The question of why the government isn't screaming Y2K from the roof tops has come up again and again. So much is at stake, why aren't they doing this? One of the most often cited reasons is that they do not want a panic on their hands. Many if not most Y2K aware folks believe that panic is inevitable, once the Don't Get Its, Forget Its, and Don't Wanna Get Its move up the Y2K evolutionary scale to become Get Its. Will we have a "trigger event" that causes such a panic, or will we continue to see a slow but steady increase in the general level of awareness as we have since around Thanksgiving? The third part of the National Guard article on worldnetdaily has the following quote: "The government is planning on keeping their yap shut," explained one of the officers. "They will keep saying everything is fine. They don't want the panic to begin before they are ready."

Notice the qualifying phrase "before they are ready". In other words, a panic is expected and they want to have some things in place beforehand. Crisis management.

Panic now means giving people a better chance and more time to get ready since the supply and distribution lines will be able to ramp up to meet demand, and if the panic is sooner rather than later, people will have some time to calm down a bit. It is hard to imagine them in a continual state of panic for 11 months. This is what should be happening, many say. But panic now would mean an increase in the possibility of bank runs, as well as knocking the U.S. financial markets off their lofty perch. Right now, the U.S. markets are considered the only remaining "safe haven", so by having a panic sooner rather than later, the remainder of the air in the huge credit bubble is released. Goodbye good times, a politician's nightmare. So while it would be potentially of great benefit to get it over with so to speak, it is not feasible from the governmental view.

This brings us to the panic later scenario. To my mind, from a political standpoint, the government doesn't want to tell people bad news and people don't want to hear it. They never do. Human nature. They have jobs. They have their stocks and savings. Things are good, so why upset the apple cart, especially when there are so many unknowns regarding Y2K, remediation work continues to go on, and the economy and financial markets (here in the U.S.) continue to make folks feel good. The so-called wealth effect. Besides, contingency plans and crisis management plans are still being formulated. Also, contrary to popular belief, the government may not have the answers in some cases. Remember that there are some folks that think that government itself is the answer.

The above are just some general thoughts on this subject. There is a lot more to it, obviously. I would like to point out that in addition to panic now and panic later, there are those who say there will be no panic. This would imply that no trigger event happens to panic J.Q. Public, and that people could continue to be sensitized slowly to Y2K without them going off the deep end. Give them a small dose of Y2K reality, then another, then another, and wear a happy face between doses. Let the public get used to the idea gradually, and hope that by doing this that panic can be averted completely. In the mean time, complete crisis management planning, hold drills, mobilize, etc. This is what I think the government plan continues to be, and so far this seems to have "worked." The price for this is less people preparing for themselves. A lot less. As a result, there may be a much higher priceto be paid later. If you agree that this has been the plan so far, do you think it can continue? If you do not agree, what do you think? What are your thoughts reagrding panic and the government?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 11, 1999

Answers

Rob,

WorldNetDaily has just released the the third part of its Y2K coverage based on interviews with military personnel. This dovetails perfectly with the question you just asked. WorldNetDaily is not exactly a mainstream news source, but the following needs to be read and considered. Here's the link and a few quotes:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990111_xex_bad_news_pow. shtml

"The National Guard believes the nation's power grid will collapse and is making plans accordingly, according to the sources. Panic and widespread unrest are expected. Plans now call for a recall of all guard members placing an average of 4000 soldiers in each of the 120 largest cities. The COMEX/MOBEX exercise will simulate that recall with the use of a special High Frequency radio system."

also

"It is expected that there will be rolling blackouts and brownouts of power in the cities, with no power at all in rural areas. All available power will be directed to cities with nothing left to send to lower populations."

also

"Reports used by the planners at FEMA indicate that the train system will be shut down by the Y2K bug, and power plants will not be able to stockpile enough coal to keep going while the power is fixed."

also

"The National Guard officers believe the public will learn a great deal about the real problems coming before the year 2000 because of the work of environmental groups to expose the safety issues related to nuclear power plants and other issues."

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 11, 1999.

Frankly Rob,

Think that the slow and steady awareness increase is what they desire, what is likely, and truthfully, what we should consider desiring too. Its plain sensible. Just let the shifting truth take its own course, and come out when its own timing is right. Y2K synchronicities n all.

However, that said, I DO take real issue with any form of disinformation which does seem to abound. That one is a shin kicker!! Grrrrr. Thats why we need to keep watch on the watchers. That also means during 1999, were in it for the long-haul internet research. *Sigh*

The government is the answer? Hardly. Blind leading the blind is more like it. They are still the ones that promote based on seniority not merit. Wouldnt fly in a Silicon Valley entrepreneurial high- tech situation. It would be a company death knell.

Maybe its all a form of Y2K inoculation with periodic booster shots.

Actually, all I care about is that people are well prepared, not unprepared. If they can accomplish that, then fine. If not, and they are operating on other agendas, many of us will haunt them past 2000. Remember those pesky elections? Just to name a few other options. Hummm?

Rob, as you say, I suspect that IS their current plan. But, remember, the best laid plans oft go awry... Translation: Expect the Unexpected. Shift Happens. Change is the only stability. Learn to detach from what you think you know and have contingency planned.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 11, 1999.

From my ugly experiences in huge organizations, I learned never to underestimate the noise-and-confusion factor and stopped overestimating the conspiracy factor (though, sometimes a conspiracy cigar is indeed a cigar, as "Slick" might say).

Since even the Y2K community is replete with everything from pollyanna's to doombrooder's, Occam's Razor says the same thing is true of organizations, including the government.

There is no single government "position" because governments are (thankfully, guys, thankfully) remarkably inefficient. Many people in government at all levels hope/wish/believe the pollyanna position themselves. Others no doubt are doombrooders too.

Whether or not various individuals (even highly-placed ones, even "Slick" for that matter) believe 'x' about Y2K and are communicating their version of it matters little at this point. The New Year's Evil ball is in motion, whether it ends up a 1 or a 10.

While I would very much like to believe that certain ascriptions about government opinion match my positions about government in general, Y2K specifically, one of the most valuable life lessons I ever learned (from my late father-in-law) was: beware of trying to be too clever about imagining what people are thinking. They're usually not thinking at all. Leave ESP to the psychics.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 11, 1999.

I once took the 120 cities list from a government "Domestic Preparedness" page. [This WAS the official list of the 120 cities now being considered by the military as potential terrorist targets. Some of these cities are being stockpiled with Anthrax vaccines by order of the President (from early 1998)]. Suspect its the same 120 cities list referred to in the National Guard article.

http://www.cbdcom.apgea.army.mil/Missions/dp/fs_120c.html

Just checked the link again before posting and got:

Not Found

The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it.

For the record, since I make back-up copies of the good stuff, this WAS on the list, in their order, located at that URL at one time. -- Diane

New York, NY Sacramento, CA Lincoln, NE

Los Angeles, CA Minneapolis, MN Madison, WI Chicago, IL Tulsa, OK Grand Rapids, MI

Houston, TX Honolulu, HI Yonkers, NY

Philadelphia, PA Cincinnati, OH Hialeah, FL San Diego, CA Miami, FL Montgomery, AL Detroit, MI Fresno, CA Lubbock, TX Dallas, TX Omaha, NE Greensboro, NC Phoenix, AZ Toledo, OH Dayton, OH San Antonio, TX Buffalo, NY Huntington Beach, CA San Jose, CA Wichita, KS Garland, TX Baltimore, MD Santa Ana, CA Glendale, CA Indianapolis, IN Mesa, AZ Columbus, OH San Francisco, CA Colorado Springs, CO Spokane, WA Jacksonville, FL Tampa, FL Tacoma, WA Columbus, GA Newark, NJ Little Rock, AR Milwaukee, WI St. Paul, MN Bakersfield, CA Memphis, TN Louisville, KY Freemont, CA Washington, D.C. Anaheim, CA Fort Wayne, IN Boston, MA Birmingham, AL Newport News, VA Seattle, WA Arlington, TX Arlington, VA El Paso, TX Norfolk, VA Worchester, MA Cleveland, OH Las Vegas, NV Knoxville, TN New Orleans, LA Corpus Christi, TX Modesto, CA Nashville, TN St. Petersburg, FL Orlando, FL Denver, CO Rochester, NY San Bernardino, CA Austin, TX Jersey City, NJ Syracuse, NY Fort Worth, TX Riverside, CA Providence, RI Oklahoma City, OK Anchorage, AK Salt Lake City, UT Portland, OR Lexington-Fayette, KY Huntsville, AL Kansas City, MO Akron, OH

Amarillo, TX Long Beach, CA Aurora, CO Springfield, MA Tucson, AZ Baton Rouge, LA Irving, TX St. Louis, MO Raleigh, NC Chattanooga, TN Charlotte, NC Stockton, CA Chesapeake, VA Atlanta, GA Richmond, VA Kansas City, KS Virginia Beach, VA Shreveport, LA Metaire, LA Albuquerque, NM Jackson, MS Fort Lauderdale, FL Oakland, CA Mobile, AL Glendale, AZ Pittsburgh, PA Des Moines, IA Warren, MI

QUESTION: What do these cities all have in common? For some I see airports, military bases and oil refineries. Why so many in California? What else guys?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 11, 1999.

Too hard to read jumbled up:

New York, NY

Sacramento, CA

Lincoln, NE

Los Angeles, CA

Minneapolis, MN

Madison, WI

Chicago, IL

Tulsa, OK

Grand Rapids, MI

Houston, TX

Honolulu, HI

Yonkers, NY

Philadelphia, PA

Cincinnati, OH

Hialeah, FL

San Diego, CA

Miami, FL

Montgomery, AL

Detroit, MI

Fresno, CA

Lubbock, TX

Dallas, TX

Omaha, NE

Greensboro, NC

Phoenix, AZ

Toledo, OH

Dayton, OH

San Antonio, TX

Buffalo, NY

Huntington Beach, CA

San Jose, CA

Wichita, KS

Garland, TX

Baltimore, MD

Santa Ana, CA

Glendale, CA

Indianapolis, IN

Mesa, AZ

Columbus, OH

San Francisco, CA

Colorado Springs, CO

Spokane, WA

Jacksonville, FL

Tampa, FL

Tacoma, WA

Columbus, GA

Newark, NJ

Little Rock, AR

Milwaukee, WI

St. Paul, MN

Bakersfield, CA

Memphis, TN

Louisville, KY

Freemont, CA

Washington, D.C.

Anaheim, CA

Fort Wayne, IN

Boston, MA

Birmingham, AL

Newport News, VA

Seattle, WA

Arlington, TX

Arlington, VA

El Paso, TX

Norfolk, VA

Worchester, MA

Cleveland, OH

Las Vegas, NV

Knoxville, TN

New Orleans, LA

Corpus Christi, TX

Modesto, CA

Nashville, TN

St. Petersburg, FL

Orlando, FL

Denver, CO

Rochester, NY

San Bernardino, CA

Austin, TX

Jersey City, NJ

Syracuse, NY

Fort Worth, TX

Riverside, CA

Providence, RI

Oklahoma City, OK

Anchorage, AK

Salt Lake City, UT

Portland, OR

Lexington-Fayette, KY

Huntsville, AL

Kansas City, MO

Akron, OH

Amarillo, TX

Long Beach, CA

Aurora, CO

Springfield, MA

Tucson, AZ

Baton Rouge, LA

Irving, TX

St. Louis, MO

Raleigh, NC

Chattanooga, TN

Charlotte, NC

Stockton, CA

Chesapeake, VA

Atlanta, GA

Richmond, VA

Kansas City, KS

Virginia Beach, VA

Shreveport, LA

Metaire, LA

Albuquerque, NM

Jackson, MS

Fort Lauderdale, FL

Oakland, CA

Mobile, AL

Glendale, AZ

Pittsburgh, PA

Des Moines, IA

Warren, MI

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 11, 1999.

Big Dog wrote: beware of trying to be too clever about imagining what people are thinking.

I second and third that, Dog. The flashes of y2k awareness from official sources are the "headless chickens" of the PR offices with nothing better to do. They have no access to the inner corridors of power. Meanwhile, we know what's happening in those inner corridors, right ?? In short, the average gov't official knows little and cares less about y2k.

-- Runway Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), January 11, 1999.

Kevin: The link you posted is the same article which I quoted from in the original question, and what prompted my post. Thanks for providing the link and also some of the more interesting quotes.

"... the slow and steady awareness increase is what they desire, what is likely, and truthfully, what we should consider desiring too. It's plain sensible. "

DIANE: IF slow and steady is what gets the most people ready then I'm all for it. I have had a bias towards "panic now" though, since I have thought that this is what would result in the most number of people being able to protect themselves through self sufficiency later. In the absence of a trigger event, slow and steady will continue, and so will the number of people that are making at least some level of preparation. But wouldn't panic now hurry this whole thing up, or do you think this "cure" would be worse than the disease?

"What do these cities all have in common?"

Millions of unprepared people, and at least in the cities that I know of, there are a larger percentage of people that are in need of some type of government assistance than in suburban and rural areas. I remember printing out the list of cities from a link (on Gary's site I think), but didn't know it was gone now. Good work to have kept it. Thanks.

BigDog: I agree that government is remarkably inefficient, and also that thinking is a process for many people, both in and out of government, that is found to be lacking (sad). But I do think that as the government they have to try and govern (and plan), which they are to some degree doing. So what I am questioning is not if this is some kind of conspiracy or not, it is what they are doing (or not doing) to govern and plan in a panic scenario, or prevent/postpone a panic scenario and if this is even possible.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 11, 1999.

"The government is planning on keeping their yap shut," explained one of the officers. "They will keep saying everything is fine. They don't want the panic to begin before they are ready."

I can't help but think "they" not only want to be ready before the panic, they also want to control WHEN the panic begins. A good way to insure that would be to orchestrate a crisis or two at a pre-planned time so they could instantly "respond", contain the panic, take control of the situation (and us??) and establish regulations which might otherwise be resisted.

Sheila

-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), January 11, 1999.

I'm going to shade in a US map with the cities and see which cities AREN'T on them that "should" be.

-- Lisa (lisab@shallc.com), January 11, 1999.

Sheila, good one, "they" not only want to be ready before the panic, they also want to control WHEN the panic begins.

That's probably the "nut" of the whole matter.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 11, 1999.

Rob, "think this "cure" would be worse than the disease?"

I'm not sure what to think, other than, something "big" is quite likely to happen. Probability? 75%. Impact ???

"Panic" in any form, is always uncertain, and uncontrollable. It's also like asking if I'd like the warning time to prepare for a potential incoming Hurricane Mitch or the instantaneous "hit" of an Earthquake way bigger than the Northridge Quake. Quien sabe?

Me, I'll take information empowerment and personal and community preparedness, over any disinformation designed to decide "who is to live and who is to die."

That is the concern I have about the government's "motivations" for the Y2K "quiet time." Are they truly honorable, or not.

I can only hope "they" are.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 11, 1999.

I never have actually given my opinion on this yet. I'm not ready to consider this a "conspiracy," at least not yet. We all want public awareness and public preparation. But, the moment John and Jane Q. Public "get it," the stock market will crash, and a lot of the remediation that would have been done won't get done.

The government has a dilemma: how to encourage people to prepare for Y2K without having them (in the government's opinion) prepare too much. So far, it seems, their solution is to hire someone like Koskinen to talk non-threateningly about Y2K, and put preparation info on the National Guard and FEMA web sites.

What I'm really curious about right now, is whether Clinton is planning to say anything about Y2K in his State Of The Union speech this month. If he doesn't, history will note this.

It is, after all, less than 12 months to the year 2000.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 11, 1999.

City List Sorted by State:

Anchorage, AK

Birmingham, AL

Huntsville, AL

Mobile, AL

Montgomery, AL

Little Rock, AR

Glendale, AZ

Mesa, AZ

Phoenix, AZ

Tucson, AZ

Anaheim, CA

Bakersfield, CA

Freemont, CA

Fresno, CA

Glendale, CA

Huntington Beach, CA

Long Beach, CA

Los Angeles, CA

Modesto, CA

Oakland, CA

Riverside, CA

Sacramento, CA

San Bernardino, CA

San Diego, CA

San Francisco, CA

San Jose, CA

Santa Ana, CA

Stockton, CA

Aurora, CO

Colorado Springs, CO

Denver, CO

Washington, D.C.

Fort Lauderdale, FL

Hialeah, FL

Jacksonville, FL

Miami, FL

Orlando, FL

St. Petersburg, FL

Tampa, FL

Atlanta, GA

Columbus, GA

Honolulu, HI

Des Moines, IA

Chicago, IL

Fort Wayne, IN

Indianapolis, IN

Kansas City, KS

Wichita, KS

Lexington-Fayette, KY

Louisville, KY

Baton Rouge, LA

Metaire, LA

New Orleans, LA

Shreveport, LA

Boston, MA

Springfield, MA

Worchester, MA

Baltimore, MD

Detroit, MI

Grand Rapids, MI

Warren, MI

Minneapolis, MN

St. Paul, MN

Kansas City, MO

St. Louis, MO

Jackson, MS

Charlotte, NC

Greensboro, NC

Raleigh, NC

Lincoln, NE

Omaha, NE

Jersey City, NJ

Newark, NJ

Albuquerque, NM

Las Vegas, NV

Buffalo, NY

Rochester, NY

Syracuse, NY

Yonkers, NY

New York, NY

Akron, OH

Cincinnati, OH

Cleveland, OH

Columbus, OH

Dayton, OH

Toledo, OH

Oklahoma City, OK

Tulsa, OK

Portland, OR

Philadelphia, PA

Pittsburgh, PA

Providence, RI

Chattanooga, TN

Knoxville, TN

Memphis, TN

Nashville, TN

Amarillo, TX

Arlington, TX

Austin, TX

Corpus Christi, TX

Dallas, TX

El Paso, TX

Fort Worth, TX

Garland, TX

Houston, TX

Irving, TX

Lubbock, TX

San Antonio, TX

Salt Lake City, UT

Arlington, VA

Chesapeake, VA

Newport News, VA

Norfolk, VA

Richmond, VA

Virginia Beach, VA

Seattle, WA

Spokane, WA

Tacoma, WA

Madison, WI

Milwaukee, WI

Some easy attributes of the list: state capitols, major metropolian areas, etc. Not-so-clear: places like Hialeah (FL) and Metaire (LA). In the case of Hialeah - maybe concerns about horse racing fans? !-}]

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), January 11, 1999.

Sheila: I'll go along with them wanting to be ready and perhaps the "when" aspect also but, cynical as I am, (and I really am) I think them "orchestrating a crisis or two" is not likely, though as I have posted before, when it comes to the government, I don't rule anything out. The reason I assert this is because I think they are too inept to do it, not because they wouldn't want to. Diane is right about the uncontrollable nature of any panic, so unless they have no clue as to their limitations (possible not likely), I just don't see them starting a panic. This stuff we are talking about is like them playing with fire - the result is more likely to be they will get burned rather than actually "accomplish" anything.

Hi Lisa: Let us know what you find after shading in the cities... and where ya been? - haven't talked with you since 1/1. LOL. p.s. if you read this and are inclined, where (section of the country) are you?

Kevin: I too am curious about the State of the Union. I thought of starting a thread about what folks thought Clinton would/wouldn't include in the address for Y2K but figured it was too early. Perhaps we can talk on this thread about it though.

In short, I am expecting anything except TEOTWAWKI talk, which IMHO, is what is needed to wake people up. They are deep asleep and need to be shook up, not whispered to. No way will we get it though, I just don't see it. Also, it doesn't fit in with the plan we have been discussing on this thread. Any acknowledgement of even the possibility for TEOTWAWKI scenario is not going to happen in this State of the Union. Hope I'm wrong, lives could be saved.

If it is mentioned at all, it will be with a dose or two of Y2K reality and a happy face. Just look at his first remarks back in July: "rash of annoyances", and what he had to say in his second "speech" last month. The most I think we can look forward to is something like "yep, it is a serious problem but we are commited to be ready" - go back to sleep, goodnight.

What do you think?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 11, 1999.

Yep, Rob.

Suspect we still have six months of good "prep" time.

Mac, Thanks for the 120 cities sorting job!!!! (Was contemplating doing it by hand, ugh!)

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 11, 1999.

Rob,

If Clinton does mention Y2K in his State Of The Union address, I'm pretty sure it'll the way you just described. What would be truly scary is if he doesn't mention it at all.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 11, 1999.

Mac: Thanks.

Diane: Why 6 months... have you changed your mind about April?

I cannot even guess anymore how much time we may have for good preparation. I have watched April and July and October of last year go by with hardly a ripple, and now New Years too, while some failures were reported (and many more probably not reported), it was not as many as some of us thought - although my position was and still is that the whole "99" thing is a wild card. No one even knows.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 11, 1999.

Talk about synchronicity! This is from Jim Lord's new newsletter (emphasis his):

(Context: Federal Government)

"several very intense, high-level Y2K planning meetings have occurred recently. One lasted all night long...  "These meetings have been filled with confusion, discord, and indecision. Political considerations are driving the Y2K train. These folks know they are not going to get the government's computers fixed. They know they're in trouble and can't figure out what to do."

"Their biggest fear is public panic. They're afraid of a bank run and a stock market collapse brought on by some sort of crazed public reaction to Y2K. The party line is starting to become distressingly clear. We will be fed the bad news a spoonful at a time."

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 11, 1999.

Seems to me that the trip event to foment a crisis might already be in the pipeline. What are people going to think if they start shutting down all the nuclear reactors about July or August. The NRC is on record stating that as of July 1 the nukes must be compliant or they will be shut down. Now, on top of that, add the strident voices of all the enviromentalists who would just love to see this happen. Count on it.

Thanks for the cities list. Glad to see they leave are leaving Idaho untouched and pristine. That's where I'm heading and soon.

Bob

-- Bob Benson (appysys@inreach.com), January 11, 1999.

Hi Mac! Metairie, Louisiana, is just north of New Orleans. Years ago when I lived there, Shell Oil Company was one of many businesses based there. Don't know if it's still there today???

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), January 12, 1999.

Common threads::

Some are state capitols

Lotsa Military bases (particularly the VA cities)

Communications hubs (St. Louis, etc.)

Pipeline Hubs

Power hubs

Anyone see anything else, besides population?

cr

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 12, 1999.

Rob,

The reason Im, MAYBE, switching to July, is that April can be a bigger bump with NYC, and at the same time, they may be able to keep it somewhat hidden. Global vested interests. And the powers still on.

Why July 1st, 1999? Because 46 states, etc. rollover, many are the least Y2K ready, it's around the drop dead date to shut down non- compliant nuclear power plants (4 months with electricity needed to cool the cores), and the military appear to want to be ready by then. Brownouts and possible power rationing IF enough nuclear reactors need to be shut down. Basically, as long as the power is on, we may not see panic with a capitol P. Just escalating, word-of-mouth preparation impact.

IF between now and then, we see preparedness with a capitol P we may be okay. For awhile. It all comes back to the electricity. And peoples attitudes. Not to mention perceptions. The Senate trial outcome, and so on.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 12, 1999.

BTW Rob,

When I found the 120 cites list, I didnt find it through GNs site. Rarely go there. Found it by searching the Gov web-sites. Like to do that. Never know what else youll find ambling along the web highways n by-ways.

California -- 18 cities out of 120 -- What is it about these cities Californian-ites?

Anaheim, CA -- Near Orange County Airport; Disneyland?; sorta near Travis Air Force Base being decommissioned

Bakersfield, CA -- Airport; ?

Freemont, CA -- Near San Jose Airport; ??

Fresno, CA -- Bound to be an Airport??

Glendale, CA -- Next to Burbank Airport?? (What the heck else is in Glendale?)

Huntington Beach, CA -- Near Orange County Airport; Oil refinery.

Long Beach, CA -- Airport; near port of Los Angeles, shipping hub, and lots of oil refineries

Los Angeles, CA -- LAX Airport; more oil storage; LAPD

Modesto, CA -- Small Airport??

Oakland, CA -- Oakland Airport; Alameda Naval Shipyards?

Riverside, CA -- Ontario Airport; March Air Force Base (very active)

Sacramento, CA -- Sacramento Airport; State Capitol; Military something

San Bernardino, CA -- Near Ontario Airport; ???

San Diego, CA -- San Diego Airport; Big Military presence; Navy Seals; Nuclear subs; shipyards

San Francisco, CA -- SFO Airport; Presidio (Military)

San Jose, CA -- San Jose Airport; Silicon Valley South

Santa Ana, CA -- Near Orange County Airport and Travis Air Force Base

Stockton, CA -- Airport; ??

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 12, 1999.

The best way to make sense of the 120 city list would be to compare it to a list of the top 120 metropolitan areas in the U.S. See what cities are on the government's list that are not one of the top 120 metro areas, and then see what mid-size and large metro areas are not on the government's list.

In other words, find cities that are exclusive to each list, and then compare the exclusives of one list with the exclusives from the other list.

What I think is interesting is that some cities that are on the government list are part of another metropolitan area on the list. For example Hialeah FL, as well as Miami. Metaire (sp?) Louisiana, as well as New Orleans.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 12, 1999.

The 120-cities list is the same AFAIK as a list of the 120 most populous cities - no mystery.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 12, 1999.

In my 1997 "The World Almanac and Book of Facts", Hialeah FL is 85th on the list of "100 Largest U.S. Cities" according to 1994 population estimate of 194,120. Dayton OH is 100th with 176,540.

Elsewhere in the same almanac, Metarie LA has a 1990 population of 149,428 [a reasonable candidate for 120th position] listed along with a notation that it is unincorporated. The almanac's list of "U.S. Places of 5,000 or More Population" has a preface explaining: "... Unincorporated places that the Census Bureau designates as 'census designated places (CDPs)' are also included. These unincorporated communities, marked (u), are statistically compatible with incorporated communities because of their population density."

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 12, 1999.

BTW, if you're comparing "the" 120 cities to a list of 120 most populous cities, remember that one such list may use population estimates from a different year than another list. ISTM that any discrepancies found in such comparisons are far more likely to be due to such estimate-year differences than to some mysterious government criterion.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 12, 1999.

Anyway you cut it, the 120 cities each have millions of folks, many of whom are not preparing, and many of whom are not in a financial position to prepare even if thery want to. I have to think that there are more than 120 in this boat too, perhaps many more.

BTW, Check out today's worldnetdaily article regarding the Navy's participation. For those of you who do not know, the url is: http://www.worldnetdaily.com

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 12, 1999.

FAQ:

Q) Why so many in California?

A) California is the most populous state.

Q) Airports?

A) Large cities tend to have airports.

Q) Military bases?

A) Though some military bases are in the boonies, many are near large cities, particularly in Virginia.

Q) Oil refineries? Pipeline hubs?

A) Gasoline use is higher in large cities than in small ones. Ditto for other petroleum products. Why make them in the boonies then ship them long distance to nearest big city?

In most cases crude oil reaches a refinery through pipelines, an efficient mode of transport that might as well reach a refinery near a large city as reach one out in the boonies. After refining, many petroleum products are no longer suitable for pipeline transport, so locating the refinery near a large city minimizes the costs of transporting the refined products.

Q) State capitals?

A) State capitals tend to be among the larger cities in a state.

Q) Major metropolitan areas?

A) Duh.

Q) Idaho?

A) ... has no large city.

Q) Communications hubs?

A) Large cities tend to have more broadcast stations, publications, telecommunications, etc. than small cities.

Q) Power hubs?

A) There are more light bulbs in Hialeah than in Boise.

Q) Shipyards?

A) Oh, come on ...

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 12, 1999.

Off topic for this thread. Just a vent.

Begin vent.

I just saw the front page of today's N.Y.Times, and what do you think is on it?

The First mobilization of the National Guard since 1940? No.

The computer glitches at the Senate? No.

Anything at all about Y2K? No.

There is an article called "Two Experts Battle Over Potty Training." Yes, potty training. Front page news, in the paper that has "all the news that's fit to print". May I suggest that instead of reading this paper, the pollyannas should stockpile it so they can use it to wipe themselves with after they run out of toilet paper. In the meantime, we GIs can use it for helping to get the fire in the woodstove going.

End vent.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 12, 1999.

Rob, is that called a "non e-vent?"

LOL

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 12, 1999.

diane: interesting re the Calif. questions. but there are some questions that come up with that. San Francisco? Well, there is a large population center, some shipping, but the airport, of course, isn't there but some miles away in SSF. Presidio is not military anymore, but park service. And that raises the question of why not Fairfield/Vacaville? why that? Because Travis AFB is there. Most military/ AF types will know this name, it is one of the major military bases on the west coast. So, this doesn't entirely fit in with the scenario. Hmmm...

-- Damian Solorzano (oggy1@webtv.net), January 13, 1999.

Damian - are not nuclear subs and missiles to be found in Oakland?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 13, 1999.

Among the 120 cities is included the heart of what remains of American medium/heavy manufacturing centered in Detroit. Hence Warren, MI, a suburb of Detroit and home to machine tool businesses and many SMEs supporting the Detroit plant. This may account for Toledo, Dayton and other Ohio cities which house light manufacturing facilities and vendors to industry.

Hallyx

"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated." ---Poul Anderson

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), January 13, 1999.

I know you folks like to have your fun, but I see no evidence that the list of 120 cities is anything more than a list of the 120 most populous places.

Q: San Francisco?

A: #13 as of 1994 census estimate.

Q: but the airport, of course, isn't there but some miles away in SSF.

A: South San Francisco is nowhere near the top 120 in population.

Q: Fairfield/Vacaville CA ?

A: Neither is near the top 120 in population.

Q: are not nuclear subs and missiles to be found in Oakland?

A: Oakland was #44 as of the 1994 census estimate.

Q: Warren, MI, a suburb of Detroit

A: ... and, with a population of about 145,000 in 1990, is not much smaller than Metarie LA and thus also in the neighborhood of the #120 position.

Q: Toledo OH ?

A: #50 in 1994

Q: Dayton OH ?

A: #100 in 1994

Q: other Ohio cities which house light manufacturing facilities and vendors to industry?

A: Akron and the three Cs are all well within the top 120 most populous.

Can anyone point out any city on the list of 120 which is clearly not among the 120 most populous, and thus must have been included for some reason other than simply population?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 14, 1999.

Andy: no, i don't believe that oakland is the homw to either missiles or nuclear subs. Though, i could be wrong about that.

-- Damian Solorzano (oggy1@webtv.net), January 14, 1999.

Andy: no, i don't believe that oakland is the homw to either missiles or nuclear subs. Though, i could be wrong about that.

-- Damian Solorzano (oggy1@webtv.net), January 14, 1999.