However they are "safety critical". .

This is not true. Nuclear power plant Y2K projects included ALL systems classified as nuclear safety related as mission critical. The NRC audits reviewed the findings of all of these. To the best of my knowledge, no problems were found in nuclear safety related systems at any plant that would have prevented the equipment from performing its safety function.

"The weaknesses of diesel backup generators are a cause of great concern." I agree that EDG reliability needs improvement, but this has nothing to do with Y2K - the reliability remains unchanged, most controls are older and not affected by Y2K, and those few that are digital have been assessed. No severe enough power outages that could cause losses of large areas of the grid are expected that would cause a loss of offsite power (contingency plans consider that EDGs will be needed as a worst case measure, not based on actual Y2K findings).

"If Y2K is accompanied by an energy crisis, it could be very difficult to provide adequate fuel to keep an emergency generator going." At least a weeks worth of fuel will be in the tanks, and contingency plans ensure that additional supplies are available.

"Other simultaneous infrastructure problems could also make safety a major challenge. If the embedded systems in the airconditioning systems or the security systems fail in part of a nuclear power plant not generally closely monitored by NRC, those kinds of failures could create major safety problems."

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC) that are necessary for safety related functions of a nuclear plant are themselves considered safety related and were included in the mission critical systems of the Y2K project, and subject to NRC review.

Security systems were considered mission critical and were also subject to the NRCs Y2K review. It should be noted that the Y2K bugs that could be severe enough to cause functional problems with security systems are in the plant access systems, not in the video and perimeter monitoring systems. Additionally, various systems related to security do malfunction from time to time, and alternative measures are already in place to deal with these problems, including manually controlled access. Even non-safety related systems considered important to nuclear plant safety and power generation were included in the mission critical list. Additionally, nuclear plant Y2K projects included assessments of ALL business assessts, not just mission critical.

Give my best to the wife and kids....let's go fishing again soon!

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), October 22, 1999.

Thank you, Dr. Gordon, for your detailed commentary.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 23, 1999.

King of Spain:

Thank you for your note.

You are quite welcome.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), October 23, 1999.

Factfinder,

I wish I had time to go through all your comments, but I do not.

I hope you will take a look at the video of the panel that was held at the Washington Post on July 28, 1999. It should be posted on the following realvideo website by early November at http://www.y2kapproaches.com/real/pgordon.htm.

NRC, NEI, NIRS, and the Union of Concerned Scientists were all represented on the panel. There is a write up by Patrice Kaufman of many of the issues that were discussed during the panel at my GW website at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon (click on "conference".

There were some NRC audit team members in the audience. Some of what was said seemed news to them. I do not find that reassuring. A Congressional staff director who had quizzed some audit team members a year ago had some very disquieting tales to tell concerning what they were looking at and checking and what they were not.

What is on paper (or what might seem to follow logically from what is on paper) and what is done in practice can be very different things.

I hope you will have a chance to look at page 35 of the April 30, 1999 NERC report. If you find the recommended guidelines for assessment, remediation, and testing appropriate for safety critical or mission critical systems of nuclear power plants, then you and I have a decided difference of opinion. It seems to me to be unwise in the extreme to use guidelines on high hazard, high risk systems that are known to inevitably yield some percentage of failures. I don't even think that it is wise to use such guidelines for government offices (as is the case with GSA). How much more costly is it going to be to lose the use of a building that might have housed several thousand employees, than it would have been to do the assessment, remediation, and testing thoroughly to begin with.

Re diesel backup generators, I did not mean to suggest that they were themselves susceptible to Y2K-related failures. I meant to suggest that there was an extremely serious indirect problem were they to fail at a time when plant was shut done owing perhaps to Y2K related failures. If a plant has to shut down for any reason, Y2K related or not ~ during a period of time when there are infrastructure disruptions, you want to be certain that you can keep the back up generator going. There is no certainty of being able to do that if you have a convergence of problems that includes everything from power outages, water supply problems, fuel shortages, employee abandonment of their duty stations, the overwhelming of emergency service personnel owing to the number of problems they are having to respond to, etc., etc. We would do well to make sure that every nuclear power plant had diesel backup generation capacity, including fuel to ensure safety.

If you have not read the work done by the Nuclear Information Resource Service (http://www.nirs.org) and the Union of Concerned Scientists on Y2K and nuclear power plant safety issues, I commend it to your attention. It is extraordinarily well documented and eyeopening. When the video of the July 28 program becomes available on the web, I think it will be possible to see the differences in level of knowledge, expertise, and concern amongst the panelists.

It will be interesting to see what came out of the hearings that the House held on Friday on these issues.

There will be another panel on nuclear power plant safety issues at George Washington University, Wednesday evening, November 10. The program is free and open to the public. If a foundation grant comes through, a video will be made of that program as well. For more details on the series of programs that will be held between November 10 and 23 on Y2K, see my GW website and click on announcements. The preliminary announcement will probably go up today or tomorrow. A more detailed announcement is planned for around November 1.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), October 23, 1999.

Paula,

Don't you feel the least bit of shame for propagating the opinions you have gathered from others who have no actual knowledge of embedded systems? Are you just a grant chaser? How can you justify writing on a subject that you do not have the ability to understand much less assess?

Do you consider it morally acceptable to read a bunch of websites and write "white papers" summerizing the information on them and then pass those off as reality? Aren't you the least bit interested in facts? After the new year your credibility will be questioned when when hard science (physics) prove your "information gathering" conclutions wrong.

It is not a matter of your opinion vs mine. I have the decades of knowledge to know what I am talking about, you on the other hand appear to know how to read web sites and write. I admit I am not good at writing "papers", but at least I write about what I know first hand from experience. I do not propagate and expand on other peoples assumptions.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), October 24, 1999.

Cherri,

How is it that somewhat intelligent people like yourself haven't bothered to take time to investigate sources of such information as that presented by Paula Gordon? It truly amazes me that people like you and Czar Koskinen CHOOSE to remain blind from the FACTS instead of doing something positive about it. Amazing.

Terry

-- Terry (you@hua.org), November 06, 1999.

Paula Gordon is a TRUE HERO and CHAMPION OF COMMON SENSE holding high the torch of Truth in the Y2K quagmire. Dr. Gordon we salute you!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 06, 1999.

I noticed that Paula Gordon never made any additional contact with Congressman Dennis Kucinich. If any one is interested here is his address at Congress:

Phone: (202) 225-5871 Fax: (202) 225-5745 Address: Congressman Dennis Kucinich 1730 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

He currently does not have an enail address that I was able to find.

-- Lurking on the sidlines (Alw@ys lurking.com), November 06, 1999.

"The IEEE said in their Open Letter to Congress in June that we are in a crisis. (I discuss this in Part 4 of my White Paper.) I totally agree with IEEE's assessment."

It says that? Where? Quoting from your White Paper: "The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) sent an Open Letter to Congress on June 9, 1999 expressing the perspective of that organization concerning the seriousness of Y2K. The letter includes a description of Y2K and the embedded systems crisis as "non-solvable" and as a "crisis". It also states that the crisis has not begun to get the attention it deserves."

OK, here's the only sentence from the IEEE Open Letter where the word "crisis" is used: "We have other ideas beyond the scope of this legislation of what the U.S. federal government can do to help minimize harm throughout this crisis." It's the next to last line in the document, and the word "crisis" seems merely used in passing. That you have latched on to this ONE word as the central point of the whole IEEE document seems a little presumptious to me.

Further, embedded systems are only mentioned twice in passing, and the word "non-solvable" is not there at all.

From the Open Letter: "In the best case organizations can only address those things they can see and those things they have control over... This is especially true in large complex organizations with large amounts of richly interconnected software involved in long and complex information chains and in systems containing a high degree of embedded devices or systems purchased in whole from external parties."

and

"Devices and systems embedded in critical purchased equipment may be beyond the defendant's knowledge or legal access."

It is a long stretch to get from those quotes to "the embedded systems crisis is non-solvable".

I'll leave you with another quote from Dale Way, the Chair of the IEEE Y2K focus group, the guy whose name is at the bottom of the IEEE Open Letter to Congress:

"Looking then at the intrinsic problem of Y2K (independent of remediation, which, as we will see in the next section has its own issues) a number of Forward-Only looking and Forward/Backward looking applications encountering their event horizon began and starting rising many years ago. The rate will grow to a peak around the calendar roll-over. After that point, the Forward-Only looking applications WILL ALL BE INTRINSICALLY BE SAFE. This includes the operational control of virtually all of the dreaded, Chicken Little-ish "embedded chip" world."

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

NOT to be confused with the Oil Informant RC.

-- troll RC (NOT@oil.RC), November 06, 1999.