Huh?
Bill Dauphin
All:
OK, I may be an eager contributor to our political discussions here, but I usually don't
*start* them. Tonight, though, I heard something on the radio that I've just *got* to
comment on:
Apparently Newt Gingrich has given a speech at some convention or other in which he said
Al Gore would (and should) suffer politically in 2000 because of "the Government's
failure to solve the Y2K problem." OWTTE. Now here's my question: Aside from working
to fix/protect their own systems, why would it be the Government's job to "solve the Y2K
problem"? Computer systems are, by and large, bought, sold, operated, and supported by
private citizens and companies; if Gore or anyone else in the administration *did* have
some master plan to fix everyone's computers, I have no doubt that Newt would be the
very first to scream about "new liberal, big-Government bureaucracies"... and he'd be
*right*, IMHO. It seems to me that the only ones who have the *right*, let alone the
responsibility, to muck about in folks' computers are the people who own and operate
them. Did anyone else hear about this speech? Did the report I heard leave something
out? Or is Newt really being as big a hypocrite as this makes it appear? I'm not being
snide here; I'm genuinely puzzled by this...
-JovBill
Filksinger
Bill Dauphin <daup...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<357E28...@ix.netcom.com>...
Well, I don't know about Newt, but there are legitimate criticisms of the
government here. The problem isn't that they haven't fixed the private
sectors problem, they haven't solved the government's problem, either. The
second is clearly the job of the government.
As for what Newt believes the government should do in the case of the
private sector, I might point out that the Republican party generally only
complains about government interference in business when it works _against_
business. They seem to like government interference in favor of business.
Subsidies, cheap government insurance, and government paying for
infrastructure that business uses heavily are often voted for by
politicians in the Republican camp. In this case, he may be suggesting that
the government spend money to help dig out business, which is something
that the Republican party seems to approve of frequently.
OTOH, he could just be talking about the fact that, as things stand, the
government could come to a screeching halt Jan. 1, 2000.
Filksinger
Richard R. Horton
Bill Dauphin <daup...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Apparently Newt Gingrich has given a speech at some convention or other in which he said
>Al Gore would (and should) suffer politically in 2000 because of "the Government's
>failure to solve the Y2K problem." OWTTE. Now here's my question: Aside from working
>to fix/protect their own systems, why would it be the Government's job to "solve the Y2K
>problem"?
It is the government's job to fix the government's Y2K problem. And
according to the current TIME (not that I necessarily believe them),
the government is in terrible shape in attacking this problem.
--
Rich Horton | rrho...@concentric.net or richard....@boeing.com
Home Page: www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Personal NGs: sff.people.richard-horton and dm.members.rich-horton
William J. Keaton
Richard R. Horton wrote in message <357ee2da...@news.sff.net>...
>
>It is the government's job to fix the government's Y2K problem. And
>according to the current TIME (not that I necessarily believe them),
>the government is in terrible shape in attacking this problem.
Well, I would tend to give some credence to LAN Times, they recently
reported that many govt. agencies were way behind on the Y2K problem. If I
recall correctly, DoD had figured out how to fix only 6% of their Y2K
problems. They were neither the best nor worst in this area, some agencies
were in the 40's many were at 0%. Many agencies had not yet even identified
whether or not they _have_ Y2K problems with the bulk of their
programs/systems.
At VOA, we're probably ok. Our new Master Control better be ok, our digital
logging system passed, and most of our automation PCs are running Win95 now,
so they should be good. I am worried about our UNIX-based Traffic and
Inventory databases, but that's out of my area of responsibility! <g>
WJaKe
Bill Dauphin
Filksinger wrote:
> Well, I don't know about Newt, but there are legitimate criticisms of the
> government here. The problem isn't that they haven't fixed the private
> sectors problem, they haven't solved the government's problem, either.
*Maybe* that's what Newt was talking about, though there was nothing in the (admittedly
brief) report I heard to suggest so. The impression I got was that Newt had blamed Gore
specifically for the Government's failure to "fix *the* problem"... not "fix its
problem." I wish somebody had more details about the actual text of the speech.
> The second is clearly the job of the government.
True, but I'm still not sure it's reasonable to blame Gore. Y2K is fundamentally a
technical issue, AFAIK, and I'm pretty sure the IS Directors at the various federal
agencies aren't Presidential appointees... and they darn sure aren't *Vice Presidential*
appointees. And if the problem is (as I suspect) that the agencies are having so much
trouble because they lack the funds to pay programmers and buy new hardware... well,
guess which branch of Government (and which house in particular) controls federal
spending! <g>
> I might point out that the Republican party generally only
> complains about government interference in business when it works _against_
> business. They seem to like government interference in favor of business.
> Subsidies, cheap government insurance, and government paying for
> infrastructure that business uses heavily are often voted for by
> politicians in the Republican camp.
I won't say a word... I'll just sit here quietly and smile...
-JovBill
Bill Woods
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> All:
>
> OK, I may be an eager contributor to our political discussions here,
> but I usually don't *start* them. Tonight, though, I heard something
> on the radio that I've just *got* to comment on:
>
> Apparently Newt Gingrich has given a speech at some convention or
> other in which he said Al Gore would (and should) suffer politically
> in 2000 because of "the Government's failure to solve the Y2K problem." OWTTE. Now here's
> my question: Aside from working to fix/protect
> their own systems, why would it be the Government's job to "solve
> the Y2K problem"?
:
> I'm not being snide here; I'm genuinely puzzled by this...
>
> -JovBill
Gore has the reputation of being the administration's head
technology visionary -- "information superhighway" and all that.
He's also in charge of the REGO (Reorganizing Government) effort.
*IF* the Y2K problem turns out to be serious, a couple of months
before the 2000 primary season begins, it will hurt Gore pretty
seriously. He'll be running as a quasi-incumbent, and will have
to explain what he's been doing about the problem for the last
eight years. He'll be continually asked why he spent so much time
talking about less certain and less immediate problems like global
climate change.
Obviously, Gore isn't directly responsible for fixing the software
on government computers, much less other organization's computers,
but if people have to spend the first months of 2000 digging out
from under failed banks, grounded airlines, etc., that won't matter.
Imagine how Bush would have been hurt if the S&L crisis had broken
in 1987 rather than 1989. Gore could cover himself if he made some
speeches to various industry groups about the problem and the
short-term and long-term fixes they ought to be making; then at least
he could say "hey, if you'd listened to me…".
--
Bill Woods
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely
mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way
down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
-- Douglas Adams
Filksinger
William J. Keaton <wj...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<357f2...@news.sff.net>...
<snip>
> At VOA, we're probably ok. Our new Master Control better be ok, our
digital
> logging system passed, and most of our automation PCs are running Win95
now,
> so they should be good. I am worried about our UNIX-based Traffic and
> Inventory databases, but that's out of my area of responsibility! <g>
>
While I forget where I saw it, there were some articles recently on claims
that Compaq computers built _today_ weren't capable of handling Y2K.
If anyone is curious about their own systems,
http://www.windrivers.com/tech/tips/dec97tip.htm has a link to a set of
programs that does a thorough check. The mother site, www.windrivers.com,
is excellent for finding drivers and tech tips, though I'd be careful about
using any tip you don't understand.
Filksinger
JT
>At VOA, we're probably ok. Our new Master Control better be ok, our digital
>logging system passed, and most of our automation PCs are running Win95 now,
>so they should be good. I am worried about our UNIX-based Traffic and
>Inventory databases, but that's out of my area of responsibility! <g>
>
SSA was the only Gov't agency given an "A+" in Congress' recent report
card. The current Systems Commissioner (my indirect boss) has been
talking about this since 1989. I have no doubt that SSA's systems
will work January 1, 2000. I'm not so sure about the
information-sharing that we depend on from the States, but that will
just mean that we overpay/underpay people for a while, and that is
much less of a problem than everything crashing.
Of course, I wouldn't want to have tell y'all about the hoops I'm
jumping through to get my PC-based application tested in a Y2K
environment. Our environment folks are VERY strict about how we test
our apps.
JT
Geo Rule
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:06:20 -0700, Bill Woods <wwo...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>
>Gore has the reputation of being the administration's head
>technology visionary -- "information superhighway" and all that.
>He's also in charge of the REGO (Reorganizing Government) effort.
Right. That's the way I heard it. Gore will suffer because
government will be *much* worse prepared than business, and as the
techie guy and head of the "Reinventing Government" thing since 1993,
he totally missed it.
My favorite story was that the IRS expects to have it's _plan_
to fix the Y2K problem in their systems done by. . .2002. <snicker>
My other favorite on IRS computer systems was that after their
last disaster they are putting together either a 10 or 15 year plan to
upgrade. Oh, right. Anyone who thinks they can plan more than 3-5
years ahead with technology right now is. . .uh. . .quite an optimist
(trying to be generous).
Geo_...@MSN.COM
-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
"I am in the smallest room in the house. I have your review in front of me.
Soon it will be behind me."
--Phone call from Author to Critic
--- GEnieTag v3.0a ------[Geo]-------
Bill Dauphin
Geo Rule wrote:
> Gore will suffer because
> government will be *much* worse prepared than business, and as the
> techie guy and head of the "Reinventing Government" thing since 1993,
> he totally missed it.
I think you're probably right about the reason he'll catch heat... but I'm still not
sure what Gore was supposed to *do* about it. And I'm still convinced that if he *had*
try to institute some centralized federal response, he'd have been roundly lambasted as
a big-government empire builder... and if he'd had the temerity to actually ask Congress
for any *funding*, you could add "tax-and-spend liberal" to the roll-call, too. My take
on this is that Gore's a lightning rod for an issue like this simply because he's the
only national political figure -- from *either* party -- in recent memory to give any
sign of actually giving a rodent's posterior about technology. IMHO, this comes under
the "no good dead ever goes unpunished" heading. That's not a slap at the Republicans,
BTW; it's that way in all walks of life. F'rinstance: Folks at work know I'm a computer
enthusiast... so they grumble at *me* whenever they have trouble with *their* computers!
<sigh>
As for the stupidly long planning cycles at federal agencies, that goes back to the
labyrintine and *very* slow budget process, which is a frustrating combination of
glacially slow under normal circumstances but mercurially quick to change in the face of
any political gusts. And that budget process is controlled entirely by the Congress.
Here again, I'm not blaming Republicans, because the process has been intitutionalized
for a long time, regardless of which party has controlled the Congress. But I *do* think
it's disingenuous for anyone in Congress -- and in the House in particular -- to blame
the White House for a problem that boils down to a lack of timely funding to federal
agencies.
-JovBill
William J. Keaton
Geo Rule wrote in message <35848f2...@news.sff.net>...
> My other favorite on IRS computer systems was that after their
>last disaster they are putting together either a 10 or 15 year plan to
>upgrade. Oh, right. Anyone who thinks they can plan more than 3-5
>years ahead with technology right now is. . .uh. . .quite an optimist
>(trying to be generous).
>
Yeah, at VOA we have a whole new, house-wide computer system going in, with
new PCs to replace an aging Xerox system. We'll probably end up getting
two-year old technology at the same prices we could be getting high-end PCs
for at the time the system is delivered. But the contract specs went out
over a year ago. So our new system will be state-of-the-art circa 1996,
which will mean 133mHz Pentiums when we could be getting PIIs. What a
system!
WJaKe
John C. Loomis
Bill,
The results as outlined by WJake result not so much from the budget process as the
procurement process. In the effort to try and make sure that no one's brother in law gets a
sweetheart deal or that money is not wasted or stolen, the procurement process is extremely
complicated taking many (way too many IMHO) levels of review for almost any purchase.
As to Gore's resposibility for the gov's failure to adeqautely prepare for Y2K, it appears
that he is willing to be seen as the administrations front man on high tech, especially
computers. He talks the talk, but he doesn't seem to walk the walk. As shown by the
actions of the SSA the main requiremnt for dealing with Y2K is first to have someone wiiling
to take the lead in pushing for the required actions. In this Gore has not stepped up to
the plate
John
Eli Hestermann
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> My take
> on this is that Gore's a lightning rod for an issue like this simply because he's the
> only national political figure -- from *either* party -- in recent memory to give any
> sign of actually giving a rodent's posterior about technology. IMHO, this comes under
> the "no good dead ever goes unpunished" heading. That's not a slap at the Republicans,
> BTW; it's that way in all walks of life.
Look at George Bush for examples of this phenomenon helping and hurting a politico. He got
the credit for the fall of communism and the blame for the recession of the early 90s, even
though he had little to nothing to do with either one. It happened on his watch, so it must
be his success or fault.
E
--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehest...@whoi.edu
http://www.mit.edu/people/octavian/eli.html
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca
Wayne Morgan
<> wrote:
> Bill Dauphin wrote:
> >
> >But I *do* think it's disingenuous for anyone in Congress -- and in
> >the House in particular -- to blame the White House for a problem
> >that boils down to a lack of timely funding to federal agencies.
>
> This wasn't lack of funding; it was lack of foresight. Can you
> show me where any federal agencies went to congress and was turned down
> for funds to address this issue?
>
> BTW--the Postal Service (my employer) is very actively working on this
> problem and has been for some time. They feel it will be under control
> come 1/1/2000. The service is far more computerized than most people
> would guess.
>
> --
> <<Big Charlie>>
>
> "The history of progress is a long, long list of specialists who were
> dead wrong when they were the most certain." --SIASL
Hi,
Been gone to National Guard Annual Training the past couple weeks, so I
missed out on some of this, but...
Gore will (rightly, I believe) take a lot of heat on this issue because he
has promised that government is getting better and because he is the latest
champion of the theory that government is the answer to every problem we
poor stupid peons - I mean "citizens" - have. The failure of the
government to address this problem in a timely manner when other entities
have successfully taken steps to avert it is a refutation of the "big
government is better for you" philosophy that he's promoting.
Wayne Morgan